A teenager knocked on the wrong door. Now he’s dead, and the homeowner is accused of murder.

[Pogo]

Were you there?

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

The article I read (the one provided) never says if the teenagers were trying to break into the house.

That's part of the revisionista gun nut fabrication factory. The one that made him an "adult sized 17 year old" armed with lethal words. Nobody specified WHO broke the glass or for what purpose. They just made that up and plugged it in. Because Almighty Gun must be defended at all costs, even a child's life.

Might be interesting to see how many of these wags are also jumping up and down going "abortion is murder". Just sayin'.

Now again, if a person breaks into your home in MASS screaming that they are going to kill you. A reasonable person might fear for their safety, and thus shooting them would be legal.

Has anyone in this thread other than me actually read the applicable state law?

That's irrelevant here. No story says anybody "broke in", en masse or individually. Nor does any story mention "screaming" or death threats. Doesn't exist except in the GNI --- Gun Nut Imaginarium.

 

[Katzndogz]

The homeowner might should have waited until the kid actually got into the house.

 

[Pogo]

The homeowner might should have waited until the kid actually got into the house.

True. He might still be waiting today, as there's no indication that's what he was doing.

But then he does sound like the sort who sits by the door armed waiting for the mailman.

Where are all the advocates of "responsible gun ownership" here? Laying low?

 

[HUGGY]

Glass broke. I would have shot too.. Aint no drunk stranger forcing himself in my home!

what if she was attractive? Would you shoot her or just disappear her?

Seriously though, Shooting someone over STUFF is stupid. Whether legal or not.However, if they were face to face and s/he kept coming after being told to stop. Too bad.

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

the idea though is not to come into the house and present the threat. all one needs to do is present a threat. You realize that right?

Untrue. It varies state by state, but in most cases simply feeling threatened doesn't give license to commit homicide. The right to self defense does not mean "Hey I was scared someone was breaking into my house , so I legally shot them" It means you have a valid fear for your own life and limb. Or the life and safety of others.

Or do you contend that your life is in danger just by virtue of someone breaking into your home? Please tell me you aren't that cowardly.

If the "boys" broke glass their story of "just trying to find their friend" is bullshit. They are lying. Their intent was to invade someone's home. A home owner is not the police. The home owner does not have to see a weapon. All the home owner needs to do is ascertain the intent of the intruder as best he/she can. I see "breaking glass" as intending to do harm. My only real problem is that there is no report of warnings haven been given by the home owner.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

The article I read (the one provided) never says if the teenagers were trying to break into the house.

That's part of the revisionista gun nut fabrication factory. The one that made him an "adult sized 17 year old" armed with lethal words. Nobody specified WHO broke the glass or for what purpose. They just made that up and plugged it in. Because Almighty Gun must be defended at all costs, even a child's life.

Might be interesting to see how many of these wags are also jumping up and down going "abortion is murder". Just sayin'.

Now again, if a person breaks into your home in MASS screaming that they are going to kill you. A reasonable person might fear for their safety, and thus shooting them would be legal.

Has anyone in this thread other than me actually read the applicable state law?

That's irrelevant here. No story says anybody "broke in", en masse or individually. Nor does any story mention "screaming" or death threats. Doesn't exist except in the GNI --- Gun Nut Imaginarium.

It's ENTIRELY relevant here because as the law that I posted states in Mass the Castle Doctine only applies under very specific circumstances, sans all of those circumstances being met, the homeowner is guilty of murder. Simple as that.

 

[jc456]

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

the idea though is not to come into the house and present the threat. all one needs to do is present a threat. You realize that right?

Untrue. It varies state by state, but in most cases simply feeling threatened doesn't give license to commit homicide. The right to self defense does not mean "Hey I was scared someone was breaking into my house , so I legally shot them" It means you have a valid fear for your own life and limb. Or the life and safety of others.

Or do you contend that your life is in danger just by virtue of someone breaking into your home? Please tell me you aren't that cowardly.

and yes, my house is my house. you merely try and break in gives me all the right to blow your head off. You should probably go read the stand my ground laws better.

LOL you don't even understand which laws apply. Castle Doctrine applies here, not stand your ground.


Here's the Mass law

s a general rule in Massachusetts, the right to use force in defense of oneself or another arises only in circumstances where the person using self-defense avails himself of all proper means to avoid physical combat. However, G.L. c. 278, § 8A represents an exception to this rule. The law provides a defense to the occupant of a dwelling house who is charged with causing injury or death to an intruder. In order to qualify for this affirmative defense, the person charged with injuring or killing the intruder must provide the following three things (1) that he or she reasonably believed that the intruder was unlawfully entering the dwelling, (2) that he or she reasonably believed that the intruder was about to inflict death or serious bodily injury upon the defendant or someone else who is lawfully in the dwelling, and (3) the defendant acted with reasonable means of self-defense or defense of another person who was lawfully present.


So the question is "Would a reasonable person have believed the teenager in question was about to inflict death or serious bodily injury on someone legally living in the house"

My opinion is no. Was the girl screaming "im going to kill you" or anything like that? Did the teenager have a weapon that the homeowner saw?

See, you idiots are stupid, you don't even know the law, in MASS specificially you can't just shoot someone who breaks into your house. They must also present a reasonable danger. Simply breaking into the house isn't presenting a reasonable danger.

The “Castle” Law in Massachusetts

And in fact stupid, Massachusetts has a duty to retreat law, in COMPLETE contrast to a stand your ground law.

States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw

Educate yourself. I mean my God, you have the internet right there at your fingertips.

well I found this version of the castle doctrine from a law office:

The Castle Law In Massachusetts, A Valid Defense To Murder

"Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 278 §8A provides a defense to someone who is being prosecuted for Murder in Massachusetts. The law states that it is a recognized defense for anyone who is the occupant of a dwelling and is charged with killing someone who was not lawfully in the home so long as he acted with the reasonable belief that this person was about to inflict death or great bodily injury on him or on someone else who was lawfully in the home. This law does not require a duty to retreat. Even though this is a defense to the most serious crime in Massachusetts there are some extreme limitations to its use. The Castle Law takes root in English Common Law where a belief was held that “one’s home is one’s castle”. Some states apply the doctrine to places outside of the dwelling. For instance one’s car or workplace are in some states considered sacred ground making available the defense."

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The homeowner might should have waited until the kid actually got into the house.

True. He might still be waiting today, as there's no indication that's what he was doing.

But then he does sound like the sort who sits by the door armed waiting for the mailman.

Where are all the advocates of "responsible gun ownership" here? Laying low?

Actually, the Castle Doctrine applies on your property OUTSIDE your home, as well as inside. In fact , if someone were out on your porch threatening to kill you and you walked outside and confronted them and then they attacked you, and you shot and killed them, that would be legal.

Once again, you people need to educate yourselves.

 

[Pogo]

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

The article I read (the one provided) never says if the teenagers were trying to break into the house.

That's part of the revisionista gun nut fabrication factory. The one that made him an "adult sized 17 year old" armed with lethal words. Nobody specified WHO broke the glass or for what purpose. They just made that up and plugged it in. Because Almighty Gun must be defended at all costs, even a child's life.

Might be interesting to see how many of these wags are also jumping up and down going "abortion is murder". Just sayin'.

Now again, if a person breaks into your home in MASS screaming that they are going to kill you. A reasonable person might fear for their safety, and thus shooting them would be legal.

Has anyone in this thread other than me actually read the applicable state law?

That's irrelevant here. No story says anybody "broke in", en masse or individually. Nor does any story mention "screaming" or death threats. Doesn't exist except in the GNI --- Gun Nut Imaginarium.

It's ENTIRELY relevant here because as the law that I posted states in Mass the Castle Doctine only applies under very specific circumstances, sans all of those circumstances being met, the homeowner is guilty of murder. Simple as that.

--- and since none of those circumstances appear to be present .......... it's not relevant. Which is what I just said.

 

[Pogo]

The homeowner might should have waited until the kid actually got into the house.

True. He might still be waiting today, as there's no indication that's what he was doing.

But then he does sound like the sort who sits by the door armed waiting for the mailman.

Where are all the advocates of "responsible gun ownership" here? Laying low?

Actually, the Castle Doctrine applies on your property OUTSIDE your home, as well as inside. In fact , if someone were out on your porch threatening to kill you and you walked outside and confronted them and then they attacked you, and you shot and killed them, that would be legal.

Once again, you people need to educate yourselves.

Once again, you need to read the story before you put your foot in your mouth. Nowhere is any indication of a "threat", let alone a "death threat".

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

the idea though is not to come into the house and present the threat. all one needs to do is present a threat. You realize that right?

Untrue. It varies state by state, but in most cases simply feeling threatened doesn't give license to commit homicide. The right to self defense does not mean "Hey I was scared someone was breaking into my house , so I legally shot them" It means you have a valid fear for your own life and limb. Or the life and safety of others.

Or do you contend that your life is in danger just by virtue of someone breaking into your home? Please tell me you aren't that cowardly.

and yes, my house is my house. you merely try and break in gives me all the right to blow your head off. You should probably go read the stand my ground laws better.

LOL you don't even understand which laws apply. Castle Doctrine applies here, not stand your ground.


Here's the Mass law

s a general rule in Massachusetts, the right to use force in defense of oneself or another arises only in circumstances where the person using self-defense avails himself of all proper means to avoid physical combat. However, G.L. c. 278, § 8A represents an exception to this rule. The law provides a defense to the occupant of a dwelling house who is charged with causing injury or death to an intruder. In order to qualify for this affirmative defense, the person charged with injuring or killing the intruder must provide the following three things (1) that he or she reasonably believed that the intruder was unlawfully entering the dwelling, (2) that he or she reasonably believed that the intruder was about to inflict death or serious bodily injury upon the defendant or someone else who is lawfully in the dwelling, and (3) the defendant acted with reasonable means of self-defense or defense of another person who was lawfully present.


So the question is "Would a reasonable person have believed the teenager in question was about to inflict death or serious bodily injury on someone legally living in the house"

My opinion is no. Was the girl screaming "im going to kill you" or anything like that? Did the teenager have a weapon that the homeowner saw?

See, you idiots are stupid, you don't even know the law, in MASS specificially you can't just shoot someone who breaks into your house. They must also present a reasonable danger. Simply breaking into the house isn't presenting a reasonable danger.

The “Castle” Law in Massachusetts

And in fact stupid, Massachusetts has a duty to retreat law, in COMPLETE contrast to a stand your ground law.

States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw

Educate yourself. I mean my God, you have the internet right there at your fingertips.

well I found this version of the castle doctrine from a law office:

The Castle Law In Massachusetts, A Valid Defense To Murder

"Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 278 §8A provides a defense to someone who is being prosecuted for Murder in Massachusetts. The law states that it is a recognized defense for anyone who is the occupant of a dwelling and is charged with killing someone who was not lawfully in the home so long as he acted with the reasonable belief that this person was about to inflict death or great bodily injury on him or on someone else who was lawfully in the home. This law does not require a duty to retreat. Even though this is a defense to the most serious crime in Massachusetts there are some extreme limitations to its use. The Castle Law takes root in English Common Law where a belief was held that “one’s home is one’s castle”. Some states apply the doctrine to places outside of the dwelling. For instance one’s car or workplace are in some states considered sacred ground making available the defense."

Correct, the Castle Doctrine over rides the Duty to retreat laws, on your own property. As I posted above. You can actually walk out on your porch and confront a person who is on your property and if they attack you and you kill them, that is legal.

 

[jc456]

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

The article I read (the one provided) never says if the teenagers were trying to break into the house.

That's part of the revisionista gun nut fabrication factory. The one that made him an "adult sized 17 year old" armed with lethal words. Nobody specified WHO broke the glass or for what purpose. They just made that up and plugged it in. Because Almighty Gun must be defended at all costs, even a child's life.

Might be interesting to see how many of these wags are also jumping up and down going "abortion is murder". Just sayin'.

Now again, if a person breaks into your home in MASS screaming that they are going to kill you. A reasonable person might fear for their safety, and thus shooting them would be legal.

Has anyone in this thread other than me actually read the applicable state law?

That's irrelevant here. No story says anybody "broke in", en masse or individually. Nor does any story mention "screaming" or death threats. Doesn't exist except in the GNI --- Gun Nut Imaginarium.

It's ENTIRELY relevant here because as the law that I posted states in Mass the Castle Doctine only applies under very specific circumstances, sans all of those circumstances being met, the homeowner is guilty of murder. Simple as that.

I'm not sure about that version you posted. isn't there a retreat requirement in your version? I found a version that didn't require it, I just posted it.

And it includes oneself as protecting your property. Again, it comes down to the window break thingy.

 

[jc456]

the idea though is not to come into the house and present the threat. all one needs to do is present a threat. You realize that right?

Untrue. It varies state by state, but in most cases simply feeling threatened doesn't give license to commit homicide. The right to self defense does not mean "Hey I was scared someone was breaking into my house , so I legally shot them" It means you have a valid fear for your own life and limb. Or the life and safety of others.

Or do you contend that your life is in danger just by virtue of someone breaking into your home? Please tell me you aren't that cowardly.

and yes, my house is my house. you merely try and break in gives me all the right to blow your head off. You should probably go read the stand my ground laws better.

LOL you don't even understand which laws apply. Castle Doctrine applies here, not stand your ground.


Here's the Mass law

s a general rule in Massachusetts, the right to use force in defense of oneself or another arises only in circumstances where the person using self-defense avails himself of all proper means to avoid physical combat. However, G.L. c. 278, § 8A represents an exception to this rule. The law provides a defense to the occupant of a dwelling house who is charged with causing injury or death to an intruder. In order to qualify for this affirmative defense, the person charged with injuring or killing the intruder must provide the following three things (1) that he or she reasonably believed that the intruder was unlawfully entering the dwelling, (2) that he or she reasonably believed that the intruder was about to inflict death or serious bodily injury upon the defendant or someone else who is lawfully in the dwelling, and (3) the defendant acted with reasonable means of self-defense or defense of another person who was lawfully present.


So the question is "Would a reasonable person have believed the teenager in question was about to inflict death or serious bodily injury on someone legally living in the house"

My opinion is no. Was the girl screaming "im going to kill you" or anything like that? Did the teenager have a weapon that the homeowner saw?

See, you idiots are stupid, you don't even know the law, in MASS specificially you can't just shoot someone who breaks into your house. They must also present a reasonable danger. Simply breaking into the house isn't presenting a reasonable danger.

The “Castle” Law in Massachusetts

And in fact stupid, Massachusetts has a duty to retreat law, in COMPLETE contrast to a stand your ground law.

States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw

Educate yourself. I mean my God, you have the internet right there at your fingertips.

well I found this version of the castle doctrine from a law office:

The Castle Law In Massachusetts, A Valid Defense To Murder

"Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 278 §8A provides a defense to someone who is being prosecuted for Murder in Massachusetts. The law states that it is a recognized defense for anyone who is the occupant of a dwelling and is charged with killing someone who was not lawfully in the home so long as he acted with the reasonable belief that this person was about to inflict death or great bodily injury on him or on someone else who was lawfully in the home. This law does not require a duty to retreat. Even though this is a defense to the most serious crime in Massachusetts there are some extreme limitations to its use. The Castle Law takes root in English Common Law where a belief was held that “one’s home is one’s castle”. Some states apply the doctrine to places outside of the dwelling. For instance one’s car or workplace are in some states considered sacred ground making available the defense."

Correct, the Castle Doctrine over rides the Duty to retreat laws, on your own property. As I posted above. You can actually walk out on your porch and confront a person who is on your property and if they attack you and you kill them, that is legal.

which is this scenario if the window was broken by the kids. fits it like a glove.

 

[Pogo]

what if she was attractive? Would you shoot her or just disappear her?

Seriously though, Shooting someone over STUFF is stupid. Whether legal or not.However, if they were face to face and s/he kept coming after being told to stop. Too bad.

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

the idea though is not to come into the house and present the threat. all one needs to do is present a threat. You realize that right?

Untrue. It varies state by state, but in most cases simply feeling threatened doesn't give license to commit homicide. The right to self defense does not mean "Hey I was scared someone was breaking into my house , so I legally shot them" It means you have a valid fear for your own life and limb. Or the life and safety of others.

Or do you contend that your life is in danger just by virtue of someone breaking into your home? Please tell me you aren't that cowardly.

If the "boys" broke glass their story of "just trying to find their friend" is bullshit. They are lying. Their intent was to invade someone's home. A home owner is not the police. The home owner does not have to see a weapon. All the home owner needs to do is ascertain the intent of the intruder as best he/she can. I see "breaking glass" as intending to do harm. My only real problem is that there is no report of warnings haven been given by the home owner.

"When a glass broke..." is completely passive voice. It doesn't give any indication of WHO or WHAT broke the glass, whether it was intentional or accidental, or if the former what the intent would have been. So no, you can't conclude that.

But if you think you're psychic and can read minds, what number am I thinking right now?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The homeowner might should have waited until the kid actually got into the house.

True. He might still be waiting today, as there's no indication that's what he was doing.

But then he does sound like the sort who sits by the door armed waiting for the mailman.

Where are all the advocates of "responsible gun ownership" here? Laying low?

Actually, the Castle Doctrine applies on your property OUTSIDE your home, as well as inside. In fact , if someone were out on your porch threatening to kill you and you walked outside and confronted them and then they attacked you, and you shot and killed them, that would be legal.

Once again, you people need to educate yourselves.

Once again, you need to read the story before you put your foot in your mouth. Nowhere is any indication of a "threat", let alone a "death threat".

You dumb ****, at NO point did I say there was. In fact quite the opposite I posted that in this case we just don't know enough to know what happened, but have been talking in generalities about what the Mass law does and does not allow. You are just an ignorant **** who can't understand simple English, that's why you first misread what Don't Taze Me Bro wrote, and now you misread what I have wrote in this thread.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life.

 

[Pogo]

AGAIN --- I don't have the power to "convict", unless I'm on the jury, which hasn't been picked yet. I said "arraigned", which is factual. You're still trying to deflect off to unworkable semantics to avoid the point of the pattern. Even after being called on it.

You absolutey have the power to convict him in your mind, which is obviously what Don't Taze ME Bro was referring to. You just apparently either can't read, or are dishonest.

Link?
Quote?

Anything?

He's picking out side details as a deflection in order to distract from my point, which is the pattern of all these incidents. Which I listed after he denied there is one.

Other posters have fabricated the size of the victim, what he was doing, even gave him two extra years. Now we got one who thinks he can read my mind.

Other posters have fabricated the size of the victim, what he was doing, even gave him two extra years.

You keep repeating that, yet you still havent' answered my earlier questions about 15 y/o being adult size.

I got the age wrong by 2 years, BFD

I've got 2 grandsons that were taller than my 5'8" at age 15.

Lotta growing up commonly happens between 15 and 17.
That's not the point.

The point is, partisan hacks find so little of value in actual facts that they'll just make it up on the spot, and think that's OK.

Bowie described "adult sized" ---- on no evidence whatsoever.

Y'all are creating myths, I'm skeet shooting.

BLAMMO.

You're saying you have skeet for brains?

Good news, even tho it's a small target, you seem to be hitting it every time.

Thank you. Good to get some recognition for what I do around here.

 

[TNHarley]

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

the idea though is not to come into the house and present the threat. all one needs to do is present a threat. You realize that right?

Untrue. It varies state by state, but in most cases simply feeling threatened doesn't give license to commit homicide. The right to self defense does not mean "Hey I was scared someone was breaking into my house , so I legally shot them" It means you have a valid fear for your own life and limb. Or the life and safety of others.

Or do you contend that your life is in danger just by virtue of someone breaking into your home? Please tell me you aren't that cowardly.

If the "boys" broke glass their story of "just trying to find their friend" is bullshit. They are lying. Their intent was to invade someone's home. A home owner is not the police. The home owner does not have to see a weapon. All the home owner needs to do is ascertain the intent of the intruder as best he/she can. I see "breaking glass" as intending to do harm. My only real problem is that there is no report of warnings haven been given by the home owner.

"When a glass broke..." is completely passive voice. It doesn't give any indication of WHO or WHAT broke the glass, whether it was intentional or accidental, or if the former what the intent would have been. So no, you can't conclude that.

But if you think you're psychic and can read minds, what number am I thinking right now?

Knowing your intellect, eleventynine?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Untrue. It varies state by state, but in most cases simply feeling threatened doesn't give license to commit homicide. The right to self defense does not mean "Hey I was scared someone was breaking into my house , so I legally shot them" It means you have a valid fear for your own life and limb. Or the life and safety of others.

Or do you contend that your life is in danger just by virtue of someone breaking into your home? Please tell me you aren't that cowardly.

and yes, my house is my house. you merely try and break in gives me all the right to blow your head off. You should probably go read the stand my ground laws better.

LOL you don't even understand which laws apply. Castle Doctrine applies here, not stand your ground.


Here's the Mass law

s a general rule in Massachusetts, the right to use force in defense of oneself or another arises only in circumstances where the person using self-defense avails himself of all proper means to avoid physical combat. However, G.L. c. 278, § 8A represents an exception to this rule. The law provides a defense to the occupant of a dwelling house who is charged with causing injury or death to an intruder. In order to qualify for this affirmative defense, the person charged with injuring or killing the intruder must provide the following three things (1) that he or she reasonably believed that the intruder was unlawfully entering the dwelling, (2) that he or she reasonably believed that the intruder was about to inflict death or serious bodily injury upon the defendant or someone else who is lawfully in the dwelling, and (3) the defendant acted with reasonable means of self-defense or defense of another person who was lawfully present.


So the question is "Would a reasonable person have believed the teenager in question was about to inflict death or serious bodily injury on someone legally living in the house"

My opinion is no. Was the girl screaming "im going to kill you" or anything like that? Did the teenager have a weapon that the homeowner saw?

See, you idiots are stupid, you don't even know the law, in MASS specificially you can't just shoot someone who breaks into your house. They must also present a reasonable danger. Simply breaking into the house isn't presenting a reasonable danger.

The “Castle” Law in Massachusetts

And in fact stupid, Massachusetts has a duty to retreat law, in COMPLETE contrast to a stand your ground law.

States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw

Educate yourself. I mean my God, you have the internet right there at your fingertips.

well I found this version of the castle doctrine from a law office:

The Castle Law In Massachusetts, A Valid Defense To Murder

"Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 278 §8A provides a defense to someone who is being prosecuted for Murder in Massachusetts. The law states that it is a recognized defense for anyone who is the occupant of a dwelling and is charged with killing someone who was not lawfully in the home so long as he acted with the reasonable belief that this person was about to inflict death or great bodily injury on him or on someone else who was lawfully in the home. This law does not require a duty to retreat. Even though this is a defense to the most serious crime in Massachusetts there are some extreme limitations to its use. The Castle Law takes root in English Common Law where a belief was held that “one’s home is one’s castle”. Some states apply the doctrine to places outside of the dwelling. For instance one’s car or workplace are in some states considered sacred ground making available the defense."

Correct, the Castle Doctrine over rides the Duty to retreat laws, on your own property. As I posted above. You can actually walk out on your porch and confront a person who is on your property and if they attack you and you kill them, that is legal.

which is this scenario if the window was broken by the kids. fits it like a glove.

No it does not because NO reasonable person thinks "oh shit those kids broke my window, they want to kill me" and thus there is no right to shoot them.

Read the ENTIRE law. There are THREE elements, all MUST be met.

 

[HUGGY]

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

the idea though is not to come into the house and present the threat. all one needs to do is present a threat. You realize that right?

Untrue. It varies state by state, but in most cases simply feeling threatened doesn't give license to commit homicide. The right to self defense does not mean "Hey I was scared someone was breaking into my house , so I legally shot them" It means you have a valid fear for your own life and limb. Or the life and safety of others.

Or do you contend that your life is in danger just by virtue of someone breaking into your home? Please tell me you aren't that cowardly.

If the "boys" broke glass their story of "just trying to find their friend" is bullshit. They are lying. Their intent was to invade someone's home. A home owner is not the police. The home owner does not have to see a weapon. All the home owner needs to do is ascertain the intent of the intruder as best he/she can. I see "breaking glass" as intending to do harm. My only real problem is that there is no report of warnings haven been given by the home owner.

"When a glass broke..." is completely passive voice. It doesn't give any indication of WHO or WHAT broke the glass, whether it was intentional or accidental, or if the former what the intent would have been. So no, you can't conclude that.

But if you think you're psychic and can read minds, what number am I thinking right now?

The number 5.

 

[jc456]

The homeowner might should have waited until the kid actually got into the house.

True. He might still be waiting today, as there's no indication that's what he was doing.

But then he does sound like the sort who sits by the door armed waiting for the mailman.

Where are all the advocates of "responsible gun ownership" here? Laying low?

Actually, the Castle Doctrine applies on your property OUTSIDE your home, as well as inside. In fact , if someone were out on your porch threatening to kill you and you walked outside and confronted them and then they attacked you, and you shot and killed them, that would be legal.

Once again, you people need to educate yourselves.

Once again, you need to read the story before you put your foot in your mouth. Nowhere is any indication of a "threat", let alone a "death threat".

You dumb ****, at NO point did I say there was. In fact quite the opposite I posted that in this case we just don't know enough to know what happened, but have been talking in generalities about what the Mass law does and does not allow. You are just an ignorant **** who can't understand simple English, that's why you first misread what Don't Taze Me Bro wrote, and now you misread what I have wrote in this thread.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life

yeah, but you got the whole drunk thingy to deal with as well and that has weight on her thought process and behavior.

 

[HUGGY]

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

the idea though is not to come into the house and present the threat. all one needs to do is present a threat. You realize that right?

Untrue. It varies state by state, but in most cases simply feeling threatened doesn't give license to commit homicide. The right to self defense does not mean "Hey I was scared someone was breaking into my house , so I legally shot them" It means you have a valid fear for your own life and limb. Or the life and safety of others.

Or do you contend that your life is in danger just by virtue of someone breaking into your home? Please tell me you aren't that cowardly.

If the "boys" broke glass their story of "just trying to find their friend" is bullshit. They are lying. Their intent was to invade someone's home. A home owner is not the police. The home owner does not have to see a weapon. All the home owner needs to do is ascertain the intent of the intruder as best he/she can. I see "breaking glass" as intending to do harm. My only real problem is that there is no report of warnings haven been given by the home owner.

"When a glass broke..." is completely passive voice. It doesn't give any indication of WHO or WHAT broke the glass, whether it was intentional or accidental, or if the former what the intent would have been. So no, you can't conclude that.

But if you think you're psychic and can read minds, what number am I thinking right now?

Knowing your intellect, eleventynine?

Damn! I was sure it was 5.