Sort of off-topic law question: Is it legal to shoot a mugger?

[Lawfficer]

how can someone sue you for shooting them in self defense when their intentions were to cause you bodily harm/death? makes no sense???

How does someone win a law suit for 2.7 MILLION dollars because they spilled a cup of McDonalds Coffe in their own lap while trying to take the lid off to put in creamer?


Regardless of how screwed up or legal system can be, it's far better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[Blown4v]

so then, one shot, make it count??

 

[VirtualSVT]

What you don't see is the last shot is fired due to the bad guy's gun hand twitched..........obviously the threat was still present.

lol. great movie too.

 

[Iceman II]

Not a problem here in Texas. The right to defense yourself, you bet.

 

[stangposse]

Texas' laws are more for effect. There definitely is more lee-way for the shooter, but there is still plenty of case-law that illustrates the shooter is way better off NOT pulling the trigger....both from a criminal and civil litigation standpoint.

However, if I was going to invade someone's house or carjack somebody...Texas is the last place I'd do it.

 

[CJK440]

However, you cannot shoot to kill. If you intention is to kill the mugger, that would be illegal. You can only use enough force to stop the attack/threat.

Yes, but if you feel you need to pull the trigger you don't do anything less than shoot to kill.

 

[Iceman II]

However, if I was going to invade someone's house or carjack somebody...Texas is the last place I'd do it.[/QUOTE]

You got that right, Texas is the last place to do that. I can think of one city where it could be an issue and that is Austin.
Also, as mentioned above when the threat is over you need to stop. There have been many cases where the bad guy with a knife, who is shot can still get to you even at 25'.
There are a lot of factors, but as long as you can testify you feared for your life and defended yourself you should be good to go.

 

[txyaloo]

You got that right, Texas is the last place to do that. I can think of one city where it could be an issue and that is Austin.
Also, as mentioned above when the threat is over you need to stop. There have been many cases where the bad guy with a knife, who is shot can still get to you even at 25'.
There are a lot of factors, but as long as you can testify you feared for your life and defended yourself you should be good to go.

I'd disagree with the Austin comment. The DA there isn't that bad when it comes to gun rights.

Harris county's former DA was horrible. He was arresting and prosecuting people legally carrying firearms in their vehicles under the "traveling" doctrine. I never heard of that happening in Travis county. Hell, the new Harris county DA, doesn't trust his ADA's enough to allow them to carry firearms in the courtroom even though as of 2007 the Legislature has allowed it.

 

[scooterposse]

Unless you were in Wisconsin. Then Gov. Jim Doyle would think you needed to be charged with carrying a conceal weapon. However, I would hope our pro-gun AG would tell him to pound sand by taking the case from the locals and then refuseing to prosecute.

I hate living in 1 of 2 states that will not allow CCW. Granted I get a pass because Im in LE, but I still think it's atrocious regular citizens can't protect themself.

you can open carry in wisconsin. and you can not shot someone if they come in your house with a bat. as the law reads, you must defend same or less force. wi has no castle doctrine law.

 

[Lawfficer]

you can open carry in wisconsin. and you can not shot someone if they come in your house with a bat. as the law reads, you must defend same or less force. wi has no castle doctrine law.

First, Wisconsin's "Open Carry" is kind of a Joke. You can "open carry" a gun, but there are a lot of restrictions to where you can to the point where it makes open carry impractical. You can walk down the street with it on your hip, but you cant have it strapped to your belt in a car. Other laws require that it has to be unloaded and encased to be legal. Makes no sense to me.

Second, where is this "same or less force" law?? I have never heard of this, and I hav +7yrs in Law Enforcement in WI. Furhter in my opinion a blunt force weapon such as a bat, is MORE than enough reason to shoot someone. If I have a gun pointed at you, and you are still brazen enough to come after me with a Bat, you're getting shot. The reaon is simple, a bat is very capable of causing death or great bodily harm.

In WI, Officers can use deadly force if there is a (1)weapon, (2)intent, and a (3)delivery system and I think this is a good policy for citizens to follow too.

 

[scooterposse]

First, Wisconsin's "Open Carry" is kind of a Joke. Yes you can open carry a gun, but there are alots of restrictions on where you can to the point where it makes it impractical. You can walk down the street, but you can have it strapped to your belt in a car. It has to be unloaded and encased to be legal. Makes no sense.

Second, where is this "same or less force" law?? I have never heard of this having +7yrs in Law Enforcement in WI and in my opinion a blunt force weapon such as a bat, is MORE than enough reason to shoot someone. If I have a gun pointed at you, and you are still brazen enough to come after me with a Bat, you're getting shot. The reaon is simple, a bat is very capable of causing death or great bodily harm.

In WI, Officers can use deadly force if there is a (1)weapon, (2)intent, and a (3)delivery system and I think this is a good policy for citizens to follow too.

as an officer you can and should be able to end a situation with deadly force if need be and not worry about if you could have ran away. but as the average joe we do not have the same liberties as l/e. if a bad guy enters my home with a bat and i have a gun, and a way to retreat and i dont, i just light them up, who is in trouble? me. here is an incident from about a year ago that was on the news and in the paper.

District attorney ponders charge in fatal shooting

Sherill Summer 06.FEB.08
SIREN - Last week, Burnett County District Attorney Ken Kutz felt that
charges would be filed within the week against Kyle Huggett who shot
and killed John Peach on the night of Sunday, Jan. 20, as he was
entering Huggett's home, apparently enraged over something said in text
messages that two were exchanging earlier in the evening.

But formal charges have not been filed as of yet.

Kutz is waiting for a toxicology report to determine if alcohol or
other drugs were in Peach's system, and also a record of the text
messages the two men exchanged. Kutz said he still plans to charge
Huggett, but the exact charge is still to be determined.

Huggett was release on a $50,000 signature bond on Wednesday, Jan. 23.
His next court appearance is scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 27. Formal
charges will need to be filed at the very latest by then.

From the moment Huggett was taken into custody after the shooting,
Huggett has claimed self-defense.

Reports state Huggett was home with his girlfriend - Peach's former
girlfriend - and her 5-year-old son - when Peach arrived at his house
with two other men. The 5-year-old is Peach's biological child.

From the driveway, Peach attempted to call Huggett out of the house
indicating he wanted to fight. When Huggett didn't respond, Peach went
to the door and banged on it until the doorjamb broke and it was forced
open. As soon as Peach stepped inside, he was shot twice in the chest
by Huggett.

According to authorities, it is possible that at least one of the men
who arrived with Peach was at the door with Peach as he forced it open,
but did not enter the home and was unharmed.

Huggett's girlfriend called 911 and at first reported that the shooting
victim had left the scene in a vehicle but was mistaken. It was the two
men with Peach that fled the scene in the vehicle. Peach was lying,
fatally wounded, in the driveway. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Self-defense law

Exactly what happened leading up to the shooting will be looked at from
every angle to determine if Huggett used the allowed force for self-
defense, according to Kutz.

The self-defense law in Wisconsin only allows enough force to protect
oneself. The law states that once an attack that prompted self-defense
is terminated, self-defense no longer applies to any further violence
upon the would-be attacker.

In addition, lethal force is only allowed if a person is threatened
with lethal force. For example, a person is not allowed to shoot an
unarmed robber who has entered the home if the robber is clearly
unarmed.

Since Peach was unarmed, this later distinction is a key point. It will
depend if Huggett could reasonably determine that Peach was unarmed
that night. It will also depend on what additional force should be
allowed, since there were two other threatening men with Peach.

Many states have changed their self-defense law in the last couple of
years to allow lethal force no matter what the perceived threat is. In
other words, in these states a victim of an attack no longer needs to
determine just how much force is necessary to protect oneself and if
there was any reasonable way to avoid the attack. In these states, it
generally is allowed to shoot an unarmed robber for example. Wisconsin
is not a state that has changed its self-defense law.

However, a Florida State University criminology professor explained in
a New York Times article examining the change in the self-defense law
in some states, that whatever a state's self-defense law, claims of
self-defense are often accepted in some states. The courts more or less
give the person claiming self-defense the benefit of the doubt.


as for open carry in wi, i agree it is a joke but at least it is a foot in the door. i just moved back to mn from wi and i had/have my cc permit in mn but was not able to carry where i lived, 3 miles into wi.

be safe and thanks

 

[NyteByte]

There is a new bill being proposed in WI about this. I don't think it has passed yet.
Here it is for your reference:
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB-193.pdf

It's a short read and I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

 

[Lawfficer]

Looks like the Charges of Homicide were dismissed on a Motion per CCAP. I think the whole point of the story is this; there were three men, some of whom were forcing their way into his home while making it clear he had an ass whooping coming. If he had the oppertunity to flee out the back safely, then he should have. However, I highly doubt a Jury would have convicted him especially with the disadvantages he was at. Once there is a gun in the fight, loosing it in my opinion is the same thing as someone shooting at you.

Looks like a winner though, the Victim went on to great things like being convicted of CCW while OWI'ing and bail jumping. I guess he was destined to become a felon sooner or later.

 

[Chris01Bullitt]

I would say it's ok. Remember dead man tells no tale...

 

[10thSVT_03]

Unless you were in Wisconsin. Then Gov. Jim Doyle would think you needed to be charged with carrying a conceal weapon. However, I would hope our pro-gun AG would tell him to pound sand by taking the case from the locals and then refuseing to prosecute.

I hate living in 1 of 2 states that will not allow CCW. Granted I get a pass because Im in LE, but I still think it's atrocious regular citizens can't protect themself.

:rockon::beer:

 

[rickm8]

Mswaim on the on the first page had a good point, I hope you are comfortable blowing holes in people. I know that you want to know if LEGALLY you can do it, I think you should also ask yourself if you have the guts to look the guy in the eye and pull the trigger.