Deanimator
Member
So, do you really think it's a good idea to "shoot to wound" somebody who's put you in reasonable, immediate fear of life and limb?
Have you talked to a lawyer about that?
How would you handle this forced entry?
- Thread starter heavyshooter
- Start date
- Status
Have you talked to a lawyer about that?
Route2
Member
Actually
I think this has become a waste of time. What I know is that the shoot first, ask questions later philosophy doesn't work. Right or wrong, things get so complicated that it is practical to spend a few seconds (if you have them) to try and defuse the situation.
Clearly, there will be times when you won't have the time. People who have been involved in this type of event say, "It happened so fast." And the scenario will change significantly if the homeowner is a woman, child or frail man.
I think this has become a waste of time. What I know is that the shoot first, ask questions later philosophy doesn't work. Right or wrong, things get so complicated that it is practical to spend a few seconds (if you have them) to try and defuse the situation.
Clearly, there will be times when you won't have the time. People who have been involved in this type of event say, "It happened so fast." And the scenario will change significantly if the homeowner is a woman, child or frail man.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
The cops usually walk. I probably will too.
And it will cost you- how much?- in fees to a criminal defense attorney to find out, if perchance your local DA is less than happy with the circumstances of your shoot? Ditto to defend against the civil suit that might well follow?
I'm not from Ohio. I don't know blackletter law or case law on self defense in Ohio. Ohio might be the most wide-open make my day state since Dodge City. I don't know.
Thing is, Deanimator, do you know? Have you ever had a sit-down with a decent local criminal defense attorney to discuss self defense law in your jurisdiction? Have you ever spent a couple of days in Superior Court (or whatever Ohio calls it) watching a trial where someone who thought they had a right to defend themselves in a given situation found out differently?
NC is a different sort of state in a lot of ways. It was a colony, to start with. Legal baggage here goes back a loooong way- all the way back to Sir Walter Raleigh in fact. It's tangled and twisted and cluttered and overgrown like a brush pile taken over by brambles. NC case law makes allowances for the use of lethal force on someone who is in the process of attempting a violent and tumultuous entry. In NC in the situation described by the OP, I could potentially legally have shot through the door.
Would I? Should I? Could I? What would happen if I did?
Of course, all that calls for a lot of supposition, for knowing the unknowable. It's a big "what if." And Deanimator has trotted out a whole truckload of "what if" here as well. What if the 'drunk' was not a drunk after all, but a person with bad intent masquerading as a drunk? What if he was really drunk, but had a knife or a gun and went crazy when he got the door kicked open? And so on.
Back in the dark ages several decades ago when I was going through the basic EMT class in Montgomey, AL, people were forever interrupting the instructor to ask, "But what if...?" It got to the point where the universal classroom groan at any question that started with "But what if...?" was, " Look at "The Encyclopedia Of What If, Volume 37."
In real life you can't know the unknowable. You cannot really tell what is in someone else's mind, much of the time. You don't always know their intent or their capability or their mental/emotional state. Yet you are expected to make judgements on matters of life and death based on your ability to interpret all these things and more, sometimes in mere fractions of a second. It isn't easy. And I am not in any way trying to simplify or oversimplify these decisions.
The thing is, there will be LEOs, DAs, judges and juries who will be second-guessing your decisions. They will have hours, days, weeks to go over the things you had to decide in fractions of a second. They will have piles and volumes of evidence where you had only shreds upon which to base a decision.
And if you shoot someone, no matter what, it is certain at least some portion of this legal review process WILL swing into operation. You the defensive shooter will come under a microscope like never before in your life.
That's an awful lot of weight to hang on a "probably."
I cannot tell anyone here how to make a shoot/no shoot decision. We spend a lot of our time working on hitting what we shoot at, on getting a gun into use, on keeping it running, using a flashlight with it, moving and shooting and all that. That's where I was all day yesterday, on a range under the world class tutleage of Louis Awerbuck, learning more about shooting better under pressure. But in the 10 hours or so of range time yesterday, we didn't talk about shoot/no shoot. It was all about shooting effectively and hitting.
Here we're working on the bigger problem- the shoot/no shoot decision. It's one of the most critical decisions that any of us will ever have to make, if in fact circumstances ever dictate we have to make it. It needs to be based on more than bravado and "probably." Because even if the decision is made well, there will be an aftermath that might well be expensive and painful. If it is made poorly, the aftermath will be tragic.
lpl
And it will cost you- how much?- in fees to a criminal defense attorney to find out, if perchance your local DA is less than happy with the circumstances of your shoot? Ditto to defend against the civil suit that might well follow?
I'm not from Ohio. I don't know blackletter law or case law on self defense in Ohio. Ohio might be the most wide-open make my day state since Dodge City. I don't know.
Thing is, Deanimator, do you know? Have you ever had a sit-down with a decent local criminal defense attorney to discuss self defense law in your jurisdiction? Have you ever spent a couple of days in Superior Court (or whatever Ohio calls it) watching a trial where someone who thought they had a right to defend themselves in a given situation found out differently?
NC is a different sort of state in a lot of ways. It was a colony, to start with. Legal baggage here goes back a loooong way- all the way back to Sir Walter Raleigh in fact. It's tangled and twisted and cluttered and overgrown like a brush pile taken over by brambles. NC case law makes allowances for the use of lethal force on someone who is in the process of attempting a violent and tumultuous entry. In NC in the situation described by the OP, I could potentially legally have shot through the door.
Would I? Should I? Could I? What would happen if I did?
Of course, all that calls for a lot of supposition, for knowing the unknowable. It's a big "what if." And Deanimator has trotted out a whole truckload of "what if" here as well. What if the 'drunk' was not a drunk after all, but a person with bad intent masquerading as a drunk? What if he was really drunk, but had a knife or a gun and went crazy when he got the door kicked open? And so on.
Back in the dark ages several decades ago when I was going through the basic EMT class in Montgomey, AL, people were forever interrupting the instructor to ask, "But what if...?" It got to the point where the universal classroom groan at any question that started with "But what if...?" was, " Look at "The Encyclopedia Of What If, Volume 37."
In real life you can't know the unknowable. You cannot really tell what is in someone else's mind, much of the time. You don't always know their intent or their capability or their mental/emotional state. Yet you are expected to make judgements on matters of life and death based on your ability to interpret all these things and more, sometimes in mere fractions of a second. It isn't easy. And I am not in any way trying to simplify or oversimplify these decisions.
The thing is, there will be LEOs, DAs, judges and juries who will be second-guessing your decisions. They will have hours, days, weeks to go over the things you had to decide in fractions of a second. They will have piles and volumes of evidence where you had only shreds upon which to base a decision.
And if you shoot someone, no matter what, it is certain at least some portion of this legal review process WILL swing into operation. You the defensive shooter will come under a microscope like never before in your life.
That's an awful lot of weight to hang on a "probably."
I cannot tell anyone here how to make a shoot/no shoot decision. We spend a lot of our time working on hitting what we shoot at, on getting a gun into use, on keeping it running, using a flashlight with it, moving and shooting and all that. That's where I was all day yesterday, on a range under the world class tutleage of Louis Awerbuck, learning more about shooting better under pressure. But in the 10 hours or so of range time yesterday, we didn't talk about shoot/no shoot. It was all about shooting effectively and hitting.
Here we're working on the bigger problem- the shoot/no shoot decision. It's one of the most critical decisions that any of us will ever have to make, if in fact circumstances ever dictate we have to make it. It needs to be based on more than bravado and "probably." Because even if the decision is made well, there will be an aftermath that might well be expensive and painful. If it is made poorly, the aftermath will be tragic.
lpl
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
I've discussed all of these issues with a very good criminal defense attorney.
The idea that I should put myself at great risk by allowing someone to enter my home AFTER having broken down the door, AND having been warned that they'll be shot if they get in, is simply incomprehensible to me. You seem to be telling me that I should trust more in the better nature and common sense of home invaders (and possibly drunk or drug addled ones at that) than in the criminal justice system. I keep seeing people saying that "cop bashing" isn't permitted here, but what would you call such a profound mistrust of the legal system?
I have to ask again, what do I win if I let somebody bust into my home and they kill me, or even worse, render me unable to care for myself? I don't see anybody here volunteering to pay my rent, much less change the diaper of a total stranger who's incapable of controlling his own bowels and bladder due to brain damage inflicted by a home invader.
If you would not use a firearm to defend yourself from a forcible home invasion, I can see no reason to own a firearm for defense at all. If you're just going to let home invaders crash in on you (especially when they can get to the farthest point in my home in about five seconds) after being warned, I see no point in the pretense of self-defense. But hey, I'm from the south side of Chicago. People didn't "accidentally" kick in other people's doors. They did it on purpose to hurt them and take things, and frequently they were under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Profound distrust of the legal system?
Maybe you had that sit-down with an attorney, but have you made time to sit in court yet as well while a major felony trial or three was going on? I have... and while I wouldn't quantify my attitude as profound distrust of the legal system, something like a great desire for complete avoidance of contact with it at all would better describe the situation in my case.
It's your decision to make. Not mine. And I'm not telling you or anyone else what decision to make in the event they face such a situation. All I am saying is one thing- think first. Don't automatically assume the only choice you have or the best choice you have is to shoot some poor idiot who's too drunk to know where he is.
lpl
Maybe you had that sit-down with an attorney, but have you made time to sit in court yet as well while a major felony trial or three was going on? I have... and while I wouldn't quantify my attitude as profound distrust of the legal system, something like a great desire for complete avoidance of contact with it at all would better describe the situation in my case.
It's your decision to make. Not mine. And I'm not telling you or anyone else what decision to make in the event they face such a situation. All I am saying is one thing- think first. Don't automatically assume the only choice you have or the best choice you have is to shoot some poor idiot who's too drunk to know where he is.
lpl
Deanimator
Member
Would you risk your life and those of your family members to avoid contact with the legal system?
If that "drunk" does to your family what those two guys did to the doctor's in Connecticut, whom are you going to sue?
The cops? Nope. No legal duty to protect. No legal liability for failing to.
The drunk? What do you think you're going to get out of him?
Of course your family is still dead, whether you collect $1.00 or $10,000,000.
Cost - Benefit Analysis:
I shoot a guy who kicks my door in after being warned he'll be shot if he does, and while 911 is on the line. - Home invader is unable to harm me. MAYBE prosecuted for manslaughter or voluntary homicide. In Ohio, HIGHLY unlikely.
I let a home invader into my home after he breaks down the door, after being warned that he'll be shot if he makes it through the door. - I don't have to worry about being prosecuted for shooting him. I could be killed or seriously injured. I could be left unable to care for myself, with no income.
Compare the possible downsides. I'd rather face a jury of my peers than be a drooling vegetable in a VA hospital 100 times out of 100.
Mad Chemist
Member
It still sounds like you are determined to be a one trick pony.
Some situations necessitate 'going to guns' and some don't.
What are your plans if that door is breached before your shotgun is at the ready?
I certainly wouldn't recommend that you put yourself at elevated risk to protect some drunken jerk beating on your door.
However, I am concerned with this notion that the shotgun is some sort of magical talisman that will alleviate whatever threat that happens by.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting something, I have been guilty of that before.
I still think it's best to have multiple options and the skills and training to effectively use them.
Some situations necessitate 'going to guns' and some don't.
What are your plans if that door is breached before your shotgun is at the ready?
I certainly wouldn't recommend that you put yourself at elevated risk to protect some drunken jerk beating on your door.
However, I am concerned with this notion that the shotgun is some sort of magical talisman that will alleviate whatever threat that happens by.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting something, I have been guilty of that before.
I still think it's best to have multiple options and the skills and training to effectively use them.
Deanimator
Member
A shotgun is nearly useless in my home, and for pretty much the same reason I have EXTREMELY limited options in a home invasion scenario.
I live in a small apartment with narrow hallways and doorways.
The front door is the only door in the place with ANY ability to stop somebody with more muscle than a ten year old, and THAT, not for long.
Once somebody gets in here, they've got the run of the place, and I've got no place to go.
If I'm going to defend myself AT ALL, it's going to be at my first line of defense, or NOT AT ALL. I have simply ZERO opportunity to trade space for time, NONE.
That means that I've got ONE chance as soon as somebody gets in. Notice I said "IN". I'm not saying I'd shoot through the door at an unknown target. Once you get in my home, you're NOT an unknown target. You're somebody who's made it 100% certain that you're willing to forcibly enter my home DESPITE warnings that you'll be shot if you do. As I've said elsewhere, I'm NOT a psychologist or a substance abuse counselor. I'm certainly not going to be one without pay, for a total stranger who violently intrudes upon my space without provocation.
I cannot say too many times, that I will NOT allow a total stranger to push the serious dangers of HIS irresponsible or malicious behavior onto ME.
I don't get publicly intoxicated and fight with people.
I don't use drugs.
I don't sell drugs.
I don't associate with people who use or sell drugs.
I don't associate with known criminals.
I don't willingly associate with stupid and violent people.
I avoid all of these behaviors because it avoids all of the dangers attendant with them.
I'm just a guy in an apartment full of books. I am NOT going to let people who DO all of those things, drag me into their stupid, dangerous world. If they try to by kicking in my door despite my clear warnings, the odds are overwhelming that they're going to get shot. Don't like it? Don't invade my home.
The OP wrote:
I am new to posting here but have been reading this site for a while. I value the information gained on this site. It has certainly helped us discuss how to handle situations here at home - from "that seems like a reasonable response and choice" to "that does not seem like a good option".
Choosing to carry for self protection feels like a taking on a serious responsibility - to make the best choices for myself and my loved ones. I hope I never have to point my firearm at another human being. But I would use it if called for - to save myself or loved ones from immediate threat of harm.
My choice in the above scenario, as written by the OP, is to join the wife in the bedroom with my firearm, barricaded behind a secured door, and wait for the police. If the intruder gains entry into my home and attempts to breach the bedroom door then the firearm will come into play. My only goal and duty here is to protect us from harm.
Having read through this thread I am amazed that the arguments seem to create only polarized extremes. As if our only two choices are to either blast away at the intruder or allow the intruder to murder and maim. Someone early on did mention securing cover - but that was only one response in four pages.
FWIW, my state has a castle doctrine with no duty to retreat - but my goal is to avoid confrontation and the use of deadly force for anything other than the immediate threat of harm. If can avoid that threat - whether out in the world, or in my home, that is my first choice. But I will resort to deadly force if needed.
I am new to posting here but have been reading this site for a while. I value the information gained on this site. It has certainly helped us discuss how to handle situations here at home - from "that seems like a reasonable response and choice" to "that does not seem like a good option".
Choosing to carry for self protection feels like a taking on a serious responsibility - to make the best choices for myself and my loved ones. I hope I never have to point my firearm at another human being. But I would use it if called for - to save myself or loved ones from immediate threat of harm.
My choice in the above scenario, as written by the OP, is to join the wife in the bedroom with my firearm, barricaded behind a secured door, and wait for the police. If the intruder gains entry into my home and attempts to breach the bedroom door then the firearm will come into play. My only goal and duty here is to protect us from harm.
Having read through this thread I am amazed that the arguments seem to create only polarized extremes. As if our only two choices are to either blast away at the intruder or allow the intruder to murder and maim. Someone early on did mention securing cover - but that was only one response in four pages.
FWIW, my state has a castle doctrine with no duty to retreat - but my goal is to avoid confrontation and the use of deadly force for anything other than the immediate threat of harm. If can avoid that threat - whether out in the world, or in my home, that is my first choice. But I will resort to deadly force if needed.
thesolidus
Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2009
- Messages
- 103
Also, be careful of your assumptions.
You and many of us readers assumed;
That he's 'drunk' and not also pumped on Meth, just a normal drunk, not a man with a history of extreme violence, mentally deranged, escaped con etc. We also assumed that this drunk was unarmed, had no malicious intent to you or his roommates, and was alone.
Imagine now that the door kicks in and he's 6'2", sweaty, and pumped, with a cleaver in his hand and a buddy behind him out to get someone...
Conversely, he could be a disturbed 14 year old with Downs syndrome that got lost... That's why you don't shoot through doors!
Beware of assumptions, keep tactically aware of all possibilities.
While he was kicking at the door, who might be coming in the window?
What happens if he shoots through the door first? ((don't stand behind the door...baricade with cover.))
All said, well done staying cool.
You and many of us readers assumed;
That he's 'drunk' and not also pumped on Meth, just a normal drunk, not a man with a history of extreme violence, mentally deranged, escaped con etc. We also assumed that this drunk was unarmed, had no malicious intent to you or his roommates, and was alone.
Imagine now that the door kicks in and he's 6'2", sweaty, and pumped, with a cleaver in his hand and a buddy behind him out to get someone...
Conversely, he could be a disturbed 14 year old with Downs syndrome that got lost... That's why you don't shoot through doors!
Beware of assumptions, keep tactically aware of all possibilities.
While he was kicking at the door, who might be coming in the window?
What happens if he shoots through the door first? ((don't stand behind the door...baricade with cover.))
All said, well done staying cool.
Hawkeye748
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2009
- Messages
- 253
Well handled. Perfectly, I would say. Been there done that. Virtually Identical situation , just no wife. Did exactly as you did.
The only difference I had is that mine was loaded with #1 buckshot. Better pattern.
The only difference I had is that mine was loaded with #1 buckshot. Better pattern.
mgkdrgn
Member
Then you are going to have a very bad day.
Your "problems" (deaf, drunk, stupid) are not my problems. -MY- problem is that I have a violent stranger that just broke down my door and entered my house, -after- repeated warnings of the dire consequences of doing so.
BANG
I know I'm in the minority, but I think I might have gotten a bright flashlight, opened the door, and said "hey man, not your apartment. Go home already." Maybe pepper spray, or the fire extinguisher. Depends on how scary the guy sounded through the door. There are a few drunks who happen to need to be shot, but they are the vast minority. Use the tool between the ears, instead of always planning to reach for the gun as the only answer to every problem.
In college, we sometimes used the fire alarm (the battery one, not the building-wide one) to convince sleeping drunks to go home so we could lock up before class.
Being drunk is hard enough, without people shooting you. Yeah, he could just sound drunk and really be a murderous thug, and strangers are scarier than acquaintences & friends, but life is full of case-by-case judgements.
In college, we sometimes used the fire alarm (the battery one, not the building-wide one) to convince sleeping drunks to go home so we could lock up before class.
Being drunk is hard enough, without people shooting you. Yeah, he could just sound drunk and really be a murderous thug, and strangers are scarier than acquaintences & friends, but life is full of case-by-case judgements.
DHJenkins
Member
I would have done the same thing the OP did.
Good work.
Good work.
TexasRedneck
Member
Grey Mana, one thing you *never* do is surrender a tactical advantage - and opening a door to a potentially hostile individual is doing exactly that. For all you know, they're ACTING drunk.
Nope - stay barricaded, call the cops, and if possible keep 911 on the line until the danger passes - even if you have to toss the phone on the floor.
Nope - stay barricaded, call the cops, and if possible keep 911 on the line until the danger passes - even if you have to toss the phone on the floor.
Deanimator
Member
Opening the door CREATES a situation where you might have to shoot.
If he can't get in, there's no reason to shoot. As long as he's outside and not setting the property on fire or driving a large vehicle through the wall, he's the cops' problem. Give him an EASY means of ingress and you've MADE him YOUR problem, and possibly in the blink of an eye.
Keep the door and windows locked.
Call 911.
Be prepared to shoot if he makes it in.
You've done EVERYTHING you can reasonably be expected to do to mitigate HIS stupidity without endangering YOURSELF.
Nicky Santoro
Member
The police arrived about 4 or 5 minutes after my wife hung up the phone...
When seconds count, the police will be there in minutes. Anyone who does not provide for their own defense is a moron. You did well. The "breaker" is the lucky one in that the police arrived before he forced you to unload some 00 buck into his airbags.
When seconds count, the police will be there in minutes. Anyone who does not provide for their own defense is a moron. You did well. The "breaker" is the lucky one in that the police arrived before he forced you to unload some 00 buck into his airbags.
Tough call. I think the OP did good.
But were it me, and some drunk kicked in the door and entered, and I was holding a shotgun, I'd have to seriously consider whether he was enough of a threat to blow back out the door, or whether just giving him a buttstroke to the beak would be enough to start with.
But, I don't have a shotgun, I'd be holding a 1911. And I'm not going to get close enough to him to thump him with it. I would likely hit him in the eyes with the bright red laser first, and see what he thought of that. If he loads his pants and scrams, good for him. If not, he's liable to have a bad night.
Of course, considering what we paid for our front door, and how much my wife likes it, she'd probably get him before I did.
But if he hurts my Beagles, he's dead meat!
But were it me, and some drunk kicked in the door and entered, and I was holding a shotgun, I'd have to seriously consider whether he was enough of a threat to blow back out the door, or whether just giving him a buttstroke to the beak would be enough to start with.
But, I don't have a shotgun, I'd be holding a 1911. And I'm not going to get close enough to him to thump him with it. I would likely hit him in the eyes with the bright red laser first, and see what he thought of that. If he loads his pants and scrams, good for him. If not, he's liable to have a bad night.
Of course, considering what we paid for our front door, and how much my wife likes it, she'd probably get him before I did.
But if he hurts my Beagles, he's dead meat!
SCMtns
Member
So far, the "buttstroke to the beak" sounds like one of the best ideas I've heard here. A drunk who can't figure out he's got the wrong place sounds like a situation I'd rather handle without a gun at all, if I could somehow (hypothetically) be certain he was alone and unarmed. As a boxer, I think of drunks as being already halfway KO'd-- on the ropes, staggered, in need of only a couple more good shots to be put out cold. And they're very easy to hit. Slow-moving targets.
Even easier for somebody with a little grappling experience is to get around to the back and put on a rear naked choke. Fight's over in a few seconds. No duking it out.
In this scenario, I might actually regret bringing a gun, as there's no way I could safely put it somewhere for the duration of a quick scrap. Bring a gun, and you're committed to using that gun-- if you've already got it on you but you've figured out the guy's just an unarmed drunk, then a buttstroke to the underside of the chin might be the best way to split the difference. If, that is, you're willing to take the chance (with your life) that your estimation of the drunk could be wrong. Seems some here are, and some aren't sure...
In the situation the OP describes, I might have been tempted to resolve things with boxing and grappling rather than splattering some moron all over the walls. Like some others on here, I really don't want to shoot anybody.
Even easier for somebody with a little grappling experience is to get around to the back and put on a rear naked choke. Fight's over in a few seconds. No duking it out.
In this scenario, I might actually regret bringing a gun, as there's no way I could safely put it somewhere for the duration of a quick scrap. Bring a gun, and you're committed to using that gun-- if you've already got it on you but you've figured out the guy's just an unarmed drunk, then a buttstroke to the underside of the chin might be the best way to split the difference. If, that is, you're willing to take the chance (with your life) that your estimation of the drunk could be wrong. Seems some here are, and some aren't sure...
In the situation the OP describes, I might have been tempted to resolve things with boxing and grappling rather than splattering some moron all over the walls. Like some others on here, I really don't want to shoot anybody.
LemmyCaution
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 897
Deanimator-
If you follow your stated intended course of action in response to the hypothetical drunken forced entry, I predict you will have very serious legal trouble for the following reasons:
1: You have made it vehemently and obstinately clear on this public forum that lethal force is your first option, regardless of context or mitigating circumstances. I somewhat doubt that this is the only place you have been so vocal. Any competent DA that green lights prosecution is going to have a field day with that.
2: Your Internet handle roughly transliterates to "killer." That isn't going to look good for you in court when it comes out.
3: Your statement above that 'If you wanted to kill people, you would go out in the street and do it,' though probably intended to make yourself sound like a rational actor, does the opposite. You see, rational people refrain from going out in the street and killing people not because 'they don't want to,' but because they have these things called 'moral compasses,' that tell them, for reasons that really don't take deep insight, that killing is wrong and should be avoided to the greatest degree possible.
4: While you probably admire your own resolve to coldly use lethal force, your resolve is going to get you in a lot of trouble, because it's not such a great leap from 'firm resolve' to 'sociopathic, remorseless indifference to human life,' in the context of your statements on this forum.
5: You have made statements on this forum that effectively state that you have set the bar at the lowest possible level for determining what constitutes a threat to your personal safety. The police are often given some degree of latitude for making the judgement of what constitutes a threat, as they volunteer to put themselves in harm's way to protect and serve society. You, by contrast, are self-admittedly unemployed and have adamantly and publicly stated that you are not your brother's keeper. My guess is that you will be judged by a different standard than a hypothetical police officer would be.
In conclusion, I'd recommend you re-examine your attitude regarding lethal force, or at least learn not to make such potentially incriminating statements about it in public. You may not feel that you are personally responsible for the life of a drunk who's made a serious mistake, but others might, and they may put you in a place where threats to your life will be much more frequent and credible than the hypothetical you are reacting to here, and you will be without much means of self defense there.
If you follow your stated intended course of action in response to the hypothetical drunken forced entry, I predict you will have very serious legal trouble for the following reasons:
1: You have made it vehemently and obstinately clear on this public forum that lethal force is your first option, regardless of context or mitigating circumstances. I somewhat doubt that this is the only place you have been so vocal. Any competent DA that green lights prosecution is going to have a field day with that.
2: Your Internet handle roughly transliterates to "killer." That isn't going to look good for you in court when it comes out.
3: Your statement above that 'If you wanted to kill people, you would go out in the street and do it,' though probably intended to make yourself sound like a rational actor, does the opposite. You see, rational people refrain from going out in the street and killing people not because 'they don't want to,' but because they have these things called 'moral compasses,' that tell them, for reasons that really don't take deep insight, that killing is wrong and should be avoided to the greatest degree possible.
4: While you probably admire your own resolve to coldly use lethal force, your resolve is going to get you in a lot of trouble, because it's not such a great leap from 'firm resolve' to 'sociopathic, remorseless indifference to human life,' in the context of your statements on this forum.
5: You have made statements on this forum that effectively state that you have set the bar at the lowest possible level for determining what constitutes a threat to your personal safety. The police are often given some degree of latitude for making the judgement of what constitutes a threat, as they volunteer to put themselves in harm's way to protect and serve society. You, by contrast, are self-admittedly unemployed and have adamantly and publicly stated that you are not your brother's keeper. My guess is that you will be judged by a different standard than a hypothetical police officer would be.
In conclusion, I'd recommend you re-examine your attitude regarding lethal force, or at least learn not to make such potentially incriminating statements about it in public. You may not feel that you are personally responsible for the life of a drunk who's made a serious mistake, but others might, and they may put you in a place where threats to your life will be much more frequent and credible than the hypothetical you are reacting to here, and you will be without much means of self defense there.
Six
Member
If your shotgun is close enough for the butt to reach his beak, then it's also close enough for his hands to reach the receiver.
Most of my plans for home defense assume that any bad guys will bring their own weapons. I try to rethink the ones where I end up equipping them.
Deanimator
Member
If you forcibly enter my home, DESPITE being told that you'll be shot if you do, you have nobody to blame for being shot but yourself.
1. If drinking makes you become a home invader, stop drinking.
2. I have precisely zero experience as a substance abuse counselor. I have precisely zero desire to learn to be one on the job with somebody who's just forcibly entered my home after being threatened with being shot if he does... for free.
3. You have precisely zero right to shift the risks of your irresponsible or malicious behavior onto innocent third parties.
4. I don't keep a breathalyzer in my home. Nor do I have the ability to test blood for alcohol content. Even if I had the imaginary legal duty to determine if home invaders were "drunk" or not, I lack the technical ability. That of course presumes their willingness to BE tested. Of course, if I let a violent criminal in my home who's NOT drunk, then it's all moot and I'm probably dead.
5. A VERY large proportion of violent crime in the United States involves people under the influence of drugs and alcohol. If alcohol STOPPED people from doing harm, they'd prescribe it alongside or instead of anti-psychotic drugs.
6. Ohio has "castle doctrine". I have NO duty to increase my personal risk to protect someone presenting me with the credible, immediate threat to life and limb.
In summary: If drinking makes you commit home invasions, don't drink. You could get shot.
LemmyCaution
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 897
Deanimator-
Your spiel is very well rehearsed. You hit the notes the same way each time you sing it, but I ask you to reconsider this attitude:
"If you enter my dwelling, despite my warning that you will get shot if you do, you get what you deserve."
Your warning, though an exemplary model of cause and effect, does not constitute force of law. You will face intense scrutiny to determine whether the homicide you commit, putatively in your own self defense, is justifiable. And you need to be very clear that shooting someone is a choice of action you are taking. I'm hearing a rationalization in your argument that the putative drunk is the one making the choice here. And it stinks of desperation to absolve yourself of responsibility in the situation. That's your choice, but society generally does not look favorably on people who so dogmatically absolve themselves of all responsibility for their fellow man.
Additionally, assuming the OP's situation, we're talking about your neighbor, here, not J. Random Stranger. You're really going to have a hard time with your philosophical outlook in court.
Your spiel is very well rehearsed. You hit the notes the same way each time you sing it, but I ask you to reconsider this attitude:
"If you enter my dwelling, despite my warning that you will get shot if you do, you get what you deserve."
Your warning, though an exemplary model of cause and effect, does not constitute force of law. You will face intense scrutiny to determine whether the homicide you commit, putatively in your own self defense, is justifiable. And you need to be very clear that shooting someone is a choice of action you are taking. I'm hearing a rationalization in your argument that the putative drunk is the one making the choice here. And it stinks of desperation to absolve yourself of responsibility in the situation. That's your choice, but society generally does not look favorably on people who so dogmatically absolve themselves of all responsibility for their fellow man.
Additionally, assuming the OP's situation, we're talking about your neighbor, here, not J. Random Stranger. You're really going to have a hard time with your philosophical outlook in court.
Last edited:
Route2
Member
Deanimator-
You live in a fools paradise, buddy. Talk all you want. Once it is over, you will be seconded guessed from here to Sunday.
You live in a fools paradise, buddy. Talk all you want. Once it is over, you will be seconded guessed from here to Sunday.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
