College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader

[mrsleeve]

Guns kill people

If guns kill people then all mine are defective - Ted Nugent

Mine must all be defective too, as mine hve not killed anyone, Hell I have had a loaded gun siting on my desk for months in the same place it has not killed me or anyone else. Wow I guess I had better have a talk with my guns and see why they are not doing their job killing people all willy nilly like.

His family could still potentially bring suit. Although I don't believe that would be an issue in this case.

your right its not an issue. GA has a Castle doctrine law, the guy is safe from any legal issues criminal or civil he cant be sued. Long as its found to be a "good shoot" which it was, from everything I have read about it.


Edit: Wow For all posts of poor dirt bag, "why did the kid have a loaded gun in his bag" . On page 2

He had a gun to protect himself if the need were to ever arise, WHICH IT FUCKING DID. Also because its his right to have a fucking gun if he so chooses to, and hes has jumped through all the proper hoops to be allowed to carry it.

how hard is this shit to grasp????? I dont get why it is so hard to understand.

[apexede30]

The kid with the firearm should get a key to the city, for christs sake. He put himself in danger of being shot for the safety of others, as well as taking with him the fact that he took the life of another man, be that man "bad" or "good"...And he better get an invitation to the playboy mansion for this!

[Pinepig]

how hard is this shit to grasp????? I dont get why it is so hard to understand.

Public indoctrination centers.

[StereoInstaller1]

GA has a Castle doctrine law, the guy is safe from any legal issues criminal or civil he cant be sued. Long as its found to be a "good shoot" which it was, from everything I have read about it.

Interesting. Stuff I have heard of, but was not fully aware of:

Conditions of use

Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.
In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

• An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
• The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
• The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
• The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.
Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.

[edit] Immunity from civil lawsuit

In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many versions of the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause", also have a clause which provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages/injury resulting from the shootings. Without this clause, it is possible for an assailant to sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain and suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the shooter, or for their next-of-kin to sue for wrongful death in the case of a shooting fatality. Even if successfully refuted, the defendant (the homeowner/shooter) must often pay thousands of dollars in legal costs as a result of such lawsuits, and thus without immunity, such civil action could be used for revenge against a shooter acting lawfully.
The only exceptions to this civil immunity are generally situations of excessive force, where the shooter fired on a subdued, cooperative, or disabled assailant. A situation meeting this exception generally invalidates the criminal "castle defense" as well. In addition, someone who fires in self-defense is still liable for any damages or injuries to third parties who were not acting criminally at the time of the shooting.

and of course:

Adoption by States

Alabama,[9] Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wyoming) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.

Nothing in there about anywhere in the PNW.

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Luke that list is a bit outta date, as I know WA state has a castle law.

here is the current one as of june last year
Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.

CA I know has a similar law in place they just dont call it castle law. And IIRC you have to try to get away 1st, or the intruder has to show intent to harm you while in your home. In other words he has to have a weapon, just being in your home a 3am is not enough info for you to determine if hes a threat you and your family.

I think MT "No duty to retreat" is going to pass with flying colors this year as well, which basically extends the castle law protections to anywhere you have a right as a citizen to be.

[Wh33lhop]

No. No one has mentioned it in the minute that passed between your posts. Seriously.

Thanks jackass. ;) I got a 500 error the first post, so I posted again.

Glad he had it and I'd like to think would have done the same, but I certainly wouldn't be carrying in my backpack.

[StereoInstaller1]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Luke that list is a bit outta date, as I know WA state has a castle law.

Yeah, I see that now. Wiki, UPDATE!

Seeings as I am gonna be in a shitty part of town or in the boonies, I just might wanna get myself a handgun.

I iz pro-fish-unt!

Meth is the only reason I would think a handgun necessary these days.

Damn, I fucking HATE tweekers.

[Beach Bum]

I just drove by a guy getting mugged tonight on my way home. Couldn't do a thing, no gun, no way to get cops there in time. Sucked, I saw the look on the guys face as I drove by and was just like, "sorry man..."