# Judge Dredd Pronounces Sentence, shoots burglar dead.



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 22, 2010)

http://www.wrdw.com/crimeteam12/headlines/101144824.html


> Deputies say  the shooting happened around 4:00 this morning at Judge Overstreet's  home on the 2200 block of Cumming Road. That's when investigators say  Howard, possibly along with a second person, broke into Judge Carlisle  Overstreet's Augusta home. Investigators also tell News 12 Howard was  masked when Judge Overstreet confronted him in the home. After the  shooting, we're told Judge Overstreet is the one who called 911.
> *"You don't have time to say, 'Well  sir, are you here to steal something or are you here to shoot me?''"*  Sheriff Ronnie Strength said in a news conference.
> Sheriff Strength said two burglars used a large rock to break into Chief Judge Overstreet's Summerville home.
> 20-year-old John Howard was killed  by one shot from the judge's pistol. Investigators believe burglars  broke in thinking nobody was home, but quickly found out otherwise and  it ended deadly.
> ...



If you break into a person's house, you deserve what you get.  No homeowner should have to hope that they won't be raped or killed by a burglar, or pray that the police respond to a 911 call fast enough to stop the crime from happening.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 22, 2010)

Good for the Judge and good for the Sheriff supporting self defense. 

A one shot kill with a .380? Thats some good shooting.


----------



## l_uk3y (Aug 23, 2010)

Good on him. He couldn't know what they were there for and firing 1 accurate shot you can't say he was excessive in his force. Also love the opinion of the Sheriff.

I wish we shared that attitude here in Australia. The right to defend yourself in your own home should be defended.

Here if somebody breaks into my house and trips over something I left lying around and hurts themselves then they can take me to court to cover their injuries. Just like similar situation instead I defend myself and hit them. I believe I could be charged with assault unless they are armed and it is life threatening. (I could be wrong but I'm fairly confident that is the case).

Luke


----------



## MBuzzy (Aug 23, 2010)

As long as they have broken into your home, you have the right to defense yourself and your home - just make sure that you live in a Castle Doctrine state....


----------



## MJS (Aug 23, 2010)

Good for the judge!!!  I agree..you break into someones house, you deserve whatever happens to you.


----------



## Stac3y (Aug 23, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://www.wrdw.com/crimeteam12/headlines/101144824.html
> 
> 
> If you break into a person's house, you deserve what you get. No homeowner should have to hope that they won't be raped or killed by a burglar, or pray that the police respond to a 911 call fast enough to stop the crime from happening.


 
Q F Freakin' T!


----------



## BloodMoney (Aug 23, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you break into a person's house, you deserve what you get.  No homeowner should have to hope that they won't be raped or killed by a burglar, or pray that the police respond to a 911 call fast enough to stop the crime from happening.



Amen.

In my country all firearms have to be locked up hard out, basically meaning theres no way you can access them in an emergency, and handguns are severely restricted. For me thats not a problem, I have other weapons and know how to use them, but for the wife its a different story. Then again our pitbull might have something to say about someone messing with her....


----------



## Tiberius (Aug 30, 2010)

Different areas warrant different measures. In America it can very well happen, that a burglar shoots everybody inside dead. Its what "Tookie" Williams did. So firearms might be needed for self defense. In other countries, like Germany, it does not happen, so there is no need to escalate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Look at that. Texas does not have the castle doctrine, but a bunch of states I never heard about do. Clishee failed me once again XD.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 30, 2010)

Tiberius said:


> In other countries, like Germany, it does not happen, so there is no need to escalate.



I beg to differ!

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...BAJ&dq=germany homeowner shot&pg=1661,4574804

Here we have a man in Germany who decided that US and NATO planes were flying too low over his house, so he decided to shoot them!  OK, he shot them with a huge slingshot firing homemade Bavarian dumplings, but still...


----------



## Blade96 (Aug 30, 2010)

MBuzzy said:


> As long as they have broken into your home, you have the right to defense yourself and your home - just make sure that you live in a Castle Doctrine state....



This.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Aug 30, 2010)

A glass raised to a failed mission. :drinkbeer


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 30, 2010)

Eh. Don't get too confused with the Castle Doctrine stuff. Castle Doctrine specifically spelled out or not, pretty much every state (US that is) has a "stand your ground" or no duty to retreat from the home exception spelled out in their penal/use of force laws. Or they depend on case law.

A specifically written statute spelling out your protections within the home is a great benefit, don't get me wrong. It provides additional protections that a prosecutor would have to hurdle to "get you", but...if you were justified in your use of force you should be OK regardless of the Castle Doctrine. A burglar forcing his way into your home should be a "good shoot" in all 50 states unless there is more to it. The "you have to flee your home from a burglar in the middle of the night" is usually a misunderstanding of the law or a failure to understand that there was more to the particular case than is being presented. Futhermore, if you were wrong in your use of force you are going to be prosecuted regardless of a Castle Doctrine or not.


----------



## Carol (Aug 30, 2010)

> "You don't have  time to say, 'Well sir, are you here to steal something or are you here  to shoot me?''" Sheriff Ronnie Strength said in a news conference.



My state is not a castle doctrine state.  That delineation ("are you here to steal something or are you here to shoot me?") needs to be met before deadly force can be justified against a burglar in one's own home.  

If a catburglar gets in and tries to escape with your big screen TV without any attempts to threaten you or your family, then deadly force is not justified.


RSA 627:4



> II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
> (a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
> (b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
> (c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense;  or
> ...


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 30, 2010)

The thing is with Castle Vs Non states..most people are not aware of what "presumptions" are in effect or what a reasonable person can "assume" within their states legal framework. In my state (Non-Castle), a reasonable person would be able to "presume" (the legal use of the word) that some strange person breaking into or inside their home in the middle of the night is a deadly threat and can be dealt with accordingly. I doubt any state would say "why would you be threatened or afraid of a burglar in your home?" 

The place to look when you are not in a Castle Doc state is in your states case law.

However things do not occur in a vaccum. If all you see is the guys back going out of your window, or if the guy surrenders and prones himself out on your floor you probably shouldn't just shoot him because its a Castle Doc state (or not).


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 30, 2010)

Carol. I found this on your states law:

R.S.A. 159:13) TITLE LXII CRIMINAL CODE CHAPTER 627 JUSTIFICATION 


> A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person *when he reasonably believes* that such other person: (a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person; (b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary; (c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or (d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage. III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he knows that he and the third person can, with complete safety: (a) Retreat from the encounter, *except that he is not required to retreat if he is within his dwelling or its curtilage and was not the initial aggresso*r; or (b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or (c) Comply with a demand that he abstain from performing an act which he is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the actor has provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter. (d) If he is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting him at his direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, he need not retreat. Source. 1971, 518:1. 1981, 347:1, 2, eff. Aug. 16, 1981.



You state statute is VERY similar in wording to mine.


----------



## Carol (Aug 30, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Carol. I found this on your states law:
> 
> R.S.A. 159:13) TITLE LXII CRIMINAL CODE CHAPTER 627 JUSTIFICATION
> 
> ...



Thanks for that.  :asian:


----------

