Man on your property

[thorn]

OK guys, I give up. Sooner or later someone that is a member of ODT will use deadly force in an unlawful manner because of the overwhelming and wrong interpretations of the law presented here. Then everyone will be mad because the laws are so unfair and they didn't know any better. Of course the poor sap that believes you will be spending a long time behind bars because of that. Which one of you will it be?

Basic philosophy: If you don't absolutely HAVE to kill someone.......don't.

Bear 44 wins the thread.

 

[meastt]

OK guys, I give up. Sooner or later someone that is a member of ODT will use deadly force in an unlawful manner because of the overwhelming and wrong interpretations of the law presented here. Then everyone will be mad because the laws are so unfair and they didn't know any better. Of course the poor sap that believes you will be spending a long time behind bars because of that. Which one of you will it be?

Basic philosophy: If you don't absolutely HAVE to kill someone.......don't.

My thoughts exactly.

The tough talk on here is absurd and the reasoning some members have is going to get them in a great deal of trouble.

 

[mudking2008]

If somebody is in your yard that you don't no and ask toleave and he or she does not and you fill threatened you have the right to pull weathef you have a permit or not but if he turns around and tries to leave you can not shot if he is facing you and you fill threatened you have the right to shot on defense

 

[rOmiLaYu]

Basic philosophy: If you don't absolutely HAVE to kill someone.......don't.

Name for me a situation in which you absolutely HAVE to kill someone, please.

 

[linebacker]

so, if you caught a man high on bath salts and Meth beating and choking and raping your mother, I think you (1) want to kill him and (2) have to kill him to stop him and save your mother.

 

[wozbean]

A very good read about defense of home scenario in Augusta, GA. in early 2007. Renter found that his place had been burglarized when he came home from class early. Found some of his firearms were missing. Grabbed a rifle to clear the house and called 911, then noticed the thief coming back to the house over the back fence. Didn't know if thief had his firearms, he hid in a dark room and shot the intruder as he walked in the room.

You can read the rest here: http://georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4951

So Bear44 would say this is a BAD shoot because the guy was not actually threatened ?

 

[substratum]

Full auto paintball gun. Problem solved.

I killed a decent size wood rat with a paintball gun under the kitchen sink in a cabin years. When I shined a light in his eyes he froze, so I was able to put the barrel about 3/4" from his little head. I would aliken the effect to a human being struck in the head by a basketball at 200 mph.

 

[$nipertime]

Ok I can answer this question. James Mitchell Eupora MS 2003 ish. Grand Jury did not convict because he felt and had justifiable cause that his brother would cause bodily harm to him. So, he shot him. I know this because he used to be my boss.

 

[substratum]

I live in a rough yet transitional side of town, so its a mixed crowd regarding crime and income-classes. Just to give an example: There was an incident a few months ago where a white mercedes benz pulled up to a home 5 doors down from mine and shot off 16 rounds into the home (luckily noone was home or got hurt). Here's my scenario that occurred recently. And i know some people will say "just move", but its not really an option for me right now. I am at my home sitting on the front porch at night, see a man coming into my yard. I ask who he is and get no response and blank look, he continues to walk towards the front of my house, so I ask him to leave and there is no chance he cannot hear me unless he is literally deaf, he continues forward without speaking, nothing in his hands, but at this point is close enough that I can see mischief or at least a sense that he is attempting to invoke fear or intimidation. I do not recognize him from the neighborhood either. He was still far enough away and I was close enough to my door that I just went inside, locked the door, and grabbed my 12ga just in case. As it was, he turned back towards the street. It was probably just some intimidation stunt.

....But what If he were running or i was further from my door. I not want to turn my back and walk to my front door, and may not be able to back up fast enough to the door. At what point could I draw a weapon if i had one on me (I know firing would be out of the question without him being nearly on top of me or with a weapon) but i do not want to wait until its too late to be prepared. I understand the use of deadly force, but what about drawing a weapon?? pointing a weapon??

It sounds like this guy may have been testing your resolve and measuring your nerve - seeing if he could evoke fear in your eyes. Not all criminals are stupid, and the vast majority of them would rather not be shot and killed. As you describe it, the real scenario certainly would have left a lot of explaining to do if you had had a gun available, drawn it and shot the guy. Sounds like you reacted optimally.

Your second scenario is very difficult, particularly in the absense of anything more menancing than him running towards the door, or racing you towards the door. If you had a wife and/or kids inside, that would be a factor in your favor from level of force standpoint. I've heard it said repeatedly that criminals have a distinct advantage because (in most cases) this is not their first time to commit the act, and they actually have plan or idea of what they are going to do... while you probably have not done this before (unless you are LEO or military), and you are left to interpret the perps actions to develop a plan.

 

[protective measures]

There are lots of comments in this thread that are incorrect. I've tried to stay out of it as this is what I cover in my classes & have done so for a living fulltime for the last 4 or 5 years but one statement keeps popping up that needs to be addressed.

When using potentially lethal force to STOP a threat the intent is to shoot to STOP the threat... not to KILL.
Just because you shoot them you don't have to "absolutely kill them" That's called murder.

That phrase is being thrown around too much on here by those whose emotions & passion for their opinion is carrying them away but lets get it right.

This is an accepted basic premise taught at every school by every well known Instructor & legal adviser from Mas Ayoob to Marty Hayes.

(sidenote) There are quite a few relatively "new" guys (such as "tmoore912") who are making comments that are well thought out & right on the money based on my 25+ years of study/ training & corroboration from D.A.'s & Judges... thanks guys for such good input... you just might make a difference.