In the Back?

[Eddie]

If someone enters my house armed, unarmed, facing me or not I don't no his intensions. Its my home not his, whether he's stealing my dog food or using my toilet, I will not shoot him, I will kill him. Dead men tell no lies.

Probably not the best plan. Are you really going to shoot the five year old neighbor kid who comes into your home? How about the woman from across the street who runs to your house for help because a burglar was in her home? How about the passerby who sees that your house is on fire and runs in to see if anyone needs help?

Shooting someone has to be something that you consciously choose to do, not an arbitrary rule. There are limitless scenarious. Some where you should shoot, some where you should not shoot. Be smart about it.

I truly hope that you are exagerating and that you would not kill an unarmed child who came into your house to use the toilet.

 

[VERT]

Oh my...

My thoughts exactly. Kinda like sticking your arm in a bear trap.

 

[ar15junkie]

I would try to talk to the person. I have no qualms about shooting someone but there are some semi legit reasons an unknown person could be in your house. A person with any number of medical reasons could be confused and in your house by mistake.

 

[Joe Williams]

I would try to talk to the person. I have no qualms about shooting someone but there are some semi legit reasons an unknown person could be in your house. A person with any number of medical reasons could be confused and in your house by mistake.

Sucks to be them. My boy's bedroom door is roughly 6' from the front door. They have that much time before I fire. Assuming the dogs don't eat them first.

 

[dustjunky2000]

My thoughts exactly. Kinda like sticking your arm in a bear trap.

LOL That video was crazy. Yeah it wasn't smart, but looking back, we were young and dumb enough to try it. I'm glad now that I did it. If nothing else, I got a good story and some first hand knowledge out of it.

 

[Lex Concord]

For those on juries or who may be on juries in Indiana courts, never forget the following:

Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

Instructions from the judge to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[GIJEW]

What time of day/night? If he/they BROKE in at 2am, I EXPECT harm from them and it'll be DARK. Anybody heard of the Tueller drill, how big are your rooms 10', 15'? In the time it would take you take you to say the 1st SYLLABLE of your warning, you could get killed. This would be a good application for a flashlight. You've lit them, so you can ID them & see if they're armed; you've confronted them (I think that passes for a warning if they've broken in at 2am); and you can still have your mind focused on taking action instead of talking. Just my opinion.

 

[Johnny C]

As to the intent of my origional question...

If someone is in my house, then I assume they are up to no good. Thinking otherwise might get you killed. If that happens, I wont be there to protect my family from him/them. If they will kill me, you better believe they will kill my family.

In my county, Meth is big....folks are making it everywhere...They even found a lab in my neighborhood! If you have a meth head in your house, you cant expect them to act rationally, they may even come at you when you have a shotty pointed straight at them! (or so says my probation officer wife, who has seen it happen), so you never know about folks in your house with that kind of thing going on.

Secondly, from what I have read/heard, if the perp is armed, he will most likely shoot at you AS he is fleeing anyways. I dont want to take the chance I might catch that stray bullet AS he is fleeing because I had mercy on him and warned him.

As to the shooting in the back, if he opens fire as he is making for the cover of the kitchen, my return fire might hit him in the back. Not that I would open up on someone's back without him even knowing I was there...unless he had already shot or threatened someone, then anything goes I think.

Also, dont try to feed me the liberal "is you TV worth his life?", ask the perp that, he is the one risking his life for my TV...it is mine after all. Anyways, how can you be SURE he is ONLY after your tv.

 

[JR50]

Originally Posted by Joe Williams
No, not in Indiana if I undestand the IC properly.

That's the way I understood it, too. After taking Guy Relford's (where's he been lately?) Indiana Law Course -- highly recommended -- I think you can still be sued and your lawyer can use the IC in your defense. I don't think the IC makes it a done deal. Anybody -- please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Also, dont try to feed me the liberal "is you TV worth his life?", ask the perp that, he is the one risking his life for my TV...it is mine after all. Anyways, how can you be SURE he is ONLY after your tv.

I think it's more than "liberal" thinking that taking another person's life over a relatively trivial posession is pretty imbalanced. It violates a whole lot of folks moral codes, whatever the political or religious flavor.

In regards to the rest of your posts, I'm inline thinking as you are, I don't know the BGs threat intentions and I am going to err on the side of my amd my family's safety, and the BGs safety is the least of my concerns. I have zero moral qualms about the fact that I may have to kill someone who is threatening me. The point that I like to emphasize is that even when you are completely justified in a shooting, you will likely lose much more than the value of a TV in defending yourself later.

 

[Johnny C]

I wasnt trying to say I would kill someone over a tv, I just hate the liberal thinking that always seem to ignore the perp and focus on the victim of the crime.

 

[public servant]

If someone enters my house armed, unarmed, facing me or not I don't no his intensions. Its my home not his, whether he's stealing my dog food or using my toilet, I will not shoot him, I will kill him. Dead men tell no lies.

Let us know where they send you to prison afterward. We'll write and send cookies and such.

 

[shibumiseeker]

I wasnt trying to say I would kill someone over a tv, I just hate the liberal thinking that always seem to ignore the perp and focus on the victim of the crime.

I don't think many folks here are all that concerned about the perp. But a lot of folks religious or spiritual beliefs make it worse for themselves if they were to take another's life without it being a clear choice of self defense.

 

[Eddie]

I don't think many folks here are all that concerned about the perp. But a lot of folks religious or spiritual beliefs make it worse for themselves if they were to take another's life without it being a clear choice of self defense.

My issue is with the concept of killing someone not because they need to be killed but simply because the poster perceives that they can kill someone and get away with it.

I read some of the posts here to say that, for example if they returned home to find that a burglar had broken into their home and drank liquor until he passed out on the floor that the homeowner would then shoot someone who was passed out on their floor under some theory that such a shoot would be justified.

I have no issues with anyone taking a shot that they feel is neccessary to protect themself, their family or their home just with the posts that seem to indicate that the poster would put no more thought into the matter than having an excuse to get to kill someone.

 

[finity]

Indiana's "Castle Doctrine" gives you legal justification to use deadly force on someone WITHOUT THE NEED TO FEEL PHYSICALLY THREATENED if they are "attacking" your home or occupied vehicle...BUT...

You have to convince a prosecutor or, ultimately, a jury of your peers (known as "reasonable person(s)" under the law) that your use of deadly force was reasonably necessary to stop or prevent the asttack.

If the reason the BG has his back to you is because he is leaving then you didn't have to use deadly force to stop the attack. Shooting someone in the back would not be legal in that situation.

If his back was to you because he is moving to another part of your house to hide or seek cover then shooting him in the back (or front or side or head, etc) would be justified.

 

[SedahDrol]

"He had one of my guns in his hand, of course I shot him."

A guy I used to work with was a prison guard. One of there rules is that if they are in the tower and they see a prisoner escaping they have to fire a warning shot first before they shoot the prisoner. He was asked during the interview if he was in the guard tower and he fell asleep and woke up to a prisoner already over the wall and almost out of range. His answer, "You will hear 2 shots and see a dead prisoner with one bullet hole. You decide which came first."