Lone woman shoots 2 home invasion suspect dead

[Skylar]

Will she be charged with murder.....one of the perps name was Muhammed...ya know what that means.

This was in Arizona ....Lone Woman Shoots Home Invasion Suspect Dead

When is deadly force for self defense in Arizona justified?


Under ARS 13-405, the use of deadly force is sometimes permitted in Arizona. However, it’s limited to narrow circumstances. You can only use deadly force if you’re in reasonable fear of immediate serious physical injury or death. In order to lawfully use deadly force against someone, a reasonable person, in the defendant’s position, would need to believe that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect against potentially deadly force. That’s because self-defense must always be reasonable, proportional, and immediately necessary. Unless you’re faced with the immediate threat of serious physical injury or death, you cannot use deadly force.

What it *actually* means......or what you little dog whistle is supposed to mean?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

I really don't think so. All a person would have to do is look for a really old lady, not have a weapon
and break in to her place at 3:45 in the morning and that lady can't do anything to him? Really?
That's what you want everybody to believe? Now remember, in the dark that lady does not know
if the perp is armed or not. Does she wait for the shot in the dark?

Now that you said it, show us where breaking and entering a private residence can't be met with a gun.

CAN I USE LETHAL FORCE TO DEFEND MY HOME? | Ryan Pacyga Criminal Defense | Minneapolis, MN

Funny how you advocate for criminals. You must be one.

hehheh How am I advocating for criminals?....I am just trying to point out the law on self defense iand how it s different from state to state and the perils of using lethal force to defend your life or your property in these times of political correctness and double standards depending on your ethnicity.

A fellow I know just got 20yrs for defending his life with a pistol....and this was in florida which actually has good law on self defense.....stand your ground and all that.

Yeah, you know what, we already know all of that. You seem upset that criminals are getting killed so are trying to frighten people into not killing them.

That's stupid.

Some know many do not.....anyhow you completely misread my motive.

 

[Meister]

Will she be charged with murder.....one of the perps name was Muhammed...ya know what that means.

This was in Arizona ....Lone Woman Shoots Home Invasion Suspect Dead

When is deadly force for self defense in Arizona justified?


Under ARS 13-405, the use of deadly force is sometimes permitted in Arizona. However, it’s limited to narrow circumstances. You can only use deadly force if you’re in reasonable fear of immediate serious physical injury or death. In order to lawfully use deadly force against someone, a reasonable person, in the defendant’s position, would need to believe that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect against potentially deadly force. That’s because self-defense must always be reasonable, proportional, and immediately necessary. Unless you’re faced with the immediate threat of serious physical injury or death, you cannot use deadly force.

You didn't read far enough.

13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.

C. In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.

Also you omitted from ARS 13-405

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.

you really need to be more honest in your posting greenhornet

How do you think I was dishonest?

You could have/should have posted the entire ARS13-405 and not just half of it and leaving out the part
that would have cleared up what you muddied.

 

[Meister]

Folks, I would give the Negro or assorted Blacks and Browns a chance to run after I indicate I will only shoot if the savage(s) do not run. There is no way I want my ears subjected to the .357 magnums in my home protection revolver unless the savage(s)( insist on coming closer. And the fucking blood and shit will upset my cat.

Homeowner Charged With Killing Burglar - SouthJersey.com

Come back and talk to me when he has been convicted, okay?

?

Would you want to be in his shoes.? Too many folks walk around with a pistol in their pocket and have no idea ofthe law on self defense where they live.

every State has different laws regarding what amount of force you can use to defend your home. Some States require you to retreat before you use any force. Others do not. Some States limit the amount of force you can use depending on the circumstances. Others do not.

Not even to mention the fact the law can be on your side but the jury still may convict you.

With all the anti gun hysterial these days and the media ready to demonize anyone who uses a weapon it is becoming a crap shoot in regards to whether you are entitled to use lethal force to defend your life or your property.

I wouldn't want to be in anyone's shoes who has had to kill someone.
Just because he was charged doesn't mean he was guilty of anything.

Who has to retreat in a person's own home? I know of no state that says that.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

I really don't think so. All a person would have to do is look for a really old lady, not have a weapon
and break in to her place at 3:45 in the morning and that lady can't do anything to him? Really?
That's what you want everybody to believe? Now remember, in the dark that lady does not know
if the perp is armed or not. Does she wait for the shot in the dark?

Now that you said it, show us where breaking and entering a private residence can't be met with a gun.

CAN I USE LETHAL FORCE TO DEFEND MY HOME? | Ryan Pacyga Criminal Defense | Minneapolis, MN

Funny how you advocate for criminals. You must be one.

hehheh How am I advocating for criminals?....I am just trying to point out the law on self defense iand how it s different from state to state and the perils of using lethal force to defend your life or your property in these times of political correctness and double standards depending on your ethnicity.

A fellow I know just got 20yrs for defending his life with a pistol....and this was in florida which actually has good law on self defense.....stand your ground and all that.

Yeah, you know what, we already know all of that. You seem upset that criminals are getting killed so are trying to frighten people into not killing them.

That's stupid.

Some know many do not.....anyhow you completely misread my motive. I have no remorse whatsoever regarding the criminals fate.

The fact remains....innocent people have been arrested and some jailed because they really believed they were in fear of their lives and thus entitled to use lethal force.

Unfortunately juries too often disregard the law and go with the media interpretation and that of the state who is willing to send innocent people to jail to placate the black community.--

I have said this before but it cannot be said too often....though in some places it is legal to carry a concealed weapon....juries too often will think anyone who carries a pistol around is guilty already. With the power of the media the anti-gun hysteria has swept the nation. Juries reflect this.


Thus...I am merely trying to wake folks up...those that do not understand the perils of using lethal force. The perils of carrying a concealed weapon even when it is legal....nothing illustrates that better than the west point graduate gunned down in Las
vegas....merely because he went to costco with a concealed weapon even though that is legal in las vegas.

I used to carry a concealed weapon in vegas because I carried a large amount of money around with me...I quit doing that and instead carry a very good knife....very lethal at close ranges.

People have to make up their own minds regarding how much risk they are willing to take....many make their decision not even knowing the law on self defense in the state in which they live.


QUOTE]

 

[Meister]

CAN I USE LETHAL FORCE TO DEFEND MY HOME? | Ryan Pacyga Criminal Defense | Minneapolis, MN

Funny how you advocate for criminals. You must be one.

hehheh How am I advocating for criminals?....I am just trying to point out the law on self defense iand how it s different from state to state and the perils of using lethal force to defend your life or your property in these times of political correctness and double standards depending on your ethnicity.

A fellow I know just got 20yrs for defending his life with a pistol....and this was in florida which actually has good law on self defense.....stand your ground and all that.

Yeah, you know what, we already know all of that. You seem upset that criminals are getting killed so are trying to frighten people into not killing them.

That's stupid.

Some know many do not.....anyhow you completely misread my motive. I have no remorse whatsoever regarding the criminals fate.

The fact remains....innocent people have been arrested and some jailed because they really believed they were in fear of their lives and thus entitled to use lethal force.

Unfortunately juries too often disregard the law and go with the media interpretation and that of the state who is willing to send innocent people to jail to placate the black community.--

I have said this before but it cannot be said too often....though in some places it is legal to carry a concealed weapon....juries too often will think anyone who carries a pistol around is guilty already. With the power of the media the anti-gun hysteria has swept the nation. Juries reflect this.


Thus...I am merely trying to wake folks up...those that do not understand the perils of using lethal force. The perils of carrying a concealed weapon even when it is legal....nothing illustrates that better than the west point graduate gunned down in Las
vegas....merely because he went to costco with a concealed weapon even though that is legal in las vegas.

I used to carry a concealed weapon in vegas because I carried a large amount of money around with me...I quit doing that and instead carry a very good knife....very lethal at close ranges.

People have to make up their own minds regarding how much risk they are willing to take....many make their decision not even knowing the law on self defense in the state in which they live.


QUOTE]

This is the third post where you posted nothing

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Folks, I would give the Negro or assorted Blacks and Browns a chance to run after I indicate I will only shoot if the savage(s) do not run. There is no way I want my ears subjected to the .357 magnums in my home protection revolver unless the savage(s)( insist on coming closer. And the fucking blood and shit will upset my cat.

Homeowner Charged With Killing Burglar - SouthJersey.com

Come back and talk to me when he has been convicted, okay?

?

Would you want to be in his shoes.? Too many folks walk around with a pistol in their pocket and have no idea ofthe law on self defense where they live.

every State has different laws regarding what amount of force you can use to defend your home. Some States require you to retreat before you use any force. Others do not. Some States limit the amount of force you can use depending on the circumstances. Others do not.

Not even to mention the fact the law can be on your side but the jury still may convict you.

With all the anti gun hysterial these days and the media ready to demonize anyone who uses a weapon it is becoming a crap shoot in regards to whether you are entitled to use lethal force to defend your life or your property.

I wouldn't want to be in anyone's shoes who has had to kill someone.
Just because he was charged doesn't mean he was guilty of anything.

Who has to retreat in a person's own home? I know of no state that says that.

. States with a “duty to retreat”: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Nebraska, North Dakota*, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin*, and Wyoming.

anyhow regarding the fellow who was charged......his fate will be determined by a jury...which means he very well could wind up in prison...juries are notoriously stupid and it has been proven they often get it wrong.

Now of course there is the concept of.....I had rather be judged by l2 rather than be carried by 6 which is a valid point....yet I think some tend to resort to lethal force too quickly....but it is their life on the line and their call to make.

Yet what i see on here is that too many just assume there is no peril involved when you defend your life with lethal force.

They blithley go about their way with their pistol in their pocket feeling very safe knowing they have lethal force available....failing to realize how the state and the media will put them under the microscope and analyze their action(if they use lethal force) frame by frame and in slow motion if there is a video of the event...anyone who does not perceive danger in that is not being realistic...and these same folk being innocent and believing they are innocent will blab their mouths off to the police without a lawyer being present....beyond stupid.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Funny how you advocate for criminals. You must be one.

hehheh How am I advocating for criminals?....I am just trying to point out the law on self defense iand how it s different from state to state and the perils of using lethal force to defend your life or your property in these times of political correctness and double standards depending on your ethnicity.

A fellow I know just got 20yrs for defending his life with a pistol....and this was in florida which actually has good law on self defense.....stand your ground and all that.

Yeah, you know what, we already know all of that. You seem upset that criminals are getting killed so are trying to frighten people into not killing them.

That's stupid.

Some know many do not.....anyhow you completely misread my motive. I have no remorse whatsoever regarding the criminals fate.

The fact remains....innocent people have been arrested and some jailed because they really believed they were in fear of their lives and thus entitled to use lethal force.

Unfortunately juries too often disregard the law and go with the media interpretation and that of the state who is willing to send innocent people to jail to placate the black community.--

I have said this before but it cannot be said too often....though in some places it is legal to carry a concealed weapon....juries too often will think anyone who carries a pistol around is guilty already. With the power of the media the anti-gun hysteria has swept the nation. Juries reflect this.


Thus...I am merely trying to wake folks up...those that do not understand the perils of using lethal force. The perils of carrying a concealed weapon even when it is legal....nothing illustrates that better than the west point graduate gunned down in Las
vegas....merely because he went to costco with a concealed weapon even though that is legal in las vegas.

I used to carry a concealed weapon in vegas because I carried a large amount of money around with me...I quit doing that and instead carry a very good knife....very lethal at close ranges.

People have to make up their own minds regarding how much risk they are willing to take....many make their decision not even knowing the law on self defense in the state in which they live.


QUOTE]

This is the third post where you posted nothing

I can lead any jackass to water but I cant force any of them to drink.

 

[Meister]

Folks, I would give the Negro or assorted Blacks and Browns a chance to run after I indicate I will only shoot if the savage(s) do not run. There is no way I want my ears subjected to the .357 magnums in my home protection revolver unless the savage(s)( insist on coming closer. And the fucking blood and shit will upset my cat.

Homeowner Charged With Killing Burglar - SouthJersey.com

Come back and talk to me when he has been convicted, okay?

?

Would you want to be in his shoes.? Too many folks walk around with a pistol in their pocket and have no idea ofthe law on self defense where they live.

every State has different laws regarding what amount of force you can use to defend your home. Some States require you to retreat before you use any force. Others do not. Some States limit the amount of force you can use depending on the circumstances. Others do not.

Not even to mention the fact the law can be on your side but the jury still may convict you.

With all the anti gun hysterial these days and the media ready to demonize anyone who uses a weapon it is becoming a crap shoot in regards to whether you are entitled to use lethal force to defend your life or your property.

I wouldn't want to be in anyone's shoes who has had to kill someone.
Just because he was charged doesn't mean he was guilty of anything.

Who has to retreat in a person's own home? I know of no state that says that.

. States with a “duty to retreat”: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Nebraska, North Dakota*, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin*, and Wyoming.

Dude, when you're in your house, where do you retreat to? Think about that

Also, the way you post, I would like a link to see the wording. You seem to cherry pick

 

[Meister]

hehheh How am I advocating for criminals?....I am just trying to point out the law on self defense iand how it s different from state to state and the perils of using lethal force to defend your life or your property in these times of political correctness and double standards depending on your ethnicity.

A fellow I know just got 20yrs for defending his life with a pistol....and this was in florida which actually has good law on self defense.....stand your ground and all that.

Yeah, you know what, we already know all of that. You seem upset that criminals are getting killed so are trying to frighten people into not killing them.

That's stupid.

Some know many do not.....anyhow you completely misread my motive. I have no remorse whatsoever regarding the criminals fate.

The fact remains....innocent people have been arrested and some jailed because they really believed they were in fear of their lives and thus entitled to use lethal force.

Unfortunately juries too often disregard the law and go with the media interpretation and that of the state who is willing to send innocent people to jail to placate the black community.--

I have said this before but it cannot be said too often....though in some places it is legal to carry a concealed weapon....juries too often will think anyone who carries a pistol around is guilty already. With the power of the media the anti-gun hysteria has swept the nation. Juries reflect this.


Thus...I am merely trying to wake folks up...those that do not understand the perils of using lethal force. The perils of carrying a concealed weapon even when it is legal....nothing illustrates that better than the west point graduate gunned down in Las
vegas....merely because he went to costco with a concealed weapon even though that is legal in las vegas.

I used to carry a concealed weapon in vegas because I carried a large amount of money around with me...I quit doing that and instead carry a very good knife....very lethal at close ranges.

People have to make up their own minds regarding how much risk they are willing to take....many make their decision not even knowing the law on self defense in the state in which they live.


QUOTE]

This is the third post where you posted nothing

I can lead any jackass to water but I cant force any of them to drink.

What the hell are you even talking about?

 

[The Professor]

If they were unarmed...she might be in trouble.

Not if it was a B&E, good grief

THEGREENHORNET is correct.

What you said would be true only in those states which have laws referred to as the Castle Doctrine (see my post #10 above). In other states deadly force would be allowed against the intruders only if the one who used such force reasonably believed it was necessary to avoid imminent death or serious bodily injury. Whether they intruders were armed or not is one of the things that a jury would consider in determining whether the shooter's belief was reasonable.


There are far too many people on this site who think they know the law but don't. I am a 79-year old man with a doctorate in law. I have done my best to provide the best information I can. All I can say is that if you live in a state without the Castle Doctrine and you wake up at 3 o'clock in the morning to find an unarmed intruder, the use of deadly force could see you in prison for a very long time. You had better think twice before killing the man. You disregard this advice at your peril.

 

[The Professor]

I really don't think so. All a person would have to do is look for a really old lady, not have a weapon
and break in to her place at 3:45 in the morning and that lady can't do anything to him? Really?
That's what you want everybody to believe? Now remember, in the dark that lady does not know
if the perp is armed or not. Does she wait for the shot in the dark?

Now that you said it, show us where breaking and entering a private residence can't be met with a gun.

CAN I USE LETHAL FORCE TO DEFEND MY HOME? | Ryan Pacyga Criminal Defense | Minneapolis, MN

Good link!

 

[TheGreenHornet]

If they were unarmed...she might be in trouble.

Not if it was a B&E, good grief

THEGREENHORNET is correct.

What you said would be true only in those states which have laws referred to as the Castle Doctrine (see my post #10 above). In other states deadly force would be allowed against the intruders only if the one who used such force reasonably believed it was necessary to avoid imminent death or serious bodily injury. Whether they intruders were armed or not is one of the things that a jury would consider in determining whether the shooter's belief was reasonable.


There are far too many people on this site who think they know the law but don't. I am a 79-year old man with a doctorate in law. I have done my best to provide the best information I can. All I can say is that if you live in a state without the Castle Doctrine and you wake up at 3 o'clock in the morning to find an unarmed intruder, the use of deadly force could see you in prison for a very long time. You had better think twice before killing the man. You disregard this advice at your peril.

Absolutely! Right on the money.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Will she be charged with murder.....one of the perps name was Muhammed...ya know what that means.

This was in Arizona ....Lone Woman Shoots Home Invasion Suspect Dead

When is deadly force for self defense in Arizona justified?


Under ARS 13-405, the use of deadly force is sometimes permitted in Arizona. However, it’s limited to narrow circumstances. You can only use deadly force if you’re in reasonable fear of immediate serious physical injury or death. In order to lawfully use deadly force against someone, a reasonable person, in the defendant’s position, would need to believe that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect against potentially deadly force. That’s because self-defense must always be reasonable, proportional, and immediately necessary. Unless you’re faced with the immediate threat of serious physical injury or death, you cannot use deadly force.

You didn't read far enough.

13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.

C. In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.

Also you omitted from ARS 13-405

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.

you really need to be more honest in your posting greenhornet

How do you think I was dishonest?

You could have/should have posted the entire ARS13-405 and not just half of it and leaving out the part
that would have cleared up what you muddied.

I posted the link....thus everyone could read it. I have posted long articles before and got them removed for being tooooo long.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Yeah, you know what, we already know all of that. You seem upset that criminals are getting killed so are trying to frighten people into not killing them.

That's stupid.

Some know many do not.....anyhow you completely misread my motive. I have no remorse whatsoever regarding the criminals fate.

The fact remains....innocent people have been arrested and some jailed because they really believed they were in fear of their lives and thus entitled to use lethal force.

Unfortunately juries too often disregard the law and go with the media interpretation and that of the state who is willing to send innocent people to jail to placate the black community.--

I have said this before but it cannot be said too often....though in some places it is legal to carry a concealed weapon....juries too often will think anyone who carries a pistol around is guilty already. With the power of the media the anti-gun hysteria has swept the nation. Juries reflect this.


Thus...I am merely trying to wake folks up...those that do not understand the perils of using lethal force. The perils of carrying a concealed weapon even when it is legal....nothing illustrates that better than the west point graduate gunned down in Las
vegas....merely because he went to costco with a concealed weapon even though that is legal in las vegas.

I used to carry a concealed weapon in vegas because I carried a large amount of money around with me...I quit doing that and instead carry a very good knife....very lethal at close ranges.

People have to make up their own minds regarding how much risk they are willing to take....many make their decision not even knowing the law on self defense in the state in which they live.


QUOTE]

This is the third post where you posted nothing

I can lead any jackass to water but I cant force any of them to drink.

What the hell are you even talking about?

Look in the mirror....do you see a jackass? If not I am wrong. bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[Meister]

If they were unarmed...she might be in trouble.

Not if it was a B&E, good grief

THEGREENHORNET is correct.

What you said would be true only in those states which have laws referred to as the Castle Doctrine (see my post #10 above). In other states deadly force would be allowed against the intruders only if the one who used such force reasonably believed it was necessary to avoid imminent death or serious bodily injury. Whether they intruders were armed or not is one of the things that a jury would consider in determining whether the shooter's belief was reasonable.


There are far too many people on this site who think they know the law but don't. I am a 79-year old man with a doctorate in law. I have done my best to provide the best information I can. All I can say is that if you live in a state without the Castle Doctrine and you wake up at 3 o'clock in the morning to find an unarmed intruder, the use of deadly force could see you in prison for a very long time. You had better think twice before killing the man. You disregard this advice at your peril.

I looked at your source and found this from it.

776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

TheGreenHornet
And Greengnat.....go pound sand, you haven't shown anything, just your ignorance. And your propensity to side with
perps. It sure does make me wonder about you and a police record

 

[Meister]

Will she be charged with murder.....one of the perps name was Muhammed...ya know what that means.

This was in Arizona ....Lone Woman Shoots Home Invasion Suspect Dead

When is deadly force for self defense in Arizona justified?


Under ARS 13-405, the use of deadly force is sometimes permitted in Arizona. However, it’s limited to narrow circumstances. You can only use deadly force if you’re in reasonable fear of immediate serious physical injury or death. In order to lawfully use deadly force against someone, a reasonable person, in the defendant’s position, would need to believe that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect against potentially deadly force. That’s because self-defense must always be reasonable, proportional, and immediately necessary. Unless you’re faced with the immediate threat of serious physical injury or death, you cannot use deadly force.

You didn't read far enough.

13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.

C. In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.

Also you omitted from ARS 13-405

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.

you really need to be more honest in your posting greenhornet

How do you think I was dishonest?

You could have/should have posted the entire ARS13-405 and not just half of it and leaving out the part
that would have cleared up what you muddied.

I posted the link....thus everyone could read it. I have posted long articles before and got them removed for being tooooo long.

If you read the board's guidelines you could post a link and not have it deleted....that
is, if you can read

 

[TheGreenHornet]

West Point Graduate killed in Las Vegas because he carried a legal concealed weapon to Costco whilst he was shopping with his fiance. He bent over to pick up a item and a cost co employee spotted his pistol....obviously someone who had a phobia regarding guns....he paniced notified his supervisor who called the police....what the police heard was that there was a hostage situation i n the store....thus one mistake after another resulted in the death of a innocent man.

Family of West Point Graduate Shot to Death By Las Vegas Cops Suing Costco

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Will she be charged with murder.....one of the perps name was Muhammed...ya know what that means.

This was in Arizona ....Lone Woman Shoots Home Invasion Suspect Dead

When is deadly force for self defense in Arizona justified?


Under ARS 13-405, the use of deadly force is sometimes permitted in Arizona. However, it’s limited to narrow circumstances. You can only use deadly force if you’re in reasonable fear of immediate serious physical injury or death. In order to lawfully use deadly force against someone, a reasonable person, in the defendant’s position, would need to believe that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect against potentially deadly force. That’s because self-defense must always be reasonable, proportional, and immediately necessary. Unless you’re faced with the immediate threat of serious physical injury or death, you cannot use deadly force.

You didn't read far enough.

13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.

C. In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.

Also you omitted from ARS 13-405

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.

you really need to be more honest in your posting greenhornet

How do you think I was dishonest?

You could have/should have posted the entire ARS13-405 and not just half of it and leaving out the part
that would have cleared up what you muddied.

I posted the link....thus everyone could read it. I have posted long articles before and got them removed for being tooooo long.

If you read the board's guidelines you could post a link and not have it deleted....that
is, if you can read

I posted the link. You seem to have some sort of reading/comprehension problem?

 

[Meister]

West Point Graduate killed in Las Vegas because he carried a legal concealed weapon to Costco whilst he was shopping with his fiance. He bent over to pick up a item and a cost co employed spotted his pistol....obviously someone who had a phobia regarding guns....he paniced notified his supervisor who called the police....what the police heard was that there was a hostage situation in the store....thus one mistake after another resulted in the death of a innocent man.

Family of West Point Graduate Shot to Death By Las Vegas Cops Suing Costco

Just what does this have to do with the OP? Please connect the dots for all of us.