Home Defense - not hypothetical

[mkonops]

You would be hard pressed to find anyone that would attempt to convict you for shooting a genuine intruder, or even brandishing a firearm in your own home against an intruder.

Thats an interesting statement. I have always heard of brandishing as an absolute no-no, but in your own home I would think that it's perfectly acceptable. Though it may escalate the situation if the intruder is armed, I would rather be ready and aiming than otherwise.

Also, does anyone know the legality of keeping a set of cuffs in the house to detain a criminal?

 

[revjen45]

I recall an incident here in WA State in which a teen-age thief broke into a house (cohort waiting outside) that had been burglarized previously, prompting the owner to arm himself and lay in wait. Whan the kid realized he was confronted by an armed defender he took off like in the cartoons with the ground wrinkling up behind his feet. The owner shot him in the back, killing him and told the police (this qualifies for a permament pass to ride the short bus) that he shot the kid in the butt to scare him. Most of us would expect the shooter to get in trouble, but he walked. Naturally, the little goblin's family sang the blues, but it got them nowhere. I wouldn't have shot at somebody who's leaving with all possible haste (that's what I wanted him to do in the first place) but the shooter got off even after saying something so stupid to the cops. God bless WA State!

 

[islandphish]

Originally coming from an "obligation to flee" state, I would call this an unjustified shoot.

Also, I find the vigilante justice vibe in this thread disturbing. Many of these posts seem to be coming from mini-Punishers. Shooting someone in the back has been a universally recognized factor in cowardly behavior.

They were leaving, maybe with some of his stuff. Is protecting a TV or any material object in your home worth killing someone? I don't think so and I think laws that justify that are wrong. He could have waited for them to go outside and then tried yelling something like, "GO AWAY! I'M ARMED!".

Maybe the BG's got what they deserved, but when did a higher power make the homeowner the judge?

 

[R127]

Sure, and when did a higher power give armed criminals kicking down people's doors the right to their tv?

As described shooting them in the back when they were leaving is legally a bad shoot. We don't know that's what really happened. Who cares about this "shooting a man in the back is cowardly" business in a home invasion? If there are two armed home invaders searching for me in my house and by the grace of God I find myself behind them I'm going to shoot. I for sure am not asking them to face meet me out in the street at high noon or some crazy thing like that. For all we know that was the case with this guy, too. Were they leaving, or just looking out the door to check for cops, a friend in the car, etc? Were they looking around for the homeowner, maybe working in the yard? News reports rarely get the fact straight or tell the story accurately. The macho/coward thing just isn't even a factor when somebody breaks into your house, and doubly so when they're armed.

As far as calling his mom goes, I could believe that. My sister was cleaning a house once and was affraid somebody else was or had been there that didn't belong. She was panicky so she thought to call me, not the cops, first. I don't see anything at all suprising that many people instinctively trust family members over strangers with an uneven hand.

 

[Caimlas]

does it not concern anybody that he saw two men turning around to LEAVE.

then fired at them on the way out..

No. Why? Should it?

They were in the act of committing a violent felonious crime (or three or four), and violating his home to boot. If he'd have yelled out, they'd likely have fired at him anyway, I have no doubt.

These perps were likely going to go to another house afterwards due to not scoring. They violently entered and they were armed. Their next victim may have been a 20-something female or an older individual unable to resist. Remember that incident in Connecticut a couple weeks ago where the women in the family were raped and burned alive, and the husband was left in critical condition? Yeah, this could've easily have been a repeat of that scenario.

 

[Headless]

'obligation to flee'

What has this country come to that people think when two armed thugs invade your home that you should run away rather than defending your life? I swear, we are not that far off from the poor SOBs in the U.K. as we'd like to think sometimes.