15 year old shoots alleged domestic abusing kidnapper

[gejohnston]

In DTR, are the rules different for defending someone else vs yourself? It seems so.

GILLETTE, Wyo. (AP) — Campbell County sheriff’s officials say a 15-year-old boy fatally shot a man who was trying to abduct a woman in Wright.
The shooting happened Wednesday night.
Sheriff’s officials said Friday they had responded to reports of an attempted abduction at a home in Wright. They arrived to find 48-year-old Sammy Michael Fears, of Casper, wounded in the driveway. Fears died on the way to the hospital.
It’s not clear how the teen became involved. Sheriff’s Cpl. Gary Sams says the teenage shooter had no family relationship to either Fears or the woman.

Read More: Teen Believed to Have Shot and Killed Abductor | http://k2radio.com/teen-believed-to-have-shot-and-killed-abductor/?trackback=tsmclip

A little more here
http://www.opposingviews.com/tags/sammy-michael-fears

Since no one mentioned the weapon, I'm going to take a wild guess that it was either a .22LR rifle or a .410 shotgun. Why? The kid was probably rabbit hunting (hey, I helped my mom stretch her food stamps in the winter doing the same thing.) and Wright isn't exactly the big city. Just a wild guess.

FWIW
The bold is the self defense law outside the home, such as it is. The block quote is the castle doctrine that only applies to inside the home. The common law varies with each state. Some are SYG like California, Washington, and Illinois which predate Florida's statute. Some are DTR like Hawaii. Georgia and (maybe) Florida (I haven't been able to find either way about Florida) simply codified what was already common law. According to this, Wyoming is DTR. I haven't asked a local lawyer about it and I have no desire to find out first hand.
http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/17/duty-to-retreat/

ARTICLE 6 - JUSTIFICATION

6-2-601. Applicability of article.
The common law shall govern in all cases not governed by this article.

6-2-602. Use of force in self defense.
(a) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to himself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury to another if:
(i) The intruder against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, another's home or habitation or, if that intruder had removed or was attempting to remove another against his will from his home or habitation; and
(ii) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring.
(b) The presumption set forth in subsection (a) of this section does not apply if:
(i) The person against whom the defensive force is used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home or habitation, such as an owner, lessee or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
(ii) The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(iii) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a peace officer who enters or attempts to enter another's home or habitation in the performance of his official duties.
(c) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another's home or habitation is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(d) As used in this section:
(i) "Habitation" means any structure which is designed or adapted for overnight accommodation, including, but not limited to, buildings, modular units, trailers, campers and tents;
(ii) "Home" means any occupied residential dwelling place.

As for my opinion, based on what little I know, I share St Augustine's sentiment:

"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."

[NYC_SKP]

1. Without much actual, tangible, material evidence to work with, I can surmise what the worst among us

....would want to do.

First, condemn the person who use a weapon in any way; they are guilty of using a weapon, obviously!!!

Forgive the perpetrator of the alleged crime, because, unlike the bearer, a weapon was not involved and tha alleged perpetrator shall enjoy a benefit of the doubt: presumption of innocence.

Somewhere in here, guns are to blame. If not guns then bigotry, or racism, or NASCAR, or confederate flags or trailer homes or poverty or mental dysfunction, malnutrition, or other, all of which are to be condemned if you hate gunz and can make the associations (take note friends in the non-gungeon).

Now back to work...

[proudretiredvet]

2. I'm thinking we need to wait and see what the facts are.

Political opportunism when one guy is dead and a 15 year old is involved doesn't get it.
Anyone who has facts please post links.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. You should check out the thread where all gun owners are referred to as

"potential murderers." I doubt you share that statement but if I had to choose which presumptive statement was more egregious and lacking in realistic expectations I know which one I would confront.

[proudretiredvet]

4. The anti gun bunch already censored me from their area.

Truth, facts, and solid unbiased statistics are not part of their discussion platform. Their ability to ignore one tenth of our bill of rights always amazes me.

[oneshooter]

5. Acually it more like 2/5 of the BOR

They refuse to allow any but their own post.

[beevul]

6. Heres the funniest part...

Heres the funniest part:

Most of their posts over there do not actually meet their own SOP.

"Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations."

Most of the posts over there, do NOT have any mention of "how to enact progressive gun control reform".

There is no "mobilizing of supporters" there.

Its basically a sham, which of course, they are well aware of.

But its handy, having a fluid malleable SOP, in that they can and have used it to keep the "undesirables" from refuting their lies and misinformation.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. So they just sit around and whine?

[beevul]

15. Yes.

And post dis/mis information, and outright untruths, and propaganda.

Seriously. Go over there, start at the top, and work your way down the page.

Not a one of them that I have seen, holds any tighter to their SOP, than the people they have blocked.

[irisblue]

11. I dont know the meaning of BOR

urban dictionary sez it is a misspelling of bro...pls help me out here. thx

[appal_jack]

14. Bill of Rights. nt

[ileus]

9. You're a female...they consider you an Aunt Gunny.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. How telling that an image of female empowerment would be cast in a negative light.

[ileus]

8. or GMO's

[irisblue]

12. GMO=genetically modified organism?

is there another meaning? thx

[ileus]

13. correct...