PDA

View Full Version : Attempted Home Invasion in Antioch, CA


Bartholomew Roberts
February 15, 2012, 03:32 PM
The TruthAboutGuns (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/02/daniel-zimmerman/defensive-gun-use-of-the-day-tables-turned-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-186741) has an interesting account of an attempted home invasion in Antioch, CA. An 18yr old approached a nice home in a top notch neighborhood next to the golf course at 8:20 p.m. and rang the doorbell. The homeowner didn't answer immediately as he was at home with his 7yr old son and trying to see who was out there and the 18yr old began attempting to kick the door in.

At that point, the homeowner apparently opened the door and jumped the 18yr. old. During their wrestling, he discovered the 18yr old had a semi-auto pistol on him and it becomes a fight for the gun. The homeowner gets the gun away from the teen and shoots him 3 times - at which point, the teens two as-yet unseen accomplices flee.

I thought there were some interesting discussion points to this that merited discussion.

1. From a Tactics and Training standpoint, the tactics were lacking. The homeowner gave up a protected position within the house to step outside into an environment where he didn't have a clear view of the surrounding area, didn't know the number of attackers, and didn't know the one attacker he could see was armed. It worked out well for him nonetheless; but I think there are a lot of areas where tactics could be improved.

2. A lot of times I see people talk about how they are safe because they live in a "good neighborhood." Here is a Google Maps link to the area where the shooting occured: http://g.co/maps/fsgsb

As you can see, this is a nice neighborhood by any standard, and in January the neighborhood was also the scene of a shooting at a sweet-16 party in which 6 people were wounded. Just being in a nice neighborhood isn't a magic shield against bad things happening.

3. Everybody also appears to have this expectation that their hypothetical scenario will be someone breaking in the middle of the night; but this one was an attempted forced entry at a time when most people are home and awake.

4. I can't count how many times now I've read accounts of self-defense shootings where there is more than one criminal present; but the home owner doesn't realize it. As a general rule, I think it is a good practice to assume there are always more people out there than you can immediately see.

MemphisJim
February 15, 2012, 04:04 PM
Excellent points, all well made.

Unistat76
February 16, 2012, 03:54 AM
It is fortunate that the homeowner will not be charged. I'm not familiar with California's Castle doctrine status, but I know there are some jurisdictions around the country that would charge the homeowner for shooting the robber after he "disarmed" him.

Slotback
February 17, 2012, 08:10 PM
Rats and wolves travel in packs. If there is one, where are his buddies?

armoredman
February 17, 2012, 09:00 PM
I wasn't aware Cali had Castle Doctrine.
Agree on all salient points, as well as bringing another point not really related to this EXACT incident - if you're at the front door, and your firearm is in the bedroom, how fast can you run to get it while Bozo the Crackhead is breaking down your door?
Good that everything worked out well AND that the guys two buddies turned out to be cowards after all.

Frank Ettin
February 17, 2012, 09:31 PM
California does have a form of a Castle Doctrine -- Penal Code 198.5:Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.

thump_rrr
February 18, 2012, 08:57 AM
It is fortunate that the homeowner will not be charged. I'm not familiar with California's Castle doctrine status, but I know there are some jurisdictions around the country that would charge the homeowner for shooting the robber after he "disarmed" him.

Wouldn't that count as disparity of force?
Since he is defending himself against not one but 3 assailants?

C0untZer0
February 18, 2012, 10:24 AM
Gosh, doesn't this story support the idea that if you have a gun on you it's more likely to be taken away and used against you?

manta49
February 18, 2012, 10:37 AM
Is it not the same doctrine as they have here and most places self defence.

Double Naught Spy
February 18, 2012, 11:21 AM
1. From a Tactics and Training standpoint, the tactics were lacking. The homeowner gave up a protected position within the house to step outside into an environment where he didn't have a clear view of the surrounding area, didn't know the number of attackers, and didn't know the one attacker he could see was armed. It worked out well for him nonetheless; but I think there are a lot of areas where tactics could be improved.

Actually, it would seem like the homeowner used tactics that are considered to be very good in the right circumstances, but the preparation and execution were lacking. The homeowner attempted to use surprise, speed, and violence of action to overcome the would-be intruder. The strategy is risky, especially when applied with insufficient information. It seems to work best when the side engaging in the strategy has superior numbers or superior armor and firepower, but can be used at much greater risk with inferior numbers, armor, and firepower, which appears to be the case here.

It would not have been my first, second, or third choice. However, it does reflect a lot of posters about combat bravado in the forum along the lines of taking the fight to the opposition, running toward the sound of danger instead of away from it, being a sheepdog, choosing when and where the fight will occur, etc.

Gosh, doesn't this story support the idea that if you have a gun on you it's more likely to be taken away and used against you?

Yeah, sort of like a post I saw here recently that said that the poster would have the upper hand in a situation if a bad guy had him at gun point. I am not sure where the reasoning comes in that being unarmed means being in a superior position, but apparently it is one way of viewing the situation.

kraigwy
February 18, 2012, 11:23 AM
bringing another point not really related to this EXACT incident - if you're at the front door, and your firearm is in the bedroom, how fast can you run to get it while Bozo the Crackhead is breaking down your door?

That's one reason I don't keep loaded guns in the bedroom or anywhere else in the house.

However, it takes me less then .5 seconds to get my revolver out of my pocket and fire the first round. If I don't know what's out there, I draw if first because it also takes about a half a second to drop it back in my pocket if I find I don't need it and NO ONE KNOWS.

If I have my pants on, I have my revolver.

If you're ready, you have more time to "be sure of your target". An example, a few years ago I went to an out of town rifle match (300 miles away). I took my camper (actually a horse trailer with living quarters).

I parked in a field out side the gate to the range. It was dark when I arrived so I didn't know the area.

Along about 2-3 o'clock in the morning I woke up with something banging on my trailer. Rocking the sucker. I slipped my revolver out of my pocket and opened the door to peek out, I saw the red dot of my laser on the nose of a horse. Apparently I set up in someone's horse pasture.

You have to be ready, and you HAVE TO KNOW YOUR TARGET. The value of some one's horse tends to go up after you shoot them.

bikerbill
February 18, 2012, 04:07 PM
My wife and I lived in Antioch for 14 years, I got into guns about 20 years ago when there was a murder in the house behind us, in the good neighborhood where we lived ... from the story, it seems the homeowner made a mistake in leaving his home and then in shooting the BG after he had control of his gun ... I'm glad it appears he won't be charged, but I think (no pun intended) he dodged a bullet ...

Thump brings up a good point about disparity of force, but only if the homeowner knew there were two others with the guy who got shot ... the description made me think the two were hiding until their buddy made entry ...

federali
February 18, 2012, 06:01 PM
First, a gun was involved. That the victim momentarily got the gun away from his assailant does not mean the assailant is disarmed and no longer a threat as they continue to fight for control of the gun. You may use deadly force to prevent an adversary from reaching a gun. As far as I'm concerned, this is a lawful shooting

armoredman
February 18, 2012, 06:34 PM
Kraig, exactly...never had to shoot a horse, but had to chase a bunch when helping at a youth rodeo once.:D

SPEMack618
February 19, 2012, 06:25 PM
While the home owner did negate his positional advantage in leaving his home, he mored than made up for it with his will to fight.

Speed, suprise, and violence and action sounds cool and looks good on a patch, but it seems to me the guy was galvanized by the fact that he was fighting for his kid in his own home.

MTT TL
February 19, 2012, 08:58 PM
Gosh, doesn't this story support the idea that if you have a gun on you it's more likely to be taken away and used against you?

Perhaps, but only if you are a stupid crack head.

4. I can't count how many times now I've read accounts of self-defense shootings where there is more than one criminal present; but the home owner doesn't realize it. As a general rule, I think it is a good practice to assume there are always more people out there than you can immediately see.

I bet he was in shock after shooting the bad guy. When you think about it how likely was he five minutes before to even consider the possibility of facing multiple armed intruders?

Just being in a nice neighborhood isn't a magic shield against bad things happening.

True but it lowers the volume of opportunity.

dabigguns357
February 20, 2012, 09:39 AM
And people say i'm crazy and paranoid.I will say it again and again,live in layers.

I have security camera's with built in audio everywhere,and we can see everything and everyone before they even get on my porch,from any tv in my house.I carry at home and so does my wife.We have outside and inside dogs.i keep alarms on all the doors all the time,and we don't answer the door unarmed.

Our house faces a very long and narrow driveway which really helps when a car pulls up.We keep no bushes or shrubs around the front or back of the house or near any camera's,we don't want any obstructed views or any hidden suprises.

ltc444
February 20, 2012, 10:36 PM
It is the political silly season. The prosecutor is up for reelection. He is not going to prosecute a homeowner who defended himself against an armed "intruder"

FairWarning
February 25, 2012, 09:07 PM
Once someone is attempting to kick in my door, he is my enemy. There is no discussion if he manages to kick it in. He'll be dining on 00 Buckshot.

But I wouldn't open the door for him!

lincoln5
March 6, 2012, 10:03 AM
Just the fact that the intruder attempted to enter the dwelling
"armed" and was shot with his own weapon makes the case
cut and dry, even in Calif. If the homeowner would been using
his own weapon on the perp, he may have been charged in Calif.
with a crime, at least initially.

Edward429451
March 6, 2012, 11:12 AM
I have heard that on most home invasions, that the homeowner knows either the perps or the perps friends, How do statistics back this up? Is it true?

TexasJustice7
March 6, 2012, 01:40 PM
Lincoln5: Just the fact that the intruder attempted to enter the dwelling "armed" and was shot with his own weapon makes the case
cut and dry, even in Calif. If the homeowner would been using
his own weapon on the perp, he may have been charged in Calif.
with a crime, at least initially.

Certainly would not help me if I had been visiting this homeowner. I might have been in a lot of trouble, since to start with Calif don't recognize my Texas permit. And then if I used the weapon I took away from the Perp, and not carrying mine, I would have probably been charged for shooting an unarmed perp since at that point he was unarmed. :confused:

Frank Ettin
March 6, 2012, 01:42 PM
I have heard that on most home invasions, that the homeowner knows either the perps or the perps friends, How do statistics back this up?...AFAIK, there are no statistics on the question.

Where did you hear this? From a reliable source with some evidence to back him up? If not, there's a good chance that it's not true.

Frank Ettin
March 6, 2012, 01:45 PM
...I might have been in a lot of trouble, since to start with Calif don't recognize my Texas permit. And then if I used the weapon I took away from the Perp, and not carrying mine, I would have probably been charged for shooting an unarmed perp...Probably not. You're apparently not familiar with California law. See post 6.

Alaska444
March 6, 2012, 03:10 PM
With all the restrictions in CA, at least here I have the right to have a gun in my own house. Not the same in MA for instance or NYC. I can buy and own the guns I need and if someone does get into my house, I can defend myself and my family. That is not true everywhere in the US.

Nanuk
March 6, 2012, 03:14 PM
I always carry, even in the house. At each end I have an 870.

Edward429451
March 7, 2012, 02:59 PM
Where did you hear this?

Actually, I heard from an LEO, but he was in lecture mode so I believe there was reason to doubt the validity of the statement.