I couldnt believe this!

[newerguy]

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.

All the more reason to only have one side of the story in court...yours!

Really guys, how about whether it can be proven, and whether or not you would be convicted, shooting someone to prevent them from subsequently testifying against you in a criminal or civil trial is murder!

The only reason you are justified in shooting some one is to protect yourself or another person from an imminant threat of death or serious physical injury. Anything else is not justified. You could be justified with your first two shots, and not your third. If you think you need two shots to stop the threat, and a third to prevent the guy from suing you, and you shoot three times, you've committed murder.

(Until the Courts threw out New York's death penalty due to a technicality, killing someone to prevent them from acting as a witness was death elligible.)

 

[easyG]

Newerguy,

I think you are missing my point...

I'm not advocating an unjustified shooting.
But unfortunately, due to our current legal system, even if you made what you would consider a justified shooting, the courts might not see it that way.

Remember that jurors are not told everything about a case, only what the judge has deemed as "permissible evidence".

And it's not what you know, it's what you can prove (this was true long before Denzel said it in Training Day).

Here's a undisputed fact for you:

There are hundreds and hundreds of innocent men in prison.

Sometimes the system does not work as it should.
Just look at how many folks have been exhonorated by DNA evidence in the last ten years....after serving many many years of hard time.

Even though you made a justified shooting, there's no reason to take chances and not stack the legal deck in your favor.

Besides, if a person is doing something so bad that they deserve to be shot, then they also deserve to be killed.
After all, you never shoot at anyone without knowing that there is good chance that you will kill them, right?

 

[shy_man]

If someone iscarrying a gun *CCW* don't think so much of the intricacies of legallity if ever you can shoot someone. Put in mind that it is better to explain in court rather than you are already dead. If you are a survivor you have so much chance to be out of jail.

Fearing the law so much is of no help. Just follow what the law that it says about carrying a gun.

In our case, there are two kinds to carry pistol legally. We call it PTC *Permit to Carry* you can holster it on your IW holster, or some boastful carrier will also carry by outside holster with their polo untucked so it really prints.

We can also carry our weapon thru having a Permit to trasport *PTT* you should be a gun club member for this kind of paper. The ruling for this is, the gun and ammo should be in separate comparment. But nobody is doing this, and I am too, if there are some they are novice. Mostly they carry on their clutch bag, or belt bag, shoulder bag and just put the magazines on their pants back pocket in case of you need it would be easy to access. That is already technicality. The pistol and ammo were carried separately.

Another thing, if a licensed gun being carried by someone without a PTC or PTT and if caught, what is the crime charged in court. To my analysis no crime bec. the gun is licensed, only perhaps our firearms and Explosives Department can just recall the license, that is the only danger I can see but no crime is to be charged.

What is important to everyone is, know your law about gun, carrying etc. Just be law abiding citizen for sure you won't be afraid of the law. But if you are looking for a loophole to the law, then be smart.

 

[markj]

how badly made was your neighbor's door that he could break it down with apparently very little effort?

Regular wood door, we are kinda big here, some say huge. My brother and I can pick up a car together. We have done it many times for folks entertainment.

I guess I view folks in a different light. Someone breaks into my house with a bat and I have a gun, well it isnt a contest, he complies with my request or gets shot. Now if you was standing there with a bat and a guy with a gun told you to stop, drop and remain while pointing said gun at you, what you going to do? Beside wet yer pants.

When working as a bouncer I removed 3 guns from guys that just shouldnt have had them, I was unarmed. All on different occasions. One knife after it was stuck in my neck, still got it today almost 30 years later.

Takes a bigger threat to me for me to shoot cause if I shoot, the person will die of this I am sure.

My Grandmother shot and killed a guy in the 50s or 40s, he was breaking in the back door at 5am or so after the men left for a hunting trip, she shot him and killed him.

I would expect my wife to act as such, she is small, not any kind of fighting person. I am very large and have fought in many venues way back in the late 60s and early 70s. I guess I just dont fear a guy with a bat in hand as much as you all do. Last night I worked on the place cutting trees down and hauling them to the pile, all by hand with a hand saw, keeps me fit. I can still pick up a small block chevy engine and put it in the back of a pickup. Complete engine.

Sorry you all dont see it my way, hope you never have to actually shoot someone.

 

[brickeyee]

“Then, it goes on and lists several "ifs" such as the attacker was not the instigator, or a bunch of things such as that. By the time I determined all of the "ifs" I would be raped, had great bodily harm commited against me, and probably killed.”

You had better be aware what those “ifs” mean.
Usually they disallow self defense if you incited the attack, initiated the fight, and a number of other important conditions.
If it is really self defense you will not likely fall under any of them.

You cannot walk up to someone, pup them in the face, and then claim self defense when they start to defend themselves.


“If someone iscarrying a gun *CCW* don't think so much of the intricacies of legallity if ever you can shoot someone.”

You had damn well better understand your local laws unless you plan on getting locked up.
It is not that you need to run a checklist, but you had better now if you have a duty to retreat or not, and what the locality allows in self defense.
In almost every place you must be in fear of death, grave bodily harm, and a few places allow rape (NOT all).
Some places allow shooting over property crimes (often under restricted circumstances) while other DO NOT.
In Virginia you may NOT shoot over property. Period. End of freedom for you if you do.

 

[Knotthead]

Is this a question of morality or legality? Based on the wording of the original question I believe it was asked as a moral question, but most of the responses seem to address the legal issues, which vary from state to state. As a moral issue I believe if someone breaks in to your home you are justified in shooting them. Having said that, I would greatly regret shooting someone who was just a drunk who walked in through the wrong door. That's why I lock mine. If he is there, he "BROKE" in. He didn't just walk in.

 

[brickeyee]

"As a moral issue I believe if someone breaks in to your home you are justified in shooting them."

You are welcome to believe what you want, but capital punishment is not used for breaking and entering.
Even in states with specific 'castle doctrine ' laws you will have an uphill battle for simple B&E. These laws (as demonstrated in Florida recently) do NOT prevent a charge from being brought by the DA.
With that charge comes a requirement for you to defend yourself.
Lawyers do not generally work for free.

It is imperative that anyone contemplating lethal self defense be aware of the LEGAL journey they will be undertaking if they act.
You cannot stand in court accused of murder and say 'morally I was in the right'.
You will spend your time contemplating morality from a rather small cell.

 

[Knotthead]

brickeyee,

You seem to be wanting to return this to a legal discussion. If someone breaks in to an occupied dwelling, it is reasonable to assume that they are prepared to deal with the occupants. We aren't talking about a neighbor walking through an open door looking for a cup of sugar. I wouldn't expect that someone who has kicked my door open at 4:30 A.M. to be there to prepare breakfast, and I don't believe I should be expected to conduct an interview to find out for sure. Am I advocating "blowing away" anyone I suddenly find in my home unexpectedly? Absolutely not. But someone who has forceably entered through locked doors uninvited is certainly not a guest. If it did turn out to be just some drunk who mistakenly kicked open the wrong door (see post #29), this would be a tragic mistake and would result in a great deal of remorse that would probably scar me for life, but I would not feel morally guilty. Much guilt perhaps, but not guilty.

 

[brickeyee]

It is a legal discussion immediately after you shoot someone.
Even someone who breaks in by bashing the door down may not be an immediate threat.

'His shoulder that he smashed the door with looked dangerous' is not going to go very far.
If they turn and run are you going to shoot them i the back? (it is acceptable in a few places).

Weapon in BGs hand?
Different matter.
And 'weapon; includes clubs, bats, knives, guns, etc.

Shooting someone who is not an immediate threat is going to cause trouble.
You are left to decide how much trouble you can afford.
My attorney is around $400 an hour.

 

[easyG]

Even someone who breaks in by bashing the door down may not be an immediate threat.

Here, in NC you can shoot someone who is in the PROCESS of bashing your door down...even before they enter the home.

I guess I just dont fear a guy with a bat in hand as much as you all do.

You should.
Even if you shoot a someone swinging a bat chances are that the shot will NOT immediately stop them from finishing the swing.
And all it takes is ONE hit to the head with a bat to cause permanent brain damage or even kill you.

 

[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]

2 cents

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