Using Deadly force in California.

[truthseeker]

Hypothetical situation:

I wake up to my house alarm going off and I see an individual in my house. I tell him to lay on the ground or I am going to shoot him! He charges me and I kill him. Am I justified in my actions?

[hawk1]

Did you fear for your life?

But wait,

Was he bigger or smaller than you?

Did he do or say anything that would make you, a reasonable person, think that he could harm you?

[truthseeker]

Yes I did fear for my life since he broke into MY house in the middle of the night.

He was the same size but looked bigger because he was wearing all black.

What he did was charge me after I told him I was going to shoot him if he did not get on the ground, so yes I did think that he was/could harm me.

[liberty08]

Hypothetical situation:

I wake up to my house alarm going off and I see an individual in my house. I tell him to lay on the ground or I am going to shoot him! He charges me and I kill him. Am I justified in my actions?

I'd say you are justified but it really is up to the court.

[truthseeker]

Now, what if he runs out the door and I lay my gun down and give chase into the street, tackle him, he resists and I beat the sh*t out of him in order to apprehend him until the police arrive. Am I justified?

[hawk1]

Yes I did fear for my life since he broke into MY house in the middle of the night.

He was the same size but looked bigger because he was wearing all black.

What he did was charge me after I told him I was going to shoot him if he did not get on the ground, so yes I did think that he was/could harm me.


Maybe you thought he was charging you but in reality he was trying to get out because he realized he was in the wrong house?....

[liberty08]

I'm pretty sure you could be charged with battery or excessive force in that case. Once he is off your property things change. Technically if he is fleeing then he is no threat and there is no justification to use force. I'm not offering legal advice and not a lawyer so I could be wrong.

[hawk1]

Now, what if he runs out the door and I lay my gun down and give chase into the street, tackle him, he resists and I beat the sh*t out of him in order to apprehend him until the police arrive. Am I justified?

No, once he has broken off the confrontation and you pursue him you are now the agressor.

[jamesob]

Now, what if he runs out the door and I lay my gun down and give chase into the street, tackle him, he resists and I beat the sh*t out of him in order to apprehend him until the police arrive. Am I justified?
first answer is yes if you are in FEAR OF YOUR LIFE, got it .second scenerio is yes you are ok if he RESISTS, as long as it an *** whoopin that is not exesive. even at that i think your good to go.

[sorensen440]

I think your safe in the first example
either way I would shoot
If someone has broken into my house and charges me he's dead

and as far as chasing him out into the street your not justified unless hes carrying your child or somthing

[truthseeker]

Can anyone post up the laws for California on the use of deadly force? I tried searching and I cannot find anything.

[truthseeker]

Also, what about using bear pepper spray on a perpetrator? I think it is better since it sprays further.

And what about keeping bear pepper spray in your car for self defense. Is it legal?

[Blademan21]

If you chase him,tackle him and he is combative,you can use NECESSARY force in order to make a citizen's arrest. PC 837

[truthseeker]

PC 837 says only if a felony has been committed. Is Breaking and Entering a felony?

[the_natterjack]

Now, what if he runs out the door and I lay my gun down and give chase into the street, tackle him, he resists and I beat the sh*t out of him in order to apprehend him until the police arrive. Am I justified?

Justified? I dunno, it just sounds like a stupid thing to do. How do you know he is not armed? has buddies outside? Do you really wanna get into a fist fight with some junkie who may have AIDS or Hep?

Also, what about using bear pepper spray on a perpetrator? I think it is better since it sprays further.

And what about keeping bear pepper spray in your car for self defense. Is it legal?

It has a higher percentage of OC hence "bear strength". I have no knowledge of it spraying farther. I carry it in my car. I know of no law against it.

[Blademan21]

Did you read (1) for a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. Your post said your alarm was going off and the bad guy was in your house. That makes it "offense committed in your presence",right?Hopefully the DA will charge him with PC 459.

[Ding126]

Hypothetical situation:

I wake up to my house alarm going off and I see an individual in my house. I tell him to lay on the ground or I am going to shoot him! He charges me and I kill him. Am I justified in my actions?

You will be prosecuted by CA law.

The person in question better have a weapon in his hand at a minimum. If you have some wounds thats better for you as well...in order to have a chance of being justifiable.

My father..retired Pd always said..you better put something in his hand and make sure they are in the house..not outside and not running away. And then you might have a chance to prove it was justifiable.

[truthseeker]

You will be prosecuted by CA law.

The person in question better have a weapon in his hand at a minimum. If you have some wounds thats better for you as well...in order to have a chance of being justifiable.

My father..retired Pd always said..you better put something in his hand and make sure they are in the house..not outside and not running away. And then you might have a chance to prove it was justifiable.

LOL about the put something in his hand!

I wonder if my girlfriends dild* I mean massager would suffice!:eek:

[Vinz]

ahhh I think most of that is better know and not said. LOL


Its a real fine line...is this that airsoft for protection guy?? Just wondering.


vinz

[Librarian]

It's not a slam dunk, but here's the applicable Penal Code: 197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

In the house: likely justifiable. Out of the house: very risky. Put something in the decedent's hand: extremely risky, and a Bad Idea Entirely.

[5150Marcelo]

Yes I did fear for my life since he broke into MY house in the middle of the night.

He was the same size but looked bigger because he was wearing all black.

What he did was charge me after I told him I was going to shoot him if he did not get on the ground, so yes I did think that he was/could harm me.


Why it gotta be black?:cool::rolleyes::p

[5150Marcelo]

Hypothetical situation:

I wake up to my house alarm going off and I see an individual in my house. I tell him to lay on the ground or I am going to shoot him! He charges me and I kill him. Am I justified in my actions?

If some one breaks into my house in the middle of the night, and charges me... Im dumpin! Thats that!:cool2:

[scobun]

You will be prosecuted by CA law.

The person in question better have a weapon in his hand at a minimum. If you have some wounds thats better for you as well...in order to have a chance of being justifiable.

My father..retired Pd always said..you better put something in his hand and make sure they are in the house..not outside and not running away. And then you might have a chance to prove it was justifiable.

WRONG! If you find someone you don't know inside your house in the middle of the night, you point a gun at him and give a command, and he charges you, you have absolutely every right to use deadly force if you are in fear for your life. I think that there is certainly enough reason to be fearing for your life, I haven't heard of too many good Samaritans who break into houses at 2am to do good deeds. I don't think anyone would ever charge a man with a weapon unless he was intending to take said weapon and kill said man. There is already a gun introduced into the situation, and if he isn't complying there is more than a good chance he is spun on some narcotic, he can overpower you, and might kill you with your own weapon. Do you want to get into a battle for your own weapon? You had better rest assured that he is not charging you to give you a big hug and kiss and thank you for showing him the errors of his ways. The only stranger I'm OK with finding in my home at 1 o'clock in the morning is Santa, everyone else shall be treated with great caution.

[five.five-six]

no matter what, you are having your hands bagged and going down town, do not give up your 5th amendment rights without speaking with representation

keep your mouth shut

[Ding126]

WRONG! If you find someone you don't know inside your house in the middle of the night, you point a gun at him and give a command, and he charges you, you have absolutely every right to use deadly force if you are in fear for your life. I think that there is certainly enough reason to be fearing for your life, I haven't heard of too many good Samaritans who break into houses at 2am to do good deeds. I don't think anyone would ever charge a man with a weapon unless he was intending to take said weapon and kill said man. There is already a gun introduced into the situation, and if he isn't complying there is more than a good chance he is spun on some narcotic, he can overpower you, and might kill you with your own weapon. Do you want to get into a battle for your own weapon? You had better rest assured that he is not charging you to give you a big hug and kiss and thank you for showing him the errors of his ways. The only stranger I'm OK with finding in my home at 1 o'clock in the morning is Santa, everyone else shall be treated with great caution.

In a perfect world your scenario works. Its a bit different in CA. I will try to find the article and of a lady who was prosecuted for protecting herself in CA. with what you described above.

[bodyarmorguy27]

WRONG! If you find someone you don't know inside your house in the middle of the night, you point a gun at him and give a command, and he charges you, you have absolutely every right to use deadly force if you are in fear for your life. I think that there is certainly enough reason to be fearing for your life, I haven't heard of too many good Samaritans who break into houses at 2am to do good deeds. I don't think anyone would ever charge a man with a weapon unless he was intending to take said weapon and kill said man. There is already a gun introduced into the situation, and if he isn't complying there is more than a good chance he is spun on some narcotic, he can overpower you, and might kill you with your own weapon. Do you want to get into a battle for your own weapon? You had better rest assured that he is not charging you to give you a big hug and kiss and thank you for showing him the errors of his ways. The only stranger I'm OK with finding in my home at 1 o'clock in the morning is Santa, everyone else shall be treated with great caution.

+1 Couldn't agree with you more. I've been at the scene of two shootings of burglars/home invaders. No charges were ever brought. If the perp is killed, the PD would present the report to the DA to see if charges are warranted. It would likely be rejected as a self-defense or justifiable homicide. And this is normal.

Day time burglars typically hit when no one is home.

At night, it is more reasonable to find the occupants at home. So the fact that someone is in your house at night, with an audible alarm sounding is cause enough for you (or for me at least) to fear that the suspect in your house is armed and there to cause you harm.

And for those of you in Southern California, particularly the LA area. There is a slight rise in the number of home invasion robberies (Multi-3 suspects armed). They're not just hitting dope pads anymore either. Usually South Central gangsters hitting middle class and affluent areas. And usually front door kicks, FYI.

An example of a California woman who wasn't prosecuted, and she's cute, too. (http://www.knbc.com/news/14842132/detail.html?dl=mainclick)

[firecaptdave]

Get the book "How to Own a Gun and Stay Out of Jail" by John Machtinger. It gives a number of SD examples, including the one you used.

http://www.gunlawpress.com/


.

[scobun]

In a perfect world your scenario works. Its a bit different in CA. I will try to find the article and of a lady who was prosecuted for protecting herself in CA. with what you described above.

I'd be very interested to read it. The devil is always in the details....

[FortCourageArmory]

Persuing someone that just broke into your house and using the "necessary force" to subdue him is legal under CA law. Breaking and Entering an occupied dwelling is part of CA PC 459 and is a felony and as such the fleeing suspect is a felon. That allows you to chase him down and hold him for the police. Does that allow you to stand over his unconscious form and use a baseball bat to pummel him into multi-colored goo? No. But you can use whatever force necessary to overcome the resistance.

Now, is it smart to chase someone down that just broke into your house? Not especially, but you're covered under the law if you do. Either way, have a bunch of money for a good attorney.

[tombinghamthegreat]

Generally in the home if you are in fear for your life like the example used by truthseeker, it would be fair game. If the person(s) was willing to harm or kill you even though you had a gun pointed at them, imagion what they would if you were not armed. Odds are the intruter might use death threats(might be considered terriorist threats) which in a criminal court make it easier to prove SD. Now SD in your house is justifiable in CA, using deadly force in SD outside your home is legal, it maybe very expensive to prove depending on the situation. Also have to consider a possible civil suit by family members or business partners....

[BillCA]

:iagree:

Librarian posted the relevant PC code sections regarding homicide and justifiable homicide. You can do your own research at : http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
(The search engine is like a gov't employee... it ain't too bright.)

California law allows a person to exert the amount of force that is reasonable and necessary to capture a felon and/or hold him for police. Keep in mind, every felon is going to claim that he "gave up" or surrendered just before you wailed the bejesus out of him. The DA and the court system will adjudicate whether the force you applied was "reasonable and necessary".

It's not prudent to chase after a felon because there are too many variables against you. He could be armed, he might have friends he's leading you towards, he might have diseases you don't want. I might chase him a few dozen yards and stop. If he thinks the resident is the type who'll chase after him he's unlikely to be anxious to return.

An intruder in my home at O-dark-thirty who's silhouette doesn't look like a fireman, who doesn't comply with my orders, who advances instead of retreats had best have his own medical insurance to cover his hospitalization.

[n6nvr]

No need to chest beat or pose scenarios, learn the law.

The Richardson Laws give you a prima facie case for using deadly force in your house. If he/she is in there, the laws says by definition you can legally use deadly force because you are presumed to be in sufficient fear to use deadly force.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.



199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

[heycorey]

Hypothetical situation:

I wake up to my house alarm going off and I see an individual in my house. I tell him to lay on the ground or I am going to shoot him! He charges me and I kill him. Am I justified in my actions?


I think it depends entirely on what part of the state your house is located; that is, your idea of justified and the local DA's idea of justified may be located in two separate ideological time zones.

[lakai]

You should watch the movie FELON. It'll make you think twice about chasing someone that broke into your home in the middle of the night.

[Army]

Regardless of the initial outcome, never....NEVER....alter the original crime scene.

Should you "drag the body inside"...you will go to jail for a long time for manslaughter, or murder. Moving the body is the same as lying. Forensics will easily and quickly know you did.

"Put a gun or knife in his hand" will also get you a manslaughter, or murder conviction. Forensics will easily and quickly prove you lied.

Giving first aid to the, now, shot up suspect may also result in a premeditated charge. Forensics, or qualified medical personnel, will know the results of body movement in the application of first aid needs. Rolling the bad guy over to plug his newly leaking holes (or moving him from the confines of the doorway), could also go in your favor when the prosecution has no answer to the medical examination of the evidence, that you did all you could to not only stop a crime in process, but rendered aid in the aftermath of your justifiable actions.....

....just don't bet on it.

[Sutcliffe]

If he's up for re-election and he's pandering to a certain demographic you might be used to further his political career. Sad if you think about it.

[Japsican]

You should watch the movie FELON. It'll make you think twice about chasing someone that broke into your home in the middle of the night.

I just watched that movie yesterday. Pretty good movie...the main character had some really crappy luck. It definitely makes you think twice...

[BillCA]

Regardless of the initial outcome, never....NEVER....alter the original crime scene.

Should you "drag the body inside"...you will go to jail for a long time for manslaughter, or murder. Moving the body is the same as lying. Forensics will easily and quickly know you did.

"Put a gun or knife in his hand" will also get you a manslaughter, or murder conviction. Forensics will easily and quickly prove you lied.

Good advice. Ignore those ignorant fools who advise dragging the body inside, adding a weapon or otherwise altering the crime scene. Those actions will get you prosecuted very quickly.

Current advise is not to provide first-aid to your attacker for several reasons. First is it puts you in close proximity to someone who might still do you harm, get to your weapon and use it on you, your family or arriving police. Second, he may have Hepatitis or HIV which requires careful handling and clean up.

In the event you do "alter" the scene for tactical or security reasons, advise the PD of it. For example, once the intruder was down, if you kicked his weapon under the couch, the PD should be told where to look for it, rather than having to confront you with it and ask for an explanation. Likewise if the perp fell with an arm in hot coal-bed of your fireplace and you dragged him away a few feet, let the cops know.

[Glock30]

Sighhh, I miss Texas. If someone is in your yard you're justified.

[truthseeker]

Since asking this question, I have really thought about it. Although I would NOT hesitate to "defend myself and family" if someone entered my house un-announced, it sucks that in all likelihood they would be killed.

I am sitting here thinking about a guy laying on my floor dead or dying, bleeding on my carpet with myself, my wife and my 2 children (ages 2 and 4) having to "deal with the clean-up" (blood on walls, carpet, etc...) let alone having to try to keep the kids from seeing something as traumatizing as seeing a dead person in the middle of the living room right after the event occurred.

Why are thieves dumb enough to even enter into someone’s house knowing that they "really are" risking their life for material possessions (Not worth it in my opinion)?

[glockman19]

As long as you didn't shoot him in the back It's Justified IMHO

[bodyarmorguy27]

As long as you didn't shoot him in the back It's Justified IMHO

That is often a fallacy in uses of deadly force. It is something that gets played up on TV or the news a lot. If a suspect is armed, he can still point his gun at you, while his back is to you. And very effectively, may I add. They can do this while running, and your only target is his back.

Also it would be good to read up on reaction times. If you decided in your mind at that moment to shoot the guy in your house (unarmed or not), and start pulling the trigger. The suspect can now have turned his back to you. By the time you see this and realize it, it's too late. The bullet is already going downrange. Or as your pumping him full of lead and he's falling, he's exposing his back to you. And you're not shooting to kill, you are shooting to stop the threat. Stopping his assault.

[jamesob]

You will be prosecuted by CA law.

The person in question better have a weapon in his hand at a minimum. If you have some wounds thats better for you as well...in order to have a chance of being justifiable.

My father..retired Pd always said..you better put something in his hand and make sure they are in the house..not outside and not running away. And then you might have a chance to prove it was justifiable.
he would not be prosicuted at all. can a person kill another with their bare hands? hell yes they can. all one has to say is they were in fear of their life or the familys life. i quit l.e last march and i know that no person would be charge in this case. the key words " i was in fear of my life , he charged at me and i was afraid he would over power me and take my weapon. so i shot him in self defense". no charges. and nothing wrong with shooting in the back. lets say he was running away from you towards your kids room? would you shoot him in the back?

[trinydex]

Why it gotta be black?:cool::rolleyes::p

black is slimming :D

[duenor]

Hm. Here's an interesting thought.
Put decorative weapons all throughout your house. That way, anyone in your house always poses a lethal threat since they could always be reaching for a weapon.

a silly idea, i know, but meant to be satirical on the nature of the law.

[M I K]

We have 2 Labradors that sleep in the house at night. Believe me if someone tries to get in the house, the dogs have me awake. My Labs won't attack an intruder. In fact I have them trained to stand behind me if there is an intruder in the house. That way the muzzle blast won't hurt their ears.

And why waste time talking to a perp that has broken into your house? Just cap his ash before he shoots at you.

[tombinghamthegreat]

Hm. Here's an interesting thought.
Put decorative weapons all throughout your house. That way, anyone in your house always poses a lethal threat since they could always be reaching for a weapon.

a silly idea, i know, but meant to be satirical on the nature of the law.

that is like my house. not to mention it might remove any claims that the shooting was pre thoughtout since you could argue someone broke in, tried to kill me and i pulled a shotgun off the rack in fear for my life.

[ColdSteel14]

Now, what if he runs out the door and I lay my gun down and give chase into the street, tackle him, he resists and I beat the sh*t out of him in order to apprehend him until the police arrive. Am I justified?

This is called a citizens arrest. Perfectly legal.

[the_natterjack]

LOL, don't worry about cleaning up blood and guts. Your insurance company will be the one paying for all that. You qualified to clean up a biohazard? If I shot someone I wouldn't expect to be back in my home for a week. Send the wife and kids to visit her grandparents.


Since asking this question, I have really thought about it. Although I would NOT hesitate to "defend myself and family" if someone entered my house un-announced, it sucks that in all likelihood they would be killed.

I am sitting here thinking about a guy laying on my floor dead or dying, bleeding on my carpet with myself, my wife and my 2 children (ages 2 and 4) having to "deal with the clean-up" (blood on walls, carpet, etc...) let alone having to try to keep the kids from seeing something as traumatizing as seeing a dead person in the middle of the living room right after the event occurred.

Why are thieves dumb enough to even enter into someone’s house knowing that they "really are" risking their life for material possessions (Not worth it in my opinion)?

[Satex]

Am I justified in my actions?

If the DA decides you weren't, then it would be up to a Jury.

[AJAX22]

Regardless of the initial outcome, never....NEVER....alter the original crime scene.

Should you "drag the body inside"...you will go to jail for a long time for manslaughter, or murder. Moving the body is the same as lying. Forensics will easily and quickly know you did.

"Put a gun or knife in his hand" will also get you a manslaughter, or murder conviction. Forensics will easily and quickly prove you lied.

Giving first aid to the, now, shot up suspect may also result in a premeditated charge. Forensics, or qualified medical personnel, will know the results of body movement in the application of first aid needs. Rolling the bad guy over to plug his newly leaking holes (or moving him from the confines of the doorway), could also go in your favor when the prosecution has no answer to the medical examination of the evidence, that you did all you could to not only stop a crime in process, but rendered aid in the aftermath of your justifiable actions.....

....just don't bet on it.

Yes Forensics can tell if you move a body (its very, very obvious to trained personell, the cloathing gives it away)

Altering a crime scene is a felony and should never ever be done, but I think too much credit is being given to forensic science in this particular case.

if an unregistered gun with ammunition which does not match that of any which you have in your house (different callibre, different lot number, different make etc.) that has no prints (on the mag, bullets internal components, under the grips etc.) and has been stored in a sealed bag to prevent fibers or other trace evidence from accumulating on it were to be found near the suspect or partially under/in the suspects hand (or even sitting on the counter with the magazine removed and the slide locked back), it would be damn near impossible for anyone to prove that you put it there and that he didn't bring it.

It would even be explainable why your fingerprints were on the gun, you took it out of the guys hand so that if he was faking he wouldn't kill you with it.

I'm not saying that its a good idea (and I personally would never do it, and strongly would advise against it), I just don't see how anyone could prove otherwise.

[tyrist]

No, once he has broken off the confrontation and you pursue him you are now the agressor.

Not smart to do but legal....force can be used to affect arrest.

[BillCA]

if an unregistered gun with ammunition which does not match that of any which you have in your house (different callibre, different lot number, different make etc.) that has no prints (on the mag, bullets internal components, under the grips etc.) and has been stored in a sealed bag to prevent fibers or other trace evidence from accumulating on it were to be found near the suspect or partially under/in the suspects hand (or even sitting on the counter with the magazine removed and the slide locked back), it would be damn near impossible for anyone to prove that you put it there and that he didn't bring it.

It would even be explainable why your fingerprints were on the gun, you took it out of the guys hand so that if he was faking he wouldn't kill you with it.

Oh, the naive thinking here.

If the forensics team finds a gun that is so "dry cleaned" that it lacks fingerprints, stray fibers, dust, lint or bodily products (hairs, skin cells, dandruff) it'll raise a bunch of red flags. BG's just don't keep their guns that clean. And in your scenario, if the BG isn't wearing gloves it'll be even harder to explain.

DO NOT ever alter evidence at a crime scene. If your intruder's eyes are in the *tilt* position, he won't argue with your telling the PD you thought he was going to kill you.

As pointed out above, an intruder can turn his back on you in the time it takes you to pull the trigger. He moves after being told to stop, you interpret the threat and squeeze, but in the meantime (1/4 sec) he's turned his back and your round strikes home. This is documented by Force Science News in one of their articles about police shootings. But it is not carte blanche to shoot people who are no threat to you (fleeing).

[ByTheNumbers]

As pointed out above, an intruder can turn his back on you in the time it takes you to pull the trigger.
I agree that a "drop gun" would raise lots of questions because of the total lack of fingerprints or other trace evidence on the internal parts, even if you pressed it into the BG's hands to get his fingerprints on the outside, like you often see on TV or in the movies. Especially since most BG's probably don't wear holsters, you'd expect to find lots of lint and skin particles from being kept in a pocket or a waistband.

Regarding the quoted statement above, Joe Horn in Texas was widely criticized for shooting those two burglars "in the back". I guess no one but Horn knows for sure, but I wonder if he was aiming at their front but by the time he pulled the trigger, they had already started to pass him or turn away? I mean, he said he feared for his life, and that undercover officer who pulled up to the house said that they were running towards Horn across his lawn and then were veering away when they were shot. Anyway, I think the Horn case illustrates this possibility that you mention. Things happen very fast in a real situation and what is left behind may not accurately reflect how things were that caused you to pull the trigger.

[AJAX22]

Oh, the naive thinking here.

If the forensics team finds a gun that is so "dry cleaned" that it lacks fingerprints, stray fibers, dust, lint or bodily products (hairs, skin cells, dandruff) it'll raise a bunch of red flags. BG's just don't keep their guns that clean. And in your scenario, if the BG isn't wearing gloves it'll be even harder to explain.

DO NOT ever alter evidence at a crime scene. If your intruder's eyes are in the *tilt* position, he won't argue with your telling the PD you thought he was going to kill you.

As pointed out above, an intruder can turn his back on you in the time it takes you to pull the trigger. He moves after being told to stop, you interpret the threat and squeeze, but in the meantime (1/4 sec) he's turned his back and your round strikes home. This is documented by Force Science News in one of their articles about police shootings. But it is not carte blanche to shoot people who are no threat to you (fleeing).

I understand that it would raise red flags, however lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. Any dead guy on the floor of your apartment is going to raise red flags.

I'm not saying that anyone should alter evidence at a crime scene. Its a felony, and is just a horrible idea.

I just have a problem with attributing mystical powers to the forensic examiners.

Forensic science is not as all knowing as people seem to think.

[1911su16b870]

Reasonable force can be used to:
1. Effect an arrest
2. Prevent escape
3. Overcome resistance

Do not tamper with the scene or evidence. Call 911, request EMS and the Police, call your attorney and use your right to not incriminate yourself.