Pincus suggests verbally warning home invader

[K191145]

I would not be too worried about a DA, etc. seeing the above statement because I believe that it explains why I would be in fear of death or serious, bodily harm.  The link I posted would, hopefully, provide real world evidence of an actual incident (one of many, lately) to support why I believe, as I do, that home invaders enter a home having accepted that they will likely have to injure/kill the residents to get what they want and demonstrate why my fear is a 'reasonable' one.

 

Of course, that is just me and my way of thinking.  I am neither a lawyer nor a self defense expert - just a guy who doesn't want to be killed by a home invader.

 

Your right, it's an automatic assumption that if someone forces their way into your home that you are in fear for your life, it's pretty much a permit to shoot first ask questions later scenerio and if I were a betting man, i would bet the farm most all Tennessee DA's will see it that way, maybe not some New York DA but they have no say in Tennessee. Even though most thugs are stupid I believe they are at least smart enough to know if they break through a locked door with the residents at home they may have to kill one or all of them and most don't care. They are the ones at fault if they get themselves killed, I or anyone else have no legal or moral duty or responsibility to run and hide in our own home, they are fully responsible for whatever happens. That one or two seconds it takes to "warn" them are valuble seconds, seconds that may give them time to shoot you, i'm not wasting those seconds. My life and the life of family members are far more valuble to me than the thugs life, if he/she didn't want to die that day then they shouldn't have forced their way into your home. I don't want that to happen but if it did some day I believe I will find a way to live with my decision.

[JAB]

The smart (and correct) move is ALWAYS to leave and get away from the threat if it can be done safely.

 

We are civilians; we are not law enforcement and we are not soldiers (if you want to act like LE or Military then join up; they can always use good people). Civilians have a basic human/god given/natural (take your pick) right to defend our lives IF they are in actual danger.  Anything beyond that is called murder and prosecuted as such and rightfully so.

 

To me, standing one's ground and defending one's life from someone who breaks into one's home rather than retreating is not "acting like LE or Military".  It is acting like a human being who has the right, both legally (at least in TN) and, I believe, morally to do so. 

 

Going 'looking' for criminals is acting like LE.  Chasing after someone who is fleeing after attempting to break into your home is acting like LE.  Standing your ground rather than running away when your home is being invaded and, by extension, your life is being threatened is not behaving like LE.

Edited August 28, 2013 by JAB

[RobertNashville]

To me, standing one's ground and defending one's life from someone who breaks into one's home rather than retreating is not "acting like LE or Military".  It is acting like a human being who has the right, both legally (at least in TN) and, I believe, morally to do so. 

 

Going 'looking' for criminals is acting like LE.  Chasing after someone who is fleeing after attempting to break into your home is acting like LE.  Standing your ground rather than running away when your home is being invaded and, by extension, your life is being threatened is not behaving like LE.

 

If the criminal is still able to disengage (if given the opportunity) and/or if the victim can safely give ground I see no reason not to do so - it obviously depends on the dynamics of that specific situation.

There is nothing "moral" about using deadly force against someone if you don't have to do so...there is nothing heroic or "right" about "standing your ground" if you can give ground safely and defuse the situation. Obviously, if you can't do so safely then you can't and I've not said otherwise or suggesting otherwise.

The absolutely very best gunfight you can possibly have for you...for your loved ones...for innocents who may be nearby...is the one you were able to avoid.

 

Edited to avoid "confusion" of what I was trying to say.

Edited August 29, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1022814" timestamp="1377707998"] If the criminal is still able to disengage (if given the opportunity) and/or if the victim can safely give ground then your life isn't [i]really[/i] in danger - it may be only a moment [i]from[/i] crossing that "line" but it's still not quite there yet; if it were then it wouldn't be possible for either to disengage safely. There is nothing "moral" about using deadly force against someone if you don't have to do so...there is nothing heroic or "right" about "standing your ground" if you can give ground safely and defuse the situation. Obviously, if you can't do so safely then you can't and I've not said otherwise or suggesting otherwise. The absolutely very best gunfight you can possibly have for you...for your loved ones...for innocents who may be nearby...[b][i]is the one you were able to avoid.[/i][/b][/quote]You sound as if you are approving of imposing a duty to retreat on the victim. You say that there nothing moral about using deadly force against someone you don't have to, I would say that there is nothing immoral about using that deadly force against someone who is engaging in an immoral act. When the criminal chose to engage in their criminal act, they made their choice and must live (or die) with the consequences of that choice. Much like my job as a manager, if I have to terminate an employee it is due to their actions. I didn't fire them, they fired themselves. Whenever a criminal ends up dead due to the victim engaging in self defense, regardless of whether or not the victim could have avoided the gunfight, they bear no moral responsibility for the criminal's demise. It is nothing more than the criminal committing suicide by poor victim selection. Edited August 28, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[chances R]

Simple question, someone or 'someones' are jiggling your front door, even pounding on it......you say, " go away or I will shoot'  and they comply.  OR  they do come in, when you said nothing, they all are armed, even have BP vests, and you die in the shootout, your family killed, or worse.  Which option had the better outcome.  I know, I know, stupid question, but the point is, there are some situations that verbal warnings can prevent tragic, unnecessary outcomes.

[TMF]

Simple question, someone or 'someones' are jiggling your front door, even pounding on it......you say, " go away or I will shoot' and they comply. OR they do come in, when you said nothing, they all are armed, even have BP vests, and you die in the shootout, your family killed, or worse. Which option had the better outcome. I know, I know, stupid question, but the point is, there are some situations that verbal warnings can prevent tragic, unnecessary outcomes.

There is a massive difference between someone who is attempting to gain entrance and someone who has. It would make sense to give warning when they haven't yet made entry since they still don't have the ability to do you or your family harm yet, and the primary goal is protecting your family. If you can prevent them from entering in the first place then success has been achieved.

Once they are in the house there is nothing separating them from hurting me or my family. In the house all bets are off. In the house any intruder is a clear and present threat to your life and the lives of the people you are responsible for protecting.

The point here is the difference between a present threat and a future threat. Someone who is attempting to gain access is not a present threat. They may become one in short order though. If you can prevent that from happening with nonviolence then great. A clear and present threat is a different story. I can't imagine putting the life of the threat, potential prosecution or potential civil liability over the lives of my kids. Those are some pretty screwed up priorities.

[TGO David]

It's amazing how many people in this thread have incorporated "Fret anxiously over possible legal outcome of using deadly force to protect myself from imminent fear of grievous bodily injury or death" into their OODA Loop.  There's something wrong with this picture.

[K191145]

You sound as if you are approving of imposing a duty to retreat on the victim. You say that there nothing moral about using deadly force against someone you don't have to, I would say that there is nothing immoral about using that deadly force against someone who is engaging in an immoral act. When the criminal chose to engage in their criminal act, they made their choice and must live (or die) with the consequences of that choice. Much like my job as a manager, if I have to terminate an employee it is due to their actions. I didn't fire them, they fired themselves. Whenever a criminal ends up dead due to the victim engaging in self defense, regardless of whether or not the victim could have avoided the gunfight, they bear no moral responsibility for the criminal's demise. It is nothing more than the criminal committing suicide by poor victim selection.

 

Amen brother.

I'm not trying to sound like a bad azz, just stating my opinion and what I plan to do pretty much like you are. Lets say I did give a warning to some thug who forced his way into my home, scared him away and later he chose an easier target like some elderly man or woman and killed them. If I knew it was the same thug I personally would feel some guilt that I allowed a killer to get away. Now I know it's not my responsibility to protect everyone, just me and family in my home but any thug brazen enough to force their way through a locked door is a killer as far as i'm concerned. Well' he may just want some money or your TV, BULL HOCKEY, he's there to kill me and my family period, no ifs and or butts about it. Like you said, it's 100% their fault if they get themselves killed, they asked for it and they earned it and I will consider myself morally justified if I have to shoot some thug home invader. Defending yourself and your family is not only a legal or moral right, it's a natural instinct, morality is not even in question. 

Just hearing recent news about thugs shooting babies in the face or killing 88 year old men or joggers because they were board should make anyone assume some criminal home invader is a killer trying to kill them.

Edited August 28, 2013 by K191145

[RobertNashville]

You sound as if you are approving of imposing a duty to retreat on the victim. You say that there nothing moral about using deadly force against someone you don't have to, I would say that there is nothing immoral about using that deadly force against someone who is engaging in an immoral act. When the criminal chose to engage in their criminal act, they made their choice and must live (or die) with the consequences of that choice. Much like my job as a manager, if I have to terminate an employee it is due to their actions. I didn't fire them, they fired themselves. Whenever a criminal ends up dead due to the victim engaging in self defense, regardless of whether or not the victim could have avoided the gunfight, they bear no moral responsibility for the criminal's demise. It is nothing more than the criminal committing suicide by poor victim selection.

I've said nothing remotely akin to being in favor of imposing a "duty to retreat" nor has Rob Pincus for that matter.

Edited August 29, 2013 by RobertNashville

[James in Franklin]

Well, it's true, many of us have "incorporated [f]ret anxiously over possible legal outcome of using deadly force to protect myself from imminent fear of grievous bodily injury or death" into their OODA Loop." It's the legal and social environment in which we live.

[Lumber_Jack]

Anyone entering my home through locked door has a high risk of lead poisoning. No verbal exchange will be had. My door is never unlocked so no mistakes can be made. If you enter, you have shown not only willingness but intent to commit a crime against me and my family. Defense is the only option.

[Lumber_Jack]

Well, it's true, many of us have "incorporated [f]ret anxiously over possible legal outcome of using deadly force to protect myself from imminent fear of grievous bodily injury or death" into their OODA Loop." It's the legal and social environment in which we live.

When was the last time someone in the state of Tennessee was charge with shooting a home invader? Hell, an old man in Knoxville shot a guy trying to break in THROUGH the door. The guy wasn't even I side the house, he managed to run to the front yard and dropped dead in the ditch. No charges.

[RobertNashville]

It's amazing how many people in this thread have incorporated "Fret anxiously over possible legal outcome of using deadly force to protect myself from imminent fear of grievous bodily injury or death" into their OODA Loop.  There's something wrong with this picture.

 

No one should be worrying about the potential legal ramifications of using deadly force at the moment of imminent threat but they damn sure had better considered it BEFORE the threat.

 

Goal one is surviving a life or death encounter; goal two should be surviving the aftermath which is why a person needs to prepare for that aftermath, as much as possible, before the event.

[JAB]

My door is never unlocked so no mistakes can be made.

 

Same here.  When I let my dog out, I even lock the door afterwards even though I know I'll be coming back in just a few minutes to let her back in.

 

Which brings up another point.  My dog isn't a big dog but she also isn't 'small' - probably about forty to fifty pounds of mostly muscle, I guess you would say 'medium' - but being part hound her bark is loud even for her size.  In fact, she has two barks - a puppyish 'throw the ball, again' bark and a serious bark that says, "I'm gonna eat your soul!"  The latter gets used on varmints as well as strange people that she thinks are getting too close to our yard/home.  She lives inside with me and that is the bark she would be using if someone were attempting a home invasion.  Further, I would consider her barking to be plenty of 'verbal (or at least auditory) warning'.  If they are willing to come through a locked door despite her barking then I truly doubt that me crying out, "Go away, you bad ol' man." is going to make any difference.  If her barking deters them and I don't have to shoot, great.  If not, I'm not giving them an opportunity to shoot me.

Edited August 28, 2013 by JAB

[Chucktshoes]

I've said nothing remotely akin to being in favor of imposing a "duty to retreat" nor has Rob Pincus for that matter.

Implying that I have is just as much of an exaggeration as it would be for me to say that anyone who wouldn't retreat is just looking for a chance to murder someone and get away with it.

Nope Pincus doesn't at all. Your statements draw me to a different conclusion.

If the criminal is still able to disengage (if given the opportunity) and/or if the victim can safely give ground then your life isn't really in danger - it may be only a moment from crossing that "line" but it's still not quite there yet; if it were then it wouldn't be possible for either to disengage safely.
There is nothing "moral" about using deadly force against someone if you don't have to do so...there is nothing heroic or "right" about "standing your ground" if you can give ground safely and defuse the situation. Obviously, if you can't do so safely then you can't and I've not said otherwise or suggesting otherwise.

Maybe I am misreading your words, but the portions I have bolded read to me as an endorsement of a duty to retreat. Considering that the legal threshold for use of deadly force is the reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, to say that the opportunity/ability for retreat or the ability to provide the opportunity for the criminal to retreat means that one's "life isn't really in danger" would therefore impart a duty to retreat on the victim. The danger to life exists from the moment the criminal begins their act of violence, not when the victim has no ability to flee. Edited August 28, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[Peace]

It's amazing how many people in this thread have incorporated "Fret anxiously over possible legal outcome of using deadly force to protect myself from imminent fear of grievous bodily injury or death" into their OODA Loop. There's something wrong with this picture.

fair enough.. though maybe not where some of us were pointing.

If you have to use it deadly force, use it. It's how we talk about it now that impacts legal woes far after said OODA loop.
 

Edited August 29, 2013 by Peace

[Twin]

Nope Pincus doesn't at all. Your statements draw me to a different conclusion.

Maybe I am misreading your words, but the portions I have bolded read to me as an endorsement of a duty to retreat. Considering that the legal threshold for use of deadly force is the reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, to say that the opportunity/ability for retreat or the ability to provide the opportunity for the criminal to retreat means that one's "life isn't really in danger" would therefore impart a duty to retreat on the victim. The danger to life exists from the moment the criminal begins their act of violence, not when the victim has no ability to flee.

 

Yes, precisely. If I'm in public, sure, I'll run faster than a cheetah on steroids. But not in my home. Every man's home is his castle.

[RobertNashville]

...Maybe I am misreading your words

Yes, you are.

 

I didn't and don't say that the victim has any sort of "duty" to retreat and most certainly didn't say such a duty should be imposed.  I don't think what I said is that unclear; there is a huge difference between saying that the victim should "disengage if he can" vs anything even remotely like saying that the victim should have a duty to retreat imposed on him.

Frankly, I'm a little stunned that anyone would not disengage IF they could do so safely; even more stunning d at what some are willing to post about that concept on an open internet forum.

Edited August 29, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Twin]

I don't see whats special about your home, if one would merely tuck tail and run if someone committed an act of violence against it. What makes something ours is our right and ability to defend it. Your home is a place you should be able to feel safe, and not have to run out the back door whenever a criminal decides to destroy you and yours.

 

You clearly are.

 

I didn't and don't say that the victim has any sort of "duty" to retreat and most certainly didn't say such a duty should be imposed.  I don't think what I said is that unclear; there is a hell of a difference between saying that the victim should "disengage if he can" vs anything even remotely like saying that the victim should have a duty to retreat imposed on him.

Frankly, I'm a little stunned that anyone would not disengage IF they could do so safely; even more stunning d at what some are willing to post about that concept on an open internet forum.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Twin

[Chucktshoes]

You clearly are.

Then please explain how these words, your words, do not impart a duty to retreat?

If the criminal is still able to disengage (if given the opportunity) and/or if the victim can safely give ground then your life isn't really in danger - it may be only a moment from crossing that "line" but it's still not quite there yet; if it were then it wouldn't be possible for either to disengage safely.

That is a damn near textbook definition of a duty to retreat. Edited August 28, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[RobertNashville]

Then please explain how these words, your words, do not impart a duty to retreat?

[Quot]If the criminal is still able to disengage (if given the opportunity) and/or if the victim can safely give ground then your life isn't really in danger - it may be only a moment from crossing that "line" but it's still not quite there yet; if it were then it wouldn't be possible for either to disengage safely.[/quote]

That is a damn near textbook definition of a duty to retreat.

Not sure what textbook you are reading but it's one that, apparently, doesn't differentiate between such concepts/words as having a "duty"to retreat vs. taking advantage of an "opportunity" do do so.

 

Words mean things. You'll note that I've use the phrase "if the person  can do so safely" more than once...I purposely did not use the words such as "must" or "shall" and didn't for a reason; that reason being that such words as "must" and "shall" and "duty" have very different meanings; at least they used to.

Edited August 29, 2013 by RobertNashville

[JAB]

Frankly, I'm a little stunned that anyone would not disengage IF they could do so safely; even more stunning d at what some are willing to post about that concept on an open internet forum.

 

We all have our lines in the sand.  Mine is at the door to my home.  I am not running away from a threat of lethal violence inside my own home.  Instead, I will take whatever action necessary to stop the threat.  If the sight of me with a shotgun does that without me having to fire the shotgun then that is great.  If not then I will take further action.  If I 'give ground' within my home it will only be to reach a better position from which to defend myself and my home.  I will not choose to retreat inside my home.  The law does not require it, morality does not require it and I will not do it.

Edited August 28, 2013 by JAB

[Chucktshoes]

You must be reading a really odd textbook - one that, apparently, doesn't differentiate between such concepts as having a DUTY to retreat vs. taking advantage of an OPPORTUNITY do do so.

Words mean things. You'll note that I've use the phrase "if the person can do so safely" more than once...I purposely did not use the words such as "must" or "shall" and didn't for a reason; that reason being that such words as "must" and "shall" and "duty" have very different meanings; at least they used to.

Yes, words do mean things. You're still dodging your words that I have quoted twice now where you stated that if the opportunity to retreat exists, then there does not really exist a danger to the victim's life. If there isn't a danger to life, then there is no legal justification for the use of deadly force. If there is no legal justification for use of deadly force then one is obligated to deescalate and retreat. Edited August 28, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[tnguy]

No one should be worrying about the potential legal ramifications of using deadly force at the moment of imminent threat but they damn sure had better considered it BEFORE the threat.

 

Goal one is surviving a life or death encounter; goal two should be surviving the aftermath which is why a person needs to prepare for that aftermath, as much as possible, before the event.

 

Gotta agree with Robert here. Some seem to have this fantasy going on where the bad guy doesn't shoot back. Or doesn't have a partner. Or flying bullets don't hit targets they weren't intended to.

 

Look, if you're hunting for ears to nail to your bedpost, more power to you. If you're looking to survive another day to provide for your family, you might want to be more realistic about how things can play out.

[tnguy]

Yes, words do mean things. You're still dodging your words that I have quoted twice now where you stated that if the opportunity to retreat exists, then there does not really exist a danger to the victim's life. If there isn't a danger to life, then there is no legal justification for the use of deadly force. If there is no legal justification for use of deadly force then one is obligated to deescalate and retreat.

 

Devil's advocating on this: The law presumes that the threat to life exists. That does not mean that there actually is that threat to life.

 

As to whether you /should/ retreat if you can. Well, that's a personal call in my opinion. I think it's not a bad idea to cultivate an "easy come, easy go" attitude to material possessions but I know I have my own lines. Another of those things where many things play into it. Personally I think we could do with a few less criminal types in the world.

Edited August 28, 2013 by tnguy