Quote Me
Well it looks like another impasse
Well I gues not.
Hey anybody seen Anthricite and/or Mangeorge 
**
I know of no state law which mentions the right to kill in defense of property or life. What most state laws mention deadly force, Texas in particular, it is when force and deadly force can or cannot be used. Deadly force to the state of Texas doesn’t mean an immediate death sentence. Texas defines Deadly Force as “force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.” So from a legal point of view deadly force is not a death sentence, at least not in Texas.
From the Texas Penal Code Chapter 9
"§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."
So in the state of Texas it appears as though we do have the right to shoot someone, that is use deadly force, in defense of our property so long as certain guidelines are met. I’d say that breaking into my home in the middle of the night meets the conditions for me to use deadly force in Texas.
Of course I won’t argue that legality and morality always go hand in hand. But on a personal note I worked very hard for the property that I have. It took me X number of hours out of my life for me to be able to afford those nice things. I fail to see anything morally wrong with using deadly force to stop someone from stealing what is essentially a piece of my life. On the other hand I don’t think I’d be so keen to risk my life for a television or stereo so I seriously doubt I’d go gunning for anyone doing so. Of course I need my car to work and can’t really afford another one. So I’d have no qualms about using deadly force to protect my automobile.
For those interested here is the link to the Texas Penal Code. Check under Chapter 9 Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/petoc
Marc
OK…here is my real sticking point with your response. You don’t have to keep throwing these somewhat inflammatory generalizations out. Where is it? I will bold it:
Come on. Maybe some are saying they feel that way, but I really don’t think most are, and I would hazard most people who believe in self defense would not be able to justifiably shoot someone “in the back of the head without warning”. That scenario does not encompass more than a very tiny fraction of possible “home defense” scenarios.
I agree with anthricite
Shooting somebody in the back of the head reeks of assination. Not anywhere the topic of this thread. Please don’t use that tone of voice again.
If someone has broken into my home, I can conlude at least one thing: That person has a criminal intent. Since I can conlude that, I can also make several assumptions:
- He might be looking for something expensive to steal;
- He might be hoping to vandalize my house;
- He might be intending to harm me (and/or other occupants of the house);
- Any combination of the above.
Now, if I can assume those things, I know they are all harmful to me. I also know that if you assume it won’t happen to you, you won’t be prepared for the worst. You know why a house will be broken into? Most often, because the occupants were not prepared for the worst. They assumed they would not be robbed. Now, I’m not saying this is always the case. However, this same factor holds true for home invasions*, in which the occupants of the home are almost always injured (or worse, killed).
I’m going to take every measure I can to ensure the maximum security of my house and property to avoid getting killed in my own house. In my view, this includes owning a gun and knowing how to use it. Although I feel secure enough in myself to fight hand-to-hand against a criminal with a knife, I would rather not put myself at any risk. I would rather make it as risky as I could for a someone to break into my house.
*A home invasion is when someone breaks into a house and the occupants are home. Breaking and entering is when the occupants are not home (At least, this is what I’ve heard the distinction is).
Varlos:
First, you quote that 1/3 home intrustions result in assault or rape. Therefore, 2/3 involve criminals who have no intention of commiting assault or rape.
This is a conclusion without basis in logic. You cannot draw that conclusion. You can only conclude that in 2/3 there was no assault or rape (obviously). You have absolutely no idea how many of them intended to assault or rape the home owner, only that they either didn’t intend to or they failed to. You even have absolutely no idea of how many of the incidents that involved an actual assualt or rape started with the criminal intending to commit the crime (although I can tell you that it is most of them, about 90%).
Second, consider reading the following books listed here in order of importance:
“Stressfire” by Massad Ayoob
“Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights” by Jim Cirillo
“The Truth About Self Protection” by Massad Ayoob
“Survey of Felons” by James Wright & Peter Rossi
“Real Fighting” by Peyton Quinn
“In the Gravest Extreme” by Massad Ayoob
You could also consider taking a course from the Lethal Force Institute.
By why you might be asking since you have no inclination of shooting the intruder? Simple, because it might give you an understanding of why somebody might choose to do so. The fact is that an encounter with an intruder is not a matter that lends itself to ascertaining the criminals actions. A criminal can counterattack with a hand weapon from 15’ or less in a strikingly quick amount of time. Counterattacking with a gun is even faster. Under the effects of adrenal stress (read the books, or read many of my prior posts on adrenal stress), the home owner is likely to be overwhelmed. “Survey of Felons” & “The Truth About Self Protection” (as well as numerous other sources) all indicate the criminal is perfectly ready to attack if the home owner does not present a very strong language of sincere intent, which is unlikely without any kind of scenario based training under their belts.
Statistically, a criminal is 50% likely to immediately attack when threatened with attack or ordered to freeze. The other 50% they will immediately surrender or flee. Seeing as how you have at best a 50% chance of winning the encounter (likely much less without any adrenal stress training) that gives you about at least a 25% chance of being defeated for trying to give the intruder a fair chance to surrender. Does it seem right to you that a person should take a 25% chance of being injured, perhaps seriously, perhaps killed, to give the intruder a chance to surrender?
On the other hand, I am pretty sure that most of the people here are “shooting first and asking questions” later out of a sense of vengeance (I can say that with great certainty since most people are seeking out the intruder). Not unusual, especially among men who often adopt a “grab him and make him pay” attitude (as Sanford Strong puts it). This has a significant chance of costing them their lives (see above). The correct course of action, from a self protection standpoint, is always to minimize any interaction with a criminal. This isn’t to say that those who want to roll the dice are “wrong” (they certainly can risk their lives to any degree they wish so long as they do not endanger another innocent person) to do that, but it is definitely a serious error from a self protection standpoint (if anybody wants to know why and hasn’t figured it from the posts in this thread or in other threads, read the same books above, or take a course from RMCAT or LFI).
justwannano asks;
Still sitting here behind these azaleas, wondering how to work this freakin’ gun.
Anthracite’s at the curb, leaning against a blown-out Mercedes, big-ass gun on her hip and her arm around some skinny blonde she pulled from the car.
They’re gazing up at a bird in a tree, oblivious to the gore all around them, and ignoring me.
Grrr. 
Peace,
mangeorge
Clarification follows:
I find it hard to imagine myself going after an intruder that I KNOW is in the house. If I went walking around it would most likely be because I wasn’t sure if someone was there.
If I knew 100% that someone was in the house, I see myself taking a defensive position where I could protect those that I loved and myself.
I do see myself yelling out some sort of warning. If the guy tried to run, he would probably get shot. I wouldn’t be shooting him for vengence, but rather because I imagine I would be on a hair trigger at that point and sudden motion would get interpreted only one way.
I would never sneak up behind anyone and shoot them in the head.
Maybe the leg:)
If someone chose to handle the situation differently, I would never second guess their choice.
Breaking into houses SHOULD be a risky career choice.
Uh great, so he gets to sue you. Go into a court room and cry about how he stole so his starving children could eat (prolly because he spent the welfare check on crack).
All I have ever heard from anyone in my life is if you’re going to shoot, shoot to kill.
I am a trained shooter and everything I was ever taught was ** center of mass**
I believe I speak for all gun owners when I say we aim to keep it that way
mangeorge
LMAO
Anthracite is chillin’ so as not to attract the attention of Gaudere or David B with her little story above, which sorta did not belong here… 
**
**
Dammit…I meant to write “often” instead of “almost always”, but a damn brain fart made me mix up a conversation I was having with that post. Sorry.
So here I am, sitting up much later that usual because my manly-man has gone out of town. I live in a very scary neighborhood, and am truly worried about being home alone. I’ve taken basic firearm safety courses and have pulled the Glock .40 w/ the flashlight attatchment out of the safe for the evening. As I always do in this situation, I let my mind play out the scenario of actually having to confront someone in my home.
I’d much rather high-tail it out the bedroom window with the phone, but now that I have a baby there’s no way in hell I’m leaving her in the house. So that would leave me, the gun, and the intruder.
Do I leave my room to confront them? Do I hide, waiting for them to enter my room and frantically wondering if they’re in the baby’s room? Do I threaten them with the gun (possibly inviting a physical confrontation or being disarmed) or just shoot?
No matter how many times I’ve tried to map out the ideal plan, I still can’t say for certain what I’d do in this situation.
Great OP- very thought provoking.
Mama
Looking at the situation from a purely animal point of view in the wild mama lion would go to the kit and stand over it.
I believe I would make my way to the baby’s room with the glock and call from there .You can access the situation from there.
Constantly access the situation is in my opinion the answer to the op’s question.
Breaking and entering (B&E) is just that. It is a term for a specific type of crime. It has nothing to do with whether the house is occupied or not. It simply means that the suspect entered into the home by breaking in, although my ubderstanding is that if a person enters through an unlocked door unlawfully with intent to commit a crime this is still a B&E.
A home invasion is not an actual crime, in the sense that breaking and entering is (i.e. you probably won’t find “home invasion” in the criminal law books unless your jurisdication has passed a law to punish this crime in particular. I don’t think many jurisdications have yet). A home invasion is a description of a particular type of crime. Commonly, it is involves breaking into the home with a quick, aggressive action. The intent behind the home invasion is usually burglary, but commonly involves some kind of violence against the occupants. The perps would be be charged with: B&E, assault (with a deadly weapon, if they are armed which they almost always are), burglary at a minimum. Obviously, if the conduct any further acts of violence there could be more charges such as assault and battery, attemped murder or murder.
One step down from this is the hot burglary. This is where the house is broken by normal means when the house is occupied. By normal from the perspective of the B&E, i.e. typically quiet things liking popping the window or door with a crowbar.
Then you have the cold burglary (or just burglary). This is where the house is broken into by normal means and the house is not occupied.
drachillix is 100% correct. Under adrenal stress, any attempt to shoot the intruder in the arm, hand, gun or leg is going to greatly decrease your chance to hit at all. Practically nobody has this level of precision under the circumstances (tunnel vision, overreactive senses, twitchy nervous system i.e. adrenal stress). Consider yourself lucky if you aim for the center of mass and hit an extremity!
Also, although may have meant it tongue in cheek BUT seriously shooting for the extremities (sp?) could result in a greater risk of civil liability! A good lawyer will argue that you couldn’t have been in that much danger if you were shooting to disable, and hence shouldn’t have been shooting at all.
Mamapotamus:
Do I leave my room to confront them?
No, never ever seek to confront a criminal. You always want to minimize your interaction with the criminal. Maybe he’ll just steal the TV in the living room and leave. In which case, great. But if you go looking for him you will find him (or he you) and this is bad news.
Do I hide, waiting for them to enter my room and frantically wondering if they’re in the baby’s room?
To answer any tactical question I would really need to have a good understanding of the layout of your house. But consider this, the criminal is highly unlikely to harm your child. So, if you go to your baby’s room any conflict will happen there, do you REALLY want to start a gunfight in your baby’s room? I get the impression that you are shaking your head no emphatically (I must be psychic). The only reason to go to your baby’s room is to collect your baby so you can escape. Again, the odds are very high that the criminal will not harm the child so fleeing and waiting for help is the best course of action, but as a parent myself I can certainly relate.
Do I threaten them with the gun (possibly inviting a physical confrontation or being disarmed) or just shoot?
Unless you are absolutely totally 100% sure that you can threaten him with such a demeanour that he is 100% sure that you will shoot him then you should not threaten him. Unless you have specifically trained to do just this I can guarentee you that you can’t. If through bad circumstance you come in contact with the intruder and if there is no possibility of escape the best thing is usually to attack first. Feel free to attack while ordering him to leave. You’re likely to miss, and the shot being fired may drive the point home that it is time for him to leave.
As I often point out, consider taking a course from the Lethal Force Institute. They travel around the country (although largely in the New England area) and offer scenario based training that will greatly help you deal with this situation should it ever arise (look for LFI-I, Stressfire and the Combat Handgun).
Did the “:)” give me away?
Sheesh people…
Anth:
You’re right, and I never meant to attack “people who believe in self defense” or members of the NRA (hey, I’m a fan of the 2nd Amendment) or, for that matter, anyone at all. Mine is a very limited position. When I say that you shouldn’t shoot burglars in the back of the head, I’m not trying to say that you or Freedom or Glitch or anyone is itching to do it and I am not trying to paint some large group of people with this brush. I’m not equating all shootings in self defense with this kind of “assasination.” All I’m saying is what I’m saying.
justwannano:
See above. The only thing I’m arguing against is actions by a homeowner in this situation that would reek of assasination. It does belong in this thread; as per the topic of the OP I first said what I thought I would do in such a situation and then said that it would be wrong to “assasinate” the burglar (not my original phrasing, but that was the gist of it). For one reason or another, that assertion was challenged and I’ve been trying to defend it.
Glitch:
It’s not a conclusion that I can have definite knowledge of (but then, what is?). Logic, however, does lend itself to the conclusion I drew. Simply put, the large majority of intruders who intend to assault a home’s occupants would do so (this isn’t to say that they would be “successful,” but an attack is an attack). Moreover, I would hazard a guess that a majority of such assaults (or a goodly percentage) were probably initiated by the homeowner confronting the burglar.
(Speaking of conclusions without a logical basis. . .) Why do I have “absolutely no idea” how many of the assaults began with the intent to assault, but you are able to tell me (rather matter of factly) that it is “about 90%”?
You raise some good points in the second half of your post. For what it’s worth, I’ll refine my position to say that it’s wrong to seek out an intruder for the purpose of killing him.
How about seeking out the intruder for the purpose of using deadly force to defend yourself or your property? Keeping in mind of course that deadly force isn’t legally defined as a death sentence in Texas or any other state that I’m aware of.
Marc
I’m not sure. Good question.
I’m not terribly concerned here with what the law says on the matter; it does not relate necessarily to the riteousness of any given action, nor is it even uniform throughout the country (let alone the world). I assume you mean to ask about seeking to use deadly force as the law (in Texas, at least) defines it. I’ll think about it, but I don’t think that I could ever really come to a conclusion that isn’t completely ineffable (if I could come to a conclusion at all). What kind of “deadly force” is the homeowner using? How likely is it to cause death? Does he know? Does he care? Is it acceptable to, say, paralize a burglar but unacceptable to kill him? How do weigh each of the above considerations? Can you?
You can see the difficulties here. It’s probably a question that could only be answered on a case by case basis, and even then. . .