What can we do to Burglars caught in the act? - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What can we do to Burglars caught in the act? (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 2/17/2006 5:38:25 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So what is the "right" option:

A. You let the criminal have their way with your family and your property out of fear of a civil lawsuit.
B. You injure the criminal and they maybe sue you
C. You kill the criminal and their family maybe sues you.
D. In such a scenario the fear of a civil lawsuit should be the last thing on your mind, survival will usually come first.

If your family is at stake, you don't hesitate to use lethal force.

But if your life and your family's life are not at stake, it is probably much wiser not to engage.

My ability to read the mind of someone who has just broken into an occupied residence isn't very good, luckily Florida law automatically presumes for me that anyone who illegally enters a person's residence does so with the intent of committing an act of violence and therefore is fair game. We also have a section protecting people who defend themselves from lawsuits, I love this state

Posted: 2/17/2006 11:33:36 AM EDT

[#2]

A burglar in my house, or in my car, will be dealt with by me.
No police will be notified, at all.

Posted: 2/17/2006 4:01:59 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
A burglar in my house, or in my car, will be dealt with by me.
No police will be notified, at all.

Ummm.....

I hate to break this to you, but you can't shoot someone in your house, say nothing about it, and expect nothing to come of it.

Posted: 2/17/2006 4:50:39 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Gun ownership in the US has been neutered almost to the point
of uselessness. I am exagerating but try that in NYC, SF or KALI.
The best bet is not to shoot but if you do, go for the kill.
If the dirtbag is injured and not dead you can bet your ass
the scumbag lawyer and surviving family will see you in civil court.
Criminals are victims nowadays. I blame the libs for this. Assholes

I see we have the to be expected ignoramus who doesn't know his ass from his? saying stupid shit about CA.

Hey Mr Brilliant, CA has had better Home Defense law since forever.

The best and most correct answer to this question was depends on the state and the circumstances.

Posted: 2/17/2006 5:01:16 PM EDT

[#5]

Well. Here is what i would LIKE to do.... NOT what I would do.... but what i would like to do.

First.... I taser the guy. Zap him a few times. Then handcuff him. And down to the basement we go.

Over the next week the following will happen:

Blindfolded:

I call up every gay guy i know... & let them run a train on him, as long as they feel they want to.

Then i get out the chain saw.... start it up... and pass it buy his head a few times... then i turn it off.

Then i put him in the trunk... & out to the woods we go.... while blindfolded. Dowse em in gasoline.... and just sit there for a while.. wondering what will happen.

Then hose um off with water... and chloroform him... and set him on a park bench downtown... with a bottle of whiskey.

end.

I think the psychological effects of that would be "life altering" to say the least.

Posted: 2/18/2006 7:17:30 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
I see we have the to be expected ignoramus who doesn't know his ass from his? saying stupid shit about CA.

Hey Mr Brilliant, CA has had better Home Defense law since forever.

The best and most correct answer to this question was depends on the state and the circumstances.

Dunno about Kali, but I do know that NY and NJ used to require "retreat" before they would allow the use of deadly force by average citizens.....IF you could manage to get ahold of a gun in the first place.

An old friend of mine who was a decorated combat hero in Vietnam took SIX MONTHS to get approved to buy a Ruger .44 magnum for him to go hunitng with in Alaska when he lived in NJ.

Posted: 2/18/2006 7:22:54 AM EDT

[#7]

If an intruder enters my home while I am there, I will be in fear for my life. If they get in, they get shot. Period.

Posted: 2/18/2006 7:31:23 AM EDT

[#8]

I made a guy call the cops on himself. The missus woke me and said she heard noises. The apartment layout was such that the stairs to the 2nd floor were just near the entrance door. When I came down the stairs with the shotgun, he was trapped. He had a knife, I had an 835 UltiMag.

I made the guy sit down on the floor next to the phone. Pick it up and dail 911. I told him to tell the operator that he was breaking in someones apartment and he felt so bad about it that he decided to turn himself in.
The cops that responded were laughing there asses off when they got there. I knew some of them from them coming into work to ogle the guns.

The guy lived around the corner from us. His mother came to the apartment and asked us not to press charges. When I refused she got all pissed off and just started ranting all kinds of racist crap. (you can guess the individuals race by now)
I told the missus to ccall the cops because the mother was going to join her son in the cross bar hotel. The old bag left and we never saw her again.

Posted: 2/18/2006 8:43:42 AM EDT

[#9]

If someone has broken into my house at night when I am in bed, I would be in fear of my life, which would justify deadly force in my mind. To be honest, I would do everything in my power to ever keep them from getting in my house in the first place.

Posted: 2/18/2006 8:49:17 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
If someone has broken into my house at night when I am in bed, I would be in fear of my life, which would justify deadly force in my mind. To be honest, I would do everything in my power to ever keep them from getting in my house in the first place.

The standard is a REASONABLE fear, not ANY fear.

Meaning a fear reasonable enough that if 12 other people were in the situation, that they would be in fear for their lives too.

Posted: 2/18/2006 8:51:27 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
You VA guys need to come to Texas.
IF a guy is on your property at night, or in your house, the state assumes he was there to do you harm. Although it may be a terrible thing to deal with mentally, legally, shooting to stop the guy until he is dead is legal.

TXL

Yupperoo. They are engageable targets, and, you should engage that target to "stop" him.

I consider him stopped when he isn't moving anymore.

Posted: 2/18/2006 8:51:58 AM EDT

[#12]

Tagged

Posted: 2/18/2006 8:58:05 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, dead men don't testify.

"Officer, I can't say anything about events this evening without talking to a lawyer..."

"Your Honor, my client was in fear for his life when he fired the four rounds that struck Mr. Washington's body. It was dark, he saw an imposing figure in his home and thought Mr. Washington had a gun."

And such a statement is likely to get you in deep trouble.

If you can clearly articulate a threat, you are pretty safe.

But "thinking" you saw a "threat" in the friggin darkness is a damn good way to end up with a manslaughter conviction.

If you shoot somebody, you had better make damn sure you can clearly spell out why they were a threat.

And I guaran-damn-tee you that if you shoot somebody and they cease to be a threat, and then you go over and "finish them off" because "dead men tell no tales" that you will be sharing a cell with a 400 pound black man named "Tiny" who will make you his personal pincushion.

There seems to be an exception to Police Officers concerning the highlighted above. Someone care to tell me why? They are just badged civilians.

(Am I correct that every shoot is brought before the Judge for evaluation?)

Posted: 2/18/2006 8:59:54 AM EDT

[#14]

Some people don't mind someone takeing thier stuff.

I do. If they are in my house to take my stuff, they are getting shot.

I worked hard for the stuff I have, and, If I let somone take it, then,

I will have to leave my home and, family and work for the money to buy
that stuff back, instead of using it for saveings, or food, or whatever.

I see stealing my stuff as stealing little parts of my life, and, that simply
will not be allowed to happen.

If you are in my house or property after dark, or if you break in during the day, you'll either
face my AR or my P99, depending on which time you decide to invade my home.

I will not be giving a multiple choice as to your intent.

I will shoot you until I stop you.

I consider you stopped when you are not moving anymore.

Obviously, there are some variables on "property", but, I raise goats and, chickens.

I will not just stand by and, let somone kill or take them either.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:02:37 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Dead criminals can't sue for damages either.

True, but money grubbing lawyers who whisper evil thoughts into the ears if the dead burglar's family can sue you. I'm not disagreeing with you macro, just saying "death" doesn't completely solve the problem.

Quoted:
"Make sure they are dead" is a pretty stupid idea.

Not killing them is a "stupider" idea.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:04:39 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
There seems to be an exception to Police Officers concerning the highlighted above. Someone care to tell me why?

(Am I correct that every shoot is brought before the Judge for evaluation?)

There is such a thing as furtive movement. A movement that would lead there to be reasonable cause for even an unarmed person to be considered a threat. The circumstances that surround that movement are key. When a grand jury looks at a shooting, they examine just that.

Nevertheless, I am trying to approach this question from a standpoint of providing the best possible outcome for the homeowner.

There is no instructor in the US that is going to teach you to shoot at a shadowy figure in the dark. There is a reason for this.

Being able to clearly identify a threat and clearly articulate why the person was a threat will help you a great deal in the investigation that will accompany any shooting.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:06:35 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
True, but money grubbing lawyers who whisper evil thoughts into the ears if the dead burglar's family can sue you. I'm not disagreeing with you macro, just saying "death" doesn't completely solve the problem.

And never underestimate the emotional impact of some dead thugs momma up on the stand talking about how someone took her "baby" away over a TV set.

Think reasonably here folks. Don't expect that things will go well for you after you pull the trigger. Stuff may sound good here on the board, but some of that stuff carried over into real action can end you up in serious trouble.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:06:42 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Yep, dead men don't testify.

"Officer, I can't say anything about events this evening without talking to a lawyer..."

"Your Honor, my client was in fear for his life when he fired the four rounds that struck Mr. Washington's body. It was dark, he saw an imposing figure in his home and ~~thought~~ Mr. Washington ~~had a gun~~threw a 400lb plasma TV at my client attempting to crush him, so my client fired again and again until the threat was stopped,he was scared your honor!!."

more plausable!! Fuckers ever come into my home where my children find shelter,there will be SOME SORT of weapon found!!!!

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:08:25 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
"Make sure they are dead" is a pretty stupid idea.

Not killing them is a "stupider" idea.

Look:

If a bad guy breaks into your house and you shoot them and they cease to be a threat, and then you walk over the top of them and put a couple of rounds into them to "make sure", you can very well end up with a murder charge on your hands.

Cops can tell how a gunfight went down. If they see evidence like that you can end up in SERIOUS trouble.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:11:21 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Make sure they are dead" is a pretty stupid idea.
Not killing them is a "stupider" idea.

Look:

If a bad guy breaks into your house and you shoot them and they cease to be a threat, and then you walk over the top of them and put a couple of rounds into them to "make sure", you can very well end up with a murder charge on your hands.

Cops can tell how a gunfight went down. If they see evidence like that you can end up in SERIOUS trouble.

that is why you deliver 2 to the body and one to the head!!....POP..POP..POP.....thud!!end of story

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:11:48 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
If a bad guy breaks into your house and you shoot them and they cease to be a threat, and then you walk over the top of them and put a couple of rounds into them to "make sure", you can very well end up with a murder charge on your hands.

Cops can tell how a gunfight went down. If they see evidence like that you can end up in SERIOUS trouble.

This is why you need to practice making rapid, accurate hits so you are able to put multiple rounds in the attacker before he hits the ground.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:12:19 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Some people don't mind someone takeing thier stuff.

I do. If they are in my house to take my stuff, they are getting shot.

I worked hard for the stuff I have, and, If I let somone take it, then,

I will have to leave my home and, family and work for the money to buy
that stuff back, instead of using it for saveings, or food, or whatever.

I see stealing my stuff as stealing little parts of my life, and, that simply
will not be allowed to happen.

Again, that sounds good in theory.

But the only acceptable justification for the use of force under the law is the reasonable belief that your life is in immediate danger.

Shooting someone because he stole your TV doesn't rise to that level, no matter how you may try to justify it as stealing pieces of your life. A judge isn't going to listen to that sort of stuff.

If you are in my house or property after dark, or if you break in during the day, you'll either
face my AR or my P99, depending on which time you decide to invade my home.

I will not be giving a multiple choice as to your intent.

I will shoot you until I stop you.

I consider you stopped when you are not moving anymore.

Obviously, there are some variables on "property", but, I raise goats and, chickens.

I will not just stand by and, let somone kill or take them either.

Again, don't tell a judge or the cops that if you ever have to actually shoot someone.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:13:05 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
A burglar in my house, or in my car, will be dealt with by me.
No police will be notified, at all.

Ummm.....

I hate to break this to you, but you can't shoot someone in your house, say nothing about it, and expect nothing to come of it.

Intersting theory,I live out in the country, if I kill someone I can easily dump their body off somewheres where noone will find it and the police wont have a clue where he is much less who killed him.

If someone finds the body theres still no way anyone will know who shot him.

Not saying I would do this but I am saying it would work. Esp. where I live, I know of several murders that the police claimed they where working on yet did nothing about, police force around here is sometimes as crooked as the criminals themselves.

If someone breaks into my house I will hold emm at gunpoint untill the police come, if they make one wrong move I will shoot untill he is dead.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:14:40 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Thsi is why you need to practice making rapid, accurate hits. You should be able to put multiple rounds in the attacker before he hits the ground.

The point of shooting someone is NOT TO KILL THEM. It is to stop their hostile actions. If death is a side effect of their decision to try and kill you, so be it.

But that is not your INTENT.

There is a BIG difference in someone who gives a statement "The guy was coming towards my family with a knife and he wouldn't stop, so I had to shoot to stop him." and "That dirty SOB was trying to steal my TV. He won't steal sh*t anymore!!!"

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:15:45 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A burglar in my house, or in my car, will be dealt with by me.
No police will be notified, at all.

Ummm.....

I hate to break this to you, but you can't shoot someone in your house, say nothing about it, and expect nothing to come of it.

Intersting theory,I live out in the country, if I kill someone I can easily dump their body off somewheres where noone will find it and the police wont have a clue where he is much less who killed him.

If someone finds the body theres still no way anyone will know who shot him.

Not saying I would do this but I am saying it would work. Esp. where I live, I know of several murders that the police claimed they where working on yet did nothing about, police force around here is sometimes as crooked as the criminals themselves.

If someone breaks into my house I will hold emm at gunpoint untill the police come, if they make one wrong move I will shoot untill he is dead.

you need to watch more Court TV or CSI!!!

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:16:30 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Dose anyone know the legality if a minor shot, stabbed, beat, ext .a home invader or someone who would do them bodily harm in the state of Florida? Is it the same as an adult?

anybody?

I have read of a few cases of a minor using a weapon to defend themselves and family. They are treated like anyone else in the investigation.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:17:19 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Intersting theory,I live out in the country, if I kill someone I can easily dump their body off somewheres where noone will find it and the police wont have a clue where he is much less who killed him.

If someone finds the body theres still no way anyone will know who shot him.

Not saying I would do this but I am saying it would work. Esp. where I live, I know of several murders that the police claimed they where working on yet did nothing about, police force around here is sometimes as crooked as the criminals themselves.

If someone breaks into my house I will hold emm at gunpoint untill the police come, if they make one wrong move I will shoot untill he is dead.

It is POSSIBLE to kill someone, bury them, and never have anyone know what happened.

But you can understand why I might say that depending on such a thing is a pretty unrealistic approach, right???

As to holding them at gunpoint, that's EXACTLY what you should do.

If they make any actions that can REASONABLY be interpreted as hostile, then using force is appropriate.

If they are trying to get away, let them. You cannot use lethal force to stop a non-threatening person from getting away.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:18:28 AM EDT

[#28]

In Washington the laws are way different than in California ... way different.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:19:33 AM EDT

[#29]

John_Wayne777,
I'm saying "shoot to kill".
Your saying "don't walk over and stradle them and pump 2 more into them".
There is a clear difference.

Yes we all know how good the man is at crime scene reconstruction. But when I light-up someone with my weapon light and identify them as an intruder in my home, unless they are actively trying to flee/leave, I can only assume they are there to do me harm. If I have even the slightest inclination that they might have a weapon, I will most likely fire my weapon to prevent them from using theirs.

We resort back to our training. When I train I go for head & chest shots, so there's a 99.9% chance that is what I will do at that moment. I shoot at vital areas of the target for a reason. If the law says I am justified in shooting, then I am justified in killing him, if that is the outcome. All shootings do not result in death, but all shootings are a use of deadly force.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:19:55 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Some people don't mind someone takeing thier stuff.

I do. If they are in my house to take my stuff, they are getting shot.

I worked hard for the stuff I have, and, If I let somone take it, then,

I will have to leave my home and, family and work for the money to buy
that stuff back, instead of using it for saveings, or food, or whatever.

I see stealing my stuff as stealing little parts of my life, and, that simply
will not be allowed to happen.

Again, that sounds good in theory.

But the only acceptable justification for the use of force under the law is the reasonable belief that your life is in immediate danger.

Shooting someone because he stole your TV doesn't rise to that level, no matter how you may try to justify it as stealing pieces of your life. A judge isn't going to listen to that sort of stuff.

If you are in my house or property after dark, or if you break in during the day, you'll either
face my AR or my P99, depending on which time you decide to invade my home.

I will not be giving a multiple choice as to your intent.

I will shoot you until I stop you.

I consider you stopped when you are not moving anymore.

Obviously, there are some variables on "property", but, I raise goats and, chickens.

I will not just stand by and, let somone kill or take them either.

Again, don't tell a judge or the cops that if you ever have to actually shoot someone.

What you are saying may be true in VA, but not in TX.

As far as "shooting to stop" that is verbetim out of the TX CCW lesson plan
as mandated by the state.

I'm not going to walk up to the guy and double tap him, no.....He'll be dead before he hits the floor hopefully.

In TX they take theft and/or damage of property very seriously, and, if' it's livestock, even moreso.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:20:44 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Gun ownership in the US has been neutered almost to the point
of uselessness. I am exagerating but try that in NYC, SF or KALI.
The best bet is not to shoot but if you do, go for the kill.
If the dirtbag is injured and not dead you can bet your ass
the scumbag lawyer and surviving family will see you in civil court.
Criminals are victims nowadays. I blame the libs for this. Assholes

I see we have the to be expected ignoramus who doesn't know his ass from his? saying stupid shit about CA.

Hey Mr Brilliant, CA has had better Home Defense law since forever.

The best and most correct answer to this question was depends on the state and the circumstances.

+1, I hate it when people are ignorant and dont bother to find out actual facts... and instead just ASSume and bash the PRK

Many free-state'rs seem to forget that CA has the 'Castle Doctrine' and despite its bad gun laws, its self-defense laws are quite good. As long as you dont live in one of the coastal libtard blue counties, getting a CA CCW is not TOO hard

. Knife carry is straightforward, so is Tazer and OC spray. It is even legal in CA to use a mobile police scanner in your car, unlike some other states.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:22:37 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
There seems to be an exception to Police Officers concerning the highlighted above. Someone care to tell me why?

(Am I correct that every shoot is brought before the Judge for evaluation?)

There is such a thing as furtive movement. A movement that would lead there to be reasonable cause for even an unarmed person to be considered a threat. The circumstances that surround that movement are key. When a grand jury looks at a shooting, they examine just that.

Nevertheless, I am trying to approach this question from a standpoint of providing the best possible outcome for the homeowner.

There is no instructor in the US that is going to teach you to shoot at a shadowy figure in the dark. There is a reason for this.

Being able to clearly identify a threat and clearly articulate why the person was a threat will help you a great deal in the investigation that will accompany any shooting.

Thanks.

It just always bugged me that for a given situation the officer (on-duty or off-duty) is almost always given the benefit of the doubt but, say a CCW holder or someone in their own home, is questioned to no end for the same situation. Or get some brandishing charge (referencing a previous thread about that crazy boyfriend).

Such has been my perception anyway

.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:23:12 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Thsi is why you need to practice making rapid, accurate hits. You should be able to put multiple rounds in the attacker before he hits the ground.

The point of shooting someone is NOT TO KILL THEM. It is to stop their hostile actions. If death is a side effect of their decision to try and kill you, so be it.

But that is not your INTENT.

There is a BIG difference in someone who gives a statement "The guy was coming towards my family with a knife and he wouldn't stop, so I had to shoot to stop him." and "That dirty SOB was trying to steal my TV. He won't steal sh*t
anymore!!!"

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Yes, my intent is to stop them before they harm my family or myself. If they bleed out before the ambo arrives, it is just a happy side effect.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:34:45 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
John_Wayne777,
I'm saying "shoot to kill".
Your saying "don't walk over and stradle them and pump 2 more into them".
There is a clear difference.

We cannot assume that there is a clear difference.

When we are talking about stuff as important as this, nothing can be assumed.

When you pull the trigger, you MUST shoot like your life depends on it.

But when the threat ceases, so does the shooting.

Yes we all know how good the man is at crime scene reconstruction. But when I light-up someone with my weapon light and identify them as an intruder in my home, unless they are actively trying to flee/leave, I can only assume they are there to do me harm. If I have even the slightest inclination that they might have a weapon, I will most likely fire my weapon to prevent them from using theirs.

I am not saying that if someone is in your house at 3 am that they are there to sell you insurance....Their presence in your home can reasonably be seen as threatening.

But using lethal force carries with it consequences most cannot fathom. It should be a last resort. If you don't HAVE to shoot someone to save your own life or the life of an innocent, don't.

We resort back to our training. When I train I go for head &chest shots, so there's a 99.9% chance that is what I will do at that moment. I shoot at vital areas of the target for a reason. If the law says I am justified in shooting, then I am justified in killing him, if that is the outcome. All shootings do not result in death, but all shootings are a use of deadly force.

I am not saying shoot them in the foot.

If you have to shoot, COM or head hits should be your goal.

But NOT because this will kill a person. Because this is the best way to stop their hostile actions.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:35:02 AM EDT

[#35]

The mindset that if a criminal breaks into a house and has no respect for the law or private property and there can be no action by the homeowner unless they threaten your life, gives a free pass to these thugs to do what ever. Just for the record if anyone breaks into my house and I'm home it won't be pretty. If I catch some guy taking what little I have, there's gonna be a really big mess to clean up.......I think if all criminals knew this they might think twice before B&E.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:35:22 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Yes, my intent is to stop them before they harm my family or myself. If they bleed out before the ambo arrives, it is just a happy side effect.

Remove the word "happy" there, and you got it!

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:38:06 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
The mindset that if a criminal breaks into a house and has no respect for the law or private property and there can be no action by the homeowner unless they threaten your life, gives a free pass to these thugs to do what ever.

It isn't a mindset.

It is the law in many places.

EVERY instructor in the US who is ANY good at all reccomends the same thing: Clearly identify the threat. Avoid the fight IF YOU CAN. If you must fight, fight hard and win.

But if you don't have to shoot someone, don't.

Just for the record if anyone breaks into my house and I'm home it won't be pretty. If I catch some guy taking what little I have, there's gonna be a really big mess to clean up.......I think if all criminals knew this they might think twice before B&E.

Many criminals already don't want to break into people's homes with them in it precisely because they fear getting shot.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:44:26 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Thanks.

It just always bugged me that for a given situation the officer (on-duty or off-duty) is almost always given the benefit of the doubt but, say a CCW holder or someone in their own home, is questioned to no end for the same situation. Or get some brandishing charge (referencing a previous thread about that crazy boyfriend).

Such has been my perception anyway .

The extent to which a home owner is treated with suspcion depends on many things.

I have seen officers arrive on the scene of a breakin and be able to call the name of the crook that did it. If someone like that is laying dead in your house at 3 am, odds are the cops aren't going to look at the home owner too suspiciously.

A guy with multiple violent priors who is in a house he has no buisness being in at 3 am with a gun or a knife in his hand isn't a hard one to figure out.

The goal of the stuff I have been saying is to ensure that if you ever do have to shoot, it is pretty clear to the investigators that you were left with no option but to shoot. Even at that, certain jurisdictions have some officers and some prosecutors who don't think ANYONE should shoot ANYONE for ANY reason might still try to give you hassle, or if you shot someone with a weapon they consider politically incorrect, or if the shootee was the wrong color, etc....

I am trying to urge caution here, as we are talking about stuff that carries ENORMOUS consequences with it.

If someone just wants your TV, let them have it. It isn't worth starting a gunfight over it.

If someone wants your 10 year old daughter, fight like hell.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:46:36 AM EDT

[#39]

John_Wayne777,

Your going around screaming difinitives based on the laws in your state. That would be like someone in CA going around telling everybody that they will get in trouble if they buy an AR with evil features.

In AZ you can use physical, or lethal force to stop much more than just to meet the threat of deadly force.

13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.

13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904, or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.

C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if he is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.

13-417. Necessity defense

A. Conduct that would otherwise constitute an offense is justified if a reasonable person was compelled to engage in the proscribed conduct and the person had no reasonable alternative to avoid imminent public or private injury greater than the injury that might reasonably result from the person's own conduct.

B. An accused person may not assert the defense under subsection A if the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly placed himself in the situation in which it was probable that the person would have to engage in the proscribed conduct.

C. An accused person may not assert the defense under subsection A for offenses involving homicide or serious physical injury.

13-408. Justification; use of physical force in defense of property

A person is justified in using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it necessary to prevent what a reasonable person would believe is an attempt or commission by the other person of theft or criminal damage involving tangible movable property under his possession or control, but such person may use deadly physical force under these circumstances as provided in sections 13-405, 13-406 and 13-411.

OH, and the dead assholes family can't sue

13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct

No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:48:27 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, my intent is to stop them before they harm my family or myself. If they bleed out before the ambo arrives, it is just a happy side effect.

Remove the word "happy" there, and you got it!

If someone who was a danger to my family is no longer a threat, it would certainly not be a "sad" outcome.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:50:27 AM EDT

[#41]

If it's a man...I shoot to kill.

If it's a woman...I make her dress up like a $3 dollar whore and cook me a good breakfast.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:56:10 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
John_Wayne777,

Your going around screaming difinitives based on the laws in your state.

No, I am not.

I am talking about general principles on lethal force that are fairly universal.

In AZ you can use physical, or lethal force to stop much more than just to meet the threat of deadly force.

13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

Which is exactly what I have been saying.

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

Again, exactly what I have said.

13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904, or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

That isn't anything new. Lethal force is justified to stop rape and other activities that threaten the lives of others.

Still, lethal force is not the WISEST move in ALL situations.

B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.

C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if he is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.

Again, not uncommon. Still, states like NY and NJ have a retreat requirement.

13-408. Justification; use of physical force in defense of property

A person is justified in using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it necessary to prevent what a reasonable person would believe is an attempt or commission by the other person of theft or criminal damage involving tangible movable property under his possession or control, but such person may use deadly physical force under these circumstances as provided in sections 13-405, 13-406 and 13-411.

Again, this is a STATE law.

There is nothing in here that prohibits a FEDERAL civil rights suit from being filed against you.

OH, and the dead assholes family can't sue

13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct

No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

An excellent law that we are trying to get passed in Virginia.

Again, it is a STATE law, and federal civil rights suits can still be filed.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:57:57 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
If someone who was a danger to my family is no longer a threat, it would certainly not be a "sad" outcome.

Absolutely not.

But remember, we are talking about keeping the investigators from crawling up inside your colon. Using "happy" in regards to just having shot someone is not a wise use of words.

You shouldn't shed any tears for the life of a scum-sucking weasel who was trying to break into your daughter's bedroom. But don't throw a party either.

Posted: 2/18/2006 10:11:03 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If someone who was a danger to my family is no longer a threat, it would certainly not be a "sad" outcome.

Absolutely not.

But remember, we are talking about keeping the investigators from crawling up inside your colon. Using "happy" in regards to just having shot someone is not a wise use of words.

You shouldn't shed any tears for the life of a scum-sucking weasel who was trying to break into your daughter's bedroom. But don't throw a party either.

If that ever happens, I'll try to remember not pass cigars out to the arriving officers.

Posted: 2/18/2006 10:23:42 AM EDT

[#45]

State of TN has Castle Doctrine, as long as you are in my house and not running away consider yourself dead.

Posted: 2/18/2006 10:28:14 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
I have been told by more than one policeman (off the record) that if I ever do shoot someone in my home, make sure they are dead. Easier to explain what happened to the police when only one side has a voice.

Dead criminals cant sue for damages either.

same here

Posted: 2/18/2006 10:30:34 AM EDT

[#47]

In the state of Maine, you can use deadly force to stop a burglary against yourself or someone else, and also to stop bodily harm against yourself or someone else.
Same as Florida . . .

Posted: 2/18/2006 10:30:41 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
State of TN has Castle Doctrine, as long as you are in my house and not running away consider yourself dead.

you are correct, except that even if you are "running away" but still in the house, you are dead.

Posted: 2/18/2006 10:37:59 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I read one of the articles on the Home page and apparently a man is being charged with assault with a deadly weapon for shooting another man who had broken into his home and ran off with some electronics. If the "evil psycho with a gun who thought for some reason he could try to keep his own posessions from being jacked right in front of him" is found guilty of these charges, or something less serious, i'll profess a certain curiosity... what exactly are we allowed to do in order to protect our own posessions if given a chance. Must we beg the theif to put our stuff down? If we chase after him is there a maximum following distance we must keep behind? There was a guy who lives in the same area as me and he was in the newspaper for choking a car theif to death when he came out and found someone breaking into his car. He was dismissed of any charges though. I guess some of my Q's are rhetorical but i really would like to know what actions we're allowed to take under these circumstances.

if anyone has any experiences with this matter i'd love to hear about them!

Lethal force is justified IF AND ONLY IF you have a REASONABLE fear that your life or the life of an innocent third party is in EMMINENT danger.

If you find a theif in your house trying to take your television, you can confront him with a weapon and order him to stop. If he fails to comply, you CANNOT shoot him. If he turns and runs away, you CANNOT stop him. If he pulls out a knife and comes at you, light him up like a Christmas tree.

Shooting a guy dead because he is trying to steal your television is an invitation to a world of legal trouble that you DO NOT want or need.

If you are forced to shoot, you fire to STOP THE THREAT. Whether or not the threatening person dies is irrelevant. You are shooting to STOP THEIR HOSTILE ACTIONS. After the threat is over, immediately try to get the threat medical help.

The bottom line is this: If you have to pull the trigger on your weapon while it is aimed at another human being, it will be the worst moment in your life IF you are shooting someone who poses a lethal threat to you. IF, however, you shoot someone who is NOT a lethal threat, it will be merely the first step on a path of horror and pain that you can't possibly imagine.

Killing someone or doing them grevious harm is a terrible option. Only resort to it when it is your ONLY option. If you kill someone who was really trying to kill you, it will most likely be obvious to the officers who respond. After all, if there is a 4 time looser laying dead in your living room with a stolen gun in his hand and a bullet from his stolen gun lodged in the wall near where your kids were sleeping, it isn't going to take them very long to figure out that he wasn't in your house at 3 AM to sell you insurance.

But if they find an unarmed man in your living room who appears to have been shot while trying to get away, you can expect them to crawl up in your colon and make camp.

You have to examine this from a "what do I have to lose" mindset. If you do not shoot someone who is trying to kill you, you can loose your life, as can your wife and children. If you do not shoot someone whose hands are full of television, what do you loose? A TV.

You can buy another TV for a hell of a lot less than what it will cost you if you shoot the bastard....

As stated earlier in this thread, this is all dependant on what State you live in.

If you break into my house in Florida, I will confront you with my finger on the trigger ask you to lay down on the floor and lace your fingers. If you fail to comply and attempt any movement othere than what I prescribed you will be shot. After the first shot, your actions will determine weather I need to unload the magazine or not.

Posted: 2/18/2006 11:00:13 AM EDT

[#50]

Gotta love Texas, not long ago (within 6 months) a contractor had someone stealing from construction sites. He went there one night and sat there, on cue the thieves showed up and took several rounds in the process.

I love our deadly force laws.

If I were elected Sheriff ,I would buy you a steak dinner and a new box of ammo for adding some chlorine to the gene pool.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What can we do to Burglars caught in the act? (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us