PDA

View Full Version : Do You Challenge? With a Gun?


Glenn E. Meyer
May 5, 2006, 03:01 PM
This is a branch off another thread. I didn't want the issue to get lost in that one.

In many classes, I've had instructors teach one to challenge when faced with a opponent who is not immediately using deadly force. In matches, I've even seen folks challenge a target for practice.

The classic is that you enter your house - you see a stranger. It seems quite reasonable to draw a firearm as you don't want to be behind the reactionary curve if the person is hostile.

However, we are taught to challenge. If I walk into my living room and see a stranger - I may just tell him or her - "Don't Move" in the command type voice.

So are so many instructors wrong? I find it problematic to just open fire on someone but not be at the ready.

Much FOF training involves such ambiguous situations but some here seem to thing that if you draw - you shoot.

I see no problem with the challenge with drawn gun if you know what you are about and the circumstances of using deadly force.

CraigJS
May 5, 2006, 03:13 PM
If I walk into my living room and there's an unwanted, uninvited "guest" there, damn right I'll draw. Then I'll start issueing commands! What if you walk in and challenge him (gun undrawn) and he comes up with one in HIS hands? Your a bit behind the curve and have some SERIOUS catching up to do.. This is assumeing that there's no one home in my family that may have a friend over.

casingpoint
May 5, 2006, 03:18 PM
The experts say don't challenge, shoot. The new Castle Doctrine laws make your defense much easier. But without a Castle Doctrine law, you may have to say something to establish a justifiable reason to shoot. Minus the other witness, what you say is what you said, so shut up and consult with an attorney before you say anything to the cops outside of "Come get this MoFo out of my GD house".

Skyguy
May 5, 2006, 03:20 PM
So are so many instructors wrong? I find it problematic to just open fire on someone but not be at the ready.

Yes.
They teach the flawed tactic of not drawing unless you intend to shoot......in order to cover their own butt, not yours.

I see no problem with the challenge with drawn gun if you know what you are about and the circumstances of using deadly force.

Draw your gun first and then challenge. A little common sense is needed.
.

Skyguy
May 5, 2006, 03:23 PM
The experts say don't challenge, shoot.

I don't believe that.

Capt Charlie
May 5, 2006, 03:23 PM
So are so many instructors wrong? I find it problematic to just open fire on someone but not be at the ready.
Whenever possible, a challenge is definitely in order. Shooting is the final option, and everything possible that doesn't further endanger you should be tried to prevent it from coming to that.

Law enforcement escalates force based on an established use of force continuum, and I think it's reasonable that non-LE should follow a similar course of action, i.e., use the minimum amount of force necessary to control the situation. Verbal commands fall within that continuum.

Verbal commands should be clear and concise, using your best "command voice", and every individual movement by the BG should be ordered and controlled by you.

I would be very surprised if a prosecutor, reviewing the case, didn't ask if you warned or ordered the BG to give up before you shot, and it could make the difference between a shooting being ruled good or bad.

leadcounsel
May 5, 2006, 03:43 PM
Assuming we're talking about a clear stranger (not a friend of your teenagers or a friend of your roommate or whatever depending on your living situation)....

I'd absolutely draw first and begin giving orders, aware of whether there may be another in the house. Orders are much more forceful when the person is looking at the business end of a pistol. And, like someone before stated, you'd best be in front of the curve and not behind it.

If it turns out there was an innocent mistake, I'd feel foolish but thankful that I had not shot the person. If it turns out that he was a BG I've got the advantage.

mete
May 5, 2006, 04:06 PM
"innocent mistake" ? If someone is in my home without my permission or knowledge he has broken in [you don't leave your door unlocked do you ? ],therefore he is a criminal. I draw, then challenge .If my commands are not instantly obeyed I shoot. Remember there may be others inside !

odessastraight
May 5, 2006, 04:24 PM
Better cool your jets a tad. It may just be the guy who messes around with your daughter or wife when they think you're not around.

steelheart
May 5, 2006, 04:29 PM
Hmmm... I guess he shouldn't be "poking around" in your house if he doesn't like the looks of the bidniss end of your gun.:D

stephen426
May 5, 2006, 05:19 PM
The experts say don't challenge, shoot. The new Castle Doctrine laws make your defense much easier. But without a Castle Doctrine law, you may have to say something to establish a justifiable reason to shoot.

I don't know who these experts are but it will be your butt in jail and not theirs. What if the unidentified person a friend of a family member's friend? What if the intruder was not armed? Do you take human life so lightly as to kill unnecesarily? Even justified shootings are usually pretty traumatic unless you are a cold blooded killer. Don't get me wrong, I am willing to kill if I have to... but only if I have to.

I would challenge from a position of cover with my weapon drawn. The challenge would probably go something like "Don't move or I'll shoot". That way the bad guy knows I am armed. I'd followed with "Get on the floor face down and put your hands behind your head" and probably "The police have been called and are on their way". If the make a quick movement like they are reaching for a gun, then I would shoot.

This is where I feel a laser might give a strong psychological advantage and improve the chances of the bad guy surrendering without firing a shot. A red dot on someone's chest is pretty intimidating. Even though it is possible to miss with a laser with poor trigger control, I'm willing to bet that most bad guys tend to believe that you won't miss with a laser. I won't count on the laser for aiming purposes but hope to turn a shoot situation into a no-shoot one.

Skyguy
May 5, 2006, 05:36 PM
This is where I feel a laser might give a strong psychological advantage and improve the chances of the bad guy surrendering without firing a shot. A red dot on someone's chest is pretty intimidating.


Oh boy. Now you've done it. You've actually said that a laser is valuable as a control device and as an intimidator.

Prepare; Soon the experts will start screaming that lasers are a useless gadget, that they can fail, they're a crutch and on and on.

I say you've got your act together. Good tactic.....Good info post.
.

Mannlicher
May 5, 2006, 05:55 PM
Challanging folks is great for cops. They are trained for that, and its in their job description. As far as I am concerned, in a situation where I was in fear for my life, I would issue no challange. If, as you mentioned, an intruder is in my house, he gets shot, not engaged in a discussion.

Mas Ayoob
May 5, 2006, 06:48 PM
X number of those you find in the house might be workmen called by spouse, landlord, or whomever without your knowledge when there was a short circuit or a broken pipe. X number, as other posters have noted, might be friends brought over by another member of the household. There are any number of scenarios that make "I'll shoot any stranger I find in my house" a prescription for prison time and bankruptcy.

If you only draw when you're going to shoot, as many posters have noted, you may draw too late to shoot if you're up against someone fast and detemined or even just lucky.

Remember that police and armed citizens alike take many, many criminals at gunpoint for every one they have to shoot. One of the defensive firearm's greatest powers is its power to deter. You don't want to throw that away.

Blackwater OPS
May 5, 2006, 07:33 PM
A little common sense is needed.
Genius, seriously.

Ok, guy in your house when no one should be there, that is a draw situation for sure, and while certainly scanning for more BGs. Honestly he better not even breath hard. But do you HAVE to shoot? Of course not. But an unknown intruder in your house IS a threat, no guessing there.

The point I and others have tried to make with the don't pull it unless you intend to use it stuff, is simply that presentation of deadly force is the LAST RESORT before deadly force is used. If you think someone "might" be a serious threat, you just can't draw. Sorry, this may not always give you the advantage, but that's life. Once you draw you have laid down the challenge, comply or I shoot, you have no other options.

Also, if the person was not really a threat at all you may have just commited assualt with a deadly weapon, or worse, started a gun fight with an off duty cop, CCWer or whatever.

Bill DeShivs
May 5, 2006, 07:33 PM
Very few people will be looking to see a red dot on their chest when you have a gun pointed at him! Better to hit him in the eye with the laser and temporarily (or permanently blind) him. A laser is only a viable deterrent when it's seen on someone else.
Bill

Capt Charlie
May 5, 2006, 11:00 PM
Remember that police and armed citizens alike take many, many criminals at gunpoint for every one they have to shoot. One of the defensive firearm's greatest powers is its power to deter. You don't want to throw that away.
Well said, Mas! Point/aim of a firearm is probably the second highest in the continuum, with shots fired as the highest, but it's still definitely a viable option.

Granted, I'm acting in the capacity of a LEO, but I have gained control of a situation using point/aim many, many times. The option is far too valuable to ignore, regardless of whether or not you're LE.

Kill if you must, but only if you must.

By the way, welcome to the Firing Line! We hope to hear from you more often :) .

sirlonewolf
May 6, 2006, 12:27 AM
I am going to make an assumption that those of you that carry or own firearms have a bit of sense about their use. That sense carries over to the rest of your life. You know your family, your lifestyle and your home better than anyone. If you live alone, a stranger in the home unexpectedly is a stranger. But if you have a bunch of teenagers, dating sons and daughters, wives with garden clubs affiliations.....well you know where this is going.

If it is in fact a true stranger in the home situation, or for the sake of argument lets say it is a mistake of identity on your part. There is never any harm in gently securing your weapon back in the holster without firing. The following conversation will definelty let anyone else that visits your home in your absense (or the stranger the cops hauled off to jail that you didnt have to shoot) know that you stand firmly on the 2nd Admendant. An American right that many have forgotten.

After all it is in fact your home, your gun, your holster. You are allowed to draw and holster it in your home as often as you like whether or not there is a threat.

I am NOT by any means afraid to sqeeze the trigger and am prepared to do so as I have done before. Many people talk alot about what they would do in a situation. But those who have been there know for a fact how they would react.

It is not a big deal for us to take our favorite gun to the range and cut paper. Even with legal justification on our side, it is not the actual shot that is difficult. But rather the months of emotional stress afterwards. It is what separates us legal gun owners from the thousands of gun weilding, thoughtless criminals behind the fences of our prisons. It is called a conscience.


You Never Have to Remember the Truth

Blackwater OPS
May 6, 2006, 01:49 AM
There is never any harm in gently securing your weapon back in the holster without firing.

No the harm is while you are doing that it is very difficult to defend yourself from an attack (I speaking of one which a reasonable person would not consider likely to cause serious bodily harm or death)

You are allowed to draw and holster it in your home as often as you like whether or not there is a threat.

If I am a guest in your home, and you think it's ok to point a gun at me for no reason, you are going to be locked up.

I am NOT by any means afraid to sqeeze the trigger and am prepared to do so as I have done before.

No one is doubting your internet bravado.

sirlonewolf
May 6, 2006, 10:24 AM
If I am a guest in your home, and you think it's ok to point a gun at me for no reason, you are going to be locked up.

Guest - a welcomed invited visitor. There is no threat there not even a percieved threat. No reason for me to point a gun at you. Didnt this thread originally begin with the senario that we are dealing with a stranger?

If I walk in my home and see a person I do not recognize, I will most likely percieve him to be a threat and up to no good. For I live alone with no other members of the household who could have possibly invited him. I deal with him on that level.

But my home is bustling with family, friends of family members, neighbors etc at which time any one of them could have invited their guest which may be a stranger to me. That is in fact a different senario. My family members know very well NOT to leave one of their invited guests unattended in my home without my prior knowledge.

My original comment stated that I am allowed to draw and holster my weapon as often as I like whether or not there is a threat. For you folks that were not paying attention to the subject matter, perhaps I should have stated that same comment as 'whether or not the threat ultimately proves itself to be real or just perceived.'

I could take words of the Bible out of context and cause you to not believe in God.


[QUOTE]Internet bravado

Throughout history many mistakes, even fatal ones, have been made by making inaccurate assumptions.

I came to this forum for discussion on current issues of value to all Americans. Not to have my words re-written, nor to be insulted!

THENASH
May 6, 2006, 10:37 AM
I think in a situation of confronting an intruder in my house I would probably shoot first, draw my weapon, challenge, and then state commands.:) but not necessarily in that order.

I could just unleash my ferocious kitty cat, or maybe the wife.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 6, 2006, 10:39 AM
Thinking about this, I remember my training in empirical methods.

Many folks claim that faced with a situation where they draw their gun, they will shoot it.

However, the criminological data do not support this and they do not point to not shooting as a high risk situation.

Kleck, Cook, and various other researchers have found an extremely high number of defensive gun uses in the USA.

Reasonable estimates range from 800,000 to 2,000,000. The studies also indicate that 90 to 95% have no shots fired and are deterrent in nature.

Thus, stating as a truism from some person or other that if you draw you have to shoot isn't supported by what happens in the real world.

Nonshooting use of guns seems quite successful.

Another point is that this series of discussions really points out the need for quality training if you are a serious student of these issues. I grant you that it can cost money. I was lucky to get funding to go to Mas' LFI-1 were he so ably discussed legal matters.

I've engaged in quite a lot of force on force from Insights, KRtraining, Steve Moses and the NTI. It teaches you that situations are amibiguous and not everything is a shoot. Paper and matches do not compare.

The current issue of SWAT has two excellent articles on FOF training.

It is clear to me now that one needs a good knowledge of circumstances and some experience with the ambiguities of actually trying civilian scenarios. Such exposure indicates that folks who simply think that if you draw you shoot, you shoot any stranger in the house, etc. really don't have an handle on the situation.

Skyguy
May 6, 2006, 12:20 PM
Another point is that this series of discussions really points out the need for quality training if you are a serious student of these issues.


So true....and "quality training" is the operative phrase.
Like any product or service, some professional SD instructors are not up to the quality or the task.

As an example, below is a verbatim quote from a known working instructor:

"My gun is not coming out unless it is with intent to pull the trigger on someone because thats what is necessary to stay above ground. I do not care to attempt to de-escalate anything when the gun needs to be used as a civilian as some intimidation mentality. That process can likely get one killed IMO."

Of course, your post points out the facts and the folly of that mindset.
.

silicon wolverine
May 6, 2006, 01:34 PM
If there is an unknown in your home and they are there for a purpose such as repairman, cable guy, unexpecte guest etc. It is perfectly fine to draw if you do not knwo who they are. In most cases they will idintify themselves if they are there for non-BG puposes. then you can holster, apoligize and and all is well. If they come up with a weapon you're ready. You have to have a justification to shoot not just "he was in my home and i didn't know who he was."

SW

casingpoint
May 6, 2006, 02:13 PM
Mas Ayoob said <One of the defensive firearm's greatest powers is its power to deter. You don't want to throw that away>


What would you know? :D :D :D :D :D :D

Mas Ayoob a junior member of THF? Preposterous.

But as long as you are the real Mas A., I recently found your book "In the Gravest Extreme" (1982) still timely advice and counsel in the new century. As I recall you were one of the "experts" who recommended not challenging an intruder. I'd refer to my copy to make sure, but I loaned it to my sister who just got a .357 J-frame snub nose and is pursuing a cw permit.

By the time all her friends and employees get through with it, it'll wind up in Timbucktoo and I'll have to buy another copy.

Interested parties can find this valuable treatise at the used book dealer www.alibris.com online for under $10 plus shipping. Reading it will help to moderate that itchy trigger finger syndrome syptomatic of watching too many episodes of 24 and The Shield.

If you are new self defense, read it, and stop relying completely on the advice of the message board experts.

Tim Burke
May 6, 2006, 03:26 PM
Mas Ayoob a junior member of THF? Preposterous.Not really. We get new members all the time. He doesn't get to start with 200 posts just because he's Mas Ayoob.
As I recall you were one of the "experts" who recommended not challenging an intruder. As I recall, he advised that it is unnecessary to challenge an intruder that poses a lethal threat, and unwise to challenge one unless you have a strong defensive position. That isn't the same thing as finding someone in your home that you don't immediately recognize.

DobermansDoItGoofy
May 6, 2006, 11:22 PM
Knowing what you're shooting at...is very very very very very important.
Stuff like 'challenging' gets lazily taught...and it's understandable to an extent...because there are so many different scenarios. The main thing is to understand the intended purpose of 'challenging' - it is to identify the target
and to take take command of the situation. "Who goes there?!" is the classic challenge...and in a home defense situation I like 'Who are You and Why are you HERE?!' a lot better than 'Freeze!' or some more offensive threatening statement. Afterall, I am also trying to identify the target! Anytime a gun is drawn the situation has been escalated to the hilt of do or die. My inclination is to not draw a gun unless I intend to shoot it...and to not shoot it unless I intend to kill! So what do I do when there's a stranger in my house and I'm scared? Well, there's lots of scenarios ie. is it daytime with the door open or nightime and more shocking! Is it in an apartment complex or an isolated house waaaay out in the boonies ? Luckily my Dobies usually resolve all these problems for me!!!!! I feel sorry for the 'stranger' in my house! He's going to be greeted by a few curious Dobie diplomats who will do the challenging for me! Yep! For you see 'guns' are limited - and no matter what technique there is - it boils down to human interaction and judgement calls. Oh , before drawing a gun and challenging...you might duck out of sight, do some observing and call 9/11 ! The gun is the very last resort! Once you pull out the gun you're pretty much stuck with it! :cool:

Arizona Fusilier
May 6, 2006, 11:51 PM
We all seem to subscribe to the mantra of "the mere presence of firearm, even if not fired, can be a great deterrrent to crime" or whatever the NRA slogan is.

I believe it, and I think most people on this forum live it.

Obviously, commom sense and the situation reign supreme.

I am the "good guy" regardless of whether or not the stranger is the cable guy or the dreaded someone else; having the option to shoot, or not shoot, is our greatest advantage.

Your day in court might vary from mine, depending upon your state's laws and the prevailing social/political composition of the jury.

Take the appropriate action or inaction accordingly. Be advised, this could include moving (to Arizona:D ).

nbk2000
May 7, 2006, 03:37 AM
Perhaps we should reserve judgement on just who 'Mas Ayoob' is until TFL staff can verify this person AS Mr. Massad Ayoob?

Anyone can take a reputable name and use it as their own to lend credibility to statements we might otherwise disregard.

I'm sure that such a notable personality as Mr. Ayoob would get a posted greeting/welcoming/announcement here by TFL staff.

dswindle
May 7, 2006, 06:03 AM
Folks,
I've read all of your posts with great interest. I would like to mention something that is closely related to this thread. I just read an interesting study (I'll get the details Monday of who conducted it and when), but it had some very interesting findings. The bottom line is that a study of actual incidents of both life threatening and non-life threatening situations by law enforcement officers (local, state and federal, but I think mostly local) disclosed that the higher the escalation of the situation the worse the police officer's commands became. In other words, when an officer was directing a bad guy to stop, drop to his knees, place his hands behind his head, etc., the commands were short, clear, direct and very specific. When the situation was an officer confronting someone with a firearm, the commands were usually vague, indecisive, not specific and unclear. For example, in one situation, a police officer was confronted by a bad buy with a firearm. He kept telling the bad guy that "I don't want to have to kill you." The end result was that the bad guy did not drop the firearm and the police officer had to shoot him. The folks conducting the study were very surprised at this.

I just scanned the study at work (I'm a LEO), but I'll get more details tomorrow and relay them to you folks if y'all are interested. The study surprised me too because we are taught to give very specific commands in small increments. Thought you folks might find this interesting in light of this thread.

Mas Ayoob
May 7, 2006, 06:38 AM
rbk2000: I got the same warm welcome anybody gets when they start posting here, but none of us gets a tickertape parade. The beauty of the forum is that it's an egalitarian arena where we all start with the same pile of chips. Tim Burke was right on that. I'm a "newbie" to the gun message boards.

Tim Burke: You nailed it. The hypothetical in my book was an armed intruder in the house, and then and now I would probably dispense with the challenge in that situation.

The concern with this thread is treating ANY unknown person in the home as a bought and paid for bad guy. If someone wants to start a thread on the theme of "have you ever found a stranger in your home and it turned out there was a good explanation," you might be surprised at the results.

The "home as castle" principle does not allow us to have a dungeon in the basement or perform executions there. There are times to challenge, and times to shoot, but the time to shoot will be determined by the presence of an obvious threat over and above mere presence.

springmom
May 7, 2006, 08:16 AM
Wow, the neighborhood has just improved. Welcome to TFL, Mas Ayoob! :)

I had to chuckle at some of the posts in this thread. If I was as willing to draw as some of y'all, neither of my younger children would have any friends left. Either I'd have shot 'em by now or else their parents would have forbidden them to come over to that crazy lady's house who draws down on teenagers in her living room.

If you live alone and you do not have a landlord (who might be in your house fixing a leak that's flooding the apartment downstairs) and you have all your layers of security on when you leave, and when you get home you find somebody in your living room, THEN you might have reason to draw without challenge. But take any of those parameters away and there might very well be somebody in your living room you don't know when you get home. And I don't think you want to be "drawing down" on them thinking you can get away with an apology later.

I have walked in to find very oddly dressed young men and women in my house before, the whole goth-and-baggy-pant thing, and my response is a pleasant but firm "who are you and why are you here?" The answer is always that they're there as guests of my youngest son. Had I drawn and even shown my gun, never mind pointing it at them, I don't somehow think an apology would have been enough. I expect their parents wouldn't have settled for that.

Challenging before shooting is a good idea, seems to me...

Springmom

pickpocket
May 7, 2006, 09:23 AM
...escalates force based on an established use of force continuum...

And THAT is what I think is missing from 90% of these conversations and hypotheticals. :)

I wonder - how many instructors out there actually teach Escalation of Force as a guiding concept?
A common theme that I read is a lack of a solid grasp on the force continuum - one only applies force in degrees appropriate to the level of threat, and only then just enough to de-escalate the situation. Sometimes that means someone gets shot, more often it means that someone does not.

I often see two camps form on issues like this, those who say "Shoot first, ask later", and those who say "Don't draw until the last possible second"...
I'm pretty sure the answer lies somewhere in the gray area between the two.

Besides, has anyone said that you're going to get in trouble for drawing down on someone but not shooting, unless you're just brandishing the weapon, of course. DRAWdoes not equal SHOOT :)
As other people have noted, bringing a handgun into any situation before it is warranted simply escalates the entire process, so really it comes down to acceptable levels of risk for each individual. If you point your weapon at someone, I should hope that the situation has already deteriorated to the point where that was your only option.

In answer to the original question: Of course you challenge! And maybe you do it with your gun halfway out of the holster, just to be safe :)

casingpoint
May 7, 2006, 10:16 AM
All of the above said, it should be said, with the exception of some cities and neighborhoods, almost never is there a call for pulling a weapon. It's just life in general that usually resolves itself. There is a great deal more paranoia evidenced on gun message boards than is warranted in general society. With the noted exceptions.

Still, I talked with two LEO's last week, both from your basic Small Town, USA and they both said the same thing, "You just never know".

But as Mr. Ayood noted in his book, you don't want to go there if you can possibly avoid it.

Eghad
May 7, 2006, 12:06 PM
When my father in law was still alive he suffered from dementia. Since my mother in law had a key to the house it would have been possible for him to get in my house. In fact he got in the car a couple of times and drove over before the sun came up. It would have been something that would have been almost impossible to live with If I had followed the philosophy of just shoot and killed or injured my father in law.

While its great to have a sidearm to defend yourself, its even a greater responsibility to make sure you use it right. Our instructors for the CHL Course were deputies for a local sheriffs departments we went over the continnum of force as CPT Charlie described as well as escalation and descalation. They were well experinced law enforcment officers who have never had to shoot another person even when thay have had to draw thier weapons.

Dan M.
May 7, 2006, 12:53 PM
Back in the old days, when a Russian Cossack had drawn his saber in anticipation of combat and subsequently had not used it for its intended purpose, he would lightly run the blade across the back of his wrist--just enough to draw blood--before resheathing it. Perhaps those of us who feel that drawing must be followed by shooting would be open to employing that old Cossack custom. ;)

mod29
May 7, 2006, 02:52 PM
...when I read people say that if you draw your defensive weapon, you must start shooting! "Don't draw unless you intend to start shooting". Thankfully, I have never been in that situation, but as a few others have said, use your common sense!
I think it makes more sense to say "don't draw unless you are prepared to start shooting".
If a situation appears life-threatening, I would not hesitate to draw my weapon. If I can then back away or somehow avoid shooting, then that's what I'm going to do.
Should you issue a warning or command? Depends on the situation! If you see an unknown person in your home with a sawed-off shotgun in the middle of the night...that would be different than an unknown person in your home at noon wearing a toolbelt...wouldn't it? C'mon!
I can think of nothing good coming from a shot fired in a defensive situation, other than living to tell about it. That's reason enough to be prepared, though.

Jim

armedandsafe
May 7, 2006, 03:00 PM
I think the key to remember here is that one should follow a force continuum. Confronting a perceived threat, eliminating that threat and resolving the situation is not a series of separated actions, but a continuum of action, which can be followed or ceased at any point along the continuum.

I challenge while drawing my weapon. As I raised 4 children, and helped raise several others, the threat was usually eliminated before the weapon came to point on the perceived threat. If the answer to my challenge was not appropriately answered, either verbally or by body language/posture, the weapon continued to come on target. If the perceived threat was not eliminated by the coming on target, I fired. I reached the firing stage once. I disarmed and restrained more than once. I stopped in the act of drawing many times and went directly to resolving of the situation by counseling the strange person and the youngster who invited the stranger into my home about how to behave while in my home.

My kids learned early in life that it was very easy to sneak out of the house at night. They learned at the same time that they had better make a LOT of noise when returning.

Pops

Model520Fan
May 7, 2006, 04:53 PM
I wonder - how many instructors out there actually teach Escalation of Force as a guiding concept?


Well, Mas Ayoob for one.

BTW, I don't know just how much time a webmaster is supposed to spend confirming that each poster using a well-known name is who he says he is, but quite a few of us have a basis on which to judge authenticity by what is posted. Having taken LFI-1, -2, and -3, I certainly think that the poster "Mas Ayoob" sounds like the real Mas Ayoob. Of course, that raises the question of who I am to testify.

Who will vouch for me as the real Model520Fan?

Clint Smith
May 7, 2006, 04:59 PM
At my school, (www.gunsite.com) we teach that security is not only a way of thinking, but of life.

This encompasses all aspects of your being; physical, mental, and virtual.

While guns can protect your physical body, your virtual online 'body' may be vulnerable to hijacking in the form of impersonation. This is most commonly done by goblins in the form of identity theft.

But this can take other forms too, such as destruction of your reputation by posting scurrilous comments, using your name, in online discussion groups.

Just as you are required to provide proof-of-identity for certain purposes when your physical body is presented to others who don't already know you, so too do you need to have proof-of-identity when presenting your virtual body to others who don't already know you online.

This is where PGP comes in.

By creating a PGP key, and providing both the public key and key signature at a site that others already know belongs to you, you can PROVE that 'you are you' by signing your messages using your private PGP key.

Others who don't already know you (virtually), can then verify that the message being posted by 'you' (M.A.), really ARE from 'you' (M.A.), and not from someone pretending to be M.A. for whatever reason.

This also demonstrates that someone highly skilled in one medium can be woefully lacking in another.

An excellent tutorial to PGP can be found here (http://www.privacyresources.org/pgp101.htm).

Model520Fan is not a name that has a valuable real-world reputation attached to it, built over 20+ years, that can be damaged and sued, as 'Massad Ayoob' does.

If this was a physics forum, and someone calling themselves 'Stephen Hawkings' started posting here, it'd matter. 'Quark520fan' would not.

One doesn't matter, the other does.

So, yes, in any forum, regardless of subject matter, staff SHOULD take an interest in verifying that someone using the name of a noted authority/expert/celebrity in the subject matter, really IS who they are claiming to be by using such a name.

AOX (ROT-13 signature)

Rainbow Six
May 7, 2006, 05:11 PM
Capt Charlie wrote:

Law enforcement escalates force based on an established use of force continuum, and I think it's reasonable that non-LE should follow a similar course of action, i.e., use the minimum amount of force necessary to control the situation. Verbal commands fall within that continuum.

Absolutely... However, properly trained law enforcement officers as well as prudent armed citizens should also know that it's well within the realm of possibility that an encounter can start out at deadly force on the continuum, and that there is no hard, fast rule (absent poorly written department policies and procedures or state/local laws) saying that any and/or all lower steps in the continuum must be exhausted prior to deploying deadly force if deadly force is immediately required. It is dangerous to think that one must start at the bottom of the scale and go one step at a time until deadly force is reached. Our department, and many others from what I understand, has gotten away from the old "step" or "ladder" force continuum and gone with more flexible, lateral use of force models for this very reason.

I live alone and only two other people in the world have "legal" access to my house. I would recognize either of them instantly upon seeing them and neither would allow anyone into my home without my knowing it up front. If I came home and someone other than those two people is inside my house, damned right I'm drawing. Whether I challenge verbally or not will depend on lots of things that can't all be addressed in a single post on an internet forum. Everything that happens past coming out of the holster with my carry piece of the day will be based on judgements made as the situation unfolds, just like at work.

Now, if I had a roommate, spouse, children, or any other person living with me I'd be a lot more careful about drawing down on someone just for being in my house when I came in. As has been mentioned, there is just too great a chance that someone else has invited them in to just go pointing guns at them. Short of them being visibly armed, or obviously an ill willed intruder (mask, bag of my **** in their hand, etc...) I think automatically taking them at gunpoint would be a bit extreme.

All told, there is no single "right" or "legal" answer to the scenario of finding someone inside your home. As with all types of armed encounters this is something that is going to require common sense (as already stated) and judgement. Pre-incident determination that you are automatically going to draw and take them at gunpoint, or more specifically that you are going to automatically shoot given an intruder is a recipe for trouble. May as well be premetidation as far as I'm concerned.

And on that note, I think an armed citizen should be held to the same standards as an armed officer. If you're going to carry you should go to the trouble of educating yourself on how to take someone at gunpoint. Saying, "I don't have the training a cop has so I don't feel obligated to do anything besides just shoot." is not acceptable in my book. If you want to carry, you have the responsibility to know how to do more than just shoot. As the old saying goes, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything will be treated as if it were a nail. If all you have in your mental toolbox is "shoot", then you are not prepared for an armed confrontation at all. If your only plan is to shoot without using any other means of force you're just as likely to end up being a murderer as you are a law abiding self protector. Even if you end up being "justified" in shooting, it will be due to luck or happenstance rather than your knowledge and skills. Luck or happenstance isn't the way I think deadly force justification should be judged.

I'm 100% for the use of deadly force when it is justified. I'm just as thoroughly against it when it's not justified.

casingpoint
May 7, 2006, 05:42 PM
Pre-incident determination that you are automatically going to draw, or more specifically that you are going to automatically shoot given an intruder is a recipe for trouble. May as well be premetidation as far as I'm concerned.


The recent Castle Doctrine laws premept these concerns by making the legal presumtion that someone in your house without a legal reason to be there is out to either kill you or cause you great bodily harm and you are justified in using deadly force to defend yourself and your assigns and are furthermore indemnified against civil suits in the matter.



I think an armed citizen should be held to the same standards as an armed officer.

That would certainly result in a lot more bloodshed. The bar is actually higher for civilians than it is for cops, who seem to have some type of built-in immunity to prosecution.

Capt Charlie
May 7, 2006, 05:47 PM
It is dangerous to think that one must start at the bottom of the scale and go one step at a time until deadly force is reached.
I'm glad you brought that up Rainbow. To my shock and surprise, I've even found LEO's that believed that.

You're absolutely correct that you can, and should, enter the continuum at any point, although it should be at the lowest possible point where you still have assurance of being able to control the situation.

For those not familiar with a use of force continuum used by law enforcement, it generally goes like this, although it may vary slightly from dept. to dept.

1. Officer, or "command presence"
2. Verbal commands
3. OC spray/mace
4. Physical force (strikes, kicks, etc.)
5. Taser
6. Impact weapons (ASP, PR-24, etc.)
7. Point/aim of a firearm
8. Use of firearm or other deadly force

A continuum used by non-LE would probably have fewer steps in the ladder, but one thing remains the same: The point of valid and justifiable entry into the continuum will be based on training received. My belief is that defensive firearm instructors should at least discuss other options than a firearm, and the conditions under which those options should and can be safely deployed.

As the old saying goes, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything will be treated as if it were a nail.
And that sums it up pretty well.

Rainbow Six
May 7, 2006, 06:07 PM
The recent Castle Doctrine laws premept these concerns by making the legal presumtion that someone in your house without a legal reason to be there is out to either kill you or cause you great bodily harm and you are justified in using deadly force to defend yourself and your assigns and are furthermore indemnified against civil suits in the matter.

There is a huge difference between being "justified" and "necessary". Are you saying that it's ok to take someone's life unnecessarily as long as it is justified? I've had numerous armed confrontations as an LE in which I would have been perfectly justified to close someone out. Fortunately, in all cases so far I didn't deem it "necessary" to do so and have avoided having to use deadly force to control a situation. Basing your actions on Castle Doctrine and the protection it provides without concern for anything else is ignorance and an abuse of the law. It would be just as wrong as me closing someone out every time I was justified to do so on duty without regard as to whether or not my actions were necessary.

That would certainly result in a lot more bloodshed. The bar is actually higher for civilians than it is for cops, who seem to have some type of built-in immunity to prosecution.

Not sure this even deserves a reply... :rolleyes:

Blackwater OPS
May 7, 2006, 07:05 PM
3. OC spray/mace
4. Physical force (strikes, kicks, etc.)
OC before USD? :eek:

casingpoint
May 7, 2006, 07:42 PM
RainbowSix,

You coice a valid concern many have about the Castle Doctrine.

The State of Florida took the Castle Doctrine one step further recenty in the form of it's new "Stand Your Ground" law which moved the policy into the streets. To a great extent, these can amount to a license to kill, without due process:

http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200551001015

http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBU8E8H9JE.html?imw=Y



I can hear it now:

"He looked at me cockeyed, your honor, so I wasted his punk ass before he could mofo me."

"Not Guilty."

Tim Burke
May 7, 2006, 07:49 PM
OC before USD?That's what I've been taught. The main reason I carry OC is to make sure that I don't get into a situation that requires USD while armed.

Denny Hansen
May 7, 2006, 07:54 PM
Welcome to the REAL Mas. The FAKE Clint above is not so welcome.

Denny

Roberta X
May 7, 2006, 08:04 PM
While discussion of hypotheticals is useful and consideration of the approaches and tactics used by well-trained and (at least in general) phyically-fit police officers fascinating, there are many of us for whom such considerations are academic.

I'm not fit. I don't yell well. I'm not young. But I can handle a firearm and I live in a state with a good "Castle Doctrine."

I live alone. I keep my house locked, all the time, even when I am home, inlcuding the first-floor windows. No one has keys to my house but me, period.

There are times when I have come home to find a light on, one I don't remember leaving on, My hand was on my gun while I checked out the outside of my house, and the weapon was in my hand when I unlocked the door and proceeded to check the place out, even though I was nearly certain no one was in the house. (If I'd been very suspicious, I would have called the police -- see above, in re training and physical condition).

YMMV. In my life as I live it: The time to draw is before you're sure you're in trouble; a determined bad guy won't give you time later.
The time to challenge and aim is when you see an unknown.
The time to fire is if they neither comply nor run away.
That's pretty harsh, I know. But I am not an LEO and I am not a highly-trained warrior. I'm just a middle-aged -- okay, old -- lady who can hit what she aims at and understands the Four Rules. The plain or garden-variety Bad Guy is likely bigger and faster than me, so I need every advantage I can get.

Other people may have the luxury of considering the even-lower-probablity caveats and exceptions to the already low-probability happenstance of finding an unknown in your house; I do not. Others may live in such wise as to have a relatively constant influx of strangers, as the parents of socially-active children have reported here, and I think my approach would be a very poor one for them. --Of course, if you have a family under your roof, not only is there an increased risk, you've also got backup. Some of us don't, other than Mr. Colt, Mr. Glock, or Messers. Smith and Wesson.

My sidearm has cleared leather a lot of times without my having to shoot. That's normal procedure for self-defensive firearm use. But if ever I believe I need to shoot, I will, and without fretting a lot about it. For me, it really is better to live to possibly have regrets than die trying to avoid them.

"Internet bravado" isn't in it. It's about surviving. The brave and the strong, the bold and the quick all have their moment but in the long run, fortune favors those who are prepared.

nbk2000
May 7, 2006, 08:05 PM
Now that TFL staff has verified him as such, I'd also like to welcome Mr. Ayoob here. :)

I'm sure he'll be getting a lot of questions directed his way in the future.

BTW, I was Clint Smith, to make the point about online identities.

Denny Hansen
May 7, 2006, 08:13 PM
I usually don't do this in public but:

nbk2000-
Rule number 1 when you registered here clearly advises that registering under multiple names is prohibited. This is your one warning.

Denny

Capt Charlie
May 7, 2006, 08:43 PM
OC before USD?

That's what I've been taught. The main reason I carry OC is to make sure that I don't get into a situation that requires USD while armed.
Besides which, the IACP looks at it from a liability standpoint. OC doesn't break bones ;) .

pickpocket
May 7, 2006, 08:57 PM
The recent Castle Doctrine laws premept these concerns by making the legal presumtion that someone in your house without a legal reason to be there is out to either kill you or cause you great bodily harm and you are justified in using deadly force to defend yourself and your assigns and are furthermore indemnified against civil suits in the matter.

True. But legality doesn't always trump moral responsibility.

Let's use Springmom's example - I'm sure that if she fell under the Castle Doctrine that she would have been quite LEGAL in shooting one of her children's friends before they identified themselves. However, I doubt that everything else after the question of legality was answered would go as smoothly. And since most people who carry are far more concerned with civil litigation than criminal....

You may beat the rap, but you gonna take the ride.

Rainbow Six
May 7, 2006, 09:12 PM
True. But legality doesn't always trump moral responsibility.

Let's use Springmom's example - I'm sure that if she fell under the Castle Doctrine that she would have been quite LEGAL in shooting one of her children's friends before they identified themselves. However, I doubt that everything else after the question of legality was answered would go as smoothly. And since most people who carry are far more concerned with civil litigation than criminal....

Georgia applies Castle Doctrine to use of force inside your home. They also just recently passed a "stand your ground" law which goes as far as protection from civil litigation resulting from use of deadly force that falls under the law... Even so, as big a headache as the civil litigation would be, it still concerns me less than living with the fact that I killed when it wasn't necessary, even if it was justified.

For me it's about right and wrong, not criminal or civil consequences. Having such laws and the protection they may provide is nice, but I'm still going to apply my "necessary" standard to my own actions both on duty and off.

error426
May 7, 2006, 09:47 PM
Alright, after reading through this thread I have a few questions...

1. Say that there is an actual intruder in your home (not a neighbor, or friend, an actual "badguy"). Armed or not, where is the arm in drawing and giving commands? I'm not saying you have to shoot him if he doesn't follow them, but it should at least keep them at bay. As well, if they go for a weapon or attack you are then prepared.

2. Say there is an intruder in your house, but this is a neighbor or someone who is not an actual "badguy". If you are unaware of these circumstances, and draw and give commands (again, not actually shooting, that is obviously the last resort). What kind of trouble could you face if they felt hurt or emotional distraught because of the incident?

I guess I can't understand why you wouldn't draw and give commands as soon as you saw an intruder in your home. That extra few seconds of having to draw could be your or your families last. I've heard many say the quote "if you draw, you're intending to shoot", since when, and why? If I need to draw to deter or lower a perceived threat, where is the harm in that? Thanks.

casingpoint
May 7, 2006, 11:37 PM
For eons in the South, folks left their homes unlocked. I like to think somewhere secluded and pristine like this place once was, they still do that. Friends and family would drop by unexpectedly and make themselves at home until the owners got back. You could often tell someone was in your house by the aroma of fresh coffee or the smell of cornbread baking. In the fall and winter, by smoke coming the chimmney. Force continuum wasn't in the local vernacular. Your Castle Doctrine was written on the welcome mat. The only thing said in a command voice instructed youngbloods in no unceertain terms to eat everything on their plates, or skip the apple pie.

After seven generations, we lock the doors now. A new Castle Doctrine law is before the state legislature, and I hope it passes muster. I don't know who broke the trust first, the crackheads or the meth freaks. But it sure is different around the place lately.

Awhile back Mas Ayoob wrote in Backwoods Home Magazine about the .45 APC 1911 pistol as the ultimate in rural defense handguns. I wonder what he thinks about the new .45 GAP plastic coated autos in today's rural America.

pickpocket
May 7, 2006, 11:52 PM
For me it's about right and wrong, not criminal or civil consequences. Having such laws and the protection they may provide is nice, but I'm still going to apply my "necessary" standard to my own actions both on duty and off.

Yup :)
I think we're saying the same thing.

True. But legality doesn't always trump moral responsibility.

Rainbow Six
May 7, 2006, 11:55 PM
Indeed we are. ;)

nbk2000
May 8, 2006, 12:27 AM
Just because the law says you're justified in doing something, doesn't mean you'll escape the consequences of your actions.

It's especially stupid to do something as irrevocable as shooting someone in the very place you live.

If they are criminals, what about their crew/gang?

If a 'civilian', what about their friends or family?

If some trigger-happy idiot killed my kid, who was visiting over at his friends house when said idiot shot him, that house and all it's occupants would be smouldering ashes that night.

BADAL!

If you draw down on someone, time can erase the harsh words and hard feelings, but take someones life and you can never give that back.

You want to be macho and blow away anything that moves, fine...just be ready to move at a moments notice and look over your shoulder the rest of your life, because someone might be hunting you.

Think John Walsh, only with gasoline, not a camera, with you as #1 on the list.

Those who exercise self-restraint and good judgement get to live in peace.

Edison Carter
May 8, 2006, 01:15 AM
Thank you for that lecture on self restraint, Clint.

EC

Roberta X
May 8, 2006, 02:20 AM
So, Clint, let's review:

If Suburban J. Ninja, living in a "Castle Doctrine" state, shoots and kills one of yours rather than calling the police or just waiting to see if the Uninvited Guest is going to take him down, you will take justice into your own hands and defy the law?

In my opinion, there's something of a double standard in that. Not saying you are necessarily bad or wrong or that the original shooter acted in a moral or appropriate manner, but if it's not okay to shoot even under circumstances established law recognizes as justified, it's certainly not okay to commit premeditated arson or whatever in response to that shooting. At the very least, a person so doing should be prepared to pay the legal price of their acts.

What this discussion points up, I think, is the importance of understanding and managing one's risks before a shoot/don't shoot situation ever arises. Many such could be avoided by careful planning and consistent actions. The best way to get out of trouble is to never get into it to begin with.

Al Norris
May 8, 2006, 07:27 AM
I'm relating this incident here, because it is a real world incident. I had previously written about this on another board the day after it happened (12-16-2002). The tale goes to several points already made in this thread.

The details were extremely sharp at that time...

I used to work at this small town retail grocery store as the night manager. I also carry 24/7. Well, I had an encounter of the suspicious kind one night at work about 3 1/2 years ago.

Our store closes at 9:00pm. At 8:45 I went out the back door to lock up the cage where the milk crates and other items are stored. Now, behind our store is the alley and a 1/4 acre parking lot on the other side of the alley, used mostly by the county (their buildings are right behind us on the next block over). I saw a white '93 Buick with 2 white males back into the lot and park there. Lights off and engine running. I completed locking the cage and then went inside and secured the back door. The only other employees at this time was my boxboy and my checker. I asked both of them if they were expecting someone and described the car. They both said no, they weren't expecting friends.

I locked the front doors at slightly passed 9pm. We still had 3 customers inside. At 9:10, I escorted the last customer out with her groceries. She was parked directly across from the north door. Just as I closed the trunk of her car and was about to turn around and bring the shopping cart back inside, there was a "BANG" and I caught a glimpse of a flash, orangey-reddish...I looked to my west, from where the "shot" had come from and there sat the car, about 75 yds away. Another car had just passed this car heading west. Had I heard a 22 or possibly a 25 gunshot? Was it a firecracker? Was it a backfire from the other vehicle?

I then looked to my customer, who had paused in getting into her car. I motioned with my left hand for her to proceed and leave. I was in a low crouching position and my right hand help my P11 (dry fire exercises do work!). No, I have no recollection of retrieving it or of decreasing my target size. I remember thinking of the distance to the other vehicle and the occupied houses beyond it. My gun hand stayed at my side. My customer backed out and drove quickly to the east. As she backed out, I used her vehicle as partial cover and was quick to make it to the store as she drove off. This particular entryway is inset from the building and was therefore out of the line of fire from the suspect vehicle.

I unlocked the door and told my boxboy and checker to get to the rear of the store and relocked the door. I dialed 911 from the office, and gave a complete as possible a description of the vehicle, the two occupants, and the circumstances that led up to the call.

The office is around the corner of the door I came in from, offering complete protection from that side of the building. An added plus is that if someone came through the door, I would be behind them.

The other front door was opposite me to the south, anyone coming from that side of the building would be completely in my line of fire and unprotected. The only other door was the back door, which I had already secured (and no, I won't say how it is secured. Suffice it to say that it would require more than a battering ram to break). All of this kinda flashed through my mind in the first second or two before the 911 call was actually answered.

When the operator informed me that the suspects were being questioned, I reholstered my weapon, called my help back and we finished with our closing procedures.

As I was counting the safe, an officer came up in his car and motioned me outside. He told me that the two males in the car were waiting for someone in the store. The police had frisked and questioned the kids and searched the car. The officer, a newbie, had found no weapons or fireworks. Officer Rydell said he would continue to watch the store until the vehicle left.

So... We finished counting the money in our tills and I finished running my nightly reports. I performed my security walk through. I set the alarm codes and we left the building.

As soon as I turned and stepped out from the entryway, I noticed that the white car was still right where I had seen it last. I walked across the parking lot to the street where my truck was parked. The boxboy walked to his car which was parked behind my truck. The checker walked to her car, which was parked in the last space next to the store in the lot. As she began to open her car door, the white car's engine engaged. It moved towards the girl, without using it's lights.

What's going on now? Why don't they turn on their lights? The police said they found nothing. It's heading for the new girl! She doesn't see them! This and many more thoughts were tumbling from my mind, as I instinctively ran over to the girls car, placing me in front of the now approaching but slowing vehicle.

The vehicle stops and the two males get out of the car. I drew my P11 and aimed at the male on the passenger side, closest to the girl. At he very same moment I yelled, "FREEZE!" I barely heard another yell for the same thing. Without taking my aim off of the kid, my vision suddenly expanded to include a patrol car behind the suspect car and officer Rydell pulling a bead on the driver.

It has been many years since I have experienced visual and auditory exclusion. But I recognized them for what they were. I did not see or hear the squad car pull in behind the kids' car. I didn't see Rydell get out. I barely heard his shout. The two young men were franticly babbling about being friends, the girl was babbling the same thing. Rydell lowered his weapon and I lowered mine.

Those two boys got a real tongue lashing from Rydell and from myself. I holstered my weapon when Rydell pointed at it with a questioning look on his face. At the same time, the girl begin tongue lashing her friends...we grinned at each other.

The kids left, after being told that in the future, they needed to park in the open under the lights and let me know they who they were waiting for. I was positive that they would do so in the future... One of the boys had fouled himself.

The cop and I chatted for a few minutes after everyone else had left. This was the first time I had ever drawn on someone and I was just a little shaky. Same for the cop. We talked just a bit about guns and our favorite carry pieces. The adrenaline rush began to wear off and we parted company.

I NEVER want to have to do that again! But it's nice to know that training pays off.

Model520Fan
May 8, 2006, 08:06 AM
Antipitas,

Thanks for posting that. It is one of the more useful postings on this thread, and on this forum.

520

invention_45
May 8, 2006, 11:17 AM
They teach the flawed tactic of not drawing unless you intend to shoot......in order to cover their own butt, not yours.

This might be a CYA on for them, but when you're in public it's a CYA for you, too. At home, you are pretty much given carte blanche. In public, you might have some 'splainin to do and it probably goes a long way in court to prove you were in fear for your life if you can show you didn't draw and threaten, but drew and shot.

In the exact circumstances stated, My gun would be out before I entered my house, assuming that's what I decided to do. Most likely I'd stay outside, gun in hand, behind a tree, and call 911.

edit: I misread, thinking you were entering knowing an intruder was present.

If I entered and THEN discovered him in there, I'd draw and shoot. There's no way of knowing how a surprised criminal will react, and I wouldn't want to find out the hard way by hesitating.

casingpoint
May 8, 2006, 04:48 PM
nbk2000 wrote:

Just because the law says you're justified in doing something, doesn't mean you'll escape the consequences of your actions

How would you like to live with this: In 1992 a Japanese exchange student named Yoshihiro Hattori was shot to death in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Dressed as John Travaolta, he and a friend went to the wrong house looking for a Halloween party. Apparently, the woman answering the door was frightened by him. Her husband, Rodney Pearis responded by appearing at the door with a loaded pistol and when the Yoshihiro failed to understand the command "Freeze", Pearis shot him.

Pearis was found innocent of murder at a trial attended by Yoshi's parents and widely followed in Japan. This verdict meant that to Pearis's peers and to the legal institutions of Louisiana Pearis's reaction made sense. It was something they judged a reasonable person might justifiably do when faced with confusion and foreigness at his doorstep. Pearis, they concluded, had a reasonable fear for his life and safety.

It is fair, I think, to regard the Pearis case--his actions and his acquittal--as a product of the cultural strain in America among whose most prominent beliefs is the need to have firearms at the ready to protect one's wife and children, a point of view which believes in the imminent threat of random violence in everday life (which is the operative characteristic of terror), and feels itself justified at responding preemptively to the threat.--Author unknown

Another account of this tragic shooting, and how his macho got Pearis in deeper:

http://www.blogd.com/archives/000124.html

gdeal
May 8, 2006, 05:18 PM
In California, you can NOT shoot someone in your living room just because he is standing there. He can even be walking out with your flat screen and you can NOT shoot him. You can only use deadly force if you feel that he or she is threatening your life. I guess the challange thing would very from state to state then. Some states you can shoot somebody if they steal a loaf of bread. Me, I would just give them some food if they were that hungry.

Blackwater OPS
May 8, 2006, 05:29 PM
And here was the critical error, the one that, more than anything else, caused the tragedy to occur--at least the only knowing error: Peairs went out into the carport. What he should have done was to make sure no one had come inside, locked all the doors and windows, called for the police, and waited inside with his gun, using it only if someone tried to enter. Going out and confronting thugs may be in accord with the macho code, but it is tactically unsound and generally unwise.

I don't think anyone here would suggest it is a good idea to do what Peairs did. As quoted it is "tactically unsound and generally unwise".

In California, you can NOT shoot someone in your living room just because he is standing there. He can even be walking out with your flat screen and you can NOT shoot him. You can only use deadly force if you feel that he or she is threatening your life.

This is a little misleading. In CA you are assumed(by law) to be in fear for your life if you use deadly force against someone who forces their way into your home. You have no duty to retreat. BTW, even picking a lock is force, and obviously pushing a door open that you are standing behind is also force.

Al Norris
May 8, 2006, 06:46 PM
...the cultural strain in America among whose most prominent beliefs is the need to have firearms at the ready to protect one's wife and children, a point of view which believes in the imminent threat of random violence in everday life (which is the operative characteristic of terror), and feels itself justified at responding preemptively to the threat.
Well, no. What many of us do believe in, is the ability to be responsible for our own self-protection, since it is no ones responsibility but our own. But the libral elite does like to paint this as a paranoia issue, instead of one of personal responsibility.

I assume you posted this because you agree with this assessment? Would you care to address this as it relates to the incident I wrote about a few posts back? Post #62, to be exact.

I would be interested to know how you would have handled that particular scenario.

Eghad
May 8, 2006, 06:58 PM
My CHL instructors views were similar to CPT Charlies. You could start at level 1 and go up the continuum or you might be in a situation where you go from 1 to deadly force. Or you might have to start at step 5. It depends upon the situation. One of my instructors said it possible to go from Deadly Force ( draw your gun, but not use it), back down to step 1.

You just start out at what force is required and work up or down, hopefully the situation can be de-escalated to where the other fellow ceases and desists.

Model520Fan
May 8, 2006, 07:35 PM
casingpoint,

From the blog,

"Here's what occurred that night, October 17, 1992. Hattori and Haymaker, on their way to a Halloween party, unknowingly arrived at the wrong address (two numbers in the address had been transposed). They walked up to the house and knocked (rang?) at the front door. . . ."

Halloween party? October 17? I smelled a rat then, and I smell one now. I am not surprised that he was acquitted. The jury didn't convict him then, and I don't judge him or our culture guilty now.

casingpoint
May 8, 2006, 07:51 PM
Antipitas,

That statement was left intact to present a point of view, but it certainly is not mine.

I've been in several close encounters of the dangerous kind over the years, and my personal position is just the opposite. Be dead on ready, or dead on a morgue table.

You handled the situation at the grocery store as well as an experienced LEO if you ask me. Most of us probably would have flicked on the tactical lights and shot the neighborhood up with our synthetic stock pump shotguns, then flattened anybody left standing with high capacity, laser sight jamomatics before drawing the mandatory backup snub noses and mopping up our nightime special oops! exercise. You, on the other hand, said nothing about having to change underwear when it was over. :D

Al Norris
May 8, 2006, 09:26 PM
Thanks for clearing that up casingpoint, I appreciate it.
You, on the other hand, said nothing about having to change underwear when it was over.
Did that back in 69. Got over it real quick! :D

As for my handling... Hindsight says I should have called when I first spotted the idiots. Lots of "could haves," could have then happened. Most not leading to that encounter. (Always trust that "spidey sense.")

Bill Johnson
May 9, 2006, 02:59 AM
Its true that castle doctrine does not superscede what the Court(not the person feeling well in their opinion that it was prudent and reasonable,if that was the case ,every shooting the person(even a gang shooter( could say its p and r because they felt threatened or were angry cause of words of they Thought the person MIGHT), and prosecutors will investigate and detectives will see if our prudent and reasonable definitions Apply to the Courts interpretation of the statutes and prior case law or precedents.....THe more SELF control we Exercize,the better.....Their was a case years ago on halloween where a teen 17 or so if i'm remembering correctly walked into a house uninvited and was speaking another language,he thought he was going to a party where he was invited but he got the wrong house by accident........the homeowner pulled a gun on him and the young male panicked raising his voice...the homeowner didn't realize the kid was saying i have the wrong house don't shoot,but he couldn't understand the language and killed him anyways. I think that homeowner who was arrested was released later after investigation but surely it cost him some legal defense costs which were high,yes He got off but not totally....he had to live with the thought of killing a young male,perhaps an older minor,who he found out wasn't attacking him.....EAsy for me to say for i'm not in his shoes but if the man backed away,the kid wouldn't have kept coming,he was approaching to try and say i'm Alright,he couldn't imagine he would get shot,even though rather than laying down,he panicked and tried to deesclate it by approaching and talking in that foreign language..the howowner later said he was real sorry and was taken into account his sincerity which then he was not fully prosecuted. Even so since a few mistakes i made when i was younger with overZeal....at time i walked away from threats even being cursed to my face.....i didn't care if they thought they got the best of me....their is a fine balance of the priveledge of carrying a gun like a policeman concealed in most cases,yet probable cause works for them,they can do offense,civilians defense. One thing i learned from studying the laws Is realizing them and obeying them is actually a form of tactical training
not just tactics on what to do,but on what not to do,as we grow in understanding these,we can keep our licenses for life,a very great priveledge and responsibility that others in most all nations and even in some states here cannot do even if they are mature and not threats at large.....LEt us set the example and who knows,maybe other states will open new CCW laws giving some others what we have been Entrusted with,i thought at first no way,but many states now have them,which didn't pre 1989. thanks for listening .......bill

nbk2000
May 9, 2006, 03:03 AM
It's one thing to shoot a stranger when you aren't be sure of the reasons for their being there, automaticly ascribing hostile intent despite lack of supporting evidence (mask, weapon, etc.). That's not showing self-restraint.

It's an entirely different situation when you know that your first-born son, the sole heir of a family name going back six generations, is murdered by an idiot for no reason other than the idiots fear.

Then it's not a matter of that person having murdered only that one person, but by killing him, all future possibility of the continuation of my family name, my genetic lineage, and the history of my ancestors.

In essence, the murder of at least 6 people, and more than a century of oral history.

That IS worth burning the murderer and all HIS lineage to ashes. Law is irrelevant then, for I'd already be dead as far as my future was concerned, so what difference if they execute my body later? Eye for an Eye, to hell with what the Lord said!

Now, if my son was shot while trying to break into someones home to steal or what-not, than I'd have less problem with that, as his own actions would have been the reason for his death, no less than if he was driving while intoxicated. I'd not confuse the instrument of his demise (car) for the reason (his stupidity).

BTW, nbk2000 made the statements to which you replied to (Edison Carter, Roberta X), not Clint, so keep it straight. Unless you'd prefer I refer to you two as Syme and Julia, respectively. Sorry, Winston is already taken. :p

Bill Johnson
May 9, 2006, 03:21 AM
One may feel that on the theft,but Standing order of most courts would ask this question......is the theft of personal property,would the courts or the State's penalty for stealing a tv Be enforced with San quentin,death row,which may be construed as Excessive force......Tv's can be replaced,many have homeowners policies which cover at replacement value.....$300 tv worth $100 now,you get a tv new = or greater than your own if the tv is discontinued. Exception if they try to steal the gun out of your hand which then could be used on you(no witnesses!) or used to murder another. Yet who will take that tv set and use it to Assault somebody with. Castle laws are not proven through court all the way,other predecents and statutes can still be invoked upon Discretion of the judge and the jury's thoughts even. Castle laws can be backed and enforced,but its not written in stone.....Conservative judges may lean more to it but a liberal one may lean more toward past statutes and pre castle laws Feeling the castle on that case doesn't apply and interpret as such,Sure you can appeal for thousands of $$'s and you may win but you cannot pick your judge. So even if castle law says on the face that you can defend with legal force early,the Tv will not thank you for helping,people Do though. Oh i may very well say drop the stuff and get out and he may leave...but if he turns his back on me walking out with the set i sure am not going to shoot him in the back thinking well that was his problem or he shouldn't have entered........3 times i ran into this situation believe it or not,and 2 were my fault....Once i entered a house(i was tired and like in a daze after work) and found out i was in the wrong house,what if the guy in there just shot me. the other was i entered a car that looked like mine and my key even opened it but wouldn't start the car.....Now i existed it quickly but what if the guy nearby thought i was car jacking him....And one or 2 times people entered my unlocked house,its not unlocked anymore and said oops,i'm so sorry,and i didn't pull my gun on them to make sure,i had some distance and didn't panic and my family was in here......I think of it like this,even a mother bear or lion or Elephant are very very defensive over their cubs.....if you even get near one saying aww such a cute kitten i wish i could just hug it,the lion or bear that thinks its to be robbed of its cubs,not an elephant,who will group together to defend even a cub that't not his.....will kill an intruder even if they meant no harm.....I really need to be wiser and do better than an animal who wasn't given a good sense of common sense or wisdom. Have a great day everyone. :)

Edison Carter
May 9, 2006, 04:20 AM
NOTCLINT, where do you get off lecturing people about self restraint, and then threatening to wreak deadly vengeance upon a hypothetical someone who might shoot dead your progeny after he has illegally entered their home in the dead of night?

You are rational when you threaten murder and arson, but we are deficient somehow when we draw down on a midnight intruder?

If that is the kind of offspring you produce, your line WILL be short.

EC

Roberta X
May 9, 2006, 07:51 AM
NBK, the UnClint, whoever you are today...

Life is a thousand shades of gray, not BLACK/WHITE. No, it actually isn't -- it just looks that way if you stand far enough away. Up close, the physical world is a whole series of questions, all of which have definite answers, most of which can be put in yes/no form. "Shades of grey" talk is, in my opinion, an attempt to evade responsibility. Olympian detachment might be fine for Greek gods but we are mortal men and women; we live down where questions require answers.

It's one thing to shoot a stranger when you aren't be sure of the reasons for their being there, automaticly ascribing hostile intent despite lack of supporting evidence (mask, weapon, etc.). That's not showing self-restraint.

It's an entirely different situation when you know that your first-born son, the sole heir of a family name going back six generations, is murdered by an idiot for no reason other than the idiots fear.
And yet -- every bad guy ever shot, and the hundred times as many scared off at gunpoint, is some mother's son (or daughter), the bearer of some father and mother's genes, going back countless generations. One is the flip side of the other. Always. When you shoot a man, you're shooting a man. Good, bad -- end result is just so much meat, all potential for further interaction gone. Every death is heartbreakingly tragic to someone. Should they all be avenged, or merely the "idiotic" ones? Why?

(It should be pointed out that in most cases where someone is shot by a lawful gun owner, "idiotic fear" isn't a part of it. Things like forcible entry or approaching while demanding money (or worse) and threatening force are quite clear to the intended victim and to prosecutors and Grand Juries).

I'm not here to cherish strangers. They make their choices. When their choices present a danger to me, I react. And I understand and accept the consequences.

My responsibility -- the responsibility of any true adult -- lies in accurately evaluating the danger. No one can judge that for you; indeed, one measure of adulthood is your ability to make those judgements for yourself with sufficient accuracy and your willingness to accept the results of your decisions.

Then it's not a matter of that person having murdered only that one person, but by killing him, all future possibility of the continuation of my family name, my genetic lineage, and the history of my ancestors.
H'mmm. I've Scots ancestors, too; but you have two choices here: either what you've said holds true for every killing, from a serial murder sizzling in the electric chair to the most innocent of his victims, from a man shot breaking into a home to a grandmother dieing from a druggist's error -- or it is pure sentimentality.
Potentialities are only potential. Our society counts persons as equal -- or killing a man who'd had a vasectomy or a post-menopausal woman would count far less than killing a sixteen-year-old

In essence, the murder of at least 6 people, and more than a century of oral history.
I don't think so. Not at all. When you kill a man, all you kill is the man. His ideas, his history, all live on, as long as there is but one recorded account or one other person to remember it.

springmom
May 9, 2006, 08:08 AM
Well said, RobertaX. If I walk in to my house once the last son has grown and gone, and find my hypothetical baggy-pants-and-Goth kid in my living room, I'll still challenge. But if he's a bad guy and he pulls a knife or a gun and I have to shoot him then I have shot somebody's baby. Maybe their only son. Maybe one who carries ten, or twenty, generations.

UnClint's kid is more important to HIM than anybody else and that's understandable; and his over-the-top post as to what he'd do if that kid was killed is understandable too. I still have trouble coping with what happened to my youngest son in January, and that was "just" an aggravated assault with a gun in his teeth, he didn't end up with more holes in him than he started with. But because these are real human lives we're talking about, we do as little as possible to defuse a situation and stop the threat, so that we don't kill somebody's only son when we could have just stopped that same only son.

Springmom

stephen426
May 9, 2006, 10:53 AM
And yet -- every bad guy ever shot, and the hundred times as many scared off at gunpoint, is some mother's son (or daughter), the bearer of some father and mother's genes, going back countless generations. One is the flip side of the other. Always. When you shoot a man, you're shooting a man. Good, bad -- end result is just so much meat, all potential for further interaction gone. Every death is heartbreakingly tragic to someone. Should they all be avenged, or merely the "idiotic" ones? Why?

Actually, we might be doing society a favor by offing some of these scumbags. It brings new meaning to taking out the trash. Do we want the offspring of gang bangers, thugs, and low lifes roaming the streets to terrorize our future generations? Not me. I'm sure most here would agree that many of those offspring end up in the same vicious cycle. Call it the lack of a good role model or worse yet, having very bad role models.

The point is, if you don't defend yourself from these scumbags, it will be your future generations that are lost. I AM a son, a brother, and a husband (not to the same people mind you... my family tree does not loop back upon itself) and my self preservation is more important to me than some scumbags family. You reap what you sow.

DiplomaticBlackHawk
May 9, 2006, 01:37 PM
First off , I have lots of love for ya SpringMom so i will say , don't let them get to ya girl.Only sons are important BUT NO MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN ANY CHILD ANY ANY ANY ANY ANY , UNDERSTAND ANY??? Come on people i just heard people put more value on one life more than another and it made me sick.I would like everone to go back and read this entire post and see what they think about what they said and what it might have done positive or negitively to the post as a WHOLE.I was going to lash out at many but guess what ITS NOT COOL.I like Capt. Charlie's signature the best , WHAT KIND OF AMBASSATORS ARE YOU TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Some here have underreated ,over reacted ,ect and I will go as far as to state that some have just flat out talked out of their butts.Then again some have shown they are true diplomats and we thank you . But now I think it is time for moderation , now.Thank you everyone for ur time and understanding.I know there where many many people that read Eric's sticky concerning this very thing but I think we need to see the PENDULM NOW.LET HER SWING ERIC. ;)

Skyguy
May 9, 2006, 01:39 PM
invention_45 quote:

If I entered and THEN discovered him in there, I'd draw and shoot. There's no way of knowing how a surprised criminal will react, and I wouldn't want to find out the hard way by hesitating.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned what a bad tactic that is.
(Probably too involved in their own long winded philosophical-emotional rants, I guess.)

Anyway, your "draw and shoot" in that situation is over the top.
Learn to draw, scope, challenge, detain.....then, if needed, defend yourself.

Here's a tip:
Most burglars are common thieves. Statistically they're not pros, killers, home invaders, junkies, etc.
Many times they're just kids not aware of the consequences of their actions.

That said, go easy with the trigger....but 'always' protect yourself from danger.

For your own good pal, get some basic training........quick!
.

Roberta X
May 9, 2006, 02:54 PM
Warning, what follows is just my opinion and I am just some chick on the internet. YMMV, professional driver/closed course, etc. etc. IMHO.

Nicely put, Springmom, and while we may use similar ideas and reasoning to reach divergent conclusions (or maybe not), I can see your side of it -- and perhaps a bit more of UnClint's, as well.

Every's mother's son is precious to her. But is that enough to always stay one's hand? It may be enough to stay society's hand; no judge or jury can see the crime as the victim saw it or know the perpetrator's true heart. But in the moment of the crime, when the decision is a matter of yes or no, to survive or sucumb, he who hesitates will lose. There are definite answers, but there may not be any good or satisfying answers and the person whose choice created that blind alley is the perp, not the prospective victim defending himself.


stephen426, we're not all that far apart, really; but Adam Smith's "invisible hand" can as readily weild a gun as a checkbook: if law-abiding citizens defend themselves against aggression, the greater social good will take care of itself. The broader interest is served by serving oneself, just as the grocer makes available a wide variety of tasty foods to you not from love, but for his own profit. Setting out to be "doing society a favor by offing some of these scumbags" is a goal all too easily perverted, especially if one is then tempted to take it upon oneself to cull the "scumbags" in advance. Been tried; can't be done. Like the poor, the lawless are ever with us. They must be dealt with one at a time, as they reveal themselves through direct actions against others. That said, I liked the Batman movies, too.


Skyguy, I think you just may be at a critical part of the matter. Some of what's going on here might be people taking a different meaning from similar words: Don't draw unless you're ready to shoot.
Don't draw unless you intend to shoot.
Don't draw unless you're prepared to shoot.
Don't draw unless you are willing to shoot.
I have heard each one, and other versions besides, from many trainers and other gunnies and I never took them to mean that if I drew, I had to shoot -- only that if I went so far as to make my sidearm visible, I had darned well better understand that the situation was one that could rate, and might result in, gunfire.

But I don't know that everyone else took those words to mean that. On reflection, I can't say that I am completely sure every well-trained professional that ever uttered them to me meant them as I have taken them.

How do the others here interpret those words?

Trip20
May 9, 2006, 03:12 PM
Good advice, Skyguy -- however I believe this comment of yours is a little superfluous:

Many times they're just kids not aware of the consequences of their actions.

The flip-side of this coin is that "kids" are more dangerous because they are "not aware of the consequences of their actions."

And let's not fool ourselves -- even "kids" know the consequences of their actions enough to be aware that home invasion = bad news.

Let us also not refer to criminals as "kids" unless they actually fit the definition. I refuse to consider a 19 year old burglar a "kid". Or 18, or 17...

I remember when I was that age. People this age are capable of just as much ill intent as someone twice their age. To disregard this possibility, is dangerous and naive.

stephen426
May 9, 2006, 07:15 PM
stephen426, we're not all that far apart, really; but Adam Smith's "invisible hand" can as readily weild a gun as a checkbook: if law-abiding citizens defend themselves against aggression, the greater social good will take care of itself. The broader interest is served by serving oneself, just as the grocer makes available a wide variety of tasty foods to you not from love, but for his own profit. Setting out to be "doing society a favor by offing some of these scumbags" is a goal all too easily perverted, especially if one is then tempted to take it upon oneself to cull the "scumbags" in advance. Been tried; can't be done. Like the poor, the lawless are ever with us. They must be dealt with one at a time, as they reveal themselves through direct actions against others. That said, I liked the Batman movies, too.

Sorry Roberta... I was just venting. I am not advocating in any way, shape, or form genocide based on race, religion, color, creed, sex, or national origin. My first name is not Adolph and my last name certainly isn't Hitler. I am a minority myself and I bust my butt to make a better life for myself. I have no respect for those people who just cry about being victims and don't do anything to improve their lives. Instead, they prefer to live off of handouts and steal from others rather than working. This does not refer to any group in particular so don't think I am racist. In fact, I hate everyone equally! :D Just kidding.

Roberta X
May 10, 2006, 07:45 AM
Has this thread gone on so long as to incur Godwin's Law? --stephen426, I was thinking more of self-appointed vigilantes than any mob or movement when I cautioned against preemptive looks-like-a-badguy removal.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with unadorned venting but we really should come up with an icon, glyph or typographical convention to indicate it, a "ventie" to go along with all the "smilies," to delineate between unloading frustration and, what, "rabble-rousing?" Everyone fuliminates sometimes but few of us are after initiating anything when we do.

I think responsibility -- accepting it, being able to handle it, rejecting it or failing under it -- is a key component in being a healthy member of society. If there are enough responsible people around, just everyday responsible types, not even heros, then things get along pretty well. Fall below some critical proportion, though, and it starts to come apart. Successful societies have some means of encouraging the growth of responsibility in children who have an aptitude for it; in terms of success, it may not matter exactly how that's done just as long as it does.

Not all irresponsible people are criminals but just about all criminals are irresponsible. And that's pretty much what you said, stephen.

Skyguy
May 10, 2006, 10:11 AM
Obviously, we've lost our way in the quest to answer the question; Do You Challenge? With a Gun?

The tactical pertinence of long winded emotional and philosophical rants, genealogy, nit-picking, word meaning....escapes me.
I've learned nothing from these ramblings.
.

Al Norris
May 10, 2006, 10:18 AM
Just in case anyone missed the point of my little story, the answer to the question; Do You Challenge? With a Gun?; is yes, should circumstances warrant it.

OuTcAsT
May 10, 2006, 03:12 PM
Exactly, The answer is yes.

I will draw my weapon, asess the situation, IE: Identify the threat, Give verbal commands, and hope the situation de-escalates. BUT, when I draw said weapon, I will be willing to fire if NECESSARY.

If the " Unknown Person" can identify himself and his reason for being there to my satisfaction, Nuff said.

If He cannot or will not Identify himself, then He may lie on the ground in a safe (to Me) position until LE arrives, or he may exit the premises, at which time I will secure myself and wait for LE.

If He makes any threatning movements or gestures other than the above, TAP,TAP.

casingpoint
May 10, 2006, 05:26 PM
<Do you challenge with a gun>

Statutorily in most states you are empowered to use deadly force to defend yourself, but not to make idle conversation. That is a federal right under the First Ammendment, but will not be used as the law of decision in a state court. Actually, an admission on your part that you challenged could go against you in that it evidences you did not perceive an immediate threat but instead found time to chit chat. Then you gotta come up with another good reason why you suddenly felt threatened enough to open fire. Somewhere in all that legal mubo jumbo, a good prosecutor could start your goose cooking if you make a verbal slip, assuming you elect to take the stand or tak to the cops after you talk to your lawyer. And God forbid it ever comes out that your were yelling commands to the perp with your finger on the trigger in a tense and stressful situation, the adrenaline pumping, the muscles of your hands and fingers twitching like it's been proven scientifically they do, resulting in accidental firings, to which self defense statutes do not apply.

wixedmords
May 10, 2006, 06:11 PM
You would have to draw to have control of the situation. But, unless you have determined you are under an attack, or in danger, I would hate to shoot the wife sleepwalking.

The key to me would be before issuing commands, to scope the situation out a little bit more to see if the person is alone. If alone one can more in and begin to issue commands controlling the situation with the firearm.

If an instructor somwhere said to shoot in this situation, I am betting they have buried some family members, or will.

Shooting is final. Can't take it back.

Roberta X
May 10, 2006, 08:39 PM
Aww, I'd've written something shorter if I'd had time! (Mark Twain had the same problem but was way more interesting to read).

In answer to the question, yes -- but only if "HANDS UP! GET ON THE FLOOR!" counts as a challenge. And I'll accept running rapidly away as a reponse as good as or better than compliance: I'm not really in the prisoner-taking business.

...About those long, philosophical rants: there are conditions under which I will shoot with little or no warning. There are people, gunnies, who are horrified to think any of us clean and decent gun-owners would do such a thing. I feel obliged to (try to) explain. Done.

tanksoldier
May 11, 2006, 04:48 AM
Drawing a weapon is not the same as actually using deadly force. If drawing the weapon prevents someone from getting killed, even a BG, it's probably worth it.

<<Actually, an admission on your part that you challenged could go against you in that it evidences you did not perceive an immediate threat but instead found time to chit chat. Then you gotta come up with another good reason why you suddenly felt threatened enough to open fire.>>

That's asinine. Having a gun in your hand isn't using deadly force. The reason you opened fire is that you felt your life was threatened. That can occur at any time based on the evolving situation. If you can't safely handle a weapon under stress you need to not have one. Depending on the situation, after you issue your verbal commands the BG might have:

1. Started to close with you. Even unarmed and with your weapon in it's holster a wrestling match is a deadly confrontation for a CCW.
2. Put a hand in his pocket, behind his back, in his pants, etc. You though he was going for a weapon.
3. Turned out to have a knife. If he's within 21 feet, he gets shot per the Tueler drill.

error426
May 11, 2006, 01:35 PM
Exactly, The answer is yes.

I will draw my weapon, asess the situation, IE: Identify the threat, Give verbal commands, and hope the situation de-escalates. BUT, when I draw said weapon, I will be willing to fire if NECESSARY.

If the " Unknown Person" can identify himself and his reason for being there to my satisfaction, Nuff said.

If He cannot or will not Identify himself, then He may lie on the ground in a safe (to Me) position until LE arrives, or he may exit the premises, at which time I will secure myself and wait for LE.

If He makes any threatning movements or gestures other than the above, TAP,TAP.

I agree exactly. This is essentially what I would do in such a situation. Regardless of what some might argue, I want my piece out of the holster and ready for use if necessary.

Al Norris
May 11, 2006, 04:22 PM
Action almost always beats reaction....

DobermansDoItGoofy
May 11, 2006, 10:02 PM
1) "I wonder who they are?" - not a question you want to be asking yourself 'after' you have drawn your firearm...but you might be in that position?

2) "I'll just scare them!' - not a good rationale to be having while you draw your firearm...

3) "How do I 'safely' handle this situation?' - a good question to be asking yourself...before you cross the line...

4) "Do they have a weapon?" - good preemptive thought!!!

5) "Officer, I live at such and such address...there's a stranger in my house...who I think might be a burglar...I'm outside on my cell phone... - not a bad idea!!!!

6) Okay...it's 3am...you're out in the country...and downstairs in the darkness of your own home...you hear someone ransacking your house...and you have a handgun on your nightstand - yep, it's a good idea to be loaded, drawn and ready!!!!! Now however it's still unpredictable ie. a lot depends on the layout of the place. Are you cornered? Do you have to enter the same room as the intruder to turn on the lights? Can you call from your cell phone and not be overheard? Is the stranger alone? Are there others outside? Lots of variables!!! Do you verbally challenge? Yes - but it's a judgement call and depends on your survey of the scene and the level of real perceived threat.
No - if you realistically fear being harmed when you challenge. Is this a wild eyed armed fiend with a gun in your house - or is this the problem teenager you've known for years from next door who thought you were gone on vacation? Not a nice batch of scenarios!!!!

7) A Gun Fight is a terrible thing!!! A Gun Fight is not a happy adventure!!!

8) An oz. of Prevention is worth a pound of cure.

9) Seriously, a well trained dog (in my case a few well trained dogs) can do what a gun cannot do ie. prevent the intruder from coming in, challenge the intruder if he does come in, defend you in the dark, scare the intruder, hold the intruder at bay...and keep their canine eyes and ears open while you get some sleep...and work even when the alarm system has failed!!!

10) If you do have a dog - make sure it's a well trained dog - 'cause you'll be liable for that too!!!! Yep a dog is again the bottom line - yep a good dobie is the best defense!!! :cool:

stratus
May 12, 2006, 01:08 AM
It simply would not be in my nature to shoot an intruder without first attempting to get him to yield at gunpoint, unless he was already coming at me, which is obvious.

But yeah, if you're gonna yell orders, Jack Bauer is a good character to try and imitate, voice wise.

Para Bellum
May 21, 2006, 02:42 PM
I see no problem with the challenge with drawn gun if you know what you are about and the circumstances of using deadly force.
me neither, especially if you can avoid having to shoot this way. However, it depends on: where.

Out in the public challanging is extremely dangerous because some concealed carrying bystander or police etc, might be motivated to interfere and "defend" the "harmless and unarmed" who is "being attacked" and that might lead to two good guys fighting each other.

So at home or in confined spaces I control anyway: yes, challange.
anywhere else: only if you can be very very sure to be the only one with a gun (or a knife at 20 yds etc...)

Glen, always a pleasure to read your posts and answer your threads!

TrooperSon
May 21, 2006, 07:15 PM
Assuming you draw and then give orders (that is what I would do) have a factory trigger on that weapon.

skeeter1
May 21, 2006, 08:54 PM
My doors are always locked, and if someone I don't know (only one person, my best friend, has a key) breaks in here, I'll shoot first (loaded .38 in the bedroom) and deal with the consiquences later.

stratus
May 21, 2006, 10:37 PM
I have heard each one, and other versions besides, from many trainers and other gunnies and I never took them to mean that if I drew, I had to shoot -- only that if I went so far as to make my sidearm visible, I had darned well better understand that the situation was one that could rate, and might result in, gunfire.
Yeah, that always bothered me too. When I was more of a newbie to a lot of these ideas, I had interpreted it as "don't draw unless you're going to immediately shoot, otherwise don't draw". I am honestly not sure why some people stick with this viewpoint. Granted, there are some situations in which that is your only option: you encounter someone in your living room, they rush you. That's not much of a dilemma; there's little or no time to react, and you have to shoot.

I remember reading a thread a while back about people who have had to draw their gun or display it in some fashion when confronted with danger (they were often in their cars at an intersection). In the vast majority of these situations, the sight of the weapon was enough to deter the aggressor. Drawing your gun and challenging are essentially the same thing, though you can always add to it with a loud, commanding voice.

Yes, you MUST be willing to use the weapon if you have drawn it, but it seems that in many cases, the deterrant effect of the weapon itself saves us quite a bit of complications. Not that we should count on it, but we shouldn't altogether discount it, either.

All this, and every fraction of every second that you are in a confrontation is full of variables the psychological stresses of which are extremely difficult to stay ahead of.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 22, 2006, 11:18 AM
+1 Stratus.

A comment on Out in the public challanging is extremely dangerous because some concealed carrying bystander or police etc, might be motivated to interfere and "defend" the "harmless and unarmed" who is "being attacked" and that might lead to two good guys fighting each other.

What ifs are unknowable. I could easy say that if a bad guy holding a bottle was approaching you to bean you and you were clearly reported as challenging the person to not move, drop the bottle, you were in fear of your life, don't make me shoot you or whatever, that might go over better than:

Gee - the big dude was yelling something at the little dude who just shot him.

These things can go either way. From pages of conversation, I think it is pretty clear to anyone sensible that as said above, challenging with a gun if tactically practical is the best way to go. As I said, it is taught by the vast majority of instructors.

Interestingly, Glocktalk was running the same debate and folks came out with the standard of don't draw unless you ARE going to shoot him.

As I said earlier, empirically, it seems deterrence works for cops and civilians. Evidence is a good thing.

Optical Serenity
May 22, 2006, 03:39 PM
Yeah, that always bothered me too. When I was more of a newbie to a lot of these ideas, I had interpreted it as "don't draw unless you're going to immediately shoot, otherwise don't draw". I am honestly not sure why some people stick with this viewpoint. Granted, there are some situations in which that is your only option: you encounter someone in your living room, they rush you. That's not much of a dilemma; there's little or no time to react, and you have to shoot.

+1

Very well said Stratus. I agree, if someone rushes you inside your house and they have some sort of weapon, or even if they don't and they refuse your commands, you may not even have time to challenge, the challenge will have a grain weight.

Bill Johnson
May 28, 2006, 11:17 PM
Their is a difference of drawing against a home intuder(That may be 20 feet away,rather than 10 and charging you,where you don't have time to warn. IF you have to Draw,do it without pointing at him.....the Court holds us to a higher level of responsibility when its pointed,rather than drawn(where one couldbring it up with short point aim within 1/4 of a second,if not less with training.

A if not pointed,no Change of accidental discharge,
B no small chance of shooting somebody who was in at the wrong place,wrong time,like a relative or one who came in unlocked thinking wrong house,oops. WE all make mistakes,i've walked into wrong houses a couple times,others have with mine too,the DO unto others what you wish they would do to you....i sure wouldn't want to have a gun in my face when i'm not a threat.

Even police when they draw a weapon and they have one edge/probable cause,we can't use that,they can do offense,we can't.

Even the police will do all they can to have to not shoot the guy,even saying drop the gun(if its pointed at them,most often they will shoot the perp.)

And we should do the same, a Gun and a CCP is a license to carry for protection,but its not a license to kill if we just FEEL like it,we need to learn the laws how the Statutes and Case precedent even is a good idea....

Its been sad better to be judged by 12 than to be Carried out by 6....I respectfully disagree
Judged by 12 can send you to prison where you could be killed there or Raped or both,many in there have Ayds
the KEY is to experience........Neither.....So unless one defends with GOOD CAuse potentially murder on us,or grave serious bodily injury,or kidnapping or Rape,those are the ones listed in the law(or defending another to a degree no greater than our own)

except when we are outside and obligated to retreat(WHEN we can).....the KEY is this,the Statutes and the Courts/court precedent dEfines what GOOD CAuse is(its not the we feel threatened,those are feelings,not court or statute facts)
and the PRosecutors such as the district atty's office also know the law very well,and they would search all of it.

one mistake,guaranteed your probably doing to do time,plus lose your permits for life,and the guns will be impounded.

Plus one needs to defend even if justifiable
$10,000 roughly if your cleared,prosecuted even with plea bargaining can run up to near $100,000.. . A Good way to avoid this,is if a dangerous person does approach you
(And thats if its not just opinion but your sure),Walk away.

Or run away,saying i don't want any trouble,the louder the better,i'd do it in my house,go right to the safe room if you have it(and if not get one and work it with family)

Else one is unprepared for the unlikely 1/1000 houses robbed,but would come at the Worst time for you with your family yelling.

then WArn,no warnings leads to possible prosecution,the argument from the prosecuting atty can be this:,YOU carefully waited like a stalker,yes you seen the man come in and go for the tv set,so you took careful aim thinking how dare that wicked perp

(and the Da can say yes he was a perp),and you executed him for having the gall to break into your house,yes he was a stupid man but was the death penalty what a prudent and reasonable person or jury,would they have given the perp that for simple theft,or even grand theft.
IF they say no its excessive, one won't go to jail for First degree murder.

However 3rd degree or Voluntary manslaughter one probably would be looking at....and $100,000 or near to defend. So draw if you must,don't point unless you do intend on either doing lawful restaint until the police come,its in the law codes,and never shoot unless they charge anyways and don't listen to your warnings....this goes for if they end up charging your family,you can defend the same way legally.. Albeit the Several thousand $$ charge,its the down side,the upside is why its so good to avoid shooting ,A it keeps one out of jail if they do it wrong
B it avoid killing the person,even if he is nasty,better citizens arrest and 95% submit and don't charge but surrender or run away or jump out of your window
C it saves you up to 10 grand for shooting him legally
D it saves you the grief at the trial when the family members who may not have cared about the perp show up wailing about how their loved one was a good just misled(even if he was a Turkey)

E,if possible have anyone call the police while the person is kept at bay preferebly from a distance,sorry for the long post. bill

johnsonrlp
May 29, 2006, 01:44 AM
Regardless of the situation
A. Know your local laws.
B. Don't lose your tactical advantage.
C. Don't shoot unless you have to.
D If you're shooting, don't stop until you're sure

Sum1_Special
July 14, 2006, 07:26 PM
Finally... Some folks I can agree with. :)

Winston007
July 16, 2006, 09:34 AM
The "Pearis" incident (where home owner shoots Japanese student)
No one has mentioned how Pearis has felt about this shooting.
He no longer has a gun in the house and he regrets ever having a gun.

and as for comments #89 Casingpoint and #99 Skeeter1 you guys do not value human life.

YOU DON'T SHOOT PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE IN YOUR HOUSE!!

revjen45
July 16, 2006, 04:23 PM
Mr. Peairs was acquitted of criminal charges but lost a civil suit filed by Yoshihiro's parents. They used the money to support gun control. He was emotionally damaged, as would any sane person be under the circumstances.

If I entered my home to find a stranger I would wish to establish the circumstances before opening fire. The specifics of the situation would determine the specifics of my actions. It is very difficult to say what you would do, because the totality of the circumstances cannot be posited in a hypothetical. Suffice it to say I would not shoot without at least trying to understand what was going on in the time available to make the decision.

Sum1_Special
July 16, 2006, 04:32 PM
and as for comments #89 Casingpoint and #99 Skeeter1 you guys do not value human life.

I agree, I shudder to think people who take human life so lightly carry, or even own guns. I hope I never run into people like this in real life, and I hope if they actually do what they say they will do, they pay the price for it.

Rusty Stud
July 16, 2006, 07:53 PM
I'm sry but im confused. apparently after reading the post i've noticed there is
a difference in "drawing" and "pointing" and i was just curious, If you draw your weapon but dont point at the guy then where exactly is your weapon aimed?

Personally I thought there where only 3 main steps to do in this situation.

1. draw yur gun, and point at the person. (safty off)

2. Yell at them, alot

3. shoot, if they run at you, or somone else.

I chose this linup because it seems rational and is what I would probibly do in a home invasion setting, granted I've never had any occurences yet.
and keep in mind this is what i would do if the threat was proven very real.

Is this a bad procedure? please pick it apart and tell me where it fails, Knowledge is power, and I want yours.:o

Capt Charlie
July 16, 2006, 08:46 PM
I'm sry but im confused. apparently after reading the post i've noticed there is a difference in "drawing" and "pointing" and i was just curious, If you draw your weapon but dont point at the guy then where exactly is your weapon aimed?
It's pointed downward, at a 45 degree angle, in a 2-handed grip. This is called the "low ready". The low ready is a sort of active standby, and is used for such things as clearing buildings. Actually pointing at the target is called the "high ready" or point/aim stance. Switch to this when a target's been identified and confirmed, or when kicking doors. While clearing a building, for example, you'll switch back and forth between the two many times.

On a lot of police departments (including mine), coming to the low ready is not considered a use of force. Going to the high ready is, and requires all the paperwork, and headaches that go with it :D .