Define: "Forcible Entry"

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

I have had my HCP since 4.12.10 and have had a question about this since:

Define "Forcible Entry". We all know that if someone enters our home "Forcibly" that we can, as a citizen, assume they are armed and act accordingly.

My question:

Does the TCA define "Forcible"?

What if the door/window is unlocked?

What if it's cracked?

What if it's run down and easily opened even when locked?

If someone is in your house are you going to say, "Hey, buddy, did you kick my door, or just push it?" Before you protect your family?

There are a MILLION different scenarios that I could come up with and I'm not gonna bore you with any more, but you get the drift.

[saintsfanbrian]

I AM NOT A LAWYER but to me forcible entry is anyone entering my home WITHOUT my permission regardless of how they got there.

My family will be protected regardless.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

I AM NOT A LAWYER but to me forcible entry is anyone entering my home WITHOUT my permission regardless of how they got there.

My family will be protected regardless.

What?! You're a lawyer? So, I can take what you said and run with it????

JK..

Agreed, that's what I'm talking about, I was just wondering what some scumbag attorney on the other end would be saying... (While being fully aware that they can say anything, and its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6)

[Guest Caveman]

For what it is worth I am also of the understanding that if someone is in your home without your consent it doesn't matter how they entered.

[Guest jackdm3]

This was a heated debate you'll get a kick out of.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/general-off-topic/34877-so-guy-just-walks-my-apartment.html

[Guest pops]

this is what Webster's has to say but I agree with the others, if they are in my house without my permisson FAMILY comes first.

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: forcible entry

Function: noun

1 : the unlawful taking of possession of real property by force or threats of force against the lawful possessor —see also FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER

2 : unlawful entry into or onto another's property esp. when accompanied by force <forcible entry of an automobile>

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Cite This Source

Edited May 18, 2010 by pops

[Fallguy]

My brother the LEO has told me that "force" can mean simply turning a door knob or opening the door.

It doesn't have to mean kicking down or breaking anything.

[Guest Caveman]

This was a heated debate you'll get a kick out of.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/general-off-topic/34877-so-guy-just-walks-my-apartment.html

I remember that thread.

[Guest Caveman]

All I can say is I do not plan to wait and figure out where the intruder came in and if they broke anything.

[Smith]

My brother the LEO has told me that "force" can mean simply turning a door knob or opening the door.

It doesn't have to mean kicking down or breaking anything.

I'm guessing there is a wide difference between what LE will charge as forcible entry and what a court or jury would find to be forcible in a SD shooting. Just my thought.

[DaveTN]

There are a MILLION different scenarios that I could come up with and I'm not gonna bore you with any more, but you get the drift.

You are losing sight of the facts.

Forced entry doesn’t give you a free pass to execute someone. Some of the Castle laws provide that you are given the presumption of being in danger instead of having to prove you were. If the Prosecutor can prove you were not in danger and you simply killed someone; you can be convicted and sent to prison.

Immediate death or great bodily harm will never fail you. Anything else is a grave risk to your freedom.

[Guest Caveman]

You are losing sight of the facts.

Forced entry doesn’t give you a free pass to execute someone. Some of the Castle laws provide that you are given the presumption of being in danger instead of having to prove you were. If the Prosecutor can prove you were not in danger and you simply killed someone; you can be convicted and sent to prison.

Immediate death or great bodily harm will never fail you. Anything else is a grave risk to your freedom.

What....free pass to execute? If someone forcibly enters my home, that DOES give me the right to protect myself and my family without waiting to find out if they are armed or what their intention is. Furthermore, a prosecutor can twist anything around in a SD shooting depending on what their agenda is.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

I'm guessing there is a wide difference between what LE will charge as forcible entry and what a court or jury would find to be forcible in a SD shooting. Just my thought.

That's what I was getting at... I have looked and looked and see nothing but gray area around the whole "forcible entry" thing.

You are losing sight of the facts.

Forced entry doesn’t give you a free pass to execute someone. Some of the Castle laws provide that you are given the presumption of being in danger instead of having to prove you were. If the Prosecutor can prove you were not in danger and you simply killed someone; you can be convicted and sent to prison.

Immediate death or great bodily harm will never fail you. Anything else is a grave risk to your freedom.

I realize and understand that. I do, but I'm talking about worst case scenario here. Guy gets in to your house and you feel that your life and your families lives are in serious danger, only to find out that your son/daughter, etc, left the porch door unlocked, and the prosecutor says, "But the back door was unlocked, so he didn't force himself in, he just walked in."

[Guest jackdm3]

A "B & E" can be an entering without breaking, as told to me by a MPD cop.

[Fallguy]

That's what I was getting at... I have looked and looked and see nothing but gray area around the whole "forcible entry" thing.

I realize and understand that. I do, but I'm talking about worst case scenario here. Guy gets in to your house and you feel that your life and your families lives are in serious danger, only to find out that your son/daughter, etc, left the porch door unlocked, and the prosecutor says, "But the back door was unlocked, so he didn't force himself in, he just walked in."

So not exactly sure what you are looking for then. There is never a 100% clear cut answer to these things, especially based on a general scenario...and dang sure not from the a bunch of guys/gals on the internet.

As Dave tried to explain...it really doesn't matter how someone gained entry as far as being justified in using deadly force. To use deadly force you must have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. The only time forcible and illegal entry come into that is that the law presumes you to have had that fear if that situation. So instead of yo having to prove you were...they would have to prove you weren't and/or that it wasn't reasonable for you to have that fear.

So now...reasonable...that doesn't mean you have to know 100% the facts of the situation...the standard is supposed to be what would a reasonable person do if presented with the same facts you had and as you knew them to be at that moment...not what may have come to lite later.

If you ever feel your life is threatened.....fire If you don't feel that way...don't.

If you are going to try and hold court in your mind before shooting or don't think you can take a life if need be....get rid of your firearms.

[BlackHawk93]

You are losing sight of the facts.

Forced entry doesn’t give you a free pass to execute someone. Some of the Castle laws provide that you are given the presumption of being in danger instead of having to prove you were. If the Prosecutor can prove you were not in danger and you simply killed someone; you can be convicted and sent to prison.

Immediate death or great bodily harm will never fail you. Anything else is a grave risk to your freedom.

The Castle Doctrine protects the homeowner from civil prosecution and provides them a valid defense to criminal prosecution if someone "unlawfully" invades your home. However they invade it. It also applies to entry into your vehicle IF YOU ARE IN IT.

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

The presumption established in subsection © shall not apply, if:

(1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder; provided, that the person is not prohibited from entering the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle by an order of protection, injunction for protection from domestic abuse, or a court order of no contact against that person;

Edited May 18, 2010 by BlackHawk93

[Fallguy]

The Castle Doctrine protects the homeowner from civil prosecution and provides them a valid defense to criminal prosecution if someone "unlawfully" invades your home. However they invade it. It also applies to entry into your vehicle IF YOU ARE IN IT.

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

The presumption established in subsection © shall not apply, if:

(1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder; provided, that the person is not prohibited from entering the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle by an order of protection, injunction for protection from domestic abuse, or a court order of no contact against that person;

You quoted...but did you read it?

...is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury...

That is exactly what Dave said. It is only a presumption, if the DA feels that you did not or should not have had a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury he can still charge you and possibly convict you.

It just like if I see a man and woman together I may presume they are husband and wife, but that doesn't mean that is the case.

All this presumption does is but the burden on the state to prove you weren't in reasonable fear instead of you having to prove you were.

[BlackHawk93]

Yeah, I read it. Did you read what I said? I never said presumed was out of the equation.

[Fallguy]

Yeah, I read it. Did you read what I said? I never said presumed was out of the equation.

True enough...

[DaveTN]

The Castle Doctrine protects the homeowner from civil prosecution and provides them a valid defense to criminal prosecution if someone "unlawfully" invades your home. However they invade it.

We see this posted every time Castle Law comes up. We will just have to be in disagreement on this; you are wrong.

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

The presumption established in subsection © shall not apply, if:

(1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder; provided, that the person is not prohibited from entering the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle by an order of protection, injunction for protection from domestic abuse, or a court order of no contact against that person;

We are in agreement here… castle Doctrine allows for a presumption; that is all it does. It does not give you a free pass to kill someone if they illegally forced their way into your house.

I don’t know why this so hard to understand. The Castle Doctrine allows the presumption that you are in danger; you don’t have to prove it. But if the Prosecutor can prove that you were not in danger that presumption is gone and you can be sent to prison.

Let me give you an example…. You come home late one evening and find the 15 year old neighbor kid burglarizing your house. You come in the back door and he runs away from you trying to get out the front door. Feeling secure in your exceptional knowledge of the law you blast him in the back several times. Because after all… you are protected by the Castle Doctrine.

You will go to prison.

Now…. Any of you can boast about how you are going to kill anyone that comes in your house for any reason and how you are going to protect your family at all costs..

Truth is… if you have to leave your family to go to prison you have failed them and you are a moron.

[Oh Shoot]

...

Let me give you an example…. You come home late one evening and find the 15 year old neighbor kid burglarizing your house. You come in the back door and he runs away from you trying to get out the front door. Feeling secure in your exceptional knowledge of the law you blast him in the back several times. Because after all… you are protected by the Castle Doctrine.

You will go to prison....

Agree, here's another, in response to those who always intimate "a dead perp can't testify against you or sue you".

You catch the perp and shoot him once, catches him in the gut. He's on his knees, showing no fight. Then you step up close and put one in his brain pan. After forensics, good chance you're in trouble. If he was unarmed, almost certainly you are.

How about the drunk kid that blunders in through unlocked door? Maybe one of your kid's friends, maybe friend of the neighbor's kids, stumbles into wrong house. You nail him. Likely, you're in trouble.

The very idea of "shooting the perp to the ground", while widely taught, well ... one blast COM with double naught would do it, and so would 8 rounds of .45. Which would likely be deemed "bloodthirsty" and prosecuted?

Etc. Any number of circumstances that the "Castle Law" ain't necessarily gonna cut it for total walk on your part.

You have to remember that prosecutors are performance driven critters, they aren't necessarily into "justice".

- OS

[Fallguy]

Good examples Dave, OS.

This all is not to say that if it is clear cut thug who came in in the middle of the night, that the DA is going to use every resource to try and prove you shouldn't have shot.

Each incident is reviewed based on it's own merits and how deeply it is reviewed is based on the facts.

[BlackHawk93]

We see this posted every time Castle Law comes up. We will just have to be in disagreement on this; you are wrong.

And you must think you are the judge. I simply stated what we were told in our class about the Castle Doctrine. But it's obvious anyone who you don't agree with you have to resort to calling them wrong. Whatever. You can create all your little scenarios you want but you don't know how I would react to an invasion. The scenario you created is a classic example of when someone should NOT shoot someone. Never did I say just because someone was in my home that they were ok to shoot. But you're the lawyer.

Edited May 19, 2010 by BlackHawk93

[Punisher84]

When I worked at a range/training school I must have heard the HCP class 500 times over 3 years. When the laws changed our instructors talked to alot of different lawyers and judges and most of our instructors were current LE. The general consensus was "force" could mean turning a knob, opening a window, etc. However if you're door was open and someone stepped inside, there was a possibility the "presumption" given in the CD might not be there.

As for what Dave said about the civil immunity thing,it's not completely wrong, the law does basically say if you are not held criminally liable, you will not be held liable in a civil suit and whoever brings the suit will award you all fees, etc if/when they lose. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY CANNOT SUE YOU. They can sue you all day, it was built in to deter frivolous lawsuits.

As much as this stuff has been discussed here I'm surprised some of the older members can't give clearer answers by now.

[tnhawk]

Forced entry doesn’t give you a free pass to execute someone.

Immediate death or great bodily harm will never fail you. Anything else is a grave risk to your freedom.

If you can't convince a jury that, at that moment, you were in fear of your life, then you shouldn't fire a weapon.