What would you do?

RSanch111 · #51 10-14-2017, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhnttrpp

Could you give us an example.

If you're charged with shooting the guy, the jury will be instructed that they are to presume that you were in fear for your life. The prosecutor is allowed to rebut that idea. For example, if the guy had no weapons, was falling-down drunk, naked, and you were a retired police officer, the prosecutor would likely be able to overcome the presumption that you were in fear for your life.

If the prosecutor felt that they would not be able to overcome that presumption, you would probably not be charged. Unless, of course, it was a politically-charged case and they felt they needed to go to trial anyway, even though they would probably lose.

Rastoff · #52 10-15-2017, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSanch111

I believe it's a rebutable presumption, yes?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Anything can be argued in court. But, if the police show up to a dead person and there are signs of forced entry, it seems clear to me that the law says you were in fear of great bodily injury or death.

Protected One · #53 10-16-2017, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rastoff

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Anything can be argued in court. But, if the police show up to a dead person and there are signs of forced entry, it seems clear to me that the law says you were in fear of great bodily injury or death.

At the very least the "reasonable person" standard would be satisfied, as any reasonable person could be expected to shoot someone who has gained forced entry.

otasan56 · #54 11-06-2017, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Protected One

At the very least the "reasonable person" standard would be satisfied, as any reasonable person could be expected to shoot someone who has gained forced entry.

If someone broke into my VT occupied dwelling, they'd be shot with 17 9mm JHP +p Corbon bullets.

Wise_A · #55 11-07-2017, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Protected One

At the very least the "reasonable person" standard would be satisfied, as any reasonable person could be expected to shoot someone who has gained forced entry.

The reasonable person standard is not what you think is reasonable.

The reasonable person standard is what the judge/jury/DA think is reasonable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by otosan

If someone broke into my VT occupied dwelling, they'd be shot with 17 9mm JHP +p Corbon bullets.

Hey, for fun, let's read two things. The first is Vermont's definition of justifiable homicide.

Quote:

§ 2305. Justifiable homicide

If a person kills or wounds another under any of the circumstances enumerated below, he or she shall be guiltless:

(1) In the just and necessary defense of his or her own life or the life of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, sister, master, mistress, servant, guardian or ward; or

(2) In the suppression of a person attempting to commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary or robbery, with force or violence; or

(3) In the case of a civil officer; or a military officer or private soldier when lawfully called out to suppress riot or rebellion, or to prevent or suppress invasion, or to assist in serving legal process, in suppressing opposition against him or her in the just and necessary discharge of his or her duty. (Amended 1983, No. 23, § 2.)

Okay, good there! Defense of property is on the list! And no duty to retreat!

Now let's read some sample jury instructions!

VT CR07-111. SELF-DEFENSE (USE OF DEADLY FORCE) – Law of Self Defense

Self Defense | Vermont Model Criminal Jury Instructions

Quote:

VT CR07-111. SELF-DEFENSE (USE OF DEADLY FORCE)

State: Vermont

Vermont Jury Instructions

VT CR07-111. SELF-DEFENSE (USE OF DEADLY FORCE)

Evidence has been introduced bearing on the issue of self-defense, as justification for the killing of (victim)_______________. The State bears the burden of proving that the killing was unlawful. A killing committed in lawful self-defense is lawful, and not a crime. Here the State must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (Def)_______________ did not act in self-defense. [He] [She] has no burden of proof on this issue.

A person has the right to defend [himself] [herself] when [he] [she] is attacked, or when [he] [she] reasonably believes [he] [she] is in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm. A person in that situation has the right to use only such force as is reasonably necessary to repel the attack or the perceived imminent danger.

A killing is justified by self-defense if:

(1) (Def)_______________ reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of being killed or of suffering great bodily harm, and

(2) (Def)_______________’s use of deadly force was reasonably necessary to repel the perceived threat.

The right of self-defense does not require that a person actually be assaulted, but (Def)_______________ must have believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of great bodily harm, and [his] [her] belief must have been reasonable under the circumstances. [His] [Her] expectation of harm must have been based upon fact, and not on some imaginary fear. Furthermore, if [he] [she] honestly and reasonably believed it was immediately necessary to use deadly force to protect himself from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, the law does not require [him] [her] to retreat.

Self-defense requires that (Def)_______________ must have had a reasonable fear of imminent harm. In deciding this issue, you may consider what [he] [she] knew about (victim)_______________ at the time. You may consider any previous interactions, including any aggressive or hostile conduct by (victim)_______________, and any other evidence you consider relevant, including who started the confrontation.

When assessing the reasonableness of (Def)_______________’s fear, you may consider the individual characteristics of (Def)_______________ and (victim)_______________, such as their respective size, gender, age, physical condition, strength, stamina, courage, and assertiveness.

Self-defense permits only the amount of force that is reasonably necessary to repel the perceived harm. A person may use the amount of force that reasonably appears to be necessary under all of the circumstances known to [him] [her] at the time. In this case you must decide whether (Def)_______________ reasonably believed it was necessary to use the amount of force that [he] [she] did use. When a person has reasonable grounds to believe that an assault is imminent, [he] [she] need not wait until it actually occurs before [he] [she] may resort to self-defense.

Once the issue of self-defense appears in the case, the burden is on the State to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that (Def)_______________ did not act in self-defense, or that the force used by (Def)_______________ was excessive under the circumstances. (Def)_______________ is not required to prove that [he] [she] acted in self-defense.

Huh. Lots of scary words in there--"excessive", "necessary", and that ol' demon, "reasonable".

Let's read more things!

Attempted Burglary in Vermont Raises Questions About Self-Defense and Deadly Force - Guns.com

Quote:

However, in Vermont, there’s no such presumption, as Martinez Campbell, an associate professor at Vermont Law School, explained to the Rutland Herald, “It [reasonable belief] varies according to the situation,” she said. “A person’s fear of bodily harm or death is a very subjective point of view. What’s ‘reasonable’ has to be decided through an analysis of what a reasonable person would have thought.”

One should give pause and point out the obvious, is it not reasonable to believe or presume, as the state of Florida does, that a home intruder is there to harm you in some form or fashion? Is that an unreasonable presumption?

Lt. Cacciatore believes it’s unreasonable to make that assumption.

“Just because someone is in your house doesn’t mean you’re in jeopardy,” Lt. Cacciatore told the Rutland Herald. “The question that is key in these things is ‘what is the immediacy of the threat?’”

TL;DR -- Ain't nothin' you got is worth your life.

otasan56 · #56 11-07-2017, 08:22 AM

Here in VT if someone tried to push their way into my apartment, the assumption would be that they have evil intent. Time for my 12ga Mosssberg.

Wise_A · #57 11-07-2017, 09:03 PM

See above--no such presumption. Hence why understanding how the subjective "reasonable person" standard can get you into trouble.

But hey, if you feel like hanging your hat on twelve strangers too stupid to get out of jury duty seeing things the way you do, by all means.

ContinentalOp · #58 11-07-2017, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wise_A

The reasonable person standard is not what you think is reasonable.

The reasonable person standard is what the judge/jury/DA think is reasonable.

This is something worth repeating. I often see it overlooked. "Justified is justified." "A clean shoot is a clean shoot." Yes, but the person determining whether or not it's a "clean shoot" is not you.

Yiogo · #59 11-07-2017, 10:23 PM

Don't open the door. Call the police.

I live in a town with an excellent police force.

I called the police on a guy parked in my driveway. They were here in 3 minutes. Turns out he wanted to ask me a question and he did some work for me in the past.

Let us assume I opened the door. It happens and I've done it mistakenly. I might add. That was in the past. No way I would do it now.

I am too old to deal with people physically.

Rastoff · #60 11-08-2017, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wise_A

...twelve strangers too stupid to get out of jury duty seeing things the way you do, by all means.

I hate this phrase. Just because you don't want to do your civic duty doesn't mean everyone else is stupid for doing theirs. I've known many people who served on juries who are quite brilliant. In several cases the defendant was glad to have them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ContinentalOp

This is something worth repeating. I often see it overlooked. "Justified is justified." "A clean shoot is a clean shoot." Yes, but the person determining whether or not it's a "clean shoot" is not you.

The theory here is correct, but justified is indeed justified. The jury or judge cannot just ignore the law and say, "Well, I wouldn't have done that, even though legal so, lock him up."

But let's carry this through. People make the mistake of thinking that because they were in fear of their life, they are justified in using deadly force. That's not true and not how the law works.

Here's how I normally come at this:
Pretty much everyone knows who Hulk Hogan is. If a 90lb woman is being assaulted by a person Hulk Hogan's size, with just his fists, and she uses a gun to defend herself, a jury will see that as reasonable.

Now, I'm 5'10" 190lbs and Royce Grace (click on this to see who he is) is 6'0" and 175lbs. If he was attacking me with his bare hands and I used a gun to defend myself, I think that's reasonable, but a jury would have to be convinced on just how dangerous he is. That's gambling with the reasonable person standard. In that case I'll fall back on, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Of course Royce Gracie is a great guy and would never assault anyone, it's just an example of how the reasonable person standard could be misused.

Everything is grey in a defensive situation. I hope you're never in one and never need to use deadly force. Just don't hesitate because you're worried about what the jury will think. Always defend yourself first. Better yet, use your awareness to not end up in the situation in the first place. Don't open your door unless you know the person on the other side.

wingriderz · #61 11-08-2017, 10:45 AM

Call the P D like O P

The Big D · #62 11-08-2017, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by otasan56

If someone broke into my VT occupied dwelling, they'd be shot with 17 9mm JHP +p Corbon bullets.

Thought you were going to use your Glock 17.

The Big D · #63 11-08-2017, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wise_A

...
But hey, if you feel like hanging your hat on twelve strangers too stupid to get out of jury duty seeing things the way you do, by all means.

...and an insult to the good citizens of the United States who are called upon to do their civic duty...and do it.

RSanch111 · #64 11-08-2017, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Protected One

At the very least the "reasonable person" standard would be satisfied, as any reasonable person could be expected to shoot someone who has gained forced entry.

I believe the reasonable person standard is what a person of the same training, experience, background, etc, would have done under the same circumstances.

The presumption, if I'm correct on the law in that state, is a rebutable presumption, as I explained before. In any event, the purpose of introducing evidence in an affirmative defense like "self defense", is to obtain a particular jury instruction from the judge. Something like: "If you find that a reasonable person with the defendant's background who was confronted with the same circumstances the defendant faced, would have shot the guy, you must acquit."

The presumption used in the castle doctrine or stand your ground laws in most states, as far as I know, can be rebutted by the prosecution. It's not an automatic; "He shot a guy who came into his house so we can't charge him, or find him guilty" sort of thing.

Rastoff · #65 11-09-2017, 11:18 AM

In post #12 I gave the law concerning the response to illegal and forcible entry. Here are the jury instructions:

Quote:

3477.Presumption That Resident Was Reasonably Afraid of Death or Great Bodily Injury (Pen. Code, § 198.5)
The law presumes that the defendant reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily injury to (himself/herself)[, or to a member of (his/her) family or household,] if:
1. An intruder unlawfully and forcibly (entered/ [or] was entering) the defendant’s home;
2. The defendant knew [or reasonably believed] that an intruder unlawfully and forcibly (entered/ [or] was entering) the defendant’s home;
3. The intruder was not a member of the defendant’s household or family;
AND
4. The defendant used force intended to or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to the intruder inside the home.
[Great bodily injury means signiﬁcant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.]
The People have the burden of overcoming this presumption. This means that the People must prove that the defendant did not have a reasonable fear of imminent death or injury to (himself/herself)[, or to a member of his or her family or household,] when (he/she) used force against the intruder. If the People have not met this burden, you must ﬁnd the defendant reasonably feared death or injury to (himself/herself)[, or to a member of his or her family or household]

This puts all the burden on the prosecution, which it should, to prove that the defendant (home owner) didn't have a reasonable fear. In other words, if the bad guy was forcing his way in and the home owner says he had fear of great bodily harm, the prosecution must then prove that he didn't. In the case of the OP, I don't think the prosecution could do that.

Of course this ended in a much more civilized manner as we hope all such confrontations would. However, I think the home owner would have been justified in this case.

Thoughts?

CH4 · #66 11-09-2017, 11:25 AM

He'll probably be your next governor.

Wise_A · #67 11-09-2017, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rastoff

I hate this phrase. Just because you don't want to do your civic duty doesn't mean everyone else is stupid for doing theirs. I've known many people who served on juries who are quite brilliant. In several cases the defendant was glad to have them.

If only it were civic duty. The legal system is actively working to limit the latitude juries actually have--where it suits them. You're not a member of a jury, you're another card in the deck.

And hey--who really gets their summons in the mail, and says, "Sweet! Another chance to serve my community! I can't wait!"

Quote:

The theory here is correct, but justified is indeed justified. The jury or judge cannot just ignore the law and say, "Well, I wouldn't have done that, even though legal so, lock him up."

Except--they do. All the time. Larry Hickey spent a year in jail before bond could be raised.

Simply put, the legal system cannot be trusted.

Quote:

Now, I'm 5'10" 190lbs and Royce Grace (click on this to see who he is) is 6'0" and 175lbs. If he was attacking me with his bare hands and I used a gun to defend myself, I think that's reasonable, but a jury would have to be convinced on just how dangerous he is. That's gambling with the reasonable person standard. In that case I'll fall back on, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Of course Royce Gracie is a great guy and would never assault anyone, it's just an example of how the reasonable person standard could be misused.

That depends on how well you and your attorney are able to articulate the situation, and whether the jury is able to understand concepts like "position of disadvantage". That's where expert testimony comes into play--and is, in my opinion, one of the best reasons to buy into a concealed carry defense plan (presuming said plan pays for such things, and has access to a network of proven experts).

Quote:

This puts all the burden on the prosecution, which it should, to prove that the defendant (home owner) didn't have a reasonable fear.

Except it's laced with the word reasonable. It's weak. What it essentially says is that forcible entry is recognized as something that, on its own, creates a fear of bodily harm. If it were strong, it would simply say that lethal force is justified in the event of forcible entry of an inhabited residence. You might occasionally find things like that written, but finding someplace where it's practiced and accepted is different.

Point is, the law itself is frequently contradictory and cannot be trusted. That's my objection to the "I'd shoot an intruder" saber-rattling.

When it comes to lethal force, Ayoob really put it best--"In the gravest extreme."

Rastoff · #68 11-10-2017, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wise_A

And hey--who really gets their summons in the mail, and says, "Sweet! Another chance to serve my community! I can't wait!"

I know this will come as a shock to you, but there are people who do exactly this. Maybe they're not jumping up and down about it, but they make no effort to avoid it. There are real patriots in this country and this is one way to help ensure the justice system isn't perverted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wise_A

Point is, the law itself is frequently contradictory and cannot be trusted. That's my objection to the "I'd shoot an intruder" saber-rattling.

When it comes to lethal force, Ayoob really put it best--"In the gravest extreme."

We may not agree on some points, but on this we're in violent agreement. People are very quick to be bold on the internet, but that's all it is. "2" groups off hand at 50 yards with a snub nosed pistol", "He'll be met with 17 rounds of hollow points", "4 shots per second", "I run toward gun fire" are all things we hear on the internet, but rarely see in real life.

Lots of bluster, but very little substance.

Also, don't get me wrong, I agree that any time you use a force intended to cause great bodily harm or death, you're taking your chances with the courts. I may not be quite as cynical as you, but the courts are run by people. People have feelings and personal bias. No matter how it's written, the law is interpreted. Because it's interpreted, no two people will always see it the same.

Life is risk. I will choose to protect my family.

Whitwabit · #69 11-10-2017, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSanch111

I believe it's a rebutable presumption, yes? There are circumstances where a reasonable person under the same circumstances might not feel in fear for his life with someone trying to force their way into his or her home.

And who would that person be ?? I can't think of any instance where someone forcing their way into my home would not cause me fear of my well being !!

otasan56 · #70 11-10-2017, 02:52 PM

If the intruder was armed, I would not allow him anywhere near my front door. If he advanced thru the doorway, I would put half of my Glock 17 magazine into him. Eight or nine CorBon 115 gr JHP +p rounds should have an immediate effect.

ContinentalOp · #71 11-10-2017, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whitwabit

And who would that person be ?? I can't think of any instance where someone forcing their way into my home would not cause me fear of my well being !!

Don't underestimate prosecutors and/or juries.

Doug M. · #72 11-10-2017, 06:21 PM

1) ALWAYS CALL 911 unless it precludes the necessary response under tight time lines. Period. You want the record made that you are the first to call and express concern for your well-being. I know of 2 cases in the Spokane area (one city, one ... rural county near Liberty Lake, or maybe in Liberty Lake) in the last few years in which the encounter was recorded due to the phone line being open. In those cases, the recording showed that the complainant/victim was correct and telling it like it was, and the deceased offender was in fact the problem. Made the victims' lives suck a lot less.

2) Even under the best of conditions, LE response time is not likely to be adequate, so don't rely solely on LE.

3) Your doors should be unlocked only to pass through them. Period. Never open the door to anyone until you are sure of who they are and you know it is a good idea. Don't be afraid to yell through a locked door. For the love of all that is holy, do not go outside unless they have lit your house on fire. Stay inside, and make the offender really show that they are really dangerous. That will improve your personal and legal defense situation. If you break this rule, pay someone to administer slap therapy until you have un(screwed) yourself.

4) Layers, darn it, layers.
a)Fence of at least 6 feet as close to the property line as possible, with a locked gate. If your local code or some silly homeowner's association precludes that, move. Anyone who needs to come to your house has your phone number. Anyone who gets offended by that is probably not someone you need in your life. Beat this into your head: no one has a right not to be offended; if you are not willing to offend people who are not welcome at your home to ensure they feel unwelcome, hire R. Lee Ermey to help you overcome that problem.
b)Floodlights as needed, with timers or motion detectors as you prefer.
c) Dogs. Any dog that is alert and makes noise is a great warning and good company. Medium or larger breeds (65+ pounds) make deeper barks, and some number of offenders will be uninterested in finding out if that deep bark includes a real risk of a bite. We're rott fans; there are other good breeds. I'm inclined to Boerboels, Ridgebacks, Bullmastiffs, Mastiffs, Danes and the like. If you truly NEVER have company and can stand a dog that loves you and the rest of your household and HATES everyone else ... Fila.

5) Gun stuff:
a) Know the law of your state with regard to defense of self and defense of home. Know it well.
b) Learn as much as you can about pre-attack indicators. Big one: Anyone who does not immediately comply when told to leave, show you their hands, etc. is likely to be a serious problem. Ask, tell, make - a 3 second or so process. Cops know this - that's why if a person does not forthwith comply with arrest/detention directions has to have an immediate application of force necessary to control them.
c) Have a good grasp of ballistic effects on humans and where to aim. (Short version: pistols suck. Plan on shooting someone a lot of times to get them to stop.)If you do not own a copy of "Urey W. Patrick and John C. Hall, “In Defense of Self and Others -- issues, facts & fallacies: The realities of law enforcement's use of deadly force” (3rd edition, 2017), buy it. Although mostly LE directed and specific, most private citizens need to understand why cops do what they do and what the legal issues are, and the ballistic knowledge and other pieces of the book can be useful by analogy.
d) Whatever firearms you own, be proficient with them. Good hits with a .22 won't be perfect, but the offender will not feel or perform better and that's better than a miss with the beast you can't shoot well. Have lights on them if possible. Both of my long guns do. Handheld flashlights are also your friend. Bright, best quality ones.
e) Don't settle for the training that came in the box.

otasan56 · #73 11-11-2017, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug M.

1) ALWAYS CALL 911 unless it precludes the necessary response under tight time lines. Period. You want the record made that you are the first to call and express concern for your well-being. I know of 2 cases in the Spokane area (one city, one ... rural county near Liberty Lake, or maybe in Liberty Lake) in the last few years in which the encounter was recorded due to the phone line being open. In those cases, the recording showed that the complainant/victim was correct and telling it like it was, and the deceased offender was in fact the problem. Made the victims' lives suck a lot less.

2) Even under the best of conditions, LE response time is not likely to be adequate, so don't rely solely on LE.

3) Your doors should be unlocked only to pass through them. Period. Never open the door to anyone until you are sure of who they are and you know it is a good idea. Don't be afraid to yell through a locked door. For the love of all that is holy, do not go outside unless they have lit your house on fire. Stay inside, and make the offender really show that they are really dangerous. That will improve your personal and legal defense situation. If you break this rule, pay someone to administer slap therapy until you have un(screwed) yourself.

4) Layers, darn it, layers.
a)Fence of at least 6 feet as close to the property line as possible, with a locked gate. If your local code or some silly homeowner's association precludes that, move. Anyone who needs to come to your house has your phone number. Anyone who gets offended by that is probably not someone you need in your life. Beat this into your head: no one has a right not to be offended; if you are not willing to offend people who are not welcome at your home to ensure they feel unwelcome, hire R. Lee Ermey to help you overcome that problem.
b)Floodlights as needed, with timers or motion detectors as you prefer.
c) Dogs. Any dog that is alert and makes noise is a great warning and good company. Medium or larger breeds (65+ pounds) make deeper barks, and some number of offenders will be uninterested in finding out if that deep bark includes a real risk of a bite. We're rott fans; there are other good breeds. I'm inclined to Boerboels, Ridgebacks, Bullmastiffs, Mastiffs, Danes and the like. If you truly NEVER have company and can stand a dog that loves you and the rest of your household and HATES everyone else ... Fila.

5) Gun stuff:
a) Know the law of your state with regard to defense of self and defense of home. Know it well.
b) Learn as much as you can about pre-attack indicators. Big one: Anyone who does not immediately comply when told to leave, show you their hands, etc. is likely to be a serious problem. Ask, tell, make - a 3 second or so process. Cops know this - that's why if a person does not forthwith comply with arrest/detention directions has to have an immediate application of force necessary to control them.
c) Have a good grasp of ballistic effects on humans and where to aim. (Short version: pistols suck. Plan on shooting someone a lot of times to get them to stop.)If you do not own a copy of "Urey W. Patrick and John C. Hall, “In Defense of Self and Others -- issues, facts & fallacies: The realities of law enforcement's use of deadly force” (3rd edition, 2017), buy it. Although mostly LE directed and specific, most private citizens need to understand why cops do what they do and what the legal issues are, and the ballistic knowledge and other pieces of the book can be useful by analogy.
d) Whatever firearms you own, be proficient with them. Good hits with a .22 won't be perfect, but the offender will not feel or perform better and that's better than a miss with the beast you can't shoot well. Have lights on them if possible. Both of my long guns do. Handheld flashlights are also your friend. Bright, best quality ones.
e) Don't settle for the training that came in the box.

You have covered it all nicely.

Doug M. · #74 11-11-2017, 03:37 PM

Thanks. Although I am now in the civil division of my office, doing public records and client advising, my background is in the criminal side, both LE and prosecution. I still do some stuff for our criminal folks, including a few appeals and helping with brainstorming motion and trial stuff, and in my "spare time", I wrote on LE legal stuff, mostly search and seizure, which includes the use of force.

There is a lot of folklore out there that does not conform to the law, and I try to tilt at those windmills as I can. Some of this will of course vary with where one lives; around here, a dead criminal will not be a cause for whining, protesting, or rioting. No one in our office will make some weird unethical argument to prosecute a cop or private citizen because of politics or social views.

SargeRN · #75 11-11-2017, 08:44 PM

About 5-6 months ago I'm in bed sound asleep about 10:30 at night. Someone starts pounding on the side of my house right by my bedroom. They couldn't get to the front door due to a 6 foot chain link fence and 4 dogs raising all kinds of hell. Grab my sidearm, DO NOT turn on the porch light and slice the corner as I open the door. THEN I notice 3 patrol cars in the front of the house next door and 2 more in the area behind the house. Who is pounding on my house AN OFFICER!! First words out of my mouth are, "Officer I am armed and will be GLAD to speak to you as soon as I set my weapon down." She looks at me and goes OK. My son had also armed himself and had been standing behind me as well.
Turns out the had been a reported shooting in the area behind the house next door and they were, of course, investigating. All the adults in my home had been asleep and none of use heard a thing. Supposedly the shooting took place in a vehicle behind the house next door.
Point being you NEVER KNOW! Take all necessary precautions to protect yourself and your family.

S&W Fan · #76 11-11-2017, 10:12 PM

Well the shooting in this article happened pretty close to me yesterday, I think it was handled properly.

Home invasion suspect shot, killed when he enters off-duty Denver officer’s home | FOX31 Denver

richardw · #77 11-11-2017, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rastoff

This happened about a mile from me last night:

If this happened at your house, what would you have done?

I would have called the police as soon as I pushed him out the door.

RSanch111 · #78 11-14-2017, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whitwabit

And who would that person be ?? I can't think of any instance where someone forcing their way into my home would not cause me fear of my well being !!

Already gave an example of who that person could be. If I, as a police officer for a long time, with a lot of training and experience, opened my door to find some drunk high school girl trying to force her way in through the screen door, and shot her in the head after she got into my living room, I would likely not get the "self defense" jury instruction. Someone without my experience and training probably would.

Ziggy2525 · #79 11-14-2017, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whitwabit

And who would that person be ?? I can't think of any instance where someone forcing their way into my home would not cause me fear of my well being !!

For context, I'm in a duty to retreat state. Once your inside your home, you no longer have a duty to retreat, but you still don't get a free pass on using deadly force. (I get the impression people in some states, like Texas, do).

Other than not retreating, you still have to meet all the same elements required to use deadly force as if you were outside. You or another person are in danger of losing your/their life, suffering serious physical injury, kidnapping, or rape.

If your neighbor is kicking your door in and shouting "I'm going to take my lawn tools back," you probably won't get away with using deadly force here.

mnshutterbug · #80 11-14-2017, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by otasan56

If someone broke into my VT occupied dwelling, they'd be shot with 17 9mm JHP +p Corbon bullets.

You really think it would take all 17? A bit overkill, don't you think? That wouldn't look good in court.

Doug M. · #81 11-18-2017, 05:14 PM

How many ever rounds it takes is how many ever rounds it takes. You shoot until you perceive that the threat has been controlled. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2012, 2022 (2014). The analysis in that case is with regard to the use of deadly force by LE, but the principle is the same and any prosecutor who argues otherwise needs to be disbarred. Any defense attorney who does not file a motion in limine to keep that out also needs to be disbarred.

YeshuaIsa53 · #82 12-06-2017, 09:45 PM

I couldn't say.