I am not an attorney so I can't give legal advice.

I think self defense is probably the most misunderstood subject. Why is this important? The reason is that you don't want to be arrested, put in jail, have to hire an expensive attorney, you don't want to have to serve time, and/or be sued by the intruder or burglar. After a number of discussions I find that there is a number of people that don't know what self defense is. You can claim it all you want but the DA can still charge you and you could end up in jail.

Shooting someone in the back oftentimes isn't seen as self defense because it doesn't look like you aren't immediately threatened or you are trying to protect your valuables but it depends on the situation. There are cases that would merit it like if somebody was threatening your loved ones or if they were carrying a knife or a gun when searching your house. Of course this could also be seen as a gray area. If they were carrying something that looked like a weapon but wasn't then it is going to be different. I think you might want to be very careful with this one.

If the guy is running toward the door or even down the street with one of your possessions shooting them in the back isn't going to be seen as self defense. It will be seen as assault and/or murder if the burglar dies. Now if the guy was running out the door with one of your children and you shoot him in the back to stop him this may be another story.

Shooting someone in the back generally doesn't pass the test as an immediate threat but it depends on the situation and every situation is different.

This post would be relevant if we knew what state you are in, considering the huge variation in laws from state to state.

I know of one case near here where the 911 operator told a woman to shoot the man trying to break down her door if he got inside the house. He did break in, and she shot him in the back with a 12ga; he was unarmed. The investigation lasted about one day and she was not charged. They played the 911 tape on local TV, with the 911 operator assuring the woman she had done the right thing by shooting.

Wouldn't advise doing that in MA..........

__________________
Science plus Art

Here in Missouri the threat is over when the BG is retreating!

If you shoot, shoot to kill- then it's your word against a dead guys.. Makes it easier for you in a "Wrongful Death Suit". With that said, out here in San Francisco and most of the left coast- where people vote for politicians with a 'D' after their name, the standard by which LE and in most cases, DA's offices weigh shootings/ self-defense cases is "What was the perceived threat of the victim?"
Senario #1, 2am in the morning- you hear a noise, someone forcing entry into your home- You light him up protecting your property- bye-bye, you go to jail and you lose your house.

Senario #2, same event- you confront dick-head who is unarmed, and he says to you, "too bad you saw me- now I HAVE TO KILL YOU!! You light him up- all is right in the world----if you killed him--if not, he refutes your sworn statement and you go to jail and lose your house.

You do not defend property with deadly force- only persons who are in immediate danger..

DEAD MEN TELL NO TAILS!!

PS. MAKE SURE YOU DRILL HIM WITH A LEGAL, REGISTERED TO YOU FIREARM THAT YOU DONT MIND LOSING, BECAUSE IT WILL BE TIED UP IN LITIGATION FOR YEARS...

MIKE
RETIRED SERGEANT SAN FRANCISCO P.D.

If a person is running away from you, can he turn to shoot you?

I would not suggest shooting anyone simply because you can and shooting a person fleeing will not be good, especially if they are outside the home.

The correct answer to this is it depends on the circumstances, physical location and local area laws.

Unbelievable!!!!!!!! And from someone who claims to have law enforcement experience too. Pray that you're never involved in a situation where you have to actually shoot someone because this post will be exhibit number one at your trial. It shows both intent to kill and premeditation.

Defensive use of a firearm is only to stop a threat that is serious enough, if the suspect dies as a result, the homicide is justifiable.

I knew things were weird in The People's Republic of Kalifornia but wasn't expecting this kind of nonsense. You sure your name's not Harry?

I have seen a burglar turn is back like he was going to run away, but what he was really doing was hiding the fact that he was drawing a handgun. He spun around and fired 8 shots at my neighbor John before John could raise his weapon, then the little punk ran away. Luckily he was a bad shot and my neighbor only had to repair 8 bullet holes in his house and door. The burglar was caught by police. He was 14 years old.

Maybe he's not retreating. The BG could be seeking cover after seeing you standing there so he can begin shooting. I would say that each case could be different. What if you're watching TV from your favorite easy chair when you see someone standing at your mostly glass back door who has a shotgun pointed at you. Do you have to wait until he actually breaks in before you can defend yourself? Of course not. By the same token, if someone is in your house, but clearly no threat, shooting them may not be the best way to go. I think there are too may "what ifs" to come up with one easy answer.

Be safe out there guys!

I'm trying to figure out the point of your post.
Bob

It depends upon:

1. What state you're in
2. What he's doing when you shoot him

Self-defense law is state and local. Know your applicable law.

In Ohio, if he's fleeing (and not shooting over his shoulder), it's almost certainly going to be a bad shoot.

On the other hand, if he's attacking someone else in your house, it's almost certainly going to be a good shoot. In Ohio (and most other places), you're allowed to come to the defense of another, if were you in their place, you could defend yourself. You've got no duty to passively stand by and watch somebody strangle your children.

In Ohio, anything else is going to depend entirely upon the totality of the circumstances. Castle doctrine gives you the REBUTTABLE presumption that you were in reasonable fear for your life, when in home or vehicle.

It's simple, he's not an attorney so he's giving "illegal" advice. The 'nets full of them.

In some states, such as Michigan, fleeing felons are essentially fair game.

Anyway, there are all sorts of reasons why someone can end up shot in the back. They might turn by reflex after being shot the first time, putting additional rounds in their back. They might be changing position for a better shot. Or they might be positioning themselves to attack a new target.

It also depends on what crime was involved as to how such a shooting will be viewed. Even if shooting isn't per se legal in a given state, it is one thing to shoot someone leaving out the window with a bloody axe ande a severed human head... and another to shoot someone leaving with your Ipad.

Yep, all depends on what State you live in. You'd better not come in my house illegally, or even TRY to come in my house. Note from Arizona Castle Doctrine: (3) A person is presumed to be justified in using force or deadly force if he/she reasonably believes they or another person are in imminent peril and the attacker has entered or is trying to enter a residence or occupied auto. Once again, there is no duty to retreat.

You're in my house, at night, dark. You are going to meet Mr. Colt and I don't give a rats behind which way you're facing. Where we live, "when seconds count" our County Sheriffs deputy is at least 20 minutes away, unless he happens to be just driving by.

Seems to me that he is relating real world experience that shows that in the commy states like CA, NJ, MA and NYC that the home owner defending his home and family have no rights and the criminal wins. I'd say shoot to kill, it's better to have to face a civil suit from said criminal's family that swears that XXX was a good boy and didn't deserve to die, even though he has a rap sheet the length of your arm, then a criminal charge where said criminal is disputing your side of the story.

It is entirely possible that the person defending themselves (or others) starts to shoot while the threat is facing them . . . and before they cease shooting, the threat has turned and has received a shot (or shots) in the back. In fact, I believe I read something recently in one of the gun mags (by Ayoob) on this very subject. In the half second (or so) it takes for the brain to interpret that there is no longer a threat, a lot can occur.

In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property. That happened a couple of years ago in the Houston area where a resident used a 12 gauge to kill two perps that were hauling goods from his neighbor's house.

Personally, I would weigh the circumstances. I believe it would be cheaper to replace my DVD player than the blood stained carpet in my house.

Huh? Rather than providing hypothetical scenarios, could you please provide specific cases/precedence or MI law(s) where "fleeing felons are essentially fair game".

__________________
MotorCityGun

[QUOTE=GatorFarmer;136071762]In some states, such as Michigan, fleeing felons are essentially fair game.

Incorrect, unless he is shooting at you while running away, in which case he still poses an imminent danger to you (and I personally would be ducking for cover instead of shooting back unless no cover were available).

(Michigan act 309 of 2006, Self Defense Act)
780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

I doubt that one could convince a jury that they were in imminent danger from a fleeing bad guy if all he was doing was running away. Seems to me that a store clerk was being charged for shooting a fleeing robber (in Grand Rapids?) but now I can't find the article to link to.

At any rate, check your local laws and be certain under what conditions you can legally defend yourself.

__________________
Ban lunatics and criminals

You shoot to stop. Of course shooting somebody in most places that will stop them, also has a fair chance of killing them. Actions have consequences.

As far as getting sued, in Ohio if it's a good shoot, your assailant is barred BY LAW from collecting any damages. Good luck finding a lawyer who'll file a frivolous lawsuit on a contingent basis, KNOWING he's NEVER going to get paid. A lawyer THAT dumb probably wouldn't even know where to file the papers.

Getting shot is an occupational hazard of being a violent felon... or at least it is in the United States.

I live in Texas which has an EXTReeeeemly lenient policy on the topic.

So I can do pretty much whatever I need to do to protect life OR property.

FWIW and IMHO;

...But here's my advice; don't go through life creating problems (or scenarios) that don't exist and then try to solve them in your mind because it will NEeeever work out that way and your valuable time is wasted in the exercise.

I ponder these scenarios from time to time, but I know for sure that the 'heat of the moment' will see all my best laid plans fly out the window.

__________________
But then, what do I know?

There has been some good discussion in this thread...

Here's just one hypothetical I can add, besides the BG turns away as you fire...

I hear a noise in the house. I'm armed, standing in the dark. I see a person, holding a rifle/shotgun/pistol sneaking very quietly down my hallway, past the room in which I'm standing.

He passes, and I move into the hallway behind him.

I know he's armed, I know that I do not know him, and have not allowed him to enter my home. Any reasonable person would assume that a sneaking, armed stranger is probably intending to commit a felony.

I will probably shoot as soon as I am able. I do not feel the need to adhere to Western justice and give him a chance to turn around and engage me in a firefight.

I agree with the going wisdom. Don't shoot to protect "stuff," or someone who's running away, when the threat is over, etc...

But trauma to the back of a suspected miscreant is not always the whole story.

Len

__________________
Qui me amat, amet et canem meum

Being unlawfully in someone else's while armed is prima facia evidence of evil intent.

• He's trespassing.
• He's armed.
• He's obviously not there to hunt deer or shoot a three gun match.

The only REASONABLE conclusion is that he's there to do harm. I have ZERO legal duty (at least in Ohio) to ALLOW him to harm me or someone in my care before I act to defend myself.

Len,

Here in Mi. castle doctrine allows you to defend yourself from anyone who breaks into your home. The assumption is that they are going to harm you if they are breaking in and find you at home, and they are probably armed with whatever they used to get into the house (screwdriver, pry bar, etc). If, indeed, you could see that they were armed, then that is just another factor in your favor when the police arrive, and it certainly shows that the bad guy had the capability to harm anyone in the house.

Michigan's Castle Doctrine Law and You

Personally, I would position myself to cover the stairway leading to my family's bedrooms and call the police. As long as the bad guys stay downstairs I'm not going to go after them. There's nothing in my house worth shooting someone over except my family.

__________________
Ban lunatics and criminals

My apologies if you were offended at my humor. With that- Our doctrine states "You shoot to stop the threat!" I was also taught two other fundamental rules, TREAT EVERY WEAPON AS IF IT WERE LOADED @ NEVER POINT A WEAPON AT ANYTHING YOU DO NOT INTEND TO DESTROY!

Take a breath!!

I have been involved in several real world shootings- I am alive and still own my house.
I would be very proud to be called Harry!

Also, if intruder has entered your house under cover of darkness then the automatic charge of burglary is added by almost every prosecutor. Don't forget prosecutors will charge every thing they can get away with on the assumption that some charges will be dismissed or pled down.

As the British would say, "spot on". I can't deal with all the "what ifs", playing that game will last forever. I'll continue to cc and defend my house and family. I feel comfortable that the odds are I'll never have to shoot anyone; however, I also feel that if it becomes necessary I will do so only as a last resort and it will be justifiable.

I'M sorry- You are correct; After my first shooting, "I prayed everyday for the past 30 years that I would not be in a situation where I had to actually shoot someone. God did not listen- I live with these memories, including the smells every G-D day.

God Bless America

Oh yea- Harry's star number was 2211. My friend has worn that star proudly for 26years.
God has a strange sense of humor- He constantly tests the strong ones while leaving the meek to pontificate on a bully pulpit.

To all members of this forum, I apologize for my digression. I will leave you with this- If you are justified, it does not matter where your round enters.

Another lifelong rule I survived by for 30+ years," I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6!"

To all those who have heard a shot "In Anger" God Bless You and Yours..

Mike
30yrs LEO-retired

in my house? he will get shot in the front, back ,and everywhere else i can shoot him!

__________________
WILL WORK FOR AMMO!

Seems like you and I have covered some of the same dirt and I can understand the attempt at humor in your earlier post. There's lots of old cops here but there's also a bunch of new ones, and civilians too, that are here to learn from us old guys. I would hate for one of them to end up in hot water over something I said.

After I retired I was going to do some security work and the company wanted me to attend their training. In the firearms portion they taught a "shoot to kill" policy. After several attempts to clear this mess up I walked out. It's bad business. I'll shoot to stop the threat all day long but, when the threat is over so is my shooting.

I got a little cocky with that "shoot to kill" comment- This forum is very addictive. I was taught to keep my mouth shut, I forgot. I too have always shot to stop the threat, maybe my aim is at fault for the excessive force.
In my humble opinion, the only difference between the statements, "shoot to kill" and "stop the threat" is in the interpretation by "ACLU" types and "Tree Hugging Liberals" because if I had the ability to recognize the threat, articulate a response, draw,aim, and fire 3 well placed rounds into the brain stem of my threat in 1.5-2.0 seconds, would that not be an action consistent with "shoot to Kill"? Or, in the alternative, if through prior consistent shooting behavior, I am deemed an expert in shot placement, would I not be required to place those same rounds in a non lethal area? Or, as it is in most cases, 5-15 rounds fired- all misses- I guess the threat was stopped when it ran away- non lethal.

Peace be with you

We can probably consider this one well hashed over....

So if the guy is a threat, you can shoot. If he is running away 30 yards from you he's probably not a threat.

If his back is to you and he's holding your newborn son with a knife to his throat he's a threat.

If he's lying on the ground in your yard face down he's probably not a threat.

If he's walking away from you in the hallway of your house and he's walking towards your daughter's room, he's probably a threat.

We could do this all day....

You and I both know the only difference is in the intent. Either of us can probably place those rounds in 1.5 seconds from a holster and they will most likely be fatal. That's fine, the threat is neutralized and the danger, as it relates to that subject, is over. Was it our intent to kill? No. We only needed to stop the threat.

Now, after the threat is stopped, what we have is a badly wounded suspect in front of us. Unless his/her/its injuries are so severe as to be obviously incompatible with life we have a moral, and in some states probably a legal, obligation to render aid to the best of our ability as we would any other injured subject in our custody.

Hmmm...non of the so called "experts" "internet lawyers" or "retired cops" ever brought up Tennessee V. Gardner....or the several cases from the Force Science Institute....so let me say this....unless you are military and dealing with national security or dangerous weapons: lethal force is not authorized for property....only life or to stop grevious bodily harm...that being said you had better be able to articulate why you used deadly force...if you can't then become a sheep and stop carrying....just me

Depends on where you are located when the force is applied. Louisiana has a Shoot the Burglar law. If someone enters your home without permission, they can be toast. We have a Shoot the Carjacker law. If someone tries to commandeer your auto while you are inside of it, they can be toast. Both laws have been used several times with great success.

What happens when the person is not inside the home or the car owner is not inside their car becomes a different matter. I doubt a person shooting someone for stealing a lawnmower from an outside shed would fare very well in court. Shooting someone tryig to steal your car from inside the garage would be questionable.

I'm one of those 'retired cops" you mentioned...not sure if there was a certain amount of derision in the way you used the term. Anyway, I made your point, more than once, in detail, on several posts. One is on another thread on talking to cops after a shooting.
Bob

Bob...it wasn't pejorative in any way and my apologies if you took it that way. My point was that Tenn v. Gardner established that using deadly force for a burglary was not consistent with U.S. Law....I was surprised that it hadn't been brought up as it was one of the major points during my law enforcement training. Once you cross the "border" onto a military installation or controlled area things get a bit different....hence the remark about national security or dangerous weapons

Oldman45...again I didn't articulate my point well enough...castle doctrines protect the individual and to a limited extent the property...a car jacking or burglary involve threat to life or the real chance of greviously bodlily harm...my own Great Republic of Texas, ya'll call it a state, has a great castle doctrine that made national attention a few years ago because of our penal code allowing deadly force to protect property...but even good ole' Joe Horn probably wouldn't have been cleared had the suspects not came towards him and onto his property...just like in law enforcement when we have to articulate that our lives or the lives of others are in imminent danger so do we have to when we use deadly force as private citizens. You mention that stealing a lawn mower from a detached building probably isn't reason enough to use deadly force...my opinion is that since there isn't a danger to your person that like you said use of deadly force isn't going to fair well...in a garage attached to the house....maybe...but it will depend on the actions of the intruder and what they have on their person to execute the theft. I understand each state is different, but my concern when I see these posts is that people are going to start thinking they can use deadly force for pretty much anything...the only place I have ever been told that it was authorized to shoot someone in the back while they were fleeing was 1) national security/dangerous weapons, 2) in combat. Perhaps your situation is different, so my apologies if I offended you that was not my intent to do so, but I personally will stick to my guns so to speak when using deadly force.

I've owned and used firearms since I was old enough to see a target. I've never been in any situation where I had to use a firearm to defend myself but I do know one thing after reading most all of the posts on this subject. If I was in bed one night and heard someone breaking into my home. I have quick access to a loaded firearm that I am quite proficient with and would simply wait in a predetermined spot in my bedroom till the intruder came thru the doorway. I would then make sure he never got one foot into the room, period, end of story. I would much rather be a live person in jail than a dead person out of jail. The laws anymore protect the criminal element and not the law abiding citizens of our once great country. The do gooders and panty-waisted idiots that roam freely touting the banning of all firearms, etc. are part of the problem also. Each state, county and city have their own laws regarding firearms and the intent is to protect everyone. It just seems a bit outrageous to me how many of the self defense shootings go against the shooter when all the shooter is doing is trying to protect his life and/or his loved ones. Someone breaking into my home to do whatever he/she is intending on doing doesn't belong there in the first place, has no right to be there in the second place, and the third place will be his/her grave..........

Oh, by the way, I am not just some dummy babbling away trying to prove how brave I am. I would be scared out of my mind should such an event take place in my home. But I'll be damned if I am going to be the one laying there in a pool of blood while some idiot is trying to say I shouldn't even have a firearm in my possession...........

Good & safe shooting to all..........Terry

I'm with the guy who stated that all the best laid plans would probably fly out the window at the time of the critical incident.
I just pray to God that I never have to use one of my beautiful Smiths to shoot someone. That would take all the fun out of it. God grant me the ability to make the right decision at that time, Amen.
Peace,
Gordon

__________________
better have that checked

What we were taught in our handgun carry class was that if the intruder was in the act of fleeing we could face a murder charge for shooting said person in the back.

I was too, and I think I had it, but Jellybean put it in electrons first, so trick to Jellybean.

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine arising from English common law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his "castle"), and any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

Castle Doctrines are legislated by state though not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine law. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.

Florida has this incoporated in their legislation.

ok- I'm going to sound very condescending, just like I would with a classroom full of 22 year old, raised on facebook, know nothings but what they received from being tweeted, twated,or fed cool-aid as a brain stimulant police recruits.

I hereby apologize to anyone who takes offense..

Opinions are like ***-----, everybody has one. In a house,on a house,in a box, with a fox- who cares- Now Listen very carefully!!

If you are in fear for your life, or the life of someone else, or the suspect has already committed great bodily harm against someone or has threatened to commit it against you, and you feel that the suspect has the ability to carry out that threat, you are legally justified to use what ever force necessary to stop the threat- That includes running the *** over with a tractor for those of you who have one of those parked in your driveway. Any and all actions by the suspect prior to your articulation of the deadly threat are irrelevant, only the actions by the suspect that would make someone fear for their own or others safety is germane, (relevant) for you folks with the tractors...
Law Enforcement has a duty to render aid to the suspect after the threat is neutralized until EMS arrives- I rendered aid by placing handcuffs on the suspect, searching him for other weapons, searching for other victims and attending to the life threatening wounds of his 3 victims. Case law has it's place- just not where the rubber meets the road.

The industry standard is what would a "reasonable sane individual have done in that situation. I won't even get into San Francisco Juries...

For those of you who own the tractors, check your local hunting laws for guidance

Let the lawyers and God sort it out.

Varangi, I was reading along in your entertaining little declaration and it just hit me - you're talking about me! I do in fact happen to have a tractor in my driveway, right now.

I am not sure what you have against folks like me (if anything), but you can bet I will be sure to be polite if I bump into any policemen the next time I am in Los Altos.

Probably won't have my tractor with me though, so you might not recognize me. Just look for the coveralls, corn cob pipe, and straw hat. We all wear that stuff. It's all we have.

Do lawn tractors count?

So..... What if his back was turned and he was no threat but you heard him say "I'll come back and kill you in your sleep!"

Now that would be a pretty good reason to fear for your life and have to put him down asap....

You'll fit in well with the hot tub crowd in Northern CA. A soft, non-threatening color on the tractor might help.
Bob

Mr. M29
I truly offer no offense to the tractor drivers of the world. It is my fantasy to squish somebody with a tractor. It is my dark cop humor rising to the surface. I hope people will truly use their heads and not use info discussed here as the gospel.

We few, we happy few of tea drinkers on the left coast have thick skins to ward off liberals. Being called a tractor owner would not phase me. i would take Bob's advise and paint it pink.. I would give my left nut to drive a big tractor down to my LGS and buy some bullets filled with lead...

Cheers

Hey BoB- my hot tub is armed with a 338 lapua magnum spitting 300gr. fast movers- I'll show it to you if you dare, we can sit naked in the tub, drinking white wine, and shoot to kill slow moving prius'(can't even spell it right)...

I knew you meant none, but just had to ride you a bit since you seem like someone who knows how to handle it.

Be careful out there among all those charging left-coast Prius-es. I think your .338 is a bit light. There are some good old boy tractor-drivers down in TN known for making .50 BMGs more suitable for the purpose. I am sure they can put some sort of special finish on one for you, to help with the hot-tub environment. You might check into it, if you don't already have access to one.

Kno


Now that we're friends, is it ok if I call you "Wilbur"?
You sure know what to say to get us LEFT COAST people irked. We here in California feel it is an un-necessary waste of natural resources as well as lead poisoning to use a 600gr. Lead core bullet that travels faster than a Prius so we wrote a law which you (by the way) should comply with since we're smarter and and more caring than you. We have outlawed 50 cal in any/ all forms in beautiful CA.
We feel strongly that a 416 bullet can kill a Prius as easily as a 50 and with less waste. Mr. Barrett has a Prius killer in 416 but I am working with some very environmentally friendly folks in Arizona- Mc-m something to double the fun and kill 2 Prius', thus saving resources and helping Obama stimulate the economy.

Can I drive your tractor?

Mike

Varangi....my Rus brother....*** are you doing in CA.....must be from the soft "white russian" side of the family.....LOL

when taking law enforcement classes in Illinois in 1990s I was shocked to learn I was required to retreat even in the face of deadly force while in my own home, unless I had no egress and then and only then when I was convinced the perp was intent to kill or seriously harm me and he/she had means to do so in immediate vicinity was I allowed to defend myself.. of course this is Illinois were talking about.. This was an ISP Trooper who taught this class and he said " If you tell the Judge you could have ran away rather than kill the intruder, then you are guilty of murder"
Then he explained how to articulate your actions before the court to avoid prosecution.. I took 4 semesters of these classes during the branch dividian thing in waco tx our teachers used this as a teaching opportunity , they told us everthing that would happen before it happened. The abuse allegations, the fire and much more.