Is it wrong to shoot at someone who breaks into your house with the intent of killing them?

Is it wrong to shoot at someone who breaks into your house with the intent of killing them?

No

no but depending on state you will need them to be intent on killing you or stage the scene to alter how the body went down

I consider it a courtesy

So you had the intent to kill them when they break into your house?

If your state wasn't fucking beta you wouldn't have to worry about it. Why can't all states be Alpha like Texas? In Texas you barely even need a reason, you just tell the police they were trespassing. God, America has so many pussy states.

It's wrong to pull the gun out without the intent of killing them, anywhere, not just your house, but yes, one of us is absolutely going to be dead if they're breaking into my house. I hope they came prepared because I am....

Dumb question.

They deserve to die for being such massive assholes.
And it's entirely THEIR choice.

Trips confirm

Don't fuck with this user

I love how the guy in the stock photo breaking in HAS to be white nowadays because imagine the shitstorm if he was any other race

I love this, you are a god!

I think in a lot of cases it is okay to attack someone who invades your house. I mean there might be a concern if an unarmed intruder is shot like 50 times to the point where he or she is mutilated and unrecognizable. But in America I think anything goes when there is an unlawful entry.

It's legal in alot of the US so your'e good.

I didn't mean to pull the trigger that many times officer I've never shot a gun before. ;)

Forensics will tell what happened.
If you shoot at the guy at full blast, you’re getting 2-3 bullets in him tops. Then either he’s going to fall down or move away.
More shots after that will probably miss. 8 holes in the wall and 3 in Jaquan means you panicked and blew the clip.
Intruder falls and you still feel threatened, you can aim down and loose more rounds. Your trajectory will remain the same, bullets pass through Darnel and into the floor under him. Plausible
Now what stops being plausible is when you aim and shoot from one place, then move towards the intruder and fire from a downward position. That shows you’re moving beyond defending yourself and into Vindication. That’s when the Dems start sweating

>shoot at someone who breaks into your house
nope
>with the intent of killing them
yeah see that's where it goes off the rails from "self defense" to "murder"

No jury in the world would convict.

when he's down can you just go over and put one more shot in the head and another in the heart to make sure he's finished?

Castle doctrine

You're good

Castle law. Most states have it or a form of it. There is also the stand your ground law.

PS if you do shoot someone make sure you kill them. removes a witness that could counter you in court (NO MATTER WHAT YOU WILL GO TO COURT)

Also DO NOT shoot someone fleeing your house. this now ends the stand your ground or castle law since they were no longer a threat.

Also important is , No retreat law.

How do you figure??? If a person Is crazy/stupid enough to force their way into your house in the middle of the night, uninvited, unwelcomed, for the purpose of, lets assume at the very least, material possessions, who's to say they're not crazy/stupid enough to grab a lamp and try to cave your head in when you come out of your room to see what the hell's going on?? What if they aren't there for money/stuff? What if they're trying to get to someone you care about to do god knows what?

Fuck "murder", you came in the wrong house. I'm not risking my life to find out whether or not they're the friendly type of intruder, or not.

That being said, You do have a personal responsibility to be proficient enough with a gun to make sure you don't shoot your wife getting back a day early from a work trip or your kid sneaking back in from a night out you weren't aware of. That still doesn't mean I won't take the shot when it becomes necessary to remove said person from my home, however necessary

Yes, its wrong, but it depends entirely if they're posing a threat or not. You should only shoot him if he's pointing a gun at you, but most thieves are unarmed and are just looking for valuables with no intention to harm you.

You're holding the gun in this situation. You're in full control. Relax and call the cops.

This.

This is a good way to wind up dead. Shoot the intruder and then call the cops.

Agree.

Just because you don't immediately see a weapon doesn't mean they don't have one, or they can't find a weapon of opportunity. Their credibility as a decent member of society that deserves all the proper social constructs of civility goes right out the window the second they cross that threshold... They're less than livestock to me at this point. If they don't get damned submissive damned quick, they get aerated

Do not, repeat, do not, try to stage anything. That WILL give your story inconsistencies that can send you to prison for life. In most states if someone breaks into your hone and yiu let your presence be known if they dont leave immediately it's the assumption they are not there to steal, but to harm you or your family, and you can use as much force as necessary to stop the person from being able to harm you and no more. Meaning if you fire a couple of shots shot and kill him instantly you are fine if you gut shoot him and he falls curling in the fetal position crying like a baby. Thats fine too, but if when hes down crying you walk up and crown him with a shot to the temple, you are going to prison.

You never really know what type of person is breaking in. Sure, it could be a creepy middle aged dude who's really aggressive, but it could be a 17 year old that's trying to steal money for his struggling family.

Im not saying a thief is justified based on his reasons, just that i would feel a lot more hesitation on the trigger if i knew it was a kid with no intention to harm. But we never know who it is, and that's where it gets blurry.

In most places you shoot them to "stop them" not to "kill them".

Your intent can never be to kill, only to stop. The fact they die is immaterial. The fact that shooting center mass is the best place to both kill (and to hit) is immaterial.

When the cop comes, you feared for you life and you fired to STOP them. That's it. Better yet don't talk to the cops, get a lawyer.

No, but they should be given a command to surrender before opening fire.

No. Shoot the fucker's head. If they commit a crime, you have every right to defend yourself. Don't wait for the fucking police. They never make it on time.

It's a bad, bad, bad movie entering someone's house uninvited. I think about what I'd do quite often. Thing is, someone might be right behind them lurking in the dark, so anything less than a shot to the face might result in you getting your head creased.

The trick is, if you can go through with a kill shit, place yourself in a good spot, and whisper "stop, I have a gun." Then when you take them out and are questioned by police about a warning, you won't be lying.

What user is arguing is your Intent when you fired the weapon. If a man breaks into your house then your Intent should be defense. Killing him is irrelevant, stopping him is paramount. Yes killing him does stop him in a hurry, but simply putting a few bullets in his chest will also stop him, but not necessarily Kill him.

Essentially shooting him is legal, because its the most effective means to stop this potentially dangerous intruder. The fact that shooting him will likely kill him is just an unfortunate consequence of using a firearm. At no point is Killing the man what is actually "legal." Say you shot him, he fell, you walked over and slit his throat. Shooting him is not murder, because as covered, he invaded, and you defended. Slicing him open clearly Not defense, because he's already incapacitated.

continue to shoot until they are dead, don't look for some crippled nignog to sue you out of everything u have.

DEAD!

>Better yet don't talk to the cops, get a lawyer.
This, never talk to the police. Clam right up and wait for your lawyer.

Depends, know the law where you live. Importantly cops hate thinking, so try not to complicate things by leaving the home invader alive, but don't make it look like you finished off the dude either.

I'm an ausfag, gun ownership is not common but in my own home I don't need to use reasonable force to defend myself either. If I was a gun owner like my parents, I would just need to convince the cops the guns were stored securely before someone broke in.

Do NOT talk to the police. EVER. Let your lawyer do the talking. Identify yourself and keep your goddamn mouth shut. PERIOD.

There are worse things than a shot in the head, i hope for him to not survive in my house

Look at this COD retard. Never aim for the headshot. The head is tiny compared to the body. Firing a pistol at a moving target from as little as 15-20 feet away is a lot harder than people think. Aim for the Torso, fire twice.

What you going to do? Miss them and break your shit?

Kill that fucker.

this, also in canada where i am you can get in more trouble if you shoot to maime, such logic

Yes and I would add that crossing certain lines such as B and E negate the eighth amendment. Very little is unusual in the course of human events anyway and cruelty depends upon what the attacker was,planning,for you and yours. "The worse to him, the better loved of..." well, you can look it up.

Of course, your intent is never to kill, its to stop through organ failure, CNA disruption, or a precipitous drop in blood pressure. Death is a likely outcome of that, but its not the intent.

Aim for the body = yes
Fire twice = no

Fire until he's down and fire some more.

yep, aim for centre mass and shoot off a few shots, heart shots will kill but it will take a few seconds for their body to realise it's fucked.

50 Cent got shot 9 times, twice in the head. Head shots are the instant kill people always assume, unless your stupidly lucky or skilled.

>NO MATTER WHAT YOU WILL GO TO COURT)

You should plan to go to court, but its not a guarantee. Even most self defense cases in Chicago go to court. You'll get a ride, sure, but prosecutors generally aren't in the business of trying cases they know they'll lose.

edit: aren't

No you idiot. Unless you live out in the damn countryside you do NOT want to simply unload your fucking firearm. Bullets do not stop just because they've hit some asshole, or your wall, or your neighbors wall.

You shoot TWICE because it doubles your chance to hit and put the target down. If you miss, you try again. If you've hit, both of you will know it, and its highly unlikely you'll need to keep shooting.

Prosecutors are mostly interested in slam dunk cases that help their record.

It'd be wrong not to.

Also, dead men tell no tales
>Police show up
>You: I feared for my life, he had a weapon etc etc
>Him: *choking sounds*
>Cops: Cut n dry case of self defense, no charges

>Also DO NOT shoot someone fleeing your house. this now ends the stand your ground or castle law since they were no longer a threat.

Except in Texas. I don't know how they get away with it constitutionally, but their laws allow deadly force when your life is not in danger.

Helpfully, most criminals are fucking idiots.

"Who's there?? You better get out, I've got a gun!!!"

You've made your pretense known, and forfeited the element of surprise
You've given them, at the least a general idea of your location
You've given them time to prepare or find any weapons they've brought our fashioned from the surroundings
You don't necessarily know how many there are, so if you're approaching they guy in the living room you heard knock over the lamp, the other guy in the kitchen you didn't know was there has that much more of an advantage

No thanks, not when my life is potentially on the line. I'm not a cop. Cops have that burden because they choose to do that job. I didn't choose for some jerkoff to come in my house who knows why in the night. I wouldn't give them any advantage whatsoever

amen

In Texas it is mandatory to shoot everyone who enters your home regardless of their intent

Old guy in Melbourne got off for killing a home invader because he warned him about the gun. However, he didn't shout the warning until after the rifle was pointed at the criminals chest

No, you fire until the threat is done, otherwise it wasn't a deadly threat, and you shouldn't have used deadly force.
I'd you're worried about over penetration you should have used some hollapoints.

Regardless of anything else, someone who is willing to forcibly take from others should be killed. Do they deserve it? Maybe, maybe not. Is life fair? No.

If you break the civil code that is the only thing keeping us from total anarchy, you are not only a useless person but a threat to society as a whole.

That's how I see it, anyway.

It's because they are basically the Mexico of America

>hollapoints

Exactly. Self defense cases are messy and shooting a home invader is an uphill battle. If you don't have a history, don't fuck with the scene, and didn't clearly try to finish them after the fact you lawyer up and the case goes away.

No you idiot, you draw the weapon, point it at them and yell "FREEZE." If motherfucker does anything but, you fucking drop him.
>You've given them time to prepare or find any weapons they've brought our fashioned from the surroundings
>shit! that mother fucker has a gun! I better fashion a spear from his fucking coat rack.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

The real question is:

Is it wrong to knee cap them, tie them up, tourniquet the leg, haul them down to the basement, strap them to a table, and use them as you personal torture and fuck dummy until they die?

Is THAT wrong?

/thread

You fire until the threat is no longer a threat. That is the lowest level of fundamentals for all law enforcement and military. It can take time for bullets to take a person out of the fight. If they have a pistol, you do not risk taking a shot to the fucking face because there might be someone somewhere directly behind the bad guy.

by law no, morally yes

Its not a constitutional issue. A lot of western states allow deadly force in non-life threatening situations. Criminal law is a state matter, and killing someone in the commission of a crime isn't a civil rights violation.

Obviously it wasn't /thread

Yes you fire to the threat is done, but that is not walking up, putting your boot on his neck and unloading into his balls. You fire TWICE and then you'll know within less than a second if you need to fire TWICE again.

Control your fucking firearm.

the fuck are you going on about you massive faggot

I almost said you should have filled your 'clip' with them but I thought that might be too much.
Checked

Well it's gay, so yes?

What other states?

If someone's life is more important than my DVD player, perhaps they shouldn't be risking their life to break into my house and steal my DVD player?

Yep, even in Australia most home invader shootings never see court.

No one said that. Stop strawmanning.

In most states, it IS illegal, but personally, I'd just wing em, take their ID, and go rob their house.

It's only wrong if you get caught.

>Fire until he's down and fire some more
What do you think this means?

"Look round about the wicked streets of Rome;
And when thou find'st a man that's like thyself.
Good Murder, stab him; he's a murderer.
Go thou with him; and when it is thy hap
To find another that is like to thee,
Good Rapine, stab him; he's a ravisher.
Go thou with them; and in the emperor's court
There is a queen, attended by a Moor;
Well mayst thou know her by thy own proportion,
for up and down she doth resemble thee:
I pray thee, do on them some violent death;
They have been violent to me and mine."

Yes nigger , what someone broke just to “get by” but your child some how gets involved, telling you want to do something ? You’re such a cuck , you probably don’t own a gun either

Howso? Burglary of an occupied dwelling is a pretty severe violation and its almost impossible to be accidental.

breaking into my house, i would rather shoot you dead then allow any type of risk to have the criminal try and sue for "hurting them" if they escape.

You illiterate fuck why don't you try and form a sentence in english again you nigger brown fuck.

Montana, Alaska, and the Dakotas all have histories of allowing deadly force for trespass of posted property. Purple paint is serious shit in the kinds of places where police response time might be half an hour.

Is that a piece of melba toast in her waistband? It's making me hungry.

Because if it was a black guy or spanish guy, some snowflake would lose their shit.... this isn't my estimation, it's happened in the past, look it up, Brinks or some home security company caught some shit a long way back because the commercials had black guys as the robbers.... you massive faggot

That’s cute kid , leftist is salted , go drink your soy milk

Purple paint?

What?

>I didn't mean to pull the trigger that many times officer I didn't have enough time to take off the bumpstock

You poltards have a one track mind I swear

A lot of rural areas allow you to post property with purple paint on fence posts, poles, or trees. If you see it and keep going, theres a very good chance the property owner won't be questioned too carefully for shooting you.

this

AND while you're waiting to see if your 2 shots hit, and deciding if you need 2 more, I'll have half a mag in their chest from across the room not wondering if they're really going down or not.
Your hesitation is worse than my perceived lack of control.
Lastly fuck going towards the bad guy to execute, if I'm scared for my life I'm going the opposite way to call the pigs to come clean it up.

Um... what were you saying here?
I get the bit about gun ownership, but i think you're abusing speech to text with ebonics.

No, but you better be sure to actually kill them. Injure them and you're fucked.

Because they splattered their walls with tinkywinky blood?

I live in 300 aches of my own land, if someone broke into my house and i killed them, nobody would ever know. Unless I was wounded for whatever reason and needed medical attention.