Background info:
I live in a small town in West Virginia that was recently plagued by a series of robberies. These robberies were called “breaking and entering” even though there was no breaking involved. Whoever was robbing these houses was entering through unlocked doors and windows (ex. one guys house got robbed 3 times and each time the perps entered through the front door).
The local police were telling residents that they could kill someone who entered their residence and if they happened to kill them outside, to drag them in the house. This sounds wrong to me and it also makes me not want to call my local cops in case of emergency.
Yesterday a 21 yr old broke into a house while the house was occupied. The occupant (age unknown) procceeded to beat the unarmed intruder with a crowbar. The intruder was life-flighted to Pittsburgh and for a short while his condition was critical.
My questions are these: Can an occupant of a home legally kill an intruder? Will the occupant who beat the intruder with the crowbar suffer any legal repercussions? If it is illegal to kill an unarmed intruder, what can happen to the officers who were giving this advice?
I’m pretty sure this will vary from state to state. I’m no lawyer but here is my 2 cents:
I think in PA even if someone is breaking into your home you don’t automatically have the right to kill them on the spot. I believe you still have to have cause to fear for yours or someone else’s life. If the guy sees you and runs towards the door I don’t think you would be legally justified in shooting him anyway. Again, I could be 100% wrong about this, its just a summary from what I have read in other places.
IANAL, but it totally depends on the state you live in and whether you are “in immediate danger of life and limb.” As stated, if the intruder tries to flee, you aren’t justified in shooting him in the back. If he raises his club at you, you can kill him. If he threatens to stab your wife, you can kill him. But in some states, you can’t defend yourself *at all * if retreat is possible. :eek:
The key to any such situation is: are you in imminent danger of life and limb? If so, fire and take your chances with the System. If not, don’t.
It does vary from state to state. In some, one can kill an intruder with no legal repercussions (and in some areas, virtually no questions asked). In others, using lethal force in the absence of severe and imminent danger will get the homeowner in trouble.
The fellow who beat the intruder should have no legal problems, but he might be subject to a lawsuit from the beating victim. How likely said lawsuit is to result in damages probably varies with the community, largely with the sentiment of the jury. I have heard of people being advised to kill rather than injure an intruder so as to avoid such lawsuits.
I’d be very surprised if police officers who give bad advice suffer any official sanctions. If you could prove at trial that your actions were due to such advice, it might be a mitigating factor in sentencing, but I doubt it lets you fully off the hook.
I believe the legal term the OP is seeking is “imminent threat”. That is, lethal force is permissible when imminent danger faces your or others.
The problem is, of course, deciding when a threat becomes imminent and each case would have to be judged for itself.
In general I believe US law gives greater weight to life over property. As such you cannot shoot a kid painting graffitti on your house. Nor can you shoot a robber who is running away and expect to get away with it (hence the advice to drag the robber back into the house). Without an immediate threat to you or those around you the allowance for you to use lethal force has passed.
It is also against the law to boobytrap your property for the same reasons. IIRC there was a case where a small shop owner had been repeatedly robbed over the course of a few months. The robber(s) kept coming in through a vent in the roof. Fed up the shop owner electrified the vent grating in his store and fried a would be robber. The shop owner got arrested for that. (I’ll try and look for a cite but I cannot remember any specific details such as names so not sure how I will find it.)
I am quite certain that this is illegal. Do not take this advice. Even if the cops say they will look the other way, there’s no guarantee that the local prosecutor will not. Following this advice could potentially lead you to a long prison sentence.
IANL either, but in some states (including mine, I think) the mere presence of an intruder in your home while you are there constitutes an “imminent threat.” I do know for sure that in New York you are not required to retreat from your home because of an intruder.
I am a Pennsylvania resident and I own a (legal) handgun. I have a concealed carry permit and take my gun to the range for practice yearly.
A friend who is a law enforcement officer told me that if I feel my life is in danger I should empty my gun into the center of mass of an intruder. He also pointed out that as a private citizen, it is reasonable to consider my life at risk even if I do not see a firearm.
This is too serious an issue to take advice from sea lawyers. Find out what your state statutes are on use of lethal force. There are many issues beyond that and a CCW course is a good way to learn some of them. It certainly won’t teach you all you need to know but enough that you’ll know what to ask.
Yes, but . It depends on the law in that jurisdiction as to penalty if any.
Possibily, but. It depends on the law in that jurisdiction as to penalty if any.
Officers are not lawyers, caveat emptor!
Generally an intruded who is breaking and entering by force can justifiably be ‘done in’ by lethal force if necessary. Just be sure the body is inside the line.
Caution: booby traps to kill intruders are not given kind consideration by the courts.
I recall that case. I also recall that the jury wasn’t allowed to know that the robber had broken in several times, was a junkie, possibly violent in other ways, etc. That was what all the newspaper articles I recall focused on - whether or not the jury had a right to know the robber’s past. IIRC, the bar owner was found guilty of something or other (negligence?) and spent some time in jail.
About this thread: There have been dozens of threads in the past with this premise. Aside from the “we don’t know about your jurisdiction and aren’t lawyers anyway” response, the consensus is generally that one has the right to defend themselves and their property against an attacker. It is legally (and morally) permissible to use the minimum amount of force that is necessary to stop the intruder. . That is, if you clobber him to the ground with the first crowbar hit and he stops moving, then you should also stop. If you hit him five times after that, then you’re over the line as well.
It also appears that the defender will be sued by the robber (or the robber’s family) and they will try to make the defender appear bloodthirsty and looking for a fight, etc.
It isn’t just the law you need to worry about. The attitudes of district attorneys, grand juries and juries vary depending on where you live. In some places, they will haul away the body, and assuming it was justified, that’s the last you will hear about it. In other places, the district attorney will file charges, and even if it was justified, you will have to jump through the expensive hoops of the legal system. In some places, you have to worry about ambulance chasing lawyers talking the criminal’s family into filing a wrongful death lawsuit.
“Break and enter” does not specifically require something to be broken or a lock to be subverted, etc. If your door is ajar a couple of inches, and I push it open further to fit through, I have just committed a B&E.
You’re correct; it would be wrong to move the body. The cops are giving very bad advice here.
If you ever have to defend yourself, and in the process of stopping the bad guy you (incidentally) end up killing him, never move or modify the evidence in any way. The crime scene investigators and forensic scientists are extremely good at piecing together what happened. If you covertly move the body they will figure it out. You credibility will be ruined, even if it was a justifiable and legal homicide. Don’t do it.
I think that is reasonable outside of the home. I think that if you are in your home, retreat isn’t really possible (a man’s home is his castle and all that). I’m not sure though, because I see no difference between shooting someone inside my home or outside of my home on my property. Either way, it’s still my legal property, my residence, my home. Even so, retreating off the property may still be the best move.
I don’t recall the exact details (I think it was Jeff Cooper book), but I’ve read of police tactical shooting training where a student is put in a situation on a firing range and forced to make life or death decisions. Every officer except one ‘died’ and the one who ‘lived’ through it didn’t fire a shot. He took a look at the situation and decided getting out of there was the best move.
As for shooting outdoors and dragging the body inside, I believe that is tampering with evidence. Don’t do it.
Although lacking a cite, I remember reading of a homeowner in upstate PA who heard what he thought was a break-in taking place in his home, took his handgun and went to investigate. He shot and killed the intruder, but was charged because he passed another exterior door while going to investigate and in the eyes of prosecution failed to take that avenue to flee the residence.
I agree with him, but just to be a Devil’s Advocate, I’ll throw a rhetorical wrench in silenus’s first statement, that it may be inherently impossible to retreat. If you were on the second floor and you felt the intruder was at the door on the first floor, or if you had a family that you had to escort out of the house. In any case, if you have to stay put, you better have a 911-dialed phone in one hand, a firearm (given the OP) in the other, and your ass to the wall.
But then again, not to make a blanket statement but I’ve always been taught and held that any threat to “life, limb, or eyesight” constitutes imminent danger, whether it be to myself or a third party–being the family you have in the house.
Me? I’ve found a sidearm and a really frickin’ bright flashlight (a SureFire, to be exact) has a tendency to stop people around my ground floor apartment in their tracks. If you flash it fast enough, you might even cripple them with a seizure.
Tripler
Got a dog? That’d be my first piece of advice . . . They’re a great “early warning system”.
