# Trespassers - To kill or To wound?



## inssane (May 1, 2011)

First of all, hello. I am a beginner with handguns, although I have fired a variety of guns over the past several years.

Being that I live in Chicago, I do not own a gun currently. Plus, they just started giving permits to people to own handguns here this year.
I do enjoy going to the range and practicing, and really having fun and enjoying challenging myself. 

I plan on owning a handgun in the near future, but with my current proficiency and lack of formal "in class" training, I will not own one until I am extremely comfortable. Especially in regards to acknowledging a dangerous intruder versus a "good guy". It seems to me that this is a skill I must master before placing a gun, safely, in my home.

Sorry for being long winded. The true question, and correct me if I missed a thread on this, but:
If an intruder breaks and enters your premises, what is the proper procedure? Some might simply fire to kill a person with no weapon or thread (catburglar ie.) I truly understand that if my gun is drawn, I have to accept the fact that I may have to shoot to kill an intruder.

So, is my thinking way off or am I pretty close?
Thanks for indulging a new person's curiosity.
Nick


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell (Jul 1, 2011)

welcome to the forum....

first of all i suggest that you google and read the statutes covering the use of deadly force in the city in which you reside ..... then you read the statutes covering the "castle doctrine" for your city and illinois (to make sure they are the same) and then make sure that you understand everything that you just read.


----------



## inssane (May 1, 2011)

I see, that's great.
Now to wade through IL documents that I am sure aren't organized, ha.
Thanks


----------



## inssane (May 1, 2011)

Hmm, very very interesting.
For others if interested
Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this is a catch all.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/illinois.pdf

So what are other people's thoughts (if laws didn't apply) would you kill on sight or assess?
N


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell (Jul 1, 2011)

please read the actual statutes, wiki might be ok, but it is a synopsis ..... read the laws


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell (Jul 1, 2011)

inssane said:


> So what are other people's thoughts (if laws didn't apply) would you *kill on sight* or assess?
> N


this line of thinking needs to mature a little....

kill on sight leaves no room for mistake.... sleep walking kid from next door, alzheimer patient returning to where they once lived, harmless drunk.....i would regret killing them all.....

of course this doesnt apply to the legit bad guy.... his right to life is forfeit the moment he crosses my threshold and becomes a threat to me or mine.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Every city, county, and state in the US has its very own website, on which you will find, written out in full, every law now in force.
Every one of these laws is cataloged in an index appropriate to the city, county, or state. They are organized both by topic and by "key word" (for instance, "guns").

If that fails you, you have the absolute right, as a citizen or resident of your city, county, and state, to freely use your county's law library. There you will find not only all of these laws, but also all the appeals-court cases which pertain to or have modified these laws.
You do not have to be a lawyer, in order to research and understand these laws and cases. You need have only a modicum of patience.
Further, there is at least one law librarian present at all times, who will help you in your quest.

Do a little research. You will be surprised at the answers you will find.


----------



## 45Sidekick (Oct 18, 2011)

TedDeBearFrmHell said:


> this line of thinking needs to mature a little....
> 
> kill on sight leaves no room for mistake.... sleep walking kid from next door, alzheimer patient returning to where they once lived, harmless drunk.....i would regret killing them all.....
> 
> of course this doesnt apply to the legit bad guy.... his right to life is forfeit the moment he crosses my threshold and becomes a threat to me or mine.


exactly correct, even in the state of alabama, where gun laws are not nearly as strict as chicago, it IS NOT acceptable to shoot someone on sight, period. If the perp gives you sound reason to believe that they intend you or your family harm or that they are going for a weapon is the only instance where you can take such a shot. I personally would never want to be put in said predicament, but the world is crazy out there, so be prepared for for something so unfortunate. once they force their way into your home, thats at your descrestion to neutralize a threat up to deadly force IF and only IF you have reason to believe that they intend you or your family harm and/or has a weapon that you believe is there. now theres some crazys around here that believe you can shoot at someone if you have a "no trespassing" sign posted, but thats still not true. thats were you notify the proper authorities about a trespasser and let them do their job. now on your property (around here) you can detain a suspect with force equal only to the force that they are resisting with, up to deadly force (if they pull a gun or something) you have full freedom to defend yourself but dont cross the line, or you'll be looking at some serious prison time.


----------



## loper (Nov 5, 2011)

Something to take into consideration:

In an immediate life and death situation, you're going to have enough to do making the shoot/don't shoot decision. Don't waste reaction time by trying to make some hollywood shot.
Just do the best you can to put them center of mass until the threat ends. 
If that means you shot and missed, and the bad guy turns to run away, well that's it. You don't want to be in front of a jury for shooting a fleeing man in the back.
If that means you shoot and hit center of mass and the bad guy dies, then you survived. You'll probably still face a judge, but you were defending yourself.
I would emphasize target discrimination, more than trying to limit the ammount of force you should use.

But, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a soldier, and a gun guy.


----------



## 45Sidekick (Oct 18, 2011)

theres definately going to be an investigation if you shoot someone, now that's why you must consider what kinda time youll face if you shoot someone walking up your yard. you are correct target discrimination is the end all be all for such a situation. but you dont wanna sit in a cell for 10years because you shot someone who had a flat tire and needed to use a phone, since your porch light was on, he went to your house first.


----------



## loper (Nov 5, 2011)

True, you're going to be under some close scrutiny, no matter what.
That's why I stress target discrimination, shoot/don't shoot, and threat.
I was starting from the point of a threat being posed. I assume the OP isn't going to go off the deep end, based on having asked the question in the first place.


----------



## 45Sidekick (Oct 18, 2011)

i know where youre coming from, but i assumed he was asking about the legality of shooting on sight. either way, my advice stems from a good saying "think like a lawyer, or prepare to get @#$%^& by one" but your right if a threat is posed then you need to handle it, you can quickly determine a threat and your reaction. if they act like theyre reaching for a weapon, and you shoot them, and they had no weapon. then it comes down to them posing a threat, and you assuming that the perp had a weapon, since you dont know what they have or dont have.


----------



## loper (Nov 5, 2011)

Yeah, it's tough to think clearly enough, quickly enough, and be absolutely certain you're right.
As much as I like to shoot, it ain't my first response, and it's not what I push with students. 
I try to teach people how to stay out of those situations, and how to make the right decision if they get in a tight spot.
Then I teach them how to put rounds center of mass if things go all pear-shaped.
Good discussion!


----------



## 45Sidekick (Oct 18, 2011)

loper said:


> Yeah, it's tough to think clearly enough, quickly enough, and be absolutely certain you're right.
> As much as I like to shoot, it ain't my first response, and it's not what I push with students.
> I try to teach people how to stay out of those situations, and how to make the right decision if they get in a tight spot.
> Then I teach them how to put rounds center of mass if things go all pear-shaped.
> Good discussion!


very true adrenaline takes over, shaky, nervous anticipation, it goes on. i totally agree you gotta try to keep your cool, but retain your fundamentals on shot placement and neutralization. you never know how you'll react to a situation that has no script, so quick thinking is a must for this kind of stressful situation. as I'm sure you know, being a firearms trainer, that you dont need to go overboard, or overthink. one will land you in prison, and the other will possibly put you in a coffin. so a healthy medium needs to be found, i try to keep up with the legality, so i know it and know it quick, and has a big factor to how you need to handle certain situations.


----------



## loper (Nov 5, 2011)

Yep, and you throw in the fact that it's probably the first deadly force situation someone has ever faced, and the mental aspect just gets tougher.
I went thru it a lot with troops on the ground, and I always tried to make sure my guys were well trained. With our rules of engagement, target descrimination was critical. Much tighter than castle doctrine, actually.
Dump some innocent citizen in the middle of a threat situation, out of the blue, and they really need to have their head on straight. Discourse like this helps, I think, because you can think it out and do your "what ifs" ahead of time.


----------



## jakeleinen1 (Jul 20, 2011)

All the advice given is superior to mine, read the specific laws for your area

This question is very SITUATIONAL, meaning you can flip it using what ifs and possibilities
BUT my general opinion

I am PRESUPPOSING things here:
1) BG is hostile (i.e. has a weapon, unusual threatening behavior, verbally confrontational, etc)
2) I have done everything I can to try to handle the situation with talk and other methods
3) BG is IN MY HOUSE, not outside, not near my place, they are INSIDE and physically closing in on me

Aka, Im going to shoot, anywhere. If I kill the target good, all I will initially care about (and have time for) is to hit the guy somewhere. Peference to the kill shot, dead cant talk about how they broke into your home "on mistake" or "to get out of the rain." Often criminals will try to flip the script to make YOU look like the bad guy. If they aren't breathing and you are in YOUR HOME, then the prosecution has a difficult trial ahead of them proving some person just HAPPENED to enter your home. 

Hesitation is the cost of you and all your loved ones dying because there is a possibility that the unknown intruder entering your house is innocent by some standards. Know why I don't go into strange peoples places of residence? Cause theres a possibility when i go in I wont come out, law of the jungle...


----------



## loper (Nov 5, 2011)

"Know why I don't go into strange peoples places of residence? Cause theres a possibility when i go in I wont come out, law of the jungle..." 

Exactly. there are only two people with any business entering my house at night, me and my wife. If somebody else is inside my house, I'm going to drop him.

That might not fit other people's situations however. Kids with friends over, etc. 

Outside the house, in public areas, is where I say decisions are important.

In any case, getting back to the OP's question, if I am forced to shoot someone, I will not be concerned for their life.


----------



## BeefyBeefo (Jan 30, 2008)

To stop the threat.


----------



## 45Sidekick (Oct 18, 2011)

loper said:


> "Know why I don't go into strange peoples places of residence? Cause theres a possibility when i go in I wont come out, law of the jungle..."
> 
> Exactly. there are only two people with any business entering my house at night, me and my wife. If somebody else is inside my house, I'm going to drop him.
> 
> ...


very true, im not going to lie about it, if your trying to beat down my door and the dead bolt wont stop you, i have something that will(spoiler alert: its 12ga 00buck) I'm not gonna lay down for anyone who is on my property that is unwanted. if that means holding them at gunpoint until the police remove them or blast them if they get the least bit hostile. because i intend on some douchebag perp to be in the ground before i am, in such a case.


----------



## claimbuster (Jan 29, 2007)

Very easy where I live, when an intruder crosses the threshold and enters my home, hunting season is open!


----------



## usmcj (Sep 23, 2011)

I teach "shoot to stop the attack/assault". I think that "shooting to wound" or "shooting to kill" shows pre-meditation, I'm NOT a lawyer, but the attorney's I've asked about it, agree with me. Many States laws make it pretty clear, like Indiana.....

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:



> SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]:
> Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
> (1) *is justified in using deadly force*; only and
> (2) *does not have a duty to retreat;*
> ...


----------



## Holly (Oct 15, 2011)

I'd shoot until I knew my kids were safe. That could mean missing and watching someone run away... or not. I only own a gun, only carry a gun, to protect my children. That's the whole point for me.


----------



## 45Sidekick (Oct 18, 2011)

45Sidekick said:


> exactly correct, even in the state of alabama, where gun laws are not nearly as strict as chicago, it IS NOT acceptable to shoot someone on sight, period. If the perp gives you sound reason to believe that they intend you or your family harm or that they are going for a weapon is the only instance where you can take such a shot. I personally would never want to be put in said predicament, but the world is crazy out there, so be prepared for for something so unfortunate. once they force their way into your home, thats at your descrestion to neutralize a threat up to deadly force IF and only IF you have reason to believe that they intend you or your family harm and/or has a weapon that you believe is there. now theres some crazys around here that believe you can shoot at someone if you have a "no trespassing" sign posted, but thats still not true. thats were you notify the proper authorities about a trespasser and let them do their job. now on your property (around here) you can detain a suspect with force equal only to the force that they are resisting with, up to deadly force (if they pull a gun or something) you have full freedom to defend yourself but dont cross the line, or you'll be looking at some serious prison time.


sound familiar?


----------



## 45Sidekick (Oct 18, 2011)

usmcj said:


> I teach "shoot to stop the attack/assault". I think that "shooting to wound" or "shooting to kill" shows pre-meditation, I'm NOT a lawyer, but the attorney's I've asked about it, agree with me. Many States laws make it pretty clear, like Indiana.....
> 
> Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:


sounds like what i posted earlier, except more accurate in legality, in a legal document. thanks for the back-up to my op on this thread usmcj


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell (Jul 1, 2011)

usmcj said:


> I teach "shoot to stop the attack/assault". I think that "shooting to wound" or "shooting to kill" shows pre-meditation, I'm NOT a lawyer, but the attorney's I've asked about it, agree with me. Many States laws make it pretty clear, like Indiana.....
> 
> Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:


the indiana law is a very good version of the castle doctrine combined with a stand your ground clause..... and it is based on what the defender BELIEVES to be a threat, and it gives immunity from legal jeopardy. only ambiguity i see is the word "reasonable" without definition. but it looks to be enough to hang a jury


----------



## 45Sidekick (Oct 18, 2011)

legality is a huge issue if you want to stay out of prison, so be sure to know it or learn it for your particular area.(city, state, etc..)


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

There is a slippery slope to these topics of discussion and in reality this is a multi-facted object, not just two sides of a coin.

I remember when there was no catch phrase of "Shoot to stop", "Shoot to stop" derived from the "blood thirsty" image that certain segments of society associated with the "Shoot to Kill" mentality.

I have seen several people confuse "Shoot to stop" with "Shoot to Wound" and the two are not the same.

In reality, all or at least most of us here agree that you shoot till the threat is no longer a threat, and that shots are aimed with the intent to cause potential lethal harm. We all should also know that handguns are horrible when it comes to immediate cessation of aggressions, and that despite well places shots with todays advances in medical care the odds of killing someone with a handgun (long guns are a different story) are slimmer than many think.

Taking into account an effort to stop the attack, and the known fact that handguns suck, shots are to be aimed "center mass" of your attacker, this does not mean you can not shoot a limb of an attacker if that is all that is available to shoot, it's that you shoot for the largest available part of your attacker. Commonly this is the torso. The best bet of immediately stopping an attacker is with a (or multiple) central nervous system (CNS) hit(s)...

...That kills them. Immediately.

The odds of getting that CNS are slim, despite one's best efforts, that projectile(s) have to get through a lot of muscle, bone, and other goodies to get to the CNS. A skilled shooter is going to keep that in mind and probably instead go for a higher volume of fire to more exposed goodies in the* thoracic cavity of the torso*. The heart & lungs. These hits will not be immediately incapacitating by themselves. The human brain can function for up to 5 minutes or longer without fresh oxygen being taken in. Less time without all ready oxygenated blood making it to the brain, but still minutes. A determined attacker can pull a trigger a good many times in a matter of minutes.

Shooting outside of the thoracic cavity or CNS leaves you only one option for survival. That the attacker doesn't want to play any more. I do not want to leave it up to chance.

So, looking at what I just typed, in my opinion shooting to the thoracic cavity does not equal shooting to wound as you are wanting to hit the heart to cease blood flow if possible or remove oxygen (the ability to breath via lung damage to a human being...you can't "choke" someone to death and call it anything other than intention to take human life), removing oxygen and the ability to pump blood kills.

You can call it "shooting to stop" all you want, but if you're shooting for the chest cavity, you ARE shooting to kill.

We are all here carrying firearms in accordance with our state's laws. If you use lethal force against another human being and try to claim you were "just trying to stop him" and he or she is dead, you have met the criteria of manslaughter. If you are going to use lethal force, USE LETHAL FORCE.

Now, the other facet of this is that if I start shooting, and the attack ceases and I am no longer in immediate danger or great bodily harm or death, MY defensive actions need to cease.

So, back to the original question,



> Sorry for being long winded. The true question, and correct me if I missed a thread on this, but:
> If an intruder breaks and enters your premises, what is the proper procedure? Some might simply fire to kill a person with no weapon or thread (catburglar ie.) I truly understand that if my gun is drawn, I have to accept the fact that I may have to shoot to kill an intruder.


If I am not in immediate danger of great bodily harm or death, I will do everything I can to NOT have to shoot someone. They will either cease their actions and wait for the police, or run like hell out the back door, I'm not going to try and stop them from escaping peacefully.

If I or my family is in danger, I will shoot until we are out of danger, be that by my attacker not wanting to fight anymore or being physically unable to do so due to lack of blood and oxygen or other physical injury.

In parting I will add that if you by the "I'm just going to shoot to wound" mentality, you are wrong.

There have been plenty of bag guys that were "shot with the intent to wound" that wound up dead. There are lots of other vital arteries and organs in the human body that can result ind death if shot.

In PA a few years ago, a guy "shot to wound" via a shot to the leg which knicked the femoral artery and the attacker bled out in minutes. There are no guarantees so don't try to sugar coat your actions by playing the "shoot to wound" card as it can eat you up should you take a life you did not intend to take._* A determined attacker can take a lot of hits before being killed or stops fighting.*_

To anyone doubting this I ask that you look up the following:
"Steve Chaney: Ultimate Survivor". 
"Officer Down: A Warriors Sacrifice"
"Officer Down: The Peter Soulis Incident"


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell (Jul 1, 2011)

i think you make a very good point here..... and there are three different issues.

first is the shooters intent and the second is his actions and the third is the consequences of the shooter actions. 

if i am the shooter i intend to stop the threat with what ever means i have available. the action will be to use a firearm and place bullets into the bad guys vitals until the threat stops. the third is that the bad guy stops being a threat due to a severe wound or death.

in a home defense scenario, my intent will never change. it will be my statement and my ONLY statement. i was threatened in my home, i responded.

the action will not be disputed, a firearm was used until he stopped threatening me.

the bad guy was harmed/killed. i shot at the biggest part of him, the fact that he died is not the issue, its a foot note.

remember, while we are not criminals when we defend ourselves or loved ones, we are going to be SUSPECTS. do not make any statement without your lawyer ever. right after you call 911, call your attorney


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

inssane said:


> First of all, hello. I am a beginner with handguns, although I have fired a variety of guns over the past several years.
> 
> Being that I live in Chicago, I do not own a gun currently. Plus, they just started giving permits to people to own handguns here this year.
> I do enjoy going to the range and practicing, and really having fun and enjoying challenging myself.
> ...


Inssane, I believe your topic may be a little misleading. Tresspassing comes to my mind as "one who intentionally tresspasses upon anothers property". To kill or wound a tresspasser would be more likely a topic for a Texan than a Chicagoian. The crime of tresspassing is a far cry from 1st degree burglary (i.e. breaking into an occupied dwelling). CRIMINAL OFFENSES
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961. Article 7. I'd read this statute very, very carefully. My take is that you have to be in fear of great bodily harm or death, or you must believe a forcible felony is to occur. Very far from a true castle doctrine whereas if someone breaks into an occupied residence there is an presumed intent of great bodily harm or injury.


----------



## sgms (Jun 2, 2010)

There is a lot of very good advice being given here but, it is up to you to decide what you are going to do, if you read the laws, get the training, practice till it's muscle memory, and sit down and think about what is going to take before you are ready to change your life by using your gun on an intruder. The best time to make the decision on what you are willing to do and when to do it is now not when it hits the fan. As for my self I would take every class that is offered and ask lots of questions, get the instructors take and find out my legal pitfalls, do's, and don'ts. Get informed then decide for yourself, after all you are the one that will have to live with whatever you do.


----------

