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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Posted by Bubba613: 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.
Click to expand...
Worry about legal issues would not be a reason to not shoot. The reason would be one of not having a reasonable belief of immediate necessity.

Sure, the presumption is rebuttable, but how often does that happen?
Click to expand...
From time to time.

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.
Click to expand...
It has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination against firearms owners. The laws apply to the use of force by any means. People have been convicted of having having used deadly force with all kinds of implements. In one instance, the defendant used a gum ball machine--in an obvious case of self defense.

That state no longer imposes a duty to retreat inside the home.

The only place lawfully armed citizens get convicted for shooting obvious criminals is on discussion boards like this.
Click to expand...
Actually, it happens in court.

One may be excused for having used deadly force when there was a basis for a reasonable belief that such force had been immediately necessary, but not simply because the person against such force was used was an "obvious criminal".

Of course, legal justification does not eliminate the tragic effects. People have shot persons who turned out to be quite innocent.
 
Posted by Carl N. Brown: If a situation does not justify lethal force, use or threat of a lethal weapon is not justified.
Click to expand...

That's the rule in most locals, but there are a few exceptions.

See this.
 
Worry about legal issues wouldnot be a reason to not shoot. The reason would be one of not having a reasonable belief of immediate necessity.
Click to expand...

If a stranger is inside your house at an odd time and you don't believe you have an immediate necessity then you get whatever comes. (I mean "you" as a general term of course) People pick that scenario because it is the clearest case of self-defense possible.
"From time to time" and "it happens" are not reasons not to do something. Far more often is the opposite. I regularly see reports of homeowners using deadly force where I think I wouldn't be too sure on that one, and it works out fine for them.
 
Bubba613 said:
...I regularly see reports of homeowners using deadly force where I think I wouldn't be too sure on that one, and it works out fine for them.
Click to expand...
That doesn't necessarily mean that it will work out fine for someone else. And how "fine" is the result if it costs someone $100,000 or more to get clear of his legal troubles?
 
Should one see someone in his home at night and shoot, learn afterwards that the person had been an innocent; lack any evidence whatsoever that supported the conditions outlined in the applicable state laws for being afforded a presumption of a reasonable belief that deadly force had been justified; and be faced with any kind of contradictory evidence, earwitness, forensic, or otherwise; one would forever rue the day that he pulled the trigger.

Had the same person previously expressed the sentiments contained in Posts #74 and #78 in a medium that could be discovered, his jeopardy would be magnified substantially.

Might one or maybe two juries fail to convict? Of course. But the shooter would likely be left with nothing.
 
That doesn't necessarily mean that it will work out fine for someone else. And how "fine" is the result if it costs someone $100,000 or more to get clear of his legal troubles?
Click to expand...

In the particular case I have in mind the DA declined to prosecute. This despite the homeowner chasing the would be burglars with his shotgun, holding one at gunpoint, bringing him back to his front lawn and then shooting the other as he tried to drive away from the scene.
Again, while it is hardly scientific, I see cases where I thought the armed citizen was acting wrongly and he got off. I dont see too many where I thought he was acting correctly and went to jail.

Should one see someone in his home at night and shoot, learn afterwards that the person had been an innocent; lack any evidence whatsoever that supported the conditions outlined in the applicable state laws for being afforded a presumption of a reasonable belief that deadly force had been justified; and be faced with any kind of contradictory evidence, earwitness, forensic, or otherwise; one would forever rue the day that he pulled the trigger.
Click to expand...
I would like to see how many such cases exist. I would bet close to zero. An intruder in the house is an intruder in the house. If they turned out later to be harmless, that is irrelevant. It is the exact scenario many police officers face on the street.
 
Posted by Bubba613: An intruder in the house is an intruder in the house.
Click to expand...
Alrighty then.

Could be your brother in law, or someone who got the wrong address and couldn't figure out why his key would not work.

Or perhaps someone who, if charged with having entered with force, could successfully mount a defense of necessity.

And again, someone who has expressed such a sentiment in a public forum has created potential evidence against himself.

If they turned out later to be harmless, that is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Legally, maybe, but in reality, not so, not by a long shot.

What is relevant is what the evidence will show regarding the viability of the legal presumption afforded the defendant. If it can be shown that the intruder had been trying to leave, or had dropped his weapon, the defender would not have been lawfully justified in the use of deadly force.
 
"An intruder in the house is an intruder in the house. "

although we would like to paint life in black-0and-white terms ... it's never that simple.

Your "intruder" could be your neighbor who's just trying to use your telephone. Maybe they knocked and you were sound asleep - and didn't hear them. they are desperately trying to call 911 to save someone in their own family.

you can't shoot someone without identifying your target.
and "identifying" doesn't mean seeing a silhouette.
it means doing a proper threat assessment. you MUST assess the situation, even if it puts you at serious risk.

CA R
 
Intruder

My house gun has a very bright light attached to it. I would not shoot before determining the target is not a family member etc. When I go to bed my house is locked. Anyone not in the house at bedtime was not invited and somehow broke in. My dog sleeps in the room with my wife and I, it's not likely that anyone would get in undetected.
 
Everyone seems to be hung up on the legality of shooting. You are ignoring the only point you can never avoid. You will have to live with that shooting the rest of your life.

The law can justify it, your friends and family can justify it, the family of the shot person can justify it, you can justify it; but you alone will carry that burden. Rather than play woulda, coulda, shoulda; I would suggest each of you look deep in to your soul and make sure you have the correct moral footing to support you as you make all of life's hard decisions. A moral character will make just and right decisions and have the ability to live with the consequences of those decisions.
 
I would like to see how many such cases exist. I would bet close to zero. An intruder in the house is an intruder in the house.

If you had sat through Skip Gochenour's lecture (notes at http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm) you'd know better ...

Skip interviewed several hundred convicted felons in prison in compiling background material, and some of them were what you'd probably think of a "good guys" who were convicted of murder after what they thought were incidents of self defense.

There is NO SUBSTITUTE for knowing the law in all its aspects in your jurisdiction...
 
Skip interviewed several hundred convicted felons in prison in compiling background material, and some of them were what you'd probably think of a "good guys" who were convicted of murder after what they thought were incidents of self defense.
Click to expand...
Laughable as evidence. I'll bet there were many more fine upstanding young men who would swear they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, or hung around with the wrong crowd.
Anyone can find one case of X, no matter what it is. That does not make it reasonable or the norm.
The hypotheticals presented here are similarly laughable, asking for a series of events well beyond the probable and verging towards the absurd.
Such are gun board discussions, though.
 
Laugh if you will - I certainly wouldn't.

The lecture included crime scene photos etc, and I consider Skip an impeccable witness.

If ST&T is "just another gun board discussion," I'm not doing my job here very well...
 
Posted by Bubba613: Anyone can find one case of X, no matter what it is. That does not make it reasonable or the norm.
Click to expand...
Such as the occasional failure to reach a verdict in a trial involving a clear case of murder. It does happen.

Such as the case involving the killing of a fleeing burglar, when the "DA declined to prosecute". It happened.

But when either does happen, the actor remains at risk for the rest of his life. Only a trial and acquittal or a full and complete pardon can protect the killer from future charges.

And there is, of course, the risk of civil proceedings, which has a much lower evidentiary threshold for liability.

The hypotheticals presented here are similarly laughable, asking for a series of events well beyond the probable and verging towards the absurd
Click to expand...
There's nothing "laughable" about killing anyone.

A word to the wise: carefully constructed and tested laws, long-standing legal precedent, and detailed jury instructions are not created against a backdrop of events that did not happen, however improbable and "absurd" you might think them to be.
 
Bubba613 said:
The only place lawfully armed citizens get convicted for shooting obvious criminals is on discussion boards like this.
Click to expand...

...or Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

Carl Kozlosky, 55, was convicted by a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court jury and sentenced last year to 18 years to life in prison for the shooting death of Andre Coleman on Sept. 20, 2009.

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason's office prosecuted the case despite what the appellate court said was overwhelming evidence that Kozlosky acted in self-defense.
Click to expand...

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/09/appeals_court_overturns_murder_1.html
 
Then that is a good prompt for you (and everyone else) to remember that your gun is the VERY LAST line of defense. There are many, probably hundreds of, things you can do to make yourself and your property an unlikely/unappealing target, and to avoid trouble rather than to let yourself happen into it.

As I pointed out before, NO ONE, EVER, can say that any shooting is going to turn out OK for the "defender" regardless of the circumstances. Once the gun is in play and the bullet is fired, your fate, your finances, your life, your freedom, your family, your livelihood -- all hang in the balance. There is NOTHING good about shooting someone and a WHOLE LOT bad, regardless of how justified (you think) it might be.

So the key is to use your brain and your resources to minimize to the smallest degree feasible the likelihood that violence will find you. And then be prepared with the most sound defense plan possible in the terrible event that it does anyway.
 
..or Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
Click to expand...


Seems to me there is more to that story.. The victims girlfriend was in the shooters home so I presume they knew each other. a little different than a stranger busting in...
 
As I pointed out before, NO ONE, EVER, can say that any shooting is going to turn out OK for the "defender" regardless of the circumstances. Once the gun is in play and the bullet is fired, your fate, your finances, your life, your freedom, your family, your livelihood -- all hang in the balance. There is NOTHING good about shooting someone and a WHOLE LOT bad, regardless of how justified (you think) it might be.
Click to expand...

Actually Sam, statements like that make it sound like a good reason not to have a CC, or to ever shoot anyone for any reason. The phrase "Win the battle but lose the war" comes to mind. It sounds like the only course of action is to have pepper spray or a baseball bat handy.
 
Posted by valnar: Actually Sam, statements like that [(discussion of the aftermath of using deadly force)] make it sound like a good reason not to have a CC, or to ever shoot anyone for any reason. The phrase "Win the battle but lose the war" comes to mind. It sounds like the only course of action is to have pepper spray or a baseball bat handy.
Click to expand...
Let's dispense with the easy part first: striking someone with a baseball bat constitutes the use of deadly force; no legal advantage whatsoever, and a significant disadvantage in terms of defensive effectiveness.

Pepper spray? Good idea, if the attacker is close enough, if there's no wind, and if he happens to be susceptible to it. But it is nowhere near as effective as a firearm. Carry both.

Let's face it: there is always the risk of being faced with imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, anywhere and at any time, in a situation in which one has no alternative to the use of deadly force.

At that point, one will not be in a position to contemplate the legal aftermath, nor should he try.

If someone is trying to kill you, will you then still opine that you have "a good reason not...to shoot anyone for any reason"?

No, it is not likely that it will really "turn out OK for the defender" even under the best of circumstances, but the outcome can be expected to be a whole lot better than one involving death or serious injury or the loss of a loved one
 
9mmepiphany said:
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


I'd also recommend you think some more about this too. Consider:

...and then know that these aren't uncommon situations
Click to expand...
I understand your point. My own... system... for lack of a better word, is a bit more defined. My breaking point - the point past which one cannot back up - is when I pull the trigger, which is also when I raise my weapon. I see no reason to make threats at a possible assailant. Either that person is going to want to avoid getting shot, or they will test my resolve and get shot. There's no guessing. There's no wondering if it's legal, or if I'll lose all my stuff and/or go to prison. There will be no regrets. If the situation has deteriorated to the point that I have to raise my weapon, the consequences have gone from "legal/criminal" to "personal/moral". I don't care what any law in this country says to the contrary. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. It is wrong to allow someone to come into your home and harm/kill your family. And even though I believe killing innocent people is wrong, killing people who mean to kill innocent people is right.
 
valnar said:
Actually Sam, statements like that make it sound like a good reason not to have a CC, or to ever shoot anyone for any reason. The phrase "Win the battle but lose the war" comes to mind. It sounds like the only course of action is to have pepper spray or a baseball bat handy.
Click to expand...

Problem is that if you "loose the battle" you aren't going to be around to see how the war turns out.
 
kyew said:
...My own... system... for lack of a better word, is a bit more defined. My breaking point - the point past which one cannot back up - is when I pull the trigger, which is also when I raise my weapon. ... There's no guessing. There's no wondering if it's legal, or if I'll lose all my stuff and/or go to prison. There will be no regrets. If the situation has deteriorated to the point that I have to raise my weapon, the consequences have gone from "legal/criminal" to "personal/moral". I don't care what any law in this country says to the contrary...
Click to expand...
So that's what you've decided for yourself. So what? Your highly idiosyncratic, and perhaps unwise, personal choices are not what this discussion is about.

A central purpose of these discussions here is to help folks understand the legal, social and tactical realities so that they can make informed choices for themselves. That you have decided to make personal choices without regard to those realities is simply not helpful nor relevant to that purpose.

And please be advised that encouraging that others engage in illegal or irresponsible conduct is not appropriate on this board.
 
valnar, this is precisely what I mean to say:

No, it is not likely that it will really "turn out OK for the defender" even under the best of circumstances, but the outcome can be expected to be a whole lot better than one involving death or serious injury or the loss of a loved one
Click to expand...

Hence, it makes a great deal of sense to ditch the "can I shoot him NOW?" way of looking at things -- which is exactly how many gun forum/gun shop discussions proceed -- and redirect the mind-set to say, "If I have NO CHOICE but shoot or DIE...."

And then do everything you can to make a shoot-or-die situation as unlikely as possible. Establish choices in every area of life (lifestyle, home layout and security, defensive plan, etc.) such that someone must truly take the fight and the dire danger right to you before you could be FORCED to shoot. And then pray that the traditions and institutions of law we've established as a society -- and the good reasoning of a jury -- look at the preparation and decisions you made and agree that your actions were excusable under the law.
 
Posted by kyew: Either that person is going to want to avoid getting shot, or they will test my resolve and get shot.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I have no idea what that means.

I hope it means, "either that person is going to cease to constitute an immediate threat, or I will have no alternative to shooting".

"Testing your resolve" should not enter into it.

There will be no regrets.
Click to expand...
So you say now.

I don't care what any law in this country says to the contrary. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong.
Click to expand...
When will people stop making statements in a permanent medium in a public forum that can be used with devastating effect against them in court?

....killing people who mean to kill innocent people is right.
Click to expand...
Two things: (1) what someone may "mean" to do is just part of the equation, and (2) deadly force may kill someone, but killing is not a legitimate objective for the use of deadly force.

Comments such as these provide ammunition to those who would repeal castle doctrine laws and outlaw the private ownership of firearms.
 
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