Break in - can you shoot ?

[Marietta tony]

BUT, the OP's original hypothetical indicated that the burglar wasn't a threat at that moment. The dog was handling him for you. It's only if the burglar beats the dog that the burglar will then become a threat to you.

That scenario would technically be a big problem to invoking self-defense laws for deadly force out on the street, but since we're talking about a home, we have a more flexible set of rules.

Come on man!

 

[Gingerbeard Man]

I'll put it in the simplest terms I can think of....
That door cracks, I'm sending you back. If you aren't expected or welcome and you make that choice, it's game on and I have home court advantage.

 

[BigMike]

All the responses on this thread really iterate the need for real education on when one can and cannot legally shoot. It all sounds good on paper until you choose wrong and end up in prison with no one to look after your family. Stand your ground means no duty to retreat from a threat, nothing more. A half ounce of knowledge here can stop a lifelong hardship.

 

[BigMike]

I'll put it in the simplest terms I can think of....
That door cracks, I'm sending you back. If you aren't expected or welcome and you make that choice, it's game on and I have home court advantage.

With this mentality you'd end up a statistic in prison.

 

[rbstern]

Legally? Yes.

Practically? Did George Soros help get your local DA elected?

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

The caveat is the intruder isn't an immediate threat to yourself. Preoccupied with the dog chewing on them.

I would not consider this to be so, and I would not say such a thing to the investigating cops.
"Officer, I was not in fear for my life or even my safety, but I shot him because I was helping my dog."
I actually WOULD be in fear for my own safety, and I'd say so.
If a homicide detective asked me why I shot a guy who was preoccupied fighting-off my dog, I'd say that I wasn't sure what the outcome of that fight would be.
Now, if it were a fight between my 500 lb. lion, Simba, and this intruder, well then it wouldn't be reasonable for me to doubt the outcome of the fight. I may as well just immediately put down my gun and go fetch a grain scoop and a mop to clean up the intruder.

 

[Gingerbeard Man]

With this mentality you'd end up a statistic in prison.

That's not a problem in my book. My conscience is clear on that. I'll never be the one to allow someone else to decide my family's fate. If it comes down to it my life in prison knowing they are alive is still better than being free knowing they could potentially be harmed or dead.

 

[BigMike]

That's not a problem in my book. My conscience is clear on that. I'll never be the one to allow someone else to decide my family's fate. If it comes down to it my life in prison knowing they are alive is still better than being free knowing they could potentially be harmed or dead.

And if you didn't have to shoot?

 

[allamericaninfidel]

As a hypothetical, if we stick STRICTLY to the scenario the O.P. laid out, you can't shoot the intruder under the general law of self defense in most locations if (as the OP clearly says) the man is not (at that moment) a threat to YOU, only your DOG.
Dogs are property, and you can't use deadly force to protect property.

However, a house is a HABITATION, and there are special laws for that.
Using deadly force to defend your habitation is OK if (and only if) you reasonably believe that it's necessary to prevent the burglar from committing a further felony (aside from the burglary itself) inside the home.
Like, for example, brandishing that knife at you in a way that would be aggravated assault, putting you in reasonable fear of getting cut. Or, in another example on the same facts, you believe the burglar has already used "force" to get into your home-- broke a window, pried-open a door lock, picked a lock, etc. This "habitation" law draws a distinction between a break-in and somebody just letting themselves in through an unlocked door.

So for burglars that you reasonably assume intend to threaten you with that knife that they're holding,
or for burglars that you reasonably assume (or know) are not part of your household or a guest and have actually broken into your place with force, you've got a green light to go to guns, EVEN IF, at that moment, your dog has them temporarily distracted.

No even if we stick STRICTLY to the scenario the OP laid out “The man is not (at the moment) a threat to you”

So you are saying I’m free to go back to bed then ?

If this is my house I see it as one of two ways

It’s a threat and I have implored a less than lethal weapon that has not eliminated the threat and I’m escalating the response

Or it’s a threat that has not fled when my security alarm went off and I’m eliminating the threat

In either case I’m addressing a current and ongoing threat

Dog or no dog there still a threat standing in my living room breathing

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

Hmmm...

Think of this other hypothetical.
Bad guy comes in with knife in hand.
You meet him in hallway, 25 feet from him, and YOU have both a .45 handgun and a Taser that shoots electric shock probes out over 25 feet.
Let's say you have one of these in each hand, and you're fully ambidextrous.

You taze him. He goes down, flopping, grunting in agony on the floor, but still clutching the knife.
Can you give up on the taser and just shoot him after giving him a single short jolt, without pausing to see if your Option #1 has been effective before you proceed to Option #2, your pistol full of hollowpoints?

If you employ a LESS-LETHAL alternative to a firearm, don't you think it's unreasonable to just disregard that without giving it a chance to work?