An intruder in your garage, what would YOU do?

Status
Not open for further replies.
1st world problems. :rolleyes: As others said, install a vent or learn to live with it.

The upside to keeping the door open is trivial compared to the downside of a possible break in or assault or worse... someone dying, a shooting, poisonous snakes, rat infestation, etc.
 
Agree. Keep the garage door closed, and just vent the area to reduce the heat gain. No matter how safe your neighborhood is, it is always good to keep things buttoned up. I miss having a dog, so I will get another one soon. They detect the slightest noise, and vibration well before you can, and hearing that low growl when they hear/feel something different is reassuring.
 
My garage door is open at least mid way a good portion of july and august. I try not to have a noticeable routine but I am not going to worry about or guard against tool theft like its a hyper priority, its not. I will use common sense and just live my life. I think what is important is that you are not trying to figure out what to do if something bad does happen.. I think its a good idea to think about it, have a plan, and stick to the plan.
 
My Garage gets hot, but not that hot, the door (lift up) is never in direct sunlight (Trees) good door into house, seems to block heat pretty good.

In doing the Patrol, marked Jeep, at first lots of Garage doors left open, but as I spotted the owners over a period of time, now less and less.

This is not so much a tool theft problem, but an access to house problem. I do not think we have poiseness snakes here, but if my Wife saw a black snake?

She would move!

A couple of subdivisions over from ours, 4 young men climbed out of a Jeep, driver stayed in it, they rang doorbell, 10-30pm. Cameras showed rapid egress as inside lights came on. No weapons seen, but all had back packs on.

One thing we have going for us, one way in, same way out.
 
As an added precaution, you might unplug the power to the garage door opener at night.
Also neutralize the catch that releases the door opener from the door itself.
Click to expand...
I do this whenever I'm going to be gone all day, or for more than a day, without fail.
 
Beware of Dog . . .

When I lived in San Diego I put a "beware of dog" sign on my back gate. It had a snarling doberman as an image. Did it work? Well the meter reader always came to the front door to see if the dog was out. We didn't have a dog.

Live well, be safe.
Prof Young
 
My father once left his garage door up for about thirty seconds to a minute at around 4:00 in the morning. This is an excellent neighborhood with no crime.

Came back after a minute, someone was searching the garage for valuables. He must have been driving around looking for people who accidentally left their garage doors up overnight.

You can't give anyone even a second of extra time because a criminal will take advantage.
 
Now, should all of that fail while you happen to be around and you become aware of it, you would be justified in issuing whatever level of non deadly physical force Smith be required to protect your property, and no more, but that's risky, and the potential consequences are probably not worth it.
Click to expand...
Depends on the state, but at least around here it is explicitly written into the law that it's legal to use deadly force on someone illegally in your home who is committing or that you believe is about to commit some crime beyond trespass (including but not limited to burglary).

I'd use a long gun, I'd confront, and at the slightest provocation or sight of a weapon or commission of any crime on the intruder's part including picking up or holding any piece of property I'd shoot.

Burglars don't deserve to live, and I've got no problem sorting it out.
 
Burglars don't deserve to live, and I've got no problem sorting it out.
Click to expand...
Best to never give the state evidence that could be used to indicate state of mind, lest that become important in the aftermath.

And best to avoid shooting someone in your house if you can.
 
Depends on the state, but at least around here it is explicitly written into the law that it's legal to use deadly force on someone illegally in your home who is committing or that you believe is about to commit some crime beyond trespass (including but not limited to burglary).
Click to expand...
That's not what TX law says at all.

What the law says is that if a person breaks into an OCCUPIED house then it is presumed that the use of deadly force by the occupants is justified.

1. It doesn't explicitly allow deadly force, it just says that the defender doesn't have to prove that the deadly force was justified--instead the state has the burden of proof to show that it was not.

2. If you come home and someone has broken into your house/attached garage in your absence, that particular law doesn't offer any protection if you decide to go in after them because the house wasn't occupied when the break-in occurred.

3. Although the law says that deadly force is presumed to be justified if some breaks into an occupied house, that doesn't mean that the homeowner's actions and/or words can't destroy that presumption. In other words, if you do or say something that makes it clear that deadly force was NOT justified then you just provided the state the evidence it needs to show that the presumption was false and that deadly force was not justified. Examples of how that might be done are:
  • The burglar was very obviously fleeing/trying to escape and posed no threat at all but the homeowner fired on them anyway.
  • The burglar was very obviously not any kind of a threat (perhaps disabled or very physically unassuming and unarmed) and the homeowner could clearly see that was the case.
  • The homeowner had repeatedly made public comments before the shooting that he/she would shoot any burglar on sight regardless of whether or not they posed a threat. e.g. "Burglars don't deserve to live, and I've got no problem sorting it out."
  • The homeowner stated after the fact that he/she was well aware that the burglar posed no threat but that he/she shot him/her anyway.
 
Well then, your law is unfortunate. Mine is not. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I killed him because he was a burglar". Before, after, during, whenever. You're immune from prosecution (not just an affirmative defense - no trial at all) as long as the prongs of the legal test are made. You're also immune from civil liability.
 
What state is that Big D?

I know in Texas, its not like that legally. However, in reality, juries have no billed home owners in the past who defended themselves against intruders in their garage. I am paraphrasing but I think its safe to say, in Texas when in doubt, you can show a reasonable fear of death or harm you can use self defense to stop the threat (but not if you're a BG yourself committing a crime). Note stopping the threat is the level of force. Once that threat has stopped, anything further and claim of self defense will not hold.

Indeed Texas law provides for nighttime defense of autos and a variety of other items that could be used in that circumstance. Having said that, I don't think Any state would permit the scenario we had awhile back where someone intentionally left a purse out and effectively ambushed a thief.

Despite what my wife says, I've yet to find the statue she cited where wives can take out their husbands if they really deserve it-I've not found the "he needed killin your honor" defense claim yet. But just to be safe, I'm always very polite around her when she's armed. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
CO.

The relevant statute

Case law has effectively rendered the 3rd prong of the test in 18-1-704.5 (2) irrelevant although it could conceivably come up if the intruder was a quadriplegic beamed in by Scotty who somehow none the less managed to commit a crime (perhaps menacing?!?).
 
If I know its a intruder.
I will barricade and call the Cops. Nothing out there worth me killing any one to keep. let alone me getting killed.

I have dogs and security cameras.

But I do spend a bit of time investigating noises and unknown dog barking.
So when I go out I go prepared. Ran face to face with a timber wolf one time.
Raccoon, Bob cats. And of course the occasional scuff muffin trying to steal gas.
I wont shoot a scruff Muffin I run into unless he posses a threat. Almost every time its HEY!!!! What are you doing!!!
" Oh Sh..!!!" Run away run away!!!
 
Last edited:
Posted by The Big D:
It's perfectly acceptable to say "I killed him because he was a burglar". Before, after, during, whenever.
Click to expand...
It may be "acceptable" to "say" that, but that would not be at all sufficient for a defense of justification.

Do not disregard "and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant". Any evidence showing that such a belief on the part of the occupant had not been reasonable at the time could be devastating.

John provided a list of possible examples. The list is not exhaustive.

You're immune from prosecution (not just an affirmative defense - no trial at all) as long as the prongs of the legal test are made. You're also immune from civil liability.
Click to expand...
"The prongs of the legal test" are that the court agrees that the evidence produced by the actor show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that all of the conditions of the law had been met.
 
From BigD:
CO.

The relevant statute


While I like the Colorado statute, and am pleasantly surprised, be prepared to go to trial. And with the ever increasing anti-gun mentality there, it may be a rough ride.

"Trial court is authorized to dismiss criminal prosecution at pretrial stage when conditions of statute are satisfied, and this does not infringe upon prosecution's discretion to file charges. People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987); Young v. District Court, 740 P.2d 982 (Colo. 1987)."

"Defendant may still raise immunity as defense at trial when pretrial motion to dismiss is denied. People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987)."

"Where pretrial motion to dismiss on grounds of statutory immunity provided in this section is denied, defendant may raise it as an affirmative defense at trial. In such case, the burden of proof which is generally applicable to affirmative defenses would apply. People v. Malczewski, 744 P.2d 62 (Colo. 1987)."
 
Suffice to say I'll trust advice from actual lawyers over advice from internet lawyers, and I'll continue to exercise my right to speak freely about what I believe should happen to criminals. This "tut tut, don't say that. The lawyers will get you." routine is not convincing. Beyond that it's harmful to society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top