Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/20/2006 7:35:23 AM EDT
Ok i was having a decuesion with someone about Saint louis and they told me that we can't shoot anyone if they are in our home unless they attacking us personaly.

So im curious what your opinion on the subject here?
Link Posted: 12/20/2006 7:41:54 AM EDT
Nope, the person is correct, no castle doctrine in MO.
So if you shoot a dirtbag, your gonna need a lawyer.
Link Posted: 12/20/2006 12:05:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/20/2006 12:23:08 PM EDT
IIRC lethal force is only acceptable if you are in (legitimate) fear for your life or serioous physical harm, you may also use it to defend someone else from the same. However like Duke said, dead men tell no tales and it is your word against an intruder (who happened to be caught in the middle of a felony).
BTW, if in such a situation do not try to arrange the scene afterwards, cops can be good at telling when something has been altered to make it look worse/better than it actually was.
Link Posted: 12/20/2006 12:48:56 PM EDT
Two thoughts:

To quote Abby from NCIS, "I can kill you without leaving any forensic evidence" and always have a "sterile" drop-gun available.  A large kitchen knifes works too and is far cheaper than a gun.  

And of course there's always this nugget of wisdom, "It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."
Link Posted: 12/20/2006 4:56:10 PM EDT
And we won't be getting one anytime soon.  I don't see any gun restrictions being loosened/pro gun legislation making it to the floor for the next two years easy.
Link Posted: 12/20/2006 5:22:24 PM EDT
So what constitutes "legitimate fear of your life"?  Does the crook have to be armed?  It would be hard not to shoot first, regardless of if I could see a weapon or not.  I was just talking to a friend who is thinking about moving to Florida and according to him if you even "feel" threatened, you can shoot, and be able to defend that in court if need be.  
Link Posted: 12/20/2006 5:57:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GaryM:
....lethal force is only acceptable if you are in (legitimate) fear for your life or serioous physical harm, you may also use it to defend someone else from the same


This hits the nail on the head. If you are in fear for your safety when an intruder enters your home, you have the right (and duty, as far as I'm concerned) to protecty yourself or your family. Just remember, most shootings that occur in the middle of the night is someone shooting a family member because they didnt ID their target...
Link Posted: 12/20/2006 7:16:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2006 7:17:27 PM EDT by -Duke-Nukem-]
Link Posted: 12/21/2006 3:30:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2006 3:32:24 AM EDT by 580DBF]

Originally Posted By GiantCarp:
So what constitutes "legitimate fear of your life"?  Does the crook have to be armed?  It would be hard not to shoot first, regardless of if I could see a weapon or not.  I was just talking to a friend who is thinking about moving to Florida and according to him if you even "feel" threatened, you can shoot, and be able to defend that in court if need be.  


Whatever you can convince a judge/jury of, or preferably the DA, to avoid going to trial in the first place.

I forget the exact statute, but IIRC, Missouri does have a law of self defense, that is enlightening in this regard.  Note that, as has been pointed out, it is not a 'castle-doctrine' statute.
Link Posted: 12/21/2006 4:45:11 AM EDT
I assume that anyone that would go as far as breaking into my home is there to do me harm.  That action alone is a direct threat to my, as well as my family's, safety.  If you have a gun, and manage to lose control of it in a scuffle, you're screwed.  What would you do if that robber was going to call you bluff?  He's unarmed as far as you can tell, but continues to approach you closer and closer.  Now, you are at risk of a scuffle and losing control of your firearm.  Slippery slope...

Missouri has a LONG way to go as far as gun laws are concerned IMO.  Definately not the worst state to live in, but certainly not the best.
Link Posted: 12/21/2006 4:56:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ndolson:
I assume that anyone that would go as far as breaking into my home is there to do me harm.  That action alone is a direct threat to my, as well as my family's, safety.  If you have a gun, and manage to lose control of it in a scuffle, you're screwed.  What would you do if that robber was going to call you bluff?  He's unarmed as far as you can tell, but continues to approach you closer and closer.  Now, you are at risk of a scuffle and losing control of your firearm.  Slippery slope...

Missouri has a LONG way to go as far as gun laws are concerned IMO.  Definately not the worst state to live in, but certainly not the best.


We had a bill last session and despite people trying to get the word out it seems very few people made any noise about it.  Ask 10 people on the street and I'll bet $50 6 of them will believe you can already shoot anyone who breaks into your home.  3 will feel that guns are icky, and 1 will actually know the law.

I look at it this way.  If they are on the first floor and I know that, then I stay upstairs and call the po-po.  They start walking up the stairs to the bedrooms; I'm not asking if they are there to give us candy.  I'll be in jail if it goes that far before I'll let them approach my wife and child in our own home.
Link Posted: 12/21/2006 5:27:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2006 5:27:49 AM EDT by AFSOC]
You know I usually try to keep quiet on such things as this...

But here is the gist... You have to be "Reasonably" in fear for your life...
You would have to convince the Jury that YOU in YOUR state of mind at that moment
were in such fear for your life that you felt that YOU had no choice but to grab a handgun/shotgun/rifle and shoot his ass dead... Now to expound on Duke's model
Say a 150# man broke into dukes house and was threatening to do harm to his wife...
Say that he kicked in the door while she was home alone at night... she hears him, and retreived her handgun, "CALLED 911" and waited in her bedroom for him to enter or leave? he bursts into the room and in the dark and in her state of mind she feels threatened, draws down and places two shots into centermass and one in the head, VERY in control... she lived he died but she legitimately felt threatened by his actions. No? however let us take the same scenario and say that she left the relative safety of her bedroom and began to search the house for this intruder? then was she in reasonable fear for her life? maybe? Maybe not.... but she would have to convince the Jury that she was... yet what is the prosecutor going to ask? Ms Nukem, if you were so in fear for your life why did you not call 911? Why did you just not wait in your bedroom and maybe little Johnny would have left your house with a few trinkets and you would not have shot him? Ms Nukem, Why did you go "HUNTING" for someone to kill?
Now to carry it a step further, say Duke is home, and his wife gets up and goes into the kitchen for a drink of water, and little johnny bursts in and attacks Duke's wife? She Screams for help! Duke in his daze of sleep jumps up grabs his trusty 45 and dashes to the rescue of his damsel, when he arrives the scene angers him and he draws down orders in his weak croking dry just woke up voice for him to cease and desist attacking Ms Nukem, the assailent does as asked and raises his hands, as soon as he is clear of Ms Nukem, Duke Mozambiques him? was Duke or Ms Nukem in fear at that time?
I can guarantee Ms Nukem would still be in fear for her life but the situation was defused... did Duke need to kill little Johnny? He has to convince the Jury that he did...
Link Posted: 12/21/2006 5:48:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AFSOC:
You know I usually try to keep quiet on such things as this...

But here is the gist... You have to be "Reasonably" in fear for your life...
You would have to convince the Jury that YOU in YOUR state of mind at that moment
were in such fear for your life that you felt that YOU had no choice but to grab a handgun/shotgun/rifle and shoot his ass dead... Now to expound on Duke's model
Say a 150# man broke into dukes house and was threatening to do harm to his wife...
Say that he kicked in the door while she was home alone at night... she hears him, and retreived her handgun, "CALLED 911" and waited in her bedroom for him to enter or leave? he bursts into the room and in the dark and in her state of mind she feels threatened, draws down and places two shots into centermass and one in the head, VERY in control... she lived he died but she legitimately felt threatened by his actions. No? however let us take the same scenario and say that she left the relative safety of her bedroom and began to search the house for this intruder? then was she in reasonable fear for her life? maybe? Maybe not.... but she would have to convince the Jury that she was... yet what is the prosecutor going to ask? Ms Nukem, if you were so in fear for your life why did you not call 911? Why did you just not wait in your bedroom and maybe little Johnny would have left your house with a few trinkets and you would not have shot him? Ms Nukem, Why did you go "HUNTING" for someone to kill?
Now to carry it a step further, say Duke is home, and his wife gets up and goes into the kitchen for a drink of water, and little johnny bursts in and attacks Duke's wife? She Screams for help! Duke in his daze of sleep jumps up grabs his trusty 45 and dashes to the rescue of his damsel, when he arrives the scene angers him and he draws down orders in his weak croking dry just woke up voice for him to cease and desist attacking Ms Nukem, the assailent does as asked and raises his hands, as soon as he is clear of Ms Nukem, Duke Mozambiques him? was Duke or Ms Nukem in fear at that time?
I can guarantee Ms Nukem would still be in fear for her life but the situation was defused... did Duke need to kill little Johnny? He has to convince the Jury that he did...


That whole thing is exactly WHY this needs to be fixed, and people need to start getting active about it.

In order to determine if a noise is a burgler, a home invader, or my kid's drunk friend I have to leave my bedroom and take a look.  No real rational person hears a noise in the night and instantly huddles in the corner on the phone to the police.  Prudence suggests when you check out a strange noise you do so armed with something other than your johnson haging out of your boxers.  But you can be made to look 'unreasonable' in doing so.

Will I shoot a man walking out with my TV?   No.  The TV is not worth the potential legal fees and financial disaster of a possible criminal trial nor is any other property in my home.  What is disgusting is this game of trying to read every nuance of an encounter with a felony subject in my home.  If he's there and not face down on the floor or making a b-line for the nearest exit when my gun is leveled and on target there should be NO QUESTION about it.  Period.

Now, that is how it should be.....  that is not how it is, and the unfortunate part is that the post above is spot-on when comes to the law.  Thankfully in most cases, Johnny even if he lives is not going to get much consideration from most police dept's and DAs.  If he was approaching you when you shot and your clean and he's a thug then you are not likely to be in hot water even if he didn't have a KBar or Bowie knife in hand.  There are some places in the state though where the polictial climate may be much different and then you best be sure you were in the right to a tee.
Link Posted: 12/21/2006 6:14:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
We had a bill last session and despite people trying to get the word out it seems very few people made any noise about it.  Ask 10 people on the street and I'll bet $50 6 of them will believe you can already shoot anyone who breaks into your home.


I was one of those 6 people.  How many times have you heard, "just make sure they cross the threshold and you can shoot"?  I agree this definitely needs to be addressed.

Link Posted: 12/21/2006 6:23:03 AM EDT
I had this very conversation with a KCPD officer several years ago. He told me that if he found someone in his house he would use lethal force. Then he would pee in his pants, underwear, or whatever he was wearing while still standing exactly where he fired. After that, he said he would go to the nearest telephone in the house to call 911. When the dispatcher answered, he would say "I was in fear of my life and just shot an intruder in my house." Repete the statement exactly when the boys in blue arrive and lawyer up. I found the conversation with that officer interesting to say the least. He stood about 6' 6" by the way.
Link Posted: 12/21/2006 7:39:01 AM EDT
i think there is alot grey area in these situlation... like i can understand what one means by not go looking for them. But sometimes i think i hear something could be my cat or maybe even the wind should i just sit there waiting because possibly its a bad person or go check out what it is.

Also what if your children are in another room and you this time know its a burgler/rapist/whatever... Im i legal able to then go gather them up or stand my ground in certain area.

I just think there 2 many ins and outs. I m not for shooting any person who just steps in your house. If i lived alone i probably wouldnt leave the room because i value whats in that room more then any other item. I feel i could be ambushed etc... outside my room. But if he entered the room it probably would be lights out but having a family makes it hard to figure out a safe area. I mean you couldnt protect your kids from within your room. so there is the problem... I totally agree you must identify the person to the best of your abilities but i feel there certain situaltions you might not have the chance.  
Link Posted: 12/21/2006 8:30:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2006 8:32:00 AM EDT by -Duke-Nukem-]
Link Posted: 12/21/2006 9:16:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2006 9:17:06 AM EDT by eric10mm]
And remember, even if the Criminal Court finds you Innocent or Not Guilty, there is still the very real chance that the scumbag's family will bring a wrongful-death suit against you in Civil Court.  And even if you're again found Not Guilty, think of all the time and money that you had to spend.

Yes, it's total horseshit.  That's why we need a Castle Doctrine Law.   As some wise old fart said, "shoot the lawyers first".
Link Posted: 12/21/2006 9:19:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2006 10:20:31 AM EDT
I will have to disagree with the esteemed legal dude Duke on a couple points...

The Training can get you in as much trouble as if you did not have it...

For instance say the attourney for the Deceased states that while yes you had training to act the way you did, that his Client the Deceased did not, therefor he was more frightened of you than you of he since you had the training...

The Scenarios are just that scenarios I can build a justified scenario out of anything looking at it from my personal perspective... However how a jury of 12 looks at it is different... Duke's scenario is just one... Say for instance that the Jury is composed of 60% anti gun people... 30% fence riders and 10% pro gun persons... You need to convince the Jury that you felt endangered... so by telling them that you are trained to kill, you have not done so at all, telling them that you had no training and that you only bought the gun "To Feel Safer" may be another angle.. however the fact that you possess a small "Arsenal" will show that simply is not the case. Having the Tactical light may look good to the good prosecutor Nukem but to the Jury it may be made to show that you knew what you were doing and set out to lure the criminal into your home so that you could "Blind or Dazzle" him with your light and then BOOM, BOOM, ... BOOM... shoot him the three times that you constantly trained to do... the three shot deal may be shown as "Overboard" however in the same scenario if you just emptied the gun and just told the PD or Jury that you shot 5 or 6 times you just didn't know... may look as though you were frightened.. where the triple tap will not... Custom DooHickeys on the gun may make you appear to be spoiling (I don't know of any case law where this is shown it is merely a hypothetical) where a handheld light is just another flashlight...
Handloads? well you never know... whatever you do do not say you used handloads!!!!
Keep a box of GOOD manstoppers on hand and in the magazine, and say they are what the guy at the gunstore suggested... You just need to "Appear" frightened, and believe me when and if it ever happens to you for real you will be frightened and jacked up on adrenelin and experiencing auditory exclusion and you will forget everything you ever knew about the weapon and so forth... and as BK pointed out you may indeed wet your pants... hell you may crap your pants for that matter! Until you are in a real life situation like this you do not know what you are going to do...
Duke knows me and he realizes that I am not picking on him. If you find yourself in a situation where you deem in the 2.5seconds that you are alotted that you need to fire a weapon in self defense the range will likely be less than 5 yards more like 5 feet and you WILL fire that weapon until that threat is down and it may well take you 1.5 Seconds to empty that magazine and all of your shots will not be the tight little groups like when you shoot paper, and you may well discover that the magazine that you slapped in with vigor just before racking the slide is now laying on the ground at your feet with most of the rounds still in it and that you only really fired 3 shots and killed the clock in the kitchen, the Ceramic dirt collector on the mantle and oh yeah that guy you do not know that is lying on the floor with a brand new hole in his chest from your FIRST shot and the only shot that hit him and now you need to rent a Rug Doctor to get the nice new stain out of the carpet. You may not face Criminal charges, but may find yourself in court facing the family of Little Johnny who have actually subpoened Johnny's Third grade teacher who will tell that Johnny was a straight A student and so nice and friendly, and Johnny's next door neighbor who always thought little Johnny was such a nice boy and would never hurt a fly and always helped old ladies across the road etc... and now Johnny's parents who have not seen Johnny since he left home to join the gang that sent him to your house that night, want restitution from you because you killed little Johnny... Remember OJ? did he do it? well the court said OJ was innocent...
But Ron Goldmans family sure got a lot of money from OJ for wrongful death didn't they?
Link Posted: 12/21/2006 10:29:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2006 10:32:58 AM EDT by -Duke-Nukem-]
Link Posted: 12/21/2006 10:53:48 AM EDT
how the f did he get in the car more less drove past his parking spot...WOW thats just crazy
Link Posted: 12/21/2006 10:57:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2006 11:02:48 AM EDT by AFSOC]

Originally Posted By -Duke-Nukem-:
My head hurts now.  AFSOC, I crown you King of Run-On Sentences.




Here is some spare punctuation.... insert as needed
!`~"'.,?;:


Link Posted: 12/21/2006 11:17:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2006 11:37:23 AM EDT by scottMO]
Dont think of it as how you would react, but as how the normal person would react.

You are upstairs (all bedrooms upstairs) and hear a noise.  You get up and go down stairs to investigate.  You confront a person who is stealing your TV, who is a different race than yours.  If you get in a physical confrontation and are forced to defend yourself, think of the following.....

In the mind of the general public, you may have to answer the following, and if not answered directly or convincing enough, you may lose your freedom, family, funds:

Did you become the agressor, buy not staying upstairs?  
It's just a TV.
he was unarmed,
you are a racist.        
If you were in fear for your life, you should have locked yourself/family in a bedroom and called the police.  
You should have yelled downstairs, etc to warn the intruder, and give him a chance to leave.
why did you grab the AR15, instead of the pistol?  for extra killing power??
Is this your favorite gun?
If you were in fear for your life, then why did you.............


The above doesnt fit every scenario and we all know what we feel comfortable doing, but as AFSOC said, because of your training and you had a gun, did you make things worse??

Remember, in todays world, the conflict isnt over when you pull the trigger, it has just started.  You may not be judged by gun owners, but instead, you may be judged by non gun people, people of other races, people who are anti gun, people who believe that the police will save them in every scenario.  

I'm not at all trying to turn this into a negative topic, because "brothers in arms, I am on your side",  but "joe public" might judge us differently in situations that seem cut and dry for us.   Is your reaction in an armed carjacking/bank robbery situation etc, going to be judged differently, than when investigating a noise downstairs when you had cover/conceilment, surprise, darkness, the advantage of knowing the layout of your own home, etc.  Remember you were in fear for you life, so why did you........

We talk about these things now so that we act correctly in the future......

scottMO
Link Posted: 12/21/2006 12:08:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2006 12:15:33 PM EDT by GaryM]
"Reasonable" is whatever you can convince the judge/jury/district atty. is reasonable (note A).
That will vary according to just who you are trying to convince.  If an event like this comes to pass there is a very high chance you will end having to spend a hell of a lot of money to keep yourself out of jail even if you are in the right. That being said if it is me in such a situation and I feel my life/wellbeing is at stake I will do whatever neccessary to defend it. I will not risk my life savings over something that can be replaced such as my car or few bucks.
When it comes down to it the choice it yours. Just make sure you understand the consequences of your actions whether for better or worse if you ever have to pull the trigger on anyone.

Note A.
Various locations are more or less likely to be accepting of the notion of lethal actions in self defense. Some examples would be that in west texas (at least I believe this to be true) folk are more likely to accept lethal force (shooting a burglar) as a plausible reason. Folk in Los Angeles are probably much less likely to allow this.

ETA;
This is the test I have been told to use.
An action is "reasonable" if your average run-of-the-mill guy thinks it is. So just think to yourself, would Joe Blow think this is too much or would he understand your actions even if he disagrees with your handling of it. Of course Joe Blow is a your typical guy on the street, in the office, at the bar or ballgame or even shopping with his wife. He has no special legal education nor is he a "gun nut" or a "tree hugger". Just your typical everyday guy.
Link Posted: 12/24/2006 12:11:24 PM EDT
I could be wrong......Im thought there was a section that said you could use lethal force to stop or prevent a burglary or arson of you own residence,if you reasonably believed it was needed to prevent same????several years ago a guy got locked up because he 'babysat' his girlfriend's house.It got burgled??he shot parolee burglar.went to jail because it wasn't HIS residence
Link Posted: 12/24/2006 12:17:22 PM EDT
just looked up statute it is 563.036   http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5630000036.HTM
Link Posted: 12/25/2006 7:12:14 PM EDT
Here is the justification that the above poster was talking about.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 563
Defense of Justification
Section 563.036

August 28, 2006




Use of physical force in defense of premises.
563.036. 1. A person in possession or control of premises or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of the crime of trespass by the other person.

2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 of this section only:

(1) When such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or burglary upon his dwelling; or

(3) When entry into the premises 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 physical violence to any person or being in the premises and he reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony.

3. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180)
Link Posted: 12/26/2006 6:34:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2006 6:42:46 AM EDT by eric10mm]
Thanks for quoting the appropriate statute.  Well, that pretty much sums it up for me.

"Your Honor, I was fearful that just such an occasion as this burglary would someday happen to me in my house.  And fearful of having gross bodily harm done to me by such a criminal I had a belt-fed M1919 Browning machine gun, properly registered of course Your Honor, mounted to a pintle and tripod at the edge of my bed.  And upon that fateful night when the criminal came into my house and attempted to do me great bodily harm, with what would later come to be discovered as not quite as large of a gun as I had, I used my M1919 to defend my life against the badguy's attack.

As to why I went through two complete belts of ammunition before finally ceasing to fire at the badguy, well, umm, he was so wildly waiving his arms around and screaming at me with that horrible little pistol in his hand as my purely defensive machine gun bullets were striking his body that I must have been really scared and my trigger finger cramped up on me into the 'fire' position.  And due to my extensive training and experience with the M1919 Browning machine gun platform it was instinctual to me to immediately reload the weapon with a fresh belt of ammunition once the first one ran dry and continue firing until the threat was no longer a danger to me.

Oh, and Your Honor, at this time I would also like to file a counter suit against the badguy's family's in light of their impending wrongful death suit for the replacement cost of my overheated and warped machine gun barrel and the ammunition that I expended while having to defend my life.  I will also counter sue for the expense of the paint and plaster work that I will have to perform due to having to shoot the criminal who was in my house attempting to do me great harm.  I will however happily return the Jennings .25ACP automatic gun that the late criminal finally stopped waiving at me shortly after my second belt of ammunition ran dry to his family should they wish it.  I must admit though that I have removed its firing pin and welded the barrel chamber closed so that no more harm can come from that awful pistol and no one will ever need to fear it again."

Link Posted: 12/26/2006 3:20:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/30/2006 5:52:31 PM EDT
Eric that was funny. !!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 12/31/2006 7:57:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2006 7:57:31 AM EDT by CZ75_9MM]
Can you use deadly force on someone that breaks into your house then breaks open your safe and starts taking your firearms?
Link Posted: 12/31/2006 3:02:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2006 3:41:02 PM EDT by Rogue-one]
We were taught in the police academy that  breaking into a house that was occupied is a 1st deg Burg and the home owner has the right to use letheal force to stop the bad guy.  Yes, you can shoot him or her throught the door as they are kicking it in.  I have a copy of the most recnt set of RSMO's and mine gives examples after each RSMO. The one that is given for the RSMO stated above has a home owere shooting a bad guy as the bad guy  is making a violent forced entry through the front door.  When I get back to work I will scan the page and try to post it.  Bottom line if you are inside your home and your are suddenly confronted by and intruder,  this alone would make the average person fear being raped, hurt badly, or killed.  If the bad guy takes off running right away you would have a hard time justifying shooting him, but you have no obligation to retreat.  I have been on three calls where a homeowner shoot an intruder and none of the homeowners were ever prosecuted.  Two of those shootings resulted in the death of the bad guy.
Link Posted: 12/31/2006 3:21:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rogue-one:
We were taught in the police academy that  breaking into a house that was occupied is a 1st deg Burg and the home owner has the right to use letheal force to stop the bad guy.  Yes, you can shoot him or her throught the door as they are kicking it in.  I have a copy of the most recnt set of RSMO's and mine gives examples after each RSMO. The one that is given for the RSMO stated above has a home owere shooting a bad guy as the bad guy  is making a violent forced entry through the front door.  When I get back to work I will scan the page and try to post it.  Bottom line if you are inside your home and your are suddenly confronted by and intruder,  this alone would make the average person fear being raped, hurt badly, or killed.  If the bad guy takes off running right away you would have a hard time justifying shooting him, but you have not obligation to retreat.  I have been on three calls where a homeowner shoot an intruder and none of the homeowners were ever prosecuted.  Two of those shootings resulted in the death of the bad guy.


Thanks for the first-hand info!  That is good to know.
Link Posted: 1/1/2007 6:16:10 PM EDT
Rogue must not be Stl.CITY.....I think they get told no-one can use a gun.....It used to be that a lot of gun haters wore the blue
Top Top