Castle Doctine: You can, but should you?

[JohnBiltz]

I think the key words here is "attempting to break in". I'm at heart pretty lazy. When analyzing any tactical situation you define what the problem is, what you want the outcome to be and how to accomplish it. The problem is somebody is trying to break in. I don't want them to get in. Like I said I'm lazy. Chasing them off is much easier than shooting someone. I'd let him know that I'm home, I'm armed and I called the police. Then I'd turn a bright light on the doorway and retreat into the darkness of my place behind the light and cover with a long gun and wait.

 

[Nushif]

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

Funny enough I agree with her.

Because specifically in your scenario you're assuming an appreciably more skilled shooter, with clear intent to mislead and ultimately to kill a homeowner, who presumably is in the final phase of her initial class. And while that may happen, claiming that this is the case in every single last home invasion might be a bit off.
It's comparable to the many training exercises we did for my beloved little Nugs. We sent two squads versus two squads in a an extreme close combat situation, one was there to scout, the other to annihilate. but realistically the terrain we threw at them, as well as the mission was an obvious breach in doctrine. Simply put it was a two platoon job, and we sent half of one, added a time crunch and well, they did dismally. Of course they lost!
I went through another scenario myself, where we climbed a small mountain, got into our JLists about ten percent into the climb, had our biggest guy "go down" and were forced to carry a 260 pound guy up a steep muddy mountain, in less than seven minutes, under simulated fire, while being asked for status requests every thirty seconds or so. Utterly unrealistic. Did it heighten the stress level, and did it get us to do an enormous feat, sure! We took the record and the streamer! but was this training exercise anything even remotely like something that will happen in the real world? Naw.

So is it possible that the lady may be robbed by an intruder who just taught her all she knows, whom she trusts and recognizes (which will affect decision making), who holds a position of authority, is vastly better trained and is intentionally misleading her with the sole purpose to kill her? Maybe, you tell me. But frankly at a certain point the deck is pretty darned stacked against her in this case. And let's face it, no amount of training can always save your life.
On the other hand an early shoot, because she was so scared out of her mind, from being told repeatedly that she will die ... will land her in jail.

I love hardcore training, but I doubt its outcomes show us anything in relation to a real scenario.

 

[Fish Miner]

While this thread has pretty much got everyone into to groups, the shoot 'em and the wait and see groups. I am only posting because the 82 yr old who shot a BG through his door was here in Florida near where I live. IMHO there is a difference from small town folks (he was in a small town in a trailer park of predominantly old people) and larger city types (suburban types and apartment folks). While we might have similar attitudes - law enforcement may not. The Police chief told the news he was glad the guy shot the BG because it was something they could not have done and now there was one less BG. now in Orlando the Police chief would say that the shooter should have waited on 911. I think if he had done that in the "big city" he would be in trouble.

Im not sure if my point came across all the way, but I guess I am just saying that there is alot of variables out there and I don't think anyone wants to shoot someone. If you do want to shoot someone your either a sociopath or some sort of unstable person who really shouldn't have a gun. Being forced to shoot someone is totally different and if you have to do it, you want to know that you HAD to do it.

 

[Hk Dan]

He's as dead as Fannies Fried Chicken. It's not just the law that presumes he intends bad actions, it's me. If he's breaking in, he isn't there to decorate for a birthday party, and God knows what he'll do with my wife and daughter. Door pops open, then his chest pops open. Simple as that.

Dan

 

[Owen Sparks]

Ever heard of a citizens arreat?

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

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.

By Iron Clad I meant that if someone had illegally broken into my home, which would be extremely evident given the type of doors I have, there is no legal recourse for the intruders family to take me to court and the police would have no recourse to arrest me. Hence the REASON for castle doctrine.

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.

That we in the United States Of America have the right to defend our lives in our homes is ALSO a matter of law. If that comes to ending the life of scum breaking into our homes then so be it.

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.

I have this sign on every entry into my home. "This home is protected by a well armed owner. Not a damn thing in here is worth the life you are about to lose" I think that any officer seeing that would put me in the "state of mind" that if you break into my home with me in there you better be prepared to be shot. That is and will be the one and ONLY warning an intruder would get.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Hk Dan: He's as dead as Fannies Fried Chicken.

You are making quite an assumption about the lethality of your shooting.

Your lawful purpose is to prevent an intruder from harming anyone, by the use of deadly force if necessary. He or she may die, but if your prevention has worked, further force to effect death would get you into a lot of trouble.

You are also posting something in a public forum that could be used with terrible effect in a court of law, should testimony or other evidence raise any question about the lawfulness of your use of deadly force.

Let's review, one more time, some relevant parts of the ST&T "Rules" Sticky:

...members of the public, like most of us, abhor violence and do not generally approve of those whom they perceive to advocate unnecessary harm to others. For this reason, “blood lust” is off limits here. Comments such as “we have the castle doctrine, and anyone who comes into my house has forfeited his right to live”, “I’ll shoot to kill”, “dead men do not tell tales”, or “move out of your liberal state and move to Texas where we shoot ‘em” will not be permitted. This list is intended to be illustrative and is not all-inclusive.

Everyone who posts here or anywhere else on the Internet should understand that such posts are permanent, and they may be subject to discovery in legal proceedings at any time in the future. Should any member ever find himself or herself involved in such proceedings, posts containing comments that could be interpreted unfavorably could prove damaging.

It's not just the law that presumes he intends bad actions, it's me.

What you presume, unless what you know at the time supports your presumption, would not matter, absent the presumptions provided for in the law.

The purpose of the so called "castle doctrine" laws is to provide the resident, in the event of unlawful entry, or depending upon the jurisdiction, unlawful and forcible entry, with reason to believe that deadly force is justified. Such a presumption is, of course, rebuttable.

 

[Swichblade]

I would not fire if I can see he is holding no weapon and if he stops his attempt to enter my house when I tell him to. If he continues into my house or if he is holding a weapon I would shoot.

 

[mljdeckard]

In my home, I will give a greater degree of suspicion than I would out on the street, but it still doesn't automatically mean that someone in your home has intent to harm you. It is entirely possible they will do something to show you they DON'T intend to harm you.

And I'm arresting or holding anyone either.

 

[Owen Sparks]

If a person knowingly breaks into an occupied dwelling in a state where the majority of home owners are armed, that person should be presumed dangerous. He KNOWS that he has a good chance of being shot yet he break in anyway. A "reasonable man" would not behave in that manor.

 

[Loosedhorse]

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.

There is a legal protocol? Okay. What about the practical protocol--how feasible is it to arrest someone in this cirumstance (versus letting him go)?

Officers do not "hold persons at gun point" except for the minimum time needed to prone them, cuff them, search them, and secure them. Go to the range sometime with a friend, point your loaded gun at a target. If you friend says, "Albuquerque!" then shoot. If he says or does anything else, don't shoot, but keep you gun on target. For 20 minutes. Oh--if he says Albuquerque and your shots don't hit COM, you're dead.

So, all I have to do to make a citizen's arrest is: know the laws concerning citizen's arrest; know the laws concerning permissible force; know how to apply that force in a way that does not endanger me physically; wait in a highest-stress situation prepared to shoot at any moment if the guy "moves"--but not if he sneezes; not let my attention wander a second; not get shot by responding officers as I hold him at gunpoint; not get shot by the robber as I lower the gun in response to (or anticipation of) the officers' orders; survive the suit for kidnapping/false imprisonment; if I don't shoot him when he moves, be prepared to have him shoot me; and if I do shoot him because he moves, I have to survive the prosecution for murder and the civil suit for shooting an unarmed guy on the ground in the back because (according to me) he moved when I told him not to.

Hmmm...I should volunteer for that?

I do not want them to move for fear of them pulling a gun and possibly shooting a family member.

Seems like (see above) that isn't the only thing you should be fearing. But to each his own. Your scenario will not be the one you thought: it'll be what it is.

I often get a sense in these threads that, "If the law says I can shoot now, then I must shoot now." Or "if the law says I can do a citizen's arrest, then I will do that." For me, the trigger to shoot is when I'm convinced I will die in the next moments if I don't shoot; and the trigger to do a citizen's arrest is...

Sorry; can't think of one.

 

[Cosmoline]

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.

You rolled the dice when you opted not to shoot but "discuss" the situation instead. In hindsight you know they were just drunks, but at the time, if they had been there to take your life you'd be dead. That's an option of course, but it's not one I'd choose to take. If someone is so blotto they kick in my doors, ignore my yells to leave, continue to my room and I can't be 100% sure they're not carrying a weapon, I'm going to shoot. I don't have metal detectors or x-ray vision, and just because someone is drunk doesn't mean they won't or can't kill you. Quite the contrary.

He made the choice to get drunk and to kick in the doors and proceed inside. Again, it's his choice not mine.

 

[Kleanbore]

I have used a firearm to dissuade persons from committing crimes inside my domicile three times.

I never fired.

On one occasion, a man was trying to break in though the back door, very violently. He did not get inside, choosing to leave when he saw my revolver. We did not have a codified castle doctrine at the time, and the one we have now does not cover attempted unlawful entry. But if he had entered....

On another, a man entered through an unlocked door, armed himself with an improvised weapon, and threatened murder. In the event, I did not have to shoot; the point of a gun and some industrial strength coaching did the trick. But I was ready.

On another, a man entered my rented cabin unlawfully and with force. He was naked except for a headband, a necklace, and possibly, footwear--can't remember. The law in that state would seem to justify the use of deadly force, were that to happen today. I'm a lot less sure bout what would have happened then. In any event, I did not have to shoot. The point of a .45 Colt SAA persuaded him to leave with apologies.

 

[Owen Sparks]

All arrests work on a bluff anyway. The police can't shoot a fleeing suspect either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner
In Tennessee v. Garner,The Supreme Court ruled that when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he may use deadly force to prevent escape ONLY if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to others. If a police officer points a gun at a criminal and tells him to "FREEZE" he might as well say "RUN!"

 

[Isaac-1]

This assumes the police in your area are not known for hiding the bodies after they shoot the fleeing suspect

 

[Clipper]

Home invasions have become a favorite method for many of the punks in the Flint area, and quite often results in serious injury and death to the victim(s), even when the victims cooperate. I have a moral responsibility for the safety of myself and my family that is so far beyond my obligation to an invader that any comparison or mitigation becomes a non-issue. If someone breaks into my house, he has to be aware of a possibility, no matter how slight, that it may be occupied. In the event it is, he has basically three possible responses. Surrender, run or fight. As a husband and father it would be irresponsible of me to assume anything but the worst, that he would be willing to fight (read kill) to avoid getting caught. He may be a drunk on the wrong street, he might be someone out of work wanting to steal a can of soup to feed his kids. I may even sympathize with his position, but my obligation, my duty to my family and yes, myself demands I take no chances, and if he's unknown to me, I'm gonna use deadly force...And I don't think I'm gonna lose much sleep over it, either.

 

[JRH6856]

A somewhat common theme I have noted in various threads on this subject is the moral duty to protect others from exposure to the same threat you currently face. This leads to the determination to shoot or to try to apprehend a perpetrator, but not to allow him to escape as that would be a lapse of moral and ethical duty to the community.

I think this attitude is in keeping with the original intent of the 2nd Amendment's reference to the militia. The Founding Fathers were opposed to the idea of a standing army and intended for the militia, IOW, the armed citizenry, to provide for the common defense. In various writings of the time, there is also a reliance on the armed citizenry to provide support for the police power of the state.

That was then. Over time, the duties of the armed civilian citizen to provide defense for the state or to exercise police authority have been lifted and transferred to duly constituted authorities, commissioned and trained by the government at various levels. What remains for the armed citizen is the right and duty to defend self, home and family from criminal aggression and government tyranny.

It has been said that the most dangerous thing a police officer does is make a traffic stop. Actually, the most dangerous thing a police officer can do is arrest and secure a suspect without adequate backup. IOW, by himself. It can't be done with 100% safety.

To secure a subject, you must make contact with him, and to do that, you must surrender any advantage you have of distance and move within his reach. Before deciding to do this yourself. be very sure you know exactly what you are doing, why you are doing it and what could happen if things go wrong.

You may have started out to defend your family, but then having done so, surrendered your advantage to the BG and placed your family in greater danger than before.

Just something else to think about

 

[MuleRyder]

If someone was trying to break in while I was home, I would be armed and make it known to the BG, If he continued and made it inside and it was clear that I did not know this person, I would shoot. I hope it never happens, the last thing I want to do is kill another person. As far as holding someone at gunpoint, don't you risk being charged with kidnapping if you prevent someone from leaving?

 

[fallout mike]

Kidnapping someone who forced his, way into your house?

 

[Rail Driver]

Please, allow me to go back to my post for those of you that seem to have not read it completely.

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.

Nowhere did I or anyone else recommend this course of action, I simply mentioned that it is not, in fact, illegal.

 

[TenDriver]

If someone is in my house disconnecting the TV, they can have it. I don't want it on my conscience. However, if same individual notices me standing there watches me and moves in my direction, I will feel forced to fire.

The same would apply if he were to move towards any room my wife or son may be occupying. Justified / legal or not, I don't think I want to use deadly force to defend my property. That's what insurance is for.

 

[Zombiphobia]

most people will stop what they're doing when you present a firearm.

As a civilian, not on duty, I've had to present a weapon to ONE person, and he backed off. He was in a desperate situation and it's kind of understandable why he wanted in my car(he'd been abandoned in the middle of a national forrest for 4-5 days), but I'd already said no and back off. Didn't have to clear the holster but he knew, even in his condition and state of mind what was going to happen if he kept trying to open the door.

After the LEO arrived and we learned this man had outstanding warrants, lied about his identity etc.. I've questioned since then if I should have just gone ahead and shot him and THEN called the police. But I'm glad I didn't.

Sometimes in these discussions, I can make killing sound easier than it is or like I enjoy it more than I do, but it's a really horrible feeling either way, and I didn't know until the LEO informed me of his criminal history, so had I just shot him, I never WOULD have known, most likely and would always remember killing someone that I didn't have to. Might have been legally permissable and it'd be hard to prove otherwise, but I would know.

Now then, there are a lot of various factors that could have made that situation turn out differently, and to be frank, if he'd kept trying to get in the car I doubt I'd feel sorry for it. Would really hate remembering it, but probably wouldn't be sorry.

I know he sure appreciated the water and granola bars I brought back with me when I returned with the LEO though. Never even seen a stray dog that appreciative of food/water.

 

[mljdeckard]

Everyone should remember, that killing someone in self-defense is the second worst thing that can happen to you. Avoid it accordingly.

 

[JCinAK]

All arrests work on a bluff anyway. The police can't shoot a fleeing suspect either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner
In Tennessee v. Garner,The Supreme Court ruled that when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he may use deadly force to prevent escape ONLY if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to others. If a police officer points a gun at a criminal and tells him to "FREEZE" he might as well say "RUN!"

Depends on the crime comitted. For non-violent crimes that would generally be true.

In Alaska, even ordinary citizens can use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect in the following limited circumstances:

"A private person may use deadly force under this section only when and to the extent the private person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary to make the arrest or terminate the escape or attempted escape from custody of another who the private person reasonably believes


(1) has committed or attempted to commit a felony which involved the use of force against a person; or


(2) has escaped or is attempting to escape from custody while in possession of a firearm on or about the person."

 

[nickn10]

Should you?

Down deep inside I hope you know that this discussion is all BS. Half of you reason like a defense attorney, 10% like a victim too timid to make a tough decision and the rest seem to have thought out the situation and put their life and those of their loved ones ahead of any moral dilemma they may suffer from by killing a home invader. I ask you; will you feel worse killing an intruder or feel worse failing to act and your family gets killed? BTW I'm retired from Colorado dept of corrections. From discussions with inmates I've talked, listened and KNOW that you risk everything by negotiating with a hardened criminal. I absolutely believe that more good people are killed by bad people than bad people are killed by good people. One step inside my door without my permission is the killzone! The OP may be wrestling with his ghosts but each of us have to make that decision based on our values, morality will not be considered in a him or me situation.