Gun-Fi

[gpalmer]

Originally Posted by number1sixerfan

Any of you gun owners ever wander what may happen if you have to use your gun in self defense of your home?

I think this is what is keeping me from purchasing. I am afraid that if I ever have to use it in self defense, that I may be prosecuted; even if I am in the right.

There's an old saying: "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Check your state laws. I'm not sure about Ohio but here in Florida if a person breaks into an occupied structure there is an automatic legal presumption of intent to cause great bodily harm or death. It is perfectly legal to use deadly force in cases where you are fear of great bodily harm or death, ergo, break into an occupied structure in Florida and you're bought and paid for...

[Old Pa]

Originally Posted by number1sixerfan

Any of you gun owners ever wander what may happen if you have to use your gun in self defense of your home?

I think this is what is keeping me from purchasing. I am afraid that if I ever have to use it in self defense, that I may be prosecuted; even if I am in the right.

It would certainly be the worst day of your life, even if it turned out well. But legally, for the defensive shooter, a goblin in the home is the best fact situation. You should know your home, where everyone is, and your target before firing. The worst situation is where you wind up, on purpose or by accident, shooting one of your own or a neighbor. That would be intolerable. Follow the four rules and take your time very quickly. Even then, if not prosecuted for a criminal charge, you may well be sued in civil court. Refer to rule below.

Originally Posted by gpalmer

There's an old saying: "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Check your state laws. I'm not sure about Ohio but here in Florida if a person breaks into an occupied structure there is an automatic legal presumption of intent to cause great bodily harm or death. It is perfectly legal to use deadly force in cases where you are fear of great bodily harm or death, ergo, break into an occupied structure in Florida and you're bought and paid for...

It's called the "castle doctrine" and is being adopted on a state-by-state basis, being a minority opinion at this time. Does not replace identifying your target, knowing where all those who should be in the home are, and following the four rules.

[mrarroyo]

Originally Posted by number1sixerfan

Any of you gun owners ever wander what may happen if you have to use your gun in self defense of your home?

I think this is what is keeping me from purchasing. I am afraid that if I ever have to use it in self defense, that I may be prosecuted; even if I am in the right.

It would most likely be the worst day of my life! Gun ownership is about responsability, accountability, and did I mention responsability?

You must know your gun, be proficient with it, know your state laws and abide by them. If at home you have to make sure that your loved ones or neighbords are not place in jeapordy by an stray bullet.

However the most important question can only be answered by the individual. Will you be able/capable/willing to fire at another human being? Even when that individual is in your home coming at you and you are afraid for you life (or a loved one)? If you can not answer yes then do not get a firearm. The perp will take it away from you and use it on you and your loved ones.

[gpalmer]

Originally Posted by Old Pa

It would certainly be the worst day of your life, even if it turned out well. But legally, for the defensive shooter, a goblin in the home is the best fact situation. You should know your home, where everyone is, and your target before firing. The worst situation is where you wind up, on purpose or by accident, shooting one of your own or a neighbor. That would be intolerable. Follow the four rules and take your time very quickly. Even then, if not prosecuted for a criminal charge, you may well be sued in civil court. Refer to rule below.

One of the nice things about the castle doctrine is not having to worry about the civil lawsuit.

Originally Posted by Old Pa

It's called the "castle doctrine" and is being adopted on a state-by-state basis, being a minority opinion at this time.

Here's where knowing your state law comes in handy. Florida's version of the castle doctrine goes one better on the stock version since Florida law explicitly stipulates anyone breaking into an occupied structure is presumed to be intending "great bodily harm or death" to the occupants whereas with all other versions of the castle doctrine I have studied that is not the case. In the other states I have studied you still have to prove that you were in "fear of great bodily harm or death."

Originally Posted by Old Pa

Does not replace identifying your target, knowing where all those who should be in the home are, and following the four rules.

Identifying your target goes without saying, but was implicit in my statement; If you don't know what you're shooting at, how do you know it's someone who broke into your house? And note, my comment only addresses someone who commits forcible entry to get into your house/tent/motel room, if you left the door open and they wandered in innocently there is no presumption that they mean to harm you.

[gpalmer]

Originally Posted by mrarroyo

However the most important question can only be answered by the individual. Will you be able/capable/willing to fire at another human being? Even when that individual is in your home coming at you and you are afraid for you life (or a loved one)? If you can not answer yes then do not get a firearm. The perp will take it away from you and use it on you and your loved ones.

Agreed but I've seen the aftermath of enough criminal actions that I have an understanding of what not firing when you should can mean. I don't even hunt because I don't like harming or killing living things but if it's me or you, well, only one way that's gonna go... It's one of those decisions that I've spent a lot of time coming to grips with internally and I feel comfortable about the decision.

[Old Pa]

Originally Posted by gpalmer

Florida's version of the castle doctrine goes one better on the stock version since Florida law explicitly stipulates anyone breaking into an occupied structure is presumed to be intending "great bodily harm or death" to the occupants whereas with all other versions of the castle doctrine I have studied that is not the case.

Identifying your target goes without saying, but was implicit in my statement; If you don't know what you're shooting at, how do you know it's someone who broke into your house?

I intended no rebuke or insult in my response to number1sixerfan's question or in my response to you.

While I have not seen the statutory language in FL or other jurisdictions enacting some form of the "castle doctrine", I am sure that the presumption statutorially created is a rebuttable presumption so as to avoid the misuse/abuse you later mention. A shooter will not be absolved of the subjective/objective belief requirement of imminent death or great bodily harm, even if part of this requirement is provided by a "castle doctrine" presumption. And depending on the age, prior record, and other characteristics of your fallen goblin, there still may be an attempt by threat of civil suit to shake down your insurer for a chunk of change. I am sure you would agree that the four rules still remain the defensive shooter's foundation.

I understand you would positively identify your target, but other individuals awoken in the night by sounds of intrusion and scared out of their minds by the imminent risk of death or great bodily harm have been known to "reconnoiter by fire". I was just saying this impulse is to be resisted, and may be best resisted by training and a plan including the involvment of some form of strong illumination.

Number1sixerfan made no statement of his defensive mindset or training. I'm sure you would agree that you just don't buy a gun and some blammo and figure you're good to go.

[archosman]

Originally Posted by number1sixerfan

Any of you gun owners ever wander what may happen if you have to use your gun in self defense of your home?

I think this is what is keeping me from purchasing. I am afraid that if I ever have to use it in self defense, that I may be prosecuted; even if I am in the right.

You know what? If there's a doubt in your mind then don't buy one. Seriously.

All of us who own firearms know that this could always be a possibility and have had to think and consider what we would do if this scenario ever came around. I'd rather you not own one than have one and commit a tragic mistake.

It may sound like I'm being a bit of a prick, but in the long run that makes our sport safer and lessens the burden on others considering a purchase.

Killing someone is a bad thing... even if it's deserved. If there's even a teeny doubt you may not be able to pull the trigger - don't get one for home defense.

[gpalmer]

Originally Posted by Old Pa

While I have not seen the statutory language in FL or other jurisdictions enacting some form of the "castle doctrine", I am sure that the presumption statutorially created is a rebuttable presumption so as to avoid the misuse/abuse you later mention. A shooter will not be absolved of the subjective/objective belief requirement of imminent death or great bodily harm, even if part of this requirement is provided by a "castle doctrine" presumption. And depending on the age, prior record, and other characteristics of your fallen goblin, there still may be an attempt by threat of civil suit to shake down your insurer for a chunk of change. I am sure you would agree that the four rules still remain the defensive shooter's foundation.

The most important part of this is the use of the four rules and that is fundamental to owning a gun. When I was in at the gun shop doing the paperwork for my Saiga's I had a guy sweeping me with a 12 gauge again and again. We had a few words about that.

In Florida the law does not provide for a "part of this requirement", it fully satisfies it. Forcible entry + occupied structure = 100% of the requirement for "intent to cause great bodily harm or death." Combined with the "Castle Doctrine" there is no civil liability if the use of deadly force is justified. It's black and white in Florida and one less thing you have to worry about.

That doesn't mean you get to shoot randomly, it means you may use deadly force against the person causing the fear. This means you need to identify your target as always. There have been cases where the wrong person got shot and in the cases I'm familiar with the shooter was "no billed" but I would imagine that wasn't much comfort to them since they had to live with what they'd done.

Originally Posted by Old Pa

I understand you would positively identify your target, but other individuals awoken in the night by sounds of intrusion and scared out of their minds by the imminent risk of death or great bodily harm have been known to "reconnoiter by fire". I was just saying this impulse is to be resisted, and may be best resisted by training and a plan including the involvment of some form of strong illumination.

Agreed, if you're going to be a Nervous Nellie and start blazing away at the first hint of trouble, leave the guns out of it. The amount of trouble you will buy yourself by adding them into the mix is far more than you'll save. And I do keep tac lights on my weapons for just such a contingency though so far I've never had to light them up. I keep a decent level of illumination going in the key areas of the house with low power CFL's and it makes it pretty easy to see who's there.

Originally Posted by Old Pa

Number1sixerfan made no statement of his defensive mindset or training. I'm sure you would agree that you just don't buy a gun and some blammo and figure you're good to go.

+1, nope, I go to several training classes per year, probably 6-8 days worth of training on one weapon or another. When you pick up a weapon you need to respect what that weapon can do and the repercussions from its use. You also need to spend the time to know exactly what the laws are in your area.

[gpalmer]

Originally Posted by archosman

You know what? If there's a doubt in your mind then don't buy one. Seriously.

All of us who own firearms know that this could always be a possibility and have had to think and consider what we would do if this scenario ever came around. I'd rather you not own one than have one and commit a tragic mistake.

It may sound like I'm being a bit of a prick, but in the long run that makes our sport safer and lessens the burden on others considering a purchase.

Killing someone is a bad thing... even if it's deserved. If there's even a teeny doubt you may not be able to pull the trigger - don't get one for home defense.

I'm not sure that is really the correct answer either. It would be very bad to pull the trigger when you shouldn't but I bet if you could ask the people who have been killed over the years because they didn't have a means of defense you'd find a pretty good percentage would rethink that decision. And even an unfired firearm can avoid issues. Agreed that I would consider that a gray area and I don't really want to suggest you should bluff when firearms are involved. Just look at how well that works out for the guys facing the police with toy guns...

[Old Pa]

Originally Posted by gpalmer

In Florida the law does not provide for a "part of this requirement", it fully satisfies it. Forcible entry + occupied structure = 100% of the requirement for "intent to cause great bodily harm or death." Combined with the "Castle Doctrine" there is no civil liability if the use of deadly force is justified. It's black and white in Florida and one less thing you have to worry about.

Before I went back to law school, I was a cop for five years (my M.S. is in criminalistics). I've been practicing law for twenty-five years now and teaching the legal aspects of lethal force to CCW applicants for more than five years. I know something of what I speak in these areas.

While the "castle doctrine" is, IMHO, a great advance in self defense against the goblins, states attorneys with political agendas, and PI/wrongful death specializing lawyers, it's not as "dead bang" as you might like to think. Among other things, we need some case law in each of the jurisdictions to see how the courts are going to interpret the individual statutes state and federal constitutionality and how the courts are going to weigh the rights of each of the parties against each other. My best advice would be to continue to be just as careful as you were going to be before your jurisdiction enacted "castle doctrine". I would really like to see "castle doctrine" be successful in practice and spread.

But at least the surviving householder is going to be due a jury instruction in both criminal and civil proceedings that they did not received before. And overcoming the rebuttable presumption is a much higher legal bar than the surviving householder's opponents ever had to face before. Best yet would be if this would make some of the goblins rethink burglary/home invasion entirely and find day jobs.