A Re-visit to "What to do if someone is kicking down your door?"

[Fred Fuller]

you must play the game

Game? This isn't a game.

All we have here to represent ourselves and our thoughts are our WORDS. We need to be clear about what we say and what we mean. Being clear means there is little or no room for misinterpretation of the thoughts we communicate via the words we use here.

The reason for the prohibition against woofing (aka chestbeating) here is that it leads to needless exaggeration, overstatement, etc. It is provocative. It leads to more of the same from others who read it and feel compelled to outdo the original poster. It does not contribute to clear, levelheaded discussion of serious topics.

It is not my job to slam the door in anyone's face. It is my job to try and keep discussions productive so as not to see them degenerate into some kind of testosterone laden stew. Some people don't like having serious discussions about serious topics- they want to yell and kick trash cans and break furniture. Again, that sort of behavior is disruptive, unproductive and will be reined in, gently if possible, forcibly if necessary.

I would rather see one serious thoughtful post in S&T a day than two dozen killemallletgodsortemouts that I have to delete, edit, reprove people for etc. I don't care so much if this is a low volume forum- I care that it is a quality forum. Quantity of posts is not necessarily an obstruction to quality of posts. But I had rather have a few thoughtful, helpful, educational posts than a quantity of sheer noise.

For a lot of members here, this is going to be as close to serious education as they will ever get. We have a few well known trainers who visit here, a number who are not well known, a quantity of serious students and a whole passel of other folks. Most shooters will never seek professional training beyond that necessary to get a concealed carry permit, and the majority of gun owners won't even bother get a concealed carry permit. That's sad, but it is reality.

And it is our job here to help that huge spectrum of shooters to the best of our ability, to find something of value to offer everyone from the beginner to the nationally known trainer. That is what we are about. THAT is the only "game" we are playing here.

If you want to help, feel free. Otherwise, the Internet is full of places to play.

fwiw,

lpl

 

[shockwave]

Biggest fear I would have is that the local SWAT team has the wrong house. Now that is a nasty kettle of fish.

Yes. This is a very severe problem in the current law enforcement practice of "no-knock warrants." These have resulted in innocent homeowners being shot and killed by police. The idea is that by announcing their presence, the police may allow suspected drug criminals to dispose of evidence so this kind of warrant allows the police to smash down the door and come in screaming, guns drawn, throwing people to the floor, etc.

This comment, however, is in response to this statement by the OP:

It seems that some believe that yelling something to alert the BG of your position/presence is not tactically advantageous.

The issue I have with the "someone attempting forced entry" scenario is the large number of cases that involve some kind of mistake. A drunk person at the wrong home, an angry boyfriend at the wrong home, etc. These happen frequently. So announcing to the person(s) on the other side of the door that you are prepared to shoot is really more about target ID - it's a part of "know your target and backstop."

Not only would you experience tremendous trauma and distress if you accidentally killed a neighbor, a confused person, a mentally ill person, an Alzheimer's patient, etc., because you mistook them for a BG, but the legal ramifications could be potentially ruinous. This is why I disagree with the school of thought that says you take a defensive position and begin blasting at the first thing coming through the door.

I suppose that some home invasions begin with someone breaking down the door, but often as not there's some other means of entry, such as subterfuge. It is unlikely that a real BG would try to force your door open during a random attack, so this scenario does require some effort at IDing the target before resorting to gunfire. And, per the first quote above, if it is the police it would be especially good to discover that as quickly as possible.

 

[Harley Rider 55]

I'll kick back with a cold beer and watch the fun when my pink papered GSD's party with the BG's. Given the command, they will not bark, they will wait.

 

[Kleanbore]

I suppose that some home invasions begin with someone breaking down the door, but often as not there's some other means of entry, such as subterfuge.

Good put.

I've had one person try to break down the door (he departed after I showed a gun through a window), two try to jimmy the lock (one got in, someone intercepted the other from outside), and one force his way in while someone else was being admitted.

Having a gun and using some industrial strength coaching proved very helpful indeed.

In only the last mentioned instance was it clear that the invader knew that the dwelling was occupied.

I haven't had anyone try to come through a window silently yet, but that could happen.

 

[Old Guy]

"What to do if someone is kicking down your door?"

"What to do if someone is kicking down your door"

I see this as the main item in the first Post, yes?

Secondly, why I say it is a game, I did say that, I changed my thought pattern a few years ago, from telling my Students in The ATM/Armored Car Industry, to "Shoot to stop" I told them to cause the aggressor to cease all aggressive action with gunfire, or enough to escape the kill zone, in the case of an ambush, quite common in Armored vehicle attacks.

I explained where to shoot on the body, how many rounds to shoot, and what sat behind that skin and muscle (and fat!) how the organs, and major artery's, and even cluster of veins, were positioned, so if you shone a light/laser through a transparent body, that line would be the bullet, more or less.

I was also told that my teaching head shots, I would be added to the unfortunate head aiming individuals grief, as I was counseling Murder!

The Police only started teaching Head Shots in that place, in 2003. I taught Head Shots from the start of my Teaching Business, in 1980. In fact as the Shoot test was twenty rounds, the last two were loaded by hand (S&W Revolvers) for two reasons, to prove to me that the student knew which way the cylinder turned, not a bad thing.
And secondly to create a numerical score that was the same in points, as it was in percentage. More than two misses was a fail, 90 points/percent, required to pass.

The last two rounds were fired from the ready position, at 6 ft. Head shots. All other loading was done from speed loaders. I issued two of them.

It is amazing how all of the lesson plan comes together, as you think about it.
Now the Industry has gone 9mm, but the Canadian private ownership of semi-auto magazines are restricted to 10 rounds, so I would still be able to use the same targets and scoring system.

Sorry for the length of the post, it just seemed to carry on on it's own!

 

[ghitch75]

if they kick in my door they'll get shot if they cross the threshold......if the don't they'll have a barrel in there face.....

 

[MachIVshooter]

You gonna school me now, kleanbore? Jeez. Ya'll think I don't know what I'm saying? Think I don't consider the potential future consequences of every word I post in this forum and any other? Think again.

Since the overwhelming majority of persons shot by handguns survive, that comment could well be interpreted, or made to sound like, premeditation

It is premeditation; to stop the threat. The invader dying will be a likely outcome, should I ever be faced with the situation. The reason I say that is because I will not shoot to wound. That is an ill advised practice. I will shoot the way I have been trained, and that is putting bullets COM until the threat ceases to be a threat. Once more, I haven't stated that I would "make sure he's dead". Not once. Never.

It is never a good idea to rely upon a lay interpretation of a written statute based upon common dictionary definitions alone. One must understand how each statute fits in with the overall mosaic of state law and how the law has been interpreted in any appellate cases, and to the extent possible, know something about how trial courts have decided cases under the law. Consult an attorney....................... The law you cited appears to me to say that deadly force may be used if the other person (1) has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or (2) is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

Reasonable belief, of course, is something that is judged by others after the fact.

Reasonable belief that they intend to commit a crime in addition to the unlawful entry is easily established by the fact that home intruders don't kick down doors then turn and walk away or go sit on the couch for awhile before leaving empty handed. They've entered for a reason, whether it's robbery, assault, rape, murder, whatever. They forced entry to gain access to something or someone, and either will constitute that additional crime. In Colorado, that kind of violent forced entry would also constitute menacing:

Colorado's menacing statute, §18-3-206, C.R.S. 1997

A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical action, he knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Menacing is aclass 3 misdemeanor, but, if committed by the use of a deadly weapon, it is a class 5 felony.

So there's the condition met without even considering why they actually broke in.

I respectfully recommend against staking one's future on the assumption that the little notion of necessity will never come up come up, particularly after his having previously expressed his intention to shoot any home intruder. Also consider that the question of whether one had fired more rounds than would reasonably have been necessary to stop the intruder, after having said that, in the event of an intrusion, he will "unload" and that the intruder "will most likely not be alive", could be pivotal.

Doesn't matter. Did you read part 3 and 4 of the statute?

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

I know the laws that apply to me in my state, I know what my plan of action is, and no grandstanding and belittling by other members will change that.

Can we lay off it now? This isn't the legal forum anyway.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Keep it civil and on topic, or take it to PM... last reminder.

lpl

 

[Agostini]

I consider anyone coming through my door without an invitation as a deadly threat and will take the necessary action to defend my family.

I never answer the door. All meetings are scheduled in advance, as are delivers.

Check your address twice or trice.

 

[Kleanbore]

I consider anyone coming through my door without an invitation as a deadly threat...

If you mean potential deadly threat, certainly.

Some thirty five or so years ago, I was sitting on my front porch using a disk sander when someone walked behind me, opened the front door and, without saying a word, and walked into the house uninvited. That scared the heck out of me. I was unarmed.

I went in after him because my wife was inside. I do not remember what I said but I'm sure it was very forceful.

Turned out the guy was an attorney from Chicago who was in town for a course, and he wanted to see the bedroom he had slept in as a boy during WWII. Heaven knows where his mind was at the time.

It took quite a while for my adrenalin level and heartbeat to return to normal, but as it turned out, his uninvited entry did not constitute a deadly threat.

....and will take the necessary action to defend my family.

That sounds very reasonable to me. Realize, of course, that others will weigh in on what had been reasonable to believe necessary, perhaps in a trial court, and that the law and jury instructions will vary according to jurisdiction.

It's a good idea to know your state law and to know what it actually means.

In all states, deadly force may be used if the actor reasonably believes it to be immediately necessary (duty to retreat may enter into the question of necessity) to defend self and family.

In some states, such belief is presumed to have been reasonable if someone unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment (that's Texas, by the way; Florida is similar, but "was attempting to" is replaced by "in the process of"). Such a presumption is rebuttable.

In some states, an actual entry is required--attempted entry is not a specified justification. In some, such entry need not be made with force to provide justifcation.

In some, the fact of the entry alone does not necessarily suffice in establishing reasonable belief; in a state discussed in a post above, a defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she had a reasonable belief that the intruder was committing or intended to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry. In a recent case in Colorado (where forceful entry is not specified in the code section on justification), a guy who had the wrong house smashed in a window to unlock a door, and his violent, threatening behavior was determined to have justified the use of deadly force.

Where I live, one may not use deadly force unless [applicable condition here] "such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person." There's no mention of force or of reasonable belief concerning necessity that I can see.

All of that should show only that laws do vary and that you need to know yours. Based on years of experience working with attorneys, I recommend against relying upon one's own interpretation. In a previous post, I recommended consulting an attorney. Upon reflection, I think it might be a better idea to follow Lee Lapin's advice in Post #6 and take the NRA course. They'll cover the local laws and a lot more.

I'm sure glad that that lawyer turned out to have not presented a deadly threat. Could I have lawfully used deadly force, had I been inside the house when he entered, and had current law been in effect then? Maybe, at least according to a lay interpretation. I do not want to test it, for any number of reasons.

 

[Cosmoline]

"bullets will fly until he ceases to be a threat, which will most likely be because he ceases to be alive".

Nothing wrong with that given the home invasion scenario presented. You must of course stop shooting if the threat is no longer imminent, no longer deadly or no longer illegal from the facts you can see.

Since the overwhelming majority of persons shot by handguns survive, that comment could well be interpreted, or made to sound like, premeditation....

?? You're mixing apples and oranges. If you're shooting the intruder, you're intending to hit him with bullets. That's deadly force. So acknowledging that you planned on shooting such an intruder with bullets is not really a big surprise. Nor does it have anything to do with self defense.

You shoot until he ceases to be in an imminent, unlawful deadly threat. Go read your code for more information. You will not find any requirement or reference to "premeditation" in the self defense statutes.

 

[03Shadowbob]

Since the overwhelming majority of persons shot by handguns survive, that comment could well be interpreted, or made to sound like, premeditation....

That is almost like saying anyone who has trained with handguns is premeditating on murdering someone.

 

[Kleanbore]

You shoot until he ceases to be in an imminent, unlawful deadly threat.

Absolutely.

How many shots will be required?

A friend of mine who took a Florida CCW course was advised to shoot twice quickly and reevaluate.

I took a tactical defensive pistol course recently, and they had us shoot twice very quickly at each of three targets and reevaluate.

On The Best Defense recently, in a segment about how to avoid hitting bystanders, Rob Pincus fired four shots extremely quickly and accurately at the target dummy.

In the very next sequence, which covered multiple assailants, the drill involved someone else shooting three shots in about one second at each person-sized target.

Mas Ayoob wrote about someone who was prosecuted for murder in an otherwise clearly justifiable self defense shooting because he emptied eight shots into the assailant.

For a shooting that occurs outside, I have several concerns: not drawing quickly enough; not having any evidence or witnesses to support my defense of justification; hitting an innocent party; getting shot; and being accused of shooting more rounds than would have been reasonably necessary for self defense. The last three would apply equally in a home invasion case, I think.

I suppose for the last one, an expert witness might prove helpful, should it come to that. Those whose experience is limited to watching Alfred Hitchcock re-runs "know" that one shot from a .38 stops everyone, don't they?

Whether a statement that I will shoot until someone "most likely is no longer alive" would prove unwise I do not know, but it seems to me that it could help to weaken my claim that I only used force that a reasonable person would consider immediately necessary. It's not the fact of the death I'm worried about from that standpoint, because deadly force can reasonably be expected to result in death by definition. It's questions about the necessity of shooting the number of rounds fired.

We just had a policeman shot six or eight times (they cannot tell due to the intestinal damage); he is in critical condition. The homeowner in Boulder, CO who was shot six times by a police officer has some kind of permanent ingury to his arm.

Would the fact of instances such as those help a shooter accused of firing an excessive number of rounds? Would they hurt one who had indicated that he expected anyone he shot to die?

You must of course stop shooting if the threat is no longer imminent, no longer deadly or no longer illegal from the facts you can see.

Yep, and your ability to articulate successfully that you have done so may depend a lot upon your credibility and upon anything that may indicate state of mind.

 

[Polar Express]

Thank you all for this thread. It has given me cause to pursue more information, and also, establish a relationship with a quality defense attorney, just in case I am forced to defend myself/my family with deadly force. I hope to never have the need for that sort of lawyer, but it might be good idea to establish that relationship.

This is an interesting thread from my point of view. The moderator, Mr. Lapin has a difficult job, in that he must review, and potentially censor anything that he feels may put the FORUM in a comprimised situation, even if he agrees with whatever poster he is censoring.

Mr. MachIV has raised some interesting points, and it's clear that he has researched his perspective, and his local laws.

While I personally don't see a forum problem with Mr. MachIV sharing his action plan when presented with a scenario, (and he has been clear that it is HIS plan, not the forum's) I can also see that advocation of certain tactics could be used against someone if a prosecuting lawyer had an agenda, and felt that they could manipulate the interpretations of the state statutes. To me, those statutes that were cited appear very cut and dry, but I've been shocked by some arguments that have been made and lawyers, and accepted by judges.

Again, this is not an easy process, and I am grateful to both Mr. Lapin for his efforts, and to Mr. MachIV for his. I belive in my heart they are both trying to make THR a better place. I try hard to remember that if I can read it, so can soemone else that may not share my value system. There may be things that are better left unsaid.

PE

 

[Polar Express]

regarding forced entry..

I chose to make this a seperate post as it does deal with a different aspect of this discussion: The "forced entry" part

I work for the Fire Dept., and we carry tools and train on skills to go through a residential door (even a comercial steel door,) in a big hurry. I'm only average size for a fireman, and I can get through a solid core residential entry door VERY quickly, without my speical tools.

Sometimes we are sent on a 'welfare check'. This occurs when a friend, relative or neighbor hasn't seen someone for a long time, and is wondering if they are alive or not or hurt, or ?? inside their home. When we are called on a welfare check, we MUST have the police with us, and have their supervision, and authorization (given the known details of the circumstance) to make entry. When we do that, we also make lots of noise, identify ourselves constantly and try to make entry with the least possible damage. This takes much longer. About a third of the time the person has passed away, a third of the time they are not home, and about a third of the time it's a little old lady in a nighty scared out of her wits and she didn't hear us because her hearing aids were broken.

When it's a non-agressive drunk, at the wrong house, it's quite clear what the situation is, and would be difficult to mistake them for a violent intruder. But, sometimes, the drunk individual has violent intentions, and that is also clear.

I guess my point is, if someone is trying to force their way into a residential (solid core) entry door, and they are not trying to be 'stealthy' about it, the door is usually dispatched quite quickly. The locks usually hold, usually, it's the jamb that splits or the door does.

PE

 

[MariusDP51]

Turn your stereo down, maybe you neighbour will calm down and go away...

I don't see how a SWAT team can knock down the wrong door but I guess it happens...that said, when the door finally goes flying open and you recognise them as being SWAT, drop your weapon and reach for the sky. Why would you engage them?

If the door goes flying open and it's an armed (firearm) BG (or multiple) I will not hesitate to fire. If the perp/s is not armed with a firearm, I'll afford him a quick verbal warning.

 

[MariusDP51]

Just a quick question: How many of you have tried kicking down a door? We have metal door frames in South Africa and opening a door by force really requires a fair amount of it. On top of that, a front door us usaully made of solid wood which makes it a little stronger. Anyone who decides to enter your house in such a violent manner is already sending you a message if he is aware that you are inside.

 

[rbernie]

Just last night one women was shot and killed and one was critically wounded here. Five armed men with masks kicked in the front door of a their home in Houston. The news article did not say there were any men at home, just the two women. (there were four women and two children at home, one women fired on the intruders, photo of house shows new two story 4000 sf house)

More likely than not, home invasions do not work out well for the people in the home. Recently a man of the house was tortured to death.

It's been my observation that the VAST majority of home invasions turn out to be motivated by drugs or other interactions between the occupants and various criminal enterprises. Not all, but most. Let's face it - five masked armed men do not commonly roam the suburbs of America looking for modest homes to raid or random men to torture.....

Probably the most effective way to deal with the prospect of someone kicking down your door is to avoid those behaviors and scenarios likely to cause anyone to want to kick down your door. To paraphrase from Jeff White - if my home defense plan *starts* at repelling boarders, then I've already lost the battle.

Repelling boarders is one of the last elements of my home security plan. And if I have to repel boarders, it will be with a clear eye toward the laws of my jurisdiction, with a level-headed assessment of the likely ingress points, number and motivation of the intruders, and with scenarios pre-planned WRT the number and location of other occupants of the house and how they might play into the unfolding drama.

There is no single answer, because there is no single scenario.

if someone is trying to force their way into a residential (solid core) entry door, and they are not trying to be 'stealthy' about it, the door is usually dispatched quite quickly. The locks usually hold, usually, it's the jamb that splits or the door does.

An excellent point that I alluded to in my first post but did not take effort to expand upon; hardening your house against forced entry buys you the time needed to make better decisions on how to react. You cannot make your house a bunker, but you *can* do things to buy yourself time.

 

[Deanimator]

It's been my observation that the VAST majority of home invasions turn out to be motivated by drugs or other interactions between the occupants and various criminal enterprises. Not all, but most. Let's face it - five masked armed men do not commonly roam the suburbs of America looking for modest homes to raid or random men to torture.....

Not being involved in criminal activity or the the people who engage in it will LESSEN your likelihood of interaction with criminals AND police. It won't ELIMINATE it.

To the best of my knowledge, the doctor in Connecticut had no criminal connections. Two animals just picked him and his family as good marks. Likewise the elderly man in Chicago who shot a home invader recently.

There are two typical ways to be picked for a home invasion, as you noted - unsavory behaviors or associations, or being a lucrative or soft target. You can't tell people not to live in nice houses or to not be female or old. Presumably, those are the potential victims at whom this thread is aimed.

 

[Polar Express]

Mr. Marius,

I have kicked in many doors. In my line of work, we have occasion to do that from time to time. And yes, you are quite correct that a metal frame is much stronger than a wood frame. Your post was not clear, in South Africa, do you have wood door slabs mounted in steel frames, or are they steel door slabs in steel frames?

Steel doors and frames buy you a lot more time in this scenario. But, in the parts of the USA that I have been, wooden doors are far more common on residential entries. A wood door in a steel frame is just a little harder than a wood door in a wood frame.

PE

 

[rbernie]

Not being involved in criminal activity or the the people who engage in it will LESSEN your likelihood of interaction with criminals AND police. It won't ELIMINATE it.

Absolutely true. My point was that effective risk management suggests that we should favor planning for those scenarios that are likely to occur to *us* as opposed to expending the majority of our efforts planning for the 'corner cases' that principally involve other folk that make a habit of running around with/around Bad People.

And once again, I would like to point out that HD never starts and stops at 'shooting at door kickers'; it always involves layers of defenses that includes hardened entry points, perimeter (and possiblu interior) alarms, intermediate barriers, dogs, and so forth. Planning for door kickers is fine; planning on shooting as the sole means of response is less than fine.

 

[Kleanbore]

There are two typical ways to be picked for a home invasion, as you noted - unsavory behaviors or associations, or being a lucrative or soft target.

Sounds reasonable.

I might suggest a third: living in one of the only houses around when a desperate fugitive in need of money and a different set of wheels happens along. You have little control over that if you happen to live in the country.

I should think that most home invaders will tend to choose a house with no one home, but a desperate fugitive in the country may not have that option.

 

[AKElroy]

Not being involved in criminal activity or the the people who engage in it will LESSEN your likelihood of interaction with criminals AND police. It won't ELIMINATE it.

I agree that many HI's are motivated by drugs and nefarious activity on both sides of the door. That said, we can make ourselves targets by not being protective of how we advertise our belongings.

There are some cars that are very difficult to steal. That keeps them safe in a parking lot, but makes them far more likely to get jacked at an intersection.

If your belongings are known to be marginally protected, then burglery is probably more likely than an invasion. If, however, your gun collecting is well known as well as the existance of the safe that contains them, then you may be opening the possibility of an invasion.

RBernie has the best advice; have a defensive barrier plan that makes repelling boarders a distant step for an invader to face.

I would only add that for me, keeping what I have and how I protect it private is part of that plan.

 

[Cosmoline]

It sounds like we agree, Kleanbore. The problem I have with the "shoot to stop, not to kill" mantra is that it's so easy to misunderstand. That's where you get folks thinking they shouldn't plan ahead for fear that such planning could somehow undo a self defense argument.

A better way of putting it might be, shoot for defense not for justice. Because from the real world shootings I've seen the big problem isn't "premeditation" but rather home owners and concealed carriers shooting out of a desire to DO JUSTICE. Whether it's trying to stop guys running off with your hubcaps or the more recent example of the a fellow shooting at the car of fleeing non-violent shoplifters. That is just the sort of thing that can get you into serious trouble, because while the actions of the other may be unlawful, there is no imminent deadly threat at the time of the shooting. So the toggles are not in "shoot" position and the self defense light is red, not green.

So you cannot execute a downed suspect who is no longer a threat with a coup de grace. But that does NOT mean you can't have a subjective DESIRE to kill the SOB when you shot him while he was still a threat to you. You may really want to kill him, which is totally understandable. It's your actions that count.

 

[Kleanbore]

Shoot for Defense, Not for Justice

The problem I have with the "shoot to stop, not to kill" mantra is that it's so easy to misunderstand.

I agree. We still have people thinking that that means to shoot to wound. I'm also concerned that some jurors might truly believe that shooting more than a few shots might indicate improper motive. Expert testimony, including testimony about what is taught by qualified trainers, might mitigate that.

A better way of putting it might be, shoot for defense not for justice.

Excellent thought!

Because from the real world shootings I've seen the big problem isn't "premeditation" but rather home owners and concealed carriers shooting out of a desire to DO JUSTICE. Whether it's trying to stop guys running off with your hubcaps or the more recent example of the a fellow shooting at the car of fleeing non-violent shoplifters. That is just the sort of thing that can get you into serious trouble, because while the actions of the other may be unlawful, there is no imminent deadly threat at the time of the shooting.

Agree. (First, my inaccurate use of the term "premeditation" was ill advised; I had intended to point out the potential issue regarding indication of state of mind with some economy of words). I have been of the opinion that one of the contributors to unwise actions such as these has been "too much television", but upon reflection, the bigger issue is indeed probably the natural desire to do justice.

But that does NOT mean you can't have a subjective DESIRE to kill the SOB when you shot him while he was still a threat to you. You may really want to kill him, which is totally understandable.

Sure, and that's totally understandable, but I really don't think I want anyone to know that I had such feelings.