[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Good Shoot? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/27/2008 2:11:08 PM EDT
|
OK, another thread brought up this question. OK heres the scenario, your alone, you contact an intruder/bad guy, you have your gun, and you command him/her to STOP, AND GET ON THE GROUND, RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!!!!!! In your best command voice, but not only do they not stop, and get get on the ground, they start to move towards you, there NOT visibly armed, but they ARE closing on your position, and this despite having your gun pointed at them, and you screaming commands at them to stop, and get on the ground. There less then 10 feet away now, and still closing, what do you do? Do you fire, or not? I left that as broad as possible, to cover the widest variety of situations, but lets say it's 0200 in your Living Room, if yu want to be more specific. ETA: To clarify the target is verified, there NOT a friendly. |
|
If they're in my home uninvited, I shoot them. Period. I don't care why they're there. If they were starving to death, they should have knocked. I wouldn't begrudge a starving man a sandwich, if he asks. But if he breaks in to get it, all he'll get to eat is bullets. If they're in my home uninvited and I shoot them, I have no legal worries. None. |
|
If you are holding a gun and someone is approaching you, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume they were coming to steal the gun from you? A criminal steals a gun from you that you were just pointing at them (and thus threatening them with), what is reasonable to expect now? Someone walking towards you as you point a firearm at them clearly has the intention of taking your gun and killing you with it. Kill them first. |
Fire for effect. 1) He is in my house. He is not supposed to be there. 2) I told him to get on the fucking deck, and he didn't. At this point, state law is satisfied for use of lethal force via the Castle Doctrine 3) He is closing on a drawn weapon, despite being ordered down. At this point I have reason to believe that he is either a)insane or b)holding some card I don't know about. Given all three conditions, it would be a questionable shoot on a city street (though possibly still legal given the right jury, attorney, other factors etc) but in my own home at 2am it's as close to black and white as you can hope to get |
As long as you can ID the target and make sure it's not your wife getting up for a chesse sammich in the middle of the night, bang bang skeet skeet. 
|
|
Depends on if you have castle doctrine. If you have castle doctrine, it's time for "front sight, press". If not, then you'd better run. In states without castle doctrine, you'd better be able to prove the guy was actually trying to kill you and that you had no alternative to shooting. Without castle doctrine, no visible weapon may make for a "bad shoot" in the eyes of the law. If you live in an anti-gun area where the DA will whine about you "shooting an unarmed man", try to avoid shooting. You don't want to take chances with a jury of idiots (remember Harold Fish). From a tactical standpoint, shooting a guy who's in your house without authorization and refusing to comply with verbal commands is a GOOD SHOOT (remember the 21 foot rule). It's the legal stuff that messes things up. I'd really like to see Federal castle doctrine legislation introduced, but I suspect that is a pipe dream. The "state's rights" folks won't go for it. |
Not to be a nitpicker..... "21 foot rule" or Tueller drill deals with a good guy with a holstered weapon and a bad guy with an edged weapon. If he is in your house at any distance whether armed or not it is a good shoot in most places. 21 feet or 210 feet. 
|
good point to remember, and it depends if the DA is bored or not on your county 
|
You're right. The thing is, in the scenario at hand, you don't know if he has a knife or not. He may have it concealed under his shirt, intending to draw once he gets within contact distance. He may very well have a knife with a black blade that is not easy to see in the dark (especially if he's also wearing dark clothes).
Be sure to BLADE YOUR STANCE !1!!!!11!
|
|
If I confronted someone in that situation and they started running out the door with my DVD player then I would let them go. Or, if the guy was just some dumbassed burglar and he surrendered then I would just hold him for the cops. I don’t want to shoot anyone… If he threw his hands up and said he was in the wrong apartment then I would politely ask him to get on the ground and then I would call the police… if his story checks out then I would laugh at the situation and not press charges. I’m a forgiving sort. BUT, in the situation described I would have no choice. I don’t feel obligated to try and get into a fistfight with some supposedly unarmed man in my own living room at 2AM. Now, I might (might) be willing to fire a couple of warning shots into the ceiling. Maybe the guy is sleepwalking or something. Maybe the muzzle blast will scare him off. But I’m going to be ready to drop the muzzle and plug him if he charges. (A year of Renaissance fencing taught me exactly how fast people can move and how fast I can react to it so there’s little danger of him getting inside of my muzzle although 10’ is cutting it real close.) Warning shots are generally a bad idea but this may be an exception. At least the bullet holes will be evidence that you at least tried to avoid shooting the guy. Ultimately though, you have to shoot if he keeps coming. |
I hope that you are joking. A 'non-lethal gunshot' is the equivalent of a mystical unicorn in the legal system. If the situation requires LETHAL FORCE then that is what they shall receive. REPEAT AFTER ME: I WAS IN FEAR FOR MY LIFE AND I FIRED TO STOP THE THREAT. Repeat until remebered. That is all. |
If he looked like that, I would call in a naval bombardment via the USS New Jersey. 
|
Yeah, I know. We are forced to surrender. If the guy is armed, we are killed by liberal politicians who don't allow us to defend ourselves.  I know, preaching to the choir. 
|