# Ok, if I shouldn't \_shoot\_ the intruder, then...? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2009, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060 "2009-01-19T23:15:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/161 "2009-01-20T20:47:07Z")
> [@Jolly\_Roger](#): > > Thats all I’m saying. If he bolts for the door he’s probably going to outrun me anyway. I’m good for distance not speed. If he does anything else that looks like he’s going to harm I’m going to assume he’s going to kill me and crack his skull. If I have a ranged weapon like a pistol I might shout “Stop or I’ll fire!”, (That actually works. I caught an unuathorized intruder on post after 911 not by firing but shouting that I would…and my orders said “No warning Shots”…so if they didn’t stop they would have been capped) but I might not shoot him in the back if he’s heading for the door. Keep in mind, as Scumpup said, there are places in my home that a burglar can’t get out of without coming towards me or a family member’s bedroom. IN that case the burglar should surrender because I would fire on him if he headed towards any of them. Yes, that’s very true. If they are beyond the living room in my apartment then they’re in some shit because that’s right by my daughter’s bedroom. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/162 "2009-01-20T20:52:22Z")
> [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > I disagree. Violating the security of someone’s home is a very serious thing, and that overt act alone justifies the use of force to neutralize the invader _unless they manage to clearly indicate that they are not a threat_. Getting on the floor and surrendering with hands clearly visible is one way; running out the door and never looking back is another. The burden is solely theirs to attempt to do these things in a manner that is unambiguously non-threatening, which might be difficult given the situation. If you meet the guy face to face and he turns suddenly, is he turning to run, or grabbing a weapon? Bottom line, the only sure way he can avoid getting shot is to not break into someone’s house in the first place. > > ETA: > > Where does “vigilante justice” enter into this? I wish people would stop misusing that term. > > Taking refuge and calling the police might in fact be a good choice; unfortunately it’s not an option if your home contains other human beings under your protection. But either way, a person should have no obligation to retreat from or inside their own home; if they want to face the intruder with force, that’s their choice. My point is that if you hear someone downstairs, rather than going down there and putting yourself and your family in harm’s way by possibly spooking him, you can call the police and avoid the risk. In this scenario, you don’t have to arm yourself and initiate the violence. He hasn’t approached anyone in the house. By confronting him, you’ve already broken your first barrier of protection from harm. ---
**Author:** ![spike404](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@spike404](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spike404)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/163 "2009-01-20T20:54:38Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > False dichotomy. I think not. If one watches a lot of TV/movies, they are led to believe that the “Death Wish”, “24”, etcetera, type of guy is quite common. ---
**Author:** ![Jolly\_Roger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/91b2a8/32.png) [@Jolly\_Roger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jolly_Roger)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/164 "2009-01-20T21:02:14Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Yes, that’s very true. If they are beyond the living room in my apartment then they’re in some shit because that’s right by my daughter’s bedroom. and i believe thats what Scumpup was saying. his family is in the house. he’s not taking chances when their safety is at risk. Now sure, if i hear someone breaking in or moving things I’d call 911 immediately (because I sleep with my cellphone on the nightstand) but if I surprise the guy by going out of the bedroom to see whats going on its a different story. I keep my windows and doors locked at night, and there are motion lights near the sliding glass door in the kitchen which would be the easiest way for an intruder to enter. The front door is locked and its a heavy strong door. I’m more concerned with someone trying to steal my jeep…because then they have to die. No one touches my jeep. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/165 "2009-01-20T21:10:22Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It’s macho to want to control your impulses? I see it as the bare minimum of manhood. YMMV. No that it gives YOU some virtually infallable ability to read “tells” that you are willing to risk your life and the life of other on. And even IF it did, its still a retarded point to make as to why someone else shouldnt use deadly force. Because, you know, they might have Aspergers syndrom or sumptin. Or not be as “manly” and martial arts trained as you :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/166 "2009-01-20T21:11:33Z")
> [@spike404](#): > > I think not. If one watches a lot of TV/movies, they are led to believe that the “Death Wish”, “24”, etcetera, type of guy is quite common. You mean like thinking that the indomitable villains they face are quite common? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/167 "2009-01-20T21:13:52Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > that it gives YOU some virtually infallable ability to read “tells” that you are willing to risk your life and the life of other on. Please show me where I said anything about infallibility anywhere in this thread. Regardless of which way you choose, people’s lives are at risk, including the hypothetical burglar. > [@](#): > > And even IF it did, its still a retarded point to make as to why someone else shouldnt use deadly force. Why didn’t you shoot to kill when you shot? Why did you fire a warning shot instead? > [@](#): > > Because, you know, they might have Aspergers syndrom or sumptin. I am unclear of the relevance here. > [@](#): > > Or not be as “manly” and martial arts trained as you :rolleyes: Who said anything about being fabulously trained in martial arts? I’m just saying that one should try and keep a cool head and not fire blindly at someone. That doesn’t make me a ninja. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/168 "2009-01-20T21:13:59Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Did you or did you not notice the phrase after the part you bolded? I enlarged it so you can see it easier. > > Given the way human bodies are constructed it is MUCH harder to threaten someone standing _behind_ you rather than in front. Now, if the guy is facing away from you, bent over an explosive device with intent to set it off - YES, then you can shoot him in the back but that is NOT the normal or usual scenario. If you shoot someone in the back you have to come up with a plausible scenario in which this person was _threatening_ you despite _facing away_ from you. Seriously, is the guy throwing crap at you _backward_ over his shoulder? Pointing the barrel of a gun at you while facing the opposite direction? > > Shooting people in the back is bad because it’s damn hard to make a case that someone facing away from you is a threat. It’s not _impossible_, but damn unlikely. > > This shouldn’t require a statute to comprehend, just common sense. So you don’t have a cite to show that location of the wounds is codified in law? Didn’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![Jolly\_Roger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/91b2a8/32.png) [@Jolly\_Roger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jolly_Roger)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/169 "2009-01-20T21:19:51Z")
I’m renting now, but when I buy a house when I retire I’m getting a dog. One that wil be trained to attack on command. Or a jack russell terrier that will be trained to just make a racket to scare off the intruder. Or at least be a distraction while I get a blunt object to use, or a bow. I don’t actually want a gun in the house and the wife is against it anyway. I do have a crossbow but it doesn’t work. A burglar breaking in here would be an idiot anyway. theres nothing in here worth anything that can be carried out easily and surely not without making a helluva din. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/170 "2009-01-20T21:38:19Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Why didn’t you shoot to kill when you shot? Why did you fire a warning shot instead? > > . Because it WAS a warning shot and I was in no emminent danger. But it did get the message across quit well. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/171 "2009-01-20T21:41:34Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > So you don’t have a cite to show that location of the wounds is codified in law? Didn’t think so. I never claimed it was codified in law. You’re the one who came up with that. Location of wounds can be significant in forensic investigations in ascertaining what occurred during a fight. Guilt and innocence at murder trials is decided by non-lawyers. The notion that if it isn’t written down in black and white it doesn’t exist is a mindset owned by lawyers and sheltered entities. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/172 "2009-01-20T21:46:08Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Because it WAS a warning shot and I was in no emminent danger. > > But it did get the message across quit well. So you read his tells and discerned that you didn’t need to kill him? ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/173 "2009-01-20T21:52:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Location of wounds can be significant in forensic investigations in ascertaining what occurred during a fight. Yes, that’s true. Their presence on the front or back is not, alone, going to determine whether a shooting was justifiable. Ayoob, mentioned upthread, has addressed this in his books and articles. Hence my statement: if the shooting was justified, it won’t matter where the wounds are. If the shooting was unjustified, it won’t matter where the wounds are. Your own story about the crossbow makes a further point: if self-defense with lethal force is justified, it doesn’t matter what your weapon was. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/174 "2009-01-20T21:58:05Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > So you read his tells and discerned that you didn’t need to kill him? I think the point was to display his own…tells in a very blatant way, so as to help the suspect read his…tells. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/175 "2009-01-20T22:00:11Z")
> [@Cuckoorex](#): > > I think the point was to display his own…tells in a very blatant way, so as to help the suspect read his…tells. Right, but he made the choice based on available information. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/176 "2009-01-20T22:04:58Z")
**mswas** , for someone who claims an ability to read…tells, you seemed awfully quick to characterize gun owners as trigger-happy closeted would-be murderers just ITCHING for a chance to shoot someone. Maybe your…tell-reading abilities aren’t quite as polished as you think. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/177 "2009-01-20T22:06:36Z")
> [@Cuckoorex](#): > > **mswas** , for someone who claims an ability to read…tells, you seemed awfully quick to characterize gun owners as trigger-happy closeted would-be murderers just ITCHING for a chance to shoot someone. Maybe your…tell-reading abilities aren’t quite as polished as you think. No, that’s just you projecting some nonsense that I never said. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/178 "2009-01-20T22:09:03Z")
> [@Cuckoorex](#): > > I think the point was to display his own…tells in a very blatant way, so as to help the suspect read his…tells. Of course if the suspect had been a tell reading retard or had misread the tells, then mrwas would now be dead and not here to pontificate on the glory of tells. ---
**Author:** ![spike404](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@spike404](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spike404)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/179 "2009-01-20T22:14:17Z")
Reading “tells”, and reading Tarot cards—both hokum. But especially so at night; no light to see by. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/180 "2009-01-20T22:15:50Z")
> [@spike404](#): > > Reading “tells”, and reading Tarot cards—both hokum. But especially so at night; no light to see by. It’s funny considering that the common explanation for why Tarot cards and psychics are hokum is because of ‘Cold Reading’, otherwise known as ‘Reading Tells’. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060.md?page=10)