A question on the right to self defense

[Moraff]

Yes legaly you cannot shoot someone for refusing to leave. And if the Toronto Police will be there with bells on in two minutes. . . now on the other hand if the police are twenty + minutes away the man refuses to leave. . . . you may well be justified in using deadly force.

That makes no sense... if you have no justification for shooting him if the cops are there in 2 minutes, assuming nothing else changes you still have no justification if it takes 20+ minutes


Unless the cops are already dealing with important cases I think calling them in regards to an armed intruder will have them responding poste haste at any point.

 

[Moraff]

Now Mr. Fuji, I'll type v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y so maybe, just maybe you can follow this: An ARMED INTRUDER resists my attempts to have him leave my property, thereby committing an UNPROVOKED ASSAULT (along with, as you so quaintly deemed it, a "minor property crime" of breaking in). Since said INTRUDER was holding a GUN, which is well known to most people to be a DEADLY WEAPON, I would have REASONABLE APPREHENSION of DEATH from the intruder as he PURSUES HIS PURPOSES. As I cannot make the ARMED INTRUDER leave and am APPREHENSIVE of DEATH due to his actions, I would have REASONABLE GROUNDS to believe that unless I take defensive action I cannot OTHERWISE prevent my death (or that of my sleeping family members), so it would be JUSTIFIED if I caused the INTRUDERS DEATH in repelling his assault.

IMO if you've called the cops and told them you have an armed intruder in your house and all the guy is doing is refusing to leave when you tell him to you'd be stupid to try and force him to leave at that point. Of course as soon as the guy made any move that indicated to me he was going to use his gun I'd plug him.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Worf]

You must attempt the least violent means possible of removing the trespasser. You can then escalate the use of force as necessary to remove him.

That's the problem... If I am going to wait until he raises his gun to fire at me to see whether he misses or not, then I won't. Once I see that gun going up, then I am going to react. To do otherwise is stupid. If his gun goes off, for me to fire afterwards then he would have to miss. Or should I tell him to put the gun down or I will fire? Should I explain to the judge that I waited to see whether he would hit me first, before I fire? Would any cop do that? If I raise a gun at an ETF officer, I am toast. He won't wait for me to fire first. Same with me. As a previous poster said, I would take my chances with judge and jury afterwards. With the children and wife in the house, I have to react first. I can't afford for me to go down, and then they get killed, and then make the morning headlines about a mass murder.

 

[Moraff]

That's the problem... If I am going to wait until he raises his gun to fire at me to see whether he misses or not, then I won't. Once I see that gun going up, then I am going to react. To do otherwise is stupid. If his gun goes off, for me to fire afterwards then he would have to miss. Or should I tell him to put the gun down or I will fire? Should I explain to the judge that I waited to see whether he would hit me first, before I fire? Would any cop do that? If I raise a gun at an ETF officer, I am toast. He won't wait for me to fire first. Same with me. As a previous poster said, I would take my chances with judge and jury afterwards. With the children and wife in the house, I have to react first. I can't afford for me to go down, and then they get killed, and then make the morning headlines about a mass murder.

Once he starts moving the gun in any manner besides dropping it I'd say you would be safe to fire. The law says you have to be in imminent danger not wait for it to be confirmed.

 

[KBear]

The assumption has been made in the thread that the person in the house is a man. If it was a woman in the house, and a man broke into the house, with or without a gun, and she shot the intruder as he faced her, not in the back, I would expect she would not be convicted.

Would expect you could shoot an intruder armed with a gun in the back and not be convicted. The idea that you have to play fair with an armed intruder, let him know you also have a gun, and let him face you so you both can have it out like in the western movies is sort of silly.

 

[KBear]

Once he starts moving the gun in any manner besides dropping it I'd say you would be safe to fire. The law says you have to be in imminent danger not wait for it to be confirmed.

Better hope for you and your family's sake that it is not this guy that you are waiting and watching to see if he makes a move to point the gun in your direction.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/426838/fast_draw_5_shots_in_less_than_a_second/

 

[fuji]

That's the problem... If I am going to wait until he raises his gun to fire at me to see whether he misses or not, then I won't.

That may well be, but you can't go around pre-emptively murdering people you think might some day be a threat to you. They have to be an real, credible, material threat to your physical person RIGHT NOW or you can't use lethal force.

Or should I tell him to put the gun down or I will fire?

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You have a right to place him under citizens arrest and use whatever force is necessary to keep him there until the police arrive. You also have a right to forcibly remove him from your property.

You could begin that process by telling him to freeze, and that if he moves you'll shoot him. If he then moves you shoot him. In this case you have not used any more force than was necessary.

All I am saying is you can't pre-emptively murder people just because they might be a threat. They have to be an actual threat, and an immediate, present, physical threat, before you can use lethal force.

Would any cop do that?

Absolutely the cops will order someone to stop before they will fire their weapons. The cops will generally do whatever they can to avoid using lethal force and will only us lethal force as a last resort.

If I raise a gun at an ETF officer, I am toast.

Yup, and if this individual raised his gun at you, you could fire first too. The situation being described is NOT that he is pointing a gun at you. The situation is that he is carrying a gun and entering your house.

The moment he points it at you, or begins pointing it at you, that real immediate threat materializes and you are well within your rights to use lethal force to stop it.

Same for the ETF officer.

 

[papasmerf]

Fuji keeps using the term murder when it comes to defending your life.

Manslaughter or assault with a deadly weapon reduced to discharging a firearm inside city limits is more likely. That is if you mistakenly shot someone forcibly entering your home with a gun because he was just checking to see if you wanted to buy a security system.

 

[KBear]

Fuji, So if a woman is in the house, and a guy breaks in without a gun, is she not allowed to shoot the intruder as he approaches her? Or does she have to wait for the intruder to approach her, take her gun and point it at her before she is allowed to shoot the intruder?

 

[papasmerf]

Fuji, So if a woman is in the house, and a guy breaks in without a gun, is she not allowed to shoot the intruder as he approaches her? Or does she have to wait for the intruder to approach her, take her gun and point it at her before she is allowed to shoot the intruder?

By Fuji logic she could shoot if he tried to kill her but not if he only rapes her.

 

[fuji]

Fuji, So if a woman is in the house, and a guy breaks in without a gun, is she not allowed to shoot the intruder as he approaches her? Or does she have to wait for the intruder to approach her, take her gun and point it at her before she is allowed to shoot the intruder?

The sex of the home-owner is irrelevant. Same logic applies: She would order him to stop first and shoot only if he made any hostile movements.

 

[fuji]

By Fuji logic she could shoot if he tried to kill her but not if he only rapes her.

I don't find your words very intelligent so please keep them in your own mouth and don't put them in mine.

 

[KBear]

The sex of the home-owner is irrelevant. Same logic applies: She would order him to stop first and shoot only if he made any hostile movements.

So if the unarmed intruder approached the girl calmly, she could not shoot?

It almost sounds like you are ok with shooting an unarmed intruder.

How close do you let the intruder get to you before shooting? What if the intruder is a Kung Foo expert?
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/264455/how_to_disarm_a_gun/

 

[fuji]

So if the unarmed intruder approached the girl calmly, she could not shoot?

That's not what I said.

Let me repeat it for you again, I really think this is a very simple concept and you ought to be able to grok it if you apply yourself a little:

You are entitled to use the minimum force necessary to protect yourself from an assault.

You can go on making up all the scenarios you want and in each case the correct answer is the minimum force necessary. What is not the minimum force necessary is pre-emptively murdering people when you don't know whether or not they are a threat.

In the case of an intruder who has been ordered to stop by a home-owner who does not stop a reasonable course of action for the home-owner, whether male or female, would be to repeat the threat several times while backing up to maintain distance with the intruder.

If the home-owner runs out of space to back-up and the intruder keeps approaching then after all those warnings I think it would be reasonable to assume the intruder has hostile intent and the home-owner would be within their rights to shoot at that point.

What is NOT ok is pre-emptively shooting someone when you still have other options, such as ordering them to stop.

 

[Moraff]

Better hope for you and your family's sake that it is not this guy that you are waiting and watching to see if he makes a move to point the gun in your direction.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/426838/fast_draw_5_shots_in_less_than_a_second/

He's a fast one fer sure! Not sure I would have volunteered to be the balloon holder tho'.

However although he is fast and accurate at shooting there is still almost a second from when he starts drawing to when the first shot goes off. If I've told him to "stop or I'll shoot" then I've already got my gun on him and I'm pretty sure I'd be able to squeeze the trigger in that second (since my adrenaline would likely be running a tad high at that point )

 

[Moraff]

The assumption has been made in the thread that the person in the house is a man. If it was a woman in the house, and a man broke into the house, with or without a gun, and she shot the intruder as he faced her, not in the back, I would expect she would not be convicted.

I agree that she would be more likely not to be convicted than a male would be in the same situation.

Would expect you could shoot an intruder armed with a gun in the back and not be convicted. The idea that you have to play fair with an armed intruder, let him know you also have a gun, and let him face you so you both can have it out like in the western movies is sort of silly.

Silly, perhaps, however it is the law as it stands.

 

[KBear]

If the home-owner runs out of space to back-up and the intruder keeps approaching then after all those warnings I think it would be reasonable to assume the intruder has hostile intent and the home-owner would be within their rights to shoot at that point.

Ok, we sort of agree. We are allowed to scatter the unarmed intruders brains all over the walls if they move towards us. You would just have us back up some first. I would be worried about falling over something when backing up, as people experience tunnel vision when in life threatening situations, so would not suggest backing up.

What if the intruder had a gun, would you suggest the lady at home alone let the intruder know she also has a gun, and invite the intruder to have a fair gunfight with her, or would you just suggest she blow his brains out?

 

[Moraff]

Ok, we sort of agree. We are allowed to scatter the unarmed intruders brains all over the walls if they move towards us. You would just have us back up some first. I would be worried about falling over something when backing up, as people experience tunnel vision when in life threatening situations, so would not suggest backing up.

What if the intruder had a gun, would you let the intruder know you also have a gun, and invite him to have a fair gunfight with you, or would you just blow his brains out?

It's not a matter of what you would suggest... if you fire and kill the intruder and the police discover that you had a clear path to an outside door (assuming no one else in the house) you are likely to find yourself in trouble.

Similarily if your escape route was filled with chairs and boxes and stuff then you likely wouldn't be in trouble.

All comes down to what the exact scenario is, but it still is "use the minimum force necessary". Otherwise bouncers could throw rowdies down the stairs instead of escorting them off the premises and not face any consequences.

 

[fuji]

What if the intruder had a gun, would you suggest the lady at home alone let the intruder know she also has a gun, and invite the ntruder to have a fair gunfight with her, or would you just suggest she blow his brains out?

If the gun is not pointed at you, why wouldn't you just point your gun at them, and order them to drop theirs?

I imagine that police protocols go something like this:

-- If you encounter a potentially hostile intruder draw your weapon but do not point it at them, simply have it ready

-- If the intruder appears to have a weapon, point your weapon at them

-- If the intruder points their weapon at you or otherwise moves to attack you then shoot them

In other words you escalate your response to be proportional with the threat you face. You do not point a gun at someone just because they are in your house, but you would point your gun at them if they appeared to be armed, and so on.

 

[KBear]

However although he is fast and accurate at shooting there is still almost a second from when he starts drawing to when the first shot goes off.

It is 1 second total to draw and take out the 5 balloons. I'm not sure about reaction times, but think it takes some time to realize what has happened, sum it up, and make the decision to shoot, and shoot. Think by then it would be too late.