AR15 used to kill 3 burglars

[Shark_Cage]

Not to mention that knives and brass knuckles are just as deadly, if not more so, at extreme close range than an AR.

My Dad used to say if someone pulls a knife on you, fight dirty.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

[video=youtube_share;xWRWp4F1V-k]http://youtu.be/xWRWp4F1V-k[/video]

 

[Squire]

[video=youtube_share;xWRWp4F1V-k]http://youtu.be/xWRWp4F1V-k[/video]

"...acted justifiably, and in accordance with his rights as an Oklahoma Citizen when he used deadly force to defend his home from the first degree burglary..."

Not in Massachusetts.

 

[Horrible]

My Dad used to say if someone pulls a knife on you, fight dirty.

People can Monday morning QB this thing all day and all night. The reality is the 23-year old kid (as the LSM often refers to them) didn't know the intruders intentions. Where they there to just take stuff like the flat screen TV or where they there as part of a gang initiation where their motive was BLOOD.

Unfortunately, even in this technologically advanced day and age, when masked intruders armed with knives and brass knuckles break your door down, there isn't a neon sign above them that clearly says that they are just here for cash, jewels and expensive electronics. At that point in time, said 23-year old had to make a determination of their true motives.

I wonder how all of the arm chair QBs would react if in a similar situation? The fact that we are even talking about, and have to talk about it living in MA highlights many things wrong with the mentality of the left.

 

[SKumar]

This event makes a great case study for 2 restrictions on firearms:
1.) Removing 10 rd magazine limit. Unless you're John Woo, missed shots are extremely common (ask the NYPD), especially when multiple assailants are involved. There are no scientific studies or other evidence demonstrating that limiting magazine capacity on stock firearms leads to lower violent crime rates.
2.) Removing suppressors/silencers from the NFA. A high-power rifle round shot in a closed space without hearing protection is certain to cause permanent hearing damage. There is no evidence to suggest that softening audible firearm discharges leads to higher violent crime rates.

"...acted justifiably, and in accordance with his rights as an Oklahoma Citizen when he used deadly force to defend his home from the first degree burglary..."

Not in Massachusetts.

Why not? What does the law in MA say regarding firearm use when posed with a deadly threat? Do judges commonly circumvent these laws? Does MA have a "castle doctrine" of its own?

 

[Pete85]

Why not? What does the law in MA say regarding firearm use when posed with a deadly threat? Do judges commonly circumvent these laws? Does MA have a "castle doctrine" of its own?

Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 278, Section 8(a): In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

In other words you can argue it as an affirmative defense, but it doesn't necessarily prevent you from being charged, nor does it prevent your attacker or their family from suing you. So even if you have an airtight case, the state could take you to trial where even when acquitted, you're stuck with tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in associated costs.

 

[amm5061]

In other words you can argue it as an affirmative defense, but it doesn't necessarily prevent you from being charged, nor does it prevent your attacker or their family from suing you. So even if you have an airtight case, the state could take you to trial where even when acquitted, you're stuck with tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in associated costs.

That right there. It depends on how much you pissed off the cops and the DA.

Then you have the civil suits from the dinindonuffins' next of kin. There is 0 protection for you from that no matter what happens. They could be wanted murderers, armed to the teeth with those stolen full auto M4s with ballistics vests and kevlar helmets. They could rape your wife and kids and kill your dogs and kneecap you before you shoot them. Still nothing to protect you from being sued.

 

[Kevin_NH]

OK § 21-1289.25 civil immunity

In other words you can argue it as an affirmative defense, but it doesn't necessarily prevent you from being charged, nor does it prevent your attacker or their family from suing you. So even if you have an airtight case, the state could take you to trial where even when acquitted, you're stuck with tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in associated costs.

Once again, MA discourages self-help.

Oklahoma is a much better state for self-defense. Under § 21-1289.25: " A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force"

 

[10thSFFD]

Once again, MA discourages self-help.

Oklahoma is a much better state for self-defense. Under § 21-1289.25: " A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force"

You can't train enough for these extreme situations.

- -

 

[Coyote33]

"...acted justifiably, and in accordance with his rights as an Oklahoma Citizen when he used deadly force to defend his home from the first degree burglary..."

Not in Massachusetts.

Is there a law saying you can't do this?

...reality is the 23-year old kid ...

At 19, you are no longer a "kid" in most people's books.

This event makes a great case study for 2 restrictions on firearms:
1.) Removing 10 rd magazine limit. Unless you're John Woo, missed shots are extremely common (ask the NYPD), especially when multiple assailants are involved. There are no scientific studies or other evidence demonstrating that limiting magazine capacity on stock firearms leads to lower violent crime rates.
2.) Removing suppressors/silencers from the NFA. A high-power rifle round shot in a closed space without hearing protection is certain to cause permanent hearing damage. There is no evidence to suggest that softening audible firearm discharges leads to higher violent crime rates.

Why not? What does the law in MA say regarding firearm use when posed with a deadly threat? Do judges commonly circumvent these laws? Does MA have a "castle doctrine" of its own?

Good points. You also repeat my question.

In other words you can argue it as an affirmative defense, but it doesn't necessarily prevent you from being charged, nor does it prevent your attacker or their family from suing you. So even if you have an airtight case, the state could take you to trial where even when acquitted, you're stuck with tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in associated costs.

We need some sort of omsbudsman at the state to protect residents from these sorts of fraudulent and frivolous lawsuits.

That right there. It depends on how much you pissed off the cops and the DA.

Then you have the civil suits from the dinindonuffins' next of kin. There is 0 protection for you from that no matter what happens. They could be wanted murderers, armed to the teeth with those stolen full auto M4s with ballistics vests and kevlar helmets. They could rape your wife and kids and kill your dogs and kneecap you before you shoot them. Still nothing to protect you from being sued.

Again, we need some "consumer protection" here for people who are doing the right thing.

 

[Horrible]

Is there a law saying you can't do this?




At 19, you are no longer a "kid" in most people's books.

Not in the eyes of the left, assuming it fits their agenda. See Obamacare (26-year olds on parents insurance) and how they slant the "gun violence" stats involving "youths" or "kids" and how they are defined.