Pro's and con's of announcing to an intruder that you're armed

Status
Not open for further replies.
The real world is gonna be a major wake up call to a lot of people if they have a self defense shooting, justified or not, trial or not, it’ll be a shocker. I’ve been in jury rooms, the ones I have served on seemed to rule based almost entirely on how they feel, not the law, not even what they think… was all emotional. And then to trying to sleep at night if you take a life, that’s a whole different issue, and if you don’t think you’d have any issue, you may just be a sociopath.

In full disclosure I’d probably be one of those shocked people. Best not to shoot anyone, ever, anywhere, at anytime, if at all avoidable. Seems simple to me.
 
AJC1 said:
Living in a place like bourbon street in LA would likely make these accidental intruder incidents very likely.... it would be silly not to adjust your security plan and initial approach accordingly.
Click to expand...
And when you move from one environment to another, the adjustment can take awhile. The first at least three months I was here I couldn't believe there were no sirens or police helicopters. And now I can't fathom how I lived like that for such a long time.
 
Blue Jays said:
No, it was a general comment and not directed at anyone.

Now that you have quoted me…my home would be incredibly difficult to enter whether at the beach, in the mountains, in the city, in the country, or in the desert. It would take a very committed and focused individual.
Click to expand...
Or a mob.
 
IMHO you have to assess each situation. There is no 1 answer. I would say the majority of incidents are people would leave if you announced in an aggressive voice that you are armed and will shoot. You need to assess where you are at, are you covered? How many intruders? what do you hear? are you somewhere that you can see what is going on? Can you access a bright light unseen or undetected? I have 3 alert dogs (alert, not guard. they don't solve a problem, they tell/alert you to a problem with lots of barking), any point an intruder comes in will make some sort of noise, so I can get up before they make much progress and position myself for cover and assess the situation and have an eye on who is trying to penetrate my home. If they persist after incessant barking and warnings, then I know they are mental, high or have evil intent. Either way, they won't make it far. If you are a heavy sleeper and have no alarm/alert system, then you may not get much time to assess a situation and the best thing you can do is have your weapon and move to cover/safety with little light. Anyone entering your safe zone without talking and using a flashlight is a problem to be dealt with.
 
Last edited:
Kleanbore said:
IF you have reason to believe that the use of such force is immediately necessary to prevent the unlawful entry.

That is an inside straight that I would not try to fill.
Click to expand...

Somebody beat a bicycle against a neighbor's front window until he got through, and attacked the neighbor behind us. It took 2 grown men and a baseball bat to get the kid under control. Thankfully the old lady wasn't there by herself, and her sons took care of it. She couldn't have fought the kid; she would have had to shoot him.

This was around the same time a kid ate somebody's face off down the road from us in Tequesta. Don't know what kind of drugs were going around at the time.

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/n...dent-suspect-gruesome-double-murder/88829518/

Anyway, I can see situations in which it's not just somebody walking into the wrong apartment. But most of them are going to be obvious. They're not all skirting on the edge of a technicality in a statute.

If you have to parse the statute to death to figure out whether lethal force is legal, you probably shouldn't be trying that hard. You're starting to ask the question "When can I shoot?", and if you have to ask, the answer is "No."
 
Last edited:
Kleanbore said:
The guy in the video is an attorney who practices in Wisconsin. His shingle mentions DWI charges, criminal law including gun possession cases, family law.....,

Self defense is mentioned, seemingly as a recent afterthought. BUT--very few criminal defense attorneys, even those who have practiced for decades, have any real experience in defending self defense cases involving "good guys". When there has been a use of force incident and the accused cannot credibly deny having done the deed, he is left with tying to get a self defense instruction. Not too many of them prevail. Successfully undertaking the legal defense of self defense requires knowing a lot more than having read the state law. There are higher court rulings, both within the jurisdiction and without, to analyze. More importantly, the successful defense can get into a great deal of depth involving the dynamics of use of force incidents. How long does it take to react if the attacker turns away.... how long an interval between the last and the next-to-last shot would be acceptable....can you describe and discuss that alleged "furtive movement".... what was one's basis for believing that the entry had been forcible or tumultuous...at what point in time did the defender first shoot.....

One does not want to have the run-of-the mill criminal defense attorney, not to mention one's Cousin Vinny, at one's defense table in a self defense trial.

Now, the fact of an unlawful entry into an occupied residence does give the defense a lot of "ammunition", so to speak, but there are no guarantees...period. And even if the defender did everything strictly according to Hoyle, the probability of conviction is uncomfortably higher than zero.

Again, shooting is a last resort, It is to be done when it is necessary, but it should not be undertaken because the defender thinks it will be justified.
Click to expand...

So- no lawyers here, right?
 
Kleanbore said:
IF you have reason to believe that the use of such force is immediately necessary to prevent the unlawful entry.

That is an inside straight that I would not try to fill.
Click to expand...
Unlawfull entry?? If a burglar is INSIDE YOUR HOME
810.02 Burglary.—
(1)(a) For offenses committed on or before July 1, 2001, “burglary” means entering or remaining in a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter or remain.
(b) For offenses committed after July 1, 2001, “burglary” means:
1. Entering a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter; or
2. Notwithstanding a licensed or invited entry, remaining in a dwelling, structure, or conveyance:
a. Surreptitiously, with the intent to commit an offense therein;
b. After permission to remain therein has been withdrawn, with the intent to commit an offense therein; or
c. To commit or attempt to commit a forcible felony, as defined in s. 776.08.
(2) Burglary is a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if, in the course of committing the offense, the offender:
(a) Makes an assault or battery upon any person; or
(b) Is or becomes armed within the dwelling, structure, or conveyance, with explosives or a dangerous weapon; or
(c
 
DeepSouth said:
The real world is gonna be a major wake up call to a lot of people if they have a self defense shooting, justified or not, trial or not, it’ll be a shocker. I’ve been in jury rooms, the ones I have served on seemed to rule based almost entirely on how they feel, not the law, not even what they think… was all emotional. And then to trying to sleep at night if you take a life, that’s a whole different issue, and if you don’t think you’d have any issue, you may just be a sociopath.

In full disclosure I’d probably be one of those shocked people. Best not to shoot anyone, ever, anywhere, at anytime, if at all avoidable. Seems simple to me.
Click to expand...
You nailed it!
 
old lady new shooter said:
Including stating that you are armed?
Click to expand...

Yes. "I have a gun. I will shoot if you come in. The police are on the way, etc."

As noted in my post, I don't necessarily agree with the recommendation from NRA. Personally, I think it would depend on the situation, the location of the threat (in my house or trying to break in), and other factors.
 
old lady new shooter said:
Including stating that you are armed?
Click to expand...
Would a verbal warning without stating that you're armed carry any weight? I'm not sure how that would go, if you just said "don't come in here or else!", then shot the intruder after they proceeded without letting them know they would be shot. Then again, a verbal warning when you're not armed wouldn't make much sense either.
 
Howland937 said:
Would a verbal warning without stating that you're armed carry any weight? I'm not sure how that would go, if you just said "don't come in here or else!", then shot the intruder after they proceeded without letting them know they would be shot. Then again, a verbal warning when you're not armed wouldn't make much sense either.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't think that matters. The point of all this is to avoid the use of deadly force, which should only happen when your life is threatened. If you think "or else" will shoo them away, by all means use it. You'll be in a legal pickle either way if you shoot.
 
Howland937 said:
Would a verbal warning without stating that you're armed carry any weight? I'm not sure how that would go, if you just said "don't come in here or else!", then shot the intruder after they proceeded without letting them know they would be shot. Then again, a verbal warning when you're not armed wouldn't make much sense either.
Click to expand...
Depends what kind of intruder(s) it is. Opportunistic burglar (i.e. your house was not specifically targeted beforehand, and they just want to get in, grab a TV or whatever, and leave) if you yell "Get off my property" before they get in, knowing someone's home might persuade them to go find an easier target.
 
It appears to me that we have covered most of the relevant ground, and that we are in something of a repetitive cycle. We'll leave the tread open for a short time for any new, substantive input.

Fair warning.
 
In a class on armed self-defense, I was advised to do so for legal reasons. Otherwise you leave yourself open to charges of entrapment, staging an ambush, etc. Yeah, I know those are BS charges, but it doesn't mean a sleazy lawyer won't try to bring them. We were told to clearly (and loudly) say something like this: "I'm armed! Get out of my house! Now!" We even had to do that on the range.
 
toivo said:
Yeah, I know those are BS charges, but it doesn't mean a sleazy lawyer won't try to bring them.
Click to expand...
One cannot limit that to "some sleazy Lawyer".

The actor must decide, at the time of the incident and based on what they know, what they believe is necessary for self preservation. But the actor is not empowered to decide whether the act was justified. That is left to others, who were not there, and who have access only to whatever evidence can be gathered after the fact. That may include things related to whether the entry was forcible; to why the person shot had entered the house in the first place; to prior relationships between the parties; to audio recordings from next door with the timing of shots; and so on.

One should not cast aspersions on the character or motivation of the investigators, the charging authority, an elected prosecutor, a Grand Jury, or the jurors when they do their duty. They cannot see the halo that you think you have above your head.

I will not argue about warning for legal reasons, but I will say that for me, the driving reason is to obviate the need for shooting anyone.
 
Kleanbore said:
obviate the need for shooting anyone
Click to expand...
Bottom line. We should be exploring, analyzing, theorizing, developing plans to avoid loss of life. There is evidence in this thread of the opposite; "I can shoot because..." Because if you do, your life will change forever. It must be the very last resort in self preservation.

We (my wife and I) plan for this. We hope that plan can be executed and we're willing to allow intruders to clean out our house if they want, as long as they and we are alive at the end. Thus, we must contend only with our home owner's insurance.

Small price, comparatively.

That's all I have to say about that.
 
Obviously shooting anyone while one is peacefully resting/working/playing/ in their home is a last step to save your life or the life of another innocent within the home. We are ostensibly talking about an intruder who has breached a locked home. Who is doing the official record-keeping and audio recording of whether a warning was shouted to the criminal? Is it essentially a he said/she said testimony in a courtroom?
 
Blue Jays said:
Who is doing the official record-keeping and audio recording of whether a warning was shouted to the criminal? Is it essentially a he said/she said testimony in a courtroom?
Click to expand...
Do not discount the possibllity of ear witnesses, or the potential effectiveness of the intruder's testimony oi that of his accomplices..
 
Kleanbore said:
One should not cast aspersions on the character or motivation of the investigators, the charging authority, an elected prosecutor, a Grand Jury, or the jurors when they do their duty. They cannot see the halo that you think you have above your head.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. My apologies -- I didn't intend to malign the legal system, but I can see that I did.

It seems to me that are actual three levels of consideration here: practical, legal, and ethical. The video in the OP suggests that there may be practical reasons to NOT announce. The legal aspect seems to be variable, based on state laws; in the class I referred to, we were strongly advised to announce in order to comply with state law. And ethically, as you suggest, it's a slam-dunk: You announce in order to reduce the chance of having to take a human life.
 
Kleanbore said:
It appears to me that we have covered most of the relevant ground, and that we are in something of a repetitive cycle. We'll leave the tread open for a short time for any new, substantive input.

Fair warning.
Click to expand...
Yes it is worn out with the WHAT IF CROWD one truth is evident someone who is not known to you in your home at 0300 hrs IS NOT FROM THE WELCOME WAGON I will retire from the forum thank you for your time
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
Should you announce that you are armed?
2 3 4
Replies
82
Views
4K
psyopspec
P
Craig_AR
  • Locked
Armed Rideshare Driver Gets Carjacked
Replies
18
Views
806
Atavar
Atavar
U
  • Locked
tactics that are often debated
Replies
8
Views
409
BullfrogKen
B
Craig_AR
Can NRA Training Survive the NY Lawsuit?
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Speedo66
Speedo66
hso
If you're not a member of USCCA, United States Concealed Carry Association Launches New Political Group
Replies
0
Views
300
hso
hso
Back
Top