Is anyone aware of an account of an actual incident in which a home occupant fired one or more rounds or any caliber during a home invasion and in which the home invader continued the invasion (regardless of whether or not anyone was hit?
NewShooter said:Actually, in some states if an unarmed intruder enters your home you do not have a legal right to discharge your firearm. Its unfortunate but true.
NewShooter said:Actually, in some states if an unarmed intruder enters your home you do not have a legal right to discharge your firearm. Its unfortunate but true.
NewShooter said:Actually, in some states if an unarmed intruder enters your home you do not have a legal right to discharge your firearm. Its unfortunate but true.
Or you must be able to articulate a reasonable fear that he was armed, that changes the whole scheme of things.Actually, in some states if an unarmed intruder enters your home you do not have a legal right to discharge your firearm. Its unfortunate but true.
LightningJoe said:Actually, I'm asking people for any accounts with which they may be familiar which might serve to refute a hypothesis. Here's the hypothesis: Guns are so effective for home defense that the mere firing of a gun in response to a home invasion will almost always end the invasion. This hypothesis could be true or false. I'm trying to find out if anyone is aware of any actual encounters that would refute this hypothesis.
Double Naught Spy said:Your hypothesis is flawed. You are trying to extrapolate historic events to future situations where the historic events are mutually exclusive of future events. Because the events are mutually exclusive, the prediction isn't valid.
If you flip a penny, what are the chances it will come up heads?
If you flip a real penny and it comes up heads, what are the chances it will come up heads for the next flip?
If you flip a penny 99 times where it comes up heads, what are the chances it will come up heads on the 100th flip?
In each case, the chance of the flip coming up heads is the same, 50%. That is because each flip is mutually exclusive from all other flips. So you have had an amazing and statistically unlikely run of 99 flips to heads, those 99 flips give you no predictive power for the 100th flip.
Best done after - and only after - consultation with your attorney. (Your adrenaline-pumped memory in the immediate aftermath may get some details wrong. Best you and your attorney work together and reconstruct your memory so it matches all details before you articulate anything.)Or you must be able to articulate a reasonable fear that he was armed, that changes the whole scheme of things.
Read further into the postThere are no absolutes and it's all in how the story is told, that's why you hire a lawyer to tell your story
Okay, it is a thread hijack, but it is something you really need to know and I see you have your PMs turned off.Calamity Jane said:I've wondered a lot about this "armed/unarmed" thing. For one thing, if someone has broken into my home, and if I'm a 5-foot tall 120lb. female, can I not believe that he could harm me with his hands? Why would he need to be "armed"? Or pick something up in my house to use as a weapon? This seems like a grey area to me. What am I missing, or not thinking about?
Thain said:For non self-defense states, memorize the following mantra:
"I only meant to fire a warning shot. But in my haste and fear, my aim was off and I hit him center of mass. Oops."