Sometimes the dirtbags get what they deserve.


BlackICE

GT Owner
Nov 2, 2005
1,416
SF Bay Area in California
The FL DA seems to have the right view on this. In CA I don't know if the homeowners would be charged with assault and use of excessive force and get a civil suit for personal injuries.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/would-be-burglar-florida-beaten-bat-article-1.2690988
 

soroush

Ford Gt Owner
Mark II Lifetime
Aug 8, 2007
5,250
well common sense would only presume that the homeowner would have to pay for any damages/injuries to the burglar. Isn't that how they do it in the rest of the world? oh, no, wait they don't.
 

Bart Carter

GT Owner
Mar 12, 2006
272
Las Vegas
The universal measurement is to use available force to stop the threat. I have always been taught that if the threat is death or GREAT BODILY HARM, you can use deadly force. And you keep applying that force until the threat has stopped.

So, a man with a bat certainly meets the threat threshold to use deadly force. And applying the bat until the threat is gone (either he leaves or is disabled) is within the law.

There is no law that requires you to limit your response to potential great bodily harm.
 

BlackICE

GT Owner
Nov 2, 2005
1,416
SF Bay Area in California
Always gray areas of the law.

e.g. If the guy broke in carrying a gun and the similar thing happened, the husband grab the guy, the wife took the gun away and then shot him dead.

How is the bat different than a gun? What if she cracked his skull and killed him on the first swing.

With the liberal jurist one would likely get in CA, the odds are greater than zero for a criminal case and even more so in civil court. The argument would be after the weapon was secured and her husband had him "under control" he didn't poise an immediate threat to life or limb.
 
Last edited:

Bart Carter

GT Owner
Mar 12, 2006
272
Las Vegas
Always gray areas of the law.

e.g. If the guy broke in carrying a gun and the similar thing happened, the husband grab the guy, the wife took the gun away and then shot him dead.

How is the bat different than a gun? What if she cracked his skull and killed him on the first swing.

With the liberal jurist one would likely get in CA, the odds are greater than zero for a criminal case and even more so in civil court. The argument would be after the weapon was secured and her husband had him "under control" he didn't poise an immediate threat to life or limb.
When you defend yourself, there is always the possibility you will be charged due to political pressure, but the law is clear on self defense against threat of death or great bodily harm. At least in most states.

A woman shooting a man that is still in the fight is legal. A woman using any deadly weapon is legal in self defense. Also a man may use a weapon in self defense. There is no disparity of force when used in self defense. If a large thug reached into your driver's window and is beating you, you may shoot him. You don't have to try to beat him back. You are allowed to use deadly force to stop the threat. You may also use deadly force if you are not the one that was threatened.

You may use deadly force until the threat is over. Could this guy take a swing and cause great bodily harm to the husband? She can shoot him. Is he running away? She can't shoot him. You can even shoot a person in the back under the right circumstances.

Of course I am not a lawyer. But every self defense course I have taken gives the same information.
 

Bart Carter

GT Owner
Mar 12, 2006
272
Las Vegas
Due to my participation at a training facility called Front Sight, I have many certificates available to me for anyone that would like to take a comprehensive 4 day defensive handgun course. I will give them to you for free. You will not only learn how to be effective with a pistol, you will also learn about the law, safety, situational awareness, and much more.

You can also go a step further and get a concealed carry permit good for 30 states.

Yes, if you are from California, there will be much joking about you loss of freedoms, but it is all good natured. :lol
 

BlackICE

GT Owner
Nov 2, 2005
1,416
SF Bay Area in California
When you defend yourself, there is always the possibility you will be charged due to political pressure, but the law is clear on self defense against threat of death or great bodily harm. At least in most states.

Yes, if you are from California, there will be much joking about you loss of freedoms, but it is all good natured. :lol

:agree: 100%

Given I live in CA, these are to two issues I was alluding too. In TX or FL you are probably on firmer ground. :frown

Even in Ferguson Missouri, look at what happened in the M. Brown case.
 
Last edited:

Empty Pockets

ex-GT Owner
Mark IV Lifetime
Le Mans 2010 Supporter
Oct 18, 2006
1,352
Washington State
My own view regarding actions taken in "self defense" (as if anyone cares...or has reason to) is: If there's even the SLIGHTEST POSSIBILITY that your own life or the life of any other innocent person may be in jeopardy in any given situation - SHOOT FIRST AND WORRY ABOUT 'THE SMALL STUFF' (AKA: the intricacies of the law) LATER.

Adhering to that philosophy, at the very least, God willing, YOU will be in court to defend YOUR actions as opposed to some DIRTBAG and his slimy lawyer being there defending his.

Attach to me whatever 'label' you will for holding that view. I really couldn't care less................trust me on that. :bored


'Macho' Pockets
 

Awsum GT

GT Owner '18
Mark IV Lifetime
Sep 17, 2005
3,979
Carmel & Cntrl Ca
My own view regarding actions taken in "self defense" (as if anyone cares...or has reason to) is: If there's even the SLIGHTEST POSSIBILITY that your own life or the life of any other innocent person may be in jeopardy in any given situation - SHOOT FIRST AND WORRY ABOUT 'THE SMALL STUFF' (AKA: the intricacies of the law) LATER.

Adhering to that philosophy, at the very least, God willing, YOU will be in court to defend YOUR actions as opposed to some DIRTBAG and his slimy lawyer being there defending his.

Attach to me whatever 'label' you will for holding that view. I really couldn't care less................trust me on that. :bored


'Macho' Pockets

+1 !!!!
 

ultrasportracing

GT Owner
Aug 31, 2011
473
Perth Western Australia
(well common sense would only presume that the homeowner would have to pay for any damages/injuries to the burglar. Isn't that how they do it in the rest of the world? oh, no, wait they don't)
Unfortunately Austrailia is going down that road, and after this new election the whole country will be under the control of the banking elite.
 

Dentox

GT Owner
Jul 9, 2016
5
(well common sense would only presume that the homeowner would have to pay for any damages/injuries to the burglar. Isn't that how they do it in the rest of the world? oh, no, wait they don't)
Unfortunately Austrailia is going down that road, and after this new election the whole country will be under the control of the banking elite.

That's said to hear. I've had nothing but good expereinces there.