Family member with record shoots your gun in self defense

This is a discussion on Family member with record shoots your gun in self defense within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Here is the scenario, You legally own a gun and a CCW. An intruder breaks in to your house and you engage the intruder but ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: Family member with record shoots your gun in self defense

  1. #1
    Member Array dkpeppard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    129

    Family member with record shoots your gun in self defense

    Here is the scenario,

    You legally own a gun and a CCW. An intruder breaks in to your house and you engage the intruder but your firearm is either knocked out of your hand or it is in the other room. You have a family member in the house who has a felony record (non-violent) and cannot own a firearm. They retrieve your firearm from either being knocked out of your hand, or from the other room with your direction, and they shoot the intruder and save your life, and possibly everyone's life in the house. It is a clear situation of self defense. The state is Colorado where the "make my day law" is alive and well.

    1. What do you think will happen to the family member for shooting a gun in self defense even though they are not allowed to own a firearm?

    2. What do you think will happen to you for them shooting your firearm in self defense? Would your guns and CCW be taken away from you?

    Your feedback and comments are appreciated.
    Glock G19 - Generation 2 (our first)
    Glock G26 - Generation 3
    Glock G21 - Generation 3 (Bought 8/2010)
    Taurus PT709 Slim - mostly used as a bug (Sold 8/2010, did not like the quality after owning it for a few months)

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,817
    That is entirely up to the Prosecutor that takes the case.

    Would you lose your guns? I doubt it.

    On second thought, there are some states that may try it.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  4. #3
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    In the scenario presented you will get very intimate with "The doctrine of competing harms."

    Which is worse, a known felon using a firearm, or possible death of a family member, you, at the hands of a home invader? I can't answer that question for you, as you have to decide for yourselves. I can tell you however that depending upon the prosecutor, and the local mood of the court, the convicted felon may be facing prison time. Also, not only will you have the local prosecutor to deal with, but since the felon in possesion of a firearm is a federal charge you may be dealing with the feds too.

    Biker

  5. #4
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    This would appear to be one of those rare instances where the defense of necessity would reasonably apply.

    As BikerRN notes, it's pretty much going to be the whim of the prosecutor(s) involved.

    Matt
    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.

  6. #5
    Member Array hidden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    80
    How in God's name do we come up with these scenarios?
    "I'm a big, hairy, American winning machine!" - Ricky Bobby

  7. #6
    Member Array Astute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Twin Falls, Idaho
    Posts
    185
    A VERY neutral shade of gray.

  8. #7
    Member Array beaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Germany for now
    Posts
    139
    i really don't see where the argument is. what does it really matter if a known felon saves their family from a HOME INVADER? really? is a criminal dieing by the hands of a known felon in the act of committing a crime in the felon's home worse then a family loosing their lives, criminal moving on to another home to hurt/kill others until he is eventually caught or killed by someone else? ok so what if a felon can't own/handle a gun. can a felon not defend them self on the street if they get attacked? what if the attacker has a gun, can the felon not force the gun out of the attackers hand and turn the table and kill the attacker? just because he/she can't touch a gun they can't defend them self? makes no sense to me. if i was a felon, i'm gonna do my best not to let a attacker get away and harm someone else. i probably wasn't his first and probably won't be his last.

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array Katana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Clarksville,TN
    Posts
    1,103
    Quote Originally Posted by hidden View Post
    How in God's name do we come up with these scenarios?
    By reading what other have posted and then putting a new spin on it, news stories, or sometimes just sheer boredom.
    There is a similar thread running by Aussiegirl asking if she could shoot her boyfriends gun in self-defense (I'm too lazy to look it up and link it. Sorry.) But one of the underlying points brought up throughout it is she's asked if she's a convicted felon.

    This is a rather similar situation. However it involves what to do if the person who picks up the gun is a convicted felon.
    "Stand your ground, don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!" - John Parker April 19th, 1775 Lexington, MA

    Μολών λαβέ!

  10. #9
    VIP Member
    Array TX-JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sugar Land, TX
    Posts
    5,738
    If it's a justifiable shooting, I don't think anything would happen... The family member with a record, doesn't own the firearm...Your family member is using your firearm, on your property, to protect you... What other law has been broken? I think some of these scenarios are kinda far fetched...
    "Texas can make it without the United States, but the United States can't make it without Texas!".... Sam Houston

    Retired LEO
    Firearms Instructor
    NRA Life Member

  11. #10
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by beaker View Post
    i really don't see where the argument is. what does it really matter if a known felon saves their family from a HOME INVADER? really? is a criminal dieing by the hands of a known felon in the act of committing a crime in the felon's home worse then a family loosing their lives, criminal moving on to another home to hurt/kill others until he is eventually caught or killed by someone else? ok so what if a felon can't own/handle a gun. can a felon not defend them self on the street if they get attacked? what if the attacker has a gun, can the felon not force the gun out of the attackers hand and turn the table and kill the attacker? just because he/she can't touch a gun they can't defend them self? makes no sense to me. if i was a felon, i'm gonna do my best not to let a attacker get away and harm someone else. i probably wasn't his first and probably won't be his last.
    So what's your point?

    Look, the bottom line is that that federal law states a felon can not be in possession of a firearm. I believe that applies to ammunition as well.

    Reality dictates that the law is whatever the prosecutor wants it to be.

    In the case originally posted, the felon probably would not be prosecuted for defending himself or the homeowner. No one loses the right to defend themself, or to use lethal force, if lethal force is justified. Even if they are a convicted felon. Period! He would not be prosecuted for killing the guy in self defense.

    However, he could be charged, tried and convicted on the charge of a felon being in possession of a firearm. That is a totally separate charge and issue, fully removed from the self defense issue! Don't kid yourself to think that hasn't happened before.

    As BikerRN, correctly points out, that in such a case, the felon could argue in court "The Doctrine of Competing Harms" and that may be a mitigating factor which leads to his acquittal. But, the prosecutor certainly has the right to prosecute on the felon in possession charge.

    Now, would the prosecutor choose to prosecute in that circumstance? I would hope not... He would probably take into consideration the "non-violent" nature of the felony as stated in the post, and maybe he's just a decent prosecutor who wouldn't gig a guy in that situation. But again, it's the prosecutors call to make.

    Like it or not, these are the laws and rules of society in which me all must operate under.

    Also, I would seriously doubt if the original "gun owner" and ccw holder would lose his weapons or his permit over the actions of the relative who is a felon.

    The situation and the dynamics of the scenario would show that it was not his fault how any of the actions transpired.

    I just don't see how the gun owner would be held liable for any of it. He clearly did not allow the felon to use the gun, loan him the gun or authorized him to use the gun. It merely played out the way it did as a matter of happenstance. He lost control of the gun because of a struggle with the home invader and felon picked it up and defended the innocent victims, including himself with it.
    -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. #11
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 15,670'
    Posts
    12,125
    The state is Colorado where the "make my day law" is alive and well.
    I could well be misinformed, but I would not really term Colorado's Castle Doctrine as a "Make my Day" statute inasmuch as it is a very weak statute when compared with, say Texas statutes. I may not understand Colorado law, but I thought there was an absolute standard where the defendant was absolutely required to know that the actor intended grievous harm to defendant.

    I'll now refresh my memory..........

    Here's the Colorado Statute:

    18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.

    (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

    (2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

    (a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or

    (b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

    (c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.



    (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:

    (a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or

    (b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or

    (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.


    (4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self-defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self-defense. If the defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the court shall instruct the jury with a self-defense law instruction. The court shall instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence of self-defense in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner. However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense. This section shall not apply to strict liability crimes.


    Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 409, 1. C.R.S. 1963: 40-1-804. L. 72: p. 274, 1. L. 75: (2)(c) amended, p. 632, 4, effective July 1. L. 79: (2)(c) amended, p. 726, 1, effective July 1. L. 81: (2)(a) and (3)(a) amended, p. 981, 3, effective May 13. L. 2000: (2)(c) amended, p. 703, 27, effective July 1. L. 2003: (4) added, p. 795, 1, effective March 25.

    Cross references: For limitations on civil suits against persons using physical force in defense of a person or to prevent the commission of a felony, see 13-80-119.

  13. #12
    Member Array beaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Germany for now
    Posts
    139
    i think my point is pretty clear. no person in their right mind would convict the felon for possession of a firearm when its related to defending their family. it shouldn't be about him just possessing a firearm. its about why he possessed. they had no choice. to defend their family and them self, he had no choice to use the gun. i know prosecutors can be cruel, yeah its their job. but i don't think one would be that cruel to even attempt to throw someone in jail for basically defending their family. and i think even a decent lawyer can argue that charge. and if the prosecutor is that cruel, i'm sure a great majority of the judges/jury would agree with most of us in thinking he shouldn't be charged.

  14. #13
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    Quote Originally Posted by beaker View Post
    i think my point is pretty clear. no person in their right mind would convict the felon for possession of a firearm when its related to defending their family. it shouldn't be about him just possessing a firearm. its about why he possessed. they had no choice. to defend their family and them self, he had no choice to use the gun. i know prosecutors can be cruel, yeah its their job. but i don't think one would be that cruel to even attempt to throw someone in jail for basically defending their family. and i think even a decent lawyer can argue that charge. and if the prosecutor is that cruel, i'm sure a great majority of the judges/jury would agree with most of us in thinking he shouldn't be charged.
    Sorry, but I find "I don't think" provides little comfort in the cruel day to day world.

    My suggestion is, plan for the worst. That way you are prepared to deal with it in case it does in fact happen. While the convicted felon may have had the best of intentions, you know what they say about intentions don't you?

    Courtrooms are not about feelings, or any other such human emotion in my expirience. They are concerned with the rule of law. Yes, there can be mitigating factors, but it is still a place concerned with the rule of law. The fact is, in the scenario presented, the convicted felon did in fact violate the law.

    Biker

  15. #14
    Member Array dkpeppard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    129
    Thank you all for your comments and feedback. Interesting takes on the scenarios.
    Glock G19 - Generation 2 (our first)
    Glock G26 - Generation 3
    Glock G21 - Generation 3 (Bought 8/2010)
    Taurus PT709 Slim - mostly used as a bug (Sold 8/2010, did not like the quality after owning it for a few months)

  16. #15
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,404
    If your relative 'felon' was a midget weighing under 80 lbs., and the forty BG's who invaded your home were huge (minimun 7'2", 350 #'s each), then the prosecutor (if he were you brother-in-law) might consider disparaty of force to be more important than the felon in possession of a firearm...I'm just sayin'...
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Gunman shoots at family driving on I-95: NC
    By msgt/ret in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 23rd, 2009, 10:47 PM
  2. In defense of a family pet?
    By Katana in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: June 14th, 2009, 08:28 AM
  3. New XD Range Report or, The Family that Shoots Together...
    By TN_Mike in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: February 18th, 2009, 10:41 PM
  4. 11 year old Shoots Record PIG With .50 Revolver
    By Rob99VMI04 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: May 31st, 2007, 10:09 PM
  5. 11 year old Shoots Record PIG With .50 Revolver
    By Rob99VMI04 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: May 31st, 2007, 10:09 PM

Search tags for this page

can a felon kill in self defense
,
can a felon shoot an intruder
,

can a felon shoot in self defense

,

can a felon shoot someone in self defense

,

can a felon use a gun in self defense

,
can a felon use a gun in self defense arkansas
,
can a felon use a gun in self defense in arkansas
,
convicted felon shoots intruder
,
felon shoots home intruder
,

felon shoots home invader

,

felon shoots intruder

,
if a felon shoots someone in self defense
Click on a term to search for related topics.