Shooting thru a barricade at a home intruder

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Onward Allusion

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
3,401
Location
Illinois
What would be the legalities? Someone breaks into your home. You have surveillance cameras and some with thermal imaging. You can see that the home invader is ARMED and hiding behind a piece of furniture/wall/door IN YOUR HOME.

Can you shoot them through the wall, say with a slug?

I AM BEING 100% SERIOUS.
 
If you can describe a direct threat he posed to you I don't see how this would be a problem --

For example, say he's hiding behind a wall next to a doorway. He pops his arm out, and he's holding a firearm and he's aiming it toward your position. You are now obviously in fear of your life and you realize where he has to be behind the wall and that your weapon is of a caliber that will easily penetrate the wall(s) in between, so you shoot through the wall and hit the intruder, thus ending the threat.
I see no problem with this, especially so if you are basically trapped.
You will still be held liable for any local laws. Is there a "duty to retreat" where you live?
You still have to be sure your defense shooting is in compliance with the law.
But I don't see it being a problem in itself.
The above is not legal advice; IANAL.
Just a guy with an opinion.
 
As a jury member (not a lawyer):

1. Absolute Knowledge: Intruder has already entered into the home
2. Absolute Knowledge: Intruder has [what appears to be] a weapon
3. Absolute Knowledge: Intruder's actual identity is not yet known/unknown in detail, merely existance of someone hiding
4. Absolute Knowledge: Intruder has not yet taken offensive action beyond the above....

My thoughts: A lot of family members and teenagers have been shot this way... by mistake.
It isn't fair, but if a mistake does occur, Items 3 & 4 above are going to examined very carefully
by me as a juror as what a Reasonable Man would/should have done in releasing deadly force at a
target he cannot see and cannot positively identify.



OTOH: If 2-4 have ocurred/are confirmed, all bets are off.....


.
 
Last edited:
It depends on your state as well. Here in Utah, if an intruder enters your home through "Stealth or force" the use of deadly force is legal. You don't even have to know that they are armed.

I know in other states you have to prove that you had no ability to flee your own home before using deadly force.

I am grateful that I live where I do.
 
... in other states you have to prove that you had no ability
to flee your own home before using deadly force....
Click to expand...
Can someone point out those states wherein the duty to retreat is presumed -- even unto one's home ?
I had thought (perhaps mistakenly) that the home as last refuge from attack was reasonably uniform.
 
To lie in wait um ??????

I would warn the person to leave first in this case.

Maybe changing their evil ways and preventing the stress of taking a life.

Plus meeting my maker without that in my file.

We all make choices.
 
well,if it's your house,you know what the walls are made of,wood,plaster,or concrete.also,it will depend on what's behind it,or who,in case of bullet pass through.in my house,outer walls are concrete,and i'm alone,i'd pop a few to see if they would hit the target and stop the situation.the intruder may decide to surrender and save himself.remember also,2x4's in the wall might also stop bullets.tough decision to make.
 
For many reasons, it's a poor idea to shoot anyone if you have a viable alternative.

If the facts (as reconstructed after the fact, or course) indicate that shooting had been lawfully justified (and that means that the evidence would support a claim that you had had reason to believe that the safety of you or your family, or in some jurisdictions, the prevention of a felony, had required the immediate use of deadly force), you would avoid likely criminal charges or at least conviction and most probably, civil judgments. "Castle Doctrine" laws make a defense of justification easier.

BUT: there will be monetary expenses; your time will be spent in the aftermath; you and you family will likely not be treated as you might expect; and you may have to worry about the actions of the friends and family of the intruder. You may also be without a firearm for a while.

On top of that, there is no assurance that you would survive the encounter unharmed, or that you might not kill or severely injure an innocent person or cause the intruder to do so.
 
State laws, legal precedent....

In general(which is like talking to someone in a gun shop parking lot or "bar talk"), I would say no.
Use of CCTVs, FLIR, night-vision, drones-quad copters, scopes/telescopes, etc may aid you or give you warning but it can't replace having "eyes on" a threat.
Recent legal cases that involve home owners/gun owners using lethal force on trespassers document this.
The incident in MN with the home owner who reportedly "lied in wait" & set upon 2 young house breakers, killing both. He was later convicted. :uhoh:
The gun owner/property owner had lights, alarms, CCTVs, etc.
That strange case is worth reviewing. The guy seemed really creepy. He recorded his own remarks before & after the shootings which helped the jurors hammer him later in court, :uhoh: .

The other Detroit MI area incident where a home owner fired at a girl strung out on weed who reportedly was pounding on his front door at 300am. He fired a 12ga shotgun thru the closed door, killing the girl.
He was recently convicted too. If you can review that case & watch the court video of the MI prosecutor screaming at the guy on the stand. :eek:
I'm surprised the court judge allowed that outburst but the guy was smoked after that.

Some state laws & lethal force standards are different in different places.
This why it's so important to learn or know the fundamentals of lethal force laws in your area. To have a lawyer or legal plan like www.ccwsafe.com or Second Call is smart too.
If you have a property or business, Id check the insurance plans or speak to your business atty & see what legal or civil issues are involved with guns/lethal force.
Waiting until you are in the after-math of a critical incident or a civil lawsuit will be to late.
 
Does your state have the Castle Doctrine and No Right to Retreat?

GA does and if someone enters my house without my permission they will receive a "warm" welcome and I don't have to ask their intentions or verify they're armed...
 
Post by NGIB: if someone enters my house without my permission they will receive a "warm" welcome and I don't have to ask their intentions or verify they're armed...
Click to expand...

Let's look at the law in Georgia:

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23
Use of force in defense of habitation

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;

(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or

(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
Click to expand...
Emphasis added.

Just a little different from your simplistic interpretation, isn't it?

First, it's not just a matter of your permission. There is the little matter of the entry being forcible.

Second, the defender must have a basis for a reasonable belief that the unlawful and forcible entry had been made to harm, or to commit a felony in the residence. So, yes, you do have to have a basis for an idea about their intentions.

And then you have to have a basis for a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary.

Of course, the reasonableness of the actor's belief will be evaluated by others, on the basis of evidence showing what the actor knew at the time.

Be very careful!
 
Onward Allusion said:
What would be the legalities? Someone breaks into your home. You have surveillance cameras and some with thermal imaging. You can see that the home invader is ARMED and hiding behind a piece of furniture/wall/door IN YOUR HOME.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, so this has nothing to do with the law or the legality, but speaking from the viewpoint of a juror (if it went to trial), the hiding part would raise some questions. Can you convince a jury that you felt the immediate need to use deadly force if the criminal was hiding and you knew this? If the bad guy is hiding, it may not pass the immediate threat test (simply based on the information in the OP). Of course, 'immediate threat' may legally mean something different in different places which again, I'm not qualified to comment on...
 
Anyone entering my house uninvited will have to do it by force as I don't leave the doors or windows open.

Anyone that's willing to enter my house by force is not there to bake me cookies.

I'll take my chances with the DA...
 
Posted by BSA1: ...if you know someone is waiting to ambush you why wouldn't you back away and call the Police? Remember by retreating and surviving you always win.
Click to expand...
Yep. Legal considerations aside, that nails it.
 
Posted by NGIB: Anyone that's willing to enter my house by force is not there to bake me cookies.
Click to expand...
That assumption would not get you very far at all.

First, you have to have to be able to provide a basis for believing that their purpose did in fact justify deadly force under the law--not an assumption that it was probably not something benign.

Then, you would have to provide a basis of believing that you had had no other way of preventing them from succeeding in their intention.

Even if you can do all of that, you will likely rue the day you fired your gun at someone.

Avoidance is always the best course, if it is safely possible.

From our Castle Doctrine sticky in ST&T:

The term "castle doctrine" stems from another age-old legal concept--the concept that a "man's home is his castle". It too has its roots in antiquity. It was part of the early English Common Law, but parts of it go back to Roman Law, to the Code of Hammurabi, and to the Code of Ur-Nammu.

The basic principle is that someone who is in his or own house is given certain presumptions regarding the justification of the use of force against an unlawful intruder that would not apply somewhere else.

As in the case of the duty to retreat and the right to not retreat (to "stand your ground"), castle doctrine provisions are variously defined in state codes and in appellate court rulings (legal precedent). One should never rely on a layman's reading of the code, or on any one statute taken out of context.

Provisions vary from one jurisdiction to another. In general, however, "castle doctrine" laws and rulings do the following:
--They provide a resident or his or her guest with a presumption that an unlawful entry by an intruder gives the occupant reason to believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm; that belief is one of the fundamental requirements of a defense of justification for the use of deadly force;
--they establish clearly that, once the conditions for justification have been met, there is no duty to retreat within or from the domicile in the event of an attack by an unlawful intruder.

Castle doctrine laws DO NOT provide a resident with a carte blanche right to employ deadly force simply because someone has entered a domicile unlawfully. The aforementioned presumption is rebuttable: if the intruder does not pose a serious threat or has ceased to do so, the use of deadly force is not justified. Essentially, what the castle doctrine really does is reduce the burden on the defender to provide evidence supporting a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary.

The laws and precedents vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

It must be emphasized that castle doctrine protection is not automatic. The defender will have to establish that he or she knew, or had reason to believe, that the thresholds for castle doctrine justification (for example, the fact of a forcible and unlawful entry) had been met. The physical evidence may clearly support that, or it may not.

This is a lot to understand and there is more behind it, but it is the responsibility of the defender to know the laws and their meanings.

That's a tough challenge. Our best advice is that one should always avoid the use of deadly force unless it is immediately necessary and unavoidable to protect human life and limb.

As one of our members recently put it, the ethic should not be one of "under what circumstances am I able to kill someone without getting prosecuted?", but rather, "is there really absolutely no other alternative to using deadly force?".
Click to expand...
 
Kleanbore nailed it I think.

Castle doctrine and not having a duty to retreat does not automatically give you the green light to use deadly force.
 
BSA1
O.A.,

For starters you are going to need more gun than your 32 S&W.

Second if you know someone is waiting to ambush you why wouldn't you back away and call the Police? Remember by retreating and surviving you always win.
Click to expand...

Good lord, let the 32 S&W thing go already! You are a freaking pitbull and probably look like one too! :evil: It would be 12 gauge 00, btw.

Good point on the retreat part but what if you're already hunkered down in the bedroom? How acceptable would it be to shoot through the bedroom door before the BG attempted to kick it down?
 
How acceptable would it be to shoot through the bedroom door before the BG attempted to kick it down?
Click to expand...
Acceptable to whom?

Would it be legal? If you could establish that he was a threat to you on the other side of the door, yes. You'd still have to defend yourself in court.

What legitimate need would there be to shoot someone through a closed door? If they're shooting through it at you, then yeah, that's a lot easier to justify. If not, you're gonna have some problems. If I was on a jury in a case like that, I'd have some real trouble with that. You would really need to prove you believed yourself to be in grave danger without that door opening.

My mom almost killed her own brother like this. She was home alone, he was pranking her, and she was literally squeezing the trigger to shoot through the door when he started laughing and gave up the gig. Thank God she didn't shoot.
 
Onward Allusion said:
What would be the legalities? Someone breaks into your home. You have surveillance cameras and some with thermal imaging. You can see that the home invader is ARMED and hiding behind a piece of furniture/wall/door IN YOUR HOME.

Can you shoot them through the wall, say with a slug?

I AM BEING 100% SERIOUS.
Click to expand...
In my case (as an FFL), in my state (SC), an armed intruder is going to be shot, period. How I go about it, what tools/tactics I use, is immaterial.

I am operating under the legal assumption that an intruder, much less an armed one, is there to do me grievous bodily harm, and I intend to harm them first.

Your mileage in your state may vary.
 
Recent posts; Ave of escape.....

I read over a few recent posts & Id want to add some new remarks....

I do not agree with the "ave of escape" concept in general. It seems smart on the surface but from a tactical or legal perspective I could see problems with it.
To contact 911/law enforcement or to marshal-group any family members/house guests is a good plan.
I'm not down with the "hey just flee" or "ave of escape" concept because:
A) You do not know who is where or what type of weapons/guns they may have. :uhoh: You might have a felon in front of you, run to the rear or backyard then have 2/3 threats with guns entering thru that access point.
B) You and/or your family know the basic layout-doors of your property. You can run to a secured area & barricade yourself or plan to deal with any threats where your doors/windows are. Trying to escape or flee will allow the robbers-crooks to choose how or when to deal with you. Make them come to you & fight them on your terms. If you can blind them or distract them with a strobe light or white-light, so be it, if you can use alarms, OC, EDWs, etc, fine. ;)
C) if you are armed & you run out or your family members scatter, the LE officers or SWAT who respond may shoot at or injure-kill you by mistake. :eek:
These incidents occur often. Some gun owners or CCW license holders get what instructors & cops call a "halo effect" or what I call; "Superman Syndrome" :uhoh:
That's when in a critical incident, a gun owner/license holder/etc assumes everyone around them knows exactly who they are or that the gun-license is valid. Cops & security guards do not have ESP or psychic powers. All they see is a "threat" with a gun. :eek:

Rusty
 
Basic gun safety rule number 4, Know what you're shooting at.
Basic gun safety rule number 6, Don't shoot at hard surfaces (including walls, doors, furniture).

I vote hold fire until sure of your target, and you have a clear shot.
 
Posted by mgkdrgn: I am operating under the legal assumption that an intruder, much less an armed one, is there to do me grievous bodily harm, and I intend to harm them first.
Click to expand...
The word is presumption, and such a presumption is rebuttable.

Any indication, from forensic evidence, eyewitnesses, earwitnesses, or anything else that indicates that the intruder did not constitute an imminent threat at the time deadly force was used (for example, that he had decided and attempted to surrender or flee) could refer that presumption inoperable.

Combining such evidence with the fact of an actor's having made it known that "an armed intruder is going to be shot, period" could seal one's fate.

Be careful.

A resident will almost always be far better off not having to deal with the aftermath of having shot someone, regardless of the apparent strength of a potential defense of justification.
 
In Michigan, the occupant of the dwelling does not have to establish the intent of the person who has broken into the home, and the home owner is under no obligation to determine if the intruder is armed. And, in some cases, entry to the home doesn't have to be complete. Once the intruder has entered the dwelling proper, the intruder may have deadly force visited on them. There have been any number of cases in which the local prosecutor has declined to indict.

I'm aware that laws vary from state to state, but the castle doctrine as practiced in Michigan doesn't require the resident to retreat from the dwelling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
(TX) Home break-in turns fatal when occupant shoots intruder
Replies
8
Views
633
DeltaElite
D
D
  • Locked
Home owner shoots intruder
Replies
18
Views
708
peacefuljeffrey
P
D
  • Locked
(VA) Man fatally shoots home intruder
Replies
24
Views
1K
Ryder
R
R
  • Locked
Don't hurt home invaders in Australia
Replies
15
Views
996
Battler
B
E
  • Locked
Repel Boarders Drill: westside of Indianapolis
Replies
5
Views
478
rhubarb
R
Back
Top