Sometimes there are clear cut cases of the defensive use of firearms and then there are others that can fall more under the “justified, but not ideal” classification. Take, for example, this developing story from Phoenix, Arizona.
According to the fox10phoenix.com . . .
Officers responded to 911 calls coming from the area of 27th Street and McDowell Road around 7:45 a.m. Sgt. Philip Krynsky says when they arrived, they found 2 men who had been shot on the ground in front of the home.
The responding cops carried the two wounded men, identified as 20-year-old Jairo Perez and 24-year-old Jose Gutierrez away from the house. They were transported to local hospitals and both died.
The three people inside the home were taken into custody.
During the investigation, [Sgt. Philip] Krynsky says the people who were detained in connection to the shooting gave consistent stories, claiming self-defense.
“In consultation with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, the suspects were released, and charges will be submitted for review,” Krynsky said.
It may concern investigators and prosecutors that both of the alleged attackers were outside the house. And while the media reports of the incident are sketchy, there’s also the fact that it appears none of the occupants of the house dialed 911. Those calls apparently came from neighbors.
It’s incidents like this that make a very good case for having gun owner’s insurance.
Clear cut case of terminal dumbass, for the shooter.
Too early to tell. Possibly the Joe Horn case says you’re wrong.
And even dumberass for the deceased. Who were probably illegal, anyway.
play stupid games win stupid prizes
Somehow I suspect the folks inside may have been business associates or involved in some other activity related to the dead guys.
That still doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been a SD shooting but no call to the Popo just adds to that possibility.
If that’s the case and the home dwellers get the collar too then just think of this as a two for one.
We used to call one drug dealer fatally shooting another drug dealer misdemeanor murder, get two off the streets for the price of one trial and incarceration.
I always love a happy ending.
Isn’t this a repeat?
Gran Torino.
Life imitates art.
Stupid people never learn, if you want something, go out and earn the money to buy it. Absolutely no item is worth your life, or liberty. When you attempt to assault or rob someone, you have sacrificed your life, or liberty for that. Morals should be number one thing taught to children, unfortunately both schools and parents don’t, or assume the other will.
Arizona law has two strong points in regards to self defense shootings. Stand your ground, which allows you to defend yourself against a threat that has potential to cause serious harm, injury or death, if you have a lawful purpose to be there. No duty to retreat or “Dial” 911. Second we have a strong Castle Doctrine law that specifically addresses certain criminal acts that allow the use of force or deadly force and be deemed reasonable to do so. It applies to your home and you, in your automobile. Again, no duty to retreat or to call 911. Also, as such, Arizona law puts the burden of proof on the state, (where it should be), to prove you did not act in self defense rather than you having to prove you did. We have some of the best or the best laws for your rights to defend and own firearms in the country. As such, it does not give you an open season on bad guys and call it self defense. Each case will be looked at and reviewed or considered for prosecution if you are not justified in the act of self defense. Good laws here. Take a Concealed Carry Class, from someone who knows and teaches the original class, Arizona required to obtain a license. You don’t need a CCW License here, but you really should understand how the laws apply to you and self defense.
AZ has always had the best laws in this regard.
Darrell…Don’t stop with understanding the law and self defense. Individuals exercising their 2A Right nees to understand Gun Control is an agenda rooted in racism and genocide. After all America has seen knee jerk prosecutors who are self righteous Gun Control zealots. Gun Control zealots who strut around assuming they have the moral high ground when the history of Gun Control confirms they are carrying on rot that belongs to the kkk and third reich. So ask your students to define Gun Control by its history and see what you get.
need
Why does every post you make have to include the klan and third reich?
Neither the klan nor the waffen SS were present for this event.
How do you know that?
no tpresent in the flesh this time, but VERY MUCH present in underlying philosophy and current law.
Both the Klan and the Nazis had much in common, and still do. Both were solidly in favour of the individual being unarmed and defenseless, and they being armed at will.
Just what is being attempted these past hundred years and more in the good ol’ EEUU.
The important thing here is, that two dirtbags will not bother anyone again….
A little advice from personal experience … get ‘gun owners insurance’ (AKA self defense insurance). I’ve had to use a gun for defense several times, so far, in my life. I hope it never happens to you, but if it does and you need to run the legal maze of justifying your self defense every thing you have paid for a good self defense insurance is going to be more than worth it.
Which insurance do you use?
https://www.uslawshield.com/
Thanks.
Remember that an LTC is required to obtain carry insurance.
Those who go the “Constitutional Carry” route of self defense forgo carry insurance.
Proceed accordingly.
not really, there are non-permit and “Constitutional Carry” plans available with some self defense insurances. For example CCW Safe at > https://ccwsafe.com/ (look at the top menu and choose ‘Non-Permit Plans’)
Well how about that.
No insurance if you exercise a constitutional right .
that’s not correct possum.
there are non-permit and “Constitutional Carry” plans available with some self defense insurances. For example CCW Safe at > https://ccwsafe.com/ (look at the top menu and choose ‘Non-Permit Plans’)
but…. It also should be noted that the states of New York (NY), New Jersey (NJ) and Washington (WA) do not allow personal self defense insurance coverage for self-defense incidents. In New York, only Law enforcement officials are permitted personal self defense insurance coverage for self-defense incidents.
It also should be noted that the states of New York (NY), New Jersey (NJ) and Washington (WA) do not allow personal self defense insurance coverage for self-defense incidents. In New York, only Law enforcement officials are permitted personal self defense insurance coverage for self-defense incidents.
Yep, I suppose so.
I’m just not into having to have insurance for a justified homicide.
That’s a camel’s nose in the tent deal to me.
Cause here’s the way I see it, with every one getting on board with gunm insurance it will become mandatory. That wouldn’t be so good.
“It may concern investigators and prosecutors that both of the alleged attackers were outside the house”
Under stand your ground, if a valid threat existed, it makes no difference if its outside the home or not as long as you had a legal right to be there.
i slipped, tripped and fell.
i did not understand my ground.
😀
the operant question, then is this:
DID the ground understand YOU, or did it let you down?
somewhat, previously, and almost completely, afters.
It’s obvious the author of this story was too lazy to research Arizona’s laws regarding self defense.
Two less mouths to feed…A little good news always helps😉…sayonara suckas!
In many cases of home invasion people need to have breached the house before you can shoot them. If AZ has a “no retreat” regulation there may have been a confrontation outside the house that caused the people to defend themselves. The information here is lacking to determine what exactly happened and the author has jumped the gun regarding the need for liability protection which I personally would advocate people get. Not sure this is the situation to recommend it unless they acted inappropriately.
California already trying to get around Bruen decision and basically make “shall issue” into a defacto “may issue”
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26/state-attorney-general-suggests-considering-applicants-ideological-viewpoints-in-denying-carry-licenses/?amp
Two Democrap dreamers now dreaming forever?😂
And the domino’s of state imposed social tyranny persecution continue to fall under Buren…
N.J. Attorney General Acknowledges N.J. Must Now Go “Shall-Issue” on Concealed Carry Permits
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26/n-j-attorney-general-acknowledges-n-j-must-now-go-shall-issue-on-concealed-cary-permits/
But like California, NJ is also trying to enact a defacto “may issue” calling it ‘shall issue’
Doesn’t seem questionable at all to me unless there was evidence the men were lured there, of which there is presumably none.
That fact they were shot outside and not inside means nothing. Why wait for someone to be inside with you, possible in arms reach, especially if they could also have a gun. It’s called having “stand off” and it’s important.
If they are in the process of trying to force their way in, then they’ve made their choice already.
We can shoot them outside here if the threat is such circumstsnces that show intent to break in (enter unlawfully).
We had one of these a few years ago. Puckup with three guys pull up to the house south side at around 3 AM. Guys get out, one with shotgun and another with a claw hammer. Two were shot just as the one with hammer stared to swing it at the window. They lived, one got away. All outside the home. Justifiable defense.
The point of waiting for them to try getting through the door is that puts them at the base of the funnel. The fact that you also have the legal high ground, as well as a tactical one, is just a bonus. Yeah, also a good idea to call 911 and have self-defense insurance.
POINT OF STORY , BROUGHT IT OUT , HAVE / GET GUN INSURANCE , LIKE USCCA ,
IN OR OUT OF HOME , DON’T LEAVE HOME WITH OUT IT … COURT AND LAWYERS , WHEW …
The story did not specify if these knuckleheads were armed – not that it matters. I suspect evidence of tools to enter the home is enough. Even a mask would tell us a lot about intent. I am in Scottsdale, and oh yea I carry everyday. Period. We have seen two million unemployed illegals come across our southern border in the last year. They all want what you have and the government isn’t giving them enough to substantiate a middle class lifestyle. Yuma and Tuscon are getting bad, and Phoenix is catching up. It’s only a matter of time before our Scottsdale neighborhoods become targets.
A buddy of mine lives on Topeka dr. in Glendale. He says the shootings are daily down there. I have a winter home in Yuma that I currently have on the market. I’ve sort of lost interest is going there anymore.
We should all embrace a civil level of compassion for everyone involved. No matter how you slice it, it’s counter productive for positive neighborhood peaceful co-existence to have bullet riddled bodies laying in front of a house on your street.
I can only imagine it being a tad unsettling.
They didn’t dial 9one1 because they was gonna have beef and humebean burritos for a month.
Damned neighbors.
And while the media reports of the incident are sketchy, there’s also the fact that it appears none of the occupants of the house dialed 911.
The homeowner has taken my usual “Don’t talk with the cops” advice to the extreme position.
I don’t think that’s the best option but it appears to be working so far. For now.
It is literally the best position. There is no “extreme”. Everything you say can and will be used against you. It’s not rocket science. Honestly, the way things are going, no wonder someone would hesitate to call them, if at all in some locations.
“Lawyer”. That’s all they get.
The latest statistics from the FBI reveal that the clearance rate, not arrest rates, for homicide has now fallen to an all time low of less than two-thirds. Almost all of the solved homicides are easily solved cases in which someone kills a family member, friend or acquaintance, often in front of witnesses. Cases in which are carcass are discovered lying in the street or in a garbage dumpster are almost never solved. If the deceased has an extensive criminal record, experienced police officers will often dismiss such cases as misdemeanor murder because the deceased needed killing. This means that unless you are stupid enough to call the cops after a defensive shooting, you will never be investigated much less arrested, maliciously prosecuted or wrongfully convicted.
The proper strategy after a defensive shooting is often:
SHOOT
SHOVEL (maybe)
SHUT UP.
Shoot
Bring to boil
Shove it in your mouth anyway that you can.
Fee Fi Fo Fum
Surely INTRUDERS means that they were IN THE HOUSE when they were shot . So why the HEADLINE intruders in the first place. There is no mention if the two men who were shot were even armed in the first place.
If you are NOT under threat, and how can you be if the ‘intruders’ are OUTSIDE the house, unless there is further information this is a case of ILLEGAL KILLING at the very least and no amount of bloody insurance will get you off.
You cannot ‘insure’ against a DELIBERATE ACT in fact most policies will specifically exclude ANY deliberate act commited by the INSUREE such as suicide and deliberate acts of violence.
So much to unpack here. Is it worth it though? Nope.
Albert, as usual, when you open your mouth, you insert your foot.
The first lines from the updated source article (https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/phoenix-homeowner-shoots-kills-intruders-police) read:
Two men accused of home invasion shot, killed in Phoenix —
“Two men were killed after they reportedly forced their way into a home near 27th Street and McDowell Road. … During the investigation, (Sgt. Philip) Krynsky says the people who were detained in connection to the shooting gave consistent stories, claiming self-defense.”
“It’s incidents like this that make a very good case for having gun owner’s insurance.”
Gun owner insurance? I don’t need no stinkin’ gun owner insurance.
Rather be judged by 12, than pay hard earned money to some thievin’ insurance company.
If it’s a good shoot, you don’t need insurance in order to exercise your constitutional rights.
The Constitution is my gun owner insurance policy.
Somebody wants to sue me, fine; ain’t got nothing worth takin’, anyway.
Gun owner insurance? Nah. That’s what public defenders are for.
Gunm owner insurance.
Another way to make it more expensive to exercise a constitutional right.
If I ever have to shootz somebody it’ll be justified and if that bullet goes astray and kills an innocent I doubt gunm owners insurance would do any good.
“and if that bullet goes astray and kills an innocent I doubt gunm owners insurance would do any good.”
Good question to ask the insurance provider, and learn where that coverage, or denial is located in the contract.