Keep your response scenarios as simple as possible. In a high-stress situation, the fight/flight response will make it very difficult to execute complex actions and complex thought processes. So if you hear someone trying to break in:

1. Call 911 & report an intruder at your address then immediately hang up (All calls are recorded & anything that they think you say or think you do can be used against you. Plus the operator's job is to keep you talking, which can be a distraction when your focus needs to be 100% on the threat)
2. Secure your family out of the line of fire
3. Seek cover where you can see the door
4. Shout a simple warning as loud as you can
5. Wait for what happens next (which will determine your next course of action)

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Also, regarding the lethality of a 9mm - most gunshot wounds are not fatal & rarely cause immediate knock-down, much less immediate death. That perception is most likely from the movies or TV. Even someone shot with a .45 in center mass will take a while to die unless shot through the brain stem. Assuming a single shot threat-stop could be a hazardous or fatal mistake.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

This is incorrect. Even though some state statutes remain which allow the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon for other than a violent felony crime, the U.S. Supreme Court found against the state of Tennessee in Tennessee v Garner in 1985, which essentially negates such laws in every state. The effect of the Supreme Court decision is that deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent escape AND if the person's escape would result in a threat of death or grave bodily harm to the officer or others. It is not OK under U.S. law to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon who does not pose such a danger.

The Texas Statute has previously been quoted by another, so I won't bother to reference it again. For any incident happening in Texas it is Texas Statutes that one would be tried under, not Federal Statutes. The facts are that during the nighttime if that is the only way to stop a person from escaping with the loot, or property a person may use deadly force, to stop their escape. However, in the case of this this thread it is someone breaking in, not escaping with property.
While I am not an attorney the case you quote is from 1985
in Tennessee. There have been numerous cases in Texas since the Castle Doctrine and since our State Statutes have been defined. Had there been an issue with Texas law being
unconstitutional in that regard, it would have already been struck down. It has not been struck down. And in every case it is State law that applies as it is currently on the books should an incident take place. The laws in a State cannot just be retroactively changed.

However, Texas is one of the very few states to my knowledge that allows a person to use deadly force to prevent the escape of someone fleeing with the property during the nighttime when there is no other way to prevent them from escaping.

Since any incident is likely to result in having to spend money to pay attorney fees if they are charged, one has to make their own decision as to whether they want to let a criminal escape with the loot. As for myself if my dead-bolted door is being broken down (one way in one way out) I would fire thru the door and I doubt the issue of them escaping with property would even come up. I have read those statutes
relating to that issue many times and to my knowledge these laws in Texas have not changed. A previous poster posted the statute number and it is 9.42.

Now if you are speaking of law enforcement restraints on shooting at a felon fleeing with property you may be right, but if you are speaking of a homeowner in Texas shooting to stop someone fleeing with property our l laws reference a person fleeing during the nighttime with no other way of stopping them from escaping with the property.

The case in which a guy broke into a home to kidnap 2 kids was the Duncan case in north Idaho. He beat the adults to death with a hammer as I recall. He molested both kids and eventually killed one of them.

TexasCajun: I can sort of see why you take the position you do, and I would surely put down the phone to avoid distraction and keep my hands free if needed (I use a bluetooth with my cell). However, as I mentioned in an earlier response and other previous strings, I know of two cases made better for the resident/victim because the encounter was taped and arriving officers knew when they got there that the shooter was the good guy.

Garner decision: The 4th Amendment controls seizures, and is the standard under which use of force is analyzed for Federal Constitutional purposes (a use of force is a type of seizure). However, it only applies to government actions, not those of private citizens. Some states amended their statutes only as applied to cops; some changed them as to all. Generalizing is not a good idea here.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

A person on the other side of a closed or locked door is not an immediate threat to you, so shooting through a closed door most likely will be seen as reckless endangerment

Not if they are breaking the door down. A close door is one thing. You can't shoot someone for knocking but if the door is being battered down I will shoot. The point of entry is my dead bolted door and no drunk is can accidentally batter it down.

Wasn't there a case last year where a 70 year fellow shot someone though a locked door (who was trying to break in) and killed them and wasn't even charged?

Garner was a civil case. I believe there are three states that still have a fleeing felon rule. WA is one of them.

Seems like I remember a case like that last year but I do not remember what state it was in. The Castle Doctrine Laws in the various states (not all of them have them), is what would govern that. Same with someone carjacking a vehicle. On shooting thru a door, I have been told that a 38 will not penetrate a door, and I have also heard that vehicle doors have been tested and a 38 won't penetrate them, but a 45 would and probably a 44. My situation is I have a disabled daughter inside. So if I have to fire at someone breaking in
I won't wait for them to get inside where my daughter would be endangered.

The case you mentioned may have been in Florida or Ohio, but I don't remember where it was.

Quite a bit of inaccurate 'common knowledge' here, regardless of alleged source. While the teen neighborhood hoods might have been unarmed in the past, most burglars have always had something. Or, they make good use of the kitchen knives you were so gracious to provide. Stating that "burglars avoided the use of weapons" is a gross over generalization that could be hazardous to one's health. Home invasions are the fastest growing crime nationally and they do tend to be group endevors.

Some of y'all ought to reflect that comments made here might be used to document a state of mind that may conflict with applicable state law. Note: while I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, I'm not an attorney.

Garner was brought as a "Civil Rights" case...not a "civil" case. Yes, they are waaaaaaay different. That said, it applies to law enforcement personnel..not the general population. IMHO, it should apply to everyone.

Be safe.

Its always better to consult State Law with regard to one's state rather than trust anything on a forum. Regarding my statement about Texas providing the right to protect property,
previously referenced by another poster by statute number, the Texas Statute reads as follows, and as I stated, not all states provide for this.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,

And I never say that I would shoot thru a locked door only. What I state is that I will shoot thru a dead bolted door if someone is breaking the door down. The same applies to
someone carjacking my vehicle and putting my disabled daughter at risk. I am not however inferring that your statement about inaccurate information was directed at my post.

I have encountered quite a few people who do not like a lot of the laws we have in Texas especially 9.42. Also many do not like and agree with the "No Duty to Retreat" provisions in Texas Law. And others do not like the Texas Castle Doctrine.
I for one like the laws that we have in Texas and I do not favor them being changed. So when I travel to a reciprocal state and I carry, I make certain I review the deadly force laws before I travel there, because they might be different.

Thanks, Bob. No hard feelings, I appreciate you taking time to follow up on this. Your advice regarding what justifies the use of deadly force is understood. You can believe that I have no desire to enrich our local legal community unnecessarily.

Not enought information there to draw andy conclusion. For all I know it was an old enemy breaking through the door with an axe?

I guess I must jump back in to hopefully try to protect someone from himself?

I am very sure that very few prosecutors and few juries would let someone off that shot through a locked door. If the door has not yet been broken open it is called “jumping to a conclusion without facts”. Maybe the door is not at all damaged and the noise made you think he was breaking it down?

An example once stated often was, “one witness says the man almost killed the bus driver with a piece of wood”. Another witness said “he swung a small stick at the bus driver and missed him by about a foot”. In the first example he/she was jumping to a conclusion.

I would speculate that if door is not completely broken open then a jail cell is probably waiting, and as a felon you will no longer be permitted to buy or own guns. Unless he has had previous arrests and left marks from using a pry-bar maybe.

And if it is an apartment or condo and the bullet goes through walls then you recklessly endangered others. Your knowledge of the power of your gun and the amount of wood and wallboard will be tested. Any lack of knowledge about how walls are normally constructed might be revealed at length.

That said I will now lay my neck down on the chopping block. I would prefer to stand near my door attempting conversation with my gun in one hand and a bowie knife in the other. I have patience and will be more awake when the door is finally broken open. Hopefully my wife has police on the phone, and is getting her gun ready.

So, why would I choose a bowie knife, with gun, over the police/security baton in my closet? Because it is illegal for a civilian to use a police baton. So I might as well use something better. And a heavy bowie knife gives me the option of hitting with the flat sides or blunt back edge. I want lots of options, and lots of reasons why no half logical fool would want to wrestle me for my handgun.

Okay, pile on.

I too may lay my head on the chopping block. But I think I can tell when my door is coming down, and I will open fire
before the door comes down. As for laying my head on the shopping block same thing applies if you meet someone in a
parking lot and they threaten to rob you and don't stop.

Anytime we get into a situation we could end up on trial.
I am old enough now that a life term would not be very long,
but I will sleep at night knowing I protected my disabled
daughter was protected to the best of my ability. Unlike your situation, I have no backup. My reason for not discussing the situation with a home invader is that gives away my location. Not saying you are wrong to wait till you have a visual on the intruder, just not what I will do. We each have to make our own choices, and I know what mine will be when the door starts heaving in. And if it should be my bad luck for someone to attempt to rob me in a parking lot, I am determined I won't be assaulted and shot with my own guns, jail or no jail For me a life term would not be all that long. When the day is done though I know that I will have protected my daughter and I won't be carjacked either while I am still alive with her in the vehicle, even if I am forced to draw against a loaded weapon.

Kick a door in...Er, break a window for entry........

In Texas, they's might get more than they want.

Boy Uses Dad's AR-15 to Shoot Invader - YouTube



.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

In MI, the fleeing felon rule applies to both police and non-police. A minor difference is that a non-police officer must "know" the person he is shooting committed the felony and the police must have "reason to believe". The main case law in MI is people v. Crouch where the MI Supreme court stated that:

See my post above. Also, the US Supreme Court can not tell individual states what action to criminalize. Can't think of the case law that said that off the top of my head, but I've never, ever seen a case in MI where someone shot a fleeing felon and they were prosecuted under state or federal law. And that's due to MI's fleeing felon rule. TN V. Garner was not a criminal case. It did NOT negate fleeing felon rules in other states. After Garner, most states adjusted their criminal statutes to make it a crime to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon. MI was not one of them. TN v. Garner did NOT make it a crime to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon. You may be sued for damages but not prosecuted criminally in MI.

A few examples I recall: Guy comes out of a bar and sees a 15 year-old kid tampering with cars. Tells the kid to stop. Kid runs and he shoots him in the back and kills him. No charges. Guy sees someone stealing his car, thief takes off, guy shotguns him to death. No charges. Guy sees someone breaking into his garage. Chases him down. Thief stops fleeing and tells the guy "go ahead and shoot me". Guy complies. Charges.

In the bar case, they absolutely wanted to charge the guy but they could not, due to MI's fleeing felon rule. There are also numerous cases where the shooters were cops and could not be charged. Subjected to department discipline for policy violations since all departments' use of force policy follows Garner, yes, but charged no. Not even under federal 1983 charges.

More on Couch: Can't find Whitty at the moment:

http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfr...0015.MI.htm/qx

While I can appreciate this example as something to think about, I still lean towards the teenager's irresponsibility not being my problem. If someone breaks into my home and is headed for my son's bedroom I am not going to let him make it into the room. Even a "small" teenager could be armed. I may feel bad about it afterwards, but people need to take responsibility for their actions. Even if they are a drunken teenager.

Ok, I admit I didn't read all these long posts.
Bottom line, you shoot to stop the threat, not kill. Keep shooting until you are no longer threatened.

__________________
Memory of Randy Freas-Rimfired

What you say makes sense in the middle of the day, but if it is middle of the night that changes a lot. I am not saying you would deserve to be shot, and if you just walked in an unlocked door and then walked right back out the likelihood would be very low, but in the heat of the moment YOUR "mistake" is not my biggest concern. My safety is my number one concern.

In a high crime area, in the middle of the night, your doors really should be locked. Shooting someone for walking in a door by accident is not what you want on your conscience the rest of your life.

Everyone leaves doors unlocked when kids are outside playing, or expected home soon. No one wants kids to feel locked out.

One of our North Dakota farmers was explaining the old days in North Dakota when they would never dream of locking doors. You might have gone to the city and your neighbor has an emergency. You want your neighbor to be able to get any help he needs.

Now with cell phones in most places, and crime escalating, times have changed. Areas with no cell phone cover probably have neighbors carrying extra keys? (my guess).

1. Did the homeowner tell the kid to sneak out?
2. Did the homeowner tell the kid to get drunk?
3. Did the homeowner provide the kid with alcohol?
4. Did the homeowner entice the kid into entering his home?

If the answer to all of these is "no", as I strongly suspect it is, it sucks to be the kid.

Choices have consequences for the chooser. They don't impose any duty on the part of uninvolved third parties whatever to assume risk as a result of those choices which they did not make.

If liquor makes you do stupid things, don't drink.

If you don't want to get shot, don't break into other people's homes, then ignore their lawful commands.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

There is so much wrong with the original post it could boggle the mind, except that a lot of it is simply re-stated drivel that is promoted by the anti gun community. However, one aspect stands out in it's rather appalling concept.

That is asking if it is OK to shoot a warning shot through the door before that Home Invader has even broken in. In BARE FACT, if you were to hit this person with Fatal Effect you could, most likely would, and certainly SHOULD be charged with Murder. Think about it, perhaps that person beating loudly on your front door is doing it because he has seen that the attic of your home is ON FIRE? What if it's a stupid teenage prank involving a flaming bag of dog poop? What if it's simply some stupid drunk who thinks he's trying to wake up his wife because his key won't fit the lock on his/your front door?

Rule One no matter where you live is that you don't shoot someone unless you can clearly see that they present a clear and eminent threat. This means that you don't shoot at someone you cannot SEE, NOT EVER. Unfortunately there are way too many examples of shooting involving family members because the shooter made assumptions based on sound without visually identifying who they were shooting at.

Rule Two should be no Warning Shots. The simple fact is that bullet is going to end up somewhere and it's far better it end up in a criminal than a neighbor across the street or across town. If this doesn't make sense, spend a bit of time looking into Policy at various Police Agencies concerning Warning Shots. You will find that they are universally banned today due to prior experience with unintended consequences.

Rule Three is that guns are NOT pointers. If you feel that you have to draw your gun to defend yourself you need to understand that pulling the trigger may be your best and most viable action to take in order to save your life. If someone is coming at you intending harm or murder you are under no obligation at all to provide them with any warning that you are going to shoot and attempting some type of warning may give them the opportunity to kill you. Take a stop watch and time how long it takes to clearly issue the warning "stop or I will shoot" and consider that a running person with a large knife can cover 20 feet in about 1.3 seconds and it will only take another 0.3 second to slice you open from groin to neck.

Making the decision to shoot in order to defend yourself is not an easy decision and it shouldn't be easy. We are after all talking about the potential for taking someone else's life. However, by doing a bit of pre-planning and thought experimenting we can develop a set of guidelines that will allow that decision to be made quickly and without hesitation. I've done this and the following are my personal criteria and decision paths.

1) If a deadly weapon is in the possession of an assailant I will shoot until they do not have the means or will to assault me with that weapon. It doesn't matter if the weapon is a gun, knife, bat, or stick, if it's a lethal weapon I will shoot as soon as my gun is on target.

I'll also point out that in some situations, such as a raging individual, I consider bare hands to be lethal weapons. However, it the case of bare hands I'll attempt to use a visible firearm to act as a deterrent before pulling the trigger. Probably not good policy if applied to a raging Meth Addict but I consider bare hands to be Less Lethal enough to give someone about 1/2 second to re-think their actions.

2) If the threats are simply verbal I will attempt to leave or sequester myself behind a barrier and call 911. Depending on the assailants reaction to my doing this I may or, may not draw my weapon and allow it to be seen. If that assailant escalates to a pitch I consider lethally threatening I will then shoot to stop if that person comes at me.

3) If I come home and there is a burglary in progress I will take down license numbers of suspect vehicles, move away from the immediate area but maintain visibility, and then call the Police. Walking into a home that is being burglarized can get you killed, so it's far far wiser to allow a team of trained police officers clear the house.

4) If an unarmed person kicks in my door and doesn't seem threatening and are more alarmed at my presence than myself I'll treat it as a simple B & E attempt and give them the opportunity to call the police to come and arrest them. If they do that I will then have them lay down face down with fingers interlaced behind the neck and legs crossed while I keep them covered and wait for the police. I'll also allow them to run like heck if they wish to but don't intend to tell them that. I might also shout out "honey bring me the AK" while they are running to provide some encouragement.

Hardly surprising you find the idea of shooting an unarmed person somehow pleasing.

The post did not say if the bedroom the drunk teen was walking toward had anyone inside sleeping.

A state like California or New York might use these kinds of examples to require gun owners to have bars on their windows.

In my small town lots of friends and relatives turn out for funerals. I could not go to a funeral of a teen whose death I caused. I would move out of town.

I am now convinced. My house gun will now be a .22 rimfire. A can or bag of sand might be positioned where a warning shot could be fired. Someone walking from me will never be shot. But If our crime rate goes up from the oil boom, and if situations warrant someone might get shot in the leg. I do not much care what the law says on this issue of warning shots or shooting to wound. That is a fact God.

My kids are raised. My male line going back several generations do not have anyone living past 76. That gives me 4 more years. I would like to be the first to live past 76 but not making any long range plans. I would never shoot a kid when my life is not as important as a possible good young person.

I will take extreme measures, to never shoot anyone, who might not be a criminal.

I don't know you from Duncan Idaho, but it's hardly surprising that there are people who believe that people's irresponsible use of alcohol imposes on total strangers a "duty" to incur risk of great bodily harm or death in order to protect them from the consequences of their actions.

No doubt, if the young drunk had been high on "bath salts" and slaughtered the homeowner and his family, you'd just shrug it off. At least the victims wouldn't have "escalated the violence" by defending themselves.

Of course being "unarmed" is largely irrelevant... unless you believe that a 110lb. woman would somehow be in the wrong for shooting a 210lb. "unarmed" rapist.

But then there are always people who profess more concern for the welfare of the stupid, the irresponsible, and indeed the malicious and evil, than for the common man or woman merely trying to go about their lives without harming anyone.

It's far more likely that they'd prohibit bars on windows in order to make forced entry by police easier.

If you want to ensure that you don't shoot an "innocent" drunken home invader, there is no better way than to simply not own a firearm at all. You can't shoot somebody with the gun you don't have.

Of course you might be slaughtered by the next Hays and Komisarjevsky, but hey, at least you won't have "escalated the violence"...

I recommend you get rid of your firearms and buy some pepper spray.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

Haven't people died from pepper spray?

Better to trust to the "better nature" of drunk or drug addled home invaders...

Not me. I've seen firsthand what drunk or drugged up people can do. There's absolutely no reasoning with them. And I'm getting to old to get physical with someone like that without some sort of "tool".

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

Some people seem to think the cops have a duty to let someone fire at them first before the cops can shoot someone. Others seem to think it's reasonable for a person to shoot through doors to hit someone they can't even see. I wonder if they're the same people?

Hello cmort from Ohio. A few branches of my family farmed in Ohio in early 1800's. We always had guns and fishing poles.

I have walked through many crowds of inmates who sometimes wanted to do violence to each other on a daily basis. I have worked on sides of town at night where most logical people remain indoors. For your information most drunks on only alcohol are not often a problem. Unless they crash driving home. If the police had the ability to test for more than alcohol there would be better statistics on drunk driving incidents and road rage.

The number of killings by guns is very small compared to population. The worst is probably the west side of Chicago right now, and only a few drug gangsters kill each other each night. You could drive around the bad side of any big city every night for years and never see anyone shooting at anyone. Police only see them when called by victims. Lots of violence, robberies, drug deals and such, but few shootings that a casual observer might see. I have only seen one and the guy being shot at ran from six or eight shots, apparently not having been hit. Pistol sights are not very good at night.

I do not consider a staggering drunk walking away a threat until I see his actions and expressions from the front. The guys on meth and other drugs can be a handful. Some are really violent when sober. The violent ones generally do not often sneak in houses. They fight or rob on the streets, bars or wherever violences goes unwatched. In our society if someone punches another in a bank at noontime there will be witnesses and he will go jail and court. At a bar at midnight when all wittnesses are drunk and bartender not willing to admit seeing anything, some areas have trouble nightly.

Working in California prisons I have been hit, kicked, bit, and had many items thrown at me. I have broken up many fights. I really do understand most types of violent behavior. I knew the guys that could get knocked down and always got back up to swing again. Most inmates losing a fight change to defensive wrestling and clinching. One inmate in for homicide, was one that could not be kept down. Two of us had to hold him down in armlocks as his hands were bleeding from knocking out the door window walking out of a disciplinary hearing. In the hospital the nice gently nurse told us to let go of him so she could clean his cuts. when she left the room he decided to grab the hospital arm board to use as a club. Fortunately my partner had a football scholarship some years back, and great reflexes. A week or two later he was back walking around the yard, because he talked nice to some therapist. He and perhaps a couple hundred others caused maximum security prisons to be built.

I will not list here the killings of inmates and officers.

Gang members doing required hits never started out tough, but got really mean. There is a difference between tough and mean. People who are dangerous in gangs are another subject.

If someone ask me to push the gas button on an entire death row it would be no problem.

But I do have the gonads to check before I shoot. I know the odds. And the idea of shooting an innocent young person before he has had a chance to continue his family line is really repulsive. No children or grandchildren because someone did not check on the person he was shooting.

The truth seems to me that in many situations homeowners could be trained how to shoot a warning shot. A staggering almost asleep drunk, who hears almost nothing, often wakes up fast with a really loud noise. Most get real polite when things get serious.

Policemen get called to every kind of problem during or after the fact. Probably most have seen a person crying because they shot or hurt someone they wish they had not. You need to talk to them.
If all the incidents were in the big city papers every day it would be to big to carry and too much to read. They pick and choose stories That someone might read. The fact that some police in big cities go from bar fight to bar fight to domestic fight is not news.

The number that might climb in your window in the low crime side of town is small.

The original post did NOT ask about shooting a warning shot. I wish I knew why so many members misread this. I thought it was very clear.

I'm too tired to scan through all the posts to find where the "warning shot through the door" came from, but suffice it to say that putting a round through a door will:

1) Ruin a perfectly good door.

2) Injure or kill whoever is on the other side, thus making the "warning" shot something a bit more serious, and a rather moot point.

__________________
I'm with the banned ...

If you're drunk (or otherwise intoxicated) and "staggering away" FARTHER into my home, and toward a family member, sleeping or otherwise, and ignore my commands, you're going to have a VERY bad day/night.

I don't know how I can say it any more clearly:

1. Your substance abuse problems are YOURS, not MINE. If I didn't provide you with the alcohol or drugs, I have ZERO responsibility for your condition. I have ZERO duty to incur risk of harm to myself because of YOUR bad choices.
2. I don't do alcohol, drug or mental health testing in my home, nor do I have the capability of doing so, which in any case would likely involve physically restraining an intruder, again at great risk to myself. I have NO duty to take chances with my own safety in order to be your GRATIS psychiatrist or drug and alcohol counselor in MY home at 2:00am.
3. My primary goal is NOT to avoid shooting a home invader. It's to not BE shot... or choked, or stabbed, bitten or have any other harm come to me or those in my care. If I can accomplish that goal with ZERO additional risk without shooting you, I will. If there's ANY risk to me or somebody in my care from not shooting you, you're going to get shot.

If you get intoxicated and break into other people's homes, you should expect negative consequences, possibly of an irreversible nature.

Hey, what's the worst thing that could happen? Isn't having your whole family raped and burned to death by a couple of drugged up monsters, or having your face eaten by some imbecile high on "bath salts" just a "normal" part of life these days? Why make things worse by introducing a gun into an "already volatile situation"?

If you'd defend yourself with a gun, you're probably "compensating" for something... like a disparity of 100lb.s in weight or thirty years in age between you and your "innocent" assailant...

Let me rephrase things a little and start with the basics.

Anyone walking to my front door is under my protection.

Anyone visiting is under my protection.

Even stupid teenagers struggling with puberty and drugs are under my protection in the vast number of situations.

Most home burglaries are done by teenagers who have been hooked on drugs by their “new friend”. My feelings on this issue is that our schools, like our prisons, are under-policed and cause more crime. I have chose to try to protect people and property for most of my life.

Therefore and whereas. The word home invader is a new word that is overused. When I was young the word “cat burglar” was common. Back then a cat burglar might tiptoe in your unlocked back door while everyone clustered around the radio. Later when TV became available same issue.

Most burglars you talk with in the prisons consider interring any house in the nighttime to now be very foolish. They burgle in daytime when both adults are generally working.

So yes a person in your house at night has the potential to be very dangerous. Particularly to children. Not hard to find stories of such.

Someone walking away from me in my house will be ordered to the floor and if no response I may shoot a warning shot or shoot to wound. I have only worked day shift a few years since about 1970. The dark is my friend. I probably shoot better than most Olympians in very dark conditions.

When ever possible I want to see a persons eyes and how he or she responds to verbal commands as an uninvited stranger in my house. Criminals understand “lay on the floor”.

Pin head (very small) eye pupils indicate stimulants. Not what you want to see. One big eye and one small eye indicate a stroke (or some migraines, or a glass eye). Really big eye pupils indicate more than just adaptation to darkness, usually downers. Unfortunately some of today’s young drug addicts use a combination of uppers and downers. Very old people can be on any number of drugs.

Anyone in my house after dark that bolts for the door on verbal warning will be allowed to run away. Any senior citizen wandering in wrong door will be identified and help called. If my kids were still young anyone wandering into their door at night, larger than another kid will get a few bullets in his butt really fast.

Once I had a suspicious noise outside. My dogs tail was wagging and she really wanted out. I followed my dog to the suspect. A poorly supervised delinquent kid a block away was quietly calling up to my kids trying to get them to come out and do another midnight walk in the park.

Naturally it never happened again.

That is recklessness beyond belief.

1. Bullets don't go into a black hole when you fire them. If that "warning shot" goes through a window or some other aperture and kills somebody, you OWN that. It seems the very height of folly to me to risk killing or maiming a totally uninvolved innocent third party in order to protect a CRIMINAL actively engaged in committing one or more crimes.
2. Shooting someone is DEADLY FORCE, whether you shoot them in the heart or the earlobe. It risks substantial likelihood of permanent maiming or death. If somebody's not dangerous enough to KILL, they're not dangerous enough to SHOOT. Stating that you "shot to wound" is prima facie evidence that you were not in sufficient fear of life and limb to do what was necessary to REALLY eliminate an immediate and credible threat of great bodily harm or death.

Your words indicate to me that you do not take the use of deadly force nearly serious enough.

That lack of seriousness may well cost you your finances, your freedom, or indeed your life.

The idea that anyone would consider it acceptable to have a door unlocked at any time other than to pass through it is mind boggling. Irresponsible beyond belief. If there is a child in your home who is not responsible enough to have a key and keep it on their person and secured at all times, they are not yet capable of being outside without adult supervision. This is not about convenience - it is about the well being of those who belong in your home.

Warning shots are clownshoes at best, criminal at worst. I am all in favor of LE and armed citizens killing more offenders; neither group does so nearly enough by a factor of 50 or so. That said, there is a corresponding responsibility. That bullet has to stop somewhere, and the person who presses the trigger is responsible for it. If you cannot justify putting that round in the most vital area you can see and hit, DON'T PRESS THE TRIGGER.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

You must live in a very crowded city. A very high crime city.
I live on the edge of a small town that is only to my east. I have a full basement that will catch bullets easily. I do almost nothing involving firearms that involves guesswork.

To me, someone who would shoot someone on a guess, because of darkness and personal fear, describes "folly".

Let me be really honest. The fact that many people are armed and ready to protect life and property is good. It makes everyone safer. It is good when criminals do not know who might be armed. The fact that we are having this comparison of assumptions is good.

Every time a person takes a pistol to a gun range it makes our country a little safer.

To me "shooting to wound" means you can talk later if the situation is different than assumed. Juries and intellectuals pondering issues have the advantage of time.

When my finger is on a trigger, any occasion to buy time at low risk I will take that risk. Any warning shot I might fire will be more safely fired than many target range shots.

There is a big difference between noon in a big city crowd, and living in rural areas, with a full basement below empty of people.

You are among the few to use the words "credible threat of great bodily harm or death". I am glad to see you use those words. Many are exaggerating about the unknown possibilities and how to best deal with the unknown. Recent news articles from a thousand miles away do not impress me. Stories about my area do.

This is really funny.
A whole string of guys who don't know ( or use) the four rules of gun safety.

__________________
Halfway and one more step

I live in a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio.

Compared to where I'm from in Chicago, it's Lake Woebegone.

I still wouldn't take one scintilla of one iota of a scrap of risk to protect a home invader.

Will you know EXACTLY what's underneath you when you [presumably] fire into the floor... like a gas line, gas heater or gas water heater?

They are:

1. In my house illegally and without my permission.
2. Ignoring or defying my commands to leave the premises.

The one "guessing" is you. You're guessing that they mean you no harm... having already demonstrated defiance of both the law and your clearly articulated demands for them to depart.

Shooting to wound means that they didn't REALLY pose an immediate and credible danger to your life and limb. That being the case, why shoot AT ALL?

When you're forcibly in my home against the law and against my expressed will, there ISN'T any time. Get out or get shot. I'm not interested in "low" risk to myself. I'm ONLY interested in NO risk to myself. The law, at least in Ohio, is on my side. I have NO duty to incur ANY risk. Nor will I. There are people who are willing to allow irresponsible or evil people to impose the risks of THEIR idiocy and malice upon them, and to drag them down into the cesspool of stupidity and depravity which they call their "life".

I'm not one of those people.

Legally and morally there's NO difference. I don't care if I'm in Cleveland, Ohio or Catawissa, Missouri; I am not incurring ANY risk to protect an intruder from the consequences of his own actions.

Gosh, my wife came back to bed last night after a bathroom visit. An unidentified figure in my dark room and I barely woke up.

Maybe I need re-training.

A few weeks ago I went to lock my garages pedestrian door at dusk. I was a little late and it was almost totally dark. No one had ever walked in that door after dusk before. As I opened my inner door my neighbor that I help fix our dirt/ice road in winter was half inside my door. Too dark to see who it was at first -- and I did not run for a gun????

He is a very good man in later stages of Alzheimer's. He gets lost often. His wife is about exhausted from keeping track of him.

It was the first time he ever wandered into my garage looking for a shovel to fix a road drain. Usually he brings his own and I join him.

I do not label everyone a possible "home invader". I do not fantasize about what crimes might be committed by some dark figure in the night.

But everyone needs a hobby.

Excellent! I see what you did here. You have made absolutely sure that in a post mortem home invader situation, a web search will indicate your desire to spare a life and limit any premeditated harm... Well done!

__________________
NICK-SWCA-NRA BENEFACTOR LIFE

So what you're saying is that you DIDN'T shoot someone whom you identified as NOT a threat and who NEITHER threatened you NOR defied your commands?

The other day, I saw the maintenance guy for the apartment who lives across the hall. I didn't shoot him either...

I don't need to "fantasize" I only need to Google "Hayes and Komisarjevsky".

Yes, I want to be seen as the good guy who was not totally hung up on the word Home Invasion and Shooting Center of Mass.

Seems like every cat burglar looking for trivial valuables and tramp looking for food is now a potential "Home Invader" and must be shot "center of mass" when he does not comply with instructions.

The crazies are on he march:
Every bullet fired, not just is downtown Los Angeles, must be fired center of mass or it is a danger to others.

Every psycho street person at the soup line needs to be advised. On a cold night if you walk toward someone else's refrigerator, in the dark, in a drunken stupor, you are assumed to be a murder rapist.

Because the word "Home Invasion" means whatever anyone wants it to mean. The old Cat Burglars are now punishable by death. If people still hung clothes on clotheslines overnight we would find a reason to shoot clothes snatchers.

I think we are making progress here.

"Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is." The Outlaw Josey Wales.

__________________
Have Gun Will Carry

Which is precisely why you DON'T break into occupied dwellings. People who care about their own safety and that of their families won't risk their lives to protect YOU.

Again, if your overriding priority is to not shoot anybody, that can best be achieved by not possessing a firearm.