Reasonable Force

[JBrian]

Should it be allowed for a homeowner to be legally prosecuted for using excessive force against an intruder?

Example: Several years ago a man was prosecuted (and aquitted) for murder after he shot an intruder. The man fired 12 times and the prosecution argued two things. First, that 12 was too much. And second that since 2 of the shots had struck the intruder's chest and 6 hit his back (The other four presumeably missed) that the intruder was trying to run away and the homeowner should have let him go.

I say no. If its 3 am and Im half awake and your crawling through my broken front window and Im packing iron, Im gonna squeeze that trigger untill Im empty. I dont know what your there for, especially if my wife and child are in the house. I dont want to gamble that you might have a gun and kill me and my family. I have no way to know if your going to tuck tail and run or draw a gun and fire at me if I try to confront you with the gun.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Lucubratus]

Should it be allowed for a homeowner to be legally prosecuted for using excessive force against an intruder?

Example: Several years ago a man was prosecuted (and aquitted) for murder after he shot an intruder. The man fired 12 times and the prosecution argued two things. First, that 12 was too much. And second that since 2 of the shots had struck the intruder's chest and 6 hit his back (The other four presumeably missed) that the intruder was trying to run away and the homeowner should have let him go.

Those are always toughy's because so many factors come into play. He fired too many rounds could be because he panicked. Possibly that was why he was acquitted but nowadays they way CSI's go about it - such things are rather easily figured out. I say Yes -- in some cases, if there is even the slightest suspicion that he or she really did use excessive force; that suspicion is there for a reason - and then it should at least be heavily investigated before he or she is prosecuted.
I think people crawling around your door at 3am are the kind of people you don't know, otherwise they'd be banging on the door or something and announcing their intent. (and some actually do that to get someone to open the door and commit a crime)

What gets me is how it's a crime to b**bie-trap your own home from the inside. I dont have a gun so I resort to other means of setting up an alarm system. So if someone breaks in and hurts themself on my trap - I can get prosecuted for it. I find that a bit twisted.

(don't know if that is a filtered word so I edited it)

 

[Blackmarch]

Should it be allowed for a homeowner to be legally prosecuted for using excessive force against an intruder?

Example: Several years ago a man was prosecuted (and aquitted) for murder after he shot an intruder. The man fired 12 times and the prosecution argued two things. First, that 12 was too much. And second that since 2 of the shots had struck the intruder's chest and 6 hit his back (The other four presumeably missed) that the intruder was trying to run away and the homeowner should have let him go.

I say no. If its 3 am and Im half awake and your crawling through my broken front window and Im packing iron, Im gonna squeeze that trigger untill Im empty. I dont know what your there for, especially if my wife and child are in the house. I dont want to gamble that you might have a gun and kill me and my family. I have no way to know if your going to tuck tail and run or draw a gun and fire at me if I try to confront you with the gun.

If the intruder is in the home, no that was not excessive; if you shoot, shoot to kill, otherwise it's very possible the Intruder could take you to court and cost you lots of $.
Hopefully an alternate way of dealing with the intruder could be found.

 

[vipertaja]

If the intruder is in the home, no that was not excessive; if you shoot, shoot to kill, otherwise it's very possible the Intruder could take you to court and cost you lots of $.
Hopefully an alternate way of dealing with the intruder could be found.

NO. IF you shoot, shoot to kill or HE MIGHT KILL YOU.

F*ck the thoughts about him suing you...it has nothing to do with the moment.
Get your priorities straight.

Besides, if you kill someone just so he can't sue you you're pretty messed up.

 

[Lokisdottir]

NO. IF you shoot, shoot to kill or HE MIGHT KILL YOU.

F*ck the thoughts about him suing you...it has nothing to do with the moment.
Get your priorities straight.

Besides, if you kill someone just so he can't sue you you're pretty messed up.

It doesn't matter what one's priorities are, as long as they lead to the same conclusion. I don't want to be killed OR sued, but the fact that the latter is even possible is quite annoying.

 

[vipertaja]

It doesn't matter what one's priorities are, as long as they lead to the same conclusion. I don't want to be killed OR sued, but the fact that the latter is even possible is quite annoying.

So if you manage to blow his hand away (the one with the weapon) and he's
just sitting and crying there begging for his sorry life you will shoot him so he
doesn't sue you?

 

[Lokisdottir]

So if you manage to blow his hand away (the one with the weapon) and he's
just sitting and crying there begging for his sorry life you will shoot him so he
doesn't sue you?

I'll make him sign a waiver first. Kidding.

Nah, I probably wouldn't have the heart to shoot him if he started crying and begging. I'd probably just let him go in that case.

 

[Jetgirl]

In regard to the OP, and others not quoted for bandwidth's sake:

I'm female. Obviously. Anyway, a stranger breaks into my house at night, and I'm home alone: he's (and it will undoubtedly be a "he") getting shot with as many bullets at it takes to get him to stop moving. And if he tries to move... I'll shoot him some more.

I honestly don't care if he's unarmed, or "only" has a knife, a full-grown male IS a deadly weapon to me. They could kill me with their bare hands if they really wanted to.

And like other posters have stated: there's much more at stake for me than just my wallet, or household items.

Anyways, here's a great article on concealed weapons, for general information purposes:
http://www.commtechreview.net/firearms/whycarry.htm

 

[truthmonger89]

Has anyone read A Nation of Cowards, by Jeffrey Snyder?

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

An often-overlooked tool of self-defense is a very powerful small flashlight. Several manufacturers make small, well-built flashlights which use 2 or 3 three volt camera batteries, which put even the biggest maglight to shame and can easily be carried in a pocket. It's surprising how intimidating a very bright light in someone's face can be. While no substitue for keen awareness, self-confidence, some basic hand-to-hand combat skills, and the mental preparedness and tactical proficiency necessary to shoot somebody with a gun as an absolute last resort for defending your life, a flashlight is a handy tool to have, and it's surprising how many criminals will flee when confronted with something they didn't plan on.

I think the proper attitude to have while posessing a gun for self-defense is to try to think what you would do if you didn't have it with you. How would you avoid a dangerous situation in the first place? You really don't want to deal with the legal consequences of shooting somebody. Even if you are totally justified in shooting somebody out of self-defense, you must realize that every detail leading up to the shooting will be intensely scrutinzed by prosecutors whose only goal is to win their case against you. The best thing you can do to defend yourself is to do everything you can to make sure you're never in a position where you need to defend yourself. Use your head first, and your gun last.

If you find yourself in a position where you have no choice but to draw a gun, it will benefit you to posess every tool you can to intimidate the attacker into submission rather than shooting him. A loud voice, laser aiming sights and a powerful flashlight might only teach a criminal a temporary lesson in obedience, but they just might save you a huge legal headache and the cost of putting new paint and carpet in your house.

It's really a shame that our current legal system stymies citizens' abilities to defend themselves, because in the long run the best way to eliminate crime is to stop it right when it happens.

 

[Jetgirl]

I think the flashlight idea is a good one, but only if you know how to do it without turning yourself into a clear target.

And then there's times where it's utterly useless.

If you've notice I'm a bit agitated on the subject it is because a few weeks ago, not two blocks from my workplace (which is not, by any means in a "bad" part of town) a 23 year old woman's car stalled under a freeway underpass and she pulled over on the side of the very busy road. Keep in mind that it is 11:45 in the morning, on a street congested with traffic, mostly business people going to work/lunch.

A truck pulled up, apparantly she thought someone was going to help her with her stalled car. Instead she was raped, severely beaten, and nearly strangled to death with an electrical cord. All within ten feet of heavy lunchtime traffic. I believe she's still in the hospital at this time.

Makes me angry? Yes.
Makes me frightened? Yes.
Makes me want a concealed weapons permit? HELL yes.

Here's an article for support: it was reported later that she was indeed raped.
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4576802/detail.html

 

[Lokisdottir]

Has anyone read A Nation of Cowards, by Jeffrey Snyder?

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

Very interesting article. These statistics are particularly thought-provoking:

"Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year. In 98 percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens actually shoot their assailants. In defending themselves with their firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three times the number killed by the police. A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as high."