3 Feb
Determining “Lethal Threat”?
Goodness I hope that MikeB302000 never stops blogging or commenting; I might have to do an honest days work in blogging instead of being presented such a ready source of blog material.
Over at Snowflakes in Hell (Great site, I’m sure all 3 of my readers have it bookmarked), Sebastian made this comment:
I would find it hard to believe juries even in New York will convict people for shooting home invaders. Shooting at someone fleeing is a different matter.
MikeB302000 replied, in his usual fashion, with this:
I would almost agree. Here’s how I would say it.
“would find it hard to believe juries even in New York will convict people for shooting home invaders WHO ARE POSING A LETHAL THREAT. Shooting at someone fleeing is a different matter.”
Now Monday morning quarterbacking is what the police, prosecutors, grand juries and trial juries do — so it is easy or at least easier for them to determine if a criminal posed a lethal threat at the time of a shooting.
What I want to know is how someone like MikeB302000 determines (or thinks we should) determine who is posing a “lethal threat”?
I’m sure that MikeB30200 wouldn’t accept that someone being in my home, criminally with unannounced intentions to be sufficient cause to consider that a “lethal threat”. So what does constitute a lethal threat?
What do you say Anti-Rights Advocates want to define it for us?
Please join the discussion.
Posted by Weer'd Beard on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
Well we must remember that MikeB302000 is an admitted criminal and a liar. Also his blog can be seen more as a criminal rights blog rather than an anti-gun blog (remember, he also blogs against the death penalty as well as against the police when it comes to arresting violent criminals….he’s Ok with police so long as they’re harassing law-abiding citizens, because he only cares that dangerous criminals go unmolested)
I believe MikeB would qualify a lethal threat as somebody who has killed you and has left the scene. He does this simply out of self-preservation. And why wouldn’t he? Do you see Turkey’s celebrating Thanksgiving?
Posted by sevesteen on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
Someone who has broken into my house is assumed to be a lethal threat until proven otherwise. My goal is to get him to stop being a lethal threat with minimum danger to me. If I can get him to leave, that is the best possible outcome, but i’m not willing to add much risk to MY life, to make his criminal activities safer.
Posted by Sarah on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
If you’ve violently invaded my home or other, personal space (vehicle while I’m in it, for example), you aren’t up to any good. Your intentions clearly aren’t along the lines of telling me about Jesus’ love or selling me some yummy Thin Mints, so I’m going to take a defensive stance. The fact is that I don’t *know* how far you’re willing to go until you actually do it, and I’m not willing to risk my life or good health on the possibility that you aren’t some tweaker in the middle of a murderous rage.
Of course, that attitude brings up the, “But you’re a Christian. You’re supposed to be a pacifist” fallacy. Yeah, even Southern Baptist fundies like me have guns for defensive purposes, folks. We’ll probably witness to your criminal self over your dying body, but we aren’t going to let you take us out if there’s any way to avoid it.
Posted by Bob S. on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
Sarah,
Don’t ruin a chance for the Anti-Rights Advocates to jump on the religious aspect — I need a good reason to revisit that. I did two posts on it in the past and probably need to rework them.
Sevesteen & Sarah,
I agree with your thoughts on someone being in my house.
I’m interested in two aspects — what exactly does an ANTI consider sufficient provocation by a criminal to warrant the title “lethal threat” and how exactly can they determine that in time to react appropriately.
Posted by TXGunGeek on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
It is not if they pose a lethal threat, it is do you perceive a lethal threat and how good are you and your lawyer at conveying that to the police/jury.
Just as the standard for sexual harassment or hostile work environment violations. The offense is not if the act or comment was harassment or hostile. The offense is if the person perceived the act / comment as harassment or hostile.
“I was in fear for my life or that of a loved one” is how the person perceives the situation. That is what is to be considered not if the actor was in fact a lethal threat. Now would be where the reasonable person standard comes in. If a reasonable person would have felt threatened in that situation. Whether the attacker actually posed a lethal threat or not is immaterial to the defenders actions. This again is the job of the defender and their attorney. This is why consulting before giving a full statement after a defensive gun use is so important. The defender is going to be shaken up and their perception and recounting of the situation may not initially include the pre fight signals or other pertinent clues as to why they reacted the way they did.
Posted by Bob S. on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
Geek,
Great answer and I agree.
So, what I am trying to get at is exactly what makes a person perceive a “lethal threat”?
If an Anti was to confront a person at 3 in the morning — what clues would that Anti use to determine lethal threat?
Does the criminal have to have a weapon? Does the home owner have to wait until the criminal utters a threat?
Maybe the Antis feel we can’t determine “lethal threat” until we’ve sat down with the criminal and talked about their childhood issues, their current pharmaceutical intake, plans for the remainder of the crime– after all the criminal may only want to rape someone and not kill them.
Posted by Thomas on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
In Texas, you can shoot at people fleeing. Sebastian throws people like me under the buss. I have him mentally bookmarked to never bother reading again and have had him there for about two years, FWIW. People like me make him and other wussy semi-firearms-rights non-activists “look bad” in their minds because we are “unreasonable” to them, whearas us folk on Sipsey Street see them as the unreasonable which also makes them unreadable. Mikebeesforbrains from another angle. Repetitively daft is repetitively daft even if you’re OSTENSIBLY pro-firearms. I’m sure he thinks the same of me. Maybe he and walls of the city and bikes and boomsticks can go have a group snark about it some day. No water off my back, but you could have LEAD DRIPPING OFF YOUR BACK fleeing my house/property if I have good cause to believe that if I allow you to escape I won’t be able to recover my property and/or prosecute your behavior as I live in TEXAS and that’s an established judicial precedent and LEGAL BEAGLE. If you don’t want to be shot at fleeing the site of a crime you shouldn’t have committed a crime to begin with. Problem solved.
Posted by Bob S. on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
Thomas,
Being able to shoot fleeing criminals is a entirely different subject — one that I want to discuss another day.
It does tie into this conversation to a degree — how does a homeowner know that a person running away is “fleeing” or simply running to get a bigger or better weapon?
How does a home owner know a person is going to drive off if they make it to a car or try to ram them? ( Of course, Anti Right Advocates deny that cars are ever used as weapons also– another subject to discuss).
Posted by TXGunGeek on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
Breaking into your house forcefully is not always a good indicator, Drunk wanting the party next door and such. However, communicating with the invader with “I am armed and if you come in here I WILL shoot!” Will quickly determine the threat level. If they leave, OK if they do not, they have established themselves as a threat and YOU do not have to make the decision to shoot, they have made it for you.
Posted by Weer'd Beard on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
Great point Gun Geek! Putting layers of separation between you and the threat is a good way to both avoid gunplay (even when it’s legal and justified it’ll ruin your day) and to better your chances of cumming out on top in the event the worst comes to worst.
In a home invasion putting locked doors between you and the attacker is ideal. Closed doors if you can’t lock doors. If no doors (or you’re on the street) simply putting distance between you and the attacker while you draw your gun will give you an advantage. Also somebody advancing on a retreating man with a gun is making their intentions VERY well known.
Posted by Stephen on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
I live in the civilized state of Colorado where if someone breaks into my house I have only to prove that they were there illegally. The intent of this law is not, of course, to enable murder … but to make sure that the benefit of the doubt is on the side of the victim. That doesn’t mean all Coloradan’s to automatically shoot, however, it just means that if we do it’s the prosecution that must meet the burden of proof that we acted wrongfully, rather than us having to do it.
But as to the standard of proof that a criminal is a “lethal” threat, the Brady campaign standards I’ve seen proposed for a justified use of a firearm are:
1. Knife has penetrated at least 3 inches into the body of the homeowner AND is headed for a critical organ.
2. Trigger of the suspect’s firearm has been drawn back 3/4 of the way AND the firearms is pointed at a critical organ of homeowner (NOTE: if a more lethal assault weapon, trigger need only be drawn back 1/2).
3. If blunt instrument being used, homeowner must have suffered at least 3 broken bones and >1 pt of blood lost.
Posted by Bob S. on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
Stephen,
That is the type of answer I expected the Antis to give (your #1,2 & 3) — or something like it.
“The suspect has to clearly announce his/her intention to murder someone before a violent gun owner can open fire and gun down the defenseless misunderstood youth/homeless/drunk/ETC”.
Related question — when does an “assault” become “aggravated” and does the victim of the beating have to wait until AFTER that point to use lethal force?
Posted by Linoge on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
*sigh* And this is what I get for arriving to the party late.
What I was going to say, until Stephen beat me to it in a significantly more-snarky way, was that I am certainly not an anti-rights advocate, and make no claims as to understanding their particular beliefs or rationales, but it would seem to me that the vast majority of them would accept no lesser proof of “lethal intent” than the homeowners in question taking the first hit, and then only if that hit was obviously intended to cause mortal damage to the homeowner.
But, as I said, Stephen said it better
.
Speaking personally, I am not going to bother giving home-invaders a verbal warning – they already know that what they are doing is illegal, and in this state, they would have to be brain-dead morons to not know that breaking-and-entering can and probably will result in bodily perforation. However, our defensive plan does not involve apartment/house cleaning – we are going to take concealment, and what cover we can, in our bedroom, behind the locked and closed door, on the phone with the police, and anyone who comes through that door who does not have a badge or some other form of identification will be met with at least one load of buckshot. We keep nothing of significant value in our bedroom, so anyone coming into that room has other intentions on their mind apart from casual theft.
In the end, though, anyone who illegally gains entry to a person’s home has just forfeited his life – given the number of home invasions that end with or involve the death, raping, torturing, or grievous bodily assault of the homeowners, I have neither the time nor the inclination to question them over their intentions, and I would not hold it against anyone else who decided they had neither themselves. Breaking and entering has already exposed all of the intentions I need to know, and given that anyone gaining entrance to my home would then have the “capaiblity” and “opportunity” to cause me serious harm, all three sides of the deadly force triangle are completed.
Posted by TXGunGeek on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
Linoge,
State law in Texas as many have already pointed out is that the home owner does not have to retreat ans stated in 9.32
“(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.”
Your retreat to bedroom and ensconce is a preferred path. HOWEVER, Just sitting there quietly and waiting to shoot is not.
Do you have $15-20K laying around burning a hole in your pocket? If you shoot, even a very clean act of self defense shoot, you are going to need a lawyer and if the attacker dies, in Texas You ARE going before a Grand Jury. That is the law.
If using command voice let’s the intruder know that they screwed up and gives them the chance to leave without harm, I’ll file a claim with insurance and file a police report and go on my way. Much less expensive and traumatic on me and my family financially and emotionally. Are you and your Spouse / Children going to continue to live in a house that is the crime scene of a murder investigation? NO, not until the police are done with it and you get it cleaned up either by yourselves or by professionals. (Don’t even get me started on the EPA requirements for crime scene cleanup. Since that is bio hazardous waste.)
Do you have the legal obligation to warn the intruder? NO! Do you have the moral obligation? That is entirely up to you and those who sit in judgment of your actions at trial. Do you want to warn the intruder to avoid the cost and trauma of the alternative? Again, that is entirely up to you but I would just as soon give the warning and avoid the major hassle.
I do agree that an intruder who has broken into your house has already forfeited their right to live. I’m just a little more practical in my response plan. If there is the slightest hint that they are intent on any sort of harm to me and mine, the fight is on and I intend to win. But I am practical enough to want to minimize the exposure and risk associated with their intrusion financially and emotionally.
Posted by Linoge on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
Each to their own, and thank you for your opinions, TXGunGeek. I would clarify that I am not in Texas, though here in Tennessee, we do not have a duty to retreat either. Likewise, I would clarify that I was not specifically referring to retreat – the vast majority of home-invasions in our area in the past year have taken place after hours, when the inhabitants were already asleep. Should someone attempt to invade my home while my wife and I are awake, out, and about, our plan is significantly different. And, finally, verbal warnings in our areas have been less-than-helpful – if anything, according to the reports I have been reading, the criminals simply used those yells of, “Go away, I am armed!” to triangulate where the homeowners were in the apartments/houses, and, unfortunately, the homeowners were not always telling the truth. I do give credit to the teenager in my town who brained a home-invader with a toaster, though… In our area, I would just as soon see if the individuals leave without engagement, than apparently entice them to create one – but, as I said, each to their own, and criminals follow different protocols in different areas.
You are absolutely right about the unfortunate costs of self-defense actions and killings – I certainly wish that was not the case, but it is what it is, I suppose.
Posted by AztecRed on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
A lethal threat in mikeb’s world is when the home invader has you on the floor, pushing a knife into one of your kidneys. I believe that even if someone were to break into your home and say, “Don’t move or i’ll kill you”, mikeb wouldn’t consider that a lethal threat. He’d advocate that you just comply with the invader’s demands.
Posted by TXGunGeek on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
“Come any closer and I shall Brain Thee!” I like it. Just goes to show “the weapon is the mind, the object is just a tool to do the weapons bidding.
As for the warning, if someone is bluffing, well, that is their own problem. They have the same opportunity to arm themselves as anyone else. Like I said, if the attakers show intent to harm me or mine, Game ON. If we are asleep and they break in and are in the bedroom / hallway area before time has allowed any sort of warning, that is a clear indication of their intent, no warning needed.
If the bad actors wish to use the warning as triangulation and move in, well, that pretty clearly spells out their intentions and they really have just forfeited their right to live.
Yup, litigation in today’s or even yesterdays society is a major issue for me. I just blogged about why I quit EMS work after being sued wrongfully. If I had screwed up that is one thing and I am man enough to accept responsibility for my actions but when it is not my fault and I get accused of something I get real defensive and take it personally.
Posted by Paul on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
I have been reading your blog for several days now, and find it very interesting and thought provoking. Definately have added you to my favorites! A comment on “home invasion” type crime leads me to point out to all readers that the criminal who targets your home, knowing you are at home, fully intends to do you harm. He has thought it out in advance and will use violence to get what he wants. He does not know that you have no valuables in your bedroom and will asume that you do because that is where you have retreated to. In the past a burgaler would make every effort to assure himself the house was empty before entering. This type criminal did not want confrontation. As far as a fleeing felon is concerned, at the time of the confrontation, we have no way of knowing if he is fleeing, or going for a more effective weapon. We also don’t know if he will return later to exact revenge for his foiled attempt to rob or kill his victim. Normal working people do not have the same thought processes as do the Troll that takes what he wants by force so I for one will not try to think like him. I will not allow the Troll to pick the rules of engagement or battlefield.
Paul in Texas
Posted by AntiCitizenOne on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
If I find someone in my house, or I hear forced entry, hopefully I can pick a good observation spot, and hopefully I could probably say “drop it!”
but if he/she has something in their hand that looks like a weapon, and if they turn towards me – they’re getting a severe case of lead poisoning.
Posted by Bob S. on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
Paul,
Thanks for reading and your compliment. That is what I’m striving for (most of the time) — being thought provoking.
As for as the home invasions, I would agree for those break down the door and rush in types. But not all situations are like that. Some burglars get off on the thrill of being able to slip in and out when people are home, some just think they can do it without disturbing anyone.
There are all types.
Where the issue lies with folks like MikeB302000 is his thought that a criminal has to pose a “lethal threat” before firearms can be employed in defense.
I’m trying to get an answer from an Anti-Rights Advocate (any of those besides MikeB302000 jump in) on how a person can tell the difference between “Criminal just wants to administer a severe beating” and “Criminal wants to kill me”.
See I’m not sure that I can tell the difference now; I’m definitely sure I would have trouble with the adrenaline pumping in the middle of the night — so I want to know know .
Haven’t heard from a single Anti-Right advocate — come on folks. Do you agree with MikeB302000? How can a “lethal threat” be identified?
Help a poor guy out here.
Posted by Bob S. on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
Okay,
Since no antis are taking up the challenge – let me try something different.
Would it be fair to say this:
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, any intruder into our homes should be considered to be a lethal threat?
If Bubba from next door shows up drunk, banging on the door for Earlene to let him in…that is evidence to the contrary of a lethal threat.
If Mack the the Meth head is quaking in the corner when confronted by an armed home owner, that is evidence to the contrary of a lethal threat.
Once again, it is up to the criminal to prove his/her actions….not the home owners. – fair statement?
Posted by TXGunGeek on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
DING DING DING DING, we have a winner.
That is why the Great State of Texas has the laws written as they are.
AND were strengthened with what is being called Castle Doctrine.
Your home is your castle and you have a right to defend it and those whom you are responsible for in it until proven otherwise.
Just that people need to play the what if game and really figure out for themselves where the line is for evidence to the contrary before they get into that situation.
Posted by mikeb302000 on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
What kind of doors do you guys have on your houses anyway? Is it so difficult to secure your home from unwelcome entrance?
About how to identify lethal threat, I’d say this. It would have to be a judgment call, depending on the circumstances. In most cases, it would be completely between the homeowner and his own conscience. I say it would be morally wrong to shoot a person unless you were faced with lethal threat. If they crash your front door in with a battering ram and come charging at you with guns drawn, you’d have to blow them away immediately. If you hear someone breaking the glass of a back window and begin climbing in, you might be able to do what AntiCitizenOne said. In a case like that a verbal warning should definitely precede any shooting. And of course there are countless possibilities in between.
All this presumes of course that you have a moral problem with killing another human being who happens to be a criminal. All the macho posturing and adolescent tough-guy talk, which even Sarah has down pretty well, is detrimental to the chances of correctly choosing the appropriate moment for taking another’s life.
Posted by Bob S. on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
MikeB302000,
You spend a lot of time telling us what we already know.
I want to know how you determine lethal threat – so far all you mention is if they break in the door and come in with guns blazing.
You stated that a person should be convicted unless the intruder posed a “lethal threat”.
Now as a former marine, a home owner, a person who owned firearms legally and illegally — just how besides guns blazing do YOU determine lethal threat?
Most people have normal doors and windows that are protected by security bars. A normal human being can break down most doors without too much trouble. Windows are even easier
You discount the fact that we are talking about a particular subject brought up by YOUR STATEMENT. You’ll notice that if you bother to actually read people’s blogs and comments that most of us have a plan that involve retreating, that involves warning the intruder — after identifying the intruder, that involves calling the cops. Yet that isn’t good enough for you.
You state the standard as the intruder must pose a lethal threat. Now please stop hem hawing around and state in clear terms (besides guns blazing) how YOU determine lethal threat.
Posted by Paul on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
To Mikeb 30200
It is interesting reading your comments on lethal threat. In the real world a man in his home will not have weeks of deliberation time to decide if a home invader is only after your goods or intends to do serious harm or murder.
The mere act of breaking into your home KNOWING YOU ARE THERE is enough to determine his violent intent. He may be a young man “just getting his life together” if so what is he doing in your home. I seems all of them (after they are shot) were just getting their lives together!
You seem to imply that we all have some moral deficiency when it comes to making the call to shoot to defend our families. I for one find this offensive, and resent your implication of moral superiority over the rest of us.
Your comment “killing another person who ” happens to be a criminal” is utter nonsense. The Troll dosn’t happen to be a criminal. HE CHOSE TO BE A CRIMINAL!
I know your mind is made up and you do not want to be confused by the facts, but facts are persistant things.
From the tone and content of your reply to Bob’s question is it possible that you are just trying to demonstrate your intellectual superiority to us Knuckle Draggin Gun Nuts?
Paul in Texas
Posted by Linoge on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
Just so we are all on the same page, Sparky, I have absolutely no problems proudly stating that I have absolutely no moral problems killing another human being if that human being is threatening my wife or me, and I have no other options available to me that will keep my wife or me equivalently safe.
If you have objections with that position, you can write those objections down on nice, recycled paper, fold that paper until it is all sharp corners, and respectfully shove it up your…
Apart from that, though, I must second Bob’s requests for specifics, pointless though that request will be – you have been looking down your nose at firearm-owners from day 1 concerning our particular desires to keep our families safe and secure. As the saying goes, it is time to nut up, or shut up – what are your specific delineating factors concerning how to determine whether or not lethal force is warranted? Lay them out, side by side, and let us see how they line up.
Posted by Linoge on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
Hm. And that is what I get for doing too many things at once. That first sentence should actually read:
After all, not only is self-defense moral, it is the only moral option.
Posted by mikeb302000 on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
Paul in Texas, I’m not doing anything of the kind. I do not think YOU ALL have some kind of moral deficiency. But I question those of you who talk all that macho nonsense, that’s all. The fact is, I happen to agree with what Linoge just said that in some cases it’ll be the moral thing to kill someone.
You’re right about one thing, my use of “happens to be a criminal” was not the best choice of words. My point is the decision to kill should not be based on anything other than lethal threat, or the possibility of grievous harm. In many break-ins, those things might be lacking.
Posted by Bob S. on 03.02.10 at 7:42 AM
MikeB302000,
Thanks for proving you are simply a troll.
I can not count the number of times you’ve been asked how to determine what a lethal threat is and how many times you’ve not responded.
We’ve made our determinations how we will decide.
Since you are the one to advocate that standard, repeatedly
You explain how MikeB302000 – former Marine, Father, Husband, home owner, law abiding gun owner, owner of “illegal guns”, gun blogger (seems just about all you blog about any more) — HOW YOU DETERMINE WHAT IS A LETHAL THREAT!