No, it is not. Do you infer from the code in your state that the use of deadly force would be permitted to prevent unlawful entry?
I am unaware of any disagreements on either one. Can you elucidate?
Homeowner and potential intruder trade shots through front door
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
SnowBlaZeR2
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 643
Of course not. Luckily it's spelled out for me.
And who said a thing about preventing unlawful entry? I sure didn't. Although my state addresses that in the statutes.
Let me clarify. I mean to say that what makes one an intruder can be nuanced depending on the state.
Either way, I don't want to belabor this point because it's ultimately not that important to my overall point.
1.) Corruption of the law doesn't require a cash payoff. Lt Burge retired on a standard Chicago cop pension and lived modestly in Florida. Yet he is one of the most corrupt Chicago cops of all time. And that's saying something.
2.) Open access to anhydrous ammonia was a huge problem. The learning I've received here is that its important to secure valuables. There was a large disaster in Texas from unsecured anhydrous ammonia. Terrorists could just drive around the countryside looking for unsecured anhydrous ammonia and cause a mass death. Excusing the act of shooting fleeing perps in the back for accessing an attractive nuisance isn't something I would do.
Well when you’re states attorney you can feel free to prosecute as you see fit. My point is that prosecutors have enormous discretion as to what and how to charge. There is also plenty of wiggle room in the law, for instance Illinois allows you to use deadly force on an intruder who enters in a “loud and tumultuous manner”. It also allows deadly force to be used to stop a forcible felony. Burglary is defined as a forcible felony in the Illinois Complied Statutes. However before you shoot the intruder sneaking around in your house because you think he’s a burglar, you need to know the legal definition of burglary because it’s different then trespassing. If the guy you shot was actually committing burglary you would have to be able to prove that he entered your home with the intent on stealing something. If the prosecutor wanted he could charge you if it wasn’t clear that the person you shot intended to commit burglary.....
I inferred from your statements about shooting through a door at a person who is outside of your house, rather than hoping that the person did not "make it through the door", that you were discussing the prevention of unlawful entry. If you were not, perhaps you can clarify what you meant.
Can you provide any examples?
How is it not important to the question of the lawfulness of shooting someone through a door from within an occupied house?
LITTLE BUCK
Member
if he came to my door with a gun in hand he would be in imminent danger,i am not reading no book to see if it lawful i am more concerned with my family's safety
He would most certainly have embarked on a risky course of action.
If by "it", you are referring to shooting the person through the door, doing so would be one sure way to learn some the lawfulness of that action.
A word to the wise; your having posted that sentiment in a public forum could be used by investigators, the charging authority, and prosecutors and plaintiffs to indicate a predisposition toward violence, and it could help tilt the scales against you if such an even ever occurs.
We have a sticky on that in the ST&T Sticky Library.
Good.
The question is whether their safety would be enhanced or diminished by your actions.
LITTLE BUCK
Member
i would have called 911 if i had time but the minute he broke open my door that would be when i would have tried to take him out by the way i never mentioned shooting through no door
SnowBlaZeR2
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 643
Right. That's your inference, not how I represented it. It should be clear exactly what I was talking about based on the context of the thread and what I've stated.
An armed intruder who poses a threat isn't less of a threat because there is a glass door separating the two of us.
Sure. Texas vs. Illinois.
Because that isn't the question that point addressed. Your contention was that there is no variation among states. That isn't correct.
Perhaps not.
That may not , however, be sufficient to justify the immediate use of deadly force.
Some judges may instruct the finders of fact differently from others, and some finders of fact may decide differently.
We find out at the end of the process.
How might "what makes one an intruder" be differently "nuanced" between those jurisdictions?
Is not an intruder an intruder?
SnowBlaZeR2
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 643
In your state. I'm glad I live in my state.
I'd rather understand before the process begins.
Surely you do not really believe that every jury in "your state" would decide the came way.
We have learned over many years that the outcomes of criminal trials are uncertain.
SnowBlaZeR2
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 643
Of course I don't claim to know something like that and it's silly to even suggest it.
What I believe a jury would or would not do is secondary to the safety of my family. If I believe that my family is in danger, I'm confident in what I'm permitted to do to protect them based on knowledge, training, and my state's laws.
Regardless, that changes nothing about the unmistakable fact that my state's laws and your state's laws differ.
Last edited:
What did you mean by "not in my state" in responding to the statement that some judges may instruct the finders of fact differently from others, and some finders of fact may decide differently? Do you really believe that every jury in "your state" will assess the evidence in the same way?
Believing that your family is in danger is necessary, but it is not sufficient. You also have to consider the degree of danger, its imminence, and what would constitute the reasonable use of force to defend them.
Those differences may or may not be relevant to the discussion at hand.
About 80% of self defense law is common across the states and US territories. Some areas of difference that come immediately to mind involve the duty to retreat, and how the obviation of that duty may impinge upon a trial; the justification of the use of deadly force in the defense of others; the justification of the display of a weapon; and castle doctrines, which eliminate the duty to retreat in or from certain property before using deadly force.
Another area of difference has to do with the justification of the use of force against someone who has intruded into certain property, and how.
As discussed in the AT&T forum rules it is not prudent for any lay person to base their understanding on the reading of state codes in isolation. Case law is much more important .
Everyone can improve their understanding by becoming familiar with the way the criminal justice system works, by subscribing to the Law of Self Defense blog and studying appellate court decisions. Those are much more valuable than reading the state code. But as Jeff White says, there is no way to reliably predict an outcome.
SnowBlaZeR2
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 643
I suppose I can just keep repeating it. What I believe a jury will do is secondary.
"A DA might..." or "a jury might..." aren't useful points. I don't control what they might do any more than I control what this hypothetical criminal might do.
What I do control is my understanding of my state's laws, my training, and how I handle my home defense.
That's probably why I didn't isolate that statement.
Is it your contention that what's left after "about 80% of self defense law" is insignificant?
Right. It's probably not a bad idea for everyone here to know their own state's laws.
A jury would however, control what happens to you.
They wiil do so on the basis of what you have done.
How well founded your knowledge, how good you training, and how wall you "handle" things may, as judged by others, determine how much of your natural ilife you may be incarcerated.
Yes--state laws, as outlined in the jury instructions, and as defined in the relevant governing case law passed down from appellate courts.
SnowBlaZeR2
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 643
And that changes nothing about anything I've said.
I control my actions, not theirs.
Which is true of anyone who has ever decided or will ever decide that force was necessary to defend themselves or another.
Correct, and in my state, different from yours.
I hope I'm done repeating myself on at least one point.
SnowBlaZeR2
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 643
I don't control their decision, any more than I control their actions.
It will matter in the hypothetical proposed here, and it's supported by statutes and case law.
It's a nice thought, but not really relevant to the hypothetical.
I don't know what you are getting at, or why.
The actor's deeds form the basis of their decisions. If the actor conducts himself lawfully and prudently, and it the evidence so indicates, that will influence their decision.
While getting to that decision may well entail astronomical expenses, the decision itself will have very important impact.
Since we have not specified what differences there are, we cannot address that issue.
If you really believe that the presence of a "threat" would, in itself, justify the lawful use of deadly force, you really do have a lot of learning to do.
I really do recommend that you look into Law of Self Defense .com--the courses and the blog--before continuing to draw conclusions from whatever sources you have been using.
Australian410hunter
Member
What I found interesting:
No mention of when the emergency call to Police was made.
Was the man inside the house in fear of his, and his families, lives?
I am wondering, as the door wasn't breached, if the person inside fired first, was that lawful where he lived?
Not saying I wouldn't do so, depending on the circumstances, given the person is armed, has already entered the yard, tried kicking in the door, demanding entry, and in an agitated state!
Everyone can analyse it after the fact, however how you would react at the time may be different, even with the recording you don't know all the circumstances, just one version.
No mention of when the emergency call to Police was made.
Was the man inside the house in fear of his, and his families, lives?
I am wondering, as the door wasn't breached, if the person inside fired first, was that lawful where he lived?
Not saying I wouldn't do so, depending on the circumstances, given the person is armed, has already entered the yard, tried kicking in the door, demanding entry, and in an agitated state!
Everyone can analyse it after the fact, however how you would react at the time may be different, even with the recording you don't know all the circumstances, just one version.
SnowBlaZeR2
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 643
I've been thinking the same thing for going on two days now.
That wasn't the point. I made the comment that each person needs to consider their own state's laws. You seem to want to move away from that point.
Once again, and louder for the people in the back, I've never once made that point. That's hypothetical fiction that you're introducing to make whatever point you want to make.
My sources include my attorney who practices in my state. His opinion is more valuable than any nameless stranger on the Internet.
No. I do agree with that.
You said "an armed intruder who poses a threat isn't less of a threat because there is a glass door separating the two of us". This was in a discussion thread about shooting through a door. Just what did you mean?
To be frank, very few practicing attorneys have any experience at all in defending the self defense case. There are experts in the field who must be engaged by a defendant's lead counsel, long before a case goes to trial, if the defendant is to have any hope of avoiding trial or conviction.
If you want to try to gain a conversational knowledge of this important subject, I suggest the LoSD Level 1 course; it covers far more than most criminal defense attorneys are ever taught. Another worthwhile course is MAG-20 under Massad Ayoob; practicing attorneys attend that course, and they speak highly of it.
Defending the self defense case is not all like other kinds of criminal defense cases. Few attorneys are knowledgeable of the subject of self defense (I suggest searching here on Lisa Steele; attorney Steele goes into some of the important differences.
On a related point, most self defense claims that prosecutors and defense attorneys encounter come from criminals who. cannot reasonably deny having done the deed and must therefore try to justify it. That puts the defendant in an unpleasant position regarding his credibility.
Again, the LoSD Level 1course, and the state supplements, are an excellent resource for all of us--and for our attorneys, if they have interest in the subject.
SnowBlaZeR2
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 643
Correct, and that isn't any less accurate now than when I said it. It means exactly what I said, in the context that I said it. Reasonable belief of death or great bodily harm doesn't disappear because I'm behind a glass door.
I'm fortunate to have one who has.
Don't go assuming that my attorney is my only resource, either.
- Status
Similar threads
