Hey Bloke, shoot a burgler yesterday?

[Mudman]

Bloke,

I heard that a burgler was shot in your neighborhood yesterday. I was told that two burglers backed a van into a garage and were cleaning out the storage room. The owner came home and shot one as they were fleeing. Got any more details?

I thought that one could only use deadly force to meet a deadly threat.

Memphis must now be a free fire zone!

[Joe Baker]

Bloke,

I heard that a burgler was shot in your neighborhood yesterday. I was told that two burglers backed a van into a garage and were cleaning out the storage room. The owner came home and shot one as they were fleeing. Got any more details?

I thought that you could only use deadly force to meet a deadly threat.

Memphis must now be a free fire zone!

Thank goodness, you are mistaken. The laws are different from state to state -- and in some insanely liberal states you may even be right -- but as far as I'm aware, there is no state that prohibits the use of deadly force if someone is (a) on your property without invitation and (b) in the process of committing a felony. There ARE some states where it's illegal to shoot someone WHILE THEY ARE FLEEING, or AFTER THEY'VE LEFT YOUR PROPERTY. But if you get them before they have a chance to run, you can prevent someone else from becoming their victim another day. I consider the risk of getting your butt shot a far better deterrent than the risk of getting probation, deferred adjudication, community service, or any of the other seemingly endless slaps on the wrist that criminals get ON THE RARE OCCASION THAT THEY ARE CAUGHT.
_________________________
Joe Baker, who will, in general, be glad to buy a beer for someone who shoots a burglar.

[Mudman]

Just curious as to the details as it hits close to home.

My friend in Memphis had her house broken into a few weeks ago. There have been four or five burglaries on her street in the past couple of months. The weekly Midtown paper even has a map showing burglaries, assaults and other crimes?! It doesn't seem like a bad place to live, but the map makes one think.

On one hand, a shooting like this could be a deterrent to robbers who are rarely caught. Protecting life and family do take priority over any letter of the law.

On the other hand, if it happens to be some dumb kids stealing, it would be a drag if they were to get blown away for mere stupidity.

ps. it was a late night last night (looking at the time of that post
Up playing the 184 and wishing I were a better player.

[Chuck(G)]

The laws here state that property owners can only use deadly force if they are in fear of bodily harm.

Out here, that seems to mean that if the perp is carrying a cellphone or Magic Marker, you can shoot him/her. In both recent cases, the investigation ruled that the shooter (another cop) was justified.

Not that I can really blame the cops much. Their budget (and that of the local/state prosecutors) has been cut several times; so even they aren't feeling too safe nowadays.

[Tom Mason]

This opens up a seemingly big can of worms, until you answer the following questions:

1. Is protecting property worth killing someone over?
2. Is protecting the lives of family or others worth killing for?
3. Can you live with the consequences with pulling the trigger?
4. Can you live with the consequences of pulling the trigger and missing the target; possibly injuring or killing a non-intended target?

Many of the laws allowing a property owner to shooot those who threatened property stem from the times when property was not as protected legally from the transfer of ownership through less than legal means. In this, we are talking about land speculation, gold rush times, and large farming operations where someone could go and kill everyone on the farm and take possesion of large tracts of land.

On the other hand, we see a decline in the respect of life; especially when people will kill for $5.00 and a new pen.

If you can answer those 4 questions correctly, then maybe you have what it takes to carry and use a handgun, IMHO. In response to Bloke's quotation of me, I have said that police might find handy the "Red Handed" law. If we could drive up to the scene, and film the crime in process, then we could skip the court scene and send someone straight to prision. What do you think?

Tom Mason

[Joe Baker]

No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

I know where you're coming from, and you're probably not really serious about it, but:
1. Who will judge the video?
2. How would you protect against entrapment?
3. With modern video editing techniques, how do you prevent outright fabrication of video?

But to respond to someone's comments about when force should be used, particularly by the police: my brother was a policeman that "waited to be sure". At the age of 24, he was brutally murdered, leaving behind a 3-year-old daughter and a wife who was expecting his second child -- because he happened to approach a couple who were arguing, having just left a "non-violent" burglary. I understand that the grief of a person whose loved one is wrongly killed by the police is just as real as ours is, but the police are charged with a task that cannot possibly be done without sometimes making mistakes. When the officer has tried his best to make the right choice, and is just wrong, is it really right to throw him in the slammer for 25 years? Each of should ask: if I make a mistake at work, would I feel it was justified to be sent to prison?

Me? I don't own a gun, but with every passing day I get closer to getting one -- and I'm VERY close right now.
________________________________
Joe Baker, who thinks violence is justified when someone tries to deprive me of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

[Rick Denney]

This opens up a seemingly big can of worms, until you answer the following questions:

1. Is protecting property worth killing someone over?
2. Is protecting the lives of family or others worth killing for?
3. Can you live with the consequences with pulling the trigger?
4. Can you live with the consequences of pulling the trigger and missing the target; possibly injuring or killing a non-intended target?

These are serious questions, but I don't think they are unanswerable. Was that your point?

The problem with the distinction between 1 and 2 is that it is a distinction that is easy to make only after the fact. When a person is breaking down the door, it's hard to know if they want the TV so bad they are willing to kill for it. When they are escaping with stuff and realize they've been seen, it's hard to know whether what they are reaching for is their car keys or the means by which they will eliminate a witness. There is always room for some doubt unless you wait until it is too late to respond, and that's why I think any benefit of the doubt should go to the person who was not in the middle of committing a crime when the shooting took place.

Your third question is a personal one. In my case, the answer would be an unequivocal YES. Anybody who puts me in the position of using a gun has already threatened my life in ways I would not have provoked. If I could not asnwer the question affirmatively, I would not own a gun. That is a legitimate position for people to take and I hold nothing against those who do.

Using a gun in ways that avoids injury to the innocent is one of the responsibilities of having it. With freedom comes responsibility, and I'm a big believer in responsibility. If I accidentally killed someone through my own carelessness or lack of training, then I would expect to be held responsible. That's why I would not shoot at a shadowy figure against an undiscernably dark background. That's why I keep a shotgun for protection rather than a high-powered pistol (though I have those for when a shotgun is too unwieldy). Shotguns won't kill people a half mile away. Again, this is an answerable question.

I support the right to own guns, but I also demand of gun owners, including myself, responsible behavior in their use.

But, again, any benefit of the doubt should always go to the person who was not committing the crime, but that is a concept not universally accepted.

Rick "who thinks Joe Baker's description is true in all too few states" Denney

[Tom Mason]

Is that many people will second guess those of us who will answer those four questions in a manner that would suggest that we are confortable carrying and using a weapon. If a person puts thought beforehand in those questions; and will plan for those eventualities, then they are more responsible and will handle themselves accordingly, IMHO.

In law enforcement, we are taught to imagine scenerios that involve the use of dealy force, and try to work our way through them in a manner that would at one time involve shooting, and in a nother time trying to find another way out. In doing this, we try to plan our actions, and not have to try to think our way through a deadly situation while it happens. While this isn't foolproof, it dies prepare an officer for the time when they have to act in a second's notice.

As part of my personal training, I go through a scerio in my mind involving a prowler beraking and entering my house. I think my way slowly through the following:

1. point of entrance
2. possible intentions of suspect (theft, assault, ect....)
3. possible hostage situations/kidnapping
4. directions where I can and can't shoot (location of kid's rooms, my own room, how many walls between the suspect and those rooms
5. avenues of cover and concealment for myself and suspect
6. More than one suspect? or one suspect and one or more family members in line of fire?

I also think of scenerios covering traffic stops, serving warrants, checking students at school, and others.

The point is this: Are you confortable with the decision to either carry and use or not to carry and use the firearm. Tied to this is are you confortable taking a life in certain situations. IMHO, if you decide to carry or use the firearm, be sure and be trained. If you can not make the decision to act or not to act, then don't carry or use the firearm. Same with the taking of the life by other means.

For Joe, I have the utmost respect for you and your brother's loss. After 12 years on the force so far, I have had to help send a few of my fallen bretheren to their final rest. My worst one was a sergeant who was shot while serving a misdemeanor warrant. The officer's brother, another sergeant was injured in the incident. I had the duty of guarding the suspect in his trial. Talk about having to do one's duty while watching the family of you friend. I blow taps for his memorial service every year, no matter what.

I'm not really as mean as I sound sometimes. I guess that I have been in some very dangerous situations, and my opinions are sometimes rough.

Tom Mason

[jon112780]

How's the perp going to sue you for what he 'claims' is needless use of force if he's dead? :twisted:
Chances are if he dosen't get what he wants, he'll be back- not for your stuff, but for you; and then he'll help himself to you posessions. :shock:
In some countries in the middle east, they cut off your hand if you are caught taking property that dosen't belong to you (stealing!!!). :cry: I'm not saying this policy should be adopted, but if there were stiffer punishments, less crimes would be committed.

Bottom line, if you ARE going to shoot- shoot to kill. One shot one kill, and don't carry it if you aren't prepared to use it.

[ThomasDodd]

but as far as I'm aware, there is no state that prohibits the use of deadly force if someone is (a) on your property without invitation and (b) in the process of committing a felony. There ARE some states where it's illegal to shoot someone WHILE THEY ARE FLEEING, or AFTER THEY'VE LEFT YOUR PROPERTY. But if you get them before they have a chance to run, you can prevent someone else from becoming their victim another day.

"If they fall out the door, drag-em back in before you call"

Had several cop tell me that over the years in Miss., Tenn., and Texas.

[MikeW]

<content removed>
As pointed out to me in a PM, I totally screwed up the quote structure when I posted this, and I should not have replied anyway because it is an old post that got bumped recently by some unrelated traffic.

Apologies to all (especially to Tom Mason for the mis-quote) and I will try to remember to check dates more thoroughly in future.

[jon112780]

Is your life being threatened?

Just aim center of mass and fire until the threat is stopped, reload as needed. Tell the responding officer "I would love to cooperate with the police, but I'll have to speak to my attorney first."

Prepare for them to submit your firearm as evidence, while you will possibly be handcuffed and arrested.

Prepare to spend the night in lockup.

Laws vary depending on the state; know them for where you live.

Is it worth it to you?

There is no other country I'd rather live in, or be a citizen of.

God Bless the USA

[deputysgttuba]

My 20 year old son just announced his intent to acquire a concealed handgun permit when he turns 21. I immediately informed him that, even though he has had the mandated training for getting it, his education was just starting. He has to show me that his skills in avoidance of conflict and tactical self awareness are sufficient before I provide him a carry handgun. He is a level headed kid. I think he will pass the test.

[bort]

Good for him! But with all due respect, if your son is 20 years old, you really don't have any say over what he does and when. Of course, if you are talking about his usage of your firearms, then that's different.

[bort]

Well, I don't see it as a "good" parent/child thing, just that at some point, people are just going to do what they're doing to do. It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission, right?

[Kevin Hendrick]

Well, I don't see it as a "good" parent/child thing, just that at some point, people are just going to do what they're doing to do. It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission, right?

Asking and getting are not-at-all the same thing ... something many seem to forget.