Ok, if I shouldn't _shoot_ the intruder, then...?

[mswas]

@Odesio

What does honor have to do with it? It’s not a game.

That’s why honor is important. Honor isn’t important in a game.

[Todderbob]

@razncain

I’ve also been told that if you shoot them, you really don’t want to just wing ‘em, but shoot to kill.

Always shoot to kill.

If you use a firearm in self defense, you’re using lethal force whether they die or not. You need to end the threat as quickly and efficiently as possible.

[Huerta88]

@razncain

My laws in Texas are different than yours, but this is how some of my friends, some of them cops, who may or may not know have explained it to me.

It seems the magic words in most states that don’t have the castle law, are, “you feared for your life.” You’ll need that and a sympathetic jury that will believe you.

Your laws are more kind to you than you know. Your state permits broad use of deadly force in defense of both personal safety and even property. The only thing “new” about them, AFAICT, is that relatively recently they were amended to make clear that there was no “duty to retreat” before using otherwise-justified force.

See, e.g.:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

---

Sec. 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.

[carnivorousplant]

@Todderbob

Always shoot to kill.

OF course; but the other side of that is that the law will assume anytime you shoot you intended to kill.

[Huerta88]

@carnivorousplant

OF course; but the other side of that is that the law will assume anytime you shoot you intended to kill.

Then you may as well get your money’s worth?

[carnivorousplant]

@Huerta88

Then you may as well get your money’s worth?

No, the moral of the story is that some Perry Mason type will be after your ass even if you don’t kill the miscreant should you shoot at him.

So be sure it’s a case of having Perry rake you over the coals or being dead.

[mswas]

I’ve been robbed several times in my life. Never was home for it though. The only home invasion style robbery I’ve ever heard of was a friend of mine when his roommate had a couple pounds of marijuana worth something like $ 10k on the street. It was two guys and they kicked the door in pistols out. In that kind of situation where they’re coming for you ready to kill, well, it’s a whole other ball game.

The vast majority of you when you think of having to shoot an intruder, you’re not even thinking of a combat situation like that. You shoot the first guy and the second one takes you down.

Situations where shooting someone is appropriate are exceedingly rare.

Not only that but if you don’t go to the firing range on a regular basis, you’re probably going to miss.

[Todderbob]

@mswas

Not only that but if you don’t go to the firing range on a regular basis, you’re probably going to miss.

That’s why I go to the firing range as often as possible.
And because it’s fun.

[carnivorousplant]

@mswas

a friend of mine when his roommate had a couple pounds of marijuana worth something like $ 10k on the street.

Yeah, you gotta get rid of the pot before you call the cops. How long would it take to flush $10,000 worth of pot?

@mswas

Not only that but if you don’t go to the firing range on a regular basis, you’re probably going to miss.

Matt Helm says to point it at the bad guy and pull the trigger until it stops making noise.

[Fear_Itself]

@mswas

Heh, well, you don’t shoot a man in the back. That’s just kind of a general rule. It’s dishonorable.

But not, apparently, un-Christian:

Jury acquits pastor of shooting burglars in the back

The Big Lake preacher who shot and killed two men he caught burglarizing his church was acquitted of all charges Monday.

A jury of five men and seven women deliberated a day and half before finding the Rev. Phillip Mielke, 44, not guilty on four counts of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.
…

He fired twice at the men, hitting both in the back, and then kept shooting as one fled the church.
…

He never got a good look at the intruders before firing and then continued to fire at one man as he ran away.

[mswas]

@carnivorousplant

Yeah, you gotta get rid of the pot before you call the cops. How long would it take to flush $10,000 worth of pot?

Well they didn’t call the cops at all, the guys got away with the pot.

Matt Helm says to point it at the bad guy and pull the trigger until it stops making noise.

Matt Helm is probably going to go away when he unloads a full clip into somebody. Isn’t there a certain point where the violence becomes excessive?

Fear Itself Since when does Christ go by what a Jury hands down?

[spike404]

@mswas

I’ve been robbed several times in my life. Never was home for it though. The only home invasion style robbery I’ve ever heard of was a friend of mine when his roommate had a couple pounds of marijuana worth something like $ 10k on the street. It was two guys and they kicked the door in pistols out. In that kind of situation where they’re coming for you ready to kill, well, it’s a whole other ball game.

The vast majority of you when you think of having to shoot an intruder, you’re not even thinking of a combat situation like that. You shoot the first guy and the second one takes you down.

Situations where shooting someone is appropriate are exceedingly rare.

Not only that but if you don’t go to the firing range on a regular basis, you’re probably going to miss.

Criminals robbing/burglarizing other criminals is completely out of context. The same scenario is repeated almost daily in Mexican border towns.

What next? A scene from an old Eastwood movie?

[mswas]

@spike404

Criminals robbing/burglarizing other criminals is completely out of context. The same scenario is repeated almost daily in Mexican border towns.

What next? A scene from an old Eastwood movie?

The point is that you’re unlikely to face a home invasion where someone has intent to kill unless they are there for a specific purpose. They are unlikely to have a specific purpose if you’re not a criminal.

[Odesio]

@mswas

That’s why honor is important. Honor isn’t important in a game.

You still haven’t answered the question. What does honor have to do with it?

[Vox_Imperatoris]

I’m a bit confused by the Alabama law on this subject. On the one hand, this says that deadly physical force may be used to prevent robbery in any degree (among other things), but another section says that only physical force other than deadly force can be used in defense of property.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

ETA: That link didn’t work right. Here are the two relevant sections:
Section 13A-3-23
Section 13A-3-26

[Odesio]

@mswas

The vast majority of you when you think of having to shoot an intruder, you’re not even thinking of a combat situation like that. You shoot the first guy and the second one takes you down.

What makes the intruder such a combat expert compared to the homeowner?

[spike404]

@mswas

The point is that you’re unlikely to face a home invasion where someone has intent to kill unless they are there for a specific purpose. They are unlikely to have a specific purpose if you’re not a criminal.

What a bunch of hooie!

[mswas]

@Odesio

What makes the intruder such a combat expert compared to the homeowner?

There are two of them and their guns are already drawn and pointed in people’s faces. It’s called, ‘initiative’. They get a +5 modifier for surprise.

[spike404]

mswas,

How many firearm showdowns have you been involved with?

Zero. I suspect.

Internet bravery is rampant!

[Odesio]

@mswas

There are two of them and their guns are already drawn and pointed in people’s faces. It’s called, ‘initiative’. They get a +5 modifier for surprise.

Oh yeah. I took your statement out of context and replied to it. You’re right about one thing. Situations where it’s appropriate to shoot someone are exceedingly rare. Thank goodness for that.
Odesio