When a female knocks at the door. - Page 3

Brian Pfleuger · June 24, 2009, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Highly unlikely....BS...Hmm...If I say that you are a threat, then you are.

I'll let your own words speak for themselves on this one. I should think no further comment necessary.

**Mike Irwin** · June 24, 2009, 11:39 AM

"so the 3 masked gunmen were hiding behind the girls?"

So, out your front door, either through the door window or the (worse) peephole, you have an absolute view of ALL angles of attack, even those that might be hidden around corners?

I'm envious. I wish I could see around the corner from the peephole in my front door. My entrance door is offset to the one side of the front of my house. The house next to mine is set back, giving a very good hiding spot for someone who wants to decoy his way in.

I have a simple rule.

If I don't recognize the person knocking, I don't open the door, especially at night.

If I DO happen to open the door for whatever reason, it's with a .357 in my hand.

Think I'm over reacting? There have been a number of home invasion robberies in Northern Virginia over the years, several relatively close to my house. And with a title 13 housing development up the street that has known gang issues, you do the math.

TailGator · June 24, 2009, 11:40 AM

Good Lord, can't you people read? He DID NOT blow anyone away! He called the police, gave a verbal warning, and prepared to defend himself and his family IF THE SITUATION ESCALATED TO A SERIOUS THREAT.

That deals with the situation very effectively. If the woman needed help, she got it from the police. If she was drunk, high, demented, or homicidal, she dealt with the police. The man kept himself and his family safe without bloodshed, and IF the woman needed help, he got it for her, and folks on here want to crucify the poor fellow. Maybe we should put him in jail for staying inside and calling the cops when he felt threatened and was unsure of the situation?

Again, this is a TACTICS forum. What tactical suggestion do you have that is better than the action taken? Is it good a good TACTIC in 2009 to open your home at any hour to anyone who knocks?

Am I having a bad day, or this getting to be a serious waste of time?

DougO83 · June 24, 2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

I'll let your own words speak for themselves on this one. I should think no further comment necessary.

Ok? If someone is beating on my door and I tell them that entry will have some pretty undesireable consequence, like the 12-ga blast, and they continue trying to enter, there is a serious problem. It is all about location, etc. Where I live, there is almost 0 chance of someone beating down my door for any reason. I live well outside populated areas for a reason. I might have a different reation if: A. I lived in a metro area and/or B. I never watched the news and was oblivious to the crime that occurs in the world.

We are, of course, going to disagree on this subject. I will do what is best for me and mine first. That's the end of it for me. If that involves taking someone else's life, that's the price I must pay. Is it glorious? No. Is it desireable? Absolutely not. Every day, when I wake up and holster my duty weapon, I come to grips with the fact that I may have to use it today. I tell myself to exhaust all other options, but it doesn't make me any less accepting of the fact that I may be forced to end a life to preserve mine.

Way to go with the quote chop, btw. It proves nothing. Read the rest of the statement...

Hank15 · June 24, 2009, 11:50 AM

Ha, all this planning just to steal some electronics?

KingEdward · June 24, 2009, 11:56 AM

just don't open the door.

if someone or something seems odd then it probably is odd.

odd isn't ALWAYS threatening but still just leave door closed.

take position to call authorities and cover door.

if intruder (girl, boy, man, grandma) kicks the door in, then they will
surely see the barrel of the 20 gauge and decide accordingly.

Hopefully they will leave.

If they stay then it is for potentially harmful reasons.

**Mike Irwin** · June 24, 2009, 12:03 PM

"I assume you are in gun'em down Texas, where folks can be shot for property crimes"

Lodge this in your cranium for later access...

In quite a number of states someone committing a forcible entry into an occupied home is NOT committing a "property crime."

It is considered to be an imminent threat of bodily harm to the residents of the dwelling and can be met with deadly force even if a weapon is not displayed.

For example, black letter law in California's 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."

At least two dozen other states have variations of what is known as either Castle Law or a "Make My Day" law.

As such, there either a very limited requirement, or none at all, for the homeowner to retreat from an intruder in the home and in many of these states lethal force response is outright sanctioned against the intruder on the LEGAL premise that said intruder is, by his very presence, poses an imminent, deadly threat.

**Mike Irwin** · June 24, 2009, 12:07 PM

"Or.... she could be running FROM a threat (rapist, mugger, murderer), or she could be freaked out by being in or witnessing a bad car accident and looking for help.... I wouldn't expect her (he/she/them) to necessarily be doing the "logical" thing in one of those instances...."

Yes, and she COULD be Glinda The Good Witch of the West, or whatever that was.

ANYthing is possible.

But, are you willing to bet YOUR life, or the lives or your wife and kids, that said individual, who has just forcibly gained entry to your home, is simply so traumatized by seeing an auto accident that she poses NO threat at all?

Just who would you be more worried about in that kind of hypothetical situation?

pax · June 24, 2009, 12:10 PM

Quote:

As such, there either a very limited requirement, or none at all, for the homeowner to retreat from an intruder in the home and in many of these states lethal force response is outright sanctioned against the intruder on the LEGAL premise that said intruder is, by his very presence, poses an imminent, deadly threat.

Absolutely true. That's why it's so important that each person should know whether their own state has such a law on the books, and how that law has generally been interpreted by the courts.

See WildAlaska's earlier questions, which were good ones. Do you know the law in your jurisdiction?

pax

Brian Pfleuger · June 24, 2009, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Yes, and she COULD be Glinda The Good Witch of the West, or whatever that was.

ANYthing is possible.

But, are you willing to bet YOUR life, or the lives or your wife and kids,...

No, I'm not, and that's my whole point. I'm not going to ASSUME she's there with evil intent, I'm not going to ASSUME she's selling Girl Scout Cookies. I'm going to get my family in the safe room, get 911 on the phone and arm myself. The ONLY assumption I'm going to make is that something is happening which requires LEO intervention.

I most certainly AM NOT going to stand there with a gun and wait for her to come through the door so I can justify killing her, or give her a cup of coffee, I'll let LE figure that out.

Getting the law on the phone will solve ALL possible scenarios. If she needs help, she'll get it. If she needs arresting, she'll get it.

**Mike Irwin** · June 24, 2009, 12:28 PM

"Do you know the law in your jurisdiction?"

Yes.

In Virginia, it's very simple.

We have no Make My Day Law, we have no Castle Law.

However, in similar situations that have occurred over the years, most prosecutors seem to fall back on the customary tenets of English Common Law which treats a man's home as his castle and allows him to defend it as such.

Of course there have been some examples where prosecutors decide to throw their weight around. Those always make the news then fade away.

Wildalaska · June 24, 2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

I'll let your own words speak for themselves on this one. I should think no further comment necessary.

Excellent analysis

Quote:

Cower...so ridiculous it doesn't even warrant comment

really? Cower....definition:to shrink away or crouch especially for shelter from something that menaces, domineers, or dismays

Now how is that ridiculous, except as it may offend masculinity

Quote:

That's pretty uneducated, but ok. Someone trying to force themselves into an obviously occupied domicile is no longer a property crime. It is now viewed, not only by me, as a threat on the welfare of the occupants.

Hanging was viewed as the appropriate penalty for stealing a bolt of cloth under the Bloody Code. I don't consider my disdain for the bloody nature of the Texas penal Code to be uneducated...perhaps you would care to debate about the political and economic background of draconian laws to demonstrate our relative educations in this regard.....

Quote:

Why the obsession with cowering? Is this a proven strategy that accomplishes anything? No. Cowering is not going to make a criminal stop. Cowering is not going to prevent, slow, or deter crime. Measured, sometimes violent, response and reaction will.

Well if you knew the definition of "cower" the first part of your statement would have been obviated. Regardless, who appointed you judge, jury, and superhero to deter crime by your "measured, sometimes violent" actions.

It aint deterrance, its self defense

Quote:

Sorry, I didn't grow up in a generation where, by and large, society was full of good people. I am 25. My entire life has seen the scams and cheap tricks that 'people' pull on each other.

LOL.

WildithoughttwicesoleftitatthatAlaska ™

Wildalaska · June 24, 2009, 12:40 PM

Quote:

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

To respond in your exact words:

"Lodge this in your cranium for later access"

Viz: Presumptions are rebuttable.

Quote:

Of course there have been some examples where prosecutors decide to throw their weight around. Those always make the news then fade away.

And that dose of reality, along with the vagaries of the law and the financial cost of making things "fade away", makes me again scream from the rooftops.....Last Clear Chance...pulling the trigger is the last, absolute last resort.

WildknowyourlawsAlaska ™

cloud8a · June 24, 2009, 12:43 PM

I think if someone was kicking in my door and I took cover under the stairs, in the bathroom, or in a closet, then concealed my weapon, and cowered there, my wife would probably divorce me if the family survived the home invasion.

And she would be right. I offered zero protection to my family. What good would I be to my family if I had such an extreme squishy point of view on home defense? According to that logic an outside the house SD situation gives the BG the right to shoot you.

wildalaska might be a run no matter what kind of guy on the SD/HD front, but I think the majority of Americans disagree with that attitude entirely. The evidence being the implementing of CCW laws and Castle doctrines. Americans do not think running and hiding as a rule is the right thing to do, for a number of reason. Among those reasons, fiercley protecting your family.

Brian Pfleuger · June 24, 2009, 12:54 PM

Why is "cower" assumed to be out of fear? Why is "cower" assumed to have a negative connotation?

What would those who despise "cower" be doing? Standing tall and proud, uttering the words "Come what may..." with the sights trained on the door?

cloud8a · June 24, 2009, 12:59 PM

Wildalaska
"I don't consider my disdain for the bloody nature of the Texas penal Code to be uneducated...perhaps you would care to debate about the political and economic background of draconian laws to demonstrate our relative educations in this regard"

So then the Castle Doctrine is according to you a bloody draconian law. CCW in your car without a license is a bloody draconian law. CCW is a bloody draconian law. you think all these are the result of bloodthirsty masculine insecure men.

I think you have gone a little overboard with the 'getting in touch with your feminine side' philosophy. Masculinity has a purpose, or it would not exist. In American culture there are unwritten rules of honor which men have carried down from the dawn of time. These things have enabled MEN to survive and protect there families through MASCULINE qualities that are unique to their gender. And now in civilized times these have been turned into LAWS in order to continue that survival.

DougO83 · June 24, 2009, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Excellent analysis

Ahh...personal attack. When all else fails, go for the flame attempt stand by.

Quote:

really? Cower....definition:to shrink away or crouch especially for shelter from something that menaces, domineers, or dismays

Now how is that ridiculous, except as it may offend masculinity

No...why on earth should I have to cower in my own home? That is beyond ridiculous. Where, if not my home, can I find solitude, peace, and protection? Being behind my door is about all the 'cowering' I should have to do. I have no obligation to protect someone who is acting in a manner that is perceived as a threat. That is just not how it works.

Quote:

Hanging was viewed as the appropriate penalty for stealing a bolt of cloth under the Bloody Code. I don't consider my disdain for the bloody nature of the Texas penal Code to be uneducated...perhaps you would care to debate about the political and economic background of draconian laws to demonstrate our relative educations in this regard.....

Show me where this is in the Texas Penal Code. Go on...I'd love to see it.

Oh, "Bloody Code?" Are we now bringing England into the discussion?

Quote:

Well if you knew the definition of "cower" the first part of your statement would have been obviated.

I am well aware of the definition of 'cower.' Once again, you come out with the snide attempt to degrade the intelligence of others.

You still did not answer why you are so obsessed with allowing the criminal to have their way. Cowering is hiding. It is crouching in fear or shame. That is all. It is not heroic, it is not a manner of defense.

Quote:

Regardless, who appointed you judge, jury, and superhero to deter crime by your "measured, sometimes violent" actions.

Always just fabricating away, aren't we? I am none of the above and never made such claims. Protecting my home and property from a threat is a right I have. As I stated before, if my family is around, it is no longer a right, but a RESPONSIBILITY.

**Mike Irwin** · June 24, 2009, 01:04 PM

"Viz: Presumptions are rebuttable."

When it comes to penal law as quoted, WRONG. Those aren't my words, once again, they are the black letter law of California.

That wording means that the homeowner has the absolute right to act in such a situation and state penal code is automatically on his side, even if the prosecutors are not.

Prosecutors would have to prove that the homeowner acted outside of the confines of 198.5, say by actively luring the individual into the home, or presenting the individual with an open door invitation.

But an intruder FORCING his way into an occupied dwelling? The homeowner is then permitted under law to act as he sees fit in response, up to and including the use of deadly force.

"makes me again scream from the rooftops.....Last Clear Chance...pulling the trigger is the last, absolute last resort."

Did I, or anyone else, EVER say anything to the contrary? I don't see anyone here saying "Shoot BEFORE they start knocking on the door!"

And, I raise the question once again, Ken...

"Regardless, who appointed you judge, jury, and superhero to deter crime by your "measured, sometimes violent" actions."

WHY are you selling firearms that you KNOW have a very high liklihood of being used defensively? That just screams of hypocrisy -- I abhore it, but I'll gladly make money from it!

"Bloody law"

??? Unless you can show a legal citation that the Texas Penal Code is so named, and that doesn't stem from anyone's very active imaginations, back off on such terms, people.

Brian Pfleuger · June 24, 2009, 01:07 PM

Quote:

I am well aware of the definition of 'cower.' ... Cowering is hiding. It is crouching in fear or shame. That is all. It is not heroic, it is not a manner of defense.

Merriam Webster:

cower

One entry found.

Main Entry:
cow·er
Pronunciation:
\ˈkau̇(-ə)r\
Function:
intransitive verb
Etymology:
Middle English couren, probably from Middle Low German kūren
Date:
14th century
: to shrink away or crouch especially for shelter from something that menaces, domineers, or dismays

Apparently not, since what it means is crouch or hide behind cover for shelter from a threat.

Most everyone would agree that finding cover is of primary tactical importance in a SD/HD situation.

Seeking "shelter" ("cover" in SD) is not out of fear or shame. It is out of SMART.

I'm not trying to be heroic. I'm trying to protect my family AND still be alive AND out of jail when it's over. Seeking a good hiding place while the actual paid enforcers of the law do their thing is not cowardice, it is intelligence.

Wildalaska · June 24, 2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

I think if someone was kicking in my door and I took cover under the stairs, in the bathroom, or in a closet, then concealed my weapon, and cowered there, my wife would probably divorce me if the family survived the home invasion.

LOL.......I think she should divorce you for abandoning her.

Anyway, please show me where I advocate anyone abandoning their family to the predation of a criminal

Quote:

So then the Castle Doctrine is according to you a bloody draconian law. CCW in your car without a license is a bloody draconian law. CCW is a bloody draconian law

LOL.....nice try.

Quote:

you think all these are the result of bloodthirsty masculine insecure men.

I think you have gone a little overboard with the 'getting in touch with your feminine side' philosophy. Masculinity has a purpose, or it would not exist. In American culture there are unwritten rules of honor which men have carried down from the dawn of time. These things have enabled MEN to survive and protect there families through MASCULINE qualities that are unique to their gender.

Somehow I dont see bloodthirstyness, rage and chestthumping as masculine qualities

WildbacktomyneedlepointAlaska ™

pax · June 24, 2009, 01:22 PM

Guys, I'm sitting here with my hand on the close-switch for personal attacks & borderline personal attacks.

But every time I start to hit the button ... well, there's enough good stuff here that I'd hate to close it.

So here's the deal: please tone down the rhetoric. No more calling the other guy a GIRL. No more accusations of "chest-thumping" or "bloodlust." Stick with the point under discussion, or go post somewhere else.

And if you find yourself getting hot under the collar, give yourself a break and go do something else for awhile. It's not worth getting ulcers over.

Thanks,

pax

DougO83 · June 24, 2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Apparently not, since what it means is crouch or hide behind cover for shelter from a threat.

Most everyone would agree that finding cover is of primary tactical importance in a SD/HD situation.

Seeking "shelter" ("cover" in SD) is not out of fear or shame. It is out of SMART.

Oops...try again:

Quote:

cow·er (kour)
intr.v. cow·ered, cow·er·ing, cow·ers
[COLOR="Red"]To cringe in fear.[/COLOR]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English couren, of Scandinavian origin.]

Quote:

cow⋅er /ˈkaʊər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kou-er] Show IPA
Use cower in a Sentence
–verb (used without object) to crouch, as in fear or shame.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1250–1300; ME couren; c. Norw, Sw kūra, MLG kūren, G kauern

Related forms:

cow⋅er⋅ing⋅ly, adverb

Synonyms:
cringe, recoil, flinch, quail.

Quote:

cower (ko̵u′ər)

intransitive verb

to crouch or huddle up, as from fear or cold
to shrink and tremble, as from someone's anger, threats, or blows; cringe
Etymology: ME couren, prob. < ON base seen in Dan kūre, Sw kura, to squat; akin to Ger kauern < IE base *geu-, to curve, bend > cod, chicken

Emphasis mine...

Wildalaska · June 24, 2009, 01:33 PM

Quote:

When it comes to penal law as quoted, WRONG. Those aren't my words, once again, they are the black letter law of California.

I suggest you look at the Evidence code, dont have tiime to give you the full reading...its page after page of presumptions....Fell free to PM me and we can go over the elements of the offense and how the defense of justification under the CA penal code is applied, as well as the burden of proof and burden of going forward on each and every element of the offense and the defense......

Quote:

WHY are you selling firearms that you KNOW have a very high liklihood of being used defensively? That just screams of hypocrisy -- I abhore it, but I'll gladly make money from it!

I'm not again going to debate that with you, not get into tu quoque ad hominems, especially since you have moved into you Mod status.

Quote:

??? Unless you can show a legal citation that the Texas Penal Code is so named, and that doesn't stem from anyone's very active imaginations, back off on such terms, people.

Really...So it's impermissble here to claim that those portions of the Texas penal law that allow the use of deadly force on those stealing...say...a two dollar shovel from someones yard at night are the functional and social equivalent of the Bloody Code?

WildatleattheretheygaveyouatrialfirstAlaska ™

Brian Pfleuger · June 24, 2009, 01:39 PM

Most everyone would agree that finding cover is of primary tactical importance in a SD/HD situation.

Seeking "shelter" ("cover" in SD) is not out of fear or shame. It is out of SMART.

I'm not trying to be heroic. I'm trying to protect my family AND still be alive AND out of jail when it's over. Seeking a good hiding place while the actual paid enforcers of the law do their thing is not cowardice, it is intelligence.

If cower CAN be out of fear it does not NEED be out of fear. How about addressing the SUBSTANCE of the question, rather than finding countless internet adjectives?

The correct response in this situation is to remove oneself from the threat to the maximum degree PRACTICAL and SAFE. It is neither practical nor safe to stand in front of ones door while someone is trying to break it down, kick it in, or is banging away like a nut job.

The most practical and safest response is to retreat to a safe area in your house and let LE do their job. That would be the job that YOU pay them to do.

Would your wife feel better about your gathering her and the children in a safe area, arming yourself for defense and calling the police or you standing in the open with a gun to address the threat head-on?

TailGator · June 24, 2009, 02:43 PM

My blood pressure is a little lower than it was on at least one of my earlier posts, so I will, a bit more calmly, revisit some points that have not been addressed by those who criticized the tactics of Marinewhatever whose story precipitated this last flurry of activity.

He responded to a person trying to get into his house by taking a position in the living room in sight of the front door, but leaving it closed and locked. WA, that would seem to fit your definition of cowering, wouldn't it? I cannot argue that he should have retreated further, because my home is arranged with one bedroom of the living room within sight of the front door, and the other two bedrooms off of a hallway the entrance to which is also within sight of the front door; the living room is therefore the furthest I can retreat and still be certain that my family is safe. I don't know if the home of the poster is arranged like that, but my parent's home has that in common with mine, and so does that of my best friend, and one of my two next door neighbors, so I am inclined to think that it is not rare.

So he very well may have retreated as far as he could and still command access to the places where his family was. He gave a loud and clear verbal warning and called the police. He maintained his position until qualified law enforcement personnel arrived. If the person attempting to gain access to his home through a locked door was attempting to do so illegally, she was now in the hands of the police. If that person needed help, she had ample opportunity to respond to his warning by verbally conveying her need so that he could evaluate it and respond appropriately, but she chose not to do so. Even though she made no request for any assistance, the homeowner's summoning of police allowed her to request assistance from them upon their arrival.

If we are to discuss tactics rather than character, I have to ask, for the third time, what should he have done differently? He has been harshly criticized hereon, but I have not read a post that suggested a viable alternative to his actions. I will answer my own question by stating unequivocally that I think he acted appropriately and thoughtfully to what could well have developed into a threatening situation.

Thank you, Pax, for your note, and I sincerely hope that this post is taken as it is intended, as a plea to return to a discussion of tactical options in the given situation.

June 24, 2009, 11:39 AM	#52
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,389	"so the 3 masked gunmen were hiding behind the girls?" So, out your front door, either through the door window or the (worse) peephole, you have an absolute view of ALL angles of attack, even those that might be hidden around corners? I'm envious. I wish I could see around the corner from the peephole in my front door. My entrance door is offset to the one side of the front of my house. The house next to mine is set back, giving a very good hiding spot for someone who wants to decoy his way in. I have a simple rule. If I don't recognize the person knocking, I don't open the door, especially at night. If I DO happen to open the door for whatever reason, it's with a .357 in my hand. Think I'm over reacting? There have been a number of home invasion robberies in Northern Virginia over the years, several relatively close to my house. And with a title 13 housing development up the street that has known gang issues, you do the math. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

June 24, 2009, 12:03 PM	#57
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,389	"I assume you are in gun'em down Texas, where folks can be shot for property crimes" Lodge this in your cranium for later access... In quite a number of states someone committing a forcible entry into an occupied home is NOT committing a "property crime." It is considered to be an imminent threat of bodily harm to the residents of the dwelling and can be met with deadly force even if a weapon is not displayed. For example, black letter law in California's 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." At least two dozen other states have variations of what is known as either Castle Law or a "Make My Day" law. As such, there either a very limited requirement, or none at all, for the homeowner to retreat from an intruder in the home and in many of these states lethal force response is outright sanctioned against the intruder on the LEGAL premise that said intruder is, by his very presence, poses an imminent, deadly threat. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

June 24, 2009, 12:07 PM	#58
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,389	"Or.... she could be running FROM a threat (rapist, mugger, murderer), or she could be freaked out by being in or witnessing a bad car accident and looking for help.... I wouldn't expect her (he/she/them) to necessarily be doing the "logical" thing in one of those instances...." Yes, and she COULD be Glinda The Good Witch of the West, or whatever that was. ANYthing is possible. But, are you willing to bet YOUR life, or the lives or your wife and kids, that said individual, who has just forcibly gained entry to your home, is simply so traumatized by seeing an auto accident that she poses NO threat at all? Just who would you be more worried about in that kind of hypothetical situation? __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

June 24, 2009, 12:28 PM	#61
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,389	"Do you know the law in your jurisdiction?" Yes. In Virginia, it's very simple. We have no Make My Day Law, we have no Castle Law. However, in similar situations that have occurred over the years, most prosecutors seem to fall back on the customary tenets of English Common Law which treats a man's home as his castle and allows him to defend it as such. Of course there have been some examples where prosecutors decide to throw their weight around. Those always make the news then fade away. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

June 24, 2009, 12:54 PM	#65
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	Why is "cower" assumed to be out of fear? Why is "cower" assumed to have a negative connotation? What would those who despise "cower" be doing? Standing tall and proud, uttering the words "Come what may..." with the sights trained on the door? __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

June 24, 2009, 11:40 AM	#53
TailGator Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,787	Good Lord, can't you people read? He DID NOT blow anyone away! He called the police, gave a verbal warning, and prepared to defend himself and his family IF THE SITUATION ESCALATED TO A SERIOUS THREAT. That deals with the situation very effectively. If the woman needed help, she got it from the police. If she was drunk, high, demented, or homicidal, she dealt with the police. The man kept himself and his family safe without bloodshed, and IF the woman needed help, he got it for her, and folks on here want to crucify the poor fellow. Maybe we should put him in jail for staying inside and calling the cops when he felt threatened and was unsure of the situation? Again, this is a TACTICS forum. What tactical suggestion do you have that is better than the action taken? Is it good a good TACTIC in 2009 to open your home at any hour to anyone who knocks? Am I having a bad day, or this getting to be a serious waste of time?

June 24, 2009, 11:50 AM	#55
Hank15 Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2009 Location: California Posts: 437	Ha, all this planning just to steal some electronics?

June 24, 2009, 11:56 AM	#56
KingEdward Senior Member Join Date: April 22, 2009 Location: The Volunteer State Posts: 439	just don't open the door. if someone or something seems odd then it probably is odd. odd isn't ALWAYS threatening but still just leave door closed. take position to call authorities and cover door. if intruder (girl, boy, man, grandma) kicks the door in, then they will surely see the barrel of the 20 gauge and decide accordingly. Hopefully they will leave. If they stay then it is for potentially harmful reasons.

June 24, 2009, 12:43 PM	#64
cloud8a Senior Member Join Date: April 27, 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 399	I think if someone was kicking in my door and I took cover under the stairs, in the bathroom, or in a closet, then concealed my weapon, and cowered there, my wife would probably divorce me if the family survived the home invasion. And she would be right. I offered zero protection to my family. What good would I be to my family if I had such an extreme squishy point of view on home defense? According to that logic an outside the house SD situation gives the BG the right to shoot you. wildalaska might be a run no matter what kind of guy on the SD/HD front, but I think the majority of Americans disagree with that attitude entirely. The evidence being the implementing of CCW laws and Castle doctrines. Americans do not think running and hiding as a rule is the right thing to do, for a number of reason. Among those reasons, fiercley protecting your family.

June 24, 2009, 12:59 PM	#66
cloud8a Senior Member Join Date: April 27, 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 399	Wildalaska "I don't consider my disdain for the bloody nature of the Texas penal Code to be uneducated...perhaps you would care to debate about the political and economic background of draconian laws to demonstrate our relative educations in this regard" So then the Castle Doctrine is according to you a bloody draconian law. CCW in your car without a license is a bloody draconian law. CCW is a bloody draconian law. you think all these are the result of bloodthirsty masculine insecure men. I think you have gone a little overboard with the 'getting in touch with your feminine side' philosophy. Masculinity has a purpose, or it would not exist. In American culture there are unwritten rules of honor which men have carried down from the dawn of time. These things have enabled MEN to survive and protect there families through MASCULINE qualities that are unique to their gender. And now in civilized times these have been turned into LAWS in order to continue that survival.

June 24, 2009, 01:04 PM	#68
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,389	"Viz: Presumptions are rebuttable." When it comes to penal law as quoted, WRONG. Those aren't my words, once again, they are the black letter law of California. That wording means that the homeowner has the absolute right to act in such a situation and state penal code is automatically on his side, even if the prosecutors are not. Prosecutors would have to prove that the homeowner acted outside of the confines of 198.5, say by actively luring the individual into the home, or presenting the individual with an open door invitation. But an intruder FORCING his way into an occupied dwelling? The homeowner is then permitted under law to act as he sees fit in response, up to and including the use of deadly force. "makes me again scream from the rooftops.....Last Clear Chance...pulling the trigger is the last, absolute last resort." Did I, or anyone else, EVER say anything to the contrary? I don't see anyone here saying "Shoot BEFORE they start knocking on the door!" And, I raise the question once again, Ken... "Regardless, who appointed you judge, jury, and superhero to deter crime by your "measured, sometimes violent" actions." WHY are you selling firearms that you KNOW have a very high liklihood of being used defensively? That just screams of hypocrisy -- I abhore it, but I'll gladly make money from it! "Bloody law" ??? Unless you can show a legal citation that the Texas Penal Code is so named, and that doesn't stem from anyone's very active imaginations, back off on such terms, people. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

June 24, 2009, 01:22 PM	#71
pax Senior Member Join Date: May 16, 2000 Location: In a state of flux Posts: 7,520	Moderator Note Guys, I'm sitting here with my hand on the close-switch for personal attacks & borderline personal attacks. But every time I start to hit the button ... well, there's enough good stuff here that I'd hate to close it. So here's the deal: please tone down the rhetoric. No more calling the other guy a GIRL. No more accusations of "chest-thumping" or "bloodlust." Stick with the point under discussion, or go post somewhere else. And if you find yourself getting hot under the collar, give yourself a break and go do something else for awhile. It's not worth getting ulcers over. Thanks, pax __________________ Kathy Jackson My personal website: Cornered Cat

June 24, 2009, 01:39 PM	#74
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	I say again: Most everyone would agree that finding cover is of primary tactical importance in a SD/HD situation. Seeking "shelter" ("cover" in SD) is not out of fear or shame. It is out of SMART. I'm not trying to be heroic. I'm trying to protect my family AND still be alive AND out of jail when it's over. Seeking a good hiding place while the actual paid enforcers of the law do their thing is not cowardice, it is intelligence. If cower CAN be out of fear it does not NEED be out of fear. How about addressing the SUBSTANCE of the question, rather than finding countless internet adjectives? The correct response in this situation is to remove oneself from the threat to the maximum degree PRACTICAL and SAFE. It is neither practical nor safe to stand in front of ones door while someone is trying to break it down, kick it in, or is banging away like a nut job. The most practical and safest response is to retreat to a safe area in your house and let LE do their job. That would be the job that YOU pay them to do. Would your wife feel better about your gathering her and the children in a safe area, arming yourself for defense and calling the police or you standing in the open with a gun to address the threat head-on? __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

June 24, 2009, 02:43 PM	#75
TailGator Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,787	My blood pressure is a little lower than it was on at least one of my earlier posts, so I will, a bit more calmly, revisit some points that have not been addressed by those who criticized the tactics of Marinewhatever whose story precipitated this last flurry of activity. He responded to a person trying to get into his house by taking a position in the living room in sight of the front door, but leaving it closed and locked. WA, that would seem to fit your definition of cowering, wouldn't it? I cannot argue that he should have retreated further, because my home is arranged with one bedroom of the living room within sight of the front door, and the other two bedrooms off of a hallway the entrance to which is also within sight of the front door; the living room is therefore the furthest I can retreat and still be certain that my family is safe. I don't know if the home of the poster is arranged like that, but my parent's home has that in common with mine, and so does that of my best friend, and one of my two next door neighbors, so I am inclined to think that it is not rare. So he very well may have retreated as far as he could and still command access to the places where his family was. He gave a loud and clear verbal warning and called the police. He maintained his position until qualified law enforcement personnel arrived. If the person attempting to gain access to his home through a locked door was attempting to do so illegally, she was now in the hands of the police. If that person needed help, she had ample opportunity to respond to his warning by verbally conveying her need so that he could evaluate it and respond appropriately, but she chose not to do so. Even though she made no request for any assistance, the homeowner's summoning of police allowed her to request assistance from them upon their arrival. If we are to discuss tactics rather than character, I have to ask, for the third time, what should he have done differently? He has been harshly criticized hereon, but I have not read a post that suggested a viable alternative to his actions. I will answer my own question by stating unequivocally that I think he acted appropriately and thoughtfully to what could well have developed into a threatening situation. Thank you, Pax, for your note, and I sincerely hope that this post is taken as it is intended, as a plea to return to a discussion of tactical options in the given situation.