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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kleanbore said:
That's a slight variation on one of the rules of safety, but it most certainly does not mean that if you have drawn you should necessarily shoot.

That is a terrible way to look at things, and one's having posted it in a public forum could have disastrous consequences should he or she ever end up in a use of force stituation in which the facts are not clear cut. Let no one follow that advice.

The problem is, things can change quickly between the time one decides to draw and one has to decide to shoot. If someone is running at you with a knife, you will want to draw as quickly as possible, and you will be justified in doing so. But if the sight of your firearm causes him to drop the knife and throw up his hands, and if you shoot anyway, your only defense would be a claim that it all happened so quickly that you could not react.

That might have been true, or not.

The evidence may support that, or not.

If the answer is "not", prepare to lose everything you have, including your personal freedom.

I have been in a position of having to present a firearm in two forcible home invasion incidents and one attempted murder by someone who had entered the home unlawfully without force. I was certainly prepared to shoot, but in each incident, the violent criminal actor decided upon a different strategy when he saw the firearm. No, I did not "have to" shoot, and I did not do so.

Time to reconsider that....

There is a distinct difference between the presentation of a firearm in a use of force encounter and the actual use of deadly force.

Should the former occur, and should it be decided that the act had not been justified, the crime would likely be some kind of assault.

In the case of the latter, if the act had been intentional but ruled unjustified, the crime would be manslaughter or worse.
Click to expand...
I can see your point, but I feel I need to clarify mine.

In one of the posts above, someone made a statement similar to: "Do whatever you have to to save your life or the life of another." This is exactly what I meant. By the time I'm drawing a firearm, my mind is already made up that my (or someone's) life depends upon me taking this shot. That's also why I said, "Legalities aside..." at the beginning; because the legalities will not make one whit of difference in whether or not I shoot after I've reached the point of thinking I need to shoot.

For instance, if I come up behind someone in my house and then determine that this is an intruder, my weapon is out and aimed at the floor. If that person turns around and sees me, then raises his/her empty hands in surrender, my weapon remains pointed at the floor, and I tell them to leave (or call the cops - whatever the situation calls for). On the other hand, if they turn around with a potentially deadly weapon in one hand and it isn't falling free from their grip, my weapon is coming up. About one second after that, I'm pulling the trigger.

For me, it isn't a variation on a safety rule; it's a clear and defined course of action. Like one kid saying to another on the playground, "I'm going to kick your butt." Whether that's a joke or not (and the person hearing these words directed at themselves is the one who has to decide) it can be construed as a threat. My response, if I deemed it a threat (to continue my analogy) would be, "You better hope you can because it's on."
 
There are plenty of people here who've said it better than I could. Plenty of idiots here too. I'll let you decide which is which...
 
valnar said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think you're overthinking this.

All lawful use of deadly force for self-defense is centered around defending oneself (or another) from the threat of imminent danger.

The moment that imminent danger goes away, all legal (and moral) justification for the use of deadly force goes away as well.

It's that simple.


Therefore the answer to your question "Would you shoot an intruder if you didn't have to?" is NO.
 
It is hard to say what you would think and how clearly you would think.

I am CERTAIN I would shoot if I felt imminent harm. I also think I would shoot any intruder if I could justify it in real time.

Not sure that would happen, but if it did, 5 shots.

Why did you shoot the intruder 5 times?
I only had a five shot revolver.

I have old, overweight, white, male rage issues. Hope I am never tested.
 
Posted by Jccinb: I also think I would shoot any intruder if I could justify it in real time.
Click to expand...
You should never rely on your being to "justify it in real time."

If you shoot someone, others will decide later whether you were lawfully justified.

And even if they decide that you were were, your life will be changed forever, and you may well be destitute.
 
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.
Click to expand...

This. I don't get all he hand wringing. Someone broke in and is present in your house, with you and your wife and your kids. If they don't run like h*** the second that they realize that they have been detected, then they are an immediate danger that must be neutralized. No warnings or other communication is necessary. They run fast and immediately or else.
 
kyew said:
For instance, if I come up behind someone in my house and then determine that this is an intruder, my weapon is out and aimed at the floor. If that person turns around and sees me, then raises his/her empty hands in surrender, my weapon remains pointed at the floor, and I tell them to leave (or call the cops - whatever the situation calls for).
Click to expand...
Ok, I'll offer a common real life variation on this.

They turn around, they aren't armed, they show you their empty hands...but they don't rise them in surrender. As a matter of fact, they don't respond to any verbal commands, but just stand there.

What do you do now?
 
9mmepiphany said:
Ok, I'll offer a common real life variation on this.

They turn around, they aren't armed, they show you their empty hands...but they don't rise them in surrender. As a matter of fact, they don't respond to any verbal commands, but just stand there.

What do you do now?
Click to expand...
What does it matter what I would do? You have to ask yourself that question, because it isn't going to be you standing in my house defending my family. It will be you in your house defending your family. You will be responsible for your actions... or inactions.

Not to mention, you may have noticed I answered your question already in my previous post: ""Do whatever you have to to save your life or the life of another." This is exactly what I meant." What part of your scenario defines the intruder's actions as life-threatening?
 
No.

The goal here is NOT to get to shoot someone. The goal here is to NOT GET SHOT.

We have SYG and castle doctrine laws, which are GOOD, and give deserved protection from defenders and shift the burden of proof where it should be. But you do NOT want to be the test case for a rookie DA with something to prove.

I am not killing someone over my TV, even if the law covers me for it. There is more to it than what is LEGAL. I have an ethic that says I won't kill someone if I don't absolutely have to. If I confront someone leaving my house with a TV in the middle of the night, in my state, I am legally covered to use deadly force. But I won't. If he drops the TV and charges me, that's different. If he is between me and my children, that's different too. But I won't shoot someone just because I CAN.
 
If you look at all the different points of view on this thread
not to mention different laws from one state to the next
it's not hard to see why so much confusion exists about the use of lethal force.
the fact is that a crystal clear set of guidelines doesn't exist.

i believe the majority of readers here would make a big effort to shoot responsbily.
it's a difficult decision, made even harder because the moment of "great danger" is a very short time period.
but in that period we have to get it right.

the BIG problem is afterwards. at some later date a court will evaluate our actions, and probably a jury. they will take hours - or even days - to mull over the circumstances where a shot was fired. But can they ever comprehend the set of circumstances that actually existed?
And after they go through endless variations of "coulda' shoulda' woulda'" are they actually going to reach a correct judgment?
there's just no guarantee of that, unfortunately.

so in the end ...
we can do our own training
know our own weapon
decide our own Rules of Engagement

and just be at peace with that.

CA R
 
9mmepiphany said:
Ok, I'll offer a common real life variation on this.

They turn around, they aren't armed, they show you their empty hands...but they don't rise them in surrender. As a matter of fact, they don't respond to any verbal commands, but just stand there.

What do you do now?
Click to expand...

A good question...but the answer STILL lies with "imminent danger". And, as either you or some of the other Moderators have pointed out, the final litmus test of "imminent danger" lies with those who make that judgement AFTER everything is over and one being held accountable for one's actions.

An unarmed man can STILL be considered an "imminent danger"...and that's something that still has to be evaluated situationally. Empty handed, submissive, and not posing an obvious threat, then it can't be said that one is in "imminent danger". 6' 4", 250 pounds of angry, man-mountain against 5' 7", 135 pound home owner? That's another story.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
A good question...but the answer STILL lies with "imminent danger". And, as either you or some of the other Moderators have pointed out, the final litmus test of "imminent danger" lies with those who make that judgement AFTER everything is over and one being held accountable for one's actions.

An unarmed man can STILL be considered an "imminent danger"...and that's something that still has to be evaluated situationally. Empty handed, submissive, and not posing an obvious threat, then it can't be said that one is in "imminent danger". 6' 4", 250 pounds of angry, man-mountain against 5' 7", 135 pound home owner? That's another story.
Click to expand...
That's a large part of what I was saying. It won't be anyone else who answers for what you do or don't do. You're there - it's your call. Sure, the law has its say in the matter after the fact, without ever having experienced what you just experienced. And that's why I say do what you have to do.

Think of it this way: if you shoot someone and kill them in a "legally questionable" scenario, are the ramifications of that action more or less preferable to the consequences of not pulling the trigger and losing your life or the lives of your loved ones?

You have to pay the price, and the "legal" price may be the easiest to pay...
 
kyew said:
What does it matter what I would do?
Click to expand...
I ask because your description seemed very detailed and rigid, before you would rise your gun for a shot. Plus you've said you have thought it out and have a practiced response..."it's a clear and defined course of action."

I'm wondering if you have plans for partial compliance?

You have to ask yourself that question, because it isn't going to be you standing in my house defending my family.
Click to expand...
I have and I've arrived at my own answers; and my plans have been proven valid in real time and real circumstances. It was under different circumstances as it was part of my employment...and it was someone else's family
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
An unarmed man can STILL be considered an "imminent danger"...and that's something that still has to be evaluated situationally.
Click to expand...
Very much so.

I've ordered many people, who were unarmed, to surrender...I point my gun at them. I've had more than one decide not to comply, but not become aggressive either...not physically anyway. I've even had them challenge me to shoot them...so I have been at the sharp end of that spear
 
No.

The goal here is NOT to get to shoot someone. The goal here is to NOT GET SHOT.

We have SYG and castle doctrine laws, which are GOOD, and give deserved protection from defenders and shift the burden of proof where it should be. But you do NOT want to be the test case for a rookie DA with something to prove.

I am not killing someone over my TV, even if the law covers me for it. There is more to it than what is LEGAL. I have an ethic that says I won't kill someone if I don't absolutely have to. If I confront someone leaving my house with a TV in the middle of the night, in my state, I am legally covered to use deadly force. But I won't. If he drops the TV and charges me, that's different. If he is between me and my children, that's different too. But I won't shoot someone just because I CAN.
__________________
"I'm not saying we should kill all the stupid people. I'm just saying that we should remove all the warning labels and let the problem work itself out."
Click to expand...

MLJDeckard saved me a lot of writing right there; I'm going to have to live with whatever I do, regardless of what the law says is right or wrong, and I'm not turning off anybody's (even a trash bag's) tomorrows unless it's him or an innocent.

And really, why would I? Even a 'good' shoot will likely result in expense that will outweigh anything the thief might take, even if only to lawyer up for an initial hearing.

Besides, I'm going to have to explain to the toughest jury of all-my conscience-that what I did was necessary and unavoidable.


Larry
 
9mmepiphany said:
I ask because your description seemed very detailed and rigid, before you would rise your gun for a shot. Plus you've said you have thought it out and have a practiced response..."it's a clear and defined course of action."

I'm wondering if you have plans for partial compliance?


I have and I've arrived at my own answers; and my plans have been proven valid in real time and real circumstances. It was under different circumstances as it was part of my employment...and it was someone else's family
Click to expand...
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but it wasn't a scenario, in actuality or hypothetically. It was simply an illustration of "threat" and "non-threat".

My own views on self-defense are probably not what most others would hold, but then I learned my self-defense frame of mind guarding national resources. When you're instructed and trained to "shoot through hostages" to prevent the loss of a resource, you don't really consider the legal ramifications. You basically have to rationalize it by weighing the lives of millions against the few in your immediate sphere of influence.

Another point I would like to make...

Despite all of the plans people make for an eventual scenario, things rarely happen the way they think they might. I myself want to be conditioned to do what's necessary without having to take the time to do the legal math in my head. My concern is for my family and myself first. Everyone else is secondary.
 
9mmepiphany said:
Very much so.

I've ordered many people, who were unarmed, to surrender...I point my gun at them. I've had more than one decide not to comply, but not become aggressive either...not physically anyway. I've even had them challenge me to shoot them...so I have been at the sharp end of that spear
Click to expand...
Is this the point you were making with me? That it's sometimes necessary to present your weapon as a threat?

I don't see that ever being an issue with me. If someone just stands there non-compliant, I call the cops and they come and take them away. I still don't have to point my weapon at them. I don't even have to give them orders. If they come at me, I'm still armed. If they continue to stand there, I can stand there too. It still boils down to what I perceive their level of threat to be. I don't know how to make it simpler than that. if I could I would! I love simplicity. :D
 
Would you shoot an intruder if you didn't have to?
Click to expand...
No!

And I don't consider it a final decision to draw a bead on a threat either. Until the bullet leaves the muzzle I will be alert and willing to reassess the situation. I'd much rather send someone out the front door with messy underwear than have to mop blood off of my floor. I don't care if they "get away" either, odds are they're going to get caught soon enough and if they reform their lives and never see a court room I'm Ok with that too.

Ok, I'll offer a common real life variation on this.

They turn around, they aren't armed, they show you their empty hands...but they don't rise them in surrender. As a matter of fact, they don't respond to any verbal commands, but just stand there.

What do you do now?
Click to expand...

Standoff. I'll take my chances and see if some kind of negotiations can begin.

Unless they have a death wish or are seriously hardened criminals they're probably as scared as I am. I don't want to shoot someone who is merely paralyzed by fear, deaf or just in the wrong house (drunk?).



On the other hand something needs to happen fast because I don't know if they're alone and I don't know they are not hostile.

I have guns to even the odds, not to win at all costs.
 
Response

They turn around, they aren't armed, they show you their empty hands...but they don't rise them in surrender. As a matter of fact, they don't respond to any verbal commands, but just stand there.

What do you do now?


BOOM.
I've thought about this a lot. I hope I never have to defend myself with deadly force but a couple of close calls have taught me that I may someday have to do just that. If I find someone in my house I'm going to assume that their intent is worse than just stealing my T.V. Breaking into an occupied house means they are either really stupid or intent on more than petty theft. If I were to find someone in my home and they sprint for the door I wouldn't shoot them in the back. If he doesn't run then his hands had better be empty and he had better comply quickly. I do not intend to put my life of my wife's life in danger by taking any chances. He complies or he dies.
 
We have SYG and castle doctrine laws, which are GOOD, and give deserved protection from defenders and shift the burden of proof where it should be. But you do NOT want to be the test case for a rookie DA with something to prove.
Click to expand...

It's not necessarily the rookie DA you need to worry about. We've had issues in Fort Collins with senior folks making serious mistakes (like $10,000,000 civil damages worth). A prosecutor has literally nothing to lose. After costing taxpayers a small fortune NOTHING was done to the folks responsible.

It's amazing, but true, YOU may face a life and death situation, but the person deciding to prosecute has NO SKIN in the game, none whatsoever. I'm not talking simple lapse of judgement either I'm talking hiding evidence, coaching witnesses and the like.

You don't even have to be involved a crime to go to jail.
 
kyew said:
Is this the point you were making with me? That it's sometimes necessary to present your weapon as a threat?

I don't see that ever being an issue with me. If someone just stands there non-compliant, I call the cops and they come and take them away. I still don't have to point my weapon at them. I don't even have to give them orders. If they come at me, I'm still armed. If they continue to stand there, I can stand there too. It still boils down to what I perceive their level of threat to be. I don't know how to make it simpler than that. if I could I would! I love simplicity. :D
Click to expand...

I don't want to appear to be putting words into 9mmepiphany's, but my take on what he said is that sometimes you may find yourself walking the sharp edge of fate in an encounter where you will be taken to the very edge of a potentially violent/deadly encounter...and yet you're STILL responsible for finding the path away from that, if at all possible.

So maintain an absolute control over yourself, because you may become sorely tested.


Kayaker 1960 said:
They turn around, they aren't armed, they show you their empty hands...but they don't rise them in surrender. As a matter of fact, they don't respond to any verbal commands, but just stand there.

What do you do now?


BOOM.

I've thought about this a lot.
Click to expand...


Personally, I hope you continue thinking about this. Remember "imminent danger" when you do.

And I hope you (and anybody else) never have cause to take such an action.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
I don't want to appear to be putting words into 9mmepiphany's, but my take on what he said is that sometimes you may find yourself walking the sharp edge of fate in an encounter where you will be taken to the very edge of a potentially violent/deadly encounter...and yet you're STILL responsible for finding the path away from that, if at all possible.

So maintain an absolute control over yourself, because you may become sorely tested.
Click to expand...
Thank you, that is what I'm saying. There is an edge that you might find yourself on and you'll still be able to pull back. The better trained you are, the closer to that edge you can get.

How close? How about drawing a DA trigger on a revolver more than halfway back and still easing off when something changed

Kayaker 1960 said:
BOOM.
...I've thought about this a lot.
...If he doesn't run then his hands had better be empty and he had better comply quickly.
Click to expand...
I'd also recommend you think some more about this too. Consider:
PedalBiker said:
I don't want to shoot someone who is merely paralyzed by fear, deaf or just in the wrong house (drunk?).
Click to expand...
...and then know that these aren't uncommon situations
 
So what you are asking is "is it OK to kill someone because you can get away with it?" The answer to that is no, it is not OK.
 
If someone hesitates to shoot an intruder in his house in the middle of the night because he's worried about legal issues then he will likely end up dead. Sure, the presumption is rebuttable, but how often does that happen? In most places never. No jury is going to feel sympathy for a burglar breaking into someone's home knowing the owner is there. No DA is really going to bring that one to trial. If someone lives in a locale where that happens, he needs to move. Because the law is discriminating against lawful firearms owners in favor of criminals. And that is intolerable.
The only place lawfully armed citizens get convicted for shooting obvious criminals is on discussion boards like this.
 
There's something on this in the morning paper Police Blotter, let's see, "Man dashes into Big Stone woman's home, puts on her clothes" No, that's not it, just a image hard to forget (drugs were involved). Ah, here it is:
Sullivan County
Oct. 5
A Piney Flats man reported that someone knocked a hole in his home's door and tried to get inside. When the resident warned that he was armed and would shoot if necessary, the suspect fled.
Click to expand...
Typical defensive gun use around here. Won't go beyond the police report. Quite frankly, if the home owner had not verbally warned, but waited until it was kill-or-be-killed time then drew and shot without warning or brandishing, that would not sit well with the prosecutor or the typical grand jury.

For practical purposes, if a situation justifies use of lethal force, then any lethal or nonlethal use of a lethal weapon is justified, even if it is just shouting "Martha fetch me my shotgun" in a gunless home. If a situation does not justify lethal force, use or threat of a lethal weapon is not justified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Shoot, let go, or detain
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
aguyindallas
A
L
  • Locked
What if a BG doesn't believe you have no money?
2 3
Replies
73
Views
4K
kengrubb
K
W
  • Locked
Should Aid be Rendered?
2 3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
3K
SMLE
S
I
  • Locked
No CCW, what would you do
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Fred Fuller
F
U
  • Locked
When Do You Shoot
Replies
5
Views
540
freakshow10mm
F
Back
Top