If an intruder comes into your home what would you say, do etc.?

[Jet]

Give the dogs a bit of fun.

[RobertX]

Case in point:

I remember seeing a clip of a policeman shooting an armed person right after he surrendered to the police dead (also disarmed himself too).

I don't think this is in a country that belongs itself to freedom and is lawful. Maybe "Mother" China.

I don't think this would happen even in Texas in spite of the track record of executions.

[LZA]

Case in point:

I remember seeing a clip of a policeman shooting an armed person right after he surrendered to the police dead (also disarmed himself too).

I don't think this is in a country that belongs itself to freedom and is lawful. Maybe "Mother" China.

I don't think this would happen even in Texas in spite of the track record of executions.

Texas???? TEXAS???

In Texas: If someone breaks in your house and is armed and you are armed... wait, they don;t have to be armed. And they confront you but think better and surrender, if you still don;t shoot them on principal then YOU get arrested for faggotry in the first degree...

Actually, States like TX, and I believe FL has a stand your ground law. Which means using lethal force if anyone is attacking you in or out of the home

My great state of connecticucck, it's a castle doctrine only, which means the lethal force is OK in the house, but in public, you have to try and run away...

If my understanding of it is correct

[RobertX]

If they're no longer a danger, you don't shoot them, punch them, or bum-rush them, faggotry charge or not, unless they are as strong as T-1000s and can become a danger again and stab you with their finger. Back to the point: I'd rather suffer faggotry charges in the first degree than a murder charge in the second.

I abhor executions on principle, but that's a different thing.

Sorry to be a spelling KKK, but spelling principal is so spelled when it's a school principal. The spelling "principle" is the correct one. I almost failed my paper in seventh grade for that error, and that knowledge will be with me for the rest of my life.

EDIT: I can't even spell Ku Klux Klan, so I'll just say KKK.

EDIT: And another defence: Mr. Odo will never ever do that. I just linked with him.

[dueda]

I'd say the obvious thing: Who're you?
Preferably would discreetly reach for my gun first, if guy isn't looking.

[RobertX]

Reaching for a gun and firing one at a defenceless person are two different things.

[LZA]

Reaching for a gun and firing one at a defenceless person are two different things.

My official answer: Do what I have to to protect me and my family. NO more, no less. But firing a gun when needed is NOT a choice you make, it's a choice that is made for you if put in that position.

[RobertX]

Firing a gun when needed occurs if the criminal comes at you with a knife, a gun, or a fist.

Penalties for firing a gun at an unarmed person (especially if you kill him in the process) are high. It is also criminal.

This is why you get the option to make a citizen's arrest or dial 911. Of course, you're an American and I'm a Canadian. Because we are who we are, I don't think we'll see eye to eye on the subject.

I just understand that killing someone who you know is not a threat to you is just not justifiable.

I'm not an expert at law, especially American law, but it's not about understanding law, it's common sense (not that I'm saying that you're lacking any, but still).

EDIT: If you want to punish the person greatly, do that in the court of law. The son of a bitch will be forced to participate in bum ***** with bubba.

[dueda]

Reaching for a gun and firing one at a defenceless person are two different things.

Indeed. Loading, branding, pointing, warn firing, non-lethal firing (wounding), and killing, are all different things, i.e., progressive use of force. Amount of shots fired, weapon type, etc are to be considered.
Keep in mind "defenseless" isn't the same as "unarmed". An unarmed Chuck Norris isn't defenseless. Also shooting someone just for trespassing may be seen as unnecessary, but legal on some places / circumstances.

---

But, on topic: Force escalation demands a verbal (or otherwise understandable) warning before action, so I'd begin saying "You in my house" then "You should leave" and finally "I've a gun, leave now or drop down".

[RobertX]

An unarmed Chuck Norris isn't defenseless. Also shooting someone just for trespassing may be seen as unnecessary, but legal on some places / circumstances.

Yes, but you don't shoot the shit out of Chuck Norris unless he starts doing some fist of fury move or starts stripping naked.

I would agree that it can be legal to use extreme force somewhere in this world, but I wouldn't say anywhere in a world where there is rule of law or preservation of human life.

Case in point: somewhere not in North America, a policeman shoots an unarmed criminal moments after the criminal turns himself in.

And to prove that second degree murder can be applicable in... Texas!

https://www.uslawshield.com/defend-property-texas/