An intruder in your garage, what would YOU do?

[A pause for the COZ]

44AMP
That is actually a very good point about the actual value of property now compared to times past.
And maybe even in some instances these days.
But I can say with zero doubt, If my grandfather would have caught some one pilfering from his possessions.
None of which were not needed to sustain life in one form or another.
That would not have happened with out a fight.

[stonewall50]

I'd get my family into good cover and call the cops. Advance if need be and try to keep the element of surprise. I'm not going in the garage for sure. Maybe put a bright light read to use on the door so if he walks inside he is blinded.

[SocialAnarchist]

I may announce my presence from inside the house. I may even do the clichéd rack of my pump shotgun. But I have no intention of going out to confront them over just stuff.

[jimbob86]

+1 to the GameCam and "exhaust fan in conjunction with opening the garage door an inch" suggestions.

Some of the game cams out there will send email pix or video to your phone or computer .... I'm sure the cops would love a look at that.

[Doc Holliday 1950]

I also have a home in So. Florida on the
Yankee side. As far as I'm concerned,
Florida & Cal. Are the 2 worst states
In the Country for crooks & scam artists.
So, you give the BGs. The smallest hint that they
can exploit, you're asking to be robbed
Or worse.
Don't give anyone or anything any
Way or reason to get you critter or
human.
Figure out a different way to vent
Your garage.
Doc

[kilimanjaro]

In addition to Homeowner's Insurance, my family has life insurance, as well. So do my neighbors.

Is it preferable to allow them to be harmed, instead of perhaps taking a life?

Criminals make a choice when they fail to flee at the sight of a homeowner, whatever happens then is not because a citizen 'escalated' the situation, it happens because the criminal is without fear and will not comply. I'm not going to choose to confront a criminal if I can call the authorities and secure myself and my family, but if for some reason I do go out from the back bedroom it's not because I'm bloodthirsty, it's because I don't want to allow someone to do whatever they want with my belongings in my castle. If that leads to their demise, it's not because I intended to kill them. We are allowed to be reasonable citizens in defense of lives or property, it's not required that we be St. Francis of Assisi or a self-defense attorney to be reasonable and prudent.

Do you think a wounded criminal is not going to claim all he wanted was the flatscreen and the silver candlesticks if he knows a jury could convict the homeowner because 'it was only property at stake'?

[OldMarksman]

Posted by kilimanjaro:

I'm not going to choose to confront a criminal if I can call the authorities and secure myself and my family,....

Good thinking!

...but if for some reason I do go out from the back bedroom it's not because I'm bloodthirsty, it's because I don't want to allow someone to do whatever they want with my belongings in my castle.

That's not a good reason at all, by any stretch.

If you have to go out to ensure the safety of other, do so, but do realize that that can be very risky indeed.

...If that leads to their demise, it's not because I intended to kill them.

Good.

If it leads to your being very seriously injured or killed...

We are allowed to be reasonable citizens in defense of lives or property, it's not required that we be St. Francis of Assisi or a self-defense attorney to be reasonable and prudent.

?

Do you think a wounded criminal is not going to claim all he wanted was the flatscreen and the silver candlesticks if he knows a jury could convict the homeowner because 'it was only property at stake'?

No, and doing so would neither help his case nor harm yours.

It would be completely irrelevant.

[AK103K]

We are allowed to be reasonable citizens in defense of lives or property, it's not required that we be St. Francis of Assisi or a self-defense attorney to be reasonable and prudent.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[kilimanjaro]

A wounded criminal testifying that he didn't advance towards you in your kitchen, didn't have a weapon, didn't make any threats, just wanted the silverware, that's not going to be relevant to your claim of self-defense? There are prosecutors out there who would enjoy making your life miserable with that kind of a case. Given a dead burglar in the kitchen, there is no disputing your claim. Given a living burglar in the kitchen, squawking to high heaven, what's preventing a prosecutor or a jury from believing him? How about two burglars, one shot dead, the other wounded, and trying to beat a charge of murder? Think he's not going to claim the homeowner is the one responsible? There are a lot of people in this country who believe crimes like robbery and burglary do not carry the death penalty, they would love to end the right of self-defense, even in the home.

We have to have some leeway in the law to allow us to confront the bad guys, or we all have to lock ourselves in the bedroom at night. A reasonable citizen gets to defend himself, if he goes out to his driveway to confront the car thief, and the thief is aggressive, the outcome is due to the actions of the thief.
An unreasonable citizen doesn't get to go out into his driveway and shoot the car thief who puts his hands up.

[JohnKSa]

There are a lot of people in this country who believe crimes like robbery and burglary do not carry the death penalty...

The fact is that regardless of what people believe, robbery and burglary, in and of themselves, do not carry the death penalty. It is true that in some circumstances it may be legal to use deadly force in self-defense against a robber or burglar, but that's not because the law states that people should be killed for those crimes.

It's important to understand that the right to use self-defense is not granted so that citizens can punish criminals or enforce the law, it is granted so that in extreme circumstances, citizens can take extreme action to protect themselves when no other recourse is available.

...they would love to end the right of self-defense, even in the home.

While there are some people who don't believe that people should have the right to use weapons in self-defense, that is not a common belief, and it is not one that anyone on this thread has espoused.

You are confusing two things. The fact that someone tells you that a particular strategy is not wise does NOT mean that they are telling you that they're anti-self-defense.

For example, let's say my friend has a huge tree on his property that's between his house and the neighbor's house. He tells me that doesn't want it there anymore. He tells me that he's just going to go to Home Depot, buy a chainsaw and start cutting. Knowing his experience level with such things and the pitfalls involved, I advise him that it would be unwise for him to cut it down himself because he could ruin his house or his neighbor's house and that he might injure or kill himself or someone else.

I'm not telling him that I'm against cutting down trees. I'm not telling him that he has to keep the tree forever. I'm not telling him that the tree shouldn't be removed.

I'm only trying to warn him that what he's doing is dangerous and he would be well advised to get a professional to help him accomplish the task safely.

In the same way, pointing out that armed confrontations can be dangerous isn't saying that armed confrontations should be illegal, should never happen, that self-defense isn't (or shouldn't be) legal. It's just warning people that armed confrontations don't always favor the good guy and that even when the good guy "wins" there may still be tremendously negative consequences.

Given a dead burglar in the kitchen, there is no disputing your claim.

You need to do some research on forensics if you honestly believe that there won't be any evidence to dispute a false claim if your opponent dies.

Furthermore, this kind of reasoning is bordering on advocating criminal behavior which is against TFL rules and is inconsistent with the principles of responsible firearms ownership. The idea that criminals should be killed (permanently silenced) in the interest of bettering one's legal situation after a deadly force encounter is NOT consistent with the legal/justifiable use of deadly force.

A reasonable citizen gets to defend himself, if he goes out to his driveway to confront the car thief, and the thief is aggressive, the outcome is due to the actions of the thief.

It is very likely legal to do such a thing in some locales. In others, it may be necessary to retreat from the confrontation if it turns violent, resorting to deadly force only if retreat is not possible.

However, even if it is legal, that doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do. Any trainer you ask will tell you that the best gunfight isn't the one you win, it's the one you avoid in the first place.

An unreasonable citizen doesn't get to go out into his driveway and shoot the car thief who puts his hands up.

And a wise one doesn't go out at all if there's a good chance of having to shoot someone. Having to shoot someone means that you were in deadly danger and given the choice between safety and deadly danger when there's nothing but property involved should be a no-brainer.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by kilimanjaro:

A reasonable citizen gets to defend himself, if he goes out to his driveway to confront the car thief, and the thief is aggressive, the outcome is due to the actions of the thief.

I'm afraid that's a bit naive.

Over the last several years, we have had numerous reports here and on other boards of people who have set out forth armed to "confront" people.

That's generally lawful in most jurisdictions--unless things go south.

The problems have usually arisen when the confrontations have ended up involving the actual use of deadly force by said "reasonable citizens".

The citizens' defenses of justification can be very adversely affected if there is any indication that the defendants had in any way brought about the actual confrontation---words very from one state to another. That may sound incredible to some, but things can turn out that way, and it can happen in the driveway, in the side yard, or out back next to the shore of the lake that comes up to the property.

The other kind of thing that has happened has been the failure of the "reasonable citizen" to prevail in his defense of justification because it was found that the real reason the "responsible citizen" had for going out in the first place was to defend property.

I suppose that in any one of this cases, a jury might have decided differently, but with the stakes so high, I most certainly wouldn't want to risk it.

Those were cases in which the "responsible citizen" prevailed physically. That's not necessarily a good assumption.

Why would anyone ever assume that "the car thief" is alone? The "responsible citizen" can see him, but the thief's accomplice, who is not seen, will most surely know just where to watch for the emerging defender.

It is sometimes the "responsible citizen" who is very seriously injured.

Most of us, most knowledgeable professionals, and most trainers strongly advise against heading our to confront what may be an evildoer or two or three on the property.

[boatdoc173]

"Stay inside and call the police (not a lot of good). First off shooting or killing someone for robbing a couple of hundred dollars of goods is not a good idea, it will cost thousands to defend yourself in court. Second, your life or that of your family is not being threaten so self defense is not applicably. It is easier to put in an insurance claim than find an attorney to get you out of jail. (and cheaper too)(from Jim post #19))

I live in a state without Castle laws or being able to stand your ground. Outsid e the home, we are to run away if we can(not a bad suggestion--rather than risk injury) and you can defend yourself with equal force if you are pinned down( the perp must have the intent ,ability and opportunity to do you harm or kill you of course)

In the home, we are to be in a safe room and defend that room if you are pinned down(no other choice) or leave the house( what BS).
We have our alarm system hooked up to a central monitoring system--they call the cops if we do not stop them and our cops responds FAST( less than 10 minutes).

I am armed when home. Due to the lay out of our home and my wifes desire to save the dogs rather than defend herself, she is to escape to our garage( below our raised home--we live in a flood zone as well-)-she will be behind a steel locked door. she can call the cops and ask them NOT to shoot ME!!! If she is upstairs(colonial style home) with the dogs in tow, she is armed and will protect them for sure!!


I HATE being a prisoner (we alarm the house at all times) and having to hide or secure our things. But times dictate our behavior. Home invasions and scumbags with black market guns on the loose make us change our habits. So much freedom is lost due to the governments inability to handle criminals and nuts who have guns( again black market smuggled"ghost guns most of the time)

[TailGator]

boatdoc173, I am sorry to hear that the laws in your jurisdiction make it so dangerous for good people to defend themselves.

our cops responds FAST( less than 10 minutes)

I hope that is tongue in cheek. You sound like you take your defense seriously and have a plan in place, but others should walk through their house with a ten minute timer and think about what a person of evil intent could accomplish in those ten minutes.

[kilimanjaro]

"So much freedom is lost due to the governments inability to handle criminals and nuts who have guns( again black market smuggled"ghost guns most of the time)"

I would say our freedom is lost not due to the government's inability to handle criminals and nuts who have guns, but to their absolute refusal to do so.

[boatdoc173]

Tailgator(#113). Thanks.. I wa s shocked to find this out during an NRA safety course and when I followed up with some internet searches.

Sadly,many innocent citizens in Ct still think we have a castle law. Wish we had a stand your ground law like your state does

per the 10 minutes. The police may respond faster but we plan on 10 minutes of living hell. I formulated a plan based on what my wife wanted.(no tbeing armed and taking the dogs with her as she flees). She has 2 options to flee but the oneleading to our secured garage is the best. She must cooperate if all is to go well. I had locks installed along her path down to the garage(which is locked). Have a steel door and plywood walls to facilitate this. She will be safe with the dogs. The cats will hide.
I am the one trapped on the second floor(one way up and it is in front of the main door(front door). If someone comes in, I am essential trapped Our neighborhood is desolate due to 2 hurricanes in 2 years. No help will come from neighbors. Probably best that way.

I am NOT going to clear a house. We do not own much of value. Good luck to a druggie or thug finding anything. I am holding up in the master BR with the gun safes in a closet close by. I have plenty of loaded magazines for my glock 23 or 19. I have plenty of extra ammo if needed Lights will be on. One quick warning for the perp(pe r our laws again) that I am in a safe room and anyone entering that is not a cop will be shot!!! Again it is ability opportunity and intent by the perp that dictates my actions,

thanks for the concerned articulate response

stay safe,

Rob

[boatdoc173]

kilimanjaro)#114) well said--very true. WE are their targets not thugs( considering Obamas stance on this--Iam not surprised--loonbergs too)

thanks for the response

rob

[peggysue]

Mine is an Unattached garage covered with a camera and motion lights. Then the dogs come out of their dog door into the fenced in back yard barking. This gives me time to pick a gun as I am calling 911 on my cell phone.
Isn't much in my garage except odd ball tools, my stored truck and mowers.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by boatdoc173:

Sadly,many innocent citizens in Ct still think we have a castle law.

I think that if you do some checking, you will find that the law in Connecticut has essentially the same professions as "castle laws" enacted by legislatures in many other states.

Forty-six states, including Connecticut, have incorporated the Castle Doctrine into law. Connecticut law justifies the use of reasonable physical force, including deadly force, in defense of premises. Connecticut courts have recognized the common law privilege to challenge an unlawful entry into one's home, to the extent that a person's conduct does not rise to the level of a crime. Deadly force is justified in defense of one's property by a person who is privileged to be on the premises and who reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent an attempt by the criminal trespasser to commit any crime of violence.

The Castle Doctrine is incorporated into Connecticut law governing the use of physical force in defense of premises. This law states that a person who possesses or controls a premises, or is licensed or privileged to be on such premises, is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or stop someone from criminally trespassing. Deadly force is reasonable only (1) to defend oneself or another; (2) when one reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or any violent crime; or (3) to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary and only to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by force into his or her dwelling or place of work (CGS § 53a-20).

Source: OLR Research Report, Connecticut General Assembly, April 24, 2012, 2012-R-0172, THE CASTLE DOCTRINE AND STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAW, By Mark Randall, Research Fellow and Hendrik DeBoer, Research Fellow

What more would you expect?

Look into it.

But don't shoot anyone unless you have to--in CT or anywhere else.

Wish we had a stand your ground law like your state does

We do not have one in Missouri, either. But if we did, I would do nothing differently.

I formulated a plan based on what my wife wanted.(no tbeing armed and taking the dogs with her as she flees). She has 2 options to flee...

Why would she want retreat from your house?

I am NOT going to clear a house.

Excellent thinking!

[boatdoc173]

To Oldmarksman( my goal is to be what your name implies)

Thanks for your post.Technically, we have a castle doctrine. In reality, what I poste d is being promoted by the police, the experienced shooters and by nra instructors as the law we must follow. In other words, flee if you can,shoot if you are in danger (and cannot flee).Many I have spoken to( legally armed citizens ) believe that if someone breaks in their home, they can just open fire(stand their ground). I agree with you, , I would not shoot unless the 3 rules are satisfied>>>>>>

intent,ability and opportunity still apply in all 50 states. satisfy those and you can do what you must to protect your life. In Ct,(as far as I can tell) we cannot protect property. The reality for us is , we do not own anything that I feel the need to shoot someone over, thus protecting my wife and pets is my only priority.IF a thug was armed and was willing to use that weapon, what you posted(from CT law) applies and I would be forced to self defend. I am the one indirect contact with and in the line of fire(kind of, I can easily conceal myself and train to do so) while shouting warnings as I stated before.

per her leaving the house--that is the last option. The safest is her going down to the cement basement( a raised structure with 12 foot walls and a locked garage door, moving in front of her car , and calling the police( remember our alarm will be wailing, I will be yelling for them to leave..the dogs barking,chaos reigning.....

That said IF she cannot access the basement/garage, she will go to the fenced in backyard. NOT the best option, but otherwise she will be trapped( she will not carry as I am. She does not want an "accidental shooting to occur..I cannot convince her otherwise)


thanks for your informative post

safe shooting

rob

[44 AMP]

Despite the press's nearly universal description of Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws, as hunting licenses and "Shoot a Burglar" laws, they are not, and never were any such thing.

These laws do NOT give you the legal right or authority to shoot ANYONE. They never did.

All they do, or try to do is provide a legal shield against you being additionally charged as a result of an otherwise legally justified shooting. AND they can only be used when your specific situation fits into their framework.

They don't give you the right to shoot. Period. They MAY defend you if you are in the right and shoot. If you are in the wrong, they do NOT apply at all.

[OldMarksman]

Technically, we have a castle doctrine.

Legally you have a castle doctrine.

[TimSr]

They don't give you the right to shoot. Period. They MAY defend you if you are in the right and shoot. If you are in the wrong, they do NOT apply at all.

In Ohio it shifted the burden to the state to prove the shooting was NOT justified. That was its greatest impact here.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by TimSr:

In Ohio it shifted the burden to the state to prove the shooting was NOT justified. That was its greatest impact here.

Have you read this?

The Buckeye state remains the last in the country to retain the old model of self-defense as a true affirmative defense, keeping the burden of persuasion for self-defense on the defendant, by a preponderance of the evidence. Simply because it failed to flow, as did every state, with the historical and morally appropriate shift of the burden of persuasion n self-defense to the state. This sad state of affairs makes Ohio a true laggard in properly protecting the due process rights of its residents.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by TimSr

In Ohio it shifted the burden to the state to prove the shooting was NOT justified. That was its greatest impact here.

No, that is incorrect, as previously pointed out to you in this post:

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Have you got some legal authority for that? According to this article that was not the case as of July of 2013:

Here's the relevant Ohio law (2901.05 Burden of proof - reasonable doubt - self-defense):

2901.05 Burden of proof - reasonable doubt - self-defense.

(A) Every person accused of an offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof for all elements of the offense is upon the prosecution. The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for an affirmative defense, is upon the accused.

(B)

(1) Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, a person is presumed to have acted in self defense or defense of another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force.

(2)

(a) The presumption set forth in division (B)(1) of this section does not apply if the person against whom the defensive force is used has a right to be in, or is a lawful resident of, the residence or vehicle.

(b) The presumption set forth in division (B)(1) of this section does not apply if the person who uses the defensive force uses it while in a residence or vehicle and the person is unlawfully, and without privilege to be, in that residence or vehicle.

(3) The presumption set forth in division (B)(1) of this section is a rebuttable presumption and may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

(C) As part of its charge to the jury in a criminal case, the court shall read the definitions of "reasonable doubt" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," contained in division (D) of this section.

(D) As used in this section:

(1) An "affirmative defense" is either of the following:

(a) A defense expressly designated as affirmative;

(b) A defense involving an excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, on which the accused can fairly be required to adduce supporting evidence.

(2) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind that has a roof over it and that is designed to be occupied by people lodging in the building or conveyance at night, regardless of whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent or is mobile or immobile. As used in this division, a building or conveyance includes, but is not limited to, an attached porch, and a building or conveyance with a roof over it includes, but is not limited to, a tent.

(3) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as a guest.

(4) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport people or property.

(E) "Reasonable doubt" is present when the jurors, after they have carefully considered and compared all the evidence, cannot say they are firmly convinced of the truth of the charge. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense. Reasonable doubt is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs or depending on moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is proof of such character that an ordinary person would be willing to rely and act upon it in the most important of the person's own affairs.

Let's break that down to try to understand it:

1. Self defense would be an affirmative defense (as defined at 2901.5(D)(1)) to a criminal charge relating to an alleged unlawful use of force.
   
   
2. Therefore, if the accused claims self defense, as provided in 2901.5(A):

   ...The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for an affirmative defense, is upon the accused.....

3. However, 2901.5(B)(1) provides, in pertinent part (emphasis added):

   ...a person is presumed to have acted in self defense or defense of another ... if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force....

   1. To understand what that means we need to understand what a "presumption" is.
      
      
      1. A presumption is a rule that affects evidence and burden of proof in court. Ordinarily, one who asserts something in court will have the burden of proving, by presenting good evidence, that certain facts supporting that assertion are true. But sometimes the law might allow one of those facts to be accepted as true without specific evidence of that fact if the party with the burden of proof shows that certain other facts are true. So the party might be entitled under a rule of law to have fact A presumed to be true if facts B, C, and D are shown to be true, even if the party produces no direct evidence that fact A is true.
         
         
      2. So 2901.5(B) provides that under certain circumstances one does not have to prove the elements of self defense directly; he will be presumed to have used force in self defense. However, to have the benefit of that presumption, certain facts must be true; so the accused will have the burden of producing evidence and proving those facts, i. e., that:

         ...the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force. ...

      3. Note also the the presumption provided under (B)(1) will not apply under the circumstances described (B)(2).
   
   
4. The presumption provided under (B)(1) is rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence (2901.5(B)(3)).
   
   
5. So if the accused claims self defense, under Ohio law he will either have to prove the elements of self defense by a preponderance of the evidence or prove that the predicate facts entitling him to a self defense presumption under 2901.5(B)(1) were true.

[TimSr]

That was changed a year or so ago.