This is a discussion on What if the BG tries to leave nicely? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Step aside, let him go, let the cops do their job. If he is not treating you, you do not want to shoot....
Step aside, let him go, let the cops do their job. If he is not treating you, you do not want to shoot.
DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONtestING THE VOTE.
Certified Instructor for Minnesota Carry Permit
NRA Pistol and Personal Protection Insrtuctor
Utah Permit Certified Instructor
Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
Assuming he had a car, I would do one of the following (if I can beat him to the car):
1. Shoot the tires
2. Take the keys
3. Get the plate number
If he came on foot I would try and get him down or slow him down for the cops.
I believe in gun control...... Thats why I use TWO hands.
This is where I disagree. I think you shouldn't draw unless you are justified in shooting, but that does not mean that shots must be fired. One of the arguments the pro-RKBA community cites is the apparently large number of crimes that are circumvented by the presence of a gun---without shots being fired. Not shooting, in my mind, simply must be at least an option right up until the moment you actually break the shot.As a instructor once told me... You should never even break leather unless you have already committed to pulling the trigger.
I'd like to think there is a range of options between "I draw my gun to intimidate any potential threats" and "I must sheath my blade in the blood of my enemies". That's what I am getting at. I do not want trigger pulling to be an automatic, conditioned response to drawing a gun, because I think there are times when things can change in that one particular second.You use every tool available before drawing a gun, drawing is your last and final resort and you draw to shoot and end a threat [...]
Indeed. I think our only difference is a matter of degree, but that's why I called it hair-splitting.I lived to protect my loved ones another day, that is all that matters when it is all said and done and I bet we can both agree on that.
“What is a moderate interpretation of [the Constitution]? Halfway between what it says and [...] what you want it to say?” —Justice Antonin Scalia
SIG: P220R SS Elite SAO, P220R SAO, P220R Carry, P226R Navy, P226, P239/.40S&W, P2022/.40S&W; GSR 5", P6.
To me this is having a hammer and every problem looking like a nail sort of situation. If he is backing down and bugging out all you can do is be a good witness in my book. Get on the horn with 911 ASAP and be vigilant. I don't think he'd come back. A- thats not BG logic (rob a house where you know there are armed people??) B- I doubt you'd ever run into a BG who was smart enough to just leave.
I believe his intentions are bad if he is in my house ruffling through my personnals. I would shoot first then ask questions later..... no matter how nice he/she is, conversation would be none. Like retsup99 said 100% compliance or be helped to the ground violently!!!
"For those who fight for it, Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know"!
Kimber Ultra CDP II .45, Kimber Custom II
XD 9mm sc, XD 40 sc, .357 Colt King Cobra,
.22 Berreta Bobcat
Join the NRA!
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is about keeping the government in check. This requires that the citizenry is well armed and at all times has immediate access to arms.
Can you shoot him if he throws the phone at you?
Here in SC this type question was part of my CCW class & once the BG turns away and starts out of the house you cannot shoot them in the back. The threat is over! We were told not to chase them to their car, which probably wouldn't be a good idea anyway, or shoot their tires out.
Now I know other SCarolinians may not agree but this was just one class and one answer. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, just what I was told.
Here in texas,if you break into a house the consequences are being arrested and jailed if you're lucky,or Death if you choose that route.Here in the last few months i believe burglars are starting to get the message.
Legally? Varies by state, but if the threat was TRULY not present (hands WAY out and visible - heck, let's say the guy is nekkid), sure seems like the prosecuter could tear you apart.
Morally? "Removing the jackal" is part of the government's job (I mean, for reals, from Scripture through the Constitution: that's what governments are supposed to do). I can participate if I'm the warden throwing the switch, the cop in the gunfight, or the citizen under threat under our laws... which make me part of the 'system' rather than acting on my own.
If it's at night, you can't see whether the fellow is a threat or not: shooting him would be legitimate. In the daylight, you CAN tell if there is an ongoing threat, and shooting in the absence of such a threat would be wrong. Not to say I wouldn't want to, and certainly I could imagine doing so if I thought there was a threat! But the OP set it up as a no-threat-now situation, and I cannot shoot without liability (in this world and the next).
The verse says, "the thief", so this is discussing a true "here-to-take-stuff" guy rather than "here-to-rape-torture-and-murder" guy. But contrasting night vs. day indicates that the guilt is tied to the homeowner's ability to identify the threat here: in bad light, one can't know if the fellow is a merely a thief or is truly a rapist/murderer, so the use of lethal force is warranted. And the issue of self-defense is assumed; the discussion is on the extent of it vis-a-vis the threat.If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. Exodus 22:2-3
Note: regarding the fellow returning - landmines!
Last edited by Paymeister; March 15th, 2008 at 09:37 AM. Reason: clarification
I don't wanna be a test case.
Regardless of where you happen to shoot the intruder, you are presumed to have been in reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm.(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 forcefully 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.
While I never, ever advocate shooting someone who is retreating and isn't a threat, the statute appears to consider such an action reasonable.
Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.