Friend walked in on a burglary.

[Bailey Guns]

I would also tend to agree based on many definitions of the word "occupant" that a person not necessarily be at or in a particular place to be considered an "occupant". Here's one:

oc·cu·pant

[ok-yuh-puhnt] Show IPA
noun 1. a person, family, group, or organization that lives in, occupies, or has quarters or space in or on something: the occupant of a taxicab; the occupants of the building.

2. a tenant of a house, estate, office, etc.; resident.

3. Law. a. an owner through occupancy.

b. one who is in actual possession.

IIRC there is no statutory definition of "occupant" in Title 18. It's been a while.

[brutal]

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

No. Do you have a publicized event that proves yours?

It's my layman's interpretation of the law in this single, particular event.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

[Bailey Guns]

Doesn't change a thing. It's simply not illegal to enter your own home simply because there's an intruder inside whether you believe you might be in danger or not.

It might not be the smartest move from a safety perspective but it just isn't illegal and there is no statute you can cite that will support that position. You might not be doing yourself any favors if you call the police and say, "I just saw a guy go in my house while I was at the neighbor's house across the street. I'm going over to my house to kill the son-of-a-bitch! You better send the cops." But simply entering your home knowing there might be a threat to you or your property inside is not illegal.

[Ronin13]

Don't you have work to do?

Nice move, did you learn that from NYNCO- do what the liberals do and deflect and turn this around and try and make it about me... try and focus now, homeboy.

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.

Well first off that's pretty loaded. Confront perhaps, but shoot? Come on. Do you walk down the street and expect to shoot the first person who makes a threatening move toward you? No. Are you prepared to shoot someone who poses a danger to your life/safety? Yes. But hopefully you won't have to and the fact that your armed may deter them. So no, I won't enter my home with the express intent to shoot an intruder, but if threatened I will, it depends on the situation.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

Nice move, did you learn that from NYNCO- do what the liberals do and deflect and turn this around and try and make it about me... try and focus now, homeboy.

Well first off that's pretty loaded. Confront perhaps, but shoot? Come on. Do you walk down the street and expect to shoot the first person who makes a threatening move toward you? No. Are you prepared to shoot someone who poses a danger to your life/safety? Yes. But hopefully you won't have to and the fact that your armed may deter them. So no, I won't enter my home with the express intent to shoot an intruder, but if threatened I will, it depends on the situation.

Don't kid yourself, Ronin... I am in no way trying to make this about you.

[Ronin13]

Don't kid yourself, Ronin... I am in no way trying to make this about you.

"Don't you have work to do?" < That's a classic deflect and turn around on the person you disagree with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but yes, you did try an ad hominem type attack.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

"Don't you have work to do?" < That's a classic deflect and turn around on the person you disagree with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but yes, you did try an ad hominem type attack.

I guess everyone that says anything to you must be attacking you...

[Dave_L]

BTW, the dog was in a kennel.

[Dave_L]

It might not be the smartest move from a safety perspective but it just isn't illegal and there is no statute you can cite that will support that position. You might not be doing yourself any favors if you call the police and say, "I just saw a guy go in my house while I was at the neighbor's house across the street. I'm going over to my house to kill the son-of-a-bitch! You better send the cops." But simply entering your home knowing there might be a threat to you or your property inside is not illegal.

It may not be illegal but I bet you'll end up getting sued and potentially losing. While I understand that if, for any reason, you have to shoot someone, you'll probably end up in court. Firearms are such a hot button topic that the dems would be licking their chops if something like this happened, IMO. I guess that's where it becomes a personal choice. Proceed as you see fit and be ready for any repercussions. I wouldn't convict anyone for the above scenario but there's a lot of people that probably would. Your life wasn't in danger until YOU decided to enter the home. In the big picture, it's probably better to just stay outside and let the police do their thing. For safety's sake, liability's sake, etc.

Ronin, it definitely was a completely loaded question. That's the picture that could be painted should you get sued. Guarantee the prosecution would paint you as a trigger happy vigilante that was just waiting for a reason. After all, why else would anyone (that's not a professionally trained law enforcement officer) go into a house to check it out while the cops were on their way (outside of the situation where a human was in danger inside the home)? See what I'm getting at?

I think once someone breaks into your house, they should give up any/all rights but that's not how it always works these days, unfortunately.

[funkymonkey1111]

It may not be illegal but I bet you'll end up getting sued and potentially losing. While I understand that if, for any reason, you have to shoot someone, you'll probably end up in court. Firearms are such a hot button topic that the dems would be licking their chops if something like this happened, IMO. I guess that's where it becomes a personal choice. Proceed as you see fit and be ready for any repercussions. I wouldn't convict anyone for the above scenario but there's a lot of people that probably would. Your life wasn't in danger until YOU decided to enter the home. In the big picture, it's probably better to just stay outside and let the police do their thing. For safety's sake, liability's sake, etc.

Ronin, it definitely was a completely loaded question. That's the picture that could be painted should you get sued. Guarantee the prosecution would paint you as a trigger happy vigilante that was just waiting for a reason. After all, why else would anyone (that's not a professionally trained law enforcement officer) go into a house to check it out while the cops were on their way (outside of the situation where a human was in danger inside the home)? See what I'm getting at?

I think once someone breaks into your house, they should give up any/all rights but that's not how it always works these days, unfortunately.

did you ever consider reading the applicable statute that's been posted here--you know the one that provides immunity from any civil liability for injuries or death from the use of such force?