"One of the woman's family members told The Plain Dealer that Kozlosky had previously threatened to kill Coleman if he ever came to the house."
So basically, someone claimed he had threatened Coleman, and ergo, this automatically negates his right to not only self-defense, but defense of other.
That’s not a threat. That is providing clarification of the law to someone that may not be aware of the Castle Doctrine. I wonder if that same argument could be used against folks who have the “This home protected by Smith & Wesson Security” sign by their door?
The law concerning CCW states that you do not have the right to use a concealed weapon if you instigate a fight, so if you said this on the street your defense would be problematic. But, the Castle Doc. is another matter all together. If someone breaks or attempts to break into your home you have the right to shoot him on the spot. The fact that he broke in would have elevated the threat past his initial warning of what he would do in the future. Just remember know your target, know what's behind your target and have plenty of stopping power.
The law concerning CCW states that you do not have the right to use a concealed weapon if you instigate a fight, so if you said this on the street your defense would be problematic. But, the Castle Doc. is another matter all together. If someone breaks or attempts to break into your home you have the right to shoot him on the spot. The fact that he broke in would have elevated the threat past his initial warning of what he would do in the future. Just remember know your target, know what's behind your target and have plenty of stopping power.
Well, that changes everything doesn’t it? Thank you for the information.