Self defense or Murder?

[Darius11 12]

I don’t know the whole story but if you are in my house or on my property and planing to rob me. I think I have the right to shoot your ass.

I saw this on the local News last night. The woman (victim’s (using term lightly) sister) was saying ahh you wouldn’t shoot a dog my brother was an addict. Sad but he was the one doing wrong not the guy who shot him.

Quote

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. (AP) - A rifleman who shot and killed an intruder on his New Bedford property has been indicted for second-degree murder.

The grand jury indicted 56-year-old Charles Chieppa, for the July 17th shooting of 26-year-old Frank Pereira Junior.

The fatal shots were fired near Chieppa's property just before dawn. Police had initially said the shooting happened when Chieppa confronted a burglar breaking into his home.

A day later, detectives acknowledged that they were investigating whether Pereira had actually entered the house before Chieppa opened fire.

Chieppa has not made any public remarks since the shooting and did not return messages from the Standard-Times of New Bedford seeking comment.

His Superior Court arraignment was set for January Tenth.

http://www.abc6.com/article.php?ID=6752

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[storm1977 0]

If the person had entered his home, then I would say self defense. If the person was on the property posing no direct threat to person or property murder is an understandable charge.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[Darius11 12]

Quote

If the person had entered his home, then I would say self defense. If the person was on the property posing no direct threat to person or property murder is an understandable charge.

I agree. Holy shit we agree.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[lawrocket 3]

Usually, there are a couple of factors for self-defense. The first is whether the person claiming self-defense had an honest belief that he was in grave and imminent danger of death or great bodily injury (subjective). The second is whether there was a reasonable belief (objective).

The facts cited don't give enough information.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

If the person had entered his home, then I would say self defense. If the person was on the property posing no direct threat to person or property murder is an understandable charge.

I agree. Holy shit we agree.

Me too.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Me too.

ditto

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think I have the right to shoot your ass.

Well they say to shoot for center of mass. So give me another couple of decades, I'll try to eat more.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[LawnDart21 0]

Any time you fire a gun at someone, its considered lethal force. Most states (like 48) don't allow the use of lethal force unless the shooter is in: "Immediate and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm (defined loosely as a crippling injury). Some one in your home doesn't automatically mean you have right to shoot them based on how most state laws read. There is also "disparity of force". If you are attacked by someone holding a sharpened pencil, you are not by law allowed to shoot them, the force is not equal.
Another example: If I see someone in my house stealing my TV, and I tell them to freeze, and they turn and run, I absolutely do not have the right to fire on them. Why? Once they began to flee, I ceased to be in immediate danger of death or grave bodily harm. I would expect to be arrested and tried if I chose fire at them, whether I hit them or not.

Any legal junkies out there, I recommend "In The Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob. Excellent reading on the subject by the fields #1 expert.

Think about in this sense:
A doctor deciding to end the life support of a clinically dead person must go through an army of red tape to be allowed to do it, the family, the hospital, the hospitals insurers, etc. The government spends years and millions of dollars deciding the fate of everyone on death row. As an armed citizen you are taking immediate action in deciding to potentially end somone's life, if you are not %100 justified as it is spelled out by law, then in the end, you will mostlikely end up in jail and losing everything you ever worked for when the family of the deceased sues you for wrongful death.

To quote Spiderman: "With great power comes great responisbility." There is no greater power of a citizen than to carry and potentially use a firearm in self defense. If you are gonna potentially use it, you best be darned sure that you know every detail of your states' regulations.

--
My other ride is a RESERVE.

[mnealtx 0]

While your points are, in the most general sense, correct - state laws vary.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[LawnDart21 0]

Forgot to add, in the eyes of the law, any shot fired is considered lethal force, even if you are "aiming for a leg" to "just try and stop them". There is no grey area there. If you pull the trigger you are considered to using lethal force and will be investigated as such.

--
My other ride is a RESERVE.

[LawnDart21 0]

I absolutely agree. I can't state which states are which off hand, but most states do not allow the use of lethal force based solely on the person just breaking in and being in the house.

I know my state (NH) doesn't allow that.

--
My other ride is a RESERVE.

[jumper03 0]

Quote

While your points are, in the most general sense, correct - state laws vary.

Exactly. In NC, if they are in your house, you can shoot. I remember when I was about 10 or so, the county sheriff was friends with my grand dad and they were sittin' on the porch shooting the breeze. He told grand dad that he would help drag a trespasser in the house if they were shot on the porch or in the yard....

Jump

Scars remind us that the past is real

[mnealtx 0]

Yup... depends on the state, but juries *DO* seem to be tending more towards the "fear of gross bodily harm" justification - not a bad thing overall, in my opinion.

I know that some states also reject the "castle" doctrine, and state that you must retreat until unable to retreat any further before you can defend yourself. Maybe it should be called the "cornered rat" doctrine - because there's no where else to go?

*shakes head* Kind of makes it hard for the old, infirm or handicapped, though.... clicky

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Nightingale 0]

it depends.

We don't have all the facts. We don't even know for sure if the guy was inside or outside the man's property, and what exactly he was doing there.

If he was inside and didn't belong, it seems like self defense might be a viable defense.

If he was outside and actively trying to break in, self defense might be a viable defense.

However, if he was outside and not doing anything to indicate he was trying to get in, that's another story.

[bisqit999 0]

From the article it sounds like he was outside. Not really enopugh facts though. In any case it didn't sound like he was in grave danger. Guilty....then again...everyone is guilty in my book (keeps me out of jury duty)

[AggieDave 6]

Man I like living in Texas. This wouldn't even be an issue in Texas. You're in someone's house, they can shoot you and it's 100% legal since Texas law allows you to protect your life AND property.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Usually, there are a couple of factors for self-defense. The first is whether the person claiming self-defense had an honest belief that he was in grave and imminent danger of death or great bodily injury (subjective). The second is whether there was a reasonable belief (objective).

The facts cited don't give enough information.

Most of the replies here are the John Wayne variety and not be viable in court. This reply is the way it is in most states - sorry shoot 'em up variety.

Translation: if someone is running out the back door of your house with your tv, you can try to separate the tv from him, but not by bullet.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Translation: if someone is running out the back door of your house with your tv, you can try to separate the tv from him, but not by bullet.

Although I'd personally let the TV go and claim it on my insurance...it would be perfectly legal in TX to shoot.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Translation: if someone is running out the back door of your house with your tv, you can try to separate the tv from him, but not by bullet.

Although I'd personally let the TV go and claim it on my insurance...it would be perfectly legal in TX to shoot.

And here, it's the opposite. You can shoot in self defense of serious injury or death. But you can't refuse to comply with a robbers demands if possible, including handing over your property. If you do and that forces the need for deadly force, you could be facing some trouble. It's a little ambiguous and usually up to the politics of the local DA's and judges.

[flyangel2 2]

I've thought this through being a single mother and not having a "male" around.

Yes, I have protection in my house, ready to go if some one were to enter, if that person was just outside the door way, and I feared for my life or my boys' life, I'd shot their ass and drag them into the house.

May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Translation: if someone is running out the back door of your house with your tv, you can try to separate the tv from him, but not by bullet.

Although I'd personally let the TV go and claim it on my insurance...it would be perfectly legal in TX to shoot.

I know Texas laws allow for more lattitude, but I bet there are borderline cases and that margin is shrinking. It's a national trend away from, "shoot now / ask later." I don't know much about Texas law. The bad thing with the kind of logic to which we refer is that it allows for mistakes. For example, if a friend or a relative are rummaging around in your house and you mistake them for an intruder, the knee-jerk reaction is to shoot first. There are many stories about wives, brothers and kids being killed because of the ,"shoot first" menatlity.

[AggieDave 6]

Texas law allows you to defend yourself, your family AND your property. That's what that comes from.

Shooting first and asking questions later is an untrained very dangerous person. That is why you first identify what you are possibly shooting, then make your decision. Very easy to build that muscle memory while using a tactical light (or even a smaller Maglight with a push switch) to have that skillset in place when needed.

Aquire, identify, slack, squeeze, evaluate threat (reidentifying current threat level after firing, i.e. is the threat neutralized or not).

All of that takes a second or less with a bit of practice.

Quote

There are many stories about wives, brothers and kids being killed because of the ,"shoot first" menatlity.

Yup. See above statements.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Texas law allows you to defend yourself, your family AND your property. That's what that comes from.

Shooting first and asking questions later is an untrained very dangerous person. That is why you first identify what you are possibly shooting, then make your decision. Very easy to build that muscle memory while using a tactical light (or even a smaller Maglight with a push switch) to have that skillset in place when needed.

Aquire, identify, slack, squeeze, evaluate threat (reidentifying current threat level after firing, i.e. is the threat neutralized or not).

All of that takes a second or less with a bit of practice.

Quote

There are many stories about wives, brothers and kids being killed because of the ,"shoot first" menatlity.

Yup. See above statements.

Texas law allows you to defend yourself, your family AND your property. That's what that comes from.

Ya, but that's vague. If I did research I bet I would find that the notion of shooting anyone on your property w/o questioning them has gone a bit to the wayside. I know in previous years that that was the rule, but would be willing to bet that prosecutorial/judicial descretion resides more on the side of caution than it used to.

Remember the car repo guy that was shot and killed by the homeowner as the repo guy was legally repoing a car? The homeowner wasn't charged to my knowledge, but I bet he would be now under identical particulars. My speculation, but I bet it would be diferent.

[slug 1]

Anyone remember the story about the japanese exchange student that knocked on the wrong door looking for a holloween party. Twice

The first time the wife answered the door and told the youth to go away the second time the husband answered the door with his shooter.

The homeowners were in "fear of their lives" told the japanese youth to "freeze" and when he failed to comply shot him on the front porch with a very large handgun.

Forgot the state but if i remember the homeowners were not charged with murder or anything.

R.I.P.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Anyone remember the story about the japanese exchange student that knocked on the wrong door looking for a holloween party. Twice

The first time the wife answered the door and told the youth to go away the second time the husband answered the door with his shooter.

The homeowners were in "fear of their lives" told the japanese youth to "freeze" and when he failed to comply shot him on the front porch with a very large handgun.

Forgot the state but if i remember the homeowners were not charged with murder or anything.

R.I.P.

Great example - I do recall that one. I'm 50% sure it was Texas, but I could be wrong. Either way, this thread isn't about bashing Texas' laws and prosecution, just the shortcommings of judicial systems that allow this kind of murder in the name of self-defense.