September 10, 2015, 03:24 AM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: September 8, 2015
Location: Washington State
Posts: 63
|
Home defense
Imagine a home defense invasion situation. Is there a limit to the "amount" of protection one can use to protect themselves and their family? I could probably explain a kill shot to the head, for example. Am convinced I'd have a hard time explaining why I emptied a 15 round clip from a 9 mm three times into the same target. Especially after it fell to the floor.
I understand the answer begins with, 'It depends...' Just curious as to the thoughts of this forum. |
September 10, 2015, 05:03 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 8, 2015
Posts: 908
|
My first concern would be to avoid endangering my own family which are somewhere in the house.
That said, how do you assess a threat?....is the perp armed, if so, with what? etc....is he a relative, friend, etc.,....if you knew exactly what the intruder's intent was you could deal with it accordingly... In Pa. there is the "castle doctrine" which I believe implies you can use all force necessary to defend your home but I think the offender has to be physically inside your home... a lot of possible scenarios and it is a dilemma. |
September 10, 2015, 05:14 AM | #3 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,459
|
Quote:
Out of curiosity ... why would you do that? |
|
September 10, 2015, 05:52 AM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 4, 2012
Posts: 1,273
|
Quote:
This is not absolute, as different states have different laws regarding defense in the home or limitations on self defense, so make sure you know your state and local laws. |
|
September 10, 2015, 06:44 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 2,710
|
I don't know if this is right or wrong, and I'm sure it varies state to state. My CCL Instructor told us that you keep shooting until the bad guy hits the floor, then you stop, the threat has been disabled. Keep him covered if he is the only threat, but stop shooting.
|
September 10, 2015, 09:40 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
I'd be wondering where you got a 15 round clip if I was the cops... magazine sure... but clip?
The likely hood of you hitting with all 15 rounds is statistically about zero. In "the heat of the moment" firearms use most people would be lucky to hit 1-3 rounds. But panic fire is the most likely reason someone would fire off 15 rounds. Someone unknown in your house for god knows what, it's pretty understandable. So my conclusion, don't worry about it. Or get a shotgun. While it's not a guaranteed hit (you still need to aim) even if you miss the first round the intruder will PROBABLY run (shotguns are scary). And if he doesn't, rack another round and give him a shot of the grape. |
September 10, 2015, 11:07 AM | #7 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The important thing to remember at the outset of any discussion of the use of force in self defense is that our society has, for hundreds of years, frowned on threatening another human or intentionally hurting or killing another human. Threatening someone or intentionally hurting or killing him is prima facie (on its face) a crime everywhere. However, our laws have long recognized that under certain limited circumstances a threat or an actual act of violence may be excused or justified. You won't have the final say about whether your act of violence was excusable or justified self defense. That decision will be made by others after the fact -- the prosecutor and/or a grand jury and/or, if you're unlucky, the jury at your trial. So let's take a general, high level overview of use-of-force law in the United States. But first the usual caveats: (1) I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer; (2) This is not legal advice, but rather it's general information on a legal topic; and (3) this is intended as a general overview without reference to the laws of any particular State, and as such it doesn't consider specific state laws that might allow justification of a use of force in some circumstance not mentioned here. Now let's look at the basic legal reality of the use of force in self defense.
Now, as to not saying anything to police, if you're going to claim self defense that might not be the best idea. But Don't Say Too Much. Call 911. Be the first to report the incident and do so immediately. If you don't report it, or if there's a long delay, you will appear to have a guilty conscience. Then, having taken LFI-I with Massad Ayoob, spending time with him and helping with a class of his in Sierra Vista, AZ not too long ago, I'll go along with his recommendation for when the police arrive.
Pleading Self Defense is Very Different From the Common Lines of Defense to a Criminal Charge. A lot of folks point to the "Don't Talk to the Police" video that is making the rounds on gun boards. But it is about a police contact in general. It works fine when you aren't claiming self defense, and it's up to the State to prove your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But things work differently if you are pleading self defense. Basically --
Let's go through that again. In an ordinary criminal prosecution, the defendant doesn't have to say anything. He doesn't have to present any evidence. The entire burden falls on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If the crime you're charged with is, for example, manslaughter, the prosecution must prove that you were there, you fired the gun, you intended to fire the gun (or were reckless), and the guy you shot died. In the typical manslaughter prosecution, the defendant might by way of his defense try to plant a seed that you weren't there (alibi defense), or that someone else might have fired the gun, or that it was an accident. In each case the defendant doesn't have to actually prove his defense. He merely has to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. So in such cases, it probably doesn't pay for you to say anything to the police, at least early on. Let them do the work of trying to amass evidence to prove the case against you. There's no reason for you to help. But if you are going to be claiming self defense, you will wind up admitting all the elements of what would, absent legal justification, constitute a crime. You will necessarily admit that you were there, that you fired the gun, and that you intended to shoot the decedent. Your defense is that your use of lethal force in self defense satisfied the applicable legal standard and that, therefore, it was justified. So now you would have to affirmatively present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In some jurisdictions, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you don't have to convince the jury. But you will at least have to present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct. Then it will be the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury (in some jurisdictions, he will have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt) that you did not act in justified self defense. And even if you didn't have to prove self defense (only present a prima facie case), the more convincing your story, and your evidence, is, the harder it will be for the prosecutor to meet his rebuttal burden.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
September 10, 2015, 02:58 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 6,429
|
^ That was amazing.
|
September 10, 2015, 06:30 PM | #9 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Frank is exceedingly thorough.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
September 10, 2015, 09:46 PM | #10 |
Member
Join Date: September 8, 2015
Location: Washington State
Posts: 63
|
Frank, thank you for your insight and complete explanation. I do have a follow up for you: suppose you hear a thump in the night, would you recommend the occupant call 911 and after the other line is answered, "Get out of my house! Your entered without my permission. I'm armed and will defend my family with deadly force. Get out of my house!"
Obviously the point of calling 911 is to get help coming as soon as possible. Since every 911 call is recorded, this also affords the occupant a recording of them notifying the other individual(s) that they are not welcomed and deadly force is an option. I've been informed that this offers some legal protection in that the recording would be used to support the claim of intrusion. |
September 10, 2015, 10:02 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
I don't know about the thump method, it could be your dog or cat and the cops won't like being called out for Mr. Whiskers :P .
To be honest if I knew someone had broken in, I'd hole up somewhere and wait for the cops. I'm insured, my TV isn't worth killing or being killed over. I'll defend family at all cost, my tv not so much. Yelling at them could scare them off, or it could set them off. Last edited by NJgunowner; September 10, 2015 at 10:13 PM. |
September 10, 2015, 10:52 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
While I'd never argue with Frank, I will say a Texas Ranger I used to work for said of if you were ever (in a similar situation), "Empty the magazine.", noting that most Texas juries look unkindly on home invaders, and you don't want to step over to call 911 and find out they have a backup gun pointed at you.
Grand jury or possibly your own death in such a situation, it's hard to predict and harder to make a fully informed decision in 1 second. The point being that it likely depends upon the jurisdiction where you're in. Good luck.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
September 10, 2015, 10:56 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
Cops are the last people you should get advice from, their lack of knowledge is staggering most of the time.
|
September 11, 2015, 09:34 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
When the threat is ended due to incapacity or flight of the intruder you cease fire.
|
September 11, 2015, 10:28 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,679
|
I dont understand why this concept is so hard to comprehend.
You are ONLY justified legally in using the amount of force necessary to STOP the threat. If that is simply presenting your gun and shouting "Stop", then that ends it. 1 shot or 100 is not relevant AS LONG as the last shot was needed to STOP the threat. ANY shots after the threat has been stopped are a potential legal problem Its like a game of Red light, Green light when you were a kid. Green light=go...once someone says red light (threat has stopped) you MUST stop |
September 11, 2015, 10:38 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,679
|
It drives me crazy that folks still, somehow equate the threat (badguy) going down to the ground as the same as being out of the fight.
It has NOTHING to do with body position and EVERYTHING with his/her ability to harm you. If i shoot an attacker and after a cpl hits they drop their weapon... The threat has ended (at least right then) and i MUST stop shooting. If they fall to the ground but RETAIN their weapon and are still a threat, then i need to keep shooting them. Body position has zero to do with ability... |
September 11, 2015, 12:44 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,172
|
Quote:
__________________
As always, YMMV. __________________________________________ MIIAA SIFE |
|
September 11, 2015, 01:01 PM | #18 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
In a recent case in Virginia, a prosecutor's decision to file murder charges was based, at least in part, on the number of rounds fired. The person charged might be acquitted, but he's still going to need to spend time and money defending himself in court. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We've had extensive discussions about the tactical issues dealing with intruders here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||
September 11, 2015, 01:11 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,172
|
Duplicate post
__________________
As always, YMMV. __________________________________________ MIIAA SIFE Last edited by gyvel; September 12, 2015 at 05:41 PM. |
September 11, 2015, 01:14 PM | #20 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
You intentionally pointed a loaded gun at someone and pulled the trigger. That qualifies as intentionally shooting someone.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
September 11, 2015, 01:17 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 2012
Location: Braham, Minnesota
Posts: 1,314
|
I dont know, ever watch a Utube of a police shooting? 4 guys empty their Glocks into the guy.
Seriously though. My rule of thumb. Minimum of three rounds. Thats what i practice. So I know thats the minimum that will be expended. Too, until I no longer feel threatened.
__________________
NRA life member. US Army veteran, 11 Bravo. |
September 11, 2015, 01:37 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 28, 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 433
|
I spend a bit of time discussing the "bump in the night" with people who watch too much TV and have visions of running downstairs to catch a "bad guy" carrying his TV out the back door. My advice tends to bring some focus to the scenario.
"Any sunnofabich that breaks.into my house is gonna have a 9mm hole in his head when I find him!! So... do you think you are more safe trying to clear your house room-by-room in the dark with zero training or more safe assuming a defensive position at the top of the stairs or end of the hall (keeping yourself between the bad guys and your loved ones) while you cover the entry points and dial 911? I know plenty.of cops, and in addition to a long list of dangerous stuff they do, room clearing is an almost unanimous "least favorite". When speaking of your house, there is no way you're going to be quiet enough that a bad guy cant tell you're coming... se he has the advantage, and if he wants you dead, you're dead... and then likely so is your family. And if you're being "quiet", neither you or your wife is calling 911. Also... if your home-defense plan relies on your gun as the first line of defense, you're clearly looking for a fight. A cheapo home security system costs less than a Ruger 10/22 with an alarm that will wake the dead and come with a remote you can activate from your bed. A dog, reinforced locks, motion lights, laser beams, etc... |
September 11, 2015, 02:22 PM | #23 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
This is the Law & Civil Rights Forum, and the OP's question focuses an legal issues. So let's not take a side trip to the tactics of dealing with intruders.
I responded to one specific question from the OP touching on tactics, and I linked to some past threads on the subject. Let's leave it at that.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
September 11, 2015, 02:38 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 970
|
SamNavy has a point there. Your first line of defense should be the deterrent devices, lights, alarm, cameras, dog, etc.
The gun is the last resort. |
September 11, 2015, 07:51 PM | #25 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,459
|
Quote:
If I read the law of my state correctly, self-defense is a permissible use of deadly force, NOT an affirmative defense. This would mean that it is still the prosecution's job to prove that the act was criminal, rather than the defendant's job to prove it wasn't. |
|
|
|