FL man shoots unarmed kid. Walks home, has a beer.

I believe you are describing the Castle Doctrine.

Beat me to it Jeffroj

 

I think that SYG doesn't make much difference in criminal cases. The rules for justifiable homocide are in place. The main difference for SYG legislation involves civil cases. GZ was found not guilty, but he is still open to civil liability. I think SYG makes the civil liability go away.

 

Who do you think is more apt to be in a better position to accurately decipher and apply the law?
The Judge gets to consider all available evidence when considering if any crime has taken place, that's not the case in a jury trial.
If no crime has taken place, why should it go to trial at all?

 

The law varies from state to state, but generally if someone points a gun at you during the commission of a crime on your property you can engage that person. The gun may not be the best example, because it's hard to outrun a bullet.

In many jurisdictions, the use of force has to be reasonable under the circumstances. In other words, you wouldn't shoot a six-year-old kid trying to steal a little red wagon, although you would probably be able to shoot an adult was broken into your home and is trying to make off with your loot while pointing a gun at you.

 

I think that is correct. There is actually a better breakdown of SYG vs Castle Doctrine on this wiki page than I've found elsewhere.

 

Yep, you are correct. I missed that caveat.

 

As of last year only 46 states have a recognized CD..that is why I said
"In some places" you have to Retreat...until exhausted..if they had a SYG, (only about 20 states do).. you just shoot their ass, answer some questions and reload.

 

Speaking of...

http://www.wtae.com/news/local/alle...20998594/-/cq9pupz/-/index.html?absolute=true

 

Jury. For all the flakes and loonies in our society I think they deserve a say on what is permissible in thier community.

As I stated above, I think all deaths at the hands of another should go to trial. I don't care if it's a car wreck or shooting into a crowd. It really chaps me when law enforcement or the D.A. make that decision.

These are just my opinions. Agree or disagree as you wish.

 

Opening yourself up for civil liability.:tut:

Making off with loot is "never" a justification for using deadly force (gun). "Making off" (retreating) with your loot while pointing a gun probably won't work either. That probably won't clear the hurdle of the threat of imminent death, especially after the Zimmerman case. I just saved you $500,000.

 

It is in NC too. If you are carrying concealed, you can't blow over 0.0 nor can you take your weapon into a place where alcohol is served AND consumed (that may be changing soon, regarding restaurants). However, I'm not sure what the BAC limit is for open carry off the top of my head.

But when it comes to self defense, you should make every effort to avoid a confrontation but AFAIK, there are no retreat laws like described in Texas. However, if you initiate the confrontation, you sure as hell better not use your weapon.

 

Moral of the story, never shoot in the back, always through the chest. It's more believable when you state that they were coming after you.

 

Yes, I was going to put that in, but figured if it ever happens to me, this thread will be used against me.

 

Here's the law on that. It sure does read like the SYG law but it's classified as a Castle because it is restricted to home, vehicle, or workplace by this one.

 

On a tad bit of a different note, check out the Texas "Frontier Law": homeowners are permitted to shoot at nighttime intruders if they feel their safety or property is threatened.

Trespass at night, no matter what your business, and the homeowner can whip out his 30-06 and put a bullet in your head, no questions asked, no charges filed.

Sucks to be a repo man in Texas: http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-26/news/mn-38601_1_texas-truck-owner

I remember when this happened, it made national news. After the AFL-CIO and other liberal orgs screamed bloody murder about this, the Sen. of Texas at the time went on national news, explaining the law. Said that the law had been on the books since back in the 1800's, and was primarily made to protect ranchers from horse/cattle theives. He went on to say that they put that law on the ballot for the people of Texas to decide whether or not to KEEP it on the books, and the people Texas voted YES. He then went on to say in not so many words, in Texas, stay off other peoples property, especially at night, and if youre a repo man, you need to know the laws of Texas, and dont go attempting a repo after dark, or the homeowner has the legal right to shoot you, period.

 

DOJ trolling for email tips in Zimmerman probe

 

Really?

So, if you're driving down the street, obeying all traffic laws, and someone runs a stop sign and you t-bone them and that driver is killed, you think it is reasonable that you should be charged with a crime and have to expend days or weeks of your life and thousands of dollars of your money to defend yourself from a non-crime, just because someone died?
How does that make sense?

 

You are not correct. There is a difference between stealing a truck and trespassing. You cannot legally shoot someone for trespassing at night in Texas. The owner did not get the notice they were repo'ing the truck. The repo man was told the notice was provided to the owner. He thought someone was stealing his truck.

David