scenario for home invasion

Status
Not open for further replies.
At my home, we don't take prisoners and we don't negotiate with them or provide warnings about what might happen should they not comply. In fact, I can't see discovering an intruder in my home and doing something stupid like giving a verbal command that would then alert the intruder to my presence. That would mean giving up a significant tactical advantage. At least in Texas, intruders can be considered as threat to the lives of the residents and as such, lethal force can be used to protect those lives. In other words, I don't have to have to use lethal force, but the option is available. For example, there may be no need to shoot the guy unless he moves in my direction or in the direction of a family member even if he doesn't know they are there. If a warning is going to be given to the intruder, it will most likely come in the form of an attemped COM shot

Either they are down an incapacitated from their injuries or the have managed to bolt and get away. Either way, the safety of my family is better off.

Taking prisoners is dangerous. First of all, say you have one at gun point. Where is your attention directed at the time? Are you absolutely sure that he is operating alone and that there is no possibility of another intruder in the home and who might use your prisoner focus against you and either sneak up and harm you or manage to go unseen and unchalleged to where your family is and threaten their lives?

Next, what experience or training do you have to capture and hold a prisoner?
 
The situation for me is a little different cos of two factors:
1) Local law prohibits home storage of firearms
2) The law states that home invasion between 7pm and 7am can be dealth with using legal force.

Thus, if I catch some scumbag breaking into my abode I can pretty much do what I want with him so as long as I use non prohibited hand weapons. Here's what I would actually do:

Assuming that the human piece of crap instantly surrenders upon being confronted with me and my trusty machete, I tell him to drop his weapon and lie eagle spread on the floor. If he refuses then i'll slash his strong side forearm followed by his weak side thigh. Anymore resistance with will met by me cleaving his head open. If he complies with my demands, I'll call the cops and keep his at blade point until they arrive.

Local law's a bitch if you're attacked in the streets but protects you VERY WELL at home. Only the most hardened criminals attempt home invasions in my country. :evil: In the most recent break-in cases, the homeowner has been forced to spill blood in defence of family and hearth.
 
kannonfyre, at least you know and understand your laws and rammifications. Too bad the poor schmucks in NY keep getting arrested for shooting intruders with guns they aren't supposed to have in NY.
 
Here in the Commonwealth, I would be hard pressed not to shoot the bastard, by law we can.

Which brings me to the question.....Do you shoot to disable, or to kill????
 
"A man worth shootin' is a man worth killin'..."

The shooting will be investigated, and as a courtesy to the investigators, you shoot to kill, repeatedly if necessary.

The investigators will appreciate your making sure that there is only one account of how and why the shooting occurred.


;)
 
You NEVER shoot to kill. Neither do you shoot to disable.


You shoot to stop the threat. If he happens to die in the process (5 COM hits tend to do that), well, that's life in the burglary business.


Okay, now you are asking why, right? Two reasons: Legalities and survival.


  1. If you "shoot to kill" and that becomes known to the DA, you may face manslaughter or murder charges that would not have come up otherwise. That's Not A Good Thing.
  2. If you shoot to disable, your chances of missing (since you ain't Roy Rogers, and you won't be working with blanks and stuntmen) are very high, leading to the increased possibility of HIM doing the killing. Uh, that would be with YOU being the target. This ALSO is Not A Good Thing.
    [/list=1]
 
I've thought about this from time to time. My answer is that "capturing" is for the police or the US military. My obligtion is to protect my property, my family, and myself. I have no obligation to capture crooks.

I would find some loud, forceful, and profane way to take command of the situation and say that the intruder could leave the way s/he came in or get shot. I would try to take a mental snapshot description for the police to find the bad guy later. You head toward the door, you're free. You head toward me and I will light you up. But, I'm not taking any captives. YMMV.

RJ
 
I'm a bit worried here....

"A man worth shootin' is a man worth killin'..."
The shooting will be investigated, and as a courtesy to the investigators, you shoot to kill, repeatedly if necessary.
Click to expand...

"Why did you give him orders in the first place?? You're not a cop...shoot!
Click to expand...

Here in the Commonwealth, I would be hard pressed not to shoot the bastard, by law we can.

Which brings me to the question.....Do you shoot to disable, or to kill????
Click to expand...

It seems that there is a lot of talk here on a public forum that would be more appropriate over some adult beverages among close friends.

The law in many places allows you to shoot an intruder in your home without fear of criminal prosecution. But do those same state laws indemnify you against civil actions? I'm not aware of any states that have a law saying that if your actions are justified under the criminal code, you can't be sued civilly for the same actions. I can only imagine what an attorney out to prove that you were looking for a chance to shoot someone in civil court would do with some of these posts.

There is just no way of knowing what all the ramifications can be in a shooting of any type. I know of an instance here in the county I live in, where no charges of any kind were filed against a farm supply company owner who shot two people who were fleeing his property after being caught trying to steal anhydrous ammonia. Injuries to the suspects were minor, but none of the reports I heard suggested that the shooting was even remotely justified under Illinois law. I think that the states attorney may have been trying to send a message to the meth cookers in the county, but I'd hate to rely on that to keep myself out of prison.

No flames intended here...just like some members to think a bit before they post to a public forum.

Jeff
 
The law in many places allows you to shoot an intruder in your home without fear of criminal prosecution.
Click to expand...
But it just as many places, it does not. In many jurisdictions, you cannot shoot someone, even in your home, unless you or another innocent are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. And in many jurisdictions, it is not legal to use deadly force to defend your property (life yes, property no).

Talk to a lawyer about the laws in your jurisdiction. You just might be surprised at how few times you can use deadly force.
 
You never shoot to kill? Hmmm? I am not sure I understand that one some levels, but obviously it makes sense on the PR level.

Let's see, you are using lethal force and so you incur the same liability risks in using lethal force no matter where you shoot the person (head, chest, legs, etc.). As far as I know, discharging a firearm at another human is considered use of lethal force against that human regardless of your supposed intent.

So, you shoot to stop, right? What is the best type of stop? It is where the perosn being stopped is stopped without their control, in other words, incapacitated and ideally incapacitated very quickly. No doubt that some of the best stop/incapacitation shots are those that are CNS (brain, brain stem, spinal cord above the shoulders), of which may cause death. This is followed by stoppage of the cariovascular system via heart stoppage or loss of blood which eventually brings heart stoppage. Unfortunately, these stops may be somewhat slow, even direct shots to the heart. Another possibility is the disruption of the airway which may be via damage to both lungs and blood inflow, sucking chest wound that slowly suffocates the victim, or some sort of damage to the airway.

The idea of shooting to disable is not good. Exactly what are you going to disable?

Never shoot to kill? Tell that to a parent dealing with an attacker on his/her child, anyone confronted with an intruder in the home, a woman being raped, a husband finding his wife being raped, etc.

The semantics are cute. You do whatever it is to assure your safety in a lethal force confrontation. Follow rule #1 after the gunfight and refuse to converse with anyone but your lawyer.

As for the potential manslaughter charges because you intended to kill the person, I am not familiar with that option if you did in fact have the right to use lethal force. At least here, if you have the right to use lethal force to protect yourself, the assumption is there that the person may die, hence the terminology of "lethal" or "deadly" force. It must suck in places that have such strange laws.
 
Okay, sure, I agree with Quartus and Jeff in their most recent remarks; and why not, as they are consistent with my post.

If you prefer, I'll amend my post to say, "You should use deadly force to terminate the threat to you and your family. Don't be faint-hearted; persist in your actions until the assailant is no longer a threat."

I hope we're still friends...:cool:
 
Rich,

This is a good topic. Bring it up in class today and we'll hash it out.

Fred
 
Wow - lots of great answers!

Thanks, everyone, for the great replies, and all the information you've provided.

Here's what I read, along with my previous thoughts:


(1) Mileage may vary depending on who lives in your house, accounting for them, and identifying the intruder. I don't want to call the police because someone who has permission to enter my house has knocked over a glass. (Actually, I'm currently planning a camera system so that I will be able to see my entire home from my bedroom, easing the investigation bit).

(2) If it's someone that obviously has no business in my home, his/her demeanor determines whether a verbal warning or a trigger pull is warranted.

(3) If s/he is visibly armed (and not carrying peanut butter in one hand, and a knife in the other :) ), s/he plans to do serious harm, which warrants shooting. Ugh - new question: what to do if I don't know if s/he's armed?!?

(4) If, by some twist of fate my original scenario plays out and s/he drops any weapon, I want him/her prone, in the position described by Jeff White, with orders in the manner of M1911.

(5) Anything that I percieve as an attack against me is assumed to be with intent to seriously injure or kill me - if I'm pointing my gun at an intruder, and they attack, something's not right. This warrants shooting.

(6) For those without a cell phone, get one. For those with one, keep it charged and close to your gun. This eliminates my "what about travel to the phone" question.

(6a) Keep a flashlight near your firearm. Preferrably something sturdy, long, and very bright.

(7) Stay as far away from the intruder as possible. This means that no attempt is made to physically restrain the intruder once s/he is on the floor.

(8) If, at any time, the intruder flees, and I believe s/he is fleeing, not trying to pick up another weapon or prepare to attack, s/he should be allowed to go. I should, however, keep my gun pointed at him/her until s/he is out of sight.

(9) Prepare for problem 2 - but that would be an entire different thread :D


So, does it sound like I've missed anything I should really have thought of?

Thanks!
 
The semantics are cute. You do whatever it is to assure your safety in a lethal force confrontation. Follow rule #1 after the gunfight and refuse to converse with anyone but your lawyer.
Click to expand...


Alas, DoubleNaught, the semantics are what the lawyers live by, so me MUST be concerned with them, though we both despise them, I'm sure. Uh, the semantics, not the lawyers. Well, okay, we despise most lawyers, too. :D


It's not really about whether or not you kill an intruder. It's whether or not you get prosecuted or sued. If you do, the semantics are EVERYTHING.

So, you never shoot to kill. You shoot to stop the threat. If that means using potentially lethal force, and a death results, you are legally justified. If it can be shown that you had the intent to KILL, you will likely face charges, or find yourself on the wrong end of a lawsuit.


Now, am I going to shed any tears if some creep comes into my house and tries to pull an Elizabeth Smart with my daughter and winds up dead? Am I going to hesitate to shoot if need be?

Nope. But I want to be around for said daughter for a long time, and that doesn't include her visiting me in prison.

So I'll shoot if I must to stop the threat, and you can be sure that if shooting is required, it will include as many COM hits as needed to get the intruder to cease his aggressive actions, but it won't include a last shot to the head once he's down, nor any other unnecessary force. I'll leave the "shoot to kill" for the movies.
 
First, shooting to stop is shooting to kill in my book. I dislike sophistry. If the shootee hapens to live that is a happy accident. The whole shooting to stop deal is a mental preparation trick to make it easier for us to pull the trigger. I have no problems with such that I am aware of.

Now, back to the scenario. Assuming that somehow I did not shoot the illegal entrant I would probably let him go. Yes, you read that right, let him go. Plan A is to shoot. If he comes out screaming in a little girlish voice that he wants to live then it makes shooting a little less correct. I would take as much visual ID as I could, forcefully ask him for his name and then order him out the door. Call cops. Perhaps if he was in a favorable location with respect to me the phone and the door I would prone him out and call the cops. Otherwise, it's out the door. I have a high chance of achieving this goal because it is likely to be something the perp greatly wants too. Also, any moves away from the door and towards me are really crystal clear at that point.

Some other info. I live less than two miles from the city's central PD. Response time is excellent. They will probably be able to find the guy nearby. I wouldn't be letting anyone with a visible weapon get away either. This approach exposes me to the least possible legal ramifications.

Consider also that if one is breaking into occupied houses their life isn't going real great already. They may not heed your commands. The more you give, the more likely this is. I have done this before too, and suprisingly enough I was not heeded when I got too complex.
Quick rundown: (4 years ago) Doing my part for civic responsibility I apprehended a local auto smash and grab artist at AR-15 point. He was happy to drop the screwdriver he was popping windows with and obeyed commands to cross the street and stand in front of my house. (Moving him was for the fact that on the street he was on the cops coming up would have a 6 block+ view of a guy standing out there with an evil assualt weapon, not cool). He was compliant to stand there and understood the cops had been called by someone else. Substance abuse was evident, probably crack. When I gave orders to prone him out he balked. Wet concrete, his limit. He wisely turned away and said "Whatta gonna do, shoot me?" Well, no. Had he moved fwd, different story. End of story.

Not quite. In one of my dumber moves in life, I followed him down the street so I could point police to him when they showed. I had advised the 911 caller to advise the cops that I was on scene with a gun. Further, my blood was pretty up. By and by, I got pissed. Pissed at the fact that this guy could go around screwing with the neighborhood. After about half a block I quietly dropped the rifle off in the grass and took off after the guy 50 feet ahead. My presence was undetected until I was 1 pace back at a full run. We went down, he ended up getting away. My little from behind collar tackle was such that we rolled and he ended up on top. Not good. The old hockey fight manuever backfired as his coat came off rather easily. I don't think he could have hurt me, but you never know. In the future I will aspire to tackle so they hit the concrete straight on, hopefully breaking wrists and nose in the process. Despite giving the police his jacket, description, less than 5 min head start and a bag full of burglar tools(radio removal) he was not ever caught.

I know for a fact that police pigpile out of necessity, it's pretty hard to solo control someone who is non-compliant outside of a dojo. Same goes for frisking, cuffing or zipties. I don't want to be that close, I don't get paid to do that. I do have some zipties, if I had a helper I would employ them if possible. Not likely though.
 
Last edited:
Quartus, man you do whatever you think is best and however you want to rationalize it.

Whether or not you wanted to 'kill' or 'stop' the intruder isn't an issue here in Texas if you shot the intruder because he posed a threat. If you are in fear for your life and the person is in your home without permission (sort of the definition of intruder), that is ALL the justification needed.

So you want the guy dead and the cops hear about this and it gets to the DAs office. Just what can you be charged with if the person was in fact an intruder in your home and you were in fear for your life? If you are justified in using lethal force, then you won't be charged with manslaughter if that person is killed, regardless of what you wanted to do (kill or stop). That is the thing about lethal force.

You know, if you can direct me to some good on-line reviews of court cases where a homeowner had the legal right to shoot an intruder in the home while posing a threat and got charged and convicted of manslaughter, let me know about it. I would be interested in the reading.

Now there are some cases where obviously the homeowner has done wrong. One was in Utah a couple of years back where the homeowner shot a naked guy who was breaking into his home. The shot fired was mortal. However, as the guy was still alive on the patio or back deck, the homeowner walkd over and finished the job with another shot. He WAS arrested and charged with murder. Why murder? The naked guy was down and incapacitated. At that point he no longer posed a threat and so the later shot by the homeowner was illegal.
 
The whole shooting to stop deal is a mental preparation trick to make it easier for us to pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

No, it's a reaction to the legal environment in most states. Texas has nice laws, but that isn't the case everywhere.


Quartus, man you do whatever you think is best and however you want to rationalize it.
Click to expand...


It's not rationalization, and it's not what I think best, it's the advice of every CCW instructor I've ever heard of. It's advice formulated on the basis of years of experience with court cases. AND, it's not just the criminal prosecution that may result, you also have to worry about civil suits. So even in Tejas, I wouldn't want to have some attorney get ahold of a witness that had heard me say something like, "If anyone breaks into MY house, they aren't leaving alive! I'm going to shoot first and ask questions later!"


I see no reason to give any enemies any possible edge. I'm not going to.
 
A few suggestions...

1) Do NOT tell 911 that they had better get there quick before you shoot him (or shoot him again)!!!! This is a felony use of 911. Tell them you have an intruder at gun point, give a description of them, and YOURSELF.

2) Supposing you shot someone to stop the threat, tell the police that things happened quickly and you are shaken up and cannot remember exactly what happened at the moment. Answer the rest of the questions with a lawyer. Another good phrase is "he just kept coming at me."

-SquirrelNuts
 
BTW, in case it had escaped anyone's notice, a person shot "to stop the threat" 5 times with a 200 grain JHP .45 is probably in prettyy much the same condition as a person who is shot "to kill" 5 times with a 200 grain JHP .45.


Ouch. That's gotta hurt! :what:
 
Quartus,

There have been people shot more than that in COM that lived and did not stop. Some of the specific incidents are police shootings-mostly in 40 S&W.

-SquirrelNuts
 
I saw this in one of Gabe Suarez's books, I think.

If you have to make him move, get him to do so on his knees with his fingers interlaced behind his head.

(2) If it's someone that obviously has no business in my home, his/her demeanor determines whether a verbal warning or a trigger pull is warranted.
Click to expand...
Watch it. He could be trying to lull you before he makes his move.
(3) If s/he is visibly armed (and not carrying peanut butter in one hand, and a knife in the other ), s/he plans to do serious harm, which warrants shooting. Ugh - new question: what to do if I don't know if s/he's armed?!?
Click to expand...
If he can get your gun, or get within striking distance, he is armed.
(8) If, at any time, the intruder flees, and I believe s/he is fleeing, not trying to pick up another weapon or prepare to attack, s/he should be allowed to go. I should, however, keep my gun pointed at him/her until s/he is out of sight.
Click to expand...
Better, until you're shure they're out of your house and not hiding in some corner.

- pdmoderator
 
Some of the specific incidents are police shootings-mostly in 40 S&W.
Click to expand...


Oooooh! :what: FLAME BAIT!!! CALIBER WARS!! TAKE COVER!!!!


:D


Yeah, but that wasn't my point. I'm not giving ANYTHING up in the way of safety by making sure that the words "shoot to kill" never come out of my mouth. Or keyboard. I will always shoot to stop, and that isn't going to make any difference to some creep who comes into my house.


It might to a DA. That's good enough for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

CoRoMo
  • Locked
Home Invasion - Are you ready?
Replies
6
Views
697
Jeff White
J
E
  • Locked
Home Invaders and Protecting Yourself
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
JamisJockey
J
T
  • Locked
Home Invasion II
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
btg3
B
H
  • Locked
Change in defense tactics scenario
Replies
9
Views
465
GRB
G
M
  • Locked
Home Invasion ?
Replies
9
Views
1K
sheepdog
S
Back
Top