So you've got 'im at gunpoint...

[King]

My $.02......I sight in the uninvited guest, give him instructions to stop, lie on the floor face down, palms up and not to move a muscle. Then I call 911. If the guy resists or does not comply or comes toward me, I will take him out. If he runs for the door, I "may" let him go (not sure unless I happens).

I think Bob A. And Runt covered it best with their posts.

Hopefully, we would have the presence of mind to at least assess the level of danger and to see if blood shed could be avoided (ie; the homeless guy at Chrismas or similar).

 

[shootingfarm]

You asked what I would do , first he's in my house he mite look unarmed but I'am not going to get close to check and I wont take his word for it.

If the BG listens and does what he is told fine but one threating move and well I'am not going to get shot with my own GUN, I not going to let him get very close, my finger may be off the trigger but the safety will be off.

He(BG) will be on the floor or out the door.

No I don't want to shoot anyone but he's in my House and you have to draw the line somewere, if your not going to protect your self or your family you don't want the BG to have your guns.

The BG won't sue you if your DEAD.




Paul

 

[Topgun]

What if....

Ya shoot him, prop him up with a stick, put a chainsaw in his hand, start it, shoot him again in the front, skin him out, grill him, an have a snack for the cops when they get there?

Huh? Wud it be okay then?

 

[Gila Jorge]

Hammer is cocked and finger is on trigger..I am ready to respond forthwith. Otherwise why have the gun out...gotta be ready to use it...if the BG does exactly as told then he's OK but one slightly wrong move and I open house on him/them.

 

[cheygriz]

Matthew,

Re-read your statutes, and you will keep coming up with the words "reasonable, a reasonable man, can be reasonably expected, etc."

Do you know who decides if your actions are reasonable? A jury does! Everyhing revolves around the concept of "a reasonable, prudent man." The jury is ASSUMED BY LAW to be reasonable and prudent.

It's been many, many years since I worked for the Lafayette. La Police Department, or lived in Louisiana, but somehow I doubt that the Louisiana laws have changed so much that "reasonable and prudent" no longer apply.

In both criminal and civil cases, the jury will rule according to what a reasonable prudent man would have done, thought, feared, etc. The question will always be: did the defendant react the way a reasonable prudent man would have reacted.

And BTW: I'm not by any means trying to discourage anyone from defending themselves or their homes. I'm simply asking that reasonableness and prudence be used, and that everyone realize that so-called "make my day" laws are not a license to be trigger-happy.

 

[Matthew Courtney]

The law was changed in 1993 to allow you to use deadly force against an intruder in a dwelling if you reasonably feared any force. The force you fear no longer must be of death or great bodily harm. That was a huge change in the law. The law was further expanded in 1997 to include motor vehicles as places where one may use deadly force when threatened by any force by an intruder or would be intruder. Your fear must still be reasonable, but getting to reasonable fear of any force happens more easily and more often than reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. The reasonable fear of merely being touched, or even spat upon by an intruder now justifies homicide.

Personally, I would refrain from shooting unless a family member, invited guest, or I were in mortal danger. This would be more due to potential emotional consequences than legal ones. Who wants their children to awaken to gun fire in the middle of the night, run into the living room and see a person bleeding on their floor. Not me. But better for them to come out and see an intruder on the floor rather than their mother or me.

 

[Mr. Fixit]

I would like to relate story about an event that occurred circa 1990, in a neighborhood very close to my own:

A homeowner awoke to the sound of his garage door opening and went to investigate. His wife remained in the bedroom and heard shouting followed by gunshots. She found her husband in the kitchen dead from said gunshots. She did not witness any intruders nor did anyone else.

The homeowners had made the mistake of leaving their garage door opener inside their vehicle which had been parked outside on the driveway for the night. The vehicle was locked but the assailant(s) had forced entry and then opened the garage door.
They then gained access to the house via the (unlocked) man door between the house and attached garage. Apparently, this is the point at which the husband confronted the intruder(s) and lost his life. No one was ever apprehended for this crime, to the best of my knowledge.

My point being; there is precious little time to evaluate whether or not you are in imminent danger. You may not have time to utter any words, much less engage in conversation. Based on the above real-life occurrence, it would be prudent to think that a person willing to break into a home in the wee hours of the night would also be willing to confront the occupants if need be, perhaps to the detriment of the latter....

Mr. F

 

[El Rojo]

Mr. Fixit, was the homeowner armed? If not, that doesn't really apply here does it? Of course an unarmed homeowner investigating a break in is going to get shot after lots of yelling without anyone knowing what happened. If it were us, after even a few words, shots would be fired. We are not talking about a negotiation. We are talking about simple commands, "Put your hands up." If the perp responds with anything other than their hands in the air, bang bang. "Lay down on the floor!" If the perp makes any move other than laying down, bang bang. There is a fine line here between the person doing exactly as we ask and shooting.

 

[Mr. Fixit]

El Rojo,

I believe the point to the story I outlined was not whether the homeowner was armed or unarmed, but rather that the intruder was most definitely armed and willing to use lethal force in order to expedite his departure. The outcome could have very well been the same if the homeowner was armed.

You say that you would give the command to "Put your hands up." I think you assume that you will have a well-lighted environment in which to ascertain the situation. I doubt this will be the case at night. You are also assuming that there will be only a single intruder. Again, this may not be the case as crooks have been known to work in pairs or groups. Do you honestly feel that you can control a situation involving multiple invaders by first making an announcement, thereby alerting them to your presence? They may very well comply with your request to "Put your hands up". Unfortunately, they may also raise them just high enough to get to your center of mass and leave your wife a widow.

I did not share the story to begin a new debate. I merely wanted to point out a real-life event that occurred close to home and resulted in the death of the good guy. Take that for what it's worth. Of course, your mileage may vary...

Mr. F

 

[BillCola]

In my home? In my home?!? Where my wife sleeps, and my children come to play with their toys?

Sorry, no confrontation... they get it in the back, in the finest Festerian tradition.

 

[NeverAgain26]

Go find a local knowledgeable-on-guns lawyer and get some advice from him on what is what in your State. Get familiar with the regs and know what you are doing.

Pray you are never in this situation, but if it does, be ready.

NA26

 

[Don Gwinn]

My wife will call the cops. If he walks out the door without threatening us in any way, I'll let him go and be a good witness. Illinois law is pretty clear that he must be a threat to you at the time you pull the trigger. Although I don't want him to go hurt someone else, I'm not going to prison over it. At some point the rest of society takes some responsibility for the laws and politicians they wanted so badly.

I might try to bluff him into staying, but if he has the guts to call my bluff I won't shoot a man in the back as he walks away.

 

[rifleman]

This is what I would do:

Step 1: Identify. Must know that it isn't silly grandpa stopping by unexpected.

Step 2: Shoot or put gun away.

That's it for me.

 

[jato]

Mr. Fixit,

I would learn from the mistakes of the now dead home owner.

They then gained access to the house via the (unlocked) man door between the house and attached garage.

Always lock your doors.

I think you assume that you will have a well-lighted environment in which to ascertain the situation.

Create the enviornment you want. Leave exterior lights on, leave at least one interior light on near points of entry. Have a powerful flashlight with your firearm.

The outcome could have very well been the same if the homeowner was armed.

Armed with the right training and equipment, outcomes may vary.

 

[Mr. Fixit]

Jato,

I believe the lessons learned from this account are obvious.
Locking doors, lighting and familiarity with your choice of protection are most likely the status quo with most who peruse this forum, myself included.

I also believe that the point of the story that I related has been misconstrued. The point is not whether you are better off being armed during an encounter, as this goes without saying. Rather, the original issue was whether or not one would have time to verbalize various commands while trying to secure your environment. My contention is that you may not have the luxury of a chat with the perp, for there may indeed be more than one and this would alert the others to your presence. Even if there was a singular intruder, how long do you think it would take for him to draw down on you or rush you with a knife once he discovered your presence? Probably before you finished uttering your last word. I strongly feel that the element of surprise has determined the outcome of more events than other factors combined. Use it to your advantage.

Mr. F

 

[answerguy]

In all 50 states, you will go to jail if you shoot an unarmed man in the back. Period!

Well I can think of a scenario that would be a legit reason to shoot a BG in the back. Bad guy surprises you in your bedroom. In a fight for his weapon you knock the weapon from his hand. He's going for it (moving away from you, so of course with his back turned) to presumably try to do you more harm. You get to your weapon in your night stand first. I see no problem with shooting this BG.

 

[TexasVet]

In all 50 states, you will go to jail if you shoot an unarmed man in the back. Period!
------------------------------------------------------------------

Not even close to true. I know of at least two that I've lived in where this is absolutely not true. Of couse, Texas is one of them.
And the 'reasonable man' jury test only exists if you have a liberal idiot for a DA. Almost none of that type of case will ever even see a grand jury out here.
Of course you will probably face a civil case by the scum's relatives, but one recent such case in our area resulted in the plaintiffs paying for the court costs, defendants costs and his legal fees. Won't be many of those around for awhile, I'd guess.

 

[BillCola]

Seems like I'm getting a little backtalk, get it?

Believe it or not, ever here in CA we have a 'Castle Doctrine'. A stranger, breaking into your home gives you the presumption of the fear of great bodily injury or death necessary to justfy using deadly force upon him.

I'll re-qualify that my target must be identified as an intruder, not ol' grandpa, but that's it. I will not be chatting it up with intruder #1 while previously undiscovered intruder #2 whacks me over the head with a skillet, then has their way with my family.

Sorry if that sounds mean, illegal, or stupid, but everybody not on the guest list gets Vang Comp'ed.

 

[Blackhawk]

Make him lie down flat on his stomach with his legs spread and his arms ourstretched 90 degrees to his body and PALMS UP.

Do NOT get in any conversation with him, and do NOT let him make eye contact with you. Bark commands to him to be quiet, don't move, and that the police are on their way.

That position is very hard to spring up from. Try it, and you'll see.

Call the police, but do not take your gun off of him, and do not take your eyes off of him.

Tell the police the situation including that you're holding a gun on him.

When they arrive, you will be disarmed, probably under gun point yourself. Do NOT move your gun from covering the BG as you comply with the LEO's orders. You definitely don't want them to think you're going to point your gun in their direction.

 

[The White Flyer]

Two in the chest and one in the head. No lawsuits.

 

[CAP]

Most everyone should carefully check their state laws as they vary widely.

One of the wonderful things about life in the Old North State is that if I catch them in the act of forcable entry I can shoot them down like the dog they are. HOWEVER, once inside things change dramatically. I cannot justifiably defend just my property with the use of deadly force. If threatened with imminent bodily harm, death, or rape , then I can legally shoot them. As long as they do not advance towards me or my family then they may leave either of their own accord, or with the braclets on. Makes no diff to me. If they choose to leave before the law responds to the 911 call then I will provide all the info I can to the cops. If they stay because I have threatened to shoot them otherwise, then I have to manage the situation however I can until help arrives. If the situation changes for the worse for me, then again, I have to manage it as best I can so that MY family comes out of it without physical and hopefully mental or financial problems.

To the original ?, I would try my best NOT to have to shoot the perp. One wrong glance, though, and my best intentions may go by the wayside.

CAP

 

[benewton]

Let's see...

1/2 mile from any paved road, and you "mistakenly" find my house, thinking it to be yours...

You come through a broken window, or slider, and two dogs of the big, though not vicious variety, and I'm gonna talk?

I'll dial 911 to fill out paper work and clean up the mess!

It'll be a half hour or so before they show up, of course, given that they're not busy elsewhere.

No, I won't want to, and yes, I'd do all that I could to avoid the action. But I'm in my home, from which there's really no practical retreat, and you've given evidence of your intent to harm.
While I might have a choice if I lived alone, I'm married, and I've no choice at all acting in her defense.

And that works for all.
Knock first, or, perhaps, call. I may not win, but any home invasion means I must fight.

 

[HS/LD]

I would shoot the intruder immediately, if not sooner.

Then I would make my wife know I am ok and to stay out of the room, as I wouldn't want her to see the aftermath of the shooting.

Then I would call 911.
Then I would call my lawyer.

HS/LD

 

[Bravo8]

I was going to respond to Chey's "50 states" comment, but since that has been addressed already, I'll make one point and ask a question.

First, considering the nature of the very incident (that is, having your home intruded upon), and the inherent confusion, emotion, fear, etc that may follow, I believe it to be very unreasonable to expect anyone to basically jump through hoops while trying to decide whether this threat is serious enough to justify deadly force.

I don't play guessing games with my family's safety......I protect them.

Luckily, Pa law specifically provides for a justification defense in these situations, provided certain conditions are met (entry into dwelling, no reason to believe entry is lawful, no reason to believe less than lethal force would end the entry - I guess the last one would be the sticking point). If those conditions are not met, DF may still be authorized to prevent the POS from attempting to dispose you of the property or to prevent a felony within the dwelling (by being inside, he is committing a felony - Criminal Trespass - is he not?).

Secondly, could one not also articulate disparity of force as a defense? The guy standing in my kitchen at 3am when my wife and kids are sleeping upstairs is a greater threat than the guy standing there at 3pm when my wife and kids are at the mother-in-laws house. I would tend to think on could use that argument as an affirmative defense.

More than just the laws in your locale, the "political" climate may be important as well. We have had a few self-defense shootings locally over the last 5 years, some may have even been questionable under strict interpretation of the law, yet each has been ruled (criminally and civilly) as justifiable.

 

[pax]

Bottom line: You must be able to articulate how your life was in danger at the moment you pulled the trigger.

What if this, what if that, what if he..., what if I....

Answer to each is the same.

pax