Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Husband Goes To Jail For Shooting Robber Who Was Holding His Wife At Gun Point
- Thread starter p0ink
- Start date
Razorguns said:
It sure as hell worked in Florida in the 80's. They had a "Wyatt Earp Law" (nickname), where people could carry weapons unconcealed without a permit. People did like the old wild west days and strapped holstered guns to themselves. I forget all the numbers and %'s, etc., but crime went WAY down. A would be criminal would think twice before robbing a guy with a gun on his hip, or raping a lady displaying a handgun.
In the majority of states this case would be clear cut, liberal states however, gets a lil stupid.
I take it the whole A mans home is his castle logic doesn't apply here, because in states that follow that doctrine, if an intruder breaks into your home with intent to harm, you are within your rights to do anything you see fit, as long as it remains on your own property. the retreat doctrine only applies outside and only if imminent danger has passed, considering these people by the friends account knew the victim, imminent danger was still present, they easily could have rearmed themselves and returned considering they had his keys. Imminent danger despite retreat was not past, and the defendant was in his right to do what he did, he was stupid however for not shooting both robbers in the head and kill them bc now he will be stuck in courts and all that legal bs
I take it the whole A mans home is his castle logic doesn't apply here, because in states that follow that doctrine, if an intruder breaks into your home with intent to harm, you are within your rights to do anything you see fit, as long as it remains on your own property. the retreat doctrine only applies outside and only if imminent danger has passed, considering these people by the friends account knew the victim, imminent danger was still present, they easily could have rearmed themselves and returned considering they had his keys. Imminent danger despite retreat was not past, and the defendant was in his right to do what he did, he was stupid however for not shooting both robbers in the head and kill them bc now he will be stuck in courts and all that legal bs
T
The Shadow
Guest
^^Exactly
XBiker said:
You don't get what I am saying.
In MASS the state has laws about handgun ownership.
1 - You must be licensed to purchase one
2 - You must be licensed to carry a handgun
You want to obsess over the constitution, fine, the explain why different states have different guidlines for income tax?
The guy wasn't arrested for using a gun to defend himself he was arrested for not keeping his paper work up to date and frankly that's his own dam fault.
I bet he won't do THAT again will he?
Last edited:
manny78 said:
LOL
You're right.
Now he'll get a personal suit for ingury and bleed him for money for the rest of his life.
So he's an idiot for not putting a bullet in his head and a bigger idiot for letting himself be wide open for being arrested over a technicallity.
Maybe he should bring BIker and P0ink in for counsel and plead BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAID I COULD and see how far he gets.
velvett said:
I know some states have laws dealing with suits and felons. I know that Florida specifically forbids felons for suing if it happened during a felony. But he's still an idiot. When you shoot, you shoot to kill. That's true as a cop and as a civilian.
If it's worth shooting, it's worth death.
Similar threads
