The writing in this movie is atrocious.
Whoever did the research for legal precedents for defense in home invasions obviously didn't do their jobs properly or the movie decided to take a wild creative license with U.S. criminal law.
If someone broke into your house and attacked you and you chased them out onto your property and you killed them you would be found innocent by a judge and jury 100% of the time according the legal precedent in the U.S.
On November 14th, 2007, a Texas man named Joe Horn shot two robbers to death on his neighbor's property after the men had robbed the adjacent house of $2000 cash and other valuables. The jury found him innocent of murder and other charges and declared he had a right to defend himself.
Amadou Diallo, on February 4th, 1999, was shot down and killed by NYPD officers who thought he was reaching into his pocket for a gun, when instead he was reaching for his wallet. All of the officers were acquitted of all charges and found innocent of all wrong doing. Officers in other districts have been found innocent of this same scenario when the item mistaken for a weapon was a cellphone, candy bar, pen, and car keys for some examples.
Guns deaths in this country in self defense situations, civilians in the U.S. kill more criminals than police, at nearly double the rate.
Regardless of whether or not you agree that police or civilians in self defense have a right to kill another person, it doesn't matter because the plot of this movie completely disregards U.S. laws and just runs with a false premise.
No one would be convicted of murder to quickly if they had accidentally killed someone that was robbing their home clearly. At worst they would get accidental manslaughter charges which that individual would be acquitted of by a jury.
Also the movie portrays public defenders as being inadequate yet there is no basis in reality for this assumption as well.
Overall the researchers and writers for this movie clearly did not do their jobs. This movie is closer to science-fiction and fantasy than drama.
Whoever did the research for legal precedents for defense in home invasions obviously didn't do their jobs properly or the movie decided to take a wild creative license with U.S. criminal law.
If someone broke into your house and attacked you and you chased them out onto your property and you killed them you would be found innocent by a judge and jury 100% of the time according the legal precedent in the U.S.
On November 14th, 2007, a Texas man named Joe Horn shot two robbers to death on his neighbor's property after the men had robbed the adjacent house of $2000 cash and other valuables. The jury found him innocent of murder and other charges and declared he had a right to defend himself.
Amadou Diallo, on February 4th, 1999, was shot down and killed by NYPD officers who thought he was reaching into his pocket for a gun, when instead he was reaching for his wallet. All of the officers were acquitted of all charges and found innocent of all wrong doing. Officers in other districts have been found innocent of this same scenario when the item mistaken for a weapon was a cellphone, candy bar, pen, and car keys for some examples.
Guns deaths in this country in self defense situations, civilians in the U.S. kill more criminals than police, at nearly double the rate.
Regardless of whether or not you agree that police or civilians in self defense have a right to kill another person, it doesn't matter because the plot of this movie completely disregards U.S. laws and just runs with a false premise.
No one would be convicted of murder to quickly if they had accidentally killed someone that was robbing their home clearly. At worst they would get accidental manslaughter charges which that individual would be acquitted of by a jury.
Also the movie portrays public defenders as being inadequate yet there is no basis in reality for this assumption as well.
Overall the researchers and writers for this movie clearly did not do their jobs. This movie is closer to science-fiction and fantasy than drama.