Home Defense question..

[taperxz]

How long do you think it would take to recognize what you are shooting at?

It just takes a moment to shine a flashlight and identify that what you are about to shoot at isn't a family member.

It has been my experience that the only folks who don't think there is enough time to be sure of you target are those who lack the training to have confidence in their ability to hit their target.


You would think so, wouldn't you...I certainly did, before I responded to my first call where a father shot his son

Have you never heard of the 20 foot rule? An attacker with at knife 20 feet away can beat a person with a gun at 20 feet. Its been proven. Its almost impossible to unholster, draw, aim and shoot an attacker who is 20 feet away who is charging you.

[Heiko]

Penal Code section 198.5 is very instructive but also read CALCRIM instruction 3477 that expands upon 198.5 and read CALCRIM instruction 506 that instructs about defending against harm in one's home. Penal Code sections are the basics but the real law and where the rubber hits the road in court is in the CALCRIM instructions.

[lawman18]

How about identifying your target before you shoot blindly. Let's add a twist to your scenario. Your neighbor is blind stinking drunk and goes into the wrong house.

Really? The law doesn't say anything about your lush neighbor it says "fear for your safety." Your drunk neighbor, thinking he is smashing in his own window or door, breaks into your house (by mistake) and fails to respond to your cry of having a weapon? Toast! Sucks to be that guy! While his death was tragic, it was a lawful act based on the penal code and you fear for your life. Tell his wife she needs to pay for the damages too! LMFAO

In actuality you will probably get sued by the family in any senerio (al la Hollywood bank shootout) so be ready for that. But, think about a counter suit for damages to your house, legal fees, loss of property value (that must be reported to the buyer when you sell the house), and emotional damages. What the hell, if they can sue you, return the favor!

[Samuelx]

Have you never heard of the 20 foot rule? An attacker with at knife 20 feet away can beat a person with a gun at 20 feet. Its been proven. Its almost impossible to unholster, draw, aim and shoot an attacker who is 20 feet away who is charging you.

Wow, you might want to quit now while you're behind...

[Samuelx]

I have been getting conflicting answers so thought i would ask here..

If I were you, I would go ask a district attorney or deputy district attorney In Person.

If you ask any questions here, you'd better have a carton of Morton's finest handy...

[taperxz]

Wow, you might want to quit now while you're behind...

Excuse me? The 20 foot threat rule has been proven in court as a good shoot when an attacker is present I guess your not a lawyer

[adchrome]

In both examples given of shooting a drunk neighbor the 1st came thru an open window, the 2nd came in thru a unlocked door is very interesting

we never leave windows open at night and doors are always locked...I understand the know your target rule, but I have a locked gate, locked doors and windows and a locked bedroom door...My grown daughters are out with familys and lives of their own and would never break through our bedroom door....my Daughters and all Family Members for that Matter know i am Armed so thats out of the question

How long do you think it would take to recognize what you are shooting at?

It just takes a moment to shine a flashlight and identify that what you are about to shoot at isn't a family member.

It has been my experience that the only folks who don't think there is enough time to be sure of you target are those who lack the training to have confidence in their ability to hit their target.

no i don't have the confidence in giving my Position away that I will get off the first shot if needed, never been in that situation before so don't really know...

So..if the Drunk neighbor jumps our fence,breaks in our home,and after I announce that i am armed and breaks through our bedroom door with 911 on the line, its not a Life Threatening Situation.

Wouldn't you think someone breaking through our B/R door is doing so with the intent to Harm

[adchrome]

If I were you, I would go ask a district attorney or deputy district attorney In Person.

If you ask any questions here, you'd better have a carton of Morton's finest handy...

I definitely will ..thanks

[9mmepiphany]

Have you never heard of the 20 foot rule? An attacker with at knife 20 feet away can beat a person with a gun at 20 feet. Its been proven. Its almost impossible to unholster, draw, aim and shoot an attacker who is 20 feet away who is charging you.

Wow, you might want to quit now while you're behind...

Excuse me? The 20 foot threat rule has been proven in court as a good shoot when an attacker is present I guess your not a lawyer

Well, since you didn't decide to take good advice, I guess you must really believe you know what you you are referred to when you posted it. But first some house keeping:
1. This is the LEO section. Question posted here are to solicit the input of LEOs on the board...you don't have to be a lawyer to give answers
2. You don't do your creditability any good when you talk down to an acknowledged creditable member like Samuelx
3. There is no such thing as the 20 foot rule. If you were to use it in court, an expert witness would make you look like a fool...it is the 21 foot rule.

Two points you seem to have missed.

1. The first is in the OP. He isn't drawing a holstered gun. He isn't even using a handgun at all. He is waiting on the other side of a locked door with a shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot.

2. The Tueller Drill...what is often referred to as the 21 Foot Rule...didn't originate as delineating the distance at which you could shoot a man armed with a knife. You may have been taught that, you may have read it, you may have just picked it up in passing LGS counter talk...but it isn't true...it just delineates an awareness zone

Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City (Utah) Police Department developed the drill to teach cadets that when a person attacked them with a knife, they needed other defensive techniques than drawing their gun, because they wouldn't be able to get it out in time...at the distances most knife attacks started (usually within 6 feet). His goal was to encourage his students to develop empty handed techniques in dealing with knife wielders

[taperxz]

Well, since you didn't decide to take good advice, I guess you must really believe you know what you you are referred to when you posted it. But first some house keeping:
1. This is the LEO section. Question posted here are to solicit the input of LEOs on the board...you don't have to be a lawyer to give answers
2. You don't do your creditability any good when you talk down to an acknowledged creditable member like Samuelx
3. There is no such thing as the 20 foot rule. If you were to use it in court, an expert witness would make you look like a fool...it is the 21 foot rule.

Two points you seem to have missed.

1. The first is in the OP. He isn't drawing a holstered gun. He isn't even using a handgun at all. He is waiting on the other side of a locked door with a shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot.

2. The Tueller Drill...what is often referred to as the 21 Foot Rule...didn't originate as delineating the distance at which you could shoot a man armed with a knife. You may have been taught that, you may have read it, you may have just picked it up in passing LGS counter talk...but it isn't true...it just delineates an awareness zone

Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City (Utah) Police Department developed the drill to teach cadets that when a person attacked them with a knife, they needed other defensive techniques than drawing their gun, because they wouldn't be able to get it out in time...at the distances most knife attacks started (usually within 6 feet). His goal was to encourage his students to develop empty handed techniques in dealing with knife wielders

Your scenario is for LEO, not for a scared for their life citizen who has been awaken in bed by someone who broke their door down while they were asleep and are invading their home. If that person is calling 911, not protecting property but in fact scared for their lives and not pursuing the invader who comes toward them, shooting them IS justifiable.

[adchrome]

Penal Code section 198.5 is very instructive but also read CALCRIM instruction 3477 that expands upon 198.5 and read CALCRIM instruction 506 that instructs about defending against harm in one's home. Penal Code sections are the basics but the real law and where the rubber hits the road in court is in the CALCRIM instructions.

Good Stuff right there, thanks

[9mmepiphany]

Wouldn't you think someone breaking through our B/R door is doing so with the intent to Harm

I might, but I'd want to be sure before I fired. I've had the hammer on a revolver more than half-way back, when an armed drunk finally stopped coming toward me. Believe me, I was happier then he was that I didn't have to shoot him that night

There are other legs that your actions will be judged on.

1. Was there indeed a real danger?
2. Was the reaction reasonable?
3. Did the shooter take steps to insure that his actions were reasonable?

The interesting thing is that it isn't for you to answer these questions, but it may be up to a jury, either criminal or civil, who will have the time to consider you actions as Monday Morning Quarterbacks in the comfort and safety of a jury deliberation room. What light will they see you in when they find that you didn't even try to positively identify your target...by even just shinning a flash light at them, or turning on the room lights... before firing.

I'd be much more worried about the civil consequences than the criminal...they only have to convince 2/3 of the jury that you were negligent

[taperxz]

[QUOTE]

I might, but I'd want to be sure before I fired. I've had the hammer on a revolver more than half-way back, when an armed drunk finally stopped coming toward me. Believe me, I was happier then he was that I didn't have to shoot him that night

There are other legs that your actions will be judged on.

1. Was there indeed a real danger?
2. Was the reaction reasonable?
3. Did the shooter take steps to insure that his actions were reasonable?

The interesting thing is that it isn't for you to answer these questions, but it may be up to a jury, either criminal or civil, who will have the time to consider you actions as Monday Morning Quarterbacks in the comfort and safety of a jury deliberation room. What light will they see you in when they find that you didn't even try to positively identify your target...by even just shinning a flash light at them, or turning on the room lights... before firing.

I'd be much more worried about the civil consequences than the criminal...they only have to convince 2/3 of the jury that you were negligent[/QUOTE]

While this is VERY true, I'd rather be broke than dead.

[Samuelx]

Your scenario is for LEO, not for a scared for their life citizen who has been awaken in bed by someone who broke their door down while they were asleep and are invading their home. If that person is calling 911, not protecting property but in fact scared for their lives and not pursuing the invader who comes toward them, shooting them IS justifiable.

Wow. Ok, maybe you'll understand this - you're Listening to Jimi but you're Not HEARING him!

9mmEpiphany broke it down for you nice and succinct and, apparently, it just went in one ear and out the other with no visible change in velocity.



Remember YOU brought up the whole "20 foot rule" to begin with...



Well, one of your assumptions IS correct - IANAL...

[taperxz]

Wow. Ok, maybe you'll understand this - you're Listening to Jimi but you're Not HEARING him!

9mmEpiphany broke it down for you nice and succinct and, apparently, it just went in one ear and out the other with no visible change in velocity.



Remember YOU brought up the whole "20 foot rule" to begin with...



Well, one of your assumptions IS correct - IANAL...

And you need to remember that most LEO never got an education past high school. They are not lawyers either.

Thats why my LEO friends who i have known for 30 years still think that a loaded mag in a locked case with a firearm is still considered a loaded firearm in their eyes.