In the Back?

[Johnny C]

If someone is in your house and up to no good and you shoot them in the back, will it go bad for you?

ERGO: Why wait for him to turn around and have a chance at shooting you, or warn him that you are even there?

 

[scheesman]

Why not just shoot everyone that looks at you the wrong way, instead of giving them a chance at shooting at you? Not everything requires lethal force. Even if the law allows it, is it really worth shooting someone who is just trying to steal your tv? Without the fear of your life and those of your loved ones, I would think this would be a very bad move...

 

[Joe Williams]

Probably going to depend on your jury, and how well your lawyer can articulate to them that it was actually necessary for you to shoot the bg in the back. Looks bad, it'll make your case harder.

Why not just shoot everyone that looks at you the wrong way, instead of giving them a chance at shooting at you? Not everything requires lethal force. Even if the law allows it, is it really worth shooting someone who is just trying to steal your tv? Without the fear of your life and those of your loved ones, I would think this would be a very bad move...

Someone breaks into my home with us there, I've got a reasonable fear for our safety, and will react accordingly. Home invaders kill their victims far too often for me to play Russion Roulette with our lives.

 

[scheesman]

Someone breaks into my home with us there, I've got a reasonable fear for our safety, and will react accordingly. Home invaders kill their victims far too often for me to play Russion Roulette with our lives.

But why not try to diffuse the situation with a verbal or "lead" warning first? If after discovering that the homeowner is armed and ready, anyone willing to stick around has made their intentions (and mentality) clear, and should be a hell of a lot easier to justify legally and morally.

 

[shibumiseeker]

And always remember that while you may be perfectly justified legally in a shooting, you still can face civil suit where the plaintiff only needs a preponderance of evidence to win. The micreant shot in the back is a pretty big mark against you from the start.

But why not try to diffuse the situation with a verbal or "lead" warning first? If after discovering that the homeowner is armed and ready, anyone willing to stick around has made their intentions (and mentality) clear, and should be a hell of a lot easier to justify legally and morally.

I catch someone in my house I have my gun out, and on them and am yelling "don't move, get on the floor, don't move get on the floor." If they do not obey immediately then I assume they are a threat to me. If they run away from me I may or may not decide to use lethal force depending on what they are running towards. If they whirl around towards me then I can ONLY assume they are a threat to me.

 

[Joe Williams]

But why not try to diffuse the situation with a verbal or "lead" warning first? If after discovering that the homeowner is armed and ready, anyone willing to stick around has made their intentions (and mentality) clear, and should be a hell of a lot easier to justify legally and morally.

That's the path I'd take in most circumstances. I don't want to say all, because I suppose I could see a situation that would cause me to simply fire. Say, bg is reaching for my boy's door or already in my boy's room. Simply not time, and the danger to my child is too great, to afford the bg any mercy. And giving him a warning is indeed an act of mercy, once he's made the decision to break into my home with my family inside.

And always remember that while you may be perfectly justified legally in a shooting, you still can face civil suit where the plaintiff only needs a preponderance of evidence to win. The micreant shot in the back is a pretty big mark against you from the start.

No, not in Indiana if I undestand the IC properly.

 

[CountryBoy19]

No, not in Indiana if I undestand the IC properly.

+1 If the shooting was found to be justified, you cannot be held liable in a civil suit.

 

[dross]

We can here in Colorado. Pretty strong castle law here.

Someone just being illegally in your house is considered to be de facto proof a reasonable person would feel his life was in danger, the way I understand it.

If I were here alone, I might just try to order the guy to the ground and call the police. If my wife or daughter are in the house, no second chances and the first one was used up when he broke in.

 

[TRWXXA]

If you shoot 'em in the back, just be sure to roll them over and shoot 'em in the chest. Bullets aren't sequentially numbered.

 

[scheesman]

I catch someone in my house I have my gun out, and on them and am yelling "don't move, get on the floor, don't move get on the floor." If they do not obey immediately then I assume they are a threat to me. If they run away from me I may or may not decide to use lethal force depending on what they are running towards. If they whirl around towards me then I can ONLY assume they are a threat to me.

I agree completely. But the OP talked about shooting them in the back. Doubtful they'll run at you backwards...

That's the path I'd take in most circumstances. I don't want to say all, because I suppose I could see a situation that would cause me to simply fire. Say, bg is reaching for my boy's door or already in my boy's room. Simply not time, and the danger to my child is too great, to afford the bg any mercy. And giving him a warning is indeed an act of mercy, once he's made the decision to break into my home with my family inside.

+1 I couldn't agree more. And this is the kind of case where shooting them in the back is justified. And I guess that brings up a good point. I think a lot of people automatically associate shooting in the back as that person retreating. You listed an example that would be both shooting in the back and completely justified.

 

[shibumiseeker]

No, not in Indiana if I undestand the IC properly.

+1 If the shooting was found to be justified, you cannot be held liable in a civil suit.

Point granted, I keep forgetting that. Then all you have to hope is that the DA decides it was justified or the GJ decides not to indict.

Don't get me wrong, to me BG in my home gets NO quarter. I'm not as merciful as Joe, the only reason I am yelling at them is not to give them a chance to walk away alive (and hopefully in jail), but so that *I* don't have to deal with the ramifications of a shooting. I just don't trust the castle doctrine protections.

 

[mskendall]

Shoot them in the back...maybe. It would depend on what part of the house they were in and if I feel like they are a danger to those in my house. I think that there would be a lot of hassle from the DA on if they were still a viable threat. If he made an unjustified movement by any means, I would take the shot(s) as quick as I could. If it was one of those burglars that are taking a bath and using the toilet when you get home, they would be escorted out at gunpoint while waiting for the police.

 

[dustjunky2000]

My solution: .12ga with the first two shells being rubber buckshot, and the other four REAL 00.

Shout a warning and command to get on the floor. If they do not comply, I pepper the back of their torso with rubber. Repeat as necessary.
If they wanna really fight, all I can say is I hope they land on the linoleum.

 

[Lars]

It's simple.

"Does this person need to be shot?"

If they aren't posing a near immediate threat to life of severe bodily injury. The answer is almost universally no. Regardless of what direction they are facing.

Sit 1. FuBar is in a class room with a gun pointed at the students in the front of the room. You're in the hallway and see him, have a gun, and a clean shot. "Does this person need to be shot?"

Sit 2. FuBar is in your home, carrying your Laptop towards your front door. You're behind him with your gun and a clean shot. "Does this person need to be shot?"

Sit 3. FuBar is in your home, heading towards the steps to the second floor. You come in behind him. Your wife and daughter are on the second floor. You have a gun, and a clean shot. "Does this person need to be shot?"

 

[cosermann]

If someone is in your house and up to no good and you shoot them in the back, will it go bad for you?

Not necessarily depending on the circumstances and the quality of your attorney. There is, in fact, some evidence that shows why this sometimes happens (i.e. someone is shot in the back) even when the shooter does not intend to do so. One such article on the topic titled, "Why is the Suspect Shot in the Back?," was in the Nov/Dec 2000 issue of The Police Marksman. Here's a link:

http://www.forcescience.org/articles/shotinback.pdf

I'm sure there must be other articles/papers on the subject out there if you dig around.

 

[rtrouten]

nothing is ever simple, my two cents would be, if I am alone I will take the chances of not firing at his back, but like some of the others, if my family is home, all bets off...I will take my chances with a jury!! Besides I would rather be judged by twelve then carried by six

 

[mskendall]

I asked my wife the same question and she replied, "I would shoot them out of fear." I think a woman has a better chance of not getting in any trouble.

 

[buzz815]

If someone is in my darkened house at 2am I am going to assume my life is in danger. I won't know if this mental midget is armed, high on drugs, alone or what his intentions are. I am going to shoot first and sort it all out later. When you break into an occupied house that's the chance you take.

 

[Eddie]

I think it depends on too many different factors to make a hard and fast rule. You shoot them if you think that's what you need to do to protect yourself and your family. There are examples like the one Joe Williams gave where it may be neccessary to shoot someone in the back. I think the important thing is that you pull the trigger with the understanding that you actions are going to be thoroughly investigated and reviewed and that you may have to defend the choices you make in court.

I'll give you an example where I didn't shoot someone. The wife and I had been out shopping and then to dinner. We came home with things we had bought and some leftover food. When we came in the house I put the food in the fridge while she headed for the bathroom. I didn't lock the door because there were more things to carry in. Before going out to get the other things from the car I went into the living room and turned on the T.V. As I did so, I heard the front door open. I walked into the hall thinking it must be one of our friends to just walk in without knocking and saw a young man; wearing a suit and tie but very dishevelled, leaning against the wall. He was drunk and asking where Steve was.

Steve was my neighbor. His friend was drunk and had gone in the wrong house. (We lived on a street where all the houses looked the same.) Had things played out differently yeah, he might have got shot. As it was I shooed him out the front door and over to his friends' house.

 

[Naptown]

When you rack that 12 gauge, they are going to do everything possible to get out of your house. Let them go.

If they turn and threaten you, then they may catch a nasty case of lead poisoning. This would be my last intention, I couldn't imagine cleaing up after dispatching a couple of rounds of 00 buck in my house (whether someone caught it or not).