What to do in THIS HD scenario? - Page 3

Harley Quinn · September 28, 2005, 10:57 AM

Hi Roy,

Funny meeting you here.

Yea that is a good way to go. Then you calmly pick up the phone and call the local police. I just shot the guns out of a couple of guy's hand, can you get over hear real quick. OK cut, print.

I think that would be about as real as a head shot. No head shots.

I just shot to stop them your honor. So I unloaded into them from 10 feet with my birdshot that was still in my loaded gun. It was loaded? Did you have to unlock the trigger housing group lock that the law requires? HMMMM

Tough call.

Harley

Pointer · September 28, 2005, 11:24 AM

Don't shoot!

They're SWAT cops that followed a BG in your front door.

Sounds like somebody's gonna died hard!

roy reali · September 28, 2005, 12:14 PM

You must have some dumb detectives in your area. Lets see, plant a gun and that will fool the crime lab. Reading some of these responses makes me feel like I have gone down the rabbit hole. I expect Alice to give a response at any time.

I bet some folks here would make great poster children for the gun control groups.

leadcounsel · September 28, 2005, 12:18 PM

Meyer and Wayne have a good handle on things, as well as others like #8 and like minded answers.

I don't get why I'm being attacked for asking if anyone had a problem shooting these BGs in the back? It was only a question

And please don't change the scenario. You don't have a phone, you're not upstairs, and these aren't cops or family members.... etc. This is the scenario presented and you have about 10 seconds to decide the course of action. This is good practice.

My answer is that, in MY state of Colorado, I know the law. The law gives me complete discretion to use lethal force against armed burglars: the state statute is below. I suggest you all learn your state laws.

I think the most effective attack against these attacker is to conceal yourself and take tactical aimed shots, preferably in the back. If you shoot them in the back they won't see exactly where the shot came from and will have to spin around to take aim and shoot. I carry a .40 so my first shot with a double tap is almost guaranteed to take down one of them. Now the odds are still in my favor because I can probably squeeze off at least a couple of mildly accurate shots at BG #2 before he can even react, and probably send 5 shots his way before he can squeeze of a single shot. If any of those shots are lethal, the threat it neutralized.

I think shouting LEO is on the way is a mistake. Now you have two intruders who know your position and will separate and be on the defensive and now you've got a house to clear.

I would worry about the legality later, but I am confident that shooting in the back would be justified in Colorado given these circumstances, based on the law and caselaw. There would be a preliminary hearing to decide if an indictment is even possible and, given the facts and ONLY my side of the story, it's extremely unlikely there would be an indictment. Two armed men, ski masks, burglars or assassins, middle of the night, family upstairs, deadly force warranted and necessary (it doesn't matter if the shot was in the back or face) etc. = no prosecution.

CRS 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

rnovi · September 28, 2005, 12:21 PM

Shoot them in the back?

Just as an aside: IF they are all dressed in black, the lights are out, and all you see is general movement moving towards the stairs...

How can you really tell if someone is moving forward or backward? For that matter, if they are all in black, in a black room, how can you really tell if they are facing you or not?

As far as I am concerned, if I sensed danger to my family, moving towards the stairs, I really don't care if they offer their back to shoot at or their front. Honestly, I would rather shoot them in the back. It would take them that much longer to turn around, gain target, and try to shoot back. I simply would evaluate that as a "tactical advantage".

Bottom line: go ahead and steal the stereo. But if you move towards the stairs, your life is forfiet.

Edited to add: And, quite frankly, If I get dead trying to defend my family, well, I can live with that. There IS that real possibility. I'm not going to sacrifice my family just so I can live a couple of moments longer.

Glenn E. Meyer · September 28, 2005, 12:30 PM

No handgun round is guaranteed to take anyone done. That is a myth.

leadcounsel · September 28, 2005, 12:55 PM

I like the tactical advantage of backshots against the BGs in this scenario.

No "anything" is guaranteed to take someone down. Hence there were survivors of FAT MAN and LITTLE BOY!

However, a person would be hard pressed to survive a single hollow point corbon shot to the COM at 10 yards, not to mention a decent chance for a score on the double tap. This will cause massive shock trauma, wound channel(s), and interruption of vital organs. He'll likely go down almost instantly, but surely within a few moments.

Even if he's wearing body armor, it'll still feel like getting hit with a Louisville slugger in the back. It's fair to say that the better armed of the two is going down, probably fatally. Then the threat is with the second BG.

Like I said earlier, a hail of lead his way and there's a good chance for a score against him too with the same results as #1.

There are no guarantees, I'm just giving what I think I would hope to do in this situation and do my best to shoot them and not get shot in the process. I could end up dead, but I'd be taking at least one of them with me!

spacemanspiff · September 28, 2005, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Even if he's wearing body armor, it'll still feel like getting hit with a Louisville slugger in the back. It's fair to say that the better armed of the two is going down, probably fatally

b-b-b-b-but you said that you could react quickly after being shot while wearing your armor! you said that cops can quickly react and return fire without skipping a beat!

if you want to begin a firefight by shooting someone in the back, go for it.

SomeKid · September 28, 2005, 01:11 PM

Quote:

This is the scenario presented and you have about 10 seconds to decide the course of action.

I wish my classes sent me such easy questions, it took me one picosecond to figure this one out. Solution? Remove the threat to your family. Yes, as Glenn has been pointing out you may die, but what kind of man would not gladly stare death in the eye to protect those who are his?

leadcounsel · September 28, 2005, 01:14 PM

Spaceman:

What I said in the past was that you will likely survive an otherwise lethal shot stopped by body armor (the context of the conversation was a frontal shot during a robbery for instance), but you'll have deep tissue bruising and possibly broken bones. This would probably feel like getting hit with a bat. In a gun fight, you can probably still function well enough to shoot back. However, I never discussed being shot in the back until this posting.

Your BACK has more organs against the surface, such as spine and kidneys. It would be signifiantly more deadly or damaging even with a vest than a front shot (b/c vitals are protected by ribs). Hence, I would take a back shot in this scenario for tactical reasons.

I also said you can function better than you could IF YOU WERE NOT WEARING THE VEST. Why don't you go back and read my other postings....

Glenn E. Meyer · September 28, 2005, 01:21 PM

Sorry, Leadcounsel - you are incorrect on the effects of handgun rounds.

I have sat in lectures with Peter Pi and heard trauma surgeons and military experts explicitly say that handgun rounds do not guarantee the results you seem to take for granted.

spacemanspiff · September 28, 2005, 01:23 PM

i have, and came to the conclusion that most of your postings are little more than rambo fantasies. part of it comes from the parameters of the scenarios you conjure up. you put things in black and white, substituting absolutes where variables exist in real life.

when will you ever happen upon two armed masked men in your home and instantly know they are bad guys there to rob you? they have guns in their hands and are up to no good. they didnt see or hear you moving around (what are they, blind and deaf?) and you want to tiptoe behind them and execute them before they get upstairs to your family.

i'm just waiting for you to post a thread about how many different tactical routes you take to get to and from work.

Wildalaska · September 28, 2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

You? The lawyer? Shootin em in the back? You dont think you'll get indicted? read the underline part, come on, your a lawyer, you dont think you may have a problem with that..? cant the argument be made that they were fleeing from you whenthey are laying there with wounds in the back....there goes your reasonable beleif huh....

Reading some of the chest poundings makes me giggle...My motto...if you are gonna pull the trigger start liquidating assets cuz your gonna be feeding some "bottom feeder" or 'shyster" or "shark" or "scumbag defense lawyer" (or whatever term is happily used for the guys who you love to villify until you need them to keep you out of the klink) to the tune of 50K....

WildandwhatthatadieuAlaska

leadcounsel · September 28, 2005, 01:41 PM

Glenn,
If bullets are so ineffective, why bother? The fact is that the LEO and Military are correct that there is no guarantee, and are also cautious about the limits of weaponry. That's their job to be cautious and set expectations accordingly. It's called underpromising and overdelivery. The bottom line is that bullets against people are pretty darn effective.

Spaceman:
Yes, granted, this is a cut and dried scenario. However, ANY scenario where someone else is in my house is pretty cut and dried. If YOU cannot tell whether someone is there legally or not, that's your problem. I think a person could quickly tell whether intruders were there lawfully or not...

I don't see anything "fantasy" about the scenario,and you're the first to bring it up in many postings... Seems less rambo and more reality. In fact, I bet many people here on TFL own guns FOR EXACTLY THIS SITUATION -- AWAKENED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT BY ARMED INTRUDERS.

It is just one in any number of black, white, or gray scenarios. Many people post black, white, or gray scenarios including myself. I also respond to those with my thoughts.

If you have nothing to ADD to the conversation, why are you posting? People here would like USEFUL input, not naysayers who say this will never happen.

My suggestion for you is that if you don't like this scenario and have nothing to add, move along.... and have a nice day.

leadcounsel · September 28, 2005, 01:45 PM

wildalaska,

there will be two pieces of evidence that will dictate they were not fleeing; forensics and my statements. forensics will determine they were not fleeing based on their location, body movement, etc. my statements to the police are going to accurately reflect MY state of mind and their actions including being armed and committing numerous felonies IN MY HOME, where I am completely immune from prosecution.

spacemanspiff · September 28, 2005, 01:56 PM

Quote:

If you have nothing to ADD to the conversation, why are you posting?

you mean, if i don't placate your ego by agreeing that shooting an intruder in the back from a concealed position without announcing myself is the best way to handle this situation, i shouldnt be posting in this thread? don't you want other people to express their opinions about your intended actions?

people postulate these types of scenarios until they are blue in the face. but when it comes down to it, it will only be by sheer luck that they react in the manner which they said they would.

the world is a dynamic environment. there are myriads of variables, lending to uncountable options. a mistake many make is thinking that just because they carry a gun they will prevail. or that because they wear body armor they will never get hurt (but if a bad guy wears armor they'll never be able to react like a good guy does, is that because the good guy is shooting "Good Guy Bullets", guaranteed to hit bad guys even if they arent aiming at them? and bad guys shoot "Bad Guy Bullets", now with 30% less chance of hitting innocents!).

remember folks, our guns are but one option in our quest to defend ourselves. in some cases they can be the only option, but thats more the exception than the rule.

Wildalaska · September 28, 2005, 02:07 PM

Quote:

there will be two pieces of evidence that will dictate they were not fleeing; forensics and my statements. forensics will determine they were not fleeing based on their location, body movement, etc. my statements to the police are going to accurately reflect MY state of mind and their actions including being armed and committing numerous felonies IN MY HOME, where I am completely immune from prosecution.

With statements like that I begin to question whether you are a lawyer...

PS beat the criminal rap, enjoy your civil liability

WildanddidyoueverhearofthehamsandwichAlaska

leadcounsel · September 28, 2005, 02:13 PM

Wild...

You're right... I should wait until the BG shoots first to return fire, but only if I think he might hurt me...

Look, the fact that they are in MY HOME, ILLEGALLY, WITHOUT MY PERMISSION, WITH FIREARMS, is threat enough.

I'd hate to think you're one of those bleeding hearts that would wait until Saddam nukes the US before taking any aggressive action...?

As far as the civil liability, re-read the statute. Homeowners are immune.

leadcounsel · September 28, 2005, 02:14 PM

Spacely:

In THIS thread, let’s examine your postings for relative helpfulness vs waste of time:

First posting was several sarcastic paragraphs which we can appreciate but it’s no help.

Your second posting was multiple sarcastic attacks on me. Not helpful. Your post was also a general MIS-statement of the law, which overwhelmingly in most states gives a homeowner the right to confront lethal force with lethal force in their home. Armed perps are lethal force, so shooting them is 100% justified in all but the most communist states. Your mis-statment is harmful. More useless sarcasm to follow…

Your third posting was changing the scenario. Would be nice but not within the confines of the conversation…. Would you care to join the conversation? If not, you’re not helping. The posting was THAT YOU ARE SURE THEY ARE BURGLARS. If you can't tell the difference in your home, well, I just don't know what to say to that...

Your forth posting was yet again another sarcastic attack on me. How is this helpful again….?

Your fifth posting was… drumroll please… another attack on me. Big surprise!

Your sixth posting was mildly useful, mixed with attacks against me again…. Pattern?

So, in 6 postings you’ve posted the following useful information: Things do go down as you always want them to.

Thanks for the invaluable addition to the conversation! Any more pearls of wisdom?

I’m merely trying to drum up some interesting conversation and having people think of how they might react in a realistic scenario. I’m sorry if the scenario isn’t to your liking. My deepest and most sincere apologies. However, you have a choice and I suggest you move along if you don’t like the scenario presented, or start your OWN post with you OWN non-Rambo scenario.

Thank YOU!

625 · September 28, 2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

i have, and came to the conclusion that most of your postings are little more than rambo fantasies.

ding, ding, ding,...we have a winner!!

spacemanspiff · September 28, 2005, 02:20 PM

tell you what, lead counsel, i'll just put you on my ignore list. easier that way.

Glenn E. Meyer · September 28, 2005, 02:27 PM

Glenn,
If bullets are so ineffective, why bother? The fact is that the LEO and Military are correct that there is no guarantee, and are also cautious about the limits of weaponry. That's their job to be cautious and set expectations accordingly. It's called underpromising and overdelivery. The bottom line is that bullets against people are pretty darn effective.

You have been claiming one shot stops and almost instaneous stops as a guarantee for your Glock 40 rounds. That is pure BS. The reason we use bullets is that I have trouble concealing and lifting a Bofors L70 40mm gun. You are really off base if you truly think that your shooting abilities and round guarantee that you will be a steely eyed dealer of death.

Also, you lack of logic is rather amusing. It's like when you claimed I was suggesting a Rambo attack and I didn't - then you claimed I edited my post - with no such notations on my posts (in another thread). You are really sinking here as a self-proclaimed expert. But that's ok with me.

Wildalaska · September 28, 2005, 02:28 PM

Quote:

I'd hate to think you're one of those bleeding hearts that would wait until Saddam nukes the US before taking any aggressive action...?

Sigh...and off we go into ad hominem land eh counsel?

Quote:

As far as the civil liability, re-read the statute. Homeowners are immune.

Now I know you are not a lawyer.

WildwhypretendAlaska

shootinstudent · September 28, 2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Reading some of the chest poundings makes me giggle...My motto...if you are gonna pull the trigger start liquidating assets cuz your gonna be feeding some "bottom feeder" or 'shyster" or "shark" or "scumbag defense lawyer" (or whatever term is happily used for the guys who you love to villify until you need them to keep you out of the klink) to the tune of 50K....

I think a good rule of thumb is: Don't start shooting unless you are convinced that you and yours have no realistic chance of survival otherwise. That way, even if you do lose everything defending yourself (too many potential factors for anyone, even a super-all-state-knowing lead attorney, to say ahead of time what will and will not fly), you can still be satisfied that it's better than being dead.

leadcounsel · September 28, 2005, 02:37 PM

Wild…

Let me help you… follow the bouncing ball if you will…

CRS: 18-1-704.5 (4): Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

September 28, 2005, 10:57 AM	#51
Harley Quinn Junior member Join Date: August 30, 2005 Location: State of KALI Posts: 1,531	Hey that's it law and order first. Hi Roy, Funny meeting you here. Yea that is a good way to go. Then you calmly pick up the phone and call the local police. I just shot the guns out of a couple of guy's hand, can you get over hear real quick. OK cut, print. I think that would be about as real as a head shot. No head shots. I just shot to stop them your honor. So I unloaded into them from 10 feet with my birdshot that was still in my loaded gun. It was loaded? Did you have to unlock the trigger housing group lock that the law requires? HMMMM Tough call. Harley

September 28, 2005, 12:14 PM	#53
roy reali Senior Member Join Date: August 23, 2005 Posts: 3,248	Dumb Detectives You must have some dumb detectives in your area. Lets see, plant a gun and that will fool the crime lab. Reading some of these responses makes me feel like I have gone down the rabbit hole. I expect Alice to give a response at any time. I bet some folks here would make great poster children for the gun control groups.

September 28, 2005, 12:21 PM	#55
rnovi Senior Member Join Date: July 10, 2005 Location: So. Cal. Posts: 401	Shoot them in the back? Just as an aside: IF they are all dressed in black, the lights are out, and all you see is general movement moving towards the stairs... How can you really tell if someone is moving forward or backward? For that matter, if they are all in black, in a black room, how can you really tell if they are facing you or not? As far as I am concerned, if I sensed danger to my family, moving towards the stairs, I really don't care if they offer their back to shoot at or their front. Honestly, I would rather shoot them in the back. It would take them that much longer to turn around, gain target, and try to shoot back. I simply would evaluate that as a "tactical advantage". Bottom line: go ahead and steal the stereo. But if you move towards the stairs, your life is forfiet. Edited to add: And, quite frankly, If I get dead trying to defend my family, well, I can live with that. There IS that real possibility. I'm not going to sacrifice my family just so I can live a couple of moments longer. __________________ Robert N. "Remember, Eagles may soar but Weasels don't get sucked into jet engines!"

September 28, 2005, 12:30 PM	#56
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	No handgun round is guaranteed to take anyone done. That is a myth. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

September 28, 2005, 01:21 PM	#61
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Sorry, Leadcounsel - you are incorrect on the effects of handgun rounds. I have sat in lectures with Peter Pi and heard trauma surgeons and military experts explicitly say that handgun rounds do not guarantee the results you seem to take for granted. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

September 28, 2005, 11:24 AM	#52
Pointer Senior Member Join Date: April 8, 2005 Location: Utah Posts: 2,559	Don't shoot! They're SWAT cops that followed a BG in your front door. Sounds like somebody's gonna died hard!

September 28, 2005, 12:18 PM	#54
leadcounsel Junior member Join Date: September 8, 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA Posts: 2,119	Meyer and Wayne have a good handle on things, as well as others like #8 and like minded answers. I don't get why I'm being attacked for asking if anyone had a problem shooting these BGs in the back? It was only a question And please don't change the scenario. You don't have a phone, you're not upstairs, and these aren't cops or family members.... etc. This is the scenario presented and you have about 10 seconds to decide the course of action. This is good practice. My answer is that, in MY state of Colorado, I know the law. The law gives me complete discretion to use lethal force against armed burglars: the state statute is below. I suggest you all learn your state laws. I think the most effective attack against these attacker is to conceal yourself and take tactical aimed shots, preferably in the back. If you shoot them in the back they won't see exactly where the shot came from and will have to spin around to take aim and shoot. I carry a .40 so my first shot with a double tap is almost guaranteed to take down one of them. Now the odds are still in my favor because I can probably squeeze off at least a couple of mildly accurate shots at BG #2 before he can even react, and probably send 5 shots his way before he can squeeze of a single shot. If any of those shots are lethal, the threat it neutralized. I think shouting LEO is on the way is a mistake. Now you have two intruders who know your position and will separate and be on the defensive and now you've got a house to clear. I would worry about the legality later, but I am confident that shooting in the back would be justified in Colorado given these circumstances, based on the law and caselaw. There would be a preliminary hearing to decide if an indictment is even possible and, given the facts and ONLY my side of the story, it's extremely unlikely there would be an indictment. Two armed men, ski masks, burglars or assassins, middle of the night, family upstairs, deadly force warranted and necessary (it doesn't matter if the shot was in the back or face) etc. = no prosecution. CRS 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant. (3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force. (4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

September 28, 2005, 12:55 PM	#57
leadcounsel Junior member Join Date: September 8, 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA Posts: 2,119	I like the tactical advantage of backshots against the BGs in this scenario. No "anything" is guaranteed to take someone down. Hence there were survivors of FAT MAN and LITTLE BOY! However, a person would be hard pressed to survive a single hollow point corbon shot to the COM at 10 yards, not to mention a decent chance for a score on the double tap. This will cause massive shock trauma, wound channel(s), and interruption of vital organs. He'll likely go down almost instantly, but surely within a few moments. Even if he's wearing body armor, it'll still feel like getting hit with a Louisville slugger in the back. It's fair to say that the better armed of the two is going down, probably fatally. Then the threat is with the second BG. Like I said earlier, a hail of lead his way and there's a good chance for a score against him too with the same results as #1. There are no guarantees, I'm just giving what I think I would hope to do in this situation and do my best to shoot them and not get shot in the process. I could end up dead, but I'd be taking at least one of them with me!

September 28, 2005, 01:14 PM	#60
leadcounsel Junior member Join Date: September 8, 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA Posts: 2,119	Spaceman: What I said in the past was that you will likely survive an otherwise lethal shot stopped by body armor (the context of the conversation was a frontal shot during a robbery for instance), but you'll have deep tissue bruising and possibly broken bones. This would probably feel like getting hit with a bat. In a gun fight, you can probably still function well enough to shoot back. However, I never discussed being shot in the back until this posting. Your BACK has more organs against the surface, such as spine and kidneys. It would be signifiantly more deadly or damaging even with a vest than a front shot (b/c vitals are protected by ribs). Hence, I would take a back shot in this scenario for tactical reasons. I also said you can function better than you could IF YOU WERE NOT WEARING THE VEST. Why don't you go back and read my other postings....

September 28, 2005, 01:23 PM	#62
spacemanspiff Senior Member Join Date: January 16, 2002 Location: alaska Posts: 3,498	i have, and came to the conclusion that most of your postings are little more than rambo fantasies. part of it comes from the parameters of the scenarios you conjure up. you put things in black and white, substituting absolutes where variables exist in real life. when will you ever happen upon two armed masked men in your home and instantly know they are bad guys there to rob you? they have guns in their hands and are up to no good. they didnt see or hear you moving around (what are they, blind and deaf?) and you want to tiptoe behind them and execute them before they get upstairs to your family. i'm just waiting for you to post a thread about how many different tactical routes you take to get to and from work. __________________ "Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard

September 28, 2005, 01:41 PM	#64
leadcounsel Junior member Join Date: September 8, 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA Posts: 2,119	Glenn, If bullets are so ineffective, why bother? The fact is that the LEO and Military are correct that there is no guarantee, and are also cautious about the limits of weaponry. That's their job to be cautious and set expectations accordingly. It's called underpromising and overdelivery. The bottom line is that bullets against people are pretty darn effective. Spaceman: Yes, granted, this is a cut and dried scenario. However, ANY scenario where someone else is in my house is pretty cut and dried. If YOU cannot tell whether someone is there legally or not, that's your problem. I think a person could quickly tell whether intruders were there lawfully or not... I don't see anything "fantasy" about the scenario,and you're the first to bring it up in many postings... Seems less rambo and more reality. In fact, I bet many people here on TFL own guns FOR EXACTLY THIS SITUATION -- AWAKENED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT BY ARMED INTRUDERS. It is just one in any number of black, white, or gray scenarios. Many people post black, white, or gray scenarios including myself. I also respond to those with my thoughts. If you have nothing to ADD to the conversation, why are you posting? People here would like USEFUL input, not naysayers who say this will never happen. My suggestion for you is that if you don't like this scenario and have nothing to add, move along.... and have a nice day.

September 28, 2005, 01:45 PM	#65
leadcounsel Junior member Join Date: September 8, 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA Posts: 2,119	wildalaska, there will be two pieces of evidence that will dictate they were not fleeing; forensics and my statements. forensics will determine they were not fleeing based on their location, body movement, etc. my statements to the police are going to accurately reflect MY state of mind and their actions including being armed and committing numerous felonies IN MY HOME, where I am completely immune from prosecution.

September 28, 2005, 02:13 PM	#68
leadcounsel Junior member Join Date: September 8, 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA Posts: 2,119	Wild... You're right... I should wait until the BG shoots first to return fire, but only if I think he might hurt me... Look, the fact that they are in MY HOME, ILLEGALLY, WITHOUT MY PERMISSION, WITH FIREARMS, is threat enough. I'd hate to think you're one of those bleeding hearts that would wait until Saddam nukes the US before taking any aggressive action...? As far as the civil liability, re-read the statute. Homeowners are immune.

September 28, 2005, 02:14 PM	#69
leadcounsel Junior member Join Date: September 8, 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA Posts: 2,119	Spacely: In THIS thread, let’s examine your postings for relative helpfulness vs waste of time: First posting was several sarcastic paragraphs which we can appreciate but it’s no help. Your second posting was multiple sarcastic attacks on me. Not helpful. Your post was also a general MIS-statement of the law, which overwhelmingly in most states gives a homeowner the right to confront lethal force with lethal force in their home. Armed perps are lethal force, so shooting them is 100% justified in all but the most communist states. Your mis-statment is harmful. More useless sarcasm to follow… Your third posting was changing the scenario. Would be nice but not within the confines of the conversation…. Would you care to join the conversation? If not, you’re not helping. The posting was THAT YOU ARE SURE THEY ARE BURGLARS. If you can't tell the difference in your home, well, I just don't know what to say to that... Your forth posting was yet again another sarcastic attack on me. How is this helpful again….? Your fifth posting was… drumroll please… another attack on me. Big surprise! Your sixth posting was mildly useful, mixed with attacks against me again…. Pattern? So, in 6 postings you’ve posted the following useful information: Things do go down as you always want them to. Thanks for the invaluable addition to the conversation! Any more pearls of wisdom? I’m merely trying to drum up some interesting conversation and having people think of how they might react in a realistic scenario. I’m sorry if the scenario isn’t to your liking. My deepest and most sincere apologies. However, you have a choice and I suggest you move along if you don’t like the scenario presented, or start your OWN post with you OWN non-Rambo scenario. Thank YOU!

September 28, 2005, 02:20 PM	#71
spacemanspiff Senior Member Join Date: January 16, 2002 Location: alaska Posts: 3,498	tell you what, lead counsel, i'll just put you on my ignore list. easier that way. __________________ "Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard

September 28, 2005, 02:27 PM	#72
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Glenn, If bullets are so ineffective, why bother? The fact is that the LEO and Military are correct that there is no guarantee, and are also cautious about the limits of weaponry. That's their job to be cautious and set expectations accordingly. It's called underpromising and overdelivery. The bottom line is that bullets against people are pretty darn effective. You have been claiming one shot stops and almost instaneous stops as a guarantee for your Glock 40 rounds. That is pure BS. The reason we use bullets is that I have trouble concealing and lifting a Bofors L70 40mm gun. You are really off base if you truly think that your shooting abilities and round guarantee that you will be a steely eyed dealer of death. Also, you lack of logic is rather amusing. It's like when you claimed I was suggesting a Rambo attack and I didn't - then you claimed I edited my post - with no such notations on my posts (in another thread). You are really sinking here as a self-proclaimed expert. But that's ok with me. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

September 28, 2005, 02:37 PM	#75
leadcounsel Junior member Join Date: September 8, 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA Posts: 2,119	Wild… Let me help you… follow the bouncing ball if you will… CRS: 18-1-704.5 (4): Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search