Non-Compliant Intruder

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeff, you wrote (sorry, new to board, not sure how to get quotes just yet) "He is not a threat just standing there."

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.:mad: One to the head and one to the chest is no way for a child to die. :mad:

I'm 36 years old and I've never had an "intruder" in my home. Not a relative, not a friend, not a lost wandering soul, and with continued vigilence I doubt I ever will. Most people with enough brain cells to rub together (prudent man) realize that you don't enter another persons home without securing permission first.

Those that operate their homes in a manner that lets people come and go as they please (ie neighbors, kids friends, cousins, wifes friends etc) certainly have more to think about when they encounter someone in their house. My house is a hard target, always locked, lit, and secure. Everyone that knows me has the common decency and common sense to not just magically show up in my kitchen unannounced. If they did have an out of character day and appeared unannounced, it would not be that big a deal as they would be instantly recognizeable. Pretty simple.

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Note the bold words.

It is an intruder. How did he get in? Don't know, don't particularly care. Also don't have the time to figure out.

You are home. Ain't no place to retreat too.

He is in my home uninvited. The law, and common sense, says that I can assume this is not a freindly visit. He is not responding or complying to orders given by a man pointing a gun at him. Can anyone say: "condition Red"?

I don't want to hurt him or anyone else, but I'd much prefer him than me needing the ambulance. And inside my house is just too damn close range to give second chances.

He gets one, repeat ONE chance to comply. Quickly. Then he gets a chance to hope the ambulance comes before he bleeds out.
 
He's in my house uninvited and up to no good "detainment" isn't an issue. He's not there for conversation.

Colorado recognizes the right to defend your home from illegal intruders by using lethal force.
 
re:

Good response from gspn, and one that's very much a possibility. The answer is to have a plan. Walk around your property and think of how a confrontation would go and plan accordingly. Move. Move away from the door, and into an area where you can watch approaches from beside and behind. If possible, get your perp between you and a possible access route. Moving makes you a harder target.
Take advantage of any cover or concealment that you can...no matter how small or how little of you is hidden or protected. Never assume that just because you know your property well, that someone else can't make a quick study of the layout and terrain and take advantage of the breaks. Watch his eyes to see if they dart. This can either be indication of a feint to draw your attention...or it may be a response to an accomplice moving in to flank you.
Get your back to a wall if possible, and scan. Learn to fight tunnel vision and use your perpherial.

Never assume anything. He may be alone, but don't bet on it. Be alert.
I'd be willing to bet that the victim mentioned above made at least two tactical errors...and one was in assuming that he had the whole threat covered. The other was likely that he turned his back on an approach or access point.

If you have two and you know it...access which is the greater threat. This may mean the closest one, but not always. The man with a shotgun at 25 yards is a greater threat than the one with a pistol at 10. The man with the pistol is a greater threat than the one with a knife, etc.

The time to think about these things is now...not at the moment of truth.
 
Something that I thought about after my response to this.

Your home and mine aren't necessarily the same. In mine, the is literally only two places (basement and upstairs hallway) where I could be in the same room as someone else and be more than 6 feet from them. Thus an intruder armed with even something as simple as a stick or heavy flashlight can inflict serious damage RIGHT NOW.

Any confrontation would be at knife fight ranges. I would not have the distance or luxury of allowing the time for multiple commands to a non compliant intruder. If he doesn't respond, ANY movement in my direction would put him at contact range.

In a larger home where you had distance (say 25 - 30 feet) and were secure and confidant that behind you was secure, a second or even third command might be warranted. Especially if you had a room with a phone that you could retreat to in the case that he still didn't respond.

Under NO circumstanses would I attempt to stay there and hold him at gunpoint. At best he's playing some kind of mind games. At worst, he really IS deranged. In neither case would a distance of even 30 feet be enough to give you a decent reaction time after several minutes of a standoff.
 
Sorry Jeff mabey I am not PC enough butt I did not say murder the guy.

A stranger in the house with a possible weapon on hip, non compliant to orders from armed homeowner. Well when do you shoot? For crying out loud you shoot when he moves as you are in fear for your life or your family’s lives. Any other reason you are a murderer.

DUH! do you think it would be for not moving? he moves he gets stopped.

Have some common sense will you folk.

It is NOT murder to protect yourself.

Keep adding improbable scenarios, I don't care what the problem the intruder has the shoot depends on the state of mind a reasonable person would have at the time.

By the way break in my house in NH and don’t respond to orders from one of my armed family and then move in a dangerous manner and you will be carried out by the ambulance crew after a 45 minute response time. (Rural area we are on our own) The shoot will be justified by NH law. Disregard for anywhere else.
 
People, I've read some of the responses given to this (hypothetical) situation, and quite frankly I'm sick of the utter nonsense spoken by some respondents. You do not have the right to assume that a threat exists! Just because someone is standing in your home, uninvited and illegally there, does NOT mean that a lethal threat is confronting you. If you think that, then I can only wish you well in the years that you'll spend in the grey-concrete-and-bars hotel. No "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" law gives you the right to assume the existence of a deadly threat where there is no evidence of that threat. Certainly, these laws give you the right to assume illegal behavior on the part of the intruder, and to defend yourself if necessary - but the "if necessary" part will have to be proven, perhaps in court, and certainly to the investigating officers. See the Colorado laws that Sindawe cited in an earlier post as evidence of this.

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.

Your conduct and actions will be judged according to the SPECIFIC circumstances of your SPECIFIC case. If there is no evidence that a threat of death or serious injury was present, you WILL go down for your wrongful use of lethal force. No if's, no but's, no maybe's.

And, CSA 357, if you really believe what that you've posted above, you need to get rid of your guns - NOW - before they become the means to have you locked up for the rest of your life. Anyone espousing your attitudes is just too irresponsible to allow to own firearms.
 
This is my last post in this thread.

He moved in a threatening manner. I shot to stop him as I was in fear of great bodily harm to myself and family. (at a range of 8 feet)


He had no story as he expired waiting for medical help that I called for as soon as the situation was safe to do so.

Direct pressure to his wounds applied by myself (former EMT) did not contain the bleeding. Rescue breathing and CPR was given until the ambulance arrived. CPR pumped what was left of his blood into his chest cavity approximately 30 minutes before ambulance arrived, as no pulse was felt after the first 15 minutes.

Police arrived and I could not give a statement at that time as I was to distressed to do so. My lawyer will give them my statement in the morning sorry.

<sarcasm/> PS, I don't Care
 
If there is no evidence that a threat of death or serious injury was present, you WILL go down for your wrongful use of lethal force. No if's, no but's, no maybe's.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Preacherman, but that's not the test. The test is whether a reasonable person would be in fear of loss of life or serious threat, that is, that they felt, perceived, and/or truly believed it, not whether there was evidence that the threat was present.

If I believe that my life is in immanent danger -- and can convince the members of the jury that my belief was reasonable -- then I have the right to defend myself.

If I don't believe it, and am simply filled with bloodlust or a William Bonney-like curiosity as to what it's like to kill someone, chances are (hopefully!) that I won't be able to fool a jury into thinking the kill passes the reasonable belief test.
 
Last edited:
Wow, what a banter.

You guys think too much. This is a gun forum, not a legal forum.

If this happened you would not have much time, many of you have been thinking about this for hours, days, maybe even years. This scenario would not allow the time it took me to type the first sentence here. To me, the checklist is simple

1. Is my life in danger? - respond accordingly.


I don't want to shoot anyone, I'd let them run off rather than shoot them as long as they did not appear to be going for their pockets. Hard to say exactly, adrenaline would be high, telling them to get down and not complying would be edgy to say the least. This post appears to me to be trolling a whee bit. But it is strategies and tactics, and it's stated about as simply as it could actually occur.

I know a fellow from Rhode Island that had a neighbor toss a local punk teen through a window when he caught him stealing his stereo in the middle of the night. He had to pay the kids medical bills and was turned into the perp by our lousy justice system. The kid was cut up pretty bad. The cop stated it would have been easier legally for the guy to have killed him.

So this would go through my head too, and the premise of shooting someone is really awful. I'd rather let the police put a tick on a piece of paper and reckon he won't visit me again since he'll have seen the business end of my firearm and my noisy dogs, which may make things rather hard on him in the first place.

Should he rush me or reach for something, back to the checklist.

jeepmor

jeepmor
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...

The question is phrased in a leading way and there are no more facts such as "this person may have a mistaken residence" or "this person looks like he has down syndrome" etc.

If someone is in my house uninvited, s/he must have come through a window or broken in through the door which is always locked.

Therefore, that person has committed an uninvited breaking and entering.

Next, I have a reasonable belief that, in addition to his prior felony of B&E, he could be armed and could do me harm. In fact, I have to assume the worst in this scenario, that he may be there to KILL ME.

Sure, he COULD have a mistaken house or be retarted or deaf. OR he could be a hitman hired by a disgruntled person in my life, a crack addict wanting $20 for his next fix, or a gang member trying to pop his murder cherry.

It goes without saying that any reasonable person here would assess the situation before shooting.

But given the facts, if I'm in one room and walk into the next and am face to face with a complete dangerous looking stranger, who is there unexpectedly and uninvited, and he's possibly armed, he's going to be at gunpoint within seconds and at that point whether s/he lives or dies will be completely up to THAT PERSONS' ACTIONS, which will then prompt mine.

The person will do one of three things, realisitically.
1) Cooperate
2) Fight
3) Flight

If I draw and give verbal and hand commands to lie on the floor and spread hands palms up, and s/he cooperates, then s/he will likely live. If the person flees out the door I won't shoot, but if they flee behind cover (to return fire) I will shoot. If I give commands and the person fights s/he will get shot.

And Colorado law justifies this self defense
 
Original Post Again

Non-Compliant Intruder
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?
Click to expand...

Folks,
This is where Strategies & Tactics do get into the Legal consequences. This is why so much time is spent in Military, LEO and CCW "training" as to what one should do.

In the civilian world, one has to consider not only the Statutes of one's locale also the political tone, peer group [jury], judges and other considerations.

It really does not matter if one is a CCW-er or not. There are places where one "does not have to retreat" and is allowed to "take prudent steps" - where the civilian is not allowed to CCW, and may only be allowed to "carry at home/business".

Not a home situation - still around here in the legal part of CCW class the example of finding one's self at an alley, and guns shots fired. "Do you step in?"
Well it might be a Undercover officer against a BG, what if you shoot the wrong one?

Moving back into the house. "What if a Undercover Officer catches a BG that has just slid your patio door open downstairs. He is holding the BG at bay, from your view coming down the stairs you see two folks with guns and both "say" they are Police, both say they are "waiting on backup. Both "say" they have ID, and want to reach for it?"

Me? I am going to stay put and wait for the Police. I am going to take cover and call Police myself. Legally here I have to evade, I do not have "stand your ground". There are special instances - still I hide behind cover, with police on phone, and give a code word to ID me.

I am not going to drop the hammer on both and "let it get sorted out".

Problem Two is somthing I do not want to deal with. I especially do not want to deal with Problem Two shooting a innocent bystander with mental difficulties wearing a cell phone, and I darn sure don't want to shoot a Police officer!

Maybe the officer got hit by a 2x4 in the head by the BG and the fight comes into my dwelling and cannot hear me?

Maybe the officer burst the ear drum of the BG with a 4 cell maglight - and BG cannot hear me?.

I do not want Problem 2.
 
The problems with scenarios is that people start extrapolating, extrapolating from that, add conditions, etc. What if the intruder is a reincarnated John Paul II come with good tidings? What if the person is Klaatu, trying to tell us to be good to each other or else? What if it's Bun Bun and all you'll do is tick him off?

The scenarios are getting more and more hairbrained and farfetched. The initial scenario is complicated enough without having to go to great lengths to show how complex and difficult shoot/no shoot is. We can keep going with putting conditions on scenarios until every situation turns into a no shoot if that's the goal.
 
I haven't read all the posts on this long thread--just enough to get the gist of the variety of opinions.

Here's what I would do.

What is my ultimate objective? Well, it's to ensure the safety of myself and any other members of my family who may be home at the time. And, that includes not unnecessarily exposing myself to the legal and probably psychological nightmare of having to shoot someone who might, or might not, be posing a threat. Therefore, shooting would be considered only if he made an obviously threatening move, such as exposing a weapon or lunging at me.

Instead, continually covering him and making clear that I will shoot if he comes at me, I would position myself so I am not between him and an exit. I would then advise him to get the hell out. It's not *my* job to apprehend him, but I would try to memorize everything possible about his appearance to give to the cops later.

If he refuses to exit (and this is the point where you might begin to question his sanity or competence) I might try to take him down by distracting him and giving him my hardest kick to the groin area. Putting my foot on the back of his neck, I would try to determine what that mysterious bulge is. If it's a weapon, I would disarm him, if possible. Once that's done, or if the object was harmless, I would drag his ass out the door, lock it, and call the cops.

K
 
I still like post #2

Advise him that you've noticed that he seems to be armed, and that if he blinks, he's all done...or lie flat on the floor with arms outstretched , fingers open...in slow-motion. His call.
Click to expand...

Paraphrasing my last instructor, I might repharase it to, "IS THAT A GUN? DON'T YOU MOVE. DON'T YOU TOUCH THAT GUN. DON'T YOU MAKE ME STOP YOU."

I would also note that, from personal experience, the perp (if he is one) may not hear you the first time, and may be frozen in fear. If he isn't a perp, he definitely won't hear you and will be frozen in fear. I think I'd wait to shoot, to see if I see a rapidly spreading dark spot at his crotch.
 
I cannot speak for other states but I can say that when NJ Sen. Graves and Assemblymen Paterniti and Shusted wrote the Homeowner's Defense Act of May 1987, they created a statutory 'presumption that the homeowner had a reasonable belief that he was in danger of harm and had to use deadly force.'

Note the phrase 'harm'. The statute defined 'harm to a homeowner' as mere physical pain or temporary disfigurement, not serious bodily injury or death. The statute lessened the degree of danger a person must face before he is justified in using deadly force against an intruder.

"The homeowner didn't invite the criminal to take the first step. The criminal initiated the action and must pay the consequences." - Assemblymen Paterniti.

"The only people who have to fear deadly force are the perpetrators - those who intrude into our homes." Sen. Graves
 
you know people have different out looks on things this thread has shown that for sure! if the preacher and some of you others want to let some one come into your home by unlawfull means then so be it, and as far as me getting rid of my guns!fat chance preacher! i have never killed any one dont want to! but if they are break in my house im not going to ask them what they want! now you can write your smart remarks i have said all im going to about this!*csa*
 
Calling All Bed-Wetters....

"Criminals must be taught to fear their victims."

-- Col. Jeff Cooper, "Principles Of Personal Defense"

Interpolation:

1. If you haven't already thoroughly pre-digested the various options in the Midnight Marauder scenario's "decision-tree" menu...

2. And pre-decided your actions...

3. Based upon certain "keys"...

4. Long BEFORE the actual confrontation...

-->> YOU will be one sorry (dead) Monday-Morning Quarterback.

In other words, given this scenario's facts, the intruder has about 3 seconds to make the decision FOR YOU as to whether he gets Shot-To-Stop.

Preacherman, I have great respect for the insights you bring to the table here, but we shall just have to Agree To Disagree... because what works for you doesn't work for me.
 
1911Tuner "Just because it's legal, doesn't always mean that it's right. "

Hit it right on. I was once in a situation where a goofball tried to force his way into my house because he hought he was at my Neighbors. The guy was highly intoxicated and had no clue. He meant no harm but had he have gotten in I wouldnt have been justified to shoot him regardless of the legality of it.
 
I'd have to say I would go with my gut/instincts, at the time. The situation is so ambiguous that you can't justify making a rigid rule to override your immediate feeling for the situation. (And I think appropriate action could include immediately shooting. A stranger intruding in my home, acting oddly, possibly armed; that could reasonably put me in fear of harm. I would think that, objectively, if you looked at x number of such situations statistically, a lot of them would turn out to be dangerous to the resident, so there is no justification for saying it would clearly be wrong to shoot.)

As for the possibility of shooting a drunk/EDP/mental-defective , I think it would be the same as if s/he climbed a fence and drowned in my pool, or jumped in front of my car; a very, very bad thing to happen, but not my fault.

There's also the local environment to consider. As Jeff White pointed out, home invasions by strangers are fairly rare in the US (although I have been burgled while I slept), but there may be times and places where it happens more frequently, and that would affect my immediate impulse.

And, one thought on restraining our comments to avoid giving aid to the anti's - you learn to catch a baseball by dropping lots of them. I think a big part of developing wise judgement is shooting off your mouth (like, maybe, in an on-line forum), and then looking back, and seeing what you regret saying.
 
Had it happen.

Intruder trying to break down a door was greeted by me with SW 686.

I told him 3 times to lay down and keep his hands where I could see them.

He did not comply and just blankly started at me and in fact walked towards me.

There was enough distance so I did not shoot but did bring hammer back as further warning.

He stopped and started some more just as the PD (who were called) enetered and took him down.

Turns out he was an escaped mental patient with no idea where he was. He thought he was at a friends house.

I am very glad I hesitated.
 
Dev_Null, +1. We can "second guess" and add possibilities to infinity. The point is that this is an awkward situation that will most likely unfold in seconds, with very limited information available.

Would I fire if the suspect is only standing there, not responding to directions? No.

Would I fire if he runs for the exit? No.

Would I fire if he starts making movements toward his "possible weapon" or me? Probably.

Morally and legally, we MUST be able to articulate that there is a REASONABLE belief that he poses an imminent threat. Beyond that, its an individual dicision which the LEO's and the jury will have to decide. Hopefully this will never happen to anyone here, but the possibility definitely exist and its good to discuss and think out where our personal "Line" will be drawn, before it is staring us in the face. To me, this is the true value of a forum such as this. (Education and different perspectives)
Good Luck
 
there is no justification for saying it would clearly be wrong to shoot
Click to expand...

I said that it is clearly wrong to shoot, so I suppose I'll respond to this.

In the original situation, as drafted, the subject does not give any indication of an intent to do any harm to the homeowner. He "just stands there". He does not present an immediate, obvious danger of death/SBI to anyone. He is not, at this time, a threat - - as Jeff points out. We might be able to argue ability and opportunity, but the intent/jeopardy element is clearly missing. We don't shoot nonthreats.

Obviously, if we add facts to the scenario, things may change.

Jurisdiction is not specified in the hypothetical. There may very well be jurisdictions that provide the homeowner with a presumption of the requisite intent and thus justify shooting. However, moral/ethical and financial issues aside, a better answer of general applicability is that lethal force is not justified without some indication that the subject poses an immediate threat; i.e. evidence of an intent to cause death/SBI.

Best bet: Don't get legal advice of some internet forum [no matter how nice the forum is :) ]. Get instruction in these matters from a reputable source or talk them through with your attorney.
 
Bix said

I said that it is clearly wrong to shoot, so I suppose I'll respond to this.

In the original situation, as drafted, the subject does not give any indication of an intent to do any harm to the homeowner. He "just stands there". He does not present an immediate, obvious danger of death/SBI to anyone. He is not, at this time, a threat - - as Jeff points out. We might be able to argue ability and opportunity, but the intent/jeopardy element is clearly missing. We don't shoot nonthreats
Click to expand...

Did you read my entire sentence? Objectively, a large percentage of such situations will, in fact, be dangerous. Intruder enters home, confronted by resident at close range, may be armed, odd lack of reaction - that is a threat. If it's not, then why do you have your gun out at all? Why is your pulse rate so high?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

X
  • Locked
Your Gun Is Trained On An Intruder
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Jeff White
J
A
  • Locked
scenario for home invasion
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
133
Views
5K
ezypikns
E
M
  • Locked
bad guys and verbals?
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
tepin
tepin
D
  • Locked
Police shoot homeowner six times
2 3
Replies
68
Views
3K
Fred Fuller
F
D
  • Locked
In Local News...
Replies
8
Views
359
Dulvarian
D
Back
Top