at that point you could not guarantee it would only be a kidnapping and well fear for the life of a loved one is enough. Whether it was pulling the weapon or some other means protect your children
at that point you could not guarantee it would only be a kidnapping and well fear for the life of a loved one is enough. Whether it was pulling the weapon or some other means protect your children
I personally would think kidnapping would fall under the "fear of great bodily harm or death" category pretty easily. And considering how fragile young children are, especially babies, I can't see any issue convincing a jury of that.
But as Rod said, just be sure you could explain why you thought they were kidnapping your kid, and not just grandma oohing and ahhing over your cute baby. Personally again I don't think it would be difficult to distinguish this, but it would be the critical factor in my mind to being a justified shoot.
But as Rod said, just be sure you could explain why you thought they were kidnapping your kid, and not just grandma oohing and ahhing over your cute baby. Personally again I don't think it would be difficult to distinguish this, but it would be the critical factor in my mind to being a justified shoot.
Thanks Man I appreciate your opinion.
I'm just thinking that she is in the car seat which is meant for Vehicle accidents and not sure if I should try hand to hand or if I had the right to go ahead and bring the cannon out and see if I can get different results.
I think that would depend on situation. If reason at the moment to you states you can use less force or prevent some other way do so. But you also have to remember that bang is going to be hell on a baby and their hearing. Better than some possible outcomes every parent dreads, but still not an ideal solution.
Zombies on the right track. Sure, if there is no sure way to stop it using less force, then by all means protect your family with deadly force.
It'd be a bad situation all the way around.
Oh, and BTW, I don't think this is a dumb question.
ETA:
I am NOT a lawyer, and this is NOT valid legal advice to hold in court. It is MY understanding of the law.
It'd be a bad situation all the way around.
Oh, and BTW, I don't think this is a dumb question.
ETA:
I am NOT a lawyer, and this is NOT valid legal advice to hold in court. It is MY understanding of the law.
As previously stated by others, I would do whatever necessary to protect my family, but there is one thing that hasn't been mentioned...some person has just snatched the baby in the carrier and are trying to make a get away, can you hit them, in the heat of the moment, full of adrenaline, and not hit the child?
Would it be illegal to shoot them from behind running away with your child?
I say yes, they are still a threat to your family. Different story if they put the baby down and run. Then the threat has ceased, if they still have the kid, bets are off.
The adrenaline question above is a good one.
The adrenaline question above is a good one.
TITLE 21 § 1289.25. Physical or deadly force against intruder
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
It seems that a lot of people get hung up on the "fear of death or imminent death" and overlook the fact that deadly force can be used to prevent a forcible felony. Kidnapping is considered a forcible felony, so deadly force would be justified. Not a dumb question, by the way.
P.S. I am not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
It seems that a lot of people get hung up on the "fear of death or imminent death" and overlook the fact that deadly force can be used to prevent a forcible felony. Kidnapping is considered a forcible felony, so deadly force would be justified. Not a dumb question, by the way.
P.S. I am not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
+1000 Added the bold lettering. Jacked up on adrenalin I'm not sure I would trust mine (or anyones) shooting while my child was in their hands. I think I would be more apt to chase them down, they are not going to outrun you with a car seat. At the point I get the seat away from them then I'll deal with whatever action the perp brings on.
Similar threads
