Would you shoot a home invader?

[PreachersWife2004]

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.

oddly enough, most self-defense courses teach this, although it seems a bit backwards.

In my police academy training, they also emphasized that we should strive to shoot to immobilize but that's not always possible.

Shooting a perp in the leg and stopping him has far less psychological ramifications that shooting a perp killing him does for a police officer.

 

[Communion]

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.

..anything worth shooting once is worth shooting twice. You fire until the threat is neutralized~~robotic or not

..handy to have a lawyer around

 

[Wirraway]

please, someone point to a self-defense expert or a police training guide that says, "shoot to wound" or shoot in the leg.

 

[Communion]

please, someone point to a self-defense expert or a police training guide that says, "shoot to wound" or shoot in the leg.

My wife once said (since I carry regularly) that of course I would just try to wing any assailant like they do on tv(lol)....closest thing to this I read was if an assailant doesn't go down with center mass shots (probably drug induced or armor) was to shoot toward the pelvis area to disable at the hip joints...easier to hit than legs or knees or head...

 

[Wirraway]

My wife once said (since I carry regularly) that of course I would just try to wing any assailant like they do on tv(lol)....closest thing to this I read was if an assailant doesn't go down with center mass shots (probably drug induced or armor) was to shoot toward the pelvis area to disable at the hip joints...easier to hit than legs or knees or head...

if you use deadly force in a situation where its not justified, you're in serious trouble. shooting to wound someone who is going to say he was just stealing property is going to be a big problem for you if the cops or the district attorney believe him.

 

[Communion]

if you use deadly force in a situation where its not justified, you're in serious trouble. shooting to wound someone who is going to say he was just stealing property is going to be a big problem for you if the cops or the district attorney believe him.

Agreed~am I'm sure not gonna use deadly force if someone is stealing my stuff...it's just stuff and I'm not particularly fond of any of it anyhow, that's what insurance is for

 

[Wirraway]

Agreed~am I'm sure not gonna use deadly force if someone is stealing my stuff...it's just stuff and I'm not particularly fond of any of it anyhow, that's what insurance is for

a home invader at 2.00am is presumptively a threat to me. so I'd kill him. now there's no one left to dispute my belief.

 

[Communion]

a home invader at 2.00am is presumptively a threat to me. so I'd kill him. now there's no one left to dispute my belief.

..isn't there a problem if the perp doesn't have a weapon?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

please, someone point to a self-defense expert or a police training guide that says, "shoot to wound" or shoot in the leg.

they don't say "shoot in the leg"...I just used that as an example. We're taught to shoot for the mass - usually the chest area. We're also taught that by the time we're ready to use our gun, it will most likely be a fatal decision.

When I took my class for my CCW, we were taught to shoot to stop.

Neither case provides that we MUST kill the person we're shooting at. Neither do they say we MUST only attempt to wound the person.

 

[Wirraway]

..isn't there a problem if the perp doesn't have a weapon?

"I thought he had a gun, it sure looked like a gun. He was coming at me".

 

[Wirraway]

...
Neither case provides that we MUST kill the person we're shooting at. Neither do they say we MUST only attempt to wound the person.

if the unjustified use of a deadly weapon occurs, it won't help to say "I was only trying to wound".

 

[PreachersWife2004]

..isn't there a problem if the perp doesn't have a weapon?

The perp coming into your house at 2am IS a weapon!

if the unjustified use of a deadly weapon occurs, it won't help to say "I was only trying to wound".

If it was unjustified it wouldn't matter. I think it's fair to say that I'm dealing with situations where using a gun would be legally acceptable. I've already pointed out that you aren't supposed to shoot someone who is leaving your house with a TV.

 

[Communion]

The perp coming into your house at 2am IS a weapon!



If it was unjustified it wouldn't matter. I think it's fair to say that I'm dealing with situations where using a gun would be legally acceptable. I've already pointed out that you aren't supposed to shoot someone who is leaving your house with a TV.

Mama Grizzly

 

[Wirraway]

Mama Grizzly

an intruder in my house at 2.00am is going to be shot and killed, and the only story the cops will ever hear was how he was a threat to my family.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

an intruder in my house at 2.00am is going to be shot and killed, and the only story the cops will ever hear was how he was a threat to my family.

that's pretty much what you'd get from our house as well...

 

[silence_dogood]

Is it possible that Jesus is speaking more about endtimes?

No.

Specifically how do you interpret the entirity of the Scripture?

By the analogy of scripture.

I'll give it qualifies as one of few times that Jesus speaks about needing to toughen up

Actually, it has nothing to do with "toughening up". It has to do with self defense.

but ironically shortly after this He reconnects a soldiers ear and makes clear that it wasn't okay for them to cut his ear off. Thoughts?

And what was going on when Peter cut the guy's ear off?

 

[silence_dogood]

I have never read Scripture of Jesus harming another person, that is all I can say. You may live your life as you please, but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord as we have been called, through unwaivering peace and love. Righteousness is not defined by violence, but rather the just reaction. Even if the believer holds themselves to the laws of "an eye for an eye", a mere invader of a home is not equivalent to murder or rape.

"An eye for an eye" refers to revenge. We're talking about self-defense.

 

[Christos Anesti]

If someone feels they have to shoot someone to save their child or something of that nature I can empathize with their position. I think it rarely ever comes to a case where you HAVE to do that though. Most criminals will high tale it out of there if they just hear someone rack a shot gun. That can be a rather scary sound. I know it's probably not legal but I would even shoot a warning shot into the air. Most thieves aren't going to stick around after that. True I might get in trouble but I would rather get in trouble than kill someone I didn't have to kill.

It's never right to kill simply to protect property for Christians though.

See Luke 6:29

"And to him that striketh thee on the one cheek, offer also the other. And him that taketh away from thee thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat also. "

 

[MrJim]

If someone feels they have to shoot someone to save their child or something of that nature I can empathize with their position. I think it rarely ever comes to a case where you HAVE to do that though. Most criminals will high tale it out of there if they just hear someone rack a shot gun. That can be a rather scary sound. I know it's probably not legal but I would even shoot a warning shot into the air. Most thieves aren't going to stick around after that. True I might get in trouble but I would rather get in trouble than kill someone I didn't have to kill.

It's never right to kill simply to protect property for Christians though.

See Luke 6:29

"And to him that striketh thee on the one cheek, offer also the other. And him that taketh away from thee thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat also. "

Warning shots are not good~the bullet has to land somewhere...

I would tend to agree with the notion of not killing over property but YMMV. I'm another that is legally licensed to carry a firearm~it's a dark world out there.

 

[SoulfilledCanvas]

If i believed me or my family was in danger of being hurt\molested I would kill that intruder. Be it on my soul in the book of life I would answer for it soully. Because I would not let them harm my family, I would put my life on the line because my life is mine to lay down. If i lived on my own however I wouldn't, if I were to die then it is by God's design. And his will shall be done.