Only officaly are warning shots fired first and wounding shots are fired second..I do not recommend that order.skypilot said:
A question on the right to self defense
- Thread starter kkelso
- Start date
alienencounters said:
And remember your answer to did you intend to kill him is: "My only thought was to stop him from killing me and my family".
If you go to trial make it a jury trial.
If the perp is not of the same race as you. You response is: "all I saw was the gun".
"The police" covers everything from the Gestapo to classic London Bobbies, and "heard of" everything said by barroom drunks through The Christain Science Monitor to the Warren Commission, never mind what people who think copshows are real might say. And laws differ. And change over time.333conan said:
What police, where? When?
Yes it is subjective. Fortunately that is not a get out of jail free card. It is not YOUR subjectivity that matters. It is the subjectivity of the judge and jury that will be applied when they assess whether or not a "reasonable person" would have felt directly threatened.kkelso said:
Some of you guys may remember the Manson family and the Tate-LaBianca killings. Although I'm not old enough, I have read a bit about it. So if a stranger enters my house and does not obey my instructions to leave, or makes ANY threatening comments, gestures, motions, etc to cause me to believe that I or any occupants of my house may be in any harm, I'm going to do whatever I feel is necessary to protect myself and the other occupants of the house from the stranger. If he's clearly unarmed, it might just be a punch to the nose......but if I can't tell with any degree of certainty if he's unarmed, or if the gun is real, or loaded, I'm going to assume the intruder has the worst intentions and I'll act appropriately to protect myself and any other innocent occupants in the house. So if I have a gun, and the intruder has a gun, one of us will likely die.
Argue all the legal/ethical issues you want, but if some scuzzbag breaks into my house, he's already shown a disregard for laws and ethics, & I'm not going to wait & see how far he's willing to go with his crime-spree, I'm not going to flinch if threatened, I will give HIM a chance retreat, but otherwise, one of us will likely die.
Call me trigger-happy, or bloodthirsty, or whatever. Just don't break into my house & threaten the occupants.
Argue all the legal/ethical issues you want, but if some scuzzbag breaks into my house, he's already shown a disregard for laws and ethics, & I'm not going to wait & see how far he's willing to go with his crime-spree, I'm not going to flinch if threatened, I will give HIM a chance retreat, but otherwise, one of us will likely die.
Call me trigger-happy, or bloodthirsty, or whatever. Just don't break into my house & threaten the occupants.
Yes I'm sure. My point was simply that it is the "threatening" part that matters. Whether the guy is in your house or not, what he is carrying in his hand, whehter or not he has committed any non-violent crimes, all of that is irrelevant.tboy said:
In other words none of the conditions in the original post are sufficient to shoot because none of those conditions mention you being threatened.
It's being threatened that is the key, not the other details mentioned in the various stages the guy listed. Even after you have been shot if you aren't being threatened (e.g., it was accidental) you can't shoot back.
You can't shoot someone for trespassing. You can confront them and demand that they leave your property, if they refuse to leave you can try and force them off. You can't, however, shoot them simply because you found them on your property.
You are guilty of a crime the moment you fire the warning shot. It is illegal to discharge a firearm in a house.
The "details ommitted" are pretty clear! look at the list again:fuji said:
-------
1 - A man you do not know in your vicinity buys a gun
2 - The man walks by your house several times with gun in hand
3 - The man walks onto your property
4 - The man test your back door handle to see if it's locked
5 - The man enters your house
6 - The man shoots at you but misses
7 - The man shoots and hits you
-------
Look at 6 AND 7 again. There is no one time "accidental discharge" of a weapon. The guy shoots AT YOU (not at the ceiling, or wall) and misses, and then HE SHOOTS AT YOU AGAIN (if given the opportunity) and hits you. It's like that scene from one of the lethal weapon movies where Mel Gibson's character goes "<BAM> oops, I didn't mean to shoot at you, I'm sorry.... <BAM> oops, I shot at you again, how'd that happen? You're hit! I'm really sorry about that... <BAM> Oops again... I'm so clumsy.."
Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice...
Are you a criminal defense lawyer?
Did he shoot at me on purpose or did he shoot at me by accident? Even more importantly, after having done so, where is the gun now? Did he put it down? Has he run out of bullets? What is he doing--has he turned around and begun running away?Don said:
No matter what he has done up to any particular point your decision to use lethal force to defend yourself depends on what he is threatening to do NEXT. Not what he has done already.
papasmerf said:
Most people don't have the ability to fire a "disable" shot and it is a waste.
The short answer in Canada is: never.
If you are going to own a gun you should know how to use it well.Compromised said:
Nothing more embarrassing than being shot by your own gun unless it is being cut by your own knife. When I was a teen a punk pulled a knife on me while I was going into a store. I laughed and told him he was going to feel real silly when I cut him with that knife and he should put it away. He felt real silly and need to buy a new shirt to boot.
EXACTLY. And since I KNOW what he will do NEXT (because it has been listed out), I KNOW at point #6, if left alone, he WILL SHOOT AGAIN AND HIT ME. So at point #6, I have stated that I will shoot to maim (not kill) because I KNOW his next move is to shoot and hit me unless I disable him first.fuji said:
The general standard is that you may only use deady force to meet deadly force or the threat of deadly force.kkelso said:
Merely testing the door is still on the far side of that line (although dogone right you should be calling 911) however at the point where the person enters your house and refuses to leave now you are in threat of your life and the use of deadly force becomes legitimate.
To the best of my knowledge professional handgun users (cops, soldiers...) are taught to aim for the centre of mass since precision targeting is much more difficult with a handgun instead of a rifle. I would imagine the targeting would only be worse when you are confronted by a threat to your life as opposed to a paper target.papasmerf said:
Shooting the perp's gun out of his hand is a Hollywood thing.
In that case you should shoot him at step #1 because you know what he is going to do next. Why wait?Don said:
In the real world you ahven't been provided with the script in advance and when someone is at your door you really don't know whether they are well intentioned or not.
I disagree. Mere refusal to leave is not in and of itself a threat to your life. At that point he has committed criminal trespassing, and you have a right to physically remove him from your property if he won't go willingly but that is far short of a right to shoot him dead.Aardvark154 said:
Until you have some specific reason to believe he is about to physically harm you, you have no grounds to fire even a warning shot.
In fact if you fire an illegal warning shot then most likely *he* gains legal grounds to use lethal force against you, as at that point he has reasonable grounds to fear that you are a threat to his person.
To wit, if you shoot at someone who is trespassing on your property and then they return fire killing you my guess is that they wind up getting convicted for trespassing, but they beat the murder charge by claiming self defense.
