Here is what not to do or say if you shoot a burglar...geeez !

[dave1949]

Ridiculous. Unless your defending yourself, your going to have an attorney.

NO attorney is going to let you tell a jury anything like that.

But maybe your attorney can't stop someone from testifying to the jury that you said that--isn't that the issue?

[ray66v]

Take it easy... it's not like that. The "shoot to kill" vs. "shoot to stop the threat" distinction is entirely about the story you tell after the fact. In order for the homicide to be justifiable, you must lack mens rea--the guilty mind. In other words, you cannot have bad intent in your action. If you intend to kill the person, that's bad intent. If you intend to stop the threat, that's fine. So when people say, "shoot to stop the threat," they just mean not to say to cops after the fact that you intended to kill the guy because it will complicate your defense.

On the other hand, when people say, "shoot to kill, not to wound," that is exactly what they mean. You shoot to stop the threat, and the way to stop the threat is to apply lethal force. Practically speaking, the attacker sometimes ends up dead, but your intent was not to kill them, but to stop the threat. See?

Okay. But, you don't need to use semantics here, this is a hypothetical situation.

You can say what you mean here, and let the lawyers sort out what to say in real life.

[joshuabardwell]

I remember there was quite a hullabaloo over this case...especially since Briney lost most of his farm There's a lot of us who have no sympathy for criminals whatsoever. I don't...if they are injured or die during a crime, tough ****!

Roy, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I just can't say that it's justified to kill someone for the crime of trespassing in an abandoned property, or even property theft.

[haroldy]

maybee there was no breakin at all,,and this guy gets his kiks by killing people

[greasemonkeyok]

As far as LEO's being trained to "shoot to kill"...I seriously doubt that is factual.

Is that based on your personal experience with CLEET certification, or just an uninformed statement of the world according to Roy?

[greasemonkeyok]

I just can't say that it's justified to kill someone for the crime of trespassing in an abandoned property, or even property theft.

It isn't, plain and simple. In fact it is revenge, or a form of vigilantism, which is unlawful conduct.

[/pine]

I tend to think I would fire a warning shot first...(through the liver that is... )

[creekbend]

This should be interesting to some of you. If you have to shoot someone... [Archive] - Real Police: Law Enforcement,Police Officer,Criminal Justice,Background Checks website...

[EE_Bota]

I think it's a real stretch to suggest that castle doctrine would have applied in Katko. My understanding of what you're referring to is that the law(s) say that you can't be sued in civil court if the shooting is found to be justified in the criminal system. In other words, if the DA doesn't prosecute, or if you are found not guilty, the other guy can't try to get a second bite at the apple in civil court. In the case of Katko, the shooting itself was not legal, and, IMO, never should have been.

NC law works the way you are saying. (NC folks should verify...)

In the case of a spring gun, that is a great way to kill a child. Or a deputy could have chased a suspect to that house, and entered to apprehend. It is just a BAD idea to have methods of death and injury spread about since they have no ability to discriminate.

[RoyJackson]

Is that based on your personal experience with CLEET certification, or just an uninformed statement of the world according to Roy?

Just my opinion...if it got out that LEOs were trained to "shoot to kill", there could be all kinds of civil liabilities issues.