Home invasion in my town. Should the homeowner have shot???

This is a discussion on Home invasion in my town. Should the homeowner have shot??? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by satori59 So, the crime has been done, he's walking out the door and no longer presenting as a threat to my physical ...

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 79
Like Tree26Likes

Thread: Home invasion in my town. Should the homeowner have shot???

  1. #31
    Member Array macg19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Southern CA
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by satori59 View Post
    So, the crime has been done, he's walking out the door and no longer presenting as a threat to my physical well being by the time I am able to arm myself? No, I would not shoot.
    Unfortunately, in FL, , have to agree, or you are going to jail. You can shoot to prevent a forcible felony, or shoot while the BG is in the house, but never outside as he is fleeing.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Member Array macg19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Southern CA
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by DUNDEM View Post
    Like it was said earlier, castle doctrine in FL. I would have shot him down.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    And gone to jail. You really need to buy Florida Firearms by Jon H. Gutmacher

  4. #33
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Is your homeowners going to cover $40k in cash? I don't think so. How would you prove you even had that cash in the home in the first place?

    At age 85 & 90 years old, losing $40k cash could cost you everything. Bankrupt and living in the street. Maybe it was cash being saved for a life saving operation. Losing that cash could easily jeopardize your life in certain circumstances.

    However, regardless of whether they are stealing cash, property or your poodle, the bottom line is this... Castle Doctrine laws are there to protect the homeowner in dire circumstances. Circumstances where any encounter inside the home is considered a "close quarters battle" situation. Also in such close confines, the homeowner has no way of knowing whether the person is armed or not, and things are in too close quarters to try and figure it out.

    It also assumes that anyone who would be so brazen as to break into an occupied dwelling, one can assume they are there to do you serious physical harm, if not kill you. Castle Doctrine allows you to assume that the intruder feels confident they can overcome any defense the homeowner tries to mount, and it is therefore authorizing the homeowner to use lethal force against anyone illegally inside the home.

    So, the bottom line is, it doesn't matter if they are stealing $40k dollars cash or $40. It doesn't matter if you see a weapon or not, you are free to assume that at least the intruder believes he can kill you, and therefore is to be seen as a lethal threat. It doesn't matter if the intruder has their back to you, or are facing you. The danger is implied, and certainly can be lethal.
    BkCo1 likes this.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  5. #34
    Member
    Array satori59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Michigan
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    So, the bottom line is, it doesn't matter if they are stealing $40k dollars cash or $40. It doesn't matter if you see a weapon or not, you are free to assume that at least the intruder believes he can kill you, and therefore is to be seen as a lethal threat. It doesn't matter if the intruder has their back to you, or are facing you. The danger is implied, and certainly can be lethal.
    My choice not to shoot a fleeing criminal isn't based on any legal analysis.
    Honor is self-esteem made visible in action. - Ayn Rand

  6. #35
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by satori59 View Post
    My choice not to shoot a fleeing criminal isn't based on any legal analysis.
    I certainly don't have any issues with your decisions. The law certainly does not mandate that you shoot anyone.

    The law merely understands the nature and inherent dangers of home invasions and provides a level of assumptions for the homeowner.

    Whether you decide to shoot or not is based on your particular circumstances at the time.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  7. #36
    Member
    Array BaconHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    88
    If he is already headed out the door, don't shoot. He is no longer a threat. Sadly, removing scum from the gene pool and improving the lives of others isn't an affirmative defense for murder. Also, don't keep $40k laying about the house where it can be seen and consider locking some doors.

  8. #37
    Ex Member Array MP9NewMexico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    New Mexico/Colorado/Texas
    Posts
    318
    I disagree, strongly. He was in their home, assaulted them both, and stole a huge sum of cash.
    In NM, state law allows one to protect their home with lethal force, regardless of whether an intruder is armed or not. If you ask them to leave, and they don't, tough luck for them.

  9. #38
    Senior Member Array ntkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    673
    Hard to believe that he gets into the house without getting shot several times on his entry. But if I had to, I would say hey you forgot something, as he turned around, well let’s just say he would see the error of his ways.

  10. #39
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    Unless you believe in CSI I would think it may be hard to determine if he was coming or going. I'm just sayin'.

  11. #40
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by BaconHunter View Post
    If he is already headed out the door, don't shoot. He is no longer a threat. Sadly, removing scum from the gene pool and improving the lives of others isn't an affirmative defense for murder. Also, don't keep $40k laying about the house where it can be seen and consider locking some doors.
    And you know they are no longer a threat, how?

    You never heard of a bad guy starting to leave, and then inexplicably turn around and execute the victim. I have. I've seen it! More than once. Unfortunately the surveillance video did not have any audio so we don't know what caused the killer to stop, turn around and then kill the victim. But I've seen it at least half a dozen times.

    Are you also going to tell a 90 year old man who's lived through the Great Depression and maybe doesn't trust banks that he can't keep his money at home? Especially when he's smart enough to see that in today's economy, it can happen again at any time because he's lived through it before. Hell, I don't trust banks in today's economy, and I wasn't around during the Great Depression.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  12. #41
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,044
    If I read this right he has committed the crime and is now leaving.

    I guess depending on how your state laws were written would make a big difference but I do not think the Castle doctrine nor claiming a disaparity of force would justify you shooting. He has committed the crime, is leaving the scene and as the OP said is no longer a threat. I don't see how you would be justified. As folks have stated at 90 years old what are they gonna do to you but I have a lot of life to live.

    Now would I arm myself and pursue you bet, but shooting just because he stole money and he is no longer a threat? I would have to think about that one.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  13. #42
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,044
    I disagree, strongly. He was in their home, assaulted them both, and stole a huge sum of cash.
    In NM, state law allows one to protect their home with lethal force, regardless of whether an intruder is armed or not. If you ask them to leave, and they don't, tough luck for them.

    They did not even have to ask him to leave he is already leaving out the door therefore you would not be justified. The act had already occured.

    And you know they are no longer a threat, how?

    Brother Bark'n. Yes they could turn and charge, shoot, draw a knife or give the money back but your reaction must be based on what the threat is to you at that time not what he coulda, woulda, or might have done. Generally speaking castle doctrines and laws regarding the use of force are written around and pertain to the act as it is occuring, a direct, immediate threat to you at that time, but do not, generally speaking, address the issue of after when the subject has committed the crime and is leaving. To me it simply means, No threat/No shoot.

    Remember the scenario I have used before about the oncoming car. He is racing towards you. You have nowhere to go, you draw and fire killing the driver. Justified sure he used the vehicle as a weapon. Same scenario except you sidestep at the last minute. He passes you and you then fire a round into the back window killing the driver. Justified? Nope. The threat was over that chapter is closed. You cannot say he was gonna, or would have, or could have turned around and come back.

    Just an opinion
    BaconHunter likes this.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  14. #43
    Senior Member Array tbrenke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,006
    he was not there to do the dishes. at 90 barging in and being pushed done in your onw home is enough. shoot.
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -1792, James Madison
    There are always too many Democratic, Republican and never enough U.S. congressmen.

  15. #44
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,443
    Heck, at 90 darn near anything is fatal, and since he (the BG) is on his way out, he might come back. I understand all of the issues here, but disparity is pretty powerful, and having a witness is bad........who knows........of course.....when I'm 90 my brain and memory will be mush............oh heck..........why did I have all that cash?

    I am not trying to make light of what happened, but please folks, take care and observe the "elders" around you. That $40,000 would be a tip-off they needed some counseling, and you might be the link to help. They could be someone else's Mom or Dad and need some more attention.

    At 90 I sure hope I don't face that...........if I do........I might well go off and hurt the fella.

  16. #45
    Distinguished Member Array jumpwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    1,271
    Just wondering...

    $40k puts this in the Felony zone I think, forcible felony if I'm not mistaken. Even while he's on his way out the door it's still a crime in progress and some states justify shooting during that time.
    Bark'n likes this.
    "The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
    cafepress.com/bgstudios

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

can a homeowner shoot somebody in their house?

,
can a homeowner shoot someone invading their home
,
can i shoot a home invader if i walk in on him
,

can i shoot someone on my property in new mexico

,

colorado castle doctrine

,

concealed carry

,

home invader shot and killed on somerset in detroit 2006

,
if someone invaded my home can i shoot them in az
,

kimber solo carry

,
nm home invasion laws
,

what if i shoot my home invider?

,

what if you walk in on a home envasion

Click on a term to search for related topics.