Think there's a burglar? Police say get away and call them (Bakersfield, California)

[shadowrider]

Police have a clear, simple response when it comes to what residents should do if they think they've been the victim of a burglary -- call 911.

--snip--

Michel missed, but the intruder, identified by police as John Jenaro Garner, dropped to the floor and Michel held him at gunpoint until officers arrived. An arraignment for Garner, who was also wanted on a misdemeanor warrant, has been scheduled for Friday.

Craig said Michel's case appears to be self-defense because Michel confronted an armed intruder in his house. The intruder pointed the rifle at him before Michel fired, according to Michel.

Just because an intruder's in your house, however, doesn't give you the right to shoot the person, Craig said.


http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x379809029/Think-theres-a-burglar-Police-say-get-away-and-call-them

I'm glad I don't live in California

[Uben]

1. No shit!

I find someone in my house stealing, they are getting shot! I'm glad Texas has the Castle Law. If someone is stealing your stuff, you can shoot them without fear of prosecution. I hate thieves, and if someone is in my house, they are there to harm me, and they risk immediate death. I have had death threats against me, and I can only surmise the intruder is there to carry out that threat, which will result in their demise.

[shadowrider]

4. Had the homeowner NOT been armed

And surprised the burglar, who had a rifle, would we be reading about a family being wiped out by a crazy with a gun?

[slackmaster]

38. Possibly so. We'll never know.

I'm glad the homeowner was armed, and that he had the presence of mind to use his weapon.

[slackmaster]

37. California has a Castle Doctrine law too. If someone breaks in to your home while you are there,

You can shoot him or her.

[Statistical]

45. Castle Doctrine doesn't allow shooting someone who is stealing stuff.

Texas has a lot of laws and one of them does allow that in certain circumstances.
Please don't confuse Castle Doctrine with other laws on the books in TX.

Castle Doctrine is just a protection that if someone enters your home illegally the presumption is that they intend to do you harm and if you use lethal self defense you are justified (based on conditions of the law). People can still be arrested and convicted under Castle Doctrine it simply puts the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove that the presumption is invalid.

Some states are trying to pass Castle Doctrine laws right now and you confusing protecting property with Castle Doctrine doesn't help.

I can here it now: "Dude I am going to tell Congress to vote against Castle Doctrine because it lets people execute someone even if they are just stealing some food".

Your misinformation is not helping.

[damyank913]

2. To all thugs: Break into my house at your own risk...

and if you're armed, you will not live to see the morning.

[rfranklin]

10. Unless he happens to shoot you first...

Never thought of that one, did you?

[GreenStormCloud]

16. You assume that if we meekly surrender to the criminal that he will not harm us.

Unfortunately, many criminals get a thrill from the power they then hold over helpless residents and hurt, even kill, them.

If you arrive home to a burglarly in progress, don't enter. You are already safe outside the house. Leave and call 911.

If you are in the house and the burglar breaks in, you are in danger, shoot him with no warning. Keep shooting until he is no longer a threat.

[rfranklin]

22. Not at all...I just don't think that you can count on not getting shot first...

Do you really believe that every time an armed homeowner is confronted by an intruder that they have a gun in hand or that they might not get shot anyway. Having a gun does not provide you with an impregnable shield. That is what I find truly laughable about these posts. It's magical thinking.

[PavePusher]

24. No-one beleives that a firearm is a magical talisman...

that will shield us from all harm.

But Citizens who are armed have a remarkably succesful record of defeating criminals, no matter what the location.

Hmmmm...

[shadowrider]

34. Pssst..

Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. So being unarmed is going to make things better?

FWIW - I do NOT advise movement to confront the burglar, unless you really, really have to.

First, harden the house against burglary to that he will go somewhere else and you don't have to confront him. If he gets in anyway, the alarm should wake you up.

Gather the family into a safe room. This is the dangerous part as it involves movement of innocents while the burglar is in the house. I my case, the family is only my wife and she is already in the bedroom with me. Some houses have the family in one area that can be secured. Those are best.

Best option - Get behind something and point the guns at the door. One of you call 911 on a cell phone. Do not leave the room. If the burglar breaks in the door, shoot him a lot. Stay on phone with the police until they say they have arrived. Then put the guns down.

Worst option - Searching the house for the burglar. But sometimes you may have to do that. If you do have to clear the house yourself, GO SLOWLY, GO SILENTLY, MAKE SURE OF YOUR TARGET, SHOOT WITHOUT WARNING, KEEP SHOOTING, reload. As you search the house, leave the burglar with a way of escape, don't try to corner him.

[spin]

58. It's also necessary to realize that you can be shot ...

and still continue to shoot back. Also, you can shoot an intruder and he also can continue to fight.

Handguns are not as effective as they appear to be on TV or the movies.

There's a current running post on the subject, Triggernometry - The "Center Mass" Myth and Ending a Gunfight at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=299327&mesg_id=299327

[Glassunion]

3. Me too. PA rawks!!!

We are still thankfully in America.

You gotta love the article it is seething with hyperbole and hypotheticals. Reminds me of the CNN clip from last week.

[old mark]

5. I understand that Mass law expects you to get out of the intruder's way

even leave the house, but above all do not engage the intruder. What terrible laws we have passed in the name of liberalism-I can see why some are disgusted with liberals.

I live in PA and don't have to listen to such bad advice.

IIRC, Police response time to 911 calls runs around 20 minutes plus.

mark

[shadowrider]

6. When seconds count, the police are minutes away

[Uben]

8. Notice....

...the anti-gun folks shy away from threads like these. They don't want to die, either!

[Remmah2]

13. Just hoping their gun owning neighbors are home.

Can I borrow a cup of 9mm please?

[old mark]

14. Sorry, I have only .45 ACP. nt

[shadowrider]

17. I'd rather have a cup of 165 grain, .40 caliber hollowpoint myself

Which I have

[Euromutt]

19. That's my prefered flavor too

Though I'm ecumenical; 124 gr. 9x19mm JHP and 230 gr. .45 ACP JHP are additional options (as are 55 gr. .223 Rem ballistic tip, 69 gr. .223 Rem BTHP, 124 gr. 7.62x39mm HP, 12-gauge 9-pellet 00 buck and 12-gauge Hydra-Shok slugs).

But 165 gr. .40 JHP is my preferred HD/SD round at present. That said, my S&W M&P40 will accept .357 SIG with a replacement barrel, and that's something I'm interested in looking into.

[Uben]

46. 19 guns and lots of ammo

Admittedly, I inherited most all of the guns and have not fired a gun in over 15 years. But, I will not hesitate to shoot someone who puts my family in peril. If someone does not want a gun in their house, more power to em. My aunt was murdered in her home.

I made a mistake when I said "Boom!". I should have said, "Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." All six shells will be discharged at the intruder.

[shadowrider]

15. Don't worry

They'll be here sooner or later.

[jgraz]

78. Most of us just have better things to do than feed your blood lust.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. He didn't even shoot the burglar.

Looks like he fired a warning shot past the burglar, then held him for police. Now the homeowner has been arrested. How long until California is like the UK, where you seem to be expected to serve the burglar tea and crumpets while he steals your stuff and assaults your family.

I am glad I live in Texas where we have Castle Doctrine.

However, if you arrive home to a burglary-in-progress, the advise in the article is correct: "Don't enter the house if you think it's been burglarized because the intruder might still be there and, even if he's gone, you could contaminate the crime scene,..." The problem with entering is that the intruder now has a strong tactical advantage over you, and you are likely to lose the gunfight. Don't be stupid macho and end up dead.

[Uben]

9. Could you live with killing someone for stealing?

I wouldn't think twice. BOOM!

[rfranklin]

11. Then you are a right winger...

And I wonder why you are on DU.

[shadowrider]

12. Why is it

Someone with a different opinion here is automatically labeled a right winger ???

Is it some sort of progressive value to meekly give up your life or the life of someone in your family without a fight?

Just curious

[one-eyed fat man]

18. so you mean

a true liberal, ever-striving to maintain their moral superiority, hires their killing done by relying on butchers to cut their steaks, cops to shoot their burglars and the soldiers to keep them free?

[rfranklin]

20. No, enthusiastically applying the death penalty for burglary is right wing...

Anyone with a brain does not want to kill another human. If you are in a life threatening situation and you fight to stay alive, that is understandable. But I am sure that you have heard of cops who suffer trauma after a shooting that is totally justified. Only a psychopath feels no repercussions.

To gleefully talk of killing is juvenile.

[shadowrider]

21. So we're supposed to wait until the bad guy makes a move?

Sorry, if they're in my house, uninvited at 2 a.m., I'm defending myself against a threat. Period.

[rfranklin]

23. I shot you before you could wake up...

You're dead.

[lepus]

27. Which basicly means that you are admitting your point is meaningless.

A burglar shooting a homeowner in the head while he sleeps would neither give the homeowner opportunity to flee nor defend. Sorry, but not a good argument for your POV.

Nothing is absolute. Having a gun for home defense will allow you to make choices if your home is broken into. Yes, you may still be killed or injured if you attempt to defend, but you may also be killed or injured while trying to flee.

A gun is not a magic talisman that will defend you from all evil, but a tool, that in critical moments when seconds are golden and 911 response time is priceless, may save your life.

[rfranklin]

32. Thank you, you admitted that a gun is not a magic talisman...

That was my point. Too often there are posts which imply that one is invulnerable with a gun. A gun, even in the hand of a highly trained professional, does not guarantee that you will shoot first, shoot straighter or emerge unscathed. I find that idea ludicrous.

[shadowrider]

33. No one here

Or on any gun thread has suggested you're automatically safe with a gun. All it does is give you a fighting chance to survive, nothing more, nothing less.

[rfranklin]

35. LOL...that's a good one!

[shadowrider]

42. I haven't a clue what you're laughing at

I agreed with you it's not a "magic talisman", it only evens the odds. What's so funny about that?

[lepus]

48. Is that your insanity laugh before the guys with butterfly nets come to take you away?

Or the last fleeting laugh of one that just realized he lost anything resembling an argument?

[AtheistCrusader]

52. By all means, cite a post that supports your claim. I'll wait.

Cite one that ISN'T sarcasm by you or one a poster against RKBA, Concealed Carry, Open Carry or the like.

[GreenStormCloud]

41. Having a gun improves my odds dramatically.

Having a full house in a poker game, no wild cards, is not a guarantee that you will win the pot, but the odds are real good.

OK, In Hold'em it is possible to know that you have a nut hand, but I was speaking in general terms of most high-hand poker games. And in Omaha, a full house is often a weak hand. I hate Omaha. It is the only flop game in which it is possible to have the absolute nuts on the turn and your only correct move is to fold the hand.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Your posts are the only one implying guns grant immunity to harm.

That's what we call a strawman.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Better run, because my wife's gonna be pissed.

Shotgun's on her side of the bed.

[GreenStormCloud]

71. How did you get in without waking me up?

My house is hardened. You can't get in without going to some effort and making a LOT of racket.

[slackmaster]

31. Please don't conflate use of deadly force in self-defense with judicial execution

They're not at all the same thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Or even extrajudicial killing (vigilanteeism)

because self-defense is neither.

[one-eyed fat man]

60. irony, thy name is?

"To gleefully talk of killing is juvenile.

I want to get the Republican party small enough to drown it in a bathtub."

[PavePusher]

25. Do you trust a criminal to only take your property?

And what legal or moral/ethical code leads you to believe they should be unopposed?

My property represents a significant investment of my life, and some of it, my fellow airmans lives.

Criminals invading my property will be ventilated, if I have anything to say about it.

[Uben]

44. Then you are stupid....

...and would not survive!

[Spoonman]

69. Failed talking point

please refrain from blind accusations based on zero facts and no personal knowledge of the person.
It is remarkably juvenile, and demonstrates your own shortcomings.

[Euromutt]

26. I wouldn't kill someone for stealing, no

And let me state upfront that I consider residential burglars to be utter scum; violating someone's home is the closest thing to rape, in the sense of psychological damage inflicted, that I can imagine.

However, when an intruder enters a home while the occupants are present, you don't know that he's just there to steal things, and you should not be expected to find out the hard way before responding with force, up to and including lethal force. There are plenty of cases of burglars actively seeking out the occupants of the home to beat out of them the location of valuables, the combination codes to safes, etc. and I don't think anyone should be required to submit to that.

As a qualifier, I should note that if I had good reason to believe a burglar was fleeing with any of my firearms, I'd shoot, rather than let him get away with guns he could fence and which might subsequently be used in crimes. But my Wii or my DVD player? Pfff, they're replaceable.

[slackmaster]

30. No, but I could live with killing someone for threatening me with a weapon

That's what the real subject is here.

[Statistical]

47. This attitude doesn't help responsible gun onwers.

If someone is in my house and a danger to myself or family I will shoot them however it is my intent to stop them.

If I shoot and miss and they run away I am fine with that.
If I shoot and miss and I hold them at gunpoint until cops arrive I am fine with that.
IF I shoot and hit and they run away and cops catch them I am fine with that.
If I shoot and hit and they lie there until cops arrive I am fine with that.
If I shoot and hit and they die I am fine with that.

The point is my intent would be to "shoot to stop the threat".

Your statement seems to indicate you would intentionally take someones life for stealing.
Then people like you wonder why we end up with more stupid gun control laws.

[Uben]

59. You have your way.......

....I have mine. I am not about to wait and see if the intruder has a gun. I will always assume he has if he is in my house uninvited. As I stated in another post, my aunt was murdered in a home invasion. She did not own a gun, although even if she did , it doesn't mean she would have survived.
The murderer was never caught.

Unless you have been in a situation where you are forced to defend yourself or your family, you cannot unequivicably say what you would or would not do. Given the circumstance, I would kill the intruder, and never regret my actions. Someone else's stupidity is not my fault. If that makes me a "gun nut", then so be it. I have no symapthy for thieves, and I am obviously pro death penalty. I have never voted republican, and I never will. I am just a democrat you don't want to fuck with!

[Statistical]

61. I never said I would wait or that you should.

Shooting an intruder because they present a risk is what Castle Doctrine is all about.
It ensures that the law abiding don't need to risk their health to determine the intent of an intruder before taking action.
It presumes the intruder intends harm and allows the resident to actions to overcome that harm without fear of prosecution if it turns out the itruder wasn't a threat.

However they way you phrase things seems to indicate you would execute someone in your home because they were steeling.
It implies you know better than the courts and have the right to determine if someone lives or dies.

A more responsible attitude is to "shoot to stop the threat". Someone in your home is a threat. You have a right to stop that threat. You don't have a right to try and kill another human being. If you don't get that distinction then you don't need to respond, it really isn't debatable in a civilized society.

[Uben]

77. I agree to an extent

I would not shoot someone just for stealing. If I saw them leaving my house with a bag full of goods, I would not shoot, although the CAstle Doctrine does allow for that. I can replace things, and they certainly are not worth a human life.

I should have clarified the fact that I would only shoot if I felt my family's or my life was in peril.
I do consider someone in my home to be "in peril". And, I will always assume an intruder has a weapon.
To do otherwise would be foolish.

A close friend awoke one night to the sound of glass breaking. When he peeked aroud the corner of his bedroom door, he saw a man at the end of the hallway (he lives alone). All he had was a .22 cal rifle under the bed, so he got it and shot several times dropping the intruder. This was before the Castle Doctrine and the law read the intruder had to be between you and an exit. It turned out to be a 19 yr old kid stealing beer out of the fridge. He helped him onto his couch and called the cops. When they arrived, the officer said he should have used a bigger gun! He had had prior experience with the perp.
The boy's wounds were not life threatening.
I just can't let anyone imperil my family or myself without taking immediate and drastic action. If I determined the threat did not warrant lethal action, I would surely avoid it. I have never shot anyone and pray I never have to. But....

[Spoonman]

67. Not only is my answer

YES!

It's FUCKING YES, AND I DON'T GIVE A SHIT HOW THAT MAKES ME "LOOK" OR HOW ANYONE "FEELS" ABOUT ME!

[slackmaster]

29. He would have been well within his rights if he had shot the burglar.

He probably won't be charged with anything.

[slackmaster]

28. Detective Craig is ignorant of California law. Let me throw some light on this.

Here is the part of the California Penal Code that defines justifiable uses of deadly force in California; it includes our version of the Castle Doctrine, which has been used as a blueprint for the laws of several other states. Someone who breaks into your home while you are there is a valid target in California. He doesn't even have to be threatening you with a weapon.

It's not very hard to understand, so I'll just quote and cite without further comment.

195. Homicide is excusable in the following cases:
1. When committed by accident and misfortune, or in doing any
other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution,
and without any unlawful intent.
2. When committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of
passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden
combat, when no undue advantage is taken, nor any dangerous weapon
used, and when the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and
those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--
1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,
2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to
the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other
legal duty; or,
3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been
rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting
persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or
resisting such arrest.

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

[X_Digger]

39. Well, in fairness..

It's on the books, but it's been neutered by court precedent.

"{People v. Ceballos} specifically held that burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'”

[slackmaster]

40. I think a burglar in your home pointing a rifle at you is good to go

;-)

[X_Digger]

43. True, true. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

49. That statement is correct in almost any state.

"If it's found, for example, that the individual shot at an unarmed suspect or shot him in the back they could face charges," Craig said.

The District Attorney's office would review whether the homeowner acted within the law or not. Prosecutor Mark Pafford said people can use deadly force to protect themselves if they have a reasonable fear that a person will cause great bodily injury or death to themselves or someone else.

Pafford said there is no such thing as "self-defense of property." What that means is you can't lawfully shoot someone if they're stealing something but aren't posing any danger toward you.

Texas would be one rare exception to the property bit. In WA, CA, and as far as I know, OR and ID, you cannot shoot someone over property. Only if you are in danger. (An unarmed person may present a danger, but probably not if you shot them in the back)

[slackmaster]

53. Nope, being unarmed does not make you exempt from deadly force in California

IF you broke into an occupied home AND the occupant has a reasonable fear that you are intending to commit a serious crime.

It is quite true that you cannot use deadly force just to protect property in California. However, a guy who broke into your house and is pointing a rifle at you is presumed to be intent on causing you harm, and can lawfully be shot.

Burglars in California are valid targets, whether they are armed or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. See the last sentence of my post.

Part of the problem with the citation in the OP. It cuts the officer's point off at the knees.

[slackmaster]

56. Nobody got shot in the story being discussed here

:shrug:

A person who was pointing a rifle at the homeowner got shot AT and got lucky.

[Statistical]

63. Unless said intruder was going towards someone else.

If I stop intruder in my house and he/she turns and goes towards my child's bedroom I would shoot them in the back.
Them turning their back on my doesn't reduce the risk to my family.

Even if they didn't know my child was there or they weren't armed, or they confused that door with the exit is irrelevant.
I am not aware of their motives, knowledge, or intention.

Rarely in self defense shooting is anything cut & dry. Odds are if you shoot someone, even justified you are going to spend a lot on a lawyer. In my opinion that is preferable to other possible outcomes though.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. The "unarmed" burglar can be shot, because...

...you don't know that he is unarmed. Just because you can't see his gun, knife, whatever, doesn't mean that he doesn't have one. If I wait until he draws his gun before I react, I will be too late. So the law allows me to assume that the burglar is armed. After all, since he has broken into an occupied dwelling, it is logical to assume that he is prepared to meet and deal with the occupants. Instead, I shall be ready to deal with him.

[Statistical]

64. That is true but I would always indicate the state.

i.e. "the law in VA allows me ...."

Laws of self defense vary substantially by state. What is legal in one state will get you 10 to 20 in another state.

The reason for Castle Doctrine protections are exactly what you described. If someone has illegally entered your home you don't know what their intentions are, you don't know if they are armed, and you don't know how they will react to stress. It is unreasonable for the law to require a resident to determine these facts and risk their own lives in the process.

[GreenStormCloud]

72. You are correct. N/T

[ManiacJoe]

62. It is sort of the correct advise.

If you are already outside with no need to go in, yes, call the cops and wait. House clearing is best done by teams, highly not recommended as a solo activity.

If you have to clear any part of the house due to the need to gather family members, one does best to remember that the goal is not to find the intruder but to find the family members.

Unfortunately, blanket statements like this from the police are usually very bad from the tactical point of view and made only in an effort to lower the liability of the PD from the public misinterpreting what might otherwise be good tactics.

[Xenotime]

65. nobody has the right to take the law into their hands.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

66. You are correct. However people also have a natural right to self defense.

Self defense != vigilantism

[Spoonman]

68. Nobody has the "right"

to break the law!
I have the RIGHT by law to defend my life and or property!

[GreenStormCloud]

73. I take it that you have never heard of citizen's arrest. N/T

[PavePusher]

74. Please, what is you definition of 'taking the law into their hands'?

P.S., Laws are exactly meant to be used by and for the people.

[Armed]

70. You guys seem confused about your laws.

Fortunately here in Georgia we can shoot intruders on sight(like the vermin they are) and not face any criminal or civil charges for doing so. This goes for shooting them in our houses and vehicles. The only thing that needs to be tweeked in our law is openly carrying guns, like in Virginia; here one has to have CCP to openly carry. This has never made sense to me.

[NYC_SKP]

75. A. Shoot the intruder dead. B. Place a scary knife in their hand. C. Call police.

Then tell the story that fits the self-defense requirement.

[oneshooter]

76. And go straight to JAIL,

Do NOT pass GO, do NOT collect $200. To do that will cause you to be charged with several felonies!!Including, but not limited to:

Felony Murder

Lying to the Police

Tampering with a crime scene


Your local DA could think of a few more ways of making your life less than pleasent.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

79. You have just advocated breaking a number laws, including those against murder.

Please desist immediately