Home invasion question

[Aces and 8s]

That makes sense to me as well.


Any LEO's care to weigh in on the above scenario?

[soldier07110]

I can't answer for every minutia of a situation, but if I'm in my own home detaining someone at gunpoint who illegally broke in, and he attacks me, I'm thinking he's trying to take my gun to kill me/my family and I'm in fear for my life. In my mind, lethal force is more than justified, and I think CA law will back me up on that.

I agree. One thing to take into account is most criminals are cowards and when faced with a gun, unarmed, they are most of the time not going to act like a brave citizen would. I think the only way they would try to overpower you at that point would be if you were portraying yourself as weak or afraid. Though of course there is always the unknown variable, making this comment out to be nothing more than opinion...

[JDeMasi]

Unless you are a drug dealer....I think you have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than being the victim of a home invasion robbery....

[SoCalDep]

Unless you are a drug dealer....I think you have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than being the victim of a home invasion robbery....

Tell that to Dr. Petit.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/25/national/main3095614.shtml

[gravedigger]

Say suspect is angered at being held by gun point and decides to attack, what action is lawful at that point?

With the intent never being to kill but rather stop the threat, what kind of threat is present when a single home invader breaks into your house with no weapons?

See... this is where things get sticky.

I look at it this way. MY definition of a "weapon" is ANYTHING that the attacker has in his possession, or on his person, that may be a threat to my life.

Suppose that guy that just broke into your home and is attacking you just got through with a fight down the street, where he dug his fingernails into some AIDS-infected transient? Shall I now ASSUME that he is not a threat to ME, because I cannot SEE any "weapon?" Shall I wait until he digs into my skin and bloodstream with those AIDS-infected fingernails?

EVEN IF I could fend off a personal physical attack, all it would take, is for the intruder to scratch me across the face or arm deep enough to reach my blood, and golly gee ... six months later some doctor tells me that I was actually KILLED six months ago by that intruder, but I'm lucky enough to have time to get my affairs in order!

No, if someone breaks into my home, or attacks me at an ATM, or aggressively enters my car, or WHATEVER, I'm just going to naturally assume that my life IS in imminent danger, because I'm guessing that the attacker is not going to be polite enough to stop and assure me that he has sterilized his hands and cleaned off those metal studs on his jacket, and removed any other invisible but DEADLY threat he may otherwise transfer to my bloodstream during a physical confrontation. Maybe my life is not in danger of ENDING at that particular moment, but certainly, in danger of being changed or greatly shortened by things I cannot SEE with the naked eye and have NO WAY of knowing.

If he has a little pocket knife, if he is a biter, or whatever ... say he puts his car key between his fingers while making a fist. SOME brain dead defense attorneys would argue that such a "weapon" cannot be considered to be "life-threatening." Well, a body lying in a bed still has it's LIFE, although it is no longer living. A key correctly driven into a temple can paralyze you for "LIFE", and even though your heart is still pumping, I would deem my LIFE to have been taken from me at that point.

Bottom line. I view ANY physical, aggressive assault toward me to be a threat on my life every single time, and I will respond with sufficient force to "stop" that threat EVERY SINGLE TIME, regardless of how benign it may seem to the casual observer.

[oaklander]

Folks, I urge you to proceed with caution when discussing this topic. It probably does not make sense to state what you plan to do in this scenario. The reason is that if you are EVER involved in any kind of shooting, both the DA and the lawyers for the shooting "victim" will be reading all of your posts.

My simple answer to the OP's question is that I would follow all laws, to the letter.

Now, with respect to the assertion that home invasion robberies are rare, I would have to disagree. Depending on where you live, they are actually fairly common. Where I live for example, there have been two home invasion robberies within one block of me in the last year. In many areas, they simply do not make the news, tending to lull one into a false sense of security.

[Warhawk014]

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

off topic. el gato that is one creepy avatar pic

[chiefnpd]

Chiefnpd

Delete please

[9mmepiphany]

Now, with respect to the assertion that home invasion robberies are rare, I would have to disagree. Depending on where you live, they are actually fairly common. Where I live for example, there have been two home invasion robberies within one block of me in the last year. In many areas, they simply do not make the news, tending to lull one into a false sense of security.

i have to agree with this, we've just passed through the home invasion season in the Southeast Asian community

[retired]

Well, Here lies the difference in political views in this country. We can hear daily of the Mad Dogs raping and killing children in this country every day, but to try to educate the general public in how to defend their family and property, is not exceptable?
Retired, are you speaking from your heart? Or were you directed?
I'am personally offended by this cencorship and will be withdrawing my membership, unless a retraction is made. It's not right to assume that the people involved in that discussion were killers or mentally unstable persons. You are profiing
Nothing was said to offend. No profanity used. Just honest Americans exchanging information about the law.

PS. Please excuse any misspellings for diabetes has gotten into my eyes and I can hardly see.
Thanks

chiefnpd, I'm not sure which post of mine you are referring to. If it is the following:

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.

those are my words; I wasn't directed to say that. Everything I said there is correct in my opinion. You make a lot of assumptions about me tho you know nothing about me. You also have assumed, incorrectly, that I have made assumptions about the people who made those posts. I merely deleted posts that advocate killing someone; that is not what this site stands for or advocates.

Secondly, this is a forum that is privately owned. With that, are certain rules that have been established by the owner and as moderators, especially in this specialty forum, we will moderate per the wishes of the owner and his rules. The First Amendment doesn't enter the picture on a private forum.

If you wish to cancel your membership, that is certainly your prerogative, but I would hope you remain as there is a lot of good info in these forums and a lot of great members on this site.

You will not receive a retraction of my comments from me as there is nothing to retract. I made myself clear as to why I deleted the posts I did and I stand by what I said.

I also reviewed each of the posts I deleted and do not see any reason to undelete them.

If you wish to cancel your membership, please let me know and I will contact the owner (Kestryll, who also deleted some of the posts) so he can take care of that. You can do that here or in a pm.

[msand951]

To my understanding, I was told and have heard. That shooting must be the last act of defense. First dial 911, Let them know you called the police and you have a gun. If they dont comply and keep coming at you . You have to fire a warning shot. If they keep coming you fire center mass.
I also heard you cant use your own reloads . You have to buy store bought ammo. Cause your reloads can be inhumane.
This is what ive heard , have read, or been told.
If your worried of someone breaking in get an alarm or dog. I just worry of someone breaking in when im not home and someone taking my toys. So i have a alarm, and my german shepherd.

Its sucks being the victim trying to defend yourself, Cause seems like most rules or laws protect the assailant more than the victim. Everytime there is a new gun law it hurts law abiting citizens not the outlaws. We have rules and steps to follow to defend ourselves they have none cause they dont care. If they ban all firearms from the US the drug dealers, gangsters will keep getting them cause they dont care about laws. Sucks sorry for venting guys but good thread.

[inbox485]

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?

Read PC 196 and PC 197. Then find and read the CA jury instructions for homicide (sorry I don't have a copy with me). Take what those words say to heart. Self defense laws in CA are some of the best in the nation on the criminal side. The civil side could be better, but isn't bad either.

When people say double tap I take it to mean aim once, pull trigger twice as fast as you can. Each shot needs to be aimed and fired as warranted. The industry term for aim/shoot+aim/shoot is controlled pair. Every major school that teaches handgun that I've seen preaches controlled pair to center of mass (CP2COM) and adjust aim to center of head. The reasoning being that a single shot from a handgun often fails to stop. AFAIK, that is generally taken at face value in court.

The kill versus wound is easy to respond to. You shoot to stop, which 99% of the time is a CP2COM. This carries a high risk of fatality for the receiving end, but that is a side effect, not the goal. You don't want to aim for limbs or non incapacitating areas in most circumstances (think - can you articulate why the main stopping targets were unavailable or would not result in stopping the attack?).

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.

You can shoot them anywhere, anyhow in order to stop the immediate threat of violence. Just be prepared to articulate why it was necessary for your immediate safety or the immediate safety of others.

Sorry to bring thread back from the dead...

What does CA law saw of the following situation.

Someone breaks into your home, they have no weapon, can you hold them at gun point, like a citizens arest until police arrive? Dial 911, inform dispatch of break in, and inform that you have suspect at gun point?

In any weapon platform there a person and there is an implement. One constitutes a tool and the other constitutes a weapon. The person determines which is which.

Putting that crack at humor aside, you can presume a forceful intruder not known to you is an immediate deadly threat. That presumption goes away if you are presented with reasonable evidence to the contrary (which the prosecution has the burden of proving). If holding an intruder at gun point transforms them from a violent threat to a non-violent nuisance faster than you can pull the trigger than great. Just be prepared for a very unpleasant encounter with first responders (they will try to avoid making any assumptions for better or worse, but they can and have confused who the bad guy is).

Say suspect flees when held at gun point, ok no threat no need to shoot, call police and file report.

Before assuming that the threat is over, ask yourself if they can be fleeing to a new position of attack or to harm others. Depending on the circumstances, you may be justified (ethically and legally) in saying stop or I'll shoot and following through.

Say suspect is angered at being held by gun point and decides to attack, what action is lawful at that point?

If the threat is immediate and carries a probability of great bodily harm, shoot to stop. IMO, since you have a gun in hand and an assailant closing the distance carries a high risk of being disarmed and shot with your own gun, shooting is justified.

With the intent never being to kill but rather stop the threat, what kind of threat is present when a single home invader breaks into your house with no weapons?

They are presumed to be a deadly threat until proven otherwise. What you don't see can hurt you, and people have been disarmed and harmed because they didn't think they could shot a person whose hands were empty. Others have been harmed by intruders faking compliance only to produce a concealed weapon. Criminals have also learned tricks like turning their back to you and shooting backwards and shooting through soft obstacles to capitalize on the law abiding impulse to only shoot at traditional face forward torso targets.

I ask because if someone breaks into my house, I would hold them at gun point and demand to see their hands. Of course if they comply and no weapons are on the suspect then what?

Answers are endless (and the internet discussions are endless and usually mind numbing) and very dependent on circumstances and your own skills and abilities. What ever the method, the goal is to place enough steps between the intruder being able to access and implement a weapon that your reaction can catch up to and beat his action. Face away (face to corner if possible), on knees wide spread, cross ankles, interlace fingers on head, etc. As a secondary consider if there is a safe way to incapacitate the person enough to allow you to put your gun away before police arrive.

[inbox485]

To my understanding, I was told and have heard. That shooting must be the last act of defense. First dial 911, Let them know you called the police and you have a gun. If they dont comply and keep coming at you . You have to fire a warning shot. If they keep coming you fire center mass.

Most of this is only true in what are called duty to retreat states. In CA you can stand your ground, but depending on the circumstances you may find it wise to do the above anyway. Difference is in a duty to retreat state you have the burden of proof that you could not follow one or more of the steps safely. In CA you have the presumption of having faced a deadly threat and it is the prosecutions burden to prove otherwise.

Warning shots are pretty universally a no-no. You never shoot without a backstop and generally the only safe backstop in a home defense situation is the assailant.

I also heard you cant use your own reloads . You have to buy store bought ammo. Cause your reloads can be inhumane.

It isn't that you can't use reloads. They carry complications.

1. First is they can be a ballistic nightmare when power residues, terminal effects, etc don't line up with industry norms. The evidence can paint a picture other than what happened.
2. Second is that the prosecution can claim that you coooked some super vicious load. I think this point is overrated since the prosecution will paint you as a monster anyway, but why make it easier?

This is what ive heard , have read, or been told.
If your worried of someone breaking in get an alarm or dog. I just worry of someone breaking in when im not home and someone taking my toys. So i have a alarm, and my german shepherd.

I can't speak to the average criminal as I don't associate myself with any, but I can speak to my own capabilities and say that I could (if I were so inclined - and for the record I am not) get passed dogs and alarms quickly and quietly enough to be in and done with typical criminal acts with no more risk than if the dog and or alarm was never there. Both are fine and dandy as many criminals are stupid, but if dogs and alarms stopped all intruders this discussion wouldn't be happening.

Its sucks being the victim trying to defend yourself, Cause seems like most rules or laws protect the assailant more than the victim. Everytime there is a new gun law it hurts law abiting citizens not the outlaws. We have rules and steps to follow to defend ourselves they have none cause they dont care. If they ban all firearms from the US the drug dealers, gangsters will keep getting them cause they dont care about laws. Sucks sorry for venting guys but good thread.

Gun laws suck. But the only thing I'd change about CA SD law is adding civil immunity unless found criminally guilty.

[CountDeMonet]

Hi guys. New member. I've been perusing for a bit and I love what I see here. Lots of level headed, informed, and well meaning responses. Thank you so much for that. It's not always so easy to find.

I don't see agendas, just people doing the best they can. That's really great.

Reasoned response, in case you have not noticed....has been a bit lacking commonly. It's greatly appreciated.

CDM