Home Defense lethal use of force question...

[borrowedtime69]

i have desided on getting a Mossy 500 Persuader 20 ga for home defense. its the best i can do with what i got. i also have a Ruger 22/45 .22 LR for back up.

I live in CO, a state that has a "Make My Day" Law. It means basically that if someone breaks into my house and i feel that i am threatened, i have the right to use leathal force to defend my family and home without worry of prosecution or of being sued.

My question is; in a home invasion situation, would it be better to warn and/ or shoot the invader and if he tries to get away, let him go? Or would it be better to kill the individual?

if i let them go, how much should i fear the bad guy returning at some later date for another try at me and family, maybe with some "freinds" along with him? If i kill, i wouldnt have to worry about him coming back and being a continued threat. However, do these criminals network for the most part? would i have to worry about retaliation from freinds or family?

Thanks to all -Eric

 

[Lou629]

Priorities....

Eric,
It seems to me that if you ever did ( God forbid ) find yourself actually in the situation(s) you're describing, the last thing you're going to worry about is replacing the carpet & whatnot. As for whether to warn or not, my idea is that if he's bailing out when i first see him then let him run. ( No doubt there'd be a whole lot less trouble from the LEO & CSI types over why they found him with a load of #1 buck in his back. ) Other than that, if there's a situation that's worthy of putting the gun on him in the first place, and he's not moving away from me on first sighting, then he's gonna wish he had, for about as long as it takes for the gun to go "BANG" once the trigger gets pulled, that is.

 

[Schmitty]

Every state's "self-defense" defense against murder/manslaughter prosecution is obviously very different. Florida's is largely considered the most lenient where upon forcible entry of an occupied vehicle or dwelling the occupant can legally assume that the offender is posing an imminent peril to one's life or will cause great bodily injury. Under these standards it appears that you may be justified in shooting a fleeing offender who has forcibly entered your residence/dwelling/occupied vehicle. You are treading on very thin ice however, whereas if the offender has fled you dwelling/residence/occupied vehicle he may no longer pose an imminent peril to your life (or an imminent threat to cause great bodily injury).

That all being said, Colorado's law concerning the justifiable use of force is different, as is each state. You need to research this yourself and even contact a competent attorney before such an instance arises.

Justified use of force statutes generally require the defendant to exhaust all other reasonable means of defense or avoidance of conflict. What is reasonable depends on the individual state.

As far as you assessment of CO law I think that you may be basing this information more no hearsay than a direct reading of the statute. I suggest that, at least, you read the specific language of the statute. I would be very careful about shooting a fleeing suspect. You will be hard pressed to defend against the state's preponderance of the evidence standard that you did still indeed felt threatened to the point where deadly force is justified. The offender most likely is not all that threatening when he has his back turned and is actively fleeing.


One thing that we all need to remember is that justified use of force statutes do not give homeowners free-reign to use deadly force without consequence. The decision to protect your home and family with a firearm is a right that must be expressed with extreme care; great responsibility is the burden that must be borne us.

 

[Low-Sci]

I'd say without a doubt...

If you have even a half a second to do so, warn the intruder. There doesn't seem to me to be any sense in forcing a shoot/no-shoot situation. If you warn an intruder that you're armed and the police are coming, he won't hang out long unless he's deeply disturbed.

Shooting someone is a heavy load to have on your conscience, warranted or not. Lots of people can tell you that even when someone had it coming, and it was an "us or them" situation, its traumatic.

If you absolutely have to, shoot. If you think you can make him run away without endangering anyone else, do that first.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[Preacherman]

Massad Ayoob and Clint Smith both emphasize to their students that if you shoot someone in self-defence, no matter how justified, legal and legitimate your actions were, you've just bought a Suburban you'll never drive. It'll cost you $25K+ to defend yourself against the likely lawsuit(s) brought by family members of the deceased, "who wouldn't hurt a fly, and was gunned down by a brutal racist/mysoginist/anything-else-ist-that-we-can-think-of". This, of course, assumes that you don't need to defend yourself against criminal charges...

If you can defend yourself without having to shoot anyone, that's a win for you on the spot, and a huge saving of money further down the road. If you can't defend yourself successfully without having to shoot, then shoot - money is less important than your life and/or the lives of your loved ones.

 

[22-rimfire]

Preacherman +1+

Using lethal force inside your home should be a last resort. I would rather deal with the family of the deceased more that a crippled intruder who claims to be innocent and so forth. You make your decisions and then you have to live with it. Review the state laws. Take a handgun carry class to introduce you to the concepts.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

The Colorado "Make My Day" law:

18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
Statute text
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

(emphasis added by me.)

 

[Trisha]

Or would it be better to kill the individual?

My stars, where to begin? Eric, there shouldn't be any connotation for there to be only one intruder, albeit a convenience of conversation or an unconscious and automatic previsualization of some extreme crisis that could justify/necessitate the use of deadly force. In itself, that is a trap that needs to be deliberately and patiently erased from your way of thinking as a gun owner who is pondering self-defense questions. It begs tactical realities common to urban environs in general - and Denver in particular has no defecit in organized street gang diversity (demographically, much less by region of the city's metro area), not to mention amateur criminals-of-opportunity, crack-heads, tweakers, etc.

Plan for the worst-case scenario, train to overcome it with several variations (points of entry, sequence of entry, force of entry, immediate determination of minimum certain numbers, points of vulnerability for goblin back-up, and so on). Do you have safe sight-lines? By that, I mean that in an urban setting, there are penetration points both inside and outside your home that would be acutely unwise to have as a backstop to live fire, no matter how justified: is your residence masonry, or standard wood frame/sheetrock? In a 360-degree sweep of at least 50 yards around your residence, are there known bedrooms that could be penetrated by wide/missed/accidental live fire? (Expand on that idea as part of your training of what NOT to do) The goblin(s) intrinsically don't give a care to safety - but you'll face the possibility of being held responsible for how it all goes down no matter what - permanently, in at least a few cases.

Do you know/have you even met any of the DPD District cops for your neighborhood yet? One used to be able to get local crime stats that included gang activity in Denver - check into it. Do you have an experienced defense attorney lined up? Spending an hour or so with one is an eye-opener, and this is the time to do the prelim work, not later.

Do you have a handle on the notion of second-order consequences? As they relate to your job? As they relate to your family? As they relate to potential retaliation? Do you have funds socked away to cover a worst-case scenario (whatever you determine that could encompass)? Do you accept that using deadly force and surviving the weeks and months that follows could very well see you needing formal mental health counseling? Law enforcement gets free access to it as part of the job - being a civilian means plan ahead.

You will fight the way you've trained. If there is no training, no practiced, studied, previsualized plan, then it's pretty likely to be a SHTF FUBAR nightmare that may have little opportunity for a favorable resolution in any aspect.

And right ot not, the general public will forever see you afterwards in that light.

Food for thought.

YMMV.

Trisha

 

[borrowedtime69]

thanks all!

thanks to all of you for your advice and thoughts, thats why i come to this website. i'll be working it all over. all these concerns over legal issues for self defence and the like are why i dont carry concealed, its seriously not worth it TO ME, i dont want to risk imprisonment even if by some miracle i did everything right. in todays society i cant believe how much on the criminals side the law and alot of the people are. this nation is indeed in deep trouble when society protects the criminal over the innocent. Thanks again -Eric

 

[SSN Vet]

a line in the sand

I personally have a line in the mental sand.....

People are upstairs....stuff is downstairs...

Take all the stuff you want downstairs.....

When I can feel my pulse throbbing in my temples, I want a KISS tactic.

Come up that stair case and your not going to live to contradict my side of the story.

Fortunately....the state of Maine will back me up....

I don't have to run and hide
I don't have to see a weapon first
If BG is in my house....I'm right and BG is wrong....(only exception is if BG is an invited guest....then I'm supposed to ask BG to leave first).

As for the law suite.....that's what a counter suite is for....or I can file bankruptcy and let them try to get their hands on my assets.

I'm getting more and more skepticle about the "expert" advise people pay money for......If they're getting paid to be experts....they should know the law in each state of residence and tell you exaclty what YOUR situation is.

Lord help you if you live in The Peoples Republic of Massachusettes....BG would have to be raping your second daughter with a gun to your head before you could avoid prosecution.

And if that's not worth a Suburban to stop...what is?

 

[Trisha]

borrowedtime69;

One makes decisions in this as one is able to live with, no more. Some come to different realizations after surviving violence, or enduring seeing violence committed on another while being (for any number of real reasons - ex: multiple attackers) incapable of decisively rendering aid.

To me - just to me, there is a calming sense that comes over me when I review the specifics (and more) that I touched, and when combined with a throrugh and demanding day at the range engaged in live-fire practice as well as discussion with a range master or other shooting companion I accept a clear knowledge of the beginnings of my minimum capabilities across the board of my humanity should I be confronted with an extreme crisis.

I invest mental and physical and fiscal and scheduling resources routinely and with priority to that end solely because the real world demands it as a common and basic skill set, in my eyes. It isn't for everyone. But it does color how I view everyone with whom I come into contact:

Are they someone I would intuitively trust to have my back - or not?

Food for thought.

As an aside, having some degree of formal training in practical martial arts, there is surprisingly little difference in legal ramifications if one defeats/disables/kills unarmed (aside from obvious downrange concerns), IMO.

YMMV

Kudos for your honesty.

Trisha

 

[Mauserguy]

I may talk tough sometimes, but, in truth, the last thing I every want to do is to shoot somebody. My plan is to put a gun on the intruder, and give him one verbal warning to stop. If he doesn't pee his pants and run, well, he made that unfortunate decision, and my conscience will be clear.
Mauserguy

 

[RonC]

I completed a Home Defense course in Denver a few weeks ago and received an NRA certificate (that, and $4.50 will get you a cappuccino at Starbucks).

An attorney was present for the classroom session. He told us that to respond with a lethal weapon, you must have the following fulfilled:
1. Bad guy made or is in the process of making an unlawful entry
2. Your sincere belief that the person has or intends to committ a crime in your home;
3. Your belief that the person will bring harm to you or others present in your home - they are an imminent threat.
'BELIEF' is the key word.
That said, he also told us that we are not permitted to shoot someone if they are in the process of leaving the house, even if they are carrying property of ours. You cannot shoot to protect property. So, if the person has your prized plasma, large-screen TV and is on the way out, you are not justified to shoot.

We were taught to call out a warning while preparing to shoot. If you yell 'Stop, get down on the ground,' and the person follows your orders, you can't shoot. If you yell a warning and they start to leave the house, you can't shoot. You could tackle the goblin, but not shoot.

One fellow asked if he could shoot a person threatening his dog in his own yard, and the answer was that the dog is considered property, so he couldn't shoot. That interpretation by the lawyer really grated on the participants.

I hope that helps.

Ron

 

[EmGeeGeorge]

If someone breaks INTO your house, has forcibly accessed a locked or secured interior portion of your home with direct access to you or yours... and he sees you or is aware you are home, and doesn't run... put a load of #4 buck into his liver... don't shoot a fleeing man in the back, but if her "has no fear" I'd plan on redoing the house in hardwood once you mop up the blood and guts...

 

[sacp81170a]

So, if the person has your prized plasma, large-screen TV and is on the way out, you are not justified to shoot.

So what if I just shoot the prized plasma large screen TV? If I can't have it, then neither can the sumb**** who's trying to steal it...

 

[RonC]

"So what if I just shoot the prized plasma large screen TV? If I can't have it, then neither can the sumb**** who's trying to steal it..."

I'd have to be careful. Since I don't have a plasma, large screen TV, the guy in my house would be bringing it IN!

Ron

 

[vynx]

I think its best to give the guy a chance to run away.

Like others here have said the financial and emotional consequences are not worth it unless you have no other choice.

My wife has the "I don't know if I could shoot someone" attitude. I encourage her NOT to waste time trying to make a decision on whethor a home invader/burglar/rapist (who really knows) will do her harm or not - my advice to her is fire into the ceiling, aim at the corner of the bedroom near the doorway (i know the cieling has double 2x6 joists at that spot). If anyone doesn't leave after hearing the shot and comes into the bedroom kill them because they mean to kill you.

I believe the ceiling is a safe backstop because my wife only shoots a .380 or light .38 loads so we don't worry about over-penitration but its something you need to consider and plan for ahead of time. A 20 gauge at that spot in our ceiling should be ok also.

 

[Kentak]

Oh, good grief! I don't care what the law says. If you have a chance to have the bad guy get away without anyone getting shot, why not?

If you are that worried about him coming back to get you, what if you kill him and he has a whole family of very bad motorforkers who now have a vendetta against you?

I think if I were the bad guy, I'd thank my lucky stars I didn't get my head blown off and be happy never to see you again in my life.

K

 

[JohnKSa]

I always figure that if you are in such a situation and have the time or inclination to wonder if you should shoot or not, that's ample proof to yourself that you don't need to and therefore shouldn't.