Shooting Home Robber in the Back

[kym]

Go to the pound and adopt a dog. Not for attacking but for an early warning system. Doesn't have to be a big mean dog. All you want is one to bark when someone tries to come in.

 

[lexjj]

Maybe 20% of the posts in this thread make sense. The rest read like chest beating.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Some people would shoot a home invader on principle alone. That principle is

STEALING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

The more tolerant of crime society becomes, the more crime society can expect.

 

[Kleanbore]

Some people would shoot a home invader on principle alone. That principle is

STEALING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

Other "principles" are

HE WORE BLOODS COLORS
HE LOOKED AT MY WOMAN
HE IS AN INFIDEL

...and there are many others often cited.

The more tolerant of crime society becomes, the more crime society can expect.

Agreed. There is too much crime, including murder. However, it's unlikely that society will tolerate the crime of shooting a home invader solely to prevent stealing in most states.

In Texas at night if necessary, it's OK, legally, I understand.

But stealing is defined as theft or larceny, and none of our states prescribe the death penalty for theft (note that theft is not the same thing as robbery, which constitutes the use or threat of force against a person).

They are all pretty harsh when it comes to murder, however.

One needs to know when the use of deadly force is justifiable in his state before pulling a gun. Self defense, preventing certain felonies, protecting property at night in Texas, effecting an arrest under limited conditions in a few places... And in some places an unlawful or sometimes unlawful and forcible entry into an occupied dwelling or car may provide a presumption of necessity... Texas and Georgia alone do provide for the use of deadly force to protect property under certain limited circumstances.

One cannot use deadly force because of what another might do at a later time.

One cannot use deadly force on principle alone.

One who uses deadly force unlawfully to protect property will end up owning no property at all--dumb. Very dumb.

To be on the safe side, should someone shoot someone "on principle" for stealing, it had better by in our 28th state, at night, and with no other alternative for protecting the property in question!

And should there ever be any question about an incident involving deadly force, it would be good to not have created any letters or postings that might indicate a disregard for the law.

 

[2nd 41]

Even it it's $50,000, you still expose yourself to criminal prosecution (not to mention civil prosecution) whenever you shoot a human. You should go visit a prison if you know anybody in there. It's no joke. You may see your viewpoint as being a bit naive after you realize the gravity of being behind bars. I'm not risking my freedom over some property. I have property insurance.

Ditto this. Also, It's cheaper to replace the items.....than to hire an attorney

 

[Colorado Luckydog]

If he was leaving, and I was 100% positive he did not harm my family, I would let him walk. Chances are I would have shot him on the way in. If there is a sliver of a chance my family or myself is in danger, I would smoke him like a big free bag of weed.

 

[Italian Motorcycles]

It's amazing to me that so many of you can, in the middle of the night, having just awakened, with poor lighting, and under immense stress:

1. determine if he/she is facing you or with their back to you, moving toward you or away from you

2. determine if he/she is armed or not armed

3. determine if he/she is carrying something

4. determine if he/she is carrying something he/she is stealing from you

5. determine if he/she is carrying something expensive or something inexpensive

6. determine if he/she has already killed or inured others in your house.

7. determine if he/she is alone or if there are others in your house


And to top it off, some of you believe that if you were to:

1. determine you are witnessing a home invasion

2. shoot the home invader until he/she is no longer a home invader

3. call 911

that would be considered immoral?

A home invasion by default means deadly threat. You must assume the invader is there to do you harm. Neutralizing the deadly threat is the immediate task at hand. If I took the time to evaluate each of those 7 points above... I would most likely be dead. Maybe in Hollywood you can do all that, and even carefully shoot 'em in the leg, just to slow 'em down. In reality you don't have time for any of that.

;(

 

[RustyShackelford]

FL firearms laws; Mylicensesite.com

As a FL resident and a gun owner, I would suggest you read over the related FL gun laws here; www.mylicensesite.com or www.handgunlaws.us .

In general, I would not think you could fire at a "fleeing" subject even if the criminal is still in your home or on your property. If you are not a sworn LEO(law enforcement officer), you have no duty to stop a robber or house breaker. If the subject used force(shot at you, hit you, had a weapon that you SAW), then you could use deadly force to stop him/her. The criminal still poses a threat to you or to someone else and may injury or kill someone later on. You could show that in a criminal-civil trial or in a formal criminal investigation.

I'd also suggest that you learn more about use of force law(s) and get skill training. www.ayoob.com www.S2institute.com .

As the state of FL Div of Licensing says; " Having a a weapons license does not mean you have a license to use deadly force."

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Let's make darn sure that no one relies on that, either.

You claimed it had to be at night, which is untrue.

"As long as the intruder is in your home"? Necessary, but not sufficient.

There are also little things like whether (1) the person knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used had "unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force" the home,

Now just what they heck do you think an "intruder" is? FYI, they don't have to enter with force to be unlawfully in the home. Under Texas law, unlawfully entering a premise means being without the effective consent of the owner.

or (2) the shooting was necessary "to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery". That's robbery, not breaking in and running off with property.

Ah, the omnipotence claim that you know why the intruder is there...to steal, as opposing to steal and murder. For all you know they are there to rape you and stealing was an act of opportunity.

 

[bigione]

Did he tell anyone he was going to rob your house? Not likely. Does anyone know he want there? Not likely. A Denver cop told me stuff them in a gully, cave off the bank and shut up. Where I live, I could probably get away wirth it. Would I do that? Probably not, but one can be tempted.

 

[saltydog452]

Entering an occupied home w/o an invite might be thrilling and even moderately profitable in the short term.

Its also an act of self-destructive behavior.

I am confident that there are a number of people who are more than willing to assist a would-be intruder in accomplishing that goal.

salty

 

[03Shadowbob]

you have no duty to stop a robber or house breaker

If someone breaks into my house and comes into my master bedroom, hears the rack of the Mossy 590 (which he wouldn't hear anything as there's one in the chamber at all times. He'd probably be blind from my tac light), turns to run out of my bedroom and down the hall...I do not know where he is headed, whether back to the front door or to my kids' rooms on the other side of the house and it's not my job to determine which he is going to do. My job is to protect my children and family. There is your answer.

 

[Kleanbore]

You claimed it had to be at night, which is untrue.

For using deadly force to protect property against a thief, which is what I was referring to? Oh yes it is. Read Texas Code Section 9.42, DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

So, if not at night, the question is whether section 9.32, DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON, applies.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Under Texas law, unlawfully entering a premise means being without the effective consent of the owner.

True where I live, also. But in Texas, the law on deadly force reads that the intruder must have entered "unlawfully and with force" for the fact of the unlawful entry per se to establish a presumption that the resident had reasonable belief that the deadly force was immediately necessary for the purpose of self defense.

As I read it, forcible entry is not necessary to justify deadly force, just to establish a presumption of reasonable belief, absent other exculpatory evidence.

For all you know they are there to rape you and stealing was an act of opportunity.

Yeah, but the law does not say anything about speculation--it speaks of reasonable belief.

Dont get me wrong--as a juror, I would most likely, and given a forcible entry, surely assume that if a stranger had entered his occupied home unlawfully, a resident did in fact have reasonable belief that deadly force had been immediately necessary, absent contradictory evidence.

But since the OP spoke of a person "heading out the door (but still within the confines of the house)", forensic or other evidence may well be contradictory, and "if he was only stealing", he was not committing any of the felonies listed in Section 9.32 (aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery) as subject to deadly force, the use of deadly force would most likely not be justified, as I read it...

....unless it happens at night, in which circumstance Section 9.42 comes into play.

And, of course, unless it it in Texas, or possibly Georgia.

Upon reflection, it is probably very true indeed that "as long as the intruder is in your home, the intruder can be considered a threat - day or night," but I would want to rely on that alone as justification for the use of deadly force, particularly if he is on his way out.

 

[saltydog452]

Just an aside and a question.

If you were to encounter an intruder in your home, would you ask for a 'time-out' so you could check for broken glass or any other form of forced entry?

I don't think 'bump' keys, credit cards, or rakes leave much evidence of force.

Some locations may require evidence of forced entry. I dunno, but I think the presence of an intruder would be sufficient evidence of unlawful entry.

I hope we never have to deal with that.

If someone were to creep my house, it would never be the same place.

If someone were to enter, by force or stealth, our occupied home, we would never be the same.

Considering that, I do not think that it'd be a real good career move.

salty

 

[DHJenkins]

To the OP - Yes.

Of course, in TX, we are legally allowed to shoot (in the back) if we believe that we will be unable to recover our property from a fleeing BG - you may not have the same leeway in your state.

 

[Kleanbore]

Some locations may require evidence of forced entry.

Lay opinion: that's only for the fact of the entry alone to provide a presumption for reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary in a state in which that requirement exists. Some states say "tumultuous", some say "and with force", others say "by force or by stealth", others simply say unlawful.

Lack of said evidence does not deprive you of the right to self preservation. For a discussion of what evidence you might otherwise have to produce, consult an attorney in your state.

Stranger, gun or knife in hand.... (?)

I dunno, but I think the presence of an intruder would be sufficient evidence of unlawful entry.

Sounds reasonable to me....

So, what do you do if you encounter someone who has entered unlawfully? That which is immediately necessary for the protection of yourself and your family, no more and no less.

Where I live, the law reads that I cannot be convicted for shooting someone who has entered my occupied domicile or automobile unlawfully or who has refused to leave. Opponents, of course, loudly claimed that the law would "legalize murder."

The CCW instructors adamantly advise against using deadly force if the person chooses to depart--or holding an intruder. I don't know the case law, but I do know that the intent of the law was to eliminate previously extant, case-law-driven, unreasonable requirements for proving justifiability, and not to empower me to execute the death penalty for ulawful entry.

Haven't heard of any repercussions since it was enacted.

 

[saltydog452]

I was not questioning your research or personal opinions.

It was, apparently, a failed attempt by me to bring attention to the 'forced' entry comments, and note that there isn't a lot of time for conjecture or second guessing when the 'bump-in-the-night' has a shape and is in your home.

I don't know, I really don't.

Bottom line, I think, is that we'll react and deal with the aftermath later.

I'm gonna back out of this. I don't have anything else to contribute except hope that we'll never, ever have to deal with the either the act, or the ramifications.

salty

 

[bradfromearth]

I have not yet read the entire thread here so I may be repeating someone.

Joe Horn -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

He shot two guys who robbed his neighbor. He came out his front door as they were crossing his yard. Yells, "move and your dead" they moved, he shot one in the front and the other was running away from him and he shot him in the back. Both dead, Grand Jury - no billed him. These guys did not even rob him. But they were in his yard.

This was in Pasadena Texas and I grew up around there and will tell you that all of pasadena at that time was hispanic or white, very very few african americans would want to live in that area.

When younger I was brief friends with the then mayor of Pasadenas son and the son and I did some business together. I brought along a third party for some work and we all met for luch. After the lunch he said to me with a sneer. "You did not tell me he was black" Our business relations and personal dissolved after that.

That will give you an idea of Pasadenas roots, so I really think that it IS remotely possible that this could have been a factor. I do not know the demographics of Pasadena now, it may be very different. I do recall seeing an african american officer during the news coverage so possibly they have progressed out there. No offense to anyone who lives in Pasadena.

I point all of this out only to demonstrate an exaple of recent relevant case law. Pointing to the possible leaglities in the op's question. Not morality. I have no idea what I would do personally.

 

[Deanimator]

However, it's unlikely that society will tolerate the crime of shooting a home invader solely to prevent stealing in most states.

If you FORCIBLY enter my home, unless you leave some kind of note or living will, nobody is probably going to know for sure why you were there. The odds are that you won't be able to tell anyone. It'll all be conjecture on the part of the police. If I find you in my home without my permission and you either do not flee or you fail to obey my commands not to come any closer to me, the same conditions will prevail.

In Ohio at any rate, if you force your way into somebody's home, or are found there and act in a threatening way, the presumption is that you meant to do harm. The law doesn't accord to you any benefit of the doubt, nor is a home owner/renter likely to accord you any either. Nor should they. You have ZERO right to shift the consequences of your irresponsible or malicious behavior onto innocent third parties.

If you find that terribly unfair, don't be a home invader. Don't put people in reasonable, immediate fear of life and limb. Bad things are likely to happen to you.

 

[Kleanbore]

I was not questioning your research or personal opinions.

SaltyDog, if you are referring to me, I did not take it that way.

It was, apparently, a failed attempt by me to bring attention to the 'forced' entry comments, and note that there isn't a lot of time for conjecture or second guessing when the 'bump-in-the-night' has a shape and is in your home.

Failed? No indeed! I thought you were right on point. I hope my reply was helpful.

Bottom line, I think, is that we'll react and deal with the aftermath later.

That's exactly what I would do.

 

[rustysragsinc]

If you shoot him, better drag him back in the house. It is the only way you can get away with it. Once outside your house (not property) it would be considered murder or manslaughter depending on how the jury saw it. And I would not want my fate resting in the hands of jury members who probably don't even own a gun in the first place.

To answer the question, no. I would let him go.

 

[Dogbite]

Shoot someone in the back while they are fleeing? Absolutely not! Extremely bad idea. Your life is not in danger, therefore, you don't have the right to shoot the guy. A cop would go to prison under these circumstances.

 

[Kleanbore]

If you shoot him, better drag him back in the house. It is the only way you can get away with it.

OOOPS!!

From Kathy Jackson:

No. No. No. Moving the body, or rearranging any other physical evidence about what happened, is called "tampering with a crime scene." And it is itself a very serious crime.

Tampering with evidence isn't just a criminal act. It is also an act which is very likely to be discovered. The science of forensics has advanced to the point where the investigators will definitely know that you have done something to the scene, and will probably know exactly what it was that you did. And the investigators will (very reasonably) assume that the reason you did it is because you outright murdered someone and were trying to hide evidence which shows that the shooting was a murder instead of an act of self-defense.

If you are ever involved in a shooting, it is vitally important that you do not lie to the police. Even one little lie, if caught, can destroy your credibility in court. Without that credibility, you will have a much harder time staying out of jail even if your actions were completely within the law.

http://www.corneredcat.com/Legal/myths.aspx#porch

 

[Leanwolf]

"A Denver cop told me stuff them in a gully, cave off the bank and shut up."

That's one of the easiest ways in the world -- short of robbing a bank -- to end up in prison. I can't imagine a cop stupid enough to suggest that.

RUSTYSRAGSINC - "If you shoot him, better drag him back in the house. It is the only way you can get away with it. "

Same as above. The instant you start tampering with evidence at a crime scene, you are going to find yourself up to your rear end in alligators! Smoke someone outside and drag him in will leave a blood trail that even a blind man can follow, not least homicide detectives. Tampering with evidence and lying to cops is a very unwise thing to do.

L.W.

 

[t165]

For all practical purposes that question cannot be answered by anyone on this forum. It cannot be answered by a LEO, practicing attorney, or civilian. I would contact the elected prosecutor in your jurisdiction and pose the question to him/her. I would ask for their opinion in writing if you can get it. The prosecutor is the final say as to whether you will face state criminal charges or not. The feds usually do not stick their beaks in these matters unless someone wants to make a violation of civil rights beef. If the elected prosecutor in your jurisdiction changes then seek their opinion. Prosecutors do not always agree on the interperation of the law. Also keep a eye out for modifications or the law and subsequent case law. Just my .2 worth.