Input and thoughts on burglary - Page 3

Input and thoughts on burglary

This is a discussion on Input and thoughts on burglary within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; IMHO you have every right to detain with reasonable force, anyone who has forced entry and is in process of committing felony burglary. Wrongful detention/ ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 64
Like Tree33Likes

Thread: Input and thoughts on burglary

  1. #31
    Member Array 1911srule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    373
    IMHO you have every right to detain with reasonable force, anyone who has forced entry and is in process of committing felony burglary. Wrongful detention/ kidnapping worries are unfounded, just my two cents.


  2. #32
    Member Array Ishmael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Ohio Valley
    Posts
    231
    If you have your front-door at your back and a burglar in front of you with his hands full, you have an excellent opportunity to avoid a lifetime of night sweats and at least $20,000 in legal fees (when sued by the deceased's family) by not shooting him, stepping back out to cover, and calling 911. Either way, of course, your TV is probably getting dropped. It's a cruel world.
    MadMac and EdC like this.

  3. #33
    Member Array Ishmael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Ohio Valley
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by Shughes View Post
    On another side note (and I don't mean for this to make me sound like I am against the castle doctrine idea, because I am definitely pro castle doctrine, in fact, I honestly wish every state had the damn law...) but why do we continue to make ourselves look terrible in regards to this relatively new law? Every time I hear someone talk about it, they always say something like, "well MY state has this law, so therefore he's a dead man..." this sounds terrible, it sounds like you are going to shoot the ******* just because you can...
    YES. Castle doctrines provide great legal protection for someone forced to make terrible decisions in a few terrifying seconds. But comments that suggest "phew, now I can just shoot first and never ask questions NO MATTER WHAT" will simply be used as ammunition (ha ha!) by people who want to portray CCWers as bloodthirsty goons—as unfair as that would be to the people on this board, from whom I have learned a lot over the last year or so.

  4. #34
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,585
    BG had better not try that in FL. If he committed "forcible entry," which means he had to at least open a door to enter, he's fair game. Would I immediately punch holes in his dermis? Not . . . but one wrong move and . . .
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  5. #35
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,947
    Like the OP's state, my state currently does not have Castle Doctrine, but will in about 6-7 weeks, when it becomes assumed that an intruder is armed and dangerous. Until then, according to my understanding of the law, you are permitted to use force to stop the property theft, but not lethal force. Of course in my mind, this leaves a big gray hole involving escalation of force and, specifically, by attempting to stop them are you instigating should they pull a weapon on you?

  6. #36
    VIP Member Array Guantes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    5,272
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    Like the OP's state, my state currently does not have Castle Doctrine, but will in about 6-7 weeks, when it becomes assumed that an intruder is armed and dangerous. Until then, according to my understanding of the law, you are permitted to use force to stop the property theft, but not lethal force. Of course in my mind, this leaves a big gray hole involving escalation of force and, specifically, by attempting to stop them are you instigating should they pull a weapon on you?
    If you are attempting to stop the property theft, using reasonable force that falls within the statutory guidelines of your area, you are not instigating nor escalating. They have no legal right to complete the crime or escape. Their introduction and attempted use of a weapon is a separate and additional crime on their part, that can be met with necessary force to terminate the threat.
    oneshot likes this.
    "I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".

  7. #37
    Distinguished Member Array Bill MO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,519
    I may be looking at this all wrong but if I'm in some situation what ever it may be the last thing that is going to be on my mind is what some lawyer is going to think about it.

    What will trigger a reaction is if one of my predetermined triggers has been tripped. Do I fear for my life and safety, is there a need for action? If so action will follow and it will be violent. My mindset is that I will win.

    If you fear the Lawyer more than winning the fight, my feelings is you should not be carrying a gun in the first place. It will only get you killed in times that not having one you would not be. A gun is not to be carried and used to stop someone by showing it to them, it is to stop someone by using it.

    I'm not saying I would not pull my gun so it is in my hand, but it will be hidden, once the BG sees it it will be to shot him to the ground.
    It's gotta be who you are, not a hobby. reinman45

    "Is this persons bad behavior worth me having to kill them over?" Guantes

  8. #38
    Member Array Doubledown's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    301
    I do not fear the lawyers or what they say. This thread was started based on public statements made by a lawyer and presented to the group for opinion and discussion. Also to illustrate the paranoia that is beginning to occur leading up to our CC laws implementation. And based on his comments to also illustrate that some lawyers actually plan how and for what they will sue an individual and use the law as a club to support their opinion. I am sure this is not new info to most I felt it warranted posting.

  9. #39
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Doubledown View Post
    I do not fear the lawyers or what they say. This thread was started based on public statements made by a lawyer and presented to the group for opinion and discussion. Also to illustrate the paranoia that is beginning to occur leading up to our CC laws implementation. And based on his comments to also illustrate that some lawyers actually plan how and for what they will sue an individual and use the law as a club to support their opinion. I am sure this is not new info to most I felt it warranted posting.
    The attorney just doesn't want to lose his fees from defending the guy in court, and showing how down-trodden he is, what a shame his life has been, and how he just wanted to watch Monday Night Football like any other good American but didn't have a TV to watch it on..... due to not being able to have a job while helping his 92 yr old grandmother and both of them living off of welfare and social security ... because in the end "he's really a good man" who is just misunderstood.
    JoJoGunn likes this.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  10. #40
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Guantes View Post
    If you are attempting to stop the property theft, using reasonable force that falls within the statutory guidelines of your area, you are not instigating nor escalating. They have no legal right to complete the crime or escape. Their introduction and attempted use of a weapon is a separate and additional crime on their part, that can be met with necessary force to terminate the threat.
    That makes sense. Thank you for the clarifying response.

  11. #41
    VIP Member Array JoJoGunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    2,975
    Another point the OP's "lawyer" accqaintence needs to ponder. If we didn't have home invasions, armed robberies or people wanting to do us harm then there would be no need to use a firearm in the defense of life and property. Well in a fantasy world perhaps.

    Have the laws against such actions eliminiated them? Apparently not, so we have laws to guard against wrongful prosecution in cases of self defense. Maybe the lawyer needs a new occupation if he cannot figure that out.

    Since laws against crime seldom deter it, then we need to have the rights to defend ourselves from it.
    "A Smith & Wesson always beats 4 aces!"

    The Man Prayer. "Im a man, I can change, if I have to.....I guess!" ~ Red Green

  12. #42
    Member Array oldcurmudgeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill MO View Post
    I may be looking at this all wrong but if I'm in some situation what ever it may be the last thing that is going to be on my mind is what some lawyer is going to think about it.

    What will trigger a reaction is if one of my predetermined triggers has been tripped. Do I fear for my life and safety, is there a need for action? If so action will follow and it will be violent. My mindset is that I will win.

    If you fear the Lawyer more than winning the fight, my feelings is you should not be carrying a gun in the first place. It will only get you killed in times that not having one you would not be. A gun is not to be carried and used to stop someone by showing it to them, it is to stop someone by using it.

    I'm not saying I would not pull my gun so it is in my hand, but it will be hidden, once the BG sees it it will be to shot him to the ground.
    I think you miss the point.

    The point is that you ask yourself all of these questions and as many more as you can think of and get answers firmly established in your mind as well as a course of action to take in each case.

    Then when confronted with a threat you have already settled all of the questions in your mind and can act quickly and correctly so as to be ethical, legal and effective.

    That eliminates hesitation under duress.

    That is not fearing the lawyers. It is setting your actions up to avoid problems with lawyers and to defeat them if you can't avoid them.

  13. #43
    Distinguished Member Array kelcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    charleston, SC
    Posts
    1,912
    If the thief is facing me holding my TV after forcibly entering my home to commit a felony, I can presume imminent danger of death or great bodily injury and I can, according to SC law, shoot him. Would I at this point given the fact that I walked in on him? Depends on what actually occurs at that moment in the scenario. If the thief is walking out of my home with my TV and his back is to me, my appreciation of SC law would be that he is not an imminent threat at that time and if I were to shoot him in the back it is manslaughter and maybe even murder. That does not mean in SC that a solicitor might find that the shoot was a good one. It is interesting that if this event should occur AT NIGHT (and only at night), I can draw a weapon, tell him to stop as a citizen's arrest as I call 911. Should he decide to ignore my command, there is a law on the books (albeit an old one that probably goes back to the Civil War or earlier) that allows me to stop him from evading my citizen's arrest even if it causes his death (ie-shoot him in the back). Bottom line to me is that without an imminent threat or presumption of same per Castle Doctrine--shooting someone when they are no longer a threat, regardless of whether they are holding your TV or not, is not self defense and is subject to prosecution.

  14. #44
    Ex Member Array tcon67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Somerset,Ky
    Posts
    155
    The statutes in Ky, state that if any one is attempting to commit or is committing a felony inside your home lethal force is justifiable under the Castle Law of the state. In short, he'd more than likely be dead.

    503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle --
    Exceptions.
    (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or
    great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is
    intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
    (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of
    unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a
    dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was
    attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling,
    residence, or occupied vehicle; and
    (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an
    unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had
    occurred.

  15. #45
    Distinguished Member Array kelcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    charleston, SC
    Posts
    1,912
    Hey 1911--guess what? Your opinion does not count. Your opinion is logical and I agree with it, but it does not count. Whatever PA has in their code of laws is all that matters and if that is not clear, you will get to voice your opinion in court with the expenditure of mucho dollars. Imminent danger of death or great bodily injury and presumption of same is the key---someone leaving your house, even with your goods, and getting shot in the back is a recipe for a problem, regardless of your opinion.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Sponsored 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

concealed carry

,

craigslist dothan al

,
defensive burglary
,
defensive carry
,
does wisconsin have castle doctrine gun law
,
law burglar hurts themselves while commiting crime on your property cane the sue
,

stand your ground law wisconsin

,
thoughts about burglary
,
thoughts from burglars
,
washington can i hold a burglar at gunpoint
,
where does the wis castle doctrine stand
,
wisconsin laws on burglary
Click on a term to search for related topics.