The Castle Doctrine by way of "Dirty Polly"

[Dr Mordrid]

The Castle Doctrine by way of "Dirty Polly"

Link....

Dallas Homeowner Fatally Shoots Intruder After Parrot 'Hello'

DALLAS -- Police said a homeowner fatally shot an intruder after his parrot alerted him that someone was on the property.

Video news report

Police said it happened at a home in the 3600 block of Cortez Drive, north of Bachman Lake, at about 2 a.m. Tuesday.

Dennis Baker, who keeps several pet birds, said his Mexican Red-headed parrot "Salvador" said "hello" when he sees someone.

As a man passed by a window at his home, Salvador began saying "Hello, hello," awaking Baker.

Baker then saw the intruder on a surveillance system and shot him inside the home's detached garage, police said.

The intruder, who was identified as John Woodson, 46, was taken to Parkland Hospital in critical condition. He died a short time later.

People had burglarized the home, which is also used as a locksmith shop, several times in the last month, according to police.

Dallas police said Baker will not face charges because he was defending his property.

A bill passed earlier this year by legislators gives Texans a stronger legal right to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, vehicles and workplaces.

[Tjalfe]

not even a "get off my property" warning before shooting?

[rylan]

If there were no tresspassing signs or something, then it seems fine to me.

[Fat Tone]

This is an old debate. I fully endorse the absolute right to defend yourself and your property from people who know damn well they shouldn't be there and what the consequences may me.

[ND66]

not even a "get off my property" warning before shooting?

He did get the "Hello" several times, didn't he?

.

[Kruzin]

Why should there be any 'warning' or no trespassing signs? That's just ludacrice.
The criminal knows good and well that it's not his property, and that he is trespassing.
The property owner has no idea what the thief's (or rapist, or murder's) intentions are, and has every reason to be afraid for his/her life when they discover an intruder has broken into their domain. Damn straight that victim should have the right to defend themself.

[Strahd]

not even a "get off my property" warning before shooting?

I was going to mention how it could have been someone coming to the door in need of help, but after rereading I realized that it happened inside the homeowners garage. I guess if you've already broken into the house you deserve what you get.

[Dr Mordrid]

Under 'castle doctrine' the presumption is on the sider of the homewowner, not the criminal, and the 'castle' extends to his vehicle. Bad news for carjackers.

There is also a set of laws allowing lethal counterattack in public public places and to defend others. Previously in many states the victim had to attempt fleeing before they could counterattack, but no more in most states. Now if you're accosted the presumption is that you have the right to blow 'em away straight off.

Along with these ~38 states now have concealed carry laws which allow most anyone to get a concealed weapon permit. Previously the presumption was you had to prove you should have one, but now the presumption is that unless you have a disqualifying factor (under a protection order, having a criminal record or under treatment for mental illness) you should be able to get it.

Margie and I both carry a pistol. I carry my SIG P-239 .40 in a belt holster and Margie, depending on her outfit, carries her Beretta 9000 9mm in a thigh holster or a fanny pack with a quick-draw holster built in. All 3 of our grown kids also have permits.

Funny thing: after a few grannies blew away home invaders & muggers the crime rate started dropping

My inside-the-pants holster


Magie's fanny pack


Margie's other option

[Admiral]

I hope the Castle Doctrine takes into account staged murders and that people don't start shooting each other to solve an argument, otherwise it sounds fair enough.

[rylan]

Yeah I didn't see that the intruder was already in the guy's garage. I'm all for the guy blowing the intruder away.

[MultimediaMan]

The Castle Doctrine does not mean that shootings are not investigated. The primary goal of the law is to shield the property owner from undue legal and civil liability. It is not a blank check for indiscriminant killing.

Case in point: let's say someone were to "stage" a killing under the pretense of the Castle Doctrine. There are some basic questions which have to be answered: does the occupant of the home know the deceased? If so, what were the circumstances of the encounter? Something like 70-80% of people murdered (using the legal definition of unlawful homicide) are killed by someone they know: this is a fact not lost on investigators.

Example: two friends get into an argument in one friend's home over a football match... Being good footballers, the watch the event like every other fan of football: blind drunk. Things get out hand and the homeownder kills the other friend in a drunken rampage. The homeowner has committed murder - voluntary manslaughter. The facts of the case would show what occured and what action should be taken.

Example: A Woman seeks to end her husband's life for his money. She moves out of the house, into her own. The husband comes calling for her to sign the divorce papers: she shoots him down in the home claiming she was attacked. The facts of the case will be reviewed...discrepencies are investigated.

These are not cases decided in the space of a few minutes, some are, but only when the facts are overwhelming. The only thing that is different is how the defender of the property is viewed in the eyes of the law: there is a presumption of innocence and a right to defend ones self. The investigation starts with the intention of confirming the circumstances and facts of the incident: If there are any irregularities, the investigation will continue until all facts and their circumstances are known. If the facts do not comport with the circumstances, then it can easily become a homicide investigation.

[Admiral]

I was too lazy to google for an answer and hoped someone would clear it up, thanks for doing that.
I'm still uncomfortable with the whole guns idea (different society, smaller population...), though as I said before it sounds fair.

[Dr Mordrid]

I doubt most countries have the problem with drug gangs we do, and they account for the vast majority of the crime and murders in our cities. Unfortunately many times they quit killing each other and the violence spills over. Then there is their customers who do robberies etc. to pay for their fixes.

Some say legalization would solve the problem, but I doubt it. It's too entrenched. Under such conditions all the citizenry can do is protect themselves, as police agencies and legislatures have recognized over the last decade. This is one where pragmatic politicians have seen the light and followed the wishes of their populace without regard to political party; both Democrat and Republican controlled states have made the changes.

States with concealed carry permits: 48

In 39 of these the policy is "shall-issue", meaning those meeting the criteria listed in my previous post will be issued a permit to carry a weapon in public. The choice of weapon depends on the state; some states restrict the weapon to a single handgun, where others allow multiple handguns or even martial arts weapons to be carried.

Alaska and Vermont are unrestricted.

Only Illinois, Wisconsin and Washington, D.C. are no-issue jurisdictions and DC's law is heading for the Supreme Court where it will likely be nullified.

[Strahd]

I certainly don't want to open the guns debate but just to throw out a question Doc, you mentioned that most people, barring any disqualifying factors, can likely obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Do you not find it unsettling that perhaps 7 in 10 people you meet, whether on the street, in stores, or driving may be carrying a loaded weapon?

I'd feel safe in my own home pulling a gun on someone (not sure if I could, but I guess I wouldn't have a problem when I think of my kids being in the house) but outside the home never knowing when someone may lose it for no reason and catch me by surprise, I'd be a little worried, all the time.

[Dr Mordrid]

Do you not find it unsettling that perhaps 7 in 10 people you meet, whether on the street, in stores, or driving may be carrying a loaded weapon?

I'd feel safe in my own home pulling a gun on someone (not sure if I could, but I guess I wouldn't have a problem when I think of my kids being in the house) but outside the home never knowing when someone may lose it for no reason and catch me by surprise, I'd be a little worried, all the time.

I feel better knowing that if someone goes off in a public space that there are people there, including myself, who can stop them before they can kill their fill. It's the ultimate citizens militia, just as stated in the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You should also understand that in these states firearms classes are mandatory to get the license, and in many this includes basic combat training. Even when combat training isn't required most people take an addon class to get combat training. I can think of at least 5 facilities offering this training within 10 miles of here, with one being 3 blocks away, and in many cities the police department is one of them. Even community colleges are offering combat classes in our area.

This training is very effective, you should see how well Margie handles her Beretta 9000. I feel sorry for the silly SOB that tries anything with or around her