Killing An Intruder

Factual Questions
1

Here’s the scenario: I wake up one night because I hear a sound. Retrieving a properly licenced handgun from my nightstand, I go into the living room and turn on the lights. There, in the corner, is a scruffy looking thug putting stuff into his coat with one hand, a knife in the other. He sees me, and moves towards me and the front door. I put a single bullet into his chest.

In what states of the U.S. is this a legal response to a home invasion? He could have been attacking me; he could have been going for the door. I could have stayed upstairs and called the police; I could have backed off until I knew whether he was running.

2

Well here in Alabama, you are to retreat to the furthest possible area in your home before attempting to use deadly force.

Your senario would all depend on how badly the procecutors office was in charging you, and how well a defence attorney could spin the event.

I am suggesting that last bit because I am guessing you mean “is this legal” as to meaning “would I get arrested and convicted”

3

As you recognize, the law varies. Every state lets a homeowner use reasonable and proportionate force in order to defend himself or herself against an invading intruder. Some states let a homeowner repel an invasion with deadly force, regardless of whether deadly force is reasonable or proportionate. A few states impose upon the homeowner a duty to retreat before forcefully defending himself or herself. This issue has been the subject of legislation in several states in the last few years. Google “duty to retreat” and you will find a wealth of information. (Unfortunately I don’t know good online reference that contains a 50-state survey.)

4

I don’t know about here in Texas as I only recently moved here but in Alaska (as explained to me by a police officer I was aquainted with - if someone else knows better please correct me) the OP would be in the clear. You merely have to feel that the intruder poses a threat to your life or the life of someone else in the building to make the shooting legal. That’s right you jut have to feel the intruder could kill you, he could be armed with a gun, a knife or a bat etc… as long as he posseses a deadly weapon you are permitted to use any other deadly weapon to defend yourself. So shooting the knife wielding intruder is fine but if he were unarmed you might have some 'splaining to do.

5

in New Hampshire,

So its up to you to decide whether you reasonably believe that he is likely to use any unlawful force against you.

In practice, NH courts are likely to give you the benefit of the doubt - if he wasn’t likely to use force against you, why would he be carrying a knife?

Note that no matter how clearly legal the shooting was, you can still be sued by the criminal or his family. However, I’ve read newspaper accounts of several NH lawyers saying they’d never take a case like that. :cool:

6

Well as far as Texas:

The Texas Penal Code

"SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§ 9.41. Protection of One’s Own Property

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
[/quote]

7

Louisana has some of the most liberal (that sounds funny in this context) laws on when you may use deadly force on an intruder. Generally, you can use deadly force on any intruder in your home as long as you give them warning or they are a threat to your safety or the safety of others. What is fairly unique about Louisiana is that deadly force can also be used to preserve property even when there is no threat to a person.

I know three different people in Louisana that killed people in their homes (two thwarted armed robberies and one killed his wife’s lover). Because it was in their own home, they never even spent the night in jail.

There are also some screwy things that can happen because of the way that Louisiana laws work. In 1992, a Japenese student tried to find a Halloween party in a residential area of Baton Rouge. He didn’t speak English well and went to the wrong house. The owner of the house came to the door armed and told the student to “freeze”. Apparently, he didn’t know what that meant so he kept coming. The homeowner shot and killed him. A jury unanimously aquitted the homeowner because the student was warned and kept coming.

http://www.naatanet.org/heritagemonth/shot.html

8

There was a guy convicted in LA of either second degree murder or manslaughter because, after a series of breakins, he had set up a booby trap to shoot intruders.

9

Booby traps are a differnt matter. The general rule is that they’re illegal, because they’re automatic and can’t distinguish between an innocent intruder and a burglar. See this thread:Is it legal to booby-trap your own property?

10

I don’t know this case, but it sounds like it involves a slightly different issue than the OP. There have been several cases over the years where a homeowner rigs a deadly or nearly deadly boobytrap against burglars, then gets sued for using excessive force when the boobytrap kills or maims one. The distinction is that, in most states, a homeowner can use greater force in defending his or her own or another’s life than he or she can use in defending his or her property. If the homeowner is home when the burglar breaks in, then he or she is using force in self-defense. But if the burglar merely runs into a boobytrap, then the force was being used in defense of mere property, and the force used may be excessive even if the same level of force would have been appropriate in a case of self-defense.

11

In Colorado, the “make-my-day” law gives a homeowner the right to shoot and kill anyone who unlawfully enters his or her home.

From the Colorado Revised Statutes (you’ll need to drill down on 18.1.704.5):

12

And in the state of Washington, if the person shot was attempting to commit a felony in the shooter’s house, then the killing was justified.

From the Revised Code of Washington:

(“By other person” meaning someone other than a peace officer).

13

I read of a famous case in Massachusetts about 10 years ago. An intruder broke thru a locked storm door, broke thru the regular door, broke thru a locked basement door, and then was shot by a mother with her 3 children.

The mother was convicted of murder/manslaughter.

The court ruled that shooting someone in Mass is only legal “as a last resort”, and only if escape is not possible.

The court determined that the mother could have escaped with her 3 children out thru a basement window, preventing the man from being killed.

14

Cite?

15

**Terrible!
I would not live in Mass. for that one reason! **

A person should have the right to protect their self and family. That is ones first Freedom.

In AR if someone is breaking into your home or already broke into your home you have the right to protect your self and family. Shooting is justify to protect life… only life but not property.

My wife and I are license to carry a firearm. We live in AR, one of the great states that have the Right to Carry law.

16

I believe Susanann was speaking of Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 367 Mass. 508 (1975), in which the court declined “to adopt the majority rule that one assaulted in his own home need not retreat before resorting to the use of deadly force”. I believe she was pardoned by Gov Dukakis, and the legislature passed a “castle doctrine” law (which allows you to stand your ground rather than have to retreat from an assailant who confronts you within your home) shortly afterwards.

17

You are largely correct, so long as it occurs on property you own or lease:

Alaska Statutes Title 11. CRIMINAL LAW Sec. 11.81.335:

18

In Texas it’s very simple…we have something called the “He Needed Killin’” Law…

He breaks in, you shoot him, you tell the judge “Wellsir…he needed killin’”

Case Dismissed.

Daylon

19

Daylon, your post reminds me of a story (probably apocryphal, but who knows) about why a jurisdiction in the old American West had made an automatic hanging offense out of stealing a horse, but left the penalty for murder up to the court’s discretion. “Well,” explained a local lawyer, “there are some men that need killin’. There are no horses that need stealin’.”

20

From what I understand, Louisiana’s laws are based on Napoleonic code, whereas the other states in America base their laws on English common law. However, IANAL, or even a law student.