bkajun06
Regular Member
Edited and messaged.
Last edited:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Almost shot but didn't....
- Thread starter bkajun06
- Start date
Verd
Campaign Veteran
From my understanding of the Castle Doctrine, you can shoot someone that has broken into your home and is currently inside of it, or if they are currently attempting to break into your home.
I.E. If someone is pounding and kicking your door but it has not broken yet, you are free to shoot, just as you are free to shoot if you see someone trying to jimmy your window's lock so that they can enter that way without breaking your window.
In what happened to you, I am unsure of what you could have or could not have done TBH. All the literature on the Castle Doctrine seems to assume that you are inside your home when the breaking in or the attempt to break in is occurring. However, you lost ALL rights to shoot the moment they showed you their hands. You can't shoot someone if you don't feel that your life is in danger, which a couple of kids with their hands up does not constitute. From my understanding of what happened to you, I don't think you could have shot even when you first left your house and when you saw the shadow running away since it would appear that they were trying to flee.
Personally, I would not have left my home. That is NEVER a smart thing to do. I would have done the following the moment I heard someone on my deck:
1. Get gun
2. Ready said gun (safety off, cocked, loaded, aimed)
3. Call 911 with my cell (if I had service, which I don't in most parts of my home)
4. Shot the moment the person outside tried to enter my home
If they were true intruders, one of them could have ambushed you the moment you came outside, either by hiding and getting you from behind, or shooting at the very nice target that you made as you exited your home. Stay inside you home, preferably at a place where you can watch at least one or more entrances and are somewhat shielded from view of anyone unlucky enough to enter through said entrance(s). This way you will have cover while you are able to shoot any intruders. Plus, you know the layout of your home better than they will which gives you the element of surprise... leaving your home to go outside, even if you know every inch of it by heart, gives the intruders the element of surprise.
I.E. If someone is pounding and kicking your door but it has not broken yet, you are free to shoot, just as you are free to shoot if you see someone trying to jimmy your window's lock so that they can enter that way without breaking your window.
In what happened to you, I am unsure of what you could have or could not have done TBH. All the literature on the Castle Doctrine seems to assume that you are inside your home when the breaking in or the attempt to break in is occurring. However, you lost ALL rights to shoot the moment they showed you their hands. You can't shoot someone if you don't feel that your life is in danger, which a couple of kids with their hands up does not constitute. From my understanding of what happened to you, I don't think you could have shot even when you first left your house and when you saw the shadow running away since it would appear that they were trying to flee.
Personally, I would not have left my home. That is NEVER a smart thing to do. I would have done the following the moment I heard someone on my deck:
1. Get gun
2. Ready said gun (safety off, cocked, loaded, aimed)
3. Call 911 with my cell (if I had service, which I don't in most parts of my home)
4. Shot the moment the person outside tried to enter my home
If they were true intruders, one of them could have ambushed you the moment you came outside, either by hiding and getting you from behind, or shooting at the very nice target that you made as you exited your home. Stay inside you home, preferably at a place where you can watch at least one or more entrances and are somewhat shielded from view of anyone unlucky enough to enter through said entrance(s). This way you will have cover while you are able to shoot any intruders. Plus, you know the layout of your home better than they will which gives you the element of surprise... leaving your home to go outside, even if you know every inch of it by heart, gives the intruders the element of surprise.
Last edited:
Yes. Lots.
You "legitly thought" they were breaking into your house - so you went outside?
Ugh, please remove this thread, I feel that you make gun owners look bad. I'm sure some anti is going to pull this up on google and show their friends, "SEE SEE!!!! LOOK HOW TRIGGER HAPPY THOSE NRA FOLKS ARE!!!"
EDIT: I'm not saying you're stupid or YOU make us look bad, but I feel this thread does.
Last edited:
W/o quoting statute line and verse, just a general thought - you became the aggressor when you moved beyond the safety of the house and towards the presumed threat.
Yes it could have gotten very bad for you in short order shooting unarmed teenagers guilty of perhaps trespass at the most. Use of deadly force should be the last option - never the first
You might not have escaped legal problems totally yet, if one of the kids goes home and tells their parents that "Some guy threatened to shoot me and really had a gun pointed at me.....well you see where this could go, right?
Yes it could have gotten very bad for you in short order shooting unarmed teenagers guilty of perhaps trespass at the most. Use of deadly force should be the last option - never the first
You might not have escaped legal problems totally yet, if one of the kids goes home and tells their parents that "Some guy threatened to shoot me and really had a gun pointed at me.....well you see where this could go, right?
Not to sure I agree he has concerns with the teens at this point in the state of MO, but not going to argue it here either 
I can not for the life of me come up with an accurate description of what I think about this without violating the TOS so I am just going to hush.
Glad everyone is ok.
I can not for the life of me come up with an accurate description of what I think about this without violating the TOS so I am just going to hush.
Glad everyone is ok.
Shooter64738
Regular Member
I'm not offering an opinion on the matter, but there may be some confusion over 'Castle doctrine'. It doesn't apply to JUST your dwelling or residence. It applies to your occupied vehicle AND any private property you own or lease. Being outside your home would not on it's own remove you from the protections of the 'Castle doctrine'. His use of force under the circumstances is another matter, which I am not attempting to address.
563.031.2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;
(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
563.031.2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;
(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
HYRYSC
Regular Member
Thanks for posting Shooter! You beat me to it.
While the OP should have remained indoors and called the cops WHILE maintaining constant armed vigil, according to the law, if he reasonably believes that someone is attempting to unlawfully enter his dwelling then he has a reasonable expectation that he is acting within the castle doctrine. The MO castle doctrine does not state that the person has to actually make entrance.
With this said, I feel that the OP should have remained inside, called the police and remained on the phone with the police until such time that he feels that the threat is over or until the police arrive to secure the area.
Redbaron007
Regular Member
The OP may want to be a bit more cautious in the future when investigating outside disturbances.
xdmcompact
Regular Member
IMO, I would rather catch the criminal before he gains entry into my house, if you are hiding in the bedroom and he knows you are there, whats stopping him from shooting thru the door. He has a good chance of hitting you or a family member. Why give the advantage to the criminal, your property IS part of your home.
jesse w
Regular Member
i have to agree if i hear some one in my yard messing with my truck or tyring to gain acces to my back yard i am going out there with my gun just to see what is going on.Not to hurt or kill any one but to to DEFEND my family home and property if it dose come down that i have to draw (only as a last resort and the police have been called) then so be it i DO NOT belive in shoting first then asking questions but i do belive in keeping me and mine safe just my views and i am sure i will be called out on them.
Knowing that the law in Mo. says you can use deadly force
First off, I'd want to review case law on how the Mo. courts have defined entering private property. Is it the metes and bounds property boundary, or the walls of the castle? Relying on onlly the statute without seeing how the courts have interpreted it can be a risky way of finding out that there is a difference of opinion between you and the legal system.
Second, the cited law says you can use deadly force. It does not discuss threatening to use deadly force, which may be outside the perview that the courts have established.
Third, if the case law says private property starts at the castle wall, your threat to shoot someone in the bushes would give them a good reason to shoot you in self defense.
If I might offer a suggestion - next time call out something like "Who's there?" and do it from a place where you have effective cover. And if you want them to come out and show themselves, do not tell them you are armed. Your walking out in the open left you defensless if the folks in the bushes intended harm to you, and as they were hidden from your observation they could act before you, with your gun drawn, could react.
stay safe.
does not mean that doing so is the best or most effective course of action.
First off, I'd want to review case law on how the Mo. courts have defined entering private property. Is it the metes and bounds property boundary, or the walls of the castle? Relying on onlly the statute without seeing how the courts have interpreted it can be a risky way of finding out that there is a difference of opinion between you and the legal system.
Second, the cited law says you can use deadly force. It does not discuss threatening to use deadly force, which may be outside the perview that the courts have established.
Third, if the case law says private property starts at the castle wall, your threat to shoot someone in the bushes would give them a good reason to shoot you in self defense.
If I might offer a suggestion - next time call out something like "Who's there?" and do it from a place where you have effective cover. And if you want them to come out and show themselves, do not tell them you are armed. Your walking out in the open left you defensless if the folks in the bushes intended harm to you, and as they were hidden from your observation they could act before you, with your gun drawn, could react.
stay safe.
Shooter64738
Regular Member
Private property is defined in Missouri as:
"Private property", any real property in this state that is privately owned or leased;
Private property does not begin or end at the 'castle walls'. That's why the statutes define everything, a dwelling, residence, private property, vehicle, etc.. Simply entering private property does not give the owner the absolute right to use deadly force. There must be a reasonable belief that there is a threat of serious physical harm or death in order to justify the use of deadly force in any circumstance.
There is no case law specific to private property as of yet. It's been a law for only 13 months.
Missouri law states that a person may 'brandish' a deadly weapon in an angry or threatening manner, during a lawful act of self defense.
Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or
The firearm does NOT have to be used simply because it was drawn or brandished. When drawn or brandished in an angry or threatening manner which is NOT in self defense, it is a class D felony offense.
This is a solid point. Missouri defines dwellings and structures, but until 2010 did not define private property. Again the only thing the 'castle doctrine' does is remove the duty to retreat. It does not affect specifically where a person may defend themselves.
In the presence of a deadly threat, a person may use deadly force period. Our 'Castle Law' only removes the need to retreat from an aggressor before lethal force is used. Case law in that regard holds that if you can retreat in complete safety, you should do so on public property, or private property you do not own or control. When you are on your own property, or within your own dwelling, occupied vehicle, hotel room, or your buddies house, you do not have to retreat. That's all our castle law describes. You still need to reasonably believe there is a threat of serious physical injury, death, or a forcible felony in order to justify the use or threatened use of lethal force. You cannot shoot someone just because they entered your property, a.k.a trespass.
Again I am not addressing the actions of this person. The discussion seemed to take the direction that you cannot use deadly force while outside your home. That is incorrect. You may use deadly force anywhere a reasonable person would believe that unlawful force is being used, and that unlawful force would result in serious physical injury or death.
If you would like to review all of the defense and weapons laws, they can be found here:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm 'What many refer to as the Castle Doctrine'
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap571.htm
The way Missouri structures it's law you must review the entire chapter to see the picture. Picking snips of statutes makes it nearly impossible to understand completely..
Last edited:
carry for myself
Regular Member
proper steps in a situation like this.
get gun.
take off safety.
find COVER *not concealment*
aim at door..............call 911 and wait
IF they start trying to jimmy the lock/kick the door, break the window, warn them. something along the lines of "i am armed and i will use deadly force if you enter my home".
if they enter, then shoot. otherwise dont ever leave the safety of your home. that is your net. both legal and physical. but leaving your home makes you the aggressor as previously mentioned, it puts you in immediate danger, when you were only in partial before. the last thing you want to do is take a life, or have yours taken. use logic, think smart and stay safe.
get gun.
take off safety.
find COVER *not concealment*
aim at door..............call 911 and wait
IF they start trying to jimmy the lock/kick the door, break the window, warn them. something along the lines of "i am armed and i will use deadly force if you enter my home".
if they enter, then shoot. otherwise dont ever leave the safety of your home. that is your net. both legal and physical. but leaving your home makes you the aggressor as previously mentioned, it puts you in immediate danger, when you were only in partial before. the last thing you want to do is take a life, or have yours taken. use logic, think smart and stay safe.
am I the only one that thinks letting them know you are home and armed is a bad idea? Sure deterring crime is great, but the crime has commenced and if this guy is dedicated to entering your home now he knows your battle plan and can continue accordingly ie. pulling his gun out, going for cover after he is in, laying low, or straight up shooting in to the windows before he comes in.
Shooter64738 -
Thanks for the education on Mo. law. Gives me a lot to think about in terms of trying to adjust Va laws to make things easier here. Especially like the way your law on brandishing is worded.
Given the new understanding of Mo. law I'll revise my comments and focus on the use of cover as the main point.
stay safe.
Thanks for the education on Mo. law. Gives me a lot to think about in terms of trying to adjust Va laws to make things easier here. Especially like the way your law on brandishing is worded.
Given the new understanding of Mo. law I'll revise my comments and focus on the use of cover as the main point.
stay safe.
cshoff
Regular Member
Great reply, Shooter. I'll add just one thing in regards to "brandishing" the firearm but not using it. RSMO 563.031.4 also provides for a person to use "the use of physical restraint as protective force" under the same circumstances that constitute the justifiable use of deadly force. In other words, the act of holding a person at gunpoint or pointing a gun at a person when justification is present under RSMO 563.031.1 & 2, is perfectly lawful.