According to the news reports, the burglar was shot in the back in a dark house. The defendant claims he was shooting blindly in the dark. If that is in fact true, he had no idea which way the burglar was facing. Also, no one in the case, not even the other burglar contends that he was running away and was shot in the yard, at least not that I can tell. It is pretty obvious that the shooter was at a minimum quite eccentric and at a maximum, friggin looney. He apparently has a deep seated dislike for burglars and "gypsies".

So, the real question here is, if two men enter your house and shine a flashlight into your face, is it within your rights to fire three shots from your shotgun at them? If one of them was in fact turned away from you (which you might not realize given that you are in a dark house and just had a flashlight shined in your face), does it make it murder if that person gets hit in the back?

The real question is, is it right to deny someone parole because they "pose a threat to burglars"???

There could be a lot more to the story. Is he running to his car to get a gun, has he stopped and shouting at you, possibly digging through his pockets. Is he looking for keys, a knife or a gun?

The question is "do you or did you feel threatened" and if the answer is yes, then you should be allowed to defend yourself. After all, the person is on YOUR PROPERTY, BREAKING IN OR ALREADY INSIDE THE HOUSE, and you have no idea what they are up to. They are about 99% of the time a criminal, and most criminals do not have a good reputation.

If the person is really running away on the street, then your grounds would be very small. On the sidewalk and running away still not very good. On your grass, better and close to your house then he is dead meat. Inside the house there is no question and any homeowner in this situation should be legally allowed to defend themselves.

If you do as Rick mentioned above, then retreat upstairs I can understand where someone who had been robbed many times in the past might either withdraw or feel that he could not go downstairs for a long time.

Sexy vamp Willow.

Yay!

Your scenario has no bearing on the Martin case. Martin was inside his house as was the burglar. Further, the burglar was a career criminal, and Martin had been robbed before, perhaps twice before; by the same pair it turns out.

Those are EXACTLY the same issues I'm sure the lawyers argued and the jury deliberated in this case, and EXACTLY the same issues considered by the trial judge and then the appellate courts.

The guy LOST. Get over it. It's not some liberal conspiracy you guys love to whine about, it's a decision that was made based upon all the evidence and having given the guy due process, presumption of innocence, and all the other safeguards given people accussed of crimes.

Like I started saying on page one ... Stop whining already!

The Martin case, heard in the UK, was a travesty of denied rights, government assertions based on current interpretations of english common law which have no historical basis, and the government's assertion that it must have the monopoly on force used to defend the citizenry.

Essentially, in the UK, centuries old english common law has been thoroughly, and horribly trashed.

We Americans use this case as an example of what the Anti-Self Defense crowd wishes to do here.

Actions which we gun owners, unlike nearly any other group in America, are specifically armed to prevent.

For someone that supposedly knows a lot about the case, you disappoint Pat.

The "guy" was 16 years old. If he was a "career criminal" it was a pretty short career. He thought the house was vacant, as even the slanted, biased piece that started this thread admits -- the windows were boarded over with wood. He was shot in the yard, not in the house, and in the back. Both of those details were apparently too insignificant for the hack writer to even mention. After the shooting, the old man did not call the police, but let the guy rot in his yard for 15 hours until someone happened by and saw the body. Would medical help have saved him? Who knows after 15 friggin hours in the yard.

And most importantly, 12 people like you heard all the evidence and DISAGREED with all the pundits on this board.

My God, you sound like Mul :(

Sorry, your "facts" are almost totally incorrect.

Now you REALLY sound like Mul.

"Criminal attack" is the key word. If he is just taking your stereo you can't shoot him. If he tries to hit you with your stereo...fire away. If someone is in your house you may brandish your weapon and require a cease of activity, but you cannot shoot until you are threatened..you may interpret that. "property"...NO. Person and people...yes. Retreat?? What is that? Is that a French word?

That's not true in South Carolina. If "he" has no authorization to be in my home, I can use lethal force to remove "him". Period. "His" reason for being in my home; i.e. to steal worldly goods, is irrelevant.

Which just the sort of deterrant everyone needs in America. It's not foolproof, but then what is.

I hope no Jehovas show up on your porch.

Wat about those "facts" Pat?

Not 16 years old?
Windows not boarded up?
Not shot in the yard?
Not shot in the back?
Not left for 15 hours?

I was just trying to get at the bounadaries. To my mind, if you shoot an unarmed person in the back while they are running away from your house, you are out of line. While there are always other details involved, my understanding of the use of deadly force is that it is only warranted if you feel that your life is being immediately and directly threatened. Someone running away from you wihtout a weapon doesn't qualify imho.

Now if they are in your house and you don't know if they are armed? Much higher probability that it would be justifiable. But even then, I don't think it is black and white. You turn on the lights, see a perp, you show your weapon, they put up their hands. Can you put two in the chest, one in the head?

All situations I hope to never face. But some people seem to value their stuff and "castle" over the life of another human. To me it just isn't that clear cut. If I can determine that myself or a family member is in grave danger, then yes, I would not hesitate to use deadly force. But I think living with the consequences, even justified, would be horrific.

I think I said that.

You don't want the right to defend yourself ... you want the right to summarily execute anyone committing a crime on your property. More precisely, anyone your believe has or is about to commit a crime on your property.

Sorry, you are not 007 and you don't have a license to kill.

Nor should you.

You have a license to defend yourself and your property using reasonable force under the circumstances. I guarantee you that police, judges and juries will give you wide latitude in what is deemed reasonable. But that won't include summary executions because you think the guy might come back the next night.

The most extreme "Castle doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground" law in the US currently is the 2005 FL law, as summarized by the NRA:

The "Castle Doctrine" simply says that if a criminal breaks into your home, your occupied vehicle or your place of business, you may presume he is there to do bodily harm and you may use any force against him.

It also removes the “duty to retreat” if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be.

Furthermore, this law provides protection from criminal prosecution and civil litigation for those who defend themselves from criminal attack.

Under prior FL law, if you reasonably believed the intruder was a threat to your person, you already had the right to shoot him.

So what the Castle doctrine adds is that you no longer need to believe he was a threat to your person. You can shoot him simply for having:

(1) unlawfully and forcibly (presumably if you leave the door open and someone simply wanders in, that's not "forcible")

(2) entered or is attempting to enter (so you can shoot him off the windowsill, as it were)

(3) your home (including a covered porch, tent, hotel/motel room, temporary lodging, even a guest room in a friend's house), or occupied vehicle (car, truck, camper, etc).

The law also has some provisions about what you can do if you are attacked in a public place.

After reading the law and the very helpful analysis linked to below, I think it is basically a reasonable and good law. (Though it seems like a poorly drafted law - the Florida legislature doesn't seem to know much about writing clear, unambiguous statutes - but the courts will figure out the ambiguous bits.)

Now, let's be clear, the FL law makes it quite clear that you can now kill to protect property. Even if you know for a fact that the person climbing back out your window with your TV set (or, for that matter, empty-handed) is not and never will be a threat to your person, you can still shoot him dead - just for having broken and entered. (However, I think you still can't shoot him as he runs away down your driveway.)

I'm not willing to say that a life is worth less than a TV set. But I think that, after this sort of Castle doctrine gets applied for a few years, people will tend to change their behaviour so that the choice between life and TV set won't come up that often.

http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/florida-selfdefense-law-analysis.pdf#search=%22florida%20castle%20doctrine %22

You presented a rather contrived scenario earlier, and I provided an equally contrived answer. You are correct in that there are always other details involved. How about another contrived scenario (while we are at it) just for *****s and grins.

You are snoozing on the couch, nursing your knee (hope it's getting better, by the way) and you awaken to your girlfriend's screams. There is a guy in your home, brutally beating and raping her. He is trying to kill her. You crawl, limp, hobble, or whatever you can, as fast as you can, down the hall to retrieve your Sig. He sees you and makes for the front door, and you just miss nabbing him. You have the doorframe to steady your aim, all the time in the world as he beats feet accross your front yard. He stops to taunt you, "knowing" you cannot fire because he is unarmed and outside of your home, yelling "I'll be back for more!" or something to that effect. What do you do?

With every confidence in our highly efficeint criminal justice system, of course you let him go, knowing the police will catch him shortly and he cannot possibly make bail. He will be tried and convicted, never get out early on good behavior and, besides, he would be served with a restraining order to stay away from you and your girlfriend. He might even become rehabilitated. Yup, best to control your unjustifiable rage and allow the system to do its job. Best not take justice into your own hands.

What Pat says about South Carolina should be law everywhere. Black and white; if an intruder is in your home, it should be irrelevant why. You should not have to determine his motives or whether he is armed or not before formulating your response. He has given up every right he has to any kind of consideration from you. Again, he brought the fight to you. You have no obligation to keep it "fair" or to make it a sporting proposition of any kind. It is entirely within your rights (although, unfortunately, not always within the law) to respond how you see fit, right up to and including killing him.

Hey, find out where he lives, wait a week or so and go kill him while he's sleeping.

Too much bother dealing with the police and criminal justice system, right? And you never know if he'll get off on a technicality, so better safe than sorry.

How do you KNOW that he is unarmed?? Is it worth your life and the life of your family when you are wrong?? Yes, it is OK, to drop the bastard, that way he won't try it again to your home or the sweet 80 year old lady down the street. How do you know that he doesn't have a gun in his car or armed friends in his car, 30' away??