Noit isn't. "Level" of threat is no longer an issue when someone enters your home (castle doctrine or not) - that automatically establishes intent, meaning you can pretty much be sure if someone made it to your house and entered it while it was closed, you can take that as a threat. A RETREATING intruder is no longer CURRENTLY a threat (meaning they could come back). You have the duty to completely incapacitate an intruder as your life may very well depend on it; but that does not grant the right to murder. If you are justified to shoot, you are justified to kill to protect yourself. Walking over and shooting them while they are down or "mercy" killing is an ENTIRELY different story, and in this case it is NOT justified in both cases.
When he says he had time to put one body on a tarp and drag it downstairs, that says to me we have a serious issue here. The FIRST thing he should have done after shooting the guy was exit the building to a safe location and call the police. It should not have gone further than that. It is true he did not know if there were others or if they were armed, but what he did displays excessive force to me as opposed to simply fear.
This was one of the things in my CCW class that surprised me and I had not actually considered, and I thank my instructor for it emphatically. That class changed my opinions about some things such as cases like this. Unless you are an officer, you are NOT the police and it is NOT your job to do something about intruders. Protecting yourself is one thing, but intentionally killing intruders, while probably a good thing, isn't the RIGHT thing. Your responsibility is to attempt to get everyone safe FIRST (get a firearm, then get the family), so you know where everyone is so you don't accidentally harm your own family. Second is to prepare for the worst; aka get ready for battle and call the police.
Though I am a bit conflicted over it, in this case, I'd have to vote to convict.
I'm confused. You start by saying the level of threat is irrelevant, but then say that shooting them while they are down isn't justified. Am I missing something? I'm not trying to be argumentative - I'm just not clear on what you are saying.
I'm pretty sure the prosecutor will have more information to work with than what's indicated in the article. So when I read: "Prosecutors say he crossed the legal line into murder when he continued to shoot after each unarmed intruder was wounded and no longer posed a threat.", I have to assume they have some evidence to support their case. That is what I meant when I said it's for the jury to decide.
Opinions will vary on whether his actions are justified. The shooting of the first person can be debated, and if that's where the story ended, he
could conceivably get off, depending on how he explains it to the jury. But, with the second one - and based on his own statements - I think we are in agreement, he had no right to shoot her, execution style.
Up here, you are allowed to use use lethal force to protect yourself, or somone else. But, not to protect property. In other words, if somebody breaks into your house and you have an escape route, I think you would have difficulty convincing a crown prosecutor that you were justified in killing an intruder.
I understand the frustration and anger that can be aroused when someone violates the boundaries of one's home. I would do whatever is necessary to protect my family, but I would rather avoid killing someone to do that. But, there are people out there who seem a little too eager to play judge, jury and executioner. Every situation is different and has to be judged on its own merits.
