Non-Compliant Intruder

[GarandOwner]

I agree with Jeff, your mind is your best faimly protection. What if the perp was just one of your kids friends that was sneaking back to their house because they were not supose to be out and didnt want to get in trouble. Here in florida we have the "Castle" law which means that you can shoot anyone who illegally entered your house. While everyone has their own interpretation of the law. There are a few MAJOR things that you must remember. You CAN NOT assume that you can just shoot whoever because they are in your house and think you will get of scott free. A law that PROTECTS you from being procecuted for shooting someone that has entered your home, does not give PERMISSION to shoot someone inside your home. You might not get Murder 1 but that doesnt mean there may be some other charge. Also alot of people seem to think you can hold someone at gunpoint. THIS IS ILLEGAL, if they run for the door, you CANT shoot them. WE ARENT POLICE OFFICERS. I would like to see you explaining to the authorities why you shot them in the back while they were headed for the door in "selfdefense". The laws are different depending on where you are, and it is different depending on if you are in your home or on the street, but I think my concealed weapons permit training officer said it best. "Only use deadly force if the outcome of the situation is worse than going to prison." Sure you might not go to jail, but if the guy was a 17 yr old kid stealing ur stereo, and you shoot him because you think u saw a gun in his pants. How will you feel about killing him if it wasnt? Personally I dont think my concience would be happy with the justification: He broke into my house.

 

[Nomoney]

Thank you very much! It's a pleasure to be here

 

[gezzer]

Talk about going off topic, from a rant about a sick wife to a sister trying to get in the house.

READ the first post and answer the question Geesh. :banghead:

The person reaches for what you feel is a weapon and you are in fear of your life deadly force can be a reasonable response. Note the scenario is a stranger in YOUR home. No mistaken identity involved.

A training g film shown in police academies is a deaf mute pulling his wallet and pointing it at the officer to show he is a dead mute. Officer shoots, as he felt it was a weapon. Results tragedy not murder good shoot.

Isn’t it the same for non LEO? If so not why isn’t it?

 

[Jeff White]

gezzer,
In the first post the intruder did not reach for anything. He just stood there. That is not grounds to shoot that person in any police academy use of force class.

Perhaps you shouldn't read things into the scenario so that you can justfy shooting the person.....

Jeff

 

[Preacherman]

I might add that Jeff is being amazingly tolerant in not banning from THR some of those who've posted in this thread. I can assure you, if anyone posted such responses in a thread in GGD, advocating murder (which is what the unprovoked shooting of an intruder amounts to - read the laws for yourself), I'd ban them from THR on the spot for advocating illegal and criminal actions.

The standard for the use of deadly force is pretty much universal, despite the existence (or otherwise) of any "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" laws. Yes, some states allow one to use lethal force to defend property, and I accept that those are exceptions: but they're often pretty dodgy to defend in court. Try telling a jury that you shot the deceased because he'd stolen your VCR! You might escape criminal charges, but I daresay your name would be forever mud among the decent citizens of your community, and you'd probably face a humongous civil lawsuit as well - and be convicted therein by your own statements.

Legitimate use of lethal force is adjudicated on pretty much the same basis country-wide. For the benefit of those who may have forgotten it, let me reiterate the standard.

Lethal force may be used only to prevent the immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious injury.

If your intruder just stands there, not holding a weapon, nor making any move towards what may (or may not) be a weapon, he/she is NOT posing such a danger. If any of the keyboard commandos who've responded in this thread about how they'd shoot 'em anyway, ever do so, I sincerely hope that they face the full punishment of the law. They deserve no better.

 

[hso]

You've got some guy standing in your kitchen and you've got a gun on him while you're flooded with adrenaline and shouting orders at him. He isn't doing what you're telling him to do. Some folks here have said (in very Rambozo terms) that killing him at this point is appropriate. That's insane.

Shooting account after shooting account recount people saying that they were yelling instructions at someone before they've shot and killed their assailant. When the witness accounts are collected none of the witnesses remember a word being said. Conversely, the opposite happens. People don't remember yelling instructions at the person they shot, while witnesses recount they were shouting instructions even while the trigger was being pulled. I persoanally know a cop that was involved in a shooting while off duty. His date reported he was yelling "Don't do it!" at the top of his lungs as he pulled his Glock and shot 3 young men who were bent on robbery, rape and murder. He never remembered saying a thing, but having been thinking it as he defended himself and his date.

As personal experience, I used to help teach defensive handgun courses with Simunition in a shoot-house setting. We tried to make things as realistic as possible, but it was a controlled setting, inside a building, with firearms that we hammered the safe handling rules into the students. Regardless of this we still had people "shouting instructions" without saying a word or slurring the words or nearly whispering them simply because the excitement triggered the adrenaline dump.

Don't tell me that you KNOW that you're justified in shooting someone in this situation unless you've been there. I've seen people screw this up in training first hand.

 

[Bix]

You have an intruder at gunpoint. You notice a bulge on his waist, but you are not sure if it is a gun. You tell him to lay down, but he just stands there.

Keep in mind, you don't have a phone on you, and you are home alone.

What do you do?

This is a no-shoot, guys. As drafted, this is an easy no-shoot. If your CCW class didn't adequately explain ability/opportunity/intent, then pony up and go take LFI I. You can't afford to get this wrong.

 

[CSA 357]

well ok! my mod 12 just went off by its self then! (csa)

 

[hso]

well ok! my mod 12 just went off by its self then!

Bubba, I hope you think you're being funny. That's the sort of crap anti's just love to tell everyone we think.

 

[WT]

Bix - I did take LFI-1. My notes say it was Ability-Opportunity-Jeopardy.

I ain't no dang mind reader knowing what his Intent was.

Bix, I think you need to take LFI.

 

[CSA 357]

the one thing that gets me about this whole thing is the part where he has broke in my house, hes not in the yard not knocking on the door, he has already busted out a window or kicked in a door to get in, now what do you think hes there for a glass of milk and some cookies? i could never understand a person having the guts to break in to a persons home knowing they may or may not be home, that tells you alot about the kind of person your dealing with, if they are that crazy then they would not mind killing you in the least bit(give him a chance?)he has lost all his chances when he busted in the house!*csa*

 

[GTSteve03]

With the number of multiple-person breakins on the rise, leading to situations like what happened with the slaughter of an entire family, what makes you think just waiting it out with a non-compliant badguy is gonna end well for you?

Maybe he's just waiting for his buddy to come in the other door and shoot you while you're too busy covering his friend?

But I suppose none of that is inside the realm of possibility whereas there are hundreds of mute, retarded and emotionally unstable folks just breaking into houses every day.

 

[bg226]

With the number of multiple-person breakins on the rise, leading to situations like what happened with the slaughter of an entire family, what makes you think just waiting it out with a non-compliant badguy is gonna end well for you?

Maybe he's just waiting for his buddy to come in the other door and shoot you while you're too busy covering his friend?

But I suppose none of that is inside the realm of possibility whereas there are hundreds of mute, retarded and emotionally unstable folks just breaking into houses every day.

Good point. Stalling the situation occupies the homeowner and buys the intruder(s) more reaction time.

 

[Bix]

Bix - I did take LFI-1. My notes say it was Ability-Opportunity-Jeopardy.

I ain't no dang mind reader knowing what his Intent was.

Bix, I think you need to take LFI.

And how did Mas define "Jeopardy" for you? My notes say: "MANIFEST INTENT as evidenced by words or actions". In law school, we were just taught "intent," which is the jargon I defaulted to. Mea Culpa

Mas' definition is actually better than the one my professors gave, since - as you point out - we can never have personal knowledge of another person's intent. We must rely on evidence of his intent, as he presents it - or "Jeopardy" in LFI I parlance.

In any event, the jeopardy element is thin-at-best in the original scenario, which is one of the points I was trying to make.

[Edited for spelling]

 

[Sindawe]

I will follow the letter of the law regarding deadly force here in Colorado, which is:

18-1-704 Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of A Person

1. Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

2. Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

a) The actor has reasonable grounds to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or

b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 184-204; or

c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 184-301 or 184-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 or 18-3-403, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 or 18-3-203.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:

a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or

b) He is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or

c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

The following section covers inside the home

18-1-704.5 Use Of Deadly Physical Force Against An Intruder (“Make My Day law”)

1. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

3. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions or subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

4. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

The "Make My Day" law has been tested several times here in Colorado, and IIRC it has always come down in favor of the shooter.

 

[CSA 357]

you know now that i think about it, i think there is something in the bible about this, i might be wrong, any one know?*csa*

 

[Jeff White]

GT Steve03 said;

But I suppose none of that is inside the realm of possibility whereas there are hundreds of mute, retarded and emotionally unstable folks just breaking into houses every day

You are much more likely to encounter an intruder in you're home who falls into one of theose categories then you are someone who is trying to do you harm.

We don't have a lot of burglaries that are committed while the owner is present. That crime stat may be on the rise in the UK, but our armed population pretty much keeps that a fairly rare crime. Those people who are there to steal don't usually want to take that chance.

You are also much more likely to encounter someone that you already know if he/she has entered your home to do you or a family member harm. The girlfriend/boyfriend thing, the nutcase who thinks you screwed him/her over on a business deal, the family member who feels you wrong him/her are the kinds of people that are going to enter your home while you are there looking to cause trouble or harm someone. Strangers entering a home to harm someone are rare enough happenings that they are almost always national news stories when they happen.

Unless you deal in drugs or it's widely known that you keep a lot of cash or other easily transferrable valuables in your home, you don't stand much of chance of an armed gang doing a home invasion robbery on your residence.

Sindawe said;

The "Make My Day" law has been tested several times here in Colorado, and IIRC it has always come down in favor of the shooter.

Find me a case that has the exact circumstances described here. Intruder just standing there and gunned down by the homeowner. Every case is different.

csa357 said;

well ok! my mod 12 just went off by its self then! (csa)

Can you say Manslaughter and Negligent Homicide?

I knew you could.....

Jeff

 

[GTSteve03]

You are much more likely to encounter an intruder in you're home who falls into one of theose categories then you are someone who is trying to do you harm.

Sorry, but if it's between your word and the FBI Crime Statistics that just came out today that said:

Murders, robberies and aggravated assaults in the United States increased last year, spurring an overall rise in violent crime for the first time since 2001, according to FBI data.

Then I'm gonna have to side with the FBI on that one and say that I kinda feel more likely that someone in my home that's acting non-compliant is not there for a conjugal visit.

 

[Third_Rail]

Steve, tiny little nitpick - people with mutiple personalities have dissociative identity disorder, not schizophrenia.


Like I said, minor nitpick.

 

[1911Tuner]

Case

I'll relate an experience that I had and drop out. Jeff mentioned a disgruntled family member. Read on.

Timeline...Mid-summer of 1983.

My ex-wife's family was having a dispute over the will after her grandmother died. One of her aunts was known to overindulge in John Barleycorn on a regular basis. I was asleep about noon one fine day, due to being a midnight shift worker at RJR Tobacco.

I awoke to a noise that I couldn't identify, and got up. There was a strange car in the driveway. I heard movement in a storage room off the end of the closed-in porch. Too dark in the room to make an ID, I loaded up a Winchester M-97 shotgun and opened the door. The occupant of the room
stepped closer to the doorway...still couldn't make an ID...only a shadow.

I'll call her Betty Jean, 'cause that's her name. Fairly large woman at 5"9" and 200 pounds. All I could see was a dark figure filling up the doorway.

She stepped out into the light just as I racked the gun, muzzle leveled at her mid-section. So drunk that she didn't hear me open the door...but she heard that gun and she heard me order her to stand still...which she didn't obey, but kept walking toward the door. So drunk that she wet herself just as I recognized her and raised the muzzle. Her knees buckled, and I nearly puked to think of how close I came to killing an overweight, drunken 50 year-old woman sneaking in to get a few of her mother's homemade lace doilies as keepsakes from where she knew them to be stored.

 

[Jeff White]

Steve,
But the stats you posted don't say who is committing those murders, robberies and aggravated assaults do they? I think that if you dig further you'll find that you are most likely to be murdered or assaulted by someone known to you. There is a much smaller likelyhood of your being victimized by a stranger then you are by someone you know.

Jeff

 

[CSA 357]

jeff, i think you are missing the whole point,he is in my house in alabama that is not manslaughter or murder, im not trying to be hard headed, but the ? was asked and some say shoot others say dont, i guess we agree to disagree, if you are willing to let people off the street take over your house dont bash the rest of us that wont, *csa*

 

[Jeff White]

csa,
Try telling the prosecutor that your shotgun went off accidentally and see if you aren't charged. That is precisely what you said in an ealier post. Or are you trying to tell me that it's perfectly ok to kill someone in Alabama if was an accident?

As for letting someone take over your home, once again allow me to refer you to post number 1. The intruder is not trying to take over anyone's home, he's just standing there.

I make use of force decisions almost daily at work. You don't shoot someone who is not a threat. He is not a threat just standing there. Now if he just burst through the door and the door jamb was in splinters and he was standing there momentarly stunned, then he could be considered a threat. But post 1 in this thread, which set the scenario doesn't mention that. If he moved towards the suspicious bulge at his waist he's a threat. But again, that's not what we're discussing. Criminal Trespass is not a capitol offense. Just because the law may state that you may assume that someone entering your dwelling is a threat, doesn't mean that if his actions after entry show him not to be, that you can still kill him. If you want to chance that you can explain to the detectives and states attorney that this man was standing there in your house, he didn't move, he didn't say anything, he just stood there so I shot him and whatever kind of no retreat law you have in Alabama will protect you, then go for it. You pays your money and you takes your chances as they used to say in the funny papers...Don't be surprised if you are charged with something. And don't be surprised if you're sued in civil court. You see those laws don't give you blanket immunity. Any shooting will be investigated. And if the facts of the case don't show that the person who was standing there dumbly staring at you was threat, then the protections the law provides you won't be in force.

Jeff

 

[CSA 357]

o i missed the part where he had a key, csa i dont know the laws in il and i dont think you know the laws in al if i was in il i might have to do as you said?

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

You don't shoot someone who is not a threat. He is not a threat just standing there.

To back up Jeff's post:

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

This is Colorado law, so FWIW. As was explained to our CCW class by the Assistant DA, uninvited entry is not a capital offense. He must be committing, or you have reasonable belief that he is about to commit, another crime before a self defense stance will be defensible in court.

In other words, shoot some confused drunk, Alzheimers victim, kid on a dare, whatever...go to jail for a very long time.