In a bizarre twist, judge who shot/killed burglar sentences man who shot/killed burglar...

This is bizarre...

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/c...eives-light-sentence-shooting-killing-burglar

What's the difference between the judge's shooting and killing a burglar and this man?

 

The sentencing was warranted though. No self defense or defense of a 3d party was involved and he was not even in the house at first. He took it upon himself to intervene. As admirable as it is, he should have been aware of the legal implications.

 

Most of the "shoot a burglar and go to prison" horror stories have a lot more to the story than what is shown on the news. Like in this guys case.

 

I've gotta go with Bruno and Arch.

If what I'm reading is true, there was no A-O-J until the *shooter* exposed himself to them by trespassing onto the property to confront the thief, therefore the *shooter* willingly created the dangerous situation to himself, and for a self-defense claim to hold water, you've got to show as much as you can that every point on the "decision tree" that led to the use of force was HIS decision, not yours.

Now if he'd seen the thief threatening someone ELSE'S life in the house, that might be different. As it was, a call to the police would probably have bagged him in time, if ransacking the house was all he was up to.

 

Thank God I live in Texas with the Castle Doctrine!

Deaf

 

THE BIGGEST THING I MISS ABOUT TEXAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

now I live in the COMMUN(ist)-WEALTH of NEW JERSEY.....

and all my toys are feeling seperation anxioty because I'm here and they are there......

 

Georgia -- where this incident took place -- has a Castle Doctrine too, enacted 2006.

Both are clear about being able to stand your ground when in your own home.

Neither of them indicate that you are clear to enter someone else's home with the express purpose of confronting a burglar, confronting said burglar, and then shooting the burglar.

 

This has NOTHING to do with castle doctrine. Castle doctrine allows you to stand your ground. It most certainly does NOT give you the right to enter other peoples homes to intervene in a situation that is not threatening to other people. Castle doctrine does not make you judge Dredd.
You might want to read up on the law before you actually start using your gun.

 

At least in Texas there is a section on defense of OTHERS life or property. In this case the attacker ran toward a female friend who, I presume, felt her life was in danger. Teaching CHL classes does give you some idea of the laws, at least in Texas.

9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON

9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in
using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Deaf

 

Yes. But none of that quote mentions property. It only mentions protection of a third party. Since he had already established that noone was at home, he would not get any protection from 9.33 either.

 

He had time enough to call the homeowner. Why didn't he call the cops immediately following?

 

Machismo? :idunno:

By establishing the homeowner was not home, he also established that the homeowner was safe from the threat.

 

The ONLY thing I could see with this, IMO:

Guy confronted Burglar. If the Burglar attacked him, I would veiw that as mutual combatants, and don't think the guy would/should get protection under the law.

BUT

If the guy confronted him and the guy attacked the woman instead, I could see justification in then protecting her: she didn't initiate confrontation or attempt participation. (as far as I know, anyhow)

Thats the ONLY saving grace I'd give this guy.123