What is the law if somone is in your home?

[PiratePast40]

The huge problem with the laws is that a person could come into your home, take your things and leave and you can't really do much about it as you never feel your life threatened.

The point is that "things" aren't worth a human life. To be honest, if someone were bold enough to come into my home and start stealing things in front of me, I'd be seriously thinking of what else they might do.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

While I agree, somewhat, that "things" aren't worth a human life, in some respects, that is exactly what they are worth. I have spent my life (and parts of my body) earning the things I have in my house. So, I have traded my life for my things. If someone breaks in to a house knowing there are people in it, there is an expectation that he (the bad guy) is willing to use force, if necessary, to achieve his ends. If he is willing to use force, so am I. Of course, not more than is necessary to end the threat. If that means two to the chest, then that's what happens. If just confronting him works, that is better. But I will end the threat to my life and the life of my loved ones.

 

[razormanxx]

That shooting was in sutherlin he did get 19 months in prison.

 

[revjen45]

Reply to Burt #24
And in light of the decision in Salinas vs. TX even just SingTFU may be inculpatory. You must specifically claim right to silence under 5A at the the time you are invoking it. Search Salinas vs Texas for the whole thing.

SALINAS v. TEXAS
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
No. 12–246. Argued April 17, 2013—Decided June 17, 2013
Petitioner, without being placed in custody or receiving Miranda warnings, voluntarily answered some of a police officer’s questions about a murder, but fell silent when asked whether ballistics testing wouldmatch his shotgun to shell casings found at the scene of the crime. At petitioner’s murder trial in Texas state court, and over his objection,the prosecution used his failure to answer the question as evidence of guilt. He was convicted, and both the State Court of Appeals andCourt of Criminal Appeals affirmed, rejecting his claim that the prosecution’s use of his silence in its case in chief violated the Fifth Amendment.
Held: The judgment is affirmed.
369 S. W. 3d 176, affirmed.
JUSTICE ALITO, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE KENNEDY, concluded that petitioner’s Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege in response to the officer’squestion. Pp. 3−12.
(a) To prevent the privilege against self-incrimination from shielding information not properly within its scope, a witness who “ ‘desires the protection of the privilege . . . must claim it’ ” at the time he relies on it. Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U. S. 420, 427.

And obviously the race of the shootee is an issue after seeing the aftermath of State of Florida v. George Zimmerman (de facto if not de jure). If you have the misfortune to experience a home invasion by an aspiring rapper who is being scouted by the NBA and for whom the LSM can find a sweet picture from middle school you will be crucified by the likes of Al Charlaton, Jesse Jackson, and the whole menagerie of race baiters and poverty pimps in addition to a malicious prosecution by Reichs Shyster Holder and the Federal legal industry for a civil rights beef. The only time to shoot is when the only thing worse than shooting is not shooting.

 

[RVTECH]

The huge problem with the laws is that a person could come into your home, take your things and leave and you can't really do much about it as you never feel your life threatened.

This and similar issues are what create the unfortunate 'gray areas' that seem to become the highlight of any legal issues revolving around home entry situations. Many years ago I had one of these myself - but the proper 'choice' by an LEO (an not irrational action) kept a friend - and me out of jail.

 

[chemist]

Look, the relevant ORS 161 has already been posted twice! What's the question?

It's blackletter law that burglary of a dwelling constitutes a justification for the use of deadly force! Is it an ironclad SYG defense? Of course not. But if you keep your mouth shut and wait for your lawyer, no prosecutor is going to get a toehold on your case.

There was an incident recently where a guy came home to find a drunk passed out on his couch, so he went upstairs to get his rifle and killed the guy point-blank. He went to prison for it, naturally, and that's as it should be. But in any face-to-face confrontation inside your home, you do not need to "interview" the bad guy to determine his intentions.

Note added in proof: The doors to my home are always locked. No sorry drunk is going to accidentally stumble in here.

 

[Misterbill]

In Washington, the law doesn't change. IN ALL CASES you must have a reasonable fear of imminent fear of death or "Grave Bodily Injury," before you deploy lethal force.

WE DO NOT have a "castle law," which is a law that ASSUMES the risk, simply because it's in your home.

Now in PRACTICE, we pretty much DO have a castle law, because it's pretty damned hard to get a jury to convict when you shot a BG IN YOUR HOME absent some other VERY incriminating evidence that you WERE NOT a lawful resident defending your home in a LAWFUL WAY.

Personally, if I have a burglar that's running out of my house with ny big-screen TV, I'm more likely to take a picture than I am to shoot him.

A: Not a threat.
B: the picture is more likely to recover my TV than the dead body which dropped it 3-feet when I shot him. AND I have ZERO liability. Win all-around. Safe, BG ID'd, property not endangered by MY OWN actions and I have insurance with a $100 deductible.

It doesn't get any better in a potential lethal force scenario. shooting the BG will NOT make your life better. Quite the opposite, no matter WHAT the circumstances. If you don't believe me, ask some cops who have been through it.

 

[mrblond]

these laws are so stupid. the deal with the thinking of one person and judged by the opinions of 12 others. If I see a man in my house that doesnt belong there at 3am, i am going to assume he is there to do me harm. The laws should be if someone enters your home unlawfully, you can use whatever means to get rid of them. period, end of story. Enter my house, I kill you. you shoot at me and try to kill me, i will shoot back and kill you Period. actions should hold consequences, regardless of the pro criminal mindset of the modern liberal.

 

[Misterbill]

these laws are so stupid. the deal with the thinking of one person and judged by the opinions of 12 others. If I see a man in my house that doesnt belong there at 3am, i am going to assume he is there to do me harm. The laws should be if someone enters your home unlawfully, you can use whatever means to get rid of them. period, end of story. Enter my house, I kill you. you shoot at me and try to kill me, i will shoot back and kill you Period. actions should hold consequences, regardless of the pro criminal mindset of the modern liberal.

In your house at 3Am? Not a problem. and pretty much any jury ANYWHERE will agree.

But what id it's 2PM. what if you had your door wide open. what if, when confronted, the burglar runs like Hell? Should you be able to execute him?

Tell me what state it is again that res/burg is a capitol offense?

THIS is the issue that legislatures have to deal with.

Frankly. a "castle doctrine" law seems as reasonable as can be. If you commit Res/burg and and encounter an armed homeowner, your penalty may be death. Right there, right now. And no penalties for the householder.

Lesson: don't commit residential burglary. No problem from me. Res/burg is an inherently extremely dangerous VIOLENT CRIME. If you die while committing it, well, it sucks to be you.

On the other hand, I DON'T want a situation like Texas, where you can be killed for what amounts in most states to simple trespass. I think that's too much.

There is a balance. I believe we can find it. If everyone was willing to look at ACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES when crafting law instead of some abstract ideal, I think we'd arrive at something like rational. As it IS, every state is different and your *** is hanging in the wind no matter WHAT you do.

 

[mrblond]

In your house at 3Am? Not a problem. and pretty much any jury ANYWHERE will agree.

But what id it's 2PM. what if you had your door wide open. what if, when confronted, the burglar runs like Hell? Should you be able to execute him?

Tell me what state it is again that res/burg is a capitol offense?

THIS is the issue that legislatures have to deal with.

Frankly. a "castle doctrine" law seems as reasonable as can be. If you commit Res/burg and and encounter an armed homeowner, your penalty may be death. Right there, right now. And no penalties for the householder.

Lesson: don't commit residential burglary. No problem from me. Res/burg is an inherently extremely dangerous VIOLENT CRIME. If you die while committing it, well, it sucks to be you.

On the other hand, I DON'T want a situation like Texas, where you can be killed for what amounts in most states to simple trespass. I think that's too much.

There is a balance. I believe we can find it. If everyone was willing to look at ACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES when crafting law instead of some abstract ideal, I think we'd arrive at something like rational. As it IS, every state is different and your *** is hanging in the wind no matter WHAT you do.

whats the difference between breaking in a 3 am or 2 pm? if i confront a man who is in my home, he drops whatever and runs, there is 0 reason to use deadly force. if said man unloads his firearm at me then runs, i should be able to return fire. Everyone should know that actions have consequences and right now, they don't.

 

[razormanxx]

Keep your doors locked, lot of drunk stupid people and kids. 2005 3am Mothers Day, if my doors weren't locked I most likely would of killed a 17 year old kid. I awoke to a noise at my front door and my wife nudging me saying "there's someone at our door" someone was trying to get in, just fiddling with the handle and shaking the door. At that time my girls were 2 and 7 years old, first thing I grabbed was my gun, and I guarantee I would not hesitate if he came into my home. My wife was already on the phone with police. I pounded on the door and yelled, but this dude kept playing with the door. I could see thru a side window it was a guy with no shirt, missing a shoe, some blood on him. Police showed up about 35 minutes later, and this guy is sitting leaning on my front door. Turns out to be a drunk kid that was trying to get home from a party, the blood was his from trekking thru blackberry bushes. The kid was so drunk he thought it was his home, he had no ill will.

 

[Misterbill]

MrBlond) Difference is immediately without any thought, whether the burglar had any idea people might be HOME.

There IS NOT a difference in self-defense law. THERE IS A HUGE difference in the likelihood that any charges will be brought against you.

In one case, IT IS A GIVEN that people will be home. this takes it from a case of simple theft, to a case of robbery.

In the other, it is reasonable that the defendant thought NO ONE was at home, which is an entirely different matter. (subsequent acts obviously "count" as to intent.)

Look, I can give you case law all day long. It won't make a difference. The nature of your post tells me where you're at.

Bottom line is that IF you shoot someone, you'd better be able to articulate, in a way that a jury who knows F*** all about self defense law except what they've been told by the prosecutor, that there was Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy all present at the time you pulled the trigger.

In PRACTICE in WA state (where I've been looking at cases for 20 years +) what I've stated is GENERALLY correct. If you have some specific disagreement, state the case #.

 

[mrblond]

Which is why I stated that the laws need to be changed. We give the criminal. yes, someone breaking into my home, no matter if they think I am there or not, is a criminal, to much credit and not enough for the home owner. a castle law should be exactly that, a castle law. you break into my home, you pay the consequences.
Now, If i were to walk out and see a naked man on my couch watching TV, I would not feel my life was in danger. Or some dirtbag gathering up my things who drops it and runs. If someone pulls a gun, fires it at me, they better be prepared to pay with their life, legal mumbo jumbo or not.

 

[Misterbill]

So your position is that if you confront someone breaking into your home, that you should be able to immediately execute him then and there regardless? NO. I do not agree.

The FACTS are that the vast majority of home burglaries are committed by unarmed teenagers interested in nothing other than how much mullah they will derive from the crime. It's NOT a violent crime, in its essence.

I would propose CHANGING that standard to making res/burg a VIOLENT CRIME by default.

To my mind, a 1st offense ought to get a couple of years and a Sterne talking to. 2nd=10 years and "we're really serious." third time is: "See you when you're 70."

I have no wish to give violent criminals a "break." But I equally do not wish a situation in which the armed citizen becomes judge, jury and executioner based primarily on whether a defendant "pissed them off."

 

[mrblond]

the way the laws are now, a mans home is his castle, unless someone wants to take something from it. No, I don't think deadly force should be used just cause. A person breaking into my home, at any time of the day should know they risk their lives.
I suppose the question is.. does the common man have the right to protect their property. as it sounds now, at least up north, the answer is no and that should change. Should a stupid kid lose his life over a TV, no he shouldn't, but then again, he should not have been trying to take that TV in the first place.

 

[Redcap]

So your position is that if you confront someone breaking into your home, that you should be able to immediately execute him then and there regardless?

Absolutely. There is no reason, whatsoever, for anyone not invited to be in my (or anyone else's) home. Doing so, for whatever reason, should come with the very real risk of that person forfeiting their life.

 

[duane black]

Absolutely. There is no reason, whatsoever, for anyone not invited to be in my (or anyone else's) home. Doing so, for whatever reason, should come with the very real risk of that person forfeiting their life.

I realize we are not in California, thank god, but your post reminded me of their version of the castle doctrine. I agree with you, as does the state of California.

If someone has broken into your home, the law should automatically assume this is a life threatening event allowing you to use deadly force. It appears a similar law does not exist in Oregon or Washington from my research. One of about 3 things I miss from that god forsaken place.

________________________________________________________
PC 198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.