Defending your home, how far would you go?

[TheStatutoryApe]

At what point did I say it gives you the right to kill them? You are putting words in my mouth. I said, any injury resulting from actions taken by them/me should be their fault.

It may be a better and more logically consistent statement to say that your rights should trump those of the persons who infringe upon them. This way we are not taking away anyones rights, only creating a hierarchy of importance of individuals rights in particular circumstances.

I understand what you mean but others can obviously take your comment wrong.

 

[turbo]

It may be a better and more logically consistent statement to say that your rights should trump those of the persons who infringe upon them. This way we are not taking away anyones rights, only creating a hierarchy of importance of individuals rights in particular circumstances.

I understand what you mean but others can obviously take your comment wrong.

That's a more reasonable interpretation than some that I have read in this thread. A person who invades your home has set up a situation in which confrontation can have dire consequences for perpetrator or victim(s) or both. Any rational legal response to the injury or death of the perpetrator must take into account the fact that the perpetrator was the one who set up the confrontation, not the home-owner.

Like I said before, I didn't shoot the person who invaded my home, but he was lucky. He identified himself right away after I barked at him, and then tried to come up for some lame excuse for being in my house uninvited, AND he turned and ran out the front door when I ordered him to leave. The fact that he used the same MO to rob another relative makes me disappointed in myself. I should have held him at gunpoint and made him call the State Police to arrest him for home-invasion instead of letting him run off. Some of my wife's relatives would have been ticked off that I got the creep arrested, but I still should have done it.

 

[JasonRox]

If you came to my house with a gun Jason, in the scenario you posed, whether I tried to get out or confront you I would have to negotiate squeaky floorboards, an open plan setup so you wouldn't need to look hard to find out where I was. Now, given I live in the UK, guns aren't really a problem here so I wouldn't be too concerned about them.

How would you know I have a gun before seeing me?

Honestly, when someone walks in your house, you HAVE NO CLUE what's going on.

You live in some world of imagination here. If a criminal walks in your house and has a weapon, I'm pretty sure they will be capable of using it before you can.

 

[skeptic2]

In my OPINION should a person be actively breaking the law (shall we say, where no doubt exsits that they are doing so), they should forfiet their rights.

This is the type of statement that gets people into trouble. When you say "where no doubt exists" that may be to you at the time of the incident but there may be doubt to a police officer, to a defense attorney, to a judge or to a jury. By the time you get to court there are no cases where no doubt exists. Because to the authorities there is doubt, the person you are certain broke the law, is only a suspect and suspects have rights. The right to an attorney, the right of not incriminating himself and the right to be presumed innocent. In fact the burden of proof will be upon you to prove his guilt.

The law generally favors a measured response. You can't kill a person for stepping on your lawn even though he may be guilty of trespass. When you say a person committing a crime forfeits his rights, it may lead you to a response beyond what the law would consider reasonable.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I should have held him at gunpoint and made him call the State Police to arrest him for home-invasion instead of letting him run off.

I'm sure that you probably know at least some of your sheriffs and they likely would take your side but do you know if that would actually be legal to do where you live technically speaking?

I've been thinking about it and I would have to imagine that even in places like Texas or what have you where you can supposedly shoot an intruder in the back as they run away that there have to be laws that specify stricter guidelines and that people are just not very willing to enforce them in all circumstances.

 

[JaredJames]

What are'nt you guys understanding here? I don't care if I get in trouble. As far as I am concerned, an intruder forfiets their rights the moment they enter my house. This isn't a debatable issue as I have continually stated. I DO NOT want you to point flaws in mine or anyone else opinions on what they would do. I really can't see how I could make this clearer.
Over the last 8 pages I have said over and over:
What would you do in that situation? What does the law let you do? and Do not have a dig at what anyone says as their opinion. I do not want a debate on whether one opinion is right or wrong.

 

[Cyrus]

We are pointing out how your opinion is not only wrong, but dangerously wrong. For you, and the intruder in your house.

 

[JaredJames]

We are pointing out how your opinion is not only wrong, but dangerously wrong. For you, and the intruder in your house.

From what I've read here, a lot of states in America have laws allowing you to defend your home (or neighbours) by shooting someone without much restriction. Now if that isn't giving up the intruders rights, what is?
So you assumed I don't know it's wrong legally? I know full well it is wrong legally, all I said is that is how I feel about it. I refer you to my last post as I just can't be bothered to say it all again. Please just answer the questions or let it be.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

From what I've read here, a lot of states in America have laws allowing you to defend your home (or neighbours) by shooting someone without much restriction. Now if that isn't giving up the intruders rights, what is?

Actually I don't think that this is correct. You may be interpreting what others have said correctly (I didn't read it all) I'm just not certain that the laws are quite as lenient as people think they are. The thing that works to your advantage the most in many places here in the US is that the police/sheriffs will likely be on your side as well as the DA, judges, and potential jurors. So regardless of whether you have technically broken the law the likelihood that you would actually go to jail for it is slim. And in most places you must claim self defense and have at least some small ability to back that claim up. You can not shoot a person just for trespassing or walking off with your TV, though there are supposedly some few places where you can (or at least get away with it).

Edit: and in many places, such as here in California, you are highly unlike to get away with shooting an intruder at all.

 

[BobG]

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.

A landlord had to give advance notice before entering where I lived, too. The landlord just happened to be an idiot.

If I would have shot him, nothing would have happened to me. The only criteria when someone has "broken" into your home is that you have reason to fear for your life. If the landlord walks out of the bathroom and I shoot him on sight, I'm perfectly justified. I don't have to give him a chance to actually point a gun at me. The fact that we lived in a third floor apartment and had no safe escape would just add to the justification.

There's just a difference between morals and the law. In my case, listening for a minute or two allowed me to kind of figure out what was happening before I ever left the bedroom (kind of, because it's still hard to understand what the heck would ever possesses him to fix my bathroom in the middle of the night). He and his dad were talking about the repair job and you could hear what they were doing to the plumbing.

If I had had a gun and chose to shoot them just because they pissed me off, no one would have been able to prove that I knew what was going on before I left the bedroom.

Besides, running out of the bedroom into an unknown situation just blasting away would be dumb for a whole host of other reasons besides the morality side of things.

 

[0xDEADBEEF]

Blah balh blah I didn't check the whole thread but no one else seems to care much about laws here:
First castle doctrine:
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

[...]use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.[...]

States with a Stand-your-ground Law
No duty to retreat anywhere. [stronger form of castle law]
* Alabama
* Arizona
* Florida
* Georgia
* Indiana
* Kentucky
* Louisiana
* Oklahoma §21-1289.25
* South Carolina (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.")
* Texas
* Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
* Utah
* Washington (Homicide justifiable in the lawful defense of self or other persons present; and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished ...or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony... or upon or in a dwelling, or other place...)

[...many states with strong or weak castle laws...]

States with no known Castle Law
* Iowa (Law does not require retreat from home, but may require retreat within the home)
* New Hampshire[26]
* New Mexico
* Virginia
* District of Columbia

All states but the last four seem to justify shooting intruders to your home one way or another.

At first it looked like the UK was similar, but someone there was locked up when he killed an intruder:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law

In R v Lindsay (2005) AER (D) 349 the defendant who picked up a sword in self-defence when attacked in his home by three masked intruders armed with loaded handguns, killed one of them by slashing him repeatedly with that sword. The prosecution case was that, although he had initially acted in self defence, he had then lost his self-control and demonstrated a clear intent to kill the armed intruder. In fact, the defendant was himself a low-level cannabis dealer who kept the sword available to defend himself against other drug dealers. The Court of Appeal confirmed an eight-year term of imprisonment. In a non-criminal context, it would not be expected that ordinary householders who "go too far" when defending themselves against armed intruders would receive such a long sentence.

We should all return to the good old stuff though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmgang

 

[JaredJames]

The UK is against defending your home. The law says reasonable force, but who judges reasonable? A person in a situation like that is going to have a very different idea to a jury under no stress.
If you shoot someone in the UK, you're going to jail. Look up Tony Martin, a man who took the law into his own hands after the police did nothing to help him. He shot a guy in the back as he ran off, he deserved jail time. But at the same time, I understand why he did it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

All states but the last four seem to justify shooting intruders to your home one way or another.

If you read through that wiki article you will see that there are all manner of guidelines regarding such laws depending on what state you live in. There may also be any number of other local laws which may influence what are and are not acceptable actions to take in a given situation. Here in California you could possibly even be nailed on something as small as whether or not your fire arm had been properly locked up before the break in.

Really there are any number of laws like this on the books from the old days that are not necessarily going to be applied in the same manner as they were back when they were instituted. The effect often being that you will have little successful recourse to them. Shooting someone in your home is not something you can easily justify in most places.

 

[JaredJames]

Here in California you could possibly even be nailed on something as small as whether or not your fire arm had been properly locked up before the break in.

Stupid question, but how would the police/lawyers prove that? I mean if the gun cabinet is in your bedroom, but you keep the gun outside it loaded, unless you tell the police it was in said state how would they go about proving it? Even if it is downstairs then they would still have to prove it wasn't in it (obviously shooting the guy upstairs in such a case would be suspicious).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Stupid question, but how would the police/lawyers prove that? I mean if the gun cabinet is in your bedroom, but you keep the gun outside it loaded, unless you tell the police it was in said state how would they go about proving it? Even if it is downstairs then they would still have to prove it wasn't in it (obviously shooting the guy upstairs in such a case would be suspicious).

People are often not thinking in such situations and will say things that maybe they oughtn't have. Some may realize their mistake and start changing their story which will just add suspicion. Also if you killed someone in your home it would be a crime scene and they will go over it with a fine tooth comb. Depending on how thurough their investigation of your residence they may notice a lack of evidence that you retreived your gun from a locked location or maybe even that you don't actually own anything to keep your gun locked in.

Its a what if, and a relatively small one maybe, but a good example of just one of any number of things that could land you in jail regardless of any law that says you are allowed to defend your home with lethal force.

 

[baywax]

The UK is against defending your home. The law says reasonable force, but who judges reasonable? A person in a situation like that is going to have a very different idea to a jury under no stress.
If you shoot someone in the UK, you're going to jail. Look up Tony Martin, a man who took the law into his own hands after the police did nothing to help him. He shot a guy in the back as he ran off, he deserved jail time. But at the same time, I understand why he did it.

Very similar laws in Canada. If you really harm the intruder before they're over your threshold, you are at fault.

If you harm them after they're over the threshold, you will be at fault if you use undue force.. or deadly force. For instance, if I break the intruder's spine and render them paralyzed for life.. I'm at fault. If I offer them tea and a bit of a spanking I think I'll be let off with 2 years of sex addiction counseling and anger management. That's why its good to have a basement and a cement mixer at home.

 

[Cyrus]

Very similar laws in Canada. If you really harm the intruder before they're over your threshold, you are at fault.

If you harm them after their over the threshold, you will be at fault if you use undue force.. or deadly force. For instance, if I break the intruder's spine and render them paralyzed for life.. I'm at fault. If I offer them tea and a bit of a spanking I think I'll be let off with 2 years of sex addiction counseling and anger management. That's why its good to have a basement and a cement mixer at home.

Not true, at all. I saw this show on court tv where some homeowners had a problem with the concrete falling apart in their basement. When the contractors went to remove the old concrete and replace it with the new concrete they found human bones. What happens is the dead body decomposes and leaves a big void in the concrete which collapses in on itself a few years later. So, make sure you live in that house for a longggggggggg time before you sell it. (Or just fill the void back up a few years later and then sell it).

 

[baywax]

Not true, at all. I saw this show on court tv where some homeowners had a problem with the concrete falling apart in their basement. When the contractors went to remove the old concrete and replace it with the new concrete they found human bones. What happens is the dead body decomposes and leaves a big void in the concrete which collapses in on itself a few years later. So, make sure you live in that house for a longggggggggg time before you sell it. (Or just fill the void back up a few years later and then sell it).

(snicker)

 

[KingNothing]

I would politely inform them that I am a broke college student, and ask that they take whatever they want, so that the landlord's insurance might replace it all with newer things.

 

[montoyas7940]

I would politely inform them that I am a broke college student, and ask that they take whatever they want, so that the landlord's insurance might replace it all with newer things.

My tenants property is not covered by my property insurance. You may want to look into a renters policy; they are inexpensive.

I have actually accidentally walked into the wrong house. It scared me worse than it did the little old lady who lived there. She was sitting on the couch watching tv and just smiled. I think she was glad to have "company".

 

[WhoWee]

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?

I don't think anyone really knows what they will do until they are confronted with the reality of the situation.

The first thing one SHOULD do is attempt confirmation of an intruder - then call the police and provide as much information as possible.

If you live in a populated area, inform the police of who is in the house with you, where you are, where the intruder(s) is/are, whether you have theability to protect yourself (I'm in the rear bedroom with wife and 4 kids, the intruder is in the family room at the front corner of the house near the garage, I have a hand gun with me but door doesn't have a lock, I can see a van parked on the street and there may be someone inside, there is a motion detector security light at the rear entrance). You might also ask how long and what you should do until (and when) the police arrive.

If you live in a remote area, you are faced with a different set of problems and should have a survival strategy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think anyone really knows what they will do until they are confronted with the reality of the situation.

There have been a few times that I was concerned and had no problem grabbing the 12 gauge and checking the house. If I had found someone, they would have gotten one chance to lay on the floor before I shoot.

I am never more than twenty feet or so from a loaded weapon that is ready to fire. But then I grew up in L.A. There is nothing like the reality of someone you know getting raped or murdered in their own home to help clear the fog and put things into perspective. From my point of view, all of this "oh help the poor soul" nonsense is just that. There are times when it comes down to you or them. It is important to remember that.

What is the conversion rate from anti-gun to pro-gun for victims of violent crimes? Probably about 90% in my experience.

If a person or persons can secure themselves in a safe place and call the cops, that makes the most sense. But in many cases that would not be possible or practical; even if it was, I would be sitting there with a gun pointed at the door.

 

[WhoWee]

If a person can secure themselves in a safe place and call the cops, that makes the most sense. But in many cases that would not be possible or practical; even if it was, I would be sitting there with a gun pointed at the door.

I agree. However, I highly recommend that if you wait behind a closed door for the Police to arrive, it's best to inform them (when you call) of where you are and that you're armed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree. However, I highly recommend that if you wait behind a closed door for the Police to arrive, it's best to inform them (when you call) of where you are and that you're armed.

ABSOLUTELY! You don't want to shoot or get shot by the cops.

I was once in a situation where I could hear a woman being raped [or worse] in an apartment complex near my location. I was quite surprised that the cops didn't tell me to say put. I ran out to try to find the location of the screams while they were on their way. I was worried sick that the cops might shoot at me when they arrived, but I had told the operator what I was wearing.

When the chopper arrived, the screams stopped and we never found them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This all got me thinking about a period in my life that I hadn't thought much about for a long time. Since it obviously has a direct effect on my opinion of personal defense, I thought it worth sharing.

Over a period of about three years, between ages 10-13 years for me, we knew a number of people who were affected by violent crime. First, a woman from our church who lived down the street from my grandmother, was raped and murdered, in the middle of the day, in her own home. Then, probably a year later, a very close friend of our family was murdered by a known serial killer. He was a young man, about 18 years old, and he was found by his mother [my nursery school teacher] in his bedroom. It was an absolutely terrible scene. The police recognized the MO but I don't think an arrest was ever made. Then, a 13 year old schoolmate was murdered while working in a liquor store. And get this, his best friend died of a brain hemmorhage at the funeral!

Anyway, yeah, the world is a dangerous place. Don't be a fool.

 

[turbo]

I have a loaded (Duh! Unloaded would be idiotic!) Glock Model 20 in 10mm Auto and a P38 in 9mm Luger. They are always handy (though in discrete locations) and they are both double-action semi-automatic pistols. We live too far away from any reasonable police response. "I'm sorry Mr. Home Invader! Would you please cool it for at least 20-30 minutes until a trooper or a county deputy arrives?"

I don't know a single person on this rural road that isn't impressively armed - not just out of paranoia, but because we all like to hunt and/or shoot, and guns are ingrained in our culture. Like lots of rural locations, we have problems with opiate-addicts and meth-heads. They usually hit targets of opportunity in towns, though. Hitting rural homes will eventually earn them a one-way ticket to the morgue.

 

[baywax]

I guess different communities deal with intrusion etc... in different ways. Some times they lose a hand other times they have a shotgun to deal with. In other cases they are protected by law and sent to the spa to be reintegrated into society. You might have seen the Michael Moore clip where his camera crew walks into a woman's home in Toronto, Canada, and the door is unlocked and they walk in with lights and everything and she says "hi"... like it was open house or something. That was a different community. If it happened in Fort Worth the whole camera crew would be dead in the news.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm personally somewhat afraid of guns. A friend of mine has expressed a desire to take me shooting and I think it would probably even be a good idea if not for his opinion that I ought to try for a job as an armed guard (figure I'm more likely to be shot that way).

I'm not sure why people in places like England don't realize that its far easier to be anti-gun when you are on a densely populated island where it is harder to get arms and you are much more likely to have have people around to help you if/when someone attempts to victimize you.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm personally somewhat afraid of guns. A friend of mine has expressed a desire to take me shooting and I think it would probably even be a good idea if not for his opinion that I ought to try for a job as an armed guard (figure I'm more likely to be shot that way).

I'm not sure why people in places like England don't realize that its far easier to be anti-gun when you are on a densely populated island where it is harder to get arms and you are much more likely to have have people around to help you if/when someone attempts to victimize you.

I posted this earlier, "I don't think anyone really knows what they will do until they are confronted with the reality of the situation."

To add to that statement, you should never (touch/grasp/bare/wield/display) any weapon that you are not 1.) trained and competent to use, and 2.) are prepared to use. Otherwise, that weapon might aggravate the situation or ultimately be used against you.

Personally, I have separate strategies for home, car and work. In the past when I owned retail businesses that handled cash, I kept a loaded hand gun hidden in the safe (on a shelf accessed from the rear and not visible to the front), and a shotgun hung near the office door, usually out of site under a shelf.

Both firearms were intended for desperate situations only. The probability of being shot BEFORE the safe is opened is less than after it is opened. The shotgun was for defense of hostage situations - it's quite common to herd all of the employees into a back storeroom.

As for home strategies, it depends upon location. When I lived on a farm, with a tree-lined 1/2 mile lane leading back to the house, there were guns in every strategic location in the house and in certain out-buildings. We always had a big dog in the house and several dogs outside as well.

In the large metro suburbs, guns were stored without ammunition in a safe place. In the city, guns were not allowed. Now I live in a small rural community between 2 large metro areas.

I currently keep an automatic (with the clip removed and separated) in my bedroom. The kids are not aware of it's presence. The locations are quite concealed but easily accessed by me. My wife and I agreed not to have a gun in this house a long time ago, but she changed her mind after an incident with a raccoon about a year ago.

Every situation is different. I have in the past and will continue to react to each situation individually. However, I will never carry a gun unless I'm prepared to use it.

 

[Sorry!]

I think given the situation of the OP I would confront the intruder. I would ask them nicely to leave my house and if that request wasn't listened to I would use any means necessary to take them down. If they fought back it would only hurt for them even more, unless of course they are also trained in MMA or another martial arts. I don't think I would hesitate to use a weapon including a gun either. If I felt like this person or these people were an immediate danger to my family I wouldn't hesitate for even a second to go into the 'excessive force' category. Regardless of the outcome I FELT my family was in danger and they are OK in the end its all gravy.