If you were being attacked and you felt your life was in danger you can shoot him
/thread.
do i think your story would hold up. No.
I know what im talking about…
Look around its NY…people who shoot people during armed home invasions have legal issues in this state…
You’re right you have NO idea if he has a weapon…you have NO reason to use deadly force on someone…
You can’t use “I was just trying to wound” the attacker…its deadly force…
While I was not in my house, I was in my garage, and he was approaching me, OBVIOUSLY with intend to harm me, other wise he wouldn’t have done it in the first place.
Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.
In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:
An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally – e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the “Duty to Retreat” and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of “Castle Doctrine” expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.
Note: the term “home” is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.
^true story…
but the law reads that if you feel your life was placed in eminent danger. you have the right to fight back.
You cant shoot him in the back, but you have the right to protect your family and yourself using deadly force if your feel your life or families life has been threatened.
If hes fleeing, you must let him flee.
“someone is tailgating the shit out of me, I give them a brake check”
“The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force”
You break checked someone…
They followed you onto your property…
You didn’t see any weapon…
No verbal threats from them…
:lol:
First off you never drive home why would you want “thecrazy” to know where you and your family live… You drive straight to the closest police station or tim hortons…
AFAIK, unless you were put in a position where you had no other choice but to pull a firearm (he was charging you with a baseball bat, or had a gun pulled on you), it’s illegal.
NY and most other liberal states are very tough on gun owners. You pretty much need to be in imediate danger to even think about using it. I don’t have the time to research right now, but you do hear about people on a semi-regular basis being criminally (and civil) charged for using guns in a self defese situation.
not if you shoot 'em in the back.
edit: n/m saw your other post
never understood the brake check,
why not just signal, pull over onto the shoulder & let them pass?
+1
This is the state that someone trying to rob a house fell through the roof and was hurt and sued the owner.
So the story really did happen huh?
Understandable, butttt no deadly force would be used. As i said, I shot to the leg would be enough to stun him but would not cause any fatal injuries.
FIRING A GUN AT SOMEONE IS DEADLY FORCE
Are you fully trained on how to use fire arms?
How would the court know you’re not a terrible shot?
You keep a loaded .22 in your garage? sounds reckless…
and how do you know? What if he bled to death before help arrived?
wrong, read the laws
you cant just get a gun and point it at someone for the hell of it, they have to show to be a physical threat, plain and simple. and if they come at you without a gun or weapon, dont think of pulling the gun either.
If you do that, be 100% sure you kill him. If he tells a story about how you were driving like an asshole and instigated it, you’ll be going to jail.
If he is dead on your property, your story is the only one that can be told…
Think like a criminal damnit. Don’t be that bank robber not wearing a mask…
:roflpicard:
You would AT LEAST have a shit-ton of liability civilly. You would have a hell of a time getting out of criminal liability.You could call police or drive to a police station if you felt in danger from him following you.
i bet you dont even have the balls to shoot someone.
most ppl talk shit till it actually comes time, then the skirt goes on.
i say if it happens again, which it probably will from reading all of your idiotic posts and you getting in trouble for driving like an ass, try it and see… Make sure you shoot to kill tho, cause ur case wont stand a chance if hes unarmed.
And, blady if hes dead with no weapon, it doesnt matter, the shooter will be detained. NYS laws at its finest right there 
I never said it happened in the first place dick.
it was a hypothetical story
NO deadly weapon in his hand…you’re unable to use a deadly one against him. UNLESS, he is in the process of committing a felony. Now if he followed you home and you came downstairs to find him raping your mom…shoot him.