Non-Compliant Intruder

[hso]

If you are going to automatically assume that every intruder into your home is there for lawful reasons

That's not what anyone has assumed and it's hysterical hyperbole to say so.

The assumption is that the guy is probably a threat. That's why you have a gun on him instead of carrying a jug of milk and a tray of cookies to him and that's why you have to be prepared to shoot to defend yourself if he show's any further evidence of being a threat.

I've trained folks in shoot house scenarios and I've seen them lockup when a gun was pointed at them. They couldn't hear me because the adrenaline was pushing their flight buttons. They couldn't move for the same reasons. That doesn't mean they weren't a threat or that they were. It just means that they were deer in the headlights and couldn't respond. And that was in a Simunitions training shoot house with Simunition-only guns, in light body armor on where they couldn't get serously injured.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Take the family out of the situation and you still don't find a guy standing in your living room with a bulge in his pants not listening to you while pointing a gun at him a threat?

I would regard him as a threat; he just isn't a threat worthy of lethal force yet.

As for non-compliance, I did a force-on-force class where I was pointing a pistol at a guy and yelling at him to get on the ground. He answered me but I had no idea what he said. I didn't hear a single word, even though even people outside the scenario area were able to repeat the entire conversation back to me later because we were both talking so loud.

Auditory exclusion is a documented side-effect of a heightened heart rate and stress - and few things get your heart racing like looking into the muzzle of a pistol.

 

[1911Tuner]

Threat

Wow! This one just won't die.

The fact that he's there is unlawful. No argument. He's a potential threat until deemed otherwise. His own actions usually being the deciding factor,
and I can bump the trigger twice or thrice well within the time frame of the Tueller Drill.

He has not yet met all three criteria...but he hasn't convinced me yet that he can't or won't. That's why I have him covered and ordering him to stand down. No milk and cookies until he shows me that he's there for milk and cookies.

The family's absence doesn't mean a thing. If he's a threat to me, he's a threat to the well-being of my family. They depend on me, and without me, they suffer the consequences of my absence, whatever the short or long term
consequences are. Their lives will change dramatically and permanently at my death.

Would I fire if he makes a tiny wrong move? Bet on it. Would I fire immediately on discovering his presence, given the information contained within the original scenario? No. Sorry. Refer back to the Three Criteria.

 

[Bix]

to automatically assume that every intruder into your home is there for lawful reasons

The previous couple posters said it well.

Look, I'm not presuming this guy's benign. I'm not a milk-and-cookie-bearer. I'm an 870-bearer. I've spent a lot of time and money learning how to run that thing effectively, and I won't hesitate for an instant to do so if I have to.

In the original scenario, at that moment in time, I don't have to. A second later, maybe, but that's after some significant change in the fact pattern.

 

[kludge]

gspn wrote:

I posted the story about the homeowner in Indiana last week that had the same situation. He stood there with an intruder at gunpoint that wasn't a threat, and everyone in his house died because of it. Women, kids, everyone. The second intruder came around the corner and killed the homeowner, then killed 3 generations of his family. Things are rarely as simple as they seem, as evidenced by the many scenarios presented in this thread. To categorically rule out a threat because the person in front of you "seems" to be compliant is one dimensional, and dangerous at best.

The fact of life is that a person will have a very limited amount of time to decipher what is going on, formulate a plan and act on it. You won't EVER have 100% of the information you would like to have when forced to make your decision. You have to make decisions with imcomplete information, or make no decision at all. At some point an individual has to act. After reading about the deal in Indiana, I am going to err on the side of living. Consider the cost of inaction. I'd be willing to bet the guy in Indiana would love to have a "do-over", I'm sure his sweet kids would have loved a different outcome as well. One to the head and one to the chest is no way for a child to die.

<snip>

In my case, if you are in my home, and I don't know you, you've got some 'splainin to do, and not much time to do it. My kids need a dad the rest of their life. Second place is a body bag, and I don't plan to be in it.

I'm glad you posted this, and the link to the story in your other post, cuz I hadn't heard a single word on the local news (go figure) that the victim had been armed...

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling or curtilage.

This is Indiana law. As of July 1, 2006 it will include a person's "occupied motor vehicle" and "no duty to retreat".

As I read it, "terminate" means the case where the person is already standing in your living room.

Any lawyers here?

This was an unthinkable crime... I wish the victim had pulled the trigger when he had the chance.

 

[kludge]

OK, here's a scenario --

Again Indiana Law:

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in using deadly force only if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

Say I'm away from home, at the hunting cabin, I don't own a cell phone (or there is no coverage), no phones nearby, or any I could get to in a reasonable amount of time, and I'm confronted by the dirt bag who's been stalking my wife, at knife point he takes my Jeep keys, all the while stating his intentions toward my wife, and leaves...

1) I am not in "imminent" danger since he is leaving, and it could be construed that since my wife is not presently in "imminent" danger either, due to the distance -- many miles, from the hunting cabin. As he is climbing into my Jeep, I retrieve my handgun (which is illegal to carry while hunting in Indiana) and shoot him in the back -- dead. Justifiable?

2) Before taking my keys I am duct-taped to a chair/tree/etc., as the scum bag drives away from the cabin, I free myself, retrieve my hunting firearm and shoot him in the back of the head at 100 yards -- dead. Justifiable?

 

[GarandOwner]

Its because of people who ABUSE the laws that protect us that anti-gun people try to make them more strict. All of you who say you would blast away just because someone broke into your home is what all Anti-gun types soak up like sponges. In most states it is legal to shoot someone who has entered your home, but that doesnt make it right. They make those laws to protect people who shoot, because the Perp reaches for something that might be a weapon. In the original situation, he had not yet reached for the "potential weapon" As soon as he does, by all means shoot, but if he just turns to run for the door I dont see how ethicly so many people are ok with killing them for it. Good luck explaining to the authorities why the entry hole is in the guys back, yet he was still a threat to you

 

[kludge]

If he is heading for the door, then a person cannot "reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary."

Just to clarify.

 

[kludge]

One more thing. As much as I like what Ayoob writes, part of me thinks there he does a slight disservice. While it is extremely imperative that we know the law, and know the situations that comprise a justifiable shooting, I sometimes feel that Ayoob is holding the common citizen to a standard that is unreasonably high. I can understand why LEO's need the high standard, and unfortunately there are honest people who have had their lives ruined, and he always has new examples of this... but even with the high standards, LEO's serving jail time for a "bad shoot", the way a common citizen does, is extremely rare.

 

[Tim Burke]

If non-LEOs are more likely than LEOs to serve time for a bad shooting, then it sounds to me like the courts are holding non-LEOs to a higher standard. If so, Ayoob's curriculum just reflects the reality of the courtroom.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You would have to ask Mr. Ayoob about his motivations; but from what I've read he seems to be taking a conservative approach that is guaranteed to give a self-defense shooter the best legal options available. His advice is on how to maximize your legal options and if you are writing to a large audience that probably doesn't spend a great deal of time training or researching the legal aspects of self-defense, that is probably a wise approach to take.

I think that as you train more and have a better understanding of your local law, you probably could disregard some of that advice and still be OK in a defensive shooting; but if I were writing for a nationally distributed gun magazine I would never say that out of fear that Joe, who goes bird hunting twice a year since age 6 and once dated a paralegal who explained all this to him, will assume that he has sufficient training and legal knowledge to make wise decisions regarding self-defense.

You just have to look at the threads here regarding "Stand Your Ground" laws. Most posters at THR (and THR represents some well-trained and well-informed shooters) do not understand that law. Many mistakenly think it allows them to shoot anyone who is inside their home and that isn't the case. It creates the presumption that someone intruding into your home is a good reason to fear death or serious bodily injury. A presumption can be rebutted though. To use an extreme example, if the intruder is a blind ten-year old child with a pocket full of lollipops, that provides enough evidence to make a strong rebuttal that you were not in fear of death or serious bodily injury.

 

[XDKingslayer]

If he is heading for the door, then a person cannot "reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary."

Just to clarify.

Depends on the state. But that is also a clarifcation that can get you killed. Is he heading for the door to leave or to wave to his 3 buddies in the car?

A person can very well reasonably believe a person heading for the door is still worthy of deadly force.

 

[kludge]

Tim Burke worte:

If non-LEOs are more likely than LEOs to serve time for a bad shooting, then it sounds to me like the courts are holding non-LEOs to a higher standard. If so, Ayoob's curriculum just reflects the reality of the courtroom.

Or the reality that the prosecutor is more likely to file charges against a non-LEO. In some states they have no choice -- you shoot someone, charges are filed. (Ohio comes to mind, glad I don't live there anymore, I don't know if that's changed, but when I lived there ti was pre-CCW).

Batholemew Roberts wrote:

from what I've read (Mr. Ayoob) seems to be taking a conservative approach that is guaranteed to give a self-defense shooter the best legal options available. His advice is on how to maximize your legal options and if you are writing to a large audience that probably doesn't spend a great deal of time training or researching the legal aspects of self-defense

I would agree, and the more you know, and the more you think about different scenarios, hopefully one might make the right decision if the time ever comes.

And on the topic of young people, some of the worst crimes/killings in my area in recent memory have been perpetrated by teens, many times acting in pairs (as in this recent shooting of an entire family, though the perps were not teens), so I have a hard time with this question of weather young people pose a "real threat".

Never in my life have I pointed a gun at anyone, and I hope I die never having to. I'm not a cop, I was never in the military, and though I've shot many thousand rounds, I'm like most people who own a gun that have never drilled with defensive scenarios in mind. What would they be? Who knows? My lifestyle is such that if there were an armed confrontation, it would be a random act.

The stuff I'm saying here is probably the best reason in the world for anyone to receive defense specific training (I've had plenty of marksmanship, safety, and hunter training), and for my wife to get it too.

And that, I think, is the underlying messange in what Mr. Ayoob writes.

 

[pittspilot]

One of the most educational experiences I have had is doing those video shoot/ no shoot simulations.

It is eye opening to see how quickly things can go south on you. In this type of scenario, you are going to have a life or death decision thrust upon, with imperfect information upon which to make it.

One of the scenarios had a fully compliant home intruder turn to a deadly threat with a suddeness that was terrifying. I would have been shot, a victim of my unwillingness to pull the trigger aggressively, of the "Do I have to shoot him now" mindset. I still have that mindset, I just understand that the decision may have to be very sudden, and if I ever have to make it, please let it be correct.

 

[massad ayoob]

Helluva thread, gang.

As some have noted, my writing (and teaching) has to be generic for all 50 states. Bear in mind, however, that many here travel a lot, and what we have programmed ourselves to do in a confrontation in our home is what the program will tell us to do in a hotel room or a relative's house across the country.

As some have noted, the "castle laws" do not in fact give blanket approval to shoot any intruder in the home.

One of the most educational portions of this thread has been the significant number of "false positive" situations that posters have described in the early pages. How many of us have keys to the house out to members of the family/extended family? How likely is it that we might come home to find a stranger in the kitchen, not realizing that it's a workman another household member called in because something went wrong with the plumbing or the gas system?

In all states, we have more latitude in resort to deadly weapons during confrontations in our home. For the most part, however, this simply means that we don't have to wait as long to draw down and take them at gunpoint as we might in an uncertain situation "on the street." The original poster's hypothetical of the man who has stood stock still when you took him at gunpoint, but is not obeying commands to leave/prone out/whatever, is a standoff. It is not yet a "shoot" situation.

The castle laws generally cover you only for firing in "reasonable" belief that you or other family members are in immediate danger. When he is rooted in place and not making any movements, he will be seen as having already surrendered at gunpoint, and you will be seen in essence as shooting a helpless prisoner. This is unlikely to be viewed as a reasonable belief that it was necessary to extinguish his life. An illegal intruder known to be armed with a lethal weapon, especially if he already has it in hand, is an entirely different situation.

Do not assume that because your state is generally pro-gun, that you have carte blanche to shoot intruders and other criminals. I often see posters say that they don't have to worry about post-shooting horror stories because they live in, say, Texas or New Mexico. I've personally seen one cop accused of manslaughter in NM, and one cop and two armed citizens charged with murder in TX, all in clear-cut self-defense shootings. I just finished teaching an LFI-I class in Amarillo, which numbered among the students an elected prosecutor from NM and a civil attorney from TX. Both told of cases where clean shootings were followed by dirty legal allegations and expensive trials. It can happen anywhere, and questionable shootings are to be avoided everywhere.

Each situation must be taken, in the wording of the courts, in the context of "the totality of the circumstances." Each will be different. The more we've planned ahead for any possible situation, the more quickly we'll be able to come to the correct decision in a short time when we face a situation for real.

I understand, and sympathize with, and share the natural mammalian instinct to protect the nest at all costs. However, things are as they are, and it's better to find that out on The High Road now than in court later.

 

[LFI_Grad]

Hi everyone, James in Texas, first post (been lurking for a LONG time). Thanks for the fine forum.

I think the overwheming point to be made is that when one has a suspect at gunpoint, he/she is literally in your custody. From that decisive moment until the situation otherwise resolves itself by custody being transferred to law enforcement or you allow the intruder to leave of his own accord, you become responsible for that person and arguably (if not in a legal certainly a moral sense) his safety. It appears to me that one could open theirself to huge legal risk by firing a shot when it is not necessary in the immediate defense of the life of innocent potential victims. Granted, if there were no other witnesses present it might be possible to convince law enforcement and prosecutors that a lunge was being made or other aggression was imminent, but the truth normally has a way of coming out in a case like that and the forensic evidence always has a tail of it's own to tell, especially with today's technology.

I was in Massad's Amarillo class and learned a HUGE amount from it. Much of it is common-sense that he puts the right "spin" on to help you see it from a different perspective. I strongly recommend his LFI-I class and plan to attend his more advanced classes in the future.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

nplant, you are correct in that action does not necessarily mean shooting. Your scenario was a nice example, but fell short in a key area. How do you know there is ONLY one intruder?

Stats will vary from area or region, but according to Dallas PD, 60% of such crimes involve more than one person. Now, whether that extra person or persons is actually involved inside the home, assisting from outside (such as transporting valuables handed out as window to a vehicle), and/or serving as lookout is speculative. The point is that there is a more likely chance that other parties are involved than not and it may be most prudent to identify said parties if possible before opening a dialog that will provide your opposition with some useful information, specifically, your location, mental states (sleepy, awake, drunk, scared, mad, etc.), etc.

One nice thing about Texas, it is an intruder-shoot friendly state on the books and in the courts. James, have you looked into Texas law?

 

[LFI_Grad]

Spy;

Yes sir, I consider myself very well-read in Texas firearm and deadly force statutes and I also feel that I have at least a basic understanding of the "mood of the courts" in my part of Texas. But there's much more to The Law than what's written in black and white. I'm sure you'll have to agree that floating around somewhere is a document stating something to the effect that "the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed", but in some cases it is totally ignored. Law is whatever you (your counsel) or your judicial opponent can use to influence a jury, not what is written on paper.

You have to consider that the "reasonable and prudent person" is a constantly moving target that changes with each jury pool selection and is a variable that cannot be depended upon. My own way of thinking is that "criminal law" is made up of the following:

1/4 what is on paper
1/4 responding officer, investigating officer and prosecutor
1/4 judge and jury
1/4 the facts of the event itself and how they are interpreted by the above to fit into the law

The term I used in my previous post was "huge legal risk". Risk is everywhere in our lives and we all do what we can to minimize those risks to levels that we consider acceptable. The threshold of "acceptable legal risk" is different to each person, and my own level of acceptable risk would not allow me to pull the trigger with only the facts stated by the thread starter because any time you use a firearm you are taking a legal risk that others will see and interpret the facts as you do. The human factor that makes up 3/4 of what I described above is very fickle and sometimes easily influenced by charismatic prosecuting attorneys or the press.

As 1911Tuner stated way back in reply#8 of this marathon thread, "Just because it's legal, doesn't always mean that it's right." He could have meant "legally right" or "morally right", I personally think it works out the same either way.

I have also been reading THR long enough to be aware of your viewpoints on various issues DNS, and I look forward to debating points such as these with you in a friendly and thoughful manner.

Thank you for the opportunity to reply.

Edited for spelling.

 

[1911blaster]

well, what more is there to say

you know, i have been reading around here for a long time, first post, but a continual reader, and all i have to say is for the guys and girls is to use your heart, and go with your feelings, legal, moral... it dont matter, its you that has to live with yourself afterword, not the wife, or the kids... not the dead a-hole that just broke into your home to rob and kill you and your family..... its all about you, no matter what training you have been through, no matter what times you have practiced, its about you, you have won the battle, its your family that will go back to sleep while they clean his robbing corps off the walls, you have won, and you should feel "right" about that....