Why not just shoot everyone that looks at you the wrong way, instead of giving them a chance at shooting at you? Not everything requires lethal force. Even if the law allows it, is it really worth shooting someone who is just trying to steal your tv? Without the fear of your life and those of your loved ones, I would think this would be a very bad move...
But why not try to diffuse the situation with a verbal or "lead" warning first? If after discovering that the homeowner is armed and ready, anyone willing to stick around has made their intentions (and mentality) clear, and should be a hell of a lot easier to justify legally and morally.Someone breaks into my home with us there, I've got a reasonable fear for our safety, and will react accordingly. Home invaders kill their victims far too often for me to play Russion Roulette with our lives.
But why not try to diffuse the situation with a verbal or "lead" warning first? If after discovering that the homeowner is armed and ready, anyone willing to stick around has made their intentions (and mentality) clear, and should be a hell of a lot easier to justify legally and morally.
But why not try to diffuse the situation with a verbal or "lead" warning first? If after discovering that the homeowner is armed and ready, anyone willing to stick around has made their intentions (and mentality) clear, and should be a hell of a lot easier to justify legally and morally.
And always remember that while you may be perfectly justified legally in a shooting, you still can face civil suit where the plaintiff only needs a preponderance of evidence to win. The micreant shot in the back is a pretty big mark against you from the start.
+1 If the shooting was found to be justified, you cannot be held liable in a civil suit.No, not in Indiana if I undestand the IC properly.
I agree completely. But the OP talked about shooting them in the back. Doubtful they'll run at you backwards...I catch someone in my house I have my gun out, and on them and am yelling "don't move, get on the floor, don't move get on the floor." If they do not obey immediately then I assume they are a threat to me. If they run away from me I may or may not decide to use lethal force depending on what they are running towards. If they whirl around towards me then I can ONLY assume they are a threat to me.
+1 I couldn't agree more. And this is the kind of case where shooting them in the back is justified. And I guess that brings up a good point. I think a lot of people automatically associate shooting in the back as that person retreating. You listed an example that would be both shooting in the back and completely justified.That's the path I'd take in most circumstances. I don't want to say all, because I suppose I could see a situation that would cause me to simply fire. Say, bg is reaching for my boy's door or already in my boy's room. Simply not time, and the danger to my child is too great, to afford the bg any mercy. And giving him a warning is indeed an act of mercy, once he's made the decision to break into my home with my family inside.
No, not in Indiana if I undestand the IC properly.
+1 If the shooting was found to be justified, you cannot be held liable in a civil suit.
If someone is in your house and up to no good and you shoot them in the back, will it go bad for you?