Liability in carrying modified guns?

[bountyhunter]

Originally posted by blueknight7:


A retired British Officer heard someone breaking into his house. The only weapon he had, was his Army Sabre, given to him, when he retired. Both suspects were armed, with (imagine that) handguns.
When the police arrived, they truely had a mess to clean up. But, the British Officer had protected his home, his family, and his property. Court was unnecessary for the two miscreants, as they had been sent to their maker, for a recall.
The British courts tried to crucify the Officer. It didn't fly. And the attorney for the defense stated on absolute fact. If the private citizens in Britian hadn't been effectively disarmed, there wouldn't have been that big of a mess. Case dismissed.

Out here in Oakland some years back (I think it was mid 90's) we had an elderly Army vet who had a thug break into his home. He retreaed to the bedroom and dragged his old service .45 out of the closet and hid behind the bed. As the thug was breaking through the locked bedroom door with a crowbar, the old man fired a single shot and killed the thug.

He was immediately arrested and charged with murder, since they decided a crow bar was not sufficient threat to justify deadly force.

I am not kidding, this really happened. The Oakland DA charged the old man and threw him in jail.

The fun part was when this got out, a group of concerned citizens (including myself) called the DA to voice our concerns.... In fact, we melted his phone line. He eventually had to have his phone number changed. The charges were eventually dropped after the case became public and the DA saw it affecting his chances for re election. The poor old guy did something like three weeks county time because he couldn't make bail.

What a country this is turning into....

 

[robertrwalsh]

Crap like that is part of the reason the law was changed in California, courtesy of former state senator Bill Richardson. In California NOW the law presumes a person who does not live there who breaks in, or who you reasonably believe has broken in, is there to do you physical harm. It is a rebuttable presumption, but the way the law is written it is hard to rebut.

 

[bountyhunter]

Originally posted by robertrwalsh:
Crap like that is part of the reason the law was changed in California, courtesy of former state senator Bill Richardson. In California NOW the law presumes a person who does not live there who breaks in, or who you reasonably believe has broken in, is there to do you physical harm. It is a rebuttable presumption, but the way the law is written it is hard to rebut.

I didn't know there was a new law.

The problem around here is that anybody who shoots somebody (even in their home) is going to get arrested and charged. I have seen it so many times. In most cases, the charges are dropped but the message is clear: use a gun and you go to jail.... even if it is to defend your life.

I know there are some counties (in rural parts of the state) where they don't do this, but in Nor Cal it seems like all the DA's want to ride the rabid anti-gun hatred to higher office.