A Gunman In Your House: What Rights Do You Have?

(NC)
Posted: 4:34 PM Jul 28, 2009
Last Updated: 4:34 PM Jul 28, 2009
Reporter: Dave Marcheskie


–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

A Gunman In Your House: What Rights Do You Have?



–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Spencer Cockrell says he expected to die the night of June 1, 2009. Cockrell and his wife, Sheila, own a cash checking business in Rocky Mount. That's why authorities think three men targeted the Cockrell's home that night, demanding money.

The kidnappers stripped Cockrell of his clothes and bound his hands and feet with apron strings. He says being tied up is the most helpless feeling in the world. But Spencer's helplessness turned to empowerment. Cockrell wiggled free and negotiated with the robbers giving them the keys to the store and the codes to the company safe. The robbers discussed the couple's fate and decided to kill them.

In efforts to save their lives, the Cockrells talked the robber into cutting the phone lines from outside, so Spencer and Sheila couldn't call the cops. That's when Spencer says he had a chance to run back inside and grab his gun.

Cockrell says the robber became angry and shot at him, Cockrell says he fired back, in self-defense, ultimately hitting Jesus Pryor, according to Nash County deputies.

Two days later, authorities arrested Justin Shaw and Aarion Dickens.

Both Sheila and Spencer strongly believe, without the use of a gun, they would be dead. But, in the state of North Carolina, do you have that right as a homeowner?

Pitt County District Attorney, Clark Everett says yes.

"You have the same right anywhere. If you feel that deadly force is necessary to protect yourself, or a family member, or a third party from death or serious physical injury, then you have the right to use deadly force, or force with a weapon."

Now Cockrell says since the robbery, he will always keep a gun nearby.

http://www.witn.com/watercooler/headlines/51782722.html

Good shoot.... bad tactics. Keep the firearm on your person. If they followed the standard liberal anti-gun though belief of give the criminal what they want.... it would have lead the victims to their deaths.

Criminals are blood thirsty animals. Kill them with all lethal force necessary.

Shame in Australia the laws are pathetic. If somebody breaks into your house your not allowed to hit them or even TOUCH them, let alone shoot them with a f**king gun.

lol I'm staying out of this one.

Originally Posted by Zastava-Arms

Shame in Australia the laws are pathetic. If somebody breaks into your house your not allowed to hit them or even TOUCH them, let alone shoot them with a f**king gun.

...I don't understand how this is possible.

If someone breaks into your house and threatens your life or the life of others in the house you aren't able to protect yourself?

****, this is a scary world we are living in.

Originally Posted by Zastava-Arms

Shame in Australia the laws are pathetic. If somebody breaks into your house your not allowed to hit them or even TOUCH them, let alone shoot them with a f**king gun.

So why didn't this man get charged with any sort of crime?

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/stor...2-2761,00.html

Fortunatly I live in Fla. Fla originated the Castle Doctrine. Your home is your castle, & castles are made to be defended. It has spread to other States. On the other hand, some of the N.E. States require the homeowner to flee, on the silly notion that your property is less important than the criminal's life.

That's one thing I'll always agree with the pro-gunners on... Anyone trying to harm me or my family or anyone close to me is going to suffer the consequences, and anyone trying to cause destruction to my property or steal my property is going to suffer the consequences. I'm a very tolerant guy, but when you try to bite me, I'll bite back just as hard if not harder.

Originally Posted by pixiedustboo

...I don't understand how this is possible.

If someone breaks into your house and threatens your life or the life of others in the house you aren't able to protect yourself?

****, this is a scary world we are living in.

In general it is possible because risk assessment says that the half dozen home invasions a year nation wide are not enough to justify handing out firearms in cornflakes boxes or generating the hysteria that the pro-gun lobby would like people to adopt to meet its own ends.

The funny thing is that in New Zealand I am not allowed to shoot an intruder (I will more than likely be arrested for "assault with a deadly weapon", tried and then found not guilty by a jury) but I am allowed to fire a weapon to "scare off" an intruder and should one of those rounds hit the intruder well as long as I was:
A) In fear of my life.
B) Not aiming at the intruder but firing above his head (you know how inaccurate firearms can be).
C) Following all the rules of firearm storage prior to the incident.

Chances are I will not be charged with anything.

People look at these incidents and say that in reality the chances of them or family being caught up in a home invasion are next to nil yet they should have a firearm just in case, yet these same people get on an commercial flight without a parachute because the chances of a plane crash are also next to nil.
This alone tells you that risk has nothing to do with the argument.

An excellent point Monty, but one could argue that in the United States, home invasions are more likely to occur.

Really?
What do you believe your chances are of being involved in one?
How many of your friends have been involved in them or even their friends?

I am sure that if we radiate out far enough we can find an instance or two but what does that equate to 1 in 10, 10 in 100, 1 in 1000, 1 in 100000 at what point do you start wondering exactly why you need a gun for home defence?

I have absolutely nothing against firearms I just wish people would be honest about why they want them rather than perpetuating the hysteria that the pro-gun lobby wants.
When I buy a weapon it is for my enjoyment, hunting, the interest of collecting a rare item but I have never purchased a weapon out of fear and that included the time I spent in the USA because the simple reality is that outside shear bad luck or a complete lapse in intelligence there was no viable threat that required a firearm.

There is a good reason you don't wear a parachute on an airliner, cars do not require roll cages on the roads and the average joe schmoe does not need firearm for protection against home invasion and that reason is simple the threat posed in each of these cases is not high enough to warrant one and when you do start encouraging these changes you pose more risk to the public from idiots thinking it funny to crack a plane door at 30000 feet and jump, roll a car on the interstate or take a shot at the noisey neighbour than you protect from the law.