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

[sirrduke2010]

I am not an attorney so I can't give legal advice.

I think self defense is probably the most misunderstood subject. Why is this important? The reason is that you don't want to be arrested, put in jail, have to hire an expensive attorney, you don't want to have to serve time, and/or be sued by the intruder or burglar. After a number of discussions I find that there is a number of people that don't know what self defense is. You can claim it all you want but the DA can still charge you and you could end up in jail.

Shooting someone in the back oftentimes isn't seen as self defense because it doesn't look like you aren't immediately threatened or you are trying to protect your valuables but it depends on the situation. There are cases that would merit it like if somebody was threatening your loved ones or if they were carrying a knife or a gun when searching your house. Of course this could also be seen as a gray area. If they were carrying something that looked like a weapon but wasn't then it is going to be different. I think you might want to be very careful with this one.

If the guy is running toward the door or even down the street with one of your possessions shooting them in the back isn't going to be seen as self defense. It will be seen as assault and/or murder if the burglar dies. Now if the guy was running out the door with one of your children and you shoot him in the back to stop him this may be another story.

Shooting someone in the back generally doesn't pass the test as an immediate threat but it depends on the situation and every situation is different.

 

[OKFC05]

This post would be relevant if we knew what state you are in, considering the huge variation in laws from state to state.

I know of one case near here where the 911 operator told a woman to shoot the man trying to break down her door if he got inside the house. He did break in, and she shot him in the back with a 12ga; he was unarmed. The investigation lasted about one day and she was not charged. They played the 911 tape on local TV, with the 911 operator assuring the woman she had done the right thing by shooting.

Wouldn't advise doing that in MA..........

 

[geddylee10002000]

Here in Missouri the threat is over when the BG is retreating!

 

[Varangi]

If you shoot, shoot to kill- then it's your word against a dead guys.. Makes it easier for you in a "Wrongful Death Suit". With that said, out here in San Francisco and most of the left coast- where people vote for politicians with a 'D' after their name, the standard by which LE and in most cases, DA's offices weigh shootings/ self-defense cases is "What was the perceived threat of the victim?"
Senario #1, 2am in the morning- you hear a noise, someone forcing entry into your home- You light him up protecting your property- bye-bye, you go to jail and you lose your house.

Senario #2, same event- you confront dick-head who is unarmed, and he says to you, "too bad you saw me- now I HAVE TO KILL YOU!! You light him up- all is right in the world----if you killed him--if not, he refutes your sworn statement and you go to jail and lose your house.

You do not defend property with deadly force- only persons who are in immediate danger..

DEAD MEN TELL NO TAILS!!

PS. MAKE SURE YOU DRILL HIM WITH A LEGAL, REGISTERED TO YOU FIREARM THAT YOU DONT MIND LOSING, BECAUSE IT WILL BE TIED UP IN LITIGATION FOR YEARS...

MIKE
RETIRED SERGEANT SAN FRANCISCO P.D.

 

[oldman45]

If a person is running away from you, can he turn to shoot you?

I would not suggest shooting anyone simply because you can and shooting a person fleeing will not be good, especially if they are outside the home.

The correct answer to this is it depends on the circumstances, physical location and local area laws.

 

[Snowbandit]

If you shoot, shoot to kill- then it's your word against a dead guys.. Makes it easier for you in a "Wrongful Death Suit". With that said, out here in San Francisco and most of the left coast- where people vote for politicians with a 'D' after their name, the standard by which LE and in most cases, DA's offices weigh shootings/ self-defense cases is "What was the perceived threat of the victim?"
Senario #1, 2am in the morning- you hear a noise, someone forcing entry into your home- You light him up protecting your property- bye-bye, you go to jail and you lose your house.

Senario #2, same event- you confront dick-head who is unarmed, and he says to you, "too bad you saw me- now I HAVE TO KILL YOU!! You light him up- all is right in the world----if you killed him--if not, he refutes your sworn statement and you go to jail and lose your house.

You do not defend property with deadly force- only persons who are in immediate danger..

DEAD MEN TELL NO TAILS!!

PS. MAKE SURE YOU DRILL HIM WITH A LEGAL, REGISTERED TO YOU FIREARM THAT YOU DONT MIND LOSING, BECAUSE IT WILL BE TIED UP IN LITIGATION FOR YEARS...

MIKE
RETIRED SERGEANT SAN FRANCISCO P.D.

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?

 

[Will Carry]

I have seen a burglar turn is back like he was going to run away, but what he was really doing was hiding the fact that he was drawing a handgun. He spun around and fired 8 shots at my neighbor John before John could raise his weapon, then the little punk ran away. Luckily he was a bad shot and my neighbor only had to repair 8 bullet holes in his house and door. The burglar was caught by police. He was 14 years old.

 

[MSgt G]

Here in Missouri the threat is over when the BG is retreating!

Maybe he's not retreating. The BG could be seeking cover after seeing you standing there so he can begin shooting. I would say that each case could be different. What if you're watching TV from your favorite easy chair when you see someone standing at your mostly glass back door who has a shotgun pointed at you. Do you have to wait until he actually breaks in before you can defend yourself? Of course not. By the same token, if someone is in your house, but clearly no threat, shooting them may not be the best way to go. I think there are too may "what ifs" to come up with one easy answer.

Be safe out there guys!

 

[OIF2]

I am not an attorney so I can't give legal advice.

I think self defense is probably the most misunderstood subject. Why is this important? The reason is that you don't want to be arrested, put in jail, have to hire an expensive attorney, you don't want to have to serve time, and/or be sued by the intruder or burglar. After a number of discussions I find that there is a number of people that don't know what self defense is. You can claim it all you want but the DA can still charge you and you could end up in jail.

Shooting someone in the back oftentimes isn't seen as self defense because it doesn't look like you aren't immediately threatened or you are trying to protect your valuables but it depends on the situation. There are cases that would merit it like if somebody was threatening your loved ones or if they were carrying a knife or a gun when searching your house. Of course this could also be seen as a gray area. If they were carrying something that looked like a weapon but wasn't then it is going to be different. I think you might want to be very careful with this one.

If the guy is running toward the door or even down the street with one of your possessions shooting them in the back isn't going to be seen as self defense. It will be seen as assault and/or murder if the burglar dies. Now if the guy was running out the door with one of your children and you shoot him in the back to stop him this may be another story.

Shooting someone in the back generally doesn't pass the test as an immediate threat but it depends on the situation and every situation is different.

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

 

[cmort666]

It depends upon:

1. What state you're in
2. What he's doing when you shoot him

Self-defense law is state and local. Know your applicable law.

In Ohio, if he's fleeing (and not shooting over his shoulder), it's almost certainly going to be a bad shoot.

On the other hand, if he's attacking someone else in your house, it's almost certainly going to be a good shoot. In Ohio (and most other places), you're allowed to come to the defense of another, if were you in their place, you could defend yourself. You've got no duty to passively stand by and watch somebody strangle your children.

In Ohio, anything else is going to depend entirely upon the totality of the circumstances. Castle doctrine gives you the REBUTTABLE presumption that you were in reasonable fear for your life, when in home or vehicle.

 

[Jellybean]

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

It's simple, he's not an attorney so he's giving "illegal" advice. The 'nets full of them.

 

[GatorFarmer]

In some states, such as Michigan, fleeing felons are essentially fair game.

Anyway, there are all sorts of reasons why someone can end up shot in the back. They might turn by reflex after being shot the first time, putting additional rounds in their back. They might be changing position for a better shot. Or they might be positioning themselves to attack a new target.

It also depends on what crime was involved as to how such a shooting will be viewed. Even if shooting isn't per se legal in a given state, it is one thing to shoot someone leaving out the window with a bloody axe ande a severed human head... and another to shoot someone leaving with your Ipad.

 

[Bill_inBouse]

Yep, all depends on what State you live in. You'd better not come in my house illegally, or even TRY to come in my house. Note from Arizona Castle Doctrine: (3) A person is presumed to be justified in using force or deadly force if he/she reasonably believes they or another person are in imminent peril and the attacker has entered or is trying to enter a residence or occupied auto. Once again, there is no duty to retreat.

You're in my house, at night, dark. You are going to meet Mr. Colt and I don't give a rats behind which way you're facing. Where we live, "when seconds count" our County Sheriffs deputy is at least 20 minutes away, unless he happens to be just driving by.

 

[thndrchiken]

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?

Seems to me that he is relating real world experience that shows that in the commy states like CA, NJ, MA and NYC that the home owner defending his home and family have no rights and the criminal wins. I'd say shoot to kill, it's better to have to face a civil suit from said criminal's family that swears that XXX was a good boy and didn't deserve to die, even though he has a rap sheet the length of your arm, then a criminal charge where said criminal is disputing your side of the story.

 

[MgoBlue]

It is entirely possible that the person defending themselves (or others) starts to shoot while the threat is facing them . . . and before they cease shooting, the threat has turned and has received a shot (or shots) in the back. In fact, I believe I read something recently in one of the gun mags (by Ayoob) on this very subject. In the half second (or so) it takes for the brain to interpret that there is no longer a threat, a lot can occur.

 

[OFT II]

In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property. That happened a couple of years ago in the Houston area where a resident used a 12 gauge to kill two perps that were hauling goods from his neighbor's house.

Personally, I would weigh the circumstances. I believe it would be cheaper to replace my DVD player than the blood stained carpet in my house.

 

[MotorCityGun]

In some states, such as Michigan, fleeing felons are essentially fair game.

Huh? Rather than providing hypothetical scenarios, could you please provide specific cases/precedence or MI law(s) where "fleeing felons are essentially fair game".

 

[Tracer_Bullet]

In some states, such as Michigan, fleeing felons are essentially fair game.

Incorrect, unless he is shooting at you while running away, in which case he still poses an imminent danger to you (and I personally would be ducking for cover instead of shooting back unless no cover were available).

(Michigan act 309 of 2006, Self Defense Act)
780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

I doubt that one could convince a jury that they were in imminent danger from a fleeing bad guy if all he was doing was running away. Seems to me that a store clerk was being charged for shooting a fleeing robber (in Grand Rapids?) but now I can't find the article to link to.

At any rate, check your local laws and be certain under what conditions you can legally defend yourself.

 

[cmort666]

I'd say shoot to kill, it's better to have to face a civil suit from said criminal's family that swears that XXX was a good boy and didn't deserve to die, even though he has a rap sheet the length of your arm, then a criminal charge where said criminal is disputing your side of the story.

You shoot to stop. Of course shooting somebody in most places that will stop them, also has a fair chance of killing them. Actions have consequences.

As far as getting sued, in Ohio if it's a good shoot, your assailant is barred BY LAW from collecting any damages. Good luck finding a lawyer who'll file a frivolous lawsuit on a contingent basis, KNOWING he's NEVER going to get paid. A lawyer THAT dumb probably wouldn't even know where to file the papers.

Getting shot is an occupational hazard of being a violent felon... or at least it is in the United States.

 

[M3Stuart]

I live in Texas which has an EXTReeeeemly lenient policy on the topic.

So I can do pretty much whatever I need to do to protect life OR property.

FWIW and IMHO;

...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.