"My gun jammed..."

[dayid]

you are both ASSUMING they are guilty. And read what I said again.

For castle doctrine, the person must have ENTERED your home.

If someone is breaking into my home, it is not the time to ask them if they mean to be breaking in or if their hand accidentally found its way inside and was trying to open my door (lol)

As far as the castle doctrine, you speak very broadly, and at least in my state, you are wrong.

 

[mljdeckard]

Post the code for your state.

 

[Cornbred]

All in all it seems to have went pretty well. He survived, bad guys left, stolen gun off the street, cops got a new undercover car or at least made some money and the guy doesn't have to deal with the possible aftermath of killing someone.

Some people talk too much. Don't be like this man

.
^Agreed 100%^
Gives people like us something to nitpick, and shady lawyers something to hang us with.

As for the malfunction. If it was due to a short stroke or improperly maintained weapon, hopefully he took it as a wake up call and has taken steps to correct those errors. As many have said or implied he was lucky. I am curious though. The article stated that he could not get the shotgun out of the case. I wonder if he shot with it still in the case? In which case I would expect a malfunction every time.

MljDeckard as for your comments I would have to disagree with most everything you said.

Nope. you are both ASSUMING they are guilty.

Uhm. They are! I am pretty sure that they aren't going door to door breaking them down and selling Girls Scout Cookies. They had already committing a crime. And have done everything they need to be legally shot in Oklahoma.

And read what I said again. If he ENTERS your home, by violence or stealth, with the intent to commit a felony, you are justified in using deadly force.

Maybe correct depending on your state I guess. No intent for felonious activity just the following in Oklahoma. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (notice the words “in the process”)

NO ONE HAD ENTERED YET.

Not correct. He busted in the door, and gained entry, arm was inside.

You could argue that you were shooting at the part of him that is in your house, but if you hit anyone else, you have absolutely no way to assert that that person posed any danger to you at all, or that there was any legal justification to use deadly force.

Not correct again. Again I have to say they ain't sellin Girl Scout Cookies. I am confident that my lawyer and I could show in a court of law that I was in fear for my life and/or family members lives even without the castle doctrine. THEY were there to break into my home with me in it. By one of THEM sticking his arm in my home THEY gained entry. I don't have to have a gun pointed at me, knife at my throat, or be threatend with any weapon to be in fear for my life or my family members lives.

For castle doctrine, the person must have ENTERED your home.

Kinda sorta not really agreed see above.

For other deadly force, your life must be in danger.

Again it was.

What you are saying here is that it's ok if someone gets killed anyway. YOU WILL GO TO JAIL.

Not what they are saying. They are saying that it is okay if one or two of the other bad guys gets killed. Again I have to argue that I was in fear for my life and would be protected under Oklahoma HB 2615.

 

[mljdeckard]

How can you say your life was in danger from a person you didn't even know existed?

 

[Mainsail]

This is weird, I wrote a response to this thread but it’s disappeared! I won’t try to rewrite the post, I’ll just point out the message I got while reading the story in the OP.

It occurs to me that even though the homeowner had (what amounted to be) a single-shot shotgun that took some time for him to get to, he prevailed against multiple attackers! I started the thread, For What Are You Preparing? because it seems to me that in the vast majority of (non-police) self defense shootings, the victim prevails without a high power handgun, without specialized training, and without a batman belt full of gear.

This story points it out perfectly. He was hardly “prepared” for the home invasion, he probably had never taken a tactical shotgun course, he wasn’t showering with his sidearm, he didn’t shout his duress word, and he prevailed. When I read about armed citizen stories, it’s always the same; granny with her .22 revolver, some mom with her husband’s 410, or similar, simple people prevail against their attackers without all the training and gear suggested in this forum.

Do you prepare for the most likely threat, like this man faced, or are you preparing for Red Dawn?

 

[Al Thompson]

vast majority of (non-police) self defense shootings, the victim prevails without

If you only study success, you'll never understand failure. Would Grand-Ma have prevailed if she had an M1 Carbine instead of the single shot .410? Why study success, if you want to avoid failure? I know folks who have backed bad guys down with unloaded guns. Does that mean my gun's ammo status is immaterial?

In this case (IMHO) what worked, worked. Optimal? Nope. Frankly, in most jurisdictions in this state, if he had center punched the bad guy with a load of 00 buck after the door was opened, the victim would have only been faced with an ugly clean-up job.

As mljdeckard has pointed out, knowledge of local laws is very important. For instance in SC, AOJ is joined by "victim has to be with out fault" for a justified homicide to occur. (State v. Fuller, 1989)

Good guy won, but not due to a well thought out game plan.

 

[shockwave]

Nope. you are both ASSUMING they are guilty.

Right. What if the person just had the wrong door, wrong house and their key didn't fit so they're breaking into what they think is their own home? What if it's a relative? What if anything.

Firing at an arm is not being sure of your target or your backstop unless a lot more things are involved here. While most HD-minded owners have an area picked out for best strategic defense, it is normal and appropriate for a homeowner to investigate odd sounds or signs of forced entry. If someone has broken a window and you see an arm fishing around for a lock or whatever, the usual thing would be to say, "ID yourself! Who are you?" (i.e., "WTFAYD?") Make your next decision based on the response.

 

[Gouranga]

The castle doctrine laws can vary state to state. In NC for example, when a person is trying to enter my home, I am authorized to use deadly force to prevent that entry. However, once in the home our castle doctrine no longer applies and the situation must be reassessed. Not sure what it is for SC.

I would say this, given a similar situation (and the layout of my home and lighting) I would have aimed for center mass and kill the kid. IF one of his friends was holding the gun in a manner I could see, he would also die. Of course with my home if you are any any of my porches, I will see you VERY clearly and my dog will have let me know you were there long before you got to the porch steps.

I took his meaning on the desire to fire more shots as he was just going to unload everything right there with the kids hand in the door not chase him down. Which may protect him, if he fired so fast that the entry was still ongoing.

 

[Gouranga]

Right. What if the person just had the wrong door, wrong house and their key didn't fit so they're breaking into what they think is their own home? What if it's a relative? What if anything.

Good point. We had a situation in NC a few years back where a dude shot his daughter boyfriend. He was sneaking in a window at 2 am and the father assumed he was a burglar. He was not charged with the incident as he was acting within his rights under NC's castle doctrine but, that being said, I am sure he was not happy about the outcome of that situation.

All that being said, with 4 little ones in the house, I would be more likely to shoot first and ask questions later if someone was trying to enter my home in the middle of the night. Now when they are teens and I have to worry about them being the ones sneaking in...well that will probably change my attitude.

 

[dayid]

How can you say your life was in danger from a person you didn't even know existed?

...again, obviously he knew the person existed as he saw their arm. Please don't tell me we're going to claim that it could've been a floating arm, this is not being realistic.

Right. What if the person just had the wrong door, wrong house and their key didn't fit so they're breaking into what they think is their own home? What if it's a relative? What if anything.

What if it's just a nun trying to sell cookies? What if it's the next mass murderer on a drug-riddled craze who is going to kill you if you hesitate just one second?

Firing at an arm is not being sure of your target or your backstop

Your target is someone illegally entering your home: Target known.
Your backstop is the person illegally entering your home - and whatever is in your own yard, which hopefully you're familiar with your own yard: Backstop known.

If someone has broken a window and you see an arm fishing around for a lock or whatever, the usual thing would be to say, "ID yourself! Who are you?"

My state requires no warning, and no one will get one. Do not hesitate. If someone picked the wrong house (especially in my area, where no two look the same), then they're illegally breaking and entering and I am not about to investigate whether they want to do harm to me in addition to illegally entering my home.

What's next, when someone comes up to carjack me at a stoplight I'm supposed to verify if they maybe think that my truck is theirs?

This is not realistic guys. The point of this thread is the outcome of this person's situation, not a bunch of illy informed people blindly trying to advise others that they don't have the right to defend their homes and their own safety just because someone else may have accidentally been breaking into their own home and oopsies it happened to be your house instead.

 

[Kleanbore]

Good thing for the homeowner that the thing jammed.....

 

[sfc_mark]

For castle doctrine, the person must have ENTERED your home.

SC had quite the rash of home invasions and carjackings several years ago, many resulting in violence or death to the homeowners. The law there was changed to specifically allow lethal force in the case of attempted carjacking or while the BG is in the process of forcibly entering the home. Shooting at fleeing BGs outside the home is still not allowed.

 

[ShadyScott999]

In South Carolina, they don't have to be in you house. Castle Laws differ by state.

ARTICLE 6.

PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY

SECTION 16-11-410. Citation of article.

This article may be cited as the "Protection of Persons and Property Act".

SECTION 16-11-420. Intent and findings of General Assembly.

(A) It is the intent of the General Assembly to codify the common law Castle Doctrine which recognizes that a person's home is his castle and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person's place of business.

(B) The General Assembly finds that it is proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.

(C) The General Assembly finds that Section 20, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed.

(D) The General Assembly finds that persons residing in or visiting this State have a right to expect to remain unmolested and safe within their homes, businesses, and vehicles.

(E) The General Assembly finds that no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack.

SECTION 16-11-430. Definitions.

As used in this article, the term:

(1) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including an attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging there at night.

(2) "Great bodily injury" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ.

(3) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(4) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

SECTION 16-11-440. Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business.

(A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.

(B) The presumption provided in subsection (A) does not apply if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder; or

(2) sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship, of the person against whom the deadly force is used; or

(3) who uses deadly force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(4) against whom the deadly force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in the performance of his official duties, and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using force knows or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter is a law enforcement officer.

(C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

(D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

(E) A person who by force enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in violation of an order of protection, restraining order, or condition of bond is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act regardless of whether the person is a resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder.

SECTION 16-11-450. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions; law enforcement officer exception; costs.

(A) A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known that the person is a law enforcement officer.

(B) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of deadly force as described in subsection (A), but the agency may not arrest the person for using deadly force unless probable cause exists that the deadly force used was unlawful.

(C) The court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of a civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (A).

ARTICLE 7.

 

[dayid]

In South Carolina, they don't have to be in you house. Castle Laws differ by state. Know what you are are speaking of before passing along misinformation

Thank you!

As for my state, this is also true (as I'd repeated in this thread):

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

 

[Cornbred]

dayid very well put.

How can you say your life was in danger from a person you didn't even know existed?

I would also ad that I would say I had a reasonable belief that there were other persons involved as it is a common MO for these terds. I would also have the reasonable belief that any persons who happens to be struck by the rounds that I fired are with the first bad guy and as such are also there to do me harm. I can say this with good confidence as I know my home and its surroundings so again I can say with a reasonable certainty that if anyone is struck by a round they are there to do me harm. And I am not going to wait for them to all come in, do a head count, allow for introductions, tell me what they are doing and allow myself to be overwhelmed before I start defending myself or my property.

What if the person just had the wrong door, wrong house and their key didn't fit so they're breaking into what they think is their own home?

I guess he/she learns the hard way not to drink so much.

What if it's a relative?

They would have a key if they had a need to be in my home. If they thought i was hurt they would be calling me on the phone, screaming at me through the door before they had to resort to kicking in the door and a normal person would deduce that they are not bad guys. I am pretty sure no normal mom, dad, sister, brother, cousin, ext will kick in a door to try and get what ever. If someone lost their key they would call the other to let them in.

As for challenging, that may or may not happen depends on the situation.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Get rid of the Old Zipper case and get a plain ole gun sock.
Next keep it close if you had trouble already.
Practice with your shotgun.
In this case Proper ammo ie Slugs and 00 Buck would have ended it for good if you had practiced shooting it.

 

[shockwave]

What if it's just a nun trying to sell cookies? What if it's the next mass murderer on a drug-riddled craze who is going to kill you if you hesitate just one second?

Thank you. That's the point right there. You don't know what's happening and blinding firing at a person before you know who is attempting to gain entry is not being sure of your target or backstop. Depending on your state's castle doctrine laws, you may be well within your rights to shoot. You may well wind up killing a neighbor, a relative, etc. This is the pause point.

It is not necessary to argue third-level variables beyond that, such as "well if it were a relative they would have a key, they would be shouting for me," etc. Just as easy to argue explanations for those things as well. A verbal challenge at least gives the person a chance to self-identify: "Hey Dad! It's me - I slipped and my arm went through the window - help!" Or whatever.

When the anti-gun crowd raises objections along the lines of "having a gun increases your likelihood of being shot" or similar, what they're talking about is that many gun injuries and fatalities happen in cases like this. Gouranga mentions a case of a father shooting his daughter's boyfriend. It's illegal to booby trap your home because of cases like that having happened as well.

Now, every situation is unique. It could be that there are a rash of burglaries in your area, and the people attempting to gain entry are talking out loud and you can hear that these are strangers, you could construct a case whereby shooting first and asking questions later is defensible. In the matter presented by the OP, my interpretation of "be certain of your target" means "be absolutely sure this is a person who has to die." Given the information in the original post, I do not believe that the standard was met. Two seconds later, perhaps it would have been.

From an HD standpoint, if you are in a good position and aiming a shotgun at a doorway, you have the drop on anybody coming in. There is reasonable opportunity to make a visual confirmation before opening fire, and to say "stop or I'll shoot." But I understand that some feel differently.

 

[dayid]

You don't know what's happening and blinding firing at a person before you know who is attempting to gain entry is not being sure of your target or backstop.

This has already been covered ad nauseum. You are wrong.

Depending on your state's castle doctrine laws, you may be well within your rights to shoot.

Correct, now you're getting it!

You may well wind up killing a neighbor, a relative, etc. This is the pause point.

Any neighbor, relative, "etc" who is illegally breaking into my home (obviously without my notice, or they would have called/yelled out, etc) deserves to be shot. A criminal being a neighbor or a criminal being a relative is still a criminal and should be treated as such.

It is not necessary to argue third-level variables beyond that, such as "well if it were a relative they would have a key, they would be shouting for me," etc. Just as easy to argue explanations for those things as well.

Correct, there is no need at all for any third-level (or second level variables). Someone is breaking into your house: they are breaking the law and have no regard for it. No further information is necessary.

A verbal challenge at least gives the person a chance to self-identify: "Hey Dad! It's me - I slipped and my arm went through the window - help!" Or whatever.

Or the chance to run away and go rob someone else. Again, you yourself said the "third level variables" are unnecessary. I agree, see prior response.

Gouranga mentions a case of a father shooting his daughter's boyfriend.

See again: breaking the law, deserving the consequences.

Now, every situation is unique. It could be that there are a rash of burglaries in your area, and the people attempting to gain entry are talking out loud and you can hear that these are strangers, you could construct a case whereby shooting first and asking questions later is defensible.

Unnecessary extra variables, again.

In the matter presented by the OP, my interpretation of "be certain of your target" means "be absolutely sure this is a person who has to die."

Again: Criminal: Breaking law... what don't you understand here?

From an HD standpoint, if you are in a good position and aiming a shotgun at a doorway, you have the drop on anybody coming in. There is reasonable opportunity to make a visual confirmation before opening fire, and to say "stop or I'll shoot."

There is also no reason to let a crime escalate to that level.

These "What if's" are meant to mock, if nothing else. We all know that there is no good excuse for someone to be breaking into your home. Again, please see the laws above. If someone is attempting to break into your home without announcing they are breaking the law.

As a human, you should learn from your surroundings. How many innocent people have blindly tried to break into the wrong persons house (ever) for a justifiable cause? How many people who have been 100% innocent while illegally (yes, notice those prior three words) breaking into someone's home? Statistics and learning are here to protect you.

You can choose to not learn from these things, but I can guarantee you when it comes to the person breaking into my house vs. yours, I will be a lot less likely to find myself in the hospital (or worse) because of the hesitation that you seem to rely upon.

The sheer act of breaching your door in any way (or any window) is breaking and entering. Stop crimes at the first notice that they are occurring, criminals have no regard for the law (as they are already breaking it), and it is up to you to stop it as soon as possible.

I fear that others may listen to your poor advice, but hopefully the reasonable discussion here - along with state statutes - will stop others from making such decisions and playing with their own safety.

 

[shockwave]

I will be a lot less likely to find myself in the hospital (or worse) because of the hesitation that you seem to rely upon.

No need to be contentious. And definitely no need to use the word "hesitation" in this way. That's just a throwaway insult. "Be certain of your target" is not compatible with "I don't know who it was or what they wanted, I just walked up and opened fire." In your assessment, any person who breaks your window has committed a capital offense and will pay with their lives. Great and power to you. Guess you never had to break into your own house, eh?

 

[DogStar]

I think a lot of the disagreement about the 'shoot first, ask questions later' stems from differing peoples' differing ways of living. For people who live alone, who rarely have friends drop by unannounced and who have neighbors who keep to themselves, it's reasonable to assume that someone banging around at your door is an unwanted visitor.

In my situation, I have roommates, I have people who stop by to visit or say hello randomly. One of my roommates has a guy who likes to come over at 2 am for sex, and it's not like she ever tells me he's coming. For me to grab my gun and start shooting every time I hear a noise at the door would be both irresponsible and criminal. For other people, it might be a lot more reasonable a course of action.

 

[Hatterasguy]

He survived and drove them off.


But he did fail to properly train and maintain his weapon. If he had take the effort to shoot that shotgun a couple of times a year it probably wouldn't have jammed. If you pick up a weapon cold that you havn't touched in 4 years in a highly stressful situation, chances are good your going to have a problem.

 

[dayid]

No need to be contentious. And definitely no need to use the word "hesitation" in this way. That's just a throwaway insult. "Be certain of your target" is not compatible with "I don't know who it was or what they wanted, I just walked up and opened fire." In your assessment, any person who breaks your window has committed a capital offense and will pay with their lives. Great and power to you. Guess you never had to break into your own house, eh?

If I were breaking into my own house, who would be inside shooting at me? LOL. Seriously now... You didn't want all these "third level variables" - so stop introducing them.

I use the word "hesitation" for it's defined meaning/purpose. That is exactly what you suggest multiple times now. If you don't like ducks being called ducks, avoid ducks.

And yes, someone breaking into my house is breaking the law. I DO know who it is (a criminal) and I do know what they want (to break into my house). You apparently can't grasp these two things that are the very heart of this discussion. Until you can wrap your head around those, I don't see any reason to continue this.

He survived and drove them off.


But he did fail to properly train and maintain his weapon. If he had take the effort to shoot that shotgun a couple of times a year it probably wouldn't have jammed. If you pick up a weapon cold that you havn't touched in 4 years in a highly stressful situation, chances are good your going to have a problem.

Indeed, he could've ended up injured if there were something blocking the barrel, etc. Proper maintenance and even 2-3 times per year shooting is a must.

 

[402Bear]

I think DogStar hit the nail on the head. Many of us with families, roommates, even friends who drop by unannounced simply can't afford to shoot at every little noise we hear at the door.

 

[mljdeckard]

None of you have stated anything that covers you from shooting the SECOND person in this story.

 

[MTO]

shockwave,

Can you please source the quote that you used?

I could not find this quote anywhere other than in your comment:

"I don't know who it was or what they wanted, I just walked up and opened fire."

If this quote was a strawman you invented to accompany the snarky "capital offense" strawman that you used as a jump-off point for the non sequitur about breaking into one's own home, then please do not bother to respond. Life is too short to waste time arguing with people who do not argue in good faith.

If you do not know why constructing strawmen and advancing a ridiculous non sequitur are unacceptable forms of debate, then please do not bother to respond. Life is too short to waste time trying to reason with people who do not have the first clue that thinking and feeling are not the same thing.