1911Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Has anyone read this book? - http://www.gunlawpress.com/

I have an older version of it and *I* think (as a novice) that it's a great book that's an easy read to give someone the basics of when, why, and how deadly force can be used. It's written by a big, pro-2nd Amendment Attorney and he's got a pretty good wit. I'm just wondering if any of you have read it, and how accurate you think it is?

One of the things I remember, if I understood it correctly, was using deadly force on a home intruder. *If* I understood the author correctly, if someone if physically within the four walls of your home...that's *generally* when "they're fair game" (you might say). However he also says that, ideally, the bullet(s) would be in the front side of the intruder for a true, no questions asked scenario. IF you shoot, even a home invader, in the back...you might still face (at the very least) some degree of questioning because you have no imminent danger if the intruder is not facing you.

Yes? No? Comments? Words of wisdom?

:)

Barn
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
321 Posts
Has anyone read this book? - http://www.gunlawpress.com/

I have an older version of it and *I* think (as a novice) that it's a great book that's an easy read to give someone the basics of when, why, and how deadly force can be used. It's written by a big, pro-2nd Amendment Attorney and he's got a pretty good wit. I'm just wondering if any of you have read it, and how accurate you think it is?

One of the things I remember, if I understood it correctly, was using deadly force on a home intruder. *If* I understood the author correctly, if someone if physically within the four walls of your home...that's *generally* when "they're fair game" (you might say). However he also says that, ideally, the bullet(s) would be in the front side of the intruder for a true, no questions asked scenario. IF you shoot, even a home invader, in the back...you might still face (at the very least) some degree of questioning because you have no imminent danger if the intruder is not facing you.

Yes? No? Comments? Words of wisdom?

:)

Barn
That's Colorado's rule basically.
In your home they're fair game, but never shoot them in the back / if they're fleeing. If they're in your yard / within the boundaries of your property and facing you, they're still fair game, but as with indoors, you can't shoot them in the back / if they're attempting to flee.

Colorado still requires that you will still be arrested and go to jail for at least a few hours until a DA can review your case to confirm the Castle Doctrine / "Make My Day" law applies - whether he lives or not (which is why they say never to shoot a perpetrator Friday after 5pm, because you'll be in jail until at least Monday at 9am). 99% of the time any "discharge of a firearm in city limits" violations and such will be dismissed along with any assault / homicide / manslaughter charges.

Now interestingly - every police officer and CCW trainer I've talked to here all say that you really should shoot to kill and do your best to ensure you're making shots to inflict terminal wounds (I've even heard direct advice from no less than 5 LEOs that you should wait about 1:30-2:00 to call 911 to allow the perpetrator to bleed out as there is no way for a coroner or CSI to tell the difference but I find that a bit questionable as the sheer quantity of blood one could bleed out in that time HAS to be different between 30 seconds and 2 minutes). It'll actually get you cleared and home quicker if you kill the person than if you wound them and they have a chance to interview the perpetrator to get their side of the story.

Liability wise - so long as it's in the confines of your walls / property lines the perpetrator CANNOT sue you, nor can their family, for damages or wrongful death or any sort of civil suit if the DA deems it falls under the aforementioned castle doctrine rule.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
If there is an intruder in my house, I will fire until they cannot and do not move. If some of those shots hit him in the back, I do not care.

I have told my wife that if she has to shoot, fire until the gun is empty. Slap the second clip in and be ready to fire again if needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Arisley -

That's my knee-jerk reaction as well BUT in California...I'm guessing you might have a real problem on your hands if some of those bullets are in the intruders back. However, I'm basing that on the book I referenced which sites not only California but U.S. Case Law which takes "imminent threat" VERY seriously and is narrowly defined. If the bullets end up in someone's back, you're going to have an EXTREMELY difficult time making the case for imminent threat!

The book sites one example of an armed citizen who was nearly carjacked, but he WAS robbed and during the crime was heavily pistol whipped almost unconscious. As the robber was walking away, the victim (who had a CCW permit) reached in his glove-box to pull his pistol and shot the assailant in the back as they were walking away. The VICTIM went to prison!

Barn
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
321 Posts
If there is an intruder in my house, I will fire until they cannot and do not move. If some of those shots hit him in the back, I do not care.

I have told my wife that if she has to shoot, fire until the gun is empty. Slap the second clip in and be ready to fire again if needed.
Maybe the rules are different in Texas with Castle Doctrine but here in CO, and it sounds like CA, if you shoot someone in the back it better be because they were bending over to pick up a shotgun they dropped or something (and they fall down dead next to it face down) - or you're going to jail for more than a few hours (aggravated manslaughter at a minimum would be my guess.)

Tactically I don't disagree... shoot until you are empty and the perp isn't moving --- but placement is still required. I guess you could have a defense and if the lights weren't on and you had no idea his / her body placement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
"In a perfect world", I guess you should follow what someone said during the Revolutionary War, right - ""Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes"!

:)

Barn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
Maybe the rules are different in Texas with Castle Doctrine but here in CO, and it sounds like CA, if you shoot someone in the back it better be because they were bending over to pick up a shotgun they dropped or something (and they fall down dead next to it face down) - or you're going to jail for more than a few hours (aggravated manslaughter at a minimum would be my guess.)

Tactically I don't disagree... shoot until you are empty and the perp isn't moving --- but placement is still required. I guess you could have a defense and if the lights weren't on and you had no idea his / her body placement.
It was dark, and I was afraid for my life.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,450 Posts
The problem with a 'one size fits all' book or how to manual is that not only do use of force laws vary from State to State, but the attitudes and sensitivities vary by geography, ever within a State where, in theory, the circumstances and standards that make an event justifiable or criminal should be identical.

In my rural county, if I shoot someone on my property, I have nothing to fear from a legal perspective unless there's absolute and compelling evidence that I'd committed a crime. They'd probably need credible witnesses by the dozens and video to even consider an investigation.

Grendal, whats the code or statute in CO that MANDATES an arrest and trip to jail in the event of a justifiable homicide. On the face of it, it seems to be un Constitutional, and a lawsuit waiting to happen... LE CANNOT arrest without probable cause that a crime has been committed-period. Unless the arresting officer can clearly articulate the PC for an arrest (it takes more than a body on the ground), it would be an illegal act. Its very difficult to MANDATE an arrest for a particular event, more so when the event is possibly lawful.

If Officer Friendly comes to my home after I call 911, and there's MR Scumbag in his ski mask dead on the floor with a pair of .453" holes in his X ring, and my story is that MR Scumbag broke in... Officer Friendly had NO PC at this point. If he attempts to arrest or otherwise physically detain me, his municipality will be bankrupt in short order...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
The problem with a 'one size fits all' book or how to manual is that not only do use of force laws vary from State to State, but the attitudes and sensitivities vary by geography, ever within a State where, in theory, the circumstances and standards that make an event justifiable or criminal should be identical...
I'm sure you're right that laws vary from State to State. In this case, that's what *I* like about this book in that it's unique to California and written by someone who's a practicing Attorney IN California who's also a 2nd Amendment supporter. The author's experience is based on Stare Decisis from both State and Federal cases.

Barn
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
321 Posts
Grendal, whats the code or statute in CO that MANDATES an arrest and trip to jail in the event of a justifiable homicide. On the face of it, it seems to be un Constitutional, and a lawsuit waiting to happen... LE CANNOT arrest without probable cause that a crime has been committed-period. Unless the arresting officer can clearly articulate the PC for an arrest (it takes more than a body on the ground), it would be an illegal act. Its very difficult to MANDATE an arrest for a particular event, more so when the event is possibly lawful.

If Officer Friendly comes to my home after I call 911, and there's MR Scumbag in his ski mask dead on the floor with a pair of .453" holes in his X ring, and my story is that MR Scumbag broke in... Officer Friendly had NO PC at this point. If he attempts to arrest or otherwise physically detain me, his municipality will be bankrupt in short order...
I'll see if I can find the statute or regulation. I'm going off what the CCW instructors have said in class and conversation thus far (two of five of which were active duty LEOs).

My understanding based on those statements are it is similar to a domestic disturbance call in CO as a blanket "someone is going to jail" thing. If a call is made, someone is going to the cooling tank. It happened even to Patrick Roy here when he was still goalie of the Avalanche. He put a hole in the drywall INSTEAD of punching his wife or such, nobody was injured (especially his wife) but he still went to jail overnight. No charges pressed initially pending investigation, but he went to jail.

Basically - if a "crime" was committed on the surface (a dead body would be evidence of a "crime" prima facie) then the LEO has to make an arrest until the DA can sort it out. These cases specifically get bee-lined to the top of the DA pile to determine if it was a justified shooting per the rule of law or if it was questionable and therein the shooter remanded or released pending further investigation.

But yeah, let me see what I can find. I'm up on divorce law and custody statutes here in CO (I can quote most of them by #), but not so much these sorts of arenas.

Oh - and BTW it is Grendel, not Grendal. Like from Beowulf, but in this case, not from that source. ;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,450 Posts
My understanding based on those statements are it is similar to a domestic disturbance call in CO as a blanket "someone is going to jail" thing. If a call is made, someone is going to the cooling tank.

Basically - if a "crime" was committed on the surface (a dead body would be evidence of a "crime" prima facie) then the LEO has to make an arrest until the DA can sort it out.
But yeah, let me see what I can find. I'm up on divorce law and custody statutes here in CO (I can quote most of them by #), but not so much these sorts of arenas.

Oh - and BTW it is Grendel, not Grendal. Like from Beowulf, but in this case, not from that source. ;)
First, sorry about the typo on your user name...

I'm familiar with the DV statutes, many States have them. The caveat to every one is that there still MUST be PC that one of the parties involved committed a criminal act. While they're touted as 'someone has to go to jail' laws, its simply not true... there still must be evidence of a crime to support an arrest and a night in lockup.

FWIW, a body on the ground is NOT prima facie evidence of a criminal act, its simply a body on the ground. LE cannot arrest and hold while they 'sort things out'...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
FWIW, a body on the ground is NOT prima facie evidence of a criminal act, its simply a body on the ground. LE cannot arrest and hold while they 'sort things out'...
Not quite...It's not just a body...it's a dead body with gunshot hole(s)!!!

:)

You have my curiosity on what my local Sheriff Department would do in this scenario. I'll ask some of my K9 Handler friends and let you know how they would handle this.

Barn
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
321 Posts
First, sorry about the typo on your user name...

I'm familiar with the DV statutes, many States have them. The caveat to every one is that there still MUST be PC that one of the parties involved committed a criminal act. While they're touted as 'someone has to go to jail' laws, its simply not true... there still must be evidence of a crime to support an arrest and a night in lockup.

FWIW, a body on the ground is NOT prima facie evidence of a criminal act, its simply a body on the ground. LE cannot arrest and hold while they 'sort things out'...
No worries... you'd be amazed at how often people get the name wrong. It's not in the norm of the English vernacular unless you're into the classics so much so Beowulf is on your brain, so it's a common mistake. ;) From there the origins NOT being from Beowulf but another source make it weirder for even Beowulf fans, so either way, it's all good.

That said - my understanding of what I've been told thus far is the "criminal" act is the dead body with holes in it, as Barney pointed out. Even with witnesses such as family members on scene, it's a requirement on the DA to clear the case as being a matter of Castle Doctrine / "Make My Day" being applied - hence the temporary detention.

I guess to me that seems like reasonable logic. Not friendly, not safe for the family left behind in the wake necessarily (given they'll confiscate the firearm too), but legally logical from a due process perspective. The LEO can't make the call on whether it was justified or not, that is the DA's job. Law & Order, separation of duties.

For example - under the logic of the responding LEO making the decision just letting you go if it appears justified, let's try a scenario:

Police respond to a 911 call from a woman who shoots an intruder at the bottom of her stairs. No ID, no car outside, no weapon but it was dark and she claims the lights were off. She accidentally left the door unlocked but she heard it when the screen door creaked closed. On the surface it appears he was heading towards her position at the top of the stairs, and she shot him in self defense / fear for her life. The LEO says she's good to stay home, here's his card, go see a therapist if she has any PTSD, etc...

As to the victim there is no ID and such though they'll have to have to run him through the coroner for ID, etc... Let's say it's a major metropolis like Denver, or Dallas, or LA with a norm of dead bodies coming through for identification. This one is low priority because the LEO marks him as a justifiable homicide victim, bottom of the pile. 7 days, 10 days, 14 days later after no prints hit in the perp database, dental records come back and ping this guy is her ex-husband!!!

WHOA!

Come to find out (through investigation after the revelation) she called this man, invited him over, let him in, and then set him up at the bottom of the stairs and shot him dead because she was withholding custody but lured him in on the pretense of letting him have them, only to make it appear he was an intruder. She would have potentially that 7 days or more to plan an "escape" from the law if she wanted to. Run to Mexico or who knows where that she could escape extradition with her kids and on the lamb for a murder.

That is why it is logical to me that the LEO does not have the decision to let someone go free when there is a dead body there, or even a gun shot victim still alive for that matter. The DA has to sort this out as that is his or her job, not the LEO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,720 Posts
I remember buying that book some 20+ years ago just after I bought my first gun. It's pretty good for what it is and I continue to recommend it to first time gun owners. I think it's accurate but obviously this might vary state to state. And when it comes to matters of the law, it's always best to verify with additional sources and there's no substitute for good legal counsel.

As for shooting someone in your house...or anywhere else for that matter...nothing good will come of it for all parties. Your life will be forever changed and not in a good way.

I'm not suggesting that you don't shoot if your life depends on it. Saving your life is paramount. But nobody wins in that situation and you can expect your life to be turned upside down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
I'm sure you're right that laws vary from State to State. In this case, that's what *I* like about this book in that it's unique to California and written by someone who's a practicing Attorney IN California who's also a 2nd Amendment supporter. The author's experience is based on Stare Decisis from both State and Federal cases.

Barn
In Hawaii there is no Castle Doctrine laws. So in order to shot someone for breaking into you home. The home invader has to be a immediate threat to you or your family members. If he is just stealing something without a weapon. You cannot shoot him. He is not a Immediate threat to you or family members. You cannot shoot him. Also he better have a weapon in hand Knife or Gun, anything to put you in danger. You also better not shot him in the back. You could go to jail, and cannot claim Castle Doctrine!!
Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,179 Posts
That's okay. If he's not a threat, I don't WANT to shoot him.

If I'm watching tv with the door open and a guy runs in & grabs my toaster, I'll detain him at gunpoint. Or, if he advances, I'll fire.

But if he just runs out the door, I'm not going to shoot him. I'm Enforcement. Not Corrections.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,179 Posts
That's okay. If he's not a threat, I don't WANT to shoot him.

If I'm watching tv with the door open and a guy runs in & grabs my toaster, I'll detain him at gunpoint. Or, if he advances, I'll fire.

But if he just runs out the door, I'm not going to shoot him. I'm Enforcement. Not Corrections.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top