The Armed Citizen - are we over thinking things?

[celticfisherman]

I don't have a lot of patience with people that make cheap shots. If you want to dispute something I have posted, fine. But the above statement is a cheap shot.

OK, that said, here goes.

Castle law does not give you all of the privileges you think nor does it give you the privileges claimed in the preceding post.

At least, not in this state, NC.

For instance, you can't even take lethal force against a person in your house that some here claim to be able to do in their yard or even on farm property they own out in the boonies.

Lets take in the house for starters.

You can shoot a guy crawling through your window and be OK with it.

If the guy gets in your house and threatens you with a weapon or leads you to believe by his actions that he intends deadly force, you can shoot him.

But now lets say you come home from work. You find the front door ajar. You enter the house and there is a guy in your house. Can you shoot him point blank, bang, no questions asked?

Not in this state. In this state, he first must make a move that any reasonable person would understand to be of lethal danger to you.

If you ask him to leave and he does not, you can't blow holes in him. You can take him by the arm and usher him out if you are man enough. Bounce him, so to speak.

But what if he resists? You can use more force, but not lethal force.

What if you use force and he pulls a knife? At that point, you can escalate your force but there again it is pretty easy to get into trouble.

Most prosecutors take the position that you are not a cop, you can't do the things cops do and the smart thing to do is call the cops to remove him.

The prosecutor will take the position that when you found the front door ajar that you should not have entered your home but that you should have backed off and called the cops.

In short, it is their position that only cops should go looking for trouble and that non cops that go looking for trouble are just that. Looking for trouble and subject to prosecution.

If you read the papers, you will see a case about once a month where someone looks out the window and sees a person removing property from his car, truck or tool shed and who goes out and shoots the guy.

The castle doctrine is not going to change that situation, which calls for you to call the cops.

The most frequent example of this is the convenience store owner who chases a robber out into the parking area and nails him there. A very definite NO NO that will put you in the wrong seat in court in this state.

Yet there are people here and on other forums who think that the castle doctrine gives them a blank check not only in the house but in their front yard, farm or wherever they own property.

Not so. In some other states maybe, but not here and definitely not in all.

NH still has the duty to retreat law.

So all states have not yet reached the point of common sense and I can assure you that there are many many laws in NC that defy common sense.




North Carolina

Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

===========================

Note that nowhere does this law state that you can zap a BG just because he does not want to leave.

The law means little when you shoot someone. You have to live with that. That's my point. Sorry you missed it.

No sane person thinks the way you described this.

So IMO the cheap shot is on you.

 

[brucev]

I have read all thirteen pages (so far) of this thread. I am not LEO or current or former military. I have been shooting rifles and pistols for 30 years. I have on several occasions used either a shotgun or pistol to deal with criminals breaking into either my apartment, home or church. Last month at a little after 10:30 p.m. on a Sunday night a person came to the house wanting to "talk." We stood under the carport and talked. Given their conduct, I was glad to have my Glock 22 in the pocket of my robe. They settled down and left. Cool.

I do not in any way ever want to have to use a weapon to stop a criminal. The one time it ever came to such a situation, I had no weapon other than a brick which in that case worked very effectively... literally a one hit stop. He was robbing a woman at a ATM, stomping her and taking her money.

My wife and I are now in a new pastoral appointment where we recognize that we face significant risk. Thank God our children are grown and gone. But, we are using common sense. She keeps the G-22 on the nightstand when I am gone at night. She knows how to use it. At distances of across the room or down the hall (18 ft.), she is very effective. And I am looking at a ccw. Believe me, it is a first in my career as a pastor. But I go into some really unusual situations and feel I probably better be prepared. more than likely I will not carry a .45 ACP since there are no pistols in that caliber that will really work for me (200 lb., 6'3", medium build). I am looking more and more at one of the S&W .38 Spec. revolvers. I appreciate the comments in this thread. They have been helpful to me. From what I gather it boils down to any gun is better than no gun. Any practice beats no practice at all. Hitting beats missing always. Chose for cc what you will actually be willing to carry. No one is bullet proof. No handgun is a certifiable one shot fight stopper. Luck happens. God bless you all. Sincerely. brucev.

 

[old curmudgeon]

The law means little when you shoot someone. You have to live with that. That's my point. Sorry you missed it.

No sane person thinks the way you described this.

So IMO the cheap shot is on you.

Who limited it to a discussion of sane people?

A cursory search will come up with hundreds if not thousands of posts such is this one which appeared on another forum.

This post was made by LongRider in response to Biker's attempt to inject sanity into a thread infected with sanity creep.

Note that at the end he mixes the home invasion incident with common trespass law and comes up with a totally stupid conclusion similar to the example I gave in my earlier post when I described the posts on trespass that appeared on another forum.

The idea that one can shoot at a common trespasser is not uncommon among the ignorant.

You are not very well informed about the prevalence of the uninformed.

LongRider

* View Profile
* View Forum Posts
* Private Message
* View Blog Entries
* Visit Homepage
* Add as Contact
* Send Email

LongRider is offline
VIP Member LongRider LongRider's Avatar

Join Date
Aug 2007
Location
Washington
Posts
2,417

Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
Given that even out in the boonies you are responsible for every round fired, and where it ends up, it is generally a bad idea to give "warning shots".
Having been lost, or broken down, in the boonies and having to walk upon a farm house in the middle of nowhere before, it would not be looked upon favorably by your's truly if you were to discharge a weapon while I was walking up to your house. Also, this practice of "warning shots" goes against the standard rules of gun safety.

You need to know what your target is, and what lies beyond your target. I'm not there to steal, but I can understand the frustration of the homeowners, and even empathise with them. The thing is, introducing a gun on an unknown is a good way to have things go real bad, real fast.
{End of Biker quote}

{LongRiders's insane rant starts here:}


My shots to scare off animals hit the berm that is the backstop for my handgun range. Behind it is 900+ acres of state forestry lands. I know where ALL my shots go.
To get to my driveway someone has to come nearly two miles up a dirt road off the closest road. No one comes 2 miles up an obscure dirt road looking for aid. Anyone coming to my house has to come through 200 yards of densely forested driveway the entry is clearly posted with a no trespass sign that in part says
All persons entering this property must hold contract or invitation with the owner or tenant granting egress with indemnity. Any intrusion beyond this point without said contract or invitation is unlawful and will be seen as an attack with intent to trespass, extort, harass, oppress, threaten, intimidate, injure, mutilate, molest, or otherwise jeopardize the rights safety and life of the owner/tenant .............. Violators will be dealt with as hostile intruders
By proceeding they have declared their intent to harm me and mine. By the time they have read the sign I have them on video camera, sensors have alerted me to their presence. Once they enter the clearing to my yard they are hit with spot lights so that they can clearly see the red blossoms appearing on their chest. I know where all my shoots go, as I said my warning shots to trespassers are COM.

Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
We can shoot people to protect livestock? Or just other predators?
Lethal force is justified in the state of Washington
A) In defense of self and others,
B) to stop malicious trespass
C) to protect property
D) to stop a felony
E) to detain a dangerous felon that the shooter has reason to believe would be a danger to others if they escaped. Such as a rapist who is running away from committing a rape

Livestock is property so yes you can shoot someone to protect your property. If someone is on your property illegally ie with out an invitation, warrant or your consent you can shoot them in defense of self, others and your property. Some years ago a thirteen year old boy was caught climbing through a guys window. He was shot and killed, it was a no bill, the shooter was not detained arrested or charged. Last summer a couple came home to find someone in their home. The intruders were shot and killed, it was a no bill, the shooter was not detained arrested or charged.

I am not a lawyer. This is my opinion based upon my understanding of my attorney explanation of the law to me. Consult your own lawyer to obtain your own understanding of the law and your responsibilities.

Attached Thumbnails Attached ThumbnailsFiring Shots to Scare Off Trespassers?-keepout.jpg

 

[Duke426]

Thanks to everyone for their input. I guess I should have explained my original thought more articulately.

When I asked, "Are we over thinking things?" I meant things like, "Is the (insert ammo type here) the penultimate defense round for my gun? This round is moving 23fps faster than any other round of the same weight bullet. So I'm getting X more muzzle energy and that makes it a better defense round than last years wizzbang round from (insert ammo co. here) which was all the rage until yesterday when a female officer used it to shoot a charging Tyranasaurus Rex at 5 feet and it failed to make a one shot stop so every department in North America and Europe dropped it in favor of this one...."

I understand wanting to have the best possible advantage in a fight for your life. However I also believe we can reach the point of diminishing returns where the benefit gained (if any) is so small that it isn't worth the cost or effort needed to attain it.

There's nothing wrong with progress but progress doesn't necessarily render the previous tool or method obsolete.

 

[Springfeildkid585]

Thanks to everyone for their input. I guess I should have explained my original thought more articulately.

When I asked, "Are we over thinking things?" I meant things like, "Is the (insert ammo type here) the penultimate defense round for my gun? This round is moving 23fps faster than any other round of the same weight bullet. So I'm getting X more muzzle energy and that makes it a better defense round than last years wizzbang round from (insert ammo co. here) which was all the rage until yesterday when a female officer used it to shoot a charging Tyranasaurus Rex at 5 feet and it failed to make a one shot stop so every department in North America and Europe dropped it in favor of this one...."

I understand wanting to have the best possible advantage in a fight for your life. However I also believe we can reach the point of diminishing returns where the benefit gained (if any) is so small that it isn't worth the cost or effort needed to attain it.

There's nothing wrong with progress but progress doesn't necessarily render the previous tool or method obsolete.

Haha I can attest to that. I read somewhere that Spear Gold Dots were the best hollow point on the market, so great and wonderful. So naturally, when I got my .45, I picked up a box, despite them being literally double the price of everything else on the shelf to keep in my defense magazine. As per an agreement laid out in advance the gun was kept in condition three when in the house. As I had yet to attain my permit, I never cycled one into the chamber. One night, there was a loud thump on the side of my house. I grabbed my 1911 to investigate. When I attempted to chamber the round, it jammed. I went back on the stuff they told us in our knowledge packets when I was training for the Marines (Tap,Rack, Fire skipping Fire as I had yet to engage) and managed to get the round loaded. The disturbance turned out to have been the wind knocking small lawn furniture into the side of the house, but I came to find out something more important. Most milspec 1911s do not readily accept wide mouthed hollow points. It turns out the bullets best fit for my gun are more standard, less expensive hollow points and fmj's. Your bullet may be able to kill an elephant, but it doesn't do you much good if its not suited to your gun.

 

[old curmudgeon]

Hornaday and others have hollow points that are filled with plastic so they will feed in semi-autos.

I have not tried them in my 1911 as I use a revolver for SD.

You might try some.

 

[edprof]

Duke 426, I'm with you. The debate over calibers etc is a bit overdone.

 

[Aubie]

I have come to find, as with fishing lures, most are designed to catch the fisherman, not the fish. If lures don't sell, many people are out of work.

i guess the same applies to ammo, if bullets don't sell, lots of folks don't work. So, how does that apply to you?

An old fashion wadcutter works fine for me as does high power bird shot in my 12 ga.

KISS

 

[devildog66]

I am probably late to the party as this is a lon-n-ng thread but perhaps this study done by an LEO can inject some factual basis into this. many of you may have already read this. The study essentially shows that the differences in stopping power between calibers, when using the study author's controls, are not as great as one would be led to believe.

I do believe that some of the data should have been thrown out as there is not enough data with certain calibers to have any statistical significance, e.g., the .32 and the 44M. I would also point out that raraeyl, if ever, is only ONE round fired in a fight. Multiple hits seem to be the norm and no the exception.

There is no no magic caliber/bullet combination. There is, however, the will to live and the will to finish the fight.

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

 

[bearpugh4570]

ammo and gun makers couldn't sell much if they didn't make us question the effectiveness of what we carry. fact is, when everyone had 32's and 38's they killed each other just fine.

 

[had3nuf]

I totaly agree with what you say!!