Home defense-related discussion before class today..

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Mookow
Anytime someone decides to break into your home to take stuff, they have made a decision that their desire for your stuff trumps their concern for their safety (or yours), since they cannot guarantee that there will not be a struggle. And in cases like this I'm a believer in the golden rule: ie my desire to keep my stuff trumps my concern over their safety. If it was feasible, it wouldnt be a question of introducing them to Mr L. Slugger, or Mr Ruger, I'd prefer to introduce them to Mr Claymore. Of course, that isnt entirely practical, and leads to a lot of drywall repair, so Mr Forty-Five A.C.P. will have to do .

Someone participating in a home invasion values property over human life, at which point I value property more than their life. Thats the bottom line.

You would lose that battle in a courtroom unless the perp was armed. You cannot shoot or assault an unarmed person just for stealing your stuff.

That's why I love living in Texas. If an assailant breaks into your home, it is open season on the him, with or WITHOUT him being armed. As a matter of fact, I'd be waiting for him to come through my door. I estimate the value of someone's life that break into my house right under a generic can of dog food. And I said generic dog food because if we are talking Alpo, then he falls WAY under that.

"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men."

 

[Shockwave]

It would be interesting to pull up that thread about the car theif in Cali who got beat up by the cops. Then see how many people posted there that the cops DONT have the right to play judge and jury, but turned right around and in this thread say that a citizen has the right to play judge and jury......

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Mookow
Actually, I just have to reasonably believe my life was in danger. All I have to say is "I thought I saw something in his hand, but it was dark and I guess was wrong" or "I thought I heard him pull a knife out of the drawer in the kitchen", etc. That establishes me having a reasonable fear for my life, and that satisfies Ohio law.

You would lose a civil battle if his family sued you with that argument. How would you feel if his crack hoe GF took you to court and was awarded $1 million dollars for wrongful death. You yourself admitted that you were wrong in your post. A jury of 12 would surely side with her on that one.

I didnt admit I was wrong. I just laid out the burden of proof in ohio as related to my by my uncle, who is a retired police officer. His advice was, and this isnt verbatim but it is close: "As long as the person did in fact break in (ie, if you are sure it isnt a friend or family member), you can shoot first and ask questions later and get away with it, so long as you tell the responding officers that you were in fear for your life AND it was fairly reasonable to be so. An intruder in your house, in the dark... is generally judged fairly reasonable. If you tell them you thought he was going to rape your wife, your kids, your dog, etc but didnt believe he would kill you, you're probably going to jail. In any event, better to be judged by 12 than carried by six." That was his advice based on a couple decades in the police department, and frankly, I'll take it.

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Mookow
Actually, I just have to reasonably believe my life was in danger. All I have to say is "I thought I saw something in his hand, but it was dark and I guess was wrong" or "I thought I heard him pull a knife out of the drawer in the kitchen", etc. That establishes me having a reasonable fear for my life, and that satisfies Ohio law.

So you're suggesting you make something up to skirt the law? That's just messed up.

I didnt say that. I assumed the worst case scenario, ie the thief turned out not to be armed, and showed how even then it is legal to defend yourself with lethal force inside your home (at least in my state), so long as you believe your life to be in danger.

In the preferred case I have time to get my gun + my Surefire, so that I can ID and assess the intruder, but if his hands move anywhere but up after I turn on that light, he's going to have a couple 230grain problems.

What I do find messed up is that I cannot legally shoot an intruder if he came in and announced his intention to rape my grandmother/mother/girlfriend/sister/etc. But I freely admit in that case I'd say I thought he was going to kill me after he was done with him, and then put a magazine full of rounds into his chest.

 

[DaiShan]

If you step over that threshold in my house uninvited, you will either be shot, knifed, or beaten to death with a bat or golf club, then I will put a switchblade in your hand, smash in a window and call the cops.

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: DaiShan
If you step over that threshold in my house uninvited, you will either be shot, knifed, or beaten to death with a bat or golf club, then I will put a switchblade in your hand, smash in a window and call the cops.

I like the way this man thinks

 

[SuperTool]

Isn't there a law already on the books for these situations. I think you have to believe your life has to be threatened in some way for you to claim self defense. I don't think if you see someone running out of your house with a TV in their hands that gives you a right to shoot them in the back and then claim self defense. But the jury may be sympathetic to someone killing a "bad guy" so it would be hard to get a conviction.
I guess I am glad I don't have to worry about it, living in one of the safest cities in the US. And yes, if someone tries to steal something, I will avoid confrontation. The sum total of what they can take and carry out won't be worth as much as biohazard cleanup, legal fees, etc. I don't need to prove to some lowlife that I am better. My life is worth more than that.

 

[jjones]

He's a retard.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Isn't there a law already on the books for these situations. I think you have to believe your life has to be threatened in some way for you to claim self defense. I don't think if you see someone running out of your house with a TV in their hands that gives you a right to shoot them in the back and then claim self defense. But the jury may be sympathetic to someone killing a "bad guy" so it would be hard to get a conviction.

If you shoot him in the back outside your house, you are screwed, unless you have a gun rack on your truck and he is headed that way or something. So basically, you're screwed if you shoot someone outside your house in the back. OTOH, if you shoot them in the back in your house, and they were say, opening your utensil drawer (with knives in it), you can shoot them and say they were going for a weapon, and it'd be legal. Technically, if you shoot them because they are running away from you but towards your wife/kids, it wouldnt be legal, but it would be rare to see a jury convict you for that. Aiming for the legs or something in the case of someone running away with the TV is probably illegal, but maybe not. However, I dont recommend aiming for the legs, anyway. If you are going to shoot someone, aim for the center mass. If you arent OK with the idea of killing them... dont shoot at them, even if you are aiming for their little toe.

*The above is all how it applies where I live. State/city laws differ.

 

[Softballslug]

People make choices everyday. Some good, some bad. You break into my house and I guarantee you that you have made a bad one. Basically I will not wait to determine if his intentions are to kill my family or steal a glass of water.

 

[BadNewsBears]

Originally posted by: Staley8

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Mookow
Anytime someone decides to break into your home to take stuff, they have made a decision that their desire for your stuff trumps their concern for their safety (or yours), since they cannot guarantee that there will not be a struggle. And in cases like this I'm a believer in the golden rule: ie my desire to keep my stuff trumps my concern over their safety. If it was feasible, it wouldnt be a question of introducing them to Mr L. Slugger, or Mr Ruger, I'd prefer to introduce them to Mr Claymore. Of course, that isnt entirely practical, and leads to a lot of drywall repair, so Mr Forty-Five A.C.P. will have to do .

Someone participating in a home invasion values property over human life, at which point I value property more than their life. Thats the bottom line.

You would lose that battle in a courtroom unless the perp was armed. You cannot shoot or assault an unarmed person just for stealing your stuff.

And that is the $hitty part about the laws now days. The laws favor the criminals and try to protect their rights over anything else. If it's dark in my house and I see a person moving around going through my stuff, I can't be sure if that person is armed or not. I'm not going to stand up and say...."excuse me sir, are you armed, or do you mean to do harm to me or my family?" However I would also not just simply shoot anyone who was in my house at night, you can talk tough but in reality it would be a lot of guilt to live with if you killed somebody unreasonably. It's a tough situation for sure, but I would err on the side of my personaly safety (but not my possessions, I have insurance for that kind of stuff) over the safety of a criminal.

Actually, staley8 that is the perfect response.

 

[jlee]

Just to clarify my standpoint..it's not that I think it's fine to shoot someone as they're leaving -- at that point, they're not a 'threat'. However, if someone breaks into my house, I have to expect the worst..I can't assume that he's just here to take a stack of DVDs and run. You can't tell if there's a handgun under their jacket, a knife in their hand, etc. I could easily walk into someone's house with a Beretta M21A or Kel-Tec P3AT in my pocket without anybody noticing..

If he does take crap and run, and if he's out of the house by the time I catch him, sure..he won't be shot, but he's going to have quite a run ahead of him..