So you shoot to scare a burglar

General General Discussion
1

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5097917

Two would-be burglars encountered an armed homeowner in Ogden. Now one man is in jail and police are looking for another. It happened this morning around 9:15 at Steven Cross’ home near 200 East 19th Street.

The homeowner said someone tried to break into his house a month ago and, this time, he was ready. Cross said, “I just got done making myself some pancakes after work when I heard someone trying to break in my back door.”

Inside the house, Cross could see a shadow through the weather strip. He said, “I wanted to scare him off, so I went down and pushed the door shut so he know someone was there, and he didn’t care.”

Cross tried to get a better look at the man and peeked out a side window. “I saw footprints, and it was all snow this morning,” Cross said. “There were no footprints, and I’m like, ‘There’s footprints. I know someone’s back there.'”

Cross made eye contact with the man and that made him nervous. He said, “[He] stared me down like it was no big deal, so I went and got my gun.”

Cross opened his front door, his 9 mm handgun hidden behind the door. Cross said, “He was already at his car, ready to leave, and I was like, ‘Can I help you?’ Like, ‘What are you doing at my house,’ basically. I don’t know if he got nervous or whatever, and he fired a shot at me.”

The bullet went over the house. Cross fired back, hitting the man’s car as he drove off. "My tactic was just natural reaction, fire back to try to scare him, to get him out of the area, Cross said.

When Cross gave police a description, officers immediately recognized the man as Michael Shawn Toles. Police arrested Toles last week for wandering in the backyard of homes in Ogden’s east bench.

Toles also was out on bail for auto theft in Weber County.

This morning, police found Toles at his house. Lt. Scott Sangberg, with the Ogden Police Department, said, “He probably ought to take up another way of living because he’s not a very good criminal.”

Cross, who’s in the Air Force, moved into this house with his fiancée three months ago. There’s an alarm system, but someone tried to break in last month, so he bought the gun. Cross said, “Never had to use it before. First shot fired at a Dodge Intrepid. [i] didn’t really expect that.”

Toles is in the Weber County Jail. Cross says a second man was parked in another car outside his house, possibly as a lookout. Police are still looking for him.

Police are investigating whether the homeowner was within his rights to shoot at the suspects. Sangberg said a person had a right to defend himself, but legally he or she didn’t have a right to chase someone down a street while shooting.

2

Im not shooting to ‘scare’ anyone, Im gonna shoot AT the mofo breaking in with intent to stop his threat to me and my family.

I dont do ‘warning shots’

3

there are no “warning shots,” just stray bullets.

4

Something I heard a long time ago:

“The two shots to the chest were the warning. The one to the head was for real.”

I might have even read it here.

5

Well, I don’t want to armchair QB this one, so I’ll say what I would do. I would have never opened the door. I would have put my family into one room, called the cops, and waited for them. If he tried to gain entry again, then I would have confronted him and shot him as he was trying to enter my home.

6

To all the Rambo’s here: There is absolutely no doubt that, in certain situations, “warning” or non-fatal shots are by far the better and more intelligent option. I have first hand experience with this one. Had I killed the night I had to make the split second decision, I would likely still be in Trenton State.

7

My comments were not meant to convey a Rambo attitude. They were meant to convey that you fire to stop a threat.

For me it boils down to the four rules. I would be very concerned about where that warning shot went. As others here have said, every round that leaves your muzzle has a lawyer attached to it, with a potential million-dollar price tag.

But the lives of my son and daughter are worth more than a million to me. So I will evaluate that situation, and do what is appropriate. And when I fire, I use the appropriate amount of force to gain control of the situation.

Safetyhit, I am very glad that you are not in that facility. I do understand the pressure of the decision you had to make. My remark sounds more flippant than I meant it to.

I believe we are on the same side.

8

T

there is absolutely no doubt that, in certain situations, “warning” or non-fatal shots are by far the better and more intelligent option.

I may be opening a can of worms here, but I beg to differ. Using a firearm in any capacity against someone means that you have decided use of lethal force is your only recourse. Your point of aim in this case should be either center mass or a CNS shot and if the subject dies as a result too bad - you were shooting to stop an immediate threat, not with a pre-meditation to “kill”. I think that that concept of shooting to wound sets dangerous precedents on a number of levels.

9

No, it means (in my humble case) that you have fired warning shots to effectively scare the shit out of three people who accosted your car while driving home from a first date at the movies and who were ready to hurt you and another innocent on your property with a bat, knife and slim-jim, when instead you could have run in your home and called the police.

Here in N.J. one can not shoot anyone outside their home unless it is deemed absolutely necessary. The police said I had the option to run inside, lock the doors, and call them. I chose not to do so.

They deserved what they got. My record has long been expunged.

10

I agree whole heartedly.

11

This subject has many options of end results. I live in the city and discharging a firearm gets you in jail as much as shooting someone, but shooting at someone fleeing the scene is a big “NO” threat bad shot. The law here as I understand it is only if a life is in jepardy and enough force to overcome the threat. IE: don’t kill flies with a sledge hammer. I agree a warning shot can be idea and possibly stop the threat but then becomes the law of discharging in city limits.

I don’t have a CCW even though it is available but I personally know if I branish a pistol I will use it. And that scares me because I may save a life or maybe not but I will have to answer for it and now a days even pay for it and risk my family life style. If someone broke in my house yes they won’t do it again. But it will change me and my family forever.

I support CCW and self defense but will do everything I can to avoid needing either option

12

I agree, and this is a big one with regard to mistakes–both that lead to home invasions when people open the door for strangers and become victims of home invasions, as well as shootings when home defenders arm themselves and then open the door to confront a potential threat.

This is both a tactical and a legal dilema.

First, in most circumstances, it is a bad tactical move to open the door to confront someone who you believe to be armed, even if you are armed yourself.

And if you do wind up shooting someone it may hurt your legal case when you left the safety of a locked house to confront someone. I mean, exactly how afraid were you and how anxious to avoid shooting someone if you left the relative safety of a locked house to face a potential armed assailant? Again, it depends on the laws of your locale and the the specific circumstances.

13

you have fired warning shots to effectively scare the shit out of three people

I’m sorry, but again if you open fire it is not to scare someone it’s to kill them

Here in N.J. one can not shoot anyone outside their home unless it is deemed absolutely necessary.

So they were okay with you discharging a firearm under these circumstances but would have thrown the book at you if anyone had been injured? (that was a question not a commentary)

It sounds to me from what you are saying that you would have been perfectly justified in shooting these individuals - as you describe it they presented and immediate threat to life and limb.

14

And discharging a firearm can lead to charges of reckless endangerment among others. In my Arizona CCW class we were told that under the law if you discharge a firearm (even a negligent discharge) within city limits it is a FELONY and you will lose your CCW among other things. Personally I am only discharging my weapon when I am in fear of death or great bodily injury to myself or family and I will articulate as much when time comes.

15

I realize that there are differing schools of thought on this issue (a glaring understatement), but I have a hard time with the idea of firing a projectile for any reason other than to engage a legitimate target.

Warning shots are, by nature, risky at best and reckless at worst. You have to ask yourself what’s worse: firing into a threat without a formal preamble, or firing a warning shot that may well result in unintended damage/injury or worse to someone that isn’t even involved in the confrontation.

There are places on this earth where warning shots are required by law whenever possible (and Germany happens to be one of them), but I still chafe at the suggestion that it is worth taking these kinds of chances in order to gain compliance from anyone posing a deadly threat. If you’re justified in pointing a weapon at someone to begin with, the odds are that you’ve already cleared the moral and ethical burdens required to ventilate them as well.

My policy? Mercy, when/if possible, but no warning shots.

Chief

16

Chief,

YOu are right. When I was a C.O the policy on escaping prisoners dictated that warning shots were not authorized nor should they be. I do find it rather funny that in Germany one must fire warning shots at prisoners before escalating force. If I recall correctly the police were sometimes required to use them as well.

If I discharge my weapon, i.e. shoot someone it is because there was a perceived or direct threat that required the use of deadly force otherwise it is not going to happen.

17

IG,

I should have been clearer in my statement: the policy to which I was referring in Germany was primarily applicable to individual self-defense situations (i.e. a hunter faced with a beligerent poacher in the forest, et al). The individual’s ability to own and employ arms in most of the EU is extant, but obviously heavily restricted.

One of my better friends is a fairly high-ranking Polizei officer, and inasmuch as I can tell, they can still empty an MP-5 in your personal space without any advance fanfare, provided they can think of some reason for it after-the-fact. Granted, our litigous ways are starting to migrate to the Continent somewhat, but for the most part, you still don’t want to get froggy with the German police. :wink:

Chief

18

Chief,

I had heard about the police being restricted but it was second hand. The escape thing was something I learned when we did a little ride around with the BGS up near Bad Herzfeld/ Fulda area back in the day.

I remember the Polizei being well-known back in the day for kicking in peoples heads. As one of our guys found out when he was in the Frankfurt Bahnhof drunk and messing around with some older German guy. :eek:

19

Personally I am only discharging my weapon when I am in fear of death or great bodily injury to myself or family and I will articulate as much when time comes.

That’s what I was taught, too. If the gun clears the holster, be prepared to shoot - and only present a weapon when you’re in fear if death or grievious bodily injury. If you’re not sure, then you’re probably NOT about to die.

Others may be taught differently.

20

have to agree that from my perspective, a warning shot is a dangerous response.

in my CCW class and in talking with LEO’s, for the average person (civilian), if the firearm has been drawn or shouldered, you are past the point of negotiating, warning, or backing away; all your options have been exhausted and you at the last step in a defensive/protective situation. This is drastically different then what LEO’s are trained for, and their response patterns shouldn’t be considered when evaluating a home defensive/protective situation that a civilian might encounter.

There are many “fine points” that can come into play and I remember when my wife went through the training, the instructor answered a question “What if the attacker suddenly turns and runs”?? His response…if they are inside the house, you shoot until your firearm is empty, throw the gun, get the kids, and run. He explained his answer by saying if a person was crazy/desperate enough to break into house, you can’t count on them being logical or consistent. The attacker could take 2 steps, jump through a doorway and turn to fire at you, or try to find a child’s room, or countless other responses.