Home defense scenario

[Hugger-4641]

I brought up a scenario in another thread about a different topic and was asked to pose it here in legal for opinions on the ramifications and possible legal consequences.

I know that different areas of the country have different laws and political climates, and I'm interested in thoughts about other parts of the country, so let me be clear that I live in rural Tennessee.
Just a heads up for the nit pickers out there;
I'm going to post the scenario and as the conversation develops I'm going to add some possible developments,details, and changes to the scenario to hear thoughts on those .
This is a hypothetical scenario for the purpose of exploring the legal possibilities in the aftermath. This has not actually happened to me, but all one has to do is a few searches on Google or YouTube to find similar real world events.

So, first here's some background for the scenario:

I live in a rural area a couple miles from the nearest small town. I have hundreds of acres or corn across the road and my closest neighbors on left or right are several hundred yds away.
My house sits about 100ft from the road. My driveway is offset on the North end of my yard, but you can pull straight into my yard from the road, there's no ditch on my side of the road. I have security cameras so anything that happens will be recorded.

So here's the scenario:

I'm sitting in my recliner after my family and I finish supper one afternoon and a beat up mid 90's Crown Vic pulls straight off the road into my yard. Five thugs get out with weapons in hand pointed in my direction and start heading towards my front door.
I step out of my front door with my Saiga 12ga and the first guy raises his weapon, so I fire and take him down. Rinse and repeat three times, and maybe the last guy finally drops his weapon and lays down or halls it back to the Crown Vic so I don't shoot him. So now I'm directing my wife to call 911 and I've got four wounded or deceased bad guys laying in my yard.
Keep in mind TN does have a castle doctrine and does not have a "duty to reatreat" law.

So here are some questions about the legal process after this:

1. Have I lost any claim of self defense or castle doctrine because I shot first?

2. Have I lost any claim of self defense or castle doctrine because they weren't in my house yet ?

3. Would "despairity of force" not come into play here?

4. Would the weapon I used, or that they had make any difference. I.E. I used an Ar or a Glock instead of a shotgun or thier guns ended up being fake?


Ok, let the opinions begin

 

[Kleanbore]

My first thought on this has nothing to do with the law. I cannot understand why anyone in his right mind would ever go outside when armed men are approaching the house. That Saiga 12ga will not stop incoming fire. A prudent defender would stay inside and out of sight.

Regarding self defense: in all US jurisdictions, a citizen would be justified in threatening or employing deadly force if, and only if, (1) he had a basis for reasonable believing that it was immediately necessary to do so to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm; (2) he did not initiate or provoke the confrontation; and (3) he could not retreat in perfect safety. That last one would not apply in a stand your ground state, but retreat is almost always the wiser course of action if it is available. In some stand your ground states, the failure to retreat may not be used to argue that the use of deadly force before retreating was not reasonable, while in others, it can.

"Necessary" means that the defender employs no more force than is necessary for defense. Firing when the attackers are departing, or if they have been downed is not lawful.

It is unlikely that the approach of armed men in the yard would be thought to constitute immediate necessity if the defender had remained in the safety of his habitation. If he has foolishly gone outsides and faced people with guns pointed at him, that could well be different, but it is never a good idea to go toward trouble rather than away fom it, because it can raise, in the minds of jurors, the question of who instigated the confrontation.

It is not necessary to wait until an attacker has fired or struck before defending oneself.

From the standpoint use of force law, the kind of weapon used by the defender is irrelevant.

If the defender had reason to believe that the attackers were armed with lethal weapons, disparity of force would not be an issue, and if the attackers' weapons turn out to be toys, that would not matter either.

A reason to believe that the people had posed an imminent threat of death or serious injury--that they had the ability and opportunity to do so, and that the defender had been in jeopardy-- is very important. It is not lawful to use deadly force to prevent or terminate trespass in any US jurisdiction.

Keep in mind that whatever the defender contends, the question of justification will be answered by others who were not there, on the basis of evidence gathered after the fact. Those security cameras could help, or, depending on what the images appear to show, hurt.

Regarding castle doctrine: regardless of what some people, including some attorneys, may say, write, or post on line, castle doctrine ia a provision of the law that obviates any obligation that may otherwise exist for a defender to use necessary force to defend himself while he is inside the area covered by the castle doctrine in th jurisdiction at hand. That usually includes one's domicile and the curtilage thereof. it rarely included the yard. Castle doctrine does not, in and of itself, justify the threat or use of force for defense.

I hope you find this helpful.

 

[GEM]

Might be useful - Mas on castle doctrine:

Massad Ayoob: Castle Doctrine, The McCloskeys & Why You Should Remain Inside. Critical Mas EP51

During the riots of 2020, Mark and Patricia McCloskey became headline news. The two lawyers were photographed waving guns at crowd that had grown outside th...

www.youtube.com

PS - I've in FOF come out of the door to face four armed opponents (sims, Code Eagle, airsoft) - guess what I 'died'. Kind of neat, wearing a t-shirt and a mask. Those simulated rounds close up can break the skin and leave nice bruises. Taking off my shirt at the gym led to a round of OHs! Did you fall down?

Now, in a match from the draw on my best younger days, I could get 3 double taps from a 1911 into three IDPA targets in 3.5 seconds. But they weren't shooting back at me.

 

[KY DAN]

This is delusional blood sport fantasy

NOTHING you proposed is REAL

in the history of never happening this happened the least.

Everything about your fantasy is wrong,

1. Everyone is armed and ready for a fight and YOU DO NOT GET SHOT?????

2. your family didn't get injured with bullets going through the walla of your house

3. Stop making this style fantasy acceptable

No one is John Wayne nor John Wick single handed fighting in the open with no cover or concealment

 

[GEM]

John Wick falls off a multistory building and bounces of a balcony and then a car - gets up. I can't do that. You are correct that the OP scenario is not realistic.

 

[Kleanbore]

You are correct that the OP scenario is not realistic.

And if it had happened, no prudent person would have put an account of it in writing and posted it on the internet.

 

[RickD427]

I'll echo Mr. "Kleanbore's" comments.

I'll also emphasize the lack of wisdom in stepping outside to greet your apparent adversaries. Whenever you are met with a superior force, strategy becomes even more important. When you step outside, you give up all advantages offered to you by the home. It's pretty much a given that five armed attackers are gonna successfully defeat a single armed defender. Five on One are not good odds. You need to address that first. The best way is to set up a sequential engagement. One on One repeated five times in quick succession is much more in your favor. The front door is a "funnel". Use it to create that sequential engagement. You know the interior of your home, and where the points of concealment and cover are. Use that to your advantage.

As a legal point, the entry of the "thugs" into your home can make the demonstration of their intent much more apparent.

When presented with lethal force, there really isn't any issue of disparity of force in response. The law does not limit you to using equal force. If it did, then every citizen and thug encounter should result in a 50-50 outcome. The thug isn't entitled to a fair fight, you're entitled to prevail. The issue of disparate force comes into place when you are presented with lesser levels of force, say someone is shooting spitwads at you through a straw in a movie theatre. You're not limited to return fire with spitwads, you can knock the straw out of their hands. But you can't break their arms in order to prevent further spitwad fire.

Be careful with your use of the term "Castle Doctrine." It means different things in different jurisdictions. The most commonly used meaning is that it provides a criminal defense where one uses deadly force against a home intruder, and that provides protection from civil lawsuits. My LEO experience was primarily in California. California does not have a "Castle Doctrine" although we do have Penal Code section 198.5 which provides a rebuttable presumption that a person using deadly force against a non-family member who has forced entry into a home acted with reasonable fear.

 

[Hugger-4641]

This is delusional blood sport fantasy

NOTHING you proposed is REAL

in the history of never happening this happened the least.

Everything about your fantasy is wrong,

1. Everyone is armed and ready for a fight and YOU DO NOT GET SHOT?????

2. your family didn't get injured with bullets going through the walla of your house

3. Stop making this style fantasy acceptable

No one is John Wayne nor John Wick single handed fighting in the open with no cover or concealment

I whole heartedly disagree. All you have to do is few internet searches to find video of people getting attacked and/or thier home invaded by multiple armed assailants. Me coming out unscathed is admittedly very optimistic, but the rest of your contentention about the impossibility of my scenario is ridiculous.

 

[Hugger-4641]

My first thought on this has nothing to do with the law. I cannot understand why anyone in his right mind would ever go outside when armed men are approaching the house

I guess I'm just not the type to run and hide. I don't see the wisdom in waiting until they start firing into my house. The only advantage I'm going to have in this fight is the brief element of surprise when I bust out the door with my shot gun ready. I don't expect anyone to agree, and I'm not saying this is good advice for anyone else, just saying that I know me.

 

[dweis]

I brought up a scenario in another thread about a different topic and was asked to pose it here in legal for opinions on the ramifications and possible legal consequences.

I know that different areas of the country have different laws and political climates, and I'm interested in thoughts about other parts of the country, so let me be clear that I live in rural Tennessee.
Just a heads up for the nit pickers out there;
I'm going to post the scenario and as the conversation develops I'm going to add some possible developments,details, and changes to the scenario to hear thoughts on those .

So, first here's some background the scenario:

I live in a rural area a couple miles from the nearest small town. I have hundreds of acres or corn across the road and my closest neighbors on left or right are several hundred yds away.
My house sits about 100ft from the road. My driveway is offset on the North end of my yard, but you can pull straight into my yard from the road, there's no ditch on my side of the road. I have security cameras so anything that happens will be recorded.

So here's the scenario:

I'm sitting in my recliner after my family and I finish supper one afternoon and a beat up mid 90's Crown Vic pulls straight off the road into my yard. Five thugs get out with weapons in hand pointed in my direction and start heading towards my front door.
I step out of my front door with my Saiga 12ga and the first guy raises his weapon, so I fire and take him down. Rinse and repeat three times, and maybe the last guy finally drops his weapon and lays down or halls it back to the Crown Vic so I don't shoot him. So now I'm directing my wife to call 911 and I've got four wounded or deceased bad guys laying in my yard.
Keep in mind TN does have a castle doctrine and does not have a "duty to reatreat" law.

So here are some questions about the legal process after this:

1. Have I lost any claim of self defense or castle doctrine because I shot first?

2. Have I lost any claim of self defense or castle doctrine because they weren't in my house yet ?

3. Would "despairity of force" not come into play here?

4. Would the weapon I used, or that they had make any difference. I.E. I used an Ar or a Glock instead of a shotgun or thier guns ended up being fake?


Ok, let the opinions begin

You have a good claim of self defense because multiple persons trespassed onto your property and presented weapons on approaching you. You were in danger of death or severe bodily harm. I don’t know of any state that does not see that situation and circumstance as justifying self defense. Such fears are justification to defend oneself.

Neither not being inside yiur house nor disparity of force would not be relevant because of the circumstances of #1 above.

Using a shotgun makes no difference if it was legally owned. You could use any legal weapon to self defend as #1 circumstances and legal rationale are not based upon type of weapon.

 

[Kleanbore]

I whole heartedly disagree. All you have to do is few internet searches to find video of people getting attacked and/or thier home invaded by multiple armed assailants. Me coming out unscathed is admittedly very optimistic, but the rest of your contentention about the impossibility of my scenario is ridiculous.

You implied that it had happened to you.

 

[Kleanbore]

I don't see the wisdom in waiting until they start firing into my house.

"Start firing into your house"? Why would anyone do that? That sounds like a plot from a move that people play in their minds. What you should do is wait until they attempt to enter your hoese, forcibly and tumultuously.

The advantage is that it greatly reduces a strong likelihood of your getting shot and/or arrested, charged, tried, impoverished, convicted, and put into a 6X9 cage for a long time.

 

[Kleanbore]

You have a good claim of self defense because multiple persons trespassed onto your property and presented weapons on approaching you. You were in danger of death or severe bodily harm. I don’t know of any state that does not see that situation and circumstance as justifying self defense. Such fears are justification to defend oneself.

No, no, no, absolutely not! Good Lord!

He would, if he were not shot down, have a sufficient basis for a self defense jury instruction, but there are serious questions about whether the triers of fact would agree that his actions had been necessary and reasonable, and that he had not initiated the confrontation.

Read Post #2 as many times as it takes you to comprehend it, and then read it again. Watch the video by Ayoo, and watch it again

 

[Hugger-4641]

You implied that it had happened to you.

Where did I imply that?

 

[Kleanbore]

Where did I imply that?

By using the first person.

 

[GEM]

Independent of the legalities, this is an instance that needs to be tested. Get three or four friends. Buy them some cheap airsoft guns. Get a cheap airsoft long arm, most sporting goods stores have them.

Have them start up your walkway with weapons in hand, burst out of your door way, with the long arm. They are to open fire when they detect you.

See what happens.

 

[Hugger-4641]

Start firing into your house"? Why would anyone do that? That sounds like a plot from a move that people play in their minds. What you should do is wait until they attempt to enter your hoese, forcibly and tumultuously.

Why would they roll up in my yard and get out with weapons?
They obviously didn't come to share the Pot Pie we just had for supper. I have a house full of valueable items and usually several attractive women present. I don't think that needs any more explanation.
I guess we just have to disagree about the waiting for entry into the house.
I realize we are discussing the legal possibilities, but they only matter if I'm still around afterwards. The last person to realize they are in a fight and react is not usually the one who survives it.

 

[Hugger-4641]

By using the first person.

Ok, well my grammar may not be PHD level, but its pretty hard to describe a hypothetical scenario involving yourself and use 3rd person.
I'll edit the first post to make this more clear.

 

[JohnKSa]

Keep in mind TN does have a castle doctrine and does not have a "duty to reatreat" law.

2. Have I lost any claim of self defense or castle doctrine because they weren't in my house yet ?

Five thugs get out with weapons in hand pointed in my direction and start heading towards my front door.
... I've got four wounded or deceased bad guys laying in my yard.

I step out of my front door with my Saiga 12ga...

The protection of Castle Doctrine does not apply. You are outside of the house and so are they. Here's TN Castle Doctrine.

“Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.”

Without the protection of Castle Doctrine you would have to admit to committing multiple homicides/assaults with a deadly weapon and then it would be up to you to prove that your use of force was justified. You would have to give up the presumption of innocence in order to claim self-defense and then the burden of proof to show justification would rest on you.

Stand your ground protection/no duty to retreat would apply since you are where you have a right to be. You would not have to explain why you didn't retreat in the process of justifying your actions. That doesn't automatically provide justification for the shooting, it just means that one particular aspect of it (Could you have retreated?) can't be raised as an issue against you and you won't have to spend time and money rebutting that question.

As far as the general scenario goes, if the "attackers" created a situation where a person in your situation would reasonably believe that they were in danger of being seriously injured or killed, then you would likely be able to successfully claim self-defense.

Your choice of defensive weapon could possibly be an issue if, for some reason the case went to a jury trial. I'm not saying it would go to a jury trial, just mentioning the possibility. Juries are made up of people and people have biases.

The disparity of force would be a point in your "favor" in terms of self-defense, but in practice your chosen strategy would mean that the disparity of force would likely be very harmful to you. Planning to standing on your front porch and pick off armed bad guys one at a time is not a great strategy against multiple armed attackers.

Whether or not their guns are fake is not relevant as long as a reasonable person in your position would assume they were real. I mean, maybe by the time you're working on the third or fourth guy and have received no return fire at all from the any of them, a reasonable person might start wondering what's going on.

Not speaking in legal terms now, but in terms of the scenario. A situation where attackers keep advancing into the face of effective gunfire even though they are seeing their comrades shot down and even though know that they don't have any ability to return fire seems more than just a bit of a stretch. So if we assume that somewhere along the line they decide that getting killed is not in the plan for the day--then as soon as it's clear that the attack has broken off (as one assumes would happen very quickly once they realize you have a real gun and don't mind using it), you would no longer be justified in shooting.

 

[Kleanbore]

Why would they roll up in my yard and get out with weapons?

Most probably, to use them when they have entered, whether for threatening or for causing harm.

I have a house full of valueable items and usually several attractive women present. I don't think that needs any more explanation.

How would "firing into your house" support them in the taking of those?

A jilted lover started firing into the office of our veterinarian. His target was his ex, who was inside. The sage went on for hours. The building looked like the barracks at Wickham Fiel afterward, but that was the extent of the loss.

Angry cowboys fired upon Elfego Baca whan he was holed up in an adobe building, and their objective was to kill him. They fired 4000 rounds into the building and put 400 holes in the door. No injuries.

I guess we just have to disagree about the waiting for entry into the house.

I hate to put it quite this way, but it is clear that you are sadly lacking in knowledge of use of force law and in training in defensive tactics.

I realize we are discussing the legal possibilities, but they only matter if I'm still around afterwards.

The best way to increase your chances of being still around is to avoid going outside and presenting yourself as a target for armed attackers.

The short version: STAY INSIDE,

 

[Jeff White]

I whole heartedly disagree. All you have to do is few internet searches to find video of people getting attacked and/or thier home invaded by multiple armed assailants. Me coming out unscathed is admittedly very optimistic, but the rest of your contentention about the impossibility of my scenario is ridiculous.

Are you or someone in your household in the recreational pharmaceutical business? Is it widely known or rumored that you keep a large amount of cash or jewels in your home? Are you or someone in your household romantically involved with someone with gang affiliations or is psychotic? Are you are anyone in your household estranged from someone in the family who is violent or psychotic?

If the answers to these questions are no the chances of you being involved in a scenario like you described are close to zero. If the "I won the power ball" odds came up in favor of your scenario your tactics (it's a stretch to call your response tactics) virtually guarantee that you you will be shot and the house full of valuable items ransacked and the "several attractive women present" violated if that was the goal of the attack.

You would be much better off hardening your house to make it hard for intruders to gain entry, creating a safe room where you and the "several attractive women present" can retreat to, getting an alarm system including a driveway alarm and video to let you see what's happening outside. All of these things are reasonably priced these days including video. I'd recommend hardwired cameras.

Drop the movie inspired idea of a heroic gunfight in your yard. Stop watching YouTube videos of "home invasions" that have no context or backstory and get some real training.

 

[Hugger-4641]

Drop the movie inspired idea of a heroic gunfight in your yard. Stop watching YouTube videos of "home invasions" that have no context or backstory and get some real training.

I take offense to that comment. Anyone with half a brain can find video of attacks by multiple attackers who do not live in the area or are affiliated with the victims. Unfortunately , most of those video's are available because the victims happened to survive or fight off the attackers.
If you are going to continue that attitude with me you can lock this thread or cary on the discussion without me.

 

[Jeff White]

I take offense to that comment. Anyone with half a brain can find video of attacks by multiple attackers who do not live in the area or are affiliated with the victims. Unfortunately , most of those video's are available because the victims happened to survive or fight off the attackers.

I apologize for offending your sensibilities by injecting realism into your fantasy. Yes there are all kinds of videos, many from places like Brazil where things are somewhat different than in middle Tennessee or the U.S. as a whole. The reason I said that is there is no context to those videos, no information about why the victim was targeted. Those videos give people the impression that this is a common scenario in this country and that the victims are chosen at random. In 20 years of LE service I never encountered a home invasion case where one of the factors I listed in the beginning of my post wasn’t a factor. A random attack is so rare in the U.S. that it’s almost statistically insignificant .

 

[shafter]

I think that scenario is highly unlikely, almost to the point of being outlandish short of you as the homeowner being known for having a large amount of cash or drugs on hand, or having really pissed off the wrong person. Even so, those types of people probably won't come after you like that.

However, to answer the OP's questions there really isn't a "best" answer because what's best tactically isn't always what's best legally. There's no way I want to fight four armed men inside my home. That's a losing proposition all day long if they're committed.

The best bet legally and tactically is probably going to be to barricade the front door, get 911 on the line asap, and issue a loud warning to leave. Once the door starts giving way I'd make sure no one made it through. The biggest risk you face is that there's nothing in a modern American home that's going to stop bullets, especially rifle bullets. If you open fire and they start hosing things down with bullets it's really just luck that's going to keep one of those rounds from hitting you. The top of the stairs is probably your best position since you can't be flanked there but it also fixes your location to attackers who will know exactly where to return fire.

A situation like this is essentially a raid and it's going to happen so fast that realistically the fight is going to go down wherever you are when they show up. There won't be time to go find other weapons aside from what's in arms reach at the time. Frankly, most people aren't going to win that fight if the assailants are committed.

 

[babaylan]

I live in a rural area a couple miles from the nearest small town. I have hundreds of acres or corn across the road and my closest neighbors on left or right are several hundred yds away.
My house sits about 100ft from the road. My driveway is offset on the North end of my yard, but you can pull straight into my yard from the road, there's no ditch on my side of the road. I have security cameras so anything that happens will be recorded.

So here's the scenario:

I'm sitting in my recliner after my family and I finish supper one afternoon and a beat up mid 90's Crown Vic pulls straight off the road into my yard. Five thugs get out with weapons in hand pointed in my direction and start heading towards my front door.

What makes you think this "scenario" is something you need to think about?