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

[The Alaskan]

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.

Because I believe if you kill a person when you had an opportunity to do otherwise, you've committed murder. I think if you're going to kill a man, for any reason, you should have to prove that you had no other "reasonable" choice. I believe that retreat, if and when possible, is a reasonable choice.

 

[The Alaskan]

Posted by The Alaskan: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.

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.

Meh, I don't see it as a misused term per se. recognize the difference be a purse snatcher (thief) and someone who is in a home to hurt the occupants (Castle Domain). But I see a break/forced entry as simply an attempt to steal stuff, which, to me, means thief. I'm okay with letting someone have the television set while I wait for the police. Like I said, it's not worth his life. Or mine. That's why I said, open the bedroom door and it's a whole other ball of wax.

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

That's more of a turn a phrase, from the old WWII propaganda posters, but, given my signature line, I can see how that meant more than it did.

 

[old lady new shooter]

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.

KLEANBORE:
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.

In the event of a break-in while I'm sleeping, I will stay in the bedroom. If that's the point of entry I will have to take immediate action. If that's not the point of entry I will not take action unless BG comes into the bedroom. But in the middle of the day, what I would do depends on a) where in the house I am and b) where BG breaks in. It would be pretty stupid to go into the bedroom if that's the point of entry or if I would have to pass him to get there. And no way is my gun going to be in the bedroom when I'm doing something somewhere else in the house, for example my work area.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by The Alaskan:

How do you know it's not you who misunderstands?

At least four reasons:

(1) The several clearly incorrect comments that you have made.
(2) Rather extensive training, including more classroom instruction in use of force law than most lawyers ever receive in law school.
(3) A lot of reading; try learning something from what has been suggested to you.
(4) Extensive on-line discussion with a number of experts in the field on this and related subjects.

It seems to me from some of your comments that you may be visualizing some kind of incident that starts with an argument of some kind--and perhaps that "retreat" might comprise disengaging from an argument.

Well, that might happen--occasionally. But it is not how most SD situations start, and very importantly, it could prove very difficult for a defendant to receive the benefit of a self defense instruction, particularly if his actions may have contributed in any way to the situation that led to the incident.

 

[Theohazard]

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.

You just refuse to admit that much of what you've posted is flat-out wrong, huh?

The problem isn't your opinion on this subject. The problem is the misinformation you've posted regarding SYG laws. I'll quote you again:

But that was before stand your ground. These days, it's a free for all.

Subsequent to stand your ground, you can pretty much shoot anyone who you believe is a threat

So, in my legal layman's view, all stand your ground did was move the lethal option from last to first

Those statements are completely incorrect; we've provided many references showing how incorrect they are. And yet you still refuse to admit those statements are wrong. You seem like an intelligent guy, so I can only assume that you're still deliberately trying to misrepresent what SYG is in order to help your argument.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by The Alaskan:

Meh, I don't see it (thief) as a misused term per se.

You may not, but legally, it is.

But I see a break/forced entry as simply an attempt to steal stuff, which, to me, means thief.

Really? Then why should we have a castle doctrine?

That a forced entry into an occupied home, particularly at night , means little more than than an attempt to steal is inconsistent with legal thinking that dates back to the Code of Hammurabi and beyond.

I'm okay with letting someone have the television set while I wait for the police.

Good.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by The Alaskan:

I believe that retreat, if and when possible, is a reasonable choice.

So do I, if you change that to safely possible, and it would be mine.

The problem over the years is that proving the case in court has proved to be much more of a problem in many cases than you seem to comprehend. That's why appellate courts in many jurisdictions have obviated the age old duty to retreat in common law. That is also the reason why the duty to retreat has been eliminated in many state codes.

 

[danez71]

Posted by The Alaskan:So do I, if you change that to safely possible, and it would be mine.

The problem over the years is that proving the case in court has proved to be much more of a problem in many cases than you seem to comprehend. That's why appellate courts in many jurisdictions have obviated the age old duty to retreat in common law. That is also the reason why the duty to retreat has been eliminated in many state codes.

Its futile

The man believes in "guilty until proven innocent" and believes that it wouldn't be hard to prove that retreating was not possible.

No amount of logic will chamge his mind including the fact that Duty to Retreat laws have just about disappeared due to being counter to our legal system and put unfair burdens on the intended victim.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

While chasing down bad guys is usually a bad idea, thinking that just because the bad guys have moved off that they are no longer a threat can also be a decidedly bad idea as well.

The bad guy may be "retreating" (or is he just moving to a better position as is sometimes the case?), but when it comes to firearms, if you can still see him, then you certainly may still be in danger and need to act appropriate (retreat, seek cover, or be ready to fire, whatever fits the situation).

 

[Kleanbore]

^^^^

Very true. But of course if the defender is indoors, there is little if any reason to advise anything other than staying there.

 

[JohnKSa]

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.

That is not the only conclusion one is left with and therefore clearly not "unavoidable" by any means.

Even if a person did NOT have an opportunity to retreat, they would still be forced to bear the burden of proof.

We all know, from your statements, that you would always choose the opportunity to retreat, but even you would be forced to prove that you didn't have that opportunity and would be convicted under duty to retreat if you failed.

SYG is not just about people who choose not to retreat.

Let's say a defender is forced to shoot in a situation where they reasonably believe that retreat is not an option. They considered the option and reasonably believed there wasn't one. Therefore, since they believe they didn't have the option, they clearly couldn't have made the decision to "choose not to retreat". They would still be forced to prove, in court, that retreat was not an option. If they failed, they would be convicted even though they did consider retreat and believed they could not take that option.

Obviously, I feel one should be legally obligated to consider retreat before shooting.

In that case, you would logically be against SYG. That's fine. The problem isn't with your opinion, it's that some of your statements exhibit some misunderstandings of precisely what SYG means. In addition, some of your arguments have logical flaws.

Because I believe if you kill a person when you had an opportunity to do otherwise, you've committed murder.

I believe the same as long as the "opportunity to do otherwise" is a reasonable opportunity.

For example: One always has the opportunity to not use deadly force by simply accepting whatever the attacker chooses to do. I don't consider that a reasonable opportunity to avoid using deadly force.

I do consider retreat to be an option but I also realize that it's not always a reasonable option.

I think if you're going to kill a man, for any reason, you should have to prove that you had no other "reasonable" choice.

Although I believe a person has a moral obligation to consider reasonable choices, I realize that the practical difficulty of proving that all "possible options" were unreasonable can make it impossible in some cases where the defender is innocent. As a result, I'm not willing to agree with the idea that one should have to prove that no other reasonable choice existed. Some things obviously need to be proved, but retreat is one that can be problematic.

In the case of retreat, I'm willing to accept that if a person violently attacks another person unprovoked and in a place where the defender has a right to be, the defender can use deadly force without having to prove that retreat was not an option.

Why? Because this is all predicated on an unprovoked violent attack on an innocent defender. I don't think that it's fair to victimize the innocent defender a second time by forcing him/her to bear the onerous burden of proving that they couldn't have retreated.

You talked about being innocent until proven guilty as if it were a good thing but there seems to be a disconnect as it applies to SYG. What you're arguing for is starting any self-defense case, by assuming that the defender is doubly guilty. This is because the defender must first admit guilt in order to claim self-defense and that imposes one burden of proof. The duty to retreat imposes a second burden of proof.

So the defender, in order to avoid conviction must prove first, that they couldn't have reasonably retreated in order to claim self-defense. Then, once that is out of the way, they must also prove that the other circumstances of the case were consistent with a claim of self-defense.

I believe that retreat, if and when possible, is a reasonable choice.

Retreat is a reasonable choice when it is a reasonable choice. The fact that it's possible doesn't automatically mean it's reasonable.

 

[chipcom]

Ding ding ding ding!!!!! We have a winner. No more calls please.

You have perfectly and exactly proven my point.

Stand your ground eliminates the legal need to try to escape, which should be considered as an option prior to killing someone. 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. But of course, that's all out the window now.

There is no duty to "try to escape", there is only a duty to live. If you can avoid using deadly force WITHOUT PUTTING SOMEONE ELSE IN DANGER DUE TO YOUR INACTION, then of course, you get out of dodge and live. But in reality one doesn't always have the time to examine all the options...and most stand-your-ground laws are designed to eliminate Monday morning quarterbacks from holding you liable for what you might, maybe, could have done differently had you had their armchair hindsight available at the time.

Again, your duty is to live...not run...not kill...not spend precious moments waffling over every possible alternative.

 

[chipcom]

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.

No, you don't put a couple of shots at the bottom of the door...or anywhere else as a "deterrent". As soon as you pull that trigger, you are responsible for the result...intended or unintended, which is why rule 2 dictates that you never point your firearm at anything you don't intend to destroy and rule 3 dictates that you don't put your finger on, or pull, the trigger until you intend to destroy it. If you want to destroy your door, fine, but rule 4 dictates that you know what your target it and what is beyond it. You don't know what is beyond that door and you don't know where your bullet is going to end up.

 

[chipcom]

I have always understood it as such. If there is no reasonable way to escape then there is no way to escape. You have fulfilled the "duty to retreat." However, I don't think it's ludicrous to have to explain why you felt you couldn't retreat.

Have you ever been in a situation where you felt your life was in imminent danger and had to decide whether to use deadly force or retreat? If you had to make that split-second decision, how would you feel about those who were not there, in your shoes, second-guessing what you might, maybe, could have done differently?

The old adage applies...better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. You make the decision based on the information you have at the moment...if you waffle around worrying about what some DA or jury might think, you increase your odds of ending up dead.

 

[grter]

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.

No Alaskan what you are advocating is allowing a violent attacker be given the opportunity to gain an advantage in the heat of a violent attack which may very well result in you or your loved ones getting injured or killed.

If anyone or his/her loved ones are being attacked they should not be under any obligation to consider sparing the attacker's life if there is even the possibilty that they or their loved ones may be hurt or killed.

The time to figure that out should end as soon as perpetrator starts his attack do otherwise at your own risk but how dare you insist on making laws that require an inocent person to do so whether directly or indirectly.

The world will not crumble in choas as a rusult, like you suggest, rather instead inocent victims will be safer overall from perpetrators bent on harming them if they are considered inocent until proven guilty and rightfully so.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by grtr:

If anyone or his/her loved ones are being attacked they should not be under any obligation to consider sparing the attacker's life if there is even the possibilty that they or their loved ones may be hurt or killed.

Just to make it crystal clear:

A defender will not properly address "sparing the attacker's life". His or her objective is to stop or deter the attacker, using the minimum force reasonably necessary.

"Even the possibility" probably does not meet the threshold of immediate necessity.

And "hurt" probably won't cut it. The defense must be against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm

That all applies to the use of deadly force. For those who still want to take this discussion into the subject of a duty to retreat, it should be pointed out that in many jurisdictions in which a duty to retreat exists, that duty applies not only to the use of deadly force, but also when non-deadly physical force is the issue at hand.

 

[grter]

Posted by grtr:Just to make it crystal clear:

A defender will not properly address "sparing the attacker's life". His or her objective is to stop or deter the attacker, using the minimum force reasonably necessary.

"Even the possibility" probably does not meet the threshold of immediate necessity.

And "hurt" probably won't cut it. The defense must be against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm

That all applies to the use of deadly force. For those who still want to take this discussion into the subject of a duty to retreat, it should be pointed out that in many jurisdictions in which a duty to retreat exists, that duty applies not only to the use of deadly force, but also when non-deadly physical force is the issue at hand.

How is the average person going to determine "the minimum amount of force" even if they have some training when they don't even know who the attacker is or what the attacker is capable of.

Would I want to give a violent sociopath the opportunity to gain control over me or my loved ones in a quest to find out how much force I may or may not have to use?, NO WAY SHOULD I BE OBLIGATED TO, it may very well be the last mistake a victim makes.

Yes you should have the right to defend yourself until the attack "stops" as you so eloquently put it and it is the right word to use however many times "stopping" a violent homicidal agression unfortunately often winds up with the use of lethal force and I contend that these laws will more often serve to proscecute those few victims who have been unfortunate enough to have the horrible misfortune of encountering an attack on their life and living to tell about only because they seized whatever opportunity they could to "stop" the perpetrator/perpetrators from murdering them or those around them.

Hands alone can be quite deadly if the attacker knows how to use them or the person being attacked is frail, elderly, or handicapped and finding out if you are a tough enough punching bag to suvive the attack or hoping that you will fare well after you are knocked out or punch dizzy at the mercy of an agressor who is displaying absolutety no regard for your physical well being is not a good idea and it would be reasonable to belive that he/she/they probably have little or no regard for your life. You definately have a reason to use whatever means you know of to fight for your life without having an armchair quarterback second guessing what you did after the fact and making you have to "PROVE" YOUR ACTIONS WERE NOT UNREASONABLE BECAUSE YOU WERE UNABLE TO FIGURE OUT A NON LETHAL ALTERNATIVE WHILE YOU ARE BEING ASSAULTED. That is garbage.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by grtr:

How is the average person going to determine "the minimum amount of force" even if they have some training when they don't even know who the attacker is or what the attacker is capable of.

It's not a precise science. Requires judgment. A better way to put it is that the defender may use "no more force than necessary". That, of course, means no more than a reasonable person would have believed to be necessary, knowing what he or she knew at the time.

.

..however many times "stopping" a violent homicidal agression unfortunately often winds up with the use of lethal force...

Yep.

Read all four links contained here.

 

[AStone]

^ That's a great source of information.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

To the OP, a very sad situation. The home owner made some tactical errors that proved fatal, but they were errors that many of us might make in that same situation. The natural impulse is to investigate especially if you have no idea what's going on. The wiser course is to stay inside and call the police but I have at time gone outside to investigate a noise that I thought was an animal or the wind damaging something. I hope that if I knew it was an intruder I'd hunker down but you never know.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Phaedrus/69:

To the OP, a very sad situation.

It was a situation that he could have and should have avoided.

The home owner made some tactical errors that proved fatal....

Not only that, but had he killed the would-be intruder and survived, he could have spent the rest of his life in jail.

..... but they were errors that many of us might make in that same situation.

The lesson learned is to not make them.

I hope that if I knew it was an intruder I'd hunker down but you never know.

Just look a it this way: you know neither how many of them there are nor where they are. They know exactly from where you will be coming.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Then again, sometimes chasing down robbers works out just fine, despite opinions to the contrary.

http://www.kens5.com/story/news/cri...-girlfriend-shoots-robbery-suspects/75031034/

 

[Schwing]

I can only speak for myself. I would not have left my home to chase an intruder who was in retreat. I am in no way blaming the home owner for the intruder shooting him but I believe it highly probable that this felon would never have fired had he not been backed into a corner. People panic when they run out of options and criminals are usually not prone to show good judgement.

I also am a strong believer in castle doctrine and am very fortunate to live in a state where the laws are very clear:

76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.
(1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or
(b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
(2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.

I don't ever want to shoot anyone. I hope and pray that it never becomes an issue. Having said that, I am proud to live in a state where I am allowed my God given right to defend myself, my family and my home.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Double Naught Spy:

Then again, sometimes chasing down robbers works out just fine, despite opinions to the contrary.

Well, he was not killed or maimed, but " The boyfriend is not expected to face criminal charges" and "works out just fine" are not the same thing.

Had the robbers taken the purse, that might have been relevant in Texas.

....despite opinions to the contrary.

One less that tragic result would not counter opinions that "chasing down robbery" is extremely imprudent.

 

[boom boom]

GTER,
Sorry about the long post and a bit off thread,

Kleenbore is correct in his answer above but the "reasonable" person standard can appear daunting at first glance. That is why you go to appropriate training and read books/articles, even this forum (at least moderator posts by Kleenbore, Jeff White, etc. --sorry if I left out anyone). You will also find excellent information from Tom Given's Rangemaster newsletters available monthly for FREE online and the Armed Citizen's Defense League (which may still be available for free).

The idea behind the objective reasonable person standard is how would the average person act with whatever training, reading, etc. and other objective knowledge that was possessed at the time of the incident. Perfect omniscience is not required thus shooting someone as in Illinois who has a paintball gun but appears to be robbing the place (mask, orders the cashier to provide money, waving what appears to be a gun)-claim by family is that the deceased was simply playing a Halloween trick with his former employer. Thus, even if the family's claim is true, the armed citizen (or a police officer) COULD NOT know this unless they have telepathy or clairvoyance-- A common gambit amongst the media and those opposing self defense in general is to claim that information gained after the shooting in hindsight (that was not available to the armed citizen or police at the time) proves that the shooting was unjustified and thus murder.

The reason why in person training is so valuable is that if you pick the right instructors (I would advise ones that have appeared before the court as experts in previous cases), your instructor can be called to court to testify about your instruction in your class, explain the continuum of force doctrine, and buttress your defense as an expert witness. In my opinion, the Air Marshal's testimony about what his friend Zimmerman knew about self defense was extremely helpful to the defense. Coming from Zimmerman, it can risk sounding as after the fact justification. Having personal instructors is better than books and videos because of it is sometimes difficult to introduce into evidence (don't want to get into hearsay and its exceptions) books, magazine articles, etc. and can be difficult to document what you gleaned from these sources. Evidentiary rulings are tricky and some judges will refuse to admit such evidence as self manufactured and hearsay. It can also be dangerous if you are a poor student and you misstate claims about what the book or article says which means that those books can now be used to impeach your credibility and reasonableness. This is also the risk of making ill-advised and ignorant forum postings in online fora.

For these reasons, an objective outsider qualified as an expert can explain the underlying facts and data behind your hopefully righteous decisionmaking in a shooting incident. But choose wisely, pick instructors that focus their classes on armed citizen decisionmaking. Police and military have different rules of engagement than does the citizen.