Almost shot him....

[casingpoint]

You should have shot him dead and posted all about it here on the internet. Then kept us up to date during your trial and subsequent residency at Huntsville. With any luck, one day you'd be a star in "LOCKDOWN" on the Discovery Channel.

[KFP]

Once I turned down my street and saw the police helicopter overheard, police looking off the bridge nearby, and patrol cars zipping around. I got home and my outside dogs were freaking. I saw a guy in jeans and a tanktop holding a gun at the back of my yard. I did get my gun but called the cops. I went out when the cops stopped in front of my house and said I saw this guy in my back yard. The tank top guy comes and the police said, "Better put a raid jacket on." then they both left.

If I was the do-then-think type I could have been in some deep poo.

I bet that was a gut check!

[PappaGun]

I don't know that I would have shot him. But that would have depended on HIS next move.
I would have been prepared to defend.
If he was drunk enough to create the situation as described, he could just as easily have been drunk enough to decide he needed to break in and use your bathroom or worse.

[fastscooby01]

Ok, please excuse my ignorance if I am wrong. I am still fully learning all the stipulations of the laws and their interpretations. But in regard to the question I started looking through my trusty CHL booklet and found this.

Page 60 Section 9.42 subsection 2A

Deadly force to protect property

“to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;”

Being that this took place during the night time wouldn’t this scenario be covered by this section? Even if it was not technically theft, wouldn’t criminal mischief still technically include trespassing? Once again excuse me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t he have technically been justified had he have actually shot the trespasser?

And on a side note I do know that given the situation of the trespasser running after confronted that may present an issue on whether or not deadly force was justified. But had it of gone any other way and the trespasser did not immediately run wouldn't it be different?

[srothstein]

fastscooby,

You are correct that the OP would probably have met the legal justification under the theft at nighttime law. If someone is going through your property when you catch him, as a general rule, you can legally assume he is attempting to steal stuff. On the other half of the question, you cannot legally shoot for criminal trespass. And, criminal mischief is a specific crime defined in the penal code and it does not have trespass as an element of it.

On a very fine technical note, if he was urinating against the tire, you might have been legally justified for the criminal mischief during nighttime part. CM includes those things which are just an annoyance to the owner, such as toilet papering the house (a much more famous example). But, even though the law does say it is allowed, I strongly suggest you not shoot for minor criminal mischief. I don't think most juries would agree that the law intended to get drunks shot for urinating or kids for toilet papering. I think the historical justification would be more along the lines of cutting fence wire (a lot of our laws date back to reconstruction era activities).

[Dragonfighter]

Look, there is legal, justified and necessary. I used to keep a BUG in the vehicles in case I forgot and left my primary at the house. I struggled with the idea that if someone broke in or was stealing my vehicle I would have to shoot to prevent them becoming armed. I struggled with it until I decided it was simpler to always remember arming when leaving the house. I would not shoot over loss of a vehicle, lawn mower or whatever...that is MY decision based on what I think is morally justifiable. I have enough problems with my conscience without dropping someone for stealing.

As to going outside we had someone trying to bang in the side door to our house one Sunday morning. I armed and went out and apprehended him until the police came (the cop told him he was lucky he wasn't shot because he would've). I got a good sight picture on him before the challenge and though he was initially froggy once he turned and saw his imminent destruction he became exceptionally cooperative. He was drunk and stoned as well.

My points are these:

• It is NECESSARY to shoot to defend yourself, your family.
• It is justifiable to defend a third party .
• It is legal to shoot someone stealing at night but I have to ask myself if it is necessary or even justifiable from a conscientious POV.
• If someone is outside banging on one of my doors, breaking into the house, garage or car, you can bet I'm going out and either run them off, apprehend or defend myself. My reasoning being I don't know what their ultimate goal is and the last thing I want is to bring the fight inside with my family.
• If I am looking at someone's back and diminishing aspect in my sight picture, the fight's over.

There are risks with what the OP did but his actions, self control and outcome demonstrate good execution if not particularly great planning IMHO. Again, if someone is going through my stuff I don't know what their up to, I'm going to mitigate the situation. If someone is in an altered state of mind, there is no predicting what and where their next move will be. Waiting and watching could very well allow the fight to come to the house, or a better tactical advantage for the BG and I am not prepared to let that happen.

[nedmoore]

Thanks guys! I am glad that I did not pull the trigger. It all happened so fast, and I just thank god for keeping us safe,

[lws380]

Get a shot gun. You did good.

[wford]

I would think that shooting someone for, "rummaging around in the bed of my truck", would probably go to a jury. Picture staying awake for x days while you wait for the verdict.

[karder]

:

My points are these:

• It is NECESSARY to shoot to defend yourself, your family.
• It is justifiable to defend a third party .
• It is legal to shoot someone stealing at night but I have to ask myself if it is necessary or even justifiable from a conscientious POV.
• If someone is outside banging on one of my doors, breaking into the house, garage or car, you can bet I'm going out and either run them off, apprehend or defend myself. My reasoning being I don't know what their ultimate goal is and the last thing I want is to bring the fight inside with my family.
• If I am looking at someone's back and diminishing aspect in my sight picture, the fight's over.

Well said dragonfighter.

[Slice]

geez people yes hindsight is 20 /20 he did the right thing.. flip it and the guy was stealing from him had a gun etc and his intent was to scare him away yea, we would be attending a funeral and a family would be one less dad husband etc... The law gives us the right to defend our property at night with deadly force. use it and maybe these scum bags will learn and get a job naw they wont do that

[Excaliber]

Look, there is legal, justified and necessary. I used to keep a BUG in the vehicles in case I forgot and left my primary at the house. I struggled with the idea that if someone broke in or was stealing my vehicle I would have to shoot to prevent them becoming armed. I struggled with it until I decided it was simpler to always remember arming when leaving the house. I would not shoot over loss of a vehicle, lawn mower or whatever...that is MY decision based on what I think is morally justifiable. I have enough problems with my conscience without dropping someone for stealing.

As to going outside we had someone trying to bang in the side door to our house one Sunday morning. I armed and went out and apprehended him until the police came (the cop told him he was lucky he wasn't shot because he would've). I got a good sight picture on him before the challenge and though he was initially froggy once he turned and saw his imminent destruction he became exceptionally cooperative. He was drunk and stoned as well.

My points are these:

• It is NECESSARY to shoot to defend yourself, your family.
• It is justifiable to defend a third party .
• It is legal to shoot someone stealing at night but I have to ask myself if it is necessary or even justifiable from a conscientious POV.
• If someone is outside banging on one of my doors, breaking into the house, garage or car, you can bet I'm going out and either run them off, apprehend or defend myself. My reasoning being I don't know what their ultimate goal is and the last thing I want is to bring the fight inside with my family.
• If I am looking at someone's back and diminishing aspect in my sight picture, the fight's over.

There are risks with what the OP did but his actions, self control and outcome demonstrate good execution if not particularly great planning IMHO. Again, if someone is going through my stuff I don't know what their up to, I'm going to mitigate the situation. If someone is in an altered state of mind, there is no predicting what and where their next move will be. Waiting and watching could very well allow the fight to come to the house, or a better tactical advantage for the BG and I am not prepared to let that happen.

Well, Dragonfighter, I'm with you on 4 out of your 5 points. Number 4 is the sticky one.

As I see it, the tactical advantage is with you only as long as you remain inside the house as the defender in a secured building. You give that up as soon as you step outside into a 360 degree threat environment with an unknown number of opponents who may be in places you can't readily see under low light conditions.

There are so many ways that can get ugly, I won't even attempt to list them all.

In the situation you described, unless you plan on opening the door he's banging on, by going out another door you create a situation where the BG may breach the door he's at and make entry to your home (with direct access to your family) while you're trying to come around the house from another door. Now he's got the tactical advantage of being inside a building with only a couple of practical access points that you'd have to use to try to stop him from harming your family. Those doorways aren't called "fatal funnels" in police training for nothing. To top it off, your family will find him between itself and you. Are you prepared to manage that set of circumstances?

By going outside with police responding, you also greatly increase the risk that you will be the first shadowy figure they see, and once they see what looks like a gun, your day will go rapidly downhill while the bad guy has a great opportunity to take advantage of the distraction to either flee or take hostages.

While outside, you also run the risk that a neighbor whose dog wakes him up will see a shadowy figure prowling around your yard and go out with his own gun to be a good neighbor. This really gets interesting when the police pull up with you, the neighbor, and the bad guy all outside. Good luck convincing the responding officers you're the good guy before you eat gravel.

If you stay inside and the BG breaks in, you have an enormous tactical advantage due to your knowledge of the layout,your opportunity to select cover with an appropriate field of fire, and your ability to use light control to your benefit. You can make certain your family is in an area that would remain safe if you have to engage the intruder, and if he does break in, you've got a very clean legal justification for use of deadly force with greatly reduced chances of misidentification by police or neighbors. There are no downsides here.

In my view it's way better to stay inside in this situation. Unlike some other scenarios where a bad guy may attempt to steal very valuable equipment in a rural area where police response is a long way off and your action is the only possible way to stop a successful major theft, I can't think of a circumstance where going outside alone to apprehend someone who appears to be either possibly committing a minor theft or trying to breach a perimeter door would be a better idea than remaining inside while police handle the outside and you defend the most important asset - your family.

[Dragonfighter]

Excalibur,

Very thoughtful, but here is where knowing all the details makes all the difference. The side door in question is a practically useless entry/exit due to the recliner situated in front of it so his coming through there is not likely...we have other exits. While he is concentrating on that door he is blind to the other potals and illuminated by area lights. The wife also armed and maintained control of the interior while on the phone with police advising them where I was with description and advising the dispatcher that I would disarm once I saw that he had us both covered.

I know every nook and cranny of my wooded lot and also understand that rinky dink house would not stand a whole lot of assault. Tactics and SA have also been part of my entire adult life (I won't bore you with details) and there IS an advantage to concealment and cover open air rather than hunkering down in some circumstances. The layout of the house would place the BG between me and the kids in two of the three entries. No, I'm not going to wait for the fight to come inside...especially if there is more than one.

Added in Edit: By the time the police had arrived he was seated, cross legged with fingers interlocked at the back of his head.

[THE ENGINEER]

I see these posts all of the time and generally agree that you don't kill someone for stealing. But I would love to have something like a beanbag shotgun to light him up with. Nothing lethal, just something that would hurt like a SOB.

[srothstein]

The Engineer,

Beanbag rounds are easily purchased by almost anyone. Most good gun shops can get them for you to fit a standard 12 gauge shotgun. Here is one mail order supplier for you (note they are expensive this way).

BUT, you need to understand that at close ranges, even these rounds tend to be lethal. There are minimum distances you can use them at where they have had time to bleed off some of the velocity.

Even more importantly, even a beanbag round is a shot from a firearm. The law defines firearms as deadly force, so you would need the exact same justification to use them as a regular round.

As a result of the above, I don't recommend this for non-law enforcement specialty situations. I can see several reasons why you might want them, but I would be afraid the subconscious thinking of less or non-lethal might make me to quick to shoot. And if I did NEED to shoot, I would want real rounds for the obvious reasons.