Preparedness for a home invasion

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Not in Texas. If gangs are illegal, or if the gangsters were doing something illegal, they lose the right to self defense. Carrying guns without a permit outside of their residence or vehicle for instance.

Laws are written to be victim neutral. Even the worst person has the right to self-defense if the situation warrants. Mere illegality of certain non-provocative acts does not nullify that right- you might get convicted of illegal carrying or ownership, but if you- or a person you came to the rescue of- were attacked unprovoked, you can still use self-defense.

If, OTOH, the gang was committing a violent crime- even something as simple as brandishing- when attacked, self-defense won't be allowed as a defense.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ryujin

Legend
Laws are written to be victim neutral. Even the worst person has the right to self-defense if the situation warrants. Mere illegality of certain non-provocative acts does not nullify that right- you might get convicted of illegal carrying or ownership, but if you- or a person you came to the rescue of- were attacked unprovoked, you can still use self-defense.

If, OTOH, the gang was committing a violent crime- even something as simple as brandishing- when attacked, self-defense won't be allowed as a defense.

Bernhard Goetz immediately comes to mind.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
ninja: another mis-used word.
I explained tactics of using a door frame to reduce numbers.
I tried to imply that anyone who had the time and training to learn to use a sword would not be involved in home invasion: they'd either have too much money to be interested, or they'd have people to do that for them.

Yes, there is always the random factor. Sure, they might get lucky. They still either wouldn't get out of the house alive, or wouldn't live very long after leaving. Not unless they had near military grade body armor.

No longer engaging. Sorry.
 

sabrinathecat

Explorer
Self-defense and coming to the aid of another are fine, but there is a limit to the level of reaction. You are not allowed to use more force than necessary. You do not, for example, get to use a gun because someone raised a fist to you. Furthermore, once you have diffused the situation, you are not allowed to escalate or continue it. In other words, once the fight is over, it's over. You can't chase the person down and finish them off.
The expectation of control and restraint is much higher for boxers, martial artists and anyone with military training. Just not for police, apparently.
 

tomBitonti

Adventurer

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
It seems the standard is whether you "reasonably" think that your life is in danger.

...or severe bodily injury. That means looking at the totality of the situation: time, place, words said, number & character of people involved, who raised a fist to whom.

One of my professors talked about one of his old cases- a bench trial regarding an athlete got shot by a guy during a dispute in a parking lot. The athlete was over 6'5", the shooter was a foot shorter. The athlete described cocking his fist to swing...and the judge's hammer came down, " Self-defense!"
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Self-defense and coming to the aid of another are fine, but there is a limit to the level of reaction.

And part of the point of "stand your ground" laws is to *change* that limit, to allow you to use deadly force in cases where previous self-defense laws would not allow it.
 


tomBitonti

Adventurer
Charging at someone who has just drawn a gun seems just plain stupid. Unless you think they are going to shoot you anyways and that is your only option.

Edit: That was from the third example.

From the first:

In his order, Judge Terry Lewis was critical of the stand your ground law, however. "The law would appear to allow a person to seek out an individual, provoke him into a confrontation, then shoot and kill him if he goes for his gun. Contrary to the State's assertion, it is very much like the Wild West."

Thx!

TomB
 
Last edited:

Janx

Hero
For all we know, Trayvor Martin was standing his grown cause he feared for his life. He just can't tell his side of the story.

I assume both parties would make that claim. And potentially both parties may be correct.

Zimmerman was scared of Trayvon, Trayvon was scared of Zimmerman. Both entered the situation on legal ground. Then things got squishy. And at some point, Trayvon appears to have been on top of a prone Zimmerman, hitting him. And later, Zimmerman shoots Trayvon. I don't think it was a proud day for either one.

Ultimately, the guy with the gun won the fight.

The guy with the gun, who was also on the phone the cops won the legal challenge. In Texas, he may have been flagged as the instigator as he got out of his vehicle, instead of actually Standing His Ground in his car. It seemed implied that he started the verbal contact with Trayvon, which might further constitute escalating the conflict. For a CHL holder, these were all red flags for increased legal risk in a self defense situation.
 

Remove ads

Top