Castle Doctine: You can, but should you?

[Loosedhorse]

I ask you; will you feel worse killing an intruder or feel worse failing to act and your family gets killed?

Or feel worse not shooting, and no one gets killed?

Or feel worse killing a confused drunk who actually posed no true threat to your family?

Or feel worse killing a true criminal without warning, when a verbal challenge would have sent him running?

Or feel worse exposing yourself to arrest and your family to the financial hardships of a trial (or two) because you shot someone, when you could have resolved things without shooting someone?

Ah, imponderables! He who gets to ask the questions gets to determine the answers.

We can "what if" this to death; but when a jury asks me why I shot someone, I'd rather be able to say "Because he was about to kill me" rather than "Because he was about to break in." YMMV.

 

[The-Reaver]

Rail-Driver Said

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.

Good buddy, you took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[JoeMal]

I would clearly yell while he/she is breaking in that I am aware of his/her presence and I have a firearm trained on the door, ready to shoot. It they continue, and are successful, at breaking in well then I'll shoot.

 

[mljdeckard]

Remember, Joe Horn had a few more things working in his favor. Not the least of which being that he is in Texas. Also, that he had it recorded on record; "I am in fear for my life." He established that he was in fear, and in a way that it was difficult for anyone to prove otherwise.

 

[nickn10]

Or feel worse not shooting, and no one gets killed?

Or feel worse killing a confused drunk who actually posed no true threat to your family?

Or feel worse killing a true criminal without warning, when a verbal challenge would have sent him running?

Or feel worse exposing yourself to arrest and your family to the financial hardships of a trial (or two) because you shot someone, when you could have resolved things without shooting someone?

Ah, imponderables! He who gets to ask the questions gets to determine the answers.

We can "what if" this to death; but when a jury asks me why I shot someone, I'd rather be able to say "Because he was about to kill me" rather than "Because he was about to break in." YMMV.

I stated an INTRUDER, not a drunk or a poor misguided criminal who once warned of his misdeed would scurry out the door . You may suffer with guilt or second guessing but I weigh the immediate and act accordingly. I am not a socialworker. Why would you want to send a "true criminal" running? Do you want to leave the hard decision to your neighbor who may suffer because you couldn't deal with it. Home invasions and car jackings are real and often result in serious injury or death. BTW answer the question I asked and you quoted, don't add your what ifs to change my question to suit your agenda.

 

[BellyUpFish]

I'd make the suggestion that he leave as loudly as I can. I'd let him know the police are headed this way.

If he keeps coming, as soon as I can verify he's a threat, he will be aerated.

 

[shiftyer1]

I wouldn't shoot thru the door.......breech the door I wouldn't hesitate. I live on several hundred acres of posted land (not all mine). Yes I have confronted people, actually more of a "ya'll need some help" type of thing. I was armed but nobody knew but me, everyone knows it's wrong to cross the threshold of a home. I had a golden retriever in the house that I trained not to cross to the carpet.

In the end it boils down to how much do you value your possesions or your life. I said I wouldn't shoot thru a door but.........if I felt thats what was needed thats what i'd do.

 

[41 Mag]

I personally would hope and pray to never be in this situation. This said however, it seems to be more the norm day after day where folks feel they are entitled to kick in someone door tie them up and rob, rape or worse.

I have had my home broken into once, and the thought of it happening while my wife was here and unable to protect herself dwelled on me for a LONG time afterwords. In fact it still is in my mind just about every day.

This said, I personally feel that my home is my sanctuary, I put in the time, finances, sweat and blood to keep it what it is. It might not be a palace by any stretch, but it's mine, and I do not feel it is simply an arbitrary act of kindness to allow someone to simply kick in my front door and take what they want.

If they are drunk, they will never kick it in. If they are a teenager, they will not kick it in by themselves, and that in of its self will prove to me there is intent. Around here the teenagers which feel they have a quest to before they hit the legal penitentiary age to break in or steal what ever they feel like is ridiculous. I do not feel nor will I feel or be made to feel it is my responsibility to decide they are making a simple mistake when they cross my threshold. Once they have done so against my will, they have given up their right to a trial, unless they survive.

I am sorry, but I have been victimized on more than one occasion by seemingly good intentioned people, who used my good nature against me. My home will not be the place I let this happen. My home is just that, mine, and no person has any rights to be in it other than who I allow in.

I am sorry but around here, the BG's don't operate individually, they are teams, and just because the first one through the door has nothing in his hands, doesn't mean there aren't several more right behind them which are armed. Like I said, one person isn't going to simply kick in my front door, and I sure as heck am not going to question why, if they do, much less if they are coming through a window. The initial reaction will be hitting the 911 button on my alarm system, then hitting it on speed dial on my cell phone. I will then do what I feel is necessary to protect myself, my wife, and whatever I have inside my home to the fullest extent of my ability. That is my decision and it isn't decided by me, it will be decided by the thug who forces it.

As has been mentions this can be skewed to come out any number of ways, but the end result is, my home, my decision at the time, and no way to predetermine what the outcome will be until that time and set of circumstances arises.

 

[Loosedhorse]

a drunk or a poor misguided criminal who once warned of his misdeed would scurry out the door

If they are drunk, they will never kick it in

Hmmm. I'm not sure all drunks behave the way you suggest. But then, I've dealt with a lot of them.

Why would you want to send a "true criminal" running?

So I don't have to shoot him, and/or I don't have to hold him at gun-point, and/or don't have to cuff him...

Do you want to leave the hard decision to your neighbor who may suffer because you couldn't deal with it.

Ah. "Your honor, I shot him to save my neighbor a hard decision." Novel defense, and clarifies that you have an agenda besides defense of self and family. I guess if you feel it's your job to do that, then you could live with killing someone you had a choice not to, and could deal with (and have your family deal with) the legal, er, entanglements that follow.

I know that's not my job, so I couldn't.

BTW answer the question I asked

I did, by posing my additional questions: that is my answer to your false-dichotomy question.

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

We have the Castle Doctrine here in Ohio, but in order for it to apply, the person must be entering or have entered the home or vehicle.

I ain't shooting someone not in my home, especially if he's not armed (and most burglars are not armed). However, as my home defense weapon is a Garand w/ fixed bayonet, if he tries to get past me, he's gonna run into a piece of 10" long steel, whether he's armed or not.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

As I see it, for true tactical and legal reasons, Castle Doctrine basically means you are not required to flee your own home in face of a threat of imminent death or greivous bodily harm. Other than no duty to retreat from your own home, I read it as justification of use of lethal force is still controlled by common law on self-defense: a reasonable person would be in fear of life or limb right then and there if they did not act.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Carl N. Brown: As I see it, for true tactical and legal reasons, Castle Doctrine basically means you are not required to flee your own home in face of a threat of imminent death or greivous bodily harm. Other than no duty to retreat from your own home, I read it as justification of use of lethal force is still controlled by common law on self-defense: a reasonable person would be in fear of life or limb right then and there if they did not act.

The elimination of the duty to retreat is part of it, but do not overlook the elimination of the responsibility of the defender to produce evidence supporting a reasonable belief that he or she had been in imminent danger...

 

[Fred Fuller]

Ragnar, if you don't have an answer by now, I kinda doubt you're going to get one. But if you aren't happy with what's appeared so far, feel free to restate your question and start another thread. I don't think there's much left that is really constructive for this one, and there's been enough ... less than constructive stuff ... posted here already.