Would you shoot an intruder if you didn't have to?

valnar · Oct 7, 2013

I've read all the theories that if you pull your CC weapon out in public against a BG that means to hurt you, you better shoot immediately. Don't use it for leverage, don't use it to scare him off, don't threaten him with violence. Just shoot. I don't agree with that rule of thumb, but I understand it's reason for existence. In our litigious society, the perp could say YOU were the aggressor just by brandishing it. He better be pummeling your head into the ground when you pull and shoot.

Well, what about inside your house during an invasion?

At that point, the bad intent is obvious just by the BG being in your house, wearing the proverbial ski mask and holding a knife. Especially if you have Castle Doctrine in your state, the law is on your side. So...if you didn't have to shoot him, would you? What if brandishing your 12ga shotgun was enough to make him drop the knife? Is it legal just to stick him in a corner while you dial 911? Let him go? Or once again, just flat out shoot him when he first had that knife?

What would you do?

Claude Clay · Oct 7, 2013

...use of force should be the minimum needed to neutralize a threat

Kleanbore · Oct 7, 2013

Posted by valnar: I've read all the theories that if you pull your CC weapon out in public against a BG that means to hurt you, you better shoot immediately. Don't use it for leverage, don't use it to scare him off, don't threaten him with violence. Just shoot. I don't agree with that rule of thumb, but I understand it's reason for existence. In our litigious society, the perp could say YOU were the aggressor just by brandishing it.

You have it inside out and backwards.

It's not "if you draw, shoot"; it's "do not draw unless you are lawfully justified in doing so. Threshold for justification varies, but if you do not have reason to believe that force is necessary (deadly force in some places), you may not draw.

If the immediate threat then dissipates, DO NOT SHOOT.

Well, what about inside your house during an invasion? At that point, the bad intent is obvious just by the BG being in your house, wearing the proverbial ski mask and holding a knife. Especially if you have Castle Doctrine in your state, the law is on your side. So...if you didn't have to shoot him, would you?

NO!

What if brandishing your 12ga shotgun was enough to make him drop the knife?

Your justification for shooting ends when he ceases to present an immediate threat.

Is it legal just to stick him in a corner while you dial 911?

You can ask him to stay, but you cannot lawfully use deadly force to enforce that request.

Let him go?

Safer in most respects.

Study this and this.

9mmepiphany · Oct 7, 2013

You've misunderstood the common refrain, which might even have been explained to you by someone else who misunderstood it. It is a by-product of taking information in soundbites.

The correct explanation is to "Do Not Draw a Gun Unless You Are Willing and Justified to Use Deadly Force"

It is correct that a gun should not be displayed to leverage, scare, or threaten...if you aren't Legally Justified to use deadly force.

That you are justified in using it, doesn't mean you are obligated to use it. The object of your attention could cease to be a threat...run away...in which case you would no longer be justified in using it.

Holding someone at gunpoint has a whole other range of dangers involved with it...both criminal and civil...that really should be address separately (maybe in Legal or S&T)

yzguy87 · Oct 7, 2013

No. The only way I would shoot someone in my house is if I or my family was threatened. Threaten my life or mess with my family and I wouldn't think twice about using deadly force.
If I caught someone trying to steal something or was home when someone broke in, then no I wouldn't kill them but I would tell them to get out of my house and I would have my gun in my hand to let them know I mean business.

Arkansas Paul · Oct 7, 2013

At that point, the bad intent is obvious just by the BG being in your house, wearing the proverbial ski mask and holding a knife. Especially if you have Castle Doctrine in your state, the law is on your side. So...if you didn't have to shoot him, would you?

No!
I would only shoot to protect my life or other innocent life.
Using deadly force is a serious matter. In fact I can't think of a more serious one. It is not to be taken lightly and I truly hope I'm never faced with the need to. I suspect we all do.

303tom · Oct 7, 2013

NO, probably would not have to after Shadow got through with em !...............

valnar · Oct 7, 2013

So...it would not be illegal to show a BG my gun, without shooting him, in my house? You have to admit, the posts I see regularly on the Internet suggest you should use deadly force if you pull your gun AT ALL when faced with an imminent threat (outside your home). But as we all know, just showing the gun to the BG might make the threat stop. I would prefer to do that than shoot anyone.

On the other hand, the stupid laws are tailor made to protect the BG by doing so. It's all so confusing.

If I caught someone trying to steal something or was home when someone broke in, then no I wouldn't kill them but I would tell them to get out of my house and I would have my gun in my hand to let them know I mean business.

OK, but is that the LEGAL response to do?

Sam1911 · Oct 7, 2013

So...it would not be illegal to show a BG my gun, without shooting him, in my house?

Threatening to shoot someone (i.e. "Brandishing" your gun) is illegal.
SHOOTING someone is illegal.

Self defense laws are set up so that if charged with either crime you make an "affirmative defense." That is to say you admit that YES you did that thing, BUT you were forced to because of the circumstances the bad guy forced on you.

If shooting someone can be excused due to necessity, threatening to shoot someone certainly can be as well. Logically it is a far less severe violation of law to threaten someone than to end their life. So if you aren't justified in threatening someone, you sure as HECK can't be justified in KILLING them.

You have to admit, the posts I see regularly on the Internet suggest you should use deadly force if you pull your gun AT ALL when faced with an imminent threat (outside your home).

There's an awful lot of misunderstood and downright stupid advice out there in internet land. And a lot of ignorant bravado from goofy baby Rambos who fantasize about "taking out" some scum bag. Whaddaya gonna do? Free speech and all that.

But as we all know, just showing the gun to the BG might make the threat stop. I would prefer to do that than shoot anyone.

You can't COUNT on it, and you certainly can't draw on someone if you aren't in a situation that would warrant shooting (generally speaking) but IF you have the opportunity to hold your fire because the threat is ended, absolutely you should!

Killing a man who is not threatening you at that moment is manslaughter at least, maybe murder.

On the other hand, the stupid laws are tailor made to protect the BG by doing so

Not really. That's a TV and internet trope fallacy. The laws are made to cover everyone, and to prohibit unrighteous acts of violence under all circumstances. It is very important to understand how they work. They don't protect the law-breaker. But they may punish the "good guy" if the good guy does something he really shouldn't have. Like killing someone who is not presenting a threat.

GJSchulze · Oct 7, 2013

The minimum force to protect your life and your family's is the smart way to go. Not because of what's morally right, but because you want to avoid the life changing effects (arrest, trial, lawsuits, and psychological) that occur if you shoot someone.

But there is a difference between inside your house and elsewhere. When someone enters your house unlawfully there is a presumption that they can do you harm. Another difference is that inside your house, when you see or hear something suspicious, you are likely to put gun in hand first and then decide what to do. In both cases, the dark of the night makes it more dangerous. In daylight I am much less likely to shoot right away just because it's clearer what's going on. Outside, I think I might put my hand on my gun, but not draw, i.e., reduce your draw time and show that you mean business.

easyg · Oct 7, 2013

At that point, the bad intent is obvious just by the BG being in your house, wearing the proverbial ski mask and holding a knife.

If I saw a man in my home who was wearing a ski mask and holding a knife I would shoot him immediately.

What if brandishing your 12ga shotgun was enough to make him drop the knife?

If the guy dropped the knife before I could shoot him then I would not shoot him.
But I wouldn't let him leave either!
I would block the exit and call 911.
He would have to attack me to get out, and if tried to attack me I would defend myself and shoot him.
I know that there are some who will cry "false imprisonment" or some other nonsense.
But there's no way I would let a home invader just walk out so that he could come back later, better equipped, and kill me and my family or rape my wife and children.

GBExpat · Oct 7, 2013

valnar said:
So...if you didn't have to shoot him, would you?

I do not wish to cause harm to any person.

That said, I cannot answer for my response in such a situation filled with anger & fear & adrenalin.

In past STRESSFUL encounters I have been surprisingly calm and taken care of business during the time-slowdown that occurs ... but the last such episode was many years ago and, quite frankly & dependant upon the particular circumstances, nowadays I might find myself popping the guy to End the Threat rather than gambling on a more refined approach, y'know?

No way to know until it actually happens.

Mike1234567 · Oct 7, 2013

If someone breaks into my home and doesn't turn and run when facing me or freeze and throw their hands up when ordered to then I EXPECT they intend to harm me. I won't likely hesitate... especially if they advance or pull a weapon. There are a million possible scenarios so no one can be TRULY CERTAIN what they'll do in a given situation but... I'm darned sick and tired of seeing innocent people harmed because they weren't armed.

MedWheeler · Oct 7, 2013

Kleanbore makes pretty much every point that needs making. However, this one isn't necessarily true in my state (Florida.):

You can ask him to stay, but you cannot lawfully use deadly force to enforce that request.

In Florida, a citizen's arrest can be made pursuant to the principles of English Common Law. Under this, a person can make an arrest of a another person whom the arresting person has reasonable cause to believe has just committed a forcible felony of violence (which includes burglary of an occupied structure), and is in immediate flight from the scene of that same offense. Deadly force may be used to effect such an arrest if, in attempting the arrest, the arresting person becomes in fear of serious personal injury or death to himself/herself if such force is not used. The person effecting the arrest literally becomes the "arresting officer" throughout the judicial process attached to the arrest.

Few people know this and that's probably not necessarily a bad thing. It would definitely require some education as to which forcible felonies are on the list, and the other criteria that are required.

Now, is it strategically wise to attempt such an arrest, even if lawfully permitted to, when the attacker tries to flee? That is for another thread.

I just noticed that Sam1911, in post 9, is the only other one I've ever noticed has stated that it is always unlawful to intentionally shoot another person. This also applies in Florida. The principle of an "affirmative defense" to the (potential) charge of such a shooting in a self-defense situation is what makes it, though not legal, at least "okay" in the eyes of the law.

valnar · Oct 7, 2013

If someone breaks into my home and doesn't turn and run when facing me or freeze and throw their hands up when ordered then I EXPECT they intend to harm me. I won't likely hesitate.

That might be the best statement yet. If my gun doesn't put the fear of God into him, and he still progresses, then either he is bent on hurting me or simply stupid (or on drugs, I suppose).

Arkansas Paul · Oct 7, 2013

You have to admit, the posts I see regularly on the Internet suggest you should use deadly force if you pull your gun AT ALL when faced with an imminent threat (outside your home)

I wonder how many people who make suggestions like that have ever been in a position where they used deadly force. Probably none of them. They don't know what its like to take someone's life. Or having to shoot someone in your home with your children there to witness it. Or what its like to try and go to sleep at night afterwards.

I don't either, and I hope I never find out.

besafe2 · Oct 7, 2013

If someone breaks into my home I'm in fear of my life, bang bang.

kyew · Oct 7, 2013

Legalities aside, I was taught never to point a gun at anyone until I was ready to pull the trigger. I myself will never use a firearm to threaten anyone; if it ever comes down to it (and I sincerely hope it doesn't) the person I draw my weapon on is going to get shot. I can see the benefit of lifting a shirt tail to prove you're armed and maybe help someone make a wiser choice than they were about to make, but drawing a weapon and leveling it at someone is paramount to pulling the trigger, at least for me it is.

Frank Ettin · Oct 7, 2013

valnar said:
...the stupid laws are tailor made to protect the BG by doing so....

This isn't anything new. The laws have been like this for hundreds of years.

As I laid it out in the thread An Overview of Basic "Use of Force" Law:

...

Our society takes a dim view of the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.

However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.

Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened, which will have to be judged on the basis of evidence gathered after the fact.

Someone who initiated a conflict will almost never be able to legally justify an act of violence against another.

The amount of force an actor may justifiably use in self defense will depend on the level of the threat.

Under the laws of most States, lethal force may be justified when a reasonable person in like circumstance would conclude that a use of lethal force is necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to establish that, the actor claiming justified use of lethal force would need to show that the person against whom the lethal force was used reasonably had --

Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;

Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and

put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he had the intent to kill or cripple.

"Ability" doesn't necessarily require a weapon. Disparity of force, e. g., a large, young, strong person attacking a small, old, frail person, or force of numbers, could show "Ability."

"Opportunity" could be established by showing proximity, lack of barriers or the like.

"Jeopardy" (intent) could be inferred from overt acts (e. g., violent approach) and/or statements of intent.

And unless the standard justifying the use of lethal force is met, use of some lesser level of violence might be legally justified to prevent a harmful or offensive, unconsented to contact by another person.

If you have thus used violence against another person, your actions will be investigated as a crime, because on the surface that's what it is.

Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.

If the evidence is not clear, you may well be arrested and perhaps even charged with a criminal offense. If that happens you will need to affirmatively assert that you were defending yourself and put forth evidence that you at least prima facie satisfied the applicable standard justifying your act of violence.

Of course, if your use of force against another human took place in or immediately around your home, your justification for your use of violence could be more readily apparent or easier to establish -- maybe.

Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?

In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.

It could however be another matter to establish your justification if you have to use force against someone you invited into your home in a social context which later turns violent.

It could also be another matter if you left the safety of your house to confront someone on your property.

Good, general overviews of the topic can be found at UseofForce.us and in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.

...

beatledog7 · Oct 7, 2013

Seems to me the most valid approach is to not focus on looking ahead to whether drawing/firing would be legal; rather, it is to protect life and limb and worry about the legalities only after the fact.

Honestly, I do not dwell on future legal issues. I would do what I have to do, and only that, and let the legal chips fall. There is no way I would risk my life or my daughter's life thinking about whether the action I'm being forced to do is legal or not. Why dwell on it if it hasn't happened?

Knowing that the aforementioned life saving shot is illegal would not stop me from taking that shot. Conversely, knowing that an unnecessary shot would nevertheless be legal would not make me take that shot.

Outlaw Man · Oct 7, 2013

"Have to" is pretty strong. No one is forcing you to pull the trigger, even if you're sure it's down to your life or his. Self-sacrifice aside, there are hundreds of factors involved. Is he really no longer presenting a threat, or is he backing away to get the firearm he laid down in another room because he thought the house was unoccupied?

I can't say for sure what I'd do until I'm in that situation, but there's one thing I can assure you of - when it comes to protecting my family, it's going to take some pretty strong convincing that he's no longer presenting a threat.

If it were just me, and I was pretty sure he was no longer a threat? Opening up myself to a potential lawsuit, risking stray rounds going through the wall and hitting someone, having to clean up the mess, not to mention having to live with killing someone, would make it hard to pull the trigger.

CA Raider · Oct 7, 2013

"I've read all the theories that if you pull your CC weapon out in public against a BG that means to hurt you, you better shoot immediately. Don't use it for leverage, don't use it to scare him off, don't threaten him with violence. Just shoot."

I also disagree with this logic.
It is preached all over the USA, as if it is some sort of religion.

It is worthwhile to reflect on the fact that the law will only give you good protection if you use a gun inside your own home. In that case, the situation favors you ... what is an intruder doing there in the first place? the burden of "guilt" shifts to the stranger, and members of a jury would believe that you felt threatened.

over the last few years a growing number of Americans are now carrying weapons in public, with CC or open carry. That same set of protections does NOT exist. Even if you feel threatened, it is a LOT harder to prove there was a real threat. Look at it this way. Policemen must face an internal inquiry if they shoot somebody on the street. Therefore, shouldn't we - as civilians - be even more accountable. The answer of course is yes. We are.

Therefore, you really need a wider range of possible responses, and a much better evaluation of the "threat situation".

This is actually a MAJOR weakness for many normal people who carry guns in America. They have not trained themself, or equipped themself, to do proper threat assessments. That's the critical part of the whole response - deciding when to shoot and whether to shoot. Many gun onwers are still working off the same principles they were taught for home defense. It's not the same situation at all.

CA R

Fred Fuller · Oct 7, 2013

Asking, in essence, "When can I shoot someone?" is IMHO a completely wrong approach to the moral aspect of self defense. If it is not clearly necessary for you to shoot in defense of yourself or others, you are not morally justified in shooting, as I see it.

Legal? That's a whole 'nother can of worms. Are you more worried about being legally correct, or morally correct?

As for me, I can live for the rest of my life without shooting anyone, if I have any choice in the matter.

HexHead · Oct 7, 2013

If I feel forced to pull my weapon to defend me or mine, the attacker won't have time to change his mind.

OptimusPrime · Oct 7, 2013

kyew said:
Legalities aside, I was taught never to point a gun at anyone until I was ready to pull the trigger. I myself will never use a firearm to threaten anyone; if it ever comes down to it (and I sincerely hope it doesn't) the person I draw my weapon on is going to get shot. I can see the benefit of lifting a shirt tail to prove you're armed and maybe help someone make a wiser choice than they were about to make, but drawing a weapon and leveling it at someone is paramount to pulling the trigger, at least for me it is.

Kyew said it best. If I have drawn a weapon, and am pointing it at a person and my finger is on the trigger, I'm afraid that I've already decided to shoot. Something in the situation has already tripped my instincts to take those steps. I sincerely hope it never happens.

Would you shoot an intruder if you didn't have to?

Member

Member

Moderator

Moderator

Member

Member

member

Member

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Member

Similar threads