Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Seth]

Faku

If you find a problem with data, or rational thinking, in my posts, I am happy to hear from you.
When your comments, like that in the previous post, tell me nothing, then you are posting crap.

Coming from you, that's a laugh. Of course then again it takes one to know one.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Of course then again it takes one to know one.

You'd be the one to know.

[orpheus]

Of course then again it takes one to know one.

You'd be the one to know.

Now now, fightin's out of style. And fun's where the fair is!

[Seth]

And again...

Crime
Homeowner Scuffles With, Shoots and Kills Home Intruder on Easter Morning
Apr. 1, 2013 8:04pm Billy Hallowell

38
159
4
0
0

Two intruders were in for a surprise on Sunday morning when they broke into Lee Heng’s apartment. Rather than cowering, the 63-year-old homeowner scuffled with, then shot at the two alleged robbers at his Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, home. One of the suspects subsequently died.

Philadelphia News, Weather and Sports from WTXF FOX 29

The Easter morning incident unfolded as Heng and his two children were sleeping. The two suspects apparently scaled the building’s wall and entered a second-story bathroom window. Here’s how NBC News recaps the incident:

Heng was sleeping when he heard his 14-year-old son screaming. Realizing his son was in danger, Heng immediately took action.

“I jumped out of the bed and I grabbed my gun,” said Heng.

Police say the armed intruders confronted Heng and a struggle ensued. During the scuffle, Heng opened fire and the men left the house through the window and onto the rear roof, according to police.

According to WTXF-TV, surveillance footage shows the surviving suspect fleeing the scene.
Homeowner Scuffles With, Shoots and Kills Home Intruder on Easter Morning

Photo Credit: ShutterStock.com

Heng said that one doesn’t have much time to process before taking action in dangerous situations like the one he found himself in this weekend.

“You don’t have time to think,” he told NBC. “They came like lightning.”

Police are looking for this second suspect, who is said to be of medium build and who was last seen wearing black. The identity of the suspect who was killed has not yet been released.

The homeowner told police that he recognized the men from the neighborhood and that they were potentially robbing the jewelry store he runs on the first floor of his house.

Heng likely won’t be charged, as the gun was used inside the home and he was protecting his family.

[Jason]

Faku

If you find a problem with data, or rational thinking, in my posts, I am happy to hear from you.
When your comments, like that in the previous post, tell me nothing, then you are posting crap.

You be a twit mon. I make it a point not to waste more words in reply to my opponent than what I estimate their intelligence quotient to be once I've determined them to be idiots.




*count the words

[Blind groper]

You be a twit mon.

Faku.

I made a reasonable comment. Responding with an insult makes, you, not me, look bad.

Seth.

Another mindless anecdote.
One day you might wake up to the fact that it takes data, not anecdotes, to make an argument.

[Kristie]

Seth.

Another mindless anecdote.
One day you might wake up to the fact that it takes data, not anecdotes, to make an argument.

I see no signs of this ever being realized by him. There is no hope, I'm afraid.

[Clinton Huxley]

Seth.

Another mindless anecdote.
One day you might wake up to the fact that it takes data, not anecdotes, to make an argument.

I see no signs of this ever being realized by him. There is no hope, I'm afraid.

Seth persists in his frail anecdotage.

[Coito ergo sum]

Does that make him an anecdottering fool?

[Clinton Huxley]

Does that make him an anecdottering fool?

If the cap (and night vision goggles etc etc) fit.

[FBM]

Does that make him an anecdottering fool?

If the cap (and night vision goggles etc etc) fit.

Infrared or ultraviolet?

[Clinton Huxley]

Does that make him an anecdottering fool?

If the cap (and night vision goggles etc etc) fit.

Infrared or ultraviolet?

Infradead and ultraviolent, ho-ho.

[Seth]

You be a twit mon.

Faku.

I made a reasonable comment. Responding with an insult makes, you, not me, look bad.

Seth.

Another mindless anecdote.
One day you might wake up to the fact that it takes data, not anecdotes, to make an argument.

You'll never wake up to realize that facts are data.

[Blind groper]

facts are data.

Yes they are. But some facts are extraordinarily misleading. If you quote a fact that is an outlier, and imply it represents the trend, then you are implying an untruth. Anecdotes are very good for implying untruths, which is why they should not be used in debate.

[Gallstones]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/192475364700 ... rine-law-/
Montana man cleared of murder by 'Castle Doctrine' law


Montana Man Cleared By Castle Doctrine Law After Shooting ...

We have another “Castle doctrine” case this week [10.2012]. The most recent case comes from Kalispell, Montana where Brice Harper, 24, gunned down Dan Fredenberg, 40, in his garage. Fredenberg (left), 40, was coming over to confront Harper (right below) about having an affair with his wife, Heather Fredenberg. Harper cut the encounter short by shooting him dead and a prosecutor has declared that the shooting cannot be prosecuted given the state’s Castle doctrine or “Make My Day” law.


On Sept. 22, Fredenberg walked into the garage to confront Harper about the alleged romantic relationship with Fredenberg’s younger wife. He was unarmed, but Harper shot Fredenberg three times. The fact that the shooting occurred in the garage rather than a few feet away on the sidewalk made all the difference. The Flathead County attorney Ed Corrigan declared that Montana’s “castle doctrine” law allowed Harper to use lethal force. He found that it was justified for Harper to run into the bedroom and retrieve his gun and return and shoot the unarmed man as self-defense: “Given his reasonable belief that he was about to be assaulted, Brice’s use of deadly force against Dan was justified.”


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Montana law reads:

45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.*
(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

History: En. 94-3-103 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 94-3-103; amd. Sec. 1644, Ch. 56, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 332, L. 2009.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As with many of these laws, Montana Castle Doctrine allows the use of force to “prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry.” Since this covers cases involving the reasonable belief that a forcible felony is being committed, it is quite broad. Indeed, Corrigan stressed that under the law “You don’t have to claim that you were afraid for your life. You just have to claim that he was in the house illegally. If you think someone’s going to punch you in the nose or engage you in a fistfight, that’s sufficient grounds to engage in lethal force.”

...
Under the common law, there was not “fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others” so long as you acted in reasonable self-defense or even “reasonable mistaken self-defense.” In the case of Courvoisier v. Raymond, 23 Colo. 113 (1896)

...
The common law has long offered ample protections even for reasonable mistakes. These laws are based on an urban legend that people are routinely prosecuted for defending their homes from intruders. The laws have produced perverse results as in the infamous case of Tom Horn in Texas. Yet, the popularity of these laws have spawned “Make My Day Better” laws that extend the privilege of lethal force to businesses and cars. Montana’s law had been invoked in workplace shootings.

*Highlight mine.


Unlike what the stupid bitch in pink said, one does not have a right to tresspass on personal property and threaten someone one suspects of being in an unwelcome relationship with one's spouse. One discusses it with the spouse and decides if that relationship is tenable and/or one that could be slavaged or if one wants to try and salvage it. The legal issue one has in such a situation is with the spouse, not with the party outside the marriage.