This is a discussion on Prowler cuts power... within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Pete Zaria Thanks for your responses, this has been a very informative and thought-provoking thread. Making decisions like this in advance, so ...
"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had a right to choose: his own." - John Galt, from Atlas Shrugged
However regarding the dilemma, in my experience the best thing to do for most civilians is to gather those in the house make lots of noise, leave the house, go to a neighbors house and call 911.
Let's face it most heroes end up hurt or worse.
Besides, it is MY home. I will NOT allow some scumbag to force me from it. Some things are actually worth fighting for to the death, if necessary.
Why leave the relative security of leaving your house and going outside into the unknown. Who knows what or how many BG's are lurking outside?
If you are aware the break-in is happening, your best and safest recourse is to immediately arm yourself, Call 911 if the situation permits and meet the threat as it comes to you.
Take up a position of advantage or to a safe-room and wait for the threat to come to you!
Whether you have a castle doctrine law or not, you are much more "court defensible" if you end up shooting someone while you are inside your own home, where you certainly have the legal right to be.
Trying to muster your family together and then "leave" the house puts everyone in more danger than staying inside. There are infinitely more pieces of concealment and/or hard cover inside your house then there is taking everyone outside.
No one is trying to be a hero by defending themselves in their home and I don't know where on earth you got your statistics that most heros end up hurt or worse?Originally Posted by c5cruiser
Now if you were just arriving home with the family from some outing and notice your house breached and an open window or door, then YES... It would be best not to enter at all and to retreat to a neighbors and call 911 from there. But if you are inside your own home when the break-in occurs, I have to disagree with your position for the reasons stated above!
"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."
These threads are interesting and illuminating at the same time. I am seeing a common answer which seems to be the best solution;
1. Stay in the house.
2. Have illumination
3. Confront the BG when he enters.
Considering the outcome, you friend made the correct decision in this case.
But there is one very important thing to be considered which has not been discussed here;
Since the did not, could he pull the trigger if he had to? If the BG attached, was he really ready to stop the action or was he somewhat nonchantly just checking out the back of the house. Only he can answer the question and he really needs to. If he was not taking his position serously, then how chould he have been prepared for any action other than the BG running after being confronted. He was lucky.
Real preperation is important, Not preperation that says I will pull the trigger, but that I will take the situation gravely seriously and will make that decision if necessary.\
That's my .02. worth
A defensive position inside the house has tactical and legal advantages. In MN, if you are outside your abode, deadly force may only be used if it is necessary to prevent what a jury would consider a reasonable belief that you or another will suffer great bodily harm or death. Inside the home, the bar is lower, but I still would wait in cover in case the police don't arrive before the BG finds us and becomes a theat to our persons. His actions would effectively issue his 12 ga or 45 speed summons.
Liberty, Property, or Death - Jonathan Gardner's powder horn inscription 1776
Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
("Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.")
-Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 95
At My house we have a plan that is get to the room in the house close to all of our bedrooms and sit and wait.
As far as the ? of whether or not a shoot would have been legal if a B&E had occurred, this will of course vary state by state. But look at the facts that were given. The 1st important one is that power to the house was cut by the prowler.
The 1st thing we are held accountable for regardless of the state we live in is that our SD actions be in accordance with the applicable law - and - for the "gray areas of the law - that we act "Reasonably". The standardized benchmark of reasonableness is that which would be expected of the so-called "Reasonably intelligent, prudent & discerning person" - in view of all the pertinent facts & circumstances there & then existent at the time the incident unfolds.
So . . . if a prowler cuts the power feed line to an illuminated residential dwelling during the dark night-time and then proceeds to attempt forcible B&E at the rear door with a crowbar,
(1) He is already armed with a plainly visible, potentially deadly blunt-force-trauma impact weapon.
(2) The very fact that he is B& E into an obviously-apparently-actively-occupied-at-the-moment private dwelling can lead the reasonably intelligent, prudent & discerning person to one and only one logical conclusion:
The perp has fully well anticipated the likelihood of encountering an adult resident within the dwelling he is illegally breaking into, and therefore is apparently willing to assume that hazardous risk, and thus is apparently ready, willing. able and capable in his own mind and intent of doing anything he feels necessary to prevent the lawful homeowner from preventing the completion of his own felonious actions. e.g, it is reasonable to presume that his intent includes battering or killing any found occupants in the dwelling.
He is already armed with one deadly weapon. I'm not gonna presume he is armed with his crowbar alone. Especially if additional family-member loved ones are present in the home. Especially when the dirtbag himself has cut the power lines and artificial illumination inside my own home that he is actively breaking into. He himself limited my ability to see. he himself increased my need to ask questions that I ain't about to ask by virtue of the fact he already is breaking into my home. What are you armed with besides your crowbar, and what are your intentions? I no longer need to know that. I just need to stop the crime already in progress. And my logical, reasonable presumptions have already silver-plattered me with the legal right to STOP those intentions. (At least in my state) I am under no legal obligations to further jeopardize my own and my loved one's safety in order to figure out, understand or ascertain what the perp's full intended criminal intentions may be. I already know enough by simple virtue of his actions thus far. And you picked the wrong house to terrorize, fool. In the absence of onsite LEO presence, Surprise is my one and only Friend at the moment. The Perp is in for one ******* big Surprise.
If you break the door open or cross its threshold, double-tap from effective cover position with aid of tritium night-sights, tac-light or laser-sight, as the case may be. I ain't gonna announce my need and intent to neutralize the clear, obvious, potentially-deadly threat you're posing. Bang-bang. Cease the repeats only when the imminent potentially-deadly threat is certainly and effectively neutralized.
One of many reasons why I so much love living in FL. Under our recently-revised and greatly expanded "castle doctrine" laws, the mere exertion of self-defensive deadly force automatically creates a legal presumption that such deadly force was lawful and justifiable. The onus is on the prosecutor to disprove lawful action & reasonableness on the part of the Defender if he feels such was the case. The Defender cannot even legally be taken into arrestive custody until such time as investigation reveals the defender did act outside the scope of legality. And if the Defender is not found to have acted unjustifiably, it's illegal for the Perp or his next-of-kin to sue the defender in civil court for violating his "civil right" to be a violent, dirtbag criminal felon. Bravo !
And under FL's castle doctine's "no duty to retreat", "stand your ground" provisions, the definition of the "castle" has been expanded to include exterior roofed-over portions of the dwelling, detached outbuildings on the property, temporary lodgings such as motels , hotels, and even tents while camping, etc.. Including the dwellings of others you are visiting, as long as the owner thereof has been informed you are CCW and grants permission for same within their dwelling. It even includes "vehicles", which are further defined as any motorized or non-motorized vehicle designed for the transportation of people and/or goods. Even including Sally on her bicycle taking a bike-ride through the local park. In fact, "stand your ground" rights extend to ANY LOCATION where the defender has the legal right to be in the first place.
Yeah, FL is indeed a "Sunshine State" - like "Heaven On Earth" for a 2nd Amendment Supporter who used to live in godawful gun-phobic states like NY & NJ for way too many years.
"He who allows another to take his life, who hath no authority for that purpose, when it might be preserved by defense, is guilty of Self-Murder, for God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his Life, and Mother Nature teaches every creature to defend itself".
AMEN !dang.45 AMEN!Its only paranoia until you have to implement one of the (many!) plans you've thought out ahead of time...
Last edited by cowbilly; December 9th, 2007 at 03:53 PM. Reason: spelling
Wow, just as I was reading this thread there was a flash on a power line down the street and my power went out for a couple of seconds, twice. It's been raining all day, so I presume it was some kind of short, but talk about going to condition orange in a hurry!
Clinging to guns and God in PA...
It actually depends on the state laws in AZ. we have the Castle law into effect so in a home invasion we can shoot. I would call 911 on my cell phone and find a barricaded position with my Surefire and .45with a M6 attactached in hand awaiting until I can verify if anyone is breaking in and if they have any weapons to try to hurt me or family members.
Semper Fi Vic
I know that no one has posted here for a while, but I just recently became a member of this forum and was reading back a ways to find out what all I missed and I have a question. If he had already cut your power, was trying to open your door with a crowbar, would you have really waited until he was successful? I tend to believe I would shoot through the door...with 911 on speaker phone, of course.
For me, cutting my power isn't something your average burglar does...and as such I am going to assume he's pretty good at his job and I'm not going to give him the chance to get inside.
Just wondering what you guys think...
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.
Who is John Galt?
As to your idea of shooting through the door.... Tactically this could be a good choice - but legally I think it is not. I agree, his intentions are clear, and ending the threat as early as possible is a good idea, but going to jail for manslaughter isn't high on my to-do list. Also shooting through doors presents it's own tactical challenges.
A jury would look much more kindly on you dropping Mr. BG inside than outside the house (I think...).
Shooting through the door, you can't know for sure if he's armed or not - another strike against you in the jury's eyes. Plus, if he goes down INSIDE, you can tell the jury "I told him to stop or I'd shoot, and he didn't stop....". Heck, you could even put one in the floor and call it a "warning shot"
Obviously no way to know for sure, but I'd certainly think a jury would look favorably upon a homeowner who waited until the BG breeched the door, issued a verbal warning, and a warning shot before using lethal force. Now, what order those events happened in is anyone's guess.... ("thats my story and I'm stickin' to it")
Yes, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, but this is one case where I'll give the law (and the BG) the benefit of the doubt and wait until he crosses the threshold. But one step inside that door...
Damn, that's gonna be a mess to clean up.
Have to agree, shooting through a door is not a good idea. You have 20/20 hindsight now, but it could have been a neighborhood electrical outage and you neighbor at the door to see if you were OK.
It is always, repeat always, imperative you identify your target before firing.
I once had my two sons leave the house late at night [sneaked out] and heard them trying to get back in. I met them at the door, light in 1 hand, 45 in the other, pistol pointing at the sky. They got the message very quickly, but it could have been a disaster if I had fired through the door.