Shoot to...

[layusn1]

In a home invasion scenario...if it came down to it...do you shoot to kill and risk jail time/wrongful death lawsuit from the family or shoot to neutralize the threat and risk who knows what...wrongful shooting charges, civil lawsuit, maybe disabling the guy and having to pay him for the rest of his life? What to do?

[918v]

I doubt anyone can keep his cool to be able to neutralize only in a home invasion scenario.

[Anvil]

In Memphis over the past 8 years I've been here not one in-home burglary shooting has resulted in arrest.

When you're justified you can shoot. Damn the lawyers and what they say. It comes down to a jury and everyone is scared of a breakin while they're at home. EVERYONE.


Once I went on a disturbance call where when my partner knocked on the door I heard someone say "Come on in here bitch!"... 4 of us looked at each other and to my partner and one of us said, "Looks like they know you!" She opened the door and there stood a 80 year old woman with a broom and started beating my partner like only an old lady could.

We laughed our asses off! The old woman thought it was her disprespectfull daughter returning home and was gonna beat her with a broom.




Laysun, I'll tell you the same as I tell any other citizen with this question. If someone comes in your home and you're scared they're gonna hurt or kill you. Kill the mf'er. Just be sure they are all the way in your house and don't shoot through the door.

[slowride]

1st making sure family is safe.

2nd I'm aiming center mass, and unloading. I would hope that I would stop after 4-5 shots in case there are more than one.

I haven't been in this situation, so I can't speak from experience.

[lcarreau]

I am thinking that in a situation where deadly force is justified, you won't be thinking that much about liability.

[thorn]

I'll quote my County Prosecutor; i believe his feelings on home invasion would be similar:

"If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot"
Joe Deters, Hamilton County Prosecutor

Shoot until the threatening person is no longer able to threaten. Let's go with "man with weapon attacking".

If they're hit in the shoulder and drop the weapon, hit the ground on their frontside and yell they give up - threat over, stop shooting.

If they're hit in the COM and keep coming forward holding the weapon, the threat still exists. Hit again until threat is stopped.

Of course, many of us practice double-taps... so there's no guarantee to the BG that they're only going to get hit once, and then we'll assess their motivation to stop attacking. I cannot read an attacker's mind, therefore my response will be based on my judgment of what it takes to keep myself safe and alive.

In a street mugging situation, there are a TON of variable pre/post event that you may have to run through before pulling and firing. But break through my balcony door at 2am... the variables change.

thorn

[freakshow10mm]

My local judge said "the best form of recidivism prevention is a well placed shot, preferably more than one for good measure. That is the surest way to rid the world of evilness."

[TowsonTiger22]

I live in the city, a land of crackheads and other kinds of junkies. If I find someone in my apartment trying to jack my stuff, I'm shooting to kill. I'll worry about the law later.

[ept000]

Don't forget they don't have to have a weapon to be a threat to you and/or your family. A person mentally defective enough to break into your home is probably defective enough to kill with their bare hands.

[ISUSteve]

It really depends on your laws. Here in Iowa, its equal force or some BS like that.

[Blaster]

You always shoot to Stop. The key is to stop the threat. Fatal wounds don't always cause immediate incapacitation. If you are in immediate mortal jeopardy you need to stop the threat.

[freakshow10mm]

Here in MI, we have the Castle Doctrine finally placed in statutes instead of common law. Someone's breaking into your house, the law assumes that person to be there to commit great bodily injury or death. Thus, as soon as he steps foot into your house, deadly force is authorized. Just him breaking into your house is justification for deadly force in MI.

The CPL class I took said "shoot to stop the threat". The LE classes I'm taking say "shoot to kill". "Stop the threat" is PC for "smoke the MFer".

[MakeMineaP99]

My local judge said "the best form of recidivism prevention is a well placed shot, preferably more than one for good measure. That is the surest way to rid the world of evilness."

That explains why you said you would opt for a bench trial if applicable.

[freakshow10mm]

They don't make judges like mine anymore.

[Blaster]

The CPL class I took said "shoot to stop the threat". The LE classes I'm taking say "shoot to kill". "Stop the threat" is PC for "smoke the MFer".

Hey if you kill them in the process of Stopping them I am fine with that. My point is that I am more concerned with immediately stopping the threat as compared to killing the threat.

I don't care if under the circumstances shooting to kill is legal, so much so that a jury comprised of Ted Kennedy and his drinking buddies not only dismisses but gives you a medal. What I care about is eliminating/stopping the threat ASAP.

Plenty of perpetrators have received fatal wounds and did not die fast enough to do no more harm. So if you are going to Kill them, do it fast.

[MakeMineaP99]

Damn straight. If you tried that in Detroit, it would over before it started.

[creophus]

I would shoot until the threat is neutralized...or until I'm out of bullets.

[Oreo]

layusn1 (http://www.glockpost.com/forums/member.php?u=6) is moving to MD though. We don't have castle doctrine here. Supposedly the recommendation is to pick a "safe room" in your house that you can retreat to & barricade yourself in. If the attacker then becomes a threat in spite of your attempt to retreat you're justified to shoot.

If I have to pull the trigger though, my only concern at that moment wil be MY survival. EVERYTHING else will be an afterthought.

[TowsonTiger22]

I feel the same. And I think the Castle Doctrine is rolling around in the MD legislature now.

[Pitmaster]

"Stop the threat" is PC for "smoke the MFer".

Sounds like a great sig line. I may steal it sometime.

[918v]

In CA, when you encounter a first-degree burglar, Penal Code Section 198.5 allows you to harvest the burglar without fear of prosecution. The law presumes you are in a reasonable fear of imminent peril by virtue of the break-in.

[MakeMineaP99]

In CA, when you encounter a first-degree burglar, Penal Code Section 198.5 allows you to harvest the burglar without fear of prosecution. The law presumes you are in a reasonable fear of imminent peril by virtue of the break-in.

Wow, CA actually gets it right.

[MONTEGOD7SS]

Hah, harvest. Do you need a license and tag for it?

[layusn1]

Thanks for all of the responses. This one has generated some good discussion so far...makes up for a few of my gratuitous posts...lol.

[sparky241]

Two words Castle Doctorine.God i love Indiana

[layusn1]

I know nothing of this doctrine y'all speak of, I must admit my apparently really bad ignorance on this one.

[freakshow10mm]

The Castle Doctrine stems from English common law (case law) and is historically akin to "A house is a man's castle. Anyone who enters it does so at their own peril." This is known as the "Castle Doctrine".

In today's modern society, many states have passed similar laws, permitting the use of deadly force if in your own home or place of business and no duty to retreat. In some states, such as MI, the law assumes that intruder to be there to commit murder or grave bodily injury, thus automatically permitting the use of deadly force by virtue of the criminal stepping foot into the house. In many states, this has always been common law (case law) but has recently reaffirmed this practice into statutes.

Some states also have immunity protections from the criminal and their family to the general statement of 'if are justified in using force, you cannot be sued for damages the criminal incurrs by you'.

Many states went a step farther and included separate bills to state that if you are in public and you are where you are legally allowed to be, you do not have to retreat first. If someone pulls a weapon, you can stand and defend yourself (again, with immunity if justified) without having to retreat to safety. Many states that have passed these self defense bills have also included car jacking to the list of "automatic DF justifaction" exceptions. In MI, car jacking and B&E are automatically justifiable to use deadly force by the simple act of the crime being progressed.

Some people mistakingly call this part of the Castle Doctrine, but in fact it is not, as the Castle Doctrine refers to one's DWELLING and not a public place. There is the Castle Doctrine and the No Duty to Retreat. They are not one in the same.

[layusn1]

Thanks for the explanation.

[sparky241]

Layusn1 here indiana's as well http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html

[Oreo]

It would be awsome if Castle Doctrine & related concepts came to MD. But they aren't here yet. So tuck in your tail & wear your running shoes when ya get here.