Fleeing to escape or fleeing to obtain another weapon? The person being robbed doesn't know.
Robber killed with his own gun during robbery
- Thread starter xknowonex
- Start date
Fleeing to escape or fleeing to obtain another weapon? The person being robbed doesn't know.
While that may be true, it may be a weak argument at best. Deadly force in self defense can ONLY be used in certain situations, ie. imminent great bodily harm or death. We don't know all the facts, but from whats available, I'm guessing the homeowner might face criminal charges.
seems like "fleeing" is the operative word here... as in, "no longer in imminent, life-threatening danger."
were the perp to re-enter the property, voila.
Ultimately that would be for a jury to decide if the victim's reasoning was "weak" or reasonable. And that decision would be derived from their specifc state's laws re: self defense. Deadly force in some states is authorized on just the presumption or reasonable belief of bodily harm or death should someone break in or any place where they have a right to be. And even if deadly force is used w/i the parameters of the state's specific law, any homeowner that defends their homes or family may find themselves in court.
Big difference between a regular robbery and a home invasion. In my area home invasions usually include a brutal assault on one of the residents, rape and/or a murder. The violence levels that come with a home invasion are HUGE compared to a robbery regardless of it you fight back or not. Robberies generally occur when no one is supposed to be home. Home invasions occur when the residents ARE home. This isn't someone stumbling on the robbery, it's the robbers bursting in on the residents.
This one seems a little fishy to me. It's possible the shooter was intentionally driving slow in front of the the guy who got pissed. IMO people who intentionally drive like idiots to fustrate others should not be on the road let alone be issued a gun. If he has in fact driving like an ass to piss someone off so he could shoot them then he should be hung.
That's what I like about the US. You don't have a big problem shooting a burglar down. It's ok. If you do this in Europe the resident ends up in jail for several years and the burglar gets pampered by state subsidy.
Yeah, its like we have to ask the robber 3 times to leave the house, if he doesn't you are allowed to gently push him out of the door.
Last year a guy went to 1 year jail for following a robber who burgled his house and beat the crap out of him. The robber didnt deny he was robbin the house...wtf man
.
Last edited:
It looks like being a career criminal is the way to go these days, they have more rights than the victims. 
It will never end until these retards that we call judges are all replaced. Or perhaps some laws need to be rewritten, about all of them
It will never end until these retards that we call judges are all replaced. Or perhaps some laws need to be rewritten, about all of them
Last edited:
Personally, I didn't agree with the Joe Horn decision. He wasn't being robbed, He wasn't in imment danger, the theives didn't have weapons on that he could see. He confronted them outside his house and let the adrenaline take over. I don't know if I would have necessarily given him jail time. I realize they were criminal and illegal aliens but they are human beings and he did kill them.
However, I would much rather live in Texas than live in Europe(based on this thread discussion).:wink:
However, I would much rather live in Texas than live in Europe(based on this thread discussion).:wink:
This is where the US separates itself from everywhere else in the world. In Canada the homeowner would be charged with manslaughter and do jail time.
"Everywhere else"? I'd be interested to see some sort of evidence supporting that claim.
From my experiences in the seven countries I have lived in, I suspect that if the homeowner was in genuine fear for his life, this shooting would eventually be considered justifiable homicide, since the gun was the robber's.
