Called Police 2nd time in a week

[SmokinLoon]

While that may be true in Iowa most states have diff. laws on the subject.

As I allready posted Oklahoma does not require you to declare, and it's 100% fine to kill an intruder to protect your property.

I didnt say it was the law... I said it was a good rule to follow.  There are tons of "what if's" and believe me when I say that if you open fire without verbally confronting the perp first, your legal battle will be a much harder one vs than if you simply asked him who and why... ESPECIALLY if you had the time.  If he has a knife and is coming for you as soon as you are seen... dont hesitate.. open fire.  But if he is 20ft away, hands exposed and empty, and makes no move... do yourself a favor and verbalize.  Trust me.    

Regardless of the laws of your state, you can and will be sued and depending on the judge if can and will go to court either civil or criminal.  Count on it.  

[Maverick]

My Dad always said if your going to shoot some one make sure you Kill them!
By the way.  Some states require that the Criminal intruder be dead in the House, not just on the property.  So if the slime bag crawls out the door, drag him back in!

Here is a thing to think about!  If you do get a Gun/Pistol/Rifle to defend your house, make sure that you are willing to pull that trigger!  Because if you don't most likely the criminal will be willing to take it from you and use it.

Your Dad is a fool at giving advice on this and you'd be an even bigger fool to believe it's good advice. Once you tamper with a crime scene you have just changed your role from victim defending to felon obstructing especially when there is a fatality.

Deadly force is a last resort and should be used in that context only. While Frenchy has gone beyond the level of paranoia I am comfortable with he has a good point. You barricade yourself when possible and secure your family in the most tactically prudent place in your house. You need to secure the avenues of approach to as few as possible. You can't be in more than one place at a time. You increase the defensive posture to make it safer for your loved ones while you hold the threat back and wait for help to arrive.

For those advising homicide for theft consider this. No state will sentence anyone to death for theft. Burglary is not a capital crime, particularly one that is happening at an abandoned house. You will find yourself in a world of hurt in more than one court with that stupid "kill them all and let God sort them out" mentality. You defend life with deadly force not property. Not even LEO's are authorized to shoot fleeing burglars, thieves, shoplifters or con men unless life is in danger so why would you think you are.

One last thing. Continuing to prattle on about shoot to kill will come back to haunt you should you do find yourself in a shooting situation. That will be used against you to paint you as the aggressor and someone looking for any excuse to murder, yes I said murder on purpose, anyone you decide to. Remember that the jury will be of those who couldn't get out of jury duty so if that is your opinion of juries you can imagine how perceptive they will be at determining fact from an attorney's flamboyant arguments. Keep in mind that a lawyer does not take an oath to tell the truth and a judge's position is also not to maintain only truth is used in a trial. It is "assumed" that the truth will surface and be made known but the primary folks running, and directing the trial are not required to use it or be limited by it and that includes the prosecutor. The defense lawyer has an open check to use anything they can think of during the trial. Think "twinky defense".

[SFRT - Frenchy]

Hey ... I have a 1911  What's wrong?

[smkelly13]

I'm not sure what you are arguing here? I'm not suggesting location is the CAUSE of the crime, simply that the likelyhood of being a victim of crime can be accurately estimated by location. Thats not an opinion, that is fact that many people like insurance adjustor's use every day.

Just because your town is small doesn't mean its immune to crime. And I wasn't suggesting that simply moving to a smaller town will stop the crime. But that is not to say that you can't easily pick a place to live that has low crime, and almost no violent crime. Believe it or not there are still plenty of places like that across the country.

Oh, I'm not arguing, just throwing in my two cents.  

I do disagree with the "accurately estimated by location" line though, regarding theft.  There isn't a city, or town for that matter that doesn't have at least one breaking and entering per month.  Obviously larger cities will have considerably higher rates of crime in theft, reported or not.  Smaller cities, and towns have crimes in the same manner as well, just not as much, and as frequent.  Statistically speaking, smaller towns are ideal locations to live to avoid theft.  Yes it still happens, but no where close to the same rate as it would occur in a larger city.

The part about insurance adjustor's made me laugh out loud.  Professional hustlers and liars.

Basically, it doesn't matter where you live, if you have something someone else wants, and they are willing to become a felon to gain this item, they'll steal it.  

States with a Stand-your-ground Law
    * Alabama
    * Arizona
    * Florida
    * Georgia
    * Indiana
    * Kentucky
    * Louisiana
    * South Carolina (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.")
    * Texas
    * Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
    * Washington (Homicide justifiable in the lawful defense of self or other persons present; and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished ...or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony... or upon or in a dwelling, or other place...)

I allready mentioned OK and NC, but would like to add Delaware and New Mexico to the list.  They have "stand your ground" type statutes in their laws.

Every state is different.  Find out what your state laws are.  I find myself in Pennsylvania now, and they don't have a "make my day" law, but they DO have one pending on the books.  In Oklahoma they are currently trying to pass a STRONGER "make my day law" that allows it's citizens to use deadly force anywhere they perceive danger, not just in their homes.

This isn't 100% failproof though.  No law, or statue is.  Per wikipedia "use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine."  It all depends on the circumstances of the crime/shooting.  If you start blasting the person with a shotgun when they step one foot in your door could lead you straight to prison.  

"In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally -- e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to Retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)"

Here's the problem, the prosecution would hire some $1000 an hour psycharistrist to prove that you just stone cold murdered the fool busting through your front door.

We can discuss this in circles all day long, but the fact of the matter is simple, it's far easier to just secure your home the best that you can possbile do, and call the police/flee the area, and hope the intruder doesn't have the intention to kill/maim/rape you or your family.  

Granted, if those options weren't available, the use of deadly force would present itself.  The question I ask, could you live with yourself after killing someone?  I'm sure you could if your loved ones life depended on it, but taking human life is absolutely miserable.

[SmokinLoon]

All really good advice, but this point especially I think deserves more attention. As I've expressed before in other threads here, a semi-auto pistol like the common 1911 just doesn't make that great of a home defense gun. Too many people live in a fantasy, especialy when it comes to guns and protecting themselves. Not to turn this into another 2nd amendment debate, but you really dont need an assault rifle or hand cannon to protect yourself inside your house. Hunting weapons like shotguns do a much better job. If you must have a hand gun then a quality revolver is 100x better than any of the semi-autos simply because when you pull the trigger is going to work, no question about it.

When people come on asking about what model 1911 to get for home defense or what assault rifle to get for the same its painfully obvious that these people are watching too many movies and not thinking for themselves enough.

Like I said before, if you really think you NEED a semi auto pistol or 'battle' rifle to protect yourself you are simply living in a fantasy. Anything that would require that much firepower is not going to be a home defense situation. This is a typical "for when the zombies come" type of argument pushed by the extremes. However, I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to own them.

Hehe.  Reality has slipped you by, my firend.  Do not draw the line as to who needs what.  You and the law are not to be that judge   .  I happen to have a safe full of firearms and if the crap ever hits the fan I'm grabbin the AR15 "A4" with a ACOG TA31 mounted on top, my Sig 226/9mm, and a harness full of mags for both (along with some other gear).  However, I've been well trained (likewise, I'm a firearms hoobyist) in the use of firearms.  I only suggested the shotgun and the revolver for home defense for the average user due to the ease of use, a shorter learning curve, and the commonality.  If someone wants to use an AR15 or an AK variant for home defense, then so be it.  All I suggest is that the user take the time and LEARN the firearm and understand how devistating they are.  I fire thousands of rounds a year out of a half dozen of my firearms (I reload my own ammo, too).  I wouldnt suggest an AR15 to a person new to firearms, or an autoloader handgun either.  Too much to learn.

btw... my "bedside" gun is a semi-auto Sig232 in .380ACP (it is also my carry piece).  It is locked in a "quick release" box.  I also have 2 lights right next to it as well.

    

[Getback]

Well I'm not going to run out and buy a gun. Instead I've installed brighter flood lights and starting on the front door lights. Tomorrow I am looking into a new fence and gate. I've told my neighbor about the situation so they are alert to it as well.

I'm really thinking about a security camera. Hope to get one cheap.

[Getback]

Oh, I'm not arguing, just throwing in my two cents.  

I do disagree with the "accurately estimated by location" line though, regarding theft.  There isn't a city, or town for that matter that doesn't have at least one breaking and entering per month.  Obviously larger cities will have considerably higher rates of crime in theft, reported or not.  Smaller cities, and towns have crimes in the same manner as well, just not as much, and as frequent.  Statistically speaking, smaller towns are ideal locations to live to avoid theft.  Yes it still happens, but no where close to the same rate as it would occur in a larger city.

The part about insurance adjustor's made me laugh out loud.  Professional hustlers and liars.

Basically, it doesn't matter where you live, if you have something someone else wants, and they are willing to become a felon to gain this item, they'll steal it.  
This isn't 100% failproof though.  No law, or statue is.  Per wikipedia "use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine."  It all depends on the circumstances of the crime/shooting.  If you start blasting the person with a shotgun when they step one foot in your door could lead you straight to prison.  

"In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally -- e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to Retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)"

Here's the problem, the prosecution would hire some $1000 an hour psycharistrist to prove that you just stone cold murdered the fool busting through your front door.

We can discuss this in circles all day long, but the fact of the matter is simple, it's far easier to just secure your home the best that you can possbile do, and call the police/flee the area, and hope the intruder doesn't have the intention to kill/maim/rape you or your family.  

Granted, if those options weren't available, the use of deadly force would present itself.  The question I ask, could you live with yourself after killing someone?  I'm sure you could if your loved ones life depended on it, but taking human life is absolutely miserable.

Whoo hooo, I live in Indiana.

[AKHog]

Hehe.  Reality has slipped you by, my firend.  Do not draw the line as to who needs what.  You and the law are not to be that judge   .  I happen to have a safe full of firearms and if the crap ever hits the fan I'm grabbin the AR15 "A4" with a ACOG TA31 mounted on top, my Sig 226/9mm, and a harness full of mags for both (along with some other gear).  However, I've been well trained (likewise, I'm a firearms hoobyist) in the use of firearms.  I only suggested the shotgun and the revolver for home defense for the average user due to the ease of use, a shorter learning curve, and the commonality.  If someone wants to use an AR15 or an AK variant for home defense, then so be it.  All I suggest is that the user take the time and LEARN the firearm and understand how devistating they are.  I fire thousands of rounds a year out of a half dozen of my firearms (I reload my own ammo, too).  I wouldnt suggest an AR15 to a person new to firearms, or an autoloader handgun either.  Too much to learn.

btw... my "bedside" gun is a semi-auto Sig232 in .380ACP (it is also my carry piece).  It is locked in a "quick release" box.  I also have 2 lights right next to it as well.

    

Exactly the reply I was expecting. The "when the crap hits the fan" is a perfect example of this fantasy. What exactly do you mean by 'when the crap hits the fan'? Take a step back towards reality and imagine a situation when you would likely use deadly force to protect yourself. What situation are you going to really use an assault rifle as it was intended, that is taking down multiple medium range targets? We can argue all day, and there will be many people coming on here to say that they must have their assault rifles and hand cannons to protect their home. Its STUPID idea, in no reasonable situation are you going to be required to have a high powered rifle or auto loading hand gun to protect yourself.

I have a firm grasp of reality, and would have words with someone who argues that I haven't given this topic a lot of thought and come to logical conclusions. Hey, I have a safe full of guns too. I even have a 1911 and what some would consider an assault rifle. The only thing that could be gotten to and fired in a reasonable amount of time is my shotgun though.

You are setting yourself up. As others pointed out, when you kill someone with an assault weapon you are putting yourself in a whole different situation. Besides, in legal self defense situations like inside your house at close ranges a shotgun is simply going to be a better weapon. You can argue about your personal experiences and training till your red in the face but its not going to change the facts. Even highly trained military and law enforcement personal use shotguns as the preferred weapon for close courters combat. Are they all wrong? If you are shooting someone out of the effective range of a shotgun then you are probably breaking the law, and very unlikely 'protecting' yourself.

[Tac]

5. Make sure you VERBALIZE everything.  You MUST give the perp a chance to surrender, identify themselves, identify their business in your house, etc.  You MUST be loud enough so your neighbors, your family, neighbors dog, the 911 operator on the phone receiver you've just put down to confront the perp, etc can all hear the situation.  Be L O U D enough so even you cringe as you speak.

Sorry that has got to be the silliest thing I've ever heard. If anyone is in my house and I've ID'd them as not being family/friends/etc and its the middle of the night the last thing im doing is yelling at the so they can get the first shot in. The first and last thing they'd hear is the boomstick blowing their heads off.

[AKHog]

Sorry that has got to be the silliest thing I've ever heard. If anyone is in my house and I've ID'd them as not being family/friends/etc and its the middle of the night the last thing im doing is yelling at the so they can get the first shot in. The first and last thing they'd hear is the boomstick blowing their heads off.

Check with your state, but that mentality will end up with YOU in jail and possibly facing some large charges in most places.

Of course ever situation has to be weighed individually, and there is almost no point to this argument because of all the variables of each possible situation.

A little side story, this happened not once but twice to two different friends in the course of about 2 months. The story is basically a long night out partying ends with a ride home from a DD that doesn't really know where person in question lives. This person gets dropped off a few houses away from their own house, but since they all look the same, and this person is extremely drunk, they go to the wrong house. In one situation the door was un-locked, my friend stumbles inside and passes out on the couch. The next morning the owners get a nice surprise but its all laughs as they all knew eachother anyway. However for another friend the story was not so nice. The front door was locked so he went around to a back sliding door which is always open. This guy happens to be a big intimidating looking type and starts banging on the door to his friends to let him in. Well the elderly man living their was not impressed and came to that part of the house with his shotgun, except rather than confronting the drunk he stayed covered in the shadows near the back of the room, at the ready with his gun. Luckily he called the cops also. Eventually my friend busted open the door and pretty much fell into the house at the same time the cops arrived. If the cops didn't get their this guy would have probably been shot.

Sure my drunk friend was in the wrong, he was at the wrong house. However would his mistakes justified him being shot? He's a great guy that doesn't even drink that much, he just got out of control drunk this one time (who hasn't?). This is just one situation with many variables that goes to show that blowing someone away as soon as they enter your house might not be the best mentality. This type of arming and preparing yourself for a full scale invasion may not be the healthiest mentality for you OR your neighbors!

My point is simply this: If you think you need a 'safe full of guns' including assault rifles and auto loading hand guns to protect yourself inside your own house you are simply living in a fantasy. Stop watching so many movies and give the possible situation some real thought.

[smkelly13]

5. Make sure you VERBALIZE everything.  You MUST give the perp a chance to surrender, identify themselves, identify their business in your house, etc.  You MUST be loud enough so your neighbors, your family, neighbors dog, the 911 operator on the phone receiver you've just put down to confront the perp, etc can all hear the situation.  Be L O U D enough so even you cringe as you speak.    

Okay, so you make your presence known, ask the perp to leave peacefully, which he doesn't, and you eventually kill him.  Does this stand up in court?  Unless you have audio/video proof, and some witnesses, absolutely not.  In theory it's nice, but in our legal system it equates to nothing.

Well I'm not going to run out and buy a gun. Instead I've installed brighter flood lights and starting on the front door lights. Tomorrow I am looking into a new fence and gate. I've told my neighbor about the situation so they are alert to it as well.

I'm really thinking about a security camera. Hope to get one cheap.

Wow.  You're worried about your personal safety, and personal belongings and you are planning to go cheap.  What's wrong with that picture?

You are setting yourself up. As others pointed out, when you kill someone with an assault weapon you are putting yourself in a whole different situation. Besides, in legal self defense situations like inside your house at close ranges a shotgun is simply going to be a better weapon. You can argue about your personal experiences and training till your red in the face but its not going to change the facts. Even highly trained military and law enforcement personal use shotguns as the preferred weapon for close courters combat. Are they all wrong? If you are shooting someone out of the effective range of a shotgun then you are probably breaking the law, and very unlikely 'protecting' yourself.

QFT.  My absolute favorite weapon of choice when doing MOUT is a reliable shotgun, either pump action or automatic.  Cannot be beaten, unless by a flamethrower

[sntslilhlpr6601]

Hehe.  Reality has slipped you by, my firend.  Do not draw the line as to who needs what.  You and the law are not to be that judge   .  I happen to have a safe full of firearms and if the crap ever hits the fan I'm grabbin the AR15 "A4" with a ACOG TA31 mounted on top, my Sig 226/9mm, and a harness full of mags for both (along with some other gear).  However, I've been well trained (likewise, I'm a firearms hoobyist) in the use of firearms.  I only suggested the shotgun and the revolver for home defense for the average user due to the ease of use, a shorter learning curve, and the commonality.  If someone wants to use an AR15 or an AK variant for home defense, then so be it.  All I suggest is that the user take the time and LEARN the firearm and understand how devistating they are.  I fire thousands of rounds a year out of a half dozen of my firearms (I reload my own ammo, too).  I wouldnt suggest an AR15 to a person new to firearms, or an autoloader handgun either.  Too much to learn.

btw... my "bedside" gun is a semi-auto Sig232 in .380ACP (it is also my carry piece).  It is locked in a "quick release" box.  I also have 2 lights right next to it as well.

    

AKHog is right, you are living in a fantasy world.

Using a rifle to defend your home is idiotic. I don't care how proficient you are with it, there's no way to stop those rounds from penetrating and killing your neighbor.

And you have no need for the range a rifle provides. Maybe if you were living on a farm, but in that case the intruder is not an immediate threat to you.

Save it for "when the zombies come".

[CAVPFCDD]

Jeez guys enough with all the gun talk, guns aren't really the answer, as I said before, take measures so they don't get in the house, shooting and killing people, even if you can while still following the laws, should be the absolute last option.

here are some home security tips from the show I had mentioned earlier

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/ittakesathief/tips/homesecurity/homesecurity.html

there are simple, cheap and most importantly non lethal ways to protect your home better.

I know people who have slept through robberies so guns are not the answer to everything...

[Tac]

well akhog, all im saying is im not going to risk my life or that of my loved ones to find that out.

He's inside my house in the middle of the night, uninvited. I need no other justification to remove his presence.

Yes, im all for turning the light on to ID who it is before pulling the trigger and I'm all for not shooting unless they are actually in my house (i could care less if they take stuff outside my house or my car, its not worth blood). I am not however, inclined to ask that person to surrender once they break into my home. I'll shoot. I do not know if he's alone or if he has a buddy that is armed. Will not risk that.

"Jeez guys enough with all the gun talk, guns aren't really the answer, as I said before, take measures so they don't get in the house, shooting and killing people, even if you can while still following the laws, should be the absolute last option."

Agreed. However, once they get into the house the rules change. That's what we're talking about here. The problem is that when these crooks learn that they can take things from your home they will be back.

This is not the old cops and robbers game.. these are usually gang members, desperate druggies or downright 'professionals'. Once one of them does it they tell others and your house is marked as a source of income for them and they do come back. They're not stupid, these people cut the alarm/phone/cable wires hooked to your home and some even carry cellphone scramblers so you cant call for help from a cellphone.

You can put as much high tech non-lethal security measures you want to give your conscience a buffer zone... once they do break into your home its not a game anymore.

[AKHog]

He's inside my house in the middle of the night, uninvited. I need no other justification to remove his presence.

So you are willing to KILL someone for breaking into your house. This simply sounds ridiculous to me, and I'm guessing there is nothing that can be said over a forum to change either of our opinions.

Unfortunately I find that more and more people have the same mentality.

"Its not a game anymore", I think to some people when someone breaks into their house the game is just starting.