Father protects family

Status
Not open for further replies.
in va thats a good shoot some other states not so much
Click to expand...

Have they changed things here? It was always my understanding that you had to be in fear for your life (or the life of a third party) before you could use deadly force. I'd imagine someone who hasn't even breached the house perimeter would not qualify under that.

I am really asking as I would sure like to know.
 
Hmm, two dumb dumbs breaking into an occupied home. That happened here in CT and a mother and her two kids ended up being sexually assaulted and burned alive. I'm all for taking them out at the door before you get blind sided through another entrance. If it was some drunk trying to get in the wrong house, well, don't get that drunk.. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Tragic? Yes. More tragic, however, if the intentions were more sinister and your family paid the price for the indecision.
 
It is unfortunate that the young man made a bad decision and decided to break into someone's house. Be that as it may, the homeowner (and father of 2) cannot be expected to wait for the intruder/s to enter his house before defending his family. If the teenagers were simply creeping around his property and he was taking shots at them out of a window that would be almost indefensible. But, these guys were actively trying to gain entry to the house for reasons that must be assumed malicious. If the guy killed wasn't so young and well liked there wouldn't be as much as an issue. That shouldn't matter. It's a sad case, but I am glad the father successfully protected his family.
 
Posted by Ben86: ...the homeowner (and father of 2) cannot be expected to wait for the intruder/s to enter his house before defending his family.
Click to expand...
Depends upon the jurisdiction. In some states, deadly force is permissible if it is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful entry. In others, entry must actually have occurred. In others, there must be reason to believe that, in addition to the unlawful entry, the intruder intends to harm someone in the house. In others, as mcdonl points out, the phrase "and...is likely to commit some other crime within the dwelling place" comes into play. Various states specify that the unlawful entry must be attempted or made "with force", "tumultuously", or "with force or by stealth", and some jurisdictions, that is not specified at all. In a few, however. the fact of even a forcible and unlawful entry into one's home does not enter into directly into justification.

There are states in which reading the criminal code reveals nothing indicating that a person may use deadly force in the event of unlawful entry into the home, but the justification of same and the conditions under which it is justified has been set forth in high court decisions.

Again, the incident at hand occurred in Utah. It would appear that the shooting was justified, but I do not know the case law.

It is not a good idea to decide what one would do without having a good understanding of the law and case law in one's own jurisdiction.
 
It is not a good idea to decide what one would do without having a good understanding of the law and case law in one's own jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Very true.

In others, there must be reason to believe that, in addition to the unlawful entry, the intruder intends to harm someone in the house.
Click to expand...

I'd hate to be one of those states, talk about having to wait until the last second. Typical legal product of ideologues.
 
There is a lot of confusion in the gun community about what the castle doctrine is, and how it applies. There is a fair amount of misinformation floating in this thread and in others. Don't go to random message boards hoping for legal advice.

That being said, here is another random message board post on the subject, take it for what its worth:

The common law castle doctrine, which exists in every jurisdiction I am aware of, is a special case of the defense of self or others. The basic rule is that a person has a right to use lethal force if the reasonably believe that they or another is in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm. Reasonable is based on what the person who was defending themselves knew at the time. Imminent is fuzzy and may be interpreted differently depending on the jurisdiction.

The castle doctrine has existed in common law for centuries and basically presumes that if someone has forcibly entered, it is reasonable to believe that they have intent to kill or grievously injure someone in the home. That means lethal force is permitted within the home (businesses were not included) if a person has broken in. Some jurisdictions expand this to include attempted entry into the home, but merely trespassing on the real property on which the dwelling sits is not enough. The common law castle doctrine just removes the requirement that the home owner show that his belief was reasonable.

If, for example, the scenario in the article occurred in a jurisdiction that does not apply the castle doctrine to attempted entry, self defense can still be claimed, but the homeowner must show that his belief that he or someone else was in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm was reasonable.

As for the case of the man pounding like a madman to get in to call for help, self defense can still be claimed if the shooter's belief in the threat was reasonable. The actual facts that the shooter was not aware of don't matter.

Don't take this a legal advice. This is based on my understanding of the law, and I am not a criminal lawyer, but I do read up on these issues. This is just another anonymous post on a random message board, so check your state's law, but remember that common law rules don't always show up in the statutes.
 
Quote:
In others, there must be reason to believe that, in addition to the unlawful entry, the intruder intends to harm someone in the house.
Click to expand...
I'd hate to be one of those states, talk about having to wait until the last second. Typical legal product of ideologues.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of any jurisdiction where that is the rule.
 
I wonder how they define the plane that separates the home from the outside world in Utah.
Click to expand...

That's something that everyone should know for their state.

In Florida lanais are very popular. It's basically a big aluminum framed, screened in back porch. Even though it's only screen, Florida considers the lanai part of your dwelling (and it's square footage is added to your tax bill).

If someone is breaking into your sliding glass door, which usually leads to the lanai in Florida, the person is already, technically, in your home and you may defend yourself accordingly.
 
Good shoot...

Catastrophic failure in the victim selection process. Hopefully the consequences of this will deter a few teens that like this kind of thing for fun.

Tragic that a young man died but he willingly chose his actions. The home owner didn't have the choice to have this man break into his home or not. He could only choose to defend himself and his children or watch as a nightmare unfolded with his family in the starring role.

Maybe we parents need to be allowed by the powers that be to teach our kids responsibility and the consequences of action.. I understand this was a "Good Kid"... Obviously not.

Simple choice. I hope I never find myself in his place.

Like I said... Good shoot.
 
Here in WI, unfortunately, that would probably be viewed as a bad shoot.
I hope we change that in 2011.

As of now you have to "reasonably believe your life or the lives of others are in imminent mortal danger" in order for it to be a good shoot.

Just because someone is breaking in doesn't mean anyone's life is in imminent danger.
 
It's very tragic, indeed, but know THIS - unless you want the law to mandate that YOU have to WAIT and verify if someone IS or IS NOT armed before you are legally justified in using legal force against someone unknown to you breaking into your home by force, in the day or dark of night, DISADVANTAGE = you and your family.

I won't even get into the civil litigation angle, which IMO, should also provide a solid affirmative defense for this homeowner.

All states should adopt the 'castle law', allow homeowners to use lethal force against those breaking into their OCCUPIED homes, and not require any home occupant to retreat or be under an very difficult legal and practical obligation of having to determine whether the intruder is or is not armed (and with what type of weapon) before being allowed to use lethal force to stop the intrusion.
 
Some meth-head broke into my house last year. Put a 357. through his leg. The bastard sued me, i had my wife and two grandkids in the house. The court ruled in my favour, but the nerve of some crims is dispicable!

P.S. he had a large crowbar and a j-frame in his belt....
 
Some meth-head broke into my house last year. Put a 357. through his leg. The bastard sued me, i had my wife and two grandkids in the house. The court ruled in my favour, but the nerve of some crims is dispicable!

P.S. he had a large crowbar and a j-frame in his belt....
Click to expand...

I think we've all heard about the burglars that hurt themselves burglarizing someone's home and try to sue the home owner. They will try to get money any illegitimate way they can.
 
mcdonl said:
I am sure I am going to get flamed for this... but... short of the fact an 18 year old died, I do not see a tragedy here at all. I see a tragedy avoided. I see that if nothing else, the tools of self defense were used efficiently and successfully, and I would like to assume that some mindset and hardened security led to the successful protection of the mans loved ones.

Google Steven Spader (17 year old, boy scout, "good kid", "peaceful", according to family and friends) He was charged with 2 counts of murder, and 1 count of attempted murder... the only reason it was only two counts of murder and not three is because the 11 year old girl he hacked away at with a machete had the presence of mind to play dead.

So if you consider the family who was featured in this post as "Family A", and the family I referenced as "Family B" there is only one tragedy. The teens in Mt Vernon NH "Knew before they entered the home, that their goal was to kill the occupants...." They wanted to see what it was like to murder someone.

Given that, any intruder who is attempting to break into your home, of any age should be considered a grave threat and treated as such.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you! I am a husband and a father of a new born boy. I can imagine what the home owner was thinking at the time, he did not know if there were more intruders probably already in the house, he did what he had to do to protect his children. It is sad that somebody had to die as a result of all this, But if a couple of bad guys brake into your home I am sure is not to say hi and have a cup of coffee. HE DID WHAT HE HAD TO DO TO PROTECT HIS FAMILY.
 
I would go to any extent to protect my family. If you make the decision to take or break any personal proprety of mine I allready feel threatned. How do I know that your smart enough to not kill me or my family, I will take you out as soon as you give me the opportunity.
When I was 15 I heard a loud crash on the deck I switched over to our surveillance cameras and saw someone trying to push in the door I called 911 put it on speaker and left it on, grabbed my dads shot gun that was in the closet cocked it and announced that I have a gun and will kill you. He took off just as the cops pulled in, he then tried to have me arrested for attempted murder. Where is the logic in this? Their is none he was another law breaking citizen. The cops talked him out of it and he was taken away.
 
does anyone know about the law in michigan in regards to an assailant attempting to break into your home? Is shooting in self defense permitted in this case?
 
DetroitStudent,

There's not likely anyone here really qualified to answer your question- it would take a practicing criminal defense attorney familiar with the law (both statute law and case law) in your jurisdiction to give you any kind of reliable answer.

And I doubt you want an UNreliable answer. Imagine yourself in a courtroom, and the best excuse you can offer is, "Well, some guy on the Internet told me I could... ."

Initial consults with most attorneys in my area are free, check around where you live to see if it's the same way there. And when you find a defense attorney you like, hang onto his or her business card just in case.

Speaking of free, they don't charge admission to courtrooms either. Go sit in on a serious felony case or two sometimes, and get an idea how things go in court. It's a good education...

lpl
 
Pure Darwinism...

We wouldn't even be discussing this if the burglar was a 34 year old meth addict with a history of violent crime. But of course, the homeowner couldn't know whether it was an 18 year old trying to steal beer, or a hardened criminal intent on murdering his family without allowing him into the house first, could he?

Good shoot. The only sad part of this is that the homeowner will suffer guilt and regret about it.
 
Quote:
In others, there must be reason to believe that, in addition to the unlawful entry, the intruder intends to harm someone in the house.

Quote:

I'd hate to be one of those states, talk about having to wait until the last second. Typical legal product of ideologues.

I am not aware of any jurisdiction where that is the rule.
Click to expand...

North Carolina. :banghead:

wrs840 said:
In NC, you can shoot someone who is forcefully breaching your door. Once they're actually in, you must reapply the same threat-to life standards as if it was on the street. Just another of our convoluted gun laws.
Click to expand...
 
It's impossible to know the mind of the intruder or the homeowner, but I'm sure that none of us wants to shoot some kid. I will do whatever I have to, in order to protect my family, but I don't want to take a life in the process.

It's sad that those young men seem to have been up to no good in the middle of the night. It's also sad that the homeowner will have to live with ending the life of a young person.

I've had the experience of being the target of an attempted home invasion. Mine was much more cut-and-dried. They used a young woman to knock and cry for help. When that didn't work, two men took turns kicking my front door. I was waiting in ambush in the dark living room, talking to the dispatcher on the phone. Fortunately for all of us, the men gave up before the steel door did. Also lucky for everyone, they ignored a large window that was right next to them.

All my best,
Dirty Bob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
This is why you don't chase after the bad guy.
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
151
Views
4K
Luger_carbine
L
B
Securing Glass Doors
2 3
Replies
73
Views
2K
old lady new shooter
O
mljdeckard
  • Locked
Solid HD shooting.
Replies
17
Views
1K
mortablunt
M
E
  • Locked
Home Invaders and Protecting Yourself
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
JamisJockey
J
A
  • Locked
Man shoots and kills home-invasion robber
Replies
9
Views
590
RLsnow
R
Back
Top