Amen. I totally agree with you, but the fault still presents the problem. I have a .45 under my bed. Im allowed to keep it because I have blank rounds. If anyone attempts a break in, one warning round to wake everyone up and scare the guy. then dad comes in with the Remington.

Originally Posted by deerslayer

that's the fault of the courts- you enter my house with intent to harm, let me put it this way:

If it starts out as a civil disagreement, I will use anything in reach to break the first appendage that touches me. It does not matter that I weigh fifty pounds less than you, I will bludgeon you with a tire iron if need be. Do not trifle with me when you tread upon my own property. To me, anything that can be used as protection in a violent situation falls under the second amendment. That's probably a little right wing even for this forum. I am protected by my right to self defense. This is assuming that this happens on my property.

If it's a hostile engagement, then this confrontation is fixing to go terribly wrong for you.

When the lives of their friends or family are on the line, most normal men will not care about pending legal damages at the time things go wrong. Gun control is having a good sight picture. This would, sensibly, also fall under self defense granted it was in defense of my property and life.

The problem is that anyone sues over any little thing these days, and these frivolous cases end up clogging the courts. Hell, we almost lost Tim McVeigh because of incompetency of the courts.

That is why I love Florida, our Castle Doctrine Law explains it all.

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

1: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.


2: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.


3: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.

Originally Posted by deerslayer

If it starts out as a civil disagreement, I will use anything in reach to break the first appendage that touches me. It does not matter that I weigh fifty pounds less than you, I will bludgeon you with a tire iron if need be. Do not trifle with me when you tread upon my own property. To me, anything that can be used as protection in a violent situation falls under the second amendment. That's probably a little right wing even for this forum.

Well, I'm not even close to right-wing and I'm with you 100%.

In Colorado its called the "Make My Day Law" Luis. Colorado has a lower crime rate and I'd like to think its a result of criminals thinking twice about their plans. If they enter a house they will most likely not be going to jail, but to the morgue. THAT is deterence.

And kids I don't give a good god damn about being sued. Sue me. My family will be safe and THAT is the only thing I give a damn about.

In the state of Michigan, I am not sure there is a specific law to cover this situation.

Having said that, I had a State Policeman tell me that if I ever shot an intruder ... make sure he was clearly inside the house (across the door thresh-hold), and not to shoot to wound ... instead I was to shoot to kill ... it causes much less red tape and paperwork.

The only requirement was to make a clear statement to the effect that you were responding to a clear and present danger to you and your family.

I was also told, that IF someone was on my property and was trying to steal something from me, it would NOT be a good idea to kill the thief ... it would definitely open me up to a law suit ... it wasn't even recommended to wound a thief. It's NOT a good idea. All it would do is to get YOU arrested.

Hilarious isn't it???

According to Colorado's "Make My Day" law passed in 1985 (you may recognize the line from Dirty Harry), those who defend their homes from intruders who might be a threat are protected from prosecution. Colorado courts have also ruled the law extends to front porches...

http://www.knotmag.com/?article=965

The Colorado Homeowner Protection Act

In 1985, after much public debate, the Colorado state legislature passed a law originally known as the "Homeowner Protection Act." Western panache gleefully stole an opponent's label and renamed the Act the "Make My Day" law, the name by which Colorado courts now refer to it.

Colorado statute 18-1-704.5 (emphasis added):

1. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

3. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

4. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

In plain English? If some guy breaks into your house, and you think he intends to commit a crime in addition to breaking and entering, and you think he might attack you or yours, then it's okay to kill him.


The "Make My Day" (MMD) law extends existing self-defense law in two ways:

1. It provides an actual exemption from all legal liability, not just an affirmative defense against criminal charges. Normally, the initial burden of proof is on the defender, who must present a plausible argument for self-defense, after which the burden falls upon a prosecutor to disprove the argument beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the MMD provisions, the entire burden of proof is upon the prosecutor.

Since the alleged defense occured in a home and the conditions required by the law are not stringent, a conviction is highly unlikely.

2. The force used need not be proportional to the perceived threat. Normally, you can't, say, shoot someone for simply warning you to stay out of his way; under the MMD law, any indication of a threat is sufficient cause for a lethal response.


Proponents of the law claim that it protects homeowners from having their actions in a dangerous situation second-guessed by a prosecutor; "a single woman cannot possibly hope to divine the intentions of an intruder." [2] Opponents argue that it gives citizens a license to kill without any moral justification.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=390286


Outside of the residents of the city of Boulder, Colorado is just about perfect.

Now tell me, how does my state rate y'all??

Originally Posted by Chief

I was also told, that IF someone was on my property and was trying to steal something from me, it would NOT be a good idea to kill the thief ... it would definitely open me up to a law suit ... it wasn't even recommended to wound a thief. It's NOT a good idea. All it would do is to get YOU arrested.

Aren't we losing the bigger picture out of perspective. Shooting and maybe killing an intruder in your house, who holds a knife to your loved one is one thing.
Somebody on your property, perhaps stealing something is hardly a cause to shoot him. What happens if the person is on your property and has no criminal intend. It is late and you decide to pull the trigger.... The hospitality has lessened as of late!

You're trespassing and in the states everyone knows if you tresspass you'll be lucky if they only thing you get peppered with is rock salt from a .410. My grandmother used to take off in the truck across the pasture if we saw tresspassers and would shoot at them with a 12 ga 00 buckshot. You don't want trouble then you ask permission before you come on my land. Poachers have been known to shoot to kill when approached by landowners and LEO's. In Colorado since the mid 80's Game Wardens have even carried assault rifles to be able to defend themselves.

You don't tresspass PERIOD.

What kind of backwardness is that? Suppose my rental car brakes down. Next thing is that I'll try and ask for help.... unannounced I walk onto sombody propertie and get shot at! Please tell, that this is not the standard!

Oh come on. Property is as sacred as life itself. If you enter my property I must assume you want to either kill or seriously wound me or my family. People cannot be expected to "wait and see" what the intruder's intentions are, whether to kill or steal.