A question on the right to self defense

[kkelso]

Yup. Unless he's done something threatening that's correct. The mere act of breaking into your house does not make him threatening.

You would not feel threatened if a man, holding a handgun, broke into your house?

 

[fuji]

You would not feel threatened if a man, holding a handgun, broke into you house?

Sure; but not to a level sufficient to shoot him.

I might well point my gun at him and order him to leave my house. I'm entitled to do that, in that situation. Pulling the trigger demands a reasonable belief that my life is in immediate danger, and his simply having broken into my house does not add up to a reasonable belief that it is.

Now after having pointed my gun at him, and having ordered him to stop, if he made a sudden move that seemed like he was going to point his gun at me I would shoot him. At that moment I would have formed a reasonable belief that my life was in imminent danger.

Sneaking up on a guy breaking into your house and shooting him in cold blood though--that is murder. Just because he is committing a property crime does not mean you can murder him.

 

[tboy]

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.

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.

You have to remember something fuji:
1) he is a threat just by being there
2) you verbally warning him before he enters or while he's trying to enter is enough of a warning
3) his intent is obvious if he enters after you warning him
4) discharging a firearm winthin the confines of your home is against the law. BUT (as you say) it isn't grounds for him or the police, to use lethal force against you (or charge you with any crime other than "illegal discharge of a firearm).

From the sounds of it, the ONLY time you will use lethal (or other) force is after he commits a lethal act against you. Sorry my friend, by the time that happens it will very most likely be too late. Kind of hard to protect yourself when you have a bullet hole in your forehead.

I find it funny (and fuji seems to be one of these pacifist types) where they say "there are always non-violent alternatives. These are the types that criminals prey on and target. Why? Because they KNOW by the time you do all the right, moral and peaceful steps, they'll have the upper hand, have raped and murdered your family, and cleaned out your house of all your valuable possessions.

See, I'm the sort of person that I can garner by what I see, hear, and experince to determine a probable outcome.

I live by the saying:
If he quacks like a duck
if it waddles like a duck
if it has feathers like a duck
if it swins in a pon or lake

IT'S A MOTHERFUCKING DUCK!!!!

(I most certainly don't need an authority figure to show up 20 minutes after it's flown away to say "it was probably a duck")

 

[tboy]

Sure; but not to a level sufficient to shoot him.

I might well point my gun at him and order him to leave my house. I'm entitled to do that, in that situation. Pulling the trigger demands a reasonable belief that my life is in immediate danger, and his simply having broken into my house does not add up to a reasonable belief that it is.

Now after having pointed my gun at him, and having ordered him to stop, if he made a sudden move that seemed like he was going to point his gun at me I would shoot him. At that moment I would have formed a reasonable belief that my life was in imminent danger.

Sneaking up on a guy breaking into your house and shooting him in cold blood though--that is murder. Just because he is committing a property crime does not mean you can murder him.

Holy shit, are you serious? I mean really. His intent surely isn't to clean your fricken carpets!!!! LOL

 

[fuji]

Holy shit, are you serious? I mean really. His intent surely isn't to clean your fricken carpets!!!! LOL

You are certainly entitled to confront him but sneaking up on him and killing him would be murder plain and simple absent any particularly threatening behavior on his part.

His intent may be merely to commit theft.

 

[hotsex2]

I'd:

Call the cops at 2
Shout a warning at 3
Fire a warning shot at 4
fire at his gut at 5
fire at his head at 6

Deal with the repurcussions later. I'd rather be alive in prison with my family growing old than dead and them raped and or murdered.

Oh, I forgot to add:
If I hit him at 5 and he's still trying to raise his weapon I'd empty mine into him........

.
I completely agreed ...
If you come to my house aiming to harm me or my family you better pray and pray hard that you come out alive!!

 

[tboy]

You are certainly entitled to confront him but sneaking up on him and killing him would be murder plain and simple absent any particularly threatening behavior on his part.

His intent may be merely to commit theft.

No one said anything ever about sneaking up on anyone.

Threatening behaviour? He's ignoring your warning yells, he's ignoring your closed door, he's entering YOUR property unlawfully, he's carrying a handgun (and it is rare that anyone NOT in authority to have a carry permit), and he's ignoring your warning shot.

I mean, does he have to carry a sign that says "I'm here to kill you and rape your wife"????

 

[fuji]

Tboy, I vote you most likely terb member to commit murder. Your shrill hysteria and over-reaction are one of these days going to land you in jail for the rest of your natural life.

 

[Moraff]

No one said anything ever about sneaking up on anyone.

Threatening behaviour? He's ignoring your warning yells, he's ignoring your closed door, he's entering YOUR property unlawfully, he's carrying a handgun (and it is rare that anyone NOT in authority to have a carry permit), and he's ignoring your warning shot.

I mean, does he have to carry a sign that says "I'm here to kill you and rape your wife"????

Sorry tboy, as far as my understanding of the law goes, I'm gonna have to side with fuji on this one..... even with all that you've said (other than the sign) unless he gives the idea that he's going to actually try to kill you then you don't have the right to use lethal force on him.

That being said, if he's dead then there's no one to say you're lying when you say he said he was going to shoot you just before you shot and killed him

Although if faced with the given situation I'd probably shoot him too and do a little embellishing on the story as needed.

 

[tboy]

Tboy, I vote you most likely terb member to commit murder. Your shrill hysteria and over-reaction are one of these days going to land you in jail for the rest of your natural life.

Yup, and in the scenario described in the OP, least I'll be alive and my family safe.

You on the other hand, well, heaven forbid you should ever get into this situation, but you'd be dead and your family the worse.....

See the thing is Fuj, I grew up in a bad...BAD neighbourhood. If you didn't react quickly and with sufficient force, you'd be dead meat.

 

[fuji]

That being said, if he's dead then there's no one to say you're lying when you say he said he was going to shoot you just before you shot and killed him

The police forensic people may have some questions when they determine that he was shot in the back with the gun in his pocket. Also what if he goes down, but he doesn't die? Are you going to walk up and finish him off executioner style? The forensics people will want to ask you a few questions about that as well.

The questions will mount when it turns out he was an undercover cop or erstwhile good samaritan who thought he saw someone breaking into your house.

 

[chiller_boy]

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.

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.

Agree, but a more interesting and likely scenario is that you are asleep. then wake up hearing what sounds like an intruder downstairs. You get out your revolver and sneak downstairs and spot the intruder. He breaks to escape and you shoot him.

Are you guilty of homicide? or manslaughter?. I believe the answer is yes.

 

[Moraff]

The police forensic people may have some questions when they determine that he was shot in the back with the gun in his pocket.

Now you're changing the scenario. The one we were discussing had the guy coming through the door with the gun in his hand.

If he was faced away from me with the gun in his pocket I would not be shooting. While I could live with taking the life of someone I felt was a threat to my life (or at least I think so, haven't actually had to test that theory yet) I have no wish to kill for no reason.

 

[fuji]

Now you're changing the scenario. The one we were discussing had the guy coming through the door with the gun in his hand.

OK, it does say in hand. They're still going to have questions if you shoot him in the back--especially if it turns out not to be a gun, but rather something that looked like a gun.

 

[fuji]

Agree, but a more interesting and likely scenario is that you are asleep. then wake up hearing what sounds like an intruder downstairs. You get out your revolver and sneak downstairs and spot the intruder. He breaks to escape and you shoot him.

Are you guilty of homicide? or manslaughter?. I believe the answer is yes.

Yes. You're guilty of at least 2nd degree murder if you shoot someone who is trying to escape.

 

[Moraff]

OK, it does say in hand. They're still going to have questions if you shoot him in the back--especially if it turns out not to be a gun, but rather something that looked like a gun.

So he's coming through the door backwards?

I agree, if you shoot him in the back there would be questions.... and rightly so.

 

[fuji]

So he's coming through the door backwards?

The original post is silent as to where you encounter him and from which direction. In any case it's silent on the critical detail which is whether or not he was in any way threatening or hostile.

The whole bit about it being your house is a red herring.

It does not matter whether the events take place in your house, in his house, or on the street. In any case you do not have a right to use lethal force until he does something that threatens you.

 

[Moraff]

The original post is silent as to where you encounter him and from which direction. In any case it's silent on the critical detail which is whether or not he was in any way threatening or hostile.

True enough, I read it as a step-by-step list of what you saw happening but I guess there could be an interpretation that he didn't come through the door and immediately take a shot at you.

It does not matter whether the events take place in your house, in his house, or on the street. In any case you do not have a right to use lethal force until he does something that threatens you.

I believe I agreed with you on that point of law already. I'm just saying that if I felt there was a very good chance he's not coming to wish me good tidings I'm probably going to do unto him first and convince the cops the intent was 100%.

 

[sibannac]

As stated, the question was not about the law.

However, speaking for myself only, if someone I do not know is holding a gun and jiggling my door handle with a clear intent to enter my house uninvited and without identifying themselves, then I can assure you I have a "reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm".

You would ok legally with that scenario for your reasons stated provided that the door could be breached and you had no where to retreat to. Grant it that's a lot to think about but I doubt in Canada any leo would charge you or any jury convict you if you shot and killed the bad guy.

 

[fuji]

I doubt in Canada any leo would charge you or any jury convict you if you shot and killed the bad guy.

In the real world you lack the information to be sure that the person you've shot and killed is the bad guy. LEO will give you a rough time if:

a) The guy turns out to be an undercover cop performing his duties
b) What you thought was a gun wasn't
c) Especially if in b the "bad guy" turns out to be a neighbourhood kid
d) Especially if in b the "bad guy" turns out to be your kid

The problem with shooting someone who is not a clear, immediate threat to your well being is that you likely are operating in a state of fear with limited information and you may exagerrate the nature of the threat and imagine things that aren't there.

When you then surprise the intruder with a bullet in the face you may recognize that face as one of your own just as you squeeze the trigger beyond the point of no return.

Even if it does turn out to be a "bad guy" if what you thought was a gun turns out to be a flashlight you have just murdered someone who was only really guilty of the relatively minor crime of breaking and entering versus your much more serious crime of murder.

There are reasons why the law is what it is, they are good moral reasons. In this case the law has it correct.