Shoot 'em in the back?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe the shotgun being racked would be louder than the sound of his sphyncter puckering. Maybe not!!

You might say something like, "Toss the gun behind you, and lay down on the floor, now." If met with resistance, then do what's necessary. Why have a firearm for protection, and chamber a round, if not prepared to use it.
You've got to make that decision long before this ever happens, if it ever does.

As for shooting him in the back, pre-emptively. I really have no desire to goto prison because a thief chose my home.

It's been said that police are historians, they record the events after the fact.
It's also been said that police aren't there to protect you, or your property, but to enforce the laws. That does go hand in hand with "after the fact".
So, my protection is my responsibility. And the responsibile usage of the gun is also. Especially when others are in the home I'm trying to protect.

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Donny: ...
You've got to make that decision long before this ever happens ...[/quote]That's why we're discussing techniques and the best approach NOW -- before it happens.
 
Observations;
1-From watching people shoot most people will shoot high in a fast shoot situation.( against clock)so if you are going to do a verble challenge do it from a kneeling position so if he turns and shoots the rounds will go over you.
2-I'm too old and tired to dig holes so its a mine shaft or chain and a lake.

------------------
beemerb
We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world;
and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men
every day who don't know anything and can't read.
-Mark Twain
 
Gotta love Texas...
The Texas Penal Code Chapter 9, Subchapter D covers the use of deadly force...
Section 9.42:
...to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, or THEFT DURING THE NIGHTTIME...
The law is pretty clear about defending your property...
Good luck finding a lawyer.
paull
 
paull,
you left out the best part:
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. I asked my CHL instuctor if fleeing meant you could shoot them in the back and his answer was, " If they're fleeing the only thing you have to shoot at is their back". Just try to make sure they have some of your stuff in their hand before shooting them in the back or before the cops show up. Remember, dead man tell no tales.



------------------
NRA Life Member
GSSF Member
 
Gee, people get their dander up if their solution isn't seen as a good one.

Coinneach - order the guy to stop and if he doesn't get down, you are going to approach him and kick him in the back of the knee.
Now he is on the ground at your feet and with a twist all over you.

Have you have tried this? I have in FOF - it's not that easy. The BG close to you is a constant peril. A gun and distance is your friend and you want to get close. Sorry, if this bothers you - but you don't want to do that and it is not a matter of being sensitive to the BG. It is just stupid.

CLOSING IS A BIG BOOBOO!

Another point - someone mentioned racking the shotgun - urban gun myth. As soon as you pick up the weapon, you are to be ready for the use of deadly force. You never rack for sound effects. Rack as soon as you pick it up.

Your kids - if you have to shoot to protect yourself - fine but you cannot assume where they are in a nighttime break in. For all, you know they are obscured by the bad guy. You can be a bad shot under stress (sorry - if you say you wouldn't be - very good folks said it happened to them). I'm saying before you get into a firefight where the bad guy moves off line - it would be important to consider their location. If you don't you might regret it.

Ammo choice would be important to limit penetration.

Mjsarge - I know a lot of trainers in TX and elsewhere. I know the TX laws. Your instructor was an idiot if he encouraged you to shoot someone who is fleeing. If he encouraged you to alter the crime scene by putting something in their hands, he is a super idiot. Modern forensics will figure this idiot.

Dead men tell no tells is another stupid thing to say. You cannot guarantee that a shot in the back will kill anyone. If it doesn't, the BG may testify against you in the criminal and civil suit (the later may be worse than the former). Once down, if you shoot him - forensics will determine this and you very well may be charged as the defensive equation has changed.

I might get flamed for this but lethal force isn't the time for halfbaked advice. Before you opine on such a serious matter, you really need to think this through. It takes serious reading and training.

There is a little to much touch of blood thirsty fantasy in some responses and some other threads. This ain't beanbag.

You want to avoid the use of lethal force if you can. You never want to use it. You will use it to prevent grievous bodily harm. Property is a mixed call even if local laws support you.

You need to actually try these scenarios and see the confusion of CQB and have shots fired before you opine that you will do this or that. I've done enough to know that some solutions are proposed by those who haven't done it. If that is insulting, I don't mean to be but I do mean to make a forceful point.

Given that - I will say what I would do.

1. I would challenge the guy.
Don't Move. Don't Make me Shoot You.
The police are on the way.

2. If he did not comply, I would shoot to stop. If he flees (not all shots are stoppers), I do not pursue but go check on the kids.

There is a risk with a shot to the kids, I calculate that this is one I would take with a straight on shot with hollow points. Note, I'm using a pistol. I've done shotgun and pistol exercises and if I'm wandering around the house at night, it will be with a pistol and Surefire.

3. At the same time, the SO would call the cops and we would trigger the alarm. Lights and sirens go on. She has called as I went out to check.

4. I would verbally call to the kids and try to assess their situation. If they are ok, I would tell them to stay put and wait for the cops.
At this time, I would tell the BG to get down
and in an appropriate prone position.

If at this time, he attempts to flee and his flight path is not in a direction towards the kids, I might let him go.

5. If the BG, held at a distance, tried to move in any other way - I would assume that is a threat to all and use deadly force to stop him.

If there is another BG or the kids don't answer, there are too many unknowns to continue without a zillion branches.
 
mjsarge,

Here's another Texas CHL Instructor with a another option for you to consider.

If the BG is running away with your VCR (or whatever), compare the cost of replacing the stolen item with the cost of shooting the BG in the back.
- How will your business associates react? (eg employers, co-workers, employees, clients, etc.)
- How will your neighbors and their children react to your family. (Your spouse and kids in school, etc.)
- Consider the monetary, emotional, and social costs of defending yourself in court against possible criminal charges and then possible civil suits. (Remember, the dead BG will be a "Saint" in the eyes of his family!)

Compare these costs with the cost of replacing the stolen VCR (or whatever), possibly with some insurance proceeds.

Notice I did *not* say you couldn't or shouldn't shoot the escaping BG. But make an informed decision beforehand (as much as possible).

Me? At one time I was fully prepared to shoot any adult-appearing male or female messing with my property at any time. I have since moderated my view about defending property outside my home.

OTOH, INside my home, I will protect my family by stopping and/or neutralizing any apparent threat of serious bodily injury or deadly force.

Consider all the possible options and outcomes you can imagine.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited May 10, 2000).]
 
In the scenario above,(assuming family was out of the line of fire) My choice would be to :
1)Cover him with the muzzle.
2)Drop to one knee while taking gun off "safe".
3)Say "Don't Move" clearly ,loudly and forcefully.
4)If he turns, he can explain his intentions to St. Peter.
I don't know if this would be the right way of handling things, but I have thought of this scenario before. I have practiced the "drop to one knee" move ad nauseum.

You guys see anything wrong with this ?

For Fun And General BS : Of course no one is serious about the SSS method (I hope) but I have been told that the "good fellas" don't do that much anymore. The reasons are the advent of fiber evidence and they don't trust the younger ones to "keep quiet". In addition to being a pain in the butt, burial traps the evidence with the body. Supposedly, the preferred disposal mode of the criminal types is to weight the body, puncture the lungs and stomach, and submerge in deep running water such as a river or the shipping channel of a large body of water. The moving water is supposed to wash the evidence away . I don't know if they really do this stuff. I've just heard stories ... maybe urban legends.
 
Let me clarify something-
I never said I thought what my instructor said was ok, I simply stated what was told to me including the "dead man tell no tales" part. But I will give you my two cents. If someone breaks into my home at night, I will give them one opporunity to not get shot, the choice is up to them. They will told one time not to move, then shot after that if they do not comply. I'm not going to worry about the reason they are in my home. It doesn't matter they were stealing something, hell I don't care if they stopped by to get a sandwich on the way to robbing the people next door, if they didn't want to get shot they should have stayed still when told and picked a different line of work. If they are in my home in the middle of the night they are a threat, period. If it become a legal issue fine, that's what my attorneys get paid to handle. Is it ok to shoot someone is the back while in your home? In 99% of the situations, no. But if the circumstances warrant it, I will have no problem doing it if it comes to that. The safety of my family comes before any assh*le that breaks into my home. If people don't agree with that I don't care.

------------------
NRA Life Member
GSSF Member

[This message has been edited by mjsarge (edited May 10, 2000).]
 
Texas Law can be rather flexible on Deadly Force. It is also flexible on the Murder statutes.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree. (Five to 99 years or life in prison. LawDog)

(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause, If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree. (Two to twenty years. LawDog)
[/quote]

This is what you are balancing the Deadly Force statutes against. To prove the Crime of Murder, the Prosecution must prove that the Defendant (you) <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
(1) intentionally or knowingly caused the death of an individual
--OR--
(2) intended to cause serious bodily injury and committed an act clearly dangerous to human life that caused the death of an individual;[/quote]

That's it.

Better make sure that you have all of your calves branded, before you go squeezing that trigger.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited May 10, 2000).]
 
Lawdog-
You make a good point, but you are taking into account that a grand jury will return a charge of murder against you for killing an intruder in your home. If you were to research previous Texas cases where a homeowner killed an intruder you will find that a large majority of those cases are no-billed by a grand jury and never go any further. Of the ones in which a charge is returned by a grand jury, murder is very seldom the charge returned. You may, depending on the part of the state you live in, run into D.A.'s who will try to make a case of it. But the odds of it ever going to trial or being convicted of anything are definitely in your favor. Yes, you may have to defend yourself and spend the time and money that goes with it. But you aren't going to be thinking about that while facing down an intruder in your home in the middle of the night. In my eyes, having to sick my legal "pit-bulls" on someone because I protected my family is a small price to pay.

------------------
NRA Life Member
GSSF Member

[This message has been edited by mjsarge (edited May 10, 2000).]
 
Just a quick scan ....

Colorado "make my day" law (107-23-104.4 ? from memory, so don't shoot! :)) ...

I let 'em know I care with the muzzle flash/es.

CO law specifically states that anybody in your home, uninvited, etc. may be dealt with with lethal force & no criminal or civil penalties may be brought.

Issuing a challenge is a bad idea due to the stated reaction time.

Although I'd rather not clean up the mess, I rather it be somebody else's than mine.
 
FUD,

My point exacxtly. I've already made that decision. I made my point not to impress anyone here.

The reference to the shotgun action was more a funny than anything else. But what self-respectiung criminal wouldn't know that sound?

I will not think twice if in the situation! I've already had to run one theif off years ago at the muzzle of a 1911 .45.

Today, things are a bit different, I'm older, and not as strong. So, do I play games with the jerk, or do I take control of the show. I'm sure as hell not going to get into a punching match with him, that's why I have the gun, loaded, and ready to discharge...

Nobody knows where this might happen, if indeed it ever does. Will it be in your kitchen? The living room, or hallway? Maybe the guys has a visible "implement", but your unsure of what it is...
Maybe the guy is looking for a little blood for his next thrill. Or rape, or whatever.

Too many what-if's to discuss here.

IMHO.

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited May 10, 2000).]
 
Sad times we're in. All this debate over avoiding legal consequences - just because we wish to protect our families, ourselves and our own property.

All good points for discussion though...

CMOS

------------------
GOA, TSRA, LEAA, NRA, SAF and I vote!
 
Well, I live in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, so my perspective is a bit different. Personally, if a bad guy is headed towards the door with my TV, see ya buddy. No way I'm shooting him over a 15 year old TV. A good lawyer here will cost $200 per hour or more. I can buy a pretty good TV for a days worth of legal time.

Similarly, if someone is trying to steal my new car, I'd dial 911 and try to be a good witness. That's what I've got insurance for.

Know your jurisdiction. Actions that would be no-billed in TX might get you convicted at least for manslaughter here in northeast. And that's before the bottom-feeder personal injury attorneys get their claws into you.

Jared
 
I think some post'ers might be missing the point. I'm not asking/suggesting that someone be shot in the back over a TV (or any other piece of property). However, I have heard and read (including from Mas Ayoob) that a LOT of home owners & LEO are killed when they issue a challenge to stop or not to move because the BG suddenly spins around and fires, killing them before they have a chance to react. If this can happen to trained police officiers, then a less trained home owner would be at a more serious disadvantage.

Under these circumstances (fear for you family's safety & well-being from a possibly armed intruder), would you be legally justified in shooting the person in the back? From what I'm hearing, most would issue a challenge under the assumption that they would be able to react faster than he could.
 
FUD: Here in MA, I can only shoot someone in my home if my life or anothers is in danger. If the fellow has his back turned to me, I don't see a weapon, and he's done nothing (other than break into my house) to indicate that he's a threat to my life, then it would be hard to say that my life was in danger. If I did clearly see a weapon in his hand, that's different. If I wasn't sure, that's harder.

If I'm behind cover, have a surefire flashlight on him, even if he spins and fires, I think he's unlikely to get off an accurate shot. Whether or not to take that risk is a hard decision.

Jared
 
FUD's right on the risk of the turn and shoot. In the largest LFI-1 class Ayoob held in TX, he showed some training films and one of them, he noted had a fatal flaw. I (brag)
was the one who caught the failure to fire on a BG with a shot who when told not to move, started to turn. I opined you should have shot then.

The issue is should you just shoot the intruder without warning. This takes us back to the start. I'm on the challenge side with shooting without compliance. It's a risk, I grant you. I was Greg Hamilton actually draw and shoot a guy who had him at gunpoint (Code Eagle).

Some other small points, challenging from concealment is good. You may not have cover in your house but anything is better than nothing.

Someone mentioned taking off the safety after pointing the weapon at the BG. Huh, as soon as you move into a situation where you have to use it, the safety should be off. You don't want to have to remove when you are ready to shoot. If one fears accidental discharge, a finger position outside of the triger guard like Ayoob and others recommend is good to practice. Finger not flat but the tip pointed into the frame.

It's like racking, people know the sound, who cares. You have to rack, slow. You can screw it up. Horrors. If you need the shotgun, rack immediately - no sound effects show!!

Great discussion.

To get back to the point - FUD.
If you fear you are in immediate danger of grievous bodily harm and confident that your kids are directly in the line of fire - taking the shot or challenging is 50-50.

However, folks - what if you don't kill him?
It's not over when you shoot, sometimes!!

You need a followup plan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top