By individual application, I refer to average people acting on their own, rather than the government doing it for them.
Case: Person breaks into your home with the stated intention of killing you. You shoot him. Are you justified morally or legally?
Case: Person breaks into your home. You walk in. You see the burglar taking your stuff. The burglar sees you with a TVRT* and tries to run. You shoot him. Are you justified morally or legally?
*Trespasser Vitality Readjustment Tool
And, the kicker. Person breaks into your home. Could be a person who needs a place to stay or bread for his starving child, could be Dr. Lector. You don’t know. Are you justified in shooting him?
IANAL, and I’m a moral relativist, so my answers aren’t that helpful. But, I say that it is moral in the first and third instances.
What’s that? Something new for only two payments of $19.95 plus shipping & handling?
It would be helpful if you clarified whether it’s shoot to kill or shoot to temporarily disable the offender. There’s a big difference between the two.
‘…at the time you acted, you must have honestly and reasonably believed that you were in danger of being killed, seriously injured, or forcibly sexually penetrated.’
Granted, this is not a quote from a ‘law’ per se, but from the bullet-points (hahah!) on a MI-distributed pamphlet.
So in case #1, you would be justified, IMHO.
In case #2, you had best apply the the ‘3S’ principle (Shoot, Shovel, and Shutup), since bodily harm/death/rape did not appear to be at stake.
From my understanding, the use of a firearm always constitutes ‘deadly force’, whether it actually is deadly or not.
That ‘shoot him in the leg’ crap is for TV-land only. In all of my firearms classes, we are taught to aim for center-mass. (Hitting which can be difficult enough under adverse conditions, much less a flailing limb). In theory, you shoot until the threat is removed.
Chosen Whites, my friend. Are you personally justified in defending your person while under imminent threat? No sane man would deny this. Your property? Well, a capitalista would say yes, a moralist/humanist or socialist no.
When does deadly force become necessary? Only, in the opinion of the humanist/pacifist, when it is itself threatened -and even then, only rarely. A good man will stand up for what he believes in, a great man will let himself be torn down for what he believes in.
IANAL-and I don’t know of a federal law.I think it depends on the state.Some states have a “doorway/threshold” type zone.If the robber/assaulter is inside that zone,it’s justifiable homicide (if the person is indeed dead from the shot/blow,whatever.) and justifiable in any case under law if only wounded to any degree.
The only case I remember reading about in the papers that went to trial in one of the home invasion type scenarios,was because the victim chased the perpetator down the block and kept on shooting.
After reading responses posted while I was typing,I wasn’t considering any moral issues,only legal.I can’t tell which you were looking for from the post.
Case #3 could be a litle sticky in a court of law,and morally,depending on the circumstances you encountered meeting the homeless traveler.
My opinion. I will use deadly force to protect myself or another from death or serious injury as a last resort. If I see someone beating some other person senseless with a tire iron, I would not shoot first necessarily, but that would be an option. If someone is running at me swinging a tire iron, with the understandable intent to kill me or harm me very badly, I yell first, then I shoot. If someone breaks into my home, I would not automatically shoot, but if they continue to approach me or a loved one with understandable intent to do harm, I shoot. I may or may not yell, don’t know. Stated intent does not automatically mean I shoot, if the guy does not have a weapon, and is not aggressive, I wait.
Were I ever to shoot at a person, I would shoot to kill them. But if I were ever to destroy a human life, I want to be damned sure it was really necessary.
Yes, both morally and legally. Unless I could stop them some other way, but that would be unlikely if their intent was killing me.
**I would say no, morally. I would only use my firearm to defend someone. But here in Tennessee, if someone is in your house there is an assumed threat of death or serious bodily harm, and you would be justified in shooting him/her.
**
Legally in TN, yes. Morally, I would only do it if I thought there was a threat to my life or my family.
The distinction is irrelevant. It’s foolish to “shoot to wound”. Under a stressful situation like that, even a skilled marksman would have a hard time shooting strictly to wound.
Once a barrier has been crossed that justifies the use of the weapon, that weapon should then be used to disable the target in the most efficient way possible - center mass.
As far as my opinions on the issue: Case one, definitely, case two, probably not, case three: if someone was in my house and I couldn’t determine the intent, but they had the capability to inflict harm (ie they were 5 feet away when I stumbled across them), use of force would be justified.
Anyone in my home with unknown intentions that poses a threat would be assumed to have negative intentions. If I weren’t in immeadiate danger, I might try to ascertain the motive, but if I were in danger, I’d likely shoot.
Cops usally have to have a damn good reason for shooting a fleeing suspect and usally they get a shitload of flak even if they do, so if he’s running I’ll let him go. If he’s coming at me when he sees me with a gun, I’m going to assume he plans to deprive me of both my weapon, and my life, in that order (Of course, if he’s stumbling around, I’d assume a more benign intent, but am going to be very wary. Particular if he tries to grab for something) and take the nessacary steps. Yelling a warning if he’s coming very slow, and then firing at least one round of buckshot into his torso if he’s trying to rush me(A running man can cover a suprising amount of ground extremely quickly. This is the reason the cops consider the safe distance from a knife-wielding suspect 21 feet, because 21 feet can be covered in 3 seconds or less by a running man).
Depends on the state. Usually lethal force is justified in defense of a life, great bodily harm, or to protect property.
Louisianna also recently passed a law specifically permitting the shooting and killing of car-jackers.
It used to be ok in Texas to shoot any man having sex with your wife, since any Texan woman would be assumed to be being raped if she was found in such a situation - dont know if that Texas ruling still exists though.
On the other hand, in Massachusetts, you must flee, even from your own home if attacked or threatened. A Massachuetts mother defending her 3 children, was recently convicted after an attacker broke thru a locked storm door, a locked front door, a locked basement door, and then she shot him in the basement(the court ruled she could have pushed out her 3 kids thru a basement window, and she could have also climbed out basement window and avoided killing the attacker.
However, in most states, after the police arrive, whatever the exact circumstances of the situtation it was which caused the shooting of an attacker, is told only by the person defending herself or himself, since the attacker cannot talk anymore. A dead attacker found in your home with a knife in his hands, is usually a clear case of self-defense in most states.
In most states, you cannot shoot someone who is fleeing, even if he has your stuff in his hands.
Even in those states that allow shooting to defend your property, if he “already” has your property, you are not shooting him to “protect” your property anymore, rather, you are illegally shooting him to “get back” your property.
Some states also take into account the “escalation of the situation”, and your part in how it escalated, including Florida.
If you are being beaten up, as the original crime, and the attackers had no original intention of going beyond just beating you up, and it later escalates to your life being threatened because of how you defended yourself, then you could also be guilty of murdering your attackers because it was you that caused the criminals to escalate the crime from just a beating, to one of your life being threatened. A disheartening example of such a victim convicted of shooting someone who was beating him up, and ended up with his own life being threatened, was in the Florida ccw booklet from 2 years ago.
If you ever have to kill someone defending your life, and you live in the United States, you have the Bill of Rights.
In general, it is much better if you have your attorney present your statement to the police as far as what happened.
A good attorney can say what you want to say, without you inadvertently incriminating yourself of some obscure law, just because you did something to defend your life.