Non-Compliant Intruder

[Headless]

You feel threatened because he's just standing there, unmoving?

I DON'T CARE.

You feel threatened because he's too close for comfort, and is just standing there?

I DON'T CARE.

You feel threatened because in other home invasion scenarios, other homeowners have died when another BG came round the corner?

I DON'T CARE.

The law won't care either.

Just an FYI, in Florida that fear/threat is very likely to be enough for the law not to care when you blast the BG. Not saying i would or would not in that situation, but if someone is in my home and THAT CLOSE to me (they'd be within range to lunge and overpower me before i could react), their refusal to obey 'back up' or 'down on the ground' orders would constitute them being an immediate threat to me, even unarmed. People don't need a weapon to be deadly; a person with any kind of decent training in hand to hand fighting is going to absolutely overpower me if they close with me, and i don't have the luxury of hoping i'm quick enough to fire and hit them with a STOPPING ROUND after they do decide to lunge at me at close range, in my home.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-deadlyforce1106jun11,0,2402838.story?page=1

 

[P99waltherP99]

quick fix

ok i guess there are two types of people. one who would rather risk their own life for the benefit of doubt on the perps side, and the other who thinks the opposite. well heres a quick fix. Stun Gun. also its fairly easy to tell if the person is mentally disabled or not. So if you people are worried about encountering this situation then go buy a stun gun, then you can put em down and not kill them, at the same time maximizing your saftey.


Disclaimer:
seriously if anyone here is about to bash me for excessive force on using a stun gun, then go join the brady campaign or green peace cause you are wasting time on this forum.

 

[1911Tuner]

Quick Fix

Quote:

>ok i guess there are two types of people. one who would rather risk their own life for the benefit of doubt on the perps side, and the other who thinks the opposite.<
**************

Howdy and welcome to the fray.

That's a bit too black/white/no shady gray. Nobody here has stated that they'd rather risk their lives to give the intruder the benefit of the doubt. Only that they want to be sure that he/she is, in fact, a threat before proceeding to blow him/her away. It's the prudent thing to do...and not only the moral aspect, but the legal and civil question as well. 50 years ago, the issue wasn't quite as touchy...but in today's climate, if you're not 100% right, you're probably gonna go down hard in a court of law...be it criminal or civil court.

Even cops have strict guidelines on lethal force. Otherwise, any sign of non-compliance would be justification to fire. This ain't some despot-ruled bananna republic in which the "Policia de Federales" (Or insert the language of choice) have the authority to kill for any reason, no questions asked. We are held to the same restrictions and responsibilities as the police. The perp must have the will...the means...and the opportunity, before we can fire.
Two out of three just ain't enough to deliver a lethal response.

Unexpectedly confronting a stranger or threatening aquaintance in your home
is one of those situations that lends itself to all sorts of problems. Very tense and volatile...and potentially dangerous for all concerned. You don't want to believe it's happening, and you don't want to shoot anybody...but you're suddenly faced with the possibility of having to do that. As one contributor noted...Work out what the triggers will be well before hand so that you won't be playing it completely by the seat of your pants.

 

[Bix]

Did you read my entire sentence?

I did .

Objectively, a large percentage of such situations will, in fact, be dangerous.

That's not enough to create a threat in this specific instance.

confronted by resident at close range

There's opportunity

may be armed

There's (maybe) ability

odd lack of reaction

This does not jeopardy make (again, speaking in generally applicable terms).

- that is a threat.

Negative. It is missing a critical component: the indication that -in this particular situation- there is an immediate danger of death or SBI. This indication can be made by words or actions on the part of the subject.

If it's not, then why do you have your gun out at all?

Because the subject may become a threat in very short order.

Why is your pulse rate so high?

Because, according to my GP, I don't work out enough and drink too much coffee.

 

[glummer]

Bix logic?

Quote:
- that is a threat.

Negative. It is missing a critical component: the indication that -in this particular situation- there is an immediate danger of death or SBI. This indication can be made by words or actions on the part of the subject.

Quote:
If it's not, then why do you have your gun out at all?

Because the subject may become a threat in very short order.

The dangerous action which you claim not to see is simply the unlawful intrusion into your home. The intruder is not, as someone said "just standing there"; he has illegally entered your home, and is confronting you at close range with no sign or explanation or apology, despite your obvious concern for your safety. By any objective standard, you are at significant risk of immediate violence. :banghead:

Or, to look at it from a different perspective: you are confronting him with a drawn gun, and are issuing orders. That is, you are making a threat of deadly force. Where in the laws of your jurisdiction is a person allowed to threaten deadly force, when not facing an actual threat themselves? By your logic, you are commiting assault and/or brandishing, since you yourself say there is no actual threat immediately visible.

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

Non-Compliant. Indicates that the intruder either hasn't heard you...doesn't understand what you want...or is, in fact, planning to do something bad.

Ever dealt with a sleep-walker? They don't comply. They just stand there, staring blankly because they can't process the information that they're getting.

My cousin was a sleep walker. He'd get up about once a month and go take all the light bulbs out of the fixtures and put'em in the back seat of the car...and my uncle kept the car locked. If nobody woke up and caught him, he'd go next door and start takin' bulbs out of the outside lights, and then enter...if the door was unlocked...and hunt for more, until somebody stopped him. Sometimes it took 3 or 4 minutes to wake him up. He did this well into adulthood.

Let's look at the tripod for deadly force. Will...Means...Opportunity.

Neighbor you've had an argument with shows up on your front yard while you're raking leaves, cursing and screaming. Pointing at you with his left hand, and a pistol in his right hand, hung straight down at his side. Distance:
30 yards. You draw your pistol and point it at him, ordering him to drop the weapon. He doesn't comply, but also doesn't raise the weapon one inch past dead vertical. It just hangs there in his hand while he screams.

He has satisfied the means and the opportunity criteria...but he hasn't clearly demonstrated the will. If you shoot him, you'll probably come clean...both in a criminal and civil light...but were you morally justified in killing him?

You tell me.

 

[Bix]

Where in the laws of your jurisdiction is a person allowed to threaten deadly force, when not facing an actual threat themselves

Careful. We're talking about different acts here: threatening deadly force (or brandishing or assault) and actually employing deadly force. Two very different act with two differing legal standards.

Our intruder's actions up to this point may very well justify my brandishing of a weapon, but they do not rise to the level of actually employing deadly force - which is a pretty high standard, as we've discussed. That is to say, you may not need evidence of the subject's imminent intent to cause death/SBI (actual threat) to jusify brandishing - - you do need that to justify killing him.

To your other point - the "just standing there" fact was included in the original fact pattern and is, IMO, the most critical element in this hypo.

 

[WT]

P99 - 'stun guns' are illegal in my state. Mere possession is a 4th degree felony. 1 to 5 in the graybar hotel.


But as I noted early, there is also a statutory presumption in my state that a homeowner is in danger dealing with an illegal intruder. The "Jeopardy" is there. The standards of deadly force dealing with an illegal intruder within one's home are different than those standards dealing with an assailant outside the home.


I see lots of people like to quote Ayoob. Ayoob is a generalist. The laws he addressess are not uniform throughout the USA.

 

[torpid]

I personally know that I really strive to use reason and situational analysis when discussing scenarios like these, and am not at all eager to use lethal force.

However, as easy as it is to dismiss the "KILL 'em, KILL 'em- heheheh" type of poster, the one problem I find is that those of us that are painstakingly cautious about "what if" never have a post like:

" Well, I'm certainly going to assess this first because this person may only be a drunk, confused, or ment- ...oh, wait a minute, I guess I'm dead. How the heck did that happen?!!! Wow, I guess I should have acted there after all! Oh well, better safe then sorry- I died with a clear conscience. C'est le mort..."

Now please don't misunderstand me. I find these real-life posts of perceived "intruders" who turned out to be benign people most sobering, and a damn fine reality check reminder. Odds are good that these scenarios may be simple misunderstandings or mistaken identity.

But one must also keep in mind that nobody who has been killed due to hesitation in this type of incident will be posting their cautionary stories here for our benefit. I find it's more difficult to balance the overall discussion because of this.


.

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

Torpid,

Very good post and spot on. These hypothetical situations are learning tools...as long as we can look at it for what it is. Basically, a reminder that all is not so much as it seems as it is in how we perceive it. I may not see a threat. You may see a big one. I may not have seen his hand move...You may have seen it wiping the safety off before bringing it out into plain view.

If nothing else, these discussions will serve as whack upside the head to remind us to focus sharply, and observe closely while analyzing the posture of the intruder so that we can more closely make a judgement call and not fire too early...or wait until it's too late. These things are very often decided in fractions of seconds, with no "Do-Overs" available.

Back to the first post:

The intruder has met the opportunity to do harm criteria. He hasn't clearly shown the means nor the will. What he does in the next few seconds will be the deciding factor. I'll take steps to reduce my risk until he makes the call,
including covering him with the threat of deadly response, and moving to
enable me to keep an eye on my 3, 6, and 9 while he lets it sink in that he's probably gonna get shot if he makes a bad move. If he keeps standing still and looking confused...No. If he moves toward me...Yes. If he reaches for the bulge...Probably. Depends on how his hand closes on that bulge.

Scenario #2...Angry neighbor with a gun. He's met two out of three. Means and Opportunity...but the will hasn't been demonstrated. This one is very close to glory because my finger is edging close to the trigger. Almost any move with the gun hand beyond letting the gun drop to the ground...Closing the distance between us, even with the gun hanging vertically...will be my fire button. Even if he turns to walk away, I will keep him covered until I feel that he's out of imminent range...and I'll be backing up/moving laterally to increase the distance and get to cover.

 

[glummer]

torpid said

But one must also keep in mind that nobody who has been killed due to hesitation in this type of incident will be posting their cautionary stories here for our benefit. I find it's more difficult to balance the overall discussion because of this.

+1
We're not hearing from the unlucky ones! Could kinda skew the thread a bit. ('Course no one is talking about the mistakes they did make the other way, either, so it's tough to tell if they balance out.)

 

[Tim Burke]

There are a number of constructs out there to help one determine whether or not it is justifiable to use lethal force. The simplest rule of thumb, and the one I like the best, comes from Tom Givens, of Rangemaster, in Memphis. Paraphrasing him: 'The question isn't "Can I shoot him now?" The question is "Do I have to shoot him now?"'
It may be legally justifiable before it is necessary, but if you wait until it is necessary, there shouldn't be much second guessing, by you, or by others. Circumstances may determine whether or not it is necessary. Robbie Leatham behind cover may feel like he can wait, while Suzi Homemaker, faced with the same threat in her living room, may feel like she has to shoot now. They may both be right.

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

Tim Burke...Excellent post.

 

[psychophipps]

I'm just looking at this situation and it's long discussion and going, "Huh?"
How would I have my pistol but not be able to get to a phone in a reasonable amount of time? If he's just standing there and I have my CCW on me then I simply draw, inform him at I'm armed, am going to call the police, and will shoot if he advances on me or makes any threatening moves towards me and/or mine. I cover him or the area he'd have to advance through towards me while I check for other intruders on my way to the telephone to contact the police.
I have 911 on speed-dial so two button pushes that I can do without looking and under stress is all I need. I back up to a defensive position where I know I'm alone and have a clear shot if I need to take it, and wait for the 5-0 to make an appearance.

He comes at me and he's a dead intruder.

Trying to see where the "Gat him down NOW while he's not being overtly threatening other than commiting criminal trespass" comes into play here but your state laws might very well significantly differ form mine. It's your house, your gun, your freedom you're risking and your pocketbook for the law suit. Do what you want with them. *shrugs*

Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

Okay, try this question:

Per my earlier post and reference to the "Tueller drill":

-->> If a LEO is trained to (justifiably) shoot a BG who's menacing him/her with a knife -- when that BG is only 21 ft. away...

Then, why can't a CIVILIAN who:

1. Confronts a TOTAL STRANGER in his house...

2. Who has gained FORCIBLE ENTRY (presumed because of the home's solid locks and reasonable security measures)...

3. Logically, via some TOOLS that are either still concealed on him, or are nearby...

4. And where such tools (i.e., prybars, etc.) are potentially deadly WEAPONS in the hands of a certainly anadrenalized (and 70% likely chemically-juiced/pain-resistant) intruder...

5. Who now stands opposing the homeowner at Tueller-drill distance...

6. And who remains non-compliant (and/or menacing) when ordered (in the court-accepted language of the land) to halt and eat carpet...

-->> WHY isn't that homeowner ALSO justified in using deadly force?

 

[1911Tuner]

Tueller Drill

Easy...The cop in question has seen all three criteria.

Will...Means...Opportunity

SEEN all three. The danger is clear and present.

The original scenario didn't satisfy that. A suspicious bulge that the intruder's hand isn't on or at least moving toward doesn't qualify as a means of lethal force. It's only a bulge. Cell phone? Pager?

 

[Snake Eyes]

So much for the "Blood Lust" sticky at the top of this subforum.

 

[bondjames628]

This may have been mentioned already, not sure, but pop a couple of warning shots to the side of him...it might change his mind...a tough question nonetheless.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

This may have been mentioned already, not sure, but pop a couple of warning shots to the side of him...

Have you considered where those "warning shots" might end up? Even pistol ammo is capable of penetrating multiple interior walls.

 

[athlon64]

This thread would give future home invaders comfort in knowing some armed homeowners won't harm them, even if they break into a home and not comply with commands from an armed homeowner.

It's a helpful insight for a team of criminals that would use that time of hesitance and legal balancing, to blindside the homeowner, retake control of the situation, then continue doing whatever they intended, to the homeowner, the family, and contents of the home.

It's no surprise sometimes the worst things happen to the nicest, and most law abiding folks. Dirtbags are very skilled at assessing victims, and will use everything they can to gain advantage over them.

 

[Jeff White]

athlon64,
This thread should make everyone think about this situation before hand so that they are prepared to recognize what is a threat and what isn't and so that they aren't standing there thinking should I shoot or shouldn't I if it happens for real.

There are very severe repercussions if you use deadly force and it wasn't warranted. Those repercussions can be criminal, civil and damagaing to your own mental and emotional well being as well as the mental and emotional well being from your loved ones.

I work in a profession where I sometimes make a use of force decision on a daily basis.

The fact of the matter is, that legally and morally, if you are covering someone with the muzzle of your loaded weapon, and that person may or may not be armed and he is just standing there looking at you, not moving, he is not at that moment a threat to your life and you are not justified in taking his. If those circumstances change the decision could go either way. If he moves towards the bulge in his waistband or moves towards you or makes another threatening move you are then justified in using deadly force. If he moves to withdraw or complies with your command then he's not.

Remember the Tueller drill assumes you have a holstered weapon. If you already have the person covered with the muzzle of your loaded weapon, you have the advantage.

Jeff

 

[bondjames628]

Of course pistol rounds can penetrate a wall, most modern homes are only made out of wood beams and a layer of sheetrock, I'd think a BB gun could almost penetrate that (Yea, I've tried with sheet rock scraps), but you'd have to assess your situation. You might live in a heavily populated neighborhood, while others might live in the middle of nowhere and would have no danger of harming an inoccent bystander. Certain enviornments call for different actions.

 

[1911Tuner]

Warning Shots

Firing warning shots is something generally best left to Hollywood action movies and old Hopalong Cassidy reruns. It's dangerous...it's negligent...and it wastes ammo that you may need to stay alive.

Carry on!

 

[carpettbaggerr]

If you already have the person covered with the muzzle of your loaded weapon, you have the advantage.

Yes, generally, but not always. Action beats reaction, and even if they have nothing in hand, they may still be faster than you expect.

Remember, Bill Jordan routinely beat the drop against someone expecting him to draw, who was focused solely on him, with no other distractions.

I doubt many intruders are in his class, but neither are most homeowners.

 

[kikr]

"This may have been mentioned already, not sure, but pop a couple of warning shots to the side of him...it might change his mind"

Prosecuting Attorney " Sir, did you feel lethal force was necessary?"
Defendant "Yes I was in fear for my life"
Prosecuter" Sir have you ever shot a weapon before the night in question?"
Defendant "of course I"m an expert shot"
Prosecuter "then how did you miss my client from so close of a distance"
Defendant" I wasn't trying to hit him, I fired those as warning shots"
Prosecuter" So. you were scared enough to shoot at him, but didnt feel justified to shoot him? So you willfully fired a deadly weapon with out feeling that you were in justifiable jeopardy to use deadly force" " your Honor I think you'll find thats the defination of "negligent discharge of a firearm..."