Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:24 pm
by jazr45acp
If I'm correct on the subject, the "Castle Doctrine" applies to vehicle, home, place of employment or business. If the shooter is/was in or on his property, and met all requirements to justify DF then how or why would he be billed? I'm just trying to place myself in the shooter's shoes and try to invision what he was feeling or experiencing at the moment. I had a similar situation, but the "rager" happend to be a LEO. However, he backed off when I starting dialing 911.
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:46 am
by stevie_d_64
seeker_two wrote:When all the charges are tallied against Mr. Hot-Head (Tresspassing, Terroristic Threat, Assault, etc.), he may be "convinced" to consider himself lucky he was just shot in the leg and limp away from the matter....
Again, another logical comment!
I may go on vacation...
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:34 am
by seeker_two
stevie_d_64 wrote:seeker_two wrote:When all the charges are tallied against Mr. Hot-Head (Tresspassing, Terroristic Threat, Assault, etc.), he may be "convinced" to consider himself lucky he was just shot in the leg and limp away from the matter....
Again, another logical comment!
I may go on vacation...
And leave the fate of the word to
ME?
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:34 am
by TX Rancher
jazr45acp wrote:If I'm correct on the subject, the "Castle Doctrine" applies to vehicle, home, place of employment or business. If the shooter is/was in or on his property, and met all requirements to justify DF then how or why would he be billed? I'm just trying to place myself in the shooter's shoes and try to invision what he was feeling or experiencing at the moment. I had a similar situation, but the "rager" happend to be a LEO. However, he backed off when I starting dialing 911.
I think that's part of the question, was he justified?
Sounds like you did the right thing in your particular case...the result was you de-escalated the situation and nobody got shot...all in all a pretty good outcome
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:13 pm
by kdom
Txroadcyclist wrote:... Granted the "other driver" followed the "resident" to his home but resorting to his weapon as his first means, in my mind, is a mistake. The article did not state that the "other driver" was armed so I'm assuming that he is not. I think too many people fear a good old fashioned butt whooping and turn to their gun first. I'm not saying that this may not be appropriate for an elderly or disabled person who is facing a younger, stronger aggressor but the article is vague and made no made no mention of the age or disabilities of the "resident" so I made more assumptions. I personally feel one who is physically capable should have training in hand to hand combat skills before being licensed to carry. I don't mean to say that it should be mandatory, but if one is considering carrying a firearm, a decision not to be taken lightly, then they should be responsible enough to educate and train themselves in less than lethal methods. I do agree that the "resident" should have driven to a police station and prevent the situation to escalate into a physical or deadly confrontation.
Sorry, but if I've tried to flee (drive to my residence) the confrontation, and the "rager" persists, entering my property, there's no way in the world I'm going to risk a "butt whooping"... you don't know if he's going to pull a knife, strike a "lucky" fatal punch, or risk him taking my weapon. I'll call 911 enroute home, and I'll probably stay in the vehicle rather than exit if the police are close, but there is no way I'm getting into a fist fight on my property with an enraged stranger. And if he tries to get me out of the truck, it will be something he regrets...
