Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 5th MEB

There is no evidence he had or displayed a deadly weapon.


24 posted on 04/12/2024 11:14:51 PM PDT by Az Joe (Live free or die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: Az Joe

Here is the following from some website regarding California’s distinction. Sounds like Pennsylvania is similar.

Basically, self-defense outside of one’s home (or car) must be proportional to stop a threat. If the person has a weapon, one could assume the threat is deadly and thus use deadly force to stop it.

But, just entering a person’s “Castle” is enough to use deadly force to stop him regardless if you think he is armed or not. (Not all states have Castle law).

Also - not all states have “Duty to Retreat” laws either if you are inside OR outside.

Excerpt:

“The Castle Doctrine is California’s exception to the proportional force rule. The Castle Doctrine is based on an old English rule that likens a person’s home to their castle, which means not only does the homeowner not have to retreat when faced with danger in their home, but they can also use the necessary means to defend themselves. In modern California law, you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself and your family if the trespasser unlawfully and forcibly entered your home.”


28 posted on 04/12/2024 11:52:12 PM PDT by 21twelve (Ever Vigilant. Never Fearful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe

So what? The person who shot him… do we know their age? Their sex? Their physical condition? Some amped up athlete wearing a helmet jerks open their passenger door and comes in attacking? Completely justified.

And he even pulled over and called 911 so the idiot could get first aid. And sounds like no witness thought it was unjustified.


33 posted on 04/13/2024 12:18:45 AM PDT by DesertRhino (2016 Star Wars, 2020 The Empire Strikes Back, 2024... RETURN OF THE JEDI. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe
There is no evidence he had or displayed a deadly weapon.

So your premise is that an angry person who violently enters your home or vehicle (where the driver is immobilized) cannot be deterred in any case by any typical citizen? Or it only the non deadly use of a gun that is the issue? And how does your position comport with "live free or die?"

42 posted on 04/13/2024 2:55:43 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Turn 2 the Lord Jesus who saves damned+destitute sinners on His acct, believe, b baptized+follow HIM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe

Death or great Bodley harm.

One can inflict either with out a weapon.

One does not have to let someone harm you.

Before you defend your self.


46 posted on 04/13/2024 3:35:16 AM PDT by riverrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe

I submit to you again, A FIST IS A DEADLY WEAPON!

Are you now going to tell me this man had no hands?

According to the FBI (if you want to believe anything they say)there were 665 murders committed using HANDS/FISTS/FEET committed in 2022.

You can whine about how unfair it was to shoot this person who was exhibiting definite AGGRESSION when he JERKED the drivers door open but you have no idea what the aggressors intent was.

He might have JUST wanted to pull the driver out and STOMP HIS HEAD INTO THE PAVEMENT.

Grow up and go find yourself a set of balls, learn to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones.


95 posted on 04/13/2024 12:05:07 PM PDT by 5th MEB (1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson