Would this be brandishing?

[Gouranga]

As many others here have mentioned you need to know the laws of your state. In NC for example, such an instance i have the legal right to use deadly force in that situation. No warning required. If they are attempting to gain entry to my home I can shoot right through the door if I want.I got 4 little girls to defend so if I had a clear view of the intruders and the scene behind them. I would be likely to give them 1 loud and clear warning (AFTER dialing 911 so we had it on tape) that I feared for my life, to stop what they were doing or I would use deadly force to end the threat to my life and my childrens life. If the pulled a weapon, defeated the door lock, or did not stop, there would be no further hesitation. I do not relish the thought but it would need to be done.

Once in the home the rules change, if they retreat the rules change. I was VERY surprised when I started reading into NC General Statutes just what was legal and what wasn't as it is made by politicians, it rarely makes any logical sense.

Sounds like a nasty scenario and a good warning to folks. learn the laws of the state you live in before you get into this scenario. It is rare that a law is based anywhere near common sense.

 

[Sam1911]

These issues have been covered well in this and other threads but...

If you are pointing it at him while he is outside, this could be argued as brandishing in a court. Meaning...wait till he comes inside. I know this isn't a pleasant thought.

In some states, perhaps. Many states do have provisions that you may use lethal force to prevent someone from forcibly entering your home -- which this case would almost certainly be. You have to know the laws in your state.

you are protected to defend your house, as long as they have entered your premises.

Again, everything depends on your state's statuatory and case law. Some states require that you must have shown a reasonable attempt to use every other method (including retreat) to prevent bloodshed before you're forced to that action. Others have "castle doctrine" laws that are more forgiving. In any event, you need to be able to express what reasonable and direct indication existed for your belief that your life was in immediate danger.

As far as discharging a firearm within city limits and all that jargon...

Discharging a weapon within city limits is (usually) a crime. Displaying a weapon in a threatening way is usually a crime (assault). Shooting at another person is almost always a crime (reckless endangerment, etc.). Killing another person is always a crime (homicide). HOWEVER, if you are forced to those actions by the unlawful violence of another person, you have an "affirmative defense" against prosecution for the laws you broke while defending yourself.

I'm a firm believer in, "It's better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

Probably the most overused and misleading phrase touted by the "gun culture." If you end up in jail, broke, house foreclosed, marriage ruined, job lost, firearms gone, felon for life, you have NOT successfully defended yourself. While it is perhaps true that, in the moment of dire need, you should act as you must without hesitation over possible consequences -- I often see the "judged/carried" quote as the last shout of guys who are bewildered by the legal language, frustrated that the law doesn't justify the absolute rights of the man to defend himself and his stuff by whatever extremes he wishes, and need to assert their refusal to submit to the "wussified," "liberal," "politically correct," "criminals' rights," (and so forth) laws of this degenerate age.

I wish we'd all just stop quoting it.

This also means though, that if they turn to run, you need to resist shooting someone in the back. This won't go over well in court.

It's not just "shooting someone in the back." Detaining someone is probably a terrible idea (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=556750) and ANY possibility for safely ending a confrontation/intrusion without shooting someone is a wonderful thing.

Like everyone else is saying though...checking with a lawyer would be good to do.

Yes, 100 times yes. Do not trust your own layman's reading of the legal text, and (even more importantly) seek to understand how the law has been interpreted and precedent created by actual cases tried in your jurisdiction.

 

[Kleanbore]

That's a good summary, and I don't think that we can help the OP with more generalities.

Good discussion. Time to move on.