Not Too Long Didn't Read

Original link: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-gun-owners-say-that-they-would-shoot-burglars-Do-they-value-their-property-more-than-a-humans-life-1

=====

Walt Miller’s reply:
Former 0311/0302 at United States Marine Corps (1973-1993)Aug 15

The government sets the rules of engagement.

Deadly Force

​There are 3 code sections in Georgia law that govern when lethal or deadly force may lawfully be used.

​“Defense from a forcible felony; A person is justified in using threats or force to the degree they reasonably believe it is necessary to stop another person’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using deadly force which may harm or kill only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (unless it is regarding defense of habitation, which has its own requirements below). You are not justified if you were the aggressor or you are/were/on-the-way-to committing a felony. (The state has pre-empted local cities and counties from further restricting this defense.)(16-3-21)

Defense of habitation; (here habitation means dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business) A person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if any one of the following is met:

A person is breaking\has broken into your home in a violent and tumultuous manner, and you think that the intruder is going to assault you or someone else living there.

A person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters the residence and you know it is an unlawful entry.

The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

=====

My response: 20230928@2252 (edited a bit before posting again here.)

There is the essential question of what constitutes necessary force.

Most homeowners are not trained to “prevent the commission of the felony” by any means at all. Some do have training, but consider that even those with military experience do not learn this skill in a home neighborhood scenario, so may be prone to overreact. It depends on their training, and I have heard stories that prove the point both ways.

Moreover I believe a burglary ceases to be a burglary when the homeowner is present. I think it becomes a robbery, and thus an assault by any definition due to the real or perceived threat of violence. That perception of the threat of violence is already an assault, and thus provides some justification for action, and some rationale for forgiveness if the action exceeds what a trained peace officer might be expected to do, or not do, in a given situation.

I have read comments here weighing in on the value of a life. A few have sensibly reminded others that the valid comparison is not to compare the use of force to protect stuff versus risk harming a life, but instead to ask about comparing the use of force to protect a life versus risk harming a life in that act of defense.

So the original question is also worded awkwardly to present a logical trap that maybe should just be ignored so the real question can be addressed.

USMC veteran Walt Miller makes a sensible presentation to suggest that there are already rules of engagement. Suggesting that we ask ourselves if force is necessary, and that legal yardstick of necessary force will apply.

If you have a reasonable fear of your life, or the life of those you protect, then you may be justified to use force, and maybe even deadly force. But if you have other alternatives, and you knowingly skip over them to kill someone, then you will pay for that choice too. If a juror knows you could have subdued the intruder, but chose to kill them instead, they might reasonably vote that you committed the worse crime. Not a happy thought, but still valid and true.

Just as certainly as if you had laid booby traps around your doors. That is premeditated intent to do harm and/or kill. Not okay by most standards. Even if it targets a bad guy, such preemptive traps can trigger on the wrong target. So if you cannot identify the target, you should not be declaring all over the place how you intend to kill people.

People working themselves up into a killing frenzy to “defend themselves” is another form of premeditation. I would not tell anyone anything, unless I had to use force against them. If my position was secure, I might give one warning, but that is all. If I were outnumbered, I would give zero warning and instead would treat the situation tactically. And I would call the police first, if possible, while at the same time I would also prepare to defend myself until they get there.

In any event, I would never go into a public forum where mouthing off might later be gathered as evidence to show any semblance of premeditated intent to kill another human being. I think that is not too smart.

The thing is, most people do not have other alternatives to prevent the felony and defend home and hearth. As described above, most people can only react in the moment not knowing what the intentions of the intruder are, so they are compelled to act before unknown action is taken against them. When in fear, you act from a place of fear, and your situational intelligence is going to be much lower.

Better if you think ahead, and seek out not the gun range alone, but do that if you wish. I for one want to know that anyone who owns and handles a weapon of any kind, has training to handle it safely. But please also seek out professional self-defense classes to learn more options for how to handle situations in different ways. What is your life worth to you? What is your peace of mind worth to you? Do you really want to live in fear, or would you rather learn to handle potential situations more confidently?

So the life of the intruder is still a life. I would not take a life if I had an alternative, and I would take a life if I thought I had no other alternative. That thought process can create a delay and get you killed if the intruder does intend you harm, so a reasonable person only has one option on how to think about it. Act or die. But, they do get to think about how to act in that moment. Or, better yet, be prepared and think through all the possibilities in advance. Set up your house with noise and lights, and all that attention getting stuff that will likely send the boogeymen scurrying away before you even have to pick up a weapon.

Or be prepared to shoot people. Then also prepare as you can to live with the consequences. Anyone who has legit had to deal death, or even seen death being dealt, can tell you it changes you forever. Some boogeymen may not deserve to live, according to some perspectives, but it will still change you if you find you have to hurt another person.

So I will be prepared for all contingencies, and ideally defuse any situation without force. But if force is required, I will escalate that response rapidly in relation to the danger presented. Firstly, I would make efforts not to be put in that situation in the first place.

I would not go around wishing for violence, like many seem to. But I think actually they are just responding to the natural fear of how scary the world seems to be. I do not think there are as many boogeymen out there as some Fearmongers think, and I am sure there are more than other Pollyanna’s believe.

If we can deal with some of those underlying issues, one at a time, and reduce the overall danger level in the world, maybe also reduce the level of desperation, then a lot of that fear can be reduced as well. And THAT will make the world a safer place. Definitely.

I for one would love to live in a neighborhood where I felt safe not to lock the doors at all… They exist, just not where I am now. So if I have to, I will defend my life and the lives of my family. But only with as much force as I deem necessary when I reach a given decision point. And with luck, never at all.