Summations Only

I own a house and a handgun.If I think someone came into my house in the middle of the night, I'd grab my gun and yell:

quote:

---

Who's there!? I have a gun!

---

At that point they'll know I'm armed and should be running away if not immediately indentifying themselves.If they don't answer and I don't hear them running away then I'll go looking to make sure my house is clear while continuing to shout the same thing.You don't shoot a target you haven't indentified. Not identified in the sense of knowing their name, but in the sense of know what it is you're shooting.If a person is in my house and they're not running away after being informed that I have a gun while also not telling me who they are, then after I identify my target I will begin shooting.How's that sound for a plan?

A stranger has broken into my house.

Should it really matter?According to the link in the OP, some states do have "Duty-to-retreat":

quote:

---

the duty-to-retreat clause expressly imposes an obligation upon the home's occupants to retreat as far as possible and verbally announce their intent to use deadly force, before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves.

---

I'm against that and I support the Castle Doctrine.If someone is in my home and I believe they intend to commit a felony, then I'm justified in shooting them.If you don't immediately leave after hearing me, then its reasonable for me to believe that you intend to commit a felony. He isn't running away (and he's intruded my house).I don't think I should have to wait to establish that my life is in immediate danger before I'm justified in shooting. Seriously?...we should lower the speed limit on the highways, what if there's a deaf retard out there!...what, did his blind midget lose him?C'mon now. Appealing to a retarded exception isn't convincing in any way at all. Dontcha think? Probably. Sure, I'd feel bad that someone needlessly died. But I wouldn't think I was at fault. Besides, if someone is so deaf and retarded that they're getting themselves killed from breaking into people's houses, then they need to be watch or supervised or something. Its their gaurdian's fault for letting their deaf retard run around in the middle of the night and getting themselves killed. What if they wandered out onto the highway?Anyway, you seem to think that I should be under immedate threat of death before I'm justified in shooting, no?From Message 78: That's where the announcement comes into play. Rather than a deaf retard, I'd be more worried about, say, my drunk cousin looking for a place to crash. But he'd immediately respond with who he is. Say he's passed out on the couch. That's why you always identify your target before you start shooting. I wouldn't shoot someone who's apparently sleeping on my couch.Some guy still rummaging around my house after my announcement deserves to be shot at. According to the Castle Doctrine, the criminal intent has to be suspected, not determined. You think it should be determined first? How's that work?You're gonna let them get the first assault before you do anything? Well, its not really "carried out". I'm a bad shot and people can survive a gunshot. No, not just shooting willy-nilly at anything that moves. I think you should announce your intention and indentify your target first. But yeah, I'm not gonna wait to find out what they are gonna do.I'm the one sitting at home, here. They're the one who's in somebody else's house. I'm the one who gets all the slack, they're already in some serious trouble to begin with.

Huh? I'm not followin' ya...

Kill? Depends. Shoot? I don't think so. Yes. Kill? Depends. But shoot, yes.Also, its doesn't have to be my own life... I can defend family members too. One reason why its improtant to identify your target. Well I think he does. I live in Illinois.

quote:

---

Illinois
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961

​

Section 7. Justifiable use of force. Use of deadly force justified if the person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or great physical harm. Use of deadly force justified if the unlawful entry is violent, or the person believes the attacker will commit a felony upon gaining entry.

​

Section 7-2(b). Prevents the aggressor from filing any claim against the defender unless the use of force involved "willful or wanton misconduct".

​

Illinois has no requirement of retreat. (People v. Bush, 111 N.E.2d 326 Ill. 1953).

---

It looks like from that first part that the person doesn't even have to have "gained entry" yet... It all depends on what they're doing. I think that it could go either way. It could be justified, it could be my "misconduct". My job is also to protect myself, my family, and my property. I refuse to have to rely on the police. It all depends on the situation, I guess.xkcd: Dirty HarryEdited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Or 65 mph, like it is.I see the opposite as suggesting that the speed limit should be lowered to 30 mph because cars are so uncontrollable and dangerous.... and there might be deaf retards out there.

Not necessarily.Being burgled causes a lot of trauma to the people living in the house.

quote:

---

A BURGLARY victim has told how the cruel ransacking of his home turned his family's lives upside down.

​

Former soldier Matthew Perry, 29, suffered a stroke in June this year which he says is down to stress following the February 2 burglary.sauce

---

quote:

---

A HEROIN addict who raided the home of a 92-year-old widow, forcing her to move out after 70 years, was jailed for two-and-a-half years.

​

Edna Leach was so traumatised by the burglary by Devon Harrison she was unable to return to the house, where she had lived since 1936, Wolverhampton Crown Court heard.

​

Judge Sybil Thomas told Harrison the widow was "knocked sideways" by the burglary - a crime she felt had "taken her soul away." sauce

---

quote:

---

Having your home robbed is admittedly less traumatic than, say, dodging bullets from an AK-47. But the psychological aftermath of a break-in can be surprisingly intense.

​

"The majority of victims say they will never have the same feeling of security and inviolability that they had in the past," reports Billie Corder, Ed.D., a psychiatrist at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine.

​

In interviews with 68 burglary victims, Corder found that half described the experience as feeling "like a violation or rape." The rape metaphor, used even by some men, may sound melodramatic. But for the study's middle-class subjects, most previously untouched by crime, the fact that a stranger violated the sanctity of their abode was unnerving.sauce

---

quote:

---

Bridget Smith’s 8-year-old son was so traumatized by a burglary at their Snyder County home last April that he’s been in counseling ever since.

​

He doesn’t feel safe in our home, she said during the plea hearing Monday of one of the three men sentenced for breaking into homes in Northumberland and Snyder counties last year and stealing about $200,000 worth of possessions.sauce

---

There's plenty more where that came from.

Well in my state its restricted by "willful or wanton misconduct"

But you're acting like its no biggie... you just there for the TV, its not immediately threatening people with certain death so getting shot isn't warranted. Well, it is a biggie. And there's people like me who will shoot you. I'm not going to let it get to the point of me thinking that I'm about to die. You simply being there committing a felony is enough for me to start shooting (with the assumptions in my plan).If you're on the ground, or running away, then I'm not gonna shoot you in the back or while your unaware of me. But just because I'm not about to die is not a reason that I'm going to not protect myself.

Yes, that is why I'm making the person aware that I am there and that I have a gun. And that is why I will identify my target before I shoot.If they aren't going to run away and I've identified the target as someone I feel justified in shooting, then that's what I'm going to do.I'm not going to wait until I'm about to die.

I'd count that. You should identify your target before you shoot. What are you basing that on?I think I'd do fine. Good decisions aren't that hard if you follow simple gun safety rules. Don't point it at anything you don't want to shoot. Identify your target. etc.Announcing your intentions helps too. I don't think its as bad as you seem to. I don't have children.What do you mean by "loaded"? I have two clips full of bullets in the case sitting beside the gun, but not in the gun. Is that "loaded"?

I don't know what you're referring to.Trained police officers can't reliably make good shooting decisions?I find that hard to believe.

One case of the police making a bad judgment does mean we can't rely on them to make good shooting decisions.And their situation was a lot different than the ones applicable to the Castle Doctrine.I'm not seeing any relevance.

The use of deadly force is justified if the person believes attacker will commit a felony up gaining entry.Breaking into a house and taking a microwave is a felony.I don't think I'd go to jail.

I don't think so. If there was, then there'd be people getting shot up by the cops all the time, or at least more often than not.That cops have been shown to be racist doesn't mean they can't make good shooting decisions. I'd like to see them.Maybe I'm not on the same page as you with what good and bad shooting decisions are.