Can I Use Deadly Force to Defend My Home?

[1-LM]

State of Oklahoma Tittle 21 O.S. 1289.25 Oklahoma law recognizes a special right of an occupant of a home, dwelling, business, or occupied vehicle to self-protection or to protect other occupants from a threat of harm from an illegal entry or certain other specified threats. This special law makes no distinction between degrees of force.

A: A person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling , residence, occupied vehicle, or a place of business, or that the person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle or business; and the person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Note that this is only a presumption. In other words the court will start off with the idea that the person had reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm, but the presumption may be overcome by the evidence.

The state of Missouri reads about the same as the state of Oklahoma. When I start out the CC classes I start by saying when you make the decision to draw your gun life for you is about to get complicated. Remember this statement, I was so scared I pissed my pants!

 

[mwhals]

In WV one can use deadly force of the home owner feels in danger.

 

[whodat2710]

OK, everyone can see that in just 7 pages, the answer is to know the laws in your state.
-
We have also learned that there are several states that you might not want to live in based on their laws.
-
It is also pretty obvious that Opsec takes his spam emails seriously, and didn't realize the point of this article/video was to make you want to take this guys self defense course, subscribe to his website or whatever.
-
Short answer to the question posed is "YES" you can use deadly force to defend your home. The real question is "how much I need to spend on a lawyer afterwards?" based on where you live.

 

[1-LM]

It is also pretty obvious that Opsec takes his spam emails seriously, and didn't realize the point of this article/video was to make you want to take this guys self defense course, subscribe to his website or whatever.

OPPS! I did not open his spam links and see his video... I'm Bad... lol

 

[ET]

If your home is defined by those who live in it, then yes... If your home is defined by someone stealing your trash cans or swimming pool pool pump, or lawn furniture, then no.

 

[Tea Man]

All I had to do was remember this, every bullet has a lawyer on it. You can count on it whether you're right or wrong.

 

[BC1]

read post #55 again.

Post #55 affirms what I said. Read it again. In MA there is no duty to retreat in your own home. Read the bottom of post #51 from the same poster.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Post #55 affirms what I said. Read it again. In MA there is no duty to retreat in your own home. Read the bottom of post #51 from the same poster.

While there is not duty to retreat in MA - the factor that the defender did not attempt to retreat is a required element to convict them if it is determined that they also used more than reasonable force to defend themselves in their own home. It is a very dangerous and slippery slope in MA.

 

[nogods]

OK, everyone can see that in just 7 pages, the answer is to know the laws in your state.
-
We have also learned that there are several states that you might not want to live in based on their laws.
-
It is also pretty obvious that Opsec takes his spam emails seriously, and didn't realize the point of this article/video was to make you want to take this guys self defense course, subscribe to his website or whatever.
-
Short answer to the question posed is "YES" you can use deadly force to defend your home. The real question is "how much I need to spend on a lawyer afterwards?" based on where you live.

I still don't think any state authorizes the use of deadly force to protect a home. I think the laws vary as to when one can use justifiable deadly force while inside a home, but I don't think any state law would allow use of deadly force while the home was unoccupied. for example I don't think any state would allow use of booby trap like a trip gun to kill an intruder while no one else was in the house.

 

[N R A]

If Jack Nicholson is chopping his way through your bathroom door with a hotel fire axe, and you have a small bathroom window to safely escape into the night, no court will find anyone justified in shooting a gun at Jack. Why would you want to shoot Jack, if you can simply walk away? Every home can be set up to be 99% Jack proof. A small dog as a warning signal, lock some interior doors, call 911, set off several loud alarms, spray C4 gas in out laying rooms, ........... every home is different and every circumstance is different, but no need to just purchase a gun, and wait years to use it to kill a bugler. Whatever money you spend making a safe room, will be less than the retaining fee of one lawyer.

 

[whodat2710]

I still don't think any state authorizes the use of deadly force to protect a home. I think the laws vary as to when one can use justifiable deadly force while inside a home, but I don't think any state law would allow use of deadly force while the home was unoccupied. for example I don't think any state would allow use of booby trap like a trip gun to kill an intruder while no one else was in the house.

Every state with a true castle doctrine does exactly that. Here is the plaintext explanation from SC law enforcement website.

PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT

The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.

Link Removed
This also fits in perfectly with NRA's idiotic post about Jack with an axe.

 

[Deanimator]

If Jack Nicholson is chopping his way through your bathroom door with a hotel fire axe, and you have a small bathroom window to safely escape into the night, no court will find anyone justified in shooting a gun at Jack.

Are you high?

In Ohio, barring evidence that YOU provoked the confrontation, you'll blow Jack's head off EVERY time and walk, EVERY time. And neither Jack nor his mutant family can collect a PENNY in damages for his poor victim selection skills.

I don't know about where you live, but in Ohio we impose NO duty to be a victim, nor even RISK of being a victim of an unlawful deadly force attack. Nor do we reward psychopaths for ineptly executed attacks.

 

[N R A]

Are you high?

In Ohio, barring evidence that YOU provoked the confrontation, you'll blow Jack's head off EVERY time and walk, EVERY time. And neither Jack nor his mutant family can collect a PENNY in damages for his poor victim selection skills.

I don't know about where you live, but in Ohio we impose NO duty to be a victim, nor even RISK of being a victim of an unlawful deadly force attack. Nor do we reward psychopaths for ineptly executed attacks.

So, reading past the insults and the chip on shoulder attitude, what you are saying is you would prefer to shoot someone in the face, rather than walk to a place of safety and call the police?

Is that what you are saying?

 

[CharlesMorrison]

So, reading past the insults and the chip on shoulder attitude, what you are saying is you would prefer to shoot someone in the face, rather than walk to a place of safety and call the police?

Is that what you are saying?

You are SUCH an idiot.

 

[Deanimator]

So, reading past the insults and the chip on shoulder attitude, what you are saying is you would prefer to shoot someone in the face, rather than walk to a place of safety and call the police?

Is that what you are saying?

What YOU are saying is that you would prefer that [somebody ELSE] TURN THEIR BACK on an assailant with a DEADLY WEAPON, and attempt to squeeze through a small bathroom window in order to... PROTECT THEIR ASSAILANT??? In my case that would ALSO entail at least a ten foot drop onto hard ground... assuming I missed the chainlink fence next to the building.

Is that what you are saying?

Would I rather shoot an armed psychopath trying to kill me than risk him succeeding? EVERY DAY AND TWICE ON SUNDAYS.

Your self-loathing and or fondness of murderers and attempted murderers neither overrules the Ohio Revised Code nor imposes upon me ANY duty to be a victim whatever.

 

[Deanimator]

You are SUCH an idiot.

Years ago, there was a woman who called local Cleveland radio talkshows.

She was pen pals with, and advocate for a bunch of serial killers. She reserved her REAL venom for the parents of the Curley kid in Boston who was raped and murdered (not necessarily in that order) by a couple of NAMBLA types. She claimed the family was suing NAMBLA because they were just "in it for the money".

There are always people who will take the side of the victimizer over that of the intended victim.

 

[BC1]

If Jack Nicholson is chopping his way through your bathroom door with a hotel fire axe, and you have a small bathroom window to safely escape into the night, no court will find anyone justified in shooting a gun at Jack. Why would you want to shoot Jack, if you can simply walk away? Every home can be set up to be 99% Jack proof. A small dog as a warning signal, lock some interior doors, call 911, set off several loud alarms, spray C4 gas in out laying rooms, ........... every home is different and every circumstance is different, but no need to just purchase a gun, and wait years to use it to kill a bugler. Whatever money you spend making a safe room, will be less than the retaining fee of one lawyer.

Hopefully you aren't teaching this in any NRA class. NRA instructors may not teach any portion of the law unless certified to do so. This part of any NRA PP course is to be taught by an attorney or LEO. That's the NRA rules to prevent misinformation from being taught. Regarding the prior statement, consider LIBERAL NYS requires no retreat on one's own property or any property for which they are authorized to be.
.
NYS Penal Law - S35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.

 

[N R A]

In my CHP class, we are required by the State Patrol to read state statutes in reguard to CC. I am not a lawyer and we state over and over to consult a lawyer before they decide to CC. Of 200 CC instructors in my state, none of them bring a lawyer to class, nor is it required. You are correct about some NRA classes, to a degree.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

In my CHP class, we are required by the State Patrol to read state statutes in reguard to CC. I am not a lawyer and we state over and over to consult a lawyer before they decide to CC. Of 200 CC instructors in my state, none of them bring a lawyer to class, nor is it required. You are correct about some NRA classes, to a degree.

You are STILL such an idiot...

I'll go one further and suggest you lose your "NRA" avatar...
It might give the impression you are both supporting this drivel that you push and are actually an official NRA rep..
Frankly, I'm surprised at you.
You are such an idiot..

 

[BC1]

In my CHP class, we are required by the State Patrol to read state statutes in reguard to CC. I am not a lawyer and we state over and over to consult a lawyer before they decide to CC. Of 200 CC instructors in my state, none of them bring a lawyer to class, nor is it required. You are correct about some NRA classes, to a degree.

Yeah, the NRA requirement is for any course that contains a section in the syllabus on self-defense and applicable law be taught be an attorney, LEO or other person certified to teach the material. They were real clear about this when I certified for PPITH and PPOTH. An NRA instructor who teaches the law and is not certified to do so could potentially lose his credentials. I think their policy is because some of worst sources for gun law are store employees and instructors.