Shooting an armed home invader in the back?

[TamThompson]

Here's something that I'd like to get straight on:

I have an ex-employee who threatened my life three years ago. There was an ugly lawsuit. He also said he'd know just how to break into my home.

If he ever breaks into my home (hard to do--we have video surveillance, alarm system, two black labs, and high-security locks), and brings his shotgun, if he's in my house, do I have to wait for him to face me with that shotgun (he told me he owns one) to shoot him, or can I shoot him if he has his back to me? I know, shooting a man in the back is very bad form, but would the police and jury (in Texas) understand if I felt I had to take advantage of a momentary oppurtunity to defeat a home invader who had a gun in his hands?

 

[Correia]

Does the threat have:

1. The ability to hurt you.
2. The intent to hurt you.

He has a shotgun. That shows ability. Any reasonable person would concede that he obviously has the intent, otherwise he wouldn't be roaming your house with a weapon.

Waiting for them to turn around and face you is best left for the movies. If he turns to face you at that point it would take him less that .3 of a second to raise the muzzle enough to hit you. There is no guarentee that you would be able to shoot him and be able to stop him before that could happen.

 

[Jeff White]

I'm not a lawyer and I'm a peace officer in Illinois, not Texas. I think everything would depend on the exact circumstances.

1. Ex-employee with a grudge.

2. Stated he knew how to break into the home.

3. Armed with a shotgun.

4. In your home.

Seems to me you might be able to articulate that his presence was a deadly threat to you and yours. Were there ever any threats made? Ever a restraining order issued?

I don't see why you would need to give him a chance to turn and shoot you. You could probably articulate that he was a threat even with his back to you. Unless of course he was heading out the door when you fired.

Can't you legally use deadly force to defend property after dark in Texas? Seems to me if that's the case then it probably would be a good shooting.

I know, shooting a man in the back is very bad form

Dying because you played by some moral code from a western movie is worse form. It's not about fair, it's about surviving. You're under no obligation to provide an assailant with a fair fight..

Jeff

 

[TamThompson]

Thanks for the good advice!
Yes, actually, we can use deadly force in Texas to defend our property at any time, not just at night. However, my CHL instructor took great pains to explain to us why defending property (other than home invasion) with deadly force isn't cost effective (example: stealing car of the driveway. You pay the deductible, versus $20k for a grand jury investigation, being sued by BG's family, and having it on your conscience.)

Now that you mention it, there is a paper trail of the lawsuit I had to file against him to get him to release the bogus mechanic's (M & M) lien he filed on my rent house one week before I was due to close on selling it. Lawsuit never went to trial--we settled.

Never got a restraining order, since I have no witnesses to the threats. They were made verbally, to me, one-on-one. My husband knows about the threats, but, along with others who've known this guy, dismisses the because the guy tends to be a physical coward. And mentally unstable. OH, wait--I just realized...coward + mentally unstable = BG with a gun!

It's interesting that my husband's reaction to the lawsuit was to get all paranoid and have a $5,000 video surveillance system installed, whereas my reaction was to just get more guns, more ammo, and a carry license. Yup, we've got a lot of traditional gender-role reveral in our home...

(When I THINK of all the guns, ammo, and carry gear $5,000 would have BOUGHT!!!!) :banghead:

 

[Edward429451]

He's in YOUR home uninvited and has a weapon visible?

At this point is it reasonable to assume that he will try to harm you if he turns towards you with said weapon?

I'd empty a full mag into his back without warning.

Of course the police will try & pin it on you in a bad way.

But thats problem #2. Keep your priorities in order. Deal with problem #1 first.

YMMV.

 

[SunBear]

In Tennessee the law assumes that any person who breaks into your home has the intention to kill you in order to rob you and is therefore eligible for immediate disposal. You need to get concrete info from a local concealed carry organization. They wil be able to supply you with copies of the pertinent Texas legislation.

 

[CWL]

File a restraining order first and create a paper trail. It'll look better for you if things ever get ugly down the road.

I was not under the impression that you need witnesses to justify doing so (that's why these can get abused). In yours and most other cases, people do not make bodily threats in front of witnesses.

 

[Steve in PA]

Shooting someone in the back is a sure way to get sued by his family.

A lawyer will ask you during your trial....."how do you know my client's son, husband, boyfriend, etc........ wasn't leaving???


Lots of people are saying they'd dump alot of rounds into this persons back. Sure hope you have plenty of money and a good lawyer. People get sued for shooting a person face to face....good lick trying to prove this person was a threat to you when he is facing away from you.

You can use deadly force to protect you or another person from death or serious bodily injury. Before you decide to empty your weapon into his back make sure you can atriculate these facts;

1) Ability - Does this person have the ability to cause you death or serious bodily injury? Yes, he has a shotgun as opposed to being outside with a baseball bat

2) Oportunity - Are the circumstances present to where this person can cause you death or serious bodily injury? Yes, he has a shotgun which can be used from a distance...as opposed to the baseball bat

3) Imminent Danger - Are you or another person in fear for your life?? Going to be hard to prove when the person has his back to you.

4) Preclusion - The need or necessity for your actions. Was the person a/still a threat or was he leaving as his families lawyer will argue.

I personally would not shoot someone in the back.....even in my own home. Your state laws may cover you if you do.

 

[Steve in PA]

"In Tennessee the law assumes that any person who breaks into your home has the intention to kill you in order to rob you and is therefore eligible for immediate disposal."

I'd love to read that law. Assuming someone has the intention??? Hmmm...lawyers would have a field day with that.

 

[yzguy]

In Florida it is called the Castle doctrine I think. It basically says, if they are in your home uninvited (some one broke in), legally you can shoot at any time in any position. This is because it can be assumed that they have armed themselves with a knife from the kitchen (or brought tools to break in) and you do not have to retreat in your own home or business (you have to anywhere else). In Texas (as was mentioned before) you can even shoot to protect property (which you can't here) so legally I'm pretty sure your good to go (just be sure of your target).

 

[TamThompson]

Steve in PA,
I'm pretty sure, from what others are saying, that a guy's uninvited presence in my home, armed with a shotgun, would take care of the imminent threat part, and the preclusion part. No, I wouldn't shoot him in the back if he was fleeing (i.e., clearly going out the front door), but I'm talking about a situation in which I see him but he doesn't yet see me, or maybe he confronts me, then turns his back on me thinking I'm unarmed.

I don't think I'd have much to worry about as far as his family is concerned: he is estranged from ALL of them, and was not on speaking terms with any of 'em. (That was one of the clues that something was seriously wrong with him.) He also, as of 3 years ago (last contact I had with him) had no friends other than people who were willling to talk to him, but held him at arm's length. But I realize that even estranged family members can suddenly come out of the woodwork if they think there's a chance to collect some cash on a relative's death.

Most everyone who's ever dealt with this guy hates him. He's 49, never been married, been evicted three times that I know of, and has a string of ex-friends, ex-girlfriends, and ex-employers who have fired him. If I ever
did have to shoot him, it would be a service to the community.

 

[stevelyn]

Alaska law has something similar to the "castle" doctrine in that if you are in your home you do not have a duty to retreat. As for shooting the bad guy in the back, a little research will show that gunfights are very dynamic. Once they start there is no standing toe-to-toe as if you are on a target range. People are going to be moving, turning, going for cover, shifting position, ducking, diving, and dodging trying to put distance between themselves and the other person. To think that a shot(s) is not going to enter from the back is not a realistic expectation. It happens in police shootings all the time. However it's not a detail that's released because of the PR nightmare and the public's tv education on how fair gunfights are supposed to be fought.

 

[AZ Husker]

When his back was toward you, wasn't he heading for your daughter/son/visiting neice/grandmother/passed-out-husband-on-the-couch?

 

[TamThompson]

Why am I concerned about this when I haven't had contact with him for 3 years? Because a few months ago, I'm pretty sure I saw him at a strip shopping center about 3 miles from my home, in a neighborhood where he was last known to live. I made sure he didn't see me (hid in the Explorer and put on sunglasses and a hat. He doesn't know that vehicle, unless he's been stalking my house.) It spooked me.

The other creepy thing was that he used to tell me how he was "conducting a criminal investigation" (remember, he's a lawyer) of his ex-girlfriend. He claimed she stole $3,000 cash from his wallet. Why he carried that much, I don't know. This "investigation" apparently consisted of him sneaking over to her home at night, twice a week, and spying on her by peeping through through binoculars through her windows. He would also watch her have sex with her new boyfriend. He had collected items out of her trash which he claimed to be saving for "DNA testing." Items like used tampons.

He said he'd been doing this for FOUR years! When I suggested that the police would call it "stalking", he threatened to have me put in jail for "interfering with a criminal investigation." I kept trying to find out the woman's name so that I could warn her she was being stalked, but he would only refer to her as "it" and as "The Criminal." It was very creepy--he wouldn't even call her "her", just "it."

I did flat-out tell him, after he made the threats, that if he tried to carry them out that I would...let's just say "defend myself."

 

[Logistar]

3) Imminent Danger - Are you or another person in fear for your life?? Going to be hard to prove when the person has his back to you.

I basically agree with that but....

Burgler places shotgun against wall as he rummages through drawer. You (awakened by the noise) startle him. he turns quicky to access his shotgun. - I am not gonna wait for him to turn around and shoot me.

In Kentucky, IIRC, you don't have to wait. If you "BELIEVE" you are about to be attacked, you can strike first.

But, of course, as I think Steve was saying.... you might have to "prove" it in court.

Logistar

 

[rammy]

Steve in PA.. here you go.

Source: Tennessee Code : TITLE 39 CRIMINAL OFFENSES : CHAPTER 11 GENERAL PROVISIONS : PART 6 JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY : 39-11-611. Self-defense.

39-11-611. Self-defense.



(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force.



(b) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within the person's own residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to self, family or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0

i hope that links works

later

 

[Steve in PA]

The Tenn law states excatly what I was saying..........

"believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force"

"that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. "

"The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds"


All going to be extremely difficult to prove if the person is facing away from you. Some have said, well if he is armed I'm not going to wait until he turns around. But, how do you know that he is armed.......not just a person who entered your house to steal your tv??? If the person does have a firearm (that you can see) then hopefully you will articulate that you warned him not to turn around.........he didn't listen, turned and you did what you had to do.



"This is because it can be assumed that they have armed themselves with a knife from the kitchen (or brought tools to break in)"

Assumed.......if your willing to shoot someone in the back because you "assumed" they were armed.......then find out they weren't......hope you have a good lawyer.

 

[Jeff White]

Steve,
You are ignoring the second paragraph in the TN law that says:

(b) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injurywithin the person's own residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to self, family or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

It looks to me like mwithers 72 is correct. That paragraph doesn't address the intruder being armed. It doesn't even address any threatening actions by the intruder. The law presumes that the mere presence of the intruder is enough to justify the use of deadly force.

That said, I don't know if any court decisions have changed the legal meaning of that paragraph. I don't know if it's ever been upheld in court.

Again there is the civil action relating to wrongful death to contend with. Just because the TN law relieves you from criminal liability doesn't mean that a civil court won't find you negligent in the death of the intruder and secure a large judgement against you. Of course that can happen no matter how legal the shooting was.

As I said before, if you can articulate why you shot the intruder in the back, there is no need to wait for him to turn and face you.

Jeff

 

[rammy]

did you read section B ?

(b) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within the person's own residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to self, family or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.


ok lets break this down a little more. in part b it states that "any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a person's own residence is presumed to have held reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to self family or a member of the household."

that means that while in my home if someone breaks in (unlawful and forcible) I can presume that the BG means me or my family harm right from the start.

to continue .

"when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. "

so i am lalying in bed and I go to the bath room and find broken glass or a door that has been busted open I have reason to believe that an unlawfull and forcible entry occured. that is all that I need.

so I have reason to believe that a forcible and unlawful entry occured and I also can presume that the BG means me or any of my family members imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury

Also in The CCH class that I took in july that was given by a 10 year vet fo the sheriff dept (ret) now is a lawyer and in the Video that we had to watch that had the DA of TN, high ranking official from the THP and another high ranking offical from the TBI all stated in the video that If someone has unlawfully and forceable entered your home that you have the right to assume that they mean you harm and you can take steps to defind your life and the other family members in that home. even if it means using deadly force. Now granted that this may cover you from getting arrested form murder but it will not protect you from civil law suites. To top it all off they even included two different types of reenactments (sp??) to show the class how the law worked. In one act the intruder is walked in on and starts to run for a door. and the other wher the intruder starts to run for the home owner.

but I do understand your concerns. that is why I take the time to talk to local LEO's and get their understanding of the law, and everyone,everysingle one stated that if the person has broken into your home, that by doing just that gives me the resonable fear for my file and/or my family members. Now that is just the way it is looked at in Tn where you are it may be different.

 

[tetleyb]

I'd like to toss in a few cents here:

1. First, I would suggest you contact a COMPETENT criminal defense attorney, in your area, who has successfully defended someone in such a realm. The first place to go would be your local police union and the like.

2. Understand there is two seperate issues here: criminal and civil. In most states, the criminal aspect of shooting someone is easy to get around. Were you in fear for your safety or the safety of others? Its difficult to be in the mind of the actual shooter (homeowner) in your case. This is how most courts look at things. The other posts about "means" and "oppurtunity" are valid points.

The problem is the civil trial. You may think, "So I didn't go to jail." True. But when you get subpoenaed to a 12'X9' room and asked to fill out a financial questionaire, as thick as the phone book, your attitude will change. When you wife's wedding ring, your kids braces money, your house, boat, cars, and retirement are on the line; yeah, I will gurantee your attitude will change.

3. Be extremely careful what you say, to others, and to persons even on this board. Anything you post could be used against you at a later date. Just this post alone could be construed as "asking permission" to shoot this guy. And IF it ever came true, it could be said, "You were just lying in wait for him." Remember, attorneys do NOTHING but bend and twist words/writings in court. Its what they are paid to do.

4. DOCUMENT EVERYTHING. All your training with firearms. Document who your instructors are and their backgrounds. Remember, when your sued, those instructors can be called into court and testify on your behalf. Will they? Can they? Some instructors out there are phoney and have criminal backgrounds. Their testimony isn't worth the certificate they give you at the end of the class.

5. Have a plan with your family and what they are going to do/say.

 

[Steve in PA]

Yeah, section B might cover your rear end.........but I personally would not shoot someone in the back.

I guess my being a LEO has a big part in how I feel about that since we will be held to a higher standard......even in our own homes.

 

[Quartus]

Hmmm. There has been more than one person shot in the back by a LEO with no more consequences than the usual investigation. And that's as it should be - the direction that a perp is facing is only ONE factor in determining the threat level, and not the most important one.


Last I checked the law in <gasp> Californy was very similar to the one quoted above. Basically it was open season on any intruder, with NO obligation to prove a threat to life.

It was changed to that when the Nightstalker (Richard Ramirez) scared everyone in affluent Orange County. Gun sales went through the roof, too.

 

[BerettaNut92]

California, although our laws regarding buying certain guns suck, our self-defense laws aren't half bad.

 

[tommytrauma]

Tam

It looks like you're getting some excellent advice here, and that you have a crappy situation under pretty good control. I would like to echo tetleyb's point about being careful about what you say though. Some of your comments could come back to haunt you.


I expect that all your Hubbie's work in passive security will pay off. Either it'll stop him, or it'll stand you in good stead in proving how much effort Mr. Fruitloops had to go to in order to get in your home.

About the only other advice I can offer is to consider stain resistant carpeting.

 

[SunBear]

Officer, he told me if I called the police he would kill any policeman that tried to apprehend him and I just couldn't let that happen. Countersue for mental anguish, etc., etc.. Smooth is fast.