It's OK to shoot a hooker if she doesn't have sex...

[BVS]

You can not just shoot someone because you don't like him. You have to prove you're life was threatened.

You're really missing the point detective. If it comes down to a he said vs he said story and one of the 'hes' is dead then how do you prove it? The law is on your side if it's in your property. That's my whole entire point, I'm sorry if you don't get that.

Google me one case where a homeowner drug a burglar back into his home. Never happened.

As a detective how can you be so absolute, you should know first hand. How could I google an instance where they got away with it? You're a detective so you know some lawyers, ask them. Ask them about how the law is on their side. You've seen how many gun groups have advocated it right?

 

[tim722]

How could I google an instance where they got away with it? You're a detective so you know some lawyers, ask them. Ask them about how the law is on their side. You've seen how many gun groups have advocated it right?

Wow. You were the one who told me there are cases out there and that I should google them to find out. Bottom line is you were wrong and there are no cases like that.

 

[BVS]

Wow. You were the one who told me there are cases out there and that I should google them to find out. Bottom line is you were wrong and there are no cases like that.

I'm going to try one more time to appeal to your logic side.

I showed you how to google those cases where they tried and failed. BUT if they got away with it, then more than likely there are no articles about it, right? You went through the accelerated path to homicide detective so you must be top of your class, so I doubt you have any cases like this but you're aware that there are people out there that have gotten away with murder because there was just never enough to make a case, right? How many of those made the news? Because if there was no case, then there was no trial, and then there is no story, BUT there are many detectives and lawyers out there that know there's more to the story but just couldn't prove it.

 

[nbcrusader]

The inane Gawker headline aside (the only place that rewards you for shooting hookers is Grand Theft Auto), it seems there are two real issues here: (i) whether we should allow certain defenses to crimes against person or property and (ii) are changes needed to the current jury system.

In the instant case, a defense attorney successfully applied (misapplied) a legal defense that, in my opinion, the jury should have rejected. How the defense attorney was able to satisfy a jury is beyond me.

Should we have such defenses? To be clear, the burden of proving the defense is always on the defendant. A defendant does not simply raise a defense and then the prosecutor has to disprove the defense. Forensics makes it far more difficult for a defendant to stage the defense by moving evidence or outright lying.

As to the defense itself, the law has always given greater protections for night-time property crimes. Common law defines burglary as “trespassory breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at night with an intent to commit a felony therein.” I would argue that the right to use deadly force to protect one’s property at night (especially one’s home) is a reasonable deterrent. I’m not sure why we would want to reward the criminal in this situation.

The bad outcome in this case does not justify the changing of a defense, but rather points to potential flaws in a system that we otherwise accept.

 

[Jive Turkey]

I'm going to try one more time to appeal to your logic side.

I showed you how to google those cases where they tried and failed. BUT if they got away with it, then more than likely there are no articles about it, right? You went through the accelerated path to homicide detective so you must be top of your class, so I doubt you have any cases like this but you're aware that there are people out there that have gotten away with murder because there was just never enough to make a case, right? How many of those made the news? Because if there was no case, then there was no trial, and then there is no story, BUT there are many detectives and lawyers out there that know there's more to the story but just couldn't prove it.

Against my better judgement, I'm going to side with tim for a moment (kinda). If you'd just post one case where someone tried and was caught trying to drag a body back inside their home, the back and forth can be done with. I'm not sure why the cases in which someone could have allegedly gotten away with it keep coming up, though. It's an unfalsifiable, hypothetical argument