What I am saying is that, despite what you may have learned from your weapons training at the local dollar theater, warning shots and cool catchphrases are generally not recommended practice when you feel your life is threatened to the point where you need to actually fire the weapon.
Interesting. I was under the impression that YogSosoth was one of those anti-gun nuts who cries at the mere sight of a gun. Now I find out he’s all in favor of shooting people. Wow, even I’m not that pro-gun.
Thanks, but my scenario was (granted not the same as the one starting this thread)Someone breaks into your house. That is, they are physically in your house when you wake up and confront them. They have a knife in one hand and a sack of your valuables in the other. If you point a gun at them, and tell them to leave, in some states, you have broken a law?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t believe Fleming was discussing the phenomenon of three bullets missing a target and striking a nearby area. According to Wilson, the second squatter who was shot, the shots were “… just one after another — bang, bang, bang, bang…” Under those circumstances, it’s not at all correct to say that three shots means an intention to hit.
[/QUOTE]
According to Wilson, the shots were aimed at sleeping targets, too. But *that *part of her testimony we can safely ignore because… ?
I would also note that your accidental theory doesn’t mesh with the declarations of the shooter himself.
[QUOTE=Old Man Wayne]
“I was trying to protect my own life,” he said. “Since **they **were there in a threatening manner, I reacted.”
[/QUOTE]
(emphasis mine)
I have no idea. Do I look like a law student ? Some form of reckless endangerment I suppose. Is “attempted involuntary manslaughter” in the books 
?
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
And he claims to know more about the case than the jury. :(:rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Ah, yeah ! And Obama doesn’t even know how many States there are, what a maroon !
Yes. I emitted a brainfart (that was 100% immaterial to the point I was making at the time). I corrected it. It is not a deadly gotcha. You guys are not being clever.
As far as I can tell, yes. It is generally illegal to point a gun at someone in an attempt to force them to do something. Some states (most, to at least some extent) have exceptions that apply in your house and/or if they have your property. I’m assuming you’re distinguishing this from self defence, as that would apply anywhere, not just in your house.
As a minimum, you shouldn’t ever be pointing a gun at someone you don’t have the right to shoot, and for self defence, if you are in a position to threaten but not shoot, you’re not in imminent danger. I can’t find any reason why that would differ in a situation where you’re not threatened.
I’m actually struggling to find any definitive answers, as pretty much every link I find assumes you’re going to shoot or not use a gun at all.
You’re mistaken, again. She never said the shots were aimed at sleeping targets.
Perhaps you were confused by her testimony that Devine said they had been asleep. But clearly her testimony says that both she and Devine were awake.
No, you don’t look like a law student.
But since you’re not, you should realize that your ideas about the law are uninformed. Specifically, if the shooting itself was justified self-defense as to the first squatter, and the shooting happened all at once, the person exercising self-defense does not generally have to show that each person individually was a threat. If you’re next to your pal and you shoot at a third person, that person may defend himself without fear that a shot that hits your pal is criminal.
Do you understand that?
Well, again, I think my scenario was pretty specific. They ARE in my house, and from what I’ve read, I have the legal authority to shoot them if they are brandishing a knife, INSIDE my house because I would feel threatened. But to me, I would rather just SCARE them out of my house, instead of shooting someone and killing them. But it seems like just pointing a gun at them might be against the law, while actually shooting and killing them is not. I am just trying to make sure I understand what the law is.
As a further clarification of what I meant: I awake and go downstairs and see a robber with a knife and a sack of my stuff. I have no gun. I yell “Get out of my house!” and he rushes me and stabs me 47 times and then leaves. OR
I awake and go downstairs with my gun and see a robber with a knife and a sack of my stuff. I now HAVE a gun. I yell “Get out of my house or I’ll shoot you!” and he runs out the back door.
In the second scenario, it seems like I have avoided injury, got the robber out of my house, AND I didn’t shoot anyone. But it seems like doing it this way, in some of your eyes, is not only foolhardy and reckless, but actually may be illegal in some states.
IANAL, but practically speaking, if you point a gun at someone who is robbing your house, and he runs off and complains to the police that you threatened him, the police may or may not stop giggling before they arrest him.
You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your property. You may get into trouble if you shoot him before he attacks you with the knife. If you do, the best thing to do is
[ul][li]Call the police[/li][li]Say “I was in fear of my life and I need to speak to a lawyer before I say anything else”[/li][li]Don’t say anything else[/ul]Hopefully, the bullet holes will be in the front of his body, in which case you say “He raised the knife as if to attack me” if and when you are brought into court. If the bullet holes are in his back, then you say, “He raised the knife and made as if to lunge past me” or “I was so scared I don’t remember anything” and hope for a sympathetic jury.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
To address the foolhardy and reckless side of it - either they are a threat to you, in which case you are putting yourself at risk by not shooting them, or they are not a threat to you, in which case you are the one who is initiating the threat, and may possibly shoot by mistake someone who’s not a threat to you - which is arguably reckless.
There’s also the strong possibility that if you threaten but don’t shoot, the invader will assume (probably correctly) that you’re not going to shoot, or will have second thoughts about shooting, and will become more violent that would otherwise have been the case - again, putting yourself at risk.
All the laws and references I can find deal with actually shooting someone, not waving a gun and threatening them. As has been repeatedly said, there’s an assumption made that either the threat is severe enough that you need to shoot, or it’s not a threat that should be dealt with using weapons. But, as Shodan says, I can’t imagine any police force in a Castle Doctrine state arresting anyone for threatening a home invader. Wondering why you didn’t fire, yes, but not arresting you.
Then there comes the question of why wouldn’t you shoot them? If they break into your house while armed, they have no respect for your life. Why have any more respect for theirs? They don’t deserve it…
I don’t know about manson1972, but I would rather not shoot even a burglar if I could avoid it.
Regards,
Shodan
Thanks for those replies. However, one thing I noticed, both of them seem kind of incredulous that I WOULDN’T want to shoot someone in my house robbing me.
Well, I DON’T want to shoot someone in my house robbing me. I just want them to leave. Why would I want to possibly kill someone over a TV? If me pointing a gun at them gets them to leave, that’s great! If that doesn’t work, then the shooting can take place. Why go straight to KILL THE GUY!! ??
edited to add:
I would rather NOT shoot anybody, and would use the least amount of force to get them out of my house. If pointing a gun at them does it, why not stop there?
And FWIW, a cite for my earlier reference to reasonable force.
Pointing a gun at a burglar, but not shooting him, strikes me as reasonable - that is to say, proportionate - force to prevent or end a burglary of an occupied dwelling. That’s a felony.
Regards,
Shodan
On June 6th. 2015 at 3:20 pm I read a post from Shodan with which I entirely agreed.
Been a while, have they come up with any new drugs in the past twenty years that I haven’t tried? Now seems to be the time…
Pointing a gun at someone you don’t want to kill is fucking stupid. You’re putting them at risk of you firing by mistake, and if they (correctly) figure out that you don’t want to shoot them, it won’t deter them, and may well make them more likely to use violence to protect themselves.
Put it this way. If you’re pointing a gun at someone who’s at the other end of a room, but acting like you won’t shoot, in about 3 seconds they could cross the room, grab the gun and shoot you. And if they think you will shoot, they might risk that anyway, as you might miss, or hit them somewhere non-vital. If you point without intending to shoot, you’re increasing the risk for everyone, with the best case scenario being… exactly the same as if you’d just hidden in your bedroom, assuming you don’t care that much about your TV.
People believe far too much of what they see about law, crime, guns, and probably everything else, on TV and films.
Well, I think wanting to kill somebody because they are stealing your TV is fucking stupid. I bet this guy was glad he didn’t warn the intruder he had a gun, instead of just shooting a shape in the dark: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/easton-mcdonald-shoots-daughter_n_5676486.html
I probably WOULD just hide in the bedroom, after telling the robber I had a gun. I would never kill someone over a TV. In fact, I doubt I have ANYTHING in my house I would be willing to kill someone for. YMMV
I suspect if you walked in on a burglar inside your house, and he had both hands wrapped around your TV, you would shoot him. He might have run across the room and beat you with your own TV if you didn’t. Besides, he’s just a lowly criminal who DESERVES to get shot, and boy howdy did it feel good to protect your house from a TV thief. You should probably get some help.
Fair enough. Then keep your gun out of the way when someone’s stealing your TV, or else you’ll make someone’s death more likely - yours or his.
Wanting’s not really the issue, though, it’s whether you feel at enough risk of harm that you need to shoot them to defend yourself. In plenty of places, it’s considered that someone breaking into your house constitutes such a threat with nothing else needed. What you want isn’t really relevant, unless you’d rather be injured or killed than kill someone else.
Sure, and if all you think he’s gonna do is steal that TV, instead of tying you to a chair and torturing you until you tell him where the good stuff is, then killing you, your wife and kids so as to leave no witnesses- you are living in unicorn rainbowland.
But if I was sure he’d just take the TV and leave- i’d happily let him go as the legal issues involved even in getting acquitted from a legit shooting cost hwaaaay more than any TV.
You have yourself in the house.
You should probably read a few more of my posts, then. Unfortunately I don’t live anywhere I’d have the right to do that.
But, the one time it actually happened that someone was in my house illegally, and violent towards me, I acted without violence for several hours, and the police were called many times. This was a former housemate, who’d been evicted, and we assumed was coming back in to try to steal things with a copied key. That it was a woman less than half my size probably stopped me using violence earlier, but after several hours I picked her up and physically threw her out of the house.
Should I have had the right to use violence much earlier? Yes, of course. Doesn’t mean I would have done. But by not doing so, I put myself t risk of injury, and received pretty minor injuries.
My reason for favouring real self defence, and weapons if necessary, is what if it had been the other way round? What if someone my size had attacked a much smaller woman? Then it could well be more than a few scratches and bruises, and the right to fight back would be meaningless.