I live in a two-bedroom apartment with one way in One Way out what do I do the guy leaves but comes back with five to six other guys I'm just curious because I am a new gun owner I live in Tucson
=FOR GOVERNMENT EVERY COMMON PEOPLE ARE CATTLE,THEIR OWN PROPERTY....PROPERTY,UNDERSTAND?? .......THEY'RE STRIPPING PEOPLE OUT OF BASIC RIGHTS BECAUSE OF THAT'S HOW THEY'RE MAKING THEIR LIVESTOCK BETTER,AS IF SOMEONE HARM CRIMINALS,THEY ALSO MAY HARM OFFICIALS IF THEY WOULD DO THE SAME
@@aaronsmith7946 Yes, if its your life vs theres yes. Violence protects you. Police you violence to protect you. The threat of VIOLENCE protects your country from Nuclear attack, dont be an idiot. Your society has been MADE and is PROTECTED BY VIOLENCE. Deal with it.
@@aaronsmith7946 It was a crime for them to be in his home. They were criminals invading his home. Yes, he had the right to use deadly force. If you don't want to be shot and killed, don't invade someone's home. This outcome is all on the criminals, not the home owner.
@@krisswegemer1163 Why don't you read what I wrote again before responding? I wrote that if someone was invading the home with an intention to do the person harm or the homeowner believing that the person intended to do them harm, they can shoot them. However, it's only under THOSE circumstances in which a person can kill someone because they are on their property. However, my comment was indeed accurate and not just that, quite reasonable. If you just read what I wrote instead of assuming you know what I wrote, you would read the cases in which a person does not have the right to just kill someone. If someone just happens to be on your property, no you do not have the right to just shoot them. Further, if they happen to be in your home and you admit to not believing they intended you any harm and you kill them, anyway, you not only can go to jail, but in almost all cases WILL go to jail. There really isn't anything confusing about this and I could go through scenario by scenario and example as to why the law makes sense and is just in not allowing you to just take the life of a person who poses no threat of bodily harm or to your life. I also cited a few of the cases that had just been in the news around the time I wrote that response such as the high school student who actually went to the wrong house and rang on the doorbell and was shot at. There was the case in which a person simply pulled into someone else's driveway so they could turn their vehicle around because they were not familiar with the area and had gone the wrong way and got shot and killed for it...and that person is in prison now. I don't think I need to say anymore. If you can't comprehend what I just wrote and you cannot understand why someone should not be taking the life of someone who they do not believe poses any threat to them, I nor anyone else can help you.
Disagree that the thought that a home invader is free game once he enters your home unlawfully and by force is controversial. Seems to me to be common sense...
What If A Person Accidentally Enters The Wrong House, Or Even Knocks At The Wrong Door, Looking For Someone That Gave Them The Wrong Address By Accident? Do THEY Deserve To Get Shot And Killed??? WAY TOO MANY Shootings Occuring By Insecure Gun Owners, (Assuming That EVERY Gun Owner Is "Law Abiding"), That Shouldn't Be Having A Gun In The First Place!!! NOT ALL Gun Related Deaths Are Attributed To Criminal Activity. There Are Accidental, Suicide, Carelessness And Innocent Victims Being Killed As Gun Fatalities. Thinking Narrow Mindedly About Gun Ownership, (As The NRA Keeps Promoting), IS VERY STUPID Indeed...
@@davemckolanis4683 if they “enter” the wrong house they absolutely are obligated to face self defense consequences from the homeowner. If they knock on the wrong door then no.
@@davemckolanis4683how many Intruder stories have you heard where someone knocks on someone's door and politely asked to be let in before robbing and killing the homeowner. we're not talking about people that knock on doors were talking about people that break them in.
@@ominousentity1115 WOW... Another NRA NINCOMPOOP, With Your Hypothetical FEAR Infected WHAT-IF Stories. The Examples I Give Are TRUE Happenings Sonny Boy. NOT NRA WHAT-IF, Tales. I've Undoubtedly Been In MORE Near Miss Gun Incidents, LOST Friends To Gun Related Accidents And Suicides, And Even A Terrorist Attack Shooting Up A Restaurante, With People Crawling Out The Doors Trying To Escape. Something You NO DOUBT May NEVER Experience. Kiddo, You Are FEAR INFECTED By The NRA Craziness, That Is Needlessly Costing About 40K Americans THEIR LIVES EVERY YEAR. Last Count A Couple Of Weeks Ago, There Were Already Over 200 MASS Shootings In This Country, (Meaning The Killing Of 4-People Or More At One Time), Which Is MORE Than One For Every Day This Year. And NOT Including The Single Murders, Accidents And Suicides. SMARTEN UP Kiddo. You're Only FOOLING YOURSELF.
I keep wondering who keep making these helpless criminals break into people's homes and why the police in America can virtually never find the bad guy and the good guys are fair game
The Cartel makes over a 100 billion a year profit for drug and human trafficking and 60% of Cartel $$$ go to bribery aka "Plata o Plomo." (research further) Check out the "Plata o Plomo" billboard in El Paso.
According to socialists it is the fault of society. So in a free society socialists defend criminals by insisting that "capitalism" (free commerce) caused it. But if the socialist gets their way then criminals become an embarrassment, they shouldn't exist in their socialist utopia so they get "disappeared" or politicized.
This is an interesting conversation, in my state we have the Castle Doctrine and the stand your ground law and I'm glad we do but it is important to understand how it works and how to understand how it helps your case. Staying out of a gun fight is always the best case scenario.
Not only that he's stealing property or leaving the scene going to be very difficult even in a Castle Doc or SYG state to articulate the facts and circumstance that will justify a lethal force response. Always remember Circumstances dictate response.
Fleeing perps have turned around and shot as they’re running through the door. They have regrouped or got backup from outside and came back in armed This guy got the same charges as someone who walks into work and just starts shooting people. And that’s insane
Kevin, the situation that you're describing, is why I recommend having CCTV (not these cameras that upload to the internet horse drek!) security IN your home. SItuations like this, having video footage of what happened, might be the difference between going home, and going to prison. While by no means am I saying that its JUSTIFIED that we need to have cameras running inside our houses to prove our own innocence... these be the times that we live it, damn it all.
@@WarriorSoul44 The problem is our system. If someone breaks into the home, there should NEVER be an instance where someone has to go to prison. Your home is your castle. Thats why as a country we need to FORCE these changes and laws to be repealed where we can not protect ourselves.
I have been in a lethal Force encounter at my home. I fired and came out on top in the situation. Even if you come out on top, there is nothing glorious about it. The adrenaline dump and the ensuing thoughts years after the fact are not that pleasant.
You did right , let it go, move on . I defended myself with a skateboard back in the day , have no regrets. Fyi I'm 50 yrs. 100% self defense and sleep like a baby
You have nothing to think about that worries you. I had nightmares from my actions in the 1991 Gulf War. My doctors wanted to help me with "Forget this or that." My best action was to live with it! I have great dreams of protecting my self - the people that died by my hand were attacking me and I did my best, and I am still here. I sleep great after I changed how - I made it , they did not.
@@kaju1722 my wife's ex husband and the biological father of my son. I had fought him twice over the course of a few years. He beat her and endangered my son's life and stole property from both of them. The day before the incident, he poured lighter fluid all over our porch and sent a message bragging about it. "I heard that the devil pissed on your porch" This was the message. Next day, I just got off work and heard a vehicle pull into my driveway. I look and see the vehicle that he(Justin) was known to be driving. I walked outside with a shotgun and told him to leave. He picked up a pistol from his lap and pointed it at me. I stepped laterally behind the pillar, then one more lateral step to the right of the pillar and fired through the windshield of that vehicle. Bird shot plus glass went into his face, neck, shoulder, chest, and abdomen. He drove away screaming to God. He lived and never went to jail for his shenanigans, but most importantly, he never harassed my family again. The gun he pointed at me was recovered by the police and it was a toy airsoft pistol(he is a felon and cannot purchase a firearm legally).
My view of the reason I carry a firearm and arm myself in my home is to remove the threat. If that means the bad guy lays down on the floor and surrenders until the cops take him away, the threat has been removed. If the bad guy turns and runs away after seeing that I have a gun, the threat has been removed. If I ever have to take a life to remove the threat, my life, no matter how justified, will be changed forever. Something to think about.
Nobody knows whats in the minds of "criminals". Who is a criminal? Someone who has committed a crime. What is a crime? All of the statutes listed in criminal codes. Does the presence of "strangers" in the house makes them criminals? If this is not spelled out clearly in criminal codes then its a big problem for the homeowners. And this must be a universal law instead of being "unique" to states or localities. "Ambiguity" in law is the REAL CRIME!
Through no fault of your own the legal system makes you a criminal for defending yourself. Listening to this cop, and this lawyer is the equivalent of a man receiving dating advice from a woman, how many women has she dated? She is going to tell you what she would like for her personal gain if you were dating her, not what would be in your best interest. If the system makes us a criminal than we need advice from criminals who beat the system, not from people who profit from the system, this is a conflict of interest in a propaganda format.
If someone breaks something in order to gain entry into your home uninvited, then it's safe to assume criminal intent as they in that moment have committed criminal action. At that moment you have to decide if that action = eminent death or bodily harm to you and your family. Nobody can tell you how you feel. They may try to, but only you and God know your heart and mind. For me, if someone forces their way into my home, they are a threat to me and my family. Period.
Don’t talk to police. Ask to be taken to the hospital. Remember the shop owner in Cali that had a heart attack after driving off a robber? You can call your lawyer at the hospital. And then talk to police after.
Smart advice. The police do not ask questions for your benefit. They are building a case AGAINST you based on what you tell them. If there are others living in your house, educate them on this, because they'd likely still feel obligated to spill everything to the cops that show up. Lawyer should be present first and let THEM do the talking.
Eh, I would disagree. If there are bad guys in my house, I have to assume they came in for a reason and if I let them go, they may come back. So I can live forever in fear, or send them back to the maker for reprogramming. The law may disagree, but those change from time to time and place to place.
@@kaju1722 Ever hear" I rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 " Survival first ,drop the perps IM not interpreting the actions of people who broke into my home .
I would think that they didn’t break in to play checkers. Things happen fast and I have a wife and daughter in my home. I’m gonna do what is necessary to protect my family.
I caught trespassers in my utility room a few times, one time I went out there with my gun, I tell them to leave, they did. I don't know if they saw my gun, but they complied. I can't shoot them if they follow my order to get out.
lmaooo if a person is in my house and they broke in and is trespassing aint no way im not shooting them tf even if u tell them leave who to say they wont come back and that time kill u im not talking once u in my house im shooting until the threat is gone yall crazy
I’m in Tennessee and we have castle. However all intruder encounters are not alike. My brother who lives way back on a farm 3/4 miles off road heard a banging on his front door at 2:30 AM and an unknown male trying to pull the door off the hinges .But something just didn’t look right when he looked thru the doors sidelight pane . Turned out it was a mentally challenged teenager who had run away at night, gotten lost in the woods and freezing rain , who was terrified and only wanted saved . The Sheriff Dept was thrilled and had been searching for him .
If you are going to keep firearms in your home for the purposes of home/self defense, you MUST educate yourself on the laws in your state and/or local jurisdiction. To ignore this basic concept of common sense can result in tragic consequences. If you are unwilling to learn the laws in your area, do NOT keep firearms in your home. It is a serious responsibility to be informed.
No expert ; but at 0:47 went he said in 911 call..."didn't want them to get away". You got some explaining to do. Think he said too much...lets see or listen
You will be questioned. Your words can be used against you. Choose your words carefully. "Why did you shoot? What position were you and the intruder in when you fired? Did you perceive an immediate threat to your life? Why did you fire at that particular moment? Could you have done something else besides shooting them? Why didnt you just tell them the police were on the way?Why didnt you try using a knife or hammer or that bat over there next to the closet? Why did you fire multiple times? Did they try running away? Did you chase them and did they turn away from you? Did you try doing first aid after you shot them? Did you wait before calling 911? How long?" etc... You HAVE TO be able to answer questions like these in a way that will NOT incriminate you. CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY
@@davidmickles5012 Or don't CHOOSE WORDS at all....call your lawyer , if you don't have one you still can remain silent until you can get one. Even a legal aid. DON'T PUT OUT BAD ADVICE. DON'T self incriminate by talking when you don't have to
It’s amazing how many people just think you can start shooting whenever you want. In my ccw class they showed scenarios and one was a video of a teenager getting grabbed and put in a van outside of target and when the instructor asked everyone what they would do, everyone but me said they would start shooting the van up. When he told them they would all be in jail because that was actually some parents who grabbed their runaway teenager they all acted surprised that they would get arrested for shooting them.
Having a ccw and knowing when and when not to use your firearm to defend yourself or others in imanent danger of grave bodily harm or death, in public is a totally different situation then illegally coming into your private secure structure. No criminal has good intentions when illegally entering a private dwelling, especially knowing that people are home. Have no good intentions or are capable of violence towards you and your family.
"FEAR" of Imminent Death does not go away just because a home invader turns and runs for the door. You don't flip off FEAR like a light switch. Charging a homeowner because he didn't immediately flip off the FEAR switch is absurd.
@@johnwatson9518 Fear must always be tempered with reason. Irrational fear (they are moving away) is still fear, but doesn't justify a shot. Reasonable fear (they are facing me, esp. moving toward me) justifies it. You can't be twitchy and expect to not get in trouble.
Understand all of this BUT, why does the thugs, the criminals have the edge here. If someone is in my house at the wee hours of the morning, and I sure as hell didn’t invite them , they are SOL! I aim not chasing them, let a bullet chase them.
wake up, these people were in ur home, after that it's on, change the laws, people are way more aggressive when it comes to evil. give property owners an equal playing field to stop these bastards without 2nd guessing from the prosecution. common every day people should not be prosecuted just because they don't know the exact extent of the law for protecting themselves
Did you not listen to the conversation on the legalities of the actions of the man who shot these people as they fled? Why on God’s green earth would you want to kill a man and a woman who were running away from you, running out the door, simply because they were (past tense) unlawfully in your home. Guys like you with your twisted sense of six shooter Justice just chaff my butt. There was no immediate or articulable threat to his safety as they turned and ran away with no weapons seen (or later found) meaning they were unarmed and could not be a threat as they fled. This man will now be forced to sell everything he has spent his life accumulating, including using his life savings and all his investments, 401K, stocks, bonds…in order to pay a lawyer to attempt to keep him out of prison. Even if the D.A. decided not to prosecute (fat chance) the civil suit would wipe him out financially. But, I guess one needs to be able to critically think and be able to control one’s emotions when it comes to a situation like they were describing.
@@timvest8141 No, it's homicide, murder is intent to kill, specifically. Had he stood over them and shot them to death after they went down and had visibly given up, that's murder. Self defense is homicide, though justifiable.
@@Scotta1atgmaildotcom that was not self defense. They were running away. If that had of been a cop shooting a black man in the back they would be burning down cities.
@@timvest8141 adding emotion into the discussion has no bearing on the matter at hand. A threat is still present unless clear capitulation has occurred. Unless of course you're careless, then the cost goes way up. It doesn't matter where you hit, of the person isn't legally there, they lose the right to be protected by the law.
Thanks for the content, always good to keep everyone informed. Limitations of certain laws like this, you need to know what you can and can't do, what's self defense and what's murder. This makes all gun owners look crazy, we need to constantly educate ourselves if you're going to carry. It's a right, but a great responsibility, not to sound like a comic book... 😀 😜
Lord knows, we do stupid things sometimes. This example is a case in point. How can we expect crazy liberals not to take advantage of our own craziness?
@@johncox2865 I disagree, I believe most lawful gun owners make good decisions and are responsible with their Constitutional Right. However, there are a few that are new to it, especially in the last few years, all and need the education. Continuously educating the rules of gun safety and self defense is something everyone,even the most experienced, can benefit from.
@@jeffsond Not everyone lives in Texas, and even in Texas if you kill a person over property, you will still be dragged through court for the rest of your life, was your TV worth your life?.
Oh contraire...I'm 65. Have three autoimmune disorders, osteoporosis, blown disk, and COPD...I'm not fighting anyone, disparity of force means I don't have to. I'm in fear for my safety...sucks to be them
One fellow had criminals in his house who told the homeowner that it was against the law for the homeowner to shoot him. The homeowner replied, When you are in my house it's not the law you have to worry about.
Absolutely ridiculous, the law needs to change. If a person decides to physically and violently break in and enter a private locked dwelling without permission from the owner, has no reason to be there bottomline. And if you have to wait to see whose turn it is next to make a move, you could be dead. Once a person decides to illegally enter, a private dwelling, they are a criminal and you have no idea what is going through that criminals mind or if they have weapons.
They may be breaking the law but if they run away and you shoot them in the back you can be charged with murder. Remember there is no threat to you or your family when they are running away from you. Call the police after they run.
@@charliefoxtrot5001 unless they are a threat to you or your family’s life. You do have the right to protect yourself and your family. Neutralize the treat with lethal force if need be.
@@johnnegron4950 Yes, but that's not what the post I replied you is arguing! There is a lot of stupid chest thumping in this video's comment section by people who have no clue about the law or about the consequences of a defensive shooting.
If anyone comes into my home uninvited I will not leave any witnesses! Anyone that violates someone else domain should expect to die on the spot! Why give them another opportunity to rob or kill someone else!
Hey, as long as you’re willing to lose everything, including your freedom and comfortable bed to spend time in prison, just go right ahead. Just think it all the way through. Good luck.
@@geedubb2005 If I lose my freedom because someone invaded my home, then we do not have freedom! That’s as ridiculous as hell to think you or anyone else can invade someone’s home and not know the property owner might take your life! What to hell is wrong with you!
The part they’re avoiding talking about here is the fact that the homeowner willfully admitted that they were running away. Castle doctrine states that the “unlawfully REMAIN on your property.” All it would’ve taken is for the homeowner to say “they were running at me!”
a great case of 'less is more,' TALK LESS! in a sitch like this you don't run your mouth. keep it simple - after the self protection sitch is under control you call 911, state your address & state 'home invasion, i repeat home invasion' then SHUT. THE. HELL. UP!
This reminds of a case in my home state of Michigan. A lady knocked on a mans door in the middle of the night to ask for help. He then shot her through a screen door and claimed self defense. From what i remember thats what happened and i believe he is in prison now.
The question that sticks in my mind in cases involving the shooting of a fleeing armed suspect is that suspects can and do reach back and shoot while running away, or may be heading for cover from which to shoot. It seems a victim may be faced with a choice of holding fire and hoping the criminal does as well, or else shooting and practically guarantee going to jail. This applies in both castle doctrine situations and on the street. What's the right answer?
There may not be a right answer, as was prefaced each state's laws are different. TBH, with our laws in FL, even if the perp is retreating from within the house, I'm still taking my shots to completely stop the threat. My answer to the rebuttal is that he may be going to retrieve a [deadlier] weapon and may return, how would you know otherwise. Also, what if the perp escaped, how would you know if he won't come back another day and bring other weapons?!? Sorry not sorry, I'm stopping the threat to the best of my abilities, even if that means I'm going to jail, my family comes first.
The right answer begins with "Quit prosecuting the victims." It's reasonable to expect a burglar to be armed if he/she burglarizes a house while the tenant/owner is there. That's what I expect, as everyone should. The right answer ends with not shooting someone in the back if the only move he/she makes is to retreat. If they fire a shot, then turn to run away, they should be fair game. I understand that a man might not know for sure if the burglar is armed, but with them running away, no one was making him remain in their line of sight. He could have easily stepped inside. That's common sense. Not visible = not a target. Presenting the smallest target possible increases life expectancy.
@@lordtule665 One of the only states that has it written correctly.."Burden of proof in a self defense shooting falls strictly on the state to prove otherwise" As long as you don't say anything stupid the state has to PROVE you weren't in fear for your life. Innocent until proven guilty. Good job Florida.
The "right" answer is if they are running and shoot back while running you can shoot them. If not you cant. In the same vein you cant just shoot someone who snatched your purse because you chased them and they "could" have had a knife when you chased them.
So here’s a question. Since castle doctrine gives you a rebuttable presumption for the use of deadly force, can you say that if the person that you find downstairs in your kitchen looks up and pulls out a knife or a gun then castle doctrine allows you to then use deadly force. For argument sake, let’s say they pull out the weapon and make a threatening comment like I’m gonna cut you without making a threatening motion with the weapon. I am seeing that as the homeowner I now have a right to use deadly force on that individual.
I am definitely no expert (and not a lawyer) but from living in PA with castle doctrine my understanding is you don't need as much of a reason for deadly force but you still need a reason. In this example, the home owner's first shot was justified (based on my understanding of castle doctrine) but once they began to flee and he continued to fire, that's where the line was crossed. At the moment his life or home was no longer at risk because they were attempting to escape. Had they taken cover and returned fire or threatened harm without leaving then I believe he'd still be justified to fire because the threat was still present. In your example you'd be justified in using deadly force especially if they're holding a weapon, now if they drop that weapon and begin to run and you shoot, now you committed a murder because the threat was gone and you still shot. It's a very fine line between justified and crime which is why, as a gun owner, education and training is the most important tool you can have. Situational awareness is above all the most important skills to learn. My hope is that no gun owner ever wishes to take a life even when a threat arises but the ability to determine when there is no other option is the best thing to learn. Yes they're criminals and could have been a threat but once they begin to flee then you hold off the trigger and be happy that no life has to be lost in that moment. Sorry for the long rant, and again not a lawyer so don't take my full word on it, it's just my understanding of how it works through what I've learned.
Yes it does. If they dont have CCTV footage. Its your words vs words of a dead person. Its like those police officers with camera video saying their life was in danger when that cat scratched at them so they shot the cat lady 90 times.
If the laws don't get stricter against criminals, then these career criminals will continue to run around and it will be lawlessness. There must be order and clear known consequences of everyones actions. If you are a law abiding citizen and not running around causing trouble, and in your locked home. You should be protected and the criminals should be warned of the dangers of playing stupid games, they definitely win stupid prizes
Actually as long as they are precived as a threat to you or your family yes you can. Key words though they have to be a deadly THREAT. Or danger to you and your family.
Just as you had mentioned in one of your videos a gun is for someone to feel comfortable to deal with any situation without having to use it, exactly what I was told by my father, no one has the right to just use it otherwise criminals will make people regret owning guns because they know the law
Excellent video! As a trainer, one of the hardest things to get through some people’s heads is the very simple concept that you shouldn’t even draw unless you honestly think your life (or another’s) might become in danger and you definitely can’t shoot unless you honestly believe your life (or another’s) IS in danger. How hard is that to understand?? Once we have that foundational understanding, we can begin to elaborate and equivocate from there.
If you're in my domicile uninvited and didnt break food or drinks or you're armed I dont think I need to elaborate if my life is in danger. You're in my perimeter
@@lornenoland8098 Some people don't understand that they don't have to always shoot, they are so many cases of a homeowner/business owners simply presenting the firearm in a tactical advantage, ends the threat and them running away is a win for the homeowner/ business owner
U guys r wrong on this one. The reason he is in jail is because he made a statement to the police instead of making it to his lawyer and letting his lawyer then word it properly in a nonincriminating way to the police for him.
I’d like to hear or read more details on this situation. Too many holes in the story. Did the 2 have a weapon? How did they enter the home illegally? Break in? Running away means nothing if they have a weapon in their hands. Or even if you don’t see a weapon. There was a case here in Florida about 15 years ago where an elderly man didn’t shoot when 3 criminals broke into his home because they ran out the door when the old gentleman confronted them with a shotgun. As soon as they got outside, they fired several rounds through his living room window, killing the poor old guy. If someone has broken into your house at night, they aren’t there to bring you milk and cookies I can assure you. I don’t know how these two clowns can even comment on this without details. They are doing nothing but making assumptions. Maybe it wasn’t a “good shoot”. But maybe it was. As we all know, there are a lot of crooked prosecutors out there that will try to bring charges even when they know it was a “good shoot”.
^ this. Everyone's acting like "oh, they're running away from you, that just means they're trying to escape", but that's just an assumption, and a potentially deadly one if you're wrong. As you pointed out in your example, they may just be looking for a tactically superior position to engage you from. If you've broken into someone's home and they shoot you while you were actually just trying to escape out their door, and you never actually meant them harm and just wanted to rob the home, I'm sorry but the homeowner has no reason to believe you're actually fleeing over/instead of just seeking a tactical advantage, and the law shouldn't force them to assume that you are fleeing. It's very simple: if you don't want to get shot by someone in their home, all you have to do is not break into their home in the first place. As such, the homeowner should still be covered under Castle Doctrine, but as you and others have said, this will largely depend on your DA and how lousy the Castle Doctrine is in your state (and therefore how liberal your state is...).
This is key info, most people who arm themselves have thousands of hours of TV law, Gunsmoke, John Wayne etc. Unfortunately, the DA and cops don't speak Gunsmoke and John Wayne and probably will not accept, "They needed killing" as grounds for self defense.
You are the perfect person that needs to watch this video and educate yourself on the law. What’s gonna happen is you’re gonna end up in a situation where you shoot someone and you shouldn’t have. Education is the key. You don’t just get to shoot people because you feel like it because they’re sitting in your living room. If that’s what you think then you’ve completely missed everything in this video. Please it is important if you own a gun or carry a gun that you educate yourself.
I am not a murderer and I do not have an insatiable desire to use the ability to defend myself and/ or property. If they break in and then decide to run the threat is gone and I can let law enforcement do their job, such as it may be.
Exactly and if feel my life or my family's life is in danger by the constitution of the united states of America says u have the right to protect ur life and family by any means possible
You and your lawyer stated that the person retreated. You did not state if they were armed. They may have been retreating to go offensive. At one time in Alabama a retreat Bill was introduced in the state legislature. I would have required one to retreat to the furtherest part of one's home. Due to the firestorm raised by the Alabama Citizens the law failed in the legislature. In my opinion, you did not clear anything up. In fact you just confused things further. You told nothing about the trial or any trial points. Any 1st yr law student would have done this. As usual, you do not give the complete situation!
" John Wallace 3 days ago You and your lawyer stated that the person retreated. You did not state if they were armed. They may have been retreating to go offensive". A threat must be real, and it must be about to happen in the moment, what's in your little mind don't matter.
Common sense is really all you need. Common knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. They turned to run away. That indicates that they probably were unarmed. Why would they break into someone's house unarmed? They were not willing to kill. They only wanted to steal. They knew the risk they were taking. It was their decision to put themselves at risk instead of carrying weapons to protect themselves. In other words, they made the decision that if they were confronted in the act of committing their crime, they would rather die than kill an innocent person just so they could steal from him. The man provided one of them with exactly what they chose for themselves. I don't see a problem with what he did. I see a problem with the law. If someone enters my home while I am there, I will assume he's armed. I will not shoot him in the back, but I will not have a stare-down contest with him either. If he's unarmed, he will be wise to take his eyes off me and get himself into a submissive position immediately, without being told to do so. I walk through my dark house every night and have never seen anyone who shouldn't be there. When I was a kid, I was walking to the kitchen to get a drink. In the darkness, my sister was returning from the kitchen. We bumped each other in total darkness. I was scared until I heard her scream as she ran away. If an intruder scares me like that when I have a gun in my hand, it might not end well.
@@richardthomas6602 Nor really! Get some training, because your question alone says you don't have it. How do you know the difference between running away vs to cover? You only know that once the person is behind cover. So, what do you want to discuss here?
@@charliefoxtrot5001 well within the context of the video, it is the AG or ultimately the jury one has to articulate to why it was reasonable to assume the assailant was seeking a tactical advantage instead of seeking to vacate the premises. You may not think so, but this topic deserves a video discussion between Kevin and the attorney whose name excapes me at the moment.
@@richardthomas6602 So, you want to know if you can shoot a person that is running away and then claim self defense with the argument that the person was just seeking a tactical advantage by running away to seek cover? Sorry, but that's not how self defense law works, at all. You can only claim self defense if you are in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury, not if you think you might be in fear of death or serious bodily injury in the future because a guy running away may suddenly stop behind cover and start shooting at you. This is self defense law 101. The moment the threat stopped is the moment you need to stop shooting. You will be typically given a lag time to stop shooting of maybe a second or two, because it takes time for the brain to process the situation. After that, keep shooting and it becomes attempted murder or murder. This applies to all defense situations. For example, what if a guy is just temporarily slightly raising his hands and complying to gain the tactical advantage of situational awareness? Then, he kicks you in the teeth. No, you can't shoot a guy who is raising his hands and complying, just because you think he may kick you in the teeth. You are asking the wrong question. You are asking if you "can" shoot someone, which is never the right question. The right question is do you "have to" shoot someone. Understand that you not only need to survive the fight, but also the aftermath. When a guy is running away, you survived the fight at that point. Do you really want to spend tens-to-hundreds of thousands of Dollars in legal fees, lose your job and potentially go to jail over shooting someone running away? Get some training!
There ought to be a law that covers the people living there, no matter what. In a moment of panic, you don't comprehend if they are running away or at you. If you are not there, you don't know. Most prosecutors are just charging innocent citizens just because they can.
** My State of Delaware Is a Castle Doctrine state. I am familiar with that law. But now, I know/understand, that if an intruder (armed or unarmed) see my pistol and they turn and runaway, let them go. They no longer pose any type of deadly threat or bodily harm to me. They may get to live another day but, I get to stay out of jail. Education is everything 👍🏾**
Is your life or family's being threatened? Keep it simple. If you are looking for a legal excuse to kill someone, you need help, seriously. No responsible person wants to kill another. You will suffer emotionally when you kill a bad person, even when you were perfectly correct. God help you, if you shoot in the dark and kill an unannounced child or someone.
Not true. Youre just projecting cuz ur a liberal that LOVES criminals. You can ask soldiers if they have any emotional damage from killing Muslims, they will say they dont. I will happily kill criminals. Nobody is shooting some random child that some how broke in. Stop projecting ur lack of IQ points
3:00 The law assumes the person that is forcfully entering your house (Castle) uninvited has no ill will to do great bodily harm to the owner yet assuming the owner is the aggressor by not allowing the owner to preform at there penk of self awareness in a dangerous situation. Life or death, everyone has a plan Intel you get punched in the face with reality.
Generally, the Castle Doctrine presumes that a criminal will commit a violent act once unlawfully inside another person's home or car. That allows the home/car owner to use whatever force is reasonably necessary, including deadly force.
So basically, the judicial system in the United States are hypocritical and selective. Yet policemen can say “I feared for my life” and go home. So sad
I'm not a lawyer but basically the castle doctrine implies you have the right to defend yourself in your home but if you do so the state will charge you with criminal charges which technically means you don't are not allowed to defend yourself in your home. The laws state you have the right of self defense but if you do you become a criminal in the process by performing the job that police are supposed to be doing but can't. Here is the main problem the police do not have the authority or manpower to prevent a crime only to investigate to determine if a crime was committed. The law also states you have the right to be a victim of a crime and have the right to seek restitution but little good that will do if you are injured and maybe dead when you had the chance to defend yourself. So here is something to think about for all the folks out there that want to be protected the law is not in place to protect you it is there to provide a general guideline to give you the option of whether or not they should be followed and which one should apply to you on a daily basis.
Advice I was given by an attorney and an officer: If you are going to shoot someone, make sure they are dead or you will be sued into oblivion or face charges if it becomes their word against yours.
Facepalm! You literally have a former police officer and an attorney giving you advice in this video. Yes, there have been people that got convicted of murder for executing intruders.
@Tom Gulbranson oh well. As long as they are in my home I can do whatever I want to them. I dont care that society wants to coddle the mentally ill and the predators and the thieving thugs, if they are caught in my home, they are dead.
I’m in NY and I couldn’t care less about any of the unconstitutional laws tyrant hochul passed. If someone endangers my life or enters my house they will be in a body bag
Yes, know the laws. Also, we should change our laws to make breaking into a home a license to kill criminals. I’m against walking around my house if I hear something because it’s a risk. Security to alert you before anyone can even enter is essential. I feel that these laws give criminals too much leeway. I shouldn’t have to risk my life to search my home & wait to see a deadly threat or weapon before opening fire. That’s stupid. Breaking into a home is an intimate crime & violates our bubble of protection & security. Lawyers are the worst.
"please don't kill me" "Please dont hurt my family" You've just presented a credible fear for your life or family's life if anyone continues to assault or attempt to assault you.
I think the argument is situational too. 2am, 2 known junkies walking around in your home, forcible entry used, several home invasions and a history of peeping toms and creeps trying to break into homes and cars in the neighborhood, and you kill the sob's. obviously in the right. but this is very different from leaving your door open 12 in the afternoon on a Saturday and an unknown neighbor stumbles in for a beer, or some drunk kid doesnt know where he is and passes out on your couch and you blow his brains out, etc. Sometimes dementia patients wander into peoples homes with unlocked doors. Also, what if someone invites their enemy over acting as friends, and he thinks your pals, then he comes in an 'opened' door and you shoot him. I think what they're trying to say is that in most circumstances you are 100% in the right, but there are times where you cant just kill a dude simply for being on your property, especially if they are fleeing. This is why ring cameras are so valuable because you can catch the aggression and intentions of the perp before anything happens. having young kids at home also helps your case.
This is difficult for the typical, peaceful, law-abiding citizen to wrap his mind around. It seems the Laws make you a coward, powerless to anything to protect yourself or your loved ones. Be that as it may, the Laws clearly stipulate you can only defend agsinst an IMMINENT threat of great bodily harm or death, or against such an assault and battery that is in motion against you or a loved one. There is no such thing as, deferred self-defense. You're either defending against an incoming physical attack or one in progress. Once an assailant has ceased an attack and departs, you may not pursue nor assault him. It's hard to fathom, especially if some low-life clown runs up and whacks your child in the back of the head and runs off. You cannot go after the creep. The Laws regard that as vengeance and vigilantism. Laws are primarily focused on keeping the peace, so you going after the creep to beat him down is unlawful vigilantism. Now, you could attempt to grab and detain the perp in the name of making a citizen's arrest. But if you mess that up and make a mistake, not only are you liable for assault but also for unlawful detainment, possibly attempted kidnapping. Yes, it seems the Laws are not there to protect as you expect or hope it should.
"equalize the playing field with the bad guys"??? in MY home? so now home owners are required to think like lawyers during home invasions or burglaries....interesting concept.
Doubt is the reason a home owner is not able to shoot invaders into his home, and not threatened by the invaders that he can prove a reason to be fearful; but if the invaders are armed and only turned away from the home owner; doesn't mean they are trying to flee; but get a better attacking area to go against the home owner you do not have to prove any thing; but your own fear at the time for your or another's life !...
This literally makes no sense. Castle Doctrine gives me the presumption of being threatened, but I am not allowed to act unless I am threatened? What sense does that make? How am I going to know if I am being threatened unless they make the first move? And if they make the move to harm me, I wouldn't need Castle Doctrine to justify my force. This seems useless and sounds like a good way to make scared homeowners go to jail for defending their property.
You clearly misunderstood the video and the law. The case in PA was about a homeowner who was purposely shooting at someone running away to, in his own words, "not let him get away". He is now facing murder charges. Once a home intruder runs away and stops being a threat, let them run away. Don't let your ego or emotions get you a ticket to jail!
Even if fleeing who is to say they won't just regroup and com back or running to get cover to shoot. If the law was home owners could shoot whenever people are trespassing "IN" the house not just on the land. Then I'm positive robberies and home invasions would go down because there are REAL consequences.
Get some training! The case in PA was about a homeowner who was purposely shooting at someone running away to, in his own words, "not let him get away". He is now facing murder charges. Once a home intruder runs away and stops being a threat, let them run away. Don't let your ego or emotions get you a ticket to jail!
They should make it that if anybody is breaking into your home, you have the right to kill them whether it’s in the front or in the back in every state. After all, they should not even be there in the first place. The way I see it, if the burglar breaks it to somebody else’s house and anything bad happens to him or her, that’s on that individual and not on nobody else. This is utterly BS that the homeowners getting charged.
The homeowner got charged for knowingly shooting at someone who had clearly given up and was clearly running away. No longer a threat, so no longer a self defense situation. The homeowner even admitted that he was purposely shooting at someone that was running away and was no longer a threat. 🤦
Then do not break into other people’s house in the middle of the night. The law is empowering the bad guys to do what ever they want and get away without consequences. So stupid.
I guess maybe citizens should change the law, because this one's unjust...you don't get to violate people's or their homes. Fear of death is the only option.
The case in PA was about a homeowner who was purposely shooting at someone running away to, in his own words, "not let him get away". He is now facing murder charges. Once a home intruder runs away and stops being a threat, let them run away. Don't let your ego or emotions get you a ticket to jail!
For me it know the target that includes threat level I don't want to shoot someone who got the wrong house, I had that happen one night I though I lock all the doors, it was sometime between 3:00 and 4:00 I heard a noise grab my gun and started checking the house ( if you don't have good night vision don't do this) I check the front door it was lock and out side was a car not one of mine I slowly enter the living room and there on the couch was a sleeping drunk so I went into the kitchen and put on the coffee I could see him from there, I poured me some coffee and got a book to read D&D about a Cleric Love Clerics when he woke up I gave him a cup of coffee, you ever see someone wake up and realize they don't know were they are, well it turn out he live about 4 miles away and our houses are the same color wrong side of the road though, Now remember I shot a burglar once I was 11 years old and I knew he was bad, I have taken guns away from bad people and knives I spent 28 years in EMS saving lives, having to take a life would be hard and I never forgive the person who force me to shoot them. I would not have cleared the house but I had to make sure my little girls were safe.
What gets a lot of armed homeowners screwed when they use lethal force against burglars, or whatnot, is that they shoot or continue to shoot at the intruder as they are actively running away. Basically, don’t shoot people in the back. You’re going to jail 9/10 times if you do and the the prosecutor can prove the “victim” was actively fleeing/retreating.
That seems to be such a stupid argument on the prosecutors end. You are still defending your stand. They shouldn't have entered your home knowing they could have lethal force applied either. Just protecting the criminals.
Doesn't Pennsylvania have stand your ground? The locks on your doors and windows, are in place for the safety of home invaders. These weak laws and DOJ need to make criminals not want to illegally break into a private dwelling because it would be a death wish. By making stricter laws for criminals and better rights for private citizens in their own homes minding their own business.
The case in PA was about a homeowner who was purposely shooting at someone running away to, in his own words, "not let him get away". He is now facing murder charges. Once a home intruder runs away and stops being a threat, let them run away. Don't let your ego or emotions get you a ticket to jail!
Texas law (Texas Penal Code chapter 9) allows use of deadly force when the actor believes themselves to be in imminent jeopardy. It also allows me to use deadly force to protect a 3rd party in any scenario where I would be justified in using it to defend myself. If the badguys were trying to leave there is NO WAY I would have discharged my weapon. If an intruder were in my home, my only goal would be to keep them from harming me or mine. If they stared trying to leave then I and my loved ones are no longer in jeopardy. Bedides, even withnTexas law shielding me from lawsuit if the shooting was justified, lawsuits are a hassle any sane person would want to avoid. I feel for the homeowner (am nd especially his family) but he screwed the pooch mightily there. Never discharge a weapon willy nilly - not even at the range!
Can you please suggest to me the best type of pepper spray in your opinion. It drives me nuts reading through all these different kinds that are supposed to be rated the best and then all of them have crap load of bad reviews and good. What would you suggest? I am working on getting some charges that were dismissed expunged from my record so I can start the process and legally own a firearm again. During this time I have been very interested in non-lethal means. If you can suggest a good pepper spray and also, pepper ball gun, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you!
There are literally only two types: spray and gel/stream. Spray works faster, but doesn't travel that far and blows with the wind. Pepper gel/stream goes farther and doesn't blow with the wind, but also takes slightly longer to work. There are only two recommended companies: Sabre Red and Fox Labs. Use one with a flip-top safety, as they are easier to disengage and don't accidentally engage in your pants pocket (like the twist safeties). Recommended: - Sabre Red tactical Pepper Gel - Fox labs Mean Green Pepper Spray with Marking Dye
In my thoughts I find if some one breaks in your house. You state have a firearm and I have called the police. It's up to them after that. If someone came down my hallway after I got out of bed and stated that it's lights out. Even in the front room cover and state.
Can you guys do a video on self-defense in hurricane situations and the aftermath? I am in Panama City Florida and crime got really scary here after Hurricane Michael
The first words I learned in Bosnian were "Stop or I'll shoot! (Stani! Ili pukkam!"). Before I deployed there, I went through a class on rules of engagement. Assuming time allowed, if someone was approaching our position whose intentions were unknown, we were to warn them in English and Bosnian, then rack the slide (wasting a round if necessary...this, by the way, is the international language for "Stop or I'll shoot"). After that, if they continued to advance, we were "cleared hot".
Want more Tom Grieve videos? Check out his channel here: ua-cam.com/channels/4M5RxIcp5H9lRiVC33TwFA.html
I live in a two-bedroom apartment with one way in One Way out what do I do the guy leaves but comes back with five to six other guys I'm just curious because I am a new gun owner I live in Tucson
Does this apply with felons
It is truly sad when the criminal is given more rights than the law abiding citizen.
=FOR GOVERNMENT EVERY COMMON PEOPLE ARE CATTLE,THEIR OWN PROPERTY....PROPERTY,UNDERSTAND??
.......THEY'RE STRIPPING PEOPLE OUT OF BASIC RIGHTS BECAUSE OF THAT'S HOW THEY'RE MAKING THEIR LIVESTOCK BETTER,AS IF SOMEONE HARM CRIMINALS,THEY ALSO MAY HARM OFFICIALS IF THEY WOULD DO THE SAME
@@aaronsmith7946 Yes, if its your life vs theres yes. Violence protects you. Police you violence to protect you. The threat of VIOLENCE protects your country from Nuclear attack, dont be an idiot. Your society has been MADE and is PROTECTED BY VIOLENCE. Deal with it.
@aaronsmith7946 you are a criminal apologist aren't ya
@@aaronsmith7946 It was a crime for them to be in his home. They were criminals invading his home. Yes, he had the right to use deadly force. If you don't want to be shot and killed, don't invade someone's home. This outcome is all on the criminals, not the home owner.
@@krisswegemer1163 Why don't you read what I wrote again before responding? I wrote that if someone was invading the home with an intention to do the person harm or the homeowner believing that the person intended to do them harm, they can shoot them. However, it's only under THOSE circumstances in which a person can kill someone because they are on their property.
However, my comment was indeed accurate and not just that, quite reasonable. If you just read what I wrote instead of assuming you know what I wrote, you would read the cases in which a person does not have the right to just kill someone. If someone just happens to be on your property, no you do not have the right to just shoot them. Further, if they happen to be in your home and you admit to not believing they intended you any harm and you kill them, anyway, you not only can go to jail, but in almost all cases WILL go to jail. There really isn't anything confusing about this and I could go through scenario by scenario and example as to why the law makes sense and is just in not allowing you to just take the life of a person who poses no threat of bodily harm or to your life.
I also cited a few of the cases that had just been in the news around the time I wrote that response such as the high school student who actually went to the wrong house and rang on the doorbell and was shot at. There was the case in which a person simply pulled into someone else's driveway so they could turn their vehicle around because they were not familiar with the area and had gone the wrong way and got shot and killed for it...and that person is in prison now. I don't think I need to say anymore. If you can't comprehend what I just wrote and you cannot understand why someone should not be taking the life of someone who they do not believe poses any threat to them, I nor anyone else can help you.
Controversial I know but all rights of an intruder should go out the window when they decide to enter against permission.
Tottaly agree. Face the consequences
Disagree that the thought that a home invader is free game once he enters your home unlawfully and by force is controversial. Seems to me to be common sense...
@@animeyhem9780 apparently to argue over this point seems to suggest that it is not so common.
@@MrRadScar or that common sense is what is in short supply...
@@animeyhem9780 they threw common sense out when, they Broke into my House
Until real consequences are given to criminals crime will keep rising. Any intruder should be treated as a serious threat.
What If A Person Accidentally Enters The Wrong House, Or Even Knocks At The Wrong Door, Looking For Someone That Gave Them The Wrong Address By Accident? Do THEY Deserve To Get Shot And Killed??? WAY TOO MANY Shootings Occuring By Insecure Gun Owners, (Assuming That EVERY Gun Owner Is "Law Abiding"), That Shouldn't Be Having A Gun In The First Place!!! NOT ALL Gun Related Deaths Are Attributed To Criminal Activity. There Are Accidental, Suicide, Carelessness And Innocent Victims Being Killed As Gun Fatalities. Thinking Narrow Mindedly About Gun Ownership, (As The NRA Keeps Promoting), IS VERY STUPID Indeed...
@@davemckolanis4683 if they “enter” the wrong house they absolutely are obligated to face self defense consequences from the homeowner. If they knock on the wrong door then no.
@@davemckolanis4683how many Intruder stories have you heard where someone knocks on someone's door and politely asked to be let in before robbing and killing the homeowner. we're not talking about people that knock on doors were talking about people that break them in.
@@ominousentity1115 WOW... Another NRA NINCOMPOOP, With Your Hypothetical FEAR Infected WHAT-IF Stories. The Examples I Give Are TRUE Happenings Sonny Boy. NOT NRA WHAT-IF, Tales. I've Undoubtedly Been In MORE Near Miss Gun Incidents, LOST Friends To Gun Related Accidents And Suicides, And Even A Terrorist Attack Shooting Up A Restaurante, With People Crawling Out The Doors Trying To Escape. Something You NO DOUBT May NEVER Experience. Kiddo, You Are FEAR INFECTED By The NRA Craziness, That Is Needlessly Costing About 40K Americans THEIR LIVES EVERY YEAR. Last Count A Couple Of Weeks Ago, There Were Already Over 200 MASS Shootings In This Country, (Meaning The Killing Of 4-People Or More At One Time), Which Is MORE Than One For Every Day This Year. And NOT Including The Single Murders, Accidents And Suicides. SMARTEN UP Kiddo. You're Only FOOLING YOURSELF.
@@jeffmonson_666_Angel_slayer😅😅😅😅 go read your first comment you made 😂😂😂😂 you big silly
I keep wondering who keep making these helpless criminals break into people's homes and why the police in America can virtually never find the bad guy and the good guys are fair game
Look LEFT...far LEFT.
The Cartel makes over a 100 billion a year profit for drug and human trafficking and 60% of Cartel $$$ go to bribery aka "Plata o Plomo." (research further)
Check out the "Plata o Plomo" billboard in El Paso.
@@relicpathfinder2800 yea becasue the left want people to break into their houses?
@@relicpathfinder2800the cops are mostly right wingers.... so yeah no
According to socialists it is the fault of society.
So in a free society socialists defend criminals by insisting that "capitalism" (free commerce) caused it.
But if the socialist gets their way then criminals become an embarrassment, they shouldn't exist in their socialist utopia so they get "disappeared" or politicized.
This is an interesting conversation, in my state we have the Castle Doctrine and the stand your ground law and I'm glad we do but it is important to understand how it works and how to understand how it helps your case. Staying out of a gun fight is always the best case scenario.
With these laws we might as well just let criminals kill us it's a joke!
@@raptorman48 Yep pretty much.
Not only that he's stealing property or leaving the scene going to be very difficult even in a Castle Doc or SYG state to articulate the facts and circumstance that will justify a lethal force response. Always remember Circumstances dictate response.
@@johnhalpin1847 Agree John
If it's nighttime, shoot. If it's daytime ask them politely to leave and then shoot.
Fleeing perps have turned around and shot as they’re running through the door. They have regrouped or got backup from outside and came back in armed
This guy got the same charges as someone who walks into work and just starts shooting people. And that’s insane
Land of the free criminals
Kevin, the situation that you're describing, is why I recommend having CCTV (not these cameras that upload to the internet horse drek!) security IN your home. SItuations like this, having video footage of what happened, might be the difference between going home, and going to prison.
While by no means am I saying that its JUSTIFIED that we need to have cameras running inside our houses to prove our own innocence... these be the times that we live it, damn it all.
@@WarriorSoul44 The problem is our system. If someone breaks into the home, there should NEVER be an instance where someone has to go to prison. Your home is your castle. Thats why as a country we need to FORCE these changes and laws to be repealed where we can not protect ourselves.
The key take away is to keep your mouth shut until your lawyer gets there.
In this case, they will away, only to come back later, count on it!
I have been in a lethal Force encounter at my home. I fired and came out on top in the situation. Even if you come out on top, there is nothing glorious about it. The adrenaline dump and the ensuing thoughts years after the fact are not that pleasant.
You should elaborate on your incident, if you'd care too.
You did right , let it go, move on . I defended myself with a skateboard back in the day , have no regrets. Fyi I'm 50 yrs. 100% self defense and sleep like a baby
You have nothing to think about that worries you. I had nightmares from my actions in the 1991 Gulf War. My doctors wanted to help me with "Forget this or that." My best action was to live with it! I have great dreams of protecting my self - the people that died by my hand were attacking me and I did my best, and I am still here. I sleep great after I changed how - I made it , they did not.
@@kaju1722 my wife's ex husband and the biological father of my son. I had fought him twice over the course of a few years. He beat her and endangered my son's life and stole property from both of them. The day before the incident, he poured lighter fluid all over our porch and sent a message bragging about it. "I heard that the devil pissed on your porch"
This was the message. Next day, I just got off work and heard a vehicle pull into my driveway. I look and see the vehicle that he(Justin) was known to be driving.
I walked outside with a shotgun and told him to leave. He picked up a pistol from his lap and pointed it at me. I stepped laterally behind the pillar, then one more lateral step to the right of the pillar and fired through the windshield of that vehicle.
Bird shot plus glass went into his face, neck, shoulder, chest, and abdomen. He drove away screaming to God.
He lived and never went to jail for his shenanigans, but most importantly, he never harassed my family again.
The gun he pointed at me was recovered by the police and it was a toy airsoft pistol(he is a felon and cannot purchase a firearm legally).
@@Diondjg1369 it's been some years now so the dreams have stopped. Thank you.
Glad you came out on top in your situation.
Cheers from Texas.
My view of the reason I carry a firearm and arm myself in my home is to remove the threat. If that means the bad guy lays down on the floor and surrenders until the cops take him away, the threat has been removed. If the bad guy turns and runs away after seeing that I have a gun, the threat has been removed. If I ever have to take a life to remove the threat, my life, no matter how justified, will be changed forever. Something to think about.
i agree i love this point you made!!
Nobody knows whats in the minds of "criminals".
Who is a criminal? Someone who has committed a crime. What is a crime? All of the statutes listed in criminal codes.
Does the presence of "strangers" in the house makes them criminals? If this is not spelled out clearly in criminal codes then its a big problem for the homeowners. And this must be a universal law instead of being "unique" to states or localities.
"Ambiguity" in law is the REAL CRIME!
As usual if it was plainly written and explained lawyers would not be needed
@@11231pjs There should be No need for Lawyers!
"The number of Lawyers is directly proportional to the level of corruption in a system."©
@@transcend3145 Agreed
Through no fault of your own the legal system makes you a criminal for defending yourself.
Listening to this cop, and this lawyer is the equivalent of a man receiving dating advice from a woman, how many women has she dated? She is going to tell you what she would like for her personal gain if you were dating her, not what would be in your best interest. If the system makes us a criminal than we need advice from criminals who beat the system, not from people who profit from the system, this is a conflict of interest in a propaganda format.
If someone breaks something in order to gain entry into your home uninvited, then it's safe to assume criminal intent as they in that moment have committed criminal action.
At that moment you have to decide if that action = eminent death or bodily harm to you and your family. Nobody can tell you how you feel. They may try to, but only you and God know your heart and mind.
For me, if someone forces their way into my home, they are a threat to me and my family. Period.
In Texas that's a different story.........
Please elaborate more respectfully. I’m interested in learning the difference.
Not as much as you might think
Same in Oklahoma, we have the Make my day law.
@@mervfohoh Look it up for yourself, never rely on second hand info!👌
I live in Texas and I'm 71 and if someone kicks in my door and enters unlawfully can expect to eat a bullet. Plain and simple!
Don’t talk to police.
Ask to be taken to the hospital.
Remember the shop owner in Cali that had a heart attack after driving off a robber?
You can call your lawyer at the hospital.
And then talk to police after.
yes 100% not this crap these two are talking
Let your lawyer speak. Don't say anything to the police at all other than saying you're exercising your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Smart advice. The police do not ask questions for your benefit. They are building a case AGAINST you based on what you tell them. If there are others living in your house, educate them on this, because they'd likely still feel obligated to spill everything to the cops that show up. Lawyer should be present first and let THEM do the talking.
Eh, I would disagree. If there are bad guys in my house, I have to assume they came in for a reason and if I let them go, they may come back. So I can live forever in fear, or send them back to the maker for reprogramming.
The law may disagree, but those change from time to time and place to place.
You can do whatever you like, and face the consequences.
K dummy
@@kaju1722 Ever hear" I rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 " Survival first ,drop the perps IM not interpreting the actions of people who broke into my home .
@@papimaximus95 Good luck being murdered by intruders
I would think that they didn’t break in to play checkers. Things happen fast and I have a wife and daughter in my home. I’m gonna do what is necessary to protect my family.
I caught trespassers in my utility room a few times, one time I went out there with my gun, I tell them to leave, they did. I don't know if they saw my gun, but they complied. I can't shoot them if they follow my order to get out.
lmaooo if a person is in my house and they broke in and is trespassing aint no way im not shooting them tf even if u tell them leave who to say they wont come back and that time kill u im not talking once u in my house im shooting until the threat is gone yall crazy
Did you attempt to call the police first or did you encounter the trespassers on your own ?
@@XX-166 No, I saw them through a hole in my bedroom wall. I grabbed my .38 and went into the room.
@@podsmpsg1 nice try.. be glad it worked out for ya and you’re not washing out your cellmates underwear in the toilet for the next 10 years.
100% correct, well done!
I’m in Tennessee and we have castle. However all intruder encounters are not alike. My brother who lives way back on a farm 3/4 miles off road heard a banging on his front door at 2:30 AM and an unknown male trying to pull the door off the hinges .But something just didn’t look right when he looked thru the doors sidelight pane . Turned out it was a mentally challenged teenager who had run away at night, gotten lost in the woods and freezing rain , who was terrified and only wanted saved . The Sheriff Dept was thrilled and had been searching for him .
Good thing your brother is not a gun wacko that thinks they can shoot at anyone who dares to touch their property.
@danielamador4306 Better than wackos that use abortion as a contraceptive. And pretend it’s not murder.
If you are going to keep firearms in your home for the purposes of home/self defense, you MUST educate yourself on the laws in your state and/or local jurisdiction. To ignore this basic concept of common sense can result in tragic consequences. If you are unwilling to learn the laws in your area, do NOT keep firearms in your home. It is a serious responsibility to be informed.
No expert ; but at 0:47 went he said in 911 call..."didn't want them to get away". You got some explaining to do. Think he said too much...lets see or listen
You will be questioned. Your words can be used against you. Choose your words carefully.
"Why did you shoot? What position were you and the intruder in when you fired? Did you perceive an immediate threat to your life? Why did you fire at that particular moment? Could you have done something else besides shooting them? Why didnt you just tell them the police were on the way?Why didnt you try using a knife or hammer or that bat over there next to the closet? Why did you fire multiple times? Did they try running away? Did you chase them and did they turn away from you? Did you try doing first aid after you shot them? Did you wait before calling 911? How long?" etc...
You HAVE TO be able to answer questions like these in a way that will NOT incriminate you. CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY
@@davidmickles5012 Or don't CHOOSE WORDS at all....call your lawyer , if you don't have one you still can remain silent until you can get one. Even a legal aid. DON'T PUT OUT BAD ADVICE. DON'T self incriminate by talking when you don't have to
Exactly 💯
Unconstitutional illegal laws are not common sense. You are clearly a muppet of the most corrupt tyrant liar Governor newsom
It’s amazing how many people just think you can start shooting whenever you want. In my ccw class they showed scenarios and one was a video of a teenager getting grabbed and put in a van outside of target and when the instructor asked everyone what they would do, everyone but me said they would start shooting the van up. When he told them they would all be in jail because that was actually some parents who grabbed their runaway teenager they all acted surprised that they would get arrested for shooting them.
Yes, but if you are in your locked house and not in the street. And criminals illegally break in and enter your home, is a totally different scenario.
Having a ccw and knowing when and when not to use your firearm to defend yourself or others in imanent danger of grave bodily harm or death, in public is a totally different situation then illegally coming into your private secure structure. No criminal has good intentions when illegally entering a private dwelling, especially knowing that people are home. Have no good intentions or are capable of violence towards you and your family.
"FEAR" of Imminent Death does not go away just because a home invader turns and runs for the door. You don't flip off FEAR like a light switch. Charging a homeowner because he didn't immediately flip off the FEAR switch is absurd.
@@johnwatson9518 Fear must always be tempered with reason. Irrational fear (they are moving away) is still fear, but doesn't justify a shot. Reasonable fear (they are facing me, esp. moving toward me) justifies it. You can't be twitchy and expect to not get in trouble.
@@superstallion97 some states you have a duty to retreat even in a break in scenario.
Understand all of this BUT, why does the thugs, the criminals have the edge here. If someone is in my house at the wee hours of the morning, and I sure as hell didn’t invite them , they are SOL! I aim not chasing them, let a bullet chase them.
wake up, these people were in ur home, after that it's on, change the laws, people are way more aggressive when it comes to evil. give property owners an equal playing field to stop these bastards without 2nd guessing from the prosecution. common every day people should not be prosecuted just because they don't know the exact extent of the law for protecting themselves
Shooting someone in the back is murder, especially if they are unarmed and fleeing.
Did you not listen to the conversation on the legalities of the actions of the man who shot these people as they fled? Why on God’s green earth would you want to kill a man and a woman who were running away from you, running out the door, simply because they were (past tense) unlawfully in your home. Guys like you with your twisted sense of six shooter Justice just chaff my butt.
There was no immediate or articulable threat to his safety as they turned and ran away with no weapons seen (or later found) meaning they were unarmed and could not be a threat as they fled.
This man will now be forced to sell everything he has spent his life accumulating, including using his life savings and all his investments, 401K, stocks, bonds…in order to pay a lawyer to attempt to keep him out of prison. Even if the D.A. decided not to prosecute (fat chance) the civil suit would wipe him out financially. But, I guess one needs to be able to critically think and be able to control one’s emotions when it comes to a situation like they were describing.
@@timvest8141 No, it's homicide, murder is intent to kill, specifically. Had he stood over them and shot them to death after they went down and had visibly given up, that's murder. Self defense is homicide, though justifiable.
@@Scotta1atgmaildotcom that was not self defense. They were running away. If that had of been a cop shooting a black man in the back they would be burning down cities.
@@timvest8141 adding emotion into the discussion has no bearing on the matter at hand. A threat is still present unless clear capitulation has occurred. Unless of course you're careless, then the cost goes way up. It doesn't matter where you hit, of the person isn't legally there, they lose the right to be protected by the law.
Thanks for the content, always good to keep everyone informed. Limitations of certain laws like this, you need to know what you can and can't do, what's self defense and what's murder. This makes all gun owners look crazy, we need to constantly educate ourselves if you're going to carry. It's a right, but a great responsibility, not to sound like a comic book... 😀 😜
Lord knows, we do stupid things sometimes. This example is a case in point.
How can we expect crazy liberals not to take advantage of our own craziness?
@@johncox2865 I disagree, I believe most lawful gun owners make good decisions and are responsible with their Constitutional Right. However, there are a few that are new to it, especially in the last few years, all and need the education. Continuously educating the rules of gun safety and self defense is something everyone,even the most experienced, can benefit from.
Correct, except for *you're
@@artmallory970 OK youtube Grammer nazi!🤣
Why do the prosecutor’s always want to attack the person defending themselves or their property??
YOU CAN'T KILL PEOPLE OVER PROPERTY.
@@NCLUSA IN TEXAS YOU CAN
@@jeffsond And you might go to jail too, or at best you will lose everything you own in the process.
@@NCLUSA that’s why you need to know the law and follow it and have uscca on your side.
@@jeffsond Not everyone lives in Texas, and even in Texas if you kill a person over property, you will still be dragged through court for the rest of your life, was your TV worth your life?.
Thankfully the law is extremely easy to understand and not complicated at all
Oh contraire...I'm 65. Have three autoimmune disorders, osteoporosis, blown disk, and COPD...I'm not fighting anyone, disparity of force means I don't have to. I'm in fear for my safety...sucks to be them
One fellow had criminals in his house who told the homeowner that it was against the law for the homeowner to shoot him. The homeowner replied, When you are in my house it's not the law you have to worry about.
the irony is if he ran from the cops they'd gun him down just the same as he did to the home invades except they'd get no jail time
Whatever action you take, just be willing to go through a life changing experience. There’s nothing pleasant about it. Don’t do anything you’ll regret
Look I listen to enough rap music to not feel bad about clapping the ops 😂 insert sarcasm
When it comes to your wife and children, I'd gladly spend time in prison than at one of their funerals.
Then don't own a gun for self defense if that's the case.
Absolutely ridiculous, the law needs to change. If a person decides to physically and violently break in and enter a private locked dwelling without permission from the owner, has no reason to be there bottomline. And if you have to wait to see whose turn it is next to make a move, you could be dead. Once a person decides to illegally enter, a private dwelling, they are a criminal and you have no idea what is going through that criminals mind or if they have weapons.
my home is invaded and i am/my family is under attack.
as soon as someone breaks into my house they sign there life away. they are breaking the law
They may be breaking the law but if they run away and you shoot them in the back you can be charged with murder. Remember there is no threat to you or your family when they are running away from you. Call the police after they run.
Do cops shoot someone the second they see them breaking the law, no. If you stand by your statement you'll be going to prison.
Someone breaking the law does not give you the right to use lethal force.
@@charliefoxtrot5001 unless they are a threat to you or your family’s life. You do have the right to protect yourself and your family. Neutralize the treat with lethal force if need be.
@@johnnegron4950 Yes, but that's not what the post I replied you is arguing!
There is a lot of stupid chest thumping in this video's comment section by people who have no clue about the law or about the consequences of a defensive shooting.
If anyone comes into my home uninvited I will not leave any witnesses! Anyone that violates someone else domain should expect to die on the spot! Why give them another opportunity to rob or kill someone else!
Hey, as long as you’re willing to lose everything, including your freedom and comfortable bed to spend time in prison, just go right ahead. Just think it all the way through. Good luck.
@@geedubb2005 If I lose my freedom because someone invaded my home, then we do not have freedom! That’s as ridiculous as hell to think you or anyone else can invade someone’s home and not know the property owner might take your life! What to hell is wrong with you!
@@geedubb2005 Found the coward!
your side of the story is always right if there is no other side to dispute it.
And here it is the typical ignorant gun wacko. Afraid of his on shadow if he doesn’t have a gun.
The part they’re avoiding talking about here is the fact that the homeowner willfully admitted that they were running away. Castle doctrine states that the “unlawfully REMAIN on your property.” All it would’ve taken is for the homeowner to say “they were running at me!”
a great case of 'less is more,' TALK LESS! in a sitch like this you don't run your mouth. keep it simple - after the self protection sitch is under control you call 911, state your address & state 'home invasion, i repeat home invasion' then SHUT. THE. HELL. UP!
This reminds of a case in my home state of Michigan. A lady knocked on a mans door in the middle of the night to ask for help. He then shot her through a screen door and claimed self defense. From what i remember thats what happened and i believe he is in prison now.
The question that sticks in my mind in cases involving the shooting of a fleeing armed suspect is that suspects can and do reach back and shoot while running away, or may be heading for cover from which to shoot. It seems a victim may be faced with a choice of holding fire and hoping the criminal does as well, or else shooting and practically guarantee going to jail. This applies in both castle doctrine situations and on the street. What's the right answer?
There may not be a right answer, as was prefaced each state's laws are different. TBH, with our laws in FL, even if the perp is retreating from within the house, I'm still taking my shots to completely stop the threat. My answer to the rebuttal is that he may be going to retrieve a [deadlier] weapon and may return, how would you know otherwise. Also, what if the perp escaped, how would you know if he won't come back another day and bring other weapons?!? Sorry not sorry, I'm stopping the threat to the best of my abilities, even if that means I'm going to jail, my family comes first.
The right answer begins with "Quit prosecuting the victims." It's reasonable to expect a burglar to be armed if he/she burglarizes a house while the tenant/owner is there. That's what I expect, as everyone should. The right answer ends with not shooting someone in the back if the only move he/she makes is to retreat. If they fire a shot, then turn to run away, they should be fair game. I understand that a man might not know for sure if the burglar is armed, but with them running away, no one was making him remain in their line of sight. He could have easily stepped inside. That's common sense. Not visible = not a target.
Presenting the smallest target possible increases life expectancy.
@@lordtule665 One of the only states that has it written correctly.."Burden of proof in a self defense shooting falls strictly on the state to prove otherwise" As long as you don't say anything stupid the state has to PROVE you weren't in fear for your life. Innocent until proven guilty. Good job Florida.
The "right" answer is if they are running and shoot back while running you can shoot them. If not you cant.
In the same vein you cant just shoot someone who snatched your purse because you chased them and they "could" have had a knife when you chased them.
So here’s a question. Since castle doctrine gives you a rebuttable presumption for the use of deadly force, can you say that if the person that you find downstairs in your kitchen looks up and pulls out a knife or a gun then castle doctrine allows you to then use deadly force. For argument sake, let’s say they pull out the weapon and make a threatening comment like I’m gonna cut you without making a threatening motion with the weapon. I am seeing that as the homeowner I now have a right to use deadly force on that individual.
I am definitely no expert (and not a lawyer) but from living in PA with castle doctrine my understanding is you don't need as much of a reason for deadly force but you still need a reason. In this example, the home owner's first shot was justified (based on my understanding of castle doctrine) but once they began to flee and he continued to fire, that's where the line was crossed. At the moment his life or home was no longer at risk because they were attempting to escape. Had they taken cover and returned fire or threatened harm without leaving then I believe he'd still be justified to fire because the threat was still present. In your example you'd be justified in using deadly force especially if they're holding a weapon, now if they drop that weapon and begin to run and you shoot, now you committed a murder because the threat was gone and you still shot. It's a very fine line between justified and crime which is why, as a gun owner, education and training is the most important tool you can have. Situational awareness is above all the most important skills to learn. My hope is that no gun owner ever wishes to take a life even when a threat arises but the ability to determine when there is no other option is the best thing to learn. Yes they're criminals and could have been a threat but once they begin to flee then you hold off the trigger and be happy that no life has to be lost in that moment. Sorry for the long rant, and again not a lawyer so don't take my full word on it, it's just my understanding of how it works through what I've learned.
Whatever you do don't explain yourself on the 911 call or to the police. Everything you say can and will be used against you in court. Call a lawyer.
depends on if there are two sides of the story to choose between............
Yes it does. If they dont have CCTV footage. Its your words vs words of a dead person.
Its like those police officers with camera video saying their life was in danger when that cat scratched at them so they shot the cat lady 90 times.
If the laws don't get stricter against criminals, then these career criminals will continue to run around and it will be lawlessness. There must be order and clear known consequences of everyones actions. If you are a law abiding citizen and not running around causing trouble, and in your locked home. You should be protected and the criminals should be warned of the dangers of playing stupid games, they definitely win stupid prizes
Sometimes it seems like the laws are more in the criminal favor
Here in Michigan, once they Forcibly Cross Your Threshold, It's OPEN SEASON!
Actually as long as they are precived as a threat to you or your family yes you can.
Key words though they have to be a deadly THREAT. Or danger to you and your family.
Just as you had mentioned in one of your videos a gun is for someone to feel comfortable to deal with any situation without having to use it, exactly what I was told by my father, no one has the right to just use it otherwise criminals will make people regret owning guns because they know the law
Excellent video!
As a trainer, one of the hardest things to get through some people’s heads is the very simple concept that you shouldn’t even draw unless you honestly
think your life (or another’s) might become in danger and you definitely can’t shoot unless you honestly believe your life (or another’s) IS in danger.
How hard is that to understand??
Once we have that foundational understanding, we can begin to elaborate and equivocate from there.
If you're in my domicile uninvited and didnt break food or drinks or you're armed I dont think I need to elaborate if my life is in danger. You're in my perimeter
@Neil Carpenter Guns N Glory bruh exactly
@@ron7447 nope, that’s not what anybody is saying. Did you even watch the video explaining castle doctrine??
I see the internet tough guys are out in force. Morally, I might agree with y’all, but the law doesn’t
@@lornenoland8098 Some people don't understand that they don't have to always shoot, they are so many cases of a homeowner/business owners simply presenting the firearm in a tactical advantage, ends the threat and them running away is a win for the homeowner/ business owner
U guys r wrong on this one. The reason he is in jail is because he made a statement to the police instead of making it to his lawyer and letting his lawyer then word it properly in a nonincriminating way to the police for him.
I’d like to hear or read more details on this situation. Too many holes in the story. Did the 2 have a weapon? How did they enter the home illegally? Break in? Running away means nothing if they have a weapon in their hands. Or even if you don’t see a weapon. There was a case here in Florida about 15 years ago where an elderly man didn’t shoot when 3 criminals broke into his home because they ran out the door when the old gentleman confronted them with a shotgun. As soon as they got outside, they fired several rounds through his living room window, killing the poor old guy. If someone has broken into your house at night, they aren’t there to bring you milk and cookies I can assure you. I don’t know how these two clowns can even comment on this without details. They are doing nothing but making assumptions. Maybe it wasn’t a “good shoot”. But maybe it was. As we all know, there are a lot of crooked prosecutors out there that will try to bring charges even when they know it was a “good shoot”.
^ this. Everyone's acting like "oh, they're running away from you, that just means they're trying to escape", but that's just an assumption, and a potentially deadly one if you're wrong. As you pointed out in your example, they may just be looking for a tactically superior position to engage you from.
If you've broken into someone's home and they shoot you while you were actually just trying to escape out their door, and you never actually meant them harm and just wanted to rob the home, I'm sorry but the homeowner has no reason to believe you're actually fleeing over/instead of just seeking a tactical advantage, and the law shouldn't force them to assume that you are fleeing. It's very simple: if you don't want to get shot by someone in their home, all you have to do is not break into their home in the first place. As such, the homeowner should still be covered under Castle Doctrine, but as you and others have said, this will largely depend on your DA and how lousy the Castle Doctrine is in your state (and therefore how liberal your state is...).
Yeah you're right. Them running away doesn't necessarily mean you win and the fight is over. Do your due diligence.
Simple answer. Just shoot them. No warning, if they are dead, it's your story vs. ..... ah some one who's not got to say anything.
Having a weapon in ones hand is not a threat, durrr!
@@NCLUSA tell that to a police officer as he is shooting your ass. Did you really say that? I'm hoping you were being sarcastic.
This is key info, most people who arm themselves have thousands of hours of TV law, Gunsmoke, John Wayne etc. Unfortunately, the DA and cops don't speak Gunsmoke and John Wayne and probably will not accept, "They needed killing" as grounds for self defense.
why should anything be rebuttable? they broke into your home that alone should say stop the threat
You are the perfect person that needs to watch this video and educate yourself on the law. What’s gonna happen is you’re gonna end up in a situation where you shoot someone and you shouldn’t have. Education is the key. You don’t just get to shoot people because you feel like it because they’re sitting in your living room. If that’s what you think then you’ve completely missed everything in this video. Please it is important if you own a gun or carry a gun that you educate yourself.
Questions CAN and will always be asked, that’s why deadly force is an absolute last resort.
Feel free to spend several hundred thousand Dollars in legal costs over shooting your drunk neighbor, who thought he was breaking into his own home! 👍
Why doesn't this apply to law enforcement? If someone is running away from you unarmed their not a threat anymore
The gang in blue is above the law.
I am not a murderer and I do not have an insatiable desire to use the ability to defend myself and/ or property. If they break in and then decide to run the threat is gone and I can let law enforcement do their job, such as it may be.
Exactly and if feel my life or my family's life is in danger by the constitution of the united states of America says u have the right to protect ur life and family by any means possible
You and your lawyer stated that the person retreated. You did not state if they were armed. They may have been retreating to go offensive.
At one time in Alabama a retreat Bill was introduced in the state legislature. I would have required one to retreat to the furtherest part of one's home. Due to the firestorm raised by the Alabama Citizens the law failed in the legislature.
In my opinion, you did not clear anything up. In fact you just confused things further. You told nothing about the trial or any trial points. Any 1st yr law student would have done this.
As usual, you do not give the complete situation!
"
John Wallace
3 days ago
You and your lawyer stated that the person retreated. You did not state if they were armed. They may have been retreating to go offensive". A threat must be real, and it must be about to happen in the moment, what's in your little mind don't matter.
I find it crazy that someone in some states is aloud to rob and kill you . And in your underwater you can't defend yourself.
Well, you don't know grammar or spelling, or the law for that matter. So, there is that!
Common sense is really all you need. Common knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. They turned to run away. That indicates that they probably were unarmed. Why would they break into someone's house unarmed?
They were not willing to kill. They only wanted to steal. They knew the risk they were taking. It was their decision to put themselves at risk instead of carrying weapons to protect themselves.
In other words, they made the decision that if they were confronted in the act of committing their crime, they would rather die than kill an innocent person just so they could steal from him.
The man provided one of them with exactly what they chose for themselves. I don't see a problem with what he did. I see a problem with the law.
If someone enters my home while I am there, I will assume he's armed. I will not shoot him in the back, but I will not have a stare-down contest with him either. If he's unarmed, he will be wise to take his eyes off me and get himself into a submissive position immediately, without being told to do so. I walk through my dark house every night and have never seen anyone who shouldn't be there. When I was a kid, I was walking to the kitchen to get a drink. In the darkness, my sister was returning from the kitchen. We bumped each other in total darkness. I was scared until I heard her scream as she ran away.
If an intruder scares me like that when I have a gun in my hand, it might not end well.
Sad that laws protect criminals. Wouldn’t have to worry about going to jail if your broke ass didn’t try to break in my house in the first place.
Running away verses running to cover to gain the tactical advantage. This is the issue that needs to be discussed in some detail.
Not really! Get some training!
@@charliefoxtrot5001 nice dodge.
@@richardthomas6602 Nor really! Get some training, because your question alone says you don't have it.
How do you know the difference between running away vs to cover? You only know that once the person is behind cover. So, what do you want to discuss here?
@@charliefoxtrot5001 well within the context of the video, it is the AG or ultimately the jury one has to articulate to why it was reasonable to assume the assailant was seeking a tactical advantage instead of seeking to vacate the premises. You may not think so, but this topic deserves a video discussion between Kevin and the attorney whose name excapes me at the moment.
@@richardthomas6602 So, you want to know if you can shoot a person that is running away and then claim self defense with the argument that the person was just seeking a tactical advantage by running away to seek cover? Sorry, but that's not how self defense law works, at all.
You can only claim self defense if you are in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury, not if you think you might be in fear of death or serious bodily injury in the future because a guy running away may suddenly stop behind cover and start shooting at you.
This is self defense law 101. The moment the threat stopped is the moment you need to stop shooting. You will be typically given a lag time to stop shooting of maybe a second or two, because it takes time for the brain to process the situation. After that, keep shooting and it becomes attempted murder or murder.
This applies to all defense situations. For example, what if a guy is just temporarily slightly raising his hands and complying to gain the tactical advantage of situational awareness? Then, he kicks you in the teeth. No, you can't shoot a guy who is raising his hands and complying, just because you think he may kick you in the teeth.
You are asking the wrong question. You are asking if you "can" shoot someone, which is never the right question. The right question is do you "have to" shoot someone. Understand that you not only need to survive the fight, but also the aftermath. When a guy is running away, you survived the fight at that point. Do you really want to spend tens-to-hundreds of thousands of Dollars in legal fees, lose your job and potentially go to jail over shooting someone running away?
Get some training!
There ought to be a law that covers the people living there, no matter what. In a moment of panic, you don't comprehend if they are running away or at you. If you are not there, you don't know. Most prosecutors are just charging innocent citizens just because they can.
The action of breaking into a home / residents, is enough for me . I'm taking the intruding criminal out
** My State of Delaware Is a Castle Doctrine state. I am familiar with that law. But now, I know/understand, that if an intruder (armed or unarmed) see my pistol and they turn and runaway, let them go. They no longer pose any type of deadly threat or bodily harm to me. They may get to live another day but, I get to stay out of jail. Education is everything 👍🏾**
Is your life or family's being threatened? Keep it simple. If you are looking for a legal excuse to kill someone, you need help, seriously. No responsible person wants to kill another. You will suffer emotionally when you kill a bad person, even when you were perfectly correct. God help you, if you shoot in the dark and kill an unannounced child or someone.
Not true. Youre just projecting cuz ur a liberal that LOVES criminals. You can ask soldiers if they have any emotional damage from killing Muslims, they will say they dont. I will happily kill criminals. Nobody is shooting some random child that some how broke in. Stop projecting ur lack of IQ points
Crazy how laws protect criminals. My family's life is more important then a criminal. Ill just have to deal with the consequences
3:00 The law assumes the person that is forcfully entering your house (Castle) uninvited has no ill will to do great bodily harm to the owner yet assuming the owner is the aggressor by not allowing the owner to preform at there penk of self awareness in a dangerous situation. Life or death, everyone has a plan Intel you get punched in the face with reality.
Generally, the Castle Doctrine presumes that a criminal will commit a violent act once unlawfully inside another person's home or car. That allows the home/car owner to use whatever force is reasonably necessary, including deadly force.
So basically, the judicial system in the United States are hypocritical and selective.
Yet policemen can say “I feared for my life” and go home.
So sad
I'm not a lawyer but basically the castle doctrine implies you have the right to defend yourself in your home but if you do so the state will charge you with criminal charges which technically means you don't are not allowed to defend yourself in your home. The laws state you have the right of self defense but if you do you become a criminal in the process by performing the job that police are supposed to be doing but can't. Here is the main problem the police do not have the authority or manpower to prevent a crime only to investigate to determine if a crime was committed. The law also states you have the right to be a victim of a crime and have the right to seek restitution but little good that will do if you are injured and maybe dead when you had the chance to defend yourself. So here is something to think about for all the folks out there that want to be protected the law is not in place to protect you it is there to provide a general guideline to give you the option of whether or not they should be followed and which one should apply to you on a daily basis.
Can someone please explain to me why we should let them run away? Is it to give the bad guy another opportunity to break into a neighbor's house?
Advice I was given by an attorney and an officer: If you are going to shoot someone, make sure they are dead or you will be sued into oblivion or face charges if it becomes their word against yours.
Facepalm! You literally have a former police officer and an attorney giving you advice in this video. Yes, there have been people that got convicted of murder for executing intruders.
@Tom Gulbranson dont stop shooting until they stop breathing.
@@joshfree808 ... aaaaand that's how you go to jail, folks! 🤣😂😅
@Tom Gulbranson oh well. As long as they are in my home I can do whatever I want to them. I dont care that society wants to coddle the mentally ill and the predators and the thieving thugs, if they are caught in my home, they are dead.
What he said about laws changing is incorrect. A real law never changes. Only God can make laws. What man makes is not law.
I’m in NY and I couldn’t care less about any of the unconstitutional laws tyrant hochul passed. If someone endangers my life or enters my house they will be in a body bag
I catch someone in my home, they are dead, no mercy, and they will disappear permanently, and my life goes on. On my property, I am the law.
Yes, know the laws. Also, we should change our laws to make breaking into a home a license to kill criminals. I’m against walking around my house if I hear something because it’s a risk. Security to alert you before anyone can even enter is essential. I feel that these laws give criminals too much leeway. I shouldn’t have to risk my life to search my home & wait to see a deadly threat or weapon before opening fire. That’s stupid. Breaking into a home is an intimate crime & violates our bubble of protection & security. Lawyers are the worst.
"please don't kill me"
"Please dont hurt my family"
You've just presented a credible fear for your life or family's life if anyone continues to assault or attempt to assault you.
Like when the po-po do a mag dump on a pet dog that barked at them & they scream 'I feared for my life'?
If you forcefully enter someone's home, you forfeit your life. That's how it should be in law.
Several county sherrif here in florida have advised people to shoot intruders
Polk county particularly
I think the argument is situational too. 2am, 2 known junkies walking around in your home, forcible entry used, several home invasions and a history of peeping toms and creeps trying to break into homes and cars in the neighborhood, and you kill the sob's. obviously in the right. but this is very different from leaving your door open 12 in the afternoon on a Saturday and an unknown neighbor stumbles in for a beer, or some drunk kid doesnt know where he is and passes out on your couch and you blow his brains out, etc. Sometimes dementia patients wander into peoples homes with unlocked doors. Also, what if someone invites their enemy over acting as friends, and he thinks your pals, then he comes in an 'opened' door and you shoot him. I think what they're trying to say is that in most circumstances you are 100% in the right, but there are times where you cant just kill a dude simply for being on your property, especially if they are fleeing. This is why ring cameras are so valuable because you can catch the aggression and intentions of the perp before anything happens. having young kids at home also helps your case.
Great info . Next time you mentions USCCA please let people know that certain states do not offer coverage.
Sir this is the USCCA UA-cam channel
@@yoavmor9002 yes I know this, so what better way to inform people?
If you are in Texas after dark and running away with stolen property in hand..... legally I can stop you. Yes.... I know the law.
What if they are running away and confused and run to your kids room?? I’m shooting!!
This is difficult for the typical, peaceful, law-abiding citizen to wrap his mind around. It seems the Laws make you a coward, powerless to anything to protect yourself or your loved ones. Be that as it may, the Laws clearly stipulate you can only defend agsinst an IMMINENT threat of great bodily harm or death, or against such an assault and battery that is in motion against you or a loved one. There is no such thing as, deferred self-defense. You're either defending against an incoming physical attack or one in progress. Once an assailant has ceased an attack and departs, you may not pursue nor assault him. It's hard to fathom, especially if some low-life clown runs up and whacks your child in the back of the head and runs off. You cannot go after the creep. The Laws regard that as vengeance and vigilantism. Laws are primarily focused on keeping the peace, so you going after the creep to beat him down is unlawful vigilantism. Now, you could attempt to grab and detain the perp in the name of making a citizen's arrest. But if you mess that up and make a mistake, not only are you liable for assault but also for unlawful detainment, possibly attempted kidnapping. Yes, it seems the Laws are not there to protect as you expect or hope it should.
"equalize the playing field with the bad guys"??? in MY home? so now home owners are required to think like lawyers during home invasions or burglaries....interesting concept.
protecting yourself and property should be a right all the way not pick n choose
The moral of this story is the homeowner needs to work on his aim.
Doubt is the reason a home owner is not able to shoot invaders into his home, and not threatened by the invaders that he can prove a reason to be fearful; but if the invaders are armed and only turned away from the home owner; doesn't mean they are trying to flee; but get a better attacking area to go against the home owner you do not have to prove any thing; but your own fear at the time for your or another's life !...
This literally makes no sense. Castle Doctrine gives me the presumption of being threatened, but I am not allowed to act unless I am threatened? What sense does that make? How am I going to know if I am being threatened unless they make the first move? And if they make the move to harm me, I wouldn't need Castle Doctrine to justify my force. This seems useless and sounds like a good way to make scared homeowners go to jail for defending their property.
You clearly misunderstood the video and the law. The case in PA was about a homeowner who was purposely shooting at someone running away to, in his own words, "not let him get away". He is now facing murder charges. Once a home intruder runs away and stops being a threat, let them run away. Don't let your ego or emotions get you a ticket to jail!
Even if fleeing who is to say they won't just regroup and com back or running to get cover to shoot. If the law was home owners could shoot whenever people are trespassing "IN" the house not just on the land. Then I'm positive robberies and home invasions would go down because there are REAL consequences.
Get some training!
The case in PA was about a homeowner who was purposely shooting at someone running away to, in his own words, "not let him get away". He is now facing murder charges. Once a home intruder runs away and stops being a threat, let them run away. Don't let your ego or emotions get you a ticket to jail!
If someone unknown to me is in my house in the middle of the night they’re getting shot, I’ll take my chances in court
They should make it that if anybody is breaking into your home, you have the right to kill them whether it’s in the front or in the back in every state. After all, they should not even be there in the first place. The way I see it, if the burglar breaks it to somebody else’s house and anything bad happens to him or her, that’s on that individual and not on nobody else. This is utterly BS that the homeowners getting charged.
The homeowner got charged for knowingly shooting at someone who had clearly given up and was clearly running away. No longer a threat, so no longer a self defense situation. The homeowner even admitted that he was purposely shooting at someone that was running away and was no longer a threat. 🤦
Then do not break into other people’s house in the middle of the night. The law is empowering the bad guys to do what ever they want and get away without consequences. So stupid.
I guess maybe citizens should change the law, because this one's unjust...you don't get to violate people's or their homes. Fear of death is the only option.
The case in PA was about a homeowner who was purposely shooting at someone running away to, in his own words, "not let him get away". He is now facing murder charges. Once a home intruder runs away and stops being a threat, let them run away. Don't let your ego or emotions get you a ticket to jail!
I don’t care what the law is, break into my home while I am here and it will be the last one. I’ll deal with the repercussions afterwards.
right cuz the police aint going to protect u they only show up after the fact to clean up the mess ill take my chances atleast im still alive
For me it know the target that includes threat level I don't want to shoot someone who got the wrong house, I had that happen one night I though I lock all the doors, it was sometime between 3:00 and 4:00 I heard a noise grab my gun and started checking the house ( if you don't have good night vision don't do this) I check the front door it was lock and out side was a car not one of mine I slowly enter the living room and there on the couch was a sleeping drunk so I went into the kitchen and put on the coffee I could see him from there, I poured me some coffee and got a book to read D&D about a Cleric Love Clerics when he woke up I gave him a cup of coffee, you ever see someone wake up and realize they don't know were they are, well it turn out he live about 4 miles away and our houses are the same color wrong side of the road though, Now remember I shot a burglar once I was 11 years old and I knew he was bad, I have taken guns away from bad people and knives I spent 28 years in EMS saving lives, having to take a life would be hard and I never forgive the person who force me to shoot them. I would not have cleared the house but I had to make sure my little girls were safe.
What gets a lot of armed homeowners screwed when they use lethal force against burglars, or whatnot, is that they shoot or continue to shoot at the intruder as they are actively running away. Basically, don’t shoot people in the back. You’re going to jail 9/10 times if you do and the the prosecutor can prove the “victim” was actively fleeing/retreating.
That seems to be such a stupid argument on the prosecutors end. You are still defending your stand. They shouldn't have entered your home knowing they could have lethal force applied either. Just protecting the criminals.
So keep some sharpened screw drivers in the house to drop near the bodies. 🤣
That’s a bunch of BS!! They can take them laws & shove it!! Any threat towards myself or family! It’s a wrap!!
Doesn't Pennsylvania have stand your ground? The locks on your doors and windows, are in place for the safety of home invaders. These weak laws and DOJ need to make criminals not want to illegally break into a private dwelling because it would be a death wish. By making stricter laws for criminals and better rights for private citizens in their own homes minding their own business.
Stand your ground doesn't apply when you shoot someone running away 4 times just to get even, which is what happened here.
So what about if said person/persons break in and you shoot them in the house and then they run away, would I still be charged with attempted murder?
No!
My wife and I pull a 34' trailer when we go on a vacation. Does the castle doctrine apply to my trailer?
Depends on the state. Read up the law. Don't ask random strangers on the Intern et for legal advice.
I understand what was said.
But there's absolutely ZERO evidence that would indicate if the home owner didn't shoot, they may have left him dead.
The case in PA was about a homeowner who was purposely shooting at someone running away to, in his own words, "not let him get away". He is now facing murder charges. Once a home intruder runs away and stops being a threat, let them run away. Don't let your ego or emotions get you a ticket to jail!
Texas law (Texas Penal Code chapter 9) allows use of deadly force when the actor believes themselves to be in imminent jeopardy. It also allows me to use deadly force to protect a 3rd party in any scenario where I would be justified in using it to defend myself. If the badguys were trying to leave there is NO WAY I would have discharged my weapon. If an intruder were in my home, my only goal would be to keep them from harming me or mine. If they stared trying to leave then I and my loved ones are no longer in jeopardy. Bedides, even withnTexas law shielding me from lawsuit if the shooting was justified, lawsuits are a hassle any sane person would want to avoid. I feel for the homeowner (am nd especially his family) but he screwed the pooch mightily there. Never discharge a weapon willy nilly - not even at the range!
"Imminent jeopardy"? So, if the burglar leaves your house shouting "I'll be back!", you can do nothing about it?
So you are saying that it’s ok for a police officer to shoot someone while running away from committing a crime but not a citizen in their own home.
The gang in blue is above the law.
Can you please suggest to me the best type of pepper spray in your opinion. It drives me nuts reading through all these different kinds that are supposed to be rated the best and then all of them have crap load of bad reviews and good. What would you suggest? I am working on getting some charges that were dismissed expunged from my record so I can start the process and legally own a firearm again. During this time I have been very interested in non-lethal means. If you can suggest a good pepper spray and also, pepper ball gun, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you!
There are literally only two types: spray and gel/stream. Spray works faster, but doesn't travel that far and blows with the wind. Pepper gel/stream goes farther and doesn't blow with the wind, but also takes slightly longer to work.
There are only two recommended companies: Sabre Red and Fox Labs. Use one with a flip-top safety, as they are easier to disengage and don't accidentally engage in your pants pocket (like the twist safeties). Recommended:
- Sabre Red tactical Pepper Gel
- Fox labs Mean Green Pepper Spray with Marking Dye
@@charliefoxtrot5001 Thank you, I appreciate this.
A cop would say they were reaching in their waste band. Automatic attaboy! Justified shooting all day long.
In my thoughts I find if some one breaks in your house. You state have a firearm and I have called the police. It's up to them after that. If someone came down my hallway after I got out of bed and stated that it's lights out. Even in the front room cover and state.
Can you guys do a video on self-defense in hurricane situations and the aftermath? I am in Panama City Florida and crime got really scary here after Hurricane Michael
The first words I learned in Bosnian were "Stop or I'll shoot! (Stani! Ili pukkam!"). Before I deployed there, I went through a class on rules of engagement. Assuming time allowed, if someone was approaching our position whose intentions were unknown, we were to warn them in English and Bosnian, then rack the slide (wasting a round if necessary...this, by the way, is the international language for "Stop or I'll shoot"). After that, if they continued to advance, we were "cleared hot".