I’m a big fan of the “turn all lights on, make as much noise as possible and yell to whoever is in your house you ‘have a gun and know how go use it so get the fuck out’” approach.
Nobody who is breaking in to steal stuff wants to kill you (probably) and knowing they have a chance of getting shot themselves from an occupant they didn’t expect is a huge motivator for them to get the fuck out.
If their motivation isn’t to steal, and is in fact to harm you, then you have lost nothing by doing this. They already expect you to be there and want to hurt you, so do what you have to.
I’m being cautious enough to not shoot my roommate who got home from their trip two days early, my friend who drunkenly stumbled in after his phone died at the pub, my neighbor who needs help but can’t articulate it, or a random stranger who mistakenly walked into the wrong house (this one has happened to me at least 10 times in my life, mostly when living in apartments).
If that ends up getting me shot at by randos there to kidnap me, so be it. I’m prepared to defend myself and my loved ones. The property they can have, but if anyone comes up the stairs they’re toast.
My point is there should never be a time when you jump out at someone and kill them simply because they are there.
Besides, one of the primary rules of firearm safety is “know your target and what’s behind it” and if you don’t know the person you’re shooting at isn’t there for benign purposes, you don’t know your target.
This is manslaughter at best but I’m willing to hear any argument for straight up murder.
I feel like I’m the only one, but if someone is trying to rob me, I’d rather let them than kill someone. A bunch of stuff isn’t worth living with the guilt of killing someone for the rest of my life. Especially because of the odds of accidentally shooting someone innocent
I always used the stairs as the point of no return for a potential intruder in my home. If you come up the stairs, then you’ve made the choice to risk your life. If you’re downstairs, I’m letting you know I’m awake and giving you an opportunity to bounce. You’ve already been on camera at that point, and perhaps I take the opportunity to tighten up the security on my home. I’d rather not kill someone, regardless of the fact they broke into my home. But yeah, if you come up the stairs, that’s that.
I feel for all ranch and bi/split-level homeowners. Tough choices must be made.
It really reads like the homeowner was one of those “I hope someone breaks in so I can legally murder them” kinds of gun owners. maybe they no idea what they were even shooting at, but I’m willing to bet they looked out the window and thought “brown skin, must be gangs fox was right”
I will happily ignore people knocking on my door until they go away. Trying the door knob will certainly get my attention but just to yell at you, not enough to grab a gun.
Pulling the trigger without identifying the target; even had they identified, it probably would not qualify as self defense under law…
I am not well versed in Illinois law, but it does have a “castle doctrine”:
In Illinois, the criteria for using force under the Castle Doctrine are outlined in the Illinois Compiled Statutes, specifically 720 ILCS 5/7-1 and 720 ILCS 5/7-2.
These statutes detail when force is legally justified in defense of a dwelling. Force is permitted when an individual reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent or stop an unlawful entry or attack on their home. The term “reasonably believes” requires that the perceived threat be justifiable to an average person in similar circumstances.
Deadly force has stricter criteria. It is allowed only if one reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, or to stop a forcible felony like burglary, robbery, or assault. The law distinguishes between minor trespasses and significant threats to life or safety.
Indiana’s stand-your-ground law provides that a person (1) is justified in using deadly force against someone (including a law enforcement officer) and (2) has no duty to retreat if the person has a reasonable belief that force is required in order to prevent any of the following:
Serious bodily injury to the defendant or a third person;
The commission of a forcible felony (one that involves the threat of force or involves risk of bodily injury);
The unlawful entry of the defendant’s home or curtilage (the area around their home) or their (occupied) vehicle;
Trespass or unlawful interference with property in the lawful possession of the defendant, a member of their immediate family, or a person whose property the defendant is authorized to protect (i.e., an employer protecting their employees); or
The hijacking (or threat of hijacking) of an airplane on the ground in Indiana or Indiana airspace.
So the homeowner has to show that they reasonably believed deadly force was needed to stop this woman and her husband from entering their home. That’s it. That’s all they need to prove to use this defense.
I for one do not for a moment think that it was justified, but in a town named Whitestown, who can say what the police and prosecutors will conclude?
who can say what the police and prosecutors will conclude?
Prosecutorial discretion is the real issue in most of these cases. If it were brought before a jury it could easily be argued that they tried literally nothing else before killing this person, so how could they reasonably believe anything? But it may never get to a jury because the DA might be a racist dirtbag who just decides to never press any charges.
I’m a big fan of the “turn all lights on, make as much noise as possible and yell to whoever is in your house you ‘have a gun and know how go use it so get the fuck out’” approach.
Nobody who is breaking in to steal stuff wants to kill you (probably) and knowing they have a chance of getting shot themselves from an occupant they didn’t expect is a huge motivator for them to get the fuck out.
If their motivation isn’t to steal, and is in fact to harm you, then you have lost nothing by doing this. They already expect you to be there and want to hurt you, so do what you have to.
I’m being cautious enough to not shoot my roommate who got home from their trip two days early, my friend who drunkenly stumbled in after his phone died at the pub, my neighbor who needs help but can’t articulate it, or a random stranger who mistakenly walked into the wrong house (this one has happened to me at least 10 times in my life, mostly when living in apartments).
If that ends up getting me shot at by randos there to kidnap me, so be it. I’m prepared to defend myself and my loved ones. The property they can have, but if anyone comes up the stairs they’re toast.
My point is there should never be a time when you jump out at someone and kill them simply because they are there.
Besides, one of the primary rules of firearm safety is “know your target and what’s behind it” and if you don’t know the person you’re shooting at isn’t there for benign purposes, you don’t know your target.
This is manslaughter at best but I’m willing to hear any argument for straight up murder.
I feel like I’m the only one, but if someone is trying to rob me, I’d rather let them than kill someone. A bunch of stuff isn’t worth living with the guilt of killing someone for the rest of my life. Especially because of the odds of accidentally shooting someone innocent
Pretty sure I’m alone on this one though
I always used the stairs as the point of no return for a potential intruder in my home. If you come up the stairs, then you’ve made the choice to risk your life. If you’re downstairs, I’m letting you know I’m awake and giving you an opportunity to bounce. You’ve already been on camera at that point, and perhaps I take the opportunity to tighten up the security on my home. I’d rather not kill someone, regardless of the fact they broke into my home. But yeah, if you come up the stairs, that’s that.
I feel for all ranch and bi/split-level homeowners. Tough choices must be made.
Shot through the front door in the face because she tried the doorknob
Oh look, a convincing argument for murder!
It really reads like the homeowner was one of those “I hope someone breaks in so I can legally murder them” kinds of gun owners. maybe they no idea what they were even shooting at, but I’m willing to bet they looked out the window and thought “brown skin, must be gangs fox was right”
I will happily ignore people knocking on my door until they go away. Trying the door knob will certainly get my attention but just to yell at you, not enough to grab a gun.
Pulling the trigger without identifying the target; even had they identified, it probably would not qualify as self defense under law…
I am not well versed in Illinois law, but it does have a “castle doctrine”:
(emphasis added)
https://legalclarity.org/illinois-castle-doctrine-laws-criteria-and-legal-implications/
Illinois law does not apply in Indiana where this incident took place. Indiana has a pretty robust stand your ground law.
Indiana’s stand-your-ground law provides that a person (1) is justified in using deadly force against someone (including a law enforcement officer) and (2) has no duty to retreat if the person has a reasonable belief that force is required in order to prevent any of the following:
Serious bodily injury to the defendant or a third person;
The commission of a forcible felony (one that involves the threat of force or involves risk of bodily injury);
The unlawful entry of the defendant’s home or curtilage (the area around their home) or their (occupied) vehicle;
Trespass or unlawful interference with property in the lawful possession of the defendant, a member of their immediate family, or a person whose property the defendant is authorized to protect (i.e., an employer protecting their employees); or
The hijacking (or threat of hijacking) of an airplane on the ground in Indiana or Indiana airspace.
So the homeowner has to show that they reasonably believed deadly force was needed to stop this woman and her husband from entering their home. That’s it. That’s all they need to prove to use this defense.
I for one do not for a moment think that it was justified, but in a town named Whitestown, who can say what the police and prosecutors will conclude?
Prosecutorial discretion is the real issue in most of these cases. If it were brought before a jury it could easily be argued that they tried literally nothing else before killing this person, so how could they reasonably believe anything? But it may never get to a jury because the DA might be a racist dirtbag who just decides to never press any charges.