Is it Self Defense to shoot an Intruder and/or burglar in the back?

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

Len said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Snowbandit said:

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?

Click to expand...

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!

cmort666 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

M3Stuart said:

...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.

Click to expand...

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.

Snowbandit said:

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?

Click to expand...

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!

Varangi said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Snowbandit said:

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.

Click to expand...

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....

Varangi said:

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

Click to expand...

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

daveh75 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

OIF2 said:

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

Click to expand...

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