A Gunman In Your House: What Rights Do You Have?

the_13th_redneck said:
Is there some kind of official guidline that serves as a reference to in what sort of situation what level of response is legally considered appropriate?
Click to expand...


It really depends on the totallity of circumstances in the crime. Was a weapon used, person injured, person held , person threatened, struck whatever.

As the officer I charge the highest crime Armed or strong armed robbery vs Burgalry and whatever additional crimes, armed criminal action, assault, unlawful use of a weapon etc. Then it's up to the DA to formalize charges (meaning he charges what he thinks he can win:confused:)
 
Here is a description from page 30 of the California Firearms handbook on the use of deadly force for self defense. I believe other States and Federal descriptions would be about the same. If anyone is interested in another state or Federal laws, start search with Self Defense Laws and add agency you are interested in.​


"Use of a Firearm or Other Deadly Force in Defense of Life and Body
The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the
attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person
in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person killed intended to commit
a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being
accomplished; and (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to
save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime.
Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes.
Self-Defense Against Assault
It is lawful for a person being assaulted to defend himself or herself from attack if he or she
has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that he or she will suffer
bodily injury. In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a
reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent
great bodily injury or death. An assault with fists does not justify use of a deadly weapon
in self-defense unless the person being assaulted believes, and a reasonable person in the
same or similar circumstances would also believe, that the assault is likely to inflict great
bodily injury.
It is lawful for a person who has grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that great​

bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon another to protect the victim from attack. In so
doing, the person may use such force as reasonably necessary to prevent the injury.

Deadly force is only considered reasonable to prevent great bodily injury or death.​

NOTE:
The use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal penalties.


Protecting One’s Home​

A person may defend his or her home against anyone who attempts to enter in a violent

manner intending violence to any person in the home. The amount of force that may be
used in resisting such entry is limited to that which would appear necessary to a reasonable
person in the same or similar circumstances to resist the violent entry. One is not bound to
retreat, even though a retreat might safely be made. One may resist force with force,
increasing it in proportion to the intruder’s persistence and violence, if the circumstances
apparent to the occupant would cause a reasonable person in the same or similar situation​

to fear for his or her safety."
 
Last edited:
the_13th_redneck said:
Unfortunately a lot of that is also open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct. It is also why rarely in the US, is a person prosecuted for shooting an intruder. There is to much for the District Attorneys to prove, so they don't even try and prosecute.
How can they prove a person wasn't afraid.

Like 03USMC said,
Then it's up to the DA to formalize charges (meaning he charges what he thinks he can win)."

When the law says reasonable force, the prosecutor must prove to a jury made up of citizens, that the person only broke in to use the phone and wasn't really going to harm anyone.

The person in the home only needs to say "I was afraid he was going to kill me."
The prosecutor has to prove the person in the home was not afraid for their life.

In the case of shooting a rapist, the rapist could say, "I wasn't going to harm her I have a small d**k."
The intended victim could say, "I didn't know that, I shot it off while he was reaching into his pants."

The prosecutor still has to prove the person was not in fear for her life.

You could say the victims don't want to be arrested and go to jail for shooting someone. The victims would probably say, "Better that than being dead".
Also if you kill the person breaking into your home they can't testify against you.
 
A lot depends on the Conservative/Liberal tilt of the State involved. Masaad Ayoub commented in "In the gravest extreme" that the Mass. CCW permit says "For defence of life & property" but if you used it for defence of property only, what it says & real life reality are 2 different things.
 
I noticed a lack of information available for people in areas of self-defense and legal knowledge. I asked our local police stn to consider having a newsletter available for the public. Least people would get more savvy and parents could teach their kids about it too. They never did respond. Maybe I should make a request to our gov't leaders instead. As a single mother, I get twinges of vulnerability and do my best to set my home up in the event of any sort of such intrusion. Best I can do. :confused:
 
HOME INVADER BEWARE ...

My home is in America where you have the Constitutional right to own/bear arms, and in most states, I would be justified in the taking of the life of a gunman who had invaded my home. It's called self protection of myself and my family and the invader would be considered a criminal under our laws.

Anybody who thinks the gunman has more rights than myself or my family under those conditions, can take the place of the gunman and find out what real justice is. Real justice, is the criminal paying the price for his crimes NOT INNOCENT VICTIMS of HIS crimes. You invade my home and I will blow you away before you can even blink ... the last thing you will see is the flash of a 12ga shotgun firing OO buckshot.

Some SWAT members consider the shotgun a "Street Sweeper" and I have to agree. When I ran the firing range as a Range Master, one of the demonstrations was using a pump Browning Shotgun firing OO rounds and rapid firing the weapon from the groin area, at a full silhouette target. Using the weapon that way, the target (with it's wood support), was cut in half and completely destroyed). You can imagine what would happen to a human body if that usage of the shotgun was applied to a home invader.

MY PERSONAL BELIEF AND MY PROMISE:
INVADE MY HOME, AND I WILL KILL YOU THE MINUTE I SPOT YOU AND THERE WILL BE NO WARNING.
​
 
That's not what we're questioning.
The question is: will that action result in us being put away for a good ten or twenty years behind bars?
 
Part of it is what George said, but I think even in the most liberal of states (Massachusetts as it seems to be), I think if you WERE charged with a crime, you wouldn't be convicted... It would take a heartless soul to say "I believe he responded inappropriately to that threat, he should be sent to prison."

(Granted, this is all just my personal opinion, and contains no factual information whatsoever.)
 
the_13th_redneck said:
That's not what we're questioning.
The question is: will that action result in us being put away for a good ten or twenty years behind bars?
Click to expand...

In the United States the answer is no.

Actually the original question was: A Gunman In Your House: What Rights Do You Have?
 
Last edited:
Then no it is and I'm glad that's the case.

It's a part of what rights you have.
If you have the "right" to defend yourself, with lethal force if necessary, but the result would be that you land in prison for about a decade or so, that wouldn't be much of a right to defend yourself in the event of an armed home invasion.
 
Chukpike said:
In the United States the answer is no.

Actually the original question was: A Gunman In Your House: What Rights Do You Have?
Click to expand...
And part of those rights is whether or not defending yourself with lethal force is considered illegal. *rolls eyes* If you're going to nitpick... At least do it RIGHT.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
That's not what we're questioning.
The question is: will that action result in us being put away for a good ten or twenty years behind bars?
Click to expand...

Chukpike said:
In the United States the answer is no.

Actually the original question was: A Gunman In Your House: What Rights Do You Have?
Click to expand...

Rob Henderson said:
And part of those rights is whether or not defending yourself with lethal force is considered illegal . *rolls eyes* If you're going to nitpick... At least do it RIGHT.
Click to expand...

Sherman edit: No one was hijacking the topic. You ned to stop looking for reasons to fight other members.

Having been warned by the moderators I am not going to go any further than restate under what conditions in California lethal force is not illegal.


"The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the
attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person
in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person killed intended to commit
a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being
accomplished; and (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to
save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime.
Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes."

Rob if you need any help locating information for your state on using lethal force for self defense I will try to help you. It will be easier than trying to find laws that say you can not defend yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chukpike said:
In the United States the answer is no.

Actually the original question was: A Gunman In Your House: What Rights Do You Have?
Click to expand...
You should correct yourself. I know in Colorado the written law says one thing, but the judicial law says another.
 
Rob Henderson said:
Part of it is what George said, but I think even in the most liberal of states (Massachusetts as it seems to be), I think if you WERE charged with a crime, you wouldn't be convicted... It would take a heartless soul to say "I believe he responded inappropriately to that threat, he should be sent to prison."

(Granted, this is all just my personal opinion, and contains no factual information whatsoever.)
Click to expand...

the_13th_redneck said:
That's not what we're questioning.
The question is: will that action result in us being put away for a good ten or twenty years behind bars?
Click to expand...

The difference is whether your state is a castle doctrine state , meaning that anyone entering your home without your consent can be considered to be there to harm you, or a duty to retreat state , meaning that you must attempt to flee an intruder/attacker before resorting to deadly force, and deadly force must be the last resort.
 
The real difference may lie in the lawyers, the judge and the jury rather than the law itself in this case (because to me it seems that they're very open to interpretation of the situation by the parties involved).
What does your experience say 03?
 
I've lived in Castle Doctrine States which are by nature conservative to a large extent, however in all of these states there are enclaves of liberalism. In my experiance you are correct, a DA of a certain leaning will attempt to file charges or actually file charges to make an example, if his political affiliation dictates it.

What everyone also forgets is this......... Even if the DA doesn't file charges, or does and you beat them..........expect a civil suit from the dirtbag, or dirtbags family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top