Intruder breaking into shed - lawful to use lethal force?

[Ladyback1]

Depending on the specific circumstances, I don't have any trouble believing that a jury could convict someone for shooting and killing an intruder in that someone's home,if the facts show that the someone could have protected themselves adequately by shooting the intruder in, say, the leg instead of the head or the hear.

While I appreciate what you are saying, and understand it completely; I was taught that A) you don't point a gun at anything you aren't willing to kill and B) if you have to/choose to fire the gun you aim at center mass. So, I would probably be in a courtroom if someone broke into my home and threatened my safety or the safety of my family!

 

[cbg]

Yeah, you probably would. And, if I may say so, justly so. See "reasonable" above.

Do not misunderstand. I am not denying anyone's right to defend themselves. I'm saying that if a life is taken, you'd better stand prepared to show that you COULD NOT have accomplished your own defense with lesser force. There are plenty of stories out there about people who have killed their family members by accident because they decided to shoot first and ask questions later.

 

[Ladyback1]

Yeah, you probably would. And, if I may say so, justly so. See "reasonable" above.

Do not misunderstand. I am not denying anyone's right to defend themselves. I'm saying that if a life is taken, you'd better stand prepared to show that you COULD NOT have accomplished your own defense with lesser force. There are plenty of stories out there about people who have killed their family members by accident because they decided to shoot first and ask questions later.

I'm not arguing reasonable--in fact the first thing I was taught (don't aim at something you aren't willing to kill) supports reasonable.

The state I live in very "gun" friendly, and "stand your ground" friendly. Earlier this year, a gentleman arrived home to see a person exiting his home carrying an item out of the home. The gentleman drew down on him and shot him (w/ a rifle) The alleged thief was nowhere near the gentleman, showed no signs of aggression to the gentleman. The shot killed the alleged thief (who was putting the household items in a car he had stolen earlier). County DA declined to prosecute the gentleman. The rationale was the gentleman feared that the alleged thief would go back in the house and steal more items, or would try to attack the gentleman after he deposited the TV in "his" vehicle. It was not a close range shot (rifle was equipped w/ a scope and used for hunting large game).
ETA: The home was empty. There were no occupants in the home to have an argument of "well, my wife/kids were there and I didn't know about there safety"...
Personally, I think the gentleman should have, at the very least faced manslaughter charges.

 

[cbg]

My point exactly. In my state he would have, and very likely been convicted.

Just because your state is "gun friendly" is no reason to kill someone if you can bring them down without.

 

[Ladyback1]

My point exactly. In my state he would have, and very likely been convicted.

Just because your state is "gun friendly" is no reason to kill someone if you can bring them down without.

Yep, I agree. There was no reason to shoot the alleged thief. Stuff is just that stuff....Lives are more important than "Stuff", even if it's the life of a thief/criminal.

(I live in Montana, and in some respects it still is a little bit of the "Wild West" mindset So yeah, I think I can use the "cowboy" term!)

 

[commentator]

I am as I say, older than dirt, and something similar happened to me when I was young. I was home alone, in a very remote place, and someone decided no one was home and decided to break into my barn shed. I went through all sorts of mental gyrations while waiting for the police to arrive. I tried to figure the best options for a good resolution of this situation. The scenario of going out and confronting them in the shed wasn't going to lead to the best outcome in my mind, which was "I call police--they come within a reasonable amount of time and apprehend these people either while they are still here, or while they are getting away or later." The worst outcome I could think of, which would involve self defense, was if they decided to come on up and break into the house, which would probably have involved some action by my heavily armed and well trained self. Getting to shoot at someone, even if by intention non-fatally, was not something I was anticipating with much enthusiasm, I can tell you! I know a person who was maimed for life by a person who did not "shoot to kill" when he mistakenly tried to get into the wrong apartment while intoxicated.

I found out there were actually two of them, one a look out and one the breaker in-er. Because the police came immediately after I had flipped on the lights and let them know the house was occupied by someone who'd probably gotten their license plate number and probably was interested in shooting them. And they started running away frantically. How big a hero would I have been if I'd then stepped out and opened up on them? After all, they WERE breaking in on me.

And as is the case in so many of these type cases, it was a couple of dopey teenagers who were known to us. I am very glad I didn't go "all commando" (since the OP doesn't like cowboys) on them and come out and blow them away. I don't know what I'd have told their grandparents.

 

[CdwJava]

Depending on the specific circumstances, I don't have any trouble believing that a jury could convict someone for shooting and killing an intruder in that someone's home, if the facts show that the someone could have protected themselves adequately by shooting the intruder in, say, the leg instead of the head or the hear.

Ahhhh!!!! Pet peeve!!!

Shooting to wound is not only ineffective and exceedingly difficult, it is NOT what anyone is trained to do!

I can spend an hour explaining why this is a BAAAAD idea. If you have to shoot, you shoot to stop the threat. That usually means that you shoot until the target is DOWN. Yes, that might mean "dead." But, until the target is no longer a threat, he can hurt you. A wounded and armed suspect can still shoot you, and even stab you! I have heard stories of suspects aerated by rounds still managing to mortally wound officers with a knife. So, no, I would NEVER recommend that anyone shoot to wound. You shoot to stop the threat!

Now, that being said, yes, I can perceive situations where shooting an intruder could be seen as excessive, but those would have to be pretty clear situations and generally involve some extraordinary scenarios.

 

[Ohiogal]

OH requires retreat from your own home? I have a very hard time believing that. I have an even harder time believing any jury would convict a person of shooting an intruder in their own home.

Ohio has the castle doctrine. They want to expand it however to no retreat necessary. BAD IDEA for many many many reasons.

 

[cbg]

Sorry, Carl, I have a great deal of respect for you and the job you do. But I truly have a hard time making myself believe that the only solution is killing.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Dead people cannot sue bearing false witness.

 

[CdwJava]

Sorry, Carl, I have a great deal of respect for you and the job you do. But I truly have a hard time making myself believe that the only solution is killing.

I didn't say the only solution was "killing." I didn't even argue that retreating or barricading one's self in a room was not a viable suggestion. But, to argue that a "shoot to wound" policy is either feasible or safe is quite simply, naive ... sorry. It either reflects a lack of knowledge of the shooting dynamic, or an idealized perception of the capabilities of the average shooter and an exaggerated (and largely incorrect) perception of the ability of pain, alone, to end a violent confrontation.

I am an outstanding shot and would NEVER consider shooting to wound in a situation where I felt for a moment that my life or someone else's was at risk. And, if I felt that no life was at risk, then I would be lawfully unable to utilize such force to begin with ... ergo, I couldn't shoot.

I would never recommend to someone that they shot to wound. Never. The odds of ending a credible threat are much lower than shooting to center of mass, and quite frankly I'm not willing to lower my survival rate so that I might save the other guy's life. If I have good cause to fear for my safety, I'm not all that concerned with the other guy's.

 

[CdwJava]

Dead people cannot sue bearing false witness.

But, their heirs sue and collect all the same.

While the deceased may have been worthless in life, he becomes worth 6 or 7 figures in death. And, very often these cases are settled out of court even in shootings that are truly righteous.

 

[swalsh411]

Depending on the specific circumstances, I don't have any trouble believing that a jury could convict someone for shooting and killing an intruder in that someone's home, if the facts show that the someone could have protected themselves adequately by shooting the intruder in, say, the leg instead of the head or the hear.

"shoot them in the leg" is Hollywood fantasy. Whether you are police, military, or just some guy, you train to hit center of mass. No self defense instructor has ever advised anybody to "shoot to wound". If the law allows you to respond with lethal force because your life is in danger (and an intruder in your home can assumed to be a threat on your life) then you are allowed to use lethal force. It's not the job of a jury to second guess and play monday morning quarterback in a situation like that. Could you have stopped the intruder by shooting them in the leg? Maybe. Did you have a duty to? No.

Ohio has the castle doctrine. They want to expand it however to no retreat necessary. BAD IDEA for many many many reasons.

The duty to retreat is removed if it's your own home or (usually) place of business.

 

[Ohiogal]

"shoot them in the leg" is Hollywood fantasy. Whether you are police, military, or just some guy, you train to hit center of mass. No self defense instructor has ever advised anybody to "shoot to wound". If the law allows you to respond with lethal force because your life is in danger (and an intruder in your home can assumed to be a threat on your life) then you are allowed to use lethal force. It's not the job of a jury to second guess and play monday morning quarterback in a situation like that. Could you have stopped the intruder by shooting them in the leg? Maybe. Did you have a duty to? No.



The duty to retreat is removed if it's your own home or (usually) place of business.

Ohio already has the castle doctrine -- which is you don't have to retreat in your home. The bill wants to expand that. Should I type slower?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I think it is a great idea. Think of it as Natural Selection.