I heard a story on a podcast once about a teenager who was invited to a party and got the address wrong. So he just walked into this house thinking it was the site of the party. Apparently the front door was unlocked. The man who actually lived there thought he was a burglar and came out with a gun. The kid ran out to his truck and drove away, with the home owner running after him shooting. Fortunately no one was injured. It certainly could have ended very tragically, with either the teenager dead, or maybe the teenager managing to injure or kill the homeowner while trying to defend himself.
The homeowner was charged with a crime. As I understood it, primarily for chasing after the kid after he left the house. Because even if the kid had been a burglar, once he ran out of the house, he was no longer a threat and so shooting at his retreating truck was not self defense.
I own several guns and I have a concealed carry license. But if someone walks in the front door of your house when it's unlocked, you should be very slow about shooting. Maybe he just has the wrong address. Maybe he's blind and thought he was going to his friend's house next door. Maybe he's mentally ill and confused. Etc.
Real life is messy. If you're too slow to shoot, you could end up dead. If you're too quick to shoot, you could end up killing an innocent person.
Perhaps your Front Site instructors didn't have a "Castle Doctrine" law in their state, like we have in WI? If someone breaks into your house in WI, you are protected from an over-zealous, politically motivated city/county prosecutor by the State. Because the law allows all of our police departments the ability to control the use of their resources, they do not have the legal obligation to come when you call them for help, even when someone is in the process of attacking you. So our state has codified the obvious, common sense conclusion that it is your job to defend yourself, and your property, so long as it is in your house. We finally got rid of a Demoncat governor for long enough to get concealed carry gun laws passed as well. I would never live in a city or state that does not recognize this most basic of God-given rights, as what good are the rest of our laws if you have to risk letting someone kill you, or your family, in your own home? I understand it's far murkier in other situations where it depends on the "reasonable man" standard.
Realistically, if you shoot someone that breaks into your house, you're almost always on really solid legal ground. Their philosophy, which I agree with, is there are so many consequences that go along with killing another human being that you're better off losing some stuff than having to kill them. Now, if your family is on the other side of the house? You kill them. If they try to get to you? You kill them. If you have no other choice? You kill them. But, you don't kill them if you don't have to for your sake, not their sake. If you lose a TV and some speakers, even if insurance doesn't pay for it, it's worth it not to have to kill them.
They hammered those kind of things home a lot and even though it's a message you don't hear most other places, I think it's spot-on.
When I got my concealed carry license in Ohio, the instructor asked, hypothetically, if you saw someone lying on the ground and another person standing over him with a gun pointed at his head, would you shoot the gunman to save the other person's life? The correct answer is "don't". Not unless you really know what's going on. Maybe the guy on the ground is a serial killer and the person standing over him is an undercover cop who just caught him. Maybe the guy on the ground just tried to kill the other guy but he managed to get the upper hand. Etc etc. If you make a snap judgement and guess wrong, you could spend the rest of your life in prison.
I heard a story on a podcast once about a teenager who was invited to a party and got the address wrong. So he just walked into this house thinking it was the site of the party. Apparently the front door was unlocked. The man who actually lived there thought he was a burglar and came out with a gun. The kid ran out to his truck and drove away, with the home owner running after him shooting. Fortunately no one was injured. It certainly could have ended very tragically, with either the teenager dead, or maybe the teenager managing to injure or kill the homeowner while trying to defend himself.
The homeowner was charged with a crime. As I understood it, primarily for chasing after the kid after he left the house. Because even if the kid had been a burglar, once he ran out of the house, he was no longer a threat and so shooting at his retreating truck was not self defense.
I own several guns and I have a concealed carry license. But if someone walks in the front door of your house when it's unlocked, you should be very slow about shooting. Maybe he just has the wrong address. Maybe he's blind and thought he was going to his friend's house next door. Maybe he's mentally ill and confused. Etc.
Real life is messy. If you're too slow to shoot, you could end up dead. If you're too quick to shoot, you could end up killing an innocent person.
Perhaps your Front Site instructors didn't have a "Castle Doctrine" law in their state, like we have in WI? If someone breaks into your house in WI, you are protected from an over-zealous, politically motivated city/county prosecutor by the State. Because the law allows all of our police departments the ability to control the use of their resources, they do not have the legal obligation to come when you call them for help, even when someone is in the process of attacking you. So our state has codified the obvious, common sense conclusion that it is your job to defend yourself, and your property, so long as it is in your house. We finally got rid of a Demoncat governor for long enough to get concealed carry gun laws passed as well. I would never live in a city or state that does not recognize this most basic of God-given rights, as what good are the rest of our laws if you have to risk letting someone kill you, or your family, in your own home? I understand it's far murkier in other situations where it depends on the "reasonable man" standard.
Realistically, if you shoot someone that breaks into your house, you're almost always on really solid legal ground. Their philosophy, which I agree with, is there are so many consequences that go along with killing another human being that you're better off losing some stuff than having to kill them. Now, if your family is on the other side of the house? You kill them. If they try to get to you? You kill them. If you have no other choice? You kill them. But, you don't kill them if you don't have to for your sake, not their sake. If you lose a TV and some speakers, even if insurance doesn't pay for it, it's worth it not to have to kill them.
They hammered those kind of things home a lot and even though it's a message you don't hear most other places, I think it's spot-on.
When I got my concealed carry license in Ohio, the instructor asked, hypothetically, if you saw someone lying on the ground and another person standing over him with a gun pointed at his head, would you shoot the gunman to save the other person's life? The correct answer is "don't". Not unless you really know what's going on. Maybe the guy on the ground is a serial killer and the person standing over him is an undercover cop who just caught him. Maybe the guy on the ground just tried to kill the other guy but he managed to get the upper hand. Etc etc. If you make a snap judgement and guess wrong, you could spend the rest of your life in prison.
Better to don’t have me to kill then T and E will safely,