Good decision by local D.A. - no charges against apartment dweller who killed burglar

[Darrell KSR]

The story really didn't get it right--the D.A. isn't pursuing charges against the resident because the deceased was burglarizing the apartment--he did it because the resident was in reasonable fear of receiving death or serious bodily harm, and was entitled to defend himself with force, including deadly force. But some may say that's just semantics, and the end result is the same. I'd guess that 99% of the time if there's someone burglarizing your residence and you're there, you're in reasonable fear of receiving death/serious bodily harm. Heck, maybe 100%, or dang close to it.

Here's the part that I like.

The other burglar (there were two) was injured, but not killed. That burglar now faces a murder charge. Since he was committing a felony (burglary), the death that is occasioned in the pursuit of that felony makes it subject to a felony-murder charge.

That's life in the fast lane, boys. You choose the crime, you take ALL the consequences. Don't care if you weren't carrying a feather as a weapon.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2013/10/jeffco_da_rules_shooting_of_ro.html

[suncat05]

That's the way it should be! Like my 'ol buddy Beretta said in the song........"don't do the crime if you can't do the time!" Yeah, I know it was Sammy Davis Jr. singing the song, but it still fits. :sHa_clap2:

[CitizenBBN]

The story really didn't get it right--the D.A. isn't pursuing charges against the resident because the deceased was burglarizing the apartment--he did it because the resident was in reasonable fear of receiving death or serious bodily harm, and was entitled to defend himself with force, including deadly force. But some may say that's just semantics, and the end result is the same. I'd guess that 99% of the time if there's someone burglarizing your residence and you're there, you're in reasonable fear of receiving death/serious bodily harm. Heck, maybe 100%, or dang close to it.


That's the basis of the Castle Doctrine: creating the legal presumption that anyone entering your home has by definition given you reasonable fear of great bodily harm, making deadly force justified without having to have any further information about the perpetrator.

it's a great law b/c the alternative, telling a person woken by a burglar at 2am that they need to somehow ascertain if the burglar is armed and if he intends to harm anyone or just take the TV is an absurdity in practice. Since the circumstances under which someone could mistakenly break into a home are also so rare it likewise makes it an acceptable to public safety b/c innocent people won't be put in harm's way by creating the legal authority to use deadly force in that situation.

It varies by state where that line is drawn, and there are every year a few cases of mistakes, but they're far outweighed by the lives saved by letting people defend themselves in their homes. In Kentucky the person has to be in the home or trying to break into the home. in some it's just in the home, in some it's on the property. Interestingly in Ky you can use deadly force for one defense of property: arson. If the guy is trying to steal your horse you can't shoot him, but if he's trying to burn down the horse barn you are justified in using deadly force.

What is Bama's castle doctrine? I assume being a good Southern state they have the law in place in some form?