Castle Doctine: You can, but should you?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Imagine a scenario where you are at home, and someone is attempting a break in. Let's say you have Castle Doctrine, which states that it is presumed that the would-be burglar was a threat to your life simply by having invaded your home. He's not displaying any aggression action towards you. He may not even know you're there. He just trying to get through your door. Maybe it really is to kill you. Maybe it's to steal your TV. His attention is focused on getting thorugh your door. His attention is wholly focused on getting into your house, not on you or on harming you.

Your law says you can shoot. But should you? Would you?

I am asking about your morals, ethics, feelings, beliefs, etc.

This is where the law says one thing, and your gut feeling might say something else. The law says you can presume that he's here to harm you. But it doesn't seem like he is. Are you really in fear of your life? I'm not asking about "well the law says I am, so I say I am". I'm asking about how you would really feel shooting a burglar who's not actually threatening you, even if you get a pass with the law.

What do you own personal feelings and morals tell you to do? Do you shoot someone who at the time you would be pulling the trigger* isn't actually threatening you?

Most here would shoot and kill someone because they have to. They've been forced into it and there is no other option but die themselves.
But would you kill someone just because you're allowed to?


*Obviously if the BG does advance and actually does act threateningly, that changes the whole situation. I'm talking about before that. When he's not actually doing something threatening. He's just trying to get in.

 

[mljdeckard]

Nope. My state even allows deadly force against someone attempting to gain entry, but I don't see myself shooting through any doors. You THINK you know what you are shooting, but at the end of the day, it's a violation of rule #4.

Castle Doctrine and stand your ground laws offer a layer of legal protection. But I don't want to be the test case for anything. Regardless of what any law says, or what the inevitable outcome is, all it takes is a young assistant DA looking to make a name for himself and a judge who has been sleeping on the couch for a week, and you will be putting your lawyer's kids through college instead of your own.

And regardless of what the law says I can GET AWAY WITH, I'm not killing someone if I'm not sure they are trying to kill me. My TV isn't worth anyone getting killed. the object here is not to get to shoot someone. The object here is to NOT GET SHOT.

I know you know this already, I'm saying it for the benefit of any noobs who might read it.

 

[Rail Driver]

I thought about my response to this question for awhile, then I started to type my response. Then I thought about it some more, and started over again.

It all boils down to this: I need to look at each situation as it comes. If he's not got the door open, then it's still holding. I'm not shooting.

I have children in my home. The instant that door opens and I'm sure of my target and reasonably sure of what's behind my target (and more importantly, what isn't), I will shoot.

 

[armoredman]

If he's trying to get in, through the security screen, past the large barking dogs and the shrill of the alarm, I can pretty much conclude he's NOT there to sell me Avon products! I will not fire on a target I cannot identify, but I will inform him as loudly as I can that the police are on the way and he should probably leave now.
If after all that, and he still forces his way inside, I will most likely have to assume that he means me or my family deadly harm. Yes, in AZ we have the right to use deadly physical force to prevent several crimes, one being armed burglary, or burglary of an occupied structure, but your scenario seems much more past that. On the other hand, If I hear a deep voice asking for Sarah Connor, I'm leaving. Now.

 

[ralphie98]

Nope. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if it was just some dummy that thought he was walking into a buddy's house but got the address wrong, or some drunk that was at the wrong house. I'm sure there will be someone who will chime in that would blow someone away for trying to look through the window on the door. Truth is most people probably don't know what they will do until it happens.

 

[JRH6856]

Isn't actually threatening? If he's trying to break in, I'm not assuming he's dropping in for tea. He is a threat. Do I shoot? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on my assessment of details not in your scenario setup. What time of day is it? Is he alone? Is he armed? Does he look "dangerous"? Does he stop when he becomes aware of my presence or does he continue? There are too many variable to give you a pat answer.

 

[JellyJar]

I am not trying to be flippant but I would not shoot anyone unless I had to, in part, because I would be the one who would have to clean up the mess!

 

[Vonderek]

His attention is focused on getting thorugh your door. His attention is wholly focused on getting into your house, not on you or on harming you.

If you know this to be fact then you can read his mind and would know trouble was coming and would be able to vacate the premises or call the cops before he got there. "Minority Report" territory.

Seriously, how would you know he is not intending on harming you? Violently breaking into your home should be a clue of what this person's nature is and what he is capable of.

I suppose you could loudly alert him to the fact that you are indeed home and if he continues his attempted entry that you are armed and will have no other option but to defend yourself. And if he then continues his break-in then your supposition that his attention is focused on entering your house and not on you or on harming you is wrong. At that point if you do not defend yourself or your loved ones then you share in the responsibility of what happens next.

Or he could actually be your deaf neighbor coming home inebriated, lost his house key at the bar, and is opening the door with a crow bar as is his want, but at the wrong house....

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

ralphie98: What if you could tell he was there to steal from you? You can see the edge of a crowbar or some other burglary tool in the door frame. You can be sure he know's he's committing a crime. And you know that the law says you're allowed to shoot him right now.

But how would you feel?

Are you only willing to kill when you're life really is being threatened. Or are you willing to kill when you can legally claim your life might have been threatened, and get away with it?

Is shooting someone your last resort, when you truly have no other options, and you really(not what you tell the LEOs, but really) feel you're going to die if you don't?

 

[gym]

You are obviously referring to the post we are debating about the 82 year old who shot a "second story man" through the door.
You are correct, we are not the executioner, those decisions are for a higher power. We are and have always been in a position to exercise our judgement and common sense. just because you can do something doesn't make it right. And charma always comes back to you.
The guy gets warned first "no gun in his hand" , he is told police are on the way, lay down or I will have to shoot you. He will 90% of the time drop right there. If he desn't you shoot to stop the agression. If that means you put 2 in his heart and one in his head, that's also not what the intent should be, although it could happen. You will be questioned thououghlly and better be able to verbalise what transpired, castle or no castle. If you have kids and a wife in the house you may act faster as far as dropping him. or them. The shot should be the last resort, not the first. Keeping distance and cover between you and the perp is formost, shooting through walls and doors is just irresponsible.
Hey if the guy keeps coming or picks up his hand goes for a weapon, he's history, but that's not what the role of a carry permit holder is. That's the role of the courts cops and jails.If you are in a life and death deal, "been there" you don't wait, 5 guys with shotguns coming through the door, you get down and open up. But not a kid who has the wrong address to the party, or a 16 year old who is trying to steal something to go buy beer or drugs.
don't forget you have to live there, and a lot of your old friends will be looking at you like you went too far,as well as this kids family and friends.
You never know who knows who, killing someone is a burden that never leaves you, it's not cool or something to brag about, it's really upsetting and you will never be the same. But staying alive is the main objective. You shoot to stop the situation, not to take target practice. Every situation is different your results may vary according to your specific incident.

 

[788Ham]

If he's not trying to show aggression toward me, then why is he trying to tear the door off of the hinges? Not trying to harm me, might not even realize I'm at home, just trying to get into the house. Now, try to explain this maggotized BS will you please! If this clown is trying to tear the door off the hinges, he's definitely going to know I'm there, whether I have one or ten TV's, or even if his "dream" is to use my crapper once he's made it inside! The first part of my explanation, "trying not to show aggression toward me", then why doesn't this clown ring the door bell like all other sane folks do?

If someone needs help, all they have to do is ring the door bell, I'll call for help, if they start tearing the door down, they're the one going to be needing all the help they can get!

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

If you know this to be fact then you can read his mind and would know trouble was coming and would be able to vacate the premises or call the cops before he got there. "Minority Report" territory.

Seriously, how would you know he is not intending on harming you? Violently breaking into your home should be a clue of what this person's nature is and what he is capable of.

I suppose you could loudly alert him to the fact that you are indeed home and if he continues his attempted entry that you are armed and will have no other option but to defend yourself. And if he then continues his break-in then your supposition that his attention is focused on entering your house and not on you or on harming you is wrong. At that point if you do not defend yourself or your loved ones then you share in the responsibility of what happens next.

Or he could actually be your deaf neighbor coming home inebriated, lost his house key at the bar, and is opening the door with a crow bar as is his want, but at the wrong house....

Shooting because your life was in danger is justified.

Shooting because your life might have been in danger might not be.

Again, I am not asking about what your law says. I am asking about your morals. Would you kill someone when at the moment you pull thr trigger, you didn't really feel it was the very last option before your own death?


There is a threshold. On one side is shooting because you feel your life is in danger. On the other side is shooting because you feel your life might be in danger. Where do you fall, and how do you feel about it?

 

[JRH6856]

a 16 year old who is trying to steal something to go buy beer or drugs.

Numerous 16 year olds have killed people to steal something to go buy beer or drugs. Not a valid criteria for exclusion.

 

[Jeff F]

I would not be quick on the trigger, unless they were rushing me or had a weapon and were a threat. They would have to get through the door and past the dog that would be chewing on them if it was at night. If they got past or killed my dog I would shoot until the gun went click.

 

[gym]

No one said he was tearing off your door. The line is drawn pretty clearlly between a violent criminal and a stupid kid. If you ever were in a shooting incident you would see how silly this is. You know when it's time, if you don't you shouldn't carry a stick let alone a gun. And as far as the op asking leading questions, I think I answered your question, if you want to interview people who were in gunfights , it's not going to happen here. Go do your research an some think tank, interview cops agents or whoever will speak to you. There is a privacy line you are teetering on, makes me wonder what your MO is really.

 

[Rail Driver]

Shooting because your life was in danger is justified.

Shooting because your life might have been in danger might not be.

Again, I am not asking about what your law says. I am asking about your morals. Would you kill someone when at the moment you pull thr trigger, you didn't really feel it was the very last option before your own death?


There is a threshold. On one side is shooting because you feel your life is in danger. On the other side is shooting because you feel your life might be in danger. Where do you fall, and how do you feel about it?

Here's my point of view on it... A man can cover 21 feet in under a second. My livingroom is ~17 ft across its widest point. At any given place in my livingroom, I'm well under 21 feet from my front door, and my kids are liable to be anywhere in that space at a given time. Either way, if somebody has forced my door open then that person constitutes a direct and immediate threat to my children's lives and causes harm by his mere presence. If he's forced my door open and I am sure of my target and what is beyond it, I will shoot if I feel it is necessary. I have no moral qualms about ending the life of somebody that comes into my home by force. That person made the choice to violate the safety of the place my children sleep and God willing, he'll pay the price one way or another. It's my job to defend my family and I'll do so with every available tool and skill at my disposal, even if it means ending the life of some criminal scumbag, or simply holding the intruder at gunpoint until the police arrive.

 

[JRH6856]

On one side is shooting because you feel your life is in danger. On the other side is shooting because you feel your life might be in danger.

You can go from might be in danger to dead in less than a heartbeat.

 

[gym]

Micro have you shot any kids lately, a kid makes mistakes that's how they learn, you can't shoot all of them because they are a little dopey. If the kid has no weapon you are really going to shoot him?
That's exactlly right Rail, or hold him for police if he's an idiot kid who made a mistake. I have discussed a home invasion I had with 5 guys entering my home here before, I won't do it again, but things you thing aren't the way they happen, it's not this op's point anyway, he wants to know state of mind, morals ethics and beliefs.
Those all go out the window whe the crap hits the fan, survival kicks in. Unless you can prey your way out, you better do something. But know when to do it and when it's a false positive. The 21 foot rule is a charging 200 lb male running at full speed, that's not likelly to happen in your house. My friend had to drop a 400 lb woman 30 yrs ago in Harlem, as she wasn't stopping, running at him with a 12 inch butcher knife. 6 months on desk and he was cleared, made youngest det first class.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I bring this up partly because of the thread regarding the elderly gentlman who shot through the door, and partly because I have recently returned from Afghanistan. Without going into detail, shooting at another human being, and what would bring me to that has taken on a new meaning since before I left.

We are taught to tell the police "I shot this man breaking into my house because I was in fear for my life" as if it's a mantra. We say this because it is the best way to avoid legal issues. I'm trying to figure out how people feel beyond the legal. Beyond doing something just because it is allowed. Killing someone is not light matter. We say the words "...because I was in fear for my life", but would we always believe it ourselves. Deep inside, when you go over the shoot in your dreams every night for years, what did you really feel. Are you ok with shooting someone just because you had legal permission? Can you look in the mirror and tell yourself "I had no other choice". Or would you think "I had choices. But I chose to shoot because I could". I'm not trying to give a specific scenario and ask you how you would deal with just that. Imagine a scenario yourself. One where you're legally allowed to shoot because your Castle Doctrine says you can. But one where whether you actually felt in danger was less certain.

I'm not asking any of you to justify your reasons, or give a snarky comeback about why you will do what you're allowed to the fullest extent of the law. I'm asking for a little introspection on your emotions, morals and even faith. And if you're comfortable with it, share how you feel here.

The day after you've killed someone, what are you telling yourself?

 

[wankerjake]

He's not displaying any aggression action towards you. He may not even know you're there.

I have a wife and two little girls. They mean the world to me. I'm going to tell him clearly what is going to happen if he crosses my threshold. If he crosses my threshold after hearing that, I'm upholding my end of the bargain.

To shoot him while I have the drop on him and he doesn't know I'm there... I think I'd let him make the call. Hopefully it never happens.

 

[788Ham]

Shooting because your life "is" in danger, shooting because your life "might" be in danger? You have someone kicking your door in, is this normal thought processes most humans exhibit in your neighborhood? I'm supposed to stand at the door and ask this guy what his "real" intentions are? "IS", "MIGHT", are we supposed to have a discussion about his motives before I tell him I'm going to shoot? I don't really think most folks are going to start blasting the glass out of their front door because the drunk neighbor has the wrong house, more stupid things have happened I know, but most answers here have been pretty logically answered.

 

[JRH6856]

Micro have you shot any kids lately,

No, I haven't and hope I never have to. I do know of some other people who didn't and they are dead as a result. I'm Just saying that being 16 doesn't convey an assumption of innocence while committing a crime. Still have to look at other factors, such as whether or not he is armed, responds to a challenge to halt, etc. Age can be a consideration, but not a determining factor.

 

[writerinmo]

In Missouri you can use deadly force to protect your car.

That being said, your reactions to a possible home invasion, however slow they may be gaining entry, are still dictated by your thoughts regarding taking a life. I would also consider that the noisy, unprofessional attempts at my front door might also be a distraction for something else, maybe entry through the back. My personal course of actions would to be have the wife calling 911 since they aren't inside of the house yet, make a quick check of the back door (easily done in my house, a few steps inside the kitchen I can see the back door, two steps back be in the hallway across the living room from the front door) then inform the person that I have a firearm and the police have been called. Of course all this time I WILL have a firearm, ready to immediately fire in entry is gained. If they get that door open past the deadbolt and doorknob lock then I feel safe to assume they didn't just mistake my house for theirs. A door opens, a round is going down the tube as soon as I can identify that person as no one that I know.

 

[writerinmo]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_6c93b0d4-3c83-11e1-afe7-0019bb30f31a.html

These "kids" are back hanging around the neighborhood grocery store where this man shops. They approached him the day after the case was dismissed and acted like they were going to attack him again, then walked off laughing. What did they learn? They learned that if they intimidate witnesses they can get off, that's about it. I'd be willing to bet even money that within five years, several of these seven "kids" are in jail and/or have been shot.

 

[gym]

Perfect, you did everything properlly writer, maybe your correct, but it's not up to you or me to assume that.