And do you think the shooter should have to prove that they made every reasonable attempt to avoid a felony conviction? I’m not sure I can get behind that. It’s too subjective, IMO.
Yes, but I think that is fairly easy to do.
Is it easier than making it the duty of the State prove that they didn’t make a reasonable attempt? That was my point, so poorly expressed. Yes, it’s similar to Make My Day laws, but it seems logical to me that the homeowner/dweller should receive quite a bit more benefit of the doubt, considering they shot an intruder who was clearly breaking the law.
For example, if you could not exit the house because, say, you were upstairs in your bedroom and it sounded like the bad guy was down stairs, it would be a reasonable action to avoid confrontation to lock your BR door and call the police at that point. If the bad guy broke into your locked bedroom, it would be reasonable to shoot him. It would be on record with the dispatcher and the door would be damaged.
In an ideal world, yes, of course. It irks me when some of these people claim self defense, but never even attempted to call the police, or even tell the intruder to leave, on penalty of being shot. Actually shooting someone should be a last resort.
Because, like G-Roll said, it's a given that one takes a great risk, penalty of prison or death, when breaking into homes.
That does not give license to home owners to shoot. I think the causal chain is backward. That homeowners might under certain circumstances shoot is what makes it risky.
Well yeah! Of course the homeowner might shoot! So might the cops when they show up, but that’s your other thread. I don’t see how the chain is backwards. It’s reality. Engage in criminal behavior, risk death.
It should be the State's duty to prove that the homicide wasn't justifiable.
That sounds suspiciously like stand your ground. It is also the mindset that causes many of the gun fails reported here. Look at all the people who shot a friend or relative because they thought it was an intruder. If they'd retreated instead of pulled the trigger, those accidents would be avoided.
Sure. But how does one prove that the guy lying dead on the floor was an imminent threat, if there’s no calls to the police, no broken down bedroom doors? Do you take him at his word, or do you throw him in prison for killing an intruder?
Statistics are great, except when they're not. And when it involves you , you won't much care about what statistics show.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make or argue against. For the record, based on the rather ambiguous story, I would say Dunlap would have been justified in shooting January.
But, yes, occasionally terrible things happen. That is implicit in the statistics.
Sorry, it was the only story I could find, for some reason, but I think the kid is either going to trial soon, or is on trial now, but nothing else showed up quickly on my Google search. Poor research on my part.
My point was that when you, Mr. Screwtape, encounter an intruder, you’d better hope that the statistics are in your favor, because they weren’t for the Dunlaps. And some of us would rather not be the outlier of your statistics.
There's an old saying; Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.