#44242
Whirlibird
Whirlibird
Survivalist
member10

The legal problem occurs when the suspect is no longer an immediate threat.
Like it or not, once they are out of the house and running,
you are not legally justified in plugging them.

This statement: once they are out of the house and running is no longer an immediate threat, is a falsehood. Just because the perpetrators were outside doesn’t mean the victim was safe. His house offers very little protection against gunfire. It can’t be considered a safe haven. If the person running still has a gun in their possession they are a threat. They could turn and fire in a fraction of a second. They could be running to obtain cover achieving a stronger tactical position to return fire. In fact how would a person know if they did or did not have other more powerful weapons like rifles stashed they intended to retrieve with the intent to fire back? The fact is his immediate threat was not over until his attackers were disarmed or dispatched. That is what the jury will have to consider and decide how those factors will be applied to a verdict.

That wouldn’t fly in court.
Very simply, the “crime” ended when they fked.
Had they come back, that’s another story.

When the homeowner became the aggressor going after them, that’s when he became the criminal .

The jury won’t hear could haves, or might have happened.
No defense lawyer worth a penny would try that.
He might as well just say his client is guilty.

No, the defense will concentrate on the threats and what had just happened.
They will play up the mental stress, the physical and mental abuse.
If they can convince one or more jury members of this, he’s home free.

Not a threat until Disarmed or dispatched? Really.
Not in any statute or law book I ever saw.
Thinking like that will get you jailed, sued or killed.
Because they might come back?

The might argument goes something like this:
The tooth fairy might leave a dollar under my daughters pillow, but I’m pretty certain that I beat her to it.
They might have been heading to church to get right with the Lord also, but I doubt it.

Facts and evidence.
Letter of the law (loopholes also).
Sometimes blatant emotions.
That is what’s taken to court by the winning side.

Might have, should have, could be, that’s the realm of the side trying to lesson their losses, to attempt to put forth an excuse for an action.

I could put forth a decent defense.
Same for the prosecution.
The defense is harder and will rely on emotion, physical and mental state to counter the legal facts the prosecution is armed with.

I feel for the guy.
But without a jury that is sympathetic, he’s stuck.

There’s a reason this part of my CCW classes is one of the longest.
The legal part is the part that will exonerate or doom you.