The nightmare that comes true

[Hollis]

I really hope for the best for the homeowner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m31ZpQVILRk&feature=player_embedded

[hsh2]

Absolutely terrible. Hopefully the home owner won't be involved in endless legal procedrues and whatnot...

My brother was once in a very similar situation but as if he had a guardian angel or something nothing happened...

[FindYourInk]

A little over the top? Why not shoot him in the leg? He won't be a danger any more after that.

[OldCode]

Why not shoot him in the leg? He won't be a danger any more after that.

A shotgun blast to the leg, if you're prepared to risk that shot, could still be fatal. If she shot for center of mass, as you should, good for her.

[Policía Loco]

Glad she came out ok physically. Hope the best for her.


A little over the top? Why not shoot him in the leg? He won't be a danger any more after that.

If I am running at you, or running period, could you should at my legs and guarantee a hit? Could you stop a perceived threat to your life taking a gamble shooting at my legs? Common sense tells you that smaller and/or moving targets are harder to hit. Especially when its a high stress situation.

[ting]

A little over the top? Why not shoot him in the leg? He won't be a danger any more after that.

If someone I felt was threatening my life was coming towards me I would worry about if I:
- have removed the safety mechanism
- had bullets in the weapon
- that my hands were not shaking as bad as I felt they were shaking

I would probably not be thinking about where to shoot. I would just focus on hitting the threat.

[scttgillies]

Better to do that than get raped or killed by an intruder. Well done to the lady, i would have done the same, never aim to wound.

[Stefan850]

You guys are lucky to live in a country that allows you to protect yourselfs like that.

[Stefan850]

A little over the top? Why not shoot him in the leg? He won't be a danger any more after that.

My grandfather was a calm, gentle man but he always said that if god forbid, you are in danger, 1. never pull a gun out unless your going to shoot and 2. when you shot, simply shot to kill. And he was absolutely right.

You can always miss or something and he can always have a gun, manage to get one shot, there are thousands of possibilities what can happen so I think that you should always do you best to make sure you have neutralized the danger. Just as that good old lady did.

And about her.


According to the local district attorney's office, Jackson won't be charged with a crime. During the call, the 911 operator told Jackson it was legal for her to defend her home.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/09/earlyshow/main5949873.shtml

[FlintHillBilly]

A little over the top? Why not shoot him in the leg? He won't be a danger any more after that.

Your kidding right? Wounding them would only sends a different message. Shoot to kill if someone is breaking into your house and may have a gun. That sends a clear message to every one, dont f*ck with a homeowner.

Also most likely if you wound the person they will find some stupid @ss way to win and sue you in court. Plus scum bags like this have no place in society.

[Wimbly]

A little over the top? Why not shoot him in the leg? He won't be a danger any more after that.

Real life inst a movie.

[I can't think of a name]

I would not want to worry the rest of my life that some psycho is out there angry that I wounded him.

[MkH]

A little over the top? Why not shoot him in the leg? He won't be a danger any more after that.

What if you miss? It's over for you then. The invader might also be high enough to not even feel the hit. The old lady does not have to defend her actions.

[Laconian]

Terrible thing to have to do. I hope the best for the lady. H, any other info on the doer? I couldn't hear what he was saying in the b/g

[Hollis]

Terrible thing to have to do. I hope the best for the lady. H, any other info on the doer? I couldn't hear what he was saying in the b/g


I have not heard any more on this.

[Soldat_Américain]

A little over the top? Why not shoot him in the leg? He won't be a danger any more after that.

Always go for the high percentage shot. Also I hope the homeowner doesn't have to worry about anything...what state was this in?

[rgjbloke]

Well presumably if the guy breaking in got to her, he was going to kill her? You could wound him and not stop him. If you have to shoot, then you have to stop him and that means taking a killing shot.

[coltfan111]

Well presumably if the guy breaking in got to her, he was going to kill her? You could wound him and not stop him. If you have to shoot, then you have to stop him and that means taking a killing shot.

Could you imagine that happening here? If I hit a guy over the head with a hammer for breaking into my house I would get dragged through court.

[Soldat_Américain]

Could you imagine that happening here? If I hit a guy over the head with a hammer for breaking into my house I would get dragged through court.

There was an article in NRA Magazine years back now about a guy in England shooting four intruders, the homeowner went to jail and the schmuck that was still alive was able to sue him.

[coltfan111]

There was an article in NRA Magazine years back now about a guy in England shooting four intruders, the homeowner went to jail and the schmuck that was still alive was able to sue him.

It's so backwards it's sickening, if another man enters my home with intent to harm me or family I should have the right to kill him. Simple as. Especially if it's only with my bare hands.

I know there are so many isues with this, but it is truly how I feel. Criminals get WAY too many rights in this country, all this "victim of circumstance" crap pisses me off.

[rgjbloke]

Could you imagine that happening here? If I hit a guy over the head with a hammer for breaking into my house I would get dragged through court.

Well, I'm not a lawyer but, yes you would unless it was shown to be clearly an act of self defence because he was trying to kill you, and even then, who knows? It is different here for sure. Something that worries me increasingly is that many criminals are getting almost routinely armed and using them on the streets. The Police are following suit to counter this threat which is to be welcomed, but response times can be mixed for various reasons. Another problem is that the Police quite often simply don't turn up if they think it's all over. A good example of this is burglaries. If you come home and find you have been burgled, most of the time, all the response you will get is a crime number. Burglars now know, they are a very low priority for Police response. I can see a future not too far away where burglars start to routinely carry weapons knowing that the possibility of the Police showing up is almost zero but they can get themselves out of trouble if you, the home owner chance on them in your house. So the thieves have them, the Police have them but they are not always there for you, shouldn't the rest of us have them to protect ourselves when the time comes?

[coltfan111]

Well, I'm not a lawyer but, yes you would unless it was shown to be clearly an act of self defence because he was trying to kill you, and even then, who knows? It is different here for sure. Something that worries me increasingly is that many criminals are getting almost routinely armed and using them on the streets. The Police are following suit to counter this threat which is to be welcomed, but response times can be mixed for various reasons. Another problem is that the Police quite often simply don't turn up if they think it's all over. A good example of this is burglaries. If you come home and find you have been burgled, most of the time, all the response you will get is a crime number. Burglars now know, they are a very low priority for Police response. I can see a future not too far away where burglars start to routinely carry weapons knowing that the possibility of the Police showing up is almost zero but they can get themselves out of trouble if you, the home owner chance on them in your house. So the theives have them, the Police have them but they arn't always there for you, shouldn't the rest of us have them to protect ourselves when the time comes?

CS spray my friend. p-)

[rgjbloke]

There was an article in NRA Magazine years back now about a guy in England shooting four intruders, the homeowner went to jail and the schmuck that was still alive was able to sue him.

I forget his name but yes he was burgled by 2 guy's and he shot and killed one of them. Forensic's showed though that the guy he killed was running away from him when he was killed. I don't know how that would stand up in a court in America but if the guy was running away from me, I wouldn't have shot him.

[Soldat_Américain]

Why does it matter if he was clearly trying to kill you? The intruder breaks into your house, the intent to come into the house and deprive you of anything should be cause to warrant their death.

[rgjbloke]

CS spray my friend. p-)

Well I'm not sure CS gas is legal here either but to be honest, You can get used to being sprayed with CS to the degree that it stops worrying you!

[coltfan111]

Why does it matter if he was clearly trying to kill you? The intruder breaks into your house, the intent to come into the house and deprive you of anything should be cause to warrant their death.

Not here it isn't. A guy I worked with got arrested for beating unconcious a crack head who broke into his house on new years day. He got released without out charge in the end, but it was a very close run thing. The scum had a record of burglary and that was one of the main reasons it went ok.

[Skutatos]

Brave woman, she did what she had to and the 911 operator did a good job as well.

[coltfan111]

Well I'm not sure CS gas is legal here either but to be honest, You can get used to being sprayed with CS to the degree that it stops worrying you!

It's not. But it's pretty effective on 99.99% of people. I am against guns being lagalized here though, we have enough idiots with knives let alone guns.


Brave woman, she did what she had to and the 911 operator did a good job as well.

I thought the operator did really well too.

[brainplay]

Well I'm not sure CS gas is legal here either but to be honest, You can get used to being sprayed with CS to the degree that it stops worrying you!

Its not legal in the UK for civilians to own. You guys get hazed for having "unsecured screwdrivers" in your vehicles.

You don't get used to CS gas to the point it stops worrying you. That is nasty stuff. God help you if you're sweating. Regular pepper spray on the other hand is nothing to worry about.

[Lazy Lob]

I forget his name but yes he was burgled by 2 guy's and he shot and killed one of them. Forensic's showed though that the guy he killed was running away from him when he was killed. I don't know how that would stand up in a court in America but if the guy was running away from me, I wouldn't have shot him.

Tony Martin, Brendon Fearon at Bleak House, Norfolk.

[Policía Loco]

I forget his name but yes he was burgled by 2 guy's and he shot and killed one of them. Forensic's showed though that the guy he killed was running away from him when he was killed. I don't know how that would stand up in a court in America but if the guy was running away from me, I wouldn't have shot him.

Funny things happen in gun fights. It may seem obvious at first glance but then again.....

Not necessarily the same situations but Force Science published an article that studied LE involved shootings where suspects were shot in the back, along with the reality and legitimacy of them. It would be worth a search if you are interested.

[koevoetconstable]

Back in 1982, my cousin was awoken by a noise one night. He got up, got his .357, and went through the house. When he entered the kitchen, he came face-to-face with a burglar. The burglar was armed with a large knife but wanted no part of my cousin and turned and fled. My cousin called the police, and when they arrived, he gave them the identity of the burglar. We lived in a very small community and everyone knew everyone else. The burglar, who was 19 at the time, had been in and out of trouble since he was about 12.

While the police were at my cousin's, a call came over the radio about a break-in 2 miles down the road. The same burglar had broken into a woman's house and killed her with the knife my cousin saw him with. The woman's 8-year-old son was home but not hurt. He was the one who called the police. They eventually caught the guy, who was high on drugs and wanting money to buy more, and sentenced him to 100+ years.

My cousin is still haunted by this. He says that if he would have only shot the guy when he found him in his kitchen, Joyce would still be alive.

[gaijinsamurai]

A little over the top? Why not shoot him in the leg? He won't be a danger any more after that.

That's a pretty big assumption.

And it's pretty obvious that you have little or no formal training with firearms, because if you did, you would know that warning shots or shooting to wound is totally inadvisable. You shoot when you are justified to kill and you shoot to stop the threat. Hitting a man (who may be juiced up on PCP or meth) in the legs or arms and thinking that will stop him is a big gamble, and not one I'd be willing to take.

The woman was totally justified, and I hope she is able to move on with her life as soon as possible.

[ting]

I think our police and swat teams are trained to shoot to wound. Of course it depends on the police officer. But Swat teams certainly. There was an episode a couple of years ago with a guy going postal with a shotgun(avoiding arrest and shooting at the police). They were kinda having a moving gun battle. But when 2 of the 4 swat officers got lightly wounded, they shot him in the head.

They could no longer keep the situation under control and had to end it quickly.

Of course in the US you are more likely to meet suspects with assault rifles and stuff. Our cops usually don't carry guns, so it's a bit less likely that they will encounter assault weapons.;)

[RSone]

I think our police and swat teams are trained to shoot to wound. Of course it depends on the police officer. But Swat teams certainly. There was an episode a couple of years ago with a guy going postal with a shotgun(avoiding arrest and shooting at the police). They were kinda having a moving gun battle. But when 2 of the 4 swat officers got lightly wounded, they shot him in the head.

They could no longer keep the situation under control and had to end it quickly.

Of course in the US you are more likely to meet suspects with assault rifles and stuff. Our cops usually don't carry guns, so it's a bit less likely that they will encounter assault weapons.;)

There was a huge riot at Hoek van Holland,the Netherlands, where a whole bunch of Rotterdam footbally hooligans crashed a beach party. There was a small contingent of police in civvies on the premises, doing security etc. at the party. At a certain point, these guys got wind of the cops and started to harass and surround them. It wasn't a small group either, from the videos i'm thinking at least 200, vs. about 10-20 police agents. The rioters started to throw bricks at the cops, at which point the cops started to squeeze off warning shots. The crowd started to count down, after which they stormed the cops(which at that point had requested back up multiple times, which was denied untill the shooting started) who then fired directly.

Long story short, a lot of shots were fired, 19 yo got killed by a police bullet, entire country is up in bloody arms about the police killing somebody and that the Rotterdam corps had failed miserably. Forensic analysis gets done, turns out the guy that got killed most likely got hit while bending over- to pick up a brick to chuck at the cops............ Not so innocent after all.
The police has videos of the event from shoulder mounted cams(carried by the plainclothes guys) which purportedly shows the rioters just a dozen meters away, about to charge these guys.. Scary ****.
It eventually took multiple charges by mounted riot police to get the rioting groups dispersed.

[budgie]

I would not want to worry the rest of my life that some psycho is out there angry that I wounded him.


Real life inst a movie.

Too true. When defending yourself take down the assailant. If it had been me in that situation I'd shoot for the middle too just because I can't hit shyte and it's a bigger target.

As long as you protect yourself then you can deal with whatever legal proceedings come after. It sucks but beats being a victim.

[ting]

There was a huge riot at Hoek van Holland,the Netherlands, where a whole bunch of Rotterdam footbally hooligans crashed a beach party. There was a small contingent of police in civvies on the premises, doing security etc. at the party. At a certain point, these guys got wind of the cops and started to harass and surround them. It wasn't a small group either, from the videos i'm thinking at least 200, vs. about 10-20 police agents. The rioters started to throw bricks at the cops, at which point the cops started to squeeze off warning shots. The crowd started to count down, after which they stormed the cops(which at that point had requested back up multiple times, which was denied untill the shooting started) who then fired directly.

Long story short, a lot of shots were fired, 19 yo got killed by a police bullet, entire country is up in bloody arms about the police killing somebody and that the Rotterdam corps had failed miserably. Forensic analysis gets done, turns out the guy that got killed most likely got hit while bending over- to pick up a brick to chuck at the cops............ Not so innocent after all.
The police has videos of the event from shoulder mounted cams(carried by the plainclothes guys) which purportedly shows the rioters just a dozen meters away, about to charge these guys.. Scary ****.
It eventually took multiple charges by mounted riot police to get the rioting groups dispersed.

Scary. Here there is an investigation every time a shot is fired. Police shooting and killing someone is extremely rare, and when it happens it does not cause any kind of upproar or anything. IIRC the media stay away from "could have/should have", since most people trust the police to have done what they could to avoid killing someone. And if there is something fishy, that they will be prosecuted.

However a riot situation like you describe is different. The question I would ask is if the police used the correct strategy in dealing with the hooligans. Those 200 hooligans had to have formed up somewhere. Anyway once they were attacking the cops, they were forced to protect them selves.

[Soldat_Américain]

I think our police and swat teams are trained to shoot to wound. Of course it depends on the police officer. But Swat teams certainly. There was an episode a couple of years ago with a guy going postal with a shotgun(avoiding arrest and shooting at the police). They were kinda having a moving gun battle. But when 2 of the 4 swat officers got lightly wounded, they shot him in the head.

They could no longer keep the situation under control and had to end it quickly.

Of course in the US you are more likely to meet suspects with assault rifles and stuff. Our cops usually don't carry guns, so it's a bit less likely that they will encounter assault weapons.;)

I doubt they are trained to wound, they are trained to take people alive though.

[Dominique]

It's not. But it's pretty effective on 99.99% of people.

Wrong.

1) OC, Pepperspray, CS, or whatever you're chemical irritant using is only effective against roughly 95% of the population.

2) You can actually get used to the effects of chemicals, and learn to fight through them. it's one of the reasons law enforcement, and corrections officers are exposed to them.

3) Guys that are high, drunk, etc., don't always immediately feel the effects.

4) For a chemical agent to be employed properly, the target needs to be fairly close (usually arms length + a few inches).

[RSone]

I doubt they are trained to wound, they are trained to take people alive though.

Our domestic CT team, the BBE, was once sort of 'famous' for often refraning from use of deadly force(they retook scheveningen prison using flashbangs and hand to hand) but since the Fortuyn and van Gogh murders, they've moved to a more agressive ROE, especially when dealing with extremists. SWAT teams, however, seem to have been embracing more non-lethal solutions, like LTL ammo and tasers.

[Dominique]

I think our police and swat teams are trained to shoot to wound. Of course it depends on the police officer. But Swat teams certainly. There was an episode a couple of years ago with a guy going postal with a shotgun(avoiding arrest and shooting at the police). They were kinda having a moving gun battle. But when 2 of the 4 swat officers got lightly wounded, they shot him in the head.

They could no longer keep the situation under control and had to end it quickly.

Of course in the US you are more likely to meet suspects with assault rifles and stuff. Our cops usually don't carry guns, so it's a bit less likely that they will encounter assault weapons.;)

I doubt that they have "shoot to wound" policy, as there's no guarantee that they'll either hit, or that the shot will stop the subject. If you shoot, you shoot to stop. If the target dies as a result of the shot, then he dies.

[Mastermind]

1) I think she performed within the limits of the law.
2) I think she should have shouted out a warning..."I am armed and I will shoot to kill if you enter this house..." (several times as loud as possible...mainly for the evidence on the phone recording)
3) Shotgun...excellent choice of weapon...for ladies, a 20 ga...men a 12 ga...for home defense, a 20" bbl is perfect with nothing larger than #7 shot (less danger of going through Sheetrock walls and injuring innocent people)
4) I hope the gal is OK...killing someone, even an intruder is a very difficult thing to get over.
5) Never shoot to wound...shoot to kill if you have to shoot at all. All that crap about "She should have just wounded him" is utter and complete inarguable nonsense.
6) With a good "scatter gun" at ten feet or less, be sure to keep your shots center of mass and just a bit low. Think belly button rather than chest with a shotgun. Also, inside a house, make damn sure of the target ...many in-home shootings end up shooting a friend or family member unexpectedly moving around at night.

[gaijinsamurai]

Good advice, MM.

[Geezah]

It's not. But it's pretty effective on 99.99% of people.

Back when I was living in the UK, I was told that being caught with a can of CS gas was almost the same as being caught with a firearm, as far as prosecution goes. Don't know how true that was/is, but I didn't want to find out.



I am against guns being lagalized here though, we have enough idiots with knives let alone guns.

Please don't do that.
The majority that go through the legal channels to own firearms are not idiots.
Idiots will get firearms legal or not, so please don't throw the law abiding in with the scum.



I hope the lady pulls through. What took place will probably haunt her the rest of her life, but atleast she will live to see another day.

[Mastermind]

Back when I was living in the UK, I was told that being caught with a can of CS gas was almost the same as being caught with a firearm, as far as prosecution goes. Don't know how true that was/is, but I didn't want to find out.

Please don't do that.
The majority that go through the legal channels to own firearms are not idiots.
Idiots will get firearms legal or not, so please don't throw the law abiding in with the scum.

I hope the lady pulls through. What took place will probably haunt her the rest of her life, but atleast she will live to see another day.

Bless ya, Geezah.

By the way, recently, my son and I have been studying ancient weapons...pre-gunpowder era. We have found some truly amazing lethality and accuracy with (of all things) slings...Romans used them to great effectiveness in many battles. I watched some demos on youtube, and was blown away by the high velocity, accuracy and impact damage. Also, not a difficult weapon to master. When weather gets better, we are going to give it a try...I mention it only to point out that you really don't need modern weapons or so-called "controlled weapons" to present a deadly opposition. Shotguns are great...but, even a rubber sling shot can "Shoot yer eye out, kid."

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Could you imagine that happening here? If I hit a guy over the head with a hammer for breaking into my house I would get dragged through court.Well you can move up here as the law is a lot kinder to the resident. :)

[martinexsquaddie]

martin had "issues" had already lost his legal shotguns for shooting at trespassers and making threats to kill burgulars at a neighbour hood watch meeting not a good move. So had an illegal shotgun leaving the kid to die did'nt really help his case. although if the police had been more use in the first place.

[ting]

I doubt they are trained to wound, they are trained to take people alive though.

Shooting to wound is one way to keep people alive. They are trained to use the least amount of force necessary.


I doubt that they have "shoot to wound" policy, as there's no guarantee that they'll either hit, or that the shot will stop the subject. If you shoot, you shoot to stop. If the target dies as a result of the shot, then he dies.

IIRC there was a case some 5-10 years ago(time flies). Were a suspect got killed with a fatal shoot. There was an investigation since the instructions for use of weapons(våpen instruks), stated that one should shoot to wound if possible. In this case it was thought that this was a possible outcome. However (again IIRC) since the police officer felt that he did not have enough backup and training in the use of weapons it was deemed an acceptable shot. This was not in a city area.

Remember that the police officer continually has to asses the danger to him self, his colleagues, and the public when assessing the degree of force necessary. There are factors that can increase the likelihood that shoot to wound is a preferred solution. Things like can the suspect escape from the area(containment), how much force he can bring to bear on the officers and the risk to the general public.

I was at a high school reunion some years ago and met one guy who was in swat(Beredskapstroppen/Delta in Norwegian). I seem to remember that he said they were trained to wound. Again alcohol has a bad affect on memory.

Remember that in Norway cops aren't armed. However if they encounter a situation with an armed suspect they go out with massive force(usually mp5's and I think swat now have c8's). (If you see any pics from Obamas trip to Oslo, you can see a lot of cops with mp5's).

I imagine in the US the first responders come across armed suspects quite often. Hence they are limited in numbers and the possibility of containment. Here the police will avoid confrontation with armed suspects since they are not armed themselves. They will seek to observe at a distance while they get permission to arm themselves. Usually Every time the police meet armed suspects and arm them selves it makes the national news, so the police chiefs call in whatever force is necessary to resolve the situation.

[FindYourInk]

Didn't read through the thread, but for those who gave me ****, you do realize she used a shotgun, don't you? Not that difficult to hit legs with a shotgun from that distance.

[LaoSexMachine]

Didn't read through the thread, but for those who gave me ****, you do realize she used a shotgun, don't you? Not that difficult to hit legs with a shotgun from that distance.

Were you there? Can you be cool and calm when your life is on the line? Effing Monday morning quarterback.

[HK in AK]

Having been in that situation of being woken up in the middle of the night with someone breaking into my house I am very fortunate that things turned out differently for me. The guy was breaking in through a window and my wife woke me up, and I grabbed my 12ga. By then, the guy had got the window opened. I chambered a round in the shotgun and in the most authoritative voice said, "Stop or I will shoot". All activity ceased and the guy ran away. I ran through the house and came out the front door with my shotgun, but by then I could not see him.

Would I have shot if he had not stopped? Yes! For all the bravado you see on some comments, I was shaking when the threat was over, but clear-headed enough to check on my wife, call the police, and then check the property again to make sure he was gone. My sympathy to the lady for having to take that action, it was a decision that no one ever wants to make.

[Hollis]

Didn't read through the thread, but for those who gave me ****, you do realize she used a shotgun, don't you? Not that difficult to hit legs with a shotgun from that distance.

A good suggestion would be, Do not post in this thread again. Real life is not a video game, or a movie or........... how ever you come by your assertions.

[JacquiMac]

Didn't read through the thread, but for those who gave me ****, you do realize she used a shotgun, don't you? Not that difficult to hit legs with a shotgun from that distance.

You do realize that she was in fear for her life? You do realize that she was in a state of panic? You do realize that she stated, more than once, that she DID NOT want to kill the man? You did notice the immediate sound of remorse in her voice as she started crying after she shot him? You do realize that she is probably haunted frequently by nightmares about that incident, and probably went through or is going through therapy, because most civilians can't live with the idea of killing another human being even if it was necessary to save their own life?

[BlackFlag]

A little over the top? Why not shoot him in the leg? He won't be a danger any more after that.

A Prosecutor could file charges, saying that your intent was to cause grievous bodily harm, instead of defense. Sad, but Prosecutors only care about the win column.

[HK in AK]

... because most civilians can't live with the idea of killing another human being even if it was necessary to save their own life?

I think the feeling is different when you are in your own home. On a battlefield you are resigned to the fact that you must take life to protect your own or those of your comrades.

[JacquiMac]

I think the feeling is different when you are in your own home. On a battlefield you are resigned to the fact that you must take life to protect your own or those of your comrades.

I understand what you are saying. I just think that most people who have not been exposed to anything like that before will feel bad for taking someone's life, no matter the circumstances. I could be wrong though. I was mostly trying to give evident reasons why his original post was rediculous and not well thought out.

[HGRazorR]

I think all states go by the "Castle Doctrine" where your home is supposed to be this safe and secure place where you should never have to come under threat. Some states extend it to even the work place. If there's someone in your home that's not supposed to be there, armed or not, and you perceive the person as a threat, you can use deadly force. I believe you have to give a warning if possible and if the person flees you cannot engage.

[BigDukaroo]

I guess using a non-lethal means of disabling the man was not an option, nor was exiting the home and waiting until police arrived, murdering him was the only way. Clearly.

[Alfacentori]

I guess using a non-lethal means of disabling the man was not an option, nor was exiting the home and waiting until police arrived, murdering him was the only way. Clearly.

I wouldn't call 'Self Defence' murder myself, but that's just me

Alfa

[TheSteve]

First off, glad she is O.K. I think using a firearm in self defense is entirely justified.

Now the tape doesn't explain all the circumstances, if there has been a history of break ins, or if she told him to leave before calling 9/11 . . .
But maybe after she got the gun, she should have asked, one last time before using lethal force, for the guy to leave? Granted, she was nervous, scared to death, and probably has no training or anything.

It just reminds me of this story I read in American Riflemen NRA propaganda section, about this home defense story. A few guys try to break in the front door, so the homeowner just sticks the gun out the door, and pulls the trigger killing one of the intruders. No warning, no yelling, just one shotgun blast to the face: home defended. (I'll try to find the article, it was vague, politically charged, and didn't have much for details)

Now when your life is in danger and someone is breaking into your home, disproportionate force doesn't come to mind, I understand. But damn.

[TheSteve]

1) I think she performed within the limits of the law.
2) I think she should have shouted out a warning..."I am armed and I will shoot to kill if you enter this house..." (several times as loud as possible...mainly for the evidence on the phone recording)
3) Shotgun...excellent choice of weapon...for ladies, a 20 ga...men a 12 ga...for home defense, a 20" bbl is perfect with nothing larger than #7 shot (less danger of going through Sheetrock walls and injuring innocent people)
4) I hope the gal is OK...killing someone, even an intruder is a very difficult thing to get over.
5) Never shoot to wound...shoot to kill if you have to shoot at all. All that crap about "She should have just wounded him" is utter and complete inarguable nonsense.
6) With a good "scatter gun" at ten feet or less, be sure to keep your shots center of mass and just a bit low. Think belly button rather than chest with a shotgun. Also, inside a house, make damn sure of the target ...many in-home shootings end up shooting a friend or family member unexpectedly moving around at night.
Great advice. "Aim for the legs!", what a bunch of morons.

[Laconian]

I guess using a non-lethal means of disabling the man was not an option, nor was exiting the home and waiting until police arrived, murdering him was the only way. Clearly.

1. You make an assumption this homeowner knows non-lethal means of disabling an intruder AND that she has some sort of legal obligation to. She doesn't. All of the studies I've seen on the use of force (and it's a lot them) all acknowledge that attempting to wound a subject as opposed to stopping the threat are not practical and in most cases effective.

2. Exiting a safe place, with limited points of ingress and "waiting" for the cops to show up, when the average response time is 8 minutes, is neither required nor smart.

3. The taknig of a human life in self-defense or the defense of others is not murder in any jurisdiction that I know of.

Your comments are both ridiculous and inflammatory. If you are not going to add anything of substance to this topic, then don't post here.

[3rdMillhouse]

A little over the top? Why not shoot him in the leg? He won't be a danger any more after that.

Morons like this one piss me off.

[Britishhawk]

Would Home defence be stopping an intruder getting inside the house? if so, does that mean you could you shoot a guy if he's on your lawn? Surely when someone has actually got inside your house you are no longer defending the property as it has already breached?.. I think im talking giberish.

[seraosha]

Would Home defence be stopping an intruder getting inside the house? if so, does that mean you could you shoot a guy if he's on your lawn? Surely when someone has actually got inside your house you are no longer defending the property as it has already breached?.. I think im talking giberish.

If he is on your lawn, trying to get in your house, or your neighbors house? Yes, you can shoot an intruder.
If he's in your house, then he's a dead intruder.

[Laconian]

It's not like there is a "Shoot the Intruder" checklist or cut and dried answer. The use of deadly force is based on a reasonableness standard. If the intruder poses a threat of death or serious physcial injury to you or your family (in some states property), based on facts you can articulate at the time of the incident, then the use of deadly force is considered reasonable and then justified.

In most cases, using deadly force against trespasser will not be considered reasonable.

Here is something else folks need to consider: shooting at someone (even if your intent is to wound) is still deadly force, that is force likely to result in death or serious physical injury.