Would you shoot a fleeing intruder in the back?

Would you shoot a fleeing intruder in the back if on your property?

  • No.

    Votes: 290 68.2%

  • Yes, it's my property, I have the right.

    Votes: 21 4.9%

  • Yes, but only if he/she refused to stop.

    Votes: 10 2.4%

  • Yes, if they were armed.

    Votes: 72 16.9%

  • Yes, but only if he/she was fleeing with my stolen property.

    Votes: 32 7.5%
  • Total voters
    425
Status
Not open for further replies.
stupid gun law

BTW, does anybody know why these BP agents reveived such a heavy sentence (~ 11 years)?

there as a mandatory minimum or some such nonsense on the "use of a firearm" part of their charges. and they looked bad with trying to hide evidence
 
As others have said ---- if , while fleeing , I think they are still a DEADLY threat to me or my family -- YES ---- if the person HAS ALREADY shot at me with a firearm --- YES !!!!
 
RE: Instructive example/answer learned by the US Border Patrol?

I add a further comment to my own posting (dated 15 Jan '09, #149, this thread):

The original poll question about shooting a fleeing attacker in the back had to do with a private citizen defending his own person (or family) or his own house/land with a firearm. That is much different than the situation for a law enforcement (LE) or Border Patrol (BP) officer.

Morally, the LE/BP officer is not primarily defending himself/herself. The officer is doing a job approved by the citizens and the Constitution (job = defense of our society and/or rule-of-law, at least). His job does not end when the attacker/criminal flees or ceases to be an immediate threat to the officer's person. The situation is compounded when the law-breaker is fleeing into a different jurisdiction, where the officer can no longer do his job.

Anyway, within the scope of the original poll posting, I think it is good to define the morally-permitted action of LE/BP officers because it clarifies the role and limitations of private citizens. But really, the subject should be a thread of its own - I think it gets at bigger, different issues. Maybe I'll start such a thread when I get to it....
 
That is a simple question. The person is an intruder, ie., trespasser. He/she has not been found guilty of a crime, and I have not been authorized to be his/her executioner. He's not a murderer or rapist, he's a burglar, perhaps, or somebody who's in the wrong place at the wrong time. Would I shoot a fleeing murderer or rapist is a different question than would I shoot a fleeing intruder. Your best weapon is the wetware between your ears. If you're going to be carrying a loaded gun with the intent of using it, you'd better engage the brain before you engage the trigger.
 
He/she has not been found guilty of a crime, and I have not been authorized to be his/her executioner. He's not a murderer or rapist, he's a burglar, perhaps, or somebody who's in the wrong place at the wrong time. Would I shoot a fleeing murderer or rapist is a different question than would I shoot a fleeing intruder. Your best weapon is the wetware between your ears. If you're going to be carrying a loaded gun with the intent of using it, you'd better engage the brain before you engage the trigger.
Click to expand...

If he is in my house, I am shooting him so he will not become a rapist or murderer at my expense.
 
All I have to say to that fleeing thief is this...and I'll tell a jury the same thing.

I have worked hard to get the things that I have...I paid for them, they are mine...get a job and buy your own stuff or ask me for it, if I think you really need it (life or death)...I'll give it to you.

Let me catch you stealing from me...and you'll likely pay a very high price for it.
 
From Ridgerunner665, Tennessee--
All I have to say to that fleeing thief is this...and I'll tell a jury the same thing.

I have worked hard to get the things that I have...I paid for them, they are mine...get a job and buy your own stuff or ask me for it, if I think you really need it (life or death)...I'll give it to you.

Let me catch you stealing from me...and you'll likely pay a very high price for it.
Click to expand...

If you own a gun or even a lead pipe in Tennessee, you should become aware of the laws there:

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15780

You may use deadly force only if you have a reasonable belief of an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury
If you do not have all of these elements, do not even show your weapon—you will likely be facing a criminal charge
You get the protection of this law only if you are not engaged in unlawful activity and you’re in a place where you have a right to be[1]
You CANNOT use deadly force to protect property because there is no danger of death or serious bodily injury: the threat has to be against a person, not a thing
The threat has to be imminent: it has to be about to happen now
Click to expand...
 
If you own a gun or even a lead pipe in Tennessee, you should become aware of the laws there:
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should as well. Tennessee law has a provision that is referred to as the "castle doctrine," which allows a resident of a home to presume that an intruder presents a reasonable threat of death or serious bodily injury.


Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-11-611

(c) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
 
In short, fleeing would have to be the operative word. Shooting someone in the back does not mean they are fleeing, and they better be really good at emoting that they are fleeing, like dropping their weapon and moving so fast they're leaving their shoes where they began their sprint for the door.
 
From divemedic:
Tennessee law has a provision that is referred to as the "castle doctrine," which allows a resident of a home to presume that an intruder presents a reasonable threat of death or serious bodily injury.
Click to expand...

True. But would you presume that your lay interpretation of that statute as it applies to the protection of property and a fleeing suspect is more correct than that of a lawyer who practices in Tennessee, such a Patrick Stegall? Stegall does advise that the resident of a home that has been invaded need not retreat, but he does not advise that he can shoot a person absconding with property.

The following is contained on the Arizona government website on concealed carry; it was written by an attorney named Michael Anthony:

You should not assume that you understand a criminal statute by
merely reading it. Courts determine the meaning of criminal statutes, and
they sometimes do so with bizarre results. ... The legal principles used by the courts to interpret the meaning of criminal statutes have evolved over centuries, and scholars argue endlessly over how the laws should be interpreted. In other words, you should not assume that you understand the meaning ofa criminal law by simply reading a statute and attaching your own meaning or dictionary definitions to it.
Click to expand...

The Missouri castle law would appear to the layman to allow a resident to use deadly force against anyone who has entered without invitation, but lawyers have told me to not make such a conclusion, and that if the invader decides to leave one may not use deadly force. One must consider all of the pertinent laws in context, along with case law and constitutional law.
 
Then it would be the state's burden to show he intended to leave and was not merely seeking cover. Since the only witness in MY house is going to be: a- the now dead burglar, b- me, and c- my wife, just how they will establish this is hard to imagine.

Sure, they can show that I shot him in the back, but that is beaten in court constantly.
 
This is a tough one for me to answer, it depends on a circumstance (which i would assume they would have to be armed other wise I'd assume they'd drop my property on sight of my weapon) more detailed then what is listed in the poll, ifany of the following apply then yes:

I have reason to fear for my life, They are armed and I feel they may be inclined to use it, or if I think they are running for cover to turn fire torwards me I will light them up like a christmas tree.

Also if they drew a weapon but clearly do not have it in them to shoot a person so run instead I'll probablly shoot them in the hind quarters on principle.
 
Then it would be the state's burden to show he intended to leave and was not merely seeking cover. Since the only witness in MY house is going to be: a- the now dead burglar, b- me, and c- my wife, just how they will establish this is hard to imagine.
Click to expand...

Possible. But consider the other possibilities. Testimony of a surviving accomplice or of a witness who observed from outdoors. Testimony of the not dead burglar--the survival rate against gunshot wounds is substantial, and if "you finish him off" it will be obvious.

I presume that you are speaking purely hypothetically and are not describing what your intent would be should the occasion arise.... The messages are permanent and subject to discovery.
 
True story. Happened in the 80's in northwest florida. Man was stealing christmas presents off a porch of a rural house on a dead end road. Returning occupants informed by nieghbors of robbery in progess. Fleeing man wounded in legs by shotgun pellets. No criminal charges, but a civil case ensued. Verdict one dollar in damages to the wounded man and his lawyer.
 
he intended to leave and was not merely seeking cover
Click to expand...
Isn't this really the crux of the matter? In a home invasion situation, would you really
wait to see if the intruder was heading out or heading for cover?

You have no way to judge the intruder's intent. Do you risk it all by waiting?
 
have any of you who espouse varying degrees of shoot till slide lock ever had occaision to act on that plan? in real life as opposed to the net? real life has a way of failing to flesh out fantasy
 
Stand by original post

Absent an articulable observed threat to me or my family I still wold not open fire. But my circumstances might be different than many/most. My house is rather small (1600 sq ft) and it has a very open floor plan. except for a tiny hall betheen the 2nd bath and two auxiliary bedrooms, it has no hallway. One side is a bath and 2 bedrooms with a miniscule hall, the other side is the master suite with a fair sided open area in between. The middle of the house is 1 contiguous space with a 40' sight line. Living room, dining room and kitchen are set apart by architectural features but at the ceiling there is nothing. When I hear noises at night I immediately pull my baby eagle out of its little hammock beside my bed and go to investigate.

It I caught the intruder in either the 2nd or 3rd bedrooms, 2nd bath or the connecting hall there would literally be no place to which he/she could flee. If I perceived a weapon being brought to bear I would open fire. No, cassandrasdaddy, I have never fired a firearm in anger (hope like hell if I fire it for home defense it STILL won't be in anger) but I have pulled the plug on my baby brother whom I diapered, advised my Mother she was terminal and filled out a blank, signed DNR order within 48 hours. 3 days after THAT I pulled the nasal cannula out of my dead Mother's nose and drove home with what was left of my baby brother sitting in a baggie in a box in the floorboard behind my seat. I reckon that if I can do that in a single 5 day period, I can freaking well open fire on an intruder. If I caught the intruder coming into my bedroom I would open fire - and the fact that he was coming into my bedroom would be ample evidence of intent for the civil jury.

But if I caught him/her out in the open area in the middle of my house and he/she was heading for either of the doors, that would be pretty good evidence that the intruder was, indeed, fleeing. HOWEVER If, prior to opening either door the intruder stopped and even started to turn around (unless it was in response to my command to stop) I would open fire and continue to discharge the weapon until I perceived them to be stopped. Whether that meant I fired until slidelock or just a few rounds would have to be seen.

I will do whatever is necessary to take care of my family. I would probably feel like CRUD afterwards - I STILL beat myself up occasionally about "killing" my brother and Mother after 4 years - but I would not hesitate during the crisis. It's just how I'm wired.

But I think Garner and the "Fleeing Felon" rule are the best course, Bill_rights, even for private citizens. Even assuming that Texas' castle law would protect me from the DA, I could easily wind up having to prove by preponderance of the evidence that I considered the intruder an imminent threat to someone's life when I shot him/her in the back.

Cyborg
 
I voted NO because none of the YES choices indicated personal injury or even threat.
I don't know much about the law but my conscience says You do not have the right to defend property with deadly force, its just stuff and life is life. Thats the difference between a responsible and ethic gun toter and an ignorant thug.
What if a handicapped, sick, injured or disoriented person stumbles onto your property and falls onto your shed making noise. Would you shoot?
 
"What if a handicapped, sick, injured or disoriented person stumbles onto your property and falls onto your shed making noise. Would you shoot?"


some here might more the pity and it feeds that stereotype again. thankfully in real life its like harleys and harley gear. many have the t shirt the wallet the hat etc. far fewer own the bike or understand what it means
 
You can what if things to create a no shoot situation. The question was "would you shoot a fleeing intruder in the back?" I said yes, because there are occasions where I would. There are situations where I would not, but none of those situations require me to determine whether or not the person is intending to kill me, or ask him what his intentions are.

I don't care if these are discoverable. If you enter my dwelling in the state of Florida, the LAW says that I can presume that he presents a deadly threat and I can engage him with deadly force. The law does not allow me to execute someone, but it also does not require me to arrest him, or go looking for a reason not to shoot him. If it is not blatantly obvious that he intends to surrender, he is about to be engaged in a gun fight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Justifiable shooting in the news
Replies
1
Views
404
TexasRifleman
T
D
  • Locked
Michigan bills would allow residents to fatally shoot intruders
Replies
5
Views
389
Dead
D
L
  • Locked
Intruder Shot in Back = Murder? in CA
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Ohio Gun Guy
  • Locked
Defense of Property
Replies
22
Views
915
divemedic
D
E
  • Locked
Home intruder flees after being shot
Replies
4
Views
624
Joe Link
J
Back
Top