[HostileTerritory]

Any victim should be able to presume that an unlawful intruder is there for the purpose of doing great bodily, and subsequently places the victim and the victim's family in great imminent peril.

My brother lives in a small, densely-settled town in coastal New Jersey. The first time I tried to visit him, it was late at night and I tried the wrong house. The number was off by 100. The door was unlocked and I stepped inside. A dog started to bark. I knew my brother didn't have a dog, so I left, and eventually found my mistake. I was perfectly sober, but it was very late at night, perhaps 1 am. The door was unlocked.

I consider myself very lucky that I wasn't met by someone who presumed I was there for the purpose of "doing great bodily harm" and felt he had the right to shoot first and ask questions later. Mistakes do happen.

[Mulder]

I consider myself very lucky that I wasn't met by someone who presumed I was there for the purpose of "doing great bodily harm" and felt he had the right to shoot first and ask questions later. Mistakes do happen.

Yes, you should consider yourself very lucky. You were really stupid to walk into a house that you weren't 100% sure belonged to your brother.

You were also lucky the dog didn't tear you to shreds.

Entering in ANY house without express verbal permission, only after being met first at the door by the resident, isn't something I would even consider doing. Especially at night.

If someone trespassed in my house, they'd have found themselves lying spread eagle on the ground with a rifle aimed at them, waiting for the cops to arrive. *If* their story checked out, and *if* they seemed like a decent person, and *if* I wasn't in a bad mood, I'd consider not filing trespass charges.

And that's only because I don't have kids. Folks with children to protect would likely handle the situation more aggressively, as they should.