Replies

When I was a Peace Officer in NY State, and had to undergo weapons training once a year for qualification, we were taught that if you caught someone IN your house, and if you had a means of leaving that house, then that was the option you needed to take. Even if you feel threatened, if you can leave, you must leave and not use force. If he was armed but hadn't attacked you, you still had a legal requirement to leave that house. If you used deadly physical force on an intruder, and he wasn't armed, you'd be held legally responsible for his death. You could not shoot someone just because they were attempting to gain entry to your house. Again, if you were able to leave the dwelling, that was your legal responsibility.

We were told that if we shot and killed someone entering our homes, or if we caught them walking out the front door with our TV set, jewelry, or life savings, we didn't have the right to shoot them. It was only if he was inside your home, and attacking you or another person with a weapon, that you were legally able to use deadly physical force to stop him.

Years ago I had an acquaintance whose husband used to beat her up. They were separated and she had restraining orders on him, but he'd still show up and get nasty with her. She asked the cops what would happen if she ended up killing him in her home, and the cops told her, that she'd better make sure he was found with a weapon in his hand, or she would be going to jail. Pretty crazy statutes if you ask me. I've been retired for almost four years now, so I have no idea if the laws have changed, but I highly doubt it, especially in light of this guy's being charged with manslaughter for killing a man ON his property.

When I was a Peace Officer in NY State, and had to undergo weapons training once a year for qualification, we were taught that if you caught someone IN your house, and if you had a means of leaving that house, then that was the option you needed to take. Even if you feel threatened, if you can leave, you must leave and not use force.

This is the law in several states but not all of them (for lurkers). There is no duty to retreat in numerous states.

Words to live by: I was in fear for my life.

>>Police say a Putnam County homeowner shot and killed a man who he thought was trying to break into his home while his family slept.<<

>we were taught that if you caught someone IN your house, and if you had a means of leaving that house, then that was the option you needed to take. Even if you feel threatened, if you can leave, you must leave and not use force. If he was armed but hadn't attacked you, you still had a legal requirement to leave that house.<

Are you saying that one must abandon his/her family?

When I was a Peace Officer in NY State, and had to undergo weapons training once a year for qualification, we were taught that if you caught someone IN your house, and if you had a means of leaving that house, then that was the option you needed to take. Even if you feel threatened, if you can leave, you must leave and not use force. If he was armed but hadn't attacked you, you still had a legal requirement to leave that house.

Exactly. That is the old Ted Kennedy "duty to retreat" nonsense. He tried to make it Federal Law at one point essentially telling women if they were in the privacy of their own bedroom and assaulted by a stranger intent on rape, they were required to jump out a window rather than fight or kill the rapist.

Psychologically and tactically the worst possible thing anyone can do is to move from surroundings with which they are intimately familar to unknown surroundings where other assailants may await to strike while the fleeing individual is completely vulnerable.

Fortunately, most States have rediscovered the common law doctrine of "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" and passed legislation to reinforce it.

Best regards,