Can You Kill Him?

[chraland51]

If you let him go, he will likely come back some time later looking for revenge and maybe do a drive-by on your wife or kids. I do not know what I would do in this situation. I would like to think that I would not shoot someone for stealing my property, but if they were armed with a sawed-off shotgun and an AK, they likely meant to do you and your family serious harm if need be. I do know that I would not want a security system with a video recorded. That thing works in both directions and could get you into a lot of trouble. I really think that I would like to see his momma on the local news telling everybody what a misunderstood child her little boy was and that deep down she knows that he did not intend to cause anyone any harm. Take him and his buddy out of the gene pool. They will be just two less people that you will have to share your social security and medicare with on top of the worldly goods that they stole from you.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Thanks for reviving this thread. It was before my time here and definitely worth reading.

 

[bigretic]

Cool dig up. As a new member I enjoyed the read.
I read all of the pages over a pot of coffee. Personally, I say the shoot of BG2 is justified legally, but that all depends on the jury; IF it gets to that point and is stickey as explained by GunLawyer.

To the do you, don't you question of taking the shot:
I likely do - in the given scenerio.
What's going on in real time is not going to be plain as day like reading it in text.
The cameras don't cover every foot of what went on either... and if you think it's like TV and you can clearly tell BG2's intent and emotion from the footage, think again. Grainy, pixely stuff with missed frames of motion. (of course dude could have the mega system, but unlikely - I maintain lots of business and personal DVR systems.)


My biggest question is something I can't believe was not brought up in 20 pages of what if's and hypothetical discussion.

What happened to the dog? There was no mention of any shots fired other than by the home owner. Therefor the dog is somewhere. As described it seems the dog is in the house.
That being the case, the dog is all over these jackwagons from start to finish. Not saying it's biting, but it's definately engaging them at some level.

My 2 dogs would play a HUGE variable in this scenerio if we are talking hypothetical.

 

[finity]

wow thread revival i say shoot him. look at how it played out in texas with the 2 illegals breaking into the mans neighbors house. he shot one clean and told the other to stop running and then shot him in the back and killed him. those criminals weren't even in his house. here is the story in case your not up on it

Joe Horn shooting controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


now would it would have been the honor student from brownsburg would the jury have voted differently? possibly but you will never know until your in that situation.

You would be basing your actions on the laws of the completely WRONG state.

THIS ISN'T TEXAS. WE HAVE DIFFERENT LAWS.

You need to know the laws of the state you live in as those laws can vary wildly from state to state.

If you would have confronted the guys leaving the neighbors house with their belongings & just opened fire on them, IN INDIANA, you would likely face charges.

You can't legally use deadly force to protect property (yours or anybody elses) in Indiana.

 

[Ram-jac]

2nd BG running away......or running to grab another weapon?? Or is he opening the door to let some more of his BG buddies in???? I think the BG's intent was established when they entered the home not to mention doing so with weapons. Not particularly interested in determining if the 2nd BG dropped the one weapon that was visible on purpose or accidently. I think it would be not unreasonable to assume the BG has another weapon. Looks like BG #1 and #2 chose poorly. And who's to say that the secrity video system was working 100% ???

 

[LEGENw84itDARY]

wow thread revival i say shoot him. look at how it played out in texas with the 2 illegals breaking into the mans neighbors house. he shot one clean and told the other to stop running and then shot him in the back and killed him. those criminals weren't even in his house. here is the story in case your not up on it

Joe Horn shooting controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


now would it would have been the honor student from brownsburg would the jury have voted differently? possibly but you will never know until your in that situation.

Thanks for that insight to that case, Its definately a actually scenario that could be hard to define one way or the other

 

[LEGENw84itDARY]

Thanks for reviving this thread. It was before my time here and definitely worth reading.

yea a friend on INGO was telling me about "GunLawyers" threads so i searched his name and was reading some of the hypothetical scenarios he had and this one was probably one of the better debates

 

[Bendrx]

"Machiavelli made me do it" My defense for shooting BG2.

Durn'd kids and thier violent 1500s manuscripts!

 

[Hoosierbuck]

Another newer member here that appreciates the resurrection of this thread.

My background gives me insight to say a few things:

>Good thread to the OP. Thanks.

>I don't have a home video system, and never will. I don't want my kids watching video of what mom and dad do after they go to bed, among many other reasons.

>What I perceived versus what transpired in that few seconds will be known to me, and to my attorney. PERIOD. I love cops. I do. However, at that point I don't trust myself to speak well. Here is my statement to the police, "I need to speak to my lawyer."

Real world observations, many of which correspond to the above:
>This scenario presents facts that likely would not be known at the time to the homeowner.
>Nobody has a home video system in my county.
>If I took the shot, then I had a reasonable basis for fearing for the safety of my family. Whether I could get away with it never enters my mind in the heat of the moment. I only did it because I believed I had to.
>Without video, the timeline and actual observations come only from the survivor. If he keeps his mouth shut, that is a tough case for the police to put together, and even tougher for the prosecutor to sell to a jury.

Again, nice post. Some good insights. INGO: This GL guy is a real world lawyer who really has been inside a courtroom. No, I don't know him or have a stake in his practice, but he's no internet hero.

HB

 

[GeneralCarver]

I'm going to be devil's advocate here and say that yeah you could shoot at him. Even when he is running away with his back to you. how do you know he is not armed? He is still on your property. Maybe he is fleeing to a point of cover. That is a relevant point. Also, you will be under great stress and really only able to think ."intruders in house, engage intruders and neutralize or make them fee off property". There have been situations like this I've seen on video and the home owners didn't get in trouble. Think back to that one Arizona resident who shoot at 4 guys did this very scenario you described. He didn't get in trouble.

video reference:
YouTube - Raw Video: Home Invasion Ends in Shootout

 

[finity]

I'm going to be devil's advocate here and say that yeah you could shoot at him. Even when he is running away with his back to you. how do you know he is not armed? He is still on your property. Maybe he is fleeing to a point of cover. That is a relevant point. Also, you will be under great stress and really only able to think ."intruders in house, engage intruders and neutralize or make them fee off property". There have been situations like this I've seen on video and the home owners didn't get in trouble. Think back to that one Arizona resident who shoot at 4 guys did this very scenario you described. He didn't get in trouble.

video reference:
YouTube - Raw Video: Home Invasion Ends in Shootout

See the bolded part above.

Therein lies the most important difference.

You have to make sure you follow the laws of the state you live in. I don't know AZ laws. Maybe their laws allow the actions of that person.

Generally i agree with you, though. Even in IN if you can articulate why you REASONABLY thought the person was still in the process of "attacking" your home & that using deadly force was NECESSARY you SHOULD be OK.

If he's still in your house but "retreating" I can see you being OK. However, if they are "reatreating" & at or very near to a point that allows them to exit your home then use of deadly force COULD be considered not NECESSARY to "stop the attack".

It may be a fine line & may require good judgement but that is what the laws are based on - the "reasonable man" theory.

I don't see a problem with that standard.

 

[IndianaGTI]

"I was in fear for my life. He was still armed with my grandma's _____________(silver knife, candle abra, etc). He was within 21 feet and I know from the Tueller rule that he can inflict serious bodily injury on me or my family within that distance before I can fire an aimed shot to neutralize him if he is armed with a deadly weapon."

 

[1911 mike]

He is a dead man!! Still in your home, you have no idea of his intent. is his friends outside? Does he have another weapon? Will he hide behind the next door way? He entered with intent of robbing you, knowing he may encounter someone and may have to shoot you or anyone in the home. Outside, maybe a different story, but while inside, he's dead meat. As a member of your jury, I vote justifiable!! Be on your way good citizen......

 

[GIJEW]

The question is not whether you can kill BG2, but why would you want to? I think we've started to exhaust the available answers, but I'll throw my in.

BG1 is easily defended using IC 35-41-3 Sec 2(a): A BG in my house, closing distance (rather than going straight for the jewelry box with weapon slung) with a deadly weapon after forcibly entering my property can reasonably be assumed to have a high likelihood of causing SBI.

BG2, having exercised the better part of valor, cannot be dispatched under the same statute. In fact, Sec 2(b) of the same code states: The OP's description of BG2 disarming, "running like hell for the door," while "screaming like a baby" seems to indicate he is terminating his unlawful entry with all reasonable haste. Unless there is an army of toddlers outside it doesn't seem to me that he's calling for the second wave to continue the attack by "screaming like a baby."

I really don't see how BG2 poses a risk of SBI. Based solely on that, I would not take the shot, even if GunLawyer comes back and tells us that it's perfectly legal.

Excellent analysis. Bubba you should be a lawyer too!
Gunlawyer this one is too cut-and-dried. How about this: hearing your lab barking (with a responding shot) you confront them at the top of the stairs and shoot BG1 who falls and you cant tell if he's incapacitated. before turning the corner from the upstairs hall to fire down the stairs on BG2, BG3, etc. you shoot BG1 in the head to make sure he can't get back in the fight.
Legal or not?

 

[alluwant]

u would have trouble a bunch of trouble dont shoot him

 

[12many]

AS much as you would like to take the second intruder down I think there would be heck to pay later. It's hard to say without ever being in a situation like that, but I think that since you ahve stopped the threat successfully it would be a good idea not to take out the second one from behind. Most criminals are inherent cowards and my guess is he won't be coming back.

 

[f'nstar]

I say you have legal problems, he is no longer armed and is leaving your house. Even though he has your silver it doesn't mean you can shoot him. After the first guy was dropped and the second dropped his weapon and headed for the door he is no longer a treat. Now you could chase him down and kick his A$$ and get your silver back but i don't think you could justify shooting him. I can't wait to hear the correct answer

 

[Fargo]

I can't wait to hear the correct answer

FWIW Gunlawyers answer can be found 2 pages back....

Joe

 

[GARANDGUY]

First guy was justified. Second guy dropped his weapon and ran in retreat out your door so therefore no longer a threat. Wasnt a threat as soon as he dropped the weapon so shooting him would not be justified and you would be spending some time with bubbles in the klink.

 

[HogDaddy]

Yes the 2nd person is no longer a threat and can not be shot no matter how much he deserves it. the silver is why we have insurance. Be ready to be charged from the prosecutor's office.