Home invader greeted with gunfire

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Home-invader-greeted-with-gunfire/WW6TQNmdjE2wb7ctO_WcUQ.cspx

SAN ANTONIO - A man breaking into an apartment on the Northeast Side was greeted with gunfire late Tuesday.

Police say the man kicked in the door of an apartment at the Sungate Villas on Sun Gate Street, near Perrin Beitel and Loop 410, around 11:00 p.m. Tuesday. The suspect took off after he was shot by the man living in the apartment. Police say it was less than an hour before the man was pulled over in Shavano Park near N.W. Military Highway and Loop 1604.

The suspect is in the hospital and faces burglary charges. The homeowner will not be charged.

Home invading is a dangerous sport in Texas. He is lucky to be breathing.

[spin]

1. Texas and Florida are two states where kicking down a door ...

and invading a home can be a BAD idea!

[slackmaster]

7. So is California, but a lot of people aren't aware of it

:hi:

[cleanhippie]

2. He was emboldened by his shoes.

[sharesunited]

3. Not even a "Hey I'm Home, I'm In Here, I Have A Gun?" Just open fire?

Mkay.

[one-eyed fat man]

4. Works for me.

You kick in my door in the middle of the night, I'd be inclined to let you know I am home by shooting you, more than once. Explain to me why the life of someone who would violently break into my home merely to steal from or assault me is worth preserving?

What is it about civilization that requires me to make his life less stressful? Is it far-fetched to assume that an individual shattering a door frame and battering their way into your house is doing so with malice and evil intent?

Swift and terrible retribution is satisfying in visceral way. Malefactors cut down by those they were trying to victimize got what they deserved.

[timo]

5. home invasion??

your kicking in my door? we are NOT going to chat each other up, thats some of the dumbest crap I have EVER heard, I wouldnt waste the effort, my primary concern is the safety of me and mine, once I have figured out that your NOT on my team....I am lighting your ass up!!

[slackmaster]

6. That's the way it's done, legally, in most states including California

Anyone who breaks in to your home forcefully and unlawfully is a target that you can't be prosecuted for shooting.

[TheWraith]

62. Whereas "warning shots" can in some cases actually be illegal.

Discharge of a firearm is considered use of deadly force, no matter what it's loaded with, and an aggressive DA could make the case that someone who employed a warning shot used potentially lethal force without feeling like their life was actually in danger.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

9. No Warning. Why give him a chance to kill me? N/T

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petronius]

17. What's being seized is the chance to protect oneself, not the chance to kill someone

Wasn't there a posting here recently about a man who drew his handgun in response to a shooter in a mall, but shouted a warning before firing and ended up dead? If some batters down the door, it's reasonable to fear that they have nefarious purposes - why give them a target to shoot at by advertising your location, or risk letting them get close enough to grapple?

[sharesunited]

20. Because you know they are entering for theft not murder.

Because you know they think no one is home.

Give them the chance to retreat.

Sure, it is popular legislation to give households the right to kill without putting any finer point on it.

But that does appear to be some wholesale rightwing bullshit.

[petronius]

22. You're free to make that assumption, of course. To the contrary, my assumption is that if a

a person is intent on finding an empty home they're more likely to show up during the day, and probably knock first or do something else to check if the place is empty. The best assumption when a person un-announcedly kicks down a door at night is that they don't care if anyone is home, and are happy to deal with it either way (in other words, there is a more-likely-than-not threat of violence)...

[sharesunited]

23. That just sounds like you approve of plugging holes in human flesh.

And it is an outcome to be avoided if possible IMO.

Understand totally if you have been hardened by bad life experiences.

Hell, if you ask convicts what they would do, they are pretty goddamned harsh.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petronius]

32. I don't think I've ever heard anyone seriously say they were eager to shoot somebody, and

I've never heard anyone who had done so express joy in the event. I understand that you're trying to be offensive, and that's fine, but the bottom line is that people have a right to defend themselves as aggressively as they deem necessary in the face of implicit violence. You may choose to assume that a late-night door-smasher is not intent on violence, and you are free to try a warning shout, or surrender, or running - that's up to you, but your assessment of people who decline to make your lovey-happy assumptions is unsupported by fact or logic...

[sharesunited]

34. There was a time when we evaluated the use of a gun in light of its reasonableness.

But now, the gun lobby has seized control of statutes to try to usurp that authority.

Well I don't think the gun lobby is the best representative of justice in this nation.

[petronius]

39. Your subject line is exactly what we're doing here - and it's reasonable and logical to conclude

that a midnight door-smasher is bent on or willing for violence. And thus, a vigorous defense (including a firearm, if one is available) to prevent likely harm is a reasonable, rational, and ethical course of action...

[sharesunited]

45. That's a BIG disagree. And enabling statutes to kill that misguided individual

debase the entire society which purports to govern it.

[petronius]

50. You've got it backward - recognizing the natural right of self-preservation

is the exact opposite of a debasement, and allowing people the right to protect themselves adequately in their own homes, without fear of government retribution, is in the best interests of society.

Again, you have mixed up the core concept - it's not about "enabling to kill", it's about allowing to defend.

(And I'm sorry, but I cannot figure out what you mean in your other response.)

[sharesunited]

51. You need to keep hoping that capricious killing goes in your favor.

You decide someone is a threat for which they should die?

The jury instructions need to be very clear that I have little choice but to let you exercise that unilateral power.

Otherwise, I am going to look very carefully at what you have done.

And if you have done your deed with a gun, I am going to look very skeptically at the justice you have purported to do on your own.

[petronius]

52. This discussion has never been about "capricious killing": nobody _wants_ to kill anyone (nt)

[sharesunited]

53. When someone purports to be judge, jury and executioner, what else would you call it?

Entirely within the perception or choice of the person pulling that trigger.

All you can hope for is redneck sympatico.

Which is redstate America my friend.

[petronius]

54. When a real or likely threat presents, a person has the right to a vigorous defense

An enlightened society recognizes and protects that right.

"J, J & E" is catchy phrase, and "capricious" is a snazzy word, and they're both totally irrelevant to this discussion...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

74. Sometimes a cop, judge, jury, or executioner is not immediately available when a choice must be made

However, my right to life and liberty does exist - as well as the means to defend my life and liberty.
The only thing capricious about the situation is the criminal's choice to violently invade my family's home.

A criminal's right to safety does not extend into the unlawful entry of my home.

[Straw Man]

58. Self-defense is not capricious, and killing is not a foregone conclusion.

And the law favors the victim, not the assailant. Is that so hard to understand?

You decide someone is a threat for which they should die?

Someone who smashes down your door in the middle of the night is very clearly a threat.

The jury instructions need to be very clear that I have little choice but to let you exercise that unilateral power.

So you would prefer to interpret the law yourself? Fortunately, any lawyer worth his/her salt would bounce you from the jury pool before you had chance to get the seat warm.

Otherwise, I am going to look very carefully at what you have done.

And if you have done your deed with a gun, I am going to look very skeptically at the justice you have purported to do on your own.

Once again, slowly: Self...defense...is...not...about...justice. It's...about...self...defense.

You have just admitted that you would be prejudiced against a defendant who had used a firearm rather than another weapon for self-defense. Different tool, same outcome, and yet you would treat these two differently. This is a textbook case of bias. You have an irrational hatred of an inanimate object.

[GreenStormCloud]

71. A jury will never sit on this shooting.

The police have already said that he will not be charged.

[friendly_iconoclast]

96. So we're cool if I split a home invaders' skull with the camping axe I keep by the door?

Interesting line of reasoning- It's not what you do, it's what you do it with.


Do in robber with what is essentially a high-tech melee weapon: Justifiable self-defense

Do in same robber with a handgun: Manslaughter.


Quite the worldview you've got there.

[sharesunited]

48. Turn that around. If bullets are entering you even though you may have transgressed.

You might say ouch, wait a minute.

Is it simply too late for your sorry ass?

[timo]

64. shouldnt have transgressed

don't go kicking in doors at night

[GreenStormCloud]

72. "May have transgressed"????

So to you kicking someone's door at night and entering their home is "maybe" a trangression. To me it is a deadly threat to the resident, and the law supports me, not you.

[timo]

77. perhaps you misunderstood my position

the perp "should not have transgressed" break my door down and come in, I am not asking any questions my motto is SHOOT THEM TO THE DECK!!

[GreenStormCloud]

82. I intended to respond to SharesUnited, post #48.

Sorry I got the placement wrong. He calls kicking a door in, "may have transgressed". You and I are in agreement. Somebody kicks my door in (It will take a lot of kicks. It is strongly reinforced.)and they will be met with a hail of .45 bullets. Wife will be on the phone to 911.

[timo]

94. i agree

that whole line of thinking of chatting up the bad guy is just begging to get killed

[ProgressiveProfessor]

63. Such "analysis" was at best capricious, so the people chose to stop that

Clarity in the law is a good thing. No Monday morning quarter backing...it is better that way.

[slackmaster]

73. California's "Castle Doctrine" law has been in place since the early 1970s

It protects people who use deadly force in lawful self-defense of a home from prosecution.

If the incident described here had happened in California, it would have been covered by California's Castle Doctrine law.

[ileus]

67. If it's the middle of the night and they kick down the door, they know you're home.

Their main goal is to catch you off guard and kill you first.

[one-eyed fat man]

68. Bullshit!

Because you know they are entering for theft not murder.

Your crystal ball is not that good. There's a car in the driveway, the lights are on, the TV's going are YOU going to bet your ass there's no one home and just kick the door in? You are not breaking into a storage unit, you are breaking into a home. Even the law makes a distinction between breaking into occupied dwelling and unoccupied buildings.

I have no obligation to wait until you make your purpose clear, the law gives me the right to presume you are intent on evil and to meet your attack with deadly force.

Burglars getting shot by irate homeowners is an occupational hazard. They can get a new line of work, or they can hope the next house they force their way into is yours.

[guitar man]

80. I know no such thing

They may be there to commit any number of violent crimes, I have no way of knowing why they are there and in the real world, if the intruder is armed giving them a "warning" may well end up helping them locate and identify their target. No thanks, I've already got the scars from one bullet wound, I don't want another, and I'm damn sure not going to risk the safety of my wife and daughter to give some thug a "chance".

Kick my door in and make a violent entry into my home, expect to be met with violence. Don't like that? Stay the hell off my property and don't kick my door in.

[aikoaiko]

83. Wow. Just wow. One has no idea why another is invading ones home.

Again, I'm glad you wrote your positions because its just so clear how little support you give victims of violent crime. You're so obsessed with your anti-gun agenda that you would risk the well being of innocent victims of violent crime having them have some kind of conversation with the home invader? Wow. Just wow.

[oneshooter]

89. Please tell us just what YOU would do if/when it happens to YOU. n/t

[oneshooter]

95. You are going to ignore the question? We await your reply. n/t

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sharesunited]

28. You'll have to be more specific as to where it falls short. n/t

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. Because I want to live.

If I warn him that greatly improves his chances of killing me by giving him vital information and give in the initiative. Home invasions are NOT burglaries, where stealth by the criminal is his method. Home invasions are INVASIONS, like troops crossing a border. They expect to meet resistance and are ready to overcome that resistance. Home invaders get a thrill out of over powering and terrorizing, often killing, the residents. A home invasion is a crime that is closely akin to war itself. If someone is kicking my door in the first thing they will hear from me will be shots. I will take them some time to kick in my door. I have a bar across the door that is sitting in steel brackets with three inch screws sunk into the 2x4s of the frame.

[sharesunited]

46. I don't envy you the experience you seem to long for.

It may very well take you to a noose of your own fashioning.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. Only if you were the DA, jury, and judge.

You seem eager to punish innocent residents.

[S_B_Jackson]

10. State law....

at night the legal assumption is that your life is at risk and the homeowner/resident may act accordingly in their defense of themselves, their family, AND their property.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[S_B_Jackson]

19. Passed by a Democratic legislature and Democratic governor in the late 19th century....

It's been state law for over a century, shares. Texas has always been a Castle Doctrine state in practice, and in the last two legislative sessions, the only change has been to codify immunity from civil action if a shooting is determined to have been lawful.

As a lifelong Democrat, I'm at this board to discuss those issues which I feel important to discuss with my peers. I wonder why an authoritarian such as yourself finds himself on this board.

[sharesunited]

21. You mean a reconstruction Democrat in the mold of George Wallace?

Yep, I guess I need to claim (or confess) both you and the governor as a Democrat.

[S_B_Jackson]

30. Yes, and found by modern, post-reconstrution Democrats to be appropriate and needful...

And in fact, re-adopted by Democrats who re-wrote the Penal Codes in 1973 and was signed by Democratic Gov. Dolph Brisco. At the time we Democrats enjoyed a super-majority position in both Texas House of Representatives and in the Texas Senate.

Sec. 9.31. Self-Defense
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


Sec. 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

If you'll note, all were enacted BEFORE we lost control of the legislature to the Rethugs - largely in reaction to the overreaching of anti-civil rights authoritarians such as yourself. Had Ann Richards signed the Concealed Carry legislation which was passed by the Democratic state legislature, it's likely that the shrub would never have been elected to either the governorship and thus would have never risen to become the the POTUS....he's have simply remained another failed candidate, who faded back into the woodwork.

[sharesunited]

33. Did you just tell me that gun lunacy lost the Texas government to the Republicans?

What if the issue had been slavery?

Should we lament such a loss?

You stand up for what is right, just, peaceful.

You don't take up power on the worst of a public paranoia or delusion unless you are completely craven.

[S_B_Jackson]

37. Yes, I did.

Sometimes, shares, reality will find a way to intrude upon your carefully crafted illusory world. Ann Richards lost a very closely contested race to the shrub and in no small part this was due to the backlash against her backtracking on her previous support for CCW in the wake of the Luby's Massacre in Killeen, TX.

Dr. Susanna Gratia-Hupp's campaign appearances were particularly damning to Gov Richards' campaign.

The issue was not about slavery, and I'm not going to engage in a game of "whataboutery" on it. It was all about the right of Texas citizens to defend themselves in the event of criminal assault upon themselves or others. To enable those lawful citizens the means to effectively defend themselves and others should the need arise.

I'm sure you understand the extreme irony of you accusing others of paranoia, delusions, and complete cravenness, right?

[sharesunited]

40. What you call the right of citizens to defend themselves

is the right to annihilate each other.

Entirely of their own capricious will.

If anyone thinks that is a Plus for their safety, then they need to take another look at Luby's.

Hard to believe that this is debatable after all these years.

But if done so in bad faith, maybe not so hard to believe!

[GreenStormCloud]

41. Luby's was and still is an excellent reason for citizen concealed carry. N/T

[S_B_Jackson]

43. Indeed.

and as I said, Susanna Gratia-Hupp's speeches were devastating to Ann Richard's election campaign - especially in the Texas Hill Country which had previously supported Gov. Richards so strongly.

But there remain those, like shares, who simply cannot accept the fact that the right to self-defense is a vital civil right.

[sharesunited]

44. You refuse to admit that a man carrying a gun started the whole episode.

And that everything you hold dear is a guns as solution to guns perspective.

Get a little real please.

[S_B_Jackson]

47. No, shares, a man who KICKED IN THE DOOR of someone else's home started the whole incident.

The home owner was simply minding his own business until the invader attempted to seize by force that which was not his.

The homeowner exercised reasonable force to deter the assault.

The fact that you cannot reconcile yourself to the fact that the assailant is responsible for the fact that he got, and that he should count himself as fortunate that he'll only be going to the hospital and then to prison instead of the morgue.

[sharesunited]

49. Well now hold on there. If I read the criminal code of Texas correctly

the death penalty is not administered for breaking and entering.

[Straw Man]

55. Fundamental error in perception of armed self-defense.

Well now hold on there. If I read the criminal code of Texas correctly the death penalty is not administered for breaking and entering.

One shoots to stop, not to kill. If the assailant lies down and stops attacking, one stops shooting. Assailant doesn't have to be dead for self-defense to succeed.

But you knew that.

[S_B_Jackson]

59. Clearly, shares, your reading comprehension is indeed lacking...

as from the story in the OP:

Police say it was less than an hour before the man was pulled over in Shavano Park near N.W. Military Highway and Loop 1604.

The suspect is in the hospital and faces burglary charges.

The homeowner exercised significant restraint, and did not - as you're insinuating - take the home invader's life. So what "death penalty" is it that you're caterwauling about exactly?

As far as what Texas law does permit:

Sec. 9.31. Self-Defense
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

The homeowner is allowed to use whatever degree of force he/she deems necessary to end the threat of immediate harm - up to and including the taking of their assailant's life.

[cleanhippie]

97. Hey, it can read. Too bad this was a persons home and not a court of law.

[S_B_Jackson]

98. Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?........

apparently Shares has taken sick.

[armueller2001]

65. The man was carrying a gun illegally.

Obviously the fact that Texas didn't issue concealed carry permits didn't stop him.

[S_B_Jackson]

42. There is nothing capricious about defending oneself from a home-invasion

the criminal made their decision to attempt to take by force that which was not theirs and placed the lives of the occupants of that home at grave risk. A risk recognized by the state of Texas as so apparent that it was deemed important enough to make clear that as a matter of law that the risk was valid and actionable.

My wife has been subjected to such an attack prior to our we began to date, and it was ONLY by the intervention of her roommate who returned home, heard the assault taking place in the other bedroom and retrieved the shotgun that she kept in her own room for just such an possiblity that she was not raped, beaten further, and quite possibly killed.

Such occurances are the reality and it is hard to believe that there remain persons such as yourself who continue to believe that a person does not have the right to defend themselves.

[beevul]

61. Good grief shares.

"...the right to annihilate each other."

"Entirely of their own capricious will."

When someone kills someone else, completely out of "their own capricious will", we call that murder.

When a person shoots someone breaking into that persons home - kicking down the door around midnight - its justified.

Legally, and morally.



You would do better expending your energies urging people not to break into homes after dark, if you're so concerned about those that do it.

That you expend them on the law abiding, rather than the law breakers, is in itself telling, though it does fit in with the anti-gun mindset quite well.

Peas in a pod, yes indeed.

[PavePusher]

84. Really? Cite to legal precedent, if you aren't making this up.... n/t

[WatsonT]

14. People don't generally kick down your door in the middle of the night

for good reasons.

It would be unreasonable to assume he was delivering girlscout cookies.

Also the fact that you are home and have a gun would be immediately apparent after the first couple of shots.

So no need to announce it, the crook will figure that out on his own.

[sharesunited]

15. He thought no one was inside. Maybe not in his right mind, but give him the chance to be advised.

Give him a chance to be advised in the premises.

With a shout out instead of lead.

[WatsonT]

16. He made his choice

When criminals start announcing "I'm a criminal, I'm breaking in to your house and I'm armed" then I will agree that homeowners should do the same.

[RSillsbee]

57. No

The stakes are my life and I'm not willing to play

[S_B_Jackson]

60. How exactly do you arrive at that conclusion?

There is no mention in the story linked in the OP that states "He thought no one was inside".........

Seriously, shares, do you just make it up as you go along? Manufacturing whatever details are needed to flesh out the story until it fits the mental script running in your head?

[armueller2001]

66. Maybe I will go with your idea, SU.

Sounds like a good plan. If my door is kicked in during the night, I will announce "Excuse me burglar, but we are home and we have a gun" in both English and Spanish (giving away my position) and wait for a reply. Hopefully the reply is not a sharp knife in my chest or bullets headed my way. But what if he is deaf? Shit, I'd better learn that phrase in sign language too and turn on all the lights so he can see me.

Nevermind, that's stupid. My family's lives are more important than someone who would threaten them.

[Common Sense Party]

76. He doesn't really "deserve" a chance. He's committing a felony.

But if it makes you feel better, I will let him hear me rack the slide.

[one-eyed fat man]

85. Our Court of Appeals made it pretty plain.

"It is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs. He does not have to...he is not obligated to retreat, nor to consider whether he can safely retreat, but is entitled to stand his ground, and meet any (life-threatening) attack made upon him with a deadly weapon..." Kentucky Court of Appeals. Gibson v. Commonwealth,i 34 SW 936 (Ky. 1931)

The violent forceful entry of an occupied dwelling is the presumed to be life-threatening. I am not required to abandon my home to an invader and justified in using lethal force to repel the attack.

[slackmaster]

86. Where did you get information to indicate the invader thought no one was inside?

I'm going to take a wild guess that you have nothing to support it.

[rl6214]

25. You kick in my door?

I've got no problem with it.

[sharesunited]

29. I think you may be suffering from NRA syndrome. May I recommend an intervention for that?

[rl6214]

36. No, I am suffering from stand up and defend myself syndrome

and need no intervention. You on the other hand should just join a commune and spend all day singing cumbya.

[Hangingon]

79. There is no such thing as an NRA syndrome.

[spin]

90. The Bible has a passage on this subject ...

Exodus 22:2-3 2 "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. 3 "If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed.

There are two cases here. In the first case, if someone breaks into your home at night, and you kill him, you are not held guilty of murder. You are not deserving of capital punishment. You do not need to flee to a city of refuge to preserve your life. The understanding is that at night, it is dark, and if someone has invaded your house, they do not announce if they are there merely to steal jewelry and tools. In the dark, you have no way of knowing if someone is coming to kidnap, to rape, or to murder. You are thus blameless if the criminal is killed in that situation. The passage does make it clear that if a man is breaking in at night with the intent of theft or worse (rape, murder, kidnapping, etc.), the defendant can righteously defend himself with lethal force to prevent the commission of the crime).

In the second case, it says "if the sun has risen on him", and you kill the intruder, you are guilty of his bloodshed. The understanding is that in daytime, there is light, and you can discern the intentions of the home invader. The crime in question here is theft ("if the thief"). It is not legitimate to kill someone who is merely stealing your property. In creating civil laws, we see here that not all crimes are worthy of death.

In the daytime, it is assumed that the intention of the intruder can be discerned. If he is a thief, he may not be killed by the defendant. However, if the intruder is there to commit a different crime—assault, murder, kidnapping, rape, etc.—different laws/rules would apply. Though the crime of theft is not worthy of death, kidnapping was worthy of death (Exodus 21:16, Deut. 24:7) as was murder.
http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/

The important point that I am making here has nothing to do with whether you believe in the Bible or not, but merely to point out that for many centuries a nighttime intruder has been viewed as very dangerous and the use of lethal self defense to stop him has been acceptable.

Such views predate the NRA.

[YllwFvr]

31. sounds like marco polo

and they get to shoot first when you call out

[RSillsbee]

56. Pretty much

You kick down my door and you have proven hostile intent. Colorado would let me drop you like a bad habit.

[Common Sense Party]

78. He heard me chamber a round as I racked the slide.

That's his warning.

If he comes into the house, he made his choice.

We had a home invasion just down the street, on this block. I have children in my house. I don't know what the guy's intentions are, but if he just committed a felony and is entering my domain, his intentions clearly are not kind and loving.

Your comments in this thread are, at best, laughable. In other threads you have stated clearly that you don't think law-abiding citizens have a right to even have a gun for self-defense outside of their home. Now, it seems obvious you don't think law-abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves IN their homes, either.

Mkay, indeed.

[krispos42]

88. Nope.

If they're being that obvious about breaking in, then they probably don't give a rat's ass that you're home. All you're doing by speaking up is giving them a tactical advantage.

YOU have no idea how many of them there are, where they are, or what they are armed with. THEY have no idea how many people are in the house, where they are, or what they are armed with.

But you have the advantage of surprise (instead of the other way around), knowledge of the interior of the house (only an advantage if you're not taken by surprise), and, after everything is said and done, the law is on your side.

Speak up, and the only thing left on your side is that the state's attorney probably won't prosecute you. Or, if things go badly, will probably but not certainly find the invaders and put them in jail for at least a few years.

A single gunshot, fired from cover without warning or bravado, is probably more effective in stopping the invasion then a nervous voice yelling "hey, I've got a gun!". With the former, they have NOTHING to go on, and their imagination will fill in the voids of knowledge with mental images of ex-Marines lying in wait, skilled and deadly. A nervous or desperate voice trying to intimidate... what does that conjure up? Some gangly dude behind a wall clutching a golf club or table lamp.

[WatsonT]

13. Might want to look in to a different career

[sylvi]

18. If only there had been

If only there had been a 66-year-old, cancer-ridden woman there. She could have taken him down in a fit of pique.

[WatsonT]

69. +1

Or the cops.

Aren't they always around right when you need them, removing the need for any sort of personal protection?

[Common Sense Party]

81. +1,000,000 for the win

:spray:

:rofl:

[Bonhomme Richard]

75. I know of, at least, one door in CT where it would be a bad idea. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

87. ANOTHER BURGLAR KILLED.

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crime/2011/04/05/identity-of-burglar-fatally-shot-inside-east-side-tacoma-home-released/

Identity of burglar fatally shot inside East Side Tacoma home released


A 19-year-old burglar who was fatally shot Monday after breaking into an East Side Tacoma house has been identified as Jamarr Johnson.

Johnson, of Tacoma, and two associates broke the glass out of a back door at a house in the 3800 block of East J Street to get inside.

A man who was home alone about 1:30 p.m. heard the burglars and hid in an upstairs bedroom. He fired several shots through the bedroom door when he heard Johnson trying to enter the room, police said.

Johnson died at the scene. One of the other burglars was arrested after a K-9 unit tracked him through the neighborhood. A third suspect is outstanding.

From the comments section we learn that Jamarr Johnson already had an extensive criminal history.

[BrightKnight]

91. I know someone who shot and killed his neighbor and friend like that.

The guy was a very talented musician and a super nice guy. He was not a drunk but one night he had way, way too much to drink. He was completely disoriented and falling around his neighbors back yard. He made it to the door and was clumsily banging on it. He probably thought that it was his own door. His very frightened neighbor thought someone was breaking into his house and shot him to death. I believe that he actually shot him through the door. He was not charged with anything.

Any time you fire a weapon you better be very sure of your target. There are no exceptions to that rule that I can think of.

I have no problem with shooting an actual burglar.

[GreenStormCloud]

92. The OP home invader had ALREADY KICKED THE DOOR DOWN.

When the door has been kicked in, the door isn't there anymore. The resident did NOT shoot through a closed door but instead shot directly at the guy who had kicked the door in. I completely agree that shooting through a closed door is wrong. As long as the door is closed, the person on the other side isn't a threat. But when the door has been kicked in by the home invader then the subject is a very serious threat.

Back on New Year's Eve, 1975, when I was in the Navy, on of the sailors on our ship got drunk. In his drunkenness he decided to scare some random hownowner. He beat on the door screaming that he was going to kill everyone inside. The resident called the police while holding a shotgun on the door. He told the police that he would not fire as long as the door held, but that if the door gave in then he would shoot immediaely. The door crashed in, he shot hitting the sailor in the leg, penis, and testicles. When the door gets kicked in the waiting is over.

[one-eyed fat man]

93. There's a little bleach tossed in the gene pool. n/t