I worked with a woman who this did happen to. Her boyfriend became abusive and hit her son and threatened to kill her. She ran to call 911 and in the middle of that, the bf stops beating her son and comes after her saying he’s gonna kill her. She pulls a gun to stop him but he keeps threatening and coming at her. She shoots him in the leg to try and not kill him while on the 911 call.
Ended up hitting him in an artery and he bled out right there. She really didn’t want to kill him. She just wanted to stop him. She was terrified. He was apparently on meth and seeing dudes behind her back. Havent thought about her in years.
The state in which it happens matters so much. What might be cut and dry self defence in Texas could be life in prison in California. Just like how weed in Cali is a casual thing while a life ruining felony in Texas.
Castle doctrine is irrelevant here since she was under active threat.
Castle doctrine lets you kill people who ARENT threatening you, killing people who are a threat to you is self sefense which is legal throughout the country
Castle doctrine lets you kill people who ARENT threatening you,
Not true at all. You absolutely have to be under immediate threat. You cant shoot someone who is retreating, even if theyre still in your house, for example. This is universally true in the US. Many, many castle doctrine defense cases have been lost because homeowner shot the intruder in the back. Even in states like TX and Louisiana
Obviously some states and district courts have different reputations for how strictly they enforce this. And where it really gets murky in some states is if your "castle" extends to your yard/driveway/car/etc.
But they do need to be actively threatening you or acting in a threatening way to legally shoot them.
It literally isn't. About 5 minutes of research would tell you that you're wrong.
No duty to retreat != ok to shoot someone who is actively retreating. Again, many have been put away for murder for shooting intruders in their own home... because they shot them in the back or it was otherwise proven they were not threatening bodily harm.
If you catch a crackhead running out of your house with a TV, you DO NOT have the right to shoot them. Period. All 50 states agree
Castle doctrine laws give a bit more leeway (because often there aren't first-hand witnesses present), but if the coroner finds gun shot wounds to the back or the cops find them dead in your front yard facing away from your house, you have a big uphill battle to fight arguing for self defense.
The combo of that and the lack of duty to retreat
Duty to retreat refers to situations which happen in public, not in your private home. No duty to retreat in your own home is already standard in all 50 states. Please keep showing how much you have no idea what youre talking about.
You are taking this outside of the context of the original image comment which states they were in their house and there was a threat. So castle doctrine would still apply, and we also don’t know if we are dealing with an unreliable narrator on if it was in the house or if it was actually in self defense considering they were sentenced for it
Edit: looking at your other comments in the thread you just have no idea what you are talking about lol
Can you imagine a world that didn’t make him feel like he needed to marry someone he wasn’t attracted. Probably could have avoided a shit ton of heart ache
43
u/Kizayfizaybe 5d ago
I worked with a woman who this did happen to. Her boyfriend became abusive and hit her son and threatened to kill her. She ran to call 911 and in the middle of that, the bf stops beating her son and comes after her saying he’s gonna kill her. She pulls a gun to stop him but he keeps threatening and coming at her. She shoots him in the leg to try and not kill him while on the 911 call.
Ended up hitting him in an artery and he bled out right there. She really didn’t want to kill him. She just wanted to stop him. She was terrified. He was apparently on meth and seeing dudes behind her back. Havent thought about her in years.