Castle Doctine: You can, but should you?

[Fred Fuller]

I would hold them at gunpoint

Worst idea on this thread so far, except for the killemallletgodsortemout that I deleted...

 

[Stophel]

If I were to see someone breaking into my house, I would yell at him. If he continued or came at me, he would immediately be put down, to the best of my ability to do so. If he was in the house already, he would get himself dead.

As far as "kids making mistakes", this is not a "mistake", this is immoral criminal deadly behavior.

 

[fallout mike]

So, you want him to move while trying to leave and you have no idea if he has a gun that he will pull out while you think he is leaving or if he will get outside and start shooting through your windows. You do what you feel comfortable with. I do not want them to move for fear of them pulling a gun and possibly shooting a family member. When you allow them to, start moving then you are not in control of what could happen. If they don't move you don't have to worry about them drawing a gun. You can't count on them making a logical decision in regard to just "letting them go". All logic on their part is gone when they broke in to your house. Good luck with your plan though.

 

[devans0]

I reluctantly am in the shoot early band. What got me into CCW was a specific individual that threatened me and my family and has made an attempt to maim me. When my door is being breached, I must, MUST for the safety of my family, assume the worst. I will not give up tactical advantage. The instant the door is breached will be met with shotgun, buckshot, and continued firing until the threat no longer exists. Our inner doors all have an entryway that forces someone to be in front of the inner door for entry.

We conduct "Alamo" drills for this scenario with our second defense position upstairs. Single point of entry, and DW and me covering the stairs.

 

[fallout mike]

If "hold them at gunpoint is the worst idea yet", I am always willing to learn new things, so by all means please provide ducumentation or proof that proves me wrong.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Freedom_fighter _in_Il: ...it [Illinois] it is one of the top states for an iron clad castle doctrine.

Do not think for a moment that any castle doctrine law is "iron clad" in the sense that evidence indicative of one's intent to murder someone in one's home could not lead to charges, indictment, trial, and conviction for a felony. Missouri has a very strong castle doctrine, and some time last year, a person killed an ex spouse, against whom a restraining order had been issued, who had broken into the house forcibly and unlawfully. There were no charges, but it took some time to decide to not charge the actor.

As a few others have said, and I'll state it a little plainer for the weak hearted folks that seem to think we aren't the executioner, ...

'Weak hearted"? Really?

That we, as private citizens being victimized, are not the executioner is a matter of law that goes back more than half a millenium before the time of Charles Dickens.

Now, if I were forced to employ deadly force against someone breaking into my home, and if investigators had any question at all about the case, I would really, really not want to have posted, in a public forum, anything that could be used to establish state of mind in a most unfavorable manner.

 

[rustedangel]

I think Ragnar Danneskjold has done us all a favor by trying to get us to think about our personal ethics on the deployment of deadly force. I think it's important to be mentally prepared to do what it takes to stop a threat and keep yourself alive. I think it's also very important to realize killing another human will have massive emotional impact on you if you are not a sociopath. My priorities in the hypothetical scenario are as follows:

1. Keep myself and loved ones alive
2. Keep from harming any innocent bystanders (rule #4)
3. Keep from harming anyone else if I do not have to.

If possible I would call 911 to let the police know someone was trying to break into my house. My house is craftsman style and has two big thick wooden support columns with attached wooden bookshelves built into the living room. I would position myself behind this with my shotgun and yell "I am armed, I will shoot you if you enter". This means I have to be prepared to shoot if the assailant does not have any weapons. I don't feel good about that, but I'm not going to give up my weapon and get into a fistfight with a home invader because I don't want to shoot an unarmed person. I feel that in my home if I have given him a verbal warning and he continues to advance my hand has been forced.

 

[gym]

Too many if's, the premis is, "you don't know yet what the intent is", no weapon is shown, people always make mistakes with addresses, remember the kid who was gunned down on the lawn because he didn't speak english, and couldn't answer the guys demands.We got a lot of good common sense answers, if you don't see aggression or a weapon, hold off a second till you figure out whats going on for real. I have no problem shooting a bad guy, some of you have discussed particular incidents in here where there was no recourse. I sleep with 2 loaded guns, one on the nightstand, one behind the bed sheet, "pillow pal" I highlly recommend, had mine over 20 years. My wife has one on her side, and there is an AR 3 ft away, so I am not passive by any means. But as the gent said who served his country 12 or so posts ago, you never get that out of your head, so just make sure it's a threat. If you don't see a weapon, get that sucker on the ground, if he won't go, put a rouund in the floor, he will go then.Having your wife call 911, you have coverd yourself. now if he trys to reach for something or there are more of them, go and do what you need to do. Having been through this, I should be the first guy who says , "shoot them", but it's not something that will let you sleep better at night, no matter what you think now.Every situation is different and I sure don't want anyone getting shot overthinking this if it happens, but we are all experienced with weapons. Your tac light and spare mag should be with you, in case it turns ugly, but that's all I can say, other than we had 39 home invasions in Indian river county 2 months ago, 11 the first week of December, and 3 deaths by firearm. So I realise this is going to get a lot worse. The member who thought home invasions were rare, is mistaken, look up the records in you county, They don't put it on the news. You local PD will have them if you take a ride.Thats 39 too many in a sparselly populated county. Imagine NY, Miami, and any large city, you must stay safe and prepare, but exercise common sense. We don't want to get so paranoid that we shoot first and figure out what happened later. All the best to all of you.

 

[mdauben]

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

At that point, no. I'm not currently in danger so I would not feel justified in pulling the trigger. What I would do is shout that I am armed and the police are on their way. If that did not disuade him, I would shoot as soon as he forced the door open.

I don't think I'm being "internet macho" or anything and I certainly don't want to shoot someone to protect my TV or computer. I just think in the situation presented, that I would have reason to fear for my life and by ignoring my warning the intruder has reached the end of my reasonable restraint.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by fallout mike: If "hold them at gunpoint is the worst idea yet", I am always willing to learn new things, so by all means please provide ducumentation or proof that proves me wrong.

Just consider the risks:

• While you are distracted, the perp may be able to shoot you with a weapon that you had not detected; that has happened.
• While you are preoccupied, you may be ambushed, or a family member seized or injured, by an accomplice of whose presence you were not aware.
• You may be mistaken for a violent criminal and shot by arriving officers; that has happened.
• The perp may be injured or experience a medical emargency while you are holding him; you would be responsible; so would an arresting officer, but unlike a sworn officer, you are not indemnified by the community.
• There is the possibility of an unintentional discharge that would likely result in charges against you.

Now consider what you would do if he were to choose to depart. Your legal options do not include the use of deadly force, and attempting to use non-deadly force to arrest or detain entails not only legal risks, but very real physical risks.

You are almost always much better off not trying to hold someone at gunpoint. One possible exception would involve a a dangerous stalker or ex-spouse whose continued freedom would constitute a very serious danger. You would be better off letting anyone else just go away.

 

[Cosmoline]

I am totally confused how someone breaking into your home could be perceived as non-threatening...

That's the key I think. If you're leaving your doors unlocked and people can just walk right in, you have no business using a firearm. Someone could just have the wrong house. If you've followed proper procedures and have a basic layer of security in place, then nobody will be coming in without smashing through that layer. That identifies the nature of the threat as imminent and most likely deadly. Your layers of security are your warning. And they are also HIS warning. Nobody kicks down doors at the wrong address.

You should not pursue the threat at all, of course. He can leave anytime he wants. Just let him turn around and go. Do not give chase if he does. You need to be in a position of concealment and cover, waiting to see if he does continue to come. If so, and if he's there and not throwing his hands up, you need to shoot or die. There is no other choice at that moment. By invading your home and continuing to press the invasion all the way to you, HE HAS REMOVED YOUR CHOICE. He had the decision, and he took it. All you are doing is putting the period at the end of the sentence he wrote.

 

[Rail Driver]

Now consider what you would do if he were to choose to depart. You have one legal option: watch him leave.

This is partly wrong, at least in my state. In Florida, a person effecting a citizens arrest is held to the same standard as a police officer with respect to use of force and detention, without some of the legal and civil protections that officers enjoy.

If you think you may need to conduct a citizens arrest, whether it be of a person breaking into your home, or someone committing a felony or other arrestable offense in your presence, it would behoove you to study in depth, the use of force statutes in your state or locality.

Most states have statutes that outline the procedure for a citizens arrest, Florida does not. North Carolina is the only state I'm aware of that prohibits or has no case law, precedent or allowance for citizens arrest.

While it's not always the best idea, it's certainly a better alternative to shooting someone that doesn't need to be shot. There are risks in everything we do. Conducting a citizens arrest has more risk inherent to the procedure than simply shooting in many (probably most) cases, however there are situations where it's the only logical option.

Back to the quoted statement, however... Allowing the intruder/suspect to go free is not the only legal option. Using reasonable force to detain the arrested party is allowable, it just opens up certain distasteful possibilities if a mistake is made. Know your use of force laws, learn the proper procedure for affecting an arrest, and then do your duty as a citizen of this nation. Arrests must be made following a specific protocol.

DISCLAIMER: This information applies to the State of Florida, and events happening within the State of Florida. Your locality may have different laws in place governing this type of action. Know your local laws. If you plan to or are considering Citizens Arrest as an option in your response to certain situations, make it a point to get training. This is NOT something an untrained person should do. If you intend to affect a Citizens Arrest, I do not recommend doing so without proper training in use of force and arresting procedure.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Rail Driver: Now consider what you would do if he were to choose to depart. You have one legal option: watch him leave.
This [if he were to choose to depart, you have one legal option: watch him leave.]is partly wrong, at least in my state [Florida].
.... Using reasonable force to detain the arrested party is allowable, it just opens up certain distasteful possibilities if a mistake is made.

True. Good catch, post now edited. Thanks.

 

[M2 Carbine]

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

I have seen way to many good people die to have any feelings for a criminal's life.
I value a Rattlesnake's life more than a violent criminal's. Given a no strings attached choice of which one to shoot, I'd rather shoot the criminal than the snake.

Whether or not I would shoot a criminal depends on the overall situation, not because I care if another criminal dies.

Breaking into, or trying to break into my home will definitely get someone shot, repeatedly.

 

[JCinAK]

As soon as someone broke into my house, I would not hesitate in using deadly force. However, if they were only in the process of attempting to break in, I would call police and be prepared to defend myself as soon as door/window broke. Not that I think it would be wrong to use force sooner, but it may be tougher to justify in court.

Fortunately, in Alaska, I wouldn't have to ask them if they were only after my TV. Break in, get shot.

 

[dayhiker]

Ok...my state(CT) allows me to use deadly force to terminate or prevent forced entry to my home.

So ya, I could shoot through the door.

For me it is simple....If you are intent enough to come through my door ,that will need way more than one kick, while a loud, barking, snarling, raging beast is on the other side then you are a lethal threat.

And I will use lethal force the second that door is breached.

 

[Mike1234567]

I'm not going to shoot unless I'm certain the intruder intends to harm me... but I'm going to keep my distance and be at the ready so I'll be shooting first. Also. even if I see no weapon but he advances despite warnings... I'm going to shoot.

 

[Fred Fuller]

by all means please provide ducumentation or proof that proves me wrong.

Mike,

I hope the discussion so far has offered a little more light on the subject than my admittedly too-brief comment above.

I'm not familiar with Mississippi's statutes as far as allowing citizens' arrest. If you plan on doing one yourself, however, you need to be intimately familiar with both the statute law and case law that pertains. Otherwise there are any number of potential legal hazards involved in trying to perform a citizens' arrest, not to mention the physical hazards, some of which have already been mentioned.

Do you have an attorney? If not, this would be a good time to locate and consult one on matters of defense of self, home and family in your jurisdiction in Mississippi. Any number of people have all sorts of ideas about what they can and should do in the event of a potentially violent encounter, and they do not learn until they get into court that what they thought was the right thing to do under the circumstances was in fact illegal.

As far as me providing documentation or proof to you is concerned, nothing I can tell you is sufficiently authoritative to stand up in court, save that you need to consult your own attorney on these matters and follow his or her advice. As a general rule, it's usually far more desirable to abbreviate an armed encounter whenever possible rather than to deliberately prolong it. The risks of such a prolonged encounter tend to mount pretty rapidly in direct proportion to the time involved.

 

[leadcounsel]

For what reason would a person try to break into your house other than to do you harm? It's taking a big leap of faith that he JUST wants your TV.

He could want to beat you senseless then rape your wife and daughters and burn them alive ... like what happened in Connecticut in 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

If someone is trying to forcibly get into my home, I will use the full extent of the law to stop them assuming they aren't there to help me fix my plumbing!

 

[Ankeny]

I have posted on this before. I have had two people gain entry while I was at home. In both cases, they were drunk/intoxicated. In one case the guy was at the wrong address and thought his buddy locked him out. Neither were armed. Neither posed any threat to me, but they did pose a threat to the door. A little discussion and a call to 911 resolved both issues without violence.

Many years ago I returned home to find two people burglarizing my home. Both were armed to the teeth. I simply drove off until they fled, then I returned home and called the police. Both were arrested the same evening. No need for testosterone and heroics in that case either.

 

[Nushif]

I live in an apartment block, with standardized keys, standardized doors, standardized locks and standardized rooms, on a second floor.
Hells, I ran into a cop who was wanting to talk to someone and only had an address ... And we couldn't figure out where this place was.

If I heard the proverbial jiggle at the handle, followed by some low speed technique of getting in, what is more likely? An armed intruder intent on killing me for my student debt ... Or someone who genuinely thinks they got the wrong door and the stupid key isn't working again.

At a certain point I do have to assess whether I am scared, or whether there is a credible threat to my life. Because me being scared happens an awful lot more than there being credible threats to my life.

In the situation you described what I would (hopefully) do is yell at the guy to back off, and leave, while calling the cops who would then be out here in a couple minutes, with me barricaded behind a very thick kitchen counter.
What I would (hopefully) not do is shoot some poor dude who got lost in the apartment complex and thought he would be clever by messing with what he assumed is his own lock. Why? Because If I was convinced that I am at the right apartment and my key is not working (again) ... The local 'smith has a business card practically made for entering a low speed door. and I would not have to call the grouchy corporate leech we call apartment manager, just to be charged fourty bucks because they buy the cheapest locks.

 

[M2 Carbine]

I'm not going to shoot unless I'm certain the intruder intends to harm me...

Unless you are a mind reader, waiting until you are sure they intend harming you may be too late for you.

One of the last things I do when teaching a new shooter is role play BG and home owner.
I simply tell the new gun owner, during various HD situations, "Do what ever you are going to do if you confront BG me".

I never fail to "kill" the the homeowner, a number of times, because they always either want to see my "intentions" or they want to talk to me.
It's easy to shoot them even though they already have a gun in their hand.

One senior lady, with a gun in her hand, after I "shot" her four times in a row said, "You aren't being fair".:banghead:

 

[fallout mike]

Lee, I have a couple of friends that are attorneys. I know what the law is. Maybe you misunderstood me. If I hear my door get kicked in at 2am & I go to the front of the house I'm shooting them immediately if they have a weapon in their hand. If there is no weapon in their hands I don't want them moving a muscle while the wife calls 911 bc I don't know if they will go for a gun. I feel I would be taking a bigger risk by telling them to leave bc I don't know what's in their pocket they may pull out while I think they are leaving. Any movement whatsoever is going to make me extremely nervous. Then again , its possible I would just pull the trigger out of fear of what could happen to my family if they shot me. After what happened to the parker family right outside of the town I live in I will be very aggressive.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Forcibly entering an occupied dwelling is considered a crime of violence in many states.

A verbal challenge can be useful during the threat assessment process: "Stop! I've called police! I have a gun! Leave now!"

The verbal challenge establishes your presence and informs the perpetrator that he/she/they is attempting to forcibly enter an occupied dwelling.

 

[Mike1234567]

M2... I hear you (see your typing). I'll be prepared (firearm aimed) and willing to shoot. I just won't unless I see a weapon or if they advance toward me after being warned.