Had to draw my weapon for the first time.

[rondog]

Odd, that's precisely what Michigan's Castle Doctrine (now legislated) says. It sure beats having to die to show self-restraint, doesn't it?

I live in Colorado, and we have a similar law called the "make my day" law. I'm not saying that I would automatically gun down any intruders, I'm saying that they would be in dire danger in MY house. Especially the man that suddenly appeared out of the kitchen. And "get your stoned asses outta here" is NOT an option. They will leave "in custody", one way or another.

We have two female Beagles, and although they'll "alert" at noises in the night and go check them out, I'm sure they'd be thrilled to greet any humans coming in, they love people. But, ya never know, they might actually bark too.

 

[Kleanbore]

Correction

I posted a link rgarding the Michigan castle law in post 52.

Here is the actual text:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/publicact/pdf/2006-PA-0311.pdf

 

[JWarren]

From JWarren:
Quote:
If detainment is allowed in your jurisdiction, I don't believe that it is a "horrible" idea.

You might change your mind after becoming the defendant in an expensive civil suit. Law enforcement officers are granted a level of immunity. Civilians are not.

Hence I said "If it is allowed in your jurisdiction."

Let's see... a person entered your home in an authorized manner and you detain them IN your home while the police are enroute....

In my state, that would never see a grand jury-- let alone a jury.


-- John

 

[mbt2001]

Well, if detaining is not allowing them to leave, because you are in fear of your life and the police are en route, then what are you supposed to do????

 

[FLA2760]

You did good but you should call the police and go on record with what happened.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

there exists in popular society a very unflattering stereotypical image of "the gun nut". ever wonder where it came from? or how it gets blown bigger? reading some posts here are amusing in a tragic kinda way.

from thermopolis thread

the image of someone gunning two folks down with their hands up fits that ugly stereotype so well. help to keep the rtkba not

 

[benEzra]

we have a similar law called the "make my day" law.

That's the term the Brady Campaign came up with, FWIW.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

his living room is known for drugs?

 

[barfer]

Astrolite:

You and your GF didn't get hurt or killed. You did great.
You didn't have to hurt or kill anyone else. That is an added bonus.

I'd question any post from someone who hasn't had to draw a firearm on an intruder. You really don't know what it is like until you've done it. You will think this through 200-300 times in your head and in a month or two when you are done with that, you'll have a good understanding of what you would do differently, if anything.

And you will do better next time.

B A R F E R

 

[shiftyer1]

I cannot say wether it was a mistake or not but I can say that I remember being dropped off at a house we had moved out of a month or so prior, drunk, as a kid and my key worked. All I can say is I really scared the hell out of someone when I crawled in bed with them. Booze and dope can really mess with your mind. Did he leave his shoes by the door??

 

[shiftyer1]

I cannot say wether it was a mistake or not but I can say that I remember being dropped off at a house we had moved out of a month or so prior, drunk, as a kid and my key worked. All I can say is I really scared the hell out of someone when I crawled in bed with them. Booze and dope can really mess with your mind. Did he leave his shoes by the door??

 

[conw]

Creeper!

 

[janobles14]

here is what you have to remember when using a weapon inside your house. you can shoot anyone who is not supposed to be there. the only thing you MUST be able to convey to a jury or judge is the fact that "you felt your life was in immediate jeopardy." that is the only thing you have to convince anyone of.

that being said, the merits of the situation must dictate you feeling your life was in danger. in this case, i dont think the unarmed woman would suffice but the instant a man appeared from your kitchen you would probably have been justified.

 

[Kleanbore]

From JWarren:

Hence I said "If it is allowed in your jurisdiction." Let's see... a person entered your home in an authorized manner and you detain them IN your home while the police are enroute....In my state, that would never see a grand jury-- let alone a jury.

You missed the point. Big difference between civil and criminal law. If one of 'em sues you can keep it away from a jury...by settling out of court. That'll cost! If you don't want to do that, remember that the burden of proof for the plaintiff has a much lower threshold than it is for the prosecution in a criminal trial. Doesn't have to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt." There can be reasonable doubt and you may well lose anyway.

And if they turn to leave, what would you do? Shoot them in the back?

There's no profit in detention, but there is risk of considerable loss.

 

[Kleanbore]

One other thing. In many sates, Castle Laws do protect the defendant against civil liability if deadly force isused and found to be justified.

That's true where I live. The law was enacted to correct the effects of some bad case law.

These things vary.

I know I wouldn't want to be the test case for acting against unarmed people under the influence who had entered through an unlocked door, had their hands up, were not in the act of taking property, and would testify that that they had explained their error to me.

If I won I would not necessarily be home free. The risk of someone taking retribution would still exist.

 

[conw]

One of my conditional strategies is, if there is someone in my living space (which is under 1000sqft) - and they would likely be in the kitchen, by the way - to simultaneously draw and point the firearm at them, verbally command them to leave, and back up toward the rear of my dwelling.

That way, I figure I am opening the distance between me/them and I am ready to counter any hand movement/increase in proximity by them with a shot; if they turn and run I'm good to go.

The last thing in the WORLD I want is to have someone on the ground and need to be ready to shoot them if they do anything suspicious (I knew some martial arts guys who could take you down from the ground before you knew it, from like 10 feet away).

I think if you articulated the following to a jury it would sound a lot better than "I was trying to detain him and he made a funny motion so I had to shoot him...I didn't know he was unarmed."


"I was about to go to bed and I went to turn the light off in the kitchen. I saw a looming shape out of the corner of my eye so I drew my gun, pointed it quickly at the shape, and began to back up while verbally commanding the person I saw to leave. Instead of leaving he stood still for a moment as I backed up, and then he began to come at me while reaching toward his waist. I shot him with my handgun until I felt he no longer threatened me and then I called the police immediately and waited in my bedroom because I was unsure whether he had accomplices."

 

[rscalzo]

don't worry, they know everyone who calls in, even unlisted numbers and cell phones).

Number , yes. Location, no. Many of the new cable VOIP systems do not give the location. Some can be modified. Cellphone don't give a location in many cases.

Don't asume that Dispatch has the location. Give it...in a clear voice if possible.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

Your alive. Good deal.

My thought after seeing suspect #2 is where the hell is suspect #3 and #4!

I would have also had called the police and had them on the ground and ask the police to clear the house for me. I also would have never lowered my firearm until the police arrived. Thats just me.

Of course here in DFW we have home invaders that suit up like police and come in yelling "police get down". Now there is a heck of a shoot don't shoot situation!

Get a portable battery powered motion detector. I got 5 at walmart 10 years ago for $14.95. Has a heck of an alarm louder than a smoke alarm. Also has a jack so you can plug it into main system or something. Never measured the output voltage.

Here is the info on the back
Security Alarm
Model SP230
Intermatic inc.
Spring Grove IL

Has a 4 number keypad and uses 2 or 4? AA batteries.
Everytime you replace the batteries you just punch in one number to activate it and then 4 numbers of your choosing to turn it off. I'm sure there are better ones out there as the tech has come a long way in 10 years. I use them to cover entry points when we have power outages. They will run months before needing batteries. About the size of 2 packs of smokes one on top of another.

If you have no dog then at least get something like this. It would have given you a heads up even with headphones on. Best $15 I have ever spent! Dirt cheap peace of mind if you don't want to go the full alarm route.

looks like this without the hood.
http://www.diycontrols.com/product_info.php?products_id=300&osCsid=a8a25e9778b32e3470b92e07047af742

I'm sure the model is not made anymore but I'll bet there is something similar out there for $20. Very portable and will fit in a pocket but stick out.

 

[Kleanbore]

From janobles14:

the only thing you MUST be able to convey to a jury or judge is the fact that "you felt your life was in immediate jeopardy." that is the only thing you have to convince anyone of.

Good put. Minor point is that "felt" is probably not really the operative word, however.

Laws vary from state to state, but in general, you must convince the jury that you believed that, and that your belief was reasonable. In many states the fact of forced or unlawful entry into a dwelling or auto provides adequate evidence, but not always. In a few places intent to commit crimes against property are covered.

Here are some decisions regarding Colorado's "make my day" law:

Prerequisite for immunity under this section is an unlawful entry into the dwelling, meaning a knowing, criminal entry. People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995).

To be immune from prosecution under this section a defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she had a reasonable belief that the intruder was committing or intended to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry. This inquiry focuses on the reasonable belief of the occupant, not on the actual conduct of the intruder. People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995).

Do you think that in the OP's scenario that deadly force would have been permissible in Colorado?

In Louisiana, the law reads that homicide is justified...

When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), [I]while[/I] committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.

or...

When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, [I]or[/I] who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.

Would shooting have been justified in Louisiana?

In Texas,

The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

So, how about Texas?

The law vary. In Missouri, where I live, there is no reference to forcible entry in the definition of unlawful entry; also, places of business are not covered. My lay take on castle laws is that the main thrust is to remove duty to retreat from defense of justification when the person who uses deadly force is in his home or car or in some cases, place of business.

People like to say they would rather be judged by twelve than (and so forth) but it should be remembered that when one pulls the trigger, he will in fact be "judged", at least to the extent of an investigation, and potentially, in court under the laws in effect in his state and in accordance with the judge's instructions to the jury. What will matter will be the evidence and any the testimony of others (there were three uninvited people in the house), more so than one's utterance that he "felt" threatened.

I have never known anyone who got into a serious legal and regulatory bind who had not been supremely confident that he would be able to justify his actions convincingly.

Best thought I have is to know the laws of your state and to get some advice from a qualified attorney before the eventuality presents itself.

In the case of the OP, the only thing I think he could haver done better is call the police immediately. Full disclosure: I have failed to do so on two occasions in which I have had to use a gun to deter very dangerous attackers. I've learned a lot since then.

By the way, I've been a lot more careful about the locks since reading the original post!

 

[JWarren]

Kleanbore wrote:

From JWarren:
Quote:
Hence I said "If it is allowed in your jurisdiction." Let's see... a person entered your home in an authorized manner and you detain them IN your home while the police are enroute....In my state, that would never see a grand jury-- let alone a jury.

You missed the point. Big difference between civil and criminal law. If one of 'em sues you can keep it away from a jury...by settling out of court. That'll cost! If you don't want to do that, remember that the burden of proof for the plaintiff has a much lower threshold than it is for the prosecution in a criminal trial. Doesn't have to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt." There can be reasonable doubt and you may well lose anyway.

And if they turn to leave, what would you do? Shoot them in the back?

There's no profit in detention, but there is risk of considerable loss.

All valid points, Kleanbore. Sadly, your assessment speaks to problems in our legal system and society as much as it speaks to concerns over liabilty. However, I concede to your points.


-- John

 

[DaveBeal]

the only thing you MUST be able to convey to a jury or judge is the fact that "you felt your life was in immediate jeopardy."

In Colorado, you don't have to prove this in the case of an intruder in your dwelling. All that Colorado's "Make My Day" law requires is:

• The intruder must have entered your dwelling unlawfully (that is, he must have had made a "knowing criminal entry"),
• You must have a reasonable belief that the intruder has committed or intends to commit a crime against a person or property other than the illegal entry, and
• You must have a reasonable belief that the intruder will use physical force, however slight, against an occupant.

 

[conw]

DB, please stop calling it the "Make My Day" law. I'm not usually so fussy but that's about as helpful as calling Winchester's ammo "teflon-coated," calling a 30-06 a cop-killer round, or calling a .50bmg a terrorist sniper rifle. What's next, a dissertation on the "Wild West mentality?"

Kleanbore, excellent points about standards of reasonableness vs perceived threat. Also this is very well-put and succinct:

There's no profit in detention, but there is risk of considerable loss.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

I'm just posting this to show teams at work and the preplanned stories.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,462427,00.html

Friday, December 05, 2008

TROY, Mo. — A husband-and-wife team of burglars broke into about 60 homes around rural eastern Missouri, stealing guns, jewelry and other valuables and selling them to a jewelry store owner who then sold the stolen goods over the Internet, authorities said Thursday.

All three — Kibb Patrick Howard, 27, Carla Kay Howard, 26, and Michael Carl Sifrit, 42, face multiple state charges, and authorities are seeking federal indictments, Lincoln County Lt. Andy Binder said at a news conference. All three are jailed in Warren County, where the first set of charges were filed.

Police said they found about 100 stolen weapons and other stolen property at Sifrit's home in Fenton. Three guns and stolen jewelry allegedly were found at his S&S Jewelers in Warrenton, which police described as a front for the illegal sale of stolen guns and other stolen property.

Lincoln County detective Shannon Bowen said investigators were looking into reports that Sifrit sold some of the items on eBay.

At the news conference, about four dozen confiscated rifles and shotguns were laid out on tables, along with bows and arrows, power tools, big-screen TVs, knives, VCRs, even an electric guitar.

"It was through good old-fashioned police work that we were able to locate these suspects," Binder said.

The Howards broke into homes in five counties — Lincoln, Warren, Audrain, Montgomery and Pike, authorities said. All of the burglaries happened in the daylight over the past 45 days.

The investigation began when witnesses started reporting seeing a man and a woman in a maroon Jeep Cherokee in the areas of the burglaries. Witnesses also reported seeing a tattoo on the woman's neck.

Binder said Carla Howard would knock on the front door. If someone was home, she'd make up a reason for being there, sometimes saying she was there to "pick up the puppies."
If the home was unoccupied, Binder said, Kibb Howard would break in and take items like guns, jewelry and televisions.

Binder said the Howards have a residence in Laddonia but were found at a friend's home in Truesdale, where they were arrested on Tuesday. He said both confessed to the crimes to get money to feed their addiction to heroin. They allegedly told police they stole about 150 weapons.

Binder said Sifrit bought the goods knowing they were stolen. His home and jewelry store were raided on Wednesday.

Authorities believe Sifrit has received and sold as many as 500 firearms and tens of thousands of dollars worth of stolen jewelry.

Other suspects also may have sold stolen property to Sifrit, authorities said. The investigation continues.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Glad you are both ok! keep the doors locked and your gun cocked.

 

[grayryder]

Wrong Apartment B***S***

You did well and are very lucky that neither had a concealed weapon, (gun).
The shoes off issue, is in my opinion:cuss, enough evidence to create suspicion.

In my opinion you made several mistakes. (1) Not placing the both of them in a face down prone postion on the floor. (2) Not calling 911. (3) Falling for the B***S*** excuse of wrong apartment. (4) Not asking for the mother's name and address and/or apartment number. (5) Possible calling your girlfriend as a witness for identification purposes if necessary.(6) Not having a emergency action plan that includes your, I will assume, your live-in girlfriend.

They say that cats are known to have nine lives. However us humans, only have one. Never give way to you gut feeling. In you situation, you had a slight hand of temporary control in the situation. In calling 911 or the police would have put the hammer on any further consideration, by the said two indivduals, of marking you or your apartment as a future target.

Happy Trails,

grayryder