>>Unfortunately the criminals seem to have more rights than the victims. Take for instance a more realistic scenario...a robber breaks into a home and wakes up a family. He runs out of the house and across the yard and the husband shoots him.

>>

>>The husband was protecting his family, right? Wrong! The robbers family sues and WINS because the husband used lethal means when his family was in no immediate danger. Had he shot him when he was in the house coming after him, it would have been legal. But killing someone running away from you is considered illegal.



well, yeah.



is it unreasonable that if someone is robbing us, we can shoot them to stop them, but once they've robbed us, we're NOT allowed to chase them down and kill them?



If I cut someone off in traffic--intentionally OR accidentally--the other driver could interpret that as threatening his/her family: should they be allowed to track me down and shoot me? I don't think so. The law sounds pretty well devised, in my opinion: the intruder's coming after you, you can shoot and kill; he's running away from your house, you can't. We had a radio talk show host here a couple years ago boast that if he ever caught someone who had broken into his house, he'd hold them at gunpoint, make them beg a while before blowing them away. The "heat of the moment" could be as intense for the homeowner with the guy cowering in the living room, as with him running away. I understand the emotional impulse. But i also see the appropriateness of the law.

[ Show Entire Thread ]