Would you shoot a home invader?

[brinny]

I would tell the invader to get out and if he doens't listen and is about to hurt me or someone else in my family, then yes.

would you have a gun in your hand as you said it?

 

[Cain Spencer]

would you have a gun in your hand as you said it?

Ha ha. It would be too late to think about grabbing the gun. Listen, you either do it or you don't. There are no inbetweens. You die or he does. Fin.

 

[brinny]

just wonderin' what would motivate an invader to get out?

 

[Cain Spencer]

just wonderin' what would motivate an invader to get out?

Nothing... they are there for bad reasons. You wouldn't make them think twice.

 

[Traderjoeeee]

If I owned a gun yes I believe I would shoot him, I wouldn't kill him though. There are ways to immobilize an invader instead of ending their life..

If on the other hand they were directly threatening the life of a love one of mine (say they were beating up, attempting to kill, or worse). Then yes I would kill them if there was no other option.

I would probably go to jail for murdering the invader. But I think that is better then having to live with the thought that due to my inaction, a love one of mine was killed or injured (physically or mentally).

 

[PreachersWife2004]

just wonderin' what would motivate an invader to get out?

I'd like to imagine that me singing "The Rose" a la Bette Midler might make a home invader think twice about checking my house out...

 

[Nondescript]

If I owned a gun yes I believe I would shoot him, I wouldn't kill him though. There are ways to immobilize an invader instead of ending their life..

If on the other hand they were directly threatening the life of a love one of mine (say they were beating up, attempting to kill, or worse). Then yes I would kill them if there was no other option.

I would probably go to jail for murdering the invader. But I think that is better then having to live with the thought that due to my inaction, a love one of mine was killed or injured (physically or mentally).

If the person in question is invading your property, he is violating your rights. You're both legally and ethically justified in dealing with him as you see fit.

 

[Traderjoeeee]

If the person in question is invading your property, he is violating your rights. You're both legally and ethically justified in dealing with him as you see fit.

Really? I could have sworn that I read a story on how someone had killed an invader that was stealing stuff from their house. The man who had killed the invader went to jail for murder.

Let me see if I can find the story..

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Really? I could have sworn that I read a story on how someone had killed an invader that was stealing stuff from their house. The man who had killed the invader went to jail for murder.

Let me see if I can find the story..

there are actually what I call "rules of engagement" when dealing with a home invader. There has to be a physical threat to you or your family. Like, you can't shoot a guy running out of your house with a TV.

 

[Traderjoeeee]

there are actually what I call "rules of engagement" when dealing with a home invader. There has to be a physical threat to you or your family. Like, you can't shoot a guy running out of your house with a TV.

Ah right, that would explain why the man went to jail then.

 

[Wirraway]

most states (maybe texas is an exception) do not allow the use of deadly force to defend property. so if you have to shoot someone, make sure deadly force is necessary by killing the perp, who then cannot contradict you.

 

[Nondescript]

Really? I could have sworn that I read a story on how someone had killed an invader that was stealing stuff from their house. The man who had killed the invader went to jail for murder.

Let me see if I can find the story..

Fair enough. The ethical justification remains, then.

 

[Zecryphon]

most states (maybe texas is an exception) do not allow the use of deadly force to defend property. so if you have to shoot someone, make sure deadly force is necessary by killing the perp, who then cannot contradict you.

I was taught in my CCW class in AZ that you can not shoot to defend property and you never shoot with the intention of killing. You shoot to immobilize or put down an advancing threat. The first thing you should do is grab your gun and a phone and hide in a room with a locked door. You know your house better than the home invader does. Then dial 911 and tell them there is an invader in your house and you are armed.

The 911 center will record the entire phone call and the events that unfold which may result in the perp getting shot. Unless the police get there first. This recorded phone call, is invaluable information to have, if the perp should decide to sue you. Plus the police will take your gun and your ammo and perform tests to determine if what you say happened prior to your shooting the perp, is true. You should always use name brand production ammo and not hand loads that you've made yourself, if you even do that sort of thing.

 

[Wirraway]

...I was taught in my CCW class in AZ that ...you never shoot with the intention of killing. You shoot to immobilize or put down an advancing threat. ..

could you provide some authority for this?

I'm not sure what you mean by "immobilize", a gunshot wound that would "put down an advancing threat" can be lethal. and if you wound someone in a situation where killing the perp wasn't justified, then you're in trouble.

as I read AZ law, what you are calling and "advancing threat" really means a perp who is threatening "deadly physical force".

 

[Communion]

I was taught in my CCW class in AZ that you can not shoot to defend property and you never shoot with the intention of killing. You shoot to immobilize or put down an advancing threat. The first thing you should do is grab your gun and a phone and hide in a room with a locked door. You know your house better than the home invader does. Then dial 911 and tell them there is an invader in your house and you are armed.

The 911 center will record the entire phone call and the events that unfold which may result in the perp getting shot. Unless the police get there first. This recorded phone call, is invaluable information to have, if the perp should decide to sue you. Plus the police will take your gun and your ammo and perform tests to determine if what you say happened prior to your shooting the perp, is true. You should always use name brand production ammo and not hand loads that you've made yourself, if you even do that sort of thing.

Yep, trade in those "Black Talons" for "Gold Dots"

 

[Communion]

could you provide some authority for this?

I'm not sure what you mean by "immobilize", a gunshot wound that would "put down an advancing threat" can be lethal. and if you wound someone in a situation where killing the perp wasn't justified, then you're in trouble.

as I read AZ law, what you are calling and "advancing threat" really means a perp who is threatening "deadly physical force".

The idea is that your intent is not to "kill the invader" but rather to "neutralize the threat"...at the end of the day it becomes a safer way to deal with the subject in front of law/jury. To "kill the invader" can (sorta) mean the "threatened" person has taken an aggressive stance with the intent to murder as payback for trespassing and threatening family. "That &$*#*$ &*$ broke into my house and I blasted his @#$*(&@)# with my .500 S&W Magnum and splashed his guts all over the wall, that stupid @#*#*($*#@."

"Neutralizing the threat" doesn't carry that sort of baggage..."I was scared for my family and just wanted to stop the threat. I was in fear of my life and my kids' lives".

Semantics perhaps, but one definitely works better with law enforcement and juries and judges..

 

[Wirraway]

The idea is that your intent is not to "kill the invader" but rather to "neutralize the threat"...at the end of the day it becomes a safer way to deal with the subject in front of law/jury. To "kill the invader" can (sorta) mean the "threatened" person has taken an aggressive stance with the intent to murder as payback for trespassing and threatening family. "That &$*#*$ &*$ broke into my house and I blasted his @#$*(&@)# with my .500 S&W Magnum and splashed his guts all over the wall, that stupid @#*#*($*#@."

"Neutralizing the threat" doesn't carry that sort of baggage..."I was scared for my family and just wanted to stop the threat. I was in fear of my life and my kids' lives".

Semantics perhaps, but one definitely works better with law enforcement and juries and judges..

well, no. I've tried lots of jury cases and have an idea what works and what doesn't.

"I was sure he was going to kill my wife and baby, so I shot him" is what I'd coach my client to say, because fear for wife and baby is what justifies the use of deadly force. this plays better in front of a jury than "I neutralized the threat" which sounds robotic and insincere. in fact, it IS robatic and insincere, no one talks that way (except on internet gun forums). if someone actually said, "I'm neutralizing a threat", the jury eyes would be rolling and the average juror would think that the "neutralizer" was a wannabe rambo, unstable and creepy.

now, if it were me, if I believed I had to shoot, I'd make sure the invader was dead. What I don't want is a trial where a live perp has an opportunity to lie and say he wasn't actually threatening my wife and baby, only stealing the grandfather clock, so that my use of deadly force was not justified. I don't even want that option to be on the table, I'm not going to jail or paying out a huge tort claim to someone I failed to kill.

 

[Cain Spencer]

It is better that they die than shed the blood of the innocent. No pun intended.

 

[Nondescript]

It is better that they die than shed the blood of the innocent. No pun intended.

What in there could be misconstrued as a pun?

 

[Cain Spencer]

What in there could be misconstrued as a pun?

If there was no plank, you would understand.

Abundant blessings.