Home Defense: Where to make your Stand

[10mmLife]

Not likely, but. The wording of your state statutes contain the answers. Castle Doctrine laws generally give you the presumption that the person forcibly entering intends violence, and a presumption that the occupants are in peril of death or great bodily harm. Also your statutes may permit deadly force to stop the imminent commission of a forcible felony. Does your state have a stand your ground law, or are you expected to flee before resorting to deadly force? Know the law where you live.

I moved from Massachusetts where if someone threatens you anywhere your duty to the law is to lube up and take what's coming and I moved to New Hampshire where we have stand your ground and castle doctrine with no duty to retreat and no civil liability if involved in a justified shooting.

I myself would always try and avoid an altercation in public as I'd rather walk away from an issue that has the potential to escalate then try to prove something was justified even with the law written on your side because interpretation of even a justified direct action can get you into some real legal drama proving your side of the story.

Too many people read the simple statement of a written law and think they will be safe from prosecution not realizing that even the facts can be twisted against you by the police and courts making a legal defensive encounter now a major felony.

 

[10mmLife]

One thing to consider about holding up in place or going on the offensive is if there are other people in your house that can't fend for themselves such as kids or other vulnerable family members. Would you still post up in one place in the event of a home intruder and wait for first responders or do you go on the offensive to protect family members in another part of the house?

 

[HayesGreener]

I

From all the variables I take away two set in stone rules:

Remain in Defensive mode until you have no other option but to go offensive.

IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET. (As discussed, there is more to identifying your target than just seeing someone you do not know) intoxicated?, mentally unstable? running from danger? I had a nephew whose door was banged on then broken in; turned out he meant no harm to the residents, but was running from a drug deal gone bad and trying to find safety in the first place he came to in order to save himself.


As to US Law Shield, not sure of that option; I was a member, than lapsed. They have a good pitch, but, you may pay all your life and not need them, then when/if you do, what experience and expertise will be the attorney they assign you? And what are the additional/hidden costs? Has anyone here actually had the experience of needing/using them and what was the result? My plan is one offered on this forum under a past thread: line up an attorney of choice before any event, to call if there is an event.

I Don't endorse any particular insurance, do your due diligence. But if you shoot, and are subject to overzealous law enforcement or prosecutors, even if you are right the legal fees can break you. Assess your risk and proceed accordingly.

 

[C. Sumpin]

One thing to consider about holding up in place or going on the offensive is if there are other people in your house that can't fend for themselves such as kids or other vulnerable family members. Would you still post up in one place in the event of a home intruder and wait for first responders or do you go on the offensive to protect family members in another part of the house?

That is the purpose of having a family plan, to know where they are/will remain, if going out the opposite door the intruder enters is an option, where the spare keys to the auto are stashed, ect. or are they capable/trained to remain as an additional force. Lots of ground to cover.

 

[10mmLife]

That is the purpose of having a family plan, to know where they are/will remain, if going out the opposite door the intruder enters is an option, where the spare keys to the auto are stashed, ect. or are they capable/trained to remain as an additional force. Lots of ground to cover.

Things to consider are age and capability of the additional family members be it physical ailments or young/old age.

Having a family plan is one thing but there is a fine line between training your children to prepare for an encounter and doing the with wrong approach as it can teach your children to be paranoid which isn't a good thing. Teaching the children to hunker down in a specified corner of their room in the event of an intruder is not a bad idea as it lets you know where they are so you can act to defend them with more confidence knowing they will most likely not be in the line of a projectile.

I grew up in one of the top 3 most dangerous cities in Massachusetts most of my life and I've been exposed to plenty of ugly situations. Now I live in New Hampshire which is in the top 3 safest states in the country so I don't anticipate much happening in the town where I live but I don't let that dissuade me from training regularly as I've seen the ugly side of what people are capable of first hand.

 

[Bassbob]

I do think it would be wise to at least see who you are shooting at before you pull the trigger. You might have a drunk relative who somehow ends up at your house and thinks it is his house, can't get in with his key, and therefore tries to break into what he thinks is his own house.

It's wise regardless of where you are. In fact it's one of the 4 safety rules. The first one.

 

[Bassbob]

Not likely, but. The wording of your state statutes contain the answers. Castle Doctrine laws generally give you the presumption that the person forcibly entering intends violence, and a presumption that the occupants are in peril of death or great bodily harm. Also your statutes may permit deadly force to stop the imminent commission of a forcible felony. Does your state have a stand your ground law, or are you expected to flee before resorting to deadly force? Know the law where you live.

My state has stand your ground and extended castle. It extends to anywhere you are legally allowed to be.

 

[Bassbob]

I do believe in Connecticut you are required to use similar force against your attacker, if they have a gun you can use a gun against him/her/them if they have only knives then that should be your defensive weapon, this was explained to me by a police officer friend when I lived in that draconian state. Needless to say one of the many reasons I no longer live there.

I do feel the need to mention something not discussed in the article is if you do defend yourself in your home legally from an individual who breaks in intent on doing you or your loved ones harm for any reason then you “open the door” to being sued by family members of the attacker(s) if your use of deadly force ends badly for said attacker.

Not in my state. We also have a pre-emptive law that disallows civil suits in justified SD shootings. We also have a law that disallows any state officials or LEO from enforcing or helping to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. Feds must enforce their gun control by themselves. Violating this law will result in a $50,000 fine and being barred from ever working in the state again.

 

[BreakingWind]

As to US Law Shield, not sure of that option; I was a member, than lapsed. They have a good pitch, but, you may pay all your life and not need them, then when/if you do, what experience and expertise will be the attorney they assign you? And what are the additional/hidden costs? Has anyone here actually had the experience of needing/using them and what was the result? My plan is one offered on this forum under a past thread: line up an attorney of choice before any event, to call if there is an event.

I was on the road with the job and was listening to talk radio. The subject was armed citizens and just by chance George Zimmerman happened to be listening and called in. It was a very interesting conversation but one thing that I took from that conversation was when he said he had successfully defended himself through numerous court cases and he was never found guilty of any crime nor did he have any judgements successfully placed against him. That not withstanding he had lost everything he owned because the legal expenses from defending himself bankrupted him.
I'm a member of US Law Shield and treat it as I would any other insurance plan, I have never used them and hope too never have to so I can't speak from experience but have the coverage in the event a tragedy happens. Went to a US Law Shield class about use of deadly force and met the speaker who was one of the attorneys for my state. As I understand it, the lawyers that are assigned through US Law Shield are vetted and must be experienced in 2A defense cases. Your plan pays for ALL legal fees concerning your defense both criminal and civil. What they do not pay is a judgement if you are found liable in a civil trial (some of the other plans pay judgements as well). You need to also look at their add-ons to basic policy and tailor it to your situation. For example: Bail up to $50,000 is provided for an additional fee. Also I have multi state protection so that I am covered in all 50 states as I travel armed and also live on the Nebraska/Iowa border. There are a few orgs out there that provide this service; US Law Shield, USSCA, Gun-Safe, a few others including one that was even offered by the NRA. It is truly a personal decision that each person who carries should consider. If you are interested research them side by side to find the one that suits you as their are many different fees, and different benefits with each one. None of them is a one size fits all. I carried for over 10 years without any plan and god forbid, I didn't have to shoot anyone and never even really thought about it until I heard George on that radio show. It provides me with at least a little peace of mind YMMV.

 

[Bassbob]

I was on the road with the job and was listening to talk radio. The subject was armed citizens and just by chance George Zimmerman happened to be listening and called in. It was a very interesting conversation but one thing that I took from that conversation was when he said he had successfully defended himself through numerous court cases and he was never found guilty of any crime nor did he have any judgements successfully placed against him. That not withstanding he had lost everything he owned because the legal expenses from defending himself bankrupted him.
I'm a member of US Law Shield and treat it as I would any other insurance plan, I have never used them and hope too never have to so I can't speak from experience but have the coverage in the event a tragedy happens. Went to a US Law Shield class about use of deadly force and met the speaker who was one of the attorneys for my state. As I understand it, the lawyers that are assigned through US Law Shield are vetted and must be experienced in 2A defense cases. Your plan pays for ALL legal fees concerning your defense both criminal and civil. What they do not pay is a judgement if you are found liable in a civil trial (some of the other plans pay judgements as well). You need to also look at their add-ons to basic policy and tailor it to your situation. For example: Bail up to $50,000 is provided for an additional fee. Also I have multi state protection so that I am covered in all 50 states as I travel armed and also live on the Nebraska/Iowa border. There are a few orgs out there that provide this service; US Law Shield, USSCA, Gun-Safe, a few others including one that was even offered by the NRA. It is truly a personal decision that each person who carries should consider. If you are interested research them side by side to find the one that suits you as their are many different fees, and different benefits with each one. None of them is a one size fits all. I carried for over 10 years without any plan and god forbid, I didn't have to shoot anyone and never even really thought about it until I heard George on that radio show. It provides me with at least a little peace of mind YMMV.

George Zimmerman may not be the best case to hold as an example of why you would need carry insurance. He has since then proved himself to be pretty much what he was accused of no ? He had no authority to detain or stalk Trayvon Martin. He was playing cop and at a minimum he SHOULD have been sued and bankrupted in civil court.

 

[HayesGreener]

George Zimmerman may not be the best case to hold as an example of why you would need carry insurance. He has since then proved himself to be pretty much what he was accused of no ? He had no authority to detain or stalk Trayvon Martin. He was playing cop and at a minimum he SHOULD have been sued and bankrupted in civil court.

I see your point but the media lied to you about what happened. I agree that Zimmerman was not the brightest, and got himself into a bad situation, but what he did was within the laws of the state of Florida. About a year after the trial, an investigator who worked on Zimmerman's case and who testified at the trial, gave a two hour presentation on the case at our annual Licensed Investigator training conference. The facts as presented to us by the arsonist main stream media were a world apart from what actually happened at the scene. Zimmerman was tried and convicted by the media on false information before the facts were known.

Once he was acquitted of the criminal charges, he could not be sued under Florida law and there was no case in federal court.

I cannot count the number of times I worked a crime scene over the years and on reading or seeing the TV coverage the next day, did not recognize it as the same incident. Editors will twist the facts to fit their agenda. I was trained to nail down the facts and report them however they fall. The media should be doing the same but seems incapable of doing that any more. Zimmerman is a case in point, among many others, of why I do not trust the media any further than I can throw their satellite trucks.

 

[Bassbob]

I see your point but the media lied to you about what happened. I agree that Zimmerman was not the brightest, and got himself into a bad situation, but what he did was within the laws of the state of Florida. About a year after the trial, an investigator who worked on Zimmerman's case and who testified at the trial, gave a two hour presentation on the case at our annual Licensed Investigator training conference. The facts as presented to us by the arsonist main stream media were a world apart from what actually happened at the scene. Zimmerman was tried and convicted by the media on false information before the facts were known.

Once he was acquitted of the criminal charges, he could not be sued under Florida law and there was no case in federal court.

I cannot count the number of times I worked a crime scene over the years and on reading or seeing the TV coverage the next day, did not recognize it as the same incident. Editors will twist the facts to fit their agenda. I was trained to nail down the facts and report them however they fall. The media should be doing the same but seems incapable of doing that any more. Zimmerman is a case in point, among many others, of why I do not trust the media any further than I can throw their satellite trucks.

It’s not at all surprising. I was aware at the time that the media was full of crap. Still, I have to take into consideration the fact that he was a guy performing neighborhood watch duty and failed to call the police until after he confronted and shot Martin.

Also to my point, Florida has the same law my state has which keeps you from being sued after a justified shooting. So how/why did he bankrupt himself with legal fees?

 

[C. Sumpin]

I see your point but the media lied to you about what happened. I agree that Zimmerman was not the brightest, and got himself into a bad situation, but what he did was within the laws of the state of Florida. About a year after the trial, an investigator who worked on Zimmerman's case and who testified at the trial, gave a two hour presentation on the case at our annual Licensed Investigator training conference. The facts as presented to us by the arsonist main stream media were a world apart from what actually happened at the scene. Zimmerman was tried and convicted by the media on false information before the facts were known.

Once he was acquitted of the criminal charges, he could not be sued under Florida law and there was no case in federal court.

I cannot count the number of times I worked a crime scene over the years and on reading or seeing the TV coverage the next day, did not recognize it as the same incident. Editors will twist the facts to fit their agenda. I was trained to nail down the facts and report them however they fall. The media should be doing the same but seems incapable of doing that any more. Zimmerman is a case in point, among many others, of why I do not trust the media any further than I can throw their satellite trucks.

Thanks Green. News is no longer news but (low grade) entertainment by some really unethical folks. News hacks are political creatures who bend, twist, ignore or add to the facts as suits them. A few, such as Glenn Greenwald are exceptions. And there can be no doubt that the media has enemy Agents on staff.

 

[HayesGreener]

It’s not at all surprising. I was aware at the time that the media was full of crap. Still, I have to take into consideration the fact that he was a guy performing neighborhood watch duty and failed to call the police until after he confronted and shot Martin.

Also to my point, Florida has the same law my state has which keeps you from being sued after a justified shooting. So how/why did he bankrupt himself with legal fees?

He was prosecuted and had legal costs associated with the defense. I am no fan of Zimmerman, but the media did a Richard Jewell on him. Another example of arsonist media is what they did to Officer Darren Wilson after he shot Brown in Ferguson Mo. The facts just didn't seem to matter.

 

[Bassbob]

Well maybe Zimmerman’s money problems extend beyond his legal fees.

Redirect Notice

 

[HayesGreener]

I think the lawyers are hoping for proceeds from a book and movie.....

 

[BreakingWind]

George Zimmerman may not be the best case to hold as an example of why you would need carry insurance. He has since then proved himself to be pretty much what he was accused of no ? He had no authority to detain or stalk Trayvon Martin. He was playing cop and at a minimum he SHOULD have been sued and bankrupted in civil court.

He was just the impetus to get me thinking. Would be hell to have to go thru the trauma of shooting someone to save yourself or your loved ones and then lose what meager wealth you have saved up for retirement to legal costs. In todays litigious society you see stories all the time where someone defends himself and then gets a wrongful death brought against them. Doesn't matter that it is a frivilous case that don't hold water, there are enough ambulance chasing lawyers out there that will take a case like that on and then you have to pay a lawyer's exuberent fees to defend against the lawsuit.
Not to change the subject but it begs big for Tort Reform Laws, ain't heard anyone interested in that issue since the Reagan Administration. Push for federal law that mirrors Florida's. If its a justified shoot you are protected against having a lawsuit being brought against you.

 

[C. Sumpin]

He was just the impetus to get me thinking. Would be hell to have to go thru the trauma of shooting someone to save yourself or your loved ones and then lose what meager wealth you have saved up for retirement to legal costs. In todays litigious society you see stories all the time where someone defends himself and then gets a wrongful death brought against them. Doesn't matter that it is a frivilous case that don't hold water, there are enough ambulance chasing lawyers out there that will take a case like that on and then you have to pay a lawyer's exuberent fees to defend against the lawsuit.
Not to change the subject but it begs big for Tort Reform Laws, ain't heard anyone interested in that issue since the Reagan Administration. Push for federal law that mirrors Florida's. If its a justified shoot you are protected against having a lawsuit being brought against you.

Gotta be cautious with those Tort Reforms...............they lean heavily in favor of the wealthy, keep the poor dude from suing for a rightful cause.

 

[michael.ed]

Can someone help me understand what comprises ‘legal Fees’. I sorta understand Lawyer fees and such, but what makes up court costs, etc.?

 

[C. Sumpin]

Can someone help me understand what comprises ‘legal Fees’. I sorta understand Lawyer fees and such, but what makes up court costs, etc.?

There is an attorney on forum, perhaps he will shed some light.

Retainers, investigations, "Expert" witnesses, court costs, (don't know what all that includes) travel time/costs/lodging, hourly charge for the attorney(s) add up fast as a hospital bill. The legal system, as the Medical field, can drain funds and wealth like a dam break on a lake. Designed that way.