# Home Invasion, when is it ok to show force?



## SolObsession (Aug 11, 2004)

So I was browsing some other forums and came across a topic that I have always been curious about. If someone breaks into my home (apartment in this case), when is it ok for me to show my firearm or god forbid actually have to use it. I hope this never happens however there is alway the chance and I feel that I would try every other avenue before resulting in deadly force.

The thread that I got the idea for this thead is here: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207386

Now please enlighten me on the laws of MA as most of you are MA LEO. BTW...I have a MA Class A LTC and all my guns are registered and legal so that doesn't play into this. Thanks in advance.


----------



## NorwichAlum (Nov 5, 2005)

Call 911 and if necessary let the person know you have a gun and called the police. You have the right to protect your family. But if someone is in your basement, don't go hunting them.


----------



## phuzz01 (May 1, 2002)

SolObsession said:


> I have a MA Class A LTC and all my guns are registered and legal so that doesn't play into this. Thanks in advance.


How did you manage to get a Class A LTC if you do not know when you are authorized to use non-deadly or deadly force?


----------



## SolObsession (Aug 11, 2004)

I know when you can use it ( when you have exhausted all your possible ways for escape and you are in fear of your life). Just looking for other views, etc.


----------



## Deuce (Sep 27, 2003)

If someone's in my house uninvited, they're getting blasted. Dead men tell no tales, and can't sue....


----------



## EOD1 (Mar 11, 2004)

Deuce said:


> If someone's in my house uninvited, they're getting blasted. Dead men tell no tales, and can't sue....


no, but their family can, and will because..."he was a good boy and would never have hurt your family" its not his fault. you should have fired 3 mags of warning shots and use the last shot to grazed his left pinky toe to disable him.


----------



## copcop (Mar 17, 2006)

Wolfman said:


> You more or less have a mandate to run away or retreat as far as possible. It sucks. If you want to be able to protect your property, move to Texas.


Just remember, you weren't protecting your property, you were protecting your life and you should be all set....after all he came at you and made a threatening move....


----------



## frapmpd24 (Sep 3, 2004)

EOD1 said:


> no, but their family can, and will because*..."he was a good boy and would never have hurt your family" its not his fault.* you should have fired 3 mags of warning shots and use the last shot to grazed his left pinky toe to disable him.


Forgot about the part about just being "released from prison, being reformed, and completing their education (on our tab) while being bars" and my favorite, "Finding God". The ambulance chacing lawyers must pass out a list of things the greiving families of these criminals so they can woo some TV reporter and get media attention...


----------



## Curious EMT (Apr 1, 2004)

EOD1 said:


> no, but their family can, and will because..."he was a good boy and would never have hurt your family" its not his fault. you should have fired 3 mags of warning shots and use the last shot to grazed his left pinky toe to disable him.


No they can not. MGL clearly states a shooter is immute from civil prosecution if the shooting is ruled legit....


----------



## EOD1 (Mar 11, 2004)

Curious EMT said:


> No they can not. MGL clearly states a shooter is immute from civil prosecution if the shooting is ruled legit....


really? thats cool, i am glad i stand corrected!!! :baby01:


----------



## BartA1 (May 5, 2002)

actually you might get off the hook in civil court, but if the shitbird survives, or his "loving" relatives decide to put a claim in on your homeowners insurance your insurance company will pay out and then cancel you and send you to the overpriced mass fair plan to get insurance. Anyway heed Wolfmans advice leave the premises unless you are trapped with no route of exit and the bag of shit is advancing on you. It would also be wise to be on a recorded line yelling at the shitbird to get away from you and how scared you are, but either way you are in a lose lose situation.


----------



## copcreamer (Dec 3, 2004)

Hunt the intruder down with your 12 ga, No. 4 should do nicely. Or you could jump out you window like a coward.


----------



## stm4710 (Jul 6, 2004)

If you hear someone down stairs......dont investigate. I have heard of cases where dirtbags put nails/glass etc. on your stairs to alert them to your presence. Instead I would call 911 and if I saw any movement come up my stairs......its party time! That pump action sound has quite the phsycolgical effect too.

Slug, slug ,slug,slug,bird shot,bird shot.


----------



## Curious EMT (Apr 1, 2004)

EOD1 said:


> really? thats cool, i am glad i stand corrected!!! :baby01:


Yup yup!

Just so that no one calls the BS flag, here is the working from MGL. There is also NO duty to retreat, again specificaly dictated by mass general law

*CHAPTER 231. PLEADING AND PRACTICE 
Chapter 231: Section 85U. Death or injury to unlawful dwelling occupants; liability of lawful occupants 
*


> No person who is a lawful occupant of a dwelling shall be liable in an action for damages for death or injuries to an unlawful occupant of said dwelling resulting from the acts of said lawful occupant; provided, however, that said lawful occupant was in the dwelling at the time of the occurrence and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said lawful dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said lawful occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall not be a duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

I've always been a believer in this sign...








I think its a better deterrent than a Brinks or "Homeowner Armed" sign...
Considering many So. NH PD's are dark after midnight;
my irritable German Shepherd and cranky Yellow Lab are IMHO, our most effective first line of defense... My P220 is the second.
(Thank God NH has no flight requirement...)


----------



## tazoez (Dec 9, 2005)

A LEO once told me that if someone is in my house illegally, most often times they are armed. Also, if I do pull my gun on them to say in a loud voice so that others can hear me -- if I have to shoot them -- "Get on the ground NOW" and if they advance on me, back up and say "DONT MAKE ME USE FORCE".
any thoughts or comments on this? -- without thrashing if at all possible.


----------



## akman75 (May 10, 2006)

I am not sure about the "don't make me use force" comment. Not sure what the point of others aside from you and the suspect hearing what you say are. If you're in your house no one outside will hear you unless the windows are open. But in any event using loud commands is probably good so anyone else in your house can hear and recount what you said. Especially if you're already on the phone with 911. I'd say "Get on the ground, do it NOW". Any advance by suspect I'd say, "If you advance again, I'll consider it a threat, I will shoot"


----------



## jasonbr (Feb 9, 2006)

Curious EMT said:


> No they can not. MGL clearly states a shooter is immute from civil prosecution if the shooting is ruled legit....


If i could find the "BS Flag" i'd certainly post it..... Where in that law does it say you can't be sued?!?!?!?! Holy crap#@*U$Y&@(* You Can't take laws and change the words around to match your point!!!!!!

1) The law NEVER says "immune from civil prosecution"
2) It doesn't matter if the police ruled the shooting legit because in a civil court the evidence works differently.... Ever hear of the OJ trial?!?!
3) You're an idiot because we've already gone over this.... You should pay attention better....

The same rules of engagement apply in the home, however in your home you have no duty to flee. That's it.... Other than that - all laws are the same as if you were walking down XYZ street.

WHERE IN STUPID EMT'S STUPID LAW DOES IT SAY YOU'RE IMMUNE!??!?!?! It doesn't.. it says you "wont be liable"..... basically you can bring up this law when they ARE sueing your BRAINS OUT!!!

Basically CuriousEMT is the Lyonell Hutz of Masscops.....
(http://www.masscops.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1146&page=8&pp=10)

:sb:


----------



## jasonbr (Feb 9, 2006)

Look EMT (because i know you'll have something to say), It's this simple:
The law that you cite essentially lists the aspects of a good shooting, and says if you fall within these aspects - you wont be held liable. So it's basically saying that if the jury (not be an LEO or Grand Jury*) in your civil case believes your shooting was good - or lawful then they should find you not liable. But it's up to the jury to decide that the shooting was good - and basically if they found the shooting was good- this law really wouldn't matter anyways - as 99.9% of jury's would find you not responsible without the law.

*You can't use a criminal case as evidence in a civil case. That's why OJ couldn't say - "But they found me not guilty last month!!"


----------



## jasonbr (Feb 9, 2006)

Also - when the jury is deciding whether the shooting was good they don't have to believe "without a reasonable doubt" They just have to think "51%". So the chances of you getting found liable in civil court are much higher than criminal court. (Think OJ!!!!!)


----------



## akman75 (May 10, 2006)

jasonbr said:


> Also - when the jury is deciding whether the shooting was good they don't have to believe "without a reasonable doubt" They just have to think "51%". So the chances of you getting found liable in civil court are much higher than criminal court. (Think OJ!!!!!)


I don't see why you're correlating the OJ case, which most people think he was guilty of, to a use of deadly force in a home break in. Defending yourself and your life are certainly different then murdering someone, (allegedly). He was found civily liable because everyone thought he was guilty of the murder.


----------



## jasonbr (Feb 9, 2006)

Because of the protocol in trying someone in civil court after they have been found not guilty in criminal court. I'm not trying to compare OJ to anyone.


----------



## akman75 (May 10, 2006)

Being found negligently responsible vs being found guilty of a crime are of course two different sets of criteria that are evaluated. I'd rather be held monetarily responsible for killing some scumbag in my house then having to live with a loved one being DEAD or even worse being killed myself.


----------



## jasonbr (Feb 9, 2006)

akman75 said:


> Being found negligently responsible vs being found guilty of a crime are of course two different sets of criteria that are evaluated.


That's my point - so if you are found not guilty (or better yet a Grand Jury doesn't indite you) it doesn't matter in your impending civil trial.



akman75 said:


> I'd rather be held monetarily responsible for killing some scumbag in my house then having to live with a loved one being DEAD or even worse being killed myself.


 Me too


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/278-8a.htm


----------



## jasonbr (Feb 9, 2006)

Doesn't that just say there's no requirement to retreat in your own home?


----------



## jasonbr (Feb 9, 2006)

Sorry 94c.... You were answering the question the guy posted... good excerpt - it answers the question well......


----------



## 2-Delta (Aug 13, 2003)

As soon as he breaks in shove it in his mouth. After you shoot him dead, OC him and let them try to prove you shot him first.


----------



## tazoez (Dec 9, 2005)

2-Delta said:


> As soon as he breaks in shove it in his mouth. After you shoot him dead, OC him and let them try to prove you shot him first.


:L: :L:


----------

