mc5aw
Member
This is incorrect, according to the following source's definition:
breaking and entering | LII / Legal Information Institute
Home Invasion Question
- Thread starter Jeffersonwasright
- Start date
- Status
This is incorrect, according to the following source's definition:
breaking and entering | LII / Legal Information Institute
Old TexMex
Member
Based on my personal experiences:
Make sure it's not a SWAT team at the wrong address before you start shooting. (bad karma)
Make sure it's not a drunk neighbor at the wrong address.
Make sure its not a rape victim trying to escape her attacker. Identify your target.
The situation you discribe-- individual outside an outer door that is locked-- is not clear in regard to Texas law. Don't delude yourself. The results (in court)of your actions in defending yourself WILL vary depending on your location.
Use "shoot to kill" in your discussions and you will be isolated and portrayed as a madman in Austin, no good instructor will fail to warn against such language. ("stop the threat" is the terminology).
I'm not talking about fairness or any happy BS, your question is essentially "what happens after I shoot?". Nothing is cut and dried, even in the Lone Star State.
Please get training (even if only concealed carry permit) and get self defense insurance from a well respected law firm that specializes in self defense and 2nd amendment law. (I use Texas Law Shield, and part of their service is getting you up to speed on the law and continuing education with updates and refreshers.)
When seconds count, Austin PD is only minutes away.
tacman605
Member
Guys state laws regarding B&E vary from state to state and the fact that the door was unlocked does not matter in many places.
In Arkansas it is Breaking or Entering and usually applies to vehicles and non occupied structures while Burglary is the act of entering an occupied structure so there are differences state to state so know your individual laws.
In Arkansas it is Breaking or Entering and usually applies to vehicles and non occupied structures while Burglary is the act of entering an occupied structure so there are differences state to state so know your individual laws.
dougb1946
Member
You may be over estimating the power of your hand gun. Unless you manage to break some bones or put a few in the head, you are still facing some danger. There are very few one shot instant kills, no matter what TV shows demonstrate. Humans are tough. There are a lot of stories of people hitting the BG multiple times and still getting hurt themselves, or the BG running off.
Dikinalaska
Member
Well I'd give you that the (even pushing open a door) being the gray area and up for interpretation. But you'd have a good argument in court either way with that one. Wikipedia has this to say:
Breaking can be either actual, such as by forcing open a door, or constructive, such as by fraud or threats.[4] Breaking does not require that anything be "broken" in terms of physical damage occurring. A person who has permission to enter part of a house, but not another part, commits a breaking and entering when they use any means to enter a room where they are not permitted, so long as the room was not open to enter.
Entering can involve either physical entry by a person or the insertion of an instrument with which to remove property. Insertion of a tool to gain entry may not constitute entering by itself.[4] Note that there must be a breaking and an entering for common law burglary. Breaking without entry or entry without breaking is not sufficient for common law burglary.
Although rarely listed as an element, the common law required that "entry occur as a consequence of the breaking".[7] For example, if a wrongdoer partially opened a window by using a pry bar and then noticed an open door through which he entered the dwelling, there is no burglary at common law.[7][Note 1] The use of the pry bar would not constitute an entry even if a portion of the prybar "entered" the residence. Under the instrumentality rule the use of an instrument to effect a breaking would not constitute an entry. However, if any part of the perpetrator's body entered the residence in an attempt to gain entry, the instrumentality rule did not apply. Thus, if the perpetrator uses the prybar to pry open the window and then used his hands to lift the partially opened window, an "entry" would have taken place when he grasped the bottom of the window with his hands
So they're definitely some gray area and I guess would fall to whoever's side had the better attorney. My thought is, I'm still going to know for sure who I'm about to pull the trigger on.
While it's been said/posted before this "shoot to wound" thing is a total myth. Anytime you shoot someone, regardless of caliber, it may kill them. There is no time to aim in a deadly confrontation, you shoot to survive in a moment of adrenilin driven terror. I know b/c I've been there.
OFT II
US Veteran
If the perp is unarmed and doesn't advance toward me I don't think that I would shoot. If he takes my DVD player and runs out the door I would just wave at him. After all, a new DVD is cheaper than a new carpet and lawyer fees.
jlrhiner
US Veteran
See, now this is the thinking that has caused the castle laws to be adopted. There is a black and white issue being greyed up to the benefit of the criminal element. NO ONE has the right to enter your residence without your permission. Whether they walk through an open door, or come down the chimney. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to assess the threat and act accordingly. What makes a confused drunken neighbor less of a threat. (considering most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim). If he came in on me, I would handle it differently than I would want my teenage granddaughter to handle it.
GET TRAINING!
PRACTICE!
STUDY!
GET TRAINING!
PRACTICE!
STUDY!
cmort666
Member
- My first priority is to survive, unharmed. EVERYTHING else flows from that goal.
- We have castle doctrine in Ohio. If you don't want to get shot, don't be a home invader. That's not terribly complicated.
- You NEVER shoot to wound OR kill. You shoot to stop the threat. You continue shooting until the threat is neutralized. The most reliable means of stopping the immediate and credible threat of unlawful deadly force is one or more gunshots, center of mass. That has a substantial likelihood of causing death. I couldn't care less whether it kills my assailant or not as long as it neutralizes the immediate threat of an unlawful deadly force attack. Once the threat is neutralized, you MUST stop the use of deadly force.
- Deadly force is deadly force, whether it's with a revolver or a 106mm RCL, whether with a .25 or a 25mm. If your assailant isn't dangerous enough to kill, he's not dangerous enough to SHOOT.
- No "warning shots", EVER. Bullets go somewhere. In a self-defense situation they should go into your assailant and no place else. In Ohio, I have immunity from suit from an assailant (and survivors, etc.) for a good shoot. I have NO immunity if my warning shot kills a bystander.
Self-defense is a serious issue. It needs to be treated seriously, and BEFORE it arises.
Last edited:
OP
Jeffersonwasright
Member
That's my position, as well. I *really* hate thieves, but not enough to shoot someone who's running away. Texas law does allow for the use of deadly force in that situation (to protect property), but I wouldn't do it. As for your comment about an intruder, I differ regarding the response once someone enters my home. If it occurs at night, it's unlikely I would be able to make an identification or determine whether they're armed (neither of which is required of me under Texas law) without losing the advantage necessary to protect my family. I know what to do in that situation.
mc5aw
Member
Note to Santa: Clearly identify yourself before entering the Rhiner residence.
brokenprism
US Veteran
I was a little moritifed myself by the overall tone, but didn't want to be rude. That, and it sounded like he was trying to get a handle on the concept. But if there is any truth in the anti's vaporous claim that a gun in the house is "more likely to be taken away and used against you" (you'll have to swim against a current of JHPs in my house to do that), this may be that scenario. I mean no offense, but the OPs statements suggest he is not really committed to his own defense. It requires a mindset of counter-aggressiveness and resolve that appears lacking here. This, if anything, raises the question of whether a gun is best tool for this homeowner. You don't have to defend yourself with a gun (you can use alarm systems, dogs, cops, safe rooms) but it's a powerful, convenient, and effective tool for the job.
Last edited:
venomballistics
Member
I havn't gone through all the responses yet ... but allow me to point out the simple fact that if you pull the trigger on any firearms, be it a 22 short of a 120MM cannon, it is LETHAL FORCE any way you slice it.
understand that completely and embrace it. Because you really have no business pulling that trigger if your life is not in danger.
I carry, and to a great degree, recommend a 45.
the reason being the speed at which it can stop an attack versus smaller arms.
Abandon the shoot to wound idea. Results are not instantaneous and may result in YOUR death after your attacker refuses you the same courtesy of seeking a kinder gentler method.
jlrhiner
US Veteran
bp231986
Member
Doesnt have to be a warning...can just be a simple fact...."hey Mr. bad guy i know youre busy and all trying to bust down my door so you can rob us and probably kill us but i just wanted to let you know that as soon as you break through my door you will be able to turn around and see your brain matter all over the place."
I know its problably not this simple but the way i look at it is i rather be them than me or even worse my family. Would it suck to have killed someone....ya no doubt it would...but how bad would it suck that your family got raped and killed and you could have stopped it but you dint.......now you dont have a family and your tax money feeds and supplys a roof over this guys head....Ill take the shots.
I know its problably not this simple but the way i look at it is i rather be them than me or even worse my family. Would it suck to have killed someone....ya no doubt it would...but how bad would it suck that your family got raped and killed and you could have stopped it but you dint.......now you dont have a family and your tax money feeds and supplys a roof over this guys head....Ill take the shots.
Last edited:
OP
Jeffersonwasright
Member
Not once did I say that was my intent. I only said - to paraphrase - that in the past I was OK with the disadvantages of using a smaller calibre weapon when necessary for defense. It was what I owned. If you look closely, you'll also see that I've owned a shotgun. That gun lived within arm's reach next to my bed for more than thirty years. I was skilled in its use, and it was always loaded and ready to go.
One thing I should correct is the phrase "staring down the barrel of a gun." Several of you have taken me to task for that statement, and rightfully so. It wasn't meant to be taken literally, and that's my fault. I had hoped my meaning would be clarified by comments regarding intruders in the second paragraph of my OP. That seems to have gotten lost in the mix.
Thanks to everyone who has responded, but especially those who stayed OT and attempted to answer my original question. I realize this must seem like a very rudimentary issue, and I appreciate your advice.
TheGreatGonzo
US Veteran
With sincere respect for your personal beliefs:
Basic Rules of Safe Gun Handling
All guns are always loaded.
Never point a gun at anything you are UNWILLING TO DESTROY.
Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Know your target.
Keep your gun at the minimum level of readiness.
The idea of shooting to "disarm or disable" is not a safe idea. If you discharge a firearm at someone, be it a .22 or a .50 or .308, you are employing deadly force, whatever the actual outcome. If your personal beliefs preclude that, you need to look into other options such as beanbag guns or Electronic Control Devices. If you shoot at someone, you had better be mentally, emotionally, physically, and spiritually prepared to deal with causing their death.
Respectfully,
Gonzo
Delos
Member
eye of the jury
We can all find some law, or case law that seems to excuse killing someone.
California law got ridiculous because of people who had invited someone over, then shot him, and claimed he broke in. They passed the must retreat if possible law. Naturally the pendulum swung back finally. And now the very confused want to blame guns.
Most every jury knows the difference between someone who was drunk, had no previous criminal history, and staggered in the wrong house. Especially if he is asleep on the couch when shot. Or is shot in the back with his face in the refrigerator. Or just so drunk he can barely walk. The cab driver had to help him find the right amount of money in his wallet.
Different than a person who is a career criminal ex-con who found the front door locked so went around the house and found an unlocked door or window.
It is why we have juries.
It is really sad when breaking and entering no longer requires breaking.
Or the other extreme - when first degree murder gets plea bargained down because of crowded courts or weak evidence - over and over and over. Often the staff and/or inmates in a minimum security prison has a big problem at some point. They might look at the body of a guy with no previous felony convictions who is in for grand theft motorcycle type crime. Then they look at the file of the killer describing his crime and the plea bargain. And finally he gets sent to a higher custody prison.
When California passed its career criminal law (in 1960’s or 70’s, for the second time I believe) many people wanted burglary considered a violent crime. Because when you come home and find your house has been burglarized you experience fear. Obviously some people want us to go back to the old west mentality and hang people for every crime?
The anti drunk drivers activist groups got mandatory sentences that forced release of worse felons in overcrowded prisons. It became law that if a drunk only injures himself he still is guilty of an injury accident. (They kill more people than our police-action wars)
In one rape case a woman said she did not tell him no - because in rape class she was told if rape was inevitable not to resist. So they passed a law saying a woman had to say no for it to be rape.
In the bad side of one city a drunk guy in his forties ran from police. In court he explained words to the effect “I knew they were going to beat me, and figured they would not beat me as bad if they were tired”.
No one should ever lie. Except when Jesse James’s gang robbed a bank in Minnesota and the bank clerk lied and said it was on a time lock. Waiting for the unlock time gave local Civil War vets time to get armed and ready. Strange horses were tied up at the bank? An obvious stranger lookout watching everyone?
It is what makes Jury Duty interesting. Sometimes it is okay to lie. Sometimes breaking and entering does not require breaking anything. Sometimes a woman is afraid to say no.
One thing is the same. When you pull the trigger of a gun you might need a good story for a jury.
We can all find some law, or case law that seems to excuse killing someone.
California law got ridiculous because of people who had invited someone over, then shot him, and claimed he broke in. They passed the must retreat if possible law. Naturally the pendulum swung back finally. And now the very confused want to blame guns.
Most every jury knows the difference between someone who was drunk, had no previous criminal history, and staggered in the wrong house. Especially if he is asleep on the couch when shot. Or is shot in the back with his face in the refrigerator. Or just so drunk he can barely walk. The cab driver had to help him find the right amount of money in his wallet.
Different than a person who is a career criminal ex-con who found the front door locked so went around the house and found an unlocked door or window.
It is why we have juries.
It is really sad when breaking and entering no longer requires breaking.
Or the other extreme - when first degree murder gets plea bargained down because of crowded courts or weak evidence - over and over and over. Often the staff and/or inmates in a minimum security prison has a big problem at some point. They might look at the body of a guy with no previous felony convictions who is in for grand theft motorcycle type crime. Then they look at the file of the killer describing his crime and the plea bargain. And finally he gets sent to a higher custody prison.
When California passed its career criminal law (in 1960’s or 70’s, for the second time I believe) many people wanted burglary considered a violent crime. Because when you come home and find your house has been burglarized you experience fear. Obviously some people want us to go back to the old west mentality and hang people for every crime?
The anti drunk drivers activist groups got mandatory sentences that forced release of worse felons in overcrowded prisons. It became law that if a drunk only injures himself he still is guilty of an injury accident. (They kill more people than our police-action wars)
In one rape case a woman said she did not tell him no - because in rape class she was told if rape was inevitable not to resist. So they passed a law saying a woman had to say no for it to be rape.
In the bad side of one city a drunk guy in his forties ran from police. In court he explained words to the effect “I knew they were going to beat me, and figured they would not beat me as bad if they were tired”.
No one should ever lie. Except when Jesse James’s gang robbed a bank in Minnesota and the bank clerk lied and said it was on a time lock. Waiting for the unlock time gave local Civil War vets time to get armed and ready. Strange horses were tied up at the bank? An obvious stranger lookout watching everyone?
It is what makes Jury Duty interesting. Sometimes it is okay to lie. Sometimes breaking and entering does not require breaking anything. Sometimes a woman is afraid to say no.
One thing is the same. When you pull the trigger of a gun you might need a good story for a jury.
OP
Jeffersonwasright
Member
I personally think that's an appropriate course of action. It's not a requirement in states like Texas, though, nor are homeowners typically charged for shooting an intruder, regardless of the intruder's identity, condition or motive. Still it seems that a verbal warning to someone attempting illegal entry could potentially save the homeowner a lot of trouble. The question is, why don't more homeowners do it? Why are there so many stories now of homeowners who wait quietly inside the house, then open fire when the intruder appears?
mc5aw
Member
I would say that 99.9% of homeowners are not prepared for a home invasion, and are caught off guard. Being awoken in the middle of the night then finding a stranger in one's home is going to illicit an initial fear response, followed by a self defense response (be it fight or flight). Having the presence of mind to offer a verbal warning is a learned response from extensive situational practice and training.
As to "homeowners who wait quietly then open fire", I think this is either an unintentional misstatement/mischaracterization or a deliberate attempt to portray armed homeowners as stealthy gun nuts ready to kill. In respect to the OP, I'll err on the side of the former description. I have not read "so many stories", but I will say that the average person who is part of a home invasion is probably hiding or trying to be invisible, as the situation plays out. Homeowners may be barricaded in safe rooms, or merely adhering to the rule of "cover & concealment", while dialing 911. If the homeowner is forced to reveal himself and take a shot, so be it. That doesn't mean he was lying in wait, ready to pounce in a predatory manner.
Ultimately, a person will revert back to training or instinct in a life and death situation. Some folks practice verbal commands for developing defense skills, other practice shoot first ask questions later. Whatever ends the threat fastest and safest. To each his own.
- Status
