Verified answer

Homeowners have the right to protect their property;However, the victim usually gets hard balled in court when the intruder suffers major injuries as a result and that leaves homeowners wondering about how far do their rights go to be covered.

If a man break's into your house and you hear the glass break and grab your gun and shoot the suspect in your living room and he is unarmed your in trouble and that is because you must prove in the eyes of the law that it was self defense when the intruder has no weapon.

Your a cooked goose, but if you go to your kitchen and use a rag and grab a knife and put that knife near his body after letting him grab that knife so the finger prints show that he held a knife then your case is substantial and no charges will be filed, but you had to lie in order to justify the shooting and the intruder is dead in your house.

This is a nightmare that haunts homeowners.

If you have a dog that bites an intruder and he gets 13 stitches as a result of your dog biting him in the leg. He goes to the hospital and then goes to jail. He files charges against you for the injury's to his leg. You end up paying his medical bills and he gets rewarded in the eyes of the court though, he is also charged with breaking and entering.

Where did your rights go???

Why did you have to pay for his stupidity breaking into your home?

Once again the law is in favor of you, but it also protects intruders and sad as it is it sucks.

I think I'd love to have that guy as my neighbor.

Also, he told them to stop, and they charged at him...he shot them on 'his' property.

The second the two robbers stepped foot on the other person's property, they should have known that their life was in danger. I am not stupid enough to stand in front of an oncoming car to test whether or not the driver will stop, so why should a robber feel any differently about a potential break-in? The bottom line is this: If you break into someone else's house, you should expect to die, and people like Horn confirm this sentiment by standing for justice.

Horn's situation proves that citizens can indeed play an essential role in crime deterrence - people will stop breaking into houses if they know a shotgun awaits them on the other side of the door.

Get an outdoors digital camera protecting the backyard. restore the lock. Why is your rottweiler a knowledgeable assault dogs, and why is that correct? perchance your neighbor has a reason to be suspicious of you. with out evidence of a danger from him, you will not have the skill to get a restraining order in maximum states. in spite of evidence, there oftentimes has to a courting of a few form - BF/gf, married, etc.

According to the criminal justice classes I have taken, if those people were home will their house was being burglurized, and they were in fear for the life, taking into consideration whether or not the burglars were armed. they have the right to defend themselves. it is hard to determine whether a person was actually fearful at the time and not just trigger happy. it is a justifiable homicide, or self defense. but because it was the neighbor who saw them breaking in he has no right to go over and shoot them. they should just call the police.

You think killing a person for breaking into your neighbor's house is justified? Please, get some help.

Also, what tasksgirl said.

Too many people going vigilante is a nightmare scenerio.

What if they lived there and got locked out?

What if they were a teenager sneaking back in their bedroom window?

And the neighbor sees a "suspicious looking teenager" and kills them.. then later.. "oops?!"

you have no idea if the intruders were going to harm or just steal. but i prolly would have shot them, not a fatal shot. like in the kneecaps or the legs.

yup, still a crime, now he'll get sued for wrongful death. he wasn't in any danger, so you have to leave it up the cops.

While that was the right thing to do it was still a crime.