My home was broken into last night. Did I do the right thing?
- Thread starter DaveInPA
- Start date
- Status
Lawyer daggit, you know (or, at least, you SHOULD know) that Tennessee v. Garner greatly limits the situations in which deadly force can be used against fleeing felons.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
In most states in the US, you can not use deadly force to protect property.
Creature, you obviously haven't paid attention to my posts. I actually stated that although I would be tempted to shoot I probably wouldn't in that case. What I did say was that I would have chased those punks half way around the world before I would let them get away with my stuff, given I was armed. I may have shot out the tires or fired at the rear end of the car/van mainly to give the police some positive ID on the vehicle, and try to remember tag numbers as well. All of these actions are completely within my rights because the law says you can use whatever means necessary to protect your property or belongings, with the exception of deadly force. Deadly force only applies if you or yours are in any imminent danger, which is very possible in a break in situation.
that easily could have turned into a home invasion. If they had stopped or faced you while holding a cue you should have shot. Multiple assailants with bludgeons is definately grounds for lethal force in most states. You woul have a very hard time justifying shooting anyone in the back unless you can show that they were a potential threat to someone else (ie running toward a family member etc).
shoot, chase, or hold down the fort?
You made the right choice, morally and ethically, by not shooting. It would appear you also made the correct legal choice for your home state.
For those who would chase people down over $7500:
What if, in the course of your pursuit, the fleeing felons have a head-on with another car, and kill a young mother and her child? This happened in Pensacola a few years back... Maybe you are willing to assume the risk for yourself, but do you really want to assume it for all the potential innocent bystanders?
You may say that any harm would ultimately be the fault of the thieves, but do you really want to live with the possible repercussions? Not talking lawsuits, or money, but severe emotional damage from having contributed to harming innocents.
On a different note, according to the OP, the alarm system goes off immediately. It went off several seconds, or longer, after the dog started barking. These thieves continued breaking into a house with a barking dog? That in itself is sort of odd, and makes me wonder if they knew the dog was not likely to attack. Still, the usual concern cited by burglars with regard to dogs is not fear of being bitten, but fear of the dog warning homeowners and neighbors that something is amiss.
You made the right choice, morally and ethically, by not shooting. It would appear you also made the correct legal choice for your home state.
For those who would chase people down over $7500:
What if, in the course of your pursuit, the fleeing felons have a head-on with another car, and kill a young mother and her child? This happened in Pensacola a few years back... Maybe you are willing to assume the risk for yourself, but do you really want to assume it for all the potential innocent bystanders?
You may say that any harm would ultimately be the fault of the thieves, but do you really want to live with the possible repercussions? Not talking lawsuits, or money, but severe emotional damage from having contributed to harming innocents.
On a different note, according to the OP, the alarm system goes off immediately. It went off several seconds, or longer, after the dog started barking. These thieves continued breaking into a house with a barking dog? That in itself is sort of odd, and makes me wonder if they knew the dog was not likely to attack. Still, the usual concern cited by burglars with regard to dogs is not fear of being bitten, but fear of the dog warning homeowners and neighbors that something is amiss.
Oh, yes, I have been paying attention to your posts. Your statement that you would have chased them because you were armed implies that you WOULD NOT have chased them if you WEREN'T armed.
If you feel it important and nessassary to chase after someone beyond your property line who is fleeing with your stuff, just dont say you weren't warned.
MLeake, I don't know how much money you make, but 7,500 is a lot of money to me. You're damn right I would chase them down over that! I wouldn't plan on insurance to cover it either. As far as them running into innocent bystanders, well that's not really my problem actually. If someone breaks into my home well that is my problem.
What is it with some of you people who actually think that criminals have more rights than you do!, just curious..
Creature, of course I would chase them beyond my property line, because they still have my property! What does property lines have to do with anything, they still have my stuff!
Creature, of course I would chase them beyond my property line, because they still have my property! What does property lines have to do with anything, they still have my stuff!
warrior poet
New member
When talking about right and wrong... there is the law. Like it, love it, hate it, whatever you feel about it, the law is pretty clear. If someone believes the law is unjust, there are procedures within the law to change it. Even the Constitution has Amendments. 
Personally, I'd like to see thieves hung in public, and buried in a unmarked grave so they at least "give" back to the earth- but I'm not a judge... not my call.
As for not shooting when they are running away, Dave, you did right... you did what was LEGAL. Shooting them would have landed you in court, and probably in jail. Most certainly survivors (or the families of the perps) would have sued in civil court. Your odds there aren't very good. Read the entire link from my last post (prepared by a PA lawyer), you'll see why.
Personally, I'd like to see thieves hung in public, and buried in a unmarked grave so they at least "give" back to the earth- but I'm not a judge... not my call.As for not shooting when they are running away, Dave, you did right... you did what was LEGAL. Shooting them would have landed you in court, and probably in jail. Most certainly survivors (or the families of the perps) would have sued in civil court. Your odds there aren't very good. Read the entire link from my last post (prepared by a PA lawyer), you'll see why.
Dude, get a grip. It isnt about your rights being less than those of the criminal's.
It's about the laws as they are written in your state. You need to carefully step back and reassess the laws of your state regarding pursuit of a criminal and the recovery of stolen property...as well as justifiable use and escalation of force in your state.
It just might give you pause. Or not:
That is a amazingly callous, irresponsible and, quite frankly, a very telling statement about you.
The real point most of us are making is that stolen property and it's recovery rarely, if ever, is easy...or goes according to plan. We get that you are of the mind set that it's your stuff and you aim to retrieve it. But the point many of us are trying to make is that you might just loose much more than you intended in the process of recovering your stuff.
I just hope it isnt my family that gets hurt during your pursuit of a pool cue.
warrior poet
New member
AMEN
Here in Florida I am led to believe that we have the right to use any force to stop a fleeing VIOLENT felon. Those 2 fit that definition fleeing with the goods I think I could have ordered them to stop than fired.
While grand theft is a felony it is not violent in nature. But since I was inside the home it is not a simple B&E any longer... it is now a HOME INVASION and that my friends IS a VIOLENT felony!
Brent
While grand theft is a felony it is not violent in nature. But since I was inside the home it is not a simple B&E any longer... it is now a HOME INVASION and that my friends IS a VIOLENT felony!
Brent
You did the right thing.
I hope some of you chest beaters will have the decency to continue to post in this forum after you have been inprisoned for your bad "SD" shooting. You may save some other Mall Ninja from the same fate.
In AZ, he would have ended up being charged. Advising someone to fire warning shots is only marginally less stupid than advising someone to shoot to wound. What goes up must come down and you are responsible for where the bullet ultimately ends up. Firing into the ground can get you jammed up as well since many jurisdictions have laws against discharging a firearm. In most states, the only time you can legally discharge your firearm (in this context) is in situations where lethal force is legally justified. The law doesn't (nor should it) allow "warning shots", anyone who advises you to fire a warning shot is someone who's advice you shouldn't follow and if you think about firing warning shots, you should think again.
I hope some of you chest beaters will have the decency to continue to post in this forum after you have been inprisoned for your bad "SD" shooting. You may save some other Mall Ninja from the same fate.
It's a lot of money to all of us. But it is very, very little money towards hiring a competent defense attorney. A good one will often require $10,000 up front. A self defense case can easily cost $50k or more. Then there's the possibility of a civil trial after that.
I've got homeowner's insurance that would likely pay for a portion of the $7,500.
But more important than the money is the fact that my life is worth more to me than $7,500. I won't put myself if a dangerous situation to save that kind of money. I'll use deadly force, if necessary, to defend myself and/or my family. Stuff is just stuff and can be (eventually) replaced.
Warning shots are almost never advisable. You are responsible for the final resting place of each and every shot you fire. The shots you fire up in the air will come down, and could kill someone when they do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire
If you are justified in using deadly force, then aim for center of the chest (or head, if chest shots fail). If you are not justified in using deadly force, then don't shoot.
If you are justified in using deadly force, then aim for center of the chest (or head, if chest shots fail). If you are not justified in using deadly force, then don't shoot.
I'm probably the 50'th person to tell you this by now but you asked for peace of mind. Absolutely you did the right thing.
Regardless of the particular state that you live in, killing someone is an incredible weight and responsibility. Some people just shrug it off, most people not. Only you can answer this: do you feel better about the fact that you did not shoot someone in the back as they fled? If you do, than sleep soundly. Anything that costs money can also eventually be replaced. I myself would have not shot. My guns are not meant for those who are running full speed away from me, they are solely to protect my life and the life of those whom I love. Protecting my material possessions are second to this single fact.
Even if you shoot someone in self defense under the most optimal of conditions, your still stand to possibly be arrested and processed. Because you didn't shoot you got to go back to your bed whether you could go back to sleep or not. Keep that in mind. A good example of this would be if one of the men you shot turned out to be someone that you knew. You then may find yourself have to explain to the cops, prosecutors exc.) of how a past acquaintance of yours ended up shot in the back (possibly unarmed) with a hand full of pool sticks. I'm not saying that things might turn out in your favor, but why bother dealing with it if you don't have to. You probably earn enough in your tournaments to replaced your pool sticks in some reasonable expanse of time or you wouldn't have had them in the first place.
Lastly: people don't just break into houses and steal pool sticks. Someone out there THAT YOU KNOW is responsible for this. Check the pawn shops for them, keep an eye out when your out because they may just be dumb enough to use one of them when their out shooting pool, and check out E-bay because they may be dumb enough to sell it there to. If they knew how much they were worth and they wanted them, they are either going to use them or sell them somewhere where they could get there moneys worth for their efforts.
In terms of protection of my homestead, what happened to you this is exactly why I own a rottweiler. People tend to think twice when they know that 120+ ponds of teeth are behind your front door, sometimes it is an even better deterrent than having a gun.
Regardless of the particular state that you live in, killing someone is an incredible weight and responsibility. Some people just shrug it off, most people not. Only you can answer this: do you feel better about the fact that you did not shoot someone in the back as they fled? If you do, than sleep soundly. Anything that costs money can also eventually be replaced. I myself would have not shot. My guns are not meant for those who are running full speed away from me, they are solely to protect my life and the life of those whom I love. Protecting my material possessions are second to this single fact.
Even if you shoot someone in self defense under the most optimal of conditions, your still stand to possibly be arrested and processed. Because you didn't shoot you got to go back to your bed whether you could go back to sleep or not. Keep that in mind. A good example of this would be if one of the men you shot turned out to be someone that you knew. You then may find yourself have to explain to the cops, prosecutors exc.) of how a past acquaintance of yours ended up shot in the back (possibly unarmed) with a hand full of pool sticks. I'm not saying that things might turn out in your favor, but why bother dealing with it if you don't have to. You probably earn enough in your tournaments to replaced your pool sticks in some reasonable expanse of time or you wouldn't have had them in the first place.
Lastly: people don't just break into houses and steal pool sticks. Someone out there THAT YOU KNOW is responsible for this. Check the pawn shops for them, keep an eye out when your out because they may just be dumb enough to use one of them when their out shooting pool, and check out E-bay because they may be dumb enough to sell it there to. If they knew how much they were worth and they wanted them, they are either going to use them or sell them somewhere where they could get there moneys worth for their efforts.
In terms of protection of my homestead, what happened to you this is exactly why I own a rottweiler. People tend to think twice when they know that 120+ ponds of teeth are behind your front door, sometimes it is an even better deterrent than having a gun.
I say yes you can. A man should be able to feel safe in his own home and not have to worry about criminals breaking in to steal your belongings, or possibly harm you or your family. If more criminals were shot and killed, I believe they would be less likely to commit crimes. How many more crimes did the criminals commit after they got away? If they were dead, they wouldn't have the opportunity to commit crimes. This is just my personal opinion.
To the original poster- you did the right thing. Shooting a robber in the back as he is running away is a sure ticket to prison. You lost a good amount of money in personal belongings, but they can be replaced. Your life and freedom can't be replaced.
Creature, According to the Volusia County Deputy that informed me... I can shoot the fleeing home invader of some one else's home. As I stated I have the right to apprehend a VIOLENT felon suspect with ANY level of force needed.
Florida.
I do not have the right to shoot a guy who is having a fist fight with another as it may not be a felony assault situation but them home invaders sure are violent felony suspects. And yes I would have been fully justified in shooting them in the back INSIDE my home for sure! And I would have for a 7 dollar warped pool cue with a broken tip! My wife would have made me clean up the mess and that would be that...
Brent
Florida.
I do not have the right to shoot a guy who is having a fist fight with another as it may not be a felony assault situation but them home invaders sure are violent felony suspects. And yes I would have been fully justified in shooting them in the back INSIDE my home for sure! And I would have for a 7 dollar warped pool cue with a broken tip! My wife would have made me clean up the mess and that would be that...
Brent
hogdogs
I don't agree with your stance but at least men like you are making would-be burglars and violent offenders more fearful of the rest of us . . .
I'd just assume an intruder make a mess on my floor (by other means) as he tucked tail and ran at the very sight of my gun.
I don't agree with your stance but at least men like you are making would-be burglars and violent offenders more fearful of the rest of us . . .
I'd just assume an intruder make a mess on my floor (by other means) as he tucked tail and ran at the very sight of my gun.
- Status