SHERIFF ENCOURAGES CITIZENS TO SHOOT HOME INTRUDERS: 'WE PREFER THAT YOU DO, ACTUALLY’

[Glocktogo]

This isn't a game of simon says or stop and go. If the home invader is in the act of violently breaking and entering an occupied home where he or she has no rights to be under law, the lawful defender has no duty to provide warning or quarter to the invader. They are "bought and paid for" under that situation.

The caveats to that are that the defender has a lawful right to be in the home and is covered under the Castle Doctrine (homeowners, lease holders & immediate family living in the residence). If not, they do need to justify fear of death or great bodily harm, if they fall under Make My Day Doctrine (friends, extended family, invited guests, employees such as baby sitters, etc.).

If I have to defend my home, I will do so to any extent and by any means necessary. Still, I don't really want to shoot anyone and if I feel safe and secure without shooting, I'm not going to shoot. If I have to shoot someone I not only want it to be within the law, I want to sleep well when it's all over.

 

[Decoligny]

Unless things have changed since I worked at the OSBI, even if the perpetrator is in one's home, if they are shot in the back, castle doctrine doesn't apply because the law will look at it as if the perpetrator was exiting and was no longer a threat to the residence's occupant that did the shooting.

If I shoot him in the back, it was because he turned towards a family member and at that point I was defending the family member, not myself.

 

[Oklahomabassin]

 

[OKGlocker]

Maybe, lots of people have video in their homes these days. Also, if the intruder had a gun in his possession and there was evidence that it had been fired and that it had been fired in the direction of the homeowner that would be pretty clear cut evidence. In a conservative state like this one, in a case where you have, what would most likely be a felon in possession of a gun breaking into a home and a homeowner defending him or herself I would inclined to believe that any case, if an arrest was made and if the prosecutor took the case and it went to court, the homeowner would win.

Funny things happen in court... extenuating circumstances and possibility of riots sometimes makes prosecutors change their approach... Kinda like Tulsa County District Attorney "Mad Dog" Stephen Kunzweiler going after Betty Shelby over the Terrance Crutcher shooting...

 

[Gadsden]

Funny things happen in court... extenuating circumstances and possibility of riots sometimes makes prosecutors change their approach... Kinda like Tulsa County District Attorney "Mad Dog" Stephen Kunzweiler going after Betty Shelby over the Terrance Crutcher shooting...

As I recall, Ms. Shelby was acquitted and, last I heard, was still working in law enforcement.

 

[TerryMiller]

Maybe, lots of people have video in their homes these days. Also, if the intruder had a gun in his possession and there was evidence that it had been fired and that it had been fired in the direction of the homeowner that would be pretty clear cut evidence. In a conservative state like this one, in a case where you have, what would most likely be a felon in possession of a gun breaking into a home and a homeowner defending him or herself I would inclined to believe that any case, if an arrest was made and if the prosecutor took the case and it went to court, the homeowner would win.

Be careful with that one too. Prosecutors can require any video taken by one's security system to be reviewed, with the possibility of finding the residence occupant liable.

 

[TerryMiller]

Is this OSBI policy? Because I thought an investigation would occur first to determine any criminality, but if this is a policy, then we should probably get this addressed by our state lawmakers and corrected.

I cannot say that it is OSBI policy because I retired from there in 2014. However, prior to that when I took the concealed carry class, it was spelled out pretty well that a back shot made the residence occupant liable. And, that would NOT be OSBI "policy" but state "law."

As I stated originally, things might have changed since I left the OSBI, but I will be surprised if it has.

 

[Gadsden]

Be careful with that one too. Prosecutors can require any video taken by one's security system to be reviewed, with the possibility of finding the residence occupant liable.

Yeah, I'm former law enforcement so I'm well aware of that. But if the video proves the homeowner was in the right what's to worry about? I say bring it on. If it proves otherwise, well bad on him for using deadly force when it wasn't justified.

 

[JoeUSooner]

If someone shoots at you while they are in the commission of a crime then turns away, I believe I would not wait around to see if that person is going to turn back around and take another shot. They shot at you once already. I see nothing but just cause to protect your life. Does it matter where the bullet or bullets enter the criminal's body?

Woody

CC,
'Where the bullets enter the criminal's body' will matter to an anti-gun prosecutor. Such a prosecutor will ruthlessly use any/all available data (no matter how innocuous) against you. And that is regardless of how much he/she has to outright lie (or at least be as deceitful as they can get away with in court) in order to accomplish their anti-gun agenda. There... is the danger.