If a criminal with a gun broke into your house...

Question

If a criminal with a gun broke into your house to do harm, would you shoot to kill if you knew you could easily kill the criminal without hurting your family, or risk the lives of your family by using a less lethal method? Lets say you knew the criminal was going to do harm or take hostages.

Answer 1

If he was in my house for that reason I would shoot to kill then let the police do there jobs plus no chance for a return visit.

Answer 2

what I would do and what may be legal in your state may be different.  When faced with an emergency such as that, I would shoot to kill.  Of course I would have to live with the fact that I took a life, but that would be better than living with the fact that I let someone else take my family.  

Now, is it legal to shoot to kill in that situation?  In KS (where I live) you live by the "hind sight" rule. That is, if it is possible to escape with the family, then you can't kill.  If you cannot escape then you may defend your family and yourself with deadly force when under threat of sevre bodily harm or death.  In any case, it would be a jury that decides if you could have escaped or not.  

Answer 3

I would shoot - but not to kill.

I would shoot to harm enough to stop or slow them down - then I would get my family and myself out of the house and let the police take over.

Answer 4

Shoot to kill, no question.  He entered my home, with a weapon.  His intent is to cause me or my family injury.  If I don't kill him, he can still harm us.  I could shoot him in the leg and what happens- he falls down and still has a loaded weapon pointing to my family.  I don't want to do it, but if it's them or my kids- I'll pull that trigger as fast as I can.

Answer 5

if i knew he was going to harm my family in any way.  the sucker is dead.  shotgun is loaded with shot and pellets.  get their attention, if that don't work, put them down.

Answer 6

Shoot to kill.  My house, my family.  If someone is going to break into my house to steal my things or harm my family, I'm going to do it first.

Answer 7

If I were good enough to place a non-lethal shot, I would probably choose to do so.  I'm not.  However, If I were to keep a firearm for home defense, it would probably be a 12 gauge Mossberg pistol grip shotgun.  At close range, it would be very difficult to discharge it at a human target without a high probability of inflicting lethal wounds.  

Not that I'm not paranoid.  Beneath or beside my bed I keep a big club, pepper spray and a one handed knife.  My weapon of choice?  A fire extinguisher.  Spray 'em, whack 'em.  And handy for fires too.

In NY, where I live, in fact in a town near mine, a homeowner was recently faced with such a situation.  The intruder was armed, but did not directly threaten him by pointing his weapon at the "victim".  The homeowner discharged his own weapon, killing the intruder.  A grand jury did not allow the case to go to trial.  

Answer 8

less lethal

acually depends on where you live what charges ould be against homeowner protecting self

we can only use lthal if protecting people not property

Answer 9

In Texas in this situation, you can legally shoot to kill someone who breaks into your house and not be prosecuted. Imminent danger and all that. So, being I live in Texas, I would shoot to kill.  

Answer 10

I'd shoot.

Probably kill too.

Answer 11

I would shoot someone right in the head of I thought they were going to hurt me or my family. Shoot to kill. Don't shoot to wound. They can sue you that way, or seek revenge and your life would never be as comfortable.

I think that some people are just deranged and not humans anymore. They have the shell of a human, but if they are busting into peoples houses terrorizing innocent people, they need to be brought down!

But I hope and pray that I would NEVER have to take someones life.  

Answer 12

I'd knock his head off with my four five

Answer 13

In some states, they have what is called "castle law" which would protect you if you killed him in this case.  

In others, you can only kill if there are no other options.

Answer 14

If he breaks into my house wanting to do harm, he deserves to risk dying by my shots more than I deserve to risk using a less than lethal approach.

Shootem.

Not that you have to shoot em, stand over the body and finish them off or anything. Then again, if I see the persons armed, the only way I can ensure that I won't get shot back at is if I kill.

Answer 15

If somebody breaks into your house carrying any kind of weapon, you can reasonably assume that your life is in danger and act accordingly. If somebody's merely trespassing on your porch or in your yard and isn't threatening you with anything, then you generally can't use deadly force, but it's a different matter if he's armed and actually inside your dwelling.

But as a practical guideline, if you and your family can leave the house and escape and avoid using force, then you should do so even if your state operates under the "castle doctrine". You might lose some belongings but it would save you a lot of legal c**p and expensive court fees in the long run.

Answer 16

I would shoot to kill, I love my family.

Answer 17

Shoot to kill --  without hesitation.  

Answer 18

I'd shoot to kill and just hope the law is on my side. If he's armed I'm not taking chances. I'd risk jail to protect my family.