Self-Defense Shooting

[crimsondragon24]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: West Virginia

My brother in law asked me what I would do if an armed burglar broke into my house while I was at home. I said that I would shoot him. Obvious answer to me. Anyway, He says that if I shoot a burglar in my own home in self defense that the police will confiscate my gun and it will not be returned. Can anyone tell me if this is true or not? That just doesn't seem right.

[cyjeff]

They will definately confiscate it... for a number of reasons.

I see no reason for them to keep it after the case has been closed, however.

[crimsondragon24]

So if it is Proven that it was self defense, the gun should be returned?

[cdwjava]

So if it is Proven that it was self defense, the gun should be returned?

Unless there is some other legal reason for them to retain it, yes.

- Carl

[RedT]

So if it is Proven that it was self defense, the gun should be returned?

This is why you should just move to Texas. If it's a burglar in your house, shoot at will. : )

[cdwjava]

This is why you should just move to Texas. If it's a burglar in your house, shoot at will. : )

And, as of recently, you can even shoot at FLEEING burglars who have left your neighbors house and are running away, too.

Amazing.

- Carl

[aardvarc]

Heck, in Florida, not only can I shoot you just for being IN my house, I can even shoot you on the sidewalk if I am in fear for myself or others without even needing to take advantage of any opportunity to flee first.

I have noted, however, that even with our ever more "forgiving" legislation in favor of firearm use, that the number of cases of such use hasn't risen - but the number of kids killing themselves, their siblings, or their comrads, with firearms carelessly left around the house or in the car HAS. (As have the number of cases of criminal charges against those whose irresponsible gun ownership resulted in these tragic deaths - two just this month in Central Florida.)

[M'sta Mikey]

And, as of recently, you can even shoot at FLEEING burglars who have left your neighbors house and are running away, too.

Amazing.

- Carl

And on top of that, he even told the 9-1-1 operator what he was going to do it and when it was going to happen.

[cdwjava]

And on top of that, he even told the 9-1-1 operator what he was going to do it and when it was going to happen.

In most states this would have been first degree murder ... but, TX seems to have legalized vigilante justice - execution without the benefit of trial. Heck, why waste time? But had the POLICE done this under the exact same circumstances, they would have been sued, prosecuted, and hung out to dry.

I never thought that a state of the union would let loose the rule of law like some third world state, but there it is. You can murder people without cause ... as I said, amazing.

- Carl

[BOR]

In most states this would have been first degree murder ... but, TX seems to have legalized vigilante justice - execution without the benefit of trial. Heck, why waste time? But had the POLICE done this under the exact same circumstances, they would have been sued, prosecuted, and hung out to dry.

If you are referencing Tennesssee v. Garner, it does not prohibit, as I am sure you know, the use of police deadly force against a "dangerous" fleeing felon.

I suppose you are correlating that in TX a citizen can even use deadly force against a NON dangerous fleeing felon, as they are not constrained by the Fourth regardless.

I never thought that a state of the union would let loose the rule of law like some third world state, but there it is. You can murder people without cause ... as I said, amazing.

- Carl

It seems a little Draconian, yes, where such eye for eye justice is the rule of law.

I guess TX will no longer prosecute for murder any person who uses deadly force against a NON dangerous fleeing felon, although still a fleeing felon.

BUT will such a person who kills be immunized from a Civil suit?? I wonder if the law addresses that.

There also seems to be a possible 14 AM Due Process concern.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


If a state authorizes deadly force against such non dangerous fleeing felon, IMO, it could trigger a 14th AM violation and such law could be deemed UNconstitutional??

If the law is clear as to police T v G, it is would reasonably be applicable to a citizen as it violates the 14th AM, the law, as codified.

Opinion??