PDA

View Full Version : Intruder in the fenced backyard question


Rob Roy
09-08-2010, 1:53 PM
Is it legal to use a firearm for SD in the fenced backyard against an intruder?

maddoggie13
09-08-2010, 1:56 PM
Yes...

kel-tec-innovations
09-08-2010, 1:58 PM
fenced enclosed backyard is private property so yes, but shoot only when your life or others is in danger.

b.faust
09-08-2010, 2:00 PM
There are some 'less lethal' options in the backyard.

http://gearmedia.ign.com/gear/image/article/961/961035/garden-hose-gun-20090310040307747.jpg

;)

Glock22Fan
09-08-2010, 2:00 PM
Is it legal to use a firearm for SD in the fenced backyard against an intruder?

It is legal anywhere provided a reasonable person would agree that you had reason to think that you were in fear of serious bodily harm or death.

That might or might not be the case in your backyard, any more or less than it would be in, say, the mall car park.

Inside your home, provided the intruder is not entitled to be there and you have evidence of a forced entry, then you may make that assumption.

Timberwolf
09-08-2010, 2:11 PM
I preffer a claymore, a little more messy but I don't have to be dead on to get the job done.

greybeard
09-08-2010, 2:16 PM
Is it legal to use a firearm for SD in the fenced backyard against an intruder?
I would say no, there is a nice wall between you two. If you go out, I think the assumption will be you were putting your self in danger. I thin k there is case law to that affect.

greg36f
09-08-2010, 2:18 PM
Is it legal to use a firearm for SD in the fenced backyard against an intruder?

Yes......No.......Possibly....it depends..........probably..........and we are off..............:auto:

Rob Roy
09-08-2010, 2:19 PM
It is legal anywhere provided a reasonable person would agree that you had reason to think that you were in fear of serious bodily harm or death.

That might or might not be the case in your backyard, any more or less than it would be in, say, the mall car park.

Inside your home, provided the intruder is not entitled to be there and you have evidence of a forced entry, then you may make that assumption.

I don't see how a person can be entitled to be in a fenced backyard. He has to force himself there.

greg36f
09-08-2010, 2:22 PM
It is legal anywhere provided a reasonable person would agree that you had reason to think that you were in fear of serious bodily harm or death.

That might or might not be the case in your backyard, any more or less than it would be in, say, the mall car park.

Inside your home, provided the intruder is not entitled to be there and you have evidence of a forced entry, then you may make that assumption.



You had better be able to articulate a threat!!! Someone just being there is not enough......Also, "forced entry'.....is probably open for debate.

VERY FEW THINGS IN LIFE ARE ABSOLUTE!!!!

Glock22Fan
09-08-2010, 2:56 PM
It is legal anywhere provided a reasonable person would agree that you had reason to think that you were in fear of serious bodily harm or death.

That might or might not be the case in your backyard, any more or less than it would be in, say, the mall car park.

Inside your home, provided the intruder is not entitled to be there and you have evidence of a forced entry, then you may make that assumption.



You had better be able to articulate a threat!!! Someone just being there is not enough......Also, "forced entry'.....is probably open for debate.

VERY FEW THINGS IN LIFE ARE ABSOLUTE!!!!

Oh no, not another "Does P.C. 198.5 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/198.5.html) really mean what is says or not?"

You DO NOT have to articulate a threat. P.C. 198.5 ASSUMES that there is a threat under certain conditions.

If you don't know for sure that the intruder is not a family or household member, and you don't know if the intruder forcibly entered the residence, then don't shoot unless you can articulate a threat. Otherwise - apart from all the trauma you'll experience - you should be good to go.

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.

Alaric
09-08-2010, 3:13 PM
How high is the fence?

Was the gate(s) to the yard locked?

Who's the intruder? (can't shoot a meter reader or a surveyor for instance)

Did they force themselves in?

Would a reasonable person agree that the intruder poses an immediate threat?

See, there's too many variables to give a one-size-fits-all answer here.

thayne
09-08-2010, 3:15 PM
It is legal anywhere provided a reasonable person would agree that you had reason to think that you were in fear of serious bodily harm or death.

That might or might not be the case in your backyard, any more or less than it would be in, say, the mall car park.

Inside your home, provided the intruder is not entitled to be there and you have evidence of a forced entry, then you may make that assumption.

Why does there have to be forced entry? If I forget to lock my door the rules change? What would the definition of forced entry be?

SgtDinosaur
09-08-2010, 3:17 PM
Another "what if" question with no clearcut answer, since it depends on a whole bunch of different circumstances. Oh yeah, let's also talk about what you say to the cops if this happens. That should be equally fruitful.

Excuse me, an earlier thread almost drove me insane. Not your fault.

Alaric
09-08-2010, 3:17 PM
Why does there have to be forced entry? If I forget to lock my door the rules change?

Yes.

Originally Posted by pc198.5
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.

bgelectrician
09-08-2010, 3:20 PM
So hopefully no one leaves there front door unlocked which you shouldnt but if you do and an intruder walks in it is not a forced entry. So I guess you will have to result in harsh language.

thayne
09-08-2010, 3:23 PM
Isnt opening the door using force? Not that it really matters. Im not going to shoot someone who's unarmed anyway, but I would think any uninvited entry would be forced entry.

dantodd
09-08-2010, 3:24 PM
Why does there have to be forced entry? If I forget to lock my door the rules change? What would the definition of forced entry be?

I worry about this as well, I rarely bother locking my door.

I suspect the reason forced entry is required is to make sure you don't kill someone who is lost or wanders into the wrong house. Having a lock will ensure that the person knows they are not welcome.

Imagine someone entering your unlocked home because they were at a party down the street and had too much to drink. Having a lock prevents them from entering accidentally.

Alaric
09-08-2010, 3:28 PM
So hopefully no one leaves there front door unlocked which you shouldnt but if you do and an intruder walks in it is not a forced entry. So I guess you will have to result in harsh language.

At that point you have a trespasser and shooting trespassers is generally not ok. Once informed that they are trespassing they can retreat unmolested. You may however use reasonable force to defend yourself if that trespasser becomes an assailant. The key here is reasonable though. If it's the neighbors teenage kid who got drunk and confusedly entered your house by mistake, shooting him would probably be unreasonable and wind you up in prison.

It's always better to keep your doors locked.

thayne
09-08-2010, 3:29 PM
Imagine someone entering your unlocked home because they were at a party down the street and had too much to drink. Having a lock prevents them from entering accidentally.

Ive actually had that happen I didnt shoot the guy, but he sobered up real quick! It happened years ago when I lived in an apartment, which was kinda understandable because they all look the same.

greybeard
09-08-2010, 3:29 PM
The force entry also proves it not a friend, you invite over to watch the game and shot him because he rooted for the wrong team.:rolleyes:

greg36f
09-08-2010, 3:35 PM
[QUOTE=greg36f;4924152]

Oh no, not another "Does P.C. 198.5 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/198.5.html) really mean what is says or not?"

You DO NOT have to articulate a threat. P.C. 198.5 ASSUMES that there is a threat under certain conditions.

If you don't know for sure that the intruder is not a family or household member, and you don't know if the intruder forcibly entered the residence, then don't shoot unless you can articulate a threat. Otherwise - apart from all the trauma you'll experience - you should be good to go.

I still say that you have to articulate a threat......what if it is your drunk nieghbor who thinks that it is his house and he kicks open the front door.......'Oh shucks Frank, sorry, I though I was at my house.....bang!!!!!!! Not so good......

Let's say you wake to find your daughters boyfriend sneaking into your house through a previously closed window (or worse sneaking out:eek:) ,,,,,Hi Bill....Bang!!!! Not so good.....even though you really want to shoot his lazy, worthless good for nothing butt.

Yeah, the law says you can,,,,,but you gotta put some though into it,,,It's not a blank check.....

Glock22Fan
09-08-2010, 3:41 PM
Why does there have to be forced entry? If I forget to lock my door the rules change? What would the definition of forced entry be?

Try reading all of my post #11, the answer is there, and it is only two posts ahead of yours.

Glock22Fan
09-08-2010, 3:45 PM
I still say that you have to articulate a threat......what if it is your drunk nieghbor who thinks that it is his house and he kicks open the front door.......'Oh shucks Frank, sorry, I though I was at my house.....bang!!!!!!! Not so good......

Let's say you wake to find your daughters boyfriend sneaking into your house through a previously closed window (or worse sneaking out:eek:) ,,,,,Hi Bill....Bang!!!! Not so good.....even though you really want to shoot his lazy, worthless good for nothing butt.

Yeah, the law says you can,,,,,but you gotta put some though into it,,,It's not a blank check.....

I would hope that you put some thought into it any time you pull out a firearm with a view to using deadly force. God gave you a brain for a reason, use it.

greg36f
09-08-2010, 3:57 PM
I would hope that you put some thought into it any time you pull out a firearm with a view to using deadly force. God gave you a brain for a reason, use it.



I guess that it possible that I am simply articulating the obvious........Sometimes my faith if my fellow man is not so high. I however, am perfect!!! Just ask me.....;)

Mikeb
09-08-2010, 4:03 PM
I don't see how a person can be entitled to be in a fenced backyard. He has to force himself there.


Uh my ball went over the fence... and the lawnmower followed me home.
but that's just my nieghborhood
take care
Mike

Glock22Fan
09-08-2010, 4:08 PM
I guess that it possible that I am simply articulating the obvious........Sometimes my faith if my fellow man is not so high. I however, am perfect!!! Just ask me.....;)

Let's face it, no matter what your justification, a D.A. can always put an alternative theory to the jury.

An "open and shut" obvious case of self defense with apparently unassailable defense grounds can be turned upside down if the D.A. offers an alternative description of events, such as that the shooter, no matter the apparent provocation at the time, was pissed at the corpse for having an affair with the shooter's wife, had taken out ten million bucks life insurance on the shootee, had boasted that he had a gun and was going to "get even" and had lured the corpse to the place where the homicide took place. Any case has to withstand the "smell test."