A person breaks into your house....

[Kung Lau]

and has a weapon, and you think may cause you or your own bodily harm.

You blow the person away as soon as you see them, in your house.


In what state(s) would the owner of the home be most likely to get some kind of of legal action taken against them?


Now, I've heard of instances where homeowners got in trouble for shooting a person making a run for it in the lawn or something...
On that side note, I've also heard of criminals who actually SUE the homeowner for shooting them. Would the law have been on the
homeowner's side if they had KILLED them?
I would like to hear any legal findings on when exactly you have an "ALL CLEAR" Does it vary from state to state?


Just trying to clear up some possible misunderstandings at work....

 

[Kevin]

I believe the intruder must be in your home for you to have no liability. I remember hearing that if you shoot the guy on the way out, that you should drag him inside...

 

[PsychoAndy]

Originally posted by: Kung Lau

On that side note, I've also heard of criminals who actually SUE the homeowner for shooting them. Would the law have been on the
homeowner's side if they had KILLED them?

Dead men tell no tales.

-PAB

 

[HappyPuppy]

If the armed intruder was found dead, shot in the back, you would have some questions to answer.

 

[propellerhead]

Originally posted by: PsychoAndy

Originally posted by: Kung Lau

On that side note, I've also heard of criminals who actually SUE the homeowner for shooting them. Would the law have been on the
homeowner's side if they had KILLED them?

Dead men tell no tales.

-PAB

Yea, what PAB said. And that's exactly what a cop told me. Empty your revolver or clip on the intruder even if he/she is halfway crawling through your window. Then, pull the body inside and call the cops. The dead intruder will not be able to testify that he/she was not completely in your house or was on the way out.

 

[Ronstang]

THe beauty of living in Texas is that you are allowed to use deadly force to protect your property when it is dark.......this basically means that it really doesn't matter where the bullet hits the bastard (eg. the back) and it is not necessary to be within your abode (eg. the middle of trhe street is fine). This law has been tested time and time again and the law has always sided with the homeowner/victim and not the perp......what a great state!

 

[Demon-Xanth]

I've never heard anyone give the advice "shoot to maim", it's always "if you fear for your life, make sure he can't fight back"


"Violence solves everything, if it doesn't look like it's solving the problem, you're not using enough of it." --Random quote.

 

[Beau]

Just make sure you kill him... remember hearing about those lawsuits where the intruder sued the homeowner because he slipped and broke his leg or something to that effect.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
THe beauty of living in Texas is that you are allowed to use deadly force to protect your property when it is dark.......this basically means that it really doesn't matter where the bullet hits the bastard (eg. the back) and it is not necessary to be within your abode (eg. the middle of trhe street is fine). This law has been tested time and time again and the law has always sided with the homeowner/victim and not the perp......what a great state!

I fail to see how that is a good thing. How the hell can you prove that they were a threat when you shoot them in the middle of the street?

 

[dafatha00]

Originally posted by: kevin000
I believe the intruder must be in your home for you to have no liability. I remember hearing that if you shoot the guy on the way out, that you should drag him inside...

Unfortunately that's not true. If an intruder is in your house and gets hurt, they can sue you. One of my law professors was reciting this story to me yesterday. A while ago, a burglar tried to rob a home and was shot in the back. Although he was found guilty in the criminal courts, he sued in the civil courts and won. (not sure on the amount)

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: dafatha00
Unfortunately that's not true. If an intruder is in your house and gets hurt, they can sue you. One of my law professors was reciting this story to me yesterday. A while ago, a burglar tried to rob a home and was shot in the back. Although he was found guilty in the criminal courts, he sued in the civil courts and won. (not sure on the amount)

WTH. If he's dead, he's not going to sue you.
Therefore, drop a clip of 9mm/9x19/.50AE/5.56/7.62 (depending on how extreme you are!) in him, leave the carcass in the living room, and sue his estate for the cleaning bill, property damage, and ammunition.

- M4H

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: dafatha00
Unfortunately that's not true. If an intruder is in your house and gets hurt, they can sue you. One of my law professors was reciting this story to me yesterday. A while ago, a burglar tried to rob a home and was shot in the back. Although he was found guilty in the criminal courts, he sued in the civil courts and won. (not sure on the amount)

WTH. If he's dead, he's not going to sue you.
Therefore, drop a clip of 9mm/9x19/.50AE/5.56/7.62 (depending on how extreme you are!) in him, leave the carcass in the living room, and sue his estate for the cleaning bill, property damage, and ammunition.

- M4H

He can't, but his family can.

SoCal is probably the worst place to live in when it comes to sh*t like this. They are so d**n liberal and PC that they bend so far over protecting the criminal that they punish the victim.

Lethal

 

[SyahM]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: dafatha00 Unfortunately that's not true. If an intruder is in your house and gets hurt, they can sue you. One of my law professors was reciting this story to me yesterday. A while ago, a burglar tried to rob a home and was shot in the back. Although he was found guilty in the criminal courts, he sued in the civil courts and won. (not sure on the amount)

WTH. If he's dead, he's not going to sue you. Therefore, drop a clip of 9mm/9x19/.50AE/5.56/7.62 (depending on how extreme you are!) in him, leave the carcass in the living room, and sue his estate for the cleaning bill, property damage, and ammunition. - M4H

He can't, but his family can. SoCal is probably the worst place to live in when it comes to sh*t like this. They are so d**n liberal and PC that they bend so far over protecting the criminal that they punish the victim. Lethal

ohh .. then i'm guessing we can counter sue the family for not teaching their family member properly that burglary is bad and may cause death. We counter sue that the family cause us great deal of depression and pressure (sell the house for greater effect) resulted from the killing in order to protect ourselves. Hahaha to the justice system.
OTOH, texas sounds really cool ..

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
He can't, but his family can.

SoCal is probably the worst place to live in when it comes to sh*t like this. They are so d**n liberal and PC that they bend so far over protecting the criminal that they punish the victim.

Lethal

:Q And I thought Canada sucked for that kind of crap!

Sorry, but if your (husband/son/brother/wife/daughter/sister/cousin/etc) breaks into my house with a weapon intending to (rob/kill/rape) (me/my house/my family) - they just forfeited their rights. I will shoot. If they're smart enough to drop the gun and beg for mercy - I'll just hold them at riflepoint until the police arrive. Other than that, cry me a river and throw flowers.

Hippies.

- M4H

 

[Hammer]

i'm in texas so if he had a weapon, I'd shoot immediately.

 

[tcsenter]

Yea, what PAB said. And that's exactly what a cop told me. Empty your revolver or clip on the intruder even if he/she is halfway crawling through your window. Then, pull the body inside and call the cops. The dead intruder will not be able to testify that he/she was not completely in your house or was on the way out.

I've said this before, if you think that homicide investigators will not be able to instantly tell that the body had been moved/dragged from one place to another, you are a fool.

This advice is an excellent way to get someone prison time.

That said, it is quite true that you should shoot to kill because then there is only one side of the story to be told - yours. But you NEVER EVER admit that you were shooting to kill, not to police, not to a prosecutor, not to a jury. You say "I was only shooting to stop the threat."

and has a weapon, and you think may cause you or your own bodily harm. You blow the person away as soon as you see them, in your house. In what state(s) would the owner of the home be most likely to get some kind of of legal action taken against them?

I cannot think of any state which is inordinately more likely to result in prosecution, there are some jurisdictions within every state where the prosecutor may be some zealot who does not support the right to self-defense.

I would like to hear any legal findings on when exactly you have an "ALL CLEAR" Does it vary from state to state?

This really is not an issue of law or statute. It is about the atmosphere within the prosecutor's office who has jurisdiction over the shooting. No statute can "authorize" self-defense, nor can any statute "prohibit" self-defense. Self-defense is universally recognized as a basic human right and the principles of law which give rise to the right of self-defense are recognized by every appeals court.

The prosecutor has wide discretion here to bring charges in every legal jurisdiction in every state. If you're lucky, you'll get a prosecutor who acknowledges the right of self-defense. If you're not lucky, you'll have to defend yourself in court.

I highly recommend the book "In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection" by Massad Ayoob. It is an authoritative treatise on the legal and ethical aspects of lethal force, specifically by firearm.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

*BLAAM* "Don't move or I'll shoot!" "...I always get that backwards..."

 

[Kung Lau]

Thanks. I just wanted to know what varying degrees of law a homeowner would be subject to the law his/herself if the individual breaking in the house was shot, and possibly killed. If it's mainly in the prosecutor's understanding of what happened, I can see why some people can say to "shoot to kill" If the suspect survived, they could argue that they had not intended to do harm, etc., and of course there could be other suits as well.

I'd like to point out that most everyone acknowledges that Texas has some of the most liberal laws when it comes to the homeowner defending him/herself.
Just wanted to know if any states or areas are on the opposite end of the spectrum.

There was a post while back where someone thought that a shooting committed by a homeowner was not justified and a big issue was raised whether or not deadly force was the only option. I think it was in Colorado....may be wrong. Someone remember it?

 

[ragazzo]

Originally posted by: PsychoAndy

Originally posted by: Kung Lau

On that side note, I've also heard of criminals who actually SUE the homeowner for shooting them. Would the law have been on the
homeowner's side if they had KILLED them?

Dead men tell no tales.

-PAB

oh how wrong you are...

 

[yellowperil]

States differ on the self-defense defense. I know in FL you can only counter deadly force with deadly force, or you must reasonably believe that the attacker will iminently use deadly force or great bodily harm. In other states (I know CO follows this but I don't know who else) you can use deadly force against anyone who breaks into your home. I'm not 100% on this but surprisingly I think Texas is closer to FL on this.

Even in states where you can't use deadly force to counter non-deadly force as a complete defense, prosecutors are reluctant to prosecute you for voluntary manslaughter or whatever the charge may be. As long as you acted reasonably (e.g. didn't gun down some kid running across your backyard) I think you wouldn't be prosecuted.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: yellowperil
I know in FL you can only counter deadly force with deadly force, or you must reasonably believe that the attacker will iminently use deadly force or great bodily harm.

Frack, if it's dark, nighttime, and there's some asshole breaking into your house, I think that's fair to believe he's not there to ask for directions. Open fire.

- M4H

 

[Hoober]

Originally posted by: yellowperil
States differ on the self-defense defense. I know in FL you can only counter deadly force with deadly force, or you must reasonably believe that the attacker will iminently use deadly force or great bodily harm. In other states (I know CO follows this but I don't know who else) you can use deadly force against anyone who breaks into your home. I'm not 100% on this but surprisingly I think Texas is closer to FL on this.

Even in states where you can't use deadly force to counter non-deadly force as a complete defense, prosecutors are reluctant to prosecute you for voluntary manslaughter or whatever the charge may be. As long as you acted reasonably (e.g. didn't gun down some kid running across your backyard) I think you wouldn't be prosecuted.

There was an incident earlier this year in Denver in which a man fatally shot one intruder and critically wounded two others (same night). Charges were not brought against him and no civil action was filed.

 

[Hoober]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: yellowperil
I know in FL you can only counter deadly force with deadly force, or you must reasonably believe that the attacker will iminently use deadly force or great bodily harm.

Frack, if it's dark, nighttime, and there's some asshole breaking into your house, I think that's fair to believe he's not there to ask for directions. Open fire.

- M4H

 

[vash]

Here's what I've been told by someone who applied for law enforcement (who came from a military background).

Lets saw someone breaks into your house and you own a firearm. You are able to fire on this person within a certain distance (why that matters is beyond me). If you are say, 20-30 feet from the person and fire, that is illegal b/c you are not certain if they are holding a firearm themselves, have more than one person, etc. Say, you are 10 feet from the person, you have a much better assesment of the situation b/c you can see better what kind of weapon (if any) they are wielding and have a plausible reason for shooting them (say, in self defense -- they jumped at you). Also, it depends on where you shoot them. If you shoot them, in the head at say 2-3 feet (ballistics can tell), they consider you out to kill and killed the perp (even if you didn't mean it). At <10 feet and you shot at the chest with 2-3 shots, then you certainly can be seen as protecting yourself more than trying to actually kill someone.

Now this makes sense to me and I see it all as possible. Its unfortunate that we don't have an ATOT lawyer here, that *could* possibly shed some light onto this subject (even if its just one state they practice in).

vash

 

[bleckywelcky]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
He can't, but his family can.

SoCal is probably the worst place to live in when it comes to sh*t like this. They are so d**n liberal and PC that they bend so far over protecting the criminal that they punish the victim.

Lethal

:Q And I thought Canada sucked for that kind of crap!

Sorry, but if your (husband/son/brother/wife/daughter/sister/cousin/etc) breaks into my house with a weapon intending to (rob/kill/rape) (me/my house/my family) - they just forfeited their rights. I will shoot. If they're smart enough to drop the gun and beg for mercy - I'll just hold them at riflepoint until the police arrive. Other than that, cry me a river and throw flowers.

Hippies.

- M4H

Yes Alec, I'll take wife, rape, and my house for $400.

The answer is: Your wife rapes my house.

What is: What happens right before Merc shoots?

Ding ding ding ding, that is correct.

-