Intruder or Burglar

[David Bowman]

If someone "breaks into" your home, my guess is they aren't there to critique your choices in counter-tops and wallpaper.

Shoot them to the ground, check for additional hostiles, reload, check yourself for wounds (family as well), and ensure you are out of danger before lowering your guard to call 911. If you or your family are hurt, treat them or you first and exclusively.

If your family is home when this happens, have one of them call 911, your adrenalin dump is going to make you a worse caller than someone else who was not involved.

It is dark to contemplate, but this is an essential truth for you to consider; how many stories are going to be told when the cops get there? Yours and your family's .....OR.... yours, your family's and the guy they are loading onto the ambulance? I promise it is going to go far better for you if you are the only one telling the story of what happened....

....because inevitably the burglar will attempt in front of a jury to turn himself into a lost wayward seminary student just on his way to bible study when you ruthlessly and viciously shot him in your living room in the dark of night.

With good shot placement (in the snot locker preferably) and adequate ammunition and training; you will survive and prevail.

 

[mjbskwim]

even if he had not yet reached the kitchen where the knives are, which is one thing a prosecutor may question.

Knives?
Can I hit you over the head with a telephone book?
Your TV? How about just your alarm clock?
That nice lamp you have in the entry?
Maybe your kid's tennis racquet or baseball bat they leave at the door?
The bad guy doesn't need the kitchen knives to kill you.If your lawyer can get this thru the jury's head you need a new lawyer. I would have him ask the jury those questions,or the prosecutor before the trial would be better.
It will not be your burden of proof. He looked big,I had kids in the house,I'm not a fighter,etc
You have no way of knowing ,unless you saw intruder's face on TV,what this guy is capable of
You shouldn't start thinking about what this will look like if I shoot him.
He's probably thinking about what he will kill you with if necessary
That's the part to remember

 

[The Heretic]

If you want the authoritative answer, talk to a lawyer experienced in this area of law.

There are obviously a lot of people who don't know the law that applies, and even fewer who have firsthand experience in this area.

There is one more thing - have the name of this lawyer on hand, and after you have called the police, call the lawyer and do not talk to the police once they arrive without the lawyer present. Do not allow any of your family to talk to the police without the lawyer present.

 

[kilimanjaro]

You can't shoot people absent a threat, no matter how much to want it to be true. That includes your landlord and burglars. If you cannot convince a jury that you or yours were in danger, you're in deep kimchee.

Knives?
Can I hit you over the head with a telephone book?
Your TV? How about just your alarm clock?
That nice lamp you have in the entry?
Maybe your kid's tennis racquet or baseball bat they leave at the door?
The bad guy doesn't need the kitchen knives to kill you.If your lawyer can get this thru the jury's head you need a new lawyer. I would have him ask the jury those questions,or the prosecutor before the trial would be better.
It will not be your burden of proof. He looked big,I had kids in the house,I'm not a fighter,etc
You have no way of knowing ,unless you saw intruder's face on TV,what this guy is capable of
You shouldn't start thinking about what this will look like if I shoot him.
He's probably thinking about what he will kill you with if necessary
That's the part to remember

Is the telephone book, TV, clock, lamp, racquet, or bat in his hands? Inform the police just what weapon he was holding. He could have brought in a rock from your garden, too, but such suppositions are not reasonable. The threat needs to be genuine, or reasonably perceived to be genuine, and based on imminent harm. If he's not holding the book/clock/lamp/racket/bat, the only aggression perceptible is the quick turnaround to face you. That may be enough for the cops, and probably will be. Shoot him before he turns, you've got a problem unless he has a weapon that can be deployed against you from across the room.

No, the bad guy doesn't need the knives to kill you. What he does need is a weapon or an aggressive move towards you, or what a reasonable person could presume to be an aggressive move, not presumptions after the fact about tennis rackets.

The burden of proof is most certainly on you. You killed someone. That is homicide. Whether or not it is justified is a matter for the court system to determine after the fact. The first thing you have to do in a self-defense shooting is to admit that you killed the other guy. You just confessed to homicide. Now you have to show to the police exactly what happened and what you saw before you shot the guy in your kitchen. You can delay a bunch of statements until your legal counsel comes into play, but not for long. You have to at least admit shooting him and make your defense claim.

He looked big. How big are you? Do you know this guy? Ever seen him before? Is he a neighbor? You say he's your landlord, didn't you recognize him, it's daylight. What was he doing in your kitchen? Have you been drinking this evening? Why didn't you call the police? Was he looking for drugs? You're going to have to answer all those questions and a bunch more like them.

I'm not a fighter. You don't have to be. You get to defend yourself with appropriate force to a genuine threat.

You're right, you have no way of knowing what this guy is capable of. In that case, you get to shoot him absent a threat? Maybe he's thinking about killing you, maybe he just wants a beer out of the 'fridge. You can't divine intent. There needs to be a threat or a reasonable perception of one.

If you go into a self-defense situation with the idea that you don't have to consider whether or not a genuine threat exists or can be reasonably considered to exist, then you are probably going to suffer for it. If you have self-defense insurance, that can be the best $200 you ever spend.

 

[mjbskwim]

You can't shoot people absent a threat, no matter how much to want it to be true. That includes your landlord and burglars. If you cannot convince a jury that you or yours were in danger, you're in deep kimchee.



Is the telephone book, TV, clock, lamp, racquet, or bat in his hands? Inform the police just what weapon he was holding. He could have brought in a rock from your garden, too, but such suppositions are not reasonable. The threat needs to be genuine, or reasonably perceived to be genuine, and based on imminent harm. If he's not holding the book/clock/lamp/racket/bat, the only aggression perceptible is the quick turnaround to face you. That may be enough for the cops, and probably will be. Shoot him before he turns, you've got a problem unless he has a weapon that can be deployed against you from across the room.

No, the bad guy doesn't need the knives to kill you. What he does need is a weapon or an aggressive move towards you, or what a reasonable person could presume to be an aggressive move, not presumptions after the fact about tennis rackets.

The burden of proof is most certainly on you. You killed someone. That is homicide. Whether or not it is justified is a matter for the court system to determine after the fact. The first thing you have to do in a self-defense shooting is to admit that you killed the other guy. You just confessed to homicide. Now you have to show to the police exactly what happened and what you saw before you shot the guy in your kitchen. You can delay a bunch of statements until your legal counsel comes into play, but not for long. You have to at least admit shooting him and make your defense claim.

He looked big. How big are you? Do you know this guy? Ever seen him before? Is he a neighbor? You say he's your landlord, didn't you recognize him, it's daylight. What was he doing in your kitchen? Have you been drinking this evening? Why didn't you call the police? Was he looking for drugs? You're going to have to answer all those questions and a bunch more like them.

I'm not a fighter. You don't have to be. You get to defend yourself with appropriate force to a genuine threat.

You're right, you have no way of knowing what this guy is capable of. In that case, you get to shoot him absent a threat? Maybe he's thinking about killing you, maybe he just wants a beer out of the 'fridge. You can't divine intent. There needs to be a threat or a reasonable perception of one.

If you go into a self-defense situation with the idea that you don't have to consider whether or not a genuine threat exists or can be reasonably considered to exist, then you are probably going to suffer for it. If you have self-defense insurance, that can be the best $200 you ever spend.

Sure brah,I disagree an if i have children in my house and someone enters without permission,well,you figure out the rest of the story.
See I understand that there are people that don't value life like the rest of us
You can live in your dream all you want.React to such threats as YOU see fit
Done here

 

[kilimanjaro]

I understand all those things too. Still, you had better be able to justify your self-defense according to the law, not according to your dream.

We can agree to disagree, there are all kinds of scenarios, but the bottom line is you need to meet certain legal standards for a successful self-defense case. The mere presence of an intruder is not license to shoot them. Neither is the mere presence of a child. They add to your perception of a threat, certainly, but they don't create it.

 

[edslhead]

This sums it up for us WA resident.

Washington law allows for the use of force under certain circumstances. RCW 9A.16.020 outlines the circumstances under which a person can legally use force. The lawful use of force/self defense most commonly arises under three situations:

• Self Defense
• Defense of Others
• Defense of Property

Self Defense
Washington Law allows a person to use reasonable force to defend themselves when they are being attacked or have a reasonable belief that they are about to be attacked. A person may not use more force than is necessary given the situation. The law does not impose a duty to retreat. This means that if you are in your home, you do not have to try to escape the situation before defending yourself. This is otherwise called, the "Stand Your Ground Rule" in Washington. On the other hand, you cannot raise self defense if you are not allowed to be in the place you are being attacked in the first place. You do not have to actually be attacked or injured in order to defend yourself. Washington law allows you to defend yourself if you reasonably believe you are about to be injured.

Defense of Others
Washington Law states that the use of force is lawful whenever used to prevent an offense against another person. This means that under certain circumstances, you may use force to protect another person. Like self defense, defense of other requires that you only use a reasonable amount of force to protect another person. Also like in self defense, the person you are protecting must not be trespassing at the time of the incident.

Defense of Property
Under certain situations, a person may use force to defend against a "malicious trespass or interference" with real or personal property. This means that if someone is entering your home or taking or damaging your property and they are doing so with an evil purpose, you can defend your property by force. The same rules apply to this defense, which is that you may not use more force than in necessary to defend your property.

 

[decklin]

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

Let's quit with the guessing please.

 

[edslhead]

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

Let's quit with the guessing please.

Robbery is a felony, so choot em

 

[rick49]

If you want the authoritative answer, talk to a lawyer experienced in this area of law.

There are obviously a lot of people who don't know the law that applies, and even fewer who have firsthand experience in this area.

There is one more thing - have the name of this lawyer on hand, and after you have called the police, call the lawyer and do not talk to the police once they arrive without the lawyer present. Do not allow any of your family to talk to the police without the lawyer present.

A must watch. You will learn volumes. Thanks for posting this.

 

[ocarolan]

I understand all those things too. Still, you had better be able to justify your self-defense according to the law, not according to your dream.

We can agree to disagree, there are all kinds of scenarios, but the bottom line is you need to meet certain legal standards for a successful self-defense case. The mere presence of an intruder is not license to shoot them. Neither is the mere presence of a child. They add to your perception of a threat, certainly, but they don't create it.

This. All, if someone poses a legal question, please respond with the law or (better) case law. Not how you personally would react to the threat. This is the legal forum.

PS I recently served on a grand jury and we did a homicide case. Strongly recommend doing so before you place a lot of faith in the law! The juror selection process heavily favors the following people:

- home-employed or not employed
- female
- bored and seeking excitement of being on a jury
- retired
- lots of free time

In short, reliable people but not always knowledgeable about firearms, and often sentimental. Your juror is much more likely to be a retired librarian cat lover than Massad Ayoob... And if you get tried in (say) Eugene, your jury may already dislike you for even owning a gun! Throw in a white vs black scenario and even a clear self-defense case could be uphill.

 

[mjbskwim]

This. All, if someone poses a legal question, please respond with the law or (better) case law. Not how you personally would react to the threat. This is the legal forum.

So you the new town marshal?
I thought you would have to have at least 600 posts to start giving orders

 

[ocarolan]

Someone's gotta clean up this one-horse town!!

For now though I'll wait until 2,000 posts. Until then, mjbskwim can wear the badge.

 

[Larrytpdx]

Intruder or burglar? Either way, If they are in my home uninvited they will become "casualty".

 

[mjbskwim]

Someone's gotta clean up this one-horse town!!

For now though I'll wait until 2,000 posts. Until then, mjbskwim can wear the badge.

View attachment 285864

No no no
I been a dog park sheriff and didn't like that

 

[rick49]

If you want the authoritative answer, talk to a lawyer experienced in this area of law.

There are obviously a lot of people who don't know the law that applies, and even fewer who have firsthand experience in this area.

There is one more thing - have the name of this lawyer on hand, and after you have called the police, call the lawyer and do not talk to the police once they arrive without the lawyer present. Do not allow any of your family to talk to the police without the lawyer present.

Intruder or burglar? Either way, If they are in my home uninvited they will become a "casualty".

If you are intent on this course of action please watch the above media post. A good bunch of information. Just sayin

 

[Fast Eddie]

This. All, if someone poses a legal question, please respond with the law or (better) case law. Not how you personally would react to the threat. This is the legal forum.

PS I recently served on a grand jury and we did a homicide case. Strongly recommend doing so before you place a lot of faith in the law! The juror selection process heavily favors the following people:

- home-employed or not employed
- female
- bored and seeking excitement of being on a jury
- retired
- lots of free time

In short, reliable people but not always knowledgeable about firearms, and often sentimental. Your juror is much more likely to be a retired librarian cat lover than Massad Ayoob... And if you get tried in (say) Eugene, your jury may already dislike you.

That is a great insight from your own experience. If people are offering opinions you disagree with, why not engage them in a discussion? It is a forum and the OP introduced the very broad topic about legal ramifications of DGU's and I believe he was soliciting opinions. Are good willed people not allowed to share opinions and conclusions about the topic at hand?

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

Let's quit with the guessing please.

The OP asked how DGU scenarios that have occurred in other parts of the US would play out here.

Posting links to RCW's is fine, but this is a forum, it's only part of the conversation. RCW's play a part in a DGU, but if you think you have it licked because you think you followed the law, you could have a very long time to contemplate the error in your thinking for many of the reasons discussed here. Discussions about experiences, occurrences and conclusions about how DGU's have gone in Washington state as it relates to different police and DA jurisdictions, or even different neighborhoods are all relevant to the topic.

AVVO could probably render competent legal opinions and site RCW's.

I learn a lot having my opinions challenged and enjoy participating in lively discussions about gun related issues. I welcome different viewpoints. I have conversations like these with my friends and family all the time.

 

[decklin]

That is a great insight from your own experience. If people are offering opinions you disagree with, why not engage them in a discussion? It is a forum and the OP introduced the very broad topic about legal ramifications of DGU's and I believe he was soliciting opinions. Are good willed people not allowed to share opinions and conclusions about the topic at hand?



The OP asked how DGU scenarios that have occurred in other parts of the US would play out here.

Posting links to RCW's is fine, but this is a forum, it's only part of the conversation. RCW's play a part in a DGU, but if you think you have it licked because you think you followed the law, you could have a very long time to contemplate the error in your thinking for many of the reasons discussed here. Discussions about experiences, occurrences and conclusions about how DGU's have gone in Washington state as it relates to different police and DA jurisdictions, or even different neighborhoods are all relevant to the topic.

AVVO could probably render competent legal opinions and site RCW's.

I learn a lot having my opinions challenged and enjoy participating in lively discussions about gun related issues. I welcome different viewpoints. I have conversations like these with my friends and family all the time.

Perhaps you should read the OP again? I posted the main self defense law. The OP specifically asked what the law was. Not how a scenario would play out.
I am well aware the law is part of it. But you can't come up with a legal answer based off of a scenario. You need to know the applicable law.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Don't forget the poptart defense..

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

peeing your pants will make for a good case that you were scared for your life. just sayin