Not a county with favorable defense laws for sure. Here is a bit more from another source:
I’m sure the DA could file charges but I couldn’t find that they have done so.
Yes when I read that, I was thinking the same thing. Even with what the cop said, the burglar had a large stick, how could the homeowner know that? But still, I don’t think the threat to bodily harm was immediate, at least not quite immediate.
This is a tough situation, jury trial wise, and I wish the homeowner well. The homeowner’s legal costs might well run over $100,000 here.
There’s UK precedent for mistaking a stick for a firearm in poor light.
There’s UK precedent for mistaking a lot of things for a firearm in a poor light - sticks, phones, table legs, etc. Particularly if the holder of such items…has personal characteristics that make him harder to see in poor light as well. But I digress.
I would hope that if the owner gave fair warning and the intruder continued to attempt to forcibly enter the house, the state (or county or whomever) would decline to prosecute but of course such things must be investigated to ascertain the facts of the matter.
IANAL. Homeowner may be alright. From http://handgunlaw.us/states/maryland.pdf:
It’s forcible entry with a prybar - continuing to break in after being warned. That fact pattern is a good shoot in any jurisdiction in the US.
In other news, Cops: Cocoa store owner shoots 1 robbery suspect; 2 others arrested
DGU with no deaths. 3v1 and the one prevailed, though one of the robbers appears to be the getaway driver.
How does one aim a firearm at someone who is already pointing one at you and not get shot instead?
It is very easy to miss with a pistol, even at close range. Just ask Aaron Burr.
You move quickly and decisively. Often, the fellow pointing the gun at you will be conditioned by TV and movies into believing you are absolutely in his power because he is pointing a gun at you. He isn’t expecting anything other than fear and obedience out of you. He may be surprised enough to hesitate or fire hastily and miss. This is where our old friends practice and training pay off. If you’ve learned and practiced drawing smoothly and placing your shot, you may well prevail.
Oops I meant Alexander Hamilton. Didn’t he shoot and miss before being killed by Aaron Burr? Rhetorical question, really. Not important. The main thing is that with a pistol it is so easy to move your wrist while pulling the trigger that you miss a target even 5’ away.
Really now? I hope you are correct. Again IANAL (and IANAE) but in California I am not sure that shooting someone through a closed front door, even after the screen door has been pried open. How does the resident inside the front door know that screen door was pried open? I don’t think s/he could see that it was. I am not sure that a jury of my peers would call that a reasonable use of deadly force. I believe the shooter, if this was California, would have to wait until the front door was breeched and the intruder started entering - that is when the threshhold has been breeched.
And even at that point, some jurors might not see the shooter’s fear of harm being a reasonable use of deadly force.
Again I hope you are right here. I need to brush up on California law.
I am a gun owner and a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, and a strong believer in self defense, but I have to say I don’t disagree. I cannot easily imagine shooting through a closed exterior door, obviously not knowing who is on the other side and what exactly is going on. I think I would move as far away as I could while still being able to see the exterior door, and hold my gun ready to shoot if the intruder gets inside. I’m not saying the resident should be charged, let alone tried in court, but I’m a bit uneasy about the situation.
Of course a jury can decide - and the 58 different district attorneys in CA can interpret the law differently, but here is the relevant penal code:
197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
…
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner,** to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence** to any
person therein; or,
[/quote]
A bare fear of the above is not sufficient - the circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and the party killing must have acted under the influence of such fears alone.
Once a person has forcibly entered a residence, then the resident is presumed to have had the fear to meet the requirement in section 198.
Man i screwed up that quote. At least the link works. I too would be uneasy to shoot through a door without visibility to the target. Rule 4 and all. Though it’s not clear if the person was visible through the door - could be translucent, security cameras, etc.
Roughly 15 years ago I was renting the second floor of a house. The only way in or out was through a door and up the stairs to my “apartment”.
One summer day I was home alone, with the downstairs door open but the screen-door locked, for ventilation. A man began banging on my door. I, not expecting anyone, ignored him. He began screaming and kicking at the door. I realized if he broke through the door I had no way out, other than jumping out a window.
I got my gun and called the local police. I told the dispatcher what was going on and asked that she alert the responding officer that I was armed and planned on shooting in self defense if it came to that.
Then I cautiously walked 3/4 of the way down my stairs until I could see the guy. I yelled and he saw that I was pointing my gun at him. I told him the cops were on their way, but that if he breached the door I would empty my gun into him. That made him stop and think, but then he began wrenching the door again, yelling that he just wanted to talk with her.
The cops arrived and cuffed him. Turns out he was drunk and thought some woman he was seeing lived at my address. The cop told me he thought I handled the situation appropriately.
A similar situation happened just a few months ago to a family friend. The friend is a 25 year old woman who lives alone. She owns a pistol and has practiced with it, with her dad. She was at home one night and someone started banging loudly at the door, turning the door knob and yelling. She grabbed her pistol and shouted through the door for the person to leave, and that she had a gun. They continued yelling and trying to get in. Our friend called 911 and said someone was forcibly trying to break into her townhouse, and that she would shoot if they got in. She continued to shout for the person to leave. Thankfully, the guy never got in, and she never fired a shot.
The cops showed up fairly quickly, and it turns out it was a very drunk guy who had the wrong townhouse. He thought he was trying to get into his own unit and was yelling for his roommate. My friend was very shaken and very upset, and told the cop if the guy had broken in she would have shot him. The cop told her she would have been entirely in the right to do so.
Another situation where shooting through the door would have been a very bad thing to do, even if possibly lawful on the part of the resident. Unfortunately, determining who is a harmless drunk and who is a crazed, dangerous intruder isn’t easy. I haven’t gotten a chance to talk with this young lady about the incident, but was told about it by her mother.
A similar situation happened to a business associate. In California, Santa Clara County. Late at night, her husband out of town, her 5yo daughter asleep in the bedroom. Loud knocking on the door, and she’s not expecting anyone.
I don’t have complete details - not wanting to pry (much), business associate and not a close friend, etc - but what appears to have happened is that she gets her pistol, moves to the front door and stands about 10-15 feet away, pistol at the ready, locked and cocked and pointed down 45°, and she is ready to identify then shoot in case the person enters. The man is banging on the door and shouting loudly to let him in. She looks quickly through the peep hole, she doesn’t recognize him and he’s holding a cell phone to his ear, and she returns to her ready position.
The man is now yelling, “What do you mean you can’t hear me knocking? I’m right here at your door!” Presumably on the phone.
A little later the ruckus stops. The guy leaves. Apparently he had the wrong address. She was ready to shoot if needed, if he entered. She did not have time to get her phone.
Fortunately, DG at the ready, not used, not needed.
As I understand it, he didn’t miss, but it was either a misfire (pulled the trigger too early?) or else he intentionally fired away from Burr, as was custom during some duels when you had no intention of harming the other person but didn’t want to back out.
I don’t know the rule in general, but there is nothing special about CA despite their gun laws. It is actually a Castle doctrine state. I do believe that other people have done similar and not been charged.
I am glad that it worked out, but it is possibly a violation of the 4th rule.
If he has a crowbar, breaking into the house, open the door and say, “Come on in, Mother Fucker!”
One must be legal before one shoots someone.
Clicks on ‘LIKE’ button