Old man shoots illegal alien thieves...

[75SV1]

Research Tueller drill, that 25 foot zone can come in handy in court.

I did goole that. There were some interesting sites. One had a good discussion on the precticallity or real world. It really depends on the view of the Jurors at a trial. Also, most think 'stab' to vital organs. Knifes are also good just to slash. Nick an artery, and then how fast does one bleed out? How fast till one just blacks out or becomes incapable of defending? So, I'd probably add someone like Danny Innosanto or such as an expert witness.
Then it would be up to the Jury to buy it or not. I think like CSI effect, ie Juries think DNA evidence takes 24 hors or less, we have a Martial Arts film or Chuck Norris effect. Overall, taking on more than two oppents, your likely hood of winning is usually nil or so I've been told. Add weapons to that, and I think you know. Some o them will state that train a guy with a weapon and they can usually take on a Black Belt or such.
Tom

 

[joe_peters]

I'm fairly certain that's considered self defense, since sticking a knife in someone's face is assault while actually inserting it into their face is battery. Either one justifies an immediate response, doesn't it?

In way to many places it is not--too many places require that you retreat, and they treat you as the guilty person and you must prove that you were in fear for your life. Most Castle Doctrine laws put the assumption of innocence back on you and the burden on the prosecutors.

 

[mcantar18c]

Ah, I love Colorado. Ours is called the "Make My Day" law
Basically, if somebody is on your property, and you have reasonable belief that they are a threat to your safety or the safety of somebody on your property (i.e. your kids, wife, whoever), then by all means shoot them. I asked an officer I used to know about the specifics of the law, his words were "if some jackass broke into my home and had any sort of weapon, you can bet your ass I'd shoot."

 

[5-90]

In way to many places it is not--too many places require that you retreat, and they treat you as the guilty person and you must prove that you were in fear for your life. Most Castle Doctrine laws put the assumption of innocence back on you and the burden on the prosecutors.

My unfair advantage has decreased significantly, but it's still here.

My wife isn't necessarily able to evade attack (just had a new hip and new knee put in) or to defend herself (smart hand still out of commission from rotator cuff work, and will permanently lose range of motion and some strength.) Therefore, it's not just MY life at stake.

When her mother was still kicking, her condition was such that I'd have actually gotten in more trouble for fleeing (and leaving her to her own devices) than I would have in handling the threat directly. "Murder by depraved indifference," I believe it was called (falls under Murder Two or Murder Three - I don't recall which offhand. But, it's definitely considered "Murder" and not "Manslaughter.")

The core premise of Castle Doctrine is that, when you face an intruder in your home, it is reasonable to assume that his intentions are nefarious and that he poses a threat to your safety and well-being - and that you are entitled to respond in kind. You can still get knocked off for "excessive use of force" or somesuch - so you'd better make sure it's a lethal threat to your person (the seven-yard rule applies, if he's not empty-handed,) so you have a far better chance of winning the case in a Castle Doctrine state.

The only remaining problem is that, if the shoot is ruled "just" (read: it passes the "reasonable man" test and is perfectly justified/justifiable,) it should close the door for civil action as well. That door is still open, and it causes trouble (you can be found to have fired in self-defense, and the silly bastid can still sue you for punitive damages. Which I find awfully asinine - there's another principle that goes by "But for your actions..." Ex: If you have a pool and put a fence about it and secure it, then some damnfool climbs over the fence and drowns, his folks/family/whatever can sue you civilly - but you're likely to come out. "But for your actions" applies - in this case, it can be read as: "If the victim hadn't climbed that fence, he would not have drowned. The victim put himself in that position, no-one forced him.")

 

[ECKSJAY]

The core premise of Castle Doctrine is that, when you face an intruder in your home, it is reasonable to assume that his intentions are nefarious and that he poses a threat to your safety and well-being - and that you are entitled to respond in kind. You can still get knocked off for "excessive use of force" or somesuch - so you'd better make sure it's a lethal threat to your person (the seven-yard rule applies, if he's not empty-handed,) so you have a far better chance of winning the case in a Castle Doctrine state.

If I say that the use of the word 'somesuch' in this case indicates that you don't know what you're talking about, is that when you admit that your info is outdated again? Seriously, Jon, I think you get carried away with your rants sometimes. I love the idea of teaching, but one must be responsible with what the message they are sending. Maybe before hitting the "Submit Reply" button, you might ask yourself, "Do I *really* know what I just wrote about?"