|
|
|
It is currently Thu Apr 18, 2024 12:32 am
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 14 posts ] |
|
Cesspool liberal states vs self defense
Author |
Message |
leadcounsel
Site Supporter
Location: Can't say Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014 Posts: 8134
|
http://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/ ... 39873.htmlBY ROSALIO AHUMADA In California - summary, after being burgled several times, senior citizen home owner shot and killed a burglar/trespasser on his property apparently while the trespasser/thief was fleeing. The homeowner said he went out to confront the man half his age, and was in fear for his life. Convicted. Apparently the key may have been the deceased was shot in the back. I don't have enough facts, but that doesn't necessarily mean the threat is over. Maybe he was going to retrieve a weapon, or take cover, or maneuver around some obstacle to come at the homeowner? Don't know, but that fact seems to be despositive here. Senior citizen was convicted and sentenced to 7 years, which means probably dying in prison. I think it's a mistake to fixate on the value of the property. If I were the defense attorney, I would introduce pictures and get testimony of armed bank guards, armed guards of those bank delivery vehicles. Clearly they are authorized to use deadly force with loaded guns over property theft. How about the armed guards at federal buildings, the US Mint, etc.? Clearly if you just trespassed and walked in and tried to take money, you'd have guns bearing down on you with the threat of lethal force, and maybe even shot and killed. Same would happen if you trespassed into a police station, or other protected areas. I understand that human life trumps property, but clearly "some" institutions get to protect property with guns. I do not understand how parts of this nation justify thievery on someones property making them helpless to do anything but call the cops and file a report which does nothing. Compare that with the homeowner in Texas who saw two burglars breaking into his neighbors home, and went outside, and shot them. He was not prosecuted. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5278638By CHRIS BURYHOWARD L. ROSENBERG June 30, 2008 Just a reminder of why liberal states suck and we need to take this state back from the lunatic liberals.
_________________ I defend the 2A. US Army Combat Veteran and Paratrooper: OIF Veteran. BSM and MSM recipient. NRA Lifetime. Entertainment purposes only. I'm a lawyer, but have not offered you legal advice.
|
Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:07 pm |
|
|
ANZAC
Site Supporter
Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 Posts: 7251
|
Quote: "The prosecution said Boyer fired a shotgun at Pacheco from 20 yards away as Pacheco was trying to leave. They're both outside his house, and the guy who died is 60 feet away from him and he shot him in the back. Hardly a threat. Try again.
|
Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:25 pm |
|
|
leadcounsel
Site Supporter
Location: Can't say Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014 Posts: 8134
|
60 feet may or may not be a threat. I bet under the right circumstances someone could make you feel threatened for your life, at 20 yards away.
How long does it take to draw a concealed pistol? 1-2 seconds.
How long does it take to cover 60 feet (20 yards) for a healthy 25 year old man? 2 seconds, maybe 3.
These demonstrations would be easy to do in a court room.
Was there a tree or car he was moving to take cover and perhaps draw a weapon from behind cover?
Factor vast age difference of 25 vs. ~60ish.
Seems like a lot of info to explore.
I'm simply stating that more blame needs to be on the criminal burglar and less on the home owner.
_________________ I defend the 2A. US Army Combat Veteran and Paratrooper: OIF Veteran. BSM and MSM recipient. NRA Lifetime. Entertainment purposes only. I'm a lawyer, but have not offered you legal advice.
|
Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:02 pm |
|
|
RENCORP
Site Supporter
Location: East of Japan, not by much. Joined: Fri Jun 3, 2011 Posts: 12990
|
ANZAC wrote: Quote: "The prosecution said Boyer fired a shotgun at Pacheco from 20 yards away as Pacheco was trying to leave. They're both outside his house, and the guy who died is 60 feet away from him and he shot him in the back. Hardly a threat. Try again. Schopenhauer Argument. Irrelevant.
_________________ Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Give a man a fishing pole, and he will drink too much beer, get tangled in fish line, hook himself in the nose casting, fall overboard, and either drown, or, go home hungry and wet. Give a man a case of dynamite, and he will feed the whole town for a year!
BE ON NOTICE: PRIVACY NOTICE: Warning - any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/or the comments made about my photos or any other "picture" art posted on my profile.
You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee, agent, student or any personnel under your direction or control.
The contents of this profile are PRIVATE and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law. UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
|
Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:04 pm |
|
|
deadshot2
Site Supporter
Location: Marysville, WA Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 Posts: 11581
Real Name: Mike
|
Like all stories of this type we are only getting part of the facts. Unless the entire court transcript is published we'll never have the same information that the Jury had when it made it's decision.
I do agree with the paradox where armed guards can use deadly force to protect property in some circumstances yet a property owner is barred from doing likewise. In the case of the government or corporation, the money at risk in robbery attempt often represents a mere fraction of their net worth. In the case of a private citizen that car, TV, Jewelry, Cash, may represent a large percentage of THEIR net worth.
_________________ "I've learned from the Dog that an afternoon nap is a good thing"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother" - William Shakespeare
|
Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:11 pm |
|
|
Duke EB
Site Supporter
Location: maple valley Joined: Mon May 6, 2013 Posts: 2575
Real Name: Earl
|
You can't shoot fleeing individuals. That's clear. the armed guard statement is irrelevant
|
Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:13 pm |
|
|
leadcounsel
Site Supporter
Location: Can't say Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014 Posts: 8134
|
Duke EB wrote: You can't shoot fleeing individuals. That's clear. the armed guard statement is irrelevant Was he fleeing? Or maybe turning as a natural defense reflex to having a gun leveled. Heck I've seen videos of people putting their hands up defensively, or jumping and twisting and turning all which way when being shot at. Or, like I said, maneuvering for cover or to get a weapon?
_________________ I defend the 2A. US Army Combat Veteran and Paratrooper: OIF Veteran. BSM and MSM recipient. NRA Lifetime. Entertainment purposes only. I'm a lawyer, but have not offered you legal advice.
|
Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:21 pm |
|
|
SixPointEight
Location: Frederickson, WA Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 Posts: 194
|
Guys....
It's California. If the guy was on his front porch facing him, he still would have been convicted. CA and it's courts are notoriously anti gun, they have no castle doctrine, they have no stand your ground, they do have duty to retreat. Duty to retreat applies to your property, and all building on your property that are not your living area. Including your attached garage. So if you're in your attached garage, and someone breaks in, you have duty to retreat into the dwelling. People have been convicted for not doing so.
CA sucks. Fight the good fight to keep WA from following suit
|
Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:29 pm |
|
|
SixPointEight
Location: Frederickson, WA Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 Posts: 194
|
Oh yeah, and to top it off, even if found not guilty in criminal court, you can and will be sued in civil court, and many lose the civil case after winning the criminal case
|
Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:32 pm |
|
|
bsand
Location: whatcom county Joined: Thu Oct 6, 2016 Posts: 72
|
SixPointEight wrote: Guys....
It's California. If the guy was on his front porch facing him, he still would have been convicted. CA and it's courts are notoriously anti gun, they have no castle doctrine, they have no stand your ground, they do have duty to retreat. Duty to retreat applies to your property, and all building on your property that are not your living area. Including your attached garage. So if you're in your attached garage, and someone breaks in, you have duty to retreat into the dwelling. People have been convicted for not doing so.
CA sucks. Fight the good fight to keep WA from following suit I'm surprised that wa is this gun friendly for being a blue state. The whole no duty to retreat, shall issue cpl's full capacity magazines etc. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
|
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:14 am |
|
|
deadshot2
Site Supporter
Location: Marysville, WA Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 Posts: 11581
Real Name: Mike
|
SixPointEight wrote: Guys....
It's California. If the guy was on his front porch facing him, he still would have been convicted. CA and it's courts are notoriously anti gun, they have no castle doctrine, they have no stand your ground, they do have duty to retreat. Duty to retreat applies to your property, and all building on your property that are not your living area. Including your attached garage. So if you're in your attached garage, and someone breaks in, you have duty to retreat into the dwelling. People have been convicted for not doing so.
CA sucks. Fight the good fight to keep WA from following suit Sounds like anyone living in CA and has a gun for self defense needs to also have a good friend with a backhoe and can get over to your house real quick.
_________________ "I've learned from the Dog that an afternoon nap is a good thing"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother" - William Shakespeare
|
Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:42 pm |
|
|
deadshot2
Site Supporter
Location: Marysville, WA Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 Posts: 11581
Real Name: Mike
|
bsand wrote: SixPointEight wrote: Guys....
It's California. If the guy was on his front porch facing him, he still would have been convicted. CA and it's courts are notoriously anti gun, they have no castle doctrine, they have no stand your ground, they do have duty to retreat. Duty to retreat applies to your property, and all building on your property that are not your living area. Including your attached garage. So if you're in your attached garage, and someone breaks in, you have duty to retreat into the dwelling. People have been convicted for not doing so.
CA sucks. Fight the good fight to keep WA from following suit I'm surprised that wa is this gun friendly for being a blue state. The whole no duty to retreat, shall issue cpl's full capacity magazines etc. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk Kind of helps that the WA State Constitution included their own version of the 2A. One that spelled out that the right to bear arms was an individual and one could carry for self defense. If the US Constitution had been written like Article 1, Section 24, both the Heller and McDonald cases would never have been necessary. Good chance all the anti-gun laws around the country would have been shit-canned as quick as they were written.
_________________ "I've learned from the Dog that an afternoon nap is a good thing"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother" - William Shakespeare
|
Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:49 pm |
|
|
Bennngeeee
Location: Tacoma Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 Posts: 95
Real Name: Ben
|
California is a bit ridiculous though. You can get sued for defending yourself in your own home if the person entering doesn't have a "deadly weapon" you pretty much have to fist fight anyone that enters the home.
|
Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:59 pm |
|
|
SixPointEight
Location: Frederickson, WA Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 Posts: 194
|
Bennngeeee wrote: California is a bit ridiculous though. You can get sued for defending yourself in your own home if the person entering doesn't have a "deadly weapon" you pretty much have to fist fight anyone that enters the home. Disparity of force. 1 man on 1 man? No disparity. 1 man on 1 woman? Disparity. 2 men on 1 man? Disparity. 1 armed man in 1 man? Disparity. You can use lethal force if there's a disparity of force or if a "reasonable person would be in fear of their life"
|
Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:33 pm |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 14 posts ] |
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|