I didn't mean to steal the thread on this scenario, but after reading the thread and watching the news last night it appeared to be a real-time example of what we are talking about.Quote:
I simply refuse to let someone like that just leave. In doing so you willfully turn him loose on society to do it again. The next time he may rape or kill someone or both. I'd hate to have that on my conscience, knowing that I could have prevented it but instead chose to think only of myself...
I have to agree with Fast Cloud on his post, I've had too many of my friends die from gunshot wounds or worse, and it takes years to get over it, if you ever do. It's bad enough for some perp to break into your house and take advantage of you or your family, but to let them go and possibly do it again to your family or someone else...I just can't see the logic in that.
And if later on it turns out that the intruder is some harmless guy with mental issues, and was never a threat to anyone, how's that gonna be to live with?
Killing someone because you've decided they might do something to someone else down the road seems pretty shaky to me.
I think that's a judgment call that only the people involved can make. As I said, we can second guess this situation forever, the facts are the guy broke in did assault the woman and continued to do so until he was shot, if you can live with that, then that's your decision.
I was talking about the scenario in the thread - the BG has broken in, been challenged and is evacuating the AO without having committed any other offense.
It's a bit different if he's interrupted in mid assault - and yeah, that guy gets shot without any debate.
The second sentence...There's nothing shaky at all about it legally if he's in my house. Yes, later on he could have very well turned out to be a escapee from the loony bin, but he could just as easily turn out to be the next Richard Rimerez. Better to be safe than sorry...as someone else put it. Eternity is a long time to be wrong. A home invasion is the wrong time to be squeamish, IMO.
If he gets out the door, you're not going to shoot him as he runs down the sidewalk on the theory that he might someday hurt someone else, right?
So why would his being headed for the door and not being a threat be any different than his having gotten out the door and not being a threat?
Well, to put as simply as I can, If I catch someone in my home, he will not have time to try to leave. I will not have a discussion with him. He will comply or he will be carried out. Either way I can live with my decision.
One question: who says he's trying to leave? The felon? The one who's just been caught with his deadly presence in my home? He's being truthful about that, right? To the degree I should risk my family (in the next room) based on what he says??
Once he's gone and beyond the closed door, he has somewhat less opportunity to be a threat. Of course, even then there are no guarantees, since all he needs to do is pull a gun and begin shooting through the outside wall into the house. Any monkey can do that. A monkey that's bummed he just lost the first salvo is absolutely capable of firing a couple rounds through a door or wall.
One cannot possibly know that subterfuge is a failing of this particular criminal. It would be naive in the extreme to accept on face value a criminal's stated "desire" to leave as being the end-all statement on the matter.
The fact he's in the house at all indicates that he doesn't value you or your things very highly. Who's to say that he draws the line at verbal statements of complying with your commands? Who's to say that he won't, at the critical moment, simply turn right around and shoot you ... once you've dropped your guard and begun to allow him the leeway to exit? Not you. Not me. Certainly not a proven felon caught in the act.
These two distinctly separate outcomes (he's exiting and going through the doorway; he's exiting and not yet to the doorway) are, frankly, beyond my powers to distinguish, in terms of the relative likelihood to produce "false" moves in the next moment.
"False" moves can occur at any point in the continuum, between his indicating apparent intent to leave and his actual departure. It's why we use the terms manifest intent and show me the money. Until the criminal is well and gone, or well and truly hogtied to await arrival of the police, there are no guarantees.
Last time I checked I don't think you can kill somebody for a crime that you think they might possibly commit at some other future point in time. :nono:
Also killing somebody that you think might go out and get his buddies and come back is not going to fly too very well either.
Just remember that there will always be a crime scene investigation and they very likely will be able to determine if the BG hit the carpet with his arms extended up in a surrender posture.
State laws regarding the justified use of deadly force do vary across the country and it's always good advice to remind members to review their home state laws pertaining to the use of deadly force.
Following the scenario.
Refuse to give away strategy. Dadgum prosecutors are too crafty now days. They might figure out how I did it from my internet posts and then I would be in trouble.
I would at least follow him out and keep him in my sights. That is if his way out is not comming in my direction. Get his plate number...etc. How do you know he is not going to his vehicle to grab a weapon, or grabbing a buddy waiting outside and baiting you. There are tons of varibles in this situation to consider.