Sure you do - it's called a flash light, your eyes, and a little intelligence. If you do not see a weapon you cannot automatically assume one is there. If you command them to stop where they are and they continue approaching you and you are legitimately fearful for your life and/or safety then it's up to you if you should shoot. Just understand that no matter what we here on INGO say - you will be held responsible for your actions and if you're unable to articulate your fear for imminent bodily injury or death - you're likely not going to win with a defense of 'self defense.'
You're reading what has been written as though there are no variables. No matter how much training you have or do not have ultimately you have to make quick decisions and you will be responsible for those decisions. What has been presented that you seem to take issue with is not a definitive hard-and-fast rule beyond the fact that you should, if possible, do what was advised. If you don't - that's on you - nobody will be responsible for it but you should you be in that situation. You certainly can't go into court and say, 'But Shay on INGO told me to do X and I did it! I should not be being charged!... Well you could - but good luck with that.
Can one break into their own place of residence? If you live in your house and you lose your key and you break in - are you violating a law? Would somebody else living there be justified in shooting you just on the premise alone that you're entering using an abnormal method? In short -> no.
There are so many ways hostile intent can be demonstrated that I won't waste the time. The law states that one must be able to articulate the fear for imminent bodily injury or death. As far as what is required to be able to articulate such a fear - there are far too many variables for anybody to be able to spell it out in detail. Either you'll know - or you won't - but I don't think there's anything any of us here can do to help you understand it.
I keep a light next to my gun at all times - even when the gun is on my hip. If there is ever a situation where I may need to use the gun and visibility [i.e. light] is an issue the light will be necessary and will be used.
It does not matter if you have a teenager, 10 teenagers, or you live alone and have absolutely no family [i.e. you can be fairly certain the person entering isn't permitted]. Simply entering your residence without your consent is not justification in and of itself to open fire. To make an example - if I walk in your front door because it's unlocked in broad daylight and I'm not supposed to be there you are not justified in shooting me simply because I am on your property or in your house without consent.
There is a lot more to justifying a shoot than simply, 'Somebody who was not supposed to be in my house, was in my house.' You are certainly welcome to believe otherwise as it will be you that will be held responsible for your potentially poor decision.
You seem bothered that one extreme is being stated and, as a result, you go to the exact opposite extreme? The only thing anybody in this thread is saying is to identify your target and ascertain whether the target is a threat. This is obviously easier when there is light.
Take the same situation - the girl being shot - let's make it 3PM on a sunny day - would you still be defending this man's decision to shoot? Why or why not? Surely there should have been enough light for him to identify that the 'intruder' was a family member that belonged in the residence. What is the difference between my example and what happened? The fact that there was light. What could the shooter have done to make sure they properly identified their target? It's not magic - it's called a flashlight or a light switch.
No matter how justified you believe your shot is at the end of the day it's up to the prosecutor and the justice system as to whether you were justified. You could very well live out the rest of your days in prison with your belief that your shot was justified - that thought alone will not save you if you cannot articulate it in a way that fits the legal description for 'justifiable homicide' or 'self defense.'
Shoot first and ask questions later then if that's what you want to do - you may survive but you may also live out the rest of your life in prison. The decision is up to you.
Just because I say 'do not step on a red square' does not mean that I believe you are or will step on a red square - it's simply a statement that you should not do so. Just because somebody says, 'Do not shoot at shadows,' does not mean that somebody did shoot at shadows - it is simply a statement that you should not shoot at shadows. There's no reason to take it personally or to go to the opposite extreme.
My wife does this sort of thing all the time - I'll say something along the lines of "Please make sure you don't do XYZ," and her response almost always is, "But I didn't do XYZ!" At no point did I tell her that she did or claim that she did - I was simply asking her not to do it in the future.
The law does not require you to know with certainty the thoughts of another human being - it simply requires you to have an imminent fear for serious bodily injury or death that you can articulate. Obviously this isn't a black-and-white issue and there are various shades of gray and numerous variables that would be different from incident to incident.
Nobody is saying that you do that I can see. They're simply saying not to do those things and for some reason you seem to be taking it personally and to the opposite extreme.
Indeed - Guy's class at TFT would give you a great idea as to the burden placed on the shooter for a justified shot.
The standards are written into the law - it seems that you simply do not have a solid understanding of them. Again - TFT's class would be great for you IMHO.
We expect you to identify the target as a threat and for you to have a fear for imminent bodily injury or death that you can articulate.
Just because somebody is in your house without your permission does not automatically mean that they intend to do you harm. There are numerous reasons for somebody to be in hour house without meaning you harm - I won't list examples but if you can't think of anything you can either take my word for it or choose not to believe me [I don't care, it's you that would be responsible for your actions regardless of whether you believe me or not.]
Nefarious intent != intentions to do bodily injury or cause death. They could be simply wanting to steal your TV and have no intention of doing any harm to you. To make a quick example - you would not be justified in shooting a burglar that was on his way out your front door with your TV. You may believe you were but you would likely end up prosecuted for homicide.
It's codified in the law and is open to interpretation based upon the specific set of circumstances. That said - without being there - it's just internet armchair quarterbacking.
We'll find out when this likely goes to court as to whether this guy was really justified in shooting or not. Until then - based upon the little information in the article - there's no real way of knowing.
) the person in your home...it can also be used to disorient them.
