A suspect ends up losing some fingers during a home invasion in east Tulsa.
.....
Do not confuse criminal culpability with civil liability. Shoot at something for whatever reason without being sure of your backstop and you may learn that the hard way.If anyone should be charged with the rounds going into the house across the street it's the burglars. Their illegal actions resulted in those missed shots.
Quote:
a castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is an american legal doctrine claimed by advocates to arise from english common law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the castle doctrine.
Castle doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the us have a castle doctrine. The term "make my day law" comes from the landmark 1985 colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[2] the law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by clint eastwood's character harry callahan in the 1983 film sudden impact, "go ahead, make my day."
Quote:
conditions of use
in general, one of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the castle doctrine:
-an intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
-the intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. The castle doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
-the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
-the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
-the occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
in all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the castle doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.
Quote:
duty-to-retreat
"castle laws" remove the duty to retreat from an illegal intruder when one is lawfully in one's home.
Quote:
stand-your-ground
other states expressly relieve the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called "stand your ground", "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" clauses, and state exactly that the defender has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which they have a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant.
Correct.I am pretty sure if one of the stray rounds fired by the homeowner accidentally killed someone in the neighbor's home past the get-away vehicle, Lewis would have also have been charged with murder. Most states adhere to this since their was a robbery(armed robbery at that) in progress which subsequently resulted in the death of another person.
Yes, but it does not absolve the shooter of any liability that he may have. And which one do you think has more money?This would also make lewis liable in a civil suit.
Think again! If it is authoritatively decided that the homeowner's actions were in fact justified underthe law, he is given protection against civil liability from any claims filed by the person against whom deadly force was lawfully used.The "make my day" law protects the homeowner from a civil suit from the neighbor.
For criminal liability, 100%, in every state, unless the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter's actions were criminally negligent (say, perhaps in shooting a fusilade of bullets from two unaimed guns in the general direction of the attacker).The gangster is 100% responsible for any stray rounds or resulting casualties.
Fortunately, what has changed in many states is that the ability of the criminal attacker to collect in civil court has been reduced significantly.
OldMarksman said:]If it is authoritatively decided that the homeowner's actions were in fact justified underthe law, he is given protection against civil liability from any claims filed by the person against whom deadly force was lawfully used.
Nothing in the law prevents you or me from suing someone whose bullets hit us when we are not attacking him--nor should it.
For criminal liability......., From the civil stanspoint....
It burns me up when I see gun owners chastising a guy who is doing nothing more than defendinging himself from being killed on his own property.
If I successfully defend my life but later found out I took someone else's life with a stray bullet, I'm not sure what I would do,,,
Not the lawyers, not the government bureaucrats, not some judge's, not politicians, and certainly not "politically-correct" folks. I believe that we, as gunowners and supporters of the 2nd Amendment, owe it to ourselves and to all gun owners to make sure that AT HE VERY LEAST we place the blame squarely on the bad guy. It burns me up when I see gun owners chastising a guy who is doing nothing more than defendinging himself from being killed on his own property.