I couldnt believe this!

[Offshootboy]

A few months ago I was sitting in class and we started a discussion about whether you should shoot someone that broke into your house, and one of my fellow class mates said, "You shouldnt shoot them unless they threaten you with a gun". I couldnt believe it. Isn't breaking and entering a threat enough as it is? If your dum enough to break in to peoples houses I think you deserve whats coming to you.

Just thought about that today and thought I would share it with you guys.

What are your thoughts? :eek:

[cambeul41]

baseball bats are insufficient threats.

[ohioleadslinger]

I think you would beat the wrap, and I bet there are pleanty of statitics out there where a ballbat was the murder weapon.

[mattro]

The would have to QUICKLY make it VERY WELL KNOWN that they are not a threat to not get shot.

[tony pasley]

Some one breaks into a house where some one is home the criminal has shown that they don't care about harming the person or persons inside the house. Holes in front; I was in fear of my life. Holes in back I was in fear fordaughters safety he was heading for her room.

[easyG]

I would shoot them and take my chances in court.

[sterno]

Legality depends on your area. Here in Louisiana, we have the Castle Doctrine that says if someone is in your home or vehicle without your permission, you can legally use lethal force regardless of if they presented a weapon or not. We also have no duty to retreat here.

So if I woke up and found someone I didn't know in my home, there's a good chance they wouldn't walk out.

[skeeter1]

The law can be fickle where I live when it comes to justifiable homicide, but in general, the homeowner is given the benefit of the doubt. An old expression also says that dead men tell no tales. With that in mind, forget any notion of shooting to wound. If you pull the trigger, do so with the sole intention of killing your adversary.

[BILLDAVE]

Rob him without a gun.

[jfrey123]

If he's in my house, here there to do bad stuff to me. Wether or not he gets time to bring that weapon to bear depends on who gets the drop on who... :rolleyes:

[Tanzer]

forget any notion of shooting to wound. If you pull the trigger, do so with the sole intention of killing your adversary.
Do so with the sole intention of stopping the threat! If death results, so be it. If you put a bullet in their spine and paralize them, the threat has been nullified, If they are unconcious, the threat has been nullified. If you shoot them again with the intent to kill, you will be charged with unjustifiable homicide.

[easyG]

If you put a bullet in their spine and paralize them, the threat has been nullified, If they are unconcious, the threat has been nullified. If you shoot them again with the intent to kill, you will be charged with unjustifiable homicide.
Not necessarily....

When you shoot someone, you have no way of knowing if they are dead, unconcious, or what.
And only an idiot would go near the threat to assess their vitals.

Best to put at least three in any advancing threat right from the start.

[Musketeer]

If you shoot someone who is down and to a reasonable person (like those on the jury) is out of the fight then you will go to jail.

THere is no magic number of times to shoot a threat. The only answer is "until the threat is neutralized". If neutralization results in death, paralysis, amputation, or simply urine soaked pants and a prone criminal the I am fine with it. There is no one I would tie myself to as a preference. If it takes one round or the whole mag also does not matter.

[easyG]

If you shoot someone who is down and to a reasonable person (like those on the jury) is out of the fight then you will go to jail.
This is simply not true.

If you shoot a guy and he falls to the ground, but is still pointing his pistol at you or your family, what would you do?


I'm betting that you would shoot him again.
And I'm betting that no jury in the land would think you were wrong in doing so.

Now, how is anyone who was not there going to determine if he really was continueing to point his pistol at you or your family?

[ZeSpectre]

If you pull the trigger, do so with the sole intention of killing your adversary.

The correct phrase is.. "I was in fear for my life and I was shooting to stop the threat".

The correct follow up phrase is... "I am terribly upset right now and would like to speak with my lawyer".

Nothing else needs to be said. Nothing else SHOULD be said.

[Musketeer]

EasyG

I said:
If you shoot someone who is down and to a reasonable person (like those on the jury) is out of the fight then you will go to jail.


A criminal who is down but still holding a gun is not out of the fight.

[easyG]

A criminal who is down but still holding a gun is not out of the fight.
Right.
On this we agree.

So I say again, how is anyone who was not there going to determine if he really was continueing to point his pistol at you or your family?

And if he's dead, who is going to contradict your claims?

[brickeyee]

"And if he's dead, who is going to contradict your claims?"

While much of the stuff on TV is BS, forensics does exist.

If you are going to carry/use deadly force you need to carefully review the statute law and case law in the jurisdiction(s) you operate in.

It varies by state and sometimes even county or city.
I know in Virginia what is likely to be acceptable in Winchester may not pass muster in a more liberal area like Arlington.

In Arlington, the Commonwealth's Attorney has directly said he will arrest any concealed weapon permit holder who uses deadly force.
He may loose in court, but he PLANS on costing you a lot of money.

[chris in va]

Isn't breaking and entering a threat enough as it is?

No.

There have been many documented cases where a drunk guy mistakenly broke into a house thinking it was his, and he didn't have his key. Other times it's been teenagers doing a prank. I even seem to recall one case where a diabetic smashed his car into a house and tried to stumble inside.

Many states require you to retreat first. VA does not have 'castle doctrine' yet, but we have case law so nothing is written in stone.

Someone breaks into your house, the threat needs to be identified and warned first. A loud verbal intent could be all it takes to get them running.

[easyG]

While much of the stuff on TV is BS, forensics does exist.
A guy is threatening you with a gun in your home.
You shoot him twice and he falls.
You shoot him again on the ground because you still felt threatened by him.

There exist NO forensics in the world that can determine if he was still threatening you or not from the floor.

But I promise you that if you shoot him only once and the EMS guys save him, you WILL be hearing his side of the story in a courtroom.



Someone breaks into your house, the threat needs to be identified and warned first. A loud verbal intent could be all it takes to get them running.
Identified?
Absolutely!
Never fire at anything that you have not identified as something you want to shoot and possibly kill.

Warned first?
Warning someone who has just broken into your home?
Sounds like a good way to get killed in my opinion.

[Odd Job]

There exist NO forensics in the world that can determine if he was still threatening you or not from the floor.


Not to nitpick, but you can't bank on that. I have been able to determine by means of X-rays alone, that the gunshot patient's version of events is not compatible with the trajectory of the projectile. It all depends on whether your 'observed' position of the guy's body and limbs is compatible with the terminal trajectory that they reconstruct (using chemical analysis, autopsy, radiology and physical examination of the weapon and the cartridge components).
There is a lot of risk involved: you've got to have your ducks all in a row or you may be found out.

[Spade Cooley]

This situation all depends on how you frame your statement to the police. My first statement would be, "The dude broke into my house and I was in fear of my life". Thats it for now. After I got together with my attorney I would make a complete statement that is more detailed. You can add all the detalis like what you thought he was pointing at you and how he continued to point it at you even when down. Its all a matter of what you say because the court or jury will believe you more than they will the criminal. Be careful what you say.

[john in jax]

FL also has a version of the Castle Doctrine and FL residents are no longer have a "duty to retreat". That being said, as Odd Job and ZeSpectre point out, You had better be very careful as to what you do and what you say.

There have been two, high-profile, shootings of un-armed BG's here in Jacksonville and each received a lot of publicity and a lot of scrutiny from the State's Attorneys Office. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't defend yourself, but I am cautioning you that if the situation is questionable at all the Law could make your life a very expensive heck for a while.

[rantingredneck]

NC is sort of schizo on this one still.

If someone is breaking into your house you can use deadly force to prevent entry. Meaning I can shoot them as they are coming through the door, because at that point I don't know if they are armed or what their intentions are I can assume.

Once inside they have to present a threat of serious injury or death before I can use deadly force. If they are carrying my TV in their hands and I shoot them, I would be toast. They are not a realistic threat at that point.

[pesta2]

Here you can not. Unless you life is in immediate danger you can not shot. When I took my CCW glass the instructor said if someone comes into your house, takes you TV while watching it and starts to leave, you can not shot but you can try to stop them by other means.

[dyoun06]

Had the same conversation in the vanpool I drive home last night... it is easy to say you would shoot someone immediately -- but I think each situation would be different. If some kids broke in and I did not see a gun my first thought is not putting a bullet in them. Obviously we would need to react appropriately to the situation, hope we are properly trained and ready, and do the right thing.

I hope I never have to face this situation -- but am prepared if an armed intruder forces his way in my home.

[easyG]

Those who are just wanting to steal, and don't want to hurt anyone, will usually check out the house to see if anyone's home first.
They'll look in the garage to see if there are any cars.
They'll ring the front door bell and knock on the door to see if anyone answers.
They might even knock on the back door too.
And once they have determined that it's very unlikely that anyone is home...then they will break in and loot the place.

But folks who break into a house knowing that there is a very good chance that the family is inside the home are not just interested in looting the place.
They are very dangerous and are not even trying to avoid a confrontation.
They probably have murder and/or rape in mind.


Just my 2 cent's worth.

[Offshootboy]

Easyg,

Thats my thoughts exactly.

Especially with a wife and kids I would'nt chance it.

[markj]

A guy or person breaks into my house with only a bat in hand? Shoot him? No, why would I? I would tell him I am armed and ready to shoot him dead, tell him to drop bat, then turn around and hit the floor face down arms spread above his head and legs spread out. Dial 911 let the cops deal with him. No reason to end a life.

I value life, every life. Wont take it from anyone unless it is the only way out.


You guys scare me.

Years ago my younger brother was drunk, broke down the neighbors door, cops found him eating a bowl of cereal in the kitchen, he thought he was at home and I was playing a prank on him.

Please think before you pull that trigger. It might just be someone you love in the dark coming in thru a window. Until you identify is it really a threat?

[DonR101395]

A guy or person breaks into my house with only a bat in hand? Shoot him? No, why would I? I would tell him I am armed and ready to shoot him dead, tell him to drop bat, then turn around and hit the floor face down arms spread above his head and legs spread out. Dial 911 let the cops deal with him. No reason to end a life.

Good luck with that tactic.

I value life, every life. Wont take it from anyone unless it is the only way out.


I think most all of us do also, but that doesn't mean you have to let somebody violate your home.

You guys scare me.

Good


Years ago my younger brother was drunk, broke down the neighbors door, cops found him eating a bowl of cereal in the kitchen, he thought he was at home and I was playing a prank on him.

Glad he's not my neighbor. He sounds like a real winner and would have been dealt with appropriately at the time, which probably would have made him realize the error of his ways. BTW knocking my door down is considered threat if I'm inside.



Please think before you pull that trigger. It might just be someone you love in the dark coming in thru a window. Until you identify is it really a threat?

I don't believe anyone advocated not identifying the threat.....or lack of threat.

[ohioleadslinger]

A guy or person breaks into my house with only a bat in hand? Shoot him? No, why would I? I would tell him I am armed and ready to shoot him dead, tell him to drop bat, then turn around and hit the floor face down arms spread above his head and legs spread out. Dial 911 let the cops deal with him. No reason to end a life.


Just what do you think a stranger with a ball bat is doing breaking into your home? Trying to find people for a pickup game? He brought the bat as a weapon. A weapon that is quite deadly and that can be used at a short distance. They don't have to even be within a arms length to bash your mellon in. A weapon to use against anyone he finds in the house that tries to stop him from doing what? Do you know he is just looking for a new plasma TV? Maybe he just wants to play ball with a human head. Maybe he liked the way your wife or daughter looks and thinks he's entitied to have them. SHOOT EM! Empty the gun if possible to stop a threatening intruder before he stops you or your family for good!

[easyG]

I value life, every life.
If a person breaks into another person's home, armed with a baseball bat, he has demonstrated that he has no regard for (1) the law, (2) your life, and (3) his own life.

IMO, our society is better off without such people.

Please think before you pull that trigger. It might just be someone you love in the dark coming in thru a window. Until you identify is it really a threat?
Maybe your family is different???
But my loved ones don't come thru a window with a baseball bat in hand.
They knock on the front door.

[rantingredneck]

Break down my door at 2AM with a baseball bat in hand you better be Babe Ruth and offering to autograph it. Otherwise.......;)

[sigfreak]

break into my house,while my daughter and i are home,with bat,tire tool,knife,gun,bag of tostidos and cheese dip,it really don't matter to me.if you don't knock on the door,i'm shooting and i'm not stopping.we have the castle doctrine in indiana and i intend on using it!nothing good comes through a broken window or busted down door.better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.

[Day Dreamer]

Years ago my younger brother was drunk, broke down the neighbors door, cops found him eating a bowl of cereal in the kitchen, he thought he was at home and I was playing a prank on him.

Ok first, I'd like to know, how badly made was your neighbor's door that he could break it down with apparently very little effort?

At my house, we've given thought to physical security. We have made it so it would take a substantial amount of work to break into our house. So much work, that even your drunk brother would have to think twice after 15 minutes of trying to break down our exceptionally heavy, multi-bolted, reinforced front door. As far as I'm concerned, no one who makes the effort to break into our house is up to any good, nor are they there just to steal the TV and be on their merry way.

[Doberguy]

Laws vary greatly from state to state or even county to county.
There is no one right answer, or all around sound advise.

If you do not know the exact laws of your area or the beliefs of your local DA then err on the side of caution.
Make it (by a reasonable person) an imminent serious bodliy injury or imminent deadly threat before you pull the trigger.

I spent two hours with a local criminal defense attorney asking every question I could think of. Even if you are completely within your rights to act. Meeting the criteria of imminent serious bodily injury or imminent deadly threat will make your court time shorter or not see court time at all.

Enters the house with a bat or any other potential weapon.
Weighs 300lbs and clenched fists while you are 150lb with asthma.

Should be making forward progression towards you.

Ahem.....I happen to ask if they are running out of the house towards the open door wtih my stereo in hand and in my attempt to remove myself from the threat we cross paths and I am shoved or hit I can protect myself.

[Musketeer]

OddJob said:Not to nitpick, but you can't bank on that. I have been able to determine by means of X-rays alone, that the gunshot patient's version of events is not compatible with the trajectory of the projectile. It all depends on whether your 'observed' position of the guy's body and limbs is compatible with the terminal trajectory that they reconstruct (using chemical analysis, autopsy, radiology and physical examination of the weapon and the cartridge components).
There is a lot of risk involved: you've got to have your ducks all in a row or you may be found out.

EXACTLY!!! The amount of information able to be put together after the fact, especially with a dead body to poke around within, is incredible. A body dead bu gunshot is a picture in time. Every particle of damaged tissue and bone tell a story. Was the hand pronated or supinated? Was the arm lifted or lowerred? What was the victim's posture? All of this can be put together depending on the path that bullet took. As soon as ONE PART of your story does not mesh with the forensic evidence EVERY PART of your story is suspect. Suddenly you are on the defensive and are no longer looked at as a victim of the crime but possibly as a participant.

Think long and hard about that before you subscribe to the "dead men tell no tales" school of thought. A dead criminal with strong forensic evidence against you is a better "witness" than a living criminal with no forensic evidence but a made up story and a long rap sheet.

[brickeyee]

Another legal point in self defense shootings is how the proceedings work.
Claiming self defense is an ‘affirmative’ defense.
You acknowledge taking the shot, but point to mitigating circumstances that make it non-criminal (justifiable and excusable are two common legal categories for this).
Even though you are defending yourself, you will be required to prove your actions fell within the law.
If you sit back and say nothing (common in other types of criminal trials) you have admitted to a murder and WILL be convicted.
While this may seem to go against the concept of ‘innocent unless proven guilty’ and that the state must prove the case against you, that is not how it works in most places with self defense shootings.

[easyG]

The amount of information able to be put together after the fact, especially with a dead body to poke around within, is incredible. A body dead bu gunshot is a picture in time. Every particle of damaged tissue and bone tell a story. Was the hand pronated or supinated? Was the arm lifted or lowerred? What was the victim's posture? All of this can be put together depending on the path that bullet took. As soon as ONE PART of your story does not mesh with the forensic evidence EVERY PART of your story is suspect. Suddenly you are on the defensive and are no longer looked at as a victim of the crime but possibly as a participant.
You watch too much CSI.
I have had the unfortunate duty to be on two jurys for two different murder trials, and I can tell you that about 1/2 of forensics is pure guesswork and most cannot say for certain how a shooting transpired beyond the very basics.

Even though you are defending yourself, you will be required to prove your actions fell within the law.
If you sit back and say nothing (common in other types of criminal trials) you have admitted to a murder and WILL be convicted.
All the more reason to only have one side of the story in court...yours!
And get a good attorney.

Three great truisms of self defence:

1) It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

2) In a court of law, one version of the facts is better than two versions.

3) Using a "public defendent" as your attorney will probably put you behind bars whether you're innocent or not.

[Oleshota]

In North Carolina the law is, to me, kind of vaguely written. It states that "deadly force can be used when imminent death, great bodily harm and/or sexual assualt is a possibility. Then, it goes on and lists several "ifs" such as the attacker was not the instigator, or a bunch of things such as that. By the time I determined all of the "ifs" I would be raped, had great bodily harm commited against me, and probably killed. Since the beginning of this statute says deadly force CAN be used I stop reading there and if and when the time ever comes I'm just blasting him/her and taking my chances in court. This crap about shooting them in the spine or the hand and all that is way too far out there. Who knows where you'll hit when you pull the trigger in that kind of situation so the best thing for me is just to make sure I'm hitting the chest or head and let my weapon do the rest. When I was in the military, 40 years ago, killing someone who was trying to hurt/kill me did not take any thinking at all. Just point and shoot.

[newerguy]

But I promise you that if you shoot him only once and the EMS guys save him, you WILL be hearing his side of the story in a courtroom.

All the more reason to only have one side of the story in court...yours!

Really guys, how about whether it can be proven, and whether or not you would be convicted, shooting someone to prevent them from subsequently testifying against you in a criminal or civil trial is murder!

The only reason you are justified in shooting some one is to protect yourself or another person from an imminant threat of death or serious physical injury. Anything else is not justified. You could be justified with your first two shots, and not your third. If you think you need two shots to stop the threat, and a third to prevent the guy from suing you, and you shoot three times, you've committed murder.

(Until the Courts threw out New York's death penalty due to a technicality, killing someone to prevent them from acting as a witness was death elligible.)

[easyG]

Newerguy,

I think you are missing my point...

I'm not advocating an unjustified shooting.
But unfortunately, due to our current legal system, even if you made what you would consider a justified shooting, the courts might not see it that way.

Remember that jurors are not told everything about a case, only what the judge has deemed as "permissible evidence".

And it's not what you know, it's what you can prove (this was true long before Denzel said it in Training Day).

Here's a undisputed fact for you:

There are hundreds and hundreds of innocent men in prison.

Sometimes the system does not work as it should.
Just look at how many folks have been exhonorated by DNA evidence in the last ten years....after serving many many years of hard time.

Even though you made a justified shooting, there's no reason to take chances and not stack the legal deck in your favor.

Besides, if a person is doing something so bad that they deserve to be shot, then they also deserve to be killed.
After all, you never shoot at anyone without knowing that there is good chance that you will kill them, right?

[shy_man]

If someone iscarrying a gun *CCW* don't think so much of the intricacies of legallity if ever you can shoot someone. Put in mind that it is better to explain in court rather than you are already dead. If you are a survivor you have so much chance to be out of jail.

Fearing the law so much is of no help. Just follow what the law that it says about carrying a gun.

In our case, there are two kinds to carry pistol legally. We call it PTC *Permit to Carry* you can holster it on your IW holster, or some boastful carrier will also carry by outside holster with their polo untucked so it really prints.

We can also carry our weapon thru having a Permit to trasport *PTT* you should be a gun club member for this kind of paper. The ruling for this is, the gun and ammo should be in separate comparment. But nobody is doing this, and I am too, if there are some they are novice. Mostly they carry on their clutch bag, or belt bag, shoulder bag and just put the magazines on their pants back pocket in case of you need it would be easy to access. That is already technicality. The pistol and ammo were carried separately.

Another thing, if a licensed gun being carried by someone without a PTC or PTT and if caught, what is the crime charged in court. To my analysis no crime bec. the gun is licensed, only perhaps our firearms and Explosives Department can just recall the license, that is the only danger I can see but no crime is to be charged.

What is important to everyone is, know your law about gun, carrying etc. Just be law abiding citizen for sure you won't be afraid of the law. But if you are looking for a loophole to the law, then be smart.

[markj]

how badly made was your neighbor's door that he could break it down with apparently very little effort?

Regular wood door, we are kinda big here, some say huge. My brother and I can pick up a car together. We have done it many times for folks entertainment.

I guess I view folks in a different light. Someone breaks into my house with a bat and I have a gun, well it isnt a contest, he complies with my request or gets shot. Now if you was standing there with a bat and a guy with a gun told you to stop, drop and remain while pointing said gun at you, what you going to do? Beside wet yer pants.

When working as a bouncer I removed 3 guns from guys that just shouldnt have had them, I was unarmed. All on different occasions. One knife after it was stuck in my neck, still got it today almost 30 years later.

Takes a bigger threat to me for me to shoot cause if I shoot, the person will die of this I am sure.

My Grandmother shot and killed a guy in the 50s or 40s, he was breaking in the back door at 5am or so after the men left for a hunting trip, she shot him and killed him.

I would expect my wife to act as such, she is small, not any kind of fighting person. I am very large and have fought in many venues way back in the late 60s and early 70s. I guess I just dont fear a guy with a bat in hand as much as you all do. Last night I worked on the place cutting trees down and hauling them to the pile, all by hand with a hand saw, keeps me fit. I can still pick up a small block chevy engine and put it in the back of a pickup. Complete engine.

Sorry you all dont see it my way, hope you never have to actually shoot someone.

[brickeyee]

“Then, it goes on and lists several "ifs" such as the attacker was not the instigator, or a bunch of things such as that. By the time I determined all of the "ifs" I would be raped, had great bodily harm commited against me, and probably killed.”

You had better be aware what those “ifs” mean.
Usually they disallow self defense if you incited the attack, initiated the fight, and a number of other important conditions.
If it is really self defense you will not likely fall under any of them.

You cannot walk up to someone, pup them in the face, and then claim self defense when they start to defend themselves.


“If someone iscarrying a gun *CCW* don't think so much of the intricacies of legallity if ever you can shoot someone.”

You had damn well better understand your local laws unless you plan on getting locked up.
It is not that you need to run a checklist, but you had better now if you have a duty to retreat or not, and what the locality allows in self defense.
In almost every place you must be in fear of death, grave bodily harm, and a few places allow rape (NOT all).
Some places allow shooting over property crimes (often under restricted circumstances) while other DO NOT.
In Virginia you may NOT shoot over property. Period. End of freedom for you if you do.

[Knotthead]

Is this a question of morality or legality? Based on the wording of the original question I believe it was asked as a moral question, but most of the responses seem to address the legal issues, which vary from state to state. As a moral issue I believe if someone breaks in to your home you are justified in shooting them. Having said that, I would greatly regret shooting someone who was just a drunk who walked in through the wrong door. That's why I lock mine. If he is there, he "BROKE" in. He didn't just walk in.

[brickeyee]

"As a moral issue I believe if someone breaks in to your home you are justified in shooting them."

You are welcome to believe what you want, but capital punishment is not used for breaking and entering.
Even in states with specific 'castle doctrine ' laws you will have an uphill battle for simple B&E. These laws (as demonstrated in Florida recently) do NOT prevent a charge from being brought by the DA.
With that charge comes a requirement for you to defend yourself.
Lawyers do not generally work for free.

It is imperative that anyone contemplating lethal self defense be aware of the LEGAL journey they will be undertaking if they act.
You cannot stand in court accused of murder and say 'morally I was in the right'.
You will spend your time contemplating morality from a rather small cell.

[Knotthead]

brickeyee,

You seem to be wanting to return this to a legal discussion. If someone breaks in to an occupied dwelling, it is reasonable to assume that they are prepared to deal with the occupants. We aren't talking about a neighbor walking through an open door looking for a cup of sugar. I wouldn't expect that someone who has kicked my door open at 4:30 A.M. to be there to prepare breakfast, and I don't believe I should be expected to conduct an interview to find out for sure. Am I advocating "blowing away" anyone I suddenly find in my home unexpectedly? Absolutely not. But someone who has forceably entered through locked doors uninvited is certainly not a guest. If it did turn out to be just some drunk who mistakenly kicked open the wrong door (see post #29), this would be a tragic mistake and would result in a great deal of remorse that would probably scar me for life, but I would not feel morally guilty. Much guilt perhaps, but not guilty.

[brickeyee]

It is a legal discussion immediately after you shoot someone.
Even someone who breaks in by bashing the door down may not be an immediate threat.

'His shoulder that he smashed the door with looked dangerous' is not going to go very far.
If they turn and run are you going to shoot them i the back? (it is acceptable in a few places).

Weapon in BGs hand?
Different matter.
And 'weapon; includes clubs, bats, knives, guns, etc.

Shooting someone who is not an immediate threat is going to cause trouble.
You are left to decide how much trouble you can afford.
My attorney is around $400 an hour.

[easyG]

Even someone who breaks in by bashing the door down may not be an immediate threat.
Here, in NC you can shoot someone who is in the PROCESS of bashing your door down...even before they enter the home.


I guess I just dont fear a guy with a bat in hand as much as you all do.
You should.
Even if you shoot a someone swinging a bat chances are that the shot will NOT immediately stop them from finishing the swing.
And all it takes is ONE hit to the head with a bat to cause permanent brain damage or even kill you.

[Knotthead]

It is a legal discussion immediately after you shoot someone.

The question in the original post did not ask anything about the legality of shooting someone breaking in, and even so the thread has devolved into a dozen or so internet lawyers, perhaps a few of them actual attorneys, arguing the case from the viewpoint of a dozen different states' legal viewpoints, and the result always looks like one big ******* contest. Different states allow different degrees of latitude in determining whether a situation is legally justified or not. There are those who rely on what is in the legal code to tell them the what is right and what is wrong. I don't.

Weapon in BGs hand?
Different matter.
And 'weapon; includes clubs, bats, knives, guns, etc.

I disagree. I don't believe a 110 lb. woman or a seventy year old retiree should be required to go hand to hand with a 200 lb. assailant.

My attorney is around $400 an hour.

I hope this isn't the first thought in anyone's mind when someone kicks their door in at 4:00 A.M.

Even someone who breaks in by bashing the door down may not be an immediate threat.

Perhaps you're right on this one. If, by the time I get there, they are sitting on the floor singing "Kumbaya" or reading Bible verses, I could probably determine that they are not a threat. I'm betting that this is not often the case though.

Gee, I seem to be getting a bit snarky. It must be getting a bit late for me.

[brickeyee]

“Here, in NC you can shoot someone who is in the PROCESS of bashing your door down...even before they enter the home.”

I have not reviewed the statute in NC, but would not like to be the one to establish case law.

Witness the recent Florida case.
While the final outcome favored the defendant, it came at a significant cost.
When Florida passed the ‘castle/stand your ground’ law I posted that it did not PREVENT charges from being brought.
It remains up to a DA to decide how to proceed.
Someone is still going to be judging your actions.

Means, motive, intent.
The basic criteria to a crime.
No one said “a 110 lb. woman or a seventy year old retiree should be required to go hand to hand with a 200 lb. assailant” except Knothead.
Many jurisdictions use a ‘reasonable man’ criteria for judging if you were in fear for your life. Some add other caveats (and you better understand them).

Knothead seems to want a free pass on homicide if he ‘believes’ it is morally justified.
The laws are a sort of ‘lower limit’ on moral judgment (even if you do not agree with some of them) put forth by the people through legislative bodies.

My lawyer cost comment is why you MUST know the laws in your jurisdiction and UNDERSTAND what they mean (even the annoying “ ‘ifs’ such as the attacker was not the instigator, or a bunch of things such as that”).

While I doubt most CWP holders and ‘gun types’ are going to start a fight and then finish it with deadly force, from the various comments here it appears a lot of folks are more than willing to substitute their judgment for the law.

I wish you luck if you ever use deadly force under any circumstances.
I believe the Florida case illustrates the collateral effects (house burned, dogs dead, etc.) to speak nothing of the legal bills.

All of this must be weighed against the actual crime being committed.
You may win you case for shooting a thief, only to find out you have nothing left for anyone to steal.

[rantingredneck]

I have not reviewed the statute in NC, but would not like to be the one to establish case law.


No that one's pretty well established. They teach it in the CHL classes here. The perp does not have to gain entry before you use deadly force. You can use deadly force to prevent entry. The schizo part though is once the perp has gained entry the "reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm" standard comes back into play. So if I wake up in the middle of the night and there's a guy batterramming my door down I can shoot. If by the time I wake up he's already standing in my foyer I have to "reasonably believe" that he intends to do bodily harm and not just steal my plasma TV.

[Edward429451]

Yo Homie, is that my bat?:D

Seriously though, the guy has already demonstrated method & oppurtunity. He had to demonstrate violence to enter my abode by forcing the door or window. He holds a deadly weapon. Is it reasonable to assume that he will continue with violence if left unchallenged? In the night season?

Unless he immediately demonstrates submission he's going to be shot.

Maybe he's a drunk neighbor? Maybe he shouldn't drink.

[Knotthead]

No one said “a 110 lb. woman or a seventy year old retiree should be required to go hand to hand with a 200 lb. assailant” except Knothead.

Incorrect. Missleading, at least. This was included in a comment that was meant as a rebuttal to a statement that seemed to imply that an intruder could not be considered a threat justifying deadly force unless he was armed with something beyond his bare hands. To quote it in such a manner as to imply the exact opposite of what was intended is being disingenous. Go back and reread more carefully.

Knothead seems to want a free pass on homicide if he ‘believes’ it is morally justified.

No one is looking for a "free pass on homicide", but I believe that forceably entering another's occupied home is sufficiently indicative of malicious intent and a threat to the occupants. (Why else would they do this?) This justifies defensive action, including deadly force. Current Kentucky law supports this.

[brickeyee]

"No that one's pretty well established. They teach it in the CHL classes here."

The only establishment that matters is case law.
I have not heard of many cases yet, so how the DA and courts will interpret the law would not have been established.

"...statement that seemed to imply that an intruder could not be considered a threat justifying deadly force unless he was armed with something beyond his bare hands."

I said no such thing.
I simply stated:
"Weapon in BGs hand?
Different matter.
And 'weapon; includes clubs, bats, knives, guns, etc."

Reading is fundamental.


"Seriously though, the guy has already demonstrated method & oppurtunity."

No, he has demonstrated method and opportunity for a breaking and entering charge.
Absent a threat to your person you will be relying on untested statutes, if you state has one.
A very limited number of states allow deadly force for property crimes.
NOW YOUR STATES LAWS.
UNDERSTAND THEM.

Your freedom will depend on your taking actions in COMPLIANCE with the laws (and CASE law is VERY important here).

If you do not have a source that can at least help you start to understand how the laws in YOUR STATE work, pay an attorney for an hour of their time.

This is not a guessing game, an 'I feel morally justified' game, or anything else.
Every case is different, and at least understanding both the statute law and how the courts have applied applicable cases is needed.

I have talked with attorneys, reviewed all of the statute law, and reviewed significant applicable case law in Virginia.
I know what is going to happen will depend on what county the shooting occurs in.
The more rural Virginia counties tend to be more receptive to self defense than the more urban areas.
That is just the way it is in Virginia.
It is not going to have a huge effect at the instant a 'shoot-no shoot' decision is made, but it will play greatly in what happens next.
I would not trust the Arlington County Commonwealths Attorney further than I could throw him.
The same goes for Falls Church City, Fairfax County, Fairfax City, Alexandria City, and a number of other places.

[David Armstrong]

Gosh. once again we see that there are many people that really need to go have a long talk with an attorney and find out the difference between the real world and the internet. A few points:
1. No matter what you might have heard, if you shoot anyone that is not an immediate threat to you, you are going to face an uphill battle.
2. Even though you might be the only living witness, forensics will put your story to the test. Any claims that you make that are contradicted by the forensic evidence are going to be questioned, and once your story becomes questionable you are going to be in a world of hurt.
3. Even most states that practice Castle Doctrine usually mandate a “reasonableness” standard.
4. Everybody that has advocated shooting somebody without any warning, or shooting without immediate danger, make sure you understand the concept of preclusion and how it is used in your state.
5. Just because you can shoot doesn’t mean you should shoot. You need to be shooting because you have to, not because you want to. Very few understand the bag of worms you open up when you shoot another person. even assuming it is a good shoot.
6. Spend a few bucks in advance and go talk with a local attorney that is conversant with self-defense laws and cases in your area, and bounce some of these ideas off of him. Hopefully he will be able to convince you in person how bad many of these ideas are.

[CyberSEAL]

Your classmate who made that statement is unprepared for what life is capable of throwing at someone. He's probably living in a bubble and will curl up in the fetal position and sh1t himself should an event of this type take place in his home.

[Tanzer]

I've been away for a few days and re-checked this thread only to find it has gone off track. CyberSeal - thanks for bringing it back to the point - well said. As for kill/don't kill, we all live in different locations with different AG offices.
D. Armstrong - Thanks for stating the facts. Opinions vary. What I'd LIKE to do to a worm who breaks in looking to hurt me/my family? No comment. What I would do? Stop the threat using whatever force is necessary.

[Kentucky]

As a basic rule, executing somebody for burglary is risky. By this I mean if you are not in fear but rather have the drop on somebody it is not a good shooting morally if not legally as you cannot know all the facts.

That being said, a baseball bat gets a "freeze" with a very brief compliance window. If he does not drop it he gets a 12 gage. There would be no way for me to know if my kids were bleeding to death in their beds, if he had an accomplice and if the ems would be looking for a nutjob in my yard instead of helping.

My thoughts.

Keep in mind that if you ever do shoot an intruder, somebody may search every public post you have ever placed on the topic. Hyperboly is not a good idea in public print.

Thats all I have to say about that

[Doodles]

In Tennessee, a person may use deadly force if he/she reasonably believes that he/she or a 3rd party is in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. Also, if someone breaks in to your home (comes in uninvited) that is prima facia evidence that they intend to cause serious bodily injury or death and you may use deadly force no matter if they are armed.

[brickeyee]

'prima facie' only means that something is established subject to being rebutted.
It does not give you a pass to take whatever action you wish.

[JAXX]

I live out in the country a ways at the end of a gravel road, we don't see much traffic. No one can mistake my home for theirs due to them being excessively intoxicated. I also have 2 small children and a pretty petite wife at home. So, someone comes into my home uninvited in the wee hours of the morning, I'm going to shoot them, and I'll shoot them until the fall down. Most likely it will be multiple shots, I don't care if it kills them or not, but they most certainly will no longer be a threat to me or my family. If I go to jail for that, for making sure my family stays safe at that time, so be it. I will not let my families safety suffer for fear of going to jail.

[chrisandclauida2]

everyone needs to quit listening to a ccw instructor their best friend or the cop that pulled you over last week.

read you state and local statutes. when someone breaks into an occupied structure i.e. your own home while your in it what you are allowed to do varies.

in many states you can kill them where they stand. this is regardless of if they threaten you verbally or not. they wouldn't be there to give their offering to the church for the week to you.

other states require you to retreat before you can engage. this is a grey area cause you are already in your house and if you retreat your going to throw away options the further back into the corner you go. still you have to show you retreated before you engage

still other states require a threat beyond breaking in and the means to actually carry that threat out at that exact moment. it can be as stupid as the intruder says I'm going to shoot you dead but they dont have a gun so they cant carry the threat out right then. i know I'm nitpicking but so do many liberal prosecutors.

the majority of states allow deadly force when someone burglarises and occupied structure. in some states the difference between burglary or robbery is the occupation how they broke in if the used tools or even what they stole.

bottom line is this isn't the place to ask this question. i have seen so many flat out wrong answers....as far as my state is concerned but they may or may not be wrong in other states.

read the statutes for your state it will clearly state what is a justification for use of deadly force. teachers ccw instructors police or lawyers dont know it all and may twist the info, like firearms or ccw instructors, to reduce their liability.

[nate45]

The correct phrase is.. "I was in fear for my life and I was shooting to stop the threat".

The correct follow up phrase is... "I am terribly upset right now and would like to speak with my lawyer".

Nothing else needs to be said. Nothing else SHOULD be said.

Well said +1

Never submit to questioning from the police without the prescence of your lawyer. EVER.

[Rifleman 173]

Old policeman to rookie, "Know what the difference is between a burglar and a murderer?"

Rookie, "Hmmmm. No. Tell me."

Old policeman, "A burglar is a murderer who has NOT been confronted by the homeowner."

Rookie, "Got it. Now I understand why all the concern over burglars breaking into private homes when people are present."

[Yellowfin]

I suppose we should each have a lawyer we know available at all times? I haven't spoken to any I know in years. Is there a tax-sheltered legal fees fund like an HSA we can keep for such occasion?

Gah, and the pacifists moan that it shouldn't ever be necessary to have a gun...the necessity of keeping lawyers handy at all times is what bothers me.

[DougO83]

1. A man with a baseball SHOULD BE considered a legitimate threat. You do not know if they have training with weapons. Krav Maga and other forms of martial arts teach some improvised weapons training. Goku Shoreii (sp?) is the art of kicking arse with a cane. Just because it doesn't go bang doesn't mean it isn't deadly.

2. IDENTIFY THE TARGET!! Shoudl have been point 1 I suppose. True, it could be a drunk that is confused, I have read a few stories about this. You never know. Just because I cannot see you, don't think I won't be drawing my weapon. I can aim it at you and light you up before I put my finger in the trigger guard. I personally feel that a tac-lite on your HD weapon is a gret investment.

3. Physical security. I wish I could send y'all a diagram of what we did to our doors, windows, etc. after the 3rd break-in, but I do not trust that it would stay out of the hands of those wishing me harm.

4. +10000 to the guy who gave the CORRECT verbage when spaeking to LEO's after an SD shooting. At work, we are taught to say something like this : "I felt that the (person,perp, subject) was an imminent threat to my life and/or the lives of others. I employed my weapon in such a manner as to neutralize said threat." Followed closely by "where's my lawyer?"

[dasmi]

Breaking and entering into the dasmi home = bang bang.

[bigghoss]

the racking of my shotgun will be his warning. if he even gives a hint of being a threat after that, he's got problems.

[Avenger11]

Wow, racking the slide as a warning! How macho and manly of you! Does anyone here think about the ramifications of taking another's life? Almost anyone can buy a defensive weapon, but using it responsibly takes real thought and training.

[Jermtheory]

im divided on alot of the arguments going on here.it would depend on specifics which i think are ambiguous and causing alot of the failure to see eye to eye.

but racking a shotgun sounds like an excellent warning to me.:eek:

ive actually heard that refered to as one good reason for a shotgun as a home defense weapon....immediately recognizable and unmistakenly threatening.

[Justme]

Threads like this make me fear for the future of CCW in this country. There was a malpractice case in Mass where a pediatrician's internet comments were used against him. I hope to God that if I am ever in a situation where I have to convince a jury that I am a reasonable person I am not painted with the broad brush that people could use against all of us who are members of this board based on the comments of a few.

For instance this comment:
I believe that forceably entering another's occupied home is sufficiently indicative of malicious intent and a threat to the occupants

There are any number of reasons why someone might forceable enter your home without malicious intent, someone mentioned a few earlier. A jury is usually only going to find that you had a reasonable fear of bodily injury if you did indeed have a reasonable fear of bodily injury.

You really have to consider the culture we live in. The vast majority of people are not going to condone using lethal force to protect property, but the overwhelming majority of people would condone using lethal force to protect life or limb.

As for shooting a guy who is already down, circumstances have to be considered, but, I believe that most LE agencies now advocate the firing of three shots in rapid succession to stop a threat. I think that using this as a benchmark in your own use of lethal force would be a good idea, it at least gives you a basis for shooting that many shots, a sort of "state of the art" defense.

[bigghoss]

avenger-do you think crminals consider the ramifications? the fact of the matter is I have had the training, both in weapons and use of force. my job puts me in a position every day where I may be forced to take someone's life.

what scares me even more than someone breaking into my home is what he's going to do at the next house, especially if he manages to kill me and get me weapons.

also I don't apreciate your personal attacks on me.

[DougO83]

There are any number of reasons why someone might forceable enter your home without malicious intent

Are there any GOOD reasons for any non-LEO to be forcing their way into my home?

and avenger--my job daily reminds me that I may be forced to make the decision whether or not someone lives or dies. I am more than qualified to make that call.

[Lavid2002]

Ive been shooting my pump shotgun 2-3 times a week clay shooting....shooting at LEAST 90 clays every time I go for the past 9 months or so. Ive gotten pretty fast with the thing....Pumping my action is faster than saying get the F*$@ out of my house before I send you out in a body bag......If it goes downhill from the time I rack the action I could have ...lets see 1,1/8 x 3 carry the one....3 and 3/8 ounces of metal in him before he could even think about drawing a bead on me.

[bigghoss]

racking your shotgun lets the burglur know that you do have a weapon, and just about everyone in this country knows what that sound means. it lets the person know that they have made a poor decision and that if they want the chance to make better ones they'd better listen to any instructions that may follow.

[DougO83]

I will try to find the study for you, but convicts were played a bunch of recorded sounds and said that the Mossberg racking the slide was the most terrifying.

[Justme]

That's kinda the point, there is plenty of room between malicious and good, the real world is not really all that black and white, that's why the law has such things as "reasonable man" tests.

It is reasonable to think that someone is up to no good, but there are a couple more steps to take before you can reasonably be in fear of life or limb.

BTW, I'm not sure anyone is all that qualified to decide whether someone should live or die. Some of us find ourselves having to make such decisions, usually with incomplete data, that doesn't mean that we are qualified to do so.

[Justme]

As for racking the slide, doesn't that negate the tactical advantage of surprise?

[bigghoss]

if you have already gotten your shotgun trained on the intruder and they haven't noticed you yet, what else is there to do but let them know you are there and they need to stop? at this point you already have the element of surprise.

[Justme]

I would never point an unloaded weapon at someone, it seems backwards to me. I could see racking the slide and then aiming, but not the other way around, but then I don't keep a loaded shotgun in my house under normal circumstances. Chances are in home defense I would rack the slide on my keltec about a microsecond before I fire.

[tplumeri]

my buddy and wife had recently moved into their "new" house. one night a drunk walks in thru the unlocked front door while my buddy is watching tv. the drunk is "asked" to leave but refuses. a scuffle ensues and an ambulance has to be called for the intruder. my buddy gets arrested for assault and the drunk is suing for pain and suffering!
only in america.

[DougO83]

Just so I know where not to visit ever. I do not like the idea of being penalized for self-defense.

[rampage841512]

I'm going to do whatever I think will keep me safe and sound. I'm not going to risk my life in order to keep from killing the person. Rule of thumb I follow: If a person is committing a criminal act and is within twenty feet of me with a weapon then that person is a clear and present danger to my life...anywhere outside my home. If the person is in my home I'm going to feel about a hundred times more threatened and vulnerable than I would outside my home because the person is in my sanctuary. We feel safest in our homes. Threaten that place and any homeowner is going to get dangerous, and probably violently so.

[Hallucinator]

Unfortunately for them, this tempts me to shoot them in the groin. That would definitely immobilize them and perhaps not kill them.

[CrazyIvan007]

A few months ago I was sitting in class and we started a discussion about whether you should shoot someone that broke into your house, and one of my fellow class mates said, "You shouldnt shoot them unless they threaten you with a gun". I couldnt believe it. Isn't breaking and entering a threat enough as it is? If your dum enough to break in to peoples houses I think you deserve whats coming to you.

Breaking and entering poses a percieved threat of bodily injury, which grants you the right to do as you see fit to dispatch that threat.

[Justme]

Not really "as you see fit" but rather as any "reasonable person" would see fit. Quite a difference, that is why it important not to get too caught up in what a bunch of internet gun owners think is reasonable since that may well be quite different than what a jury of your peers see as reasonable.

[CrazyIvan007]

Well, here in Colorado, we are home to the "Make My Day" law. If you encounter a person who has entered your property illegally, unlawfully by breaking and entering, you have the immediate option of "Use of Lethal Force"

You don't need to be concerned about your welfare, property, family, etc...

Complete security and safety in one's home is presumed here in Colorado and shooting a tresspasser in your home is 100% legal.

Now, if you choose not to shoot, that is your perogative and is where I derive my statement "as you see fit."

I may or may not shoot, depending on the situation, but it is always an option when dealing with someone who commits breaking and entering here in Colorado. "Reasonable amount of force" is not even on the table in this type of situation here in Colorado. You can deal with an offender of this level in any manner you wish up to the point of dispatching the threat. Once that threat is diminished, you cannot continue.

Funny story. During my first CCW class, a guy asked: "So if you shoot someone in your home and they are laying there bleeding, do you like...put one in their head to put them out of their mysery?"

God, I was embarassed for the guy...lol.

[David Armstrong]

If you encounter a person who has entered your property illegally, unlawfully by breaking and entering, you have the immediate option of "Use of Lethal Force"

You don't need to be concerned about your welfare, property, family, etc...
That is not quite correct. Unless the Colorado has been changed the law there are two significant modifiers. You can't just shoot them because they are in your house illegally. You also must have "...reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry" -AND- "when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant."

It is the concern about welfare, property, family, etc. that allow the lethal force, not simple illegal entry.

[CrazyIvan007]

Colorado Statute 18-1-704.5 Use Of Deadly Force Against an Intruder ("Make My Day Law")


1. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.


Perhaps this comes down to interpretation of the law, but if someone has entered my home illegally, there is no doubt in my mind that they intend to commit at least theft and not without me intervening and them fighting back comitting assault, which is covered under this statute, and at the most, murder. My interpretation says that either/or will give you the right to use force up to lethal force.

It would be reasonable to believe that if they are willing to break and enter into your home, that they are willing to do most anything while there. Details aside, I believe most would find this reasonable, and a unanimous vote of 12 saying it isn't is highly unlikely.

Again, though, I wouldn't shoot unless absolutely necessary. My first attempt would be to get them to show their hands and lie on the ground or otherwise exit the premisis. Failure to comply would raise reasonable belief that they plan to do me harm.

[David Armstrong]

Perhaps this comes down to interpretation of the law,....
It isn't so much of an interpretation issue, you simply stated the facts of the law incorrectly. When the law requires certain elements be present for you to do something you can't say the law allows something without those elements. It is those little details that make all the difference between acting within the law or otherwise.

[CrazyIvan007]

Yep.

[Avenger11]

BIGGHOSS,
Not attacking you personally, just the flawed logic and judgement of your argument! How does one become " Qualified" to take anothers life! So anyone that enters your house uninvited would be subject to being shot.
What if it's a drunk neighbor that mistakes his house for yours or a teenage son trying to sneak back into the house.
Be prepared to justify your actions in both the criminal and civil trials. What I object to is how casualy some here take the killing of another.
I am well aware that much of this is only internet bravado from psuedo commando types, however I hope that the majority see self defense as a responsibility of the highest order, with dire consequences if used inappropiately.

[Kreyzhorse]

Kentucky has the Castle Doctrine and in my opinion, if you are in my home, you are there to harm me. If I have a chance to issue a verbal command and that person fails to obey it, I feel I have the right to shoot for defense.

[bigghoss]

avenger-for one I don't have kids. I'm single and live alone, therefore if ANYONE is in my home they aren't suppose to be there. for two I never said I was going to blow him away right off the start. I have no desire to take anyones life but if someone give the inclanation they don't value my life and they don't mind ending it I'm not going to give him much chance to confirm my suspicion.

also when you say "oh how macho and manly of you" thats not directed at the logic thats directed at the person.

but since this is getting off topic it would be best if we just forget about this personal buisness before we get this thread locked

[Justme]

I feel I have the right to shoot for defense

Your feelings about the matter don't enter into it, at least not from a legal standpoint.

[Kruniac]

Feelings do matter into it, actually. Especially when you convey those feelings to the police (or more intelligently, your lawyer).

There is a huge difference between indifference to the slaying of an intruder then saying, "Yeah. I was in fear for my life. I did what I had to do, right?" and giving your statement as a nearly shattered person by this tragedy, and expressing how all you could do was think of yourself/friends/family laying dead/mangled/raped on the floor of YOUR OWN HOME, and that you had to remove that threat from the situation.

Believe me, come off as the victim, and people will treat you like one. Act like a Rambo, and they'll start nosing around the "details" of the event.

As for "when the threat is neutralized", there really isnt too much to talk about. When that person isnt going to get up again, the threat is neutralized. I busted my brother's nose (with a backhand) trying to GET AWAY from him when he was messing with me years back. We were just kidding around, but I still injured him while retreating.

A perp is still a threat as long as they are mobile. If you need to empty your rounds, so be it. Remember point #1 - emotion wins the case. If you need to just out and clip the guy, remember point #1, and an extra tidbit - A headshot is most commonly pulled off during a struggle for the gun. A struggle. For. The. Gun.

Also keep in mind that any time your whack a guy, there can always be blowback. Civil crap, legal crap, even his friends coming after you. As for the civil battles, I really have no experience with that. The legal issues - you now have two new tips (Tip #1 - Emotion. Tip #2 - Headshot Struggle) to help you in that department.

...As for the last one - You remembered to reload, right?

:)

[Justme]

I am pretty much of the opinion that if you have time to reload you have time to retreat and could think of nothing in the world that looks worse to a jury than a tactical reload.

[Kruniac]

I was referring to my last "blowback" scenario (The perp's friends coming after you if you killed the guy). It was just a rib, no big deal. :)

[Glockeroo]

If a person breaks in your home, their intent is criminal. So therefore, fire upon them accordingly.

[Perldog007]

Never killed anybody. Never shot anybody. Don't desire to do either.

Be careful what you wish for. I wish to be well trained and well prepared in case the worst happens. I hope it never does. The second to last thing I want to do is to put rounds into a human.

The last thing I want to do is to have myself or a loved one gravely injured or killed because I could or would not put rounds into a threat to stop it when I had to.

I have in the course of discharging my duties as a Special Police Officer in our Nation's Capitol had occasion to draw my service revolver. There was more than one occasion "by the book" where deadly force could have arguably been justified. Being able to and absolutely having to are not the same thing to me.