Friend walked in on a burglary.

[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.

[Cameron]

I simply take exception to people making unqualified (layman's interpretation) blanket statements that make no sense and vaguely hint at some ethereal qualifications that give them some inside knowledge of the law... do any of that and you get a well deserved "twit" label. Then when asked to back up your unqualified blanket statement with any proof at all, you just ignore it, this then is getting you close to earning the "fuckwit" label...

Let's be very clear: JM and brutal assert that entering your own home, while knowing that LE have been notified of a potential intruder would mean you no longer are afford any protection from prosecution under state law 18-1-704.5. I believe that both JM and brutal as misinformed (or more likely completely uninformed) and simply request that they provide ANY evidence that gives some credibility to their claims, so in response they both provide....... (crickets chirping)..... absolutely nothing.

Please give us something so no one here calls you a fuckwit.

Cameron

[JM Ver. 2.0]

I simply take exception to people making unqualified (layman's interpretation) blanket statements that make no sense and vaguely hint at some ethereal qualifications that give them some inside knowledge of the law... do any of that and you get a well deserved "twit" label. Then when asked to back up your unqualified blanket statement with any proof at all, you just ignore it, this then is getting you close to earning the "fuckwit" label...

Let's be very clear: JM and brutal assert that entering your own home, while knowing that LE have been notified of a potential intruder would mean you no longer are afford any protection from prosecution under state law 18-1-704.5. I believe that both JM and brutal as misinformed (or more likely completely uninformed) and simply request that they provide ANY evidence that gives some credibility to their claims, so in response they both provide....... (crickets chirping)..... absolutely nothing.

Please give us something so no one here calls you a fuckwit.

Cameron

As soon as I get an email back from the people that matter, the DAs that would be charging you, I'll post it here.

Until then you can keep the name calling to yourself. No one likes a name caller.

[MED]

P.S.

He needs a new dog.

This was my first thought. My GSD would give them both something to cry about. I wouldn't want to be the poor bastard who entered my house.

[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.

[Dave_L]

BTW, the dog was in a kennel.

[funkymonkey1111]

If you want to go that route...

A landlord/homeowner is always an occupant. Therefor, they can make entry into the home you rent from them... Whenever they want... With or without your permission... Ya know, because they're the homeowner.

Would you like that?

Your stupidity astounds me. Do you read all the words in a post, or are you so transfixed with your sad attempt at being correct or need to be called "sir" that you simply cannot comprehend simple English? "In this instance....." means as it applies to this case--the man that went into the home and encountered an active burglary. He was the occupant of the home.

[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?

[ChunkyMonkey]

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.

I have been trying to stay from the dumb argument LOL... but I agree with Bailey. I posted a break in thread almost 2 years ago. In that time, a meth head who was evicted broke back into the rental property. The neighbor called me, I called 911, told them I am armed and I am checking out the property. I was told by dispatch, not to, but I insisted as I thought he fled already. Dispatch told me it was ultimately my choice, but keep clear of the DPD. Dispatch asked for my description and detail of where about I was and hang up. Well DPD must be real busy that night, one officer showed up 45 min later.

After clearing the house, he came back out and chat with me. He was in a such hurry that he never asked for my ID or even my name. But I did get to ask him, what would have happened if I confronted the guy and I am forced to defend myself (sort of trick question). His answer was short "Meth head vs property owner? Property owner wins, just dont talk to anyone but your lawyer. With that, he took off to the next call.

[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.