Can You Kill Him?

[ddenny5]

Look at letter c. That I believe is the key to answering this question.

 

[phatgemi]

I would say you'd be in some hot water over a shot to the back of the head for number two. Unless as pointed out you put the gun back in his hand and your video system had a recording failure.

 

[megiddo]

I think the question is how do you know the man who is running is not going to run to a neighbors house and kill someone while trying to hide or steal a getaway car??

Im not a lawyer either but i think if anyone comes in your home without your consent,if they are armed or not you could use deadly force if you feel your life in danger.

People dont need a weapon to kill.

If someone walks in your house and they are not armed but are intruding and present a danger to you or your children you would shoot him yes??

 

[purple72]

Of course, if you let #2 escape, and he's caught later, he gets to be a guest of the state. He'll take the murder rap for #1 that you shot. Personally, in the heat of things, I would think you're justified to shoot #2. Too many unanswered what ifs. Buddies outside, a 2nd gun etc. As long as you didn't delay too long pulling the trigger on him, I think it could be justified with the right attorney.

 

[Boilers]

quite easy. in my house at night the lights are off. I can't be expected to see everything. But if I shoot and hit something, he had no reason to be there IN THE DARK.

 

[Cam]

I'll say simply that shooting BG #2 is justified. He is in your house with bad intent, threat is still present.

 

[Lucas156]

i think the jury would have a high probability of conviction if you shot the dude in the back of the head. I wouldn't shoot BG2. I do believe you would be able to get away with shooting him in the back of the head but at great expense.

 

[WabashMX5]

Delete — accidental double-tap.

 

[WabashMX5]

I say BG2's retreat, with his hands so full of silver so that he can't hold a weapon, makes Shoot #2 a no-no — he's already terminating his invasion, so I can't imagine how you could reasonably believe force is necessary to terminate it.

OTOH, I haven't triple-read your hypothetical, and in sizing up what your "reasonable" belief is, the stress of the invasion and attack by BG1 might plausibly be said to carry through the entire encounter. (I'd at least hope for a humane exercise of prosecutorial discretion as to BG2, though.)

Shoot #1, of course, is justified.

 

[ocsdor]

The lessoned learned here is Don't Put Security Cameras Inside Your House. The only people they protect is criminals.

If the owner has no video cameras in the house, he keeps his mouth shut, everyone else in house keeps their mouths shut, then he won't spend time in jail.

And (in addition to the above statement), if the Prosecutor is a conservative, I'm willing to bet charges won't even be brought up.

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK... I was not going to pull up the IC on this because I don't have time to do so when the BG is in my house. (since someone else did pull it up, I read the relevant passage, however, and I was correct.) I'm going to say that yes, legally, I'd be OK shooting BG #2 because the theft in the course of a home invasion (and murder charge against whichever of the BGs lives, if either) would still constitute a forcible felony that is still happening as BG#2 goes backholes and elbows for the front door with the silver. To this point, I've been discussing a hypothetical legal jeopardy situation.

In the real world, would I shoot BG#2? Not a clue in hell. If I did, I would have to think he still posed an immediate, credible threat to me or a member of my family. Absent that, thanks, no, I'd really rather not have nightmares about what I did for the next 20 years.

I have the tools and the knowledge and the training to put lead on target if I have to. I have never been of the opinion that just because I can, I should. I could justify the shoot to a court of law and a judge. I'm not fully sure I could do so to myself or to God, when the time comes for Him to lay open my life before me.

GunLawyer, I hope you enjoyed your evening. Thanks for posting this. In the future, might I suggest getting responses via PM? That way, we each answer with what we think, not with what everyone else has said should be considered. Just a thought.

Now on to page 2 to read some more.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[infidel]

I have a strong feeling that it would be legally wrong. But I believe you have every right to do it. You don't know if the guy is going to use the outside wall for cover and whip out his Hipoint. I would say MY HOUSE, MY RULES.

Would I? Doubtful. The immediate threat has been eliminated. That does not mean let your guard down, but it does mean that you are safe for that moment.

 

[wolfman]

The proof would have to be in your ability to prove that he was a continuing threat at a level that a normal person would agree. In this case that would be difficult. Perhaps if he had yelled something threatening or was calling for backup from an accomplis outside, you might have a case.

But the key here is that the protections of castle would fail you in the sense that the assumed innocence would move to assumed guilt. You would be on the defense and in order to stay out of jail you had better shoot the moon and play every card right.

On the other hand, assuredly you had a reason that you took the shot. That reason is the beginning and end.

If the reason was your move and shoot training and you just kept engaging targets - welcome to manslaughter.

If the reason was your rage over the attack - welcome to manslaughter.

If the reason was your property - welcome to manslaughter or worse.

If the reason was your fear of him - then a case still exists but you are in for a legal ride. Look at your home now, you'll probably be selling it for legal fees later.

If the reason was a direct, understandable threat, also recorded on your film, like calling for aid from a third attacker outside - then you may be ok and might keep the house.


I will add, however, that in any of these cases, the most important thing is that your family is safe, even if you are not.

I really hate to quote someone as a response in this thread, but couldn't have said this nearly as clear or as well.. I think the shot being "in the back of the head" is the key here.

 

[tharlow514]

Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.

I believe you would be in hot water if you shot a person escaping as long as they were no longer a threat. Most Castle Doctrines state you are not required to "retreat from an "aggressor". It also states "reasonable" force. I don't think shooting someone in the back of the head trying to escape is an aggressor or using reasonable force so it would be an uphill battle incourt.

 

[DesertDoc]

I think bad guy number one your golden, number two is another story. While I think the castle law still pertains I think you would be hard placed articulating shooting an unarmed fleeing individual in any circumstances. If you think your still in danger you had better be able to articulate how you still felt you were in jeopardy. I have heard jeopardy described as having three components. 1 being intent, this BG #2 his only intent is to get out of your house and change his drawers. 2 Oppurtunity: BG #2 no longer has the oppurtunity to do you harm, he is trying to leave. 3 is capability and he obviously has no capability if he dropped the gun. Personally I say bad guy number two is going to be a bad shoot. However if you really feel he is a threat to you and your family, take your chances with a jury every time.

 

[Steve]

Not a lawyer, but spent plenty of time in harms way. I have to go with BG1, dead before he hit the ground. His cowardly, sniveling, buddy, BG2, as much as I would want to take him out of the breeding pool, I have always been told, No threat, No shot. If he is headed towards the door at a high rate of speed and is no IMMEDIATE danger to me or mine, perhaps a bulldog take down and some uncomfortable restraints until the LEOs arrive. I think in this scenrio, I would take my chances with a potenial charge of holding him against his will vs manslaughter. LEOs would certainly charge him accordingly and take him off the streets for some period of time.

To let him freely get away would make my skin crawl for months. All I would do is wonder about his next victim and know that I could possibly have prevented it. Sometimes, you just have to take a stand.

 

[Joe Williams]

I wouldn't shoot BG #2 for a couple reasons:

1) My defensive plan does not call for me chasing bad guys through my house. Once I'm barricaded, with my armed wife barricaded behind me with the son, I'm not moving. Chasing bad guys is dangerous, and I give up the strong advantage of a covered position with no ability to surprise me. I can't retreat, because the plan calls for my wife to shoot anyone appearing in the doorway. So.... I'm not moving, and BG #2 gets away.

2) I don't, personally, think it would be a moral shoot. I'm not shooting someone who is running away over trinkets. That said, I can certainly see the logic and agree with the reasoning of those who feel they are right to defend their property. This is simply the line that will let me sleep at night afterwards if I don't cross it.

3) I think the legality is blurry at best and tend to fall on the side of "not legal," though I think the odds are fairly good that a person defending their family in the middle of the night would not see jail time over dropping both invaders.

 

[tenring]

As I told the LEO the next day, because I was too upset to give a deposition that night [early morning], I do not recall anything after defending myself and family from the first bad guy. The only thing I can recall is being terrified in the presence of the first bad guy, shooting at the outline, and then standing next to the former criminal at the front door directing my firearm [would never mention "weapon"] at the body of the second bad guy, wondering why he was just lying there. And it was all on that ridiculous video tape so what I said was on the tape. And the jury would depend on what town you would be tried in, and whether or not there was a member of the opposite sex included. Been on a jury [murder trial] and went through that. Moral of the story, if you are going to have a gun for self-defense, think about a different scenario every day, and what you might or might not do, and what you would [or would not] say, and when you would say it, and who you would say it to. And don't let anyone intimidate you into saying something you would regret later on. JMHO

 

[techres]

Not a lawyer, but spent plenty of time in harms way. I have to go with BG1, dead before he hit the ground. His cowardly, sniveling, buddy, BG2, as much as I would want to take him out of the breeding pool, I have always been told, No threat, No shot. If he is headed towards the door at a high rate of speed and is no IMMEDIATE danger to me or mine, perhaps a bulldog take down and some uncomfortable restraints until the LEOs arrive. I think in this scenrio, I would take my chances with a potenial charge of holding him against his will vs manslaughter. LEOs would certainly charge him accordingly and take him off the streets for some period of time.

To let him freely get away would make my skin crawl for months. All I would do is wonder about his next victim and know that I could possibly have prevented it. Sometimes, you just have to take a stand.

You're probably bigger and better trained than I am but if I did not see him as a threat, my time is better served getting to a better firing position/cover if I have to continue the fight than in trying to restrain the "non-threat".

My win is in distance and my firearm. Closing the distance with the potential threat is the last thing I would be interested in doing. He only gets to try and grab my firearm after crossing 21 feet under fire. I will not give him any potential advantage. Heck, I am not even going to approach the door after he leaves in order to close and lock it. Nope, gonna stay under cover and in a good firing position until the LEO's come and secure the location for me.

 

[warangelcometh]

I do believe that you would have a legal battle on your hands from his family if they wanted to press the issue (although I'm not a lawyer). But I have read the news and our laws being the way they are in reference to "criminals having more rights than law abiding citz's" - not a good scenario. My law enforcement friends have always told me to make sure the intruder is "IN YOUR HOME" before you shoot him.