Par for the course
Par for the course
I don't see the equivalence. If I am snooping around in your house, and you attack me with a golf club and I shoot you, do I get to claim a right of self defense?
Fixed and Hell No
How'd we move into the house? To keep from going off track on the comparison, since it seems the point was missed, let's also assume that the person being attacked is not engaged in an unlawful activity and that the attack happens in a place where they have a right to be.
So - why doesn't the same rule apply if being attacked by an animal as it would if being attacked by a person?
Interestingly enough, while "Stand your Ground" says the person being attacked has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, it does not appear to specify that the attacker must be human.
Through the garage, the couch was too big for the front door.
But seriously, self defense claims are generally invalidated if you are not where you're supposed to be.
In Oklahoma, snooping around someone's land is civil trespassing. It becomes criminal when the trespasser is told to leave, or signs are posted, but he persists in the trespass anyway. It is a misdemeanor.
A land owner has no duty to make his premises safe for a trespasser against injury or death, with a couple of narrow exceptions that don't apply here.
These laws apply regardless of whether or not the trespasser is a cop, or how legitimate his tip is.
Trespass law is separate from what is considered admissible as evidence under the 4th Amendment. Anything viewed from outside the "curtaillage" of the house that a homeowner doesn't take steps to exclude from public access is admissible in a criminal proceeding, according to the Supreme Court.
A land owner has no duty to make his premises safe for a trespasser against injury or death, with a couple of narrow exceptions that don't apply here.
These laws apply regardless of whether or not the trespasser is a cop, or how legitimate his tip is.
Trespass law is separate from what is considered admissible as evidence under the 4th Amendment. Anything viewed from outside the "curtaillage" of the house that a homeowner doesn't take steps to exclude from public access is admissible in a criminal proceeding, according to the Supreme Court.
They should be held to a higher standard though right? In court, if it is my word against an officer's word, I always lose. And I don't have so much as a speeding ticketing against me. It's like being in the military. A SNCO is held to a much higher standard than a junior enlisted person, as they should be. I know better. I receive privileges and rights based on my rank and position. With that comes the higher standard.
I'm not saying the officer was wrong for shooting the dog, I just really wish I would stop seeing stories like this. I have dogs and I would be inconsolable if they were killed because of some bad info.
Then why did you ask him?
Fixed it for you.
Similar threads
