[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Technically, according to them, if somebody breaks into your house you are legally obligated to run away. You have no legal right to defend yourself or your property with a weapon in MA.
Fuck that place.
[/quote]
This isn’t completely true anymore.
We now have a Castle Doctrine. So you can assume an intruder means you harm and defend you (or your family’s) life with lethal force in your home in MA. However, if it is with an illegal gun, you are still going to prison for a long time.
Outside of your home, you have an obligation to flee, and can only use force if you have no where to run. Which, being outdoors will be hard to prove, in a Home Depot or something, they will still likely charge you. Also your life has to be in clear danger, you can’t shoot an unarmed man stealing your car for example. If he is armed, and you are in the middle of a highway, you can shoot him, otherwise the criminal wins in MA.
So, for example, if you lived in a house next to the shootout that happened with the marathon bombers (according to liberals all the MA background checks should have stopped them from having guns in the first place), leaned out your window and sniped those fuckers with two well placed rounds, you would get charged with murder.
This being MA, they would likely drop it to a lessor charge, but we just love to pamper us some criminals around here. That is why I tell my wife and son that, god forbid, they ever have to, shoot to kill, do not shoot to wound. Not only might it just piss that bad guy off, he can turn around and sue US for breaking into OUR home.
edit: an important can’t in place of a misplaced can[/quote]
You have to be very careful about this and its worth researching who the prosecutor is in your area and if they have a likelihood of prosecuting. Determining if the intruder means harm can go many ways legally and if the intruder is unarmed and you shoot him, you can be held criminally liable even with the castle doctrine.
At any case, there will be civil suit and you may be fucked financially if you are defending yourself and it might be best to retreat anyway.
I took a 3 day tactical handgun class run mainly by ex-cops. Some classes are run by ex military and I think the content will vary between the people teaching, the how to run your gun stuff will probably be the same, but the cops had a lot of interesting material to share about the legal stuff that follows a shooting.
Either way, the had a county prosecutor in one of their classes and they were doing scenario based training with empty weapons that included close quarter fighting where the threat manages to surprise you before you can draw your gun, a scrap ensues where he is actively trying to rip your gun out of the holster or away from you. Either way, a female goes and gets into a scrap, seperates from the threat enough to draw her gun and fire from her back. The prosecutor said he would prosecute criminally for wrongful death or whatever as the guy was unarmed. The rest of the class was a jury of peers and then would vote if the trainee was guilty or not guilty.
Anyway it was the prosecuters turn to go, he gets into a scrap, the threat is trying to take his gun, and he escapes enough to get to his feet and run away. Anyway, after the adrenaline rush/fight for you life/mind not working rationally he drew and executed the “threat”. The class convicted him guilty.
I’m sure that experience changed his opinion on things.
[/quote]
The Mississippi Law reads as follows: (for the castle doctrine)
97-3-15. (1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:
(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling, occupied vehicle or the building of a business during hours when the business is closed to the public in which such person shall be;
(f) When committed in the lawful defense of oneâ??s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished
Mississippi Law defines a dwelling as: a building or conveyance of any kind that has a roof over it, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, including a tent, that is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, including any attached porch
If you read this carefully you will see that Mississippi takes the Castle Doctrine to the extreme, not only allowing you to defend your home (porches especially), but also your car, your place of employment, or practically anywhere you have a legal right to be. Also, unlike some states, you do not have to retreat before you take action to defend yourself. Last, but not least, the law added civil immunity (you canâ??t be sued) if you are forced to defend yourself in accordance with this law. Which means no criminal or civil suits allowed against you for protecting yourself.
This is just common sense to me. What is wrong with all the wacko fucktard liberals?
