Intruder
- Thread starter BARFO
- Start date
bofh
Banned
There is no clear YES or NO answer as the circumstances eventually decide if you are getting prosecuted afterwards. A retreating intruder wouldn't be a threat, or would he? Is the intruder armed with a firearm? Is he pointing it toward you while retreating? Has the intruder already left your house? Are you shooting the intruder at breath distance, at room distance or across the street? Is there any imminent threat of severe injury, bodily harm or death? What does your state's law say about self defense and castle doctrine? Watch this video completely to find an important part of the answer to your question:
You are essentially asking the wrong question, showing that you have the wrong mindset. The right question is, do you have to shoot the intruder? No one will give you permission to do so. It may be declared justified afterwards. Your actions have consequences. You have to be able to defend your actions and live with the consequences. If an intruder forces you to defend your or someone else's life, then shoot to stop the threat. Stop shooting when the threat subsides, such as when the intruder runs away.
You are accountable for every round you fire, whether that round goes into the intruder or your neighbors home. When you have to shoot, don't miss. Get defensive firearm training to learn how and when to shoot. Self defense situations are very dynamic and happen very quickly. A lack of mindset and skills can land you in jail or get you or your loved ones injured or killed.
Read this thread to understand what can go wrong: My friend is being held for murder after defending his home.
Thanks for your reply. I do understand everything that you have stated. I'm still trying to interpret/understand exactly what Arkansas law says about Castle Doctrine and Duty to Retreat. If an intruder is still in my house, regardless if s/he's attempting to leave, I'm still going to consider that a threat to myself and my family till the intruder is out of my house and off of my property.
bofh
Banned
As for the law, read A.C.A. §§ 5-2-607 and A.C.A. §§ 5-2-620. Note that your question has changed from:
to:
To your last question, why would you? Also, what does "a threat to myself and my family" mean? A threat justifying deadly force? Again, the circumstances eventually decide if you are getting prosecuted afterwards. The prosecutor will evaluate the evidence, including your statement. If it does fall within justifiable homicide as defined by A.C.A. §§ 5-2-607 and A.C.A. §§ 5-2-620, then you won't be charged. If it doesn't, you are screwed.
Realistically speaking, if you know that an intruder turned around and retreated without pointing a firearm at you or having a Molotov cocktail in his hand, the threat has stopped and shooting the intruder would be attempted or actual murder. You may not get charged depending on the circumstances, but you are rolling the dice.
Why is that? Well, when do you actually know that the intruder turned around and retreated? Have you ever heard of the OODA loop? Your brain takes time to process input and to make decisions based on that. By the time you know the intruder turned around and retreated, you also know that he is not a deadly threat anymore. In most cases, however, the intruder is not around anymore by the time you realized that the intruder retreated.
bofh
Banned
I probably need to add one advice. Chasing an intruder through your home, i.e., following the intruder while he is running away, can be problematic as you may blindly run into his accomplices. Proper clearing of your home requires skills. Even experts often advice not to clear your own home, but instead wait for the police to show up.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
You might want to read through bofh's excellent and well thought-out advice (at least) once again, because I don't believe that's what he meant to say.
bofh
Banned
Legally speaking, may be. That's the answer you would get from a highly qualified lawyer, which I am not. As I said in my very first reply, there is no clear YES or NO answer as the circumstances eventually decide if you are getting prosecuted afterwards. A.C.A. §§ 5-2-607 and A.C.A. §§ 5-2-620, clarify what justifiable homicide is. It is dependent on the circumstances as stated in these codes. A.C.A. §§ 5-2-620 offers a pretty broad range of options when using lethal force in your own home.
Practically speaking, yes. If the intruder is retreating/running to exit your house and his back is to you and he is not shooting at you, then the threat is no longer present.
Do not think about what you can get away with. Instead, think about how to practically deal with situations that protect you and your family. As I said, watch the video I posted and read the content of the thread I posted. The thread contains an example of how the combination of being afraid and acting unreasonable because of it can land you in jail.
PS: I have really no idea why you posted this thread in the first place. When do you expect to shoot at a fleeing intruder in the first place? What are your moral and ethical justifications for this in the first place. An armed citizen is not judge, jury and executioner. You shoot to stop the threat. You stop shooting when the threat subsides.
Poppy55
New member
I live in TN & we have the same Castle Doctrine law & Stand Your Ground (Duty To Retreat). What this last part means is, you are not required to run, retreat, skeedaddle, leave, etc. but it DOESN'T mean you can't. If the bad guy is running away, go the opposite way & protect yourself & your family by a little discretion. If he's stupid enough to view that as cowardice & comes back, plant one or two or three in him, as that would indicate bad intent. Running away...not so much...& that's when you have the slippery slope if you plug him in the back.
XD40scinNC
New member
A person running away is no longer a threat.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
There are slippery-slope arguments, and then there are incompletely-considered arguments. I believe yours is the latter. There are several instances that I can think of just off the top of my head where the simple act of running (or even casually walking) away from me in my own home or on my own property should not be taken as indicative of the threat no longer existing, and probably just as many that I'm not thinking of off the top of my head. An obvious instance would be if the bad guy was armed and shooting as he ran away. You can bet that if I've established good cover and can get a shot or three off without exposing myself, I'm returning fire even if it might hit him in the back. You can also bet that if I couldn't get any shots off and he runs outside, I'm not locking myself and wife in some room where I can't see where he's going or if he's simply regrouping and planning another, better-thought-out assault.
While inside the house, the bad guy might be running for cover himself, where he plans to continue the gunfight that he started when he brazenly invaded an occupied dwelling, burglarized and/or attempted to rob from and/or vandalize my property to begin with. If he makes it outside, he may well be running for his vehicle where he's got more and/or bigger, better weapons with which to finish what he started. Blinding one's self to what someone who has already proven his brazenness by his occupied home invasion seems rather bad planning to me.
That is not always the case, either tactically or legally-speaking. As bofh very articulately said more than once, the facts of a shooting incident drive the conclusion of it being a justified use of force or not. There are no pat answers, only hypotheticals that one can think of before deeming it necessary to shoot, and literally infinite numbers of hypotheticals that one cannot think of before it happens. Pat answers are for those who either have not acquired good defensive weapons training, or didn't pay attention in class and during the range drills if they have acquired some.
Blues
XD40scinNC
New member
There are no absolutes, but 99%+ of the time a person running away is no longer a threat.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
And whose backside did you pull that statistic out of, your own or the Mommies'?
XD40scinNC
New member
Then prove me wrong, it works much better than your silly little insults to prove your point.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
It's your made-up stat. Why would I do anything to research something you made up, whether it turned out to be right or wrong?
And you criticizing insulting banter? Wow. Are you playing pot or kettle today?
The phrase "running away" means they are leaving the situation.
They are no longer a threat.
The phrase "running away while shooting at you" means they are a threat. Shoot back.
So does "running away from you, but toward the shotgun leaning in the corner", or "running away from you, but toward your wife with a knife in his hand".
Shoot 'em.
If someone is truly "running away", then they are no longer a threat 100% of the time.
It's not a stat I pulled out of my colon, it's a fact supported by the wording of the phrase.
Just as it's a fact that a woman can't be "sort of" pregnant; either she IS or she ISN'T.
They are no longer a threat.
The phrase "running away while shooting at you" means they are a threat. Shoot back.
So does "running away from you, but toward the shotgun leaning in the corner", or "running away from you, but toward your wife with a knife in his hand".
Shoot 'em.
If someone is truly "running away", then they are no longer a threat 100% of the time.
It's not a stat I pulled out of my colon, it's a fact supported by the wording of the phrase.
Just as it's a fact that a woman can't be "sort of" pregnant; either she IS or she ISN'T.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Umm.... Yeah, not really.
Every use of force law that I've ever read includes an allusion to the "reasonable person" doctrine of determining when it's justified to pull the trigger. No self defense law is based upon what can be proved after the fact about the rightness or wrongness of what the intended victim thought about the perceived threat. The facts as-determined by scrutiny of the totality of the evidence after the fact is what's used, not simply one factoid of which direction the perpetrator was moving when the victim first pulled the trigger. Granted, if there is evidence of it not being a justified shoot, a jury or judge will be the "reasonable people" determining whether the threat perception was reasonable or not, but "running away" is in no way a black and white, unequivocal disqualifier for an intended victim to still reasonably feel threatened. There is no way for a victim of burglary or rape or assault to know whether moving away from them by the perpetrator is "truly running away."
The wording of the law is what counts, not the wording of the phrase. And several Castle Doctrine laws allow for the presumption of a threat in the case of burglary and other crimes. That presumption remains in force for the entire span of time that the crime is being committed, at least in AL, and I know for a fact that AL's CD law is not unique in that regard.
And when one states something as a "fact," they should be able to back it up with a cite. The relevant AL law to which I refer says:
The period being emphasized for what should be obvious reasons.
That's what you call a fact, Jack.
Blues
