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

5.56X45mm

Milforum Mac Daddy
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.
 
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.
 
Fortunatly I live in Fla. Fla originated the Castle Doctrine. Your home is your castle, & castles are made to be defended. :2guns: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.
 
...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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
2 friends of mine have had home invasions happen while they were home without anything bad happening, but that's not always the case. There was one girl not too far from here who got sliced up. Apparently someone thought she had drugs in her house and slit her wrists to get her to tell them where they were. This is not a bad area, it's almost rural. But there are scumbags in all parts of the world.

Legality will be the last thing on my mind if someone breaks into my house with a weapon. Survival isn't something to take even the slightest chance with, really nothing else matters by comparison.

If I had the option to take a parachute with me on the plane I'd most certainly bring one. I'm not willing to take the chance with sheer bad luck like you are, if it's at all convenient not to.

To be honest though, I'm not a fearful person. The main reason I own firearms is for fun.
 
Last edited:
I have over 700000 miles on my United Airlines card and never once felt the need for a parachute, I have lived in some of the crappiest apartments known to man in Corvallis, Portland and Phoenix for 7 years and never once felt the need for a gun even though there were murders in the area.

Which brings to something else that may be pertinent, most of the murders I recall in these regions were spouses killing each other with firearms they purchased for home security.
 
Bitter irony. I can't seem to find any EXACT statistics (save a home security system website, which I'm sure extrapolates the data a bit) on home invasion, because for the most part, it is not the crime people are charged with. But I would say that the odds of it happening in the United States are probably higher than it happening in New Zealand.
 
...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.


You dont even have to touch them to get sued.

I cant find a link, but there is a VERY popular story around. This man was having dinner with his family in Queensland one evening, and the husband decided to go the living room [Not sure why], and when he enters he sees a man in black clothes holding his LCD tv. The husband goes forward to punch the robber and misses. The robber drops the tv, runs through the hall and slips down the stairs and breaks his leg on the bottom of the stairs.

He then sued the husband, and the husband was declared guilty. Didnt even touch the robber..

@Rob, im not sure about that article, its in Perth. I live on the opposite side of Perth :pirate2:

EDIT: Also, our house got broken into on Australia day when we were down at the coast. Called the cops as usual, and we had a long talk with them. When we asked what we are alowed to do if we catch a guy robbing something from our house, he said:

"Just leave them alone mate, and just contact the police and insurance company instead."

Word for word, thats what he said.
 
There are many classic cases of the justice system not doing what's right to us common-sense folk. Like the woman who sued McDonald's and WON because her coffee was too hot and it burned her. Now McDonald's puts warnings on their coffee.... WARNING: Beverage is HOT.

(Classic case of Darwin missing his mark. ;) )

If it comes down to it, it'll be like MontyB said... You might get arrested and charged, but they'll find you not guilty.
 
In Australia, you are always allowed to defend yourself in your home if you believe you are being threatened (and every burglar is a threat) but you must meet the threat within proportionality. That is, you must use reasonably equal force against the attacker. Using and firing a legally owned rifle on an unarmed illegal intruder could get you into trouble (ironically) with the law if it can be proved the intruder was surrendering or non-threatening (but I believe he/she is threatening just by trespassing). If the intruder is threatening then no police will charge and no court would convict a home owner shooting or hiting or arresting an intruder. Using some kind of other force to restrain him/her or effecting a citizen's arrest or if he is threatening with some object then using an object on him/her in return is all OK as far as I know in Australia. So I'm not sure about the "can't even touch" a burglar breaking into your home idea. Laws in Australia do differ from state to state, but I'm fairly sure that the house owner can repel or attempt to repel or restrain an intruder with force (so long as the force is not disproportionate to the burglar's force).
 
Last edited:
thats why I have my knifes, I support blades.
good job for the man acting smart and not panicking. not many real men living these days.
 
In Australia, you are always allowed to defend yourself in your home if you believe you are being threatened (and every burglar is a threat) but you must meet the threat within proportionality. That is, you must use reasonably equal force against the attacker. Using and firing a legally owned rifle on an unarmed illegal intruder could get you into trouble (ironically) with the law if it can be proved the intruder was surrendering or non-threatening (but I believe he/she is threatening just by trespassing). If the intruder is threatening then no police will charge and no court would convict a home owner shooting or hiting or arresting an intruder. Using some kind of other force to restrain him/her or effecting a citizen's arrest or if he is threatening with some object then using an object on him/her in return is all OK as far as I know in Australia. So I'm not sure about the "can't even touch" a burglar breaking into your home idea. Laws in Australia do differ from state to state, but I'm fairly sure that the house owner can repel or attempt to repel or restrain an intruder with force (so long as the force is not disproportionate to the burglar's force).


I gave my facts on the ACT, so its probably different from Viccy and NSW
 
Bitter irony. I can't seem to find any EXACT statistics (save a home security system website, which I'm sure extrapolates the data a bit) on home invasion, because for the most part, it is not the crime people are charged with. But I would say that the odds of it happening in the United States are probably higher than it happening in New Zealand.

Home Invasion is charged as Burglary, Armed Robbery, Strong Armed Robbery or Robbery depending on the case and the facts. You won't be able to find exact stats unless you have access to charging documents.
 
Is there some kind of official guidline that serves as a reference to in what sort of situation what level of response is legally considered appropriate?
 
Back
Top