And what is different if you shoot them without any warning? Everyone is going to know you got a gun when they haul the body away....
Pro's and con's of announcing to an intruder that you're armed
- Thread starter old lady new shooter
- Start date
- Status
Close, but no cigar. The defender must show some evidence that he believed the entry to be forcible. And the "without permission" claim had better not be rebutted.
We at ST&T have long believed that it is not whether one may shoot that counts, but whether one must shoot. For anyone who may try to choose the beat of a different dummer, the answer is "shooting someone will change one's life forever".
Oh gosh! I think most of our members can address that one. Let's step out of our Castle domain and onto the sidewalk, and take it from the top.The civilian defender may not be the aggressor, or provocateur. There is no such rule in battle.
- The civilian defender may not initate the encounter, or provoke it. That is not true in battle.
- The civilian defender (and the sworn officer on duty) may only use force to defend against an attack that is occurring or is about to occur. That is not true in battle.
- The civilian defender (and the sworn officer on duty) may only use as much force as is reasonably necessary to prevent harm to himself or third parties. That is not true in battle.
- The civilian defender must only employ force proportional to that presented by the threat. That is not true in battle.
dweis
Member
in reverse order: 1) the OP wrote of a home invader nit a street incident, 2) I simply stated I would not reveal my,location until I started shooting. I did not say I would immediately shoot. The thread was about making your presence known unless I was going to shoot.
This is the applicable PA Statute section on when lethal force may be used in an illegal entry. It is a far cry from your offer,
(i) The person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within, a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; or the person against whom the force is used is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that other's will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle.
(ii) The actor knows or has reason to believe that the unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or has occurred.
dweis
Member
Please reread what I wrote. I did not say, imply, or suggest I would shoot anyone. I said I would not let anyone know i was there until,I show, meaning had to shoot. I am not into killing. I did that, and I never want to do it again. Can you refer me to,a quote where Aboud says you should make yourmpresnebce known in a home invasion before you are compelled to do so?
I stated what it means. The defender's account is not all that counts.
dweis
Member
Gee I don’t read the PA statute to imply that especially because in another section it also prohibits criminal prosecution or civil suit in such a a situation. In PA the home invade has no rights unless the Police get to him. Once again, I only said I would not alert the perp,to my presence until shor, I did not say I would indiscriminately shoot. Yet, if anyone comes,into my hose without my permission or invitation he had better quickly because the longer he stays the more I.realize his presence is not accidental.
dweis
Member
Where in the PA statute did you specifically find that a court has discretion under the PA Castle Doctrine?
See my interpretation as you wish. I see it as explained to me by a PA Attorney specializing in such matters.
Thank you for being civil. That’s,way I love this Forum. I am no longer responding to posts in this thread. I have said all,I have to say.
Surely you dd not beleive that a defender's contention that an act was justified would cause the dismissal of a lawsuit.
Do you somehow believe that there is an omniscient force that will rule without anyone going to court?
A number of states have similar laws. See the sticky on civil immunity.
If a suit is filed, the defender can have his attorney apply for a civil immunity hearing. If the hearing is granted by the judge, both sides will present evidence, and the judge will decide whether to let the suit go to trial.
Last edited:
dweis
Member
There is always a possibility of a rebuttable presumption. However, the burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the circumstances of the shooting were not in accord with the castle doctrine as specified by PA statute. In a home invasion it is extremely unlikely that a witness would be available to testify against the shooter. Without testimony or other compelling evidence there is unlikely to be a prosecution. If there is, without compelling evidence there is unlikely to be a conviction. If there is no conviction, no civil liability suit can be brought. I am speaking about PA and other state. Ok. I said I was done before but could not avoid this reply. Now, I am done.
That is true for the criminal aspects.
No. No conviction simply means that the jurors thought there was reasonable doubt, or that the prosecution chose not to pursue the case for whatever reason, perhaps political.
Civil liability is a different ball game--different rules, different court.
The burden of persuasion for a civil plaintiff is far lower than that for a criminal conviction--a predominance of the evidence (a feather more than 50%) in most states, and somewhat more than that in Florida and perhaps some others.
Most defendants will settle out of court to limit the loss, and such settlements are never made public.
Read the sticky.
I would rather keep verbal communication very short, and to the point.
“Back off!” (If the intruder is still trying to enter.)
“Get out of my house!” (This covers the “notice to depart” aspect of a trespassing statute.)
Maybe, depending upon circumstances, just a simple “Get out!” Or, “OUT!”
It can require precious time to shut off my mouth, and then take other actions. This is well-covered by any good write-up on human reaction time. So, I plan to keep my communications short. Telling an intruder that I am armed with a weapon may be a luxury (of time) that I cannot afford. Having said that, during my 33+ years of big-city police patrol, I believe that I changed some minds, about armed resistance, when my opponent became aware that I was armed with a shotgun, so, I would not totally rule out making that known, if it were to seem reasonable, depending upon the totality of the circumstances.
Edited to add: I would NOT initiate verbal contact by stating that I have a shotgun, or any firearm.
“Back off!” (If the intruder is still trying to enter.)
“Get out of my house!” (This covers the “notice to depart” aspect of a trespassing statute.)
Maybe, depending upon circumstances, just a simple “Get out!” Or, “OUT!”
It can require precious time to shut off my mouth, and then take other actions. This is well-covered by any good write-up on human reaction time. So, I plan to keep my communications short. Telling an intruder that I am armed with a weapon may be a luxury (of time) that I cannot afford. Having said that, during my 33+ years of big-city police patrol, I believe that I changed some minds, about armed resistance, when my opponent became aware that I was armed with a shotgun, so, I would not totally rule out making that known, if it were to seem reasonable, depending upon the totality of the circumstances.
Edited to add: I would NOT initiate verbal contact by stating that I have a shotgun, or any firearm.
True. A Taser is at its best as a “team weapon.” One operates the Taser. One provides lethal force cover. One (or two) is/are designated to “go hands.”
A single defender can opt to deploy a Taser, but it is a desperate act. Tasers fail to incapacitate, at a rate that cannot be disregarded. Tasers function best when deployed into the large muscle groups on the rear of the body.
I used Tasers, multiple times, and was present for many more. A Taser is a specialized, niche weapon.
“Stun guns” are NOT Tasers, and are far less effective.
There could easily be a witness to testify against the shooter. The intruder may not have been alone. The intruder could have had a criminal accomplice or may have been several drunk friends who got lost on the way home.
I will absolutely not shoot anyone unless I can positively identify a weapon.
I will absolutely not shoot anyone unless I can positively identify a weapon.
The Night Rider
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2022
- Messages
- 2,133
All absolute statements are wrong
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Which is an ironically reflexive statement that isn't correct.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Still wrong, even more so, and still reflexive.
Hope that post doesn't come back to haunt you one day when a post-shooting search warrant turns up every last word you ever wrote on social media.
luzyfuerza
Member
This is a key takeaway from this video for all home defenders.
Lawyers generally preface their advice with the phrase "well, it depends". Grieve used this idea a lot in his answers. We should each think carefully about our specific situations, and choose, beforehand, what the best approach is for our family makeup, home configuration, and legal environment.
There is no one universal, best answer to this question that applies to everyone, everywhere.
One exception Grieve gives, however: don't leave your place of safety to try to find and counter-ambush the invader. Tactically and legally, he says, this approach is pretty much always a bad idea.
Last edited:
luzyfuerza
Member
Thinking about the options in my situation, I came up with two "it would be useful to have this if a bad guy came into my house" kind of ideas. Off to Amazon to order the parts, and then to update the home defense plan and family member training.
Thanks @old lady new shooter !
Thanks @old lady new shooter !
aaaaa
Member
Ambush seems akin to setting a booby trap to kill an intruder, which I think would almost automatically result in prison time.A friend sat in ambush in his shop to nail a consistent break in. He shot and killed the crook.
He ....managed.... to avoid prison. But not by much.
And the expense was enormous.
Ironicaintit
Member
I agree in a sense... but try telling that to a mathematician.
it's more like; absolute statements may be proven wrong when tested.
I thought maybe you were being purposefully ironic.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
