Home Invasion Scenario

[mikeptc9107]

If I understand the laws of the State of Washington correctly, if their head and shoulders are inside the perimeter of your walls, they broke in and were not invited, you may resist with deadly force. You do not know what they will do next, you do not have to ask them to politely leave. You may drop them right there... and get your TV replaced in the process. They clearly do not care that they have violated your home, they may violate your children or wife or you next. Do not wound them! Kill them. You do not want to be sued! If you do not want to lose sleep over their worthless lives, you can draw down on them and allow them to either be arrested or leave. But that has it's own risks, because they can claim you invited them inside, or they live there too, or some such BS. If they are assuming room temperature, they cannot tell any falsehoods.

 

[Hook686]

Actually nothing I'm thinking. I think that even if they merely fell while carting off the TV and one twisted an ankle that some slick lawyer would come up with a law suit to file against you. In California defense of property is not grounds to draw a weapon. After calling 911, take a picture (then you might have reason to draw) and be a good witness.

 

[Misterbill]

If I understand the laws of the State of Washington correctly, if their head and shoulders are inside the perimeter of your walls, they broke in and were not invited, you may resist with deadly force.

This is actually incorrect.

In WA per RCW 9A.16.020

1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;

(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.

Now that SOUNDS, like what you mentioned, (Though how you got head and shoulders is a mystery) But case law is pretty specific, which TRUMPS the statute wording.

You must believe, and a reasonable person in you circumstances (as determined by Jury or PA) must ALSO believe that you were in imminent threat of grievous bodily injury or death. PERIOD. THERE ARE ZERO INTERMEDIATE STEPS TO THIS.

Now in PRACTICE, this works out to "If he's in your house he's dead." But Any anti PA who wants to make a political point can turn that on it's head and go with the actual case law. In which case, if you shoot a guy who was 1/2 way out your door with both hands full of TV in the back 5 times, you're going to trial, if not prison.

So again, as always, I will counsel people that if you are going to shoot someone, you'd damn well better be able to convince the cops that you were in legitimate fear of death or grave injury if you HADN'T employed deadly force. Because otherwise, it's a crapshoot. And I don't know about you, but I don't want to bet my LIFE on a crapshoot.

There are nuances in that post. If you aren't bright enough to grasp them, it's on you. And BTW, if all you're going to lose is a TV, you're an IDIOT if you kill someone over it. Legal consequences aside, do you really want to live with having killed someone over a TV?

Unless you're a sociopath, the answer is no.

Our ability to take life as lawful armed citizens is an AWESOME responsibility. Don't make light of it. (not accusing the OP of this BTW).

 

[BDA.45]

And BTW, if all you're going to lose is a TV, you're an IDIOT if you kill someone over it. Legal consequences aside, do you really want to live with having killed someone over a TV?

Unless you're a sociopath, the answer is no.

Actually Misterbill, my answer is yes. And no Im not a sociopath, just a product of my environment. Did you take into consideration where someone might live? Other family members in the house? ETC? Obviously not. Where I live it takes the cops 15+ on a 911 call to respond. Therefore I shoot first lawyer up after. Legally speaking. Silence. Morally speaking, it would suck to have to shoot/kill someone but Its my house, my family, my well being. You come into it, you face the consequences. As far as Im concerned, someone in my house, in my neck of the WOODS, is probably not going to have a very good day. For the rest of their lives. Period. Just sayn...

 

[Netspirit]

I don't think that "killing someone over a TV" is a correct way to put it.

It should be "situational use of deadly force to stop a criminal who broke into your house against your will to commit unknown felonies". It establishes a good precedent and discourages burglaries. It increases the safety of our communities, even for people who do not own guns and never will.

 

[Misterbill]

Actually Misterbill, my answer is yes. And no Im not a sociopath, just a product of my environment. Did you take into consideration where someone might live? Other family members in the house? ETC? Obviously not. Where I live it takes the cops 15+ on a 911 call to respond. Therefore I shoot first lawyer up after. Legally speaking. Silence. Morally speaking, it would suck to have to shoot/kill someone but Its my house, my family, my well being. You come into it, you face the consequences. As far as Im concerned, someone in my house, in my neck of the WOODS, is probably not going to have a very good day. For the rest of their lives. Period.

You obviously deliberately misread what I SAID.

The guy walking OUT THE DOOR with your TV is no threat to you OR you family.

What you're talking about is revenge killing. Plain and simple. You are taking revenge on someone for invading your space, not repelling a threat.

Now on the internet, I'm with you. I've been burgled with EVERYTHING of value I owned stolen and the others vandalized. And IN MY HEAD I wanted those little bastards DEAD.

If you actually DO IT, that's another question altogether.

The difference between sociopaths and those who are not is that they can differentiate what thier most base parts would LIKE to do, with what's actually reasonable.

If, after thought, what you posted is still true of you, I don't want you as a neighbor. You scare the crap outta me.

Because id that's true, you don't view self defense as something that's sadly sometimes necessary, you view it as "an opportunity to legally kill someone." And THAT, is the mark of a sociopath.

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

I'll move in next to you. Being fond of true justice doesn't make you a bad person.

 

[LProf]

If someone has invaded my home what I would do depends upon where I and my family are located at the time and what the intruder is doing.

For example, if at night and our bedrooms are upstairs, I would get my gun and call 911. If the intruder stays downstairs, is in the process of stealing property and makes no effort to go upstairs, he is not, at that point, a threat.

If, on the other hand, he starts to come upstairs, then,IMO, he then becomes a threat, and I Would feel justified in using deadly force.

If I walked in on an intruder in my house, I would immediately draw. If he stopped what he was doing and started to leave, I would let him. Shooting him in the back will get me jail time and ruin my and my family's life. If he started toward me, I would shoot him.

These are difficult and quick decisions that need to be made, but the laws in many states, including oregon, are not with the homeowner, and, in addition, an anti-gun prosecutor can turn things against you.

Not pretty, but that is the current reality we live under. In my view and understanding of the law, at least in Oregon, one needs to be in a situation where you really are facing an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury in order to justify the use of deadly force.

If one of you wants to shoot an intruder in the back as he is leaving to possibly save someone else,more power to you. I personally would not risk jail time and my family's future to play hero.

 

[Screwy]

I would dial 1911

 

[Boats]

The whole scenario is objectionable. How is one supposed to discern the intent of lawbreakers? They may appear to be walking out with the TV or stereo, but who is the Amazing Kreskin predetermining that they won't be coming back to off the witness because they both have two strikes?

The poster who said the unsubs are within the ambit of Burglary I and therefore squarely within the legal occupant's right to employ deadly force under the color of law has provided the correct answer.

The fact that the law is positive that Burglary I is the necessary threshold for using deadly force makes it so that "fear for my life" isn't even a factor any longer. The commission of the requisite felony by the perps, even if they aren't successful, has removed the subjective "I was in fear for my life" legal dance from the picture.

 

[LProf]

The whole scenario is objectionable. How is one supposed to discern the intent of lawbreakers? They may appear to be walking out with the TV or stereo, but who is the Amazing Kreskin predetermining that they won't be coming back to off the witness because they both have two strikes?

The poster who said the unsubs are within the ambit of Burglary I and therefore squarely within the legal occupant's right to employ deadly force under the color of law has provided the correct answer.

The fact that the law is positive that Burglary I is the necessary threshold for using deadly force makes it so that "fear for my life" isn't even a factor any longer. The commission of the requisite felony by the perps, even if they aren't successful, has removed the subjective "I was in fear for my life" legal dance from the picture.

If you shoot them while they are walking toward your door, forget Burglary 1, you will be going to jail, at least in Oregon. There is no way you will not be prosecuted if you shoot them in the back while they are toward exiting your house.

I really don't want to get into a legal debate on line. I just hope if you are ever unfortunate enough to actually be facing this kind of crazy scenario, you would think twice before you actually pulled the trigger.

 

[Boats]

If you shoot them while they are walking toward your door, forget Burglary 1, you will be going to jail, at least in Oregon. There is no way you will not be prosecuted if you shoot them in the back while they are toward exiting your house.

I really don't want to get into a legal debate on line. I just hope if you are ever unfortunate enough to actually be facing this kind of crazy scenario, you would think twice before you actually pulled the trigger.

From your initial post: ". . . two guys break into your house walk over to your TV or stereo and start walking out with it."

First, quit moving the goal posts. They "start walking," not showing their backsides, not in any legally questionable timeline yet. They just started, according to yourself.

Second, in a real burglary of an occupied dwelling, it's not going to go down like Cheech & Chong strolling in to lift your flat screen off of the wall while wisecracking. You actually have posited a serious crime that the state recognizes as one authorizing lethal force, even in the attempt of it. Their intent to commit Burg1 is not in question.

Third, the lethal force statute makes them fair game. In all but five counties in Oregon, a shooter of the perps in the midst of a Burglary 1 charge, shot down as the television is removed, are going to at worst likely be no billed by a grand jury if not outright cleared of any wrongdoing before then. Oregon is more than the Willamette Valley.

Even if we are talking about the "civilized" counties there is still this tale: About five years ago now, a drunken young man broke into a Salem homeowner's garage during the small hours of the morning and attempted to light a fire, apparently believing he was in front of the wood stove used where he actually lived.

The homeowner warned the suspect to cease trying to make a fire. When the suspect approached the homeowner, the latter shot the former in the neck with a .22lr revolver. Suspect was dead before 911 made it.

The homeowner was never charged. This despite the fact that due to the suspect's diminished capacity, no one could say he ever intended any harm.

The point of relating this account is merely that your open and shut "you'll be in jail" is far from the automatic outcome you suggest it is.

 

[kdt503]

I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6..

 

[LProf]

Again, I don't want to debate. I said that they were walking out. That means there backs were turned. You shoot them in the back at your peril, even in Florida with a strong Castle Doctrine.

Also, in your scenario, the suspect came toward the homeowner. That is different, I agree. See post #50.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Do they resemble a dead horse?

 

[Hawaiian]

If it is my TV, I will let the dog eat them. If it is my wife's TV, god help them, I will say a payer for their souls.

 

[BDA.45]

What you're talking about is revenge killing. Plain and simple. You are taking revenge on someone for invading your space, not repelling a threat.

If, after thought, what you posted is still true of you, I don't want you as a neighbor. You scare the crap outta me.

Sorry Misterbill, I didnt mean to make you feel uncomfortable. I want to be your neighbor. As your neighbor I would like you to know that if someone burglarizes your home, or any other home in the neighborhood, (including mine, where my family sleeps and feels comfort, and shouldnt be afraid to be there) I will not execute them as previously construed. Instead, I will smack them in the head with a baseball bat. Then I will remove their hands at mid forearm so they cant steal or break into or harm your/our/my family/house again. Im sorry if I caused alarm previously. I didnt mean to scare the crap out of you. Hope this is better... neighbor...

 

[coop44]

face it guys the world is full of sociopaths, look at most of the fortune 500, chock full of them. Congress has more than a few. Law enforcement, don't get me started, lol. The Media, you betcha.

If you are rich and powerful (usually as a result of being a sociopath) you will be refered to as "powerful", "charismatic" or "commanding".

They ought to have a bubbleguming club house and decoder rings along with a secret handshake.

 

[mjbeam]

I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6..

Are those the only two options?

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Asavage270]

I would pull out my double barrel 12 gauge and fire two warning shots in the air

BUY A SHOTGUN

-tactical advice courtesy of Mr. Biden