Detaining Home Invader

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it comes down to this: Shooting based on anger, pride, bloodthirst & bravado vs. shooting to prevent potential loss of life. It is not possible to read some of these posts without concluding the former is in evidence.

As KleenBore just cautioned, let's hope none of these posts actually BECOME evidence.
 
like i said he gave up his right's when he came in my house......then i have the right to take care of it as i see fit...

That clearly sums up many poster's opinions in this thread.

If you find someone has entered your home and your state has a castle doctrine (and many of you do not have a clear understanding of exactly what that means and need to research it in Legal) you are presumed to be in imminent danger. This is one of the oldest codified principals and it is amazing that we ever had to beat back "duty to retreat" ideas. If during the course of confronting this person they attempt to flee or surrender to your armed response to the presumed threat you no longer have the presumption of imminent danger (frankly, if the POS surrenders or flee you don't have a reasonable threat to defend against from a simple self defense standpoint either) and you are no longer assured that a shooting is defensible. Ignore all the "in Texas we can shoot someone running off with my hog/dog/bush-hog" if you don't reside in Texas since the rest of the country just doesn't operate that way.

If some POS you find in your house surrenders or attempts to flee you are no longer clearly in danger and you have absolutely no assurance that you will not get charged for manslaughter or murder and end up in court and eventually in jail. If you are charged with manslaughter or murder you're going to get an education on the law and the personal and financial cost of not understanding your limitations under it. No amount of "he's in my house and I can do whatever I want" will keep you out of court or jail. The only thing that will is whether the shooting is considered to be justifiable under the law (and not some fantasy "law of the jungle").


I think it comes down to this: Shooting based on anger, pride, bloodthirst & bravado vs. shooting to prevent potential loss of life. It is not possible to read some of these posts without concluding the former is in evidence.

Amen to that!
 
Last edited:
When you're IN my house and not running AWAY from me, the time for talk has long passed.

While much of what Deanimator says certainly parallels my own beliefs, this statement somewhat misrepresents the crux of the problem under discussion here -- and leads directly to something I said before.

First point: The question is about detaining an invader. That presupposes that in the scenario at hand, the immediate need to defend life has passed and we are now facing an adversary who is at least temporarily at our mercy. "Detain" also indicates that the intruder now wants to leave. So, "when you're in my house and not running AWAY from me..." doesn't seem to directly apply.

(Unless, of course, you would take the intruder's act of stopping and throwing up his hands to be failing to run away... :scrutiny:)

Sure, someone smashes in your door and you leap off the couch with shotgun in hand -- shooting is probably quite justifiable. But in this scenario we appear to be discussing you discovering someone in your house, you "having the drop on" that someone who is not at the moment making a hostile act toward you, but rather desires to flee.

Second Point: Someone ENTERING a home can be (under many states' laws) automatically considered to be doing so with violent intent. But once that act of entering has passed, and you discover someone already IN your home, applying a universal "anyone found here will die, period" policy probably DOESN'T meet legal (or ethical) standards. You'll probably want to be able to articulate some justification for shooting beyond simply, "well, he was there."
 
Detaining a home invader is the wrong way to go. If a home invader or attacker is running away and has a gun in his possession he is fair game: He can turn and kill you in a heartbeat.

We have too many experts who intrepret law in your state based on the law in their less than self defense friendly state. In the state of OK our prosecutors are elected. An OK prosecutor is not required to take a self defense shooting case to the grand jury.

In a one year period our county prosecutor declined to take three self defense shooting cases to the grand jury.

This is a case where a person attempted to detain an unarmed guy who later
attacked him. Personally, I would not have tried to detain and would not have shot this big dumb kid:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071028_1_A27_hApro53278
 
like i said he gave up his right's when he came in my house......then i have the right to take care of it as i see fit...

A very Harrycallighanish statement, but actually he did not give up his rights and you do not have the right to deal with it as you see fit. Your domicle is not a law-free zone, and even criminals engaged in a crime in your home have a right to not be murdered. You seem to think that murder or manslaughter is not possible if it occurrs inside your home against a BG. Not so. If they are not a threat either because they have surrendered or are in the act of fleeing, you can be charged for shooting them. Even in Texas.

I will add this -- YOU SHOULD BE.
 
Ever think that while you're staring at an intruder in a ski mask in your living room, deciding whether to shoot or not shoot, HE or HIS PARTNER have already made the decision to kill you or your family?
 
If you find someone has entered your home and your state has a castle doctrine (and many of you do not have a clear understanding of exactly what that means and need to research it in Legal) you are presumed to be in imminent danger. This is one of the oldest codified principals and it is amazing that we ever had to beat back "duty to retreat" ideas. If during the course of confronting this person they attempt to flee or surrender to your armed response to the presumed threat you no longer have the presumption of imminent danger (frankly, if the POS surrenders or flee you don't have a reasonable threat to defend against from a simple self defense standpoint either) and you are no longer assured that a shooting is defensible. Ignore all the "in Texas we can shoot someone running off with my hog/dog/bush-hog" if you don't reside in Texas since the rest of the country just doesn't operate that way.

If some POS you find in your house surrenders or attempts to flee you are no longer clearly in danger and you have absolutely no assurance that you will not get charged for manslaughter or murder and end up in court and eventually in jail. If you are charged with manslaughter or murder you're going to get an education on the law and the personal and financial cost of not understanding your limitations under it. No amount of "he's in my house and I can do whatever I want" will keep you out of court or jail. The only thing that will is whether the shooting is considered to be justifiable under the law (and not some fantasy "law of the jungle").

i will take my chances with the LEO and judges in my county and state if the problem with someone in my house comes up......
 
i will take my chances

I guess that about sums it up.

Is there something further to add to this that hasn't already been said? We seem to now be pretty much repeating ourselves.
 
Ever think that while you're staring at an intruder in a ski mask in your living room, deciding whether to shoot or not shoot, HE or HIS PARTNER have already made the decision to kill you or your family?

A fact that will quickly be in evidence if he advances and/or refuses to retreat immediately. I have played this over and over. Door gets kicked in, BG's enter, shotgun is always within reach. I level at the BG while screaming Get out!! get out!! If he doesn't, I'm firing. If he does, I'm not.

I have drawn during an attempted carjacking. The BG immediately threw up his hands and backed away saying he didn't want any trouble. I am thankful he did, and that I didn't have to shoot him.
 
Ever think that while you're staring at an intruder in a ski mask in your living room, deciding whether to shoot or not shoot, HE or HIS PARTNER have already made the decision to kill you or your family?
In a home invasion scenario, that's my FUNDAMENTAL assumption, one backed up by Hayes and Kommisarjevsky.
 
I have not read all of the replies, so I may plow the same ground as other replies.

I am a big-city night-shift LEO, myself. I have been doing it long enough to get about all of the macho-ism and adventurism out of myself. If I find an intruder inside my home, I am either going to use deadly force right then and there, or give him an out, with emphasis on the latter. The reason? Detaining someone is fraught with danger!

If I am detaining someone, I have too much attention focused on him, when he may have unseen accomplices who will attack out of the darkness, from a blind side, or his getaway driver may come to his aid, toting an AK. (Don't scoff at this third case; this seems to be a recent trend in a certain big city in Texas.) If I am moving in to apply restraints, I am even more focused on the detained bad guy, making myself more vulnerable, and of course, then have to contend with desperate moves by the primary bad guy himself.

To be clear, in the paragraph above, I am not advocating shooting without justification. It also reflects what I would do if someone broke into my home, where I am likely to be the only effective defender, and does not necessarily reflect what I would do while on the clock, when I have an obligation to detain, and "the cavalry" likely to be on the way. Giving him an out also assumes that the intruder has not yet harmed any person in my home, and will not be in a position to do harm to anyone in the family on the way out.

Regarding the police arriving on the scene while a homeowner is detaining a burglar, well, there is simply no guarantee. Here, in Texas, officers are indeed well aware that it is likely a homeowner will be armed, but there is also the very human tendency for anyone holding a gun to turn with the gun, and therefore a homeowner who is tunneled-in on the intruder may well turn with the gun in hand when first perceiving officers, and therefore be seen as a threat by those officers. An officer is going to give his own safety the benefit of the doubt. Experienced officers, with some seniority, are more likely to have been there and done that enough to be able to read the situation accurately, whereas younger and/or less-experienced officers are more likely to be too quicker on the trigger, IMHO. In the dead of night, guess which officers are more likely to be responding to a burglary-in-progress?

Detain an intruder if you wish. It is your right to do so, in Texas, at least, where the arrest powers of private citizens are very much near those of peace officers. Just be informed, and be careful.
 
I think Rexster sums it up pretty well in post 115, with credibility and a Texas enforcement point of view:
I am a big-city night-shift LEO, myself. I have been doing it long enough to get about all of the macho-ism and adventurism out of myself.
Then, addressing the original question about detaining:

If I find an intruder inside my home, I am either going to use deadly force right then and there, or give him an out, with emphasis on the latter. The reason? Detaining someone is fraught with danger!

If I am detaining someone, I have too much attention focused on him, when he may have unseen accomplices who will attack out of the darkness, from a blind side, or his getaway driver may come to his aid, toting an AK. (Don't scoff at this third case; this seems to be a recent trend in a certain big city in Texas.) If I am moving in to apply restraints, I am even more focused on the detained bad guy, making myself more vulnerable, and of course, then have to contend with desperate moves by the primary bad guy himself.

Then, to the idea of gunning down anyone one has in one's sights:

To be clear, in the paragraph above, I am not advocating shooting without justification. It also reflects what I would do if someone broke into my home, where I am likely to be the only effective defender, and does not necessarily reflect what I would do while on the clock, when I have an obligation to detain, and "the cavalry" likely to be on the way. Giving him an out also assumes that the intruder has not yet harmed any person in my home, and will not be in a position to do harm to anyone in the family on the way out.

More on risk:
Regarding the police arriving on the scene while a homeowner is detaining a burglar, well, there is simply no guarantee. Here, in Texas, officers are indeed well aware that it is likely a homeowner will be armed, but there is also the very human tendency for anyone holding a gun to turn with the gun, and therefore a homeowner who is tunneled-in on the intruder may well turn with the gun in hand when first perceiving officers, and therefore be seen as a threat by those officers. An officer is going to give his own safety the benefit of the doubt. Experienced officers, with some seniority, are more likely to have been there and done that enough to be able to read the situation accurately, whereas younger and/or less-experienced officers are more likely to be too quicker on the trigger, IMHO. In the dead of night, guess which officers are more likely to be responding to a burglary-in-progress?

Rexter sums it up pretty well:
Detain an intruder if you wish. It is your right to do so, in Texas, at least, where the arrest powers of private citizens are very much near those of peace officers. Just be informed, and be careful.

He did leave out one thing, however: the citizen is not indemnified by the county. That could really make one rue the day.

That should do it for this one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top