Home invasion question

[soldier07110]

So I briefly looked for a similar thread, to no avail. Sorry if this is a re-post. I have a Glock 9mm at my house which is most often my go to gun if unfamiliar noises are made. Now I'm fairly familiar with the rules of engagement, it seems for the most part the general rule is you're only allowed to shoot if your life is in danger. Roger all that, let's say I'm getting charged with a lethal weapon (not a firearm), is the objective at that point to kill, or to wound? What I'm getting at is, how is it going to look for me later on if I double tap?

[wilit]

I was told at the CCW class I took to shoot until you stop the threat.

[9mmepiphany]

unless you're a lot better shot than just about anyone i've ever seen, you should be shooting for center mass...it you try to "double tap", you're going to miss with at least one round

LE never shoots to kill, we only shoot to stop. if the opponent happens to die from the wounds they sustain, that is a byproduct, not the objective

[team1320]

good thread i will be checking back for more opinions..

on another note im not to familiar with the rules of engagement if someone breaks in? where can i find that info or can someone enlighten me. thanks.

[El Gato]

as to the code:

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.


as to intent...
only shoot to stop...shoot the center of the largest portion of the threatening person you can see... alot... until they stop trying to hurt people...

you do not have any legal right to "kill" only the dept. of corrections can execute a death sentence.

196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and
those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--
1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court...

as to justifiable homicide...

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.

(which must be modified to say you cant shoot to stop any felony, only felonies which are risking great bodily injury or death to the victim.)

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.

[masterbush]

That $h1T is clear as mud

[El Gato]

That $h1T is clear as mud

you live or die by it... learn it ....love it...

[RedMongooSe]

IF EVERYONE READ THE BOOK "HOW TO OWN A GUN AND STAY OUT OF JAIN IN CALIFORNIA"... then this forum would only consist of the OT and FS lol.

but seriously, everyone in CA should read that book!

[Ron-Solo]

LE never shoots to kill, we only shoot to stop. if the opponent happens to die from the wounds they sustain, that is a byproduct, not the objective

This sums it up pretty well. If it takes multiple rounds to stop the threat, so be it.

If the guy is on the ground and no longer a threat and you walk up and "Get Intrest" by putting one one in the CPU, you're going to have problems

[retired]

I've deleted all of the posts and edited one advocating killing the suspect. That may end up being the final consequence of you defending yourself or family, but it is not acceptable stating that in this forum. We certainly do not need anyone reading this thinking we advocate killing anyone.

What 9mmepiphany said and what Ron-Solo reiterated, is the stated objective.

LE never shoots to kill, we only shoot to stop. if the opponent happens to die from the wounds they sustain, that is a byproduct, not the objective

If anyone were to be involved in such a situation and told the responding leos or testified in court they shot to kill the suspect, you would more than likely have a serious legal problem.

[SoCalDep]

My original post was deleted, and rightly so, as it was a bit unclear.

The original post asked whether one should shoot to kill or shoot to wound. The answer, as has been stated, is neither.

What I think needs to be clarified is that the law is on the side of the resident in this case. One of the first questions to be asked of any LE candidate is whether they would be able to take someone's life if necessary. This same question applies to anyone who would keep a firearm for protection. The law allows for justifiable homicide when one is in fear of great bodily injury or death to themselves or to others. The law presumes a person to be in fear of the above when someone breaks into their house.

This is important because say someone breaks in and you shoot them. The main question will be your mindset at the time. You shoot to stop the threat. The consequences of that action is quite likely going to be death to the suspect. That's why they call it deadly force or lethal force. As such, you possess the knowledge that your action is likely to inflict great bodily injury or death and that is a form of intent. Don't get caught up in the semantics of intent/willful vs. motive or reason.

You can shoot for center mass with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but the reason for shooting center mass is to effectively stop the threat. Some people advocate "shooting to kill" and that's not how we should look at it.

On the other hand, I think many people are confused about the term "shoot to stop" like it means we try to avoid killing the suspect. That encourages people to come up with concepts like "shooting to wound" or implies that killing is wrong. i think it also perpetuates thoughts like shooting the legs out from a knife wielding suspect. We shoot vital, life-sustaining areas that will likely result in the death of the suspect. We do that to effectively and efficiently stop the threat.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

[retired]

Excellent!^

[soldier07110]

Just to clarify, I in no way was advocating killing someone, if I made it sound that way I apologize. Got good info, question resolved, thanks everyone.

[Jonathan Doe]

I used to be a firearms instructor for my dept. We teach the LEO's " shoot to stop aggression or threat" The target to shoot is the biggest area which is the torso area. If the suspect does not stop aggressive behavior, then the head shot is required to stop him. If you are justified to shoot one round, there is nothing preventing you from shooting more rounds. If the suspect dies during the process, it was his fault causing the action.

I was at a crime scene a few weeks ago. The suspect shot at the LEO's. They shot back to stop him. The suspect was hit several times, but still went for his gun. The LEO's fired some more, and finally the suspect stopped. He ended up dying. To bad he didn't stop when LEO's told him to stop.

[Nxd9ar15xcrL]

And never shoot them in the back. BAD IDEA. If they are running away from you, the threat to your life is not there to justify the shooting.