# Killing An Intruder
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [April 5, 2003, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701 "2003-04-05T18:01:21Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2003, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/1 "2003-04-05T18:01:21Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Osip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Osip)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2003, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/2 "2003-04-05T18:11:46Z")
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”
---
### Author:  [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2003, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/3 "2003-04-05T18:20:58Z")
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.)
---
### Author:  [@TheFunkySpaceCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheFunkySpaceCowboy)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2003, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/4 "2003-04-05T18:36:52Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2003, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/5 "2003-04-05T18:59:08Z")
in New Hampshire,
> [@](#):
>
> 627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. –
> .,…
> II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
> (a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
> (b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
> (c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
> (d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor’s dwelling or its curtilage.
> III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he knows that he and the third person can, with complete safety:
> (a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he is not required to retreat if he is within his dwelling or its curtilage and was not the initial aggressor; or
> (b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or
> (c) Comply with a demand that he abstain from performing an act which he is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the actor has provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter.
> [@](#):
>
> 627:7 Use of Force in Defense of Premises. – A person in possession or control of premises or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon is justified in using non-deadly force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other in or upon such premises, but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4 or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson.
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. 🆒
---
### Author:  [@xicanorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xicanorex)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2003, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/6 "2003-04-05T19:08:33Z")
Well as far as Texas:
[The Texas Penal Code](http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=BSZUGCXSTLIP&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=124367&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=1&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES)
"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]
---
### Author:  [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2003, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/7 "2003-04-05T19:41:13Z")
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](http://www.naatanet.org/heritagemonth/shot.html)
---
### Author:  [@This\_just\_in\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/This_just_in_1)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2003, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/8 "2003-04-05T19:57:33Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2003, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/9 "2003-04-05T21:15:31Z")
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?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164803)
---
### Author:  [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2003, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/10 "2003-04-05T21:17:50Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by This just in … \*
> \*\*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. \*\*
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.
---
### Author:  [@LtningBug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LtningBug)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2003, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/11 "2003-04-05T22:03:28Z")
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](http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0) (you’ll need to drill down on 18.1.704.5):
> [@](#):
>
> 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
> Statute text
> (1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
>
> (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
>
> (3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
>
> (4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
---
### Author:  [@LtningBug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LtningBug)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2003, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/12 "2003-04-05T22:20:25Z")
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](http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=9A.16.050):
> [@](#):
>
> RCW 9A.16.050
> Homicide – By other person – When justifiable.
> Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
> (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
>
> ```
> (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
>
> ```
(“By other person” meaning someone other than a peace officer).
---
### Author:  [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2003, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/13 "2003-04-06T01:16:53Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2003, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/14 "2003-04-06T01:40:48Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Susanann \*
> \*\*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. \*\*
Cite?
---
### Author:  [@olefin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/olefin)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2003, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/15 "2003-04-06T02:56:39Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Susanann \*
> 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.
\*\*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.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Harrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Harrison)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2003, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/16 "2003-04-06T04:33:12Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor \*
> \*\*Cite? \*\*
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.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2003, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/17 "2003-04-06T04:47:45Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by TheFunkySpaceCowboy \*
> \*\*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 are largely correct, so long as it occurs on property you own or lease:
[Alaska Statutes Title 11. CRIMINAL LAW Sec. 11.81.335](http://old-www.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/stattx01/query=!22self+defense!22/doc/%7Bt4025%7D/words=4?):
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Sec. 11.81.335. Justification: Use of deadly force in defense of self.
>
> (a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a person may use deadly force upon another person when and to the extent
>
> (1) the use of nondeadly force is justified under AS 11.81.330 ; and
>
> (2) the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self defense against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the second degree, or robbery in any degree.
>
> (b) A person may not use deadly force under this section if the person knows that, with complete personal safety and with complete safety as to others, the person can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by retreating, except there is no duty to retreat if the person is
>
> (1) on premises which the person owns or leases and the person is not the initial aggressor; or
>
> (2) a peace officer acting within the scope and authority of the officer’s employment or a person assisting a peace officer under AS 11.81.380.\*\*
---
### Author:  [@Daylon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daylon)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2003, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/18 "2003-04-06T11:44:14Z")
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
---
### Author:  [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2003, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/19 "2003-04-07T04:01:56Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Daylon \*
> \*\*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** , 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’.”
---
### Author:  [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2003, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701/20 "2003-04-07T04:15:58Z")
> [@](#):
>
> What is fairly unique about Louisiana
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.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-an-intruder/166701.md?page=2)