that is correct- to make it really clear, some states have the 'make my day' law. bad guy comes onto my property, i have the right to defend myself and my property, with the use of deadly force. some liberal northeastern states have the 'duty to retreat' law, which states that you have the right to be a good and cooperative victim, and not cause a problem or confront the bad guy, much less use any kind of force against him. it practically encourages these kinds of encounters, as the bad guy knows the law will side with HIM if his victim responds with aggression.

 

We are a nation of law... granted that law can vary by local, but they are there regardless.
I certainly support teh right to bear arms and to defend myself or my family, BUT... only within the confines of what is legal.....and chasing a guy down and shooting him is not..period..
Even in the states with 'make my day" laws, you cant persue the guy off your property for a quarter of a mile and shoot him in the back, period..

Once we decide its open season, and that we can kill without restriction, we cease to be a nation of citizens and become an anarchy of individuals, individuals with weapons and differing ideas of when we have been "wronged" enough to require deadly force.
We then become a nation of street thugs, each no better than what we are now complaining of..

While I am sure no-one here feels that defending your home and family is wrong, IN THIS CASE, he broke the law, regardless of what the other guy had done, and is going to have to bear the responsibilitys that WE as a society have set for doing that.

With that being said, this is getting to the point where it probably needs to move on over to all-politics.net....

 

i think your all wrong. none of you were there the intruder may have tried to attack him after trying to jump the fence (the article never says). either way someone tries to steal from you you should have the right to defend you property what ever it takes.

 

Can't defend property with lethal force except in some cases, arson. The crook was de-escallating by leaving. Some don't want to admit it, but that's becoming the standard more and more nation wide. That said, it also seems that holding your ground in your own home is getting accepted more across the board, but not everywhere just yet. Far different than chaseing somebody down. It's one thing to chase him down and have a gun available for self defense. Our state allows for a citizen to detain a felon, though not recommended. But the article says the crook was unarmed, hard to misconstrue that.

 

I use to work where Richard was working at the time of the incident.

As I understand it, the thug was trying to break into Richards vehicle, which

was parked in his driveway, Richard came out of his house and chased the

thug and shot him in the back.

Co workers of Richard state that Richard was a hot head, and not justified in his shooting.

 

the bottom line is, as much as most people (including myself) on this forum believe in the right to bear arms and defend one's self and family, this guy took it too far.

 

Agreed, some just take it too far.

On the armed vs unarmed, if someones in your home you dont need to justify armed or unarmed. For those of us in the castle doctorine states we just need to have "fear of safety". Any person in my home armed or not will be killed, as he approached me lifting his arm and Im pretty sure it was not for a handshake.

Futhermore, armed or not, chasing someone is murder. If they flee you are dumb to chase to begin with. They may flee right back to the car where their "driver" is waiting, good chance they are armed. They may flee to their group of buddies waiting around the corner. Heck, their buddies may be waiting just outside your house and the moment you run out your house in they go.
Even if he is armed you are the one approaching him with intent so you're 100% in the wrong there.

That man is very lucky to get off with the light sentence he did.

 

the only good thief is a dead thief. Running or not, he doesn't do it again. Problem solved

 

So you think the punishment for breaking and entering should be death? What about the punishment for murder?? Chasing someone a 1/4 mile and shooting them in the back while they are climbing a fence is murder, wheather or not they are a criminal. A 1/4 mile is along enough distance to think about what you are doing and realize, hmm I am chasing him he is unarmed what danger am I in. These are just my thoughts go ahead and criticize.

 

The guy broke into his house,knew the risks, or at least should have. If this was your house you might feel quite different about the poor deceased freeloader

 

One of the reasons I moved here...I catch someone in my house, I hope he runs outside, I don't want the mess to clean up. Otherwise I will drag your sorry rear out side where I will hog tie you an throw you in my 4 wheeler meat wagon. drive up a mountain trail somewhere, throw you over my shoulder an pack you out to the edge of a swap. strip you naked an stake you out. The first thing you can look forward to is the swarm of 10 million mosquitoes that will feed on you as you go insane, don't worry in a few minutes they will have drained enough blood where you pass out. Next the bears, wolves, coyotes an ravens will pick your bones clean and scatter them for miles.

 

Im not saying that I feel bad for the guy. I am saying that killing the guy was unjustified, nobody was at risk when he was shot in the back, the guy was fleeing he wasn't attacking any one. The guy deserved to go to jail for along time not get shot. If he was attacking the the guy and he shot him to protect himslef then it would be justified.

And NO if this was my house I wouldn't feel different about chasing the guy down and killing him. Yes maybe smack him around alittle and detain him till police arrive.

 

I dont think he should have killed him, but I dont know what I would have done in the same situation, so, its hard to say. I think they gave him a break for all his military service and his record.

I also wonder if his training and his service record, all the action he saw in combat, if that state of mind didnt come into play. Just a thought.

 

There is probably more to the story than what we read about, but if it is as clean cut as written then he is LUCKY to only get 2 years.
I have had my garage broken into 2 times over the last 15 years.
Once it was the neighbors kids (early 20's) stole $400 worth in watersports "toys". Their mother gave them up and they had to pay me back. I don't hold a grudge and their is no way I would have killed someone over it.
The second time I had about $5,000 of equipment stolen and followed the multiple tracks out the back yard to the next street. I was upset and hoping to find something at the end of the tracks since I found them at 5 a.m., but still not worth killing over. Life is too short for that.
Another incident I did have was when a local problem teen thought no one was home and walked in my house one morning. My wife heard the noise and grabbed a knife from the kitchen. When they faced each other, he about crapped himself. Now I would have given him something to remember, but would not kill him. Obviously there are differences if you fear your life, but out of most situations, most are not in that type.

 

Its quite simple to me, The guy that broke into the house started the problem, The Marine finished it. If that guy would have never broken in he would still be with us today, but he made a choice and he died due to that choice. That Marine did not walk into his home and put a gun to his back, that Marine did not go looking to cause trouble, trouble found him. I think he should recieve an award, who knows it may scare some of the scum out there and keep them from breaking into your home, and possibly hurting your family. We need to start placing some blame on the people who start the problems, not those who rid us of the problems.


Oh and Semper Fi.