Plumbnut said:
Tom Servo,
You do not understand how the law works in Alabama....
And you do not understand how the law works at all. Where did you go to law school? How long have you been a member of the Alabama Bar? How long have you practiced law?
Your fatuous opinions are based on third hand information, marginally reliable sources such as news reports which by their nature provide only limited information and often omit legally significant detail, wishful thinking and misunderstanding. There is no reason anyone should pay attention to them. I certainly don't.
Let's understand the basic reality of the use of force in self defense.
- Our society takes a dim view of the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the use of lethal force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.
- However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.
- Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened.
- If you have thus used violence against another person, your actions will be investigated as a crime, because on the surface that's what it is.
- Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.
- If the evidence is not clear, you may well be arrested and perhaps even charged with a criminal offense. If that happens you will need to affirmatively assert that you were defending yourself and put forth evidence that you at least prima facie satisfied the applicable standard justifying your act of violence.
- Of course, if your use of force against another human took place in your home, as you postulate, your justification for your use of violence could be more readily apparent or easier to establish -- maybe.
- Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?
- In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.
- It could however be another matter to establish your justification if you have to use force against someone you invited into your home in a social context which later turns violent.
Good, general overviews of the topic can be found at
UseofForce.us and in
this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.
Sometimes a defensive use of lethal force will have grave consequences for the defender, even when ultimately exonerated. For example --
This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.
Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.
Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.
Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.
Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately
acquitted.
Some good folks in clear jeopardy and with no way to preserve their lives except by the use of lethal force against other humans. Yet that happened under circumstances in which their justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.
And note also that two of those cases arose in States with a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law in effect at the time.
Plumbnut said:
...I have family to provide for...
Which you won't be able to do from prison.
I'm with you on that. It looks like it went to Utah, Washington, and maybe even Tennessee before getting to and then moving on from Texas.