Taurus Firearm Forum banner
1 - 20 of 80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
just read this news release about a homeowner catching a burglar and getting in trouble for shooting at him when he escapes after he is held at gunpoint. He called 911 and 911 told him not to shoot. So you can't hold someone at gun point??? Chocolatehauler
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,002 Posts
Yes, you probably could hold someone at gunpoint. But holding & actually shooting are two very definitely different things!
If the bad guy bolts, call 911 & give the best description that you can. But don't shoot at him unless he is a definite threat to your safety,
like coming towards you with some kind of weapon to attack you.

Then, all bets are off!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Self Defense Laws are just that, Laws that justify the use of deadly force to protect someone (in some cases property) in eminent danger. A burglar, or anyone, entering your home with the intent to cause harm (or in some cases property damage or theft) is a justifiable target. However, once that person leaves or runs off, that threat of danger is removed and deadly force is no longer justified. Additionally, ANY time you aim a weapon or shoot at a person your intent should be to kill because that will often be the result. It is a very slippery slope to claim that you were only tying to wound someone. ANY time you aim a gun or shoot at a person you ARE using DEADLY force and death should be you only intent. ALWAYS SHOOT TO KILL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,002 Posts
So by initially sparing the life of the burglar the home owner gets a criminal record.
Indirectly that tells all home owners to shoot to kill first.
No. What it should tell homeowners is to only use deadly force if they are being threatened with bodily harm!
I'm repeating myself here: if the burglar is going the other way, as in away from you, try to be a good witness, &
give a good description! Don't shoot a person if they are not a threat to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,570 Posts
So by initially sparing the life of the burglar the home owner gets a criminal record.
Indirectly that tells all home owners to shoot to kill first.
No. The homeowner gets a criminal record for breaking the law. In most states you have a responsibility to retreat. You may not escalate the situation. Even the cops can't shoot a fleeing suspect unless that suspect is a known felon and by escaping would endanger the public. The only exception is if you live in a Castle Doctrine state. In that case, if the suspect is inside your home (and is some states, you car) you are permitted to use deadly force because it is inferred that by breaking into your home or car the suspect means you great bodily harm or death. Just having a firearm does not permit you to shoot someone who is committing or has committed a suspected crime. There are a lot of other circumstances which must be met. The taking of a a human life is normally dealt with very seriously.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,430 Posts
I think my point was missed be some.
If the home owner had shot and killed the burglar at first sight there would be no way to tell if there was an actual threat to the home owners life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,570 Posts
The homeowner would know. If you have never fired a shot in anger, you have no idea what that does to you emotionally. No offense, but it is far from the cavalier incident you seem to think it is. This may upset some, but the homeowner is getting exactly what he deserves. Just because you (collectively) own a gun and may or may not have a CHL doesn't make you qualified to operate it. That's like saying that you own a guitar, therefore you are a musician. If you haven't already, I might suggest you take a Self Defense course or two. Having a firearm bears a tremendous amount of responsibility. The homeowner, in the case did not show he was capable of handling that responsibility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,199 Posts
The homeowner would know. If you have never fired a shot in anger, you have no idea what that does to you emotionally. No offense, but it is far from the cavalier incident you seem to think it is. This may upset some, but the homeowner is getting exactly what he deserves. Just because you (collectively) own a gun and may or may not have a CHL doesn't make you qualified to operate it. That's like saying that you own a guitar, therefore you are a musician. If you haven't already, I might suggest you take a Self Defense course or two. Having a firearm bears a tremendous amount of responsibility. The homeowner, in the case did not show he was capable of handling that responsibility.
I agree well said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,557 Posts
Kentucky has the Castle Doctrine so anyone not supposed to be in my damn house at 3 am isn't gonna hear the 911 call
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,097 Posts
Being a CCW carrier and armed to the teeth, if you or yours ain't in a threat you don't need to shoot anyone.jmho
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
401 Posts
Howdy,

I think my point was missed be some.
If the home owner had shot and killed the burglar at first sight there would be no way to tell if there was an actual threat to the home owners life.
+1!

just because someone breaks into your house to steal from you does t mean he's there to harm you.

But if he has a bigass knife, club or gun in his hand, well, that's another story all together.

To be honest I would not want to kill someone just because he was trying to steal my TV. I can always buy a newer and better TV.

Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,002 Posts
I think my point was missed be some.
If the home owner had shot and killed the burglar at first sight there would be no way to tell if there was an actual threat to the home owners life.
Okay samkent, perhaps I may have missed your point, or not. If a burglar is running away from the homeowner, as in not advancing toward the homeowner,
& is definitely not a threat to do bodily harm, & the homeowner decides not to shoot, then the homeowner would not be penalized with a criminal record.

Now, does that make any kind of sense at all? Whether or not the state in question is a Castle Doctrine state, if the homeowner doesn't shoot the burglar,
then he/she should be in the clear period!

And actually, there would be a way to tell if there was an actual threat, if the homeowner decided to shoot.
It's called a thorough investigation! To get to the facts!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
I believe that the homeowner's actions would have been justified in Texas. If your state law doesn't justify use of force and even deadly force in defense of property, then you might as well be living in the old Soviet Union. If you can't defend it, then you don't own it. Any district attorney who isn't a Marxist idiot would use his discretion not to prosecute a homeowner who fired at a burglar in any circumstance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,570 Posts
Study up on the laws in your state. Know them like the back of your hand. Take a CPL class and then take an advanced CPL class. Learn as much as you can. Using deadly force when it is not called for does an infinite amount of damage to our cause.
....and it will damn sure screw up your weekend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts
Indiana is a Castle Doctrine state and we do not have a duty to retreat. Yet, if the BG is running away, there is no longer any need to fire a weapon. Put the thing away! Yes, he deserves to get his head blown off; but if you do it under those circumstances even in Indiana you are going to do some time.
 
1 - 20 of 80 Posts
Top