scenario for home invasion

[XDKingslayer]

I suggest YOU take the time to read over Florida's "castle doctrine" law; because that isn't what it says.

I know what it says. It says everything both you and I have said already. You just seemed to be confused as to how it applies to a home invader. The laws has been tested several times since in inception and not a single home owner has been found guilty for doing just what I described.

First, a person must forcibly or unlawfully enter. Simply being "unwelcome" doesn't cut it. There are also many exceptions for landlords, law enforcement, other people who live in the home, invited guests, etc.

Yeah...that would a home invader would it not? Exactly what the question the original poster said? The title of the thread is scenario for HOME INVASION. Seems like we've already established why he's there, to invade my home.

Second, you must still have a reasonable fear of death or bodily injury due to unlawful force. The Florida Castle Doctrine law creates the presumption that someone who has unlawfully or forcibly entered your home is reason enough to fear death or serious bodily injury. All a presumption does is allow the court to assume a fact (fear of death or serious bodily injury in this case) is true UNTIL such time as the preponderance of evidence outweighs that assumption.

A home invader is someone who forcibly enters your home is it not? Once again, this is a post about a HOME INVADER that would be someone who has unlawfully and forcibly entered your home correct? This law has been tested several times and not once has it failed.

In this case that would mean if the evidence shows you shot someone who was clearly not a threat (i.e. close range shot to the back of the head on someone lying face down), you could still go to jail for it because the prosecutor can rebut the presumption that you had a reasonable fear of death or bodily injury.

Please explain to me why the person is laying face down? Because he surrendered? Because you drew your weapon and he laid down because you asked? I'm sorry, but in every class I've been in not one of them taught me to draw my gun and politely ask someone to surrender. Someone please show me any defensive handgun or tactics class that has ever taught you that. You draw your weapon to shoot. You've already crossed the line of needing deadly force, now you are drawing your gun to use it.

Someone invading my home in the middle of the night fits that bill. How many of you can honestly say, with these types of laws, that if you wake up in the middle of the night to a home invader standing between you and your children you won't shoot? How many of you will honestly ask him to surrender? How many of you end up getting shot yourself because you weren't violent enough on your defence?

 

[k_semler]

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.

Washington State gives civil immunity. I can also shoot to not only protect life, but also property. Furthermore, criminal cases dismissed in light of defense, are paid for by the State.

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.
(1986)


The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;

(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
(1975)

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement.
(1995)

(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.

(3) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.

Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.

(4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.

(5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:

answer yes or no
1. Was the finding of not guilty based upon self-defense? . . . . .
2. If your answer to question 1 is no, do not answer the remaining question.
3. If your answer to question 1 is yes, was the defendant:
a. Protecting himself or herself? . . . . .
b. Protecting his or her family? . . . . .
c. Protecting his or her property? . . . . .
d. Coming to the aid of another who was in imminent danger of a heinous crime? . . . . .
e. Coming to the aid of another who was the victim of a heinous crime? . . . . .
f. Engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the crime with which the defendant is charged? . . . . .

 

[Jeremae]

From original post:

You are home, alone. Someone has broken into your house. You drew a gun on him/her, and s/he surrendured. You have not had time to call the police. What do you do?

Shouldn't replies address actual tactics to deal with this specific situation?

IMHO Jeff's answer in post #7 Is probably BEST advise as to tactics that will help you avoid physical danger and legal ramifications.

As to the best strategy for dealing with a home invader before he surrenders, there are other threads...

 

[k_semler]

Shouldn't replies address actual tactics to deal with this specific situation?

OK, if he complies, I have a couch. Place couch on top of him, (in prone position hands over head, fingers interlaced), sit on couch, and cuff him. Call 911 with cell phone, and keep intruder under the bead. (if he manages to push a couch off of him with a guy in it, he is a threat). If he runs, I'de let him go. If he advances, shoot to stop. If he just stands there like a fool smiling at you, "one hand" your weapon at waist level, (so your arm won't get tired), and dial 911.

When you call 911, let the dispacher know you have taken a person into custody for B&E and attempted theft. Let them know that the perpetrator is at gunpoint, and describe yourself, (good guy), and perp, (bad guy), to the dispatcher. Hold your position until relieved by law enforcement. (intruder under gunpoint entire time).

 

[Jeff White]

K_semler,

I don't think that you are as protected from civil suit as you think you are.

From the statute you posted:

RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement.
(1995)

(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

As I said in my earlier post, every castle doctrine law I've looked at either has that big vague word reasonable in it or some other terminolgy that gives both the criminal and the civil system a way to review your actions.

Here in Illinois we passed no retreat laws in 2004:

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading)
ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

(720 ILCS 5/7‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑1)
Sec. 7‑1. Use of force in defense of person.

(a) 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.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑2)
Sec. 7‑2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) 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:
(1) 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
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is

necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑3)
Sec. 7‑3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) 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.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 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.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

You may notice that the protection from both criminal and civil liability doesn't extend to wanton or willful misconduct. If you kill someone in self defense, there will be a criminal investigation to establish that it was in fact self defense. And someone is going to decide if your actions were reasonable.

XDKingslayer said;

You just seemed to be confused as to how it applies to a home invader. The laws has been tested several times since in inception and not a single home owner has been found guilty for doing just what I described.

It's only a matter of time before the right case gets to the right judge. The law still gives the police and states attorney the right to use standard investigative procedures to determine if the use of force was unlawful.

From the Florida Castle Doctrine Law:

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard

procedures for investigating the use of the force, but the

agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it

determines that probable cause exists showing that the force

that was used was unlawful.

There is another reason why the intruder surrendering is something that you have to deal with. If you read the entire Florida statute you will see that an aggressor gets his or her self defense rights back if they cease the attack.

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against

himself or herself, unless:

in good faith, the person withdraws from physical

contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the

assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the

use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use

of force.

So if someone entered your home, and you came charging out of the bedroom with your gun in hand and that person raised his hands and screamed "Oh man, don't shoot me!" and you shot him down anyway, do you think you are free and clear under Florida law? Are you going to put your wife and children in the position of having to lie for you? It seems that the orginal premise of this thread is something that everyone, even those of us who live in states with no retreat or castle doctrine laws may have to deal with.

Jeff

 

[pax]

k_semler ~

Read RCW 9A.16.020 again.

Washington state does indeed have a wonderful law in that, after you have been found not guilty based upon self-defense, the state will reimburse you for money you spent to defend yourself in criminal court. But there is no provision whatsoever to reimburse you if you get sued in a civil court.

Big difference.

pax

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I know what it says. It says everything both you and I have said already. You just seemed to be confused as to how it applies to a home invader. The laws has been tested several times since in inception and not a single home owner has been found guilty for doing just what I described.

Well, you obviously know too much for me to tell you anything new. May I recommend you test your conceptions of how everything will go down using some Force-on-Force training geared towards civilians?

 

[XDKingslayer]

So if someone entered your home, and you came charging out of the bedroom with your gun in hand and that person raised his hands and screamed "Oh man, don't shoot me!" and you shot him down anyway, do you think you are free and clear under Florida law? Are you going to put your wife and children in the position of having to lie for you? It seems that the orginal premise of this thread is something that everyone, even those of us who live in states with no retreat or castle doctrine laws may have to deal with.

A home invasion IS something everyone may have to deal with. Am I going to shoot someone who raises their hands and yells for me not to shoot? Of course not, but he's going to have to be pretty quick about it. And he had better follow my commands to the letter at that point. I'm not asking him to surrender, I'm not playing 20 questions with him while he decides what kids room to run to or whether to fake a surrender and use that oppertunity to pull a weapon.

The only place you can enter my house and NOT be between me and my children is my bedroom window. So anyone invading my home at any other point is already a threat to my daughters' safety. And considering my children are 3 and 9, I don't see them protecting themselves. That is why asking someone to surrender is pointless and possibly a bad decision. That is why the law was changed, to give the homeowner back his right to protect himself and his family.

So if it comes down to me being free and clear under Florida law, or protecting my family, that's a pretty easy decision. If the "system" decides I made the wrong decision, then so be it. That is the price we ALL face in this scenario. Each and every one of us.

There has to be a line in the sand. A line that, if crossed, legal ramifications go out the window. The protection of my children is that line. Every parent has that exact same line in the sand when it comes to their children.

But I will feel a whole lot better knowing I protected my family even if the "system" doesn't agree. You won't see a shred of guilt from me. I will take that a whole lot better than putting a child in the ground because I hesitated or worried about the legal ramifications of my actions before I acted and gave the invader an oppertunity I'll regret the rest of my life.

 

[XDKingslayer]

Well, you obviously know too much for me to tell you anything new.

I would have to agree with that. I'm clearly not the one that has a problem making the connection between "home invader" and "someone who forcibly and unlawfully enters" which you quoted from Florida law.

Considering my doors and windows are locked each night before bed, just how else did he get in? Did he come down the chimney? Did he use the Force? Did the Invader Fairy drop him off? Easter bunny? Did he get his hands on the Star Trek transporter?

No. He would have to FORCE his way in...which, the last time I checked, is either trespassing at best or breaking and entering at worst, both of which are UNLAWFUL!

2+2 is still 4 chief.

 

[Srigs]

Have the person call 911 on himself! That should make the judges day when they hear the 911 tape.

 

[Kevlarman]

Scenario:

You're home. Alone.

Watching some slasher horror movie with the sound turned all the way up because you just bought a great surround sound system today.

Off-duty police office is walking outside on the sidewalk and all of a sudden he hears a woman's scream from inside your house. He runs to the front door and rings the doorbell. No answer. He still hears screaming. Pounds on the door and identifies himself as an office. No answer.

The office kicks down the door with his gun drawn, only to find himself at the end of a gun, with the owner hunkered down behind the couch.

"I'm a police officer!" says the cop, as he releases the grip on his pistol and lets it hang by his finger.

BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!slidelock

 

[Igloodude]

Perhaps the only reason InHouston feels that he can kill anyone who enters his home, is because he regards death as a temporary thing - he certainly did a good job of raising this thread from the dead.

As to the original scenario, it doesn't apply well to me because my wife is always with me at night (thus able to call 911) and because our bedroom is on the second floor of a two-floor house. My plan for intruders is for her to call 911 on my cellphone, and for me to go prone and at the top of the stairs. If badguy(s) can look around the (bedroom-less) first level, perhaps note two cars in the garage below, and still think that upstairs is unoccupied, they clearly intend me personal harm rather than only wanting to steal property. Thus, I'm probably going to be silent until they take the second step up the stairs, and then shoot them until they're unable to get the rest of the way up the stairs. I don't see a verbal warning as necessary, and barring unforseen circumstances, I don't see it as advisable.

If I somehow have one at gunpoint and I'm alone in the house with the nearest phone in the other room? Hmmmm... How about "Get in that closet, and close the door behind you. If you come out of it, I'll shoot you"? Then after about 30 seconds, quietly go grab the phone, and come back with it and cover the closet door while I call 911?

And on a side note, I do wonder how many burglers are going to assume the homeowner holding a gun at them doesn't know the law and/or thinks they can get away with shooting them as they run away?

 

[XDKingslayer]

Scenario:

You're home. Alone.

Watching some slasher horror movie with the sound turned all the way up because you just bought a great surround sound system today.

Off-duty police office is walking outside on the sidewalk and all of a sudden he hears a woman's scream from inside your house. He runs to the front door and rings the doorbell. No answer. He still hears screaming. Pounds on the door and identifies himself as an office. No answer.

The office kicks down the door with his gun drawn, only to find himself at the end of a gun, with the owner hunkered down behind the couch.

"I'm a police officer!" says the cop, as he releases the grip on his pistol and lets it hang by his finger.

BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!BLAM!slidelock

Even though your post is full of things that probably won't happen, like a cop kicking the door in by himself or surrendering his weapon, it's pretty simple.

The cop clearly has a reason to kick in your door, even if it is a movie, he may not know that. If he thinks a crime is taking place, he has a duty to stop it.

But your example is light years away from a home invader.

I was kind of in a situation like this. I thought my neighbor was beating the hell out of his wife. I could hear what I thought were slaps. And she's screaming her lungs out. I was just about to call the cops when I realized they weren't exactly fighting...

People need to remember to close their windows.

 

[armoredman]

FYI, I had a conversation with a convicted home invader a few days ago. I asked him what his sentance was, and he said natural life, plus life. When I asked him why, he said he killed everyone in a house he committed a home invasion of in the late 90s. I asked, why did you kill everyone.
Because one of them said they were calling the police.
Nobody armed in the home but him and his accomplice.
And the only thing he regrets is getting caught so easily. He stated he didn't care one bit that he killed (unspecified number) innocent people, just that he was caught by the cops so soon.
BTW, his story checked out.
Remember, keep your weapon CLOSE, even at home.

 

[XDKingslayer]

FYI, I had a conversation with a convicted home invader a few days ago. I asked him what his sentance was, and he said natural life, plus life. When I asked him why, he said he killed everyone in a house he committed a home invasion of in the late 90s. I asked, why did you kill everyone.
Because one of them said they were calling the police.
Nobody armed in the home but him and his accomplice.
And the only thing he regrets is getting caught so easily. He stated he didn't care one bit that he killed (unspecified number) innocent people, just that he was caught by the cops so soon.
BTW, his story checked out.
Remember, keep your weapon CLOSE, even at home.

This is why you shoot. Plain and simple. This is why you don't ask them to surrender, or to leave or ask 20 questions. This is what happens to you and your family if you hesitate. This is what happens to you and your family if you are not willing to fire from the onset. This family was hardly given enough time to call the police, do you honestly think you have the time to ensure your home invaders intentions? Is it a chance you want to take?

This is why states are lining up to match current "Castle Doctorines". You all should be banging at your representitives doors if your state doesn't have one, or has one that requires you to retreat. It's YOUR home, it's YOUR privacy, it's YOUR safety.

You can call me a redneck or a poster boy for the antis all you want, but you won't call me dead. I refuse to let it happen. You can take what you consider to be "The High Road", but I'll take the road that keeps me and my family alive at any cost.

They may arrest me, but it will be from atop a pile of steaming ex-home invaders.

 

[Kevlarman]

Of course the scenario I wrote may not happen. But then again, I wasn't expecting two airliners to fly into the World Trade Center either.

It's true, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot if my home was invaded, but I am hoping I would have the presence of mind to withhold my fire if I felt that my life or my family's life was no longer in danger.

Take another far-fetched example: some weirdo dresses in only his briefs breaks into your home, and he has a large butcher knife. You get the drop on him, open fire, and hit him in the throat. Bad guy goes down, and knife flies from his hand behind the couch or something, where he cannot possibly reach for it. You do not see how he could have any other weapon concealed in his briefs, but I guess you can't be too careful. Said bad guy is bleeding all over the floor, gurgling, and he reaches up to his throat. Do you shoot him again because you saw him "reaching for a weapon"?

Along the same lines, that cop I wrote about earlier. He surrendered, dropped his weapon, but would you still shoot him first and ask questions later?

You and your family and may be safe for the time being, but what happens if you do get arrested? Would you feel comfortable knowing that your family is without a husband/father, living alone? Would you still be called "alive" after the warden at the local prison places you in an area known for it's violence towards other inmates? How would you feel knowing that your town has dirty cops, and you know they will exact their revenge on your helpless family?

Again, all hypothetical, but I'm curious.

 

[XDKingslayer]

Take another far-fetched example: some weirdo dresses in only his briefs breaks into your home, and he has a large butcher knife. You get the drop on him, open fire, and hit him in the throat. Bad guy goes down, and knife flies from his hand behind the couch or something, where he cannot possibly reach for it. You do not see how he could have any other weapon concealed in his briefs, but I guess you can't be too careful. Said bad guy is bleeding all over the floor, gurgling, and he reaches up to his throat. Do you shoot him again because you saw him "reaching for a weapon"?

The threat has stopped. Considering he's in his underwear the chances of him reaching for another weapon are slim. But I'm not lowering my guard either, is he reaching for his throat or getting ready to stand back up and continue to be a threat....This is where situational awareness comes in.

But the chances of a single shot happening are pretty slim. It will be numerous shots. I will shoot until he hits the floor, just like everyone else will do.

Along the same lines, that cop I wrote about earlier. He surrendered, dropped his weapon, but would you still shoot him first and ask questions later?

Why would you shoot a uniformed officer that has dropped his weapon, albeit stupidly...

If he's undercover or off duty and he's not in uniform, and he just kicked in my door and didn't identify himself then it would be a different story, but how many will do this without a badge or something in plain sight or screaming POLICE at the top of their lungs? Even your below mentioned dirty cops will probably do this.

You and your family and may be safe for the time being, but what happens if you do get arrested? Would you feel comfortable knowing that your family is without a husband/father, living alone? Would you still be called "alive" after the warden at the local prison places you in an area known for it's violence towards other inmates? How would you feel knowing that your town has dirty cops, and you know they will exact their revenge on your helpless family?

Again, all hypothetical, but I'm curious.

Your taking into consideration that I have been found guilty of killing someone who illegally entered my home and was a threat. I feel that it would not play out that way. I have confidence in this law. I have confidence in the system to find me not guilty. It's happened numerous times already in Florida and other states with the same laws. The big one being the guy in Miami that was found not guilty for shooting a cop on his property.

But I'll play your game and go along with your theory that I was found guilty and thrown in prison. I will feel bad that I won't see my wife and kids for a long time, possibly never. But I have confidence that both mine and her families will keep them safe, my family is far from helpless and I will sleep just fine knowing that I prevented thier deaths.

I'd rather spoon with Bubba than bury my own child.

 

[XDKingslayer]

Now it's my turn:

(Kevlarman) It's true, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot if my home was invaded, but I am hoping I would have the presence of mind to withhold my fire if I felt that my life or my family's life was no longer in danger.

When do you consider your family's life no longer in danger?

Do you not feel that someone standing in your home, after you have locked your doors and windows and gone to bed for the night, placing himself between you and your children, is a threat by default? Do you not feel he is a threat even though Florida's laws clearly outline him as a unlawful intruder?

Do you feel you have the proper amount of time to decide if he's a threat? Do you have the proper amount of time to ensure his intentions, even though he's clearly broken into your home, are not criminal? If you do think you have enough time are you willing to bet your family's lives on it?

I never said I would shoot if my family's life wasn't in danger. I said that an intruder in my home puts them in danger by my classification and by Florida's laws. Hence why asking them to surrender isn't an option.

I see Alabama has just been added to the list of states with a Castle Doctrine.

“With this new law, the decision of crime victims who choose to protect themselves and their families won’t be second-guessed,” said Governor Riley. “When you feel your life or your family is in danger from an intruder, you should be able to practice self-defense and not worry if a judge or court is going to penalize you.”

This guy should be re-elected. It passed Alabama legislation 82-9 in the House and 30-2 in the Senate. They were also just as smart as Florida and extended it to your car.

 

[Kevlarman]

I consider my family out of immediate danger when the threat is no longer armed nor making any advances.

Does the law say you have the right to defend yourself, or that you have the right to murder somebody?

If you were able to (luckily) blast both the bad guy's hands and feet off, making him incapable of harming you, would you finish him off?

If a man was beating his wife, and the police kicked down his door and put themselves between the husband and his children, is it right to shoot the officer? After all, they did burst into a locked home, uninvited.

Look, I agree with the castle doctrine. A person who barges into your home uninvited gives the homeowner the assumption that they are a threat. If the above scenario were to happen, and I knew the bad guy was no longer capable of shooting me, then no, I would not give him the coup de grace. It may or may not be legal, but it would still come back to bite me in the behind, be it in my dreams, or civil court.

 

[Hal8000]

Live by the Boy Scout motto: Be Prepared!

This is our story of a Violent home invasion as written by the NRA's American Guardian, March 1998... Being mentally prepared and having the right tools at hand are the most important factors as far as I'm concerned for survival. Our Daughter graduates from High School this year, and we have an eight year old boy that we conceived on the 1st year anniversary date of our survival...

 

[ezypikns]

Very Illuminating

A great example of why we should all be on guard.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Hal8000, that is a terrifying story.


What would you folks here think of ordering the burglar to run away instead? Yes, you are granting him escape, but the sound of a pump action combined with a stern order to **** may avoid any confrontation and possible bloodshed.

I'd much rather catch him, but that isn't entirely practical in my townhouse.

 

[XDKingslayer]

I consider my family out of immediate danger when the threat is no longer armed nor making any advances.

As would anyone else.

Does the law say you have the right to defend yourself, or that you have the right to murder somebody?

The law says you have the right to defend yourself.

If you were able to (luckily) blast both the bad guy's hands and feet off, making him incapable of harming you, would you finish him off?

Let's be a tad realistic. I let your "cop surrendering his weapon" thing slide, but not this. It's not realistic in any terms or even fathomable that someone would actually try this.

If a man was beating his wife, and the police kicked down his door and put themselves between the husband and his children, is it right to shoot the officer? After all, they did burst into a locked home, uninvited.

The cop is there LAWFULLY, the home invader is there UNLAWFULLY. Someone unlawfully entering your home gives you the right to self defence, not a cop kicking in your door with probable cause.

Look, I agree with the castle doctrine. A person who barges into your home uninvited gives the homeowner the assumption that they are a threat. If the above scenario were to happen, and I knew the bad guy was no longer capable of shooting me, then no, I would not give him the coup de grace. It may or may not be legal, but it would still come back to bite me in the behind, be it in my dreams, or civil court.

I never advocated shooting someone that was no longer a threat. I advocated shooting an unlawful home invader, within the lines of the Castle Doctorine law, not asking him to surrender.

I advocated action, not inaction.

 

[Jeff White]

XDkingslayer said,

I never advocated shooting someone that was no longer a threat. I advocated shooting an unlawful home invader, within the lines of the Castle Doctorine law, not asking him to surrender.

Looking back to post #84 you said;

Quote:
You are home, alone. Someone has broken into your house. You drew a gun on him/her, and s/he surrendured. You have not had time to call the police. What do you do?

If you drew the gun, why did you not use it? They shouldn't have time to surrender.

I'm sorry, I live in Florida. Surrender isn't an option. It usually goes something like: BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG, kick, twitch, BANG.

Then we'll worry about the formalities...

It certainly looks like you are advocating shooting someone who was no longer a threat. Either that or you are advocating not even taking the time to positively identify the target as a threat.

Jeff

 

[Jeff White]

I am posting this here and not in Legal and Political

I'd like everyone to read this article, especially the lines I highlighted. Maybe then you will understand where the chest beating bravado about shooting anyone you find in your house will get us.

I would imagine that those oppossed to this kind of legislation would love to be able to get up on the floor of the legislature and quote some selected passages from internet gun boards.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...5BD78EBBF17C194286257147007EF473?OpenDocument

House backs expansion of deadly force rights
By David A. Lieb
ASSOCIATED PRESS
04/05/2006

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- The House endorsed legislation Wednesday expanding the right of Missourians to use deadly force against anyone trying to unlawfully enter their homes or vehicles.

Critics claimed it could encourage a shoot-first mentality while supporters countered it was necessary to help tip the advantage toward victims instead of aggressors.

"Let's let the criminals wonder whether this will be their last crime," Rep. Curt Dougherty, D-Independence, said during debate on the bill. "I say to the criminals: `Do you feel lucky, punk?"'

The rhetoric was equally passionate from opponents.

"It sort of motivates a person to be a little more itchy fingered," Rep. John Bowman, D-St. Louis, said while discussing the bill with another lawmaker.

"Quick on the draw," added Rep. John Burnett, D-Kansas City.

Missourians already are allowed to use deadly force when they "reasonably believe" it's necessary for self-protection or to prevent a home trespasser from committing arson, burglary or physical violence against someone else.

The bill would remove the need for residents using deadly force to have a reasonable belief of impending harm or burglary when a person "unlawfully enters" their dwelling or vehicle, or tries to do so. It also specifically states that people have no duty to retreat when in their homes or vehicles.

People who use deadly force in such circumstances could not face criminal prosecution or lawsuits, according to the bill, which drew support from the National Rifle Association's No. 2 ranking official during a Capitol rally earlier this year.

About half the states already have similar laws, and the NRA is supporting similar "Castle Doctrine" bills in about a dozen other states.

Sponsoring Rep. Marilyn Ruestman, R-Joplin, said the legislation "will send a message to criminals that we will not tolerate them intruding into our homes and endangering the lives of our families."

But opponents said the bill could provide a legal excuse for people whenever they shoot someone in their homes.

"This bill does not require that you believe that you're in danger," said Rep. Rick Johnson, D-High Ridge, adding that if homeowners don't want someone at their house, they can shoot. "It doesn't matter if they have designs to burglarize it, to ask you for a cup of sugar for their cookies if they're your next door neighbor, or if they have designs to ask you for your vote."

Johnson, a lawyer who is running for the prosecuting attorney's job in his home county, said incumbent prosecutors have raised concerns that the bill could mess up 25 years of legal court precedent over when deadly force is appropriate in Missouri. He cited a letter sent by Cape Girardeau County prosecutor Morley Swingle, a Republican, to numerous state lawmakers.

"If the Legislature tinkers with these important statutes, I guarantee you that you will see convictions getting reversed over the next several years and cases having to be retried because it will take quite some time for the kinks to be ironed out of the new laws," Swingle wrote.

The legislation needs a final House vote before moving to the Senate.

Hence my earlier comments about the chest thumping bravdo not promoting responsible firearms use.

Jeff