The following just goes to show you that these things are VERY fact driven.
Police, prosecutors weigh justified rulings in 'Good Samaritan,' home invasion homicides | Crime/Police | theadvocate.com
FWIW I agree with the decisions in the two cases referenced as well as the decision in the Trader Joe case

__________________
Forum consigliere

Even in Virginia, if someone breaks into your residence and you fear for your life, you are granted the right to defend yourself. If you are outside of your residence, it gets a bit murky. Defending yourself against an armed assailant is usually a slam dunk, open and closed case for self-defense. Using deadly force to defend someone else... well, that's going to be a prolonged investigation. Using deadly force to stop a thief as they are running away from the scene... I remember one case where that happened in Richmond, VA. This was about 2 decades ago. The DA was looking to bring charges, but the charges against the business owner were dismissed by a judge. These days, such a case is more likely to be prosecuted. In short, the armed citizen may have (depending upon the state and even the jurisdiction within the state) the right to defend themselves against a lethal or potentially lethal attack, but they are not plain clothes law enforcement officers and open themselves to prosecution and litigation when acting outside the realm of pure self defense.

Things have certainly changed within my lifetime.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

The difference though is that the thief also just committed a murder.
I would think that would matter in a case such as this?

__________________
“Look life in its iron face”

Around here entering someones house could well get you shot and the law isn't going to do much about it even if the door wasn't locked. If you took down someone right after they shot a store clerk they might look at it long enough to make sure that is what happened, before they pinned on the medal.

Robbers and burglars don't get much respect here.

Wish it was that way everywhere.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

Think before you carry. Some people shouldn't have access to firearms.

__________________
Ret. LE, FA Instr, S&W Armorer

I notice the media claim that the Good Samaritan "retaliated" when shooting the murderer. Besides being heavily slanted (or the writer has legal education issues), one might think that was tort bait for a suitably inclined attorney. OK, probably doesn't rise to actual malice, but exceedingly poor choice.

The Baton Rouge paper is notorious for it's liberal slant-ya just gotta learn to read it with a jaundiced eye

__________________
Forum consigliere

Does anyone really need to hear this?

Honestly, threads like this are posted practically everytime someone gets involved in a shooting in which they stepped outside the boundaries of legality, but as far as I know nobody here has ever said anything to suggest that they're unaware of their local laws regarding self-defense. In fact, if anything I've seen more folks posting here who seem like they would honestly sooner allow themselves to be murdered than shoot someone because they believe that regardless of what the laws state or whether their use of deadly force was legally justified, the Courtroom Boogeyman would just find a way to manipulate the law and get them thrown behind bars.

So yeah, I honestly don't think that anybody here needs to hear this because generally speaking, most folks who care enough about firearms/self-defense to spend time discussing the subject on forums is well aware of their local laws regarding self-defense and thusly isn't about to go making the same obvious mistakes as the average fool who went out and panic-bought a firearm without ever bothering to read about local laws.

You're preaching to the choir here.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Merriam Webster definition of retaliate - to repay in kind. Yup, looks like the word fits perfectly in this article.

I've had defensive pistol instructors say, and I may have even seen here, if you're going to use deadly force, it should be important enough that you're willing to do the jail time if legal system doesn't end up backing you up.

The guy in the article that shot the home invader, absolutely. The guy that shot the fleeing murderer, not as clear.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

I'll take threads like this over the never ending discussions by gun fighters lamenting 10 round magazines...like this one.

If limited to 10 rounds, what do you carry?

FL case law has ruled even an unlocked door requires a level of force to open, so forced entry applies.

Not a whole lot of details in the home invasion report. No claim that the three were armed, whether they walked in through an unlocked door or broke in, etc.

May not matter since any reasonable person would conclude that if three men enter a house unlawfully, the homeowner is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

I would like to know the details of the Trader Joe story.

__________________
You're shy a few manners.

Think before you shoot? Anyone who uses a gun in his/her home, or
carrys a gun for self defense, has an obligation to be so familiar with the
requirements of a good self defense shooting that the shoot/don't shoot
decision can be made instantaneously. There probably will not be time
for much thinking. While you are thinking, the BG will be killing you.

__________________
In Omnia Paratus

How about think before you are in a situation that might require you to shoot?

Yes, I am aware of the laws in my jurisdiction. That does not prevent me from learning from descriptions or videos of deadly force encounters.

Your own dustup will probably not happen the way you expect it to, nor will mine. Hence the value of seeing what happened to others and how they responded.

You know, you could have just said, "I needed to see this thread." And left it at that. There's no need to get all defensive about it, I just honestly thought that everyone here was well informed of their local laws in regards to self-defense and therefore didn't need to be reminded of the general limitations of what can be legally considered self-defense.

Evidently I was wrong, and I sincerely apologize for my presumptuous statements which have offended you. It's good to know that there are those among us who do in fact find such threads as these to be helpful/informative, and in hindsight it was foolish of me to say such things considering all of the new firearms owners I might have alienated by speaking in such a derogatory manner, which is honestly the last thing that I would want to do.

Please accept my sincerest apologies and have a Happy Thanksgiving.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Remember, every round that you crank off has a lawyer attached to it. Sorry Caj.

Fortunately you can get a jury too. I think the mind set of local juries may well mean as much or more than the mind set of the prosecutor, although, in theory at least, the same people who end up on juries vote for the local city or county attorney.

The dictionary, or at least that one, doesn't have all the connotations (negative in this case) that attach to the word.

Not having all the details, I can't say that the example meets all the requirements justifying the use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon. Apparently, the local authorities felt it was close enough. But, no, that doesn't make it a shining example of what you should do.

In all fairness, you could have just said "I didn't need to see this thread . . . " And left it at that . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .