QTDDTOT: Anon is a retard edition

"Castle doctrine" laws are all copied and pasted across state laws. Ask a lawyer in your state.

>>34688771
So basically depending on the "fine print" it can vary?

>>34688754
If he's still a threat to you, you keep shooting. It's as simple as that.

>>34688787
*he or she

>>34688754
>Anon can't use ctrl+f edition

If they are still armed or attempting to use a weapon they are still a threat. The burden is on the person that broke into your home with the intent to rob you with a lethal weapon. If you do shoot someone however, put the weapon out of their reach instead of hovering over them and waiting for another shot.

Op here to elaborate. So I guess its a weird question to ask because of all the variables. Basically what I'm saying is you clearly have "control" over the situation but your intruder doesn't want to give up. You could easily prevent him from getting back into the fight by kicking his weapon, subduing him or other but you choose to shoot him

>>34688902
Just magdump as soon as he hits the floor.

>>34688902
No. Disarmed = not a threat to your life anymore. People have been convicted on this principle based on video evidence and ballistics analysis. How willing anyone is to pursue that accusation based on the situation you described is doubtful unless you clearly executed someone, like the old fudd that put the rifle under a girl's chin and then admitted to it later. She wasn't ever armed though.

>>34688754
>intruder is on the ground with gunshot wounds
>standing over him/her you notice they want to stay in the "fight"
>headshot or other kill shot to finish them while they lay there.
If you can convince the jury that this is how it actually happened, you're right with the law. But there's virtually no way you'll be able to do that.

The prosecutor will present forensic evidence that you finished off your attacker after they were already wounded and lying on the ground (probably using loaded terms like "execution style" to scare the soccer moms), while all you'll have in your favor is your own testimony.

>>34688754
>they continue to reqch for their now dropped weapon,

If I can swiftly and safely kick their weapon out of their reach i'll do that (like if it's within bad-breath distance). Taking the weapon out of the fight is the best method.

If we're farther away and their weapon is a gun (and not a knife), I am giving a single verbal command ("STOP MOVING OR I WILL KILL YOU!"), and shooting if it's clear that they are continuing to reach for their weapon.

If their weapon is a knife and they are far away, I will scream verbal commands at them ("STAY AWAY FROM THE KNIFE! I WILL SHOOT IF YOU GRAB IT! I HAVE A RIFLE AIMED AT YOUR HEAD!") and wait if/until they get up and run at me. If they haven't bled out enough and are still able to get up and run, i'll let them do so a bit just so they can drip blood all over (so i can have exculpating forensic evidence that they indeed did get up from where they initially got shot). Once they get too close with their knife, the AR's gonna sing again.

>>34688902
Technically if they reach for the firearm you'd be ok legally.

The problem is that there isn't going to be any physical proof to corroborate that part of your story. If the police or prosecutor don't like SD(or you) they would have a very good homicide case, and one that many juries would be willing to convict on.

You're much better off never approaching a downed opponent or if you must then securing their firearm first.

Is there any .22lr bolt actions with a nitrided/qpq barrel?

>>34688754
Does anyone's dick get kind of itchy when they go to the range? I got a blood lead test and came out at below average but whenever I get the smell of gunpowder for extended periods of time it happens.

Get the same way towards alcohol.

>>34689277
After the range or while you're there? Anon are you handling ammo excessively then touching your meat?