Break-in right next door.

[Lutefisk]

I hope this post belongs here, if not admins please move it to where it belongs.
So, two young ladies next door are burglarized, no one is home but my daughter is alone in our house. We come home and realize that the bad times have arrived. No one hurt, some laptops taken from thier home but sheese, this happened right next door while my kid was alone.

Question one: If the perps break in while the young ladies were there could they shoot him immediately?

Question two, a dumb one: should I finally insist that my wife and daughter know how to operate a hand gun for home defense-I've gotten a lot of resistance from them in the past but they may be willing now.
Any ******* (sorry I'll let the mods sensor this one as I think it fits to a tee) who mistakingly comes through MY window has got one big surprise coming to him.
Sorry guys, I'm infuriated and probably won't sleep tonight.
P.S. Because it was "just" a burglary it took the police 2 hours to respond.

[G-Cym]

P.S. Because it was "just" a burglary it took the police 2 hours to respond


They must have been sitting in the briefing room with a new box of donuts. Can't let those get stale before you head out.

Sorry to be sarcastic, but do you know what they were doing before they got there? How many police does your town have? How many citizens? As we're always saying on these forums "the police can't be everywhere". Well, they can't. I don't mean to be a dick, but if no one's life is at risk, they have to prioritize. You really have no idea if there were other things happening where people's lives were at risk.


And yes, you should get your family some basic weapons training. The police cannot teleport to everyone's side the moment there's danger.

[JohnKSa]

Without knowing your locale, it's difficult to respond with the legality of using deadly force in various situations.

In some areas, the law may require them to retreat if possible.Because it was "just" a burglary it took the police 2 hours to respond.Kind of a sick feeling to realize that means there were 2 hours of calls more pressing than a burglary in your area.Sorry to be sarcastic, but do you know what they were doing before they got there?You're right of course, but it's hardly a consolation to the person who's just experienced the most traumatic thing likely to happen to them in years and then has two hours to come to the realization that the priority of their trauma isn't shared by those they expect to be there to help.

[AndrewD]

Lutefisk, it is one of the great unanswerable questions, commonly referred to as a grey area. It can only be answered by the person in the situation. Is the intruder posing a threat? Is the only possible way out to use deadly force against the intruder? These are important questions to ask yourself in a possible deadly-force confrontation, but you don't always have the time to think about it.

A possible situation: the bad guy comes through the window when the young ladies are home. The event happens so fast, and mom is genuinely fearful for her life and that of her daughter, so she shoots and kills the intruder. It turns out that the intruder had a loaded weapon and a history of using it. The ladies are still alive.

Another: the bad guy comes through the window when the young ladies are home. The event happens so fast, and mom is genuinely fearful for her life and that of her daughter, so she shoots and kills the intruder. It turns out that the intruder a very small guy, high on drugs, and unarmed. The ladies are still alive. However, the criminal's family files a wrongful death suit against the mom and wins.

I'm in no way saying that someone should worry about getting sued to the point where they can't defend themselves from a threat. Always defend yourself from a threat. There are consequences to taking a life, though, and there's just no easy answer to the question.

[NCHornet]

The intruder doesn't have to have a weapon for the occupants to use deadly force, this is an old myth. As long as you can prove you were in fear of your life or the life of your loved ones you can use deadly force. I believe seeing a man coming through your window would qualify. Now if he was just banging on the door, I doubt it. As far as what his family can do afterwards, I am protecting my family first, I will take my chances with a jury later.
As far as to your wife and daughter using a firearm to protect themselves, that is up to you and them. Both my wife and daughter can shoot very well and would have little problem defending themselves. But you just don't go to the range one Sat. and think they can hold down the fort. They have to be educated just like you what to do in many different scenarios and know when to shoot and when not to shoot. If they don't feel comfortable I wouldn't push it.

[tepin]

There is documentation that states that disparity of force always exists between male and female (cultural predisposition). There is also documentation that suggests that you must conclude that a person invading a home is prepared to deal with the occupants in a violent way especially if the occupants can identify the person. If your wife or daughter were in a situation as described, I would say shoot. If it were you in the situation, I would say give the guy an opportunity to leave the house. If he advances, you must conclude that he believes he has the ability to disarm you and use your gun against you. At that point shoot. Keep in mind the possibility of multiple attackers coming from multiple parts of the house. As for civil court, get a big insurance policy.

[garryc]

In my state, Ohio, you have a duty to egress if you can safely. So the exact circumstances of the incident will be disected by the investigators and procecutor over the course of weeks. The question might arise that if you had time to get your gun then why didn't you leave. The reasonable belief that he had an accomplace out side might be a responce. One has to figure on the very real possibility that you might get mauled in criminal and civil court. Protect you life and don't worry about your property. You might spend alot more than it's worth in legal fee's.

[Baba Louie]

Question one: If the perps break in while the young ladies were there could they shoot him immediately?
Question two, a dumb one: should I finally insist that my wife and daughter know how to operate a hand gun for home defenseAnswer to Q#1: (as stated by others) Depends. Check your state and local laws. If in fear of life, disparity of force, lethal force about to be used against them... probably, but at some cost (as always) to their sanity/mental well being (but it beats the alternative all to heck).
Answer to Q#2:Quite possibly for safety sake AND as a means of protecting their lives, NOT as a means to KILL, but to STOP potential lethal force from being used against either and/or both. Always a wise discussion, in light that, as in this instance, you were not at home ready to protect family members.

[rantingredneck]

As has been said already, state and local laws will vary and you'll have to check on that. That being said though, I would rather that my family worried more for their own safety at the moment and less about the legal ramifications that may be coming later. Focusing on the potential negative consequences could cause hesitation at that crucial moment allowing the home invader to close the gap, assuming that he doesn't have a firearm of his own. Remember that it only takes a second and a half for the average attacker to close a distance of 21 feet.

Some states require you to retreat if possible from attack before responding with deadly force. In NC both case and statutory law allow a homeowner to defend the interior of his home without a duty to retreat first. Again this is based on the common sense assumption that if someone breaks into your home while it is occupied then he intends to do you harm and is thus equipped. This will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction though. I would recommend checking in to your local laws and getting your wife and daughter to the gun range for some instruction. Also wouldn't hurt to run through some scenarios in your home simulating a break in at various points of entry and what the response should be.

[Lutefisk]

For the replies, my post was made in the heat of the moment and may not have been as lucid as I would have liked now that I'm reading it the next day.
As far as where we live, it's a large city in Texas so I guess that would explain the long response to a burglary call on a Friday (no intention to disrespect the police-they were very thorough once they got there)
Monday, I've got lessons set up for my wife and kid-it's a start and will make me feel better about things. Right now my wifes willingness is there and perhaps that willingness will rub off on my daughter (it usually does in just about any activity we do)
First break-in in our block in the 20 years we've lived here-times are changing and this was (to us) an inexpensive but upsetting wakeup call.

[Dwight55]

garryc, . . . would you mind finding that information in black and white and/or providing a link for it? I have always understood that in Ohio, . . . there is NO duty to retreat, . . . but rather a simple duty to be sure your life is in danger before shooting.

Lutefisk, . . . if the burglary of the nextdoor neighbors, . . . on top of the attendant news about home invasions, murders, rapes and robberies has not been enough to cause your wife & daughter to BEG AND PLEAD WITH YOU TO TEACH THEM ABOUT FIREARMS, you are probably fighting a losing battle on that front. They simply belong to the sheeple crowd that lying in a hospital bed some day: raped, beaten, stabbed and left for dead, . . . they'll wonder aloud if there were any way to prevent what happened to them. That is the reality of the society we have become.

May God bless,
Dwight

[gunshooter]

To Lutefisk; Here in Okie land, the law says that you can shoot an unwelcome guest even if he isn't threatning. Just the fact that he is not welcome. Good idea for the ladies, but then you must convince them that they might have to kill someone and that may not be easy.

[LICCW]

Lutefisk: Its natural to be angry at the break in next door and the long response time for police and its also very mature to calm down and see the situation more clearly after a night's rest. When I got married my wife had the "All guns are bad and should be illegal" attitude (I married her anyway) now she is the "Thank God we can protect ourselves" type. Plus shooting is fun and your right in making it a family activity. Shooting sports are a great family activity and in my experience with my wife, a closed mind can be opened. Your daughter will come around. And she'll learn a very important skill from her Dad--how to defend herself. Be safe.

[pax]

Lutefisk ~

My sympathy to you, your family, and your neighbors. What an uncomfortable awakening for all of you!

You asked,
Question one: If the perps break in while the young ladies were there could they shoot him immediately?

That completely depends upon what the intruder is doing and (to a lesser extent) the exact wording of the laws where you live.

The one-sentence answer is that it is usually both moral and legal to fire when there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to an innocent person.

The more-detailed answer is really too long to type here. See http://www.corneredcat.com/Legal/AOJ.htm and http://www.corneredcat.com/Legal/myths.htm for more about that. What it boils down to is that there are a lot of variables and that the answer will depend greatly upon the specific wording of the law where you live -- but there are some basic principles that apply just about everywhere, and following those principles should keep you and yours out of legal hot water.


Monday, I've got lessons set up for my wife and kid-it's a start and will make me feel better about things.

By "lessons," do you mean you'll be taking them to the range yourself, or that they're signed up to learn from someone else?

In any case, congrats on getting that first step covered, and good luck to all of you on your family's journey into the defensive firearms world.

pax

[Lutefisk]

I signed them up for lessons with a friend of my Dad's-a former Army Ranger and a hell of of nice guy who is good with people of all ages.
My feelings were that in addition to more expertise than me, I didn't want my emotions to interfere with their learning curve. Once they get squared away, I hope we'll make regular trips to the range as a family.
Thanks again everyone for the links and advice.

[garryc]

This is from the Ohio CCW handbook. Notice that it says you have no duty to retreat from your home, then later kind of says you do. Legal mush mouth talk that leaves you at the mercy of a prosecutor. Shoot someone in your house in Ohio when the prosecutor thinks you should have left and you are toast. Also note that in Ohio, if you shoot someone you must have an affirmative defense. This means that you must prove that you had no other option and the prosecutor has no duty to prove you didn't. That really means you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.



Condition 2: Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger
Second, the defendant must prove that, at the time, he had a
real belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily
harm and that his use of deadly force was the only way to escape
that danger. Bear in mind that deadly force may only be used to
protect against serious bodily harm or death. The key word is
serious.
In deciding whether the bodily harm was serious, the judge or
jury can consider how the victim attacked the defendant, any
weapon the victim had, and how he used it against the defendant.
Minor bruises or bumps from a scuffle do not meet the legal
definition of serious. In court cases, rape has been determined to
be serious bodily harm, as has being attacked with scissors. Serious
bodily harm may also result from being struck with an object
that can cause damage, such as a baseball bat or a wooden club.
Important is the defendant’s belief that he is in immediate
danger. The circumstances and conditions of the situation or
confrontation must cause the defendant to reasonably and honestly
believe that he is about to be killed or receive great bodily harm.
In deciding if the belief was reasonable and honest, the judge or
jury will envision themselves in the defendant’s “shoes” and
consider his physical characteristics, emotional state, mental status,
and knowledge as well as the victim’s actions and words. The
victim must have acted in a threatening manner. Words alone,
regardless of how abusive or provoking, or threats of future harm
(“I’m going to kill you tomorrow”) do not justify the use of deadly
force. If the person can escape danger by means such as leaving or
using less than deadly force, he must use those means.
Whether the defendant or the victim was under the influence
of drugs or alcohol will also be considered.
Condition 3: Duty to Retreat
A defendant must show that he did not have a duty to retreat or
avoid the danger. A person must retreat or avoid danger by leaving
or voicing his intention to leave and ending his participation in the
confrontation. If the person retreats and the other continues to
20
fight, the person who left the confrontation may be later justified in
using deadly force when he can prove all three conditions of selfdefense
existed, and even if he was honestly mistaken about the
existence of immediate danger.
In Ohio, there is no duty to retreat from one’s own home.
There is no duty to retreat if there is no manner by which you can
retreat safely. However, being in one’s own home is not a license
to use deadly force against an attacker. The person who is
attacked in his own home, without fault of his own, may stand his
ground and use deadly force only if he reasonably and honestly
believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent serious bodily
harm or death. If the person does not have this belief or he created
the confrontation, he cannot use deadly force and must leave the
situation, even if he is in his own home.
Defense of Others
A person may defend another only if the protected person
would have had the right to use self-defense. Under Ohio law, a
person may defend family members, friends or strangers. However,
just as if he were protecting himself, a person cannot use any
more force than is reasonable and necessary to prevent the harm
threatened.
A defendant, who claims he used deadly force to protect
another, has to prove that he reasonably and honestly believed that
the person he protected was in immediate danger of serious bodily
harm or death and that deadly force was the only way to protect the
person from that danger. Furthermore, the defendant must also
show that the protected person was not at fault for creating the
situation and did not have a duty to leave or avoid the situation.

[rgoers]

If you arm (and train) your wife and daughters, but they are unwilling to kill someone to save their own lives, you put them in GREATER danger. If they pull a gun but are unwilling to use it, the gun will be taken from them, and then used on them. I posed the question to my wife (wanted to train her with my gun). She was hesitant... With that - I went and got some good quality (tear gas/pepper combo) mace for her to use. She's better off with something she'll use, than something that will be taken away and used on her.

[Al Norris]

So in Ohio, I can have a reasonable belief of impending serious bodily harm or death, but somehow that reasonable belief may not be an honest belief? (rhetorical question... I understand what was meant)

There are two things that I really read that caused some concern. The first was that while "serious bodily harm" was the general catch-phrase, it did morph into "great harm." Legally, that is two different standards. Both can't apply at the same time.

The other thing was that the perp was called the "victim" throughout the quoted material. That pretty much says that you are in fact guilty until you prove otherwise.

Almost sounds like you will have to let the BG do something nasty to you, before you can take any defensive action. I would hope that I'm wrong...

[Bigfatts]

If they pull a gun but are unwilling to use it, the gun will be taken from them, and then used on them.

That is a very important point, especially if they are reluctant to learn in the first place. I told my wife when she had a problem that it's not about killing the bad guy, it's about defending your life and getting him to stop whatever it is he is doing as a BAD GUY. If he should die in the process, it is his own fault. I explained to her that when a crime is being committed, especially if it could end in the harm or death of an innocent, that the life of the person committing the crime takes second place to the life of the innocent and can be forfeit if necessary.

This might be a good opportunity to tell your victimized neighbors about the lessons your wife and daughter are going to take, they may be very interested in something along those lines right now.

[wayneinFL]

"My feelings were that in addition to more expertise than me, I didn't want my emotions to interfere with their learning curve. Once they get squared away, I hope we'll make regular trips to the range as a family."

You're a smart man. I taught my wife how to drive. From the beginning there was a chip on her shoulder- she expected me to do something condescending. If I had it to do over again I would have broken down and spent money on lessons instead.

[chrisandclauida2]

you need to read and understand what your state statutes are regarding what is a justifiable situation in which use of dead force is legal.

in most states when some one burglarizes and occupied house it is justification for the use of deadly force. the wording of each states statues can include some qualifiers so please learn your rights.

i dont want to hear the ignorant statements of having to retreat first because you dont have to when in your house in any jurisdiction.


and in AZ there is no duty to retreat under any circumstances in which deadly force is justified.[added for the two who still dont have a clue on this issue and are giving out erroneous and possibly deadly opinions.]

[JohnKSa]

i dont want to hear the ignorant statements of having to retreat first because you dont have to when in your house in any jurisdiction.Quoting from the "NRA GUIDE to the BASICS OF PERSONAL PROTECTION IN THE HOME" page 173.

Most states require you to retreat from confrontations occurring in public. In many jurisdictions, however, you may not be obligated to retreat from an attacker in your own home or on your own property. Consult an attorney for the laws applicable in your area.

Frankly I don't claim to know the deadly force statutes for all jurisdictions. Not even all the jurisdictions for the U.S. let alone all the other jurisdictions which someone posting to this board might find himself in.

If you do, that's wonderful, your knowledge will be a great asset to this forum. However, expecting everyone else to have that same level of knowledge might be setting the bar a little high.and in AZ there is no duty to retreat under any circumstances in which deadly force is justified.[added for the two who still dont have a clue on this issue and are giving out erroneous and possibly deadly opinions.]No one but you has mentioned anything at all about Arizona laws on this thread so I'm not sure how anyone could have given out erroneous opinions on that topic.

[ShootingNut]

Why the need to always "shoot to kill" an intruder. Especially if no weapon is visible in their hands. A couple rounds of .40 or .357 Mag over their head, and they will do one of two things. Turn and run out faster than they came in, OR advance towards you at which time you unload and drop them.
I just prefer thinking of scaring the hell out of them first, hoping that would end it. To each his own, touchy subject I know.
Best

[Kreyzhorse]

When my wife and I first got married she stated "There will be no more loaded handguns in my house" referring to a Smith and Wesson stashed in my chest. Since that time, she's proficent in using all three loaded handguns and always keeps one close by if I'm out of town. As a note, the only child we have is the four legged kind with a tail. With that said, I think everyone should have knowledge and experience with a handgun and be aware of the rules regarding a self-defense situation. I live in Kentucky and we just adopted the Castle Doctrine which means we have no duty to retreat. With that said, in my opinion, living in Ohio or not, if someone is breaking into my home, with my daughter present, my first priority is living. If I can escape the situation safely I would. If I feared grave injury or death, I'm using what tools I have at hand.

Each situation and person is different but in my opinion you need to train your wife to be proficent with a handgun. If someone does break in, she may attempt to use it or may not, but at least the option is there. If we hear bumps in the night, I always grab a gun to check it out and my wife used to question me about the practice. My answer; "If someone is in the house, I don't want to get killed with 3 loaded guns in the house and none of them in my hand."

[pax]

Why the need to always "shoot to kill" an intruder. Especially if no weapon is visible in their hands. A couple rounds of .40 or .357 Mag over their head, and they will do one of two things. Turn and run out faster than they came in, OR advance towards you at which time you unload and drop them.
I just prefer thinking of scaring the hell out of them first, hoping that would end it. To each his own, touchy subject I know.

ShootingNut ~

That's a pretty good point for discussion. Good post. I'm going to disagree with everything you said, just about, but it's still a good post because it brings up some interesting points. :)

First point: it's not "shoot to kill" vs "shoot to wound." Instead, it's "shoot to stop the threat" and we are discussing the best way to stop the threat with minimal risk to innocent life. I know this kind of sounds like simple semantics, since I am going to advocate that the point of aim should be the center of the largest body part you can see (generally the torso, which means heart, lungs, and other vital parts), and that could very likely result in the death of the attacker. But this really isn't just semantics. The intention of firing a handgun at an intruder really and truly is not to kill the intruder; it is to stop him from what he is doing, and to stop him as safely, as quickly, and as efficiently as possible.

IMO, warning shots (shooting over his head) are not a good idea for several reasons.

1) You will held be responsible for the final stopping point of every shot you fire, no matter what you intended to happen when the trigger was pulled. A warning shot is a lot more likely to hit an innocent bystander (such as your children sleeping in the upstairs bedrooms) than is a shot which first hits the intruder.

2) Your gun holds only a limited amount of ammunition. Whether it holds only five rounds or as many as 12 or more, every shot you fire to warn is a shot that you could have used to save your life if the warning goes unheeded. And that brings up the next point ...

3) Criminals do not fear guns. Most of them like guns and knives and other types of weaponry. What they fear, when they run from an armed citizen, is not the gun itself. They fear that the armed citizen will shoot them if they stay. Now this is going to sound like a paradox, but that warning shot actually convinces many criminals that the good guy doesn't want to shoot them and does not have the cojones to shoot them anyway. You fire a warning shot, and the criminal is more likely to call your bluff than he is if you point the gun right at the center of his chest and start taking up the slack without blinking or wavering.

4) Unless you are a good shot with nerves of steel, a shot intended to pass over the criminal's head could very well hit him in the head anyway. Ever throw a shot six inches too low on the target at the range? That's the result of trigger jerk, which very often happens when the adrenalin starts flowing. If you do shoot the guy, it had darn well better be on purpose, when you intended to shoot him, when shooting him was both morally and legally justifiable -- or you will be in a world of hurt afterward.

5) Speaking of adrenalin dumps, the same basic adrenal effects that happen to you as the defender will happen to the criminal as well. Adrenalin tends to cause people to "tunnel in" on the threat, so they don't see stuff going on just a few feet off to the side. It also causes something called "auditory exclusion" -- which is just a fancy way of saying that, as unlikely as it seems, your criminal may not even hear your shots being fired! And he may not even realize you are firing at him even if you hit him (somewhere around here I've got statistics for how many folks, after a shooting, relate that they never even heard their own shots when they fired, or who didn't know they were being shot at or had been hit until they saw the blood after everything was over).

6) Shooting in the general direction of someone is using deadly force against them, even if you miss them entirely. That's because any reasonable and prudent person would know that when you fire a gun towards someone, it is very likely to cause death or permanent crippling injury. If they fired over your head, you would be legally justified to treat that shot as a deadly force attack and to fight back with absolutely everything you had. So before you go to the gun, you need to know that killing or crippling them is absolutely justifiable on a legal and moral basis, because death or crippling injury is one possible outcome that you just accepted and initiated when you pulled the trigger.

Oh, common ground you & I share is that I really think it's a bad idea to go to guns if your life isn't in danger, or if there's some other way to save your life than using the gun. If the intruder has no visible weapon, and if you can find some other way to solve the problem without using deadly force, I'm all for that. I just have to add that the instant your gun comes out, even if you just want to shoot over the guy's head or "only" shoot him in the arm or leg, that pulling the gun and shooting it is using lethal force. So you've got to be sure in your heart and soul that you're willing to kill him, before you pull the gun and before you pull the trigger. If you're not sure of that, then you're setting yourself up for some bad stuff both during the actual encounter and then, perhaps, in the courtroom afterward, and you should keep the gun in its holster.

Bottom line for me? If you don't intend to shoot the guy, you should leave the gun in your holster. If you do intend to shoot him, shoot him. Don't go flinging lead everywhere in hopes it'll scare him off. That's just too likely to result in tragedy in one way or another.

pax