I couldnt believe this!

[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 pissing 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?

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.

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.