Do I need a less-than-lethal weapon in my home?

[fhsjrm]

This is something I was thinking about tonight. Recently an ESPN radio and TV personality, Ryen Russillo, was arrested for entering someone else's condo and refusing to leave https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-into-strangers-condo/?utm_term=.7dc1d79d3fdd He was so drunk he didn't know where he was and probably thought he was in his own condo. (He was on vacation). Now I know if the occupants of the condo he broke into had shot and killed him it would have been justified, but, at the same time, I don't think Ryen Russillo needed to die just because he was very drunk and very stupid. If I were in a situation where an obviously intoxicated person were trying to gain access to my home and, in all other ways, seemed harmless, I'd rather not have to shoot them. Have any of you thought about this before? Might it be a good idea to keep a Taser handy? I certainly wouldn't hesitate to use lethal force if I thought my family or I were in danger, but I'd hate to have, "kill this drunken idiot" or, "let this drunken idiot walk around my house" be my only two options. What are your thoughts?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[8675309]

you can get one of these mainly used for stray dogs
and when the grandkids come to visit

 

[Cadcom]

You were born with a pair.

 

[Ken Ford]

Lethal force would be the last thing I want to use in my own home.
Don't get me wrong I have mine right next to me in bed, but with my kids, wife and several dogs (not to mention the possibility of a drunken friend) the possibility I am wrong is higher and I would be more, not less likely to reach for something less lethal in my home.

 

[inkandammo]

(not to mention the possibility of a drunken friend)
I resemble that from time to time

 

[inkandammo]

OP, I believe the answer is yes, you should have a less than lethal option available to you. A lot of scenarios call for action, but not always deadly force.
Just my opinion.

 

[clockerman]

In my home, less lethal = Louisville Slugger.

 

[Bear44]

This is something I was thinking about tonight. Recently an ESPN radio and TV personality, Ryen Russillo, was arrested for entering someone else's condo and refusing to leave https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-into-strangers-condo/?utm_term=.7dc1d79d3fdd He was so drunk he didn't know where he was and probably thought he was in his own condo. (He was on vacation). Now I know if the occupants of the condo he broke into had shot and killed him it would have been justified, but, at the same time, I don't think Ryen Russillo needed to die just because he was very drunk and very stupid. If I were in a situation where an obviously intoxicated person were trying to gain access to my home and, in all other ways, seemed harmless, I'd rather not have to shoot them. Have any of you thought about this before? Might it be a good idea to keep a Taser handy? I certainly wouldn't hesitate to use lethal force if I thought my family or I were in danger, but I'd hate to have, "kill this drunken idiot" or, "let this drunken idiot walk around my house" be my only two options. What are your thoughts?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

"Now I know if the occupants of the condo he broke into had shot and killed him it would have been justified"

Actually, no it would not have been justified at all. Not morally or legally. It is a common misconception that a person is justified in the use of deadly force if someone enters their home uninvited. It takes a lot more than that act for justification and I'm sure there are people serving hard time because they did not understand that.

There are also people that will argue this point to an amazing degree. They will typically say things like "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" or some other similarly stupid BS.

Learn the law and avoid either of those situations.

 

[Ken Ford]

"Now I know if the occupants of the condo he broke into had shot and killed him it would have been justified"

Actually, no it would not have been justified at all. Not morally or legally. It is a common misconception that a person is justified in the use of deadly force if someone enters their home uninvited. It takes a lot more than that act for justification and I'm sure there are people serving hard time because they did not understand that.

There are also people that will argue this point to an amazing degree. They will typically say things like "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" or some other similarly stupid BS.

Learn the law and avoid either of those situations.

Absolutely. There must be a real fear that the perp intended to inflict death or great bodily harm to the victim.
In Ga there is a portion of the law that supports shooting before that is apparent, but it requires the suspect to enter the dwelling in a tumultuous or violent manner. A drunk wandering into the wrong apartment will not satisfy this defense.

 

[Bear44]

Absolutely. There must be a real fear that the perp intended to inflict death or great bodily harm to the victim.
In Ga there is a portion of the law that supports shooting before that is apparent, but it requires the suspect to enter the dwelling in a tumultuous or violent manner. A drunk wandering into the wrong apartment will not satisfy this defense.

"Real" fear or "Reasonable" fear?

People can have real fear when it's not reasonable to have it.