Montana home defence or murder

So, you don't want to read the thread.

Too many big words, love.

There is a slippery slope here though.

While you secure your home, at what point does it become ridiculous?

Baiting with a purse in an open garage isn't cool.


If argue that the Minnesota shooter was in the wrong only because of his final billets to the head.

He had locked his house; IMO he fulfilled his reasonable obligation.

When he shot neutralized people on the head, he went too far. Had he not ahot them when they were down, had he called 911 right away, had he not turned it from self-defense to revenge, he would have acted acceptably.

Those are a lot of "hads".

I consider telemarketers as breaching my dwelling, but they're too damn hard to track down.

And yet, curiously, I'm in agreement with the adults who've been able to give me a reasonable answer. Hell, even Ron Paul sounded rational for a change. Maybe someday you'll join them.

Except in a week or a month when the same kind of issues come up again you'll go through your script again just like this thread or the dozens before it never occurred.

Wrong again, Church Lady. This is the first time I've asked about castle doctrine, and I've gotten some very clear answers.

As I say, even Ron Paul's getting the message that screaming "GUN GRABBER!!!!!" doesn't help the Cause.

No offense Garamet, but weren't you pretty active in the Treyvon Martin discussions? IIRC, the Castle Doctrine came up a few times (along with the Stand Your Ground law) during that months long discussion.

I don't read every post in every thread, and that thread was more bloated than most. Besides, again, Real Life Rules: If several people in a room are having a discussion and you happen to be drifting in and out of it, it's perfectly acceptable to ask about something you might have missed at a later date. And, again, if people IRL care about something, they're only too happy to talk about it as often as possible without the knee-jerk assumption that the other person's trolling.

Besides, that was justifiable homicide even BEFORE the Castle Doctrine.

That particular case is freaky, not just because it's close to home. The guy not only lay in wait and shot the kids (who were, for sure, totally thieves) without announcing himself*, he audio recorded the whole encounter, including his justifying the act of finishing them off. Gives me the willies.


*I imagine announcing yourself before shooting someone in your own home is not required (under Castle Doctrine), but to me it seems like the decent thing to do. Speaking as someone who's never been the recipient of a home invasion before, I think it would be difficult for me to shoot someone without being absolutely sure they were a threat to me and my family and not just seizing the opportunity to seize my stuff.

The less thieves breathing oxygen, the better off the world is. I still disagree that it was a trap. These are not dumb animals that can smell cheese. These were people who made a conscious decision to trespass on someone's property for the purpose of theft. Why do you feel that because the garage door was open that someone would have to walk in there and steal? I feel like I am repeating. So, I am done here.

Then you are either a moron with a single digit IQ incapable of reading comprehension or just wanting to because you're right and no one's gonna tell you nuthin'.

I guess he missed the part about the purse as bait, or that the couple acknowledged they had purposefully set a trap.

EP's trying to say that a thief has a choice whether to go into a garage, a mouse does not really have a choice whether to go after the cheese.

The rest of us are saying that even with choice, killing someone who chose to take the bait is a punishment far beyond the crime.

EP, do you ever choose to "borrow" supplies that belong to the US military? Should I be able to shoot you for it?

Nope, he saw that and said they were stupid to open their traps about it (no pun intended).

Ya can't fix stupid.

This. Even if all you do is detain them until the cops show up, wouldn't that still be called entrapment?

A guy at my work was involved in a "detain until cops come incident" relatively recently. He saw a guy stealing from his neighbors home (but the neighbor hadn't set a trap) and pulled his weapon "damn paranoid gun owners thinking they always need a gun" and basically told the robber "move and I kill you."
That said, what if the robber had just sprinted off? Would the helpful neighbor have had the legal right to shoot him? He wouldn't be in a position to endanger the homeowner at that point, so would it be a good shoot? The robber did the smart thing - if the neighbor had shot him even outside the home
it would be the neighbors word against the dead guy's word, with no other witnesses around at the time. This is Georgia - armed solid hard working citizen versus dead guy with no doubt a criminal record (unless it was his first robbery and he'd never went to jail before for anything) would be a no-brainer.
The robber certainly was smart enough not to move and just do a very short sentence for attempted burglary, or who knows even get off completely in court. The neighbor had zero chance of getting in trouble. He could have shot the clown dead on the spot but figured as long as the guy didn't move, no sense in that. Hopefully the robber will continue plying his trade and get killed before he does worse than robbery inside a home.

I agree that the thieves had a choice about whether or not to go into the garage.

But I don't support entrapment when LE is the entrapper. I don't support it period.

You don't like TV shows like "Bait Car" where cops leave a car unattended arresting anyone who steals it?

Technically, I think entrapment is when you induce somebody to commit a crime they probably wouldn't have otherwise, rather than when you provide an opportunity for somebody who's already looking for one.

One of the problems with bait cars, though, is that instead of responding to crime where it happens, the police get to choose what part of town they'll bust somebody in. And do you think they'll leave the car where it'll be stolen by the city councilman's rich, cokehead son?

Deadly Force is only justified in Georgia if a forcible felony is taking place.

"(e) As used in this Code section, the term "forcible felony" means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person and further includes, without limitation, murder; felony murder; burglary in any degree; robbery; armed robbery; kidnapping; hijacking of an aircraft or motor vehicle; aggravated stalking; rape; aggravated child molestation; aggravated sexual battery; arson in the first degree; the manufacturing, transporting, distribution, or possession of explosives with intent to kill, injure, or intimidate individuals or destroy a public building; terroristic threats; or acts of treason or insurrection."

So unless the robber was using or threatening the use of physical force or violence against your friend I'd say he would not be justified in shooting if the bad guy simply ran away.

Of course they won't.

One, bait cars aren't used to catch a specific person.

Two, odds are the cokehead son isn't going to steal the car. Imagine how much money would be wasted waiting for just one specific person to steal a car. That person better have a overwhelming desire to steal cars. You also better hope your bait car is the one he wants. Is that what you want taxpayer money wasted on? To chase after one single person?

Three, cops place such cars in areas that are high theft areas for cars. It only makes sense that if you have an area that has lots of cars stolen that is where you will put the bait car.

I took the liberty of highlighting "burglary in any degree;" - so extremely unlikely he would be charged for shooting him dead. The cops can run a background check on the spot. It might be a grey area if the robber could prove he wasn't there to burglarize - which he failed to do, because he was arrested for burglary. He would have certainly failed to prove he wasn't there to burglarize if he was shot dead. Getting shot but not killed would not have happened - nobody I work with is stupid enough to wound somebody and get sued.

Funny story here (a few years ago in my area) about a robber who DEFINITELY picked the wrong house to rob!
I hope he lived long enough to realize the mistake he made on the worst day of his life.

POSTED: 6:42 am EDT May 4, 2007

AUGUSTA, Ga. -- A man authorities say had broken into an Army officer's home in Augusta to steal guns was shot to death by the Iraq war veteran, who had come home early.

Richmond County Sheriff's Investigator Thomas Johnson says Captain Barre Bollinger told police he returned from work around 3:30 p.m. Wednesday and found his house had been ransacked.

Bollinger, who is stationed at Fort Gordon, entered his bedroom and noticed that guns were missing.

Johnson says the soldier grabbed his SKS rifle, a weapon similar to an AK-47 assault rifle, and called 911.

Johnson said while on the phone with 911, Bollinger saw the suspect approaching his back door and fired at him three times.

Twenty-nine-year-old Errol Lavar Royal was shot at least twice in the stomach area. He was later pronounced dead at the Medical College of Georgia Hospital.

Police say Royal lived with his parents near the home that was burglarized. A search of his home turned up two guns taken from Bollinger's house and marijuana.

Police had no immediate plans to charge Bollinger in the shooting

And I took the further liberty of highligting the link between what Zombie quoted and what you quoted: It has to involve both, not "one or the other." So Zombie was absolutely right: unless there was "the use or threat of physical force or violence," shooting him dead would not be justified.

It is people who use the law the way you do who make it possible for people who are opposed to anyone having guns the chance to say "your side" (meaning: "anyone who owns a gun, uses a gun, defends the rights of others to own and use guns -- anyone I can paint with a broad enough brush because of what one illiterate extremist said") thinks it's acceptable to just shoot anyone who happens to bother you.

If your friend had shot him, he would be in jail. If you do the same thing, you will go to jail. The law is very clear on that.

Wow, five pages. Didn’t expect that.


OldFella, two things you mention in your above post have me scratching my head.


1- Whats wrong with shooting to wound (aside from the guy returning fire if he’s packing). Why would anyone get sued for shooting/disabling a burglar?

2- Your man Bollinger shot some guy who was approaching his back door. After the event police search his house and find out he was the thief. So, what if he hadn’t been the burglar? And what sort of burglar comes back for seconds before the house has even been restocked? Unless the burglar was carrying any of Bollingers belongings to identify that he had already been in, then Bollinger is taking a hell of a leap. Could easily be suggested he was already so torqued up discovering his home looted that he let anger take over and shot first.

Only that "shooting to wound" is a dramatic fiction. It's difficult enough under stress to hit a moving human-sized target across the room at ALL, much less be calm and accurate enough to hit a specific point. I suppose is the guy is standing still or walking calmly straight toward you, you might have a chance of shooting him in the legs.

Why would anyone get sued? Surviving burglars have sued their victims for shooting them plenty of times. Non-surviving burglar's families have sued their victims plenty of times.