Under the topic of 'Tactics'...this question

[hunter29180]

Originally Posted by Boris

In my home state of MI a home owner exercised the new castle law shortly after it was passed. He shot a guy in the back 4 times with a shotgun as he tried to leave the house.

No weapons were taken, no charges were filed. Case was closed on the scene.

I too would have a very hard time believing this story. First off any perp shot in the back while retreating is no longer the agressor. Under all the state laws and Federal laws i am aware of you are allowed to protect yourself and property till the perp CEASES to be the agressor. continuing your "protection" beyond that point places YOU in the agressors place and in violation of the law.

I have read most Castle Law for most states..no where does it say "when perp is retreating..you may still continue agressive action against them." in most cases it says " agressive action ierotective action is allowed untill the perpertrator retreats or ceases to be a threat." this was intended to keep law abiding citizens from being a victim but also keep those same citizens from becoming a "judge,jury and executioner" by persusing terminal action should the perp withdraw,(ie: dont follow them just to continue action against them) or when the perp is no longer a threat. (what you going to do? walk up after hes down and uncounicous and fill em up with more lead?) that MURDER! as is shooting a person in the back.! even in the military it was frowned upon to shoot retreating soldiers in the back. some have been charged for just that during wartime and are now enjoying our fine military life from behind bars.

[1 Eyed Jack]

Originally Posted by hunter29180

I too would have a very hard time believing this story. First off any perp shot in the back while retreating is no longer the agressor. Under all the state laws and Federal laws i am aware of you are allowed to protect yourself and property till the perp CEASES to be the agressor. continuing your "protection" beyond that point places YOU in the agressors place and in violation of the law.

I have read most Castle Law for most states..no where does it say "when perp is retreating..you may still continue agressive action against them." in most cases it says " agressive action ierotective action is allowed untill the perpertrator retreats or ceases to be a threat." this was intended to keep law abiding citizens from being a victim but also keep those same citizens from becoming a "judge,jury and executioner" by persusing terminal action should the perp withdraw,(ie: dont follow them just to continue action against them) or when the perp is no longer a threat. (what you going to do? walk up after hes down and uncounicous and fill em up with more lead?) that MURDER! as is shooting a person in the back.! even in the military it was frowned upon to shoot retreating soldiers in the back. some have been charged for just that during wartime and are now enjoying our fine military life from behind bars.

Putting the story from WA state aside, didn't something very similar happen not too long ago in TX? but it was a neighbor, and I beleive he shot 2 guys in the back as they were leaving after burglarizing his neighbors house, one or both of them died, I think there were no charges filed?

EDIT:

Did a quick google search before posting, reply,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3517564.shtml

911 audio,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

He was ulimately clear by a Grand Jury,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor...ng_controversy

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by hunter29180

I too would have a very hard time believing this story. First off any perp shot in the back while retreating is no longer the agressor. Under all the state laws and Federal laws i am aware of you are allowed to protect yourself and property till the perp CEASES to be the agressor. continuing your "protection" beyond that point places YOU in the agressors place and in violation of the law.

I have read most Castle Law for most states..no where does it say "when perp is retreating..you may still continue agressive action against them." in most cases it says " agressive action ierotective action is allowed untill the perpertrator retreats or ceases to be a threat." this was intended to keep law abiding citizens from being a victim but also keep those same citizens from becoming a "judge,jury and executioner" by persusing terminal action should the perp withdraw,(ie: dont follow them just to continue action against them) or when the perp is no longer a threat. (what you going to do? walk up after hes down and uncounicous and fill em up with more lead?) that MURDER! as is shooting a person in the back.! even in the military it was frowned upon to shoot retreating soldiers in the back. some have been charged for just that during wartime and are now enjoying our fine military life from behind bars.

Just because an aggressor is intentionally increasing the distance between himself and his victim does not mean that he is ceasing his attack. There are a variety of options why an aggressor would be working to move further from the victim while still attacking, including moving to better cover, a better strategic position, or simply to regroup in order to attempt a different method of attack.
As long as an aggressor is still in my house, he is still attacking. I have the legal right to protect myself, my family, and my possessions.

Originally Posted by Indiana Code 35-41-3-2

Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

In Indiana, you can use deadly force to terminate someone's unlawful entry your home. As long as they're still in the home, they're still the aggressor.

(DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.)

[Alpo]

Well, I agree that you can shoot him. The way I read Florida law, it's the same thing. He's in my house, so I am "in fear of my life", and I can shoot him.

But, the cops are still going to come and they are still going to take my gun.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by Alpo

But, the cops are still going to come and they are still going to take my gun.

Yeah, I expect them to take the gun(s) used, at least for a few days (maybe weeks).

They may leave me at the house. Hard to say. But if I stay at the house, I'll have another gun at my bedside as I try (probably futilely) to sleep that night.

[JLA]

... and still going to take you to jail until everything is sorted. Thats exactly why my HD gun is a cheap remington 870, readily available at pretty much all walmarts. All of my nice guns are range guns or hunting guns, remaining locked in the cabinet and wont be used in an HD situation unless theres just no other choice..

[Boris]

Originally Posted by hunter29180

I too would have a very hard time believing this story. First off any perp shot in the back while retreating is no longer the agressor. Under all the state laws and Federal laws i am aware of you are allowed to protect yourself and property till the perp CEASES to be the agressor. continuing your "protection" beyond that point places YOU in the agressors place and in violation of the law.

I have read most Castle Law for most states..no where does it say "when perp is retreating..you may still continue agressive action against them." in most cases it says " agressive action ierotective action is allowed untill the perpertrator retreats or ceases to be a threat." this was intended to keep law abiding citizens from being a victim but also keep those same citizens from becoming a "judge,jury and executioner" by persusing terminal action should the perp withdraw,(ie: dont follow them just to continue action against them) or when the perp is no longer a threat. (what you going to do? walk up after hes down and uncounicous and fill em up with more lead?) that MURDER! as is shooting a person in the back.! even in the military it was frowned upon to shoot retreating soldiers in the back. some have been charged for just that during wartime and are now enjoying our fine military life from behind bars.

Several of you say the same thing. I could not find the story I was talking about but it happens all the time in MI. Here is one example.

If someone commits a felony in MI and you need to use lethal force to stop them you are good. Not stop them while commiting, even after they have commited it.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=2876

Some of you may find it hard to believe, but your shotgun, rifle, or pistol will not be taken from 100% of the time no matter where you are. Maybe where you live, just because that is so for you is no reason to think it is that way everywhere.

http://www.9and10news.com/Category/S...d=275500&cid=1

[Alpo]

From your own link.

First story.
>Evidence technicians marked and photographed spent shell casings ejected from the gun in the homeowner's front yard, finding some on the sidewalk.

Police took Rose's gun with two clips of ammunition. Betz said the gun is properly registered and equipped with a trigger lock. <

From the second story.

>Police confiscated Rose's properly registered handgun and the trigger lock Rose had used on it.<

[Boris]

Originally Posted by Alpo

From your own link.

First story.
>Evidence technicians marked and photographed spent shell casings ejected from the gun in the homeowner's front yard, finding some on the sidewalk.

Police took Rose's gun with two clips of ammunition. Betz said the gun is properly registered and equipped with a trigger lock. <

From the second story.

>Police confiscated Rose's properly registered handgun and the trigger lock Rose had used on it.<

I also said sometimes. The link where the homeowner shot the guy with a shotgun 4 times had nothing taken from him, probably because he never left the house.

In the first link the homeowner chased the kid outside and shot him as he ran. Thats because lethal force is legal to use to arrest a felon, for an unsworn civilian atleast. In most locales sworn civilians have less authority to use lethal force and arrest. Read up on some local laws and you might find the same situation (never listen to a so called trainer, they rarely tell the entire truth when it comes to laws, read them yourself!!). A cop might be in deep doodoo for shooting a fleeing felon when it is perfectly legal for a non sworn civilian to do so. Once again it all depends on where you live.

Rose got the pistol back and never went to trial or even have charges drawn against him. In my original quote of you, you said you found it hard to believe someone could shoot a retreating felon in the back and be legal about it. I said otherwise and have some pretty solid proof to backup what I said. I lived in MI for a hot minute and the majority of good legal shoots resulted in no charges and no weapons being taken.

It is what it is. No two locales are the same. Study up on yours and never ever say the way it is in your neck of the woods is what its like for everyone. That will never be a true statement no matter how many times its posted on the web and by who.

In the state of WA where I lived for 4 years a police officer can ask you to give them your pistol on a traffic stop or other encounter. You are 100% legal to tell them it is safe where it is and it will stay where it is. There is nothing the sworn civilian can do about it unless they want to be unemloyed. In MI if you did that there would be a good number of charges against you. Depends on where you live. Learn your laws and ignore what others will tell you about where they live, it will not aply to you anyway.....

edit: Even in the military shooting someone in the back is legal and is not frowned upon. When you have someone on the run are you going to let them run until they find cover again so they can shoot back at you? HELL NO! I got a few tours of experience in combat, not playing COD4 on Xbox kinda tours either. People get shot in the back all the time in war. If they got put in prison for it and the story is real then they did something else wrong. Once someone shoots at you or shoots your buddy in the face, game over, front, back, sideways or upsidedown. Only time its illegal to kill someone is after you have advanced past them....

[Alpo]

Originally Posted by Boris

In my original quote of you, you said you found it hard to believe someone could shoot a retreating felon in the back and be legal about it. .

If you are going to quote me, quote what I said, not what you say I said. Look at post #11. My first response to your statement.

>Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris View Post
Your guns(s) will not be taken at all in some states. It all depends on where you live. (that's what you said)


I have a difficulty with that statement. (that's what I said)

Notice, I did not say I found it hard to believe you could legally shoot a fleeing felon. I said I found it hard to believe you could shoot someone and they would not take your gun.

But, I don't care any more. Believe what you want. Say what you want.

Oh, and have a nice life.

[Boris]

Originally Posted by Alpo

If you are going to quote me, quote what I said, not what you say I said. Look at post #11. My first response to your statement.

>Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris View Post
Your guns(s) will not be taken at all in some states. It all depends on where you live. (that's what you said)


I have a difficulty with that statement. (that's what I said)

Notice, I did not say I found it hard to believe you could legally shoot a fleeing felon. I said I found it hard to believe you could shoot someone and they would not take your gun.

But, I don't care any more. Believe what you want. Say what you want.

Oh, and have a nice life.

and in post 32 I was talking to hunter29180 and you interjected. No biggie at all.

Believe what you want, say what you want. Will a gun be taken no matter what in some locales? For sure. Does it mean it will be the same somewhere else? Nope. It may be the reality for you. You might have to stop by law when they retreat. Some may stop by choice when they retreat. Some might be legaly able to chase and even kill via shooting them in the back.

Depends on where you live.

I have a great life. My wife buys me guns and ammo, my boys beg me to take them hunting and the wife told me I was getting a Harley. It is very very nice and I enjoy every second of it. I will defend that joy within my local laws as much as I can and I know them local laws by the number. I dont speculate, or go by what I read on the interwebs.......

[hunter29180]

I am not going to disagree with the FACT that some areas will not look twice at a homeowner shoots someone in the back..i DO think 4 times with a shotgun is excessive! I think the first one in the back would have been sufficent..But I wasnt there. BUT 4? still feel that just not right.

Alpo..Boris was mainly addressing me, i think..and Boris I also have combat experience..i know some did in fact shoot some in the back..but I think we are addressing 2 diffrent sets of circumstences. Battlefield..yes it can and will happen...off the battlefield..better not or have a piss poor top.. and thats my opinion..no reflection on you. I was just raised and taught diffrent than you.

OH Boris..CONGRATS on catching a fine wife..they are really hard to find nowadays!! give her a hug and thank her for putting up with you..I get at least a kiss when i do that!

[Boris]

Originally Posted by hunter29180

I am not going to disagree with the FACT that some areas will not look twice at a homeowner shoots someone in the back..i DO think 4 times with a shotgun is excessive! I think the first one in the back would have been sufficent..But I wasnt there. BUT 4? still feel that just not right.

Alpo..Boris was mainly addressing me, i think..and Boris I also have combat experience..i know some did in fact shoot some in the back..but I think we are addressing 2 diffrent sets of circumstences. Battlefield..yes it can and will happen...off the battlefield..better not or have a piss poor top.. and thats my opinion..no reflection on you. I was just raised and taught diffrent than you.

OH Boris..CONGRATS on catching a fine wife..they are really hard to find nowadays!! give her a hug and thank her for putting up with you..I get at least a kiss when i do that!

Even if I legaly could I would never shoot someone in the back as they ran, legal or not when CONUS. Just showing no two locales are the same. Know your local laws and live within them. The choice to use lethal force to its fullest legaly is up to the individual.

The wifey is a keeper, and she is a really good shot too. She is the one an intruder would have to worry about, even if I am home at the time. She knows the laws too....

[marlin795]

Originally Posted by Boris

Even if I legaly could I would never shoot someone in the back as they ran, legal or not when CONUS. Just showing no two locales are the same. Know your local laws and live within them. The choice to use lethal force to its fullest legaly is up to the individual.

The wifey is a keeper, and she is a really good shot too. She is the one an intruder would have to worry about, even if I am home at the time. She knows the laws too....

Your scored with your wife Boris.

[dad2thebone]

Originally Posted by graehaven

Talk to your local district attorney and / or sheriff about that.

Know your state's case law on the subject. Know what the law says.

Two is one and one is none.

As far as getting out of your neighborhood, well, the time is coming that it won't matter where you live. We will ALL be faced with violent confrontations, and the cops are NOT going to be there to help you anyway.

kinda sums it up right there. But chances are you wont see that weapon for a long time. and your lucky if they dont hold the rest.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by dad2thebone

and your lucky if they dont hold the rest.

No one has full records of my firearms (except me). They'd have a hard time getting a hold of the rest, even after a thorough, warranted search.

[Boris]

Originally Posted by marlin795

Your scored with your wife Boris.

Yep. Old guy at the range made fun of me oneday. TOLD me my Glock would not touch the plates at 25 yards. Because his 3K Les Baer was having troubles. Called my wife over from shooting the 22 rifle she likes shooting. I asked her to shoot the plates for me. She asked "the big ones or small ones?" I told her what ever she wanted to shoot. She chose the smaller 4" plates..... 7 shots later (missed the first one on the first shot) she cleared all 6 of the 4" plates at 25 yards. The expert just packed up and left. I dont even think I could have done it under that kind of pressure with such a perfect 1911 sittin on the table next to me. All I could do was be bedazzled on how perty the gun was and how terrible the owner shot it.......

She can flat out shoot. I want to get her into IPSC someday. that way I can go and just watch and brag to the others there "I taught her everything she knows".......

Finders keepers and the rest is history for the suckas at the range.....

[marlin795]

Originally Posted by Boris

Yep. Old guy at the range made fun of me oneday. TOLD me my Glock would not touch the plates at 25 yards. Because his 3K Les Baer was having troubles. Called my wife over from shooting the 22 rifle she likes shooting. I asked her to shoot the plates for me. She asked "the big ones or small ones?" I told her what ever she wanted to shoot. She chose the smaller 4" plates..... 7 shots later (missed the first one on the first shot) she cleared all 6 of the 4" plates at 25 yards. The expert just packed up and left. I dont even think I could have done it under that kind of pressure with such a perfect 1911 sittin on the table next to me. All I could do was be bedazzled on how perty the gun was and how terrible the owner shot it.......

She can flat out shoot. I want to get her into IPSC someday. that way I can go and just watch and brag to the others there "I taught her everything she knows".......

Finders keepers and the rest is history for the suckas at the range.....

Nice. I taught my girl to shoot then she left me.I wanted to shoot the idiot she left me for. 2 years of my life down the drain. Then I enlisted lol.

[n4aof]

Originally Posted by busykngt

And BTW, wouldn't that be an argument to use something "cheap" but deadly? Why would you want to be out your best (i.e., most expensive) gun for months on end?

If you live in a jurisdiction where they are likely to hold your gun for "months" before clearing you (assuming you are in the right), they are most likely going to take ALL your guns as part of the investigation.

Any answer anyone can give to your question is meaningless because the real answer is 90% dependent on where you live and 2% dependent on what you did, and 8% dependent on what you said happened.

[n4aof]

A couple of years ago we had our local cop to the house to "investigate" an attempted break in (door jam damaged by prying) -- while talking with my wife his pager went off so he asked if he could step inside and use our phone -- my wife said OK so he came into our spare bedroom/office (converted enclosed carport).

On the wall in a poster frame was a standard B21 silhouette target. The cop noticed the target and commented "Your husband is a mighty good shot." -- My wife said, "Yes, but that's not his target -- that's mine -- he taught me to shoot." I think he was feeling downright inadequate by the time he got back to his car.

BTW, the holes in the target were .45ACP and our local department carrys 9mm's

[Alpo]

Originally Posted by n4aof

If you live in a jurisdiction where they are likely to hold your gun for "months" before clearing you (assuming you are in the right), they are most likely going to take ALL your guns as part of the investigation.

Any answer anyone can give to your question is meaningless because the real answer is 90% dependent on where you live and 2% dependent on what you did, and 8% dependent on what you said happened.

If Joe Burglar breaks in my house, and I kill him, then yes, I should be cleared quickly. If my aim is off, however, and he lives, then he will be tried for burglary.

First they have to get him well. However long the hospital stay is. Then he gets arraigned. Tells the judge he's crazy and needs to be examinined by shrink. Trial continued, continued, continued.

Currently I know a young lady that her husband attempted to kill her in early December. 2009. Trial has not yet started. One year and eleven months, and trial has not yet started. If, instead of running for her life, she had shot and wounded him, her gun would STILL be evidence, and would STILL be impounded by the police.

Sometimes it takes a while.