Abbynormal
Member
Time to get out of Hubert Humphrey land. In Indiana, where I live, I'da'
12 gauged him to the point of a non threat.
12 gauged him to the point of a non threat.
Scary attempted home intruder story.
- Thread starter MNruss
- Start date
You absolutely do.
Caste Doctrine states that there's no legal obligation to retreat in your own home. It has nothing to do with justifying a use of force. In other words, if you find an intruder in your home, his unwanted presence alone does not justify lethal force. Most jurisdictions require the usual--an immediate, unavoidable, grave threat--before the use of lethal force.
Now, different states consider different things justification for deadly force inside the home. Some of them are better-written than others. For instance, deadly force may be justified if the intruder's entry was "violent", but violent clearly means different things to different people. Know and understand what the particular inside-the-home rules are in your state.
The OP chose the correct course of action regardless of his legal obligations. He retreated as far he could while still protecting his family, took a defensive position that protected him from flanking, issued verbal warnings, and withheld use of force in the absence of an overt, immediate threat.
Sevens said:
Last edited:
In Minnesota, if you are in your house you have retreated as much as you are required to. You can’t wander around outside with a gun chasing noises, that’s what the Police train for, but you are not required to hide behind a bed in a locked room in the furthest part of your home. We cannot shoot to defend property, but self defense or defense of others is allowed. We really need legislation preventing frivolous civil suits for justified self defense...one day...
Last edited:
Think before posting.
Anything you post here can and will be used in a court of law should you ever be involved in a altercation, home or away.
Even if you shoot someone braking down your door in a state where there is a castle doctrine, there WILL be an investigation, how much and how deep is up to your local authorities, but some of the statements people make would not appear in the best light to a prosecutor or a jury if it came to that point.
If you wouldn't say it with a dead guy, with YOUR bullet hole(s), laying in YOUR doorway, you probably shouldn't say it on the web for everyone to see, basically forever.
Yes, you might prevail in court, but, why even have the possible problem.
Anything you post here can and will be used in a court of law should you ever be involved in a altercation, home or away.
Even if you shoot someone braking down your door in a state where there is a castle doctrine, there WILL be an investigation, how much and how deep is up to your local authorities, but some of the statements people make would not appear in the best light to a prosecutor or a jury if it came to that point.
If you wouldn't say it with a dead guy, with YOUR bullet hole(s), laying in YOUR doorway, you probably shouldn't say it on the web for everyone to see, basically forever.
Yes, you might prevail in court, but, why even have the possible problem.
500SNW
Member
Threat...or the perception of a threat is a common theme, no matter what State we live in. But I'd ask the simple question, isn't some methhead freak simply standing in your living room uninvited, and with bad intentions threat enough, justification enough to pull the trigger???
IMO it is
charles_the_hammer
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2017
- Messages
- 163
- Reaction score
- 273
PLOT TWIST:
The guy wasn't "paranoid". He was a former government employee with a high-level security clearance who had stumbled across a massive and secret plot to enslave the entire population via mind control and introduction of a foreign substance into the nation's water supply. He was trying to get vital information to the underground resistance movement and was running from the Men in Black - who really did have guns. Instead of saving America from imminent doom and being a hero, he was whist away to a government "black site" where he will now be tortured for days in order to gain intelligence that will ultimately crush the heroic rebel underground before finally being dispatched and thrown into a rural drainage ditch somewhere.
The guy wasn't "paranoid". He was a former government employee with a high-level security clearance who had stumbled across a massive and secret plot to enslave the entire population via mind control and introduction of a foreign substance into the nation's water supply. He was trying to get vital information to the underground resistance movement and was running from the Men in Black - who really did have guns. Instead of saving America from imminent doom and being a hero, he was whist away to a government "black site" where he will now be tortured for days in order to gain intelligence that will ultimately crush the heroic rebel underground before finally being dispatched and thrown into a rural drainage ditch somewhere.
That's probably good advice for anything these days...
But ultimately, IN THIS CASE, nothing happened. No reason not to post and I appreciate the info on how an emergency situation goes down.
--------------------------
The OP handled this EXTREMELY well. Yes, there would be an inquiry if someone got shot, but with my kid asleep right behind me and others in the house and someone breaks in the door they can inquire me or put me on trial. If I retreated, I'm leaving the rest of my family vulnerable. The OP used the gun as responsibly as it should have been. No immediate threat to life, no shoot.
I'm glad I live in a state where if he had crashed through the door and somebody ended up dead., I might have to go to the police station and give a statement. I'd be just as glad that it didn't happen because I would be burdened with the killing of a mentally ill person, which I don't care for. I'd extend relief to the OP that nobody got killed, or in this case, even hurt. That's the best ending possible. Oh, and I'm glad the police showed up when they did. It was a close one.
Oh, P.S. I wish oe of those snibblers would ask the OP,, "Why do you have to have a gun? What are you afraid of?"
But ultimately, IN THIS CASE, nothing happened. No reason not to post and I appreciate the info on how an emergency situation goes down.
--------------------------
The OP handled this EXTREMELY well. Yes, there would be an inquiry if someone got shot, but with my kid asleep right behind me and others in the house and someone breaks in the door they can inquire me or put me on trial. If I retreated, I'm leaving the rest of my family vulnerable. The OP used the gun as responsibly as it should have been. No immediate threat to life, no shoot.
I'm glad I live in a state where if he had crashed through the door and somebody ended up dead., I might have to go to the police station and give a statement. I'd be just as glad that it didn't happen because I would be burdened with the killing of a mentally ill person, which I don't care for. I'd extend relief to the OP that nobody got killed, or in this case, even hurt. That's the best ending possible. Oh, and I'm glad the police showed up when they did. It was a close one.
Oh, P.S. I wish oe of those snibblers would ask the OP,, "Why do you have to have a gun? What are you afraid of?"
I wasn't pointing at the ops post or his informattion or mostt of the comments.
But, a statement like "I'da' 12 gauged him to the point of a non threat." might not shine the best light on you in a court.
But, a statement like "I'da' 12 gauged him to the point of a non threat." might not shine the best light on you in a court.
Gotcha....
Gotcha there. You really have to be careful about any post. If it's something that people can misconstrue goes viral, you have problems.
They say not to print anything you wouldn't want your mother to see. Well, I could tell my mother a lot of things I wouldn't tell a court.
Gotcha there. You really have to be careful about any post. If it's something that people can misconstrue goes viral, you have problems.
They say not to print anything you wouldn't want your mother to see. Well, I could tell my mother a lot of things I wouldn't tell a court.
Last edited:
Gotcha there. You really have to be careful about any post. If it's something that people can misconstrue goes viral, you have problems.
They say not to print anything you wouldn't want your mother to see. Well, I could tell my mother a lot of things I wouldn't tell a court.
Sounds like your Mom grew up in the same environment mine did.
Doug M.
Member
*
It is actually broader than so called "Castle Doctrine". I did some quick research (I already knew the answer and just did the work so I can provide actual authority), and found this as to Washington law: "No duty to retreat exists when one is feloniously assaulted in a place where she has a right to be." State v. Allery, 101 Wn. 2d 591, 598, citing State v. Hiatt, 187 Wash. 226, 60 P.2d 71 (1936); State v. Lewis, 6 Wn. App. 38, 491 P.2d 1062 (1971). It is reversible error to fail to give the instruction if there is any basis for it in the evidence. This is long established and the first case to that effect appears to be State v. Cushing, 14 Wash. 527 (1896). See also WPIC (Washington Pattern Jury Instruction - Criminal) 16.08.
As to Texas Star's post: Once you have an answer on the 911 call, do not hang up. I know of two cases in Spokane County in the last few years in which the recording of the call as things went fecal that supported the victim's statement about the offender's actions. Not critical, but nice - when the breaching of the door, your shouts at the offender, the barking of your dog, etc. are on the tape, it helps. Make sure you have a hands free option if at all possible.
Also: There are reasons I have regularly recommended certain texts for reading in other posts. The more you can show you knew beforehand about the nature of violent offenders; pre-assaultive cues; physical disparity between yourself and the offender; substance abuse and assaultive conduct or the difficulty of controlling a person without lethal force; the tiny time constraints (hundredths of seconds to decide and act); the difficulty of stopping a violent offender with a handgun (which is why you used an AR as one should, for example), etc., the better off you are. What you learn after the incident is not relevant.
Simple example: I can articulate easily that my home is properly posted "no trespassing", and that anyone who goes past that sign is a criminal and shows a higher level of risk due to non-compliance. I have a 6' chain link fence, with padlocked gates, so someone has to climb it to even get to any part of the house (doors or windows), showing an even high level of risk. We have two mid-sized dogs (rottX at 82 or so pounds, a rott female at just under 80) and they sound like you are not welcome when they alert - anyone who keeps coming after hearing that is showing even more risk than before. Then ... we have all that stuff from the paragraph above that I can describe.
A firearm is just a tool, and one of many components to the safety system.
Reasonable person standard legal definition of Reasonable person standard
It's never about what you think or perceive. It's about what 12 strangers consider reasonable.
If you find a stranger in your home, just standing there, then most people are not going to consider that a grave, imminent, immediate threat. Yes, criminal. Yes, a violation of one's home. But not a deadly threat. Even as a gun owner, I am inclined to agree that such an individual doesn't constitute a deadly threat.
Think about that for a second. I'm about the best juror you could possibly hope for. I'm a gun owner, a CCW-holder, and I read Tom Givens for fun. There is no way in hell a prosecutor with two functioning brain cells would let me anywhere near the jury box.
If I think that deadly force isn't justified in that situation, what conclusions do you think 12 random jurors are going to draw?
But if he:
- Verbalizes a threat
- Brandishes a deadly weapon
- Advances on you despite verbal warnings and a displayed firearm
Those are articulable justifications for a use of force.
And of course, all of this ignores the fact that your chosen starting point is the "Going to prison" mindset. You're arguing for why killing this person should be allowed. This is wrong. You should be trying to judge whether force is necessary.
Protip: Not killing people if you can help it is an excellent way to avoid prison.
amazingflapjack
US Veteran
Meth...
Yep-heavy meth or similar substances produce schizophrenic type symptoms-including paranoia, hearing voices, etc.
Yep-heavy meth or similar substances produce schizophrenic type symptoms-including paranoia, hearing voices, etc.
amazingflapjack
US Veteran
make a plan...
Hopefully you will institute a plan with your family and practice it until it is second nature. Establish some rules for everyone, like never opening the door without knowing who it is that is coming ahead of time. Take measures that will make your house undesirable to bad guys-think outside the box, it is very important-this is the world we live in and it is not getting any better. PTL.
Hopefully you will institute a plan with your family and practice it until it is second nature. Establish some rules for everyone, like never opening the door without knowing who it is that is coming ahead of time. Take measures that will make your house undesirable to bad guys-think outside the box, it is very important-this is the world we live in and it is not getting any better. PTL.
“It's about what 12 strangers consider reasonable.
If you find a stranger in your home, just standing there, then most people are not going to consider that a grave, imminent, immediate threat. Yes, criminal. Yes, a violation of one's home. But not a deadly threat. Even as a gun owner, I am inclined to agree that such an individual doesn't constitute a deadly threat.”
_________________
In my rural community, it would be difficult to pick a jury that would NOT
consider an intruder, “just standing there,” especially in the nighttime or
early morning hours, as an “imminent, immediate threat.”
In fact, there have been a few similar cases locally over the years
to bear this out. Most such cases will never come to trial, because
a grand jury will not issue an indictment.
If you find a stranger in your home, just standing there, then most people are not going to consider that a grave, imminent, immediate threat. Yes, criminal. Yes, a violation of one's home. But not a deadly threat. Even as a gun owner, I am inclined to agree that such an individual doesn't constitute a deadly threat.”
_________________
In my rural community, it would be difficult to pick a jury that would NOT
consider an intruder, “just standing there,” especially in the nighttime or
early morning hours, as an “imminent, immediate threat.”
In fact, there have been a few similar cases locally over the years
to bear this out. Most such cases will never come to trial, because
a grand jury will not issue an indictment.
500SNW
Member
Wow. That's quite a lot to have to mull over in your head during the moment some freak walks in on you and your family. Sounds to me like you're talking "book learning" and have never personally experienced anything like this. Having worked in a jail, and in a drug rehab/halfway house, and having my own home broken into twice during my lifetime...I have. TBH you are an "overanalyzer" and the very last type of person I would want serving on my jury.
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,511
- Reaction score
- 32,351
That could happen, but only after quite a few other things took place. The shooter's/homeowner's computer would have to be seized under warrant. Ditto for his cellphone and tablet, if he has any. The hard drive would have to be accessed. The contents could be under First Amendment protection, and the actual seizure could be under Fourth Amendment protection as well. It would also have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter/homeowner was the one making any posts/comments on any Internet forum. It'd be a legal can of worms involving hearsay and circumstantial evidence.
This is true, but the burden of proof would still be on the state regarding who made the comment and what he meant by it. "12-gauging to the point of a non-threat" could be taken to mean simply hitting the would-be invader over the head with it.
And let's face it. Not singling anyone out here, but we all know that Keyboard Kommandos and Windows Warriors can and do say anything on gun forums in order to give the impression that they're capable of heroic actions in defense of life, family, and property.
Touching just briefly on this thread's opening post by the OP (edited for brevity):
Just the idea of waking from a sound sleep at midnight (or later), turning on inside lights, and opening the door simply because someone is ringing the doorbell is incomprehensible to me.
500SNW
Member
So true. And these types are equally balanced out by the "legal eagle" "Boy Scout" types who swear they would handle these situations "by the book" and do everything within the boundaries set by law. These types have amazing powers of foresight regarding their own future actions....and amazing powers of hindsight in judging the real world actions of others...."I would have done this instead, I would have done that instead of..."
Last edited:
Texas Star
US Veteran
Holding on with the dispatcher is a good idea, but it took police over a half hour to arrive, the offender all the while trying to break in and uttering threats. (See my post, No. 20)
In big cities, dispatchers often don't want to hold on; they have other lines to answer. I told that dispatcher that I was in fear for my life and was armed and concerned that I might need to shoot if the intruder broke in. She seemed unconcerned and just told me that police had been sent.
But thanks for your thought. It plays well in theory, at least.
Last edited:
