Burgler Gets shot from home owner with rubber bullets

[duldej]

I wish that were true, but our legal system is so broken it almost works the other way. The defendant of an injury civil suit can easily suffer more in time and money than a convicted murderer.

For example, suppose the rubber pellets hit this burglar in the eye, leaving him blind. A lawyer jumps on the case on a contingency fee basis. Now the homeowner will spend years of his life in court, paying his lawyer, and trying to settle the claim. This homeowner could easily waste two years on defense, then spend the rest of his life paying off some $3 million settlement to the plaintiff. Now that's serious.

Also, remember a jury usually does NOT look at these injury cases in terms of justice, but as a "problem to be solved". Here, they'd see a helpless man disabled for life. They see a wealthy homeowner. Solution: have the homeowner pay his bills.

Personally I'd judge this homeowner's actions as legal, but somewhat foolish. Investigating outside your house with a long gun is dubious from a lawyer and safety perspective. Suppose a LEO had been tracking this burglar and met him in the breezeway - the interaction might not go well. The account also does not mention any attempt to seek verbal compliance ("Get out of my house!", "Show me your hands!", etc).

To be clear, I support this homeowner overall, just would not recommend anyone else take the same actions.

Point taken, but I am confident that I could hit an intruder's body and not his eye, and figure that if damages amount to personal injury and not wrongful death, that still would be preferable. Just the prospect of doing time for murder, being legally dead, doing a life sentence, etc, sets my mind reeling.

Just because that side has a civil prosecuting attorney does not preclude my retaining a decent civil defense attorney, too. At least "the people," are not breathing down one's neck that way.

I will admit, however, that a dead man's not being able to tell any tales is a good point, but lethal force, it seems to me... it seems that only cops ever get away with that. Look at the case with George Zimmerman. What an ordeal that is.

 

[davemata]

Yeah, ol' Zim's case is not a good one to look at. Lot of factors there we don't know, and to me it looked like he went barking for problems, got more than he wanted (rightly) and then got his trump card out.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

No, it's more to help avoid a shooting. If spoken with authority, it may defuse a fight.

It could also help prevent shooting a prankster, misidentified person, or other non-threat:

Young intruder shot to death unknowingly by father - NewsTimes

But it'd definitely help in the legal aftermath of a shooting as well. Personally I plan to always (ostensibly) seek verbal compliance. That doesn't mean you have to leisurely wait for a response. It does mean any witness may repeat your requests in court.

Also remember, unless seeking verbal compliance is habitual, chances are you won't due it under stress. For self-defense classes, Clint Smith asks students to seek verbal compliance every time they shoot. Even if it's just sighting-in, I try to do it every time, to ingrain the habit.

Btw, some people practice swearing or trash-talking as part of verbal compliance, because it's "the only thing a scumbag understands". This has merit - no doubt a cussing, belligerent woman is more daunting to an attacker. However, Clint advises against that (at least for guys), because in court that belligerence will make the confrontation seem like a verbal spat gone awry, rather than legitimate self-defense.

I have perfect vision and strategically placed nite lights plus if those fail, a shottie light.. I will not warn an obvious invader.. because I don't like being shot and my wife then have to take the creep on with a handgun. The first thing he'll know is BOOM. I will be waiting in barracade position in a hall where any invaders have to cross at some point

 

[Thebastidge]

RE verbal orders:

The above comment by Ocarolan is perfect. Verbal commands demonstrate some attempt to de-escalate. A professional-sounding verbal command is much better than one in which the perp or bystanders may see an attempt to escalate, such as calling them names, swearing, or most importantly, death threats.

"GET OUT!"
"PUT DOWN THE GUN!"

These verbal commands demonstrate no escalation, are simple enough to give and comply with under stress, and are lawful- you're telling the perp to vacate the area under your control, and stop menacing you.

"I'M GONNA F$%^KING KILL YOU": Not good.

"STOP OR I'LL SHOOT": acceptable, but again, what's best to practice?

A command that doesn't resolve the issue or one that gets the threat away from you. Telling them to stop, even if they comply, still leaves you with a perp in your space, too close to you, and possibly armed. Threatening to shoot MAY in some cases be seen as an escalation by both perp and bystanders. The perp may be full of stupid bravado, or think you're bluffing. The bystander may not have the full context and only know that you've expressed a willingness to shoot someone.

Scumbags understand simple commands as well as anybody.

Another good thing about practicing verbal commands. Just like a "kiai" in martial arts, a good shout forces you to breathe more deeply. Stress response in untrained individuals tends to make us breathe quickly and shallowly, which builds up CO2 in our lungs and in our systems, contributes to weakness, faintness, shortness of breath feeling (which add to the stress response in a downward spiral as you feel like you can't breathe, you're suffocating in fear, literally) and tunnel vision.

 

[ronin223]

FYI

ORS 161.219¹
Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person
Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS <broken link removed> , a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]

Another reason I really hate Oregon. Wish I was back home in Colorado THAT HAS REASONABLE LAWS

 

[davemata]

Thebastidge - and if you do it to a home invader who is already in your home, you've given up any advantage you had in surprise.

I see no advantage to issuing a verbal order to someone who is in your home and already a threat. I could see it if say, someone was breaking into your truck, but not your home. Your home is your place.

 

[clambo]

Not any more. Making statements like this in a public forum that may be subpoena'd invalidates any defense you might have due to defending your life. You've just expressed an intent to murder someone even if it's unnecessary to save your life. You're willing to kill him for the sake of convenience and to prevent him from testifying. That's not self-defense, that's murder.

I'm just telling you how a jury's going to see it.

When I teach classes, I teach the standard: shoot to stop the threat. The best way to stop the threat is to put as many rounds as necessary to center of mass until the person stops advancing or is no longer capable of causing you serious bodily harm or death. Never testify that you shot to kill, never testify that you shot to wound. You only shoot to stop the threat. Anything else can give the jury a reason to convict.

You say tomato I say tomotto. Here we go again with those semantics that I so loathe. Ok, I'll fire " to stop the threat ". Either way he's still gonna be dead. As for the " subpoena the public forum " thing.....first you'd have to know my name, which may or may not be the one I used when I registered here. Or that this is my actual IP number for that matter, or that one of the deceased burglar's family members didn't post it in order to make me look bad in front of a jury....anyway, you are right. I respect your training and where you're coming from but I'm gonna have to call it as I see it. People say I have a problem with that.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Point taken, but I am confident that I could hit an intruder's body and not his eye, and figure that if damages amount to personal injury and not wrongful death, that still would be preferable. Just the prospect of doing time for murder, being legally dead, doing a life sentence, etc, sets my mind reeling.

Just because that side has a civil prosecuting attorney does not preclude my retaining a decent civil defense attorney, too. At least "the people," are not breathing down one's neck that way.

I will admit, however, that a dead man's not being able to tell any tales is a good point, but lethal force, it seems to me... it seems that only cops ever get away with that. Look at the case with George Zimmerman. What an ordeal that is.

And what if he's wearing body armor or a heavy coat, is unaffected and returns fire and kills you? Maybe you're better off with pepper spray if you'e scared of the real deal

 

[Blitzkrieg]

RE verbal orders:

The above comment by Ocarolan is perfect. Verbal commands demonstrate some attempt to de-escalate. A professional-sounding verbal command is much better than one in which the perp or bystanders may see an attempt to escalate, such as calling them names, swearing, or most importantly, death threats.

"GET OUT!"
"PUT DOWN THE GUN!"

These verbal commands demonstrate no escalation, are simple enough to give and comply with under stress, and are lawful- you're telling the perp to vacate the area under your control, and stop menacing you.

"I'M GONNA F$%^KING KILL YOU": Not good.

"STOP OR I'LL SHOOT": acceptable, but again, what's best to practice?

A command that doesn't resolve the issue or one that gets the threat away from you. Telling them to stop, even if they comply, still leaves you with a perp in your space, too close to you, and possibly armed. Threatening to shoot MAY in some cases be seen as an escalation by both perp and bystanders. The perp may be full of stupid bravado, or think you're bluffing. The bystander may not have the full context and only know that you've expressed a willingness to shoot someone.

Scumbags understand simple commands as well as anybody.

Another good thing about practicing verbal commands. Just like a "kiai" in martial arts, a good shout forces you to breathe more deeply. Stress response in untrained individuals tends to make us breathe quickly and shallowly, which builds up CO2 in our lungs and in our systems, contributes to weakness, faintness, shortness of breath feeling (which add to the stress response in a downward spiral as you feel like you can't breathe, you're suffocating in fear, literally) and tunnel vision.

If you blast them with a 12 pellet 00 load no one will be able to say what you said, except you. That having been said in the interests of sardonic humor, I stand by my plan

 

[davemata]

If you blast them with a 12 pellet 00 load no one will be able to say what you said, except you. That having been said in the interests of sardonic humor, I stand by my plan

I was born in LA, thus... I shall do it LA style.

<BOOM> DROP THE WEAPON!

 

[AMProducts]

I have some "rubber buckshot" the fiocci, I think it's called "law pro" or something, has like 18 pellets roughly double-ought size, a while ago we were up at the shooting range, and wanted to see what it does, so I put a trashcan out at 25 yards... most of the pellets went right through the first side of the can, and badly damaged the other side.

There is relatively little doubt in my mind that this stuff could be lethal if used at close range. I usually keep it on hand for bear deterrence.

 

[davemata]

What did bears ever do to you?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Seems even a 12 year old girl can get it right

12-Year-Old Girl Shoots Intruder During Home Invasion - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com |

 

[davemata]

Yup! Great kid. Was talking about that yesterday on another gun forum.

Even better? good Sheriff.

 

[lamrith]

Seems even a 12 year old girl can get it right

12-Year-Old Girl Shoots Intruder During Home Invasion - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com |

What a great outcome! Better yet she did not have to see the guy or the affect of the gunshot..

Good on mom, daughter and Sherrif.

 

[Bam]

The guy broke one of the cardinal rules of self defense... NEVER COMPROMISE

blows my mind anyone would even consider the safety of an intruder over their own or their loved ones.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I was born in LA, thus... I shall do it LA style.

<BOOM> DROP THE WEAPON!

Born in Pasadena, myself. Right next to that mean old lady with the mopar

 

[Misterbill]

It worked. This is the definition of "good tactic."

But *I* wouldn't do it.

I don't use a shotgun for home defense. I use an AR with .223 soft-nose bullets for my "hideout and wait for the cops" gun and a pistol for my main defensive weapon.

But if I DID use a shotgun, I'd opt for 00 buck given my exterior walls. YMMV.

If I have to shoot someone, I'd just as soon not kill him. But I'm damn sure aiming for a STOPPING round, and rubber bullets doesn't even come close to that. I have every right in the world to use LETHAL force. Using riot-control rounds in the hope that will do the job is not something I'm willing to bet my life on.

Pull a gun on a cop and see if they fire rubber bullets at you.

 

[Sabertooth]

RE verbal orders:

The above comment by Ocarolan is perfect. Verbal commands demonstrate some attempt to de-escalate. A professional-sounding verbal command is much better than one in which the perp or bystanders may see an attempt to escalate, such as calling them names, swearing, or most importantly, death threats.

"GET OUT!"
"PUT DOWN THE GUN!"

These verbal commands demonstrate no escalation, are simple enough to give and comply with under stress, and are lawful- you're telling the perp to vacate the area under your control, and stop menacing you.

"I'M GONNA F$%^KING KILL YOU": Not good.

"STOP OR I'LL SHOOT": acceptable, but again, what's best to practice?

A command that doesn't resolve the issue or one that gets the threat away from you. Telling them to stop, even if they comply, still leaves you with a perp in your space, too close to you, and possibly armed. Threatening to shoot MAY in some cases be seen as an escalation by both perp and bystanders. The perp may be full of stupid bravado, or think you're bluffing. The bystander may not have the full context and only know that you've expressed a willingness to shoot someone.

Scumbags understand simple commands as well as anybody.

Another good thing about practicing verbal commands. Just like a "kiai" in martial arts, a good shout forces you to breathe more deeply. Stress response in untrained individuals tends to make us breathe quickly and shallowly, which builds up CO2 in our lungs and in our systems, contributes to weakness, faintness, shortness of breath feeling (which add to the stress response in a downward spiral as you feel like you can't breathe, you're suffocating in fear, literally) and tunnel vision.

"STOP OR MY MOTHER WILL SHOOT!"

 

[The Redpaw]

I've been through training, some of the best in my opinion. I was always told the first thing you reach for is your cell phone and dial 911..... And then your gun.

The reason being, you are being recorded. Hear me out, as it was explained this way.

While on the phone with 911, you are explaining the situation as you are seeking a safe place to hide ( whether you are or not ) and that the perp sounds like he is getting closer.

All of the sudden you drop to a lower position ( showing cowardice to the perp ) and starting screaming... No, no, get away from me.

And the shot fired is recorded, your actions are shown to have sought protection, you fired from a cowardice position and you were ( attempted to ) afraid of your life.

I was instucted that when you fire, you may sure that you claim oh god, he's attacking me and verbiage of that matter. BUT do not take the advice of the 911 operator to wait for officers to arrive as they might confuse you for the bad guy.

You then instruct the 911 operator that you believe the hostile has been killed and you are waiting outside and then gun has been unloaded and placed on the ground next to you.

Then and only then do you listen to the politically correct version of her canned speech on how to act when officers arrive.

Opinions?