Home Defense Question
- Thread starter Taranwanderer
- Start date
- Status
Pump Shotguns - w/00(nine ~.38 cal balls) to #5 shot. No slugs .... they will tear through walls.
There is nothing like the All American Welcome, "I'm here", sound of a racking pump! No translation needed, recognized world-wide!
A good mounted gun light(65 Lum+) is preferable... the light illuminates a threat or non-threat and also shined in the face will temporary blind and disorient an intruder.
My home defense -- Winchester Model 1897 (grandfather purchased new in January 1942! Thats another story), 12 ga., 20 in. barrel, one chambered, and six (yes six, not five...new spring and follower) in the tube and six more shells in the leather stock shell holder. My backup for the '97 is another J. M. Browning design... my 1911 w/230gr. controlled expansion hollow points.
Now, if you only have .22LR weapons (M&P 15-22 w/25 rd mags?
) in the house, then by all means go for the .22 and not a baseball bat. The intruders won't know if you have a .22LR or a 300 Win Mag. Just, remember to yell out, " I have a gun, I know how to use it, and you are in my sights!" Most likely you'll hear the intruder crashing to get out of your home. There are no rules to be nice, if you feel threaten for yourself and your family. Remember to call 911 too.
Aim small,
tat
There is nothing like the All American Welcome, "I'm here", sound of a racking pump! No translation needed, recognized world-wide!
A good mounted gun light(65 Lum+) is preferable... the light illuminates a threat or non-threat and also shined in the face will temporary blind and disorient an intruder.
My home defense -- Winchester Model 1897 (grandfather purchased new in January 1942! Thats another story), 12 ga., 20 in. barrel, one chambered, and six (yes six, not five...new spring and follower) in the tube and six more shells in the leather stock shell holder. My backup for the '97 is another J. M. Browning design... my 1911 w/230gr. controlled expansion hollow points.
Now, if you only have .22LR weapons (M&P 15-22 w/25 rd mags?
) in the house, then by all means go for the .22 and not a baseball bat. The intruders won't know if you have a .22LR or a 300 Win Mag. Just, remember to yell out, " I have a gun, I know how to use it, and you are in my sights!" Most likely you'll hear the intruder crashing to get out of your home. There are no rules to be nice, if you feel threaten for yourself and your family. Remember to call 911 too.Aim small,
tat
Last edited:
Drunk3n Snip3R
Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2011
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 24
MN, in no way am I am saying you will go to court, but you can and it does happen, every situation is different.
Ed45
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
Couple thoughts here. The shotgun is the clear choice given you retreat to a room where you can call 911 and monitor the doorway into the room. You don't want to roam the house with any gun and especially not a long gun, even a shotgun with the shortest legal barrel. A factor not mentioned is that if you touch off that 12ga in a small, enclosed space, you and your family could suffer serious hearing injury. Finally, I am adamantly opposed to weapon mounted lights for home use. Using such a light places everything illuminated under your muzzle; violating the first rule of gun safety. Have a good, high intensity flashlight for sure but not mounted to your weapon.
for $400, 6 shot tactical Mossy is best bang for buck. Short Barrel, pump, 5 shell holder on collapsible stock. And the pump has a strap so if you are holding in the dark or you get nervous/clammy hands in a high stress situation it is easy to chamber next round.
Will Carry
Member
I don't use a long gun for home protection. I use a handgun.
First step in Home Defense is to have a plan.
If it is just you and your wife and you sleep in the same room, this can be pretty easy.
A bedroom that can be locked, has only one entrance and a cell phone can be a great place to take refuge while police respond to your 911 call.
Going out of your safe room (bedroom) is asking for trouble.
Let the basta**s steal your TV.
Least important in home defense is probably what firearm you choose.
It should obviously be capable of stopping the intruder/s (rules out the 22LR), it should be one that you and your wife are competent with and it should be one that will be with you or reachable when you need it.
It must be capable of muliple shots (only in the movies do all shots hit the target).
The firearm and you must be capable at all possible distances within your home, figure 20-25 feet is about maximum distance within any room.
If you choose a shotgun, pattern it at 10 feet out to a full 25 feet.
You will be surprised how easy it is to miss with a pattern well less than a foot wide.
Shoot your weapon of choice in the dark to realize how difficult it is to hit your target and how much noise and flash can make second shots difficult.
If you use a light on your firearm, plan on an armed intruder shooting at the light as soon as you turn it on.
Call 911.
If it is just you and your wife and you sleep in the same room, this can be pretty easy.
A bedroom that can be locked, has only one entrance and a cell phone can be a great place to take refuge while police respond to your 911 call.
Going out of your safe room (bedroom) is asking for trouble.
Let the basta**s steal your TV.
Least important in home defense is probably what firearm you choose.
It should obviously be capable of stopping the intruder/s (rules out the 22LR), it should be one that you and your wife are competent with and it should be one that will be with you or reachable when you need it.
It must be capable of muliple shots (only in the movies do all shots hit the target).
The firearm and you must be capable at all possible distances within your home, figure 20-25 feet is about maximum distance within any room.
If you choose a shotgun, pattern it at 10 feet out to a full 25 feet.
You will be surprised how easy it is to miss with a pattern well less than a foot wide.
Shoot your weapon of choice in the dark to realize how difficult it is to hit your target and how much noise and flash can make second shots difficult.
If you use a light on your firearm, plan on an armed intruder shooting at the light as soon as you turn it on.
Call 911.
getoff
Member
first off, make sure everyone in your home knows the plan. second, use a weapon all can use! my hommie is a mod 12-3, snubbie, loaded with hornady critical defense. smallish, but the wife can, and will use it if i'm not able or she gets it first. 00, or 000 will go thru walls, garages, doors, etc. use 6, 71/2, 8 bird shot. wont over penatrate. still louder than you'd like inside. go with what you feel most comfortable with. familarity with what ever weapon you choose is the key. train, practice, and make sure anyone else who has access to the weapon does the same. oh yeah, dont mount a weapon light. the light is way more useful in your off hand. remember to yell to whoever the dummy is breaking in while on the phone with 911, "i have a gun and i called 911 and told them i am having a home invasion(not burglary) at my house" home invasion takes priority over burglary to any and all LEO.
Last edited:
Unit505
Member
Legal Cost of a justified shoot....
I used to listen to Tom Gresham on a regular basis and one of his big points is about the legal defense of a justified shoot inside the home. If I remember correctly, it averages somewhere around $25K! You have to remember the civil suit that comes when a family member of the deceased sues you for killing their criminal relative. You can be sued for anything at anytime. Even with video evidence clearly proving your justified shooting of an intruder, it can cost you big time to prove your innocence in a civil court. I used to handle general liability insurance and have the most ignorant of cases have suits filed on them with video evidence. The sad thing, if your homeowners insurance covers such a case, they will likely settle the bogus lawsuit because it is usually cheaper than fighting it. I read recently about carrying a blanket policy on your homeowners or renters insurance to cover such incidents. It's suppose to be somewhere around $20 @ Month or less.
I used to listen to Tom Gresham on a regular basis and one of his big points is about the legal defense of a justified shoot inside the home. If I remember correctly, it averages somewhere around $25K! You have to remember the civil suit that comes when a family member of the deceased sues you for killing their criminal relative. You can be sued for anything at anytime. Even with video evidence clearly proving your justified shooting of an intruder, it can cost you big time to prove your innocence in a civil court. I used to handle general liability insurance and have the most ignorant of cases have suits filed on them with video evidence. The sad thing, if your homeowners insurance covers such a case, they will likely settle the bogus lawsuit because it is usually cheaper than fighting it. I read recently about carrying a blanket policy on your homeowners or renters insurance to cover such incidents. It's suppose to be somewhere around $20 @ Month or less.
PainterlyShotgroup
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 633
- Reaction score
- 263
I wonder if anyone who has been the victim of a home invasion and thus shot and killed the perp ever went ahead and immediately filed a law suit against the perp's family for property damage as well as their relative putting the home owner and family in such a situation where they had to resort to defending themselves? I can't imagine the emotional repercussions for someone who's had to kill another human. It must stick with you and affect you your whole life. I wonder if you could sue for intent to cause emotional distress among other things?
getoff
Member
thank goodness for the castle doctrine..
Unit505
Member
Being in EMS, I hear about DWI victims suing the drunk driver's family, even when the drunk driver is killed in the crash, all the time. I can remember years ago when Barbara Mandrell sued the estate and family of the drunk driver who was killed in a collision with her. She was deemed selfish and heartless for the lawsuit, I believe due to her financial standing and it all but ruined her career. I did not agree with the suit at the time, but looking at all of the bogus suits filed today, I have a better understanding of the situation. She did not need the money, but opened a whole new avenue of litigation. Maybe it made one or two people stop and think about drunk driving and how it can affect their family and not just their selves. I agree with painterlyshotgroup, maybe if the good guys start suing the families of the deceased and it makes one person decide not to break into a home, it would be worth it.
PainterlyShotgroup
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 633
- Reaction score
- 263
I just can't stand the idea of how in this country a burglar or their family could sue if they get hurt or killed while breaking into someones home.
It makes no sense and is a classic example of the attitude that I feel seems to be more and more common of "it's not my fault, it's someone else's" some people are quick to sue when they sustain injury or loss rather than assume some sort of responsibility (if they are indeed responsible) and even if they are at fault, they never think they are.
It would be as if the family of the drunk driver in the above story sued the family he hit in the accident. The guy was drunk and unless he somehow, didn't cause the accident, he's at fault.
people are way too quick to go after each other with lawsuits.
Now I'm not necessarily advocating that liability should transfer to the families, in fact I don't think it should in most cases unless there is a direct connection or involvement in the crime. In the case of the above drunk diver story, without knowing all the details, it would have made more sense if the lady received compensation from the drunk driver's estate and not his extended family's. But the compensation should be relative to the injuries/damages sustained and not some ridiculous amount.
However, if a family of a criminal is allowed to sue the victim of that criminal because that victim was forced to defend themselves and it resulted in the criminal's injury or death, then the victim should be able to proactively go after the family of that criminal.
It's a mess....Just my opinion.
It makes no sense and is a classic example of the attitude that I feel seems to be more and more common of "it's not my fault, it's someone else's" some people are quick to sue when they sustain injury or loss rather than assume some sort of responsibility (if they are indeed responsible) and even if they are at fault, they never think they are.
It would be as if the family of the drunk driver in the above story sued the family he hit in the accident. The guy was drunk and unless he somehow, didn't cause the accident, he's at fault.
people are way too quick to go after each other with lawsuits.
Now I'm not necessarily advocating that liability should transfer to the families, in fact I don't think it should in most cases unless there is a direct connection or involvement in the crime. In the case of the above drunk diver story, without knowing all the details, it would have made more sense if the lady received compensation from the drunk driver's estate and not his extended family's. But the compensation should be relative to the injuries/damages sustained and not some ridiculous amount.
However, if a family of a criminal is allowed to sue the victim of that criminal because that victim was forced to defend themselves and it resulted in the criminal's injury or death, then the victim should be able to proactively go after the family of that criminal.
It's a mess....Just my opinion.
Last edited:
CrazyFingers
Member
Which is why most states that pass castle doctrine laws include a provision that creates an absolute defense against civil liability for a homeowner involved in a justified killing of a burglar/home invader. In my state, the family of a burglar can bring a lawsuit against the homeowner. Then, on day one of the trial, the homeowner stands up before the judge, shows that it was a justified shooting, invokes his absolute defense, and the case is immediately dismissed. Shouldn't take more than 10 minutes.
getoff
Member
sad the homeowner still has to be in court. in fla, no criminal or civil anything can be put on a citizen defending their home, family or property. only thing i like about my state!
ScrapmasterFlex
Member
just to throw my cents in... I think this orignal question is so simple- if the 15-22 is all I had, all I could get to, all I could grab, all that was loaded, first thing available ETC all that good stuff, and my home was being invaded.etc. and my life/ families lives/doggies life wasin danger - then sure I would bust caps with my 15-22.
I mean, is the 15-22 , that is to say, is the .22LR the best or even a viable home defense round? No surely not. But again, if its WHAT I HAD, be it at that very moment or all I owned, then sure, its better than NOT shooting to save your life right? It's as SIMPLE AS THAT.
i would NOT use it as aprimary or secondary home defense weapon- nor should anyway.
I WOULD shoot it if it was life or death and it was all I had between the line of life and death.
Simpler than the fried egg vs. full egg, This is your Brain on drugs frying pan commercial.
I mean, is the 15-22 , that is to say, is the .22LR the best or even a viable home defense round? No surely not. But again, if its WHAT I HAD, be it at that very moment or all I owned, then sure, its better than NOT shooting to save your life right? It's as SIMPLE AS THAT.
i would NOT use it as aprimary or secondary home defense weapon- nor should anyway.
I WOULD shoot it if it was life or death and it was all I had between the line of life and death.
Simpler than the fried egg vs. full egg, This is your Brain on drugs frying pan commercial.
PainterlyShotgroup
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 633
- Reaction score
- 263
I agree, if a 22lr was all I had then you bet I'd use it. However, it isn't all I have so it wouldn't be my first choice. Maybe some people like the idea that the 15-22 is an AR type rifle and so has that intimidation factor to it. I have a real AR and I wouldn't use it for home defense unless we are talking undead invasion.
I'm no expert on this, but for me, I want something that has more "knock down power", is more forgiving in a adrenaline rich situation and won't go through the burglar, the wall and then the next house. For this I have my ugly 12ga. side by side coach gun.
Granted it's only two shots, but they are big ones.
I'm no expert on this, but for me, I want something that has more "knock down power", is more forgiving in a adrenaline rich situation and won't go through the burglar, the wall and then the next house. For this I have my ugly 12ga. side by side coach gun.
Granted it's only two shots, but they are big ones.
ScrapmasterFlex
Member
Painterly you're probably dead on, the so-called 'intimidation factor' cause it looks like an AR. Which is absolutely the WORST THING EVER you should think or be thinking.
One of the things a lot of people don't understand, they actually Preach the WRONG INFO on the internet to people , to newbs and in arguments alike, and it gets promulgated and rehashed and reposted etc: Intimidation factor is absolutely stupidly wrong and there's a big reason why: there is only ONE REASON you should be pulling the trigger, and that is to kill the person you're shooting at. And you should only be doing that because you need to kill it before it kills you and/or yours or you have actual knowledge it's going to kill again in the real near future.
People always say (Especially about LEO shooting but it hold across the topic) "Why couldn't they disable the poor bad guy!! Them cops shootin to KILL!!! They executed him!!!" ABSOLUTELY RIGHT- you can ONLY shoot to kill-! there ain't no wyatt earp'in somebody , shootin the gun outta his hand, shootin him in the shoulder hopin he drops the gun, shootin him in the leg or *** to get hurt and disabled but easily repaird, etc.
You shoot to kill the person, DIRECTLY AS A RESULT of him directly threatening your life , that is to say: NOT because he says "Imma eventually some day kill you! Scheme and plot and someday you'll be mine!" NO- he is gonna kill you RIGHT THEN AND THERE , or say hes running down the hall way of your house to your kids/wifes/etc. room to kill them. THEN you can shoot, and you gotta kill the person! It's the USE OF DEADLY FORCE. When you discharge a firearm you're using deadly force, and there's real specific code about the authorization of the use of deadly force.
Citizens generally have a lot less authorization to use deadly force than LEOs, so it's real viable to learn their rules too. As a NJ guy, we as citizens have a 'duty to retreat', we have some of if not the absolute harshest gun laws/protection laws there is. If a bad guy breaks in your house, you absolutey have a duty to retreat, that means up staris, lockin yourself in a room, whatever. The prosecturs have gone after people for years and consistently our courts rule time and again on the citizen having the obligation and duty to retreat. Its ludacris but that's how it is. So you can't go blastin a man cause he 'stepped in my house' CERTAINLY not 'stepped on my property! As I hear all the time on this iternet thingamajig ;P
And I know there are laws in other states making it easier for citizens, shoot I believe Pennsylvania has the castle doctrine and they might have just recently made it easier for a citizen to defend himself and his. Which is great, as it should be. On Breaking Bad the unregistered gun salesman said something about New Mexico being a some-kind-of-state and , 'if a man steps near ya and intends to do ya bodily harm, you have the lawful right to defend your life by taking his, it's the law everyone knows it!!" - that seems awesome, I don't know the details but it ain't like that here ,definitely not.
Anyway I go into this diatribe BECAUSE- i just want it to be clear, if Im shooting my .22 it's not because I want to disable the man, i want to 'steer clear of a lawsuit' or whats worse, " I don't want the attorney pressin cxhargews on me, the DA can get ya if you use too strong a b ullet or a big bad weapon' - DUDES, you should ONLY BE SHOOTING if you're trying to kill, it's the LAW- in a way I'd rather not have to defend myself, 'Did you shoot him with a small gun thinking you'd shoot the gun out of hs hand, and you missed and took his eye out?" Better to blow his *** away thru the wall with a 12 gauge, cause it was shoot him in my home and save my life and my families or it was US cause he was gonna kill us.
And I'm pretty sure the .22Lr doesn't have much knockdown power, hydrostatic shock all that stuff. and we have 15 rd mag maxes in Jersey, usually we only find 10. So if it's my Rem 597 or S&W M&P 15-22, and THATS what I have at the time, I'm probably shooting all 10 in a row into the bad guy, to stop the threat on my life.
(Whereas I might be fine, with one well-placed .40 S&W 180 gr JHP premium HD/SD/PP round, maybe two, and definitely a blast from the Mossberg M930SPX, if I get a round of 00 Buck on a bad guy, I can't believe they're gonna still be threatening my life.)
(P.P.S., you probably shouldn't, having hit the bad guy and hes down, walk up and coup d'gras him in the face, like that pharmacist did... Especially if you're on tape in your house and its gonna look real bad with you blowing the guys head off LOL
)
One of the things a lot of people don't understand, they actually Preach the WRONG INFO on the internet to people , to newbs and in arguments alike, and it gets promulgated and rehashed and reposted etc: Intimidation factor is absolutely stupidly wrong and there's a big reason why: there is only ONE REASON you should be pulling the trigger, and that is to kill the person you're shooting at. And you should only be doing that because you need to kill it before it kills you and/or yours or you have actual knowledge it's going to kill again in the real near future.
People always say (Especially about LEO shooting but it hold across the topic) "Why couldn't they disable the poor bad guy!! Them cops shootin to KILL!!! They executed him!!!" ABSOLUTELY RIGHT- you can ONLY shoot to kill-! there ain't no wyatt earp'in somebody , shootin the gun outta his hand, shootin him in the shoulder hopin he drops the gun, shootin him in the leg or *** to get hurt and disabled but easily repaird, etc.
You shoot to kill the person, DIRECTLY AS A RESULT of him directly threatening your life , that is to say: NOT because he says "Imma eventually some day kill you! Scheme and plot and someday you'll be mine!" NO- he is gonna kill you RIGHT THEN AND THERE , or say hes running down the hall way of your house to your kids/wifes/etc. room to kill them. THEN you can shoot, and you gotta kill the person! It's the USE OF DEADLY FORCE. When you discharge a firearm you're using deadly force, and there's real specific code about the authorization of the use of deadly force.
Citizens generally have a lot less authorization to use deadly force than LEOs, so it's real viable to learn their rules too. As a NJ guy, we as citizens have a 'duty to retreat', we have some of if not the absolute harshest gun laws/protection laws there is. If a bad guy breaks in your house, you absolutey have a duty to retreat, that means up staris, lockin yourself in a room, whatever. The prosecturs have gone after people for years and consistently our courts rule time and again on the citizen having the obligation and duty to retreat. Its ludacris but that's how it is. So you can't go blastin a man cause he 'stepped in my house' CERTAINLY not 'stepped on my property! As I hear all the time on this iternet thingamajig ;P
And I know there are laws in other states making it easier for citizens, shoot I believe Pennsylvania has the castle doctrine and they might have just recently made it easier for a citizen to defend himself and his. Which is great, as it should be. On Breaking Bad the unregistered gun salesman said something about New Mexico being a some-kind-of-state and , 'if a man steps near ya and intends to do ya bodily harm, you have the lawful right to defend your life by taking his, it's the law everyone knows it!!" - that seems awesome, I don't know the details but it ain't like that here ,definitely not.
Anyway I go into this diatribe BECAUSE- i just want it to be clear, if Im shooting my .22 it's not because I want to disable the man, i want to 'steer clear of a lawsuit' or whats worse, " I don't want the attorney pressin cxhargews on me, the DA can get ya if you use too strong a b ullet or a big bad weapon' - DUDES, you should ONLY BE SHOOTING if you're trying to kill, it's the LAW- in a way I'd rather not have to defend myself, 'Did you shoot him with a small gun thinking you'd shoot the gun out of hs hand, and you missed and took his eye out?" Better to blow his *** away thru the wall with a 12 gauge, cause it was shoot him in my home and save my life and my families or it was US cause he was gonna kill us.
And I'm pretty sure the .22Lr doesn't have much knockdown power, hydrostatic shock all that stuff. and we have 15 rd mag maxes in Jersey, usually we only find 10. So if it's my Rem 597 or S&W M&P 15-22, and THATS what I have at the time, I'm probably shooting all 10 in a row into the bad guy, to stop the threat on my life.
(Whereas I might be fine, with one well-placed .40 S&W 180 gr JHP premium HD/SD/PP round, maybe two, and definitely a blast from the Mossberg M930SPX, if I get a round of 00 Buck on a bad guy, I can't believe they're gonna still be threatening my life.)
(P.P.S., you probably shouldn't, having hit the bad guy and hes down, walk up and coup d'gras him in the face, like that pharmacist did... Especially if you're on tape in your house and its gonna look real bad with you blowing the guys head off LOL
)sirrduke2010
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2011
- Messages
- 163
- Reaction score
- 35
The Delicate Balance Between Self Defense and Excessive Force.
I wanted to say first I am not an attorney and nothing of what I said should be considered legal advice.
Self defense is a concept that could very well be misunderstood. There is a few criteria that must be satisfied to call a shoot self defense. You can't just shoot someone in your house and expect the courts to see it as self defense You need to show a threat to life or limb of yourself or your family. I have seen many castile doctrines take this stand.
The other key is if you use self defense it has to be done in a manner that isn't consider excessive force. This concept get quite tricky. The best way to describe this is the Bazooka defense. We all know a Bazooka can take out a tank and if used to stop someone it would be considered excessive force whereas a firearm loading the JHP would be considered more reasonable. This means you use as much force that is reasonable to stop a threat without going overboard. Now if you pull out a .44 Mag with Magnum rounds and shoot someone with this it could be considered excessive force. You can't shoot someone running away and/or shooting someone in the back isn't generally permitted unless you can prove a threat. If the guy was carrying a weapon and was going into your kid's room there is a threat. I suggest anyone that wants to use a weapon know the laws of self defense. In Colorado we just had a jury awards the daughter of a burglar breaking into a structure in a car lot $270,000 and he had knives on him. You also had better think about what you say before you say it to the police. If you say the wrong thing that could damage your case for self defense. An attorney is often advisable when talking to the police. Your statements about your reasoning for self defense could also put you in prison. Tell the police that you were shooting to kill and by your own statement you could be arrested for excessive force. You also can't shoot because you were defending your property.
A statement that is a good measure of self defense is that you use as much force as is necessary to stop the threat and once the threat is neutralized you can go no further. The concept of reasonable force. I think of as saying is sufficient to stop the threat and/or is equitable to the party using self defense. A threatening large man of 6'5" against a 5' foot tall woman would be considered grounds for the woman to use a gun against the taller man because of the concept of equitable force. If the other person was also 6'5" it wouldn't be equitable to use a handgun unless the other person had a weapon.
A pharmacist in Florida was convicted of Manslaughter for shooting a robbery suspect holding a gun on him and coming back later when he was on the ground to pump 3 more rounds into him. This isn't reasonable force. If the pharmacist had shot him once than that would have been reasonable.
One thing to note is that even though a shoot is declared Ok by the DA and the police you can still be sued by the family. The Colorado shoot I mentioned above was such a case. The movies make it look so easy to use a weapon to defend yourself but it can get quite complicated, expensive, and you can find yourself in jail serving time for an action you considered was self defense and the legal system didn't see it that way.
Please remember this isn't legal advice and if that is what you need a competent attorney is what is necessary.
I wanted to say first I am not an attorney and nothing of what I said should be considered legal advice.
Self defense is a concept that could very well be misunderstood. There is a few criteria that must be satisfied to call a shoot self defense. You can't just shoot someone in your house and expect the courts to see it as self defense You need to show a threat to life or limb of yourself or your family. I have seen many castile doctrines take this stand.
The other key is if you use self defense it has to be done in a manner that isn't consider excessive force. This concept get quite tricky. The best way to describe this is the Bazooka defense. We all know a Bazooka can take out a tank and if used to stop someone it would be considered excessive force whereas a firearm loading the JHP would be considered more reasonable. This means you use as much force that is reasonable to stop a threat without going overboard. Now if you pull out a .44 Mag with Magnum rounds and shoot someone with this it could be considered excessive force. You can't shoot someone running away and/or shooting someone in the back isn't generally permitted unless you can prove a threat. If the guy was carrying a weapon and was going into your kid's room there is a threat. I suggest anyone that wants to use a weapon know the laws of self defense. In Colorado we just had a jury awards the daughter of a burglar breaking into a structure in a car lot $270,000 and he had knives on him. You also had better think about what you say before you say it to the police. If you say the wrong thing that could damage your case for self defense. An attorney is often advisable when talking to the police. Your statements about your reasoning for self defense could also put you in prison. Tell the police that you were shooting to kill and by your own statement you could be arrested for excessive force. You also can't shoot because you were defending your property.
A statement that is a good measure of self defense is that you use as much force as is necessary to stop the threat and once the threat is neutralized you can go no further. The concept of reasonable force. I think of as saying is sufficient to stop the threat and/or is equitable to the party using self defense. A threatening large man of 6'5" against a 5' foot tall woman would be considered grounds for the woman to use a gun against the taller man because of the concept of equitable force. If the other person was also 6'5" it wouldn't be equitable to use a handgun unless the other person had a weapon.
A pharmacist in Florida was convicted of Manslaughter for shooting a robbery suspect holding a gun on him and coming back later when he was on the ground to pump 3 more rounds into him. This isn't reasonable force. If the pharmacist had shot him once than that would have been reasonable.
One thing to note is that even though a shoot is declared Ok by the DA and the police you can still be sued by the family. The Colorado shoot I mentioned above was such a case. The movies make it look so easy to use a weapon to defend yourself but it can get quite complicated, expensive, and you can find yourself in jail serving time for an action you considered was self defense and the legal system didn't see it that way.
Please remember this isn't legal advice and if that is what you need a competent attorney is what is necessary.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
