How far does the 2nd Ammendment go?

[mountain mama]

http://www.2thedeuce.com/news/kdvr-e...,2612691.story
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...46/detail.html

An 82-year-old Wheat Ridge homeowner, Robert Wallace, was charged with attempted murder soon after police said he shot at two men stealing a trailer from his property in February.

One of the suspects, 28-year-old Alvaro Cardona-De Lorea, was shot through the eye, leaving him with brain damage and a disfigured skull.

The two men, illegal immigrants, went for months without being charged with a crime for the theft.

Colorado has a "Make My Day" law that allows a citizen to shoot only in the case of a home intrusion. My question *looking at Ken* is this: If the thief was shot in the eye, then that means that the escape vehicle was possibly facing the victim, Mr. Wallace, and could presumably have been being used as a weapon against him. Doesn't our second ammendment provide us with the right to protect ourselves from such bodily harm?

[justin_baker]

Well, they were stealing his trailer, but he wasnt in immediate danger. Stealing is not punishable by death anymore, so you generally dont have the legal right to use deadly force against someone trying to steal from you.(Unless they are busting into your house with a gun of course) It was unnecessary to shoot them in a legal sense.
Im not saying i agree with it, Mr Wallace had justification to shoot in my opinion, but its just not how our legal system works. Mabeye he should have just shot out the tires so they couldnt steal the trailer. That would have saved him a lot of headache.

[Rick]

I have to agree. I caught three kids trying to break into my truck earlier this year and approached them with weapon drawn. That was for my protection. I did not then and do not now think I would have been justified in shooting them. Even though the largest and oldest was facing me and less than 10 yards away.

The guy had a lot of options short of shooting them. He could have gotten a license number and called the police. Approached as I did and ordered them off the property. He could have held them at gun point until police arrived or fired warning shots.

Popping the guy in the eye sort of sets a precedence. The kid is just lucky the old guy didn't double tap him. Wonder what kind of grouping he could get at that range?

[Justin Case]

The law expects you to run away,,, if you can not run away from the threat and you feel your LIFE is in danger, only then can you legally use deadly force, As Far as the law goes, I do not think anything , including your home is worth a life, at least thats how I always heard it was ..

[Old GI]

This topic requires state-unique discussion. One size does not fit all.

[Rick]

Old GI is correct. Here in Indiana I do not have to announce that I am armed nor do I have to retreat.

[rwc1969]

Why aren't police officers held to this same standard?

[kyratshooter]

Police are there to intervene. That places them in an agressive posture and active self defense role. They also are expected to abide by a specific escilation of force doctrine.

Many states consider the presence of the intruder in the home as prima-facia evidence of intent to do harm. TN/KY has been that way for 50 years.

OGI is correct, states varry.

[SARKY]

I am just so tired of this crap! Let's just look at this in a logical manner.
Say the trailers worth was $2,000, and said owner makes $10.00 an hour(before taxes)
That means that these theives stole 200 pre tax hours of this persons life. probably closer to 250 hours post tax dollars.
Never mind that these bastons of society are here illeagally.
For those of you who haven't already, look up the word "INVASION" in the dictionary.
and if you don't think what is happening on our border is an invasion then more than likely you are unaware of the indoctrination the Mexican government does in their school system.....can you say reconquista!

[SARKY]

Well, they were stealing his trailer, but he wasnt in immediate danger. Stealing is not punishable by death anymore, so you generally dont have the legal right to use deadly force against someone trying to steal from you.(Unless they are busting into your house with a gun of course) It was unnecessary to shoot them in a legal sense.
Im not saying i agree with it, Mr Wallace had justification to shoot in my opinion, but its just not how our legal system works. Mabeye he should have just shot out the tires so they couldnt steal the trailer. That would have saved him a lot of headache.

Since you live here in the peoples republic.... have you read the state constitution? Article I, Section I
among other things, it lists you right to "protect property"
just what do you think that means????

[Ole WV Coot]

SARKY is 100% correct the way I see it. I will go so far to say vandalism is worse than stealing and I would deal with either the same way. My "castle" is kinda big and extends to the limits of whatever I might use and I don't believe in a "warning" shot. Could that possibly be why I have never had a problem living here 30+ yrs? I think anyone that could find my place knows what to expect.

[Old GI]

I think I may have mentioned this before, but ...... During one of my tours at Fort Bragg before internet, I asked a lawyer about self-defense shooting in NC. He said don't worry about shooting him on the porch and dragging him in; if you show threat that's all you need. I asked him for an example of a bad shoot and he related a story of an incident: A bad shoot happened when a guy shot an "intruder" in the back at 100 yards with his hunting rifle. Good enough explanation for me.

[mountain mama]

Justin, I do not recall the 2nd Ammendment saying anything about running for my life. Could you please point that specific portion out to me?

Again, it is my presumption that the guy was about to be run down by these criminals and was using the gun for his own self-preservation. Even if I'm wrong, I still feel we should be able to secure our own property using force, if necessary.

[Justin Case]

state law and the Constitution are not always the same. In California, You had better be able to prove that your life was in immediate danger before you use deadly force,
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html

[Batch]

You cam eliminate from the equation their legal status in the states. At least for me.

Florida is a stand your ground state. But, you still need to meet certain exceptions to use lethal force.

My policy is pretty clear. I don't want to kill anyone for any reason. But, I would rather feel bad for killing a bad guy then feel nothing cause I was killed by a bad guy.

[Justin Case]

You cam eliminate from the equation their legal status in the states. At least for me.

Florida is a stand your ground state. But, you still need to meet certain exceptions to use lethal force.

My policy is pretty clear. I don't want to kill anyone for any reason. But, I would rather feel bad for killing a bad guy then feel nothing cause I was killed by a bad guy.

Yes, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[Rick]

This issue isn't about legal or illegal immigration, as I see it. It's about someone, anyone, stealing from you and your right to defend your property. I guess it's hard for anyone to say what they might do in the few seconds you have to make a decision when a vehicle is coming at you. However, I still think you have other options available.

The fact that the two individuals are illegal immigrants just makes it worse. It really doesn't matter because the home owner had no knowledge of where they were from or if they were here legally or not.

[Old GI]

I used to hear "Your rights end at the tip of my (rather sizeable) nose. Now, I think it's "A lot of your rights end at my property line."

[mountain mama]

The fact that these two are illegal immigrants only goes to show that they were behaving criminally even before the theft. In fact, both had been previously arrested on more than one occassion and if they had been deported under federal guidelines, this wouldn't even be an issue. As far as I am concerned, their "rights" ended at the border.

[rwc1969]

Maybe the shooter should sue the fedral govt then.