Should you let an intruder escape?

[chieftain]

If you play the "WHAT IF GAME" you will always lose.

Would'a, Could'a, Should'a, will follow any and all incidents.

You are trying to rationalize what someone else might or might not do, based on your standards, culture and internal moral rules. It is a losers game.

If you let him go, what if.
If you kill him, what if.
If you just wound him what if.
If you have him arrested, what if.

There is a negative scenario for each of these situations and there is a not so negative scenario for each of these scenario's. Trying to figure out what someone else is thinking or will think is again a losers game.

Do what you must to answer their actions. And stay within the law in your jurisdiction.

Don't over think it. Do what is necessary, and hopefully legal. Then learn to live with it, if that is a problem for you. If you don't think you can or could live with it, find another solution, for you.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Thernlund]

If you play the "WHAT IF GAME" you will always lose.

Would'a, Could'a, Should'a, will follow any and all incidents.

We're not playing the "what if" game. We're playing the "for example" game.

It's a discussion board. Discuss.


-T.

 

[SFvet]

If someone illegally enters my home, I will shoot them. Once a criminal crosses that threshold of my home, he lost his right not to get shot.

Let me guess your in a castle doctrine state arent you? Well thats how it should really be in all states - gee I wonder why so many people are moving to the "free states" lol. I love Indiana hehe.

 

[David904]

You know, it is impossible to say what you would do in any particular hypothetical situation. Your life and the those of your loved ones don't hang in the balance in these mental exercises. Detachment removes true honesty from this sort of thing.

I've survived a couple of encounters in which the legal presentation of my firearm dramatically changed the dynamics of the situations - enabling me to escape with no blood being shed.

These occurred out on the streets rather than in my home. At home, I have the lives of my wife and children to consider. I will gauge my response to the tactical situation accordingly. We all know in our hearts what is murder and what is legitimate action in defense of all you hold dear in your sanctum sanctorum. Whatever happens in the dark, you must be able to reconcile with the face you see while shaving in the harsh light of day.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

In Colorado, if you are in my home illegally you have met the criteria for deadly force.

Not quite so simple, Treo. The "Make my Day" law in its entirety:

18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
Statute text
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

 

[CWL]

Every situation is different, let your decision be made based on what your actual level of (perceived) threat may be.

Pointless to go posting on this forum about how you plan to gun someone down.

I plan on shooting to stop the threat if I'm ever in a HD/SD situation. I have no plans on executing anyone.

 

[SFvet]

Thats why we used the totality triangle in military law enforcement and the "Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy" in civilian law enforcement. Fear of your life or another... is the name of the game.

 

[Mark Evel]

Byron, I agree.

 

[Fred Fuller]

The AOJ model might be appropriate for law enforcement, but it isn't so for plain ordinary citizens. Private citizens are better served by adopting the ADEE model- Avoid, De-escalate/Disengage, Escape, Evade. The ADEE model and the reasons for it are more fully explained at http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm .

Too many people seem to be looking for any excuse to shoot someone over something. This is NOT what you should be thinking. As John Farnam puts it:

Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the "penalty" for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable. - http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2003/19Mar03.html

If you are going to claim the moral high ground necessary to act in justifiable self defense, you're going to have to be carrying the whole load. Here is what that entails:

YOU MAY BE WHATEVER YOU RESOLVE TO BE

YOU HAVE RESOLVED TO BE THE ULTIMATE MORAL ARBITER!

YOU HAVE TAKEN IT UPON YOURSELF TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT A SET OF RAPIDLY EVOLVING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND DECIDE THAT THEY MEAN SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE LETHAL FORCE USED ON THEM AND YOU NEED TO DO IT.

As a person who carries weapons about in society you have decided that you are a moral arbiter.

You are obliged to prepare yourself physically, mentally, emotionally and morally for the role as a moral arbiter.

You are obliged to train your body, mind and spirit for your role as moral arbiter.

Failure to accept and exercise these obligations is an exercise in immorality. It is a failure of discipline and self-control. - http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2007/02_StudyDay.htm

Please re-read the rules that cover participation here in S&T. Notice they specifically forbid bloodlust and the casual endorsement of the use of deadly force. They can be found at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=205304 if you haven't bothered to read them before. Please read- or re-read- this thread now...

lpl

 

[bleachcola]

There's no right answer. Kill him and his friends/family could retaliate. Let him go and he could come back. Could also mark you as a soft target. So you can't rationalize your answer based on that. Too many variables. I'd rather just shoot if I felt that me or my woman was in danger or if he was running off with something I really don't want to let go of. Otherwise, I'd like to let him go. With today's modern thug culture, killing him could just set you up for retaliation. Especially if it is in the back. But I can't say for sure. I might get an itchy trigger finger and do it anyway. No telling how the adrenaline will affect you in that situation.

 

[Fred Fuller]

I am going to say this one more time.

IF you ever find it necessary to shoot someone, you had better be able to clearly articulate precisely why it was you reasonably felt your life or someone else's was in deadly danger and you had no choice save to fire.

That does not include "an itchy trigger finger."

That does not include someone stealing something you didn't want to let go of.

Pay attention, people, or some folks here are going to be getting vacations from participating at THR:

THR and our sister board TFL are unlike any other firearms forum on the World Wide Web. The ownership and staff of both forums work hard to keep the standards high.

The Strategies and Tactics Forum is a bit different than any other forum on THR. Here we talk about shooting techniques, legal subjects, how to take care of yourself and others in an emergency, first aid and emergency medical subjects...anything that is related to living safely can be on topic here.

These are serious subjects and they deserve serious, thoughtful posts. Think twice and post once really applies here.

We will not, under any circumstances advocate any illegal conduct. Members who do, will lose their membership without any further warning.

We will not advocate the use of deadly force under any circumstance when deadly force would not be called for. Flip comments about no retreat and castle laws making it legal will not be tolerated. Any member who posts a comment like that will lose their membership without further warning.

The use of deadly force is not a subject that should be taken lightly. There are many legal and moral factors to consider before any force is used. We will no longer take the use of deadly force lightly here. If you have the need to say those things there are other places where those comments are welcome and even the norm. They are no longer welcome here.

These are the Strategies and Tactics forum's rules for employment of deadly force:

Deadly force will only be used to prevent the immediate use of force that could cause death or great bodily harm to yourself or another.

This is how the rule will be enforced:

We can discuss what's legal and what's not in in various jurisdictions. What isn't allowed is the smug posts like; "You should move to Texas we just shoot em for that down here." Posts like that are counterproductive, a waste of bandwidth and potentially damaging to our side in the ongoing culture war.

If you are going to suggest that someone actually use deadly force to resolve a situation, then that situation has to meet the rules of engagement in the first post in the thread. No more; "We just shoot em for that here." posts.

A comment like; "Even though (insert state here) law would permit me to shoot in that situation, I would only shoot if I could articulate a threat of death or great bodily harm against myself or another." is acceptable. "(Insert state here) law says that I can shoot anyone no matter what they are doing if I find them in my dwelling, car, camper, yard after dark...so I'm shooting to slide lock as soon as I see him." is not acceptable.

Here in the Strategies and Tactics Forum we may have a somewhat higher standard for the use of deadly force then some laws may permit.

The standard I picked for our use not only promotes responsible use of firearms but is legal virtually everywhere in the US.

Violation of the deadly force policy here will have repercussions just like in the real world.

Jeff - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=205304

Last warning...

lpl

 

[SamG.]

If the perp was in my residence I would double tap him in the head/heart (anyone that is not invited at 3:00 am is going to get killed) But I would also (if possible) try to identify them with a weapon light, just in case it was some idiot kid trying to get drug money (happened down my street). In my state Tennessee, we have "Castle doctrine", wich in a nutshell is that any place that you are staying in is your "dwelling" (tent, rv, car, boat, public or private property), and that any invasion gives you the authority to use "lethal force". Also I would not worry about his friends or family becuase I have more 5.56 for them too.

 

[Defensory]

If your state doesn't have a castle doctrine law in effect, I would strongly advise against shooting a fleeing petty criminal in the back. It also wouldn't be wise to shoot one who isn't actually in your house.

Joe Horn was lucky to have been residing in the state of Texas. In a lot of other states, he would've been indicted by a Grand Jury.

 

[bleachcola]

I mentioned protecting something valuable to me only bc Florida law allows me to. Many of my possessions have great sentimental value and would be dearly missed.

 

[Thernlund]

Joe Horn was lucky to have been residing in the state of Texas. In a lot of other states, he would've been indicted by a Grand Jury.

I think Joe Horn was lucky, period.


-T.

 

[Scattergun Bob]

As defensive shooters, we do not kill over mere things

The answer is LET HIM GO, you may live in a property state that allows you an OPTION. However, as a group we have decided to take life "only when there is a overwhelming threat of our own injury or death". It is that RIGHT to self defense that has been passed down to us. If the individual is no longer a threat, either on the street or in our home WE must be the individuals to deescalate the force continuum. withdraw if you can, retreat if it is safe, fight only when absolutely necessary.

"THE BEST GUNFIGHT THAT EVER WAS, WAS THE ONE THAT NEVER HAPPENED"

 

[bleachcola]

What "group" is this that you speak of? Just bc somebody owns a gun doesn't make them part of a collective that thinks the same as all the others.

 

[Travlin]

Lee, Larry, and the other posters -- Thanks for your replies. You have given me many good thoughts to ponder.

To clarify -- I used "home invader" to include anyone who has forced his way into my home. That includes a burglar who just wants some loot. I don't know their intentions, so if they are in my house with my family I have to assume the worst.

 

[ColinthePilot]

I think if I have a reason to be clearing my place, all I'm going to do is identify the target, and if hostile, give them one chance to freeze while I call the cops. my gun and my cell phone sleep side by side.

 

[conw]

I am a simple kind of person. I would be in my bedroom UNLESS ...

Scenario A I'd have the bedroom door shut and locked and cops on the phone. If he runs after stealing my copies of Atlantic Monthly or whatever the heck I have outside my room that he wants, he runs.

Scenario B, if I am in the bathroom or kitchen and have my CCW piece (which I would), I would attempt to hold my position or go back to the bedroom and create scenario A. If I saw him I'd shoot UNLESS he was sprinting for the door.

My house is dark at night, and to me an unlawful intruder is a deadly threat. If one was somehow in my dark house at night I have no way of knowing if he is armed. And I am going to deal with that threat.

 

[.38 Special]

I think Lee Lapin makes a lot of sense. I think a number of folks here present a cavalier attitude to the taking of life -- and I think that attitude would probably change quite a bit once presented with an actual scenario. And that, IMO, is a good thing. Once the blustering and macho posturing is done, decent men have an instinctive grasp of just how serious killing another man is.

I spent some time as a paramedic and like to think I have a pretty good grasp of that particular reality. I understand that there are times when killing is the correct thing to do -- but at least for me, killing is the last resort. I'm going to make it through this life without killing anyone if I can possibly do it. If that means I have to let somebody walk off with my VCR, or use Ayoob's trick of buying off an aggressor or abasing myself to avoid escalating a potentially violent encounter, I'm going to do exactly that.

The price, both mentally and financially, of killing a man is higher than I want to pay, and is certainly higher than the cost of a few possessions or a little wounded pride.

 

[Deus Machina]

If their back is turned, I can't legally shoot them. I'll save myself the hassle and arm up in case they return.

There are far to many cases around here of a burglar getting run off, then returning with a gun of his own or friends with guns.

That said, if I catch one in my home, I'm locking the door and the only choice he gets is if he leaves in handcuffs or on a stretcher.

 

[mec]

I let three of them go at the same time. They were in my house when I got home-except for the driver. I had the driveway blocke so they drove across the neighbor's yard to get away from me. Passeed about ten feet out saying "Please dont shoot, Sir." They all looked real apolygetic and nobody made any fast moves so, I just covered them out of sight. Got the license plate which did no good as the car was stolen.
It was win-win. I didn't shot 'em and they didn't come back. I didn't have the aggrevation of shooting a bunch of empty handed self made socialists and they did'nt have the inconvenience of being shot

 

[bleachcola]

I'm not trying to be cavalier. I'd always rather not shoot somebody. But if I had to choose between losing a precious family heirloom and taking the life of some street thug, I would have to heir on the side of protecting what is mine. I wouldn't shoot him if he were empty handed and running away. I wouldn't even shoot him over a television. But I would shoot him if I felt anyone or any animal in my house was in danger or if he were trying to take something from me that could never be replaced. I won't deny my children part of their birthrights to save the life of some thug who wouldn't think twice about giving me the dirty end of a stick.

 

[Scattergun Bob]

bleachcola

Since it is the latest in sheik comments on the issue I will quote " there are sheep, sheep dogs and wolfs" I am speaking of the "group of sheep dogs whom have decided to protect the common flock and themselves. That is the group I am speaking of, NOW, if you are a wolf or a sheep then my mistake sir.