Lone woman shoots 2 home invasion suspect dead

[Meister]

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?

You have a hard time with honesty and arguing with the actual facts. You have to move goal posts when you're in a corner
I've shown the professor his error using his own site.

 

[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 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.

I previously mentioned the las vegas incident when talking about the perils of carrying a concealed weapon even when legal.

My patience is wearing thin with you.....try and keep up.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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?

You have a hard time with honesty and arguing with the actual facts. You have to move goal posts when you're in a corner
I've shown the professor his error using his own site.

You seem terribly confused and are talking in vague generalalities.....to be specific---where or how do you think the professor was wrong?

 

[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.

I previously mentioned the las vegas incident when talking about the perils of carrying a concealed weapon even when legal.

My patience is wearing thin with you.....try and keep up.

So you have to go off topic to make a point......in your own thread?
You do remember your first post about the lady who killed two home invaders, right?
That IS the subject of discussion, hell, why don't you bring up some random hunting accident while your at it.
You are the one who is lagging, son.

 

[Meister]

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?

You have a hard time with honesty and arguing with the actual facts. You have to move goal posts when you're in a corner
I've shown the professor his error using his own site.

You seem terribly confused and are talking in vague generalalities.....to be specific---where or how do you think the professor was wrong?

Read post 56 I highlighted what was pertinent from his own source

 

[skye]

In my personal opinion that lone woman who killed those intruders was absolutely right.

Why did those creatures invaded her home? what for? what scum they are

May be I would have done the same thing she did.

 

[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.

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

What in the hell is wrong with you?

If you read my post (#10 above) you would know I specifically quoted the laws of Florida. What you highlighted is what the Florida Statutes say. I also stated that Arizona has no such laws. I don't know how such a simple thing went right over your head. Try again, but read more carefully this time.

I have said everything I wanted to say, so you have the last word.

 

[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 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.

I previously mentioned the las vegas incident when talking about the perils of carrying a concealed weapon even when legal.

My patience is wearing thin with you.....try and keep up.

So you have to go off topic to make a point......in your own thread?
You do remember your first post about the lady who killed two home invaders, right?
That IS the subject of discussion, hell, why don't you bring up some random hunting accident while your at it.


You are the one who is lagging, son.

You seem too simple minded to understand the complexities of the law...especially the law on self defense, how it varies from state to state, the problem with juries etc.

anyhow ....anyone who has been on message boards for some time understands how one thing leads to another.

In a nutshell you want to make this case black and white....not that simple. As in what you or anyone may call ''reasonable' may not be seen that way by a jury. As in............anytime you get involved with the judicial system...you most likely will lose one way or the other....the expense of a lawyer if nothing else.

 

[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.

I previously mentioned the las vegas incident when talking about the perils of carrying a concealed weapon even when legal.

My patience is wearing thin with you.....try and keep up.

So you have to go off topic to make a point......in your own thread?
You do remember your first post about the lady who killed two home invaders, right?
That IS the subject of discussion, hell, why don't you bring up some random hunting accident while your at it.


You are the one who is lagging, son.

You seem too simple minded to understand the complexities of the law...especially the law on self defense, how it varies from state to state, the problem with juries etc.

anyhow ....anyone who has been on message boards for some time understands how one thing leads to another.

In a nutshell you want to make this case black and white....not that simple. As in what you or anyone may call ''reasonable' may not be seen that way by a jury. As in............anytime you get involved with the judicial system...you most likely will lose one way or the other....the expense of a lawyer if nothing else.

Whatever that's supposed to mean. I guess it's your white flag. Surrender is accepted. Have a good evening

 

[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.

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

What in the hell is wrong with you?

If you read my post (#10 above) you would know I specifically quoted the laws of Florida. What you highlighted is what the Florida Statutes say. I also stated that Arizona has no such laws. I don't know how such a simple thing went right over your head. Try again, but read more carefully this time.

I have said everything I wanted to say, so you have the last word.

Arizona and Florida both have the stand your ground law...what about Arizona do you think is different.

 

[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 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.

I previously mentioned the las vegas incident when talking about the perils of carrying a concealed weapon even when legal.

My patience is wearing thin with you.....try and keep up.

So you have to go off topic to make a point......in your own thread?
You do remember your first post about the lady who killed two home invaders, right?
That IS the subject of discussion, hell, why don't you bring up some random hunting accident while your at it.


You are the one who is lagging, son.

You seem too simple minded to understand the complexities of the law...especially the law on self defense, how it varies from state to state, the problem with juries etc.

anyhow ....anyone who has been on message boards for some time understands how one thing leads to another.

In a nutshell you want to make this case black and white....not that simple. As in what you or anyone may call ''reasonable' may not be seen that way by a jury. As in............anytime you get involved with the judicial system...you most likely will lose one way or the other....the expense of a lawyer if nothing else.

Whatever that's supposed to mean. I guess it's your white flag. Surrender is accepted. Have a good evening

Can anyone say...dat dude has a reading/comprehension problem.....hehheh

 

[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

What in the hell is wrong with you?

If you read my post (#10 above) you would know I specifically quoted the laws of Florida. What you highlighted is what the Florida Statutes say. I also stated that Arizona has no such laws. I don't know how such a simple thing went right over your head. Try again, but read more carefully this time.

I have said everything I wanted to say, so you have the last word.

Remind me again about your professorship from a Crackerjacks box, doc.

You don't have a clue on what you're talking about.



ARS13-407

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.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

In my personal opinion that lone woman who killed those intruders was absolutely right.

Why did those creatures invaded her home? what for? what scum they are

May be I would have done the same thing she did.

Well, first of all we are still in the preliminary stages of this case....not that much is really known at this point.

Af first glance I think most would say the woman was correct...however there are many factors to consider....did they actually enter her home? It has been said they were shot dead in her back yard.

The police have said it may have been a drug related case....as in what was her background ...as in did she know these individuals.

Were they black? Were they armed? Will blacks raise a fuss....will the media get involved...will pressure be brought on the city. etc.etc. Most importantly how much did this woman say to the police without her lawyer being present, did she waive her right to an attorney. etc.etc. Way to early to judge this case.

 

[westwall]

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.

Only in progressive states like California and new York will you find asshole DAs who will attempt prosecution for defense of self.

It doesn't matter what the situation is, they will prosecute you because they are assholes.

In that case, kill the invader, call your lawyer, and then the cops.

Say NOTHING.

 

[westwall]

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.

I previously mentioned the las vegas incident when talking about the perils of carrying a concealed weapon even when legal.

My patience is wearing thin with you.....try and keep up.

Yeah, stupid things happen. Look at the poor woman killed by an idiot cop while baby sitting.

You're not helping your case at all.

 

[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.

Homeowners should get the same benefit of police officers. If someone just puts their hand in their pocket, the police are justified in using lethal force. But for homeowners it should go even further, they can easily be outnumbered an

just need to be able to shoot first no matter what.

I would not disagree with that....especially if they are in their home.

Yet....what those interested in upgrading the laws on self defense...aka to make it easier to use lethal force in defense of your person and or others and your home have some powerful forces arrayed against them ....as in political correctness.........the anti gun hysteria, liberal judges and prosecutors and cities.

Not even to mention the media and their gospel of blacks folks are always innocent no matter what they are doing but most certainly anytime one is shot by a policeman or any white person actually.

A wise person will go to extremes to avoid getting involved with our judicial system.

Again anyone that carries a concealed weapon needs to be well versed in the law of self defense...especially for the state they live in...but people do travel....so you really need to be informed on the law of self defense in a general sense...because you may be out of your home state when confronted with a situation where you must make a life or death decision very, very quickly....sometimes just a matter of a couple of seconds....but you will be judged by a jury that has hours to determine whether you did anything wrong....and often with the benefit of a video camera footage which they can put in slow motion mode and take hours and hours to decide when you may have had only 2 or 3 seconds to whilst in fear of your life and in some degree of shock also being confronted with a threat to your life.

Not to mention hindsight is always 20/20

 

[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 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.

I previously mentioned the las vegas incident when talking about the perils of carrying a concealed weapon even when legal.

My patience is wearing thin with you.....try and keep up.

Yeah, stupid things happen. Look at the poor woman killed by an idiot cop while baby sitting.

You're not helping your case at all.

You do not even know what my case is. What we have here is a failure to communicate. Who said dat? I am sure I heard it somewhere before. hehheh

 

[westwall]

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.

I previously mentioned the las vegas incident when talking about the perils of carrying a concealed weapon even when legal.

My patience is wearing thin with you.....try and keep up.

Yeah, stupid things happen. Look at the poor woman killed by an idiot cop while baby sitting.

You're not helping your case at all.

You do not even know what my case is. What we have here is a failure to commincate. h Who said dat? I am sure I heard it somewhere before. hehheh

My advice is for ANYONE who is forced to defend themselves. Unlike you and the professor, I AM an officer of the court, I am an Expert Witness so actually testify.

Thus my knowledge base is far wider than yours

 

[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 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.

I previously mentioned the las vegas incident when talking about the perils of carrying a concealed weapon even when legal.

My patience is wearing thin with you.....try and keep up.

Yeah, stupid things happen. Look at the poor woman killed by an idiot cop while baby sitting.

You're not helping your case at all.

You do not even know what my case is. What we have here is a failure to commincate. h Who said dat? I am sure I heard it somewhere before. hehheh

My advice is for ANYONE who is forced to defend themselves. Unlike you and the professor, I AM an officer of the court, I am an Expert Witness so actually testify.

Thus my knowledge base is far wider than yours

huh? Are you saying you are a cop?

 

[westwall]

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

I previously mentioned the las vegas incident when talking about the perils of carrying a concealed weapon even when legal.

My patience is wearing thin with you.....try and keep up.

Yeah, stupid things happen. Look at the poor woman killed by an idiot cop while baby sitting.

You're not helping your case at all.

You do not even know what my case is. What we have here is a failure to commincate. h Who said dat? I am sure I heard it somewhere before. hehheh

My advice is for ANYONE who is forced to defend themselves. Unlike you and the professor, I AM an officer of the court, I am an Expert Witness so actually testify.

Thus my knowledge base is far wider than yours

huh? Are you saying you are a cop?

No, I am an Expert Witness. Look it up.