How legal is wallbanging an intruder that's not inside your home yet given the floor plan? What about if they're inside the home and you know you won't be hitting anybody? Assume you live innawoods.
How legal is wallbanging an intruder that's not inside your home yet given the floor plan?
it would be considered reckless and they'd probably argue you weren't in immediate danger.
It's obviously going to depend on the local laws. Inside home vs. outside home is a huge factor, and like said in many places you can't use lethal force unless the danger to you is immediate, and if you can't even see the threat because there's a wall in the way that is an obvious problem. But there are other places where if they're on your property and up to no good you can blast away.
This.
Some states view threshold as the measurement of justified. The DA will argue the man could've simply been lost/disoriented/drunk/suffering from a mental health emergency and that you killed an innocent man recklessly.
I'd say install a trap door instead
I looked into a trapdoor installation on my house's door stoop, but the logistics of maintaining a Rancor pit soured me on the idea.
Right? They'll eat you out of house and home anywhere other than detroit.
Legal
Depends how much frickery and free time the DA has. You'd win the jury trial.
Immediate is not a defined time. You'd still win the trial. If all damage is inside your own home and it is clear self defense, charges are unlikely.
Shooting through a wall is not legally different from shooting through a door or curtain.
How about you try it and let us know?
Depends on your jurisdiction, but if the intruder is already door-kicking and actively trying to break in then you ought to have an airtight defense anywhere that has a castle doctrine statute.
>How legal is wallbanging an intruder that's not inside your home yet given the floor plan?
would not qualify as home invasion, and therefore you would not get any protections from Castle Doctrine (if you have that at all).
if they had a gun and were screaming that they were gonna kill you and rape your family, you could probably still get away with it.
>What about if they're inside the home and you know you won't be hitting anybody?
probably an easily justified shoot, but it's all about IF the DA wants to prosecute at all and IF the details are easy to spin. Castle Doctrine would still provide protection and prosecution would have to DISPROVE that you were in fear for your life, which firing wildly through a wall would counter-indicate.
>How legal is wallbanging an intruder
That depends on your CS rank.
>How legal
Who TF cares, we all know we're more likely to use it on a zogbot than on a regular criminal
>we
>we're
Just because you demand people call you "they/them" doesn't make you plural.
FBI is made out of a lot of people, anon
All of them being my (future) wives.
>wallbanging
Is it a qt lithe intruder that is easy to pick up and mandhandle?
You'd be pretty hard pressed to convince a jury that your life was in danger from someone who's locked out of the building, but I guess under the right circumstances it could be done. I guess if an armed intruder was in the process of forcing his way in you might be able to argue it.
I mean if you blasted him through the door I'm certain a court would understand. Through an adjacent wall would be way harder to explain after the fact. Then again some jurisdictions will accept merely "I feared for my life" as a good enough excuse to drop anyone on your property
Let's consider for a minute that you're not a demoralizatuon shill Rajish. You're implying that you'll even go to court, let alone get arrested, or god forbid speak without a lawyer present. Frick you really might be a thurdue.
Either way in most self-defense cases victims aren't even arrested.
My advice is to walk outside with a gun held behind your back and challenge the criminal to a fistfight. When he comes at you shoot him in the abdomen, taunt him for a while while he's on the ground, then execute him.
Don't worry - you'll have a lawyer. They legally HAVE to give you one.
>Either way in most self-defense cases victims aren't even arrested.
This is wrong, even when a firearm isn't involved about 95% of the time the "defender" is charged or arrested for the force used, with a 70% conviction rate.
Frick. Sauce?
Source? He made it up
Not to mention only talking about being arrested at the scene is asinine.
>Knock, knock!
>It's a letter!
>Mrs. Ngembe wants to serve me? Serve me what?
>What do you mean, lower standard of evidence?
when the DA sees the police report that a person was shot in a yard from the inside of the building, questions will be asked. you being a fricking moron doesn't change the definitions in the law.
Firstly if you're gonna call me a shitskin have the stones to call me a Black person you spineless Black person. Secondly, if you do it you gotta melee the wall first and punch a peek hole
Legal so long as you don't hardscope. But if you get a hit marker instead of OSOK you might be found liable.
Is it Harvey Wallbanger?
Is it just bait that none of these threads ever give the state? It's fricking state law.
Speaking generally, for castle doctrine to apply they must have forcibly entered, or be actively attempting forcible entry, or castle doctrine won't apply.
If you blast someone who was in front of your door being menacing you won't get any special castle doctrine protection. The prosecution will point out the legal presumption of castle doctrine is that anyone forcing their way into a home has evil intentions and puts the occupants in danger, but innocent people go up to stranger's doors sometimes. You'd end up having to claim general self-defense with a locked door between you and the threat.
It depends on the state
In my state it's lawfully reasonable to use lethal force against someone trying to break into your house either forcibly or surreptitiously. This also extends to temporary dwellings like a car or tent you're sleeping in. Like if they had some tool for breaking in and marks on your house from that tool being used you probably wouldn't even get charged here.
All states
>must have the immediate means, opportunity, and intent to cause you death or injury readily capable of causing death to use deadly force
States with castle doctrine
>must have forced entry into a dwelling to use deadly force
the crime scene forensics would plot the path of the bullet and the DA would make sure to rail you in court for shooting at something you had not yet identified (basic rules of gun safety) and that your intent was to kill
>Assume you live innawoods.
If you live far enough from other people that nobody can hear the shots, it's not really legal, but there are ways to get away with it
>Wallbang the intruder
>Take family outside the building
>Put on gloves
>Take the intruder's weapon
>Shoot through your wall from outside
>Burn gloves in fireplace
>Call police
>"I feared for muh life n shieet"
>gg wp
There are some other considerations to make, such as firing from the correct height for the intruder, and making sure there is gunshot residue on his hands
I banged your mom against the wall last night
That's fricking dumb. You have no clue where they are and you're firing through a wall, which may very well deflect a bullet. Real life isn't a video game. You aren't """"wall banging"""" an intruder. You are wildly firing bullets through a wall at a target you can't see. It is beyond moronic. It's negligent.
>wallbanging
When did this term start existing? I hadn't heard of it until the start of this year.
It's a video game term.
Wall banging has been a thing in video games since delta force in the 1990s. Shooting through concealment has always been a thing.
Call of duty modern warfare 1
not very, unless the intruder is armed there is no clear intent to break in or physically harm you
you can however set off nonlethal booby traps, like a dumping a bucket of paint on them