adferfqdc

[Kukuforguns]

Originally Posted by ElDub1950
IMHO the answer is always 'at the point you are reasonably in fear for your, or your family's life'. There is no distance requirement. The only requirement is that any reasonable person would agree with you.

This is the most valid answer.

Yep.

If the intruder is a 90 year old woman with a crowbar that she cannot lift, it likely would be unreasonable to believe that your life is endangered.

If the intruder is 6'6" of hard muscle without a weapon, you may reasonably conclude that he is a threat if he advances.

If you are 6'6" of hard muscle, an unarmed 15 year old tweeker likely is not a credible threat to your life. If you are a paraplegic, that same 15 year old tweeker presents a greater threat to you than if you were the 6'6" brute.

These kind of hypotheticals are unanswerable without knowing the totality of the circumstances. I recommend Cathy Jackson's website "Cornered Cat" for a free learning resource. If you have a good public library near you, see what books they have on self-defense. The NRA offers courses on the use of force inside and outside the home. Keep a log of what you read and what training you receive.

[Decoligny]

.
Situation 1:

I have my gun drawn and pointed at a bad guy inside my house. I tell the bad guy to get out. I see he doesn't have any weapon in his hands. He starts walking towards me. At what point or distance can I shoot him? What if he starts running towards me? What if he turns him back towards me but starts walking backwards towards me?
.

If he is approaching you after being told to leave by someone with a gun, it is purdent to assume he is in the process of attacking you. You shoot prior to him getting within stricking distance of you. If he is running, shoot faster.

If he is walking backwards towards you, his head must be turned where he can see where he is walking, shoot for the front part of his head.

.
Situation 2:

What if the bad guy has a crow bar in his hands or any other tools or maybe even a knife, which he might have used to open the door/window. There's a chance he can throw it and injure me. At what point or distance can I shoot him.
.

If he has a weapon in his hand, and you feel as though you are in danger of losing your life, or of grave physical injury, shoot him. Distance is not a factor. Nobody is going to say, "You shouldn't have shot at 12 feet, you should have waited until he was 6 feet away!"

.
Situation 3:

What if the bad guy doesn't have any weapons or tools in his hands. Then he grabs an expensive watch in the counter or any other items I own (value doesn't matter). He starts walking towards the door to leave. Am I allowed to shoot him even after I warn him to leave the item(s) behind? Am I supposed to just let him get away with my stuff?
.

Yes, you are supposed to let him leave with your stuff.

One word: INSURANCE

That is what is supposed to cover your stuff. If you shoot someone for taking your stuff, you will lose a whole lot more money in lawyers fees and lawsuit judgments than any of your stuff is worth. You may even spend a very long time sitting in a 6' X 8' room with a bed, sink, and toilet as your only furnishings.

.
Situation 4:

What if the bad guy in the living room without a weapon or any tools in his hands. My wife and kid are in the kitchen stunned and too scared to move. I'm one side of the living room with my gun draw and pointed at him telling him to get out. Then he starts walking towards my wife and kid at the kitchen. At what point or distance can I shoot him?
.

As soon as he starts toward your wife and kids, consider it an attack on your wife and kids. You don't know his intentions, and you are probably in fear for their lives. Again distance isn't an issue, perception of threat is the issue.

[Decoligny]

What if I shoot him on the leg? As a warning. I'm thinking a gun doesn't have to be used to kill but to injure....

Shooting someone in the leg, arm, pinky finger, or even shooting in the general direction of a person is still considered "Use of Deadly Force".


Never fire a warning shot. You shoot to STOP THE THREAT.
Never shoot to wound somebody. You shoot to STOP THE THREAT.
Never shoot to kill. You shoot to STOP THE THREAT.

So, SHOOT TO STOP THE THREAT.

[Decoligny]

Lawyer told me if you shoot to wound and he loses limbs/loses ability in an arm or a leg its gonna cost you huge in civil court

99% of the time if the perp hears you pump one in the chamber he is out of there

if at all possible get 911 on the phone asap and have them hear you tell the person you are armed and Police are on the way

don't shoot in the dark, get a light and use quick bursts of light to identify the subject

Run drills with your family for different scenarios

So, what about those of us who keep a live round chambered?

The first indication that I am even in the house should either be me saying "Freeze M*****F*****!!!!!", or the sound of my firearm discharging a round at an immediate threat. My wife will be in the bedroom on the phone with 911.

[Doghouse_Riley]

Don't rely on internet advice on an issue of this level of importance, It can literally mean life and death. Do some research. Talk to an attorney that specializes in self defense.

I'm quoting this because I want to reiterate that you should not take legal advice from random internet users.

Where can I get some free advice from a lawyer? They're pricey and I assume not may will offer free advice even if it only takes 15 seconds to answer a question

How much is your freedom and/or your life worth? $200 for an hour with an attorney? Just sayin'.

[Ron-Solo]

Sorry, but non of your questions has a definitive answer.

Unless your life, or the life of another, is in immediate danger you may not use deadly force. Shooting a person anywhere in their body could lead to death, so any discharge of a firearm is considered deadly force.

While there are limited circumstances where you might be able to use deadly force, they are so slim you wouldn't even want to consider it.

[mcmikeblues7]

Read the laws yourself. I can tell you right now, shooting to wound is one of the worst things you can do in a situation like that.

[rdawg]

That would be a grey area. I had a family friend shoot a teenager in his front entry way. The teenager came to the house in the middle of the night and rang the door bell. The stepson answers the door and the gangbanger started beating the kid. My family friend wakes up to hear what's going on and grabs his Beretta 92fs. He ends up shooting the kid twice in the chest defending his stepson because he didn't know what was going on. It was dark and he didn't know, if his stepson was being stabbed or what. He feared a imminent threat to his stepson's safety and thought he was being inflicted with great bodily injury. The kid ran and jumped into his friends car, where they drove him to the hospital. He died in the parking lot.

My family friend was acquitted from his charges, but after he found out it was a teenager it was very difficult for him to accept. He did what he thought was right at the time with a stranger in his home and attacking his family. He was also sued civilly by the kids family.

Can you shoot a teenager or someone who looks like a teenager in self defense, who is unarmed? The answer is yes on some instances, but you have to meet the fear of great bodily injury or death of yourself or a loved one.

By the way, I am not an attorney and I can only speak from my studies in Criminal Law or personal experiences. Take my advice with a grain of salt and try to understand the laws that we must abide by to the best of your knowledge. Personally, I have and will always exercise every possible option before using deadly force. A lot goes through your head, when you are put in a life and death situation where you may have to use deadly force. The more you know, the better you will come out. Hopefully, you'll be able to de-escalate the situation before having to take another life.

Question: What did it cost for him to defend himself in court the first time?

Then the civil case what happened there what was its outcome? and whats that costing him to defend himself in court on that one?

[olhunter]

Sorry, but non of your questions has a definitive answer.

Unless your life, or the life of another, is in immediate danger you may not use deadly force. Shooting a person anywhere in their body could lead to death, so any discharge of a firearm is considered deadly force.

While there are limited circumstances where you might be able to use deadly force, they are so slim you wouldn't even want to consider it.

Maybe 198.5PC was introduced after you retired. Paul already quoted it, but it very clearly states that...." ..within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury..."

In other words, if someone forces their way into your home, it's automatically presumed they are going to kill you and you can act appropriately. Nothing else has to happen. Just force their way into your home. That's it. No weapons required, no 'facing forward', no threatening gestures, etc.

Outside your house is completely different, but the OP wanted to know how to defend his family in his home.

All bets are off for the civil implications though. But are you going to let someone hurt you or your family because of the possible monetary cost?

[joepamjohn]

When life or death is at stake, and your freedom or jail time is at hand you ask a bunch of arm chair internet lawyers (including me) for advice.

Genius!!

[fiddletown]

Sorry, but non of your questions has a definitive answer.

Unless your life, or the life of another, is in immediate danger you may not use deadly force. Shooting a person anywhere in their body could lead to death, so any discharge of a firearm is considered deadly force.

While there are limited circumstances where you might be able to use deadly force, they are so slim you wouldn't even want to consider it.

That is the real answer.

Everything of course depends on exactly what happens and how it happens.

Let's understand the basic reality of the use of force in self defense.

1. Our society takes a dim view of the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the use of lethal force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.
   
   
   1. However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.
      
      
   2. Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened.
   
   
   
2. If you have thus used violence against another person, your actions will be investigated as a crime, because on the surface that's what it is.
   
   
   1. Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.
      
      
   2. If the evidence is not clear, you may well be arrested and perhaps even charged with a criminal offense. If that happens you will need to affirmatively assert that you were defending yourself and put forth evidence that you at least prima facie satisfied the applicable standard justifying your act of violence. This is all discussed in greater detail here.
   
   
   
3. Of course, if your use of force against another human took place in your home, as you postulate, your justification for your use of violence could be more readily apparent or easier to establish -- maybe.
   
   
   1. Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?
      
      
   2. In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.
      
      
   3. It could however be another matter to establish your justification if you have to use force against someone you invited into your home in a social context which later turns violent.

Good, general overviews of the topic can be found at UseofForce.us and in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.


And it helps to understand that pleading self defense is very different from the usual types of defenses to a criminal charge.


Basically --

1. The prosecutor must prove the elements of the underlying crime beyond a reasonable doubt -- basically that you intentionally shot the guy. But if you are pleading self defense, you will have admitted that, so we go to step 2.
   
   
2. Now you must present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. Depending on the State, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you may not have to convince the jury. But you will have to at least present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.
   
   
3. Now it's the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in justified self defense.

Let's go through that again.

In an ordinary criminal prosecution, the defendant doesn't have to say anything. He doesn't have to present any evidence. The entire burden falls on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the crime you're charged with is, for example, manslaughter, the prosecution must prove that you were there, you fired the gun, you intended to fire the gun (or were reckless), and the guy you shot died. In the typical manslaughter prosecution, the defendant might by way of his defense try to plant a seed that you weren't there (alibi defense), or that someone else might have fired the gun, or that it was an accident. In each case the defendant doesn't have to actually prove his defense. He merely has to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

So in such cases, it probably doesn't pay for you to say anything to the police, at least early on. Let them do the work of trying to amass evidence to prove the case against you. There's no reason for you to help.

But if you are going to be claiming self defense, you will wind up admitting all the elements of what would, absent legal justification, constitute a crime. You will necessarily admit that you were there, that you fired the gun, and that you intended to shoot the decedent. Your defense is that your use of lethal force in self defense satisfied the applicable legal standard and that, therefore, it was justified.

So now you would have to affirmatively present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In some jurisdictions, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you don't have to convince the jury. But you will at least have to present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

Then it will be the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury (in some jurisdictions, he will have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt) that you did not act in justified self defense. And even if you didn't have to prove self defense (only present a prima facie case), the more convincing your story, and your evidence, is, the harder it will be for the prosecutor to meet his rebuttal burden.