if some one breaks in leagally what do you have to do

[9rows]

Why does being afraid make legal self-defense more acceptable? I do not understand how an action is more acceptable because of fear. Because one person is ******** their pants during an encounter due them having a cowardly soul, they are justified in using lethal force? But someone else in the same situation who is able to control their fears would not be as justified?

I like it that we don't have to retreat in this state, and I don't want to pretend I was scared if I was not. If I was scared I would prefer to hide it. If someone comes breaking into the house I fully intend to demonstrate wrath in such a way as that person has never seen. Let the criminal bastard be scared.

i don't know

but i will take the advice of someone who has sat on the bench for 20+ years and seen literally every type of gun related case come through her court room

ymmv

 

[Coach]

i don't know

but i will take the advice of someone who has sat on the bench for 20+ years and seen literally every type of gun related case come through her court room

ymmv

Not going to run. Not going to hide. Not going to pretend even for public relations sake. I'm going to do everything possible to make sure my family and I are around to answer questions and not some scum bag. I will answer to the Lord for my actions, and everyone else in authority can kiss my ass.

 

[waloidian]

i guess its great to be so confident in being the tough guy in a home invasion where shots are fired. I have a family member and a friend that served in wars, and they can admit that they were quite scared when they had to confront an armed intruder.

 

[ATM]

Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear - not absence of fear.

~Mark Twain

 

[Jay]

No one that has not already been in a shooting situation knows what they will or will not do. Virtually all service members wonder how they will perform when the time comes. Bluster all you want, but you won't know what you'll do until you get there.

 

[Cornbread]

The best weapon for home defense is a shotgun. The are several reasons. It gives you a second option if your not inclined to wait for them to actually enter your house (Nothing says hello like racking a shotgun round as they are attempting to gain entry). Your drywall should prevent most collateral damage. Finally you don't have to be a sharp shooter to be effective.
The type of weapon has nothing to do with prosecution for shooting the burglar (no such thing as overkill, dead is dead) however you do have some responsibilty for rounds that may strike your neighbors kid sleeping in their bed. An AR should be an option only if you have no other.

I agree, Not trying to make anyone mad or put anyone down but A shotgun will make up for a lot of panic. It is easy to say what and how you would act until you are actually in the situation. About a year ago I was awaken to a noise in my front room. When I went to see what to trouble was. I caught a man coming in my window. The sound of my jacking a shell in my pump shotgun stopped him cold. I held him half in and half out of my house until police took him away. I have sence moved.

 

[quicksdraw]

No one that has not already been in a shooting situation knows what they will or will not do. Virtually all service members wonder how they will perform when the time comes. Bluster all you want, but you won't know what you'll do until you get there.

I have to agree with Jay. I think I would be able to take the intruder out as he is a threat to my family, but until it happens, I just don't KNOW what I will do.

 

[schwaky18]

Why does being afraid make legal self-defense more acceptable? I do not understand how an action is more acceptable because of fear. Because one person is ******** their pants during an encounter due them having a cowardly soul, they are justified in using lethal force? But someone else in the same situation who is able to control their fears would not be as justified?

I like it that we don't have to retreat in this state, and I don't want to pretend I was scared if I was not. If I was scared I would prefer to hide it. If someone comes breaking into the house I fully intend to demonstrate wrath in such a way as that person has never seen. Let the criminal bastard be scared.

Its not more acceptable. But when you are being judged by 12 and some of them are "brady" types, looking scared will make you lawyer's job a hell of alot easier. I wouldn't be scared either, maybe a little shaken because I just took another person's life. But first thing I would say to the cops is "I was scared for my life, I would like to help you with your investigation but I want to speak with my attorney first." There I created my case by saying I was scared for my life so now not only did I meet the castle doc. but also the self defense statute. And I have lawyered up.

Its not the point of being scared or the fact you don't need to be scared to protect your home. It about creating a bulletproof case. Unloading a gun and then running away screaming would make a pretty good case that you were in fear for your life. Anything I could do to save me the trouble and having to justify myself in court is fine by me.

 

[GetA2J]

Why does being afraid make legal self-defense more acceptable? I do not understand how an action is more acceptable because of fear. Because one person is ******** their pants during an encounter due them having a cowardly soul, they are justified in using lethal force? But someone else in the same situation who is able to control their fears would not be as justified?

I like it that we don't have to retreat in this state, and I don't want to pretend I was scared if I was not. If I was scared I would prefer to hide it. If someone comes breaking into the house I fully intend to demonstrate wrath in such a way as that person has never seen. Let the criminal bastard be scared.

Coach, The term "I was afraid for my life" is nothing more than a trigger for "brady types" and criminal attornys to grasp that you felt like you had no other option than to use deadly force.
Example: A criminal breaks into your house with a ball bat. You could easily disarm him and detain him until police arrive but because the scum bag broke into your house and threatened your family you clicked off the safety and put a couple shells worth of 00Buck into the home invader and the police were just picking up a body bag.
The use of force was justified in the state of indiana but because you say to the police investigators and detectives, that you were never once scared for your life you just took the shot because the scum was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The criminal defense attorney gets wind of this while reading some deposition and in an effort to represent the family of the deceased charges you with "excessive use of force". Stating that you had already mentioned that you were NOT afraid for your life and could have easliy overtook the perp.
6 of the twelve jurors are "brady" types and the other 6 are spineless do gooders who simply want to go home. Coach gets to go to prison for "Involuntary manslaughter" and give up his right to own guns.

Its not more acceptable. But when you are being judged by 12 and some of them are "brady" types, looking scared will make you lawyer's job a hell of alot easier. I wouldn't be scared either, maybe a little shaken because I just took another person's life. But first thing I would say to the cops is "I was scared for my life, I would like to help you with your investigation but I want to speak with my attorney first." There I created my case by saying I was scared for my life so now not only did I meet the castle doc. but also the self defense statute. And I have lawyered up.

Its not the point of being scared or the fact you don't need to be scared to protect your home. It about creating a bulletproof case. Unloading a gun and then running away screaming would make a pretty good case that you were in fear for your life. Anything I could do to save me the trouble and having to justify myself in court is fine by me.

I understand that you are not going to lie for anyone and you don't have to be "afraid" in order to defend your home.
That said "I" would not pull the trigger unless I was "afraid" for my life or the lives of my loved ones.

 

[Jay]

A criminal breaks into your house with a ball bat. You could easily disarm him and detain him until police arrive but because the scum bag broke into your house and threatened your family you clicked off the safety and put a couple shells worth of 00Buck into the home invader and the police were just picking up a body bag.

WRONG...... ever hear of disparity of force? What about the elderly disabled? What about the 100-pound female? What about grandma?

Disarm and detain, my a$$..........

All due respect, but I'm too old to disarm and/or detain...... and I do know how I will respond to anyone breaking into my home with anything...... that action would not be the best decision they made that day.

 

[ATM]

Jay has cited the castle doctrine code more than once in this thread. If they are breaking in, you need no "scared" defense.

 

[schwaky18]

WRONG...... ever hear of disparity of force? What about the elderly disabled? What about the 100-pound female? What about grandma?

Disarm and detain, my a$$..........

All due respect, but I'm too old to disarm and/or detain...... and I do know how I will respond to anyone breaking into my home with anything...... that action would not be the best decision they made that day.

I think the point was sometimes deadly force isn't needed. Say BG broke into your house with NO WEAPON at all. Or say BG is 100-pound elderly female and you are a 25 year old male football player.

The point is the prosecution is going to use everything they can against you. So being scared for you life makes you look that much better.

Yea the castle doctrine doesn't require a scared defense, but I would still like to have it. Laywers are crafty little bastards and they could figure out a way to bring a civil suit against you even with the castle doc.

 

[Jay]

sigh......

 

[techres]

Someone breaks in your home and you take the time to do a full risk assessment analysis and we will potentially splitting whatever guns they did not get from your cold hands.

I have a wife, and kids, and a life that is mine. I knew a guy growing up, an assistant manager at a Pizza Hut that once took a hit to the head with a bat. It put him in the hospital and permanently took much of the motion from his left side like a stroke.

There is no heroism in my house at 3 am in the dark when my kids and wife are at stake. There is only protection and survival. The person gives the opportunity to follow instructions and then does so with speed and care - we both may survive the situation. Otherwise I will protect myself and my family.

We can beat a dead horse here. But there are countless cases of gun owners who have paused when they could have fired and it cost them and their families lives.

In one mall shooting years back a teenager was killing people right and left and a CCW holder got the drop on him and ordered him to drop his weapon. The kid shot him and severed his spine. The kid then went on to kill more people. The CCW later said, "he was just a kid, I did not want to shoot him."

Bat = Club. Club = Weapon of war for 1000's of years.

If there is a moment that requires decisive ferocity of will and force, pondering things like "disparity of force" and playing out legal battles may end up getting you and your family killed.

At the same time, if you are unsure of yourself legally and skill wise - drop some money on classes like the many that are taught here in the state and some by members here on the board. Do your thinking an pondering there - NOT in your PJ's facing down death in your hallway at 3 am!

 

[NEWMAN]

Deadly force is deadly force. Use a ball bat, golf club, AR-15, or 1911.

 

[flagtag]

Anyone who comes into one's home without being invited, is a threat - whether they have a "weapon" or not. Their intention is to commit a crime - the degree to be determined later, perhaps.

A person with a baseball bat is a definate threat (beyond the home invasion) and should be stopped using any means at hand.
There is a lot more that goes into a "threat" than weapons. Intent has to be considered.

I am 5'1", "senior citizen", so even a man who is - say - 5'4", young, relatively healthy, etc. could be a disasterous threat even if he didn't have a weapon of any kind. Also, consider an unarmed man of 6'2".
But, really, that doesn't matter. The simple fact that ANYONE would go into someone's home - uninvited - is a SERIOUS threat and should be treated as such, (drugs, mental problems, whatever his "reason" for the invasion) and should face the maximum protection tool.

Anyone who breaks into someone's home, while the home is occupied, has no fear, no thought of consequences (police), nothing to discourage his criminal actions. The homeowner had better be ready to defend - by any means possible - and had better be afraid of the kind of person who would do such a thing. (even if the homeowner was 6'4" and in extremely good physical shape.)

 

[flagtag]

I think the point was sometimes deadly force isn't needed. Say BG broke into your house with NO WEAPON at all. Or say BG is 100-pound elderly female and you are a 25 year old male football player.

The point is the prosecution is going to use everything they can against you. So being scared for you life makes you look that much better.

Yea the castle doctrine doesn't require a scared defense, but I would still like to have it. Laywers are crafty little bastards and they could figure out a way to bring a civil suit against you even with the castle doc.

I used to work in nursing homes. I KNOW that the elderly can (and are) extremely strong. Also if there is dementia involved, that person may actually be able to kill because of a perceived (albeit distorted) threat.
I have had my shares of black eyes, bruises, etc from the residents. And that was in a "controlled" situation.

 

[rhino]

I'd like to see this "easily disarm" thing actually happen in real life.

 

[GetA2J]

People please! My comment was intended for Coach... and to Coach only. Nobody is beating a dead horse or even a dead criminal for that matter. Coach simply state that he did NOT understand why one had to claim to be "afraid for his (her) life" to make the use of deadly force in self defense any more acceptable that simply using deadly force in self defense!
Before you all knock me down and kick me go back and re-read the posts preceding this one.

 

[techres]

People please! My comment was intended for Coach... and to Coach only. Nobody is beating a dead horse or even a dead criminal for that matter. Coach simply state that he did NOT understand why one had to claim to be "afraid for his (her) life" to make the use of deadly force in self defense any more acceptable that simply using deadly force in self defense!
Before you all knock me down and kick me go back and re-read the posts preceding this one.

WHAT?! Make comments within context? Oh, man. Way to ruin the internet...