“Shooting home invader in the back isn’t self-defense”
That’s debatable. It could be self-defense. Where is he running to? Has he stated his intentions? (”I’m going to kill you.”) Is he armed? Has he already attempted to murder you? Is he blocking your path to safety?
A person can be facing one direction and turn his torso and shoot behind him. Would the DA argue that you can’t defend yourself simply because of the robber’s shooting stance?
Also, what is the intent of the person shooting the home invader?
Self defense is not the only reason to shoot someone. Is he still a threat to others? For example, if he is running away from me but I reasonably suspect he is running toward my car where a family member is, he is still a threat.
He could still be a lethal threat just by getting into a car. Sometimes the police assume this.
Legally, everything depends on the state law. It needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It is unreasonable to make a blanket judgment in every case where the home invader is shot in the back.
Even if it isn’t self-defense, it’s probably better for society to give the resident huge latitude and benefit of the doubt when shooting a home invader still on his or her property, and especially if the invader is still inside the home.
When someone invades your home, it creates chaos and confusion. Your adrenaline will be through the roof. It is very easy for accidents to happen. For example, you might run barefoot over broken glass to get away because you’re not thinking about that. It is not reasonable to expect someone in this situation to be able to calmly, cooly, and with meticulous reasoning, always make the best choice. You don’t exactly have the time to do a Ben Franklin pros and cons analysis before deciding.
Fleeing is not surrendering. The home invader still may be a lethal threat. He’s definitely proven himself to be a threat to society.
The DA probably wouldn’t want me on the jury. Just saying.
Can’t get to your gun until they’ve finished beating on you. Sounds fair to me that you get to hit back.
In Florida, a civilian shooting at a fleeing suspect is a no no.
Got to hit the perp mid mass in /on your property,
5.56mm
Good shoot...
Only bad thing is that he didn’t get all of them...
This “not in the back” nonsense makes me believe that in a few years from now, when thousands of chicoms come pouring out of the landing crafts, they’’ll simply cross the beaches backwards so those dainty Amelicans won’t shoot them...