Ok. This is where a problem exists. D.A.'s have to much latitude in charging.
- We are trained that you don’t get to fire warning shots.
There is no way to show that the resident’s intent was anything more than trying to deter someone .
3 rounds fired through the door.
- Basic gun safety.
know what’s beyond your target
- 10+ Weeks before a decision is made.
In a liberal state he would be charged/Conservative he is ok. How can an ordinary person have any idea whether there self defense.
Homeowner should have called 911 first, and NOT fire thru the door, stay on the line with dispatcher giving detail until LEO arrives, at the same time be ready if the intruder ACTUALLY breaks into the home and take whatever action necessary for defense. In this case the intruder hadn’t intruded into the home but was kicking the door, yelling to open the door, jiggling the doorhandle, and got shot thru the door by the homeowner according to the report. We need more DAs like this guy!
Should of read article before commenting.
As I understand, the issue is not so much the intruder still outside the house when he got shot, as long as he was still breaking through, it is shooting through the door.
There was a recent case (Ohio?) when father shot at crazed boyfriend of his daughter. The boyfriend was trying to break through the door, the father shot him out of the window, and in his back. No charges filed. Thats all details I recall.
Regardless of the state, that is not wise, though in this case, he did have a camera to see what was on the other side of the door, and knew that it was the same person that had just been in his vehicle. So, in this instance, one can state he did know his target and what was beyond. It would certainly have been a good test case for that golden rule. However, the DA made that judgment, so a jury will not have to.
First of all, at 3am If I hear something outside, three things are in my hand before rolling out of bed, my gun, my phone and the other I drop!
Second upon visualizing the break-in, I’m dialing 911 from my safe room, adjusting my eyes, maybe donning my ear protection. My dogs have me covered, in my case they will have him restrained.
Third, how did the homeowner think there was no one waiting for him out the back door? ( it’s called watching your six ). Perps don’t work solo anymore, they’ve learned to bring their own back up!
Banging at the door with bad words does not constitute a deadly threat,
( unless they intentionally wanted the homeowner to exit the safety of his castle. )
I’m fairly sure the dogs would slow the perp down enough that I could start issuing commands, on an open phone line.
If the perp enters at his own risk, I identify with a 1000 lumens, then we stop the threat.
Putting three round’s through a closed door is not a deterrence! On second thought, maybe it was!
With the high volume of gun purchases, I wouldn’t think thugs would be stupid enough to try to enter occupied homes, day or night, car theft, yeah, bashing people in the head with concealed baseball bats, sure, throwing people under trains, ok, but invading the castle, they get what they came for!
I believe the homeowner is a classic case of what to do and under what conditions to do it. Depending upon our specific state’s laws, through the door is authorized if necessary to defend yourself. Why? Because it’s an active “attempt.”
I don’t believe there are any States in which you can shoot an unseen threat! I could be mistaken. But according to Massad, deadly force requires three factors, ability, opportunity and finally, jeopardy.
Not to be confused with “intent”, in a court of law! You can’t prove the “intent” to kill from behind a closed door, that’s mind reading your honor! However once the bad guy makes entry, that’s putting my life in jeopardy. Or as USCCA explains, JAM, jeopardy, ability and means! They also determine that while on the other side of a locked door, the bad guy does NOT have the ABILITY to kill!
Just an observation!
In case after case shooting through a closed door of a dwelling, not the bedroom door, constitutes a violation of the cardinal rule of knowing what’s in front and behind your target!
The USCCA consistently refers one to their state’s laws. There are certain things that can be discussed generally, and then of course there are things that uniquely pertain to individual states. Which is why we stop speaking in generalities and refer persons to their states’ laws and to consult an Attorney. This precludes us from the practice of law without a license. My state is huge on PLL. It also limits our pontifications, especially if we are not acquainted with or knowledgeable of other states’ laws. Even the Lawyers will tell you to regard your own state’s laws.
I have the utmost respect for Massad Ayoob, but when you get jammed, he ain’t coming. He’s going to say, “according to your state’s laws, so be it unto you.” “Get you a good Lawyer.” That’s what he’s going to say. In NC it is not as you pontificate. It is not subject to what one believes, or how one feels; it’s subject to what the law says.
**14-51.2. Home, workplace, and motor vehicle protection; presumption of fear of death **
or serious bodily harm.
(a) The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Home. – A building or conveyance of any kind, to include its curtilage,
whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or
immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed as a
temporary or permanent residence.
(b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have
held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another
when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to
another if both of the following apply:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of
unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a
home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was
attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the home,
motor vehicle, or workplace.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an
unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act **was occurring or **
(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s home,
motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful
act involving force or violence.
(e) A person who uses force as permitted by this section **is justified in using such force **
and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person
against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully
acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman
identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force
knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail
bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.
Try that in NC and that person is toast! Especially if he or she knows his or her rights. Even “through the door!”
Where does USCCA say that?
They always say this.
From their USCCA use of force guides, and into the fray, they state Weapon, Intent, and delivery system.
Respectfully, I might do that simultaneously while I respond to the threat, and just leave the line open. Why? Because I know that 911 dispatcher has GPS. They know who’s calling and where from. My attention is on the situation at hand. I may have my wife stay in the safe place and she knows what to do if I don’t give her the safe word. But I’m not hiding or cowering in my own home. Not a chance! I’m bringing the fight! Respectfully.
Actually 911 does not have a GPS. They have a way to get a certain mile radius you may be in, or they might have a 50 mile radius depending on the cell towers. 911 dispatchers have talked about this on tik tok, so you still need to tell them your location.
Well, actually (and I do apologize for blurting out, GPS!), it depends on the infrastructure the local PD has. They use GIS, NCT9-1-1 or Next Gen 911 and ECC to locate that phone numbers address, if it’s a landline. With a wireless device it is determined by a combo of triangulation and trilateration to gain an approximate location within 300 meters. But if the PD/SD is on a Next Gen 9-1-1 network which emphasizes more modern technology, and if they use device-based hybrid location accuracy, DBH (technology similar to that used by ride-sharing apps), they may be able to pinpoint your location within 15 meters.
Android devices uses Emergency Location Services (ELS) to deliver DBH, while Apple devices utilizes Hybridized Emergency Location (HELO). DBH uses a combination of different location beacons to identify a caller’s location. These beacons include, GPS, WIFI Signals, and Bluetooth beacons. Recently, NCT9-1-1 has been utilizing drones to help the process up. Check out the link below.
911 Location Accuracy | Using drones to find you in an emergency (nct911.org) 911 Location Accuracy | Using drones to find you in an emergency
If at all possible, I like to check with ALERRT.org. They are a reliable resource, too.
You’re absolutely correct! No real argument from me, however there are 12 humans with beliefs and feelings, and ultimately what “they” feel is reasonable, makes the difference between freedom and incarceration, no matter how I feel about the threat behind the closed door!
For instance, the guy rummaging through my car, looking for his lost keys, and throwing planters and rocks at my door screaming obscenities, unarmed and drunk off his rocker just received two rounds to the chest and little Mary walking the dog across the street is wounded as well.
No jury of my peers will look kindly on the, now deceased gardener, or the child wounded in the pursuit of what “I” reasonably presumed was a threat to my life?
Identify the threat!
Real life, real people make the decisions.
Ahhh, but unlike us, they have a mountain of evidence; facts that you and I do not have and are not privy to in order to reach those conclusions as to reasonability. It is upon the preponderance of the facts that have been presented in evidence that is regarded dispassionately, that is not subject to conjecture and presuppositions. Therein lies the very big difference. And yes, even a jury of “your peers” and “my peers” will have to maintain that same dispassionate regard and objectivity to the “evidence,” and then apply that evidence to the rule of law, according to their oath of unbiased service and “charge” as “jurors” and instruction given them by the court.
Of course, I could be wrong. For what do I really know…I’m neither a Lawyer nor a Judge.
I think it said his next door neighbor had the camera and was not able to see what happened on the porch.
Security footage from a neighbor showed Anderson around the resident’s vehicle and then approach the porch. It did not have a clear image of the entire incident .
Ah haven’t got that book yet. But I’m planning on it.