This is why you don't chase after the bad guy.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Onward Allusion:

I sure as hell wouldn't wait for my door to be completely kicked in. Maybe a couple of shots at the bottom of the door as a deterrent...

Why? Your door would be destroyed anyway.

Deterrent? Firing a gun as a deterrent? Come now!

Of course, there's gonna be those here that would say run upstairs and lock yourself in the bedroom.

I don't know about the bedroom, but in most houses there will be places from which to defend that would be a lot better than in front of the door.

 

[The Alaskan]

You believe that when confronted with a potential threat under SYG laws a person with a reasonable exit (a way to get away from the threat, avoid having to kill someone, avoid all the legal/civil aftermath) that they will just kill them anyway because a piece of paper in theory says they legally can?

Yes actually, to be perfectly honest, I do believe that. I live in Alaska where we have legal, unlicensed, open carry as well as CCW. I'm one of the FEW people I know who does not carry a gun pretty much everywhere. I have many friends back in the lower 48 where they have licensed CCW. Most of them plan on killing someone if the legal opportunity presents itself. I've known of guys who would drive into a a predominantly African American neighborhood with confederate flags on their trucks, blasting Merle Haggard. They stop at every gas station and convenience store in the area hoping, hoping, HOPING some N-eye-double g-errrr will have the balls to confront them because hey, they have a right to be at that gas station and hey they have aright to stand their ground.

No matter what you think of Zimmerman or the case...he would have been a lot better off leaving if he could have, SYG be darned....(not that it was a SYG case or that SYG was even mentioned at the trial).

Actually I grew up in Florida and carried for PD back before the days of SYG in FL, when one had a legal "duty to retreat." Had the Zimmerman episode happened in those days, Zimmerman would still have been considered justified according to the law because at the time he was attacked (even though he had been the instigator) he was,in fact, retreating. So, yeah, I think we're agreed, SYG did not and should not have applied to the Zimmerman event.

On a personal note: I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if every time an innocent person was threatened with deadly force by a criminal, they just shot them like The Alaskan says will be the result of SYG. That is a sustainable societal model IMO, there wouldn't be a whole lot of violent crime in shall issue CCW areas after a few cases.

Aaaaaaand now we have the rest of the story. Never mind due process. Never mind the 8th Amendment, if someone commits a crime, let's just kill'em. ZVigilante justice. And THAT'S why SYG is so dangerous to our society.

 

[The Alaskan]

Of course, there's gonna be those here that would say run upstairs and lock yourself in the bedroom.

That is exactly my plan. To the letter. Because the guns are up there and there is a phone up there.

We're going straight up there, barricading the door, and calling 911. There is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing (in terms of physical things/possessions) in my home that I would end another person's life over. F-it, let them have the stupid television and DVD player, who cares? I can buy a new one with a day's pay. It is not worth another man's life, even if he is a thief, and it is not worth putting myself at risk.

NOW...open that bedroom door, or I can't get everyone in the home upstairs, then yeah, the M1 does my talking for me after that. But no way am I killing or injuring a man for a TV set.

 

[strambo]

Originally Posted by strambo
On a personal note: I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if every time an innocent person was threatened with deadly force by a criminal, they just shot them like The Alaskan says will be the result of SYG. That is a sustainable societal model IMO, there wouldn't be a whole lot of violent crime in shall issue CCW areas after a few cases.

Aaaaaaand now we have the rest of the story. Never mind due process. Never mind the 8th Amendment, if someone commits a crime, let's just kill'em. ZVigilante justice. And THAT'S why SYG is so dangerous to our society.

There is the part about being in imminent threat of serious bodily harm what with the criminal pointing a gun and threatening to kill you at that moment. That has nothing to do with "due process" or any amendment or crime and punishment. It has to do with someone making a choice to threaten an innocent person's life...and one potential action the innocent person may take. SYG laws or not, once you have a gun in your face, all bets are off. There are no guarantees you can safely get away (retreat) even if you think you can. There are no guarantees you will be able to successfully resist. There are no guarantees that compliance will keep you safe either.

I have no problem with a law that gives the scales of Justice an ever so slight nudge towards the citizen in a life or death encounter they have to navigate in an instant. If Bubba goes to the ghetto to "hunt over bait" that will work itself out in the end anyway (live by the sword, Karma and all that).

Again, I'd just leave (if able), and have successfully avoided trouble plenty of times.

So, if there are so many people you know just itchin' to pull the trigger and so many SYG laws and so many people carrying why isn't this actually a problem?

 

[JohnKSa]

Aaaaaaand now we have the rest of the story. Never mind due process. Never mind the 8th Amendment, if someone commits a crime, let's just kill'em.

First of all, it's already a given that if a criminal puts someone in extreme danger and the defender must use deadly force in self-defense that the criminal is not, at that precise moment going to be entitled to due process, etc. Because of the extreme nature of his crime and the fact that the citizen defender can't rely on the government for help at that moment, the citizen is entitled to defend himself even if it costs the attacker his life.

Second, your comment reveals a fundamental disconnect between the purpose of deadly force and your vision of what it is for.

Deadly force is NOT about the government punishing a criminal by giving a citizen the right to shoot him. Legal punishment for a crime committed comes ONLY as the result of a trial. Punishment is determined by a set of laws completely and entirely distinct from the deadly force laws and is administered ONLY by the government.

It is completely incorrect to equate the outcome of a justifiable self-defense encounter with punishment administered by the government. The two things are entirely and completely separate and attempting to conflate the two reveals a significant misunderstanding of both concepts.

By the way, this is a common misconception on BOTH sides of this argument. On the one side you have people advocating that criminals should be shot by law-abiding citizens as an alternative to incarceration or other punishment and on the other side you have people arguing that justifiable deadly force isn't fair because it imposes a penalty more severe than the common legal penalty associated with the crime in question. Both views are incorrect because self-defense laws are NOT about punishing criminals. They are about defending innocent life under extreme circumstances.

And THAT'S why SYG is so dangerous to our society.

That's got nothing to do with SYG. Even under SYG it's illegal to just shoot someone for merely threatening you with deadly force. There are a number of legal considerations that must be satisfied before deadly force is justifiable and that is true even when retreat is not one of those legal considerations.

I get that you don't agree with SYG, but it's hard to take you seriously when it's obvious that you haven't taken the time to learn what it means. Your comments reveal a significant lack of understanding of what SYG is and what it means. That obvious misunderstanding effectively discredits you to anyone who has taken the time to develop a basic understanding of SYG.

And, I should point out that given that the SYG concepts have been explained to you quite thoroughly and you have had ample time to verify the accuracy of the explanations, at some point, if you continue mischaracterize SYG it will be impossible to pretend that it's merely the result of ignorance.

 

[MoreIsLess]

In California you're not allowed to chase the BG, and if he's banging on your door or windows but has not (yet) broken in our version of the castle doctrine does not apply.

In California you are expected to invite him inside to talk and try to understand him

 

[Radagast]

I have many friends back in the lower 48 where they have licensed CCW. Most of them plan on killing someone if the legal opportunity presents itself.

You need a better class of friend. That you could count such people as friends should be something you are ashamed of, not something to state on an open forum.

I've known of guys who would drive into a a predominantly African American neighborhood with confederate flags on their trucks, blasting Merle Haggard. They stop at every gas station and convenience store in the area hoping, hoping, HOPING some N-eye-double g-errrr will have the balls to confront them because hey, they have a right to be at that gas station and hey they have aright to stand their ground.

Did you file a criminal intelligence report on them, so that in the event of a confrontation the police will know it was illegal mutual combat and not self defense? Did you inform your 'friends' that you had done so, to make them desist from behavior that could end up with them dead or jailed, or another person dead or jailed? If not your are a truly despicable human being.

I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if every time an innocent person was threatened with deadly force by a criminal

Aaaaaaand now we have the rest of the story. Never mind due process. Never mind the 8th Amendment, if someone commits a crime, let's just kill'em.

I note you ignore the innocent threatened with deadly force. The 8th amendment applies to govt. actions against citizens. Due process is a matter of court and administrative procedure. It does not apply in a self defense shooting. It will apply when the coroner, police and grand jury investigate the shooting. The 8th amendment will apply to punishment of the innocent shooter in the event that he is convicted, which is less likely under SYG rules.

My home state here in Australia has removed the 'reasonable person' requirement in self defense killings. It's up to the prosecutor to prove that the individual did not believe it was needed. Blood hasn't made the gutters and rivers run red. Amazing isn't it?

 

[Onward Allusion]

Why? Your door would be destroyed anyway.

Deterrent? Firing a gun as a deterrent? Come now!

It's not about the door. It's about keeping the threat outside of my home. 'Cause once the BG or BGs are inside, it's a hell of a lot harder to remain safe. A bedroom door is made from hollow panels.

If you want to wait until they are inside before taking action, by all means do so. . . Like I'd said so many times before on this forum - to each their own 'cause this is still a partially free country.

I wasn't talking about a warning shot into the air. Firing just below the door makes the person on the other side trying to kick in think twice. First, it let's 'em know that someone's home. Second, it let's 'em know that they're gonna be running up against someone who is armed and able to use it. As for running to a safe room to get armed . . . I am armed pretty much at all waking hours. Pretty sure 13 9mm or 16 40S&W will deter most while at home.

 

[Radagast]

I sure as hell wouldn't wait for my door to be completely kicked in. Maybe a couple of shots at the bottom of the door as a deterrent with 911 on the phone. Of course, there's gonna be those here that would say run upstairs and lock yourself in the bedroom.

Depending on your jurisdiction, this could be a problem. Some may argue that if you can't justify shooting them then discharging your firearm is unlawful reckless endangerment or assault with a deadly weapon. If you can justify shooting (fear of life) then you wouldn't be shooting at the floor or bottom of the door. Doing so while on the phone to 911 creates a recording of the incident.

 

[danez71]

That is exactly my plan. To the letter. Because the guns are up there and there is a phone up there.

We're going straight up there, barricading the door, and calling 911. There is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing (in terms of physical things/possessions) in my home that I would end another person's life over. F-it, let them have the stupid television and DVD player, who cares? I can buy a new one with a day's pay. It is not worth another man's life, even if he is a thief, and it is not worth putting myself at risk.

NOW...open that bedroom door, or I can't get everyone in the home upstairs, then yeah, the M1 does my talking for me after that. But no way am I killing or injuring a man for a TV set.

Well...then let's just leave at this: I believe that you should have to prove in court that you could not reasonably have retreated, and that's why I oppose stand your ground.

Let's use your own scenario.

HOW are you.going to PROVE that you you couldn't get everyone upstairs?

Or even if you did, how are you going to prove that retreating to the closet or bathroom in the bedroom or out a window wasn't a viable option to retreat?

Using your guidlines... I'd send you to jail because you couldn't prove to me that you couldnt get everyone upstairs or retreating further wasn't an option to buy more time.

Thats why Duty to Retreat laws are bad. The victims have to prove they're innocent.

Innocent people often went to jail or they ended up dead or raped because they were afraid of defending themselves and having to prove they had no other conceivable option.

 

[old lady new shooter]

If you do not try to escape, then you have not exhausted all options and you are no longer using deadly force as a last resort.

Ahem. Not everybody is equally able to escape. A 22-year-old college track star is a lot better able to escape than an elderly person in a wheelchair. If the elderly person sees that escape is not feasible for him/her, they are more likely to survive if they defend themselves without wasting time "trying" to escape, and deadly force is their last resort because it is their ONLY resort.

 

[The Alaskan]

Let's use your own scenario.

HOW are you.going to PROVE that you you couldn't get everyone upstairs?

Or even if you did, how are you going to prove that retreating to the closet or bathroom in the bedroom or out a window wasn't a viable option to retreat?

Using your guidlines... I'd send you to jail because you couldn't prove to me that you couldnt get everyone upstairs or retreating further wasn't an option to buy more time.

Thats why Duty to Retreat laws are bad. The victims have to prove they're innocent.

Innocent people often went to jail or they ended up dead or raped because they were afraid of defending themselves and having to prove they had no other conceivable option.

Once in the confines of one's own home, Castle Domain goes into effect, and SYG is out the window. (As it should be.)

 

[The Alaskan]

Ahem. Not everybody is equally able to escape. A 22-year-old college track star is a lot better able to escape than an elderly person in a wheelchair. If the elderly person sees that escape is not feasible for him/her, they are more likely to survive if they defend themselves without wasting time "trying" to escape, and deadly force is their last resort because it is their ONLY resort.

I'm not as young and limber as I once was, either, and I'm aware of physical limitations of old. If you are physically incapable of escaping, then you can't escape, and retreat is no longer an option. I doubt that would be hard to prove.

 

[The Alaskan]

The more I think about this discussion, the less interesting it becomes. At this point, it is all very circular. What I take from this discussion is that we fundamentally disagree on many things, among them the intent and purpose of SYG vs Duty to retreat.

I am left with the unavoidable conclusion that supporters of SYG are simply looking for relief from questioning and/or prosecution after a self defense shooting wherein they had an opportunity to retreat but chose not to. Obviously, I feel one should be legally obligated to consider retreat before shooting. (Notice here, I modified my earlier wording of "try to escape" to "consider escape." I do see the significant difference in those two statements.)

The other thing I take from this is, if I'm ever called to sit on a jury wherein SYG is invoked, I'll have to find a way off that jury, because I don't believe I could, in good conscience, acquit a person who shot another when he or she had an opportunity to avoid it, regardless of what the law might say. (Admittedly, the odds of my being picked for such a jury are so infinitely small so as not to be a consideration.)

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by The Alaskan:

What I take from this discussion is that we fundamentally disagree on many things, among them the intent and purpose of SYG vs Duty to retreat.

Well, you have made it abundantly clear that you have several very fundamental misunderstandings of what the elimination of a duty to retreat means, legally and practically.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by The Alaskan:

That is exactly my plan. To the letter. Because the guns are up there and there is a phone up there.

We're going straight up there, barricading the door, and calling 911.

Have you tried that? Are you sure that you could all make it, in the event of a sudden infusion from any possible point of entry in your house?

That was may "plan", for decades, before I realized that in our house it was unlikely to work.

There is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing (in terms of physical things/possessions) in my home that I would end another person's life over. F-it, let them have the stupid television and DVD player, who cares? I can buy a new one with a day's pay. It is not worth another man's life, even if he is a thief, and it is not worth putting myself at risk.

Good thinking!

By the way, if someone is in fact a thief, deadly force would only be justified in very rare circumstances, and in only a few jurisdictions. But since the discussion is about someone who is trying to enter an occupied domicile unlawfully, I presume that you simply misused the term.

NOW...open that bedroom door, or I can't get everyone in the home upstairs, then yeah, the M1 does my talking for me after that.

I really, really hope that you are not thinking of firing a .30-'06 rifle indoors.

 

[danez71]

I'm not as young and limber as I once was, either, and I'm aware of physical limitations of old. If you are physically incapable of escaping, then you can't escape, and retreat is no longer an option. I doubt that would be hard to prove.

Considering what the human body is capable of, unless you're paralyzed, I think you'd have a difficult time PROVING you had no options to retreat.


Why are you so bent on having people prove their innocence rather than having to prove ones guilt?

Having to prove your innocence really goes against the basis of our legal system.

That's what bothers me most about your stance on this.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Onward Allusion:

It's not about the door. It's about keeping the threat outside of my home.

In some states, the "castle doctrine" presumptions come into play only after an intruder has entered an occupied structure.

I wasn't talking about a warning shot into the air. Firing just below the door makes the person on the other side trying to kick in think twice.

Sounds extremely dumb to me.

First, it let's 'em know that someone's home.

I can think of a number of much better ways to do that.

 

[Coyote3855]

Dunno. I sure as hell wouldn't wait for my door to be completely kicked in. Maybe a couple of shots at the bottom of the door as a deterrent with 911 on the phone. Of course, there's gonna be those here that would say run upstairs and lock yourself in the bedroom.

The concept of a safe room, i.e., running up stairs and locking yourself in the bedroom, is not deserving of an eye roll but rather is a legitimate response to an attempted or actual home invasion. Especially if you have a plan in place to protect other family members in the event of such an incident by gathering them in a defensible space, i.e. a safe room.

On the other hand, firing shots when you do not who or what is on the other side of the door is, in my opinion, a bad idea. You have escalated the situation. While your intent, firing shots "at the bottom of the door," is obviously an attempt to discourage whoever is on the other side, have you considered that you might be subject to return fire from the possible intruder? Or that your shots at the bottom of the door may ricochet and injure or kill a drunk at the wrong house, or a neighbor banging on your door because he sees smoke coming from your upper story and is attempting to alert you that your house is on fire? I think your plan constitutes "warning shots" which are, I believe, generally considered a bad idea.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Sounds extremely dumb to me.

If memory serves, you and I do not agree on these types of scenarios, including drawing and not ALWAYS shooting. Let's agree to disagree and call it a day.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Onward Allusion:

If memory serves, you and I do not agree on these types of scenarios, including drawing and not ALWAYS shooting.

Surely you would not contend that if you have drawn, you must necessarily shoot.

For those who may not be conversant on the subject, this will cover some general points.

One pertinent excerpt:

One of the more common misconceptions goes something like, “if you draw, you must shoot, or you will be charged with brandishing.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. This convoluted view probably comes from a basic misunderstanding of the common principle that one is not justified in drawing a gun on someone unless one is justified in actually using the gun. That is true in some states but not in all. But in all states, if the need for deadly force ceases when the gun is drawn, it is unlawful to shoot.

(Emphasis added)

 

[Onward Allusion]

Coyote3855 -

Agreed. It is not deserving of an eye roll emoticon for most people who do not carry in the house. FOR ME, there's no way in hell I will run upstairs and lock myself a bedroom while holding aim at the door. THAT is why I carry at home. Like I'd said, once they are inside, it's gonna be all that less safe for me.

Also let me clarify... First, shots are not going to be first notification that someone is home. Not a moron. Does anyone honestly think that I wouldn't shout "WHO THE ****'s there???!!!"?

Second, as for shooting below the door: how are shots going to ricochet when fired at the FLOOR? Third, I'm pretty certain that I'm not going to be standing by the door when this happens.

To each their own... Also, this discussion is beginning to move away from the OP.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Onward Allusion:

FOR ME, there's no way in hell I will run upstairs and lock myself a bedroom while holding aim at the door. THAT is why I carry at home.

Many people who evaluate their floor plans and possible points of ingress will come to that conclusion.

I have.

Like I'd said, once they are inside, it's gonna be all that less safe for me.

Particularly if they should get between you and where your guns are.

 

[Onward Allusion]

AND that's why I carry at home.

 

[The Alaskan]

Posted by The Alaskan:Well, you have made it abundantly clear that you have several very fundamental misunderstandings of what the elimination of a duty to retreat means, legally and practically.

You're pretty full of your self, aren't you? How do you know it's not you who misunderstands? On that note, how do I know I'm not misunderstanding? I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe.