Non-Compliant Intruder

[psychophipps]

And the above post is exactly what will happen with warning shots if the trespasser survives. Just so that you guys know, your "average" juror isn't a First Amendment advocate, LEO or IPSC shooter. They eat whatever the media feeds them and that happens to be, "Guns R bad!" Furthermore, any perceived lack of credibility to your statements to questions like the above post can and will have a dramatic effect on the outcome of the trial that you're defending yourself in.

And the most important lesson to be given in regards to juries is that being right and within the law doesn't necessarily mean that you don't get screwed!

Example: In Texas there was a man convicted of raping an 11-year-old girl after he was "positively IDed" by the victim. Sounds great until you see his round trip out-of-state plane ticket for the timeframe during the assault. :banghead: And the timestamped video tape from the aforementioned out-of-state conference that the accused was at during the assault. And the more than thirty eye witness statements to the effect of "Yeah, he was at that conference that happened over 1500 miles away (and it would have been physically impossible for him to drive back and forth to do the assault in the timeframes given) during that attack on that little girl. In fact, his presentation was really good."

He was finally released after eight years (IIRC) in prison due to DNA evidence.

Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )

 

[Mike128]

I'm glad the mods are allowing this to stay open because this thread has some good points and makes you think. A lot of different scenerios are being brought up. Thinking and planning ahead for situations will usually lead to postitive results with quick decisive action.

The most important thing I get from this this thread is read the situation. Just because an intruder doesn't respond to commands does not mean he heard them. When hunting, I usually don't hear anything when the animal is in range. I've been told and video taped talking to myself and I don't remember doing so. Could very easily happen to some poor fellow unexpectedly staring at a muzzle of a gun.

It was said best, It's not do you have the right to shoot, it's do you have to shoot. Having to shoot is a different levels for different people. But if you truely feel you had to shoot than it should not be a problem.

Remember, a jury is not made up of your peers but of people who are not smart enough to get out of it . (That's a joke to those without a sense of humor.) Lawyers are good at making a simple case become complex. The more complex the case is the more confused people become. Some weird decsions have happened because of that. Make your decisions as full proof as possible.

 

[cxm]

Stop and Think

Folks... all this agonizing over an encounter in your home in the night is really over the top... and a great way to get ones self or family very dead.

First, in a home you are almost certainly less than 21 feet from the ED in your home... and at less than 21 feet you are in GREAT danger from the ED if he has a knife, gun, club or is just stronger than you.

Next consider the time in question is fractional slices of a second... in less than the time it takes the average person to make a decision to shoot and do so the ED can be on you... they have the advantage of action as opposed to reaction.

Basically, if you encounter a serious ED in your home, you have fractions of a second to diecide if you will engage the ED or not. You do not have time to check their ID card for age, give them some tests to see if they are mentally deficient, if they are drunk or if they are otherwise misguided. In the time you do that, a real ED will kill you... and that is a simple fact.

If you take the time to agonize over the bona fides of the criminal in your house you give them all the advantages.

Of course it is possible the person in the house is one of the less harmful categories... and you will survive the encounter... but if they are dangerous, you, your wife, and childern can die in a very nasty way over a long period of time... they depend on you to defend them... and do it throughly.

There is a reason states recognize the habitation is a different case than most other situations, and give you greater latitude of action in the home... that reason is the great risk an armed intruder represents.

Each of us who is serious about defending ourselves and our family needs to be very aware of our states laws regarding self defense and how they are applied in our jurisdiction. Then we need to train (and include the family...just like a fire drill) how and what to do in the case of an ED in the home... (easy recognition codes to identify friendlies in the dark for example... kids knowing what to do if an ED enters for another example.)

Life is hard... it is harder if one is stupid...

V/r

Chuck

 

[WT]

Okay guys, it looks like the original scenario came from "It Happened to Me!", COMBAT HANDGUNS, Oct. 1993, p. 52. It was written by Chuck Klein of Patriot, IN. Everybody go pull out your copy now.

Anyway, the COMBAT HANDGUNS writeup said the intruder was a mentally handicapped deaf mute. He was a walk away from a state mental hospital committed by his family because of his EXPLOSIONS of violence. The intruder had attacked people during previous encounters.

Mr. Klein ended the article "What if the kids or my wife had been home and one of them had been the first to encounter him?"

 

[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"

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..."

Yes, that is true. The only thing I could say about a non-compliant intruder is if he's just standing there in your living room, you have no reason to shoot him whatsoever, other than the fact that he's in your house and shouldn't be. That being said, if he's standing there and you have him at gunpoint, and he still stands there, he still has not pulled a knife, lunged at you, tried to throw a punch, etc. I'd say just hold him there until you can get to a phone, as someone suggested above, have the cops on speed dial so you can still keep your eye on him, and wait for the cops to arrive so that they can defuse the situation. But, if he tries to come towards you in any way or tries to do anything to harm you, then you have everyone right to defend yourself, just my 2 cents....

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

First, in a home you are almost certainly less than 21 feet from the ED in your home... and at less than 21 feet you are in GREAT danger from the ED if he has a knife, gun, club or is just stronger than you.

As has been pointed out already in this thread, the 21' distance of the Tueller drill assumes you have a holstered weapon. In this scenario, you do not have a holstered weapon.

Next consider the time in question is fractional slices of a second... in less than the time it takes the average person to make a decision to shoot and do so the ED can be on you... they have the advantage of action as opposed to reaction.

My time for a nice, casual aimed shot on target from the ready at 15yds is around 0.4 seconds and that includes reaction time to the buzzer. If the intruder can "be on me" in 0.4 seconds then he is either very, very quick or I have done something foolish like give up distance and/or cover for no good reason.

 

[TallPine]

I'd say just hold him there until you can get to a phone

I'd say to "get the non-THR-adjective out of my house!"

Let the deputies chase him down - they need something more interesting to do now and then besides process service and herding loose livestock off the hiway

Exception might be if I thought the individual was extremely dangerous to other people, like a known escaped felon, etc.

That's all on the assumption that I hadn't already ... oh, never mind

 

[B Easy]

I keep my doors locked at all times. Nobody is "wandering" into my house. If they're in there, it's because they BROKE in.

Want a warning? OK. You'll see about half a second of Xenon flashlight before you see muzzle flash. That's the warning.

Don't break into houses and you won't get shot, end of story.

 

[0007]

I believe that Mossad Ahyoub(sp) has proven at several trials where he was an expert witness that the 21 foot rule is pretty much correct. The problem isn't that you can draw and shoot in .4 sec, it's the processing time to recognize the threat and then draw and fire. Most people's reaction time runs around .3 for fast to .5 for slow. Add adrenaline and tunnel vision into the equation and things tend to go Mossad's way.

 

[XDKingslayer]

Folks... all this agonizing over an encounter in your home in the night is really over the top... and a great way to get ones self or family very dead.

I'm glad someone gets it.

Everytime one of these types of arguements pop up you have two types of people in that arguement. Those that say shoot him and those that say that is a bad representation of us gun owners that gives the Brady Bunch more ammo.

I wonder how many people, when faced with this exact situation, will actually log into The High Road, post the scenario, then wait for 6 pages of arguement to take place, before they make the decision to defend their themselves, their family, and their home...

And here's a tip for those that are concerned how we represent ourselves to the Brady's:

They don't care how nice you are, they don't care how well spoken you are, they don't care if you give criminals a second chance, they hate you. You own a gun, they hate you. That's all they see. You're fooling yourself if you honestly think the way you represent that gun ownership actually makes a difference to them.

 

[hso]

Everytime one of these types of arguements pop up you have two types of people in that arguement. Those that say shoot him and those that say that is a bad representation of us gun owners that gives the Brady Bunch more ammo.

That's not exactly correct and it's an unfair characterization. There may be 3 groups. The two you mentioned and the remaining folks that are saying it's immoral and irresponsible to shoot a stranger you find in your house that is just standing there.

 

[1911Tuner]

Point

XDKingslayer wrote:

>They don't care how nice you are, they don't care how well spoken you are, they don't care if you give criminals a second chance, they hate you. You own a gun, they hate you. That's all they see. You're fooling yourself if you honestly think the way you represent that gun ownership actually makes a difference to them.<
*****************

You are exactly right, and your point is a good one. Maybe one of the best I've seen in a while.

Check your PMs

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Just because it's legal, doesn't always mean that it's right. There's at least a moral obligation to give a man a chance to back off before blowing him into the next realm.

That chance was lost when said man became an intruder.

Not intruder in home = probably not considered immediate threat

Intruder in home = close proximity lethal threat who has defeated the first level of security and hence is inside the home and whose only reason in my home is nefarious and there is no reason to provide said intruder with opportunities to reevaluate his life goals at the potential risk of said intruder using the opportunity to destroy my life goals or those of my family.

 

[Larryect]

My CCW instrctor, also a SWAT firearms instructor said one of his greatest fears is that one of his students would take too long to recognize a threat and draw.

He gave a scenario in which he confirmed he and his wife were being followed and possibly set up for a mugging - he drew - the follower decided to go a different direction.

All I am saying is don't hesitate too long. I understand that most people will have a "I can't believe this is happening" response which will get them in trouble.

I don't believe you should fire at the point described. But, you should be ready and very alert for any movement in the wrong direction.

 

[nplant]

I'm late to this discussion, and didn't read every single post in the last six pages, but even if it's been said already, I believe it bears repeating:

"Action" is not necessarily "shooting." You have the ability to take control of the situation well before you find yourself needing to press the trigger. You have your voice and language to force an issue.

Scenario is that a potential threat is standing in the same room as you. May or may not be armed. If you just stand there with a gun in your hand, you're not acting, but are preparing to re-act. Not a good situation. When you are initiating action, you have the upper hand.

If you know what the OODA loop is, then you know it's true. For those who don't, OODA stands for Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. If you've already Observed a person you don't know standing with you in your living room, you can Orient to the fact that this might be either good or bad, Decide to command the person to leave (or get down on the ground, put up their hands, etc.), and Act to do that.

If you're waiting, your OODA loop hasn't yet begun. That means you have to literally wait to see what happens next, then begin the OODA loop. Okay, now the intruder has the upper hand.

Bottom line is that, in your own home, you have and should have the control. The intruder should be the one behind the power curve. You should also decide in advance what kind of commands you might give, in the case of the intruder who is not an obvious and direct threat, just in case you have to do it one day. Make your decision now, that you won't be wasting time when it happens.

Example:
Bad guy standing in my living room.
Me: "Show me your hands!" or "Put your hands up!"
Reaction will decide for me what I need to do next.
----
Him: "Hey man, I just went to the wrong house."
Me: "Leave now. I'm calling the Police."
----
Him: (drunken unintelligible response)
Me: "Leave now. I'm calling the Police."
----
Him: "I just need some money for food/medicine/booze/whatever."
Me: "Keep your hands where I can see them. Turn around. Get down on the floor. Don't move. I'm calling the Police."
----
Him: "Give me your money, you such-and-such!"
Me: "Get out of here now, or I'll shoot!"
----
Him: (moves to get the bulge in his pants)
Me: (controlled pair to the thoracic cavity)

And so on...

 

[XDKingslayer]

That's not exactly correct and it's an unfair characterization. There may be 3 groups. The two you mentioned and the remaining folks that are saying it's immoral and irresponsible to shoot a stranger you find in your house that is just standing there.

Ok, you're right, there are three groups.

But that third group is just as unrealistic as the ones worried about how we appear. There are many states that agree that shooting a stranger you find in your house in the conditions outlined is neither immoral or irresponsible. And luckily more and more are realizing this.

They have already broken into your domicile (he didn't just appear there) which should be considered a threat from the go. They are more than likely within 21 feet of you and we all know that rule...Now given the above it is prudent to assume that bulge isn't a banana, and now to top that he's not following your instructions while you are holding him at gunpoint. And that was the outlined scenario, which is lightyears apart from your words above of "just standing there".

Irregardless of the laws of my state I would see this as a threat worthy of self defence. I have said it once, and I'll say it again, I will not "what if" to death the safety of my family.

 

[Bix]

Irregardless of the laws of my state

This is fantastic. You have no regard for the law as it applies to murder/homicide, yet you want to shoot somebody for violating the law at it applies to B&E.

 

[tepin]

Hello everyone.
I have a very good friend that was, many years ago, a big booze hound and he woke up many nights in his neighbors homes. How he got into the house I don’t know and have to assume he went house-to-house until he found an open door. He never mentioned breaking and entering. It would have been a real shame if he had been blown-away by a homeowner because he had too many beers that night. However, I would have understood the situation and would have held the homeowner harmless for defense of home.

I believe that the human brain is capable of processing information very quickly. Combining sight, sound, smell and that “sixth sense”, a situation can be put into context in the blink of an eye; not always but often. While I have never been placed in a situation where deadly force was a consideration, I am guessing that within the blink of an eye a reasonable person might be able to size-up the situation before discharging the firearm. I say this because I have to believe, based on some level of common sense, that a home invader (the malicious type) is going to look, smell and act different than anyone else (retard, drunk, lost person or a liberal from San Francisco).

So some might wonder just how fast the “blink of an eye” is. Well, it’s so fast that there is no face-to-face standoff in the living room if your “minds eye” tells you the person in your house has malicious intent. If you find out otherwise as the coroner is hauling the body off, detached reflection is not required in the home when in reasonable fear of ones life; which is why there are so few prosecutions for shooting a home invader.

Like others of you have said, just because its legal doesn’t make it right. This is a true statement but I think there may be that “feeling of guilt” you’ll live with for the rest of your life regardless as to whether or not the killing was 100% or only 30% justifiable (in your home). In my opinion, when in the home you must error on the side of your safety and the safety of your family. You don’t know the intruders intent, skill level, capabilities, force of numbers etc… and attempting to figure this out at 3AM with anything more than the blink of an eye could prove to be the end of your life and your family’s lives.

 

[v8fbird]

I'd like to think that I'd never let anything get to the point of a standoff. I'm not a LEO, and I don't know how to disarm and control a BG. Neither do I feel like I would have an obligation to, moral or legal.

Faced with the situation, then who knows...

 

[hso]

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?

The problem is a "Shoot/No Shoot" challenge. Taken at face value instead of fabricating additional information the scenario is a real dilemma. There is no one correct response to this situation.

The guy's in your house and he doesn't belong there. You're the only one home, but he could have gotten in through a door accidentally left unlocked or by breaking in.

You don't know what the bulge in his pants is. It could be a gun, but it could be a wallet stuffed into the waistband. You can't tell.

He won't follow instructions, but if someone was pointing a gun at you you might be frozen in place or you might be plotting a way to get the upper hand or you might be deaf.

You need to be prepared to shoot the instant a more definite threat reveals itself, but you don't have to yet. You do need to keep a weapon on him so that you can shoot if need be. You desperatly need to get the hell out of the house to a safer place putting distance and cover between you and him since there is no one else is in the house to protect. Let the authorities deal with him when they get there after you call them from the neighbor's phone.

While the legal/PR arguments are interesting I don't think they are as important as the basic question of is this a shoot or a no shoot situation and they distract from the basic problem presented. This is a lifesaving question.

 

[tepin]

While state statutes are fun to read, it’s always nice having case law and legal opinion on hand for clarity. Based on the text that follows, it would appear that there is a lot of discretion given to the home owner on taking the life of a home invader. “Felony” is the main ingredient but substitutions can take the place given specific circumstance and the home owner’s interpretation of events regarding danger of death or great bodily harm. Given the scenario, it would appear that if the home owner chose to use lethal force, he or she would be justified in doing so.

Right to Defend Habitation
“The owner or occupant of a house, or as it is stated in some jurisdictions, one in actual lawful possession of the premises, may use such force as is necessary, even to the taking of life, in defense of such premises, against an attack, invasion, or assault made for the apparent purpose of inflicting serious injury upon an inmate, thereof, or committing a felony therein, and he is under no obligation to retreat.”

Findings:
“… providing that if by persuasion or other gentler measures, a formal invasion of the habitation cannot be prevented, it shall be justifiable homicide to kill a person forcibly entering, does not apply where the killing was done by a bartender and was the result of a difficulty of a personal matter.” Wilson v. State, 69 Ga. 224

“Where ones home is attacked, he may lawfully kill the assailant, if he believes the killing is necessary to repel him.” State v. Peacock, 40 O. St. 333

“…a man may defend his domicile, even to the extent of taking life, if it be actually or apparently necessary to do so in order to prevent the commission of a felony therein.” Thompson v. State, 61 Neb. 210, 85 N. W. 62.

Source: Warren on Homicide by Oscar L Warren, VOL 1 pg. 805-806

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I believe that Mossad Ahyoub(sp) has proven at several trials where he was an expert witness that the 21 foot rule is pretty much correct. The problem isn't that you can draw and shoot in .4 sec, it's the processing time to recognize the threat and then draw and fire. Most people's reaction time runs around .3 for fast to .5 for slow. Add adrenaline and tunnel vision into the equation and things tend to go Mossad's way.

You missed the point entirely. This scenario already assumes you have the gun drawn. Second, the 0.4 time I mentioned includes reaction time to the buzzer. The only additional time our non-compliant intruder can gain under this scenario is by hoping that you do not recognize the threat.

The 21' rule is based on a time of around 2 seconds.

Good formal pistol training combined with some good, structured force-on-force training can give you an opportunity to experience some of these scenarios BEFORE your life or the life of your family is at stake. Having some idea of what can and can't be done in a certain timeframe will help you make informed decisions.

You do not want to be the guy explaining to a jury that you shot an unarmed man 21' away because of the Tueller drill and then have the opposing lawyer point out:

A) No apparent threat based on your own description
B) Tueller drill is based on a holstered gun and your gun was drawn (finger on the trigger?)

 

[XDKingslayer]

This is fantastic. You have no regard for the law as it applies to murder/homicide, yet you want to shoot somebody for violating the law at it applies to B&E.

Thank you for quoting half of my text in order to make it fit your agenda, but yes, I have no problem putting the safety of my wife and kids before the law if need be.

Are you saying that you wouldn't?

Luckily, I live in a state that agrees that someone who has broken in to your home is a threat worthy of self defence.

 

[Bix]

XD, that's the problem with building all this other stuff into the scenario. The original hypo, as drafted, specifically provides that you are home alone.

What you said was:

Irregardless of the laws of my state I would see this as a threat worthy of self defence

Were I in the situation described in the original hypo, I would not see a threat worthy of lethal force and I would abide by the laws of my state.

 

[XDKingslayer]

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? (and you're right, I shouldn't have added that, I'm just personally not home alone very often)

I would. He's obviously not there to make you a ham sa'mich. You have to assume he has a weapon and you have to assume he's there to use it on you.

Florida law still says he's a threat if you believe your life is in danger and assuming this guy isn't a danger at this point is a good way to end up dead.

Sure, he could be nothing more than a well hung harmless guy on bad medication that can't comprehend where he's at and what you are saying, but there's the same odds he's there to kill and rob you and he's only waiting for you to drop your guard for one second to grab his gun and ventilate you.

If you are going to automatically assume that every intruder into your home is there for lawful reasons then why do you have a gun to begin with? You obviously don't need one if everyone is as nice as you assume correct?