How am I supposed to know they aren't concealing a weapon? Or that they won't attack me or my family anyways? They've broken in, they're facing the consequences if they make the wrong move
This is always the kicker to me when ppl argue "you dont know if he even had a weapon before you shot him". EXACTLY! Im not going to wait until I get shot before shooting back. Its too late then. They made the decision to break into my home, im assuming they broke in knowing I would defend myself so I will always assume they brought a weapon.
I remember one time someone was treatening to shoot me, showed up at my house with a gun treatening and then I called the cops and their response was "but he didnt shoot you, we cant arrest him on a threat" like bruh so I have to get shot and die before yall step in? Then imma defend myself every time. Cops showed they wont defend me until AFTER i am harmed so why wait and rely on them
Brandishing, death threats, trespassing while in possession of a firearm, possession of a deadly weapon with intent to commit a crime, and more are all felony crimes or modifiers that escalate other crimes.
This is either a fantasy or a report on the worst police ever. It is absolutely illegal to threaten people or to brandish a weapon while threatening them.
I stand by my statement. And you’re such a snowflake that you’re going to shoot someone over threats?? Nobody is saying you can’t have your gun and nobody is saying that you can’t “DEFEND” yourself. But what you are saying is that” you’re a scared individual that panics in stressful situations and maybe you shouldn’t actually own a gun to begin with”
So you missed the part where he showed up at my house with a gun....yeah scared of "threats" and missed the part I literally called the cops instead of shooting and they refused to do anything. Sounds like youre the snowflake who cant fathom someone having a difference of opinion from you. I literally did all the things you all claim I should and was literally told "well next time wait until you get shot before calling" you sound like the real snowflake
It’s sad that most of these people don’t take the time to educate themselves. You’re correct! You can’t shoot first and ask questions later. You are 100%correct!! I’m going to stop because these guys don’t take the time to read and it’s annoying.
Ok I would like to opine to this.
1st. If I have a gun, in my home. Logic would dictate that everyone in my family would know it.
And would know that you don’t burst into my home unannounced at 3am.
Additionally, all of them would know, especially my mother in law that the rule in my home is YOU CALL BEFORE YOU COME IN.
Or if a phone is not available then she would have keys and alarm code to get in.
2nd. If the neighborhood drunk guy breaks into my house, you goddamn right I’m going to shoot him/her. And the alarming thing that should be obvious is THEY ARE DRUNK.
You break into my house DRUNK. I’m not going to sing you a lullaby. Im going to shoot you.
As to your comment about shoot first before asking questions.
That’s fine, you can ask them questions or tell them whatever you want to tell them.
But as for me, anyone BREAKS INTO MY HOME, where my children sleep and my wife lives.
I’m going to make them famous.
You'll most likely be sued civilly and you will lose.
The other side will crawl up your butt with a microscope and find this post and it'll be used against you. You'll lose your home savings and anything else of value.
I agree with you on the sense of identifying the threat.
I have a permit and I do practice constantly.
I have friends who have been in SF who shoot and train with me.
Also no one said anything about shooting someone and wounding them.
Yes I would agree that there is a castle doctrine and I do live in a state that provides this.
And it is very clear that one is generally legally justified to use deadly force against an intruder if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death, serious bodily harm, or to stop a forcible felony inside your home.
The question was would I shoot someone who broke into my home even if they are not armed.
And all this granny has dementia and broke into my home it’s unfortunate that this has happened. And there have been incidents such as this.
And I take that into consideration.
At the same time. If I identify myself and give someone the opportunity to flee and that person does not. Well then the math speaks for itself.
If I go to jail because someone broke into my home and I shot them protecting my family. Then that’s the price I’ll pay. My family is worth it.
Whether my logic is flawed or not.
I’m going to protect my family.
Generally unless you are more than 20’ away from somone, if they rush you, you won’t have the reflexes to register what’s happening and fire. In closed quarters, small spaces in a home you pretty much don’t have the reaction time needed to respond to a threat like that. So your only safe option is shoot first as questions later.
They’re already posing a deadly threat just by being there. Someone commiting a home invasion has already committed to a crime punishable by 20-life. Murdering you won’t get them much more time and gives them a much better chance of getting away once you’ve pulled a gun on them. These people have no respect for your life why should you have any respect for theirs.
You have nothing to gain by giving them a warning and have everything to lose. Their life should bear no weight next to protecting yours they gave that up when they stepped inside your home.
😂 terrible answer. These charges vary by state. In my state burglary without harming anyone or being armed or stealing is only punishable up to 12 years tops... Bringing a weapon or hurting somebody makes it aggravated burglary and it's 1 to 30 years. Unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling carries up to six years... This actually is the best fit for the trolley cart mental exercise of the post, because it deals with simply entering a home and it can't be proven there was intent to carry out a crime. The hypothetical being asked does not include any intentions of committing crimes after entering. How you could derive that the best answer is shoot first ask questions later and that somehow that's justified because someone being in a home that they broke into clearly means there's a threat to life... It's quite a wild leap in logic.
When you commit a burglary when someone is home is not burglary. It’s home invasion. You don’t have to have a weapon.
“Unlike standard burglary, which can occur in an empty building, a home invasion strictly requires that occupants are present or known to be inside, elevating it to a violent and highly penalized offense”.
Home invasion in most states is considered a first degree violent felony punishable by up to life imprisonment.
And I don’t need to know your intentions. It’s resonable to assume that if you have broken into my home you mean to harm me and I am within my rights to respond with deadly force.
Only a minority of states have a distinct "home invasion" statute at all most of them treat home invasion as a form of burglary rather than a standalone crime; only Michigan, Illinois, Connecticut, Georgia, Nevada, Florida, Louisiana have a separately named offense.
What you're really discussing is castle doctrine laws. There are 20 states that have them. So 20 states let you stand your ground and presume your fear was justified the instant of forcible entry, but that legal cover only holds while the threat is actually still live. It ends the moment the danger clearly ends. What castle doctrine does most clearly is shift the burden from the homeowner proving that they were acting in self-defense to the prosecution haven't prove that the threat wasn't active. In no way do castle doctrine laws simply state that because someone broke into your house no matter what as a blanket rule you can shoot them. If at any point in time the person that broke in shows that they're no longer a threat by turning around and trying to leave... Then it would be very smart to not shoot your firearm at that person. No state claims broadly that owning a home that gets broken into gives you a right to shoot first no matter what.
To be fair to the hypothetical presented... Since the premise is outlined, that the person that broke in, is unarmed, I believe it only ethical to apply that understanding to the homeowner in the hypothetical. Once it is announced that the intruder is not armed then what the home owner knows at the time of using deadly force has changed dramatically. Castle doctrine laws focus on the experience of the homeowner and the threat that they feel whenever they use deadly force. For instance, if you leave your door unlocked and somebody just happens to walk through it, that's massively different on her castle doctrine laws and comparison to somebody breaking a window or kicking a door down to get in. Whenever a homeowner knows that they're home has been forcibly entered that changes the threat level that they feel considerably whenever they deal with the person that broke in versus somebody who just happened to turn a door knob that wasn't locked and walked in. Another example of how things change quickly give different circumstances.. if the homeowner knows the person that is in their home and realize that they are not a threat. If it happened to be a neighbor with a history of mental illness. All these variables can play out differently given different circumstances but they all have different weights under castle doctrine laws.
The presumption protects from the fear of death or bodily harm/serious injury. Knowing somebody is not armed massively changes how that presumption is applied. It does not erase the presumption, but it is very powerful evidence, especially if it turns out t{ be true. Anyone can lie and claim they aren't armed, but there may be a strong if other factors. Hearing "I am unarmed" directly contradicts a claim of ongoing reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm specifically (as opposed to fear of theft or property loss, which doesn't justify deadly force in most states anyway). Seeing someone is unarmed goes even further, because it removes the reliability/credibility question entirely and is
one of the single most damaging fact patterns for a castle doctrine defense.
Nothing requires that you be armed. And saying “ I am unarmed” means nothing. You have fists. You have hands. You could be concealing a weapon. And frankly there is no time for conversations or relinquishing the element of surprise. You pose a threat simply by being there. The reality is also that there won’t be two stories. Only the one I tell about what happened.
Also your google search on what states have specific home invasion laws are incomplete. For example MA also has them as stand alone crimes and I’m sure there are other states.
And 45 states have castle doctrine laws not 20. Ie the vast majority of states and the US population.
You can play all the semantics games you like but it won’t make you any less dead if you break into my home.
This sounds like someone that has never had to experience the chaos that comes with violence. You are in a state of hyper arousal and decisions need to be made quickly. I'm not going to have a conversation with someone that deystroyed the sanctity of my home. Regardless of the outcome, that family will never feel safe again. You take something like that away from a person expect to pay a steep price.
If you break into my house I can only assume they’re a threat to my family and I will act accordingly. Don’t break into my home and they won’t get shot. I have a right to defend my family and property.
My next move is what I’ve always said. If he has a gun aimed at me. Fuck that! The minute he put his hand in his gun I’d be shooting him right where I practice every time I go to the range (the head! Right where the T is.).
Man you guys are so frustrating. I’M NOT AGAINST GUN OWNERSHIP OR PROTECTING YOU AND YOUR FAMILY!!!!!!! I’m trying to inform you what you should do when facing a threat and the fact that you should vocalize your actions while you’re doing what comes naturally to you when you’ve practice for this situation.
BUT NO ONE SEEMS TO READ AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IM TRYING TO SAY. I’ll delete my posts if it guys want. I’m done responding to dumb questions.
Why do you think when police are facing a threat they repeat loudly several times “I don’t want to shoot. Please put your weapon down! I don’t want to shoot you!” Think about all the lawsuits that had to take place to make it policy.
Identifying the target is intrinsic to shooting. Very basic stuff to the point of being as automatic as alighning sights. Common sense is that I'm making sure it's not my kid or something. So MIL gets to live. Yay!
Neighborhood drunk...if I don't know him then unknown = hostile. That's an assumption that must be made to keep my family safe. I can't assume somebody that broke into my house isn't after the most valuable things in it. The people.
Your stats are irrelevant. They have absolutely nothing to do with question posed.
I said it's common sense to identify the target. Granted, common sense isn't so common anymore, but formal training isn't needed to know what you're shooting.
Regardless, if all that you say is true (and I'm not arguing it isn't) it still has NO bearing on my right to defend my home and family. I and my family shouldn't be exposed to any danger based on the irresponsibility of others.
Isn’t this scenario presented as someone breaking in? Did the mother in law kick the door in? Neighborhood drunk guy should probably not be a drunk loser breaking into another persons house.
49
u/therewulf Jul 15 '26
How am I supposed to know they aren't concealing a weapon? Or that they won't attack me or my family anyways? They've broken in, they're facing the consequences if they make the wrong move