mikestone967
Banned
Sounds like you might not be stable enough to even OWN a firearm...
I'll pass this along to the ATF so they can clarify your question for you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Self Defense in home burglary
- Thread starter thomas0792
- Start date
Sounds like you might not be stable enough to even OWN a firearm...
I'll pass this along to the ATF so they can clarify your question for you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I'm not holding anyone for the police. If they run they run. If they're still a threat when my gun comes level I shoot.
thomas0792
New member
thomas0792
New member
I agree, but every situation can have many variables. We do have castle doctrine where I live. Thanks for your input and glad I could spin your wheels a little.This is too situation dependent to specify one line of action. It also depends on the state laws, whether there's a castle doctrine or not.
For an intruder being held trying to escape, shooting them for doing so wouldn't mesh with laws I'd not think. This is why I go back to my personal rule: I don't draw my gun if I'm not legal to fire it.
This is a good question to pose and we all should consider the potential for it to happen in our own homes and how we would respond vs maybe how we should respond. Wayyy too many things that can change during such a situation to ponder every last possibility. If someone is brazen enough to break in a home, they're going to have a different attitude about what they're willing to do to "get away with it." If they didn't come in with the sole intent to kill, trying to hold them at gunpoint may change their mind about being wiling to kill and cause them to behave differently, introducing yet more things that the homeowner has to judge "on the fly" when deciding how much force is necessary and legal.
Thanks for the great question in this post! It'll keep my brain's hard drive whirring at least the rest of the day
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
thomas0792
New member
Agreed, we are better off shooting first, asking questions later.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
B
Bikenut
Guest
Just out of curiosity.... could you cite and/or link to the actual black letter law regarding "castle doctrine" where you live? I ask because sometimes folks will think that the words "castle doctrine" means they can shoot someone who breaks into their home with impunity when some state's laws have language similar to ... "under certain circumstances" or language that specifies what conditions must be present... that give the prosecutor and/or judge a great deal of leeway as to whether a shooting inside the home is justified or not.
Here are a couple of applicable Michigan laws:
Michigan Legislature - Section 780.951
PRESUMPTION REGARDING SELF-DEFENSE (EXCERPT)
Act 311 of 2006
780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.
Sec. 1.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:
(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.
(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if any of the following circumstances exist:
(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used, including an owner, lessee, or titleholder, has the legal right to be in the dwelling, business premises, or vehicle and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order, a probation order, or a parole order of no contact against that person.
(b) The individual removed or being removed from the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody of or under the lawful guardianship of, the individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used.
(c) The individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force is engaged in the commission of a crime or is using the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle to further the commission of a crime.
(d) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is a peace officer who has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, business premises, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties in accordance with applicable law.
(e) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is the spouse or former spouse of the individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has or had a dating relationship, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, and the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor.
-snipped off the definitions-
Bold added by me for emphasis...
Please note that in Michigan law the words "rebuttable presumption" mean the prosecutor can make a case that the presumption of innocence is not valid if there is not any evidence of "an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur". Which brings us to (2) below:
Michigan Legislature - Section 780.961
DEADLY FORCE (EXCERPT)
Act 310 of 2006
780.961 Use of deadly force or force other than deadly force; establishing evidence that individual's actions not justified.
Sec. 1.
(1) An individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force in compliance with section 2 of the self-defense act and who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses that deadly force or force other than deadly force commits no crime in using that deadly force or force other than deadly force.
(2) If a prosecutor believes that an individual used deadly force or force other than deadly force that is unjustified under section 2 of the self-defense act, the prosecutor may charge the individual with a crime arising from that use of deadly force or force other than deadly force and shall present evidence to the judge or magistrate at the time of warrant issuance, at the time of any preliminary examination, and at the time of any trial establishing that the individual's actions were not justified under section 2 of the self-defense act.
Bold added by me for emphasis....
So... a plain reading of those laws to my not an attorney mind means that it would be very unwise to shoot someone who is burglarizing my home (stealing my "stuff") but presenting no threat to life or limb.
I would strongly suggest everyone read and understand the "castle doctrine" laws in their state.
Reba
Sinner saved by grace
Reba
Sinner saved by grace
Good point about the cost. Something to consider--is that "valuable" worth enough to cover legal expenses, lost wages, civil suit judgments, etc., that I'll incur from this shooting?
bofh
Banned
So, Bikenut asked the OP for the cite and/or link to the actual black letter law regarding "castle doctrine" where the OP lives and that pretty much ended the thread of what if scenarios. That is certainly interesting. The following post also displays an interesting mindset:
Some questions should be answered before shooting, such as who or what are you shooting at and why? Target identification is quite important, so is backstop identification. You don't want to shoot the wrong person, but then, may be you do.
As I mentioned before, most people have no clue about the post shooting procedures and impact on personal life. Apart from the moral and ethical implications of you taking someone else's life, there are also mental and financial implications. That's why you should only take a life to save a life.
The video below is obviously an advertisement by the USCCA, but I will just leave it here in this thread as food for thought. The video contains the post-shooting implications of a number of lawful self defense cases that the USCCA handled.
Some questions should be answered before shooting, such as who or what are you shooting at and why? Target identification is quite important, so is backstop identification. You don't want to shoot the wrong person, but then, may be you do.
As I mentioned before, most people have no clue about the post shooting procedures and impact on personal life. Apart from the moral and ethical implications of you taking someone else's life, there are also mental and financial implications. That's why you should only take a life to save a life.
The video below is obviously an advertisement by the USCCA, but I will just leave it here in this thread as food for thought. The video contains the post-shooting implications of a number of lawful self defense cases that the USCCA handled.
thomas0792
New member
Dude you are pathetic. I live in Mississippi if you care to look up the castle doctrine. Happy Sunday!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Not sure what set you off with bofh's first post in this thread, but, though I find the hypothetical scenario too vague to attempt an answer to, I have thought while reading this thread that there are several states where it would be *legal* to fire on a fleeing felon, especially in one's home, and I'd say it appears that MS is one such state. I believe my state, Alabama, most likely is one too. But the problem is that answering the *legal* question isn't adequate for most people to hang their hats on. Most people want to know what the *right* thing to do is, not just the *legal* thing, and quite often, no lines intersect in the arc of either of those evaluations.
I think Castle Doctrine laws are a great thing. I'm glad that they have proliferated to the extent they have in recent years. What I get from most of them, including MS's, is that legally-speaking, the person claiming defense as the basis for opening fire on another human being has the *legal* presumption of justification in the eyes of the law. That presumption carries with it several benefits in MS, including immunity from civil action and restitution of legal expenses if the shooter must defend himself in either civil or criminal court and is found justified. That's pretty strong as Castle Doctrine laws go, but a presumption is still no guarantee, and neither is immunity if/when one is not found justified. Even under a fairly objective statutory presumption of justification to shoot, one must still fall under the more subjective test of the "reasonable person" doctrine, which seeks to put everyone responsible for deciding how to charge, try, or convict a given defendant in the position of being a reasonable person and deciding what they'd do in the same circumstance. MS is no exception. There are five allusions to reasonableness in the link above.
I find Reba's and bofh's positions on not shooting under "iffy" justifications to be quite reasonable. Speaking only about legalities, I find it quite likely that many prosecutors, judges and juries in MS would deem it reasonable under the statute linked above to shoot any one at any time who had feloniously broken and entered a dwelling. "Likely" and "many" are words that demonstrate the subjective nature of the "reasonable person" doctrine though. Reba and bofh would virtually never get in any legal trouble maintaining their position as thus-far stated in this thread. Thomas0792 might for shooting someone who was running away, even though the statute does have provisions for fleeing felons, but those provisions are diluted to a lesser or greater degree by the reasonable person doctrine. I personally have a hard time putting my life in other "reasonable person's" hands, so bereft of such types is the human race that it seems nearly a suicide mission to engage in.
There are legal questions, moral/ethical questions, and questions that may or may not overlap either category. I just know this: I ain't gettin' in trouble for letting someone run away, while I might for shooting them while running away even though my Castle Doctrine also gives me the presumption of justification for several other-than-deadly-or-great-bodily-injury evaluations.
The absolute best way to arrive at an answer to the OP's original question is to go through competent, professional shoot/don't shoot training, and take the word of the experts whom you paid good money to advise you about when it's right/not right to shoot another human being. I categorically reject the notion that "we're better off shooting first, asking questions later." Whether "legal" or not, if it ain't right, it ain't right. Shoot/don't shoot drills, combined with the expert advice I paid in advance for, juxtaposed against the subjective nature of the reasonable person doctrine, have all taught me that shooting someone who is running away from me, just ain't right.
Blues
thomas0792
New member
Thanks for the reply. Very informative and thorough.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
B
Bikenut
Guest
Is this post directed to me since it was I who originally asked, politely and without any insults I might add, for cites and/or links to the actual black letter law concerning castle doctrine where you live? If so then be advised my opinion of your credibility, and the worthiness of any of your future posts, will not be favorable.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Thank you Reba.
From your link above:
(E) The General Assembly finds that no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack.
Bold added by me for emphasis....
I am guessing in the legal arena it would not be up to the homeowner who pulled the trigger but would be up to the prosecutor to decide what the word "needlessly" entails.
bofh
Banned
No, it was directed at me. He clearly has issues with me.
You did raise a valid point with your post. Many do not understand that their actions get judged by what is written in the law and not what they think the law says. MS § 97-3-15 (3) states the Castle Doctrine disclaimers, such as "unlawfully and forcibly entering", "has a right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner" and "reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring". A general "shoot first, ask questions later" mindset can land one quickly in jail.
If a burglar entered the home though an open door or window, it's not forcible entry. What was the reason to believe that the forcible entry occurred? Well, one can explain that to the jury. With good luck, one gets found not guilty and ends up with a debt of a few ten thousand Dollars in legal fees.
If it is was the maintenance guy or apartment complex manager, the shooter is screwed as he just shot a person that had a right to be in the home. With good luck, he gets convicted on manslaughter.
thomas0792
New member
bofh
Banned
This is why you should keep your distance: Police officer accidentally overdoses after drug arrest in Ohio.
This is another example of why physically taking a burglar on and restrain them is a bad idea (to put it mildly). In addition to the burglar having concealed weapons and drugs that are deadly on contact on him, Hepatitis C and other diseases are additional threats. Hepatitis C is skyrocketing right now.
The same considerations apply for the common question of: Should I provide medical aid to someone I just shot?
This is another example of why physically taking a burglar on and restrain them is a bad idea (to put it mildly). In addition to the burglar having concealed weapons and drugs that are deadly on contact on him, Hepatitis C and other diseases are additional threats. Hepatitis C is skyrocketing right now.
The same considerations apply for the common question of: Should I provide medical aid to someone I just shot?
bofh
Banned
More about that "shoot first, ask questions later" mindset.
In the following story, a father shot his 22-year-old daughter. He apparently did yell "Who is there?" and received no answer, which is quite common for a family member that is sneaking back into the house or simply not understanding that not answering means putting yourself in danger. In short, the father shot his daughter in the dark. He didn't had a flashlight or weapon-mounted light or simply didn't use it. Rule #4: Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.
Here is the story: Daughter, 22, shot by dad who says he mistook her for intruder
In the following story, a father shot his 22-year-old daughter. He apparently did yell "Who is there?" and received no answer, which is quite common for a family member that is sneaking back into the house or simply not understanding that not answering means putting yourself in danger. In short, the father shot his daughter in the dark. He didn't had a flashlight or weapon-mounted light or simply didn't use it. Rule #4: Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.
Here is the story: Daughter, 22, shot by dad who says he mistook her for intruder
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Just an FYI: Hep C is among the slowest-acting "deadly" diseases known to man. As of somewhere between 2012 and 2014, it's now curable to boot. Not that anyone would want to get it, or should be cavalier about getting it, but the cure is 100% effective, so no one who contracts it nowadays will suffer even a tiny bit of damage to their liver assuming they get diagnosed even as long as five years after they've been exposed. Many people won't suffer any damage within 10 years.
Every cop in the country has better-than-decent insurance. Even if their department or agency didn't cover a needle poke or getting bit by someone who was infected or whatever, their insurance would demand that they get tested in as soon a time-frame as it takes to be visible in a blood test after the injury, and they'd be cured probably within six months of it, certainly no more than a year afterwards. There'd be no lasting effects, in fact, probably not even any perceptible symptoms, so it's hardly the deadly disease that it once was, or that the above link makes it out to be for people who aren't at risk for reinfecting themselves through continued IV drug use. Ostensibly, that would include most cops.
Blues
ETA: A homeowner or basic citizen who gets poked by a needle or bitten by a Hep-C-infected criminal probably can't be counted upon to know they should get tested for Hep C and other diseases as soon as practicable, so the point bofh was trying to make would still apply as a good reason for such people to keep their distance from intruders, especially bleeding ones.
bofh
Banned
Yes, I purposely did not qualify Hepatitis C as a deadly disease. It's just something you really don't want to get.
New Threads
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.