Reacting to home intruder

Status
Not open for further replies.
HOWARD J .....

I don't know how it is in MI, but in kentucky you are not allowed to use deadly force, which is any weapon at all basically with a few exceptions, but you are allowed to use physical force to stop them without any risk of a civil suit. So you may not be able to punch holes in them but you can punch them -in kentucky- if you like. You might want to look into that in your state laws.
 
In this county you don't dare go out to the kiddies to punch them----that would be very dangerous.
Your best bet is to have an alarm on your garage & they usually go somewhere else.
The amount of cars they steel in this county is unreal---If caught they are back on the street b/4 the paper work is done.
 
If its "kiddies" you speak of they need to be bent over a knee. If its perps. then never go out to face them without the option of defending yourself to the fullest. Its all a personal preference. I may die young, ya never know.
 
Oh, gosh! Prosecutors and plaintiffs' attorneys could have a field day with that, I'm afraid. Good way to lose everything.

One could quote the authoritative literature until the proverbial cows come home, but member Cosmoline put it very clearly and economically in another post when he said "shoot for defense, not for justice." It applies equally to any other kind of physical force.

A citizen can effect an arrest under some circumstances in Illinois, but he is not indemnified against civil suits, and he faces exposure to criminal prosecution if he uses excessive force. Not recommended.
It's my house. I didn't say I'd shoot and ask questions later. I may have used strong language to help visualize what a criminal deserves who breaks into one's home, and I hope for it to not play out that way, but would not hesitate to punch first and let the police ask the questions. I don't know the intent of an intruder, and honestly, he'd be lucky to be carried out in handcuffs with just an ass whoopin. If you break into someone's house, you've waived your right to not get your ass kicked. I didn't say I'd hit him with a bat or any other weapon. Your reply is a little bit out of touch with reality, and I don't beleive you know Illinois law. Force is justified in Sec. 7-2 below. I think I'll not take your recommendation. I don't think the police would say, "well sorry, but we have to arrest you for defending yourself, and even though you were armed, and had the means to kill the perp, you only rendered him defenseless with your fists. You're coming with us." Get real!! People have gotten their asses kicked for much less. Breaking and entering in someone's home is definitely a reason to get a beat-down. What will the civil suit say? I broke into someone's house, and got my ass kicked when they defended their family? Ha!! I'll gladly go to that deposition!! By the way, I live in Palos Heights, a tight knit community that doesn't go for criminals, so I'm sure I would have no problems.

Even though Illinois has bull**** gun laws, our laws on self defense are pretty common sense.

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

(720 ILCS 5/7-2) Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(a) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(b) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(720 ILCS 5/7-3) Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(720 ILCS 5/7-4) Sec. 7-4. Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding Sections of this Article is not available to a person who:
(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(b) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless:
(1) Such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(2) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

(720 ILCS 5/7-6) Sec. 7-6. Private person's use of force in making arrest.
(a) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.
(b) A private person who is summoned or directed by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, unless he knows that the arrest is unlawful.

(720 ILCS 5/7-7) Sec. 7-7. Private person's use of force in resisting arrest.
A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.

(720 ILCS 5/7-8) Sec. 7-8. Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
(a) Force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, within the meaning of Sections 7-5 and 7-6 includes:
(1) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(2) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(b) A peace officer's discharge of a firearm using ammunition designed to disable or control an individual without creating the likelihood of death or great bodily harm shall not be considered force likely to cause death or great bodily harm within the meaning of Sections 7-5 and 7-6.

(720 ILCS 5/7-10) Sec. 7-10. Execution of death sentence.
A public officer who, in the exercise of his official duty, puts a person to death pursuant to a sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction, is justified if he acts in accordance with the sentence pronounced and the law prescribing the procedure for execution of a death sentence.

(720 ILCS 5/7-11) Sec. 7-11. Compulsion.
(a) A person is not guilty of an offense, other than an offense punishable with death, by reason of conduct which he performs under the compulsion of threat or menace of the imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm, if he reasonably believes death or great bodily harm will be inflicted upon him if he does not perform such conduct.
(b) A married woman is not entitled, by reason of the presence of her husband, to any presumption of compulsion, or to any defense of compulsion except that stated in Subsection (a).

(720 ILCS 5/7-13) Sec. 7-13. Necessity.
Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his own conduct.
What Can You Hit With?

(720 ILCS 5/24-1) Sec. 24-1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.
(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
(1) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses or carries any bludgeon,black-jack,slung-shot,sand-club, sand-bag, metal knuckles, throwing star, or any knife, commonly referred to as a switchblade knife, which has a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in the handle of the knife, or a ballistic knife, which is a device that propels a knifelike blade as a projectile by means of a coil spring, elastic material or compressed gas; or
(2) Carries or possesses with intent to use the same unlawfully against another, a dagger, dirk, billy, dangerous knife, razor, stiletto, broken bottle or other piece of glass, stun gun or taser or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument of like character; or
(3) Carries on or about his person or in any vehicle, a tear gas gun projector or bomb or any object containing noxious liquid gas or substance, other than an object containing a non-lethal noxious liquid gas or substance designed solely for personal defense carried by a person 18 years of age or older; or
(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:
(i) are broken down in a non-functioning state; or
(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card; or
(5) Sets a spring gun; or
(6) Possesses any device or attachment of any kind designed, used or intended for use in silencing the report of any firearm; or
(7) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses or carries:
(8) Carries or possesses any firearm, stun gun or taser or other deadly weapon in any place which is licensed to sell intoxicating beverages, or at any public gathering held pursuant to a license issued by any governmental body or any public gathering at which an admission is charged, excluding a place where a showing, demonstration or lecture involving the exhibition of unloaded firearms is conducted.
This subsection (a)(8) does not apply to any auction or raffle of a firearm held pursuant to a license or permit issued by a governmental body, nor does it apply to persons engaged in firearm safety training courses; or
(9) Carries or possesses in a vehicle or on or about his person any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or firearm or ballistic knife, when he is hooded, robed or masked in such manner as to conceal his identity; or
(10) Carries or possesses on or about his person, upon any public street, alley, or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village or incorporated town, except when an invitee thereon or therein, for the purpose of the display of such weapon or the lawful commerce in weapons, or except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (10) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:
(i) are broken down in a non-functioning state; or
(ii) are not immediately accessible;
A "stun gun or taser", as used in this paragraph (a) means (i) any device which is powered by electrical charging units, such as, batteries, and which fires one or several barbs attached to a length of wire and which, upon hitting a human, can send out a current capable of disrupting the person's nervous system in such a manner as to render him incapable of normal functioning or (ii) any device which is powered by electrical charging units, such as batteries, and which, upon contact with a human or clothing worn by a human, can send out current capable of disrupting the person's nervous system in such a manner as to render him incapable of normal functioning; or
 
Last edited:
My home is pretty difficult to break into, and there is an alarm on every potential entry point. If a home invader actually manages to get inside, I'll be waiting for him by then, and he's going to have a very bad next few minutes.

On the other hand, if a burglar somehow manages to get inside before being detected (however unlikely that would be with the alarms, security doors, reinforced windows, bump-resistant deadbolts, the main doors jammed on the inside, etc.), then I suppose that barricading everybody in a closet would not be the worst idea.

Either way, if there is going to be a confrontation I'd want him to come to me, and if he does then he'll get what he deserves until he stops asking for it.
 
When I lived in another city not far from here---I found a bunch of stolen items in my bushes.
I call the cops---in the meantime the dudes that stole the items came to get them.
4 guys---I backed up & let them take the items.
When the cops came 3 days later---they gave me hell for not stopping the dudes.
I asked what would have happened if I had used a gun to stop them ( no one shot)
They said that I would have been sent to prison. It was a great city at one time---but times change !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Posted by BigDeesul: I don't know the intent of an intruder, and honestly, he'd be lucky to be carried out in handcuffs with just an ass whoopin. If you break into someone's house, you've waived your right to not get your ass kicked. I didn't say I'd hit him with a bat or any other weapon. Your reply is a little bit out of touch with reality, and I don't beleive you know Illinois law. Force is justified in Sec. 7-2 below. I think I'll not take your recommendation. I don't think the police would say, "well sorry, but we have to arrest you for defending yourself, and even though you were armed, and had the means to kill the perp, you only rendered him defenseless with your fists. You're coming with us."

  1. Do not allow a lay reading of Illinois law to lead you to believe incorrectly that the fact that you may lawfully use physical force to prevent or terminate a crime if you have reasonable belief that such force was necessary to do so (and someone else will decide that based on evidence presented by you) means that you can use excessive force to harm someone.
  2. The police do not decide whether or not you will be charged.
  3. Even if you are not charged with a crime, or if you are charged and not indicted, or if you are charged and indicted but found not guilty in a trial court (by which time your expenses will be astronomical), you still stand to lose everthing in civil court (IL law does not limit civil liability in a justified defense of premises). Remember, the plaintiff's burden of proof is a lot lower in civil court.

No, don't take my recommendation; consult a good attorney. Probably won't cost anything, but even if it does, that's less than losing your clean record, most or all of everything you own, and/or your personal freedom.

Even though Illinois has bull**** gun laws, our laws on self defense are pretty common sense.
I agree, but do not rely upon a lay interpretation of them.

Regarding holding him, or handcuffs: remember, as a private citizen, you're entirely on your own. Consider this from the Illinois State Troopers:

Here is what Illinois Law says about Arrest by a Private Person (725 ILCS 5/107-3) "Any person may arrest another when he has reasonable grounds to believe that an offense other than an ordinance violation is being committed."

In the U.S., all states permit "Citizen Arrests" if a felony is committed in the presence of the Private Person. Illinois Law above also includes misdemeanors, but not ordinance violations. Generally by "arresting someone" the general consensus is that means you are detaining them until Law Enforcement authorities can arrive. A State's Attorney can always charge someone with a crime based on another person's testimony or urging, but in that case the charges are placed by the State's Attorney or a Police Officer.

It is important to note that a private person does not have the authority or legal protections that are often applied to the Police. A Private Person is liable under both Civil and Criminal law for the violation of the rights of another. Private Persons are for the most part not trained in arrest techniques and are not armed, so it can be dangerous for them to attempt arresting another person. It is likely that the person being arrested may resist with force or even a weapon. Excessive force could also result in charges against the person trying to arrest another.

The best course of action for a Private Person is to report the incident to Police as soon as possible, and be a good witness. Remember descriptions, details, what happened and what was said, then give that information to a Police Officer. Of course there are situations where a Private Person feels they must become involved, for instance in defense of themselves or another defenseless person. Even then, the safest course of action may be to scare the offender off or stop the assault without attempting to detain the offender.

http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/trooper/2007/01/citizens_arrest.html

A few salient differences between IL law as written and the law across the river to the west are as follows:
  1. The castle doctrine extends to an occupied automobile or occupied tent in MO
  2. Deadly force is permitted (if necessary) in the event of any unlawful entry into an occupied domicile or automobile
  3. There is a statutory provision obviating any obligation to retreat from said occupied domicile or automobile
  4. The law contains language protecting the citizen against civil damages if his actions are found justified in court (not well tested yet)
  5. Citizens arrests may be effected only for certain very serious felonies

Realize that real differences may stem from higher court decisions. Has it been determined that there is no duty to retreat in a dwelling, even though it isn't mentioned in the code? Has it been determined that necessity did not exist if the resident had not been in the house to start with, even thought the statute doesn't refer specifically to an occupied dwelling? Don't know, and that's why it is foolhardy to rely on a lay reading of any statute as written. And, of course, one's case may be the one that establishes the case law, at his considerable expense.

See this, from Lee Lapin, Moderator:

There is NO SUBSTITUTE for developing an operating knowledge of the laws applicable to self defense and defense of others in your own jurisdiction or in any jurisdiction in which you legally carry a firearm. That means ALL the law, both statute book law and case law (precedent, appellate, etc).

The time to get yourself squared away on what the laws of self defense say is BEFORE you find yourself in the courtroom- not after. Sitting in court as a defendant is a horribly expensive way to find out what you can and cannot legally do in your jurisdiction. And there have been members of this very forum who have found that out the hard way already. Do not join their number.

The place to get your legal information is at the hands of someone who practices that law every day- NOT on the Internet.
(Emphasis added)

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=6580854&postcount=46
 
I was listening to the father of the 15yr old young man who recently defended himself and his sister near Houston (Tomball) Tx. (Michale Berry Show?)

When the burglars (2) started ringing the doorbell repeatedly and peeking in windows, the young man got his sister and himself up stairs and locked her in a room. He also aquired a CAR-15 and loaded it. He next took a position at the top of the stairs and waited. When the burglars showed up in his line of sight carrying a TV, he engaged them with rifle fire. Wounding one with two shots to the legs and one to the face, the second sought cover.
When the un-injured burglar called out, the young man told him to leave and he would not shoot any more. So the burglar did and took his bleeding buddy with him.
Threat was over.

Either Dad taught him some good tactics or he has taught himself (both I suspect as Dad is a member of law enforcement).

He saw a situation developing
Took control of the people around him and retreated to strong high ground position.
Armed himself with an effective weapon and ambushed the burglars when he was ready.
Relaxed the situation when the other side gave up.

If I ever get in that position I hope I can act with this much control and decisive action.
 
The way I would react would be directly related to my location and what I'm doing in the time of the invasion.

If I woke up to the sound of forced entry I would stay put in my bedroom with my 870 w/light, and my usp compact .40 beside me and wait for them to come to me while calling 911. I would not feel confident searching for an unknown number of people in unknown positions.

If I were allready awake in the house I would most likely be armed before the invasion began. I would take any advantagious position I could that would allow me to keep an eye on where he/them were gaining entry. I would give verbal commands for he/them to leave and shoot if he/them did not comply.

I agree with Shockwave's post about checking a bump in the night, if I hear something and I don't know what it is I will investigate. I don't work myself to the bone to live in fear in my own home. If I investigate a noise and it appears that someone may be up to foul play I will stop, call 911 and wait there.
 
I was listening to the father of the 15yr old young man who recently defended himself and his sister near Houston (Tomball) Tx. (Michale Berry Show?)

When the burglars (2) started ringing the doorbell repeatedly and peeking in windows, the young man got his sister and himself up stairs and locked her in a room. He also aquired a CAR-15 and loaded it. He next took a position at the top of the stairs and waited. When the burglars showed up in his line of sight carrying a TV, he engaged them with rifle fire. Wounding one with two shots to the legs and one to the face, the second sought cover.
When the un-injured burglar called out, the young man told him to leave and he would not shoot any more. So the burglar did and took his bleeding buddy with him.
Threat was over.

Either Dad taught him some good tactics or he has taught himself (both I suspect as Dad is a member of law enforcement).

He saw a situation developing
Took control of the people around him and retreated to strong high ground position.
Armed himself with an effective weapon and ambushed the burglars when he was ready.
Relaxed the situation when the other side gave up.

If I ever get in that position I hope I can act with this much control and decisive action.
That's an impressive story. I too hope I'll be calm if I ever need to defend myself.

As for searching for people in my house... nah, it's alright, I don't get paid enough to do it.
 
Thank God I live in Colorado! If someone's in your house and you think he's going to commit a crime, you can act accordingly.

I just need to figure out a way to keep one of my M1 Carbines at the ready, yet inaccessible to the grandkid and out of the wife's radar. She doesn't like loaded guns where she can see them. My Compact 1911 w/Lasergrips is certainly sufficient, but I'd love to have an M1 handy too.
 
Yeah rondog, I sure am glad I live in KY. IL laws I don't know about but I sure wouldn't want to be in civil court for defending my self, and in kentucky the laws clear you of even being charged much less prosecuted. According you acted within the laws of course.

But anyway I'd say this thread probably wont last much longer (gettin a little heated I think) but kleanbore I truly do enjoy debating the different views and aspects of these type of situations (never know when one might learn something accidentally :D ) and I appreciate you keeping it at a mature level.
 
Going to investigate suspicious activities, or to look for and confront an intruder in your home, is an extraordinarily bad idea tactically (whether or not you may be on solid ground legally), unless one must try to round up unaccounted for guests or family members.

What I've been taught in the various classes I've taken, is that if you hear a noise --

[1] You investigate as best you can from a place of safety inside the house with your family. You wait and quietly listen. Does the sound repeat? Can you begin to identify it? Can you positively identify it as something innocuous? If the sound is clearly from outside, you may look out nearby windows.

[2] If you can't identify the sound and believe there is a danger, you assure that your family and any known visitors are all together and with you in a place of safety. You arm yourself. You call the police. You maintain telephone contact with the police. And you wait.

[3] You do not go anywhere to investigate, because --

(a) If you go looking, and there is indeed a BG there, you will be at an extreme tactical disadvantage. You can easily be ambushed or flanked. You may also have given a BG access to family members to use as hostages. Or there maybe more than one.

(b) When (whether you called them or they were called by a neighbor who may have also seen or heard something) the police respond, they don't know who you are. You are just someone with a weapon.

And here we have an example of what can happen if you go out to investigate: http://cbs11tv.com/local/watauga.stabbing.burglary.2.851147.html. The BG was outnumbered. The BG brought a knife to a gunfight. The BG was on unfamiliar territory. But the BG also had a significant tactical advantage and won the fight.

Then again there was the incident not long ago when four trained and well armed Oakland, California SWAT officers were killed going into a house after an ensconced bad guy: http://cbs5.com/local/shooting.officer.oakland.2.964784.html and http://cbs5.com/local/SWAT.Oakland.police.2.982917.html.

Massad Ayoob tells a story about the National Tactical Invitational, an annual competition in which some 130 of the top shooters and firearm trainers participate by invitation only. One of the events is a force-on-force exercise using simunitions in which the competitor must clear a house against a single "BG." According to Mas during the first six years of the NTI, one, and only one, competitor got through one of those six NTIs without being judged killed, and he was head of NASA security firearms training at the time. And one, and only one, made it through the seventh year. The tactical advantage of the ensconced adversary is just too great. And remember, these competitors were highly skilled, highly trained fighters.

Anyone who has had decent training and/or has had experience going looking for a bad guy will tell you (1) it is properly a group activity; (2) the guy you're hunting has a great tactical advantage; and (3) it's not something anyone who knows what he is doing wants to do, nor will he do it unless he absolutely must (e. g., to find and protect unaccounted for, known innocents).
 
We had an incident here recently where a homeowner shot a teenage burglar who was still on the front porch, just trying to get in. The H/O shot him in the head and knocked him off the porch and wasn't charged, in accordance with our Make My Day law. Responding LEO's were a few houses down at another call, and heard the shot.
 
Going to investigate suspicious activities, or to look for and confront an intruder in your home, is an extraordinarily bad idea tactically (whether or not you may be on solid ground legally)


I agree with you, but the incident you link in which the homeowner and friend go out looking for the burglar is not particularly illustrative of the point. In that case, there is no indication if they were ambushed, or just failed to shoot the guy and instead chose to engage hand-to-hand.
 
Kleanbore pretty much covered my opinion on this. Just a couple of random thoughts:

(1) Someone suggested locking a door and shooting through it when the handle turns. I would not shoot through a door because I live in an urban area and if I miss the intruder, my bullet will likely pass through at least one neighboring house. There is also the possibility that the person behind the door might be an innocent person. Several people are key holders to my house (because I have an alarm system) and I would want to be sure of the identity of my target before shooting. It happened recently that my girl friend could not contact me on the phone for a while and she asked a key holder to go to the house to see if I was OK.

(2) I doubt that I would seek out an intruder though this might depend on exactly what I was hearing and where the sounds were coming from. In all probability, I would take up a defensive position and wait while calling 911. I would consider calling out to ask who's there and to say that the police are on their way. I don't own any property that I would consider valuable enough to risk my life for. And for all the reasons given by Kleanbore and others, my risk will be mitigated if I wait for the intruder(s) to come to me.
 
Well, like I said earlier I'm not gonna jump up and run into a room where I think there "might" be a BG. Likewise I'm not gonna swing my door open and jump outside screaming bloody murder if I hear someone outside. I don't know how alot of you guys live, but im very rural and around here you just don't go around peoples houses at night. So I will and have checked it out, but cautiously.

Think of this...... If someone breaks into your house or is outside your house uninvited, what are they doing?

1. They are stealing, and therefor moving around, looking through things etc.
so if observed correctly before you confront, you can have the advantage

2. They are coming to harm you or someone in/at the home. In this situation, again they will be on the move and if observed, you can have the upper hand once again.

3. They are outside and in honest need of your help of some sort, emergency, car broke down etc....

I'm not saying a man in a house waiting on someone they know is coming isn't gonna win 99 times out of 100. Which is what happens during these little training exercises that the "tactically correct" keep refering to. In reality, a thief isn't gonna break in and hide behind your counter to try and wait you out. Or settle in your recliner for the night.

You know, if you do go outside to investigate something/someone (If you never do nor never will, then that is totally up to you and you have that right) it is just as dark for them as it is for you and if you play it right, you will have an advantage. Just don't make many moves at all until you have spotted or recognized the threat.
 
When the cops came 3 days later---they gave me hell for not stopping the dudes. I asked what would have happened if I had used a gun to stop them ( no one shot) They said that I would have been sent to prison.

LOL!!! Ain't THAT a swift kick in the you know where!? :cuss:
 
rainbowbob said:
...but the incident you link in which the homeowner and friend go out looking for the burglar is not particularly illustrative of the point. In that case, there is no indication if they were ambushed, or just failed to shoot the guy and instead chose to engage hand-to-hand....
Perhaps. The article isn't very clear. But I also have a hard time imagining that someone armed with a shotgun would choose to grapple with someone armed with a knife; at least if the person with the shotgun had a chance to shoot. From the article:

"...The man interrupted a robbery attempt in front of his house and ended up getting stabbed and then shot with his own gun.
...

According to reports, the homeowner heard some noise near his portable trailer parked outside his house ... and went outside. ...

The robber, who was armed with a knife, struggled with the homeowner and his guest in the driveway. During the scuffle the homeowner dropped his gun and as the men clamored for the weapon, it went off and hit the homeowner in the arm...."

It sure leaves me with the impression that the homeowner was surprised and therefore didn't have a chance to use his gun.

beeenbag said:
...If someone breaks into your house or is outside your house uninvited, what are they doing?

1. They are ... moving around, ...

2. ...

3. ...

.. a thief isn't gonna break in and hide behind your counter to try and wait you out. ..
Of course a thief, as soon as he hears you coming (which he almost certainly will), will find a place to hide and ambush you, or leave. He knows that he gains the advantage by hiding and waiting for you. He played "hide and seek" as a kid. And if he's had some jail time, he's been educated in such matters by other prisoners.

beeenbag said:
...if you do go outside to investigate something/someone (If you never do nor never will, then that is totally up to you and you have that right) it is just as dark for them as it is for you and if you play it right, you will have an advantage. Just don't make many moves at all until you have spotted or recognized the threat...
No, you will never have an advantage.

[1] It may be just as dark for him as for you. But he can stay still and wait. He may also be able to find a place in the shadows to wait and arrange things so that you will be back-lit from his vantage point.

[2] Once the intruder finds an appropriate spot, he doesn't have to move at all. You will have to move to find him. You will not be able to limit your movements, at least if you expect to find him. If you just stay in one spot or minimize your movements, you will never see the threat. Of course, by minimizing your movements, you make is easier for the intruder to escape, and that's a good result for you.
 
Well if he escapes.... Great, I didn't have to deal with him and I shortened his stay. :)

Minimal movement on my behalf is the key by the way.

One example I may give here...... I was away working in PA and my wifes father came over to stay a few nights while I was gone. He was asleep on the couch and my wife in the bed. They heard a bang outside (very clear it was outside). My wife grabs the .357 (beautiful S&W 581 by the way) off the night stand and meets him in the hallway, he was coming for it, he then snuck outside and stayed behind the house. The noise came from the front. He slowly walked to the corner and stood there for a while, and low and behold here come two young boys walkin down the drive way. He moved around to what would eventually become their side if they stayed on the drive way. They walked right up on him, mind you he is not behind cover just standing in the dark shadows, where he suprised them verbally and had full control of the situation. They claimed they needed to use the phone and that was all, so he got them the phone and brought it to them in the drive way. He made sure to let them know that if they came much closer to the house that both of my dogs would eat them up, and they would, they are eclosed by a underground fence with a shock collar. They used the phone and left promply.
 
And maybe they were just a couple of kids looking to use the phone.

refer to post #44

Think of this...... If someone breaks into your house or is outside your house uninvited, what are they doing?

1. They are stealing, and therefor moving around, looking through things etc.
so if observed correctly before you confront, you can have the advantage

2. They are coming to harm you or someone in/at the home. In this situation, again they will be on the move and if observed, you can have the upper hand once again.

3. They are outside and in honest need of your help of some sort, emergency, car broke down etc....

I understand what your saying about being ambushed....and I honestly feel if I stay aware of that and do things based on what I know about the situation at hand I can handle things. I know there is a great risk at defending things on my own but like I said before, I am very rural and have a better than 30 minute police response time. If I don't take care of things, no one will.
 
Posted by BigDeesul: Well, Kleanbore, you can hide in the closet, scared, while calling your lawyer.
You've got it wrong. If I'm in the house I will get into a defensive position if I can, call the police, and shoot if necessary. I'll call a lawyer afterwards, I guarantee.

Yeah, I may well be scared. I sure wasn't very relaxed on any of the three occasions in which I have had to successfully defend against home invaders by using firearms.

If I come home to find evidence of a burglar inside, I'll call the police.

I'll handle my business.
Alrighty then. Best of luck in the confrontation and in the proceedings afterwards. Just don't use a gun unlawfully or get yourself killed with one in your hand--it doesn't help the cause.

Posted by rondog: We had an incident here recently where a homeowner shot a teenage burglar who was still on the front porch, just trying to get in. The H/O shot him in the head and knocked him off the porch and wasn't charged, in accordance with our Make My Day law. Responding LEO's were a few houses down at another call, and heard the shot.
Not quite. Based on the guy's arm having come through the glass to unlock the door, it was decided at the county investigative level that he had entered unlawfully (necessary for justification under the law), and his loud demands were taken as having provided the homeowner with reasonable belief that he intended to commit violence against the homeowners in addition to the unlawful entry (also necessary).

Could have come down either way. By the way, the homeowner can still be charged until he is tried and acquitted, pardoned, or dead. Unlikely, I think, but it has happened.

Posted by beeenbag: Think of this...... If someone breaks into your house or is outside your house uninvited, what are they doing?

Understand the significant difference. If someone breaks into your house while you are in it, you are, in most jurisdictions, provided with a presumption of reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary. In a few places, such as Colorado and Missouri, to name two, the unlawful entry does not even need to have been made with force or "tumultuously."

The only question is whether you want to walk into his or their ambush, or have them walk into yours. How that plays out will determine who wins.

In another string on this subject, it has been suggested that people get some airsoft guns to play out the scenarios and pay some young folks if they win. I don't need to. Just looking at the path that I took from various locations in the house convinces me that, when I used to pick up a gun and go down to investigate a noise in the old days, I should never have expected to win. I now know full well that I was darn lucky that no one was there.

If someone is outside of your house uninvited, that presents an entirely different set of problems. He is trespassing, at least if the property is properly marked. In most states you cannot even threaten deadly force, much less use it, and in almost all, you may not try to hold him. Know your state laws.

If you do go outside with a gun, you add to your risk of being ambushed by one or more perps the risks of being mistaken for a bad guy by an armed citizen who does not recognize you with in the dark or of being shot by a first responder who has been summoned by someone else.

...I sure wouldn't want to be in civil court for defending my self, and in kentucky the laws clear you of even being charged much less prosecuted. According you acted within the laws of course.
"Clear you?" Not quite.

What laws of that kind really do is dissuade tort lawyers from taking cases that most of us consider frivolous. We have that too (our law is modeled after Florida's, with some differences). It seems to have been working. Problem is, unless you have been tried and acquitted in criminal court, that protection is somewhat questionable.

Legislatures crafted such laws with the best of intentions. However, attorney friends advise me to do anything possible to avoid shooting someone and testing the civil suit protection. I'm glad to have it, but....

Consult an attorney.

And by all means, try to avoid ever needing either an attorney or a surgeon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top