Posted on 07/20/2016 8:10:44 AM PDT by PROCON
We need some regulatory decapture.
That is why one cannot stand over a writhing criminal and pump three more bullets into him / her while squirming on the ground disengaged from the fight.
If the attacker happens to die in the course of a no-bill shooting, that is one thing. To ensure the criminal dies (even though attack was halted) will land an otherwise law-abiding person in legal hot water.
Appreciate the clarification, that's good to know.
Decades ago while living in Texas, a Texas Ranger advised us if a perp is shot and is in your yard, drag him into your home then call the Rangers.
You bet. This is a state where the overwhelming majority of massholes are democrats, and democrats believe that there is no right to self defense. The believe that the only the government should have guns, so yes he will probably be convicted.
Sounds like a situation that for a decent lawyer and trial by jury. No one in their right mind will think it's okay to wait for three teens to break in their house.
A glass pane INSIDE the main door is also INSIDE the storm door, The punk was breaking and entering. He had other punks with him. Any reasonable person would be afraid for their life under similar circumstances.
Poor guy, will a Massachusetts jury convict him?
Yes. While in MA you no longer are required to flee your own house when faced with an intruder, firing on someone who is not in your house will get you convicted.
The charge is not unreasonable since the homeowner was inside, behind a secured door, and the drunken fool was outside the house. He was not in any immediate danger and should have called the police to come a collect the drunk.
Massachusetts, once the cradle of liberty, now a tyrannical sh@t pit designed to crush individuals.
The homeowner will be ruined defending himself, but I have to think he cannot be convicted based on the story of the surviving co-perps. Wouldn’t they be culpable for murder in MA if they were committing a felony home invasion at the time their pal was shot? Such a massive incentive to lie should negate their yarn, with the benefit of the doubt going to the shooter. Absent other evidence or some idiotic statement by the defendant, I can’t see this as a justifiable prosecution.
I suspect that the group members among them have an extensive history of break-ins, robberies, and assaults that will be kept secret since they are juveniles. I hope someone archived all their social media before the scrubbing.
"... three teens went to Lovell’s home and began banging on the front door repeatedly. Lovell said he attempted to communicate with the youths through the door, but was unsuccessful.
and
"...Lovell said HE SAW FRANCISCO WALKING AROUND IN HIS YARD, and then he knocked on a locked door that had three vertical panes of glass.Prosecutors said Francisco's knocking broke one pane, and Lovell shot through another pane, hitting Francisco in the chest."
These boys were well within the property and looking for trouble - and found it.
"...Decades ago while living in Texas, a Texas Ranger advised us if a perp is shot and is in your yard, drag him into your home then call the Rangers..."
That would be regarded as tampering with the evidence. So, let them break in, then hose them down with lead.
And Lovell was supposed to know this? That law sounds more than outrageous. I guess everyone in fear of their lives will have to open the door from here on out and hope the perp doesn’t shoot first.......grrrrr. If he gets convicted there needs to be a national outcry!
I wouldn’t.
Of course, the elites don’t want the citizenry armed.
Look people, you can’t shoot him in the yard and you can’t shoot him on the porch in most states and you can’t shoot him the back running down the driveway. I hope the poor homeowner gets a decent jury.
I think that post wins the award for the dumbest post of the day. The right to defend yourself, your family, and your property is a God-given right and I don’t give a d*mn what the local jurisdiction says. This incident is exactly what jury nullification is for.
What would happen to this guy if those three “innocent” youth had gotten into his house? Many 15-year-old boys are man-size and are going to be much stronger and faster than the man who shot them.
You are obviously ignorant about a great deal of things. This guy shot through a closed door. I would never shoot through a closed door. What if the person on the other side was standing to the side and you hit the neighbor across the street? What if it was a woman at the door running away from the husband who was just beating her? You would really shoot through a closed door without having any idea of what's on the other side? Somebody beating on my door is not going to put me in fear for my life. That's one of the criteria necessary before you can claim self defense. Should I ever be in that position, I will be prepared. That's why I carry a semi-automatic with 14 rounds, as well as two spare magazines. I have also checked out defensive positions in my house, to include fields of fire that won't hit my neighbors' houses. My God-given right to self defense doesn't give me a license to be stupid about it. And that was the case in this situation. The homeowner was absolutely wrong in what he did. And no jury will nullify his actions. I certainly wouldn't. I also don't expect any gun rights organizations to back his actions. I'm guessing you know nothing about self defense law or firearms safety. So you may want to refrain from criticizing those who do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.