So a guy is standing in your house , with your kids in it, with a gun in his hand , and your going to try and "physically remove" him??? The only removing is gonna be you by the meat wagon. I'll lay money you don't have kids or a wife......I feel bad for them if you do.fuji said:
A question on the right to self defense
- Thread starter kkelso
- Start date
No. You have a legal right to remove a treaspasser from your property using the minimum force necessary, but you do not have an obligation to do so.Belleville69 said:So a guy is standing in your house , with your kids in it, with a gun in his hand , and your going to try and "physically remove" him??? The only removing is gonna be you by the meat wagon. I'll lay money you don't have kids or a wife......I feel bad for them if you do.
What I would do is call the police and tell them there was an armed trespasser on my property.
I would not shoot at the trespasser until I had some direct reason to believe they were an immediate threat to me or to my family.
I would, if possible, avoid him. If I can't avoid him I would stand there pointing my gun at him telling him that he was under citizen's arrest and to wait for the police.
If he made a move to point his gun at me I'd shoot him.
If he turn and ran I'd let him go.
Many people would classify breaking and entering with a gun in his hand a very "specific reason to believe he is about to physically harm" them. Especially considered in the moment of real-time, not a courtroom a few months later.fuji said: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.
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.
There are too many variables to give any 100% correct answers. Fuji is postulating a situation (if I read him rightly) where the intruder has entered his home but has not made any threatening actions with the firearm. You are postulating that the person is acting threatening right from the get-go.kkelso said:Many people would classify breaking and entering with a gun in his hand a very "specific reason to believe he is about to physically harm" them. Especially considered in the moment of real-time, not a courtroom a few months later.
Two different situations which would warrant two different responses if one wishes to not become the guilty party.
Moraff said:There are too many variables to give any 100% correct answers. Fuji is postulating a situation (if I read him rightly) where the intruder has entered his home but has not made any threatening actions with the firearm. You are postulating that the person is acting threatening right from the get-go.
Two different situations which would warrant two different responses if one wishes to not become the guilty party.
I strongly agree.
With some of the detail omitted the question forces you make assumptions. I clearly had an image of the scenario in my mind when I wrote it. It was not congruent with Fuji's image of a kindly stranger strolling altruistically through my home to help me or see if he could borrow some ammunition. But his interpretation is technically valid given the information presented.
I think that the assumptions made in answering are at least as telling as the answers themselves.
Originally Posted by Belleville69
So a guy is standing in your house , with your kids in it, with a gun in his hand , and your going to try and "physically remove" him??? The only removing is gonna be you by the meat wagon. I'll lay money you don't have kids or a wife......I feel bad for them if you do.
What I would do is call the police and tell them there was an armed trespasser on my property
Hey Fuji:
Referring to Belleville69's example where an armed stranger is standing in your house, am I reading your response correctly that you'd call the police?? An armed guy facing you & you think he'd let you use the phone?
You can't be serious.
So a guy is standing in your house , with your kids in it, with a gun in his hand , and your going to try and "physically remove" him??? The only removing is gonna be you by the meat wagon. I'll lay money you don't have kids or a wife......I feel bad for them if you do.
What I would do is call the police and tell them there was an armed trespasser on my property
Hey Fuji:
Referring to Belleville69's example where an armed stranger is standing in your house, am I reading your response correctly that you'd call the police?? An armed guy facing you & you think he'd let you use the phone?
You can't be serious.
Moraff said:There are too many variables to give any 100% correct answers. Fuji is postulating a situation (if I read him rightly) where the intruder has entered his home but has not made any threatening actions with the firearm. You are postulating that the person is acting threatening right from the get-go.
Two different situations which would warrant two different responses if one wishes to not become the guilty party.
Actually, this raises a key question itself.
"the intruder has entered his home but has not made any threatening actions with the firearm"
My first thought on reading this was that it is a contradiction in terms. I'd imagine that to many folks an intruder entering the home with a firearm is, in itself, a threatening action.
Which is why I would not take aim at the intruder until #6 (he shoots at me and misses). To me that indicates that the intruder is being threatening. But according to fuji's logic, I am still at fault and deserve to go to jail because I didn't double-check to see if the shooter might have mistakenly shot his gun at me and if he did purposely shoot at me, I didn't double-check to see if he might change his mind and decide he doesn't want to shoot at me anymore.Moraff said:There are too many variables to give any 100% correct answers. Fuji is postulating a situation (if I read him rightly) where the intruder has entered his home but has not made any threatening actions with the firearm. You are postulating that the person is acting threatening right from the get-go.
Those people belong in jail as they are a menace to their neighbours.kkelso said:Many people would classify breaking and entering with a gun in his hand a very "specific reason to believe he is about to physically harm" them.
Well no.Don said:Which is why I would not take aim at the intruder until #6 (he shoots at me and misses). To me that indicates that the intruder is being threatening. But according to fuji's logic, I am still at fault and deserve to go to jail because I didn't double-check to see if the shooter might have mistakenly shot his gun at me and if he did purposely shoot at me, I didn't double-check to see if he might change his mind and decide he doesn't want to shoot at me anymore.
In real life the details omitted from post #1 would be available to you. You would be in a position to judge whether the intruder was pointing his gun at you in a hostile manner or whether it was an accidental discharge, and so on.
I just don't want anyone to read this thread and come away with the notion that they can shoot anybody who breaks into their house, or shoot anybody who breaks in with a gun. The "and threatens you" and "hostile" that some people have added to their summaries changes everything.
Yes you can shoot hostile, threatening people who come at you with a gun, no matter whether they are in your home or not. No you can't just shoot anyone who has a gun even if they have broken into your home.
The fact that the events take place in your home are irrelevant.
I think it's important for people to know that there has to be reasonable grounds to believe that there is a direct, immediate, and credible threat to your physical safety.
If it happened in real life I imagine you would know.
However someone reading this thread, if not corrected, might believe it's acceptable to shoot people who break into your home no matter WHAT. That is wrong.
Which people - those who are breaking & entering or those who believe it constitutes a threat?fuji said:Those people belong in jail as they are a menace to their neighbours.
Those who believe that a mere property crime is in and of itself a threat. Plainly those breaking and entering also belong in jail, but on a much less serious charge.seth gecko said:Which people - those who are breaking & entering or those who believe it constitutes a threat?
Totally disagree with you here. If you are gonna shoot, shoot to kill.Don said:Warning shot at #5
Shoot to maim #6
You could be charged more easily if they are alive to tell their "side" of the story. It's happened before. Guy in Calgary couple years ago got charged and spent time in jail for beating the shit out of a home invader (who had a gun) with a baseball bat. Even though the man had small kids in his home, the court decided that he could have restrained the intruder with less violence.
#2 I'd be calling the cops. I'd be shooting my entire clip into the bugger at #5. And if he was still breathing, I'd step on his throat till he stopped wriggling and drag his ass into the street.
LIM
But is this a "mere property crime"? The perpetrator is armed, you do not know his intentions, and has shown no regard for breaking the law already by entering your house uninvited.fuji said:Those who believe that a mere property crime is in and of itself a threat. Plainly those breaking and entering also belong in jail, but on a much less serious charge.
I wonder if you would be able to think so logically while this was happening to you. Theory and reality can become two completely different things when adrenaline and emotions get involved.
LIM
fuji said:Those who believe that a mere property crime is in and of itself a threat. Plainly those breaking and entering also belong in jail, but on a much less serious charge.
Would most consider "a mere property crime" a threat? I don't think so. However, breaking and entering into a residence while armed with a gun? Would that not cross a generally accepted line?
I would expect you could shoot and kill someone who entered your house with a gun at #5, just as they broke through the door. Doubt a jury would convict you, and either way you and your family will be alive to fight it.
Rooms are only 8 - 15 feet in size, the idea of warning shots, shooting to wound, sizing up the situation, and discussions with the intruder are kind of mute as events would unfold very quickly.
Rooms are only 8 - 15 feet in size, the idea of warning shots, shooting to wound, sizing up the situation, and discussions with the intruder are kind of mute as events would unfold very quickly.
Fuji, you really MUST be joking....you're saying that if I believe I'm threatened by an armed intruder, I belong in jail as I am a menace to my neighbours, and that the armed individual who actually commits a crime by breaking & entering should be charged with a less serious offence?fuji said:Those who believe that a mere property crime is in and of itself a threat. Plainly those breaking and entering also belong in jail, but on a much less serious charge.
If you really believe that, then you are truly out of touch with reality!!
Most responses here have followed the fight-or-flight condition that humans, hell, ALL animals, have adapted over eons of evolution....most of the guys here have responded that they would fight to protect themselves & their loved ones (some sooner than others; step 3 vs step 5 blah blah blah). You are saying you'd call the cops if face-to-face with an armed intruder, and that said intruder poses LESS of a threat to the neighbourhood than a man who has NOT invaded anyone else's home, but has asserted he would defend his. That's basically what you've said in the past few posts. If that is the case, then you sir, are an idiot!
You just described a mere property crime, the penalty for which in Canada is not death, and certainly not death by vigilante.LIM said:But is this a "mere property crime"? The perpetrator is armed, you do not know his intentions, and has shown no regard for breaking the law already by entering your house uninvited.
You're entitled to attempt a citizens arrest if you feel tha could be done safely.
So long as he isn't threatening you, though, you have no justification for the use of lethal force, and if you go about using lethal force without any justification for doing so then you ought to be locked up.
Even property criminals have a right to life.
Plainly it crosses a generally accepted line--it makes the guy a criminal, who has committed an offence against property, and who should be put in jail for having done so.kkelso said:Would most consider "a mere property crime" a threat? I don't think so. However, breaking and entering into a residence while armed with a gun? Would that not cross a generally accepted line?
Now in Canada we don't believe in vigilante justice--you can't just go around shooting everyone who commits a crime of any kind.
Yup. Unless he's done something threatening that's correct. The mere act of breaking into your house does not make him threatening.seth gecko said:if I believe I'm threatened by an armed intruder, I belong in jail as I am a menace to my neighbours
Now if he did something in addition to that, like point a gun at you, or yell "I am going to kill you", or give you some other reason to believe he was actually going to attack you, that is a different situation entirely--and it matters not one whit whether this happens in your home or in his home. Location is a red herring here--the ONLY thing that matters is whether he threatens you.
Yup. Breaking and entering is a less serious offense than murder. You are correct.and that the armed individual who actually commits a crime by breaking & entering should be charged with a less serious offence?
