HB 5145 - First Degree Murder to Shoot into a house.

[TheQ]

HB 5145 would make it first degree murder to:

     (b) Murder committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, criminal sexual conduct in the first, second, or third degree, child abuse in the first degree, a major controlled substance offense, robbery, carjacking, breaking and entering of a dwelling, home invasion in the first or second degree, larceny of any kind, extortion, kidnapping, vulnerable adult abuse in the first and second degree under section 145n, torture under section 85, or aggravated stalking under section 411i, or intentionally discharging a firearm at a dwelling or an occupied structure under section 234b.

(Parts added are bold)

[TheQ]

It is currently manslaughter (and rightfully so, IMHO) if you are shooting in self-defense at an attacker and one of your "stray bullets" enters the home behind the attacker and kills someone.

Question: would this bill make this scenario first degree murder?

Discuss!

[Bronson]

I think the purpose of this is for the "drive-by" scenario.  With the inclusion of the word "intentionally" in the added section I would think that would preclude a missed SD shot that accidentally enters a home behind the bad guy.  After all the INTENT wasn't to shoot at the home, the intent was to shoot at the bad guy and you missed.

Bronson

[Warchild]

I'm surprised at you Q.
You should never miss aiming at center mass. 
What miss/stray bullet? 

[yance]

I'm not too familiar with the castle doctrine, but would that protect you from any recourse from a stray bullet in a SD scenario?

I also agree that this is probably more a long the lines of shooting into a house with the intent to shoot into the house, such as drivebys, or someone walking up to the house and shooting with the sole purpose of shooting whomever was inside.

[TheQ]

I'm not too familiar with the castle doctrine, but would that protect you from any recourse from a stray bullet in a SD scenario?

Castle doctrine does not protect you from the civil or criminal liabilities involved in a negligent shot (cops are excused though -- go figure).

[smallthunder]

I'm not too familiar with the castle doctrine, but would that protect you from any recourse from a stray bullet in a SD scenario?

Castle doctrine does not protect you from the civil or criminal liabilities involved in a negligent shot (cops are excused though -- go figure).

Well then, maybe we should get the Castle doctrine hanged.  Have it state something like ... if you are in your home, shoot in self defense, you are exempt from civil or criminal liabilities.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk

[TheQ]

Well then, maybe we should get the Castle doctrine hanged.  Have it state something like ... if you are in your home, shoot in self defense, you are exempt from civil or criminal liabilities.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk

If you negligently cause harm to another, I believe you should be held liable.  Lesson? don't be negligent.

[Greyh Seer]

The problem with laws like this is that it is too easy for a liberal judge to use this kind of law to punish a law abiding citizen.

[smallthunder]

If you negligently cause harm to another, I believe you should be held liable.  Lesson? don't be negligent.

I agree, if it's proven you are negligently at fault.  It's easy to say "just don't".  Is this cut and dry or is there a judgment by the prosecutor and/or judge?   


Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk