So you've got 'im at gunpoint...


PDA






Drjones
December 30, 2002, 06:35 PM
Let's say that someone breaks into your home, and he is visibly unarmed. You confront him, and he does as you order: stop, freeze, whatever.

Now what? Do you keep him there at gunpoint while someone calls 911? What if you are alone? You can't really call 911 and keep full attention on him, obviously.

Do you just have him leave? My problem with this is; what if you release him, only to have him strike elsewhere? What if he seriously hurt or killed someone the next time? I'd feel awful, knowing I could have stopped him...

Like Spidey and his poor Uncle...:(

If you enjoyed reading about "So you've got 'im at gunpoint..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cheygriz
December 30, 2002, 06:44 PM
Keep him covered and contact law enforcement. (DON'T GET WITHIN 10 FEET OF HIM IF YOU CAN AVOID IT!!!!) If you're alone, yell at the neighbor or a passerby to call LE. Order him to lie flat on the floor on his stomach with his arms out and palms up.

Now the problem! If he tells you to take a flying **** at a rolling donut, and walks away, there isn't a damn thing you can do. If he's trying to escape, you cannot legally (or morally) shoot him.

Try to memorize every detail that you can about his appearance, clothing ,hair, complexion, build, height, weight, mannerisms, and anything else that can ID him.

As soon as he leaves, WRITE DOWN everyhing you can about him and give ot to the responding officer.

If you do that, your conscience should be clear. You've done everyhing you could.

spacemanspiff
December 30, 2002, 06:58 PM
you can still cover the threat with one hand holding the firearm and the other holding the cordless phone.

now heres a countering question:
if he is fully unarmed, is your finger still on the trigger while it is trained on the intruder?

Kevlarman
December 30, 2002, 07:00 PM
Of course not. My finger is never on the trigger unless I'm in the act of firing the weapon.

sm
December 30, 2002, 07:00 PM
Good advice above

Finger off trigger until ready to shoot

Noban
December 30, 2002, 07:38 PM
Have the perp pick up the phone and call himself in :D

Graystar
December 30, 2002, 07:55 PM
Why did you give him orders in the first place?? You're not a cop...shoot!

1 out of every 6 cops that are shot and killed, are shot with their own gun. You are taking an enormous risk by not shooting. You're not responsible for public safety....only your own. Shoot.

HABU
December 30, 2002, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Noban
Have the perp pick up the phone and call himself in :D

ROFLMFAO!

AZTOY
December 30, 2002, 07:57 PM
You're not responsible for public safety....only your own. Shoot.

I agree 100%, shoot first then call 911.

Topgun
December 30, 2002, 08:12 PM
The guy probably NEEDS your house and bank account and everything you will earn from now on.

Cuz that's what he's gonna git when he or his widow/moll/ho/skank calls the law-yah an turns him loose on you.


AMAZING.

Tell me all about the presumption of harm if he is in your house. I can tell you of 10 times as many "mistakes" of poor misguided "drunks" who came in by "accident."

You NEVER shoot unless you are about to die. Now if you don't have any assets, then go ahead and f-up your life.

spacemanspiff
December 30, 2002, 08:13 PM
i suppose then, the rhetorical question is "would your conscience allow you to 'retire' a criminal, even if he/she is unarmed?"






btw, rhetorical means we arent supposed to answer it, just contemplate it.

Mike Irwin
December 30, 2002, 08:15 PM
Work your way to a phone.

If you suspect someone is in your home, you should already have a phone in your hand.

If he wants to leave, you can order him to stop, threaten him, but if he wants to leave, let him. Don't try to tackle him, don't try to restrain him, just let him go.

Betty
December 30, 2002, 08:24 PM
Why did you give him orders in the first place?? You're not a cop...shoot!

If I can get a man to stop without shooting him, than that's easier on all of us. If I feel I'm not in imminent danger of being harmed, I'm not shooting. Less legal hassle, not to mention I don't have to get a new couch because his guts are all over it. If he won't comply and comes after me, then I shoot.

I'd tell the man to lie prone, hands out, palms up, legs crossed at the ankles. Makes it easier to phone for police with him on the ground. If he runs off, he runs off. If he runs at me...

Pendragon
December 30, 2002, 08:54 PM
I agree 100%, shoot first then call 911.

Well, presuming you have cause to shoot, if goes:

Shoot, reload then call 911.

Mike Irwin
December 30, 2002, 09:04 PM
I know that some people feel that the presence of an uninvited person in your home is an imminent threat that requires immediate application of lethal force.

I don't.

I do, however, believe that it is possible to murder someone who breaks into your home.

And that it's wrong.

When you shoot someone, your life changes, and likely not exactly for the better.

answerguy
December 30, 2002, 09:13 PM
Have the perp pick up the phone and call himself in

That is actually a sensible answer. Push the phone to him, tell him to dial 911 and you yell for the police to come out.

If he wants to leave, you can order him to stop, threaten him, but if he wants to leave, let him. Don't try to tackle him, don't try to restrain him, just let him go.

For me that is going to completely depend on what I caught him doing. If I found him rummaging through my belongings that's one thing, but if he just raped my daughter he's not likely to get out alive.

Matthew Courtney
December 30, 2002, 09:31 PM
1)How is someone visably unarmed, unless they are naked?

2)Every room in my house contains several things which might be used as deadly weapons. What is to prevent this violent felon from arming himself?

I would likely shoot if there is any chance that the intruder may injur my wife, my children, or me. I have plenty of liability insurance so that I may protect my family and let the insurance company lawyers cover my ASSets.

cratz2
December 30, 2002, 09:47 PM
So, how exactly do you tell for sure if someone is unarmed? Ask him? Expecting an honest answer? I doubt that an intruder that was looking for money/goods etc in a house into which he had just broken would have a gun in his hand unless it was within the first minute or so of being inside the house.

If someone is in my house in the middle of the night while my kids and my wife are upstairs and they don't run as fast as they can the moment they see me, I'm gonna need Stanley Steamer to clean my carpets. I think that 99% of not so bad guys would bolt like lightning so if the guy is standing there looking at me, in my book, he's a real bad guy...

I can live with being arrested. I can live with giving up my 'right' to legally possess a firearm but I could not live with breathing my last few breaths watching a really bad guy walk up my stairs towards my wife and kids because I hesitated.

G-Raptor
December 30, 2002, 10:47 PM
I would ASSUME that any uninvited person in my house is armed whether I see a weapon or not. Why? Because there are a couple of dozen "deadly weapons" in my garage and kitchen. If he didn't bring a weapon with him, he would have ample opportunity to acquire one once he's inside.

If he is "apparently" unarmed and between me and the outside door, I would be inclined to give him the option to leave. If he's between me and my wife, or refuses to leave, he's going down on the floor - either on his own or with a hole in his chest. He'll stay there until the police arrive.

My principal concern in such a situation is the immediate protection of my wife and myself. If some guy wanders in my mistake (not likely), he'll have an opportunity to leave, otherwise...

thumbtack
December 30, 2002, 11:00 PM
If I run across uninvited guest in my house I don't think I will take the time to see if he is unarmed or try in engage him in conversation.

labgrade
December 30, 2002, 11:39 PM
CO law actually allows for a great bit of leeway here = they're in your house uninvited (essentially) & they should expect to die there. Their call. Anything a better outcome & they came off lucky.

A perp-type who lives through any initial encounter will be face down (etc. per Runt's methods & maybe a bit more stringent).

I'll make the call, thank you very much. Who says the yahoo'll even be talking to anyone? :rolleyes:

Said perp even makes a(nother) false move & he gets ventilated till he quits moving - already under an immediate death sentence & lucky enough that he's on this borrowed time.

Coupla comments toward this regard ought to make 'im feel possitively lucky that he may yet get to go to jail .....

Absolutely no quarter. None.

& Mike, I couldn't agree more. But, I've already got the T-shirt. What's that saying? "After the first one, the rest are free." ????

(that didn't come across as I wanted it to - it'll have to suffice till we talk face-to-face .... )

Preacherman
December 30, 2002, 11:47 PM
For heaven's sake, DON'T let the perp make the 911 call!!! What if he dials 911 as instructed, waits until the dispatcher answers, then hollers "Help! I'm being threatened by a man with a gun! He's going to kill me! Save me!" You're in a world of hurt, because the responding officers now have only the word of the lying felon to go by, and if you're the one with a gun in your hand... get the picture? :uhoh:

Hardtarget
December 30, 2002, 11:53 PM
I will not wonder about this because it is a "non-event". If he broke into my house he will be shot before I look to see if he is armed. If he's bad enough to break in , he's bad enough to do serious bodily harm to my family and self. Therefore, no games.
Mark.

gryphon
December 31, 2002, 12:11 AM
I don't see too many drunks or mistaken entries into my house. the big metal steel door with the 2 dead bolts pretty much takes care of that. Now if they expended all the effort to get in through the door, the police should be here by the time they get through. And if not, I have had plenty of time to load up weapon of choice and wait casually on the couch for as long as it takes.

If them looking down the barrel of a 45 or an AK doesn't deter them, the firing of live rounds in their direction will either get them to scatter, or have the coroner stopping by.

4v50 Gary
December 31, 2002, 12:30 AM
First, do what cops do. Prone him out spread eagle with legs apart & toes pointed inward, palms up and head looking away from you.

In proning him, make sure you can reach the phone w/out getting into a fight and where you can monitor him while you're on the phone.

Mike Irwin
December 31, 2002, 12:48 AM
"You're in a world of hurt, because the responding officers now have only the word of the lying felon to go by, and if you're the one with a gun in your hand... get the picture?"

Until the police start checking the registered owner of the residence, your driver's license, utility bills, etc.

Won't take long to sort that out.

He won't get away.

Mark Benningfield
December 31, 2002, 12:58 AM
Hello All.

That's what we call it here in Oklahoma. If he breaks into your house, he's paid for. You have an affirmative defense from criminal AND civil complaints. In this situation, if the BG did not instantly and decisively take steps to assure me of his compliant surrender when confronted, then he'd be a goner. Even after he threw himself to the floor, arms and legs akimbo, begging me not to kill him, if he so much as twitched while I was calling the cops then, again, goner city. Breaking into my house was his play; getting out of it alive is his problem, not mine.

TERRY8m
December 31, 2002, 12:59 AM
Over 30 years ago,I shot a man in our house, well, mostly in our house, his right leg was still in the window sill.
Dad, on business trip, Mom in kitchen, 3 little brothers all over the house, me 13 years old with orders from Dad. Got the sawed- off and gave him 1 barrel of low brass #9 from about 20-25 ft.
He made it out the window, while I got everyone out the front door to the neighbor. The cops got him 2 hours later in a ditch, his left leg almost had to be amputated. 2 days after Dad came home, I got my first handgun, a model 25 Smith, along with some intense training.
The cop's comments, shoulda' aimed at his head. Even got outa' school 2 days for the trial.
He dropped some kind of old cut off bayonette on the bathroom floor on his way out the window, so no legal hassles at all.

Anyone breaks in my door or comes thru a window gets one look, they ain't family, they're an escaped mass murderer.
Our bedrooms have mini spotlights pointing away from the beds, hooked to clappers, so you cab get a good look and or sight picture.
Anyone stupid or evil enough to come into a dark house at night is up to no good and of no loss to the gene pool.

Diesle
December 31, 2002, 01:01 AM
Page speaks to this matter. >> http://www.plusp.com/classroom/lesson12.php

I think your going to be in a world of if you shoot an unarmed person regardless of whether or not their in your home.

Under ideal circumstances, Ill do my best to fully assess any situation I’m ever in and attempt to pursue every possible action other than discharging my weapon.

If your rational enough to know that the trespasser is unarmed, your rational enough to attempt to defuse the situation before you turn your life and someone else’s life upside down.

Isnt that one of the inherent responsibilities of gun ownership?

Diesle

Matthew Courtney
December 31, 2002, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Diesle
Page speaks to this matter. >> http://www.plusp.com/classroom/lesson12.php

I think your going to be in a world of if you shoot an unarmed person regardless of whether or not their in your home.

Under ideal circumstances, Ill do my best to fully assess any situation I’m ever in and attempt to pursue every possible action other than discharging my weapon.

If your rational enough to know that the trespasser is unarmed, your rational enough to attempt to defuse the situation before you turn your life and someone else’s life upside down.

Isnt that one of the inherent responsibilities of gun ownership?

Diesle

Tressspasser? Uh, how did they come through the door? By accident? Or by Felony? Those sorts of accidents are felonious in most states. It's night-time right? How can I know to what degree this proven violent felon is armed? I should take his word? Since he has done so much to prove his goodness so far? If a man chooses to live within the vagaries of state administered justice, then he surely chooses to die by the hand of one who seeks only to be safe from his sort. Both may continue their paths as reasonable for them considering that neither may be trusted, and either may be shot for endangering the worthy.

labgrade
December 31, 2002, 01:40 AM
Had a great reply posted, ready to push the button & all was lost due to pushing too many "delete page" buttons while doing the quick research ... sigh. A retry .....

PlusP's page is enlightening in that they'll try to scare you enough to buy their training. It's nothing you can't get mostly on your own - especially legal-wise.

Their: "Yes, there are "make my day" laws, but the gun writers don't tell you about the folks in jail or court for trying to take advantage of such laws." Sigh. Who would?

Colorado statutes state, in: 18-1-703, 18-1704, 18-1-704.5 (the Make My Day Law), 18-1-705, & 18-1-706 enough to be very enlightening.

Obviously, nothing should be construed to allow one to murder - of course.

Knowing the law is a good start on what your "rights" are & how to go about further ensuring your safety.

Jeff OTMG
December 31, 2002, 01:49 AM
Let me get this straight, the assumption is that I am not going to shoot someone breaking into my house. Now what alternate universe does this happen in?

dave
December 31, 2002, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by cheygriz

Now the problem! If he tells you to take a flying **** at a rolling donut, and walks away, there isn't a damn thing you can do. If he's trying to escape, you cannot legally (or morally) shoot him.





Well chey, I don't know about that.

Not trying to pick a fight, just a different point of view. I'll not go into whether it's legal or not, to many different laws in to many different states. Though I do suggest that one should follow the law in these cases. As has been stated, a lot of bad stuff can happen to one if he/she doesn't.

But, as for it being moral or not to shoot someone who is unarmed, because they break into one's home. I don't know. I suppose it would depend on one's morals wouldn't it? I mean, not everyone believes in, or lives by, the same code.

Would I shoot someone because they had entered my home, when I or my family was there, if he was not armed? I'm not sure. If I could, I would prefer to have the police take him into custody. But if he just blew me off, when told to stay put, and made clear his intention to simply walk off? **sigh** I may indeed shoot him.

Now, I don't say that in a "tough guy" way. In fact I would most likely be afraid. Afraid he would come back. I would be afraid that he may come back armed, or when I'm not there and my family was, or with a few friends. The fact that he was brave (foolish?) enough to break in the first time, and try to leave while at gun point, tells me several things about him. None of them good.

Maybe I would see it as making the only choice that HE gave me. Maybe I would see it as justifiable for any number of reasons. Maybe any the reasons I could come up with would serve only to make me FEEL justified. I just don't know. Just goes to show how heady all this can be.

But I do know one thing. Whatever I do, if I feel it is done to protect my family or myself, and if I feel it is the only option left to me that would insure, without doubt, that protection, I would see as "moral". I don't like the thought, but if I am forced to risk doing harm to my family or to my morals.............................my morals had better run for cover. Hopefully, I can make it through life with both unharmed.

Just another point of view.

Pendragon
December 31, 2002, 03:27 AM
Well, I live in a nice area of Sacramento, on an isolated street that does not get much traffic.

We keep all of our doors locked at all times.

That said, anyone who is in my house and does not belong there most likely broke in. (unless we were careless).

I have a 1 year old son and my wife is a nursing mother.

I think that if I see somoene, I am going to presume I should shoot them. There are very few places where I could be and not be about 1 second away from having the guy in my face, so if he does not want to get shot, he better submit - and do it overtly and quickly.

I do not want to shoot anyone, and I dont believe that you should just shoot someone who walks into your house - but I believe that the margin of discretion is extremely narrow and I think you should err on the side of protecting your family.

Even if it is some idiot who lost his way, I think a man holding his baby and hugging his wife would make for a pretty sympathetic news conference.

Bob A
December 31, 2002, 04:13 AM
Wow, where do you start? I've heard it all, and been with cops at scenes like this. I even Had a detective tell me to put a kitchen knife in the intruder's very dead hand after I reload. All hyperbole aside, I think the cop in me would take over and assess my target before firing. Tennessee V. Garner says we can't shoot fleeing felons unless we have a reasonable belief that they are a clear and present danger to the public. Even then, I don't think burglary, even with intent, qualifies. But think about this.

1. You cannot tell without a fairly thorough search whether a person is armed, and I doubt a burglar will submit to this from a homeowner.

2. You are assuming he is alone. This is often not the case.

3. You let him flee, but how do you know where he went? How do you know he won't come back as soon as the police leave and attack you? No way to tell what goes through the mind of a criminal unless it was a 9mm round you just fired.

4. Pointing a gun at somebody who is not an obvious threat to your safety (or another person's) is, in some states, aggravated asssault and you can be charged. This is true of detaining him also. In VA any citizen can detain an adult they witness commit a felony, but only LE can detain juveniles.

5. Is there a racial angle some nitwit lawyer can exploit? Some way of making it look as if you were looking for trouble? Ladies and gentlemen, the defendant kept a LOADED pistol by the bed, hoping for some poor slob to break in so he could be a hero.

All that said, I keep a flashlight and a phone with/near my gun. If I were armed and suprised an intruder, I think (hope) I would have enough presence of mind to assess whether he is an imminent threat, and act accordingly.

What I envision is sighting him in, and telling him to leave/run. If he does... call the police and account for family members. If he doesn't run... I think I'd probably assume he means to try to take my weapon from me and I'd aim center mass. Then I would call police and account for family members. If they couldn't find a weapon, I'd let the cops know the last thing he said, which of course was: "I'm gonna shove that gun up your ***!" whether he really said that or not.

You may have some problems with some hot shot DA or the family of the intruder depending on where you live, but this is the reality of life in America, and it will depend a lot on where you live. When in Rome...

If you aren't prepared to deal with that, you should rethink having a firearm.

GhostShooter
December 31, 2002, 04:59 AM
After reading all of the valuable information on this thread I tried to create a truly profound post to help all of those out there....but....since I think everything has been said about as well as it can be (by people much wiser than I) I'll keep my .02 short and sweet. If someone breaks into your house regardless of reason and whatever action you take secures your family.... You did good. You and your family get to see the sunrise tomorrow. In the end that's all that matters.


P.S.
As for the original question. You catch him kicking in the door or window, give one verbal warning. If he doesn't comply as soon as the door is kicked in or the windows is broke, stop the threat. If you catch him in the house, imho he's bought and paid for. I remember Ayoob talking about how quickly a BG can spin and fire in poor visibility before the GG can react.

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/2M16.gif

Drjones
December 31, 2002, 05:58 AM
I remember Ayoob talking about how quickly a BG can spin and fire in poor visibility before the GG can react.

AMEN!

Question: Where can I research the laws pertaining to shooting home intruders in the state of CA?

Thank you all for wonderful posts!!!

Drjones
December 31, 2002, 05:59 AM
HEY! What happened to the "quote" button?????


:mad:

Kevlarman
December 31, 2002, 06:45 AM
Drjones, I suggest you go to your local gunshop and pick up a book called "How to Own A Gun and Saty Out of Jail," by John Machtinger. It's updated every year, and contains important information on California gun laws.

Chapter 5 is titled "When can you shoot someone in self defense?"
There's a small section on home protection. I'll quote:


The California legislature has enacted a law that helps people in their homes defend themselves from intruders while lessening the fear of legal consequences. This law gives the resident the benefote of the doubt and establishes a presumption that the very act of forced entry is a threat to the life and limb of the homeowner or apartment dweller.

When you are in your residence and you shoot an intruder, you are presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent danger or death or great bodily injury if three elements are present:

1. An intruder unlawfully and forcibly enters your residence, or has unlawfully forcibly entered your residence.

2. The intruder is someone who is not a member of the family or the household.

3. You know or have reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry has occured.

If the above three elements are true, you are presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent danger or death or great bodily injury to yourself, your family, or a household member when you shoot the intruder. When you have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury, you are entitled to use deadly force in self-defennse, thus yuor use of deadly force is presumed to be reasonable as well.

The effect of the home defense presumption is that the district attorney has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not have reasonable fear when you pulled the trigger. (Remember, you muse also have had an actual, honest fear.)

If you don't meet the requirements for this presumption because, for example, there was no forced entry or the attacker was a household member, this doesn't mean that you can't prove self-defense. It just means you can't take advantage of the presumption of reasonable fear. You must show enough evidence in court that you had a reasonable fear of imminent danger of death or great bodily injury from an unlawful attack to convince the jury that you actedin proper self-defense.


The end of the chapter has footnotes in regards to this, and they point to California penal code section 198.5. California penal code section 198.5 (http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=33454013026+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)

JPM70535
December 31, 2002, 07:10 AM
Cover the BG but unless he makes an agressive move towards you or your family, dont shoot. Invite him to leave. You are not a LEO and if you order the BG to go prone or whatever, you have no way of forceing him to comply, unless you have physical backup. If he makes any overt move then do what you have to doand remember the 21 ft. rule, he can cover that distance in less time than it takes you to say stop, dont move or I'll shoot.



Those found here at night will be found here in the morning!!!

El Rojo
December 31, 2002, 10:42 AM
To the original question, I wouldn't have him call. For the reasons stated above about him being able to make up a story. If you can get a hold of the phone, all it takes is about 5 seconds to dial and yell, "Intruder in my house, send help now!" They know where you live. I wouldn't tell him to leave, I would just tell him if he moves, I am going to consider that a threat on my life and I am going to shoot him to stop him. And depending on the situation, I might just do that. I am not in a big hurry to shoot someone. The legal hassle that occurs once that bullet hits flesh is enough to make me consider other options if they are available. If he calmly walks out the door, I would retreat back to my bedroom and barricade my self in. Then again, I might shoot him. Who knows.

Double Naught Spy
December 31, 2002, 12:49 PM
We are not qualified or have the facilities for taking prisoners in our home. We are not qualified to negotiate with intruders who are seen as being a direct threat to our safety. We don't have time to waste trying to hold one at gunpoint, dial a friggin' phone, and still be able to verify that the one intruder is actually alone and unarmed. By being an intruder in our home, he has already demonstrated aggression towards the family. We are under no obligation to give any sort of warning nor do we feel it necessary for an intruder to receive any sort of warning. We live in Texas and there is plenty of case law to support whatever actions we deem necessary to secure the safety of the family from an intruder. It sucks to be him if the intruder doesn't have a good enough grasp of the law to understand the risks he voluntarily takes when being an intruder in somebody else's home.

roscoe
December 31, 2002, 02:28 PM
One night about 15 years ago, while living in the inner city, I came down to the living room to see that someone had tried the front door, come in, and was eating the Christmas cookies off the piano.

He was just some homeless guy, and no one was about to shoot him. After all, it was Christmas. I am sure that if we had shot him the local PD would have taken a dim view of it. I think it is worth taking that extra split second to make sure someone is a threat.

I don't know why the front door was unlocked, but all it takes is someone (like a child) forgetting to turn the bolt. Not every act of trespassing is forcible entry.

cheygriz
December 31, 2002, 03:03 PM
In all 50 states, you will go to jail if you shoot an unarmed man in the back. Period!

If he's laying on the floor, and you shoot him, you'd better be able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he posed a real and immediate threat to life or limb.

In 20 years of law enforcement I've heard a lot of macho talk, but seen precious litttle of it in action. If the perp is a real and immediate threat to you or another innocent person, you are fully justified in using lethal force. Otherwise, forget it!

Those of you that have never had to deal with taking a life, or never had to try to help a fellow officer deal with it, have no idea how traumatic it can be, even when very obviously justified.

The ideal situation (belivet it or not) is one where there is no physical harm to you, or anyone else. Some of the trigger-happy talk on this thread scares the hell out of me. Taking a human life is an extremely serious action under any circumstances. Shooting unarmed people in the back is murder, pure and simple.

Some of the posts that I've read on this thread are the exact arguments that the anti-gunners are trying to use as an excuse to disarm all of us.

Think about it, folks! This is a great place to vent your frustrations about the criminal justice system and police protection, or lack thereof. But try not to let that venting give our enemies ammunition to use against us.

Diesle
December 31, 2002, 03:19 PM
Some of the trigger-happy talk on this thread scares the hell out of me.

No kidding!!!!!

Really makes it sound like there are some very callous, 'ready-to-get-it-on' gun owners out there. The sort that fall beautifully into any anti's picture of 'America the Armed and Hair Triggered'.

Most of us don’t live in rural Texas where, evidently the fastest gun still always wins.

Please... Think, as well as you can, before you act. IMO, you in jail or financily or socialy ruined is about as good for your family as you dead.

Diesle

stevie_d_64
December 31, 2002, 03:26 PM
But in a simple senario like this, you should be prepared to do a great many different things to resolve the situation...

Number one (but certainly not the first option in this case)...Shoot...

Number two, move to a phone and make the call...Or in my case, my wife makes the call in the other room (out of sight from me and the BG's) I give her either the under diress signal, or the proceed signal to make the call and have her firearm at the ready, just in case...We never see the need to practice or talk about it much, just make sure we are always on the same page...

Number three, in the process of controlling the situation the BG decides to do something stupid, like get up and flee...I can venture to say that by that time they decide to do that (and this is not the bragging part) the L.E. in my nieghborhood are extremely quick on the response, and since they know me, they know in this instance I am not inviteing them over for a social call...

This one was fairly easy...If the BG leaves, he's covered till he exits the house, and by that time he might be walking right into Pct. 2 deputies...And thats fine by me...

Double Naught Spy
December 31, 2002, 03:27 PM
No law in Texas about location of shooting on the body (back, front, side, etc.). Location is irrelevant so long as lethal force use was justifiable. If the intruder is in my house, he is a threat. No problem with that aspect and the law. Combine that with the fact that I am in fear for my life or t he lives of family members, combined with a claim of furtive movenment on behalf of the intruder and there is no problem. Furtive movement isn't going to be hard to justify as few bad guys opt to stay still.

I will gladly take my chances with the courts on something like this as opposed to taking my chances that the bad guy in my home really is unarmed, alone, and not stoned out of his mind on something like PCP where he isn't capable of responding to lawful commands in a reasonable manner. That is a no brainer.

As noted above, we don't do prisoners. I may let the guy flee, but there is no reason in hell that I should attempt to control an intruder in my own home. Why would I want to keep that person in close proximity to me or my family?

stevie_d_64
December 31, 2002, 03:38 PM
Nahhhh,

If you are not prepared, to accept responsibility and be accountable for your actions, they yes, maybe you should either get more training, or give it up...

Last time I looked, I see urban sprawl all around me where I live now, and I happen to live in the area where the ratio of concealed handgun permit holders to non permit holders is the highest...Does that make us a more dangerous area to ply the criminal trade??? Yes it does...

Does that mean we shoot first and get asked questions later??? Nope...

What does happen is people get shot by the BG's through the door more in this area than not...

Look up the case of Jonathan Barrica...This kid got shot at his home, one block over from where I live now...That was about two years ago, and its still unsolved...

So before folks go raggin on the supposed way Texas is sooo loose on folks who defend themselves by these means, just remember, it doesn't matter where you live...

People used to be told that you had to go find trouble...Nowadays, trouble comes and finds you...

But with that said, it doesn't mean we can't live good lives and do the things we want with that gift...

Matthew Courtney
December 31, 2002, 04:20 PM
If he's laying on the floor, and you shoot him, you'd better be able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he posed a real and immediate threat to life or limb.

Cheygriz, you may know the law in your area, but you don't know it in mine.

§20. Justifiable homicide
A homicide is justifiable:

(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.

(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person does not retreat from the encounter.

(4) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person committing the homicide does not retreat from the encounter.

Added by Acts 1976, No. 655,§ 1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392,§ 1; Acts 1983, No. 234,§ 1; Acts 1993, No. 516,§ 1; Acts 1997, No. 1378,§ 1.

In Louisiana, if one believes the intruder is likely to use any unlawful force against anyone in the residence, deadly force is justified. It is also specifically justified if the intruder fails to respond to a command to leave.

telewinz
December 31, 2002, 04:30 PM
I will conduct myself as a responsible citizen. If possible I will call 911 and have my gun on the criminal. If I or my family are in real danger from the criminal I will use what force is required to protect ourselves. I am not John Wayne nor a judge and jury. Nor do I have a secret desire to be.

King
December 31, 2002, 04:43 PM
My $.02......I sight in the uninvited guest, give him instructions to stop, lie on the floor face down, palms up and not to move a muscle. Then I call 911. If the guy resists or does not comply or comes toward me, I will take him out. If he runs for the door, I "may" let him go (not sure unless I happens).

I think Bob A. And Runt covered it best with their posts.

Hopefully, we would have the presence of mind to at least assess the level of danger and to see if blood shed could be avoided (ie; the homeless guy at Chrismas or similar).

shootingfarm
December 31, 2002, 05:20 PM
You asked what I would do , first he's in my house he mite look unarmed but I'am not going to get close to check and I wont take his word for it.

If the BG listens and does what he is told fine but one threating move and well I'am not going to get shot with my own GUN, I not going to let him get very close, my finger may be off the trigger but the safety will be off.

He(BG) will be on the floor or out the door.

No I don't want to shoot anyone but he's in my House and you have to draw the line somewere, if your not going to protect your self or your family you don't want the BG to have your guns.

The BG won't sue you if your DEAD.




Paul

Topgun
December 31, 2002, 05:35 PM
Ya shoot him, prop him up with a stick, put a chainsaw in his hand, start it, shoot him again in the front, skin him out, grill him, an have a snack for the cops when they get there?

Huh? Wud it be okay then?

:D

Gila Jorge
December 31, 2002, 05:38 PM
Hammer is cocked and finger is on trigger..I am ready to respond forthwith. Otherwise why have the gun out...gotta be ready to use it...if the BG does exactly as told then he's OK but one slightly wrong move and I open house on him/them.

cheygriz
December 31, 2002, 07:12 PM
Matthew,

Re-read your statutes, and you will keep coming up with the words "reasonable, a reasonable man, can be reasonably expected, etc."

Do you know who decides if your actions are reasonable? A jury does! Everyhing revolves around the concept of "a reasonable, prudent man." The jury is ASSUMED BY LAW to be reasonable and prudent.

It's been many, many years since I worked for the Lafayette. La Police Department, or lived in Louisiana, but somehow I doubt that the Louisiana laws have changed so much that "reasonable and prudent" no longer apply.

In both criminal and civil cases, the jury will rule according to what a reasonable prudent man would have done, thought, feared, etc. The question will always be: did the defendant react the way a reasonable prudent man would have reacted.

And BTW: I'm not by any means trying to discourage anyone from defending themselves or their homes. I'm simply asking that reasonableness and prudence be used, and that everyone realize that so-called "make my day" laws are not a license to be trigger-happy.

Matthew Courtney
December 31, 2002, 07:22 PM
The law was changed in 1993 to allow you to use deadly force against an intruder in a dwelling if you reasonably feared any force. The force you fear no longer must be of death or great bodily harm. That was a huge change in the law. The law was further expanded in 1997 to include motor vehicles as places where one may use deadly force when threatened by any force by an intruder or would be intruder. Your fear must still be reasonable, but getting to reasonable fear of any force happens more easily and more often than reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. The reasonable fear of merely being touched, or even spat upon by an intruder now justifies homicide.

Personally, I would refrain from shooting unless a family member, invited guest, or I were in mortal danger. This would be more due to potential emotional consequences than legal ones. Who wants their children to awaken to gun fire in the middle of the night, run into the living room and see a person bleeding on their floor. Not me. But better for them to come out and see an intruder on the floor rather than their mother or me.

Mr. Fixit
December 31, 2002, 09:05 PM
I would like to relate story about an event that occurred circa 1990, in a neighborhood very close to my own:

A homeowner awoke to the sound of his garage door opening and went to investigate. His wife remained in the bedroom and heard shouting followed by gunshots. She found her husband in the kitchen dead from said gunshots. She did not witness any intruders nor did anyone else.

The homeowners had made the mistake of leaving their garage door opener inside their vehicle which had been parked outside on the driveway for the night. The vehicle was locked but the assailant(s) had forced entry and then opened the garage door.
They then gained access to the house via the (unlocked) man door between the house and attached garage. Apparently, this is the point at which the husband confronted the intruder(s) and lost his life. No one was ever apprehended for this crime, to the best of my knowledge.

My point being; there is precious little time to evaluate whether or not you are in imminent danger. You may not have time to utter any words, much less engage in conversation. Based on the above real-life occurrence, it would be prudent to think that a person willing to break into a home in the wee hours of the night would also be willing to confront the occupants if need be, perhaps to the detriment of the latter....

Mr. F

El Rojo
December 31, 2002, 09:12 PM
Mr. Fixit, was the homeowner armed? If not, that doesn't really apply here does it? Of course an unarmed homeowner investigating a break in is going to get shot after lots of yelling without anyone knowing what happened. If it were us, after even a few words, shots would be fired. We are not talking about a negotiation. We are talking about simple commands, "Put your hands up." If the perp responds with anything other than their hands in the air, bang bang. "Lay down on the floor!" If the perp makes any move other than laying down, bang bang. There is a fine line here between the person doing exactly as we ask and shooting.

Mr. Fixit
December 31, 2002, 10:39 PM
I believe the point to the story I outlined was not whether the homeowner was armed or unarmed, but rather that the intruder was most definitely armed and willing to use lethal force in order to expedite his departure. The outcome could have very well been the same if the homeowner was armed.

You say that you would give the command to "Put your hands up." I think you assume that you will have a well-lighted environment in which to ascertain the situation. I doubt this will be the case at night. You are also assuming that there will be only a single intruder. Again, this may not be the case as crooks have been known to work in pairs or groups. Do you honestly feel that you can control a situation involving multiple invaders by first making an announcement, thereby alerting them to your presence? They may very well comply with your request to "Put your hands up". Unfortunately, they may also raise them just high enough to get to your center of mass and leave your wife a widow.

I did not share the story to begin a new debate. I merely wanted to point out a real-life event that occurred close to home and resulted in the death of the good guy. Take that for what it's worth. Of course, your mileage may vary...

Mr. F

BillCola
December 31, 2002, 11:06 PM
In my home? In my home?!? Where my wife sleeps, and my children come to play with their toys?

Sorry, no confrontation... they get it in the back, in the finest Festerian tradition.

NeverAgain26
December 31, 2002, 11:48 PM
Go find a local knowledgeable-on-guns lawyer and get some advice from him on what is what in your State. Get familiar with the regs and know what you are doing.

Pray you are never in this situation, but if it does, be ready.

NA26

Don Gwinn
January 1, 2003, 01:33 AM
My wife will call the cops. If he walks out the door without threatening us in any way, I'll let him go and be a good witness. Illinois law is pretty clear that he must be a threat to you at the time you pull the trigger. Although I don't want him to go hurt someone else, I'm not going to prison over it. At some point the rest of society takes some responsibility for the laws and politicians they wanted so badly.

I might try to bluff him into staying, but if he has the guts to call my bluff I won't shoot a man in the back as he walks away.

rifleman
January 1, 2003, 02:44 AM
This is what I would do:

Step 1: Identify. Must know that it isn't silly grandpa stopping by unexpected.

Step 2: Shoot or put gun away.

That's it for me.

jato
January 1, 2003, 07:11 PM
Mr. Fixit,

I would learn from the mistakes of the now dead home owner.

They then gained access to the house via the (unlocked) man door between the house and attached garage.

Always lock your doors.

I think you assume that you will have a well-lighted environment in which to ascertain the situation.

Create the enviornment you want. Leave exterior lights on, leave at least one interior light on near points of entry. Have a powerful flashlight with your firearm.

The outcome could have very well been the same if the homeowner was armed.

Armed with the right training and equipment, outcomes may vary.

Mr. Fixit
January 1, 2003, 08:09 PM
I believe the lessons learned from this account are obvious.
Locking doors, lighting and familiarity with your choice of protection are most likely the status quo with most who peruse this forum, myself included.

I also believe that the point of the story that I related has been misconstrued. The point is not whether you are better off being armed during an encounter, as this goes without saying. Rather, the original issue was whether or not one would have time to verbalize various commands while trying to secure your environment. My contention is that you may not have the luxury of a chat with the perp, for there may indeed be more than one and this would alert the others to your presence. Even if there was a singular intruder, how long do you think it would take for him to draw down on you or rush you with a knife once he discovered your presence? Probably before you finished uttering your last word. I strongly feel that the element of surprise has determined the outcome of more events than other factors combined. Use it to your advantage.

Mr. F

answerguy
January 1, 2003, 09:08 PM
In all 50 states, you will go to jail if you shoot an unarmed man in the back. Period!

Well I can think of a scenario that would be a legit reason to shoot a BG in the back. Bad guy surprises you in your bedroom. In a fight for his weapon you knock the weapon from his hand. He's going for it (moving away from you, so of course with his back turned) to presumably try to do you more harm. You get to your weapon in your night stand first. I see no problem with shooting this BG.

TexasVet
January 1, 2003, 11:31 PM
In all 50 states, you will go to jail if you shoot an unarmed man in the back. Period!
------------------------------------------------------------------

Not even close to true. I know of at least two that I've lived in where this is absolutely not true. Of couse, Texas is one of them.
And the 'reasonable man' jury test only exists if you have a liberal idiot for a DA. Almost none of that type of case will ever even see a grand jury out here.
Of course you will probably face a civil case by the scum's relatives, but one recent such case in our area resulted in the plaintiffs paying for the court costs, defendants costs and his legal fees. Won't be many of those around for awhile, I'd guess.

BillCola
January 1, 2003, 11:48 PM
Seems like I'm getting a little backtalk, get it? :p

Believe it or not, ever here in CA we have a 'Castle Doctrine'. A stranger, breaking into your home gives you the presumption of the fear of great bodily injury or death necessary to justfy using deadly force upon him.

I'll re-qualify that my target must be identified as an intruder, not ol' grandpa, but that's it. I will not be chatting it up with intruder #1 while previously undiscovered intruder #2 whacks me over the head with a skillet, then has their way with my family.

Sorry if that sounds mean, illegal, or stupid, but everybody not on the guest list gets Vang Comp'ed.

Blackhawk
January 1, 2003, 11:55 PM
Make him lie down flat on his stomach with his legs spread and his arms ourstretched 90 degrees to his body and PALMS UP.

Do NOT get in any conversation with him, and do NOT let him make eye contact with you. Bark commands to him to be quiet, don't move, and that the police are on their way.

That position is very hard to spring up from. Try it, and you'll see.

Call the police, but do not take your gun off of him, and do not take your eyes off of him.

Tell the police the situation including that you're holding a gun on him.

When they arrive, you will be disarmed, probably under gun point yourself. Do NOT move your gun from covering the BG as you comply with the LEO's orders. You definitely don't want them to think you're going to point your gun in their direction.

The White Flyer
January 2, 2003, 07:43 PM
Two in the chest and one in the head. No lawsuits.

CAP
January 2, 2003, 08:12 PM
Most everyone should carefully check their state laws as they vary widely.

One of the wonderful things about life in the Old North State is that if I catch them in the act of forcable entry I can shoot them down like the dog they are. HOWEVER, once inside things change dramatically. I cannot justifiably defend just my property with the use of deadly force. If threatened with imminent bodily harm, death, or rape , then I can legally shoot them. As long as they do not advance towards me or my family then they may leave either of their own accord, or with the braclets on. Makes no diff to me. If they choose to leave before the law responds to the 911 call then I will provide all the info I can to the cops. If they stay because I have threatened to shoot them otherwise, then I have to manage the situation however I can until help arrives. If the situation changes for the worse for me, then again, I have to manage it as best I can so that MY family comes out of it without physical and hopefully mental or financial problems.

To the original ?, I would try my best NOT to have to shoot the perp. One wrong glance, though, and my best intentions may go by the wayside.

CAP

benewton
January 2, 2003, 08:40 PM
Let's see...

1/2 mile from any paved road, and you "mistakenly" find my house, thinking it to be yours...

You come through a broken window, or slider, and two dogs of the big, though not vicious variety, and I'm gonna talk?

I'll dial 911 to fill out paper work and clean up the mess!

It'll be a half hour or so before they show up, of course, given that they're not busy elsewhere.

No, I won't want to, and yes, I'd do all that I could to avoid the action. But I'm in my home, from which there's really no practical retreat, and you've given evidence of your intent to harm.
While I might have a choice if I lived alone, I'm married, and I've no choice at all acting in her defense.

And that works for all.
Knock first, or, perhaps, call. I may not win, but any home invasion means I must fight.

HS/LD
January 2, 2003, 09:02 PM
I would shoot the intruder immediately, if not sooner.

Then I would make my wife know I am ok and to stay out of the room, as I wouldn't want her to see the aftermath of the shooting.

Then I would call 911.
Then I would call my lawyer.

HS/LD

Bravo8
January 3, 2003, 02:17 AM
I was going to respond to Chey's "50 states" comment, but since that has been addressed already, I'll make one point and ask a question.

First, considering the nature of the very incident (that is, having your home intruded upon), and the inherent confusion, emotion, fear, etc that may follow, I believe it to be very unreasonable to expect anyone to basically jump through hoops while trying to decide whether this threat is serious enough to justify deadly force.

I don't play guessing games with my family's safety......I protect them.

Luckily, Pa law specifically provides for a justification defense in these situations, provided certain conditions are met (entry into dwelling, no reason to believe entry is lawful, no reason to believe less than lethal force would end the entry - I guess the last one would be the sticking point). If those conditions are not met, DF may still be authorized to prevent the POS from attempting to dispose you of the property or to prevent a felony within the dwelling (by being inside, he is committing a felony - Criminal Trespass - is he not?).

Secondly, could one not also articulate disparity of force as a defense? The guy standing in my kitchen at 3am when my wife and kids are sleeping upstairs is a greater threat than the guy standing there at 3pm when my wife and kids are at the mother-in-laws house. I would tend to think on could use that argument as an affirmative defense.

More than just the laws in your locale, the "political" climate may be important as well. We have had a few self-defense shootings locally over the last 5 years, some may have even been questionable under strict interpretation of the law, yet each has been ruled (criminally and civilly) as justifiable.

pax
January 3, 2003, 02:33 AM
Bottom line: You must be able to articulate how your life was in danger at the moment you pulled the trigger.

What if this, what if that, what if he..., what if I....

Answer to each is the same.

pax

jato
January 3, 2003, 06:49 AM
Locking doors, lighting and familiarity with your choice of protection are most likely the status quo with most who peruse this forum, myself included.

I meant it to be obvious. Most people (victims) don't do the obvious. I am still surprised to find victims of theft purposely leaving their doors unlocked.

:banghead:

Matthew Courtney
January 3, 2003, 11:32 PM
Get a grip PAX. If I can articulate how my child's life would have been in immenemt danger had I not pulled the trigger, that would be enough.


Bottom line: You must be able to articulate how your life was in danger at the moment you pulled the trigger.

pax
January 3, 2003, 11:41 PM
Matthew,

If that's your plan, I suspect you will have some difficulty with Problem Two.

pax

You have the right to remain helpless. Should you choose to waive this right, anything you do may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an assailant. If you cannot find one for yourself, the court will release one for you. -- Steve Munden, quoted by Jeff Cooper in his commentaries

Matthew Courtney
January 3, 2003, 11:48 PM
Problem 2?

What is problem 2?

Sheslinger
January 4, 2003, 12:00 AM
I do not want to live with having killed anyone but how to you deem if someone is a threat? They might not have a gun but can be a 10th degree black belt five feet away from me. That it precisely why I would treat anyone in my house as a threat to my life. If I heard someone downstairs and we were in the bedroom, I would hide in the corner, dial 911 on my cell phone and have the gun pointed at the door making as little noise as I could. I would not do a house check. If I ran into someone hurting anyone in my family (my dog included), they would be shot. If I ran into someone taking my TV, they would get one chance to lay down on the floor etc. Then they would get shot if they did not comply.

Sorry, I am just as afraid of people who can throw knives or martial artists as I am of people with loaded guns. How would I know if someone is moving towards me despite my telling them to stop is not a lunatic killer? Granted, they could be just a stupid burglar but that's population pruning.

labgrade
January 4, 2003, 12:16 AM
Decent discussion.

Here's CO's 18-1-704.5/Make MY Day Law:

"18-1-704.5 - Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

back to top (1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

Source: L. 85: Entire section added, p. 662, § 1, effective June 6. Cross references: For limitations on civil suits against persons using physical force in defense of a person or to prevent the commission of a felony, see § 13-80-119.
Am. Jur.2d. See 6 Am. Jur.2d, Assault and Battery, § § 81-89; 40 Am. Jur.2d, Homicide, § § 173-176.

C.J.S. See 40 C.J.S., Homicide, § § 100, 101, 109.

Law reviews. For article, "self-defense in Colorado", see 24 Colo. Law. 2717 (1995).

Prerequisite for immunity under this section is an unlawful entry into the dwelling, meaning a knowing, criminal entry. People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995).

To be immune from prosecution under this section a defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she had a reasonable belief that the intruder was committing or intended to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry. This inquiry focuses on the reasonable belief of the occupant, not on the actual conduct of the intruder. People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995).

Sufficient evidence existed to support trial court's denial of defendant's pre-trial motion to dismiss on the basis defendant had not met his burden as established by the supreme court. People v. Janes, 962 P.2d 315 (Colo. App. 1998).

Trial court is authorized to dismiss criminal prosecution at pretrial stage when conditions of statute are satisfied, and this does not infringe upon prosecution's discretion to file charges. People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987); Young v. District Court, 740 P.2d 982 (Colo. 1987).

Defendant bears burden of establishing right to immunity by preponderance of evidence when issue of immunity is raised at pre-trial stage. People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987); People v. Eckert, 919 P.2d 962 (Colo. App. 1996).

Fact that a homicide victim was on the defendant's porch does not permit the defendant to claim immunity from prosecution for unlawful entry to defendant's dwelling unless the court finds that defendant believed that the victim intended to commit a crime or use physical force against the defendant. People v. Young, 825 P.2d 1004 (Colo. App. 1991).

Defendant may still raise immunity as defense at trial when pretrial motion to dismiss is denied. People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987).

For purposes of this section, the common areas of an apartment building do not constitute a dwelling. People v. Cushinberry, 855 P.2d 18 (Colo. App. 1993).

Where pretrial motion to dismiss on grounds of statutory immunity provided in this section is denied, defendant may raise it as an affirmative defense at trial. In such case, the burden of proof which is generally applicable to affirmative defenses would apply. People v. Malczewski, 744 P.2d 62 (Colo. 1987).

Because this section creates an immunity defense as well as an affirmative defense, and because the burden of proof for each defense is different, when raised at trial, this section poses special problems when instructing a jury. In such a case, instruction based on language from People v. McNeese, which dealt with pretrial immunity, must be put into context so as not to confuse or mislead the jury about the burden of proof with respect to an affirmative defense raised at trial. People v. Janes, 982 P.2d 300 (Colo. 1999).

Defendant did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to immunity under this section where he could not show the struggle and wounding of the victim took place in defendant's bedroom of the house he shared with the victim. People v. Eckert, 919 P.2d 962 (Colo. App. 1996).

Trial court did not commit reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that it need only determine whether the victim made an unlawful entry into a part of a dwelling that was occupied by defendant, as defendant failed to show that the bedroom was exclusively his province and that the victim's entry into the bedroom was unlawful. People v. Eckert, 919 P.2d 962 (Colo. App. 1996).

Trial court erred in interpreting subsection (2) as including the concept of "remain lawfully" within the statutory phrase "unlawful entry". Defendant failed to establish the legal elements of this section to bar prosecution where the victim was initially invited into defendant's residence and, after arguing, was later asked to leave. People v. Drennon, 860 P.2d 589 (Colo. App. 1993).

The reference to "uninvited entry" in subsection (2) refers back to the term "unlawful entry" used in the same subsection. People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995).

Victim's entry was unlawful and uninvited for the purposes of statute providing immunity for use of force where wife of murder victim did not have authority to invite the decedent into defendant's apartment and was staying with the defendant on the condition that she not invite the victim into defendant's apartment. People v. McNeese, 865 P.2d 881 (Colo. App. 1993).

When this section is being used as an affirmative defense, it is error for a jury instruction to place the burden on the defendant to prove the affirmative defense. People v. Janes, 962 P.2d 315 (Colo. App. 1998).

Applied in People v. Arellano, 743 P.2d 431 (Colo. 1987)."

Despite all its "granting" of a homeowners' "authority to shoot," - seemingly, at will, it's illustrative to note the further decisons of this same law.

Couple other legal-beagle things from legalese prior to & after, in statute's orders are worth reading.

Need a goodly link, PM me. I just can't right now. A quick post to describe the actual law AND decisions afterwards. It'll all get twisted in court, & Chey (?) is correct = a jury will decide, but only IF you have the misfortune to have a politically aspiring DA/prosecutor AND you don't invoke an affirmative defense immediately at any pre-trail hearing, etc. ... could get very complicated rather quickly.

Tight lines. folks.

Matthew Courtney
January 4, 2003, 12:29 AM
Let me get this straight.......................

Honey, you can stay with me, but if I see your husband's nary butt around here, I'll have to remove hom from the picture.


Honey, lets just talk.............. see, I'm gonna change.......I want you and the kids to come on home......

BLAM.

Works for me. He was probably gonna start hitting her again. In any case, a man has to respect another man's home. Works both ways.

pax
January 4, 2003, 02:05 AM
Matthew,

Self-defense has two phases, commonly referred to as 'problem one' and 'problem two.'

Problem One is surviving the immediate encounter.

Problem Two is surviving what the courts do to people who manage Problem One in a less-than-perfect fashion.

It's easy to say, 'better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.' And it's true ... to a point. But if you spend the rest of your life in jail, and all your worldly goods are taken away, and your little girl is told over and over again throughout her childhood that her daddy's a killer, and your wife divorces you, and your mom cries whenever anyone mentions your name, and you've no way to clear your name because the fact is, you stepped over the line ... well. I just think it's better if you can solve Problem One in such a way that Problem Two doesn't become impossible to solve at all.

pax

I have come to regard the law courts not as a cathedral but rather as a casino. -- Richard Ingrams

Matthew Courtney
January 4, 2003, 11:17 AM
"Problem" 2 would not be an issue if I had to shoot to stop an intruder from using force against a family member.
If your state creates problems for citizens in such situations, perhaps you should lobby your legislature to revise the law.

pax
January 4, 2003, 02:56 PM
Ahhhh, gotcha. Matthew, I think we're actually more or less on the same page. Rereading what I wrote the first time I see I messed up by not making myself clear. The part in parentheses below, I took as a given rather than spelling it out:

You must be able to articulate how your life (or the life of another whom you are charged to protect) is in danger at the moment you pull the trigger.

Does that help?

pax

HS/LD
January 4, 2003, 03:30 PM
Regardless of any damn laws Problem 1 is the only problem to concern yourself with when encountering an intruder in your home.
I lived in a country that would jail you for shooting an intruder and I would still shoot!

Then after Problem 1 is no longer a problem we can discuss Problem 2.

HS/LD

Lexter
January 4, 2003, 03:46 PM
Is it just me or is everyone else living alone or making your wife barricade herself in the room while you "handle" the situation.

In my mind, my drill goes like this:

Grab the flashlight, the .45 (plus 2 mags)and have wife and child barricaded in the bedroom (with other .45). I search/seek the noise's location and scan house for other BG's (bad guys). {This is a perfect fantasy isn't it}

I have them on their knees (BG not the wife) and give the OK for the wife to call 911.

How's that? Too simplistic or idealistic? Maybe.

Lexter

;)

Matthew Courtney
January 4, 2003, 04:03 PM
Ahhhh, gotcha. Matthew, I think we're actually more or less on the same page. Rereading what I wrote the first time I see I messed up by not making myself clear. The part in parentheses below, I took as a given rather than spelling it out:

If the intruder is moving away from me, toward my daughter's bedroom, my daughter is not in danger at that moment, but I may lawfully shoot to prevent the intruder from entering my daughter's bedroom, because failing to shoot puts my daughter in danger. The law in Louisiana clearly allows this.

§20. Justifiable homicide
A homicide is justifiable:

(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.

(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person does not retreat from the encounter.

(4) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person committing the homicide does not retreat from the encounter.

Added by Acts 1976, No. 655,§ 1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392,§ 1; Acts 1983, No. 234,§ 1; Acts 1993, No. 516,§ 1; Acts 1997, No. 1378,§ 1.

If you enjoyed reading about "So you've got 'im at gunpoint..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!