Replies

Use of a firearm like this is illegal in many states. Many states have an “imminent fear” clause governing when use of a firearm is legal. In my state, you can't use a gun on a burglar if he runs away. If the guy had plugged him in the bedroom, that would be OK, but as soon as the burglar ceased to be an immediate threat, the home owner can't even brandish his weapon.

Just resending this fragment to those involved in a similar discussion a few days ago. Thanks for your factoid statement here.

However, the original article here does not indicate if the burglar was armed or not, as to the implementation of gun defense.

But in my case, it would not be likely if I was faced with such a situation, that the burglar would be leaving my quarters under his own power.

I would not be asking myself as the homeowner did in this title article:

"Is that self-defense or is that me just trying to let off a little bit of steam at that point? That changes the whole dynamic of everything."

What a dumb question. "Shoot, or shoot not. There is no maybe." (in this scenario)(after Yoda)

As I originally said, I have a high threshold for what constitutes immediate threat. Someone running out of the room does not mean they are no longer an immediate threat.

What is immediate? I would define that as the time period before which the police arrive. It is impossible to judge why someone is moving. Are they diving for cover before pulling a gun? Who knows.

A perp who doesn't want to be shot can lay down on the floor and put their hands on their head.

But a multiple-perp situation greatly complicates the issue of what constitutes a threat. What are you to do when one perp is in front of you with his hands raised and you hear another perp start to assault your wife or children?

I place all blame on the perps.

Worth note that the states that greatly limit the use of deadly force by the their citizens have much more reasonable guidelines for their LEOs.