I think in the circumstances described for your Boston case, I'd be inclined to trust the police and justice system. The invader committed a number of criminal acts for which he could be charged -- assault with a deadly weapon, criminal trespass, battery, simple assault when he turned, and there might be other charges such as possession of a firearm without a permit, improper carrying/transport of a firearm and, maybe, possession of a firearm by a felon.
Evidence of these crimes would include the firearm and any physical evidence on it such as fingerprints or DNA, physical evidence in the house and testimony by the two victims. Based on these observations, it would seem to me that the invader would find himself in jail facing an uphill battle to get bail; would lose all firearms in his possession; would face trouble at his employer if he did get bail; and would be slapped with a protective order. With all of that, the victim would be wise to go buy a shotgun immediately for home protection. I would not shoot the Boston invader because he turned and mouthed threats -- but would shoot him if he closed on me and was no longer retreating (since I don't know whether this violent person might have a knife or other deadly weapon to continue his assault). Phil --- On Tue, 5/31/11, C D Tavares <[email protected]> wrote: From: C D Tavares <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Failed post - I am trying again..... To: "Firearmsregprof" <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 8:39 PM On May 31, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Greg Jacobs wrote: >> On a completely intellectual level, I would like to begin a brief discussion >> of the case in Oklahoma wherein a pharmacist was convicted of murder and >> sentenced to life in prison. >> The pharmacist fails to catch him and re-enters the store. >> Apparently, after retrieving a second handgun, the pharmacist fires a /coup >> de grace**/shot or shots into the previously downed felon. >> >> Absent testimony and cross examination, specifically testimony that the >> felon on the ground posed a threat, is there any question that the >> justifiable act of using deadly force in self defense has been overcome by >> the act of what appears to be a pre-meditated execution? It seems pretty clear to anybody who has studied self-defense law, even as a gun-course student. Let me counter with another case which I feel treads the fine line just about as closely as I have ever seen it tread. It sounds contrived, but I assure you this event really did happen and was reported in the Boston papers. Around 1993 in a western Boston suburb, a man and his wife were watching TV in their house when a man known to the wife (but possibly not to the husband) broke down their front door, brandishing a pistol. The assailant, who was apparently a co-worker of the wife, made immediate verbal death threats against the wife. The husband wrestled with the attacker, who eventually dropped the gun and (having lost this advantage) fled. While retreating down the walk, the assailant turned around and quite clearly threatened to come back later and kill both of them in their sleep. So the homeowner, who had picked up the discarded gun, shot him in the chest and killed him. Of course, self-defense law requires that the threat be immediate. But in the presence of this precise threat made to you, how safe would you feel letting this fellow walk? (Keep in mind that a police report would almost certainly have resulted in no immediate protection due to the hearsay nature of the threat.) Ironically, his town, like most others in Massachusetts, requires "demonstrated basic knowledge of deadly force law" from all prospective gun OWNERS (not just carriers). However, as this man was not himself a gun owner, he was never required to learn any of it. (The homeowner was, of course, convicted... the poor b**d.) -- Escape the Rat Race for Peace, Quiet, and Miles of Desert Beauty Take a Sanity Break at The Bunkhouse at Liberty Haven Ranch http://libertyhaven.com _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
