Scary attempted home intruder story.

[Doug M.]

As I understand it, we do have a de facto "Castle Doctrine" in Wa State. The judges have so proclaimed it. I hope to never have a need to find out!

*
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.

 

[Wise_A]

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

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]

Meth...

Meth head is my bet. The get very paranoid, no sleep and brain revving away.

You did good.

Yep-heavy meth or similar substances produce schizophrenic type symptoms-including paranoia, hearing voices, etc.

 

[amazingflapjack]

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.

 

[redlevel]

"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.

 

[500SNW]

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.

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]

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.

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.

...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.

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.

About midnight on a weeknight the doorbell starts ringing over and over.

We live in a two story plus basement house.

My wife, thinking it was someone we knew(Who else would be at the door?) called me downstairs, started to turn on the entryway light & unlock the door.

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]

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.

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..."

 

[Texas Star]

*
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.

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.

 

[Wise_A]

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.

 

[steelslaver]

They do not have to take your computer to find the statements you made here or anywhere else on the net. Hardly. All a smart investigator would have to do is some computer searches on gun related sites. Besides getting a warrant isn't that difficult when investigating a homicide. Even if justifiable its still a homicide.

 

[Doug M.]

The ability to articulate why you consider a person's conduct a threat is important, and why I posted what I did above. A person may or may not actually be a threat - but that is not the test. It is the reasonableness of your belief about that person. And a person who is "just standing there" in your house should have had to force his way in to start; he should have had it made known he was unwelcome in some of the ways I have described; and you should have done enough of the reading I regularly suggest so that you can articulate how you knew that person could go from not moving to lethal threat in the briefest portions of a second.

This is serious stuff, and you need to study it well before hand, and incrementally improve your knowledge of these topics and the layered security of your home as you are able to (everyone has different incomes, needs for the money, etc; I have largely prioritized this stuff - I have no need for a boat, most vacations, and other fluff).

 

[Wise_A]

Thing about them "book" thingies is, they're really cheap.

 

[Gulfecho]

Dogs are a great first line of defense. Burglars often won't bother a house with a dog. They will go down the street to the house without one. In this case, he was not a burglar, but I wonder if he would have been so intent on gaining entry if one or two dogs were making a ruckus on the other side of the door, even small dogs...Any bad guy coming into my house better be wearing iron britches or he will resemble a lawn sprinkler the next time he drinks a glass of water...Bella will make sure of that...and Bella loves people and kids...but don't bring malice to the palace.

Generally I would agree with you. When it happened to me my gentle dog let out a wale at the front door at 4:00am that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. The would be intruder was not deterred. He continued his assault on my front door despite my dogs vicious bark and growl. It was a Crimson Lasor sight pointed through the front door glass that brought him to reality and he finally fled. Lack of logic in a criminal or disturbed mindset is often counter intuitive and can't be overstated.

 

[carpriver]

I am sorry this happened to you, but you handled it well. don't let other second guess you.

 

[TheHobbyist]

You did very well under tough circumstances and with wife and children at home.

I live in the country, not too far from the city, but far enough that strange things can happen.

I occasionally have a car drive past my house at night with their lights off, we get the high school or college kids that are drinking and driving and throw beer or other beverages out their window. We also get the odd person walking at 2 AM in front of our house. This is on the weekends and my wife is a night owl.

My wife has taken self defense classes and trained for an agency, but went a different career path. She has told me that in the few years we have been here, there have been men who parked outside our home (no other home for half a mile at least) and just watch her while she does yard work. When she realizes this, she stops what she is doing and heads into our home. Pay attention to your surroundings.

With the people that drive past occasionally without lights on, we turn all our outside flood lights on.

Thankfully, we have not had an issue yet.

Stay safe and be mindful of your surroundings my friends.

 

[Whitwabit]

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.

And do many know just what we would do ?? We think we know how we would act but till it happens we really just don't know for sure ..

We hear a lot of I would do this and that but through experience I have found that might not be near the truth when the nity grity gets down to it .. I've seen the people one would least expect loose it and do all the opposites .. So its best to keep ones thoughts to themselves sometimes ..