bkajun06
Regular Member
Edited and messaged.
Last edited:
and IF I would have shot, would I have been in trouble(If they didn't come straight out and surrender like they did of course)?
You "legitly thought" they were breaking into your house - so you went outside?Almost shot 2 teens hiding in my bushes just now....... I heard someone on my deck by my back door and immediately got my gun and went to check the house out, as soon as I opened my back door, safety off and everything I saw a shadow run on the side of my house by my basement door.. I yelled out to stay put or I'll shoot and keeping my distance I walked around the deck aiming at the bushes...
and IF I would have shot, would I have been in trouble(If they didn't come straight out and surrender like they did of course)? Keep in mind they were on the side of my house BY my basement door in the bushes and I legitly thought they were breaking into my house.. .
THISUse 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?
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.
For shame!
Taking responsibility is a huge no - no. The laws just haven't caught up yet.
Probably never will.
You'll never find me outside checking on my property with a loaded gun!
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.
does not mean that doing so is the best or most effective course of action.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
Private property is defined in Missouri as:Knowing that the law in Mo. says you can use deadly force 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.
Missouri law states that a person may 'brandish' a deadly weapon in an angry or threatening manner, during a lawful act of self defense.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.
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.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.
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".
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..