Defending the Occupied Home

[Kleanbore]

Y'all keep arguing about the ethics of defending property.

Actually, I don't recall anything having been said about ethics.

We know that except in Texas, and there only certain circumstances, the use of deadly force to defend personal property is unlawful.

In other jurisdictions, the use of non-deadly physical force may be used, sometimes depending upon whose property it is, or upon other circumstances.

I think most of us here know those things, though some may not like them.

But the note forwarded in the OP was intended for others. I know some people who never knew not to take a bat to someone trying to get into a neighbor's truck. And there are those who way, "let them take what they want. I will not have a gun in the house".

I wanted to frame the discussion on the protection of the people in the home.

my mention of household contents was not really about ethics or the law. It was about a value judgment. The law aside, he who uses deadly force for whatever reason will never fully outlive the event.

The degree may vary. A married Army officer I knew awoke in his San Francisco apartment to find a man about to bash his wife's head with a vase. One shot from his 1911A1 changed the dynamics of the situation. Another man who has been retrieving a knife from the kitchen came in and surrendered.

The wounded man survived and served time. Col. Calahan and his wife received Christmas cards from the man for years after that.

 

[Boom Vang]

The links in the OP were very good treatments of the topic, and I generally agree with them. However, a couple of points that I digress from:

1. In every state that I am aware of, a property owner has the right to use physical force to protect his property from theft. NOT deadly force, but physical force less than deadly force that is reasonable under the circumstances. When you allow thieves to steal your property, you embolden them, and the stealing will continue. The idea of "just ignore them and call the police" is OK if you are insured, but the police rarely investigate these types of offenders, much less apprehend them.

While it is true that intervening to prevent theft of your property can cause the thief to turn violent, that is HIS choice, and if you are prepared to counter that, you are NOT in the wrong. As always, "it depends" on the situation, but if I am physically able and the circumstances are favorable, I am not just allowing thieves to help themselves to my property. Doing so encourages the rampant lawlessness we see happening today, especially retail theft. Again, it depends on the circumstances. You heading out into the dark after awakening at 3am has many pitfalls.

2. Buckshot is a serious penetrator, especially through drywall. There are a plethora of video online demonstrating it's penetrating ability. I would not use buckshot unless I had a free-fire zone behind beyond and around the target, inside a single family home. Certainly I would not use that in a townhouse or condo.

 

[Jim Watson]

1. In every state that I am aware of, a property owner has the right to use physical force to protect his property from theft. NOT deadly force, but physical force less than deadly force that is reasonable under the circumstances.

Gee, thanks. At my age and health, I am not up to duking it out Mano a Mano with a crook. So what are my options for "physical force?" Tear gas, Taser, rubber bullet? Oral challenge followed by SELF protection, more likely.

 

[jmorris]

I've just about run out of family members - and I don't think that I'm going to get any more of them.

Doesn’t stop me from trying…

 

[Boom Vang]

Gee, thanks. At my age and health, I am not up to duking it out Mano a Mano with a crook. So what are my options for "physical force?" Tear gas, Taser, rubber bullet? Oral challenge followed by SELF protection, more likely.

To each his own. Getting old sucks, am there myself. Comes an age, you have to let a lot of things go.

But fair fights are for exhibitions. Offenders don't fight fair. Duking it out is never a good option at any age. I prefer command-detonated OC and nice piece of cocobolo.

 

[Kleanbore]

While it is true that intervening to prevent theft of your property can cause the thief to turn violent, that is HIS choice, and if you are prepared to counter that, you are NOT in the wrong.

Oral challenge followed by SELF protection, more likely.

BIG misconception!

Over the years, we have seen a number of appellate rulings concerning incidents in which an armed defender had gone forth to challenge persons whose actions had not risen to the level of justifying deadly force. The ensuing encounters led to the use of deadly force by the defenders.

The defendants put forth the legal defense of self defense. They failed at trial, and were convicted.

In the appeals, the legal distinction between defense of persons and defense of property was raised. The higher courts found that if the defendants had gone forth armed absent an imminent threat of death or serious injury, the clear implication was that the cases involved defense of property, and the trial and/pr lower appeals court findings were upheld.

I'm glad this was bought up. We do not want people attempting to find ways to circumvent the law and learning to their chagrin that they could not do so.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Doesn’t stop me from trying…

Luck to you.
Most of my family members would have scared off the Addams Family: there's the poisoner, the sniper, the disease vector, the wiccan priestess, the narcissist school teacher, the bootlegger, the crooked cops, the crooked politicians, the Mafiosi... I could go on.

By and large, the world is better off without them.

 

[Jim Watson]

gone forth

Got it. I should not remonstrate with the criminal rummaging through my car or shed because he might get nasty and I might then have to hurt him and it is all my fault.

So let's get back to the "occupied dwelling."
A lot of people, wisely or not, will check out that Bump In The Night.
So where are you legally if you challenge an intruder, he gets threatening and you shoot or otherwise injure him?

I know there is advice to "fort up" and let him do anything he wants to as long as he does not enter your presence threateningly.

 

[Kleanbore]

So where are you legally if you challenge an intruder, he gets threatening and you shoot or otherwise injure him?

That will be determined after the event--by others.

In the house, the risk should be low. In many jurisdictions, evidence of forcible entry would weigh very heavily in favor of the defender.

But who in his right mind would want to put himself through that wringer and through the aftermath?

You want him gone!

 

[luzyfuerza]

I don't think the thread title sucks at all. I don't think this is a discussion about defending property. If you come into my home while I'm here I have the right to assume that you are a threat to my life.

I agree with the intent of this statement, if not the precise expression.

The definition of property is broad. Property could refer to your car, your tools, or your socks. This kind of property is NOT worth defending with deadly force.

Another definition of property refers to your castle, your home, your dwelling-space. Defending those in your property (castle) using deadly force IS JUSTIFIED if you are threatened with imminent death or severe bodily harm.



This flexibility in the definition of property is perhaps at the root of why discussions on this topic can't seem to come to a happy conclusion. The problem is that so many believe that a home break-in is intended to EITHER steal your TV, or to injure you. In fact, these two purposes are NOT mutually exclusive.

If a goop breaks into an occupied home, its challenging for the defenders of the castle to be sure that he is there only for the TV. One of the major reasons for the oft-mentioned advice to retreat to a safe room and announce that defenders are armed is to demonstrate for sure whether the goop intends to attack the occupants.

But ignoring a "retreat and announce" is NOT the only way a goop might signal intent to kill or maim occupants. In my state, merely breaking into an occupied dwelling in a violent and tumultuous manner is enough to demonstrate intent to kill or maim. There are other clear indicators, too.

See: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter2/76-2-S405.html?v=C76-2-S405_1800010118000101

Defenders are wise to consider those indicators beforehand. We don't want to have to sit and think for very long as we try to decide whether or not to use deadly force in defending the occupants of our property (our castle).

Thinking about these indicators beforehand is really the main objective of threads like this.

 

[jmorris]

You want him gone!

I don’t want him there in the first place. There are ways to make your place less attractive as a spot to hit. I start a log way away from the Home. That would be ‘too late’ for me.

 

[luzyfuerza]

So let's get back to the "occupied dwelling."
A lot of people, wisely or not, will check out that Bump In The Night.
So where are you legally if you challenge an intruder, he gets threatening and you shoot or otherwise injure him?

The best way to check out the bump in the night, for my situation at least, is to search remotely. It avoids the legal problems associated with "challenging an intruder in person".

ETA: It also eliminates the tactical risks associated with searching, often alone, for an unknown critter or person.

I can see the entire perimeter of my home, in real time, on my phone, using outdoor security cameras. I can also see the common areas inside my home. Both night and day.

I can also quickly scroll back to the time when "The Bump" likely occurred. And see whether a critter or a goop (or something else) was the cause.

Documenting a break-in for police or insurance use is a distant second reason for the cameras.

I can also turn on lighting inside the house from my phone if I need help seeing.

Both were so simple to design and install!

 

[Ranger99]

I get the feeling that a few are of the
opinion that a law abiding homeowner
has the responsibility to ring the home
with cameras and alarms and burglar
bars and hide in a closet if awakened
from a peaceful sleep by a thug kicking
in the door at 3AM

There's only one victim of a break in,
and that's the property owner.
We need to stop enabling and making
excuses for the lawless and return to
empathy for the law abiding homeowner
and stop the ridiculous pity heaped
on criminals

 

[Jeff White]

There's only one victim of a break in,
and that's the property owner.
We need to stop enabling and making
excuses for the lawless and return to
empathy for the law abiding homeowner
and stop the ridiculous pity heaped
on criminals

This is the last time I'm going to say this: We discuss what's legal here!! We do not discuss what's moral or right by anyone's personal code. Posts like this are off topic and will get the thread closed. Repeat offenders will earn some time off to think about the rules. Talking about how to avoid expensive legal consequences in these threads DOES NOT INFER THAT THE MEMBER AGREES WITH THE CURRENT LEGAL CLIMATE, IT IS SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGING IT. Whining about it here is not going to change it.

 

[Old Dog]

You want him gone!

Preferably in a black plastic bag in the back of the county coroner's black station wagon. We'll accept the miscreant departing in an ambulance leaving our property (real life, one of the two guys trying to break in my house left in an ambulance; he didn't believe the deputy who told him he'd send the dog in to get him, great story).

We do need discussion on this topic, but unfortunately, it's a topic that does get political right off the bat, because where one lives tends to impact how the response to this type of crime is dealt with, either by the intended victim(s), law enforcement or how the situation in toto is viewed by a grand jury or prosecutor's office.

Personally, I think there's too many variables to say that (1) anyone can plan on what exactly to do in one of these situations and (2) how one's response is gonna be viewed by responding LE, the DA's office, or a jury.

If it's Sunday afternoon, I'm in my LazyBoy eating chips and dip, watching the Lions game, and someone kicks in my front door and rushes inside, I'm not gonna offer him nachos and ask him to sit down.

A bad person has broken into your house. You have firearms in the house.

 

[shafter]

I think a home invasion is one of the easiest situations to plan for. When you are out on the street you are a potential target at every parking lot, store, gas station, ATM, etc, and each of those places will be different from each other and present a wide mix of unknown variables.

At home things are simple. A threat can only come at you through a door or possibly a window. You know where each door is and you have the opportunity beforehand to harden them and set up cameras and alarms. You can drill over and over and plan exactly what you will do.

Anyone can be taken by suprise in public but if one is a victim of a home invasion they failed to the point of extreme complacency. If a person thinks all they need to do is have a gun tucked in the couch cushions and forego everything else they are negligent with their safety.

 

[Kleanbore]

A threat can only come at you through a door or possibly a window.

That alone creates a lot of variables, and then there is the issue of where the residents are at the time.

 

[Gordon]

I wish you hadn't made this demonstrably arguable point. Agreeed that MOST doors can be kicked in. The strongest cannot, requiring tools to get through (and sometimes power tools). MY doors are not going to be breached before the call to 911 is made while a defensive firearm is readied. Most people, probably not, but they can make it so with less than the price of a gun.

Had you said that the police will not respond before a determined person breeches the strongest door I'd have possibly given that a pass.

When I replaced doors over the last 40 years at my residence I demanded , as I was paying the costs , to have the crazy idea of having them hung so they open outward , which is BTW much safer in an emergency exit . I demanded the door jam to be the seat on the framing and the long throw of the lock and the hinges be on the outside of the seal of the door . In other words if you try to impact your way in you are trying to stuff a metal or solid heavy wood core thru a smaller hole , which is difficult to say the least , and does not rely on hinges nor locks or latches to resist being forced inward. Of course an expert with a proper Halligan bar can pry against those hinges and lock sets , but since the door is in a recess tightly fit that ain't easy. Windows are easy but my 100 year old old farm house they are fairly high up and long since modern double pane . climbing up thru a broken window would be daunting and a hell of a racket, I would fear for my life ..... . A big Dog or two is nice also , the 10 acre property is deer fenced and electric gated , which would have to be breached and there is no way to crash a vehicle into the house. The out building are all motion sensored for lighting and video alert to phones as is the home. Also the ultimate is I have three generations living on three residents on the two driveway access to property = extremely likely some one , besides the dogs , are home on the property. I have had only two incidents in 40 years of intruders, long before I had all the security and the property was 40 acres of livestock . I ran them off , brandishing a serious weapon on one car load of nasty probably armed aggressive critters, and the other just verbal overpowering while wearing a holstered weapon. Just hints on what has worked for me over the years, Guns are the last resort and unless I have a weapon brandished in a threatening manner pretty much only thing to have me go to condition Red in the best Cooper sense of the word.

 

[Balrog]

That alone creates a lot of variables, and then there is the issue of where the residents are at the time.

The age and capacity of the residents is also important. Its one thing when two adults are living in the house, and gets much more complicated when small children are involved.

 

[Mick Boon]

As near as I can tell this discussion is broken down into two key components

1. Keep the bad guys out of your house in the first place.

2. What to do when they get in.

We go over this topic again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

There have been four discussions on variations of this topic since August 17th. Most of them are still active.

How many different times are we going to go around this mountain?

Is anyone forcing you to participate in the discussions ?

 

[Mick Boon]

I bought a house with 10 acres in the middle of nowhere 9 years ago. Living away from people suits me fine, but I know I have to be prepared to look after my wife and myself by myself. The first thing I did was erect a 6' 6" high fence around the whole place.

Nothing can get in apart from determined humans. If humans do get in I know they have broken in, and then they have a problem.

A while back on the other side of the province where I used to live a woman answered the door and was shot with a shot gun in the stomach, by Indian youths who " wanted to kill a white person ". They were repelled by her son and were forced to take cover behind their truck as he shot at them with a 22 rifle from his bedroom window until the cops arrived an hour later. The cops took his rifle away and he was forced to defend himself in court. His mother survived, albeit in a sorry state. I don't know what happened to the Indians, they probably had to spend a week or two at a healing lodge. https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/aboriginal/002003-2000-en.shtml

The gate which is always locked is the place where uninvited visitors end up looking in.

I have made it unpleasant to climb over but there is only so much I can do, The fence is the obvious place to break through, but they would soon discover that was not a good idea.

I had a cop at the gate earlier in the year, but Alice and I just looked at him from about 75 yards away. He was not at all happy, but he was not coming in as he was not invited and I did not know who he was....."One former police officer said the public should start asking questions whenever approached by someone who claims to be an officer."......

Nova Scotia mass shooting inquiry explores fallout of police impersonation

Public trust in law enforcement agencies is undermined every time someone is caught impersonating a police officer, the inquiry investigating the 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia was told Wednesday.

atlantic.ctvnews.ca

Alice is invaluable, we keep her in the house with us to let us know if anyone is around, she is more useful inside with us where she can not be shot. Occasionally she barks when there is no threat, but I never scold her for it, better safe than sorry.

I don't like to go out at night with a flash light as that makes me vulnerable, so I bought a night vision device instead, it was a good investment to use as a hand held night vision device, but it can also be used with a rifle.

Gerald Stanley Case

On 9 February 2018, Gerald Stanley, a white farmer in rural Saskatchewan, was acquitted of murder and manslaughter in the killing of Colten Boushie, a 22-year...

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca

It's better to learn from the mistakes of others, than repeat those mistakes. If anything ever happens at my place I will take care of everything.

When I was a kid I often wondered what it would have been like living in the wild West, now I know.