JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Intruder or Burglar
- Thread Starter Paul Martinson
- Start date
I am pretty hard-core when it comes to the ability to shoot an intruder without being second-guessed by people who weren't there, and I have ZERO faith in police or in the criminal "Justice System" to actually deliver justice.
That said, I still think people ought to be careful about what they do. I have a friend whose house was "invaded" by some drunk kid who passed out just as he crossed the threshold, and I would not have second-guessed her had she shot him. She was a young woman, living alone. But it was just some kid who was trying to get into his own house, and he was on the wrong block! Her life would have been much, much worse had she killed him, rather than just calling the cops to drag him out of there, as she did. Do exercise some judgment...
That said, I still think people ought to be careful about what they do. I have a friend whose house was "invaded" by some drunk kid who passed out just as he crossed the threshold, and I would not have second-guessed her had she shot him. She was a young woman, living alone. But it was just some kid who was trying to get into his own house, and he was on the wrong block! Her life would have been much, much worse had she killed him, rather than just calling the cops to drag him out of there, as she did. Do exercise some judgment...
- Messages
- 13
- Reactions
- 47
You may want to rethink this. Oregon allows deadly force against anyone committing a burglary. That means:
"A person commits the crime of burglary in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein."
- Messages
- 3,267
- Reactions
- 4,909
I will inform the police that "I am too traumatized to give a statememt at this time, may I call my lawyer? ( <broken link removed> )
- Messages
- 14,023
- Reactions
- 42,887
Dunno about in other states or even counties but you have to have someone charge you with something before you have to worry about going to court (still have a lawyer!!!).
Guy up in Battle Ground shot and killed an intruder during the daytime and was never charged not that long ago.
There are a lot of other stories that are similar but sometimes hard to find because a gun owner killing someone on his or her property and not haveing any charges brought against them isn't sensational news for the media.
Your either prepared to shoot someone or your not, if not then keep your guns locked up instead of carrying them or keeping them loaded and nearby. Robberies and murders happen in seconds not minutes so make up your mind now what your willing to do or not do.
There are hunters and gatherers, decide what you are because my life is worth more then some random law that protects criminals.*
*Glad I live in a place, that for the moment, allows you to protect yourself without fear of certain prosecution - I am not advocating breaking the law in your local areas.
Guy up in Battle Ground shot and killed an intruder during the daytime and was never charged not that long ago.
There are a lot of other stories that are similar but sometimes hard to find because a gun owner killing someone on his or her property and not haveing any charges brought against them isn't sensational news for the media.
Your either prepared to shoot someone or your not, if not then keep your guns locked up instead of carrying them or keeping them loaded and nearby. Robberies and murders happen in seconds not minutes so make up your mind now what your willing to do or not do.
There are hunters and gatherers, decide what you are because my life is worth more then some random law that protects criminals.*
*Glad I live in a place, that for the moment, allows you to protect yourself without fear of certain prosecution - I am not advocating breaking the law in your local areas.
Last Edited:
Well, I'm well prepared to do what is necessary to protect my wife and myself. But I would not be posting on this forum that I'm going to kill anyone that burglarizes or intrudes into my house. Too many cases of people calling 911 to inform the PD that they are going to "kill" some intruder.
That said, I cannot prepare for self defense by worrying what the lawyers are going to do. Within reason. IMO it's good to be clear on the law, but fear of lawyers and juries is making way too many folks paralyzed or at the least dysfunctional.
We are retired with no kiddos living at home. Therefore, I see no reason to go searching the house if noises convince us of an intruder. That is just not a good self defense strategy. 9 out of 10 the intruder, or his buds, will get you first. We have a siege mentality that has us in BD behind heavy cover, with cellphone used to call LE. If we can close the door, we do it. Then, we see what happens and do what we have to. Just sayin.
Now, armed blitz type home invasion has become endemic and is a different animal. That requires a self defense strategy of a whole different nature!
"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried out by six"!
That said, I cannot prepare for self defense by worrying what the lawyers are going to do. Within reason. IMO it's good to be clear on the law, but fear of lawyers and juries is making way too many folks paralyzed or at the least dysfunctional.
We are retired with no kiddos living at home. Therefore, I see no reason to go searching the house if noises convince us of an intruder. That is just not a good self defense strategy. 9 out of 10 the intruder, or his buds, will get you first. We have a siege mentality that has us in BD behind heavy cover, with cellphone used to call LE. If we can close the door, we do it. Then, we see what happens and do what we have to. Just sayin.
Now, armed blitz type home invasion has become endemic and is a different animal. That requires a self defense strategy of a whole different nature!
"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried out by six"!
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 14,023
- Reactions
- 42,887
Hopefully I didn't come across as someone who wants to take another life, but that is what worst case is when you have a loaded gun and a stranger bursts into your home.
My wife would be the one calling 911 and would only say that we do have guns to protect ourselves and our family and I agree with an ambush strategy being the best way to handle multiple intruders (like with a 4 man blitz break in). Useing a door as a choke point is a great way to keep them coming in single file.
My post was more about people who think that thier gun will scare away intruders or warning shots etc. If your going to shoot you need to be prepared that one of your shots may kill someone.
Again I agree, if your more worried about lawyers then you are about the people in your house then why bother owning a gun...
Absolutely agree. I just get queasy with all the folks, not saying you did, that post in this forum and on others that they are going to take some action no matter if it's legal or not. My point is that this data on a person is not too hard to find and can be very incriminating if it comes down to it. For instance, you won't see a statement from me that says that I am going to sell a gun to a friend and screw the new law about BGCs.
- Messages
- 3,352
- Reactions
- 4,958
Not only do I have >600 posts but I also have a degree in Professional Gunsmithing and 5 instructor's certifications and I'm an ordained Universal LIfe Church minister, thus entitling me to belch orders and spout nuggets of wisdom directly from the Divine Source.
1) Shoot when the only option worse than shooting is not shooting.
2) Watch the video "Surviving Edged Weapons." It's an old LE training video available on the web. Since your state of mind is a major factor if you have to employ lethal force having watched this could be a big help in convincing a jury why you had to shoot when "all he had was a knife." Marty Hayes thought well enough of it to show it in a class at FAS for that very reason.
3) Do a search for "The dangers of intervention" which will take you to an article on another 'site. It will break you of thinking that you have some obligation to intervene on behalf of someone who depends on the police for protection. LEOs have as close to carte blanche as it can get in the use of force and virtually unlimited legal resources, which does not apply to We the Peons. If the Sheeple want protection above and beyond that offerred by society's guardians let them learn to shoot and pack their own piece.
1) Shoot when the only option worse than shooting is not shooting.
2) Watch the video "Surviving Edged Weapons." It's an old LE training video available on the web. Since your state of mind is a major factor if you have to employ lethal force having watched this could be a big help in convincing a jury why you had to shoot when "all he had was a knife." Marty Hayes thought well enough of it to show it in a class at FAS for that very reason.
3) Do a search for "The dangers of intervention" which will take you to an article on another 'site. It will break you of thinking that you have some obligation to intervene on behalf of someone who depends on the police for protection. LEOs have as close to carte blanche as it can get in the use of force and virtually unlimited legal resources, which does not apply to We the Peons. If the Sheeple want protection above and beyond that offerred by society's guardians let them learn to shoot and pack their own piece.
- Messages
- 2,794
- Reactions
- 2,489
Boy, along with some good advice in this thread are some really terrible suggestions, however well intentioned.
A rule of thumb: the law allows us to use only that force which is reasonable and necessary to overcome a threat.
The elements which define a person presenting a threat are three: the attacker must have the ability (or means) to harm you, the opportunity to harm you, and the intent to harm you.
Factoring into the permissible force continuum are the defenders' physical condition, skill, and belief that they were in imminent danger of harm.
These factors will be weighed immediately by the responding police and maybe escalated to the prosecuting attorney if things don't add up right.
Statements made to the police or bystanders other than identifying yourself and being respectfully cooperative (sit here, are there any other weapons? where are they? Do you live here?) can and will be used against you, so use your right to clam up and politely, respectfully advise them you'll be glad to talk once you are represented... and did I say clam up until then?
If it comes to trial, the standard you will be held to is gonna be what would a reasonable person believe or do in the circumstances that existed at the time of the incident.
A rule of thumb: the law allows us to use only that force which is reasonable and necessary to overcome a threat.
The elements which define a person presenting a threat are three: the attacker must have the ability (or means) to harm you, the opportunity to harm you, and the intent to harm you.
Factoring into the permissible force continuum are the defenders' physical condition, skill, and belief that they were in imminent danger of harm.
These factors will be weighed immediately by the responding police and maybe escalated to the prosecuting attorney if things don't add up right.
Statements made to the police or bystanders other than identifying yourself and being respectfully cooperative (sit here, are there any other weapons? where are they? Do you live here?) can and will be used against you, so use your right to clam up and politely, respectfully advise them you'll be glad to talk once you are represented... and did I say clam up until then?
If it comes to trial, the standard you will be held to is gonna be what would a reasonable person believe or do in the circumstances that existed at the time of the incident.
- Messages
- 139
- Reactions
- 101
Imminence is one of the essential elements of a self-defense claim, and that's true in every state. Under some circumstances, however, the degree of the imminence required is reduced.
One such circumstance arises with "battered women syndrome" cases of self-defense, where at the moment the abused spouse kills her abuser he is not an imminent threat, but where the nature of the abusive relationship indicates the threat is otherwise unavoidable--eventually he'll wake up and the beatings will resume. But those cases involve different issues than raised in this thread.
More relevant to this thread, many states allow for "presumptions of reasonableness" in the context of defending one's home. (Importantly, this legal concept is NOT the "Castle Doctrine," which properly understood only deals with the issue of retreat when attacked in one's home, and NOT the degree of defensive force permitted.) In those states, when attacked in one's home the defender has a legal presumption that he is reasonably perceiving a threat of death or grave bodily harm. So, not only does the threat not need to be actually imminent, the defender doesn't even have to reasonably (if mistakenly) perceive an imminent threat--because the intruder is breaching the home, the defender is PRESUMED to reasonably perceive an imminent deadly threat.
Washington is not one of these states, and the Washington courts are pretty rigid in requiring as a condition of deadly defensive force that the defender reasonably perceives a deadly force threat.
This is also a good time to point out how dangerous it can be to simply base your understanding on self-defense law on statutory language. Statutes are merely the legislature's intent, what they would like to see happen. But a statute has no effect in the real world until it is interpreted and applied by courts to real people.
So, for example, RCW 9A.16.050 reads:
Emphasis added to (2). So, a plain-English reading of this statute would suggest that you can use deadly force against a person attempting to commit a felony in a dwelling.
Not so fast.
Despite the plain-English reading of the statute, the WA courts have long held that in this context the term "felony" should be read to include ONLY violent felonies. See, for example, State v. Nyland:
(Incidentally, although Nyland dates to 1955, I checked a moment ago and, yes, it's still good law in WA.)
But if a mere non-violent felony in a dwelling is not enough to justify deadly defensive force, if what's required is an actual VIOLENT felony--well, then being in the dwelling isn't anything special at all, we're simply defending ourselves against a violent felony. That can be done anywhere, inside your home or outside, and simply requires the normal rules governing the use of defensive force--just good old self-defense.
One such circumstance arises with "battered women syndrome" cases of self-defense, where at the moment the abused spouse kills her abuser he is not an imminent threat, but where the nature of the abusive relationship indicates the threat is otherwise unavoidable--eventually he'll wake up and the beatings will resume. But those cases involve different issues than raised in this thread.
More relevant to this thread, many states allow for "presumptions of reasonableness" in the context of defending one's home. (Importantly, this legal concept is NOT the "Castle Doctrine," which properly understood only deals with the issue of retreat when attacked in one's home, and NOT the degree of defensive force permitted.) In those states, when attacked in one's home the defender has a legal presumption that he is reasonably perceiving a threat of death or grave bodily harm. So, not only does the threat not need to be actually imminent, the defender doesn't even have to reasonably (if mistakenly) perceive an imminent threat--because the intruder is breaching the home, the defender is PRESUMED to reasonably perceive an imminent deadly threat.
Washington is not one of these states, and the Washington courts are pretty rigid in requiring as a condition of deadly defensive force that the defender reasonably perceives a deadly force threat.
This is also a good time to point out how dangerous it can be to simply base your understanding on self-defense law on statutory language. Statutes are merely the legislature's intent, what they would like to see happen. But a statute has no effect in the real world until it is interpreted and applied by courts to real people.
So, for example, RCW 9A.16.050 reads:
Homicide—By other person—When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.
Emphasis added to (2). So, a plain-English reading of this statute would suggest that you can use deadly force against a person attempting to commit a felony in a dwelling.
Not so fast.
Despite the plain-English reading of the statute, the WA courts have long held that in this context the term "felony" should be read to include ONLY violent felonies. See, for example, State v. Nyland:
"We have consistently held ... that a killing in self-defense is not justified unless the attack on the defendant's person threatens life or great bodily harm."
State v. Nyland, 287 P.2d 345 (WA Supreme Court 1955)
State v. Nyland, 287 P.2d 345 (WA Supreme Court 1955)
(Incidentally, although Nyland dates to 1955, I checked a moment ago and, yes, it's still good law in WA.)
But if a mere non-violent felony in a dwelling is not enough to justify deadly defensive force, if what's required is an actual VIOLENT felony--well, then being in the dwelling isn't anything special at all, we're simply defending ourselves against a violent felony. That can be done anywhere, inside your home or outside, and simply requires the normal rules governing the use of defensive force--just good old self-defense.
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
Reloading Dies, 300 H&H,300 Win Mag,220 swift,338 Winchester,30.06- Started by NJACamaro
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
Kimber Eclipse Custom II 1911 with holster and ammo.
- Started by mrgibbs95
- Replies: 0
-
Winchester 200gr Open Tip Subsonic for 300 Blk
- Started by pharris95
- Replies: 0
-
Burris XTR III 3.3-18X50 SCR2 illuminated
- Started by T38
- Replies: 0
-
-
