August 26, 2011 · 10:29 pm

This goes back to English Common Law, but it’s never satisfactory

Property owner held liable for shooting burglar.

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

8 Responses to This goes back to English Common Law, but it’s never satisfactory

  1. Googlebug
    August 26, 2011 at 10:51 pm

    The DA and Grand Jury made the right decisions, the jury must have been made up of California refugees.

    The 4th Judicial District Attorney’s Office declined to file charges in the shooting, and instead sent the case to a grand jury, which decided against returning an indictment, effectively clearing the trio of criminal wrongdoing.

    What a sad waste of flesh and given that the dead kid was adopted you can’t place the full blame on the parents either. (disclosure: I was adopted as an infant so unclench your buttocks.) http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/gazette/obituary.aspx?n=robert-johnson-fox&pid=126568110

  2. Anonymous
    August 27, 2011 at 6:42 am

    Absolute Bullshit.

    Castle Doctrine.

  3. Libertarian Advocate
    August 27, 2011 at 7:28 am

    Anony: Read the last few lines of the linked story. Colorado’s CD applies to residences NOT businesses.

  4. towny
    August 27, 2011 at 7:33 am

    what kind of pussy shoots an un armed man?

    btw the proper ettiquette for pussy shootings is to put the body in the house, or in this case the office and plant a drop piece on it.

  5. CatoRenasci
    August 27, 2011 at 7:52 am

    The use of deadly force for ‘self-defense’ at common law was more restricted than most people realize: it did not require retreat (which is so controversial in the modern defense), but did require an unlawful aggressor (met here), an honest and reasonable belief defender was subject to imminent harm (? here), and the force used must be proportionate (probably not met here). The ‘let’s get them’ comment could be seen as depriving the defender of the defense because it suggested either a lack of fear of imminent harm, or the disproportionate use of force.

    In the common law, if it was a burglary – within the close of a dwelling and at nightime, the common law defense would probably have been available.

    Some American states now have either ‘castle doctrine’ self-defense statutes (which permit deadly force in defense of the home without any retreat requirement) , or, even more self-defense friendly (and what most people think of as self-defense from a childhood of watching oaters) ‘stand your ground’ statutes that allow the use of deadly force without requiring the attempt to retreat under any circumstances.

    Personally, I prefer “stand your ground” self-defense statutes, but then I’m a Westerner where that’s been the common public (if not legal) view of self-defense for a century and a half or more.

  6. Inagua
    August 27, 2011 at 9:50 am

    Look on the bright side — this might influence Mrs. Dominick Strauss-Kahn to pay big bucks to the maid her husband abused.

  7. second-to-last liberal standing
    August 27, 2011 at 11:53 am

    “unlawful aggressor (met here)”

    I disagree. Unlawful entry, yes. Aggressor? Zero evidence of that. These dudes were lying in wait for anybody to break in to shoot them. They shot the guy dead as he was hiding in a shed. It’s not as though vigilantism doesn’t pose a danger to the public.

    As to the propriety of money damages, they’re damn lucky they weren’t indicted and should thank their lucky stars they only owe the guy’s family money.

  8. not so anonymouse
    August 28, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    the burgler had a knife strapped to his leg… to cut the rope the horse….sorry, car… was tied up with? isn’t a knife a weapon? so wasn’t he armed…? this is nuts! They hung horse thieves.