I couldnt believe this!

O

Offshootboy

Inactive
A few months ago I was sitting in class and we started a discussion about whether you should shoot someone that broke into your house, and one of my fellow class mates said, "You shouldnt shoot them unless they threaten you with a gun". I couldnt believe it. Isn't breaking and entering a threat enough as it is? If your dum enough to break in to peoples houses I think you deserve whats coming to you.

Just thought about that today and thought I would share it with you guys.

What are your thoughts? :eek:
 
Some one breaks into a house where some one is home the criminal has shown that they don't care about harming the person or persons inside the house. Holes in front; I was in fear of my life. Holes in back I was in fear fordaughters safety he was heading for her room.
 
Legality depends on your area. Here in Louisiana, we have the Castle Doctrine that says if someone is in your home or vehicle without your permission, you can legally use lethal force regardless of if they presented a weapon or not. We also have no duty to retreat here.

So if I woke up and found someone I didn't know in my home, there's a good chance they wouldn't walk out.
 
The law can be fickle where I live when it comes to justifiable homicide, but in general, the homeowner is given the benefit of the doubt. An old expression also says that dead men tell no tales. With that in mind, forget any notion of shooting to wound. If you pull the trigger, do so with the sole intention of killing your adversary.
 
If he's in my house, here there to do bad stuff to me. Wether or not he gets time to bring that weapon to bear depends on who gets the drop on who... :rolleyes:
 
forget any notion of shooting to wound. If you pull the trigger, do so with the sole intention of killing your adversary.
Click to expand...
Do so with the sole intention of stopping the threat! If death results, so be it. If you put a bullet in their spine and paralize them, the threat has been nullified, If they are unconcious, the threat has been nullified. If you shoot them again with the intent to kill, you will be charged with unjustifiable homicide.
 
If you put a bullet in their spine and paralize them, the threat has been nullified, If they are unconcious, the threat has been nullified. If you shoot them again with the intent to kill, you will be charged with unjustifiable homicide.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily....

When you shoot someone, you have no way of knowing if they are dead, unconcious, or what.
And only an idiot would go near the threat to assess their vitals.

Best to put at least three in any advancing threat right from the start.
 
If you shoot someone who is down and to a reasonable person (like those on the jury) is out of the fight then you will go to jail.

THere is no magic number of times to shoot a threat. The only answer is "until the threat is neutralized". If neutralization results in death, paralysis, amputation, or simply urine soaked pants and a prone criminal the I am fine with it. There is no one I would tie myself to as a preference. If it takes one round or the whole mag also does not matter.
 
If you shoot someone who is down and to a reasonable person (like those on the jury) is out of the fight then you will go to jail.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true.

If you shoot a guy and he falls to the ground, but is still pointing his pistol at you or your family, what would you do?


I'm betting that you would shoot him again.
And I'm betting that no jury in the land would think you were wrong in doing so.

Now, how is anyone who was not there going to determine if he really was continueing to point his pistol at you or your family?
 
If you pull the trigger, do so with the sole intention of killing your adversary.
Click to expand...

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.
 
EasyG

I said:
If you shoot someone who is down and to a reasonable person (like those on the jury) is out of the fight then you will go to jail.
Click to expand...

A criminal who is down but still holding a gun is not out of the fight.
 
A criminal who is down but still holding a gun is not out of the fight.
Click to expand...
Right.
On this we agree.

So I say again, how is anyone who was not there going to determine if he really was continueing to point his pistol at you or your family?

And if he's dead, who is going to contradict your claims?
 
"And if he's dead, who is going to contradict your claims?"

While much of the stuff on TV is BS, forensics does exist.

If you are going to carry/use deadly force you need to carefully review the statute law and case law in the jurisdiction(s) you operate in.

It varies by state and sometimes even county or city.
I know in Virginia what is likely to be acceptable in Winchester may not pass muster in a more liberal area like Arlington.

In Arlington, the Commonwealth's Attorney has directly said he will arrest any concealed weapon permit holder who uses deadly force.
He may loose in court, but he PLANS on costing you a lot of money.
 
Isn't breaking and entering a threat enough as it is?
Click to expand...

No.

There have been many documented cases where a drunk guy mistakenly broke into a house thinking it was his, and he didn't have his key. Other times it's been teenagers doing a prank. I even seem to recall one case where a diabetic smashed his car into a house and tried to stumble inside.

Many states require you to retreat first. VA does not have 'castle doctrine' yet, but we have case law so nothing is written in stone.

Someone breaks into your house, the threat needs to be identified and warned first. A loud verbal intent could be all it takes to get them running.
 
While much of the stuff on TV is BS, forensics does exist.
Click to expand...
A guy is threatening you with a gun in your home.
You shoot him twice and he falls.
You shoot him again on the ground because you still felt threatened by him.

There exist NO forensics in the world that can determine if he was still threatening you or not from the floor.

But I promise you that if you shoot him only once and the EMS guys save him, you WILL be hearing his side of the story in a courtroom.



Someone breaks into your house, the threat needs to be identified and warned first. A loud verbal intent could be all it takes to get them running.
Click to expand...

Identified?
Absolutely!
Never fire at anything that you have not identified as something you want to shoot and possibly kill.

Warned first?
Warning someone who has just broken into your home?
Sounds like a good way to get killed in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top