Friend walked in on a burglary.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

So my wife and I are on the way home. We receive a phone call from the babysitter and she tells us there are two masked men attempting to gain entry into the home. I call 911 and report what the babysitter has told me. We pull into the driveway just in time to see two armed thugs kick in the front door and make entry into our home. Inside the home is the 15-year old neighbor girl babysitting for our 2 year old. You're trying to tell me that I'm going to be in trouble for entering my home and using force against the intruders, to protect the lives of innocent third parties against two armed intruders, simply because I wasn't inside the home at the time the intrusion occurred and because I'd already alerted the police? 100% nonsense.

There is NOTHING in the CRS to support the assertion that you cannot enter your home knowing there is a potential, or even known, threat inside the home.

You totally changed the entire situation...

[Bailey Guns]

You totally changed the entire situation...

No, I didn't. You said:

I'm going to slow it WAY down for you...

You CAN NOT enter your home if you KNOW that there could be a clear and present danger inside your home.

Explain to me how my scenario has changed the situation?

[JM Ver. 2.0]

No, I didn't. You said:



Explain to me how my scenario has changed the situation?

In that case you're right. I could have added to that to further explain the "danger to a person" thing.

If you know the house is empty, and the only danger is to property... That's my view of it.

[Dave_L]

Explain to me how my scenario has changed the situation?

Now flip it a little. A neighbor calls you while you and your entire family are at dinner and says "Hey, I saw 2 masked men break into your house. I've called the cops but wanted you to know, too". Now, if you leave dinner, drive home, enter your house and shoot the men, how does that play out? Difference being no human was in immediate danger, just your stuff. The first story had human lives at risk inside the home. It is different.

[Cameron]

JM and brutal, do you have a case that resulted in a conviction to prove your point?

[JM Ver. 2.0]

JM and brutal, do you have a case that resulted in a conviction to prove your point?

You should get your record player fixed... I think it's stuck...

[Ronin13]

You should get your record player fixed... I think it's stuck...

Maybe if you would stop doing the Eric Holder dance and actually answer the question Cameron wouldn't have to constantly repeat himself... Or as Stephen the Irishman says:

[JM Ver. 2.0]

Maybe if you would stop doing the Eric Holder dance and actually answer the question Cameron wouldn't have to constantly repeat himself... Or as Stephen the Irishman says:

Don't you have work to do?

[Dave_L]

Wasn't there a case in Utah where the homeowner pulled up to his house and burglars were in the middle of robbing his house? He shot at them and then was having charges pressed or something? Since he was in no immediate danger, he was supposed to just let them rob his house and be a good witness.

I'm hoping some LE chime in on this because I think it'd truly depend on the jury. On one hand, he didn't know for sure if people were still in there or not and was just going home. On the other hand, he was aware there could be someone inside, was not in danger and no family was in danger yet he still proceeded to go inside "looking". I could easily see a jury convinced that he had "hero" syndrome and went looking for someone to shoot. Especially in today's world where MSM is preaching gun owners are trigger happy vigilantes that are dangerous to the public. Agree with it or not, it's the reality.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

Wasn't there a case in Utah where the homeowner pulled up to his house and burglars were in the middle of robbing his house? He shot at them and then was having charges pressed or something? Since he was in no immediate danger, he was supposed to just let them rob his house and be a good witness.

I'm hoping some LE chime in on this because I think it'd truly depend on the jury. On one hand, he didn't know for sure if people were still in there or not and was just going home. On the other hand, he was aware there could be someone inside, was not in danger and no family was in danger yet he still proceeded to go inside "looking". I could easily see a jury convinced that he had "hero" syndrome and went looking for someone to shoot. Especially in today's world where MSM is preaching gun owners are trigger happy vigilantes that are dangerous to the public. Agree with it or not, it's the reality.

This is what I'm trying to get at...