Deadly Force in Defense of the Home

[Kleanbore]

We recently discussed a man who fired his gun and killed one of group of people who had been kicking his door. He faces murder charges, and as the lyrics of the old song about the man name Charlie who went to ride on the MTA put it, his fate is still unknown.

That man would have been much better off holding his fire while he waited to see what would happen next, ready to act if necessary.

Long ago, there was a man in my house who had entered unlawfully and who was threatening to kill me, and while I did not shoot, the presence of my firearm motivated him to cease, desist, and depart just at the last possible moment. That was a close one. I am very happy that it worked out that way.

.Sometimes people do have to shoot., or at least they believe it to be necessary and they do so. When that happens, other people, who were not there, will judge things afterward, based on whatever evidence is admitted at trial. "I feared for my life", or "we have castle doctrine" will not settle the cases.

Here is a compendium of some reports of actual cases in which defenders fired their guns, and how things turned out for them. Some of you may remember discussing some of them here.

Establishing Home Defense Thresholds - Home Defense

Visit CCW Safe to learn about the Castle Doctrine and how to establish home defense thresholds so you can keep your home and family safe and stay out of jail.

ccwsafe.com

​

Remember that these describe trial court results and charging decisions, and they are in no way precedential. Nonetheless, I think they are worth studying,

The author is a consultant whose specialty lies in the field of jury selection. I did not know that there was such a thing.

​

​

​

 

[Insignificant bill]

Yeah I wouldn't be shooting through the front door.

 

[JohnKSa]

One thing that has recently been driven home to me is that it can be very misleading to use the term "Castle Doctrine" because there doesn't seem to be solid general agreement about what it means and because the term rarely, if ever, actually appears in the official law. The result is that one state's "Castle Doctrine" can be radically different than another state's. One state might consider "no duty to retreat inside one's own home" to be "Castle Doctrine", while another might have already had that provision in their law before passing "Castle Doctrine"--in the latter state, maybe they consider "Castle Doctrine" to be the presumption that justification for deadly force exists when someone breaks into an occupied residence, as well as an inclusion of civil immunity for qualifying cases.

Rather than relying on any general explanation of "Castle Doctrine", one needs to look at the specific provisions for their region of interest. Assuming your state's "Castle Doctrine" follows the common themes of Castle Doctrine can provide a dangerously flawed understanding of legal reality.

 

[Kleanbore]

Rather than relying on any general explanation of "Castle Doctrine", one needs to look at the specific provisions for their region of interest. Assuming your state's "Castle Doctrine" follows the common themes of Castle Doctrine can provide a dangerously flawed understanding of legal reality.

True.

I think the best advice is to not shoot unless it is clear that there is no available alternative,

 

[JeffG]

You can kick on my door while I dial 911. You better pray God you don't kick hard enough to gain entry.

 

[Craig_AR]

To make it even more confusing, while every state has some form of a Castle Doctrine (no retreat required in your domicile), not all of them are in black letter law (statute). Some are in case law in the state courts, making it tricky for the typical non-lawayer to find and understand exactly how it works.

 

[DeepSouth]

Yet another problem that is solved by not shooting until you have no other option. It seems most people in these circumstances have chosen to shoot to early, but to be fair many of the ones that shot to late went to the cemetery so we don’t hear from them.

I guess what I’m trying to communicate is that we should have a bigger problem with taking a man’s life than having to legal consequences. The law is secondary when determining when to shoot, imo.

 

[shafter]

I wouldn't fire through a door unless I believed the attacker was about to open fire. I'd rather get 911 on the line and hold off until they made entry or gave up and went away. I'd really prefer to never have to shoot anyone if I was at all possible to avoid.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

You can kick on my door while I dial 911. You better pray God you kick hard enough to gain entry.

For me it's just the opposite. Pray to God you don't get through my door. I'm not gonna shoot through but if someone breaks it down and threatens my life they're gonna get lit up. There was a situation maybe 30 years ago where my obsession with hardening the perimeter likely the saved the life of someone trying to batter down my door. It was late at night on a weekend, a very drunk and belligerent man was at my door screaming, hammering on, trying to get in. He almost certainly had the wrong house and had a serious beef with someone he believed was inside. Nothing I said through the door would dissuade him from trying to break my door down but I had seriously reinforced the doors, hinges, jambs and locks on all the entries. Police response to my house/neighborhood ranged from five minutes to half an hour so the cops would have just been able to take a report had he gotten in. I was hunkered down behind three locked doors, BHP in hand and at low ready. He gave and left eventually. Odds are pretty good that someone would've been shot if he'd have breached those three doors. To this day I'm very thankful he did not. I was 150 lbs dripping wet, in good physical shape but no fighting ability beyond a few years of wrestling in junior high, and no-lethal weapons like pepper spray, etc.

 

[scaatylobo]

We recently discussed a man who fired his gun and killed one of group of people who had been kicking his door. He faces murder charges, and as the lyrics of the old song about the man name Charlie who went to ride on the MTA put it, his fate is still unknown.

That man would have been much better off holding his fire while he waited to see what would happen next, ready to act if necessary.

Long ago, there was a man in my house who had entered unlawfully and who was threatening to kill me, and while I did not shoot, the presence of my firearm motivated him to cease, desist, and depart just at the last possible moment. That was a close one. I am very happy that it worked out that way.

.Sometimes people do have to shoot., or at least they believe it to be necessary and they do so. When that happens, other people, who were not there, will judge things afterward, based on whatever evidence is admitted at trial. "I feared for my life", or "we have castle doctrine" will not settle the cases.

Here is a compendium of some reports of actual cases in which defenders fired their guns, and how things turned out for them. Some of you may remember discussing some of them here.

Establishing Home Defense Thresholds - Home Defense

Visit CCW Safe to learn about the Castle Doctrine and how to establish home defense thresholds so you can keep your home and family safe and stay out of jail.

ccwsafe.com

​

Remember that these describe trial court results and charging decisions, and they are in no way precedential. Nonetheless, I think they are worth studying,

The author is a consultant whose specialty lies in the field of jury selection. I did not know that there was such a thing.

​

​

​

Might I add to this.
If you do research on defending your 'castle' then do at least a bit on the OUTCOME of those that do.
You will find that the cost in money and harm to the shooter [ or whatever tool they use ] was so great that most would have been happier to find another way.
Court costs will [ not might ] be in the TENS of thousands.
The press will hound your house,family,ex teachers,work place = name it and they will be a real PITA.
I am not saying that I dont trust the old adage " better to be tried by 12,than carried by 6"
Just know that the "tried" part is going to be painful.
Could cost your house, marriage,job .
USCCA ,CCW and a few other insurance policys I would STRONGLY suggest any who go armed look at.

 

[TarDevil]

In North Carolina:

(b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to
another if both of the following apply:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was
attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Emphasis mine.

In my CC class (quite a few years ago), a lively discussion ensued on this topic, with the summation that;
a) deadly force is justified as someone is breaking in, but
b) if you wake up to find someone already in your home, deadly force is only justified by imminent threat.

 

[Kleanbore]

You can kick on my door while I dial 911. You better pray God you kick hard enough to gain entry.

Did you leave out some words?

 

[Kleanbore]

I wouldn't fire through a door unless I believed the attacker was about to open fire.

Even then, there would usually be much safer alternatives.

 

[Kleanbore]

I guess what I’m trying to communicate is that we should have a bigger problem with taking a man’s life than having to legal consequences.

Not to diminish the seriousness of faking a life, if it is the only way to prevent serious harm to oneself or family, I would find that less of an evil that a long imprisonment,

The law is secondary when determining when to shoot, imo.

Absolutely!!!!

 

[JeffG]

Did you leave out some words?

*edit applied.

 

[benEzra]

[Deleted, was commenting on the wrong case.]

 

[Shawn Dodson]

To make it even more confusing, while every state has some form of a Castle Doctrine (no retreat required in your domicile), not all of them are in black letter law (statute). Some are in case law in the state courts, making it tricky for the typical non-lawayer to find and understand exactly how it works.

Washington state use of force statute, RCW 9A.16.020(3), does not stipulate a duty to retreat as being necessary. Therefore case law, which is judicial interpretation and application of statute law, simply points out that the statute does not stipulate a duty to retreat.

However, Washington state does not have a Castle Doctrine statute, and as a result, the RCW 9A.16.020(3) applies.

In many states, forcible entry into an occupied dwelling is considered a violent crime by statute law.

 

[emb]

Someone once said that whatever you do today, you have to live with tonight. This is a touchy subject. Each state is different. You need to know, must know, what is justifiable in your state. General discussions won't cut it because all states are different-even with laws that seem the same. It is well worth the price to consult a lawyer where you live and develop a thorough understanding of the justifiable use of deadly force both in and out of your home.

 

[JDeere]

Even the "perfect" shoot is going to cost you some time, loss of weapon and lots of cash in most cases. If it can be avoided it would be wise to take that road...

 

[ms6852]

Another thing that people do not realize besides the cost involved in court and lawyers is that there is a higher cost more so than a financial cost. The psychological affect one can have for taking a human life is highly substantial more so than one can handle many times.

 

[JohnKSa]

I know of at least one person who committed suicide after being forced to kill an attacker to stop the attack.

 

[Jeff White]

Unfortunately most people have never been in a violent encounter. Everyone thinks it's just like Hollywood portrays it. TV and movie heroes experience extreme violence often "killing" several people in a gunfight and in the next scene it's like it never happened. PTSD gets a lot of press these days, but the public still doesn't really understand.

We are taught from early life that it's morally wrong to take a human life. Yes, those lessons often cover when it's not morally wrong but most people in American society still are wired not to take a life. My maternal grandfather killed a man who stepped out from between two parked cars in front of his car. I know for a fact that bothered him for the rest of his life. The fact that it was unavoidable wasn't a lot of comfort.

David Grossman used to (maybe still does) put on a seminar The Bulletproof Mind for LE. I attended one of those seminars. It was worth the time. Now that I've mentioned it, let's not rehash the "Sheep Dog" debate that was all the rage on gun forums after he started selling cassette tapes of the seminar and suddenly every armed citizen awarded himself the title of Sheep Dog.

 

[Kleanbore]

You need to know, must know, what is justifiable in your state.

I do not think that a civilian can reasonably be expected to mentally go through a kind of legal flowchart when the emergency arises. He or she will have to decide very, very quickly what is immediately necessary to do to survive. The mindset should be to shoot only if it is necessary.

Regarding knowing what is justifiable, it is probable best to understand what is not justifiable: shooting to protect property, firing at a fleeing felon. shooting for revenge or punishment, shooting to terminate trespass, and so on.

It is well worth the price to consult a lawyer where you live and develop a thorough understanding of the justifiable use of deadly force both in and out of your home.

That can help, if the lawyer has actual trial experience in the legal defense of self defense.

Much better, I think, would be a muti-day lecture or two with one of the preeminent self defend trial lawyers and very knowledgeable expert witnesses who can discuss a number of actual cases, including some that did not end well.

And again, it essential to know that when one can shoot is not the question.

 

[epags]

"Another thing that people do not realize besides the cost involved in court and lawyers is that there is a higher cost more so than a financial cost. The psychological affect one can have for taking a human life is highly substantial more so than one can handle many times."

This

 

[JTHunter]

Back in '89 or '90, an inebriated neighbor broke the latch on my storm door, coming after his g/f who had come over to use my phone to call the police. (They weren't real good at paying their bills and had lost their phone service.) MY mistake was I didn't close and lock the inner door. He came in while I was on the phone to the dispatcher, far enough to be past the open inside door (3-4'). I said to the dispatcher "He's here in my house and I'm pointing my gun at him! Now get out here !!". He was about 6' & 260 lbs. to my 5'7" and 220 lbs. so I was outmatched. FORTUNATELY, he wasn't so drunk that he failed to realize what he was facing (I was backed into a corner because I was on the phone) and he left without a shot being fired.
It took the police 10 minutes to arrive.
The next day, he came over to apologize and helped me fix my latch. They weren't "bad" people but he was living with her and her 3 kids, none of which were his. He sometimes got "physical" when he had drunk too much but SHE had a bad response by using things with sharp edges.