Had an intruder on my property last night.

[Mohawk]

I should say defend your fort from the inside. Just a correction. Just think inside for defensive purposes. Outside call 911. I have used the Castle Doctrine, no shots fired thank God, but I have been there. I defended inside and that's what counted, in Texas I should add. I went through the 6 AR's in my face when PD arrived but I was within the law. After the brief pat down, checking me for warrants ect. I went back inside. No big deal. The other guy is another story.

[williamlayton]

I have no idea of the law in Georgia--or Savannah---it did not matter to me.
The Hen and I were returning from a road trip up the Blue Ridge last June---took the ponies for a ride.
Stayed in Savannah at a Meriott Motel---two story affair. Nice motel in appearance.
We were on the second floor--Car was below the window.
About 1 AM I heard some noises out side---looked out the window and a bunch of men were dealing drugs---about 5 of them. One doing a deal with a car in the lot and the other four standing aside and around my car---looking it over---inside and out.
I put on some pants---walked downstairs--grabbed a chair from the pool side and sat it down on the sidewalk by my car.
Sat down in the chair--folded a towel on my lap---took out the pistol and flipped it off safety and put it in my lap---then said, I hope i am not disruppting business.
They slowly evaporated into the building---I woke up my wife and we left Savannah.
Piss on the law if they are not there.
Blessings

[handi270]

intresting topic. good points. I live in Oklahoma where we have the castle doctrine law. So if I were to be invloved in defending myself/wife, with a little common sense, I would probably be ok. However I have made the decision to not go ourside to protect our property. There are too many variables/unknowns outside at night. I am too old to get in to a tussle should I get jumped from behind. If it were my daughters family, who live acrosss the street, and I felt they were in danger of bodily harm, I would go.

[Spirithawk]

CASTLE DOCTRINES

Conditions of use;
Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.

[edit] Immunity from civil lawsuit
In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many versions of the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause", also have a clause which provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages/injury resulting from the use of lethal force. Without this clause, it is possible for an assailant to sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain and suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender, or for their next-of-kin to sue for wrongful death in the case of a fatality. Even if successfully refuted, the defendant (the homeowner/defender) must often pay thousands of dollars in legal costs as a result of such lawsuits, and thus without immunity, such civil action could be used for revenge against a defender acting lawfully.

The only exceptions to this civil immunity are generally situations of excessive force, where the defender used deadly force on a subdued, cooperative, or disabled assailant. A situation meeting this exception generally invalidates the criminal "castle defense" as well. In addition, someone who uses deadly force in self-defense is still liable for any damages or injuries to third parties who were not acting criminally at the time of the defensive action.

[edit] Duty-to-retreat
"Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat from an illegal intruder when one is lawfully in one's home.[3] Therefore, any state that imposes a duty to retreat while in the home does not have a "Castle law": the duty-to-retreat clause expressly imposes an obligation upon the home's occupants to retreat as far as possible and verbally announce their intent to use deadly force, before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves.

For states that do not require the announcement to be "verbal", other indicators may be used. These are typically not defined by statute, and would be left to the court's interpretation, but may include things such as laser sights or the cocking of a firearm. Care should be exercised in studying applicable individual state laws. In the majority of jurisdictions warning shots are illegal, and even brandishing the weapon in a threatening manner can result in criminal charges.

[edit] Stand-your-ground
Other states expressly relieve the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" clauses, and state exactly that the defender has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which they have a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. States often differentiate between altercations occurring inside a home or business and altercations in public places; there may be a duty to retreat from an assailant in public when there is no duty to retreat from one's own property, or there may be no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be.[4] Other restrictions may still exist; when in public, a person must be carrying the firearm in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.

"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was "where he had the right to be" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[5][6]

In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905), where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated:

The doctrine of "retreat to the wall" had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs and even knives as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced persons, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm[7]
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)) when upholding the no duty to retreat maxim that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".[8]

Most gun control groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign denounce "Stand-Your-Ground" clauses as "Shoot First" laws (as in "shoot first, ask questions later"), asserting that the presumptions and other protections afforded to gun owners allow them virtual carte blanche to shoot anyone who is perceived to be trespassing. They also claim it will lead to cases of mistaken identity, so-called "shooting the milkman" scenarios. Gun rights groups, such as the National Rifle Association claim that such scenarios are unlikely and are not protected under most Castle laws; the shooter is only justified if the assailant broke into the home or attempted to commit some other property crime such as arson, and simple trespass is neither.

[handi270]

here is the essence of our law in Oklahoma
— 1 —
CS for HB 2615
Committee Substitute for
House Bill No. 2615
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 2615 — By CALVEY, ELLIS, BILLY,
BLACKWELL, DUNCAN, CASE, COOKSEY, INGMIRE, NANCE and PERRY of the House
and COATES of the Senate.

An Act relating to firearms; creating the Stand Your Ground Law; amending 21 O.S. 2001,
Section 1289.25, which relates to physical or deadly force against intruder; creating presumption
that reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm exists under certain circumstances;
providing exceptions; authorizing the use of certain force under certain circumstances;
creating presumption that a person acts with intent to use force or violence
under specified circumstances; clarifying scope of criminal and civil immunity; defining
term; authorizing use of certain investigative procedures; prohibiting arrest for use of
force unless probable cause determined; requiring certain costs be awarded upon a
finding of immunity; defining terms; providing for noncodification; and providing an effective
date.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law not to be codified in the Oklahoma
Statutes reads as follows:
Sections 1 and 2 of this act shall be known and may be cited as the “Stand Your Ground
Law”.
SECTION 2. AMENDATORY 21 O.S. 2001, Section 1289.25, is amended to read as follows:
Section 1289.25
PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER

House of Representatives
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 2, 2006


A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a
right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
B. Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including
but not limited to deadly force, against A person is presumed to have held a reasonable
fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another person
who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable
belief that such other person might use any physical when using defensive force, no matter
how slight, against any occupant of the dwelling that is intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily harm to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully
and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence,
or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another
against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful
and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
C. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical The presumption set forth in subsection B
of this section does not apply if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful
resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder,
and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision
order of no contact against that person;
2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are
House of Representatives — 2 —
otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against
whom the defensive force is used; or
3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using
the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity.
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other
place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his
or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes
it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence,
or occupied vehicle of another person is presumed to be doing so with the intent to
commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
F. A person who uses force, including but not limited to deadly force, as permitted pursuant
to the provisions of subsection subsections B and D of this section, shall have an affirmative
defense in any is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution
for an offense arising from the reasonable and civil action for the use of such force and
shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the reasonable
use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting,
detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
D. G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use
of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it
determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
House of Representatives — 3 —
CS for HB 2615
H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss
of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought
by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided
in subsection F of this section.
I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act,
Sections 1 1290.1 through 25 1290.26 of this act title, shall not be construed to require any
person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.
J. As used in this section:
1. “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached
porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile,
which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging
therein at night;
2. “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently
or is visiting as an invited guest; and
3. “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed
to transport people or property.
SECTION 3. This act shall become effective November 1, 2006.
House of Representatives — 4 —
UNDERLINED language denotes Amendments to present Statutes.
BOLD FACE CAPITALIZED language denotes Committee Amendments.
Strike-thru language denotes deletion from present Statutes.
COMMITTEE REPORT BY: COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
dated 3-1-06 — DO PASS, As Amended and Coauthored.

[His lordship.]

I have found that there are some gray areas on the self defense use of a gun, sure there are written laws that specify, but I have seen some exceptions in Oregon and Minnesota, I have lived in both states for many years.  When I was in Portland, OR in the 1980's there were problems with drive by shootings and we had a fellow go out on his lawn and shoot at the car that did it, this was in violation of Oregon law, but the cops did not press charges.

When I was in Minnesota up until 2008 there were several shootings of guys who broke into a person's home and the legal occupant did not retreat to the back of the house as he is required to do so in Minnesota, they shot the intruder near the front entrance, or on the up stairs.  No charges were made against the owners of the property.  In Wisconsin at around the same time in a small town, a man was angry at another fellow who was a local firefighter, a pillar of the community, over some woman.  The intruder broke in, came at the owner with a knife and got shot.  Wisconsin said that the house owner failed to go into a back room and he was charged.   

Now that I live in Texas I know we have greater options, but I still have the belief that I should let the cops deal with a criminal as they have more money and legal power than I do.   If someone is already inside, it would be too late for the police to arrive on time, but I would allow my threat of yelling to get them to go elsewhere.  The idea of having all that blood on my carpeting and having to stay awake all night thumbing through the yellow pages for a lawyer does not appeal to me.

[S.S.]

Bad move going out unarmed,
first of all, how did you know he was alone?
second, what if he was armed?
third, by going out unarmed, you could have easily been subdued
and then your family was vulnerable!

[mechanic]

I make a check of my property while armed every evening before I go to bed.  I don't know why, but I rest better that way.  I don't own anything worth a human life, except my own and my families lives.  If I were to encounter an armed intruder, I would shoot first and ask later, the  assumption being that by being armed he means me and mine harm.  I would rather hire a lawyer, than an undertaker.

Ben

[SHOOTALL]

Hope coon hunters stay off

[williamlayton]

JUST a grin reply---When I hit the big lotto--buy 5000 acres--and put my house right in the middle---I am gonna figger I don't need to patrol and anybody that gets within Barrett range is fair game.
Blessings

[mechanic]

Hope coon hunters stay off

Yep, my "estate" here measures about 1/4 acre.  Two trees, no coon hunters.  Lots of folk passing by from the HUD housing and apartments about 4 blocks away though, and  they get mighty curious about whats in the cars and houses around them sometimes.......they are less likely to get to wanting that stuff when the word is out that a crazy old man walks around there with a gun........

[45-70.gov]

Hope coon hunters stay off

Yep, my "estate" here measures about 1/4 acre.  Two trees, no coon hunters.  Lots of folk passing by from the HUD housing and apartments about 4 blocks away though, and  they get mighty curious about whats in the cars and houses around them sometimes.......they are less likely to get to wanting that stuff when the word is out that a crazy old man walks around there with a gun........

...they are less likely to get to wanting that stuff when the word is out that a crazy old man walks around there with a gun........

thats part  of my strategy  too
so lets  keep this to ourselves

[scootrd]

My old gal Tessa (dog) and I would go walking every night in summer. About 2 years ago , over a  period of a week  or so I kept noticing the same city car (black BMW type) , parked on the side of the dirt road , a short ways from one of the local swimming holes. At first didnt think much about it except maybe some folks nighttime skinny dipping or something.  One night my neighbor (one farm over)  phoned and we were talking about this and that and I mentioned the car , and he mentioned he had been noticing the same thing.

So the next night we investigated,

long story short  -  A single gal lived 2 farms over from us and we ended up catching a peeping Tom looking in her bedroom windows. He would park his car down the road and then cut through a small patch of woods to sit outside her windows, we caught him red handed and took him at gunpoint while she phoned the troopers.

They showed up and took control. Never said anything negative about our firearms and had no problem with what we did , or how we managed the situation until they arrived.

The guy ended up being a co-worker of hers.

It doesn't take all kinds  -  there Just are.    

[SHOOTALL]

We have had several peeking toms over the years . My neighbor put a load of # 6 shot in ones back side late one night.  Never heard a thing about it. I always wonder if the guy will come back and mess things up ?

[Spirithawk]

 You can use deadly force as long as you believe your, or an inocent victoms life is in danger. Buttttt, and a very important but, only as long as the threat exists. I look at it like this, anyone prowling around my property or entering my home uninvited poses such a risk. They sure aren't there to shake my hand. Outside, I'll call the Sheriff Dept. But they come inside? It's shoot as quickly as I recognise them as an intruder! We have the Castle Law for a reason.

[gs50401]

I think you did OK.   If you can remain safe and be able to call the police, then you will be in for  much less hassle than some of the "cowboy" type actions suggested by others.

[williamlayton]

Folks who venture onto private property, at night or during the day, without being invited are cause for alarm.
I say that in the face of urban folks who distribute door-hangers. I don't want anyone coming to my door after dark and I will always answer the door armed--looking to see who is there before I open the door.
Retreat hell, its my house and I don't care what the boys do to me, I am not retreating and leaving my house open to their pleasures.
Blessings

[Spirithawk]

I grew up in the day that when you pulled into someones yard you honked anouncing you were there. Then you stayed in the car untill someone came out and invited you in. To do otherwise was asking to get met with the buiseness end of a shotgun no matter the time of day or night nor who you were. It wasn't the landowner being a cowboy. It was practical common sense and the safe thing to do. It was well understood that law enforcement was too far away to save you when seconds count and law enforcement actually expected people to take some responsibilty for protecting themselves and their property understanding that  99% of the time they couldn't get to you untill after something bad had already happened. Somewhere along the line that all changed. Law enforcement, and the powers that be, for the most part doesn't think we can, nor should, be able to care for ourselves. People's attitudes changing expecting others to protect them 24/7, not realising just how futile that notion is, are just as much to blame. That is slowly changing back, thus states adopting Castle Laws. People get tired pretty quickly of always being victoms! I agree with William. One should not be exspected nor required to give up your home to an intruder. That's giving the criminal more rights than you!

[rockbilly]

I grew during a period when doors and windows were never (rarely) locked.  We had no A/C, at night the screen doors were all between us and the outside world.  We could leave, leave the house open and never worry about something "walking" off while we were gone.  Even during this period Dad had his old 16 gauge nearby in case something came up.

Today it is a diffrent world, I sleep with a 870 loaded with 00 buck near by, I also have several pistols located at various places around the house in case I need them.  I have an ADT Alarm systen, a German Separd and Poodle that will eat your butt up if you come on my propertry.  I live in the Great State of Texas, thanks to our friends in Austin we have the Castle Doc and can legally use deadly force to protect life and property.  I would use caution when faced with a situation, but know I would walk if I shot someone on my place. All this and I live in a decent area, problem here is there is a large public park nearby, there are all kinds of people passing throug every night so I stay ready.

The only problem I see in shooting is the idea of having to live with the "what if's" afterward the smoke has cleared.

[ironglow]

   In spite of state/local laws, much depends upon your neighbors/neighborhood.  If things get serious enough, it will eventually land before a jury.  Where I live folks are generally  conservative to very conservative..chances of being convicted for defending your property or family are more remote than in a city, particullarly if as usual, that city is overloaded with liberal/leftists..which are often overrun with  antis.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

[45-70.gov]

I grew up in the day that when you pulled into someones yard you honked anouncing you were there. Then you stayed in the car untill someone came out and invited you in..............

i have evicted  my neighbers before   [they rented from me]
because their ride to work  insisted on blowing his horn for him to come out

got another family  now on notice  over the horn blowing

i shoot my gun in the neighborhood....
but   don't blow your horn around here
it is  good to be the KING....hahaha

[3030guy]

Drives home the need for a nice bright flashlight.

[ironglow]

  Right 30 30 guy;
  Bright flashlights are VERY useful in many ways.  In fact, a bright light on your nightstand beside your defense weapon is a wonderful thing.  When you hear someone who shouldn't be, rummaging around in your darkened home, a blinding light in your left hand and your weapon in your right, can give you a great advantage over the bad guy.
  Learned that from my Marine grandson..who learned it in Iraq, clearing terrorists out of places like Bin Ladin's "mansion".

[45-70.gov]

Drives home the need for a nice bright flashlight.

very good point

there are a few good flashlights out there for $40 and up
a flashlight  is NOT the place to try too save $30
get a few of the best you can afford

it needs to be reliable
easy to turn off....on with preasure...[.not on when button released]
and capable of blinding brightness

[ironglow]

As I said in my post #49..much depends upon your neighborhood and neighbors.  The final arbiters will be the 12 jurors..and they must be unanimous in conviction.  New York is considered a liberal, "blue" state, which it is due to the large cities, but not everyone lives in those cities.
   Here's a story from Amherst, NY ..an affluent suburb NNE of Buffalo, you can read the article.  The dead man was apparently drunk and wandering where he didn't belong.  Though this incident is tragic, and  personally don't like to see anyone needlessly hurt or killed, but I also know if a person takes it upon themselves to delete their common sense with alcohol or any other drug...they are taking their chances..  Whatever happens comes back to their own doorstep. !  I believe this home owner has been finally cleared..
     http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=75642&catid=37
     http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article313145.ece

[Brett]

The widow is suing and this is what her attorney is saying:

The lawsuit accuses David D'Amico of the "willful, intentional, malicious" slaying of Park, and acting "without just cause [or] provocation."

Trespassing, refusing to leave and advancing toward the homeowner sounds like just cause to me.

"[The incident] occurred as a result of the fault, negligence and carelessness of D'Amico, without any negligence on the part of Park contributing thereto," attorney David H. Elibol said in court papers.

Without any negligence on the part of Park?  I guess we are supposed to put out a welcome mat to trespassers these days.

I thought the homeowner's attorney's comments were on the money: "Making an allegation like that is like a drunk driver, driving on the wrong side of the road, blaming the sober driver he hit for a collision," .

 

[ironglow]

Brett;
  That about sums it up, as I see it !  Sadly, a tragedy which should never have happened..

[gs50401]

I think you did OK.   Keep safe and let the police handle it.   Cowboy like actions will get you into trouble.

On another note, I have pondered the idea of getting a very powerful spotlight to use in  a similar situation.

Yes, I know this is a bit of a repeat of my earlier post, It did not appear earlier when I looked for it.