NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/guns/16159

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 7.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!darwin.sura.net!mojo.eng.umd.edu!mimsy!net.yale.edu
From: [e-mail] (Alan Watt)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Bad tactical position ( was Psychology in Defense)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:31:50 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Lines: 120
Approved: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James P. Callison) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan Watt) writes:
|> #
|> #In article <[e-mail]>, scylax![e-mail] writes:
|> #
|> #|> B. Some one is picking the lock. I heard the noise and I see a black
|> #|> clad figure slowly entering the now open balcony door.  I am behind the
|> #|> door armed,  do I shoot first?   The way I see, if he is a burglar
|> #|> and I make a noise 99% chance he'll flee,  if he is a deranged sadist
|> #|> he has found his target, for which he might be well prepared.
|> #|> Am I expected to take this chance?
|> #
|> #You are behind the same door the intruder has entered?  In this case
|> #he can't "flee" without approaching you.  If you see a gun in the
|> #intruder's hand, you can shoot immediately and without warning.  Otherwise,
|> #you should avail yourself of whatever cover is available and order
|> #the intruder to stop.  I don't think the 99% figure applies to break-ins
|> #of occupied dwellings, by the way.  I would assume that anyone breaking
|> #into my home at a time when it is generally occupied (and especially
|> #at a time when people are asleep) has hostile intentions.
|>
|> Here's an interesting question...according to some news report or another,
|> there's been a rise in burglaries (or, I guess, technically, robberies)
|> committed while the residents were at home--and they were purposefully
|> committed while there was someone there. These perps were doing it for
|> feeling of power, and they were bent on harm, and posed a clear and
|> present danger. Question: If you catch one of these, and he tries
|> to leave, do you shoot him? He poses a clear and present danger, and
|> will likely try it again (according to the report), if not with you
|> as the target, then with someone else...
|> I know the FBI's position is that a Special Agent who witnesses a
|> a robbery is bound to try and apprehend the subject, even though it
|> is technically not under FBI jurisdiction; do we, as "a well
|> regulated militia," do the same? (I think the answer is to shoot, under
|> Arizona's laws, but I'm not certain what any other laws are. I think
|> that, under Colorado and Oklahoma law, the moment he enters my
|> house, he's at my mercy, no matter what he does, so I'd shoot, no
|> question. What would _you_ do?)

This comes under the "fleeing felon" doctrine.  Many states grant
statutory authority to use deadly force to halt a "fleeing felon".
Current standard doctrine for all police agencies I'm aware of severely
restricts use of deadly force in this circumstance, statutory authority
notwithstanding.  If the police are prohibited or discouraged from shooting
in this circumstance, the civilian would be well-advised to hold fire also.

The only circumstance in which you could justify shooting would be if
the felon were *known to you* to present an unacceptable risk to innocent
life if allowed to remain at large.  I can concoct some hypothetical
cases which would fall under this category, but the typical homeowner
is unlikely to encounter one.  Basically, you as a civilian have no
duty to protect your neighbors or your community.  This means you have
no duty (and therefore no authority) to perform an arrest.  You can
certainly order an intruder to halt, lie on the floor, and be a good
boy until the police arrive and be perfectly justified.  But if the felon
attempts to flee, shooting would rarely be justified for police, even
more rarely for civilians.  I don't think there is any jursidiction
in the country where either the police or civilians can shoot someone
because it will "probably" prevent another break-in.


|> #Someone who has unlawfully entered you home armed with a firearm
|> #has etablished both hostile intent and lethal capabilities.  You can shoot
|> #him even if his back is turned to you.  For ethical reasons, and to
|> #avoid any possible legal difficulties, you may want to give this intruder
|> #the chance to retreat from confrontation, but you need not if doing so
|> #would place you or other innocent lives at greater risk.
|>
|> I realize that this could get a little bit off the charter, but I'm
|> actually more interested in what you can _legally_ do around the
|> country, given the above circumstances, and come out of it with your
|> freedom intact.
|> (Moderator, feel free to send this one to the funny farm (t.p.g) if
|> you feel that's it's too far off the charter. I really do want more
|> of the informational side of this, but it could get rather political...)

In all of my posts, I have assumed that you were a head-of-household
or other responsible adult
facing an invasion of your occupied dwelling.  This circumstance is
most favorable towards civilian use of deadly force.  Even so, there
is a wide disparity in the statues of the different states.  I have
also assumed that you are in legal possession of your firearm or other
deadly weapon.  Some states have (or used to have) an unconditional
*duty to retreat* from deadly confrontation for the civilian, even
in the home.
Massachussetts had such a provision, but it was removed after a
particularly absurd conviction.  Most states which have a general
duty to retreat make an exception for an occupied dwelling.

Some states go even further and relax the "equality of force" requirement
which otherwise applies to meeting assaults [this is the doctrine that
you may respond to an assault only with equal or slightly greater
force than is directed against you].  The press, ever scrupulous
in its reporting standards, have dubbed these "make my day" laws.
The basic idea behind these laws is if you are in your dwelling,
and someone forcibly enters and uses or threatens to use *any*
force, you are justified in responding with *any* level of force,
including deadly force.  Further, some states exempt from any
civil liability someone who justifiably uses force to terminate
an unlawful home entry.  I believe Colorado passed the first of these.

Regardless of the statutory provisions and the prevailing case law
in your jurisdiction, you don't *WANT* to shoot anyone if you can
possibly avoid it.  Even assuming no criminal or civil legal complications
(your attorney probably defines a "complication" as costing more
that $10,000 to defend), most of your friends and acquaintances
will suddenly become a little uneasy around you.  If you are a decent
person, you will likely become more than a little uneasy around yourself.

I firmly believe that if I act within the legal and tactical boundaries
I've been taught, I will eventually come to terms with myself and
be able to deal with the reaction of the community around me.  This
doesn't mean I expect to find that process either cheap or easy.
--
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University            Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station            [phone]
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112        [e-mail]