Defending your home, how far would you go?

[JaredJames]

So you're in bed, here a noise downstairs and decide to investigate. You find it's an intruder. What do you do?

For me, it's simple. My view is if a person enters my home illegally and with intent to rob/kill/damage my family or property. I will take whatever action is necessary to defend them.
I know it's hard to judge what you would do, but given my reaction to past situations much like this, I would confront them and if they failed to leave/tried to attack me I would take appropriate action to deal with the situation, take down the intruder.
As far as I am concerned, the moment a person enters my property they forfiet all rights they have, and any injury sustained to themselves as a direct result of thier/my actions they deserve (yes that includes me killing them if they really tried to fight).

I know in the UK, the law is rubbish and basically says "hide in your room and hope they leave you alone", but would that really be on your mind if your family is in danger? It does say 'you may use reasonable force' to defend yourself, but how do you judge that at 3am, when you've just got up and have no idea of the intentions of the intruder?

So what would you do? What does your countries law let you do?

 

[Cyrus]

You only go as far as necessary to *scare* them away.

I hear way too many people say "oh, I'd get my shot gun and take care of them". I have bad news for that argument, they will throw your a$$ in jail if they think you used excessive force. In other words, if the guy has his hands in the air and you blast him away anyways, YOU go to jail.

I just saw an article about a guy who had his store robbed. He shot the robber and went to jail becasue he used excessive force.

As far as I am concerned, the moment a person enters my property they forfiet all rights they have, and any injury sustained to themselves as a direct result of thier/my actions they deserve (yes that includes me killing them if they really tried to fight).

That logic will land you in jail.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I would grab my gun, point it straight at the intruder from a tactically effective distance and inform them they've made a grave error. If they run off, fine; if they freeze and are held at gunpoint until the police arrive I'm ok with that; if they come at me- big mistake. I suspect my wife would show less restraint...

 

[Moonbear]

I don't know. I'd be half tempted to point out things to them..."Hey, I really want a new TV, please take that one so I can get the insurance for replacing it." They'd probably leave quickly once realizing there's nothing valuable in my house.

What would I really do? Probably not entirely sure unless it actually happens, but if I knew there was an intruder, but hadn't yet been spotted by them, I'd probably just grab the phone and head outside or to a neighbor's house to call the police...if I really had my wits about me (not sure that would be true in the situation) and had the tools nearby without having to go back in the house, I'd probably do something like puncture the tires or cut a hose on the getaway vehicle so they wouldn't be able to get far before being stopped by police if they tried to exit before the cops got here.

If I had already come face to face with the intruders, there would probably be a lot of expletive-laden shouting ordering them to get out and telling them what slime they are.

 

[OAQfirst]

So you're in bed, here a noise downstairs and decide to investigate. You find it's an intruder. What do you do?

For me, it's simple. My view is if a person enters my home illegally and with intent to rob/kill/damage my family or property. I will take whatever action is necessary to defend them.
I know it's hard to judge what you would do, but given my reaction to past situations much like this, I would confront them and if they failed to leave/tried to attack me I would take appropriate action to deal with the situation, take down the intruder.
As far as I am concerned, the moment a person enters my property they forfiet all rights they have, and any injury sustained to themselves as a direct result of thier/my actions they deserve (yes that includes me killing them if they really tried to fight).

I know in the UK, the law is rubbish and basically says "hide in your room and hope they leave you alone", but would that really be on your mind if your family is in danger? It does say 'you may use reasonable force' to defend yourself, but how do you judge that at 3am, when you've just got up and have no idea of the intentions of the intruder?

So what would you do? What does your countries law let you do?

While a long shot, how about a wandering Alzheimer's who thinks he entered his own home. At least take a moment to analyze the circumstances before jumping.

But I do have some agreement here. Where a criminal has entered your home, if the whole attitude that a community passes around is to submit, I expect an increase in crime and more daring assaults. I suppose the community must find some balance to this.

 

[hypatia]

Michigan laws have changed over the past few years. There is no longer excessive force laws when it comes to home invasion. If a person breaks into your home and threatens you with even his bare hands, you now have the right to defend your family and your home, by any means.
I would do just that, defend myself by any way possible.

 

[Pengwuino]

For me, I'd do the same as your typical police officer would do, point the gun and go from there. If he runs, eh... I probably wouldn't run after him because I don't run fast, but I would if I felt I could catch him. If he has a gun and doesn't drop it or reaches for it, I'm not taking any chances.

I think everyone should just have a shotgun and a less-then-lethal (or those intentionally semi-dud shells) first shell. Run to where the person is nearby and just "cock" it once in earshot of the person and they'll probably run immediately. It is an amazingly intimidating sound. If they're just trying to rob you, there's probably a very small chance they want a shootout and be hunted as a murderer. If they're just someone looking for trouble or someone who literally is out to kill you, then at least you're prepared.

I don't get why people assume your either the type of person who cowers while someone kills your family or you're the type of person to blow 30 holes into your house trying to kill a little kid that broke your window.

 

[BobG]

I'd slip out the window and call the police from my cell phone. I couldn't care less about defending my home.

If I still had kids or a wife at home, it might be a different story.

Either way, the best protection is to live in a low crime neighborhood. In fact, that's usually a higher priority than owning a car worth stealing or filling up my house with stuff worth stealing.

That tends to limit what you can do to protect your home. You don't need to live in a very expensive neighborhood to get to the point that a gun presents more risk than it does protection. With kids at home, making a lot of noise with a baseball bat would hopefully be enough to scare off intruders.

While a long shot, how about a wandering Alzheimer's who thinks he entered his own home. At least take a moment to analyze the circumstances before jumping.

Not that big of a long shot if you expand that to include drunk neighbors and landlords that decide to repair your bathroom plumbing in the middle of the night while you're sleeping. I've known two people that wandered into the wrong unit at least slightly inebriated (it was a six-plex and every other unit looked exactly the same). I've only had one landlord that decided to do middle of the night repairs (Since we didn't answer the door, he figured we must be gone?! In the middle of a weeknight?! And then he wondered why we changed the locks and didn't give him a key?!).

 

[JaredJames]

You only go as far as necessary to *scare* them away.

I hear way too many people say "oh, I'd get my shot gun and take care of them". I have bad news for that argument, they will throw your a$$ in jail if they think you used excessive force. In other words, if the guy has his hands in the air and you blast him away anyways, YOU go to jail.

I just saw an article about a guy who had his store robbed. He shot the robber and went to jail becasue he used excessive force.

That logic will land you in jail.

That quote about rights is my point of view on things, please also note I also said: "I would confront them and if they failed to leave/tried to attack me I would take appropriate action to deal with the situation, take down the intruder."

I would only respond with violence if that person went for me. If they run then fine. If they freeze, then fine. (I don't own a gun by the way, although there is a nice piece of steel outside my room). I did not say I would mercilesly beat them to a pulp.

Also, if the thief is a knife weilding maniac, intent on robbing you one way or another or even killing your family, what then? I know most intruders would flee at getting caught but there are exceptions.

A wandering alzheimers patient? Doing a good job getting through a locked door. I would have to put it down to circumstances, if they are grasping my 40" LCD TV, I'm probably right in my assumption they are a thief.

I wouldn't chase them, just let them go. I agree pengwuino, why everyone assumes you're either a coward or a gun touting maniac is beyond me.

 

[OAQfirst]

A wandering alzheimers patient? Doing a good job getting through a locked door. I would have to put it down to circumstances, if they are grasping my 40" LCD TV, I'm probably right in my assumption they are a thief.

Well, sure. Maybe not necessarily in the middle of the night, but I know a lot of people that don't lock their doors until just before they good to sleep. Besides, BobG's example is further reason not to dive right into anything too hastily.

 

[Gokul43201]

You only go as far as necessary to *scare* them away.

I hear way too many people say "oh, I'd get my shot gun and take care of them". I have bad news for that argument, they will throw your a$$ in jail if they think you used excessive force. In other words, if the guy has his hands in the air and you blast him away anyways, YOU go to jail.

Not true in all states.

In Florida, you'd probably be safe from any jail time for shooting most anyone in your house in the middle of the night. In Texas, you can shoot someone breaking into your neighbor's property - shoot him in the back, no less - and you probably won't even be indicted; more likely, you'll become a http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story.

 

[0xDEADBEEF]

[...] I know in the UK, the law is rubbish and basically says "hide in your room and hope they leave you alone", but would that really be on your mind if your family is in danger? [...] What does your countries law let you do?

Boy, you'll love German law:

StGB
Section 32
Self-defence
(1) A person who commits an act in self-defence does not act unlawfully.
(2) Self-defence means any defensive action that is necessary to avert an imminent unlawful attack on oneself or another.

Section 33
Excessive self-defence
A person who exceeds the limits of self-defence out of confusion, fear or terror shall not be held criminally liable.

And the best part is that an unlawful attack may be directed against life, body, freedom, honor or property (Rechtsgüter). Schimpfliche Flucht (disreputable flight) does not ever need to be considered as the righteous needs not yield to injustice.

The catch with killing the intruder is, that you have to prove that you did not have another way to make him leave your house.

 

[JaredJames]

When I said I would confront them first, at what point does that say I would just attack them?

If my landlord, in the middle of the night, turns and comes at me in a threatening manner, I'd put him on the floor. If an alzheimers patient, in the middle of the day, comes at me in a threatening manner, I'd try to use a reasonable response to defend my self but if they did prove dangerous I would have no problem with dropping them. A landlord can't just enter your home (well in my house they have to give at least 24 hours notice as per the contract), so they would be intruding.

Obviously, killing an intruder, at least for me is an extreme last resort only to be used if they trully are a threat to myself/families life.

I DO NOT agree with shooting a person in the back, lying in wait for an intruder etc. They must initiate hostility to me, that would be when I judge the threat level. A person running away is no longer a threat.

 

[Cyrus]

Not true in all states.

In Florida, you'd probably be safe from any jail time for shooting most anyone in your house in the middle of the night. In Texas, you can shoot someone breaking into your neighbor's property - shoot him in the back, no less - and you probably won't even be indicted; more likely, you'll become a http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story.

Jeezus, what an idiot. He shot someone for stealing a TV. He thinks he's in the wild west.

 

[JaredJames]

Jeezus, what an idiot. He shot someone for stealing a TV. He thinks he's in the wild west.

The problem I have with the law (UK anyhow) is that if I break into your house, and decide to munch on some of your fruit, and it's out of date, I can then sue you for poisoning me.

There have been loads of cases where people have broken in and injured themselves and then sued the homeowner successfully. The intruder doesn't even get charged in most cases.
(I'll look for a case or two now). So although I don't agree with shooting someone in the back and the law covering you, I also think it is dreadful the law defends the scum as it does.
Hence, I think people who intentionally break the law should automatically forfiet their rights.

 

[Cyrus]

The problem I have with the law (UK anyhow) is that if I break into your house, and decide to munch on some of your fruit, and it's out of date, I can then sue you for poisoning me.

There have been loads of cases where people have broken in and injured themselves and then sued the homeowner successfully. The intruder doesn't even get charged in most cases.
(I'll look for a case or two now). So although I don't agree with shooting someone in the back and the law covering you, I also think it is dreadful the law defends the scum as it does.
Hence, I think people who intentionally break the law should automatically forfiet their rights.

The same happens in the US for pools. If someone goes onto your property and drowns in your pool it's somehow your fault.

 

[Cyrus]

The problem I have with the law (UK anyhow) is that if I break into your house, and decide to munch on some of your fruit, and it's out of date, I can then sue you for poisoning me.

There have been loads of cases where people have broken in and injured themselves and then sued the homeowner successfully. The intruder doesn't even get charged in most cases.
(I'll look for a case or two now). So although I don't agree with shooting someone in the back and the law covering you, I also think it is dreadful the law defends the scum as it does.
Hence, I think people who intentionally break the law should automatically forfiet their rights.

Um, no. You might want to rethink that statement. Officer, stop beating me. I was only going 10 over the speed limit! <club to the face>

 

[Pengwuino]

Hence, I think people who intentionally break the law should automatically forfiet their rights.

Speaking of backassward laws, in California (i think it's a state law), if you commit a crime with someone (as in accomplice) and that someone gets killed, you can be charged with murder. Now I'm the last guy to ever defend criminals but there's something really wrong with that law and legal way of thinking. Has anyone heard of this and know how the hell it came about?

 

[JaredJames]

Um, no. You might want to rethink that statement.

Why? They come into my house, under their own free will. No one forces them. Why should they be offered protection by the law?

 

[Cyrus]

Why? They come into my house, under their own free will. No one forces them. Why should they be offered protection by the law?

Because your not a judge.

 

[OAQfirst]

When I said I would confront them first, at what point does that say I would just attack them?

At what point did I say that you would attack them? Maybe I missed something here?

 

[JaredJames]

Um, no. You might want to rethink that statement. Officer, stop beating me. I was only going 10 over the speed limit! <club to the face>

The driver chose to speed, if said person hits a child and kills them stone dead, why should the law protect them. They chose to speed. Yes, you have to take a bit of reason when looking at this 'forfiet', but by speeding they committed a crime.

 

[JaredJames]

Because your not a judge.

I don't understand that statement?

 

[OAQfirst]

The driver chose to speed, if said person hits a child and kills them stone dead, why should the law protect them. They chose to speed. Yes, you have to take a bit of reason when looking at this 'forfiet', but by speeding they committed a crime.

I think the whole purpose of "innocent until proven guilty" is preferred for suspects. Time and again police do make mistakes. Suspects must have protected rights.

 

[JasonRox]

The driver chose to speed, if said person hits a child and kills them stone dead, why should the law protect them. They chose to speed. Yes, you have to take a bit of reason when looking at this 'forfiet', but by speeding they committed a crime.

I'm just sitting here thankful that jarednjames is not working in the justice system.

 

[JaredJames]

At what point did I say that you would attack them? Maybe I missed something here?

I meant it as a general 'implication' with regards to another comment made. People seem to assume you will either hide or you will attack an intruder. And as such, making a comment like "what about an alzheimers patient" isn't appropriate to my given response. I said I would confront an intruder, and that I think an intruder should forfiet their rights. I did not say I would attack them, but confront them. People seem to only be looking at the 'forfiet of rights' part of my argument.

 

[0xDEADBEEF]

[...]
Hence, I think people who intentionally break the law should automatically forfiet their rights.

yeah kill them fare dodgers!

 

[Moonbear]

Speaking of backassward laws, in California (i think it's a state law), if you commit a crime with someone (as in accomplice) and that someone gets killed, you can be charged with murder. Now I'm the last guy to ever defend criminals but there's something really wrong with that law and legal way of thinking. Has anyone heard of this and know how the hell it came about?

Is there more detail to it than that? It might make a little sense if the accomplice had been coerced to participate by the other criminal, or if the charge were more like accessory to murder than actual murder, or if the commission of the crime were directly the cause of death (I dunno, like climbing up telephone poles and getting electrocuted while trying to shimmy down the wires into the house or something stupid like that), or if you steal a car and crash and the passenger who is your accomplice dies. But if it's something like breaking into a house as equal partners in the crime and the homeowner fatally shoots one but not the other, I don't see how that translates into a murder charge for the other criminal.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm just sitting here thankful that jarednjames is not working in the justice system.

Yes, innocent until proven guilty by all means, but if a person is walking out of my house with my 40" tv I'd say that's a pretty good sign of guilt.
If a person is run over by me, ok, they have to prove I was speeding. But once proven, why should the law still protect me.

The person taking a stroll with my tv, is still under the laws protection.

 

[Gokul43201]

Jeezus, what an idiot. He shot someone for stealing a TV. He thinks he's in the wild west.

But he didn't even have to face trial for it. So maybe he knew exactly what he was getting into, and he got away with it. And there are now websites honoring him for this.

The law is often what 12 of your neighbors think it ought to be.

 

[OAQfirst]

I meant it as a general 'implication' with regards to another comment made. People seem to assume you will either hide or you will attack an intruder. And as such, making a comment like "what about an alzheimers patient" isn't appropriate to my given response. I said I would confront an intruder, and that I think an intruder should forfiet their rights. I did not say I would attack them, but confront them. People seem to only be looking at the 'forfiet of rights' part of my argument.

Which I agree with. But for the sake of others who read into your reply and see something else, I wanted to tone down possible violent responses.

With that in mind, I'm going out to Lowes to get some razor wire for the swimming pool.

 

[turbo]

I have already confronted the situation in the OP. My wife woke me very early morning and told me she heard someone downstairs. I grabbed my Python, padded silently down the stairs and swing around the divider to put the jerk's head in my sights. He claimed that he had car trouble and had to come in and use the phone. I told him if very rude terms to get out of my house and I noticed that when he hit the pavement at the end of the drive, his "broken" car was able to squeal the tires. The only reason that I didn't shoot him is that he is an estranged relative of my wife, so I knew him a bit. He has done at least one other night-time home invasion on a more distant relative and burglarized the place while they slept. Had he not run for the door when I gave him his "three steps" he might have been DOA. It was hard to tell in the very dim light if he was armed or not so any reaching for pockets or movement in my direction would have earned him a .357 slug.

When you live over 20 minutes from the nearest State Police barracks and you have no police in your town, calling 911 isn't much of an option, not that we actually had 911 at that time, anyway.

 

[Pengwuino]

Is there more detail to it than that? It might make a little sense if the accomplice had been coerced to participate by the other criminal, or if the charge were more like accessory to murder than actual murder, or if the commission of the crime were directly the cause of death (I dunno, like climbing up telephone poles and getting electrocuted while trying to shimmy down the wires into the house or something stupid like that), or if you steal a car and crash and the passenger who is your accomplice dies. But if it's something like breaking into a house as equal partners in the crime and the homeowner fatally shoots one but not the other, I don't see how that translates into a murder charge for the other criminal.

Nope, nothing to do with coercion and it is murder murder from what I remember. Then again MAYBE it was accessory... wish I could remember this better. From what I remember, it was if they died for any reason during the actual committing of the crime, be it from actually doing the crime to the victim retaliating to even being killed by the police during it. It was something fairly retarded.

Then again, see disclaimer below.

 

[JaredJames]

When you live over 20 minutes from the nearest State Police barracks and you have no police in your town, calling 911 isn't much of an option, not that we actually had 911 at that time, anyway.

That's a fair point, although my nearest police station is only 1.5 miles away, when I call the police I have to wait for a response car from over 8 miles away. Now, my past experience with calling the police has shown that unless you actually say "someone is hurt/dead" they respond somewhere within the region of 5 hours as it is not deemed urgent.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, innocent until proven guilty by all means, but if a person is walking out of my house with my 40" tv I'd say that's a pretty good sign of guilt.

It may be a pretty good sign, a pretty darn good sign or even an awfully darn good sign, but the person walking out your house with the TV is not "proven guilty" - not until s/he has been found guilty by a court of law. And then, it is the court that decides what the appropriate punishment is, if it finds the person guilty. More likely than not, for stealing a TV, the sentence will not be execution by shotgun aimed at the back.

 

[Moonbear]

More likely than not, for stealing a TV, the sentence will not be execution by shotgun aimed at the back.

What? You don't think a TV is more valuable than a human life? Pshaw!

Really, it's STUFF people. That's why you pay for insurance. Might as well get to use it and buy a new TV. Stuff is replaceable. If all they're doing is taking stuff, I think it's more important to get everyone else out of harm's way. Get the plate number off the car and if they take off before the cops arrive, they'll have something to start looking.

Maybe if I had kids, and the intruder was armed and between me and my kids (i.e., it wasn't possible to just usher the kids out of harm's way), I'd use more drastic measures to protect the kids, but if it's just me, or if no family members are in immediate danger, then the priority would be getting outside to safety rather than risking my own life to confront some idiot who wants my 20 year old TV...he'd probably injure himself trying to run with it.

The cat is on her own. She has teeth and claws and knows how to use them if she needs them.

 

[JaredJames]

And because of these people, certain areas have higher insurance rates. It just seems to me that all the 'get outside' arguments are accomodating the intruder. Plus, if that person is there not to rob you but for something far worse then what?
I don't know many houses where it would be easy to get outside (with your whole family) without alerting an intruder, and causing them to bolt/attack whatever. But if their entry point is past you and your family you have put them at risk by trying to evacuate them. If you go on your own (my scenario) and you startled them, the only person in the way of them would be you. Of course this assumes you win a fight if they start one.

 

[Cyrus]

And because of these people, certain areas have higher insurance rates. It just seems to me that all the 'get outside' arguments are accomodating the intruder. Plus, if that person is there not to rob you but for something far worse then what?
I don't know many houses where it would be easy to get outside (with your whole family) without alerting an intruder, and causing them to bolt/attack whatever. But if their entry point is past you and your family you have put them at risk by trying to evacuate them. If you go on your own (my scenario) and you startled them, the only person in the way of them would be you. Of course this assumes you win a fight if they start one.

Tell you what, try that argument in court and hope you don't get thrown in the slammer. This isn't a movie, life doesn't work that way. I'll give you the Rumsfeld answer here: "I don't do hypotheticals".

 

[OAQfirst]

Tell you what, try that argument in court and hope you don't get thrown in the slammer. This isn't a movie, life doesn't work that way. I'll give you the Rumsfeld answer here: "I don't do hypotheticals".

Eh, telling him to try that argument in court- isn't that a hypothetical?

 

[JaredJames]

Tell you what, try that argument in court and hope you don't get thrown in the slammer. This isn't a movie, life doesn't work that way. I'll give you the Rumsfeld answer here: "I don't do hypotheticals".

Well based on the examples given here, the florida case and the german laws on self defense, that argument would work everywhere except the UK. So yes, I think I would take my chances (if and when I emmigrate).

 

[Cyrus]

Eh, telling him to try that argument in court- isn't that a hypothetical?

No, that's not hypothetical. I didn't make up a scenario. I simply said "try using that argument in court and see what happens".

 

[Cyrus]

Well based on the examples given here, the florida case and the german laws on self defense, that argument would work everywhere except the UK. So yes, I think I would take my chances (if and when I emmigrate).

I wasn't aware Florida and German laws applied to *everywhere*.

 

[Moonbear]

Plus, if that person is there not to rob you but for something far worse then what?

Then even more important to get out and away as fast as possible rather than attempting to confront the intruder. This is hardly accommodating the intruder, it's called self-preservation. If they are after more than my stuff and plan to harm me, why on Earth would I want to stay inside and continue to be a target? I'm in a much better position to defend myself when NOT cornered like a rat in my own house.

If they are there to kill you and not just rob you, what exactly do you think they're going to do while you're pointing your gun at them and telling them to leave? See, they aren't hesitating and waiting to assess the situation like you are, they're just going to shoot. And then after they're done shooting you, they are free to go after the rest of your family, since you didn't bother to get them out of the house and out of harm's way before pulling the John Wayne act.

And if you don't have a way out of your house that would avoid an intruder, what would you do if it was a fire rather than intruder? I suggest that before you worry about blowing the brains out of an intruder, you think about a more common hazard to your home and family and make sure you have fire escape routes other than the front door. Do you have bedroom windows close enough to the ground to jump out? If not, get a rope ladder or something similar to use as a fire escape. Make sure your kids know how to use it.

 

[edward]

Nope, nothing to do with coercion and it is murder murder from what I remember. Then again MAYBE it was accessory... wish I could remember this better. From what I remember, it was if they died for any reason during the actual committing of the crime, be it from actually doing the crime to the victim retaliating to even being killed by the police during it. It was something fairly retarded.

Then again, see disclaimer below.

You have it right it is the same in Arizona. If anyone dies during the commission of a felony any and all participants in the crime are charged with murder one. And the law states, anyone. even one of the perpetrators. If the victim should drop dead from a heart attack it works the same way.

We have a lot of drive by shootings here. If the bad guys are caught everyone in the vehicle is charged with murder one.

Odd thing is the county attorneys are having a hard time getting convictions because murder one can mean the death penalty. They have started allowing plea bargains for everyone but the one who pulled the trigger. Most plead to one count of manslaughter. If they are lucky enough to have a good attorney the charged will be reduced to reckless homicide or negligent homicide.

My wife was a juror on one of these cases. Evidence showed that the person was not present when the shooting occurred (he had an alibi his wife claimed that he was with her) and he had only helped bury the body.

After sitting through several days of looking at gory bloody photos and a visit to the crime scene where the man had been shot and the body was buried my wife was a nervous wreck. The guy was only found guilty of stealing the murdered man's money. ??

The judge only gave the jury two options. Murder one or theft of the money. All of the jurors were angry because they wanted to find the guy guilty of accessory to murder.

 

[drankin]

As someone posted, it depends on your state. If the laws are such that you cannot shoot to kill, then it's depends on your prosecuting attorney. Every cop I've spoken with are on the side of the homeowner.

It gets tricky in my state. You can shoot to kill if they are within your home. If they are in the doorway, you want to drag the body inside. Throw a kitchen knife in their hand if they don't have an obvious weapon.

But, as far as I'm concerned, entering a persons home uninvited and you're gambling with your life. Even if you have alzheimers or simply mistakingly entering the wrong apartment (which I've done, talk about embarrassing ).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You only go as far as necessary to *scare* them away.

And what if he rapes and kills a neighbor next week because you let him go?

What if they come back but are ready for you this time?

 

[Cyrus]

As someone posted, it depends on your state. If the laws are such that you cannot shoot to kill, then it's depends on your prosecuting attorney. Every cop I've spoken with are on the side of the homeowner.

It gets tricky in my state. You can shoot to kill if they are within your home. If they are in the doorway, you want to drag the body inside. Throw a kitchen knife in their hand if they don't have an obvious weapon.

But, as far as I'm concerned, entering a persons home uninvited and you're gambling with your life. Even if you have alzheimers or simply mistakingly entering the wrong apartment (which I've done, talk about embarrassing ).

Oh, that's really some fantastic advice there Drankin. Go to court and cry self defense and then explain why you dragged the body inside the house and put a kitchen knife in its hand (you really think the crime scene investigators won't notice this? You're day dreaming).

You're just asking to go to jail by doing this.

 

[Cyrus]

And what if he rapes and kills a neighbor next week because you let him go?

What if? What if. What if... What if...


I don't what if.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What if? What if. What if... What if...


I don't what if.

The entire discussion is based on a what if. You have someone who is almost certainly a danger to the public under your control, so your choice is to let him go? What kind of civic responsiblity is that? For all that you know, this guy is a wanted serial killer.

 

[JaredJames]

If the justice system actually favoured the victim I wouldn't be thinking in such harsh terms.
The fact is, there are repeat offenders in the UK who will steal a car today, be in court in a week, given 50 hours community service and released. They then immediately steal another car and repeat the process. There is a tv show where it follows the police in Wales, and it shows them arresting a guy and as they put him in the car he says "ah so what, I'll do it again as soon as I'm released tomorrow". And the police agreed. They were constantly arresting this guy and he was convicted every time with car theft.

It also bugs we when you see "mr jones was convicted of driving without a license and no insurance. he was given a £60 fine and banned from driving for a year", now call me naive, but am I missing something here? banned from driving? If he didn't care about doing it without a license and insurance in the first place, why would this make a difference?

A life sentence in the UK is around the 15 year mark with early release for good behaviour. I kill someone, I'm out in 10 years. Rubbish system.