The Police Just Left My House, Part II

[Joe_Pike]

Two break-ins in six months? Might consider where you are living too and see if you can afford a nicer place.

Well, I'm not letting some scum run me out of my house. It's a pretty decent neighborhood anyway. My house is 2 houses south of a street that splits a neighborhood into two types. My side is made up of two and three bedroom homes that are small but not dumps by any means. A literal stone's throw from my house to the north are houses that probably start in the $200,000 range (very nice in the town I live in) up to homes that are a $1,000,000+ (really nice homes in the town I live in). So, I really don't think where I live has a lot to do with it.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by TexasJustice7

I think it makes a great deal of difference in Texas whether the garage is part of the house or not, or a separate building. As far as it being murder, murder is the taking of innocent life, taking the life of an intruder who has broken into your house, is not murder in Texas nor should it be.

Texas law allows you to use deadly force when there is a reasonable belief of an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. If the person who was shot entered your home forcibly and unlawfully, it will be presumed that you had such a belief, however, presumptions are rebuttable if there is evidence to the contrary.

If you are holding someone at gunpoint, and they say something you don't like, and you shoot them for it, that is murder/manslaughter. There was no immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. It may be hard to prove; but in that set of facts it is still murder/manslaughter despite the fact that the intruder broke into your home.

And scrubcedar, what I believe Frank Ettin and others are trying to avoid is incidents like this one: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=492497

People repeat things without a solid understanding of the underlying law (like for example saying you can shoot someone for being on your property without your approval) and you get squirrelly incidents like this one when someone else reads that and believes it to be true.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by scrubcedar

...I'll stop posting about the law and you can stop being so angry. The reduction in your blood pressure will be my parting gift to you...

It's not a matter of my being angry, and my blood pressure is just fine.

What concerns me, staff here in general, and many of our members like OldMarksman and Bartholomew Roberts is that too many people have extravagant notions about Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws.

We need to understand that our society frowns on one human intentionally hurting or killing another. However, our laws, going back to the Common Law of England on which our system is based (and even before then in other systems), recognize that there are situations in which an intentional act of extreme violence against another person can be justified -- for example when absolutely necessary to defend an innocent (whether oneself or another) against an otherwise unavoidable threat of being killed or gravely injured by another person's intention act.

Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws can be an enormous help establishing justification for someone forced by circumstance to use extreme violence against another human. But they are neither licenses to shoot nor "get out of jail free" cards.

As Bartholomew Roberts put it in post 21:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

...Is there some kind of contest of the ridiculous that I missed? How are these little pieces of bad legal advice helpful in a Tactics or Training perspective?...

A failure to appreciate the limitations of Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws is a good way for someone to get himself into what will be a terrible legal situation for him and his family.

[johnbt]

"I wasn't sure whether I was going to replace the glass with wood or another pane of glass."

I have glass in all 3 doors as well as the front door sidelights; and double keyed deadbolts. Every time a pane is broken I replace it with Lexan. I used to use Plexiglass. They will scratch easily, but that's about the only downside other than the cost.

John

[Aguila Blanca]

Be careful about using Lexan. Yes, it is polycarbonate, and yes it is very impact-resistant. But it has drawbacks:

1. A punk with a Bic lighter will be through Lexan in a nanosecond or three. Even a semi-professional crook knows this by now -- the stuff has been used as "security" glazing for over 30 years and counting.

2. Compared to glass and wood, Lexan has a very high rate of thermal growth. That means, when the temperature goes up the stuff gets larger, and when it gets cold the stuff gets smaller. A LOT bigger, and a LOT smaller. Simply replacing glass with Lexan is not at all secure, because the depth of the overlap of the "stops" on the glass is okay for glass but it's not enough for Lexan -- and especially not if you leave enough clearance for expansion in hot weather. Besides, the dinky wood stops in a wood door aren't strong enough to hold anything against a half-decent whack anyway.

A better use of Lexan (albeit somewhat unattractive) is to use it on the inside as a back-up to a wood or glass panel. You mount it on the surface, using screws spaced 3 to 4 inches on center. The holes in the Lexan are larger than the screw shank to allow for thermal expansion/contraction, and you put a large washer under the screw head to ensure that the hole is always fully covered.

[dos0711]

Steel door.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Frank Ettin: What concerns me, staff here in general, and many of our members like OldMarksman and Bartholomew Roberts is that too many people have extravagant notions about Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws.
.....
A failure to appreciate the limitations of Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws is a good way for someone to get himself into what will be a terrible legal situation for him and his family.

That, and the possibility that someone without the knowledge or inclination to decode otherwise just might believe a grossly incorrect interpretation of the law such as

Had you lived in Colorado the only fact that is important is were they on your property with or without your approval. If the answer is without you may open fire no other facts needed as long as they stayed on your property.

...AND the potentially adverse impact on public opinion that such a statement may have.

[Joe_Pike]

I, too, am always a little concerned about the "shoot first, hope my butt doesn't get in a sling" responses. I don't ever want to have to shoot, and hopefully this will be the last time anyone will try to break in. I've hardened the area considerably, so, maybe I'll be left alone.

[TexasJustice7]

Bartholmew Roberts: Texas law allows you to use deadly force when there is a reasonable belief of an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. If the person who was shot entered your home forcibly and unlawfully, it will be presumed that you had such a belief, however, presumptions are rebuttable if there is evidence to the contrary.

As I stated previousy taking of innocent life is murder, shooting a burglar forcably entering ones house is not murder. I stated that as to what I think is murder in the eyes of God. However, it is the legal defintion of murder that counts in whatever State. Someone entering my house by force,
(do understand that there is one way in, one way out of my house, there is no retreat and no back door), I will use deadly force to stop them and will not be holding them at gunpoint. I probably will not know whether they were breaking in to murder me, to burglarize my house, or to rape my disabled daughter, or because they were on crack, or because they were high on other drugs, or drunk. I have a solid door, and deadbolt lock. I do not have a safe room to retreat too. If I were not prepared to fire when they break the door in, I would sell my guns. Thats me.

I do not maintain that it is right to shoot someone because you get mad at what they say. If they are breaking my door in, I will stop them at the door as they enter. If I discovered them burglarizing my house and got the drop on them as I was entering, and they were not a threat, of course I would not shoot them, unless they made a sudden movement going for a weapon. My main concern is that during any such gunfight that a stray bullet does not travel and hit an innocent person. The intruder is not an innocent person, if he breaks through a deadbolt lock. If you live in Texas you know that you do not have to retreat if someone is breaking your door in.

But as I stated, if your garage is separate from your house (I don't have a garage myself), but if I did I would check the law, to know where I stood.
Point is, though, if they are breaking my door in I don't have a half acre house, and no way to exit, and if they are breaking my door in I will be getting behind something to shoot as they come in. I told a social worker
a few months back who asked me if I had a gun safe, no I don't and no children. The day I can no longer protect my disabled daugher, then the taxpayers of Texas can do it. I am an old disabled vietnam veteran, and I do not intend to let me or her become someone's victim in my own house.

[FireForged]

A lot of peope seem to experience a sort of "road rage" syndrome when it comes feeling the effects of crime. They feel violated and are compelled to confront the bad guy at all cost. I have no reservations about defending myself or my family with force if that is what I must do to prevent grievious injury (that is clearly imminient). I am not so inclined to leave the safety of my home to run outside and confront a badguy who is trying to get in.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by FireForged

A lot of peope seem to experience a sort of "road rage" syndrome when it comes feeling the effects of crime. They feel violated...

I think that's very true. Being victimized is a terrible and personal affront and reasonably provokes considerable anger.

It's important to be aware of that and to not let our emotions overcome our judgment and lead us to make serious tactical and/or legal errors.

[wstein]

An angry dog and the sound of a 12 ga racking, then all you will hear is beating feet going the other way. I know, I have used it.

[Joe_Pike]

An angry dog and the sound of a 12 ga racking, then all you will hear is beating feet going the other way. I know, I have used it.

Well, I don't have a dog or a shotgun. I do think a shotgun is now in my future, though, and if I was home more I would have already had a dog.

[rtpzwms]

Joe,
Replace the glass with lexan and screw it in to the frame it will never break. It will look like hell in a few years/months but its stronger than the plywood you put in. Tie the motion sensors into a recording of barking dogs (more for LOL) but it may make them think you have dogs. Cameras outside pointed at the door would also help (real of fake). One on the inside pointed at where you saw his head so you may get a picture of his face. If you hunt you may have a camera that will work for that. Of course more lights outside, think like
Vegas more bright lights.
Get a cast iron fry pan and place it on the way to the back door. A sudden dash and a good whack on the head, he may not want to come back.

[1tfl]

First thing I did after confronting a suspious person at my front door in 1979 was to go buy a 4C battery Maglight and tape it to my Remington 870.

Today, my bedroom safe has in it Glock 21, AR-15, and Rem 870 and all three weapons have flashlights on it... along with pair of Surefire P6.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by wstein

An angry dog and the sound of a 12 ga racking, then all you will hear is beating feet going the other way. I know, I have used it.

Glad it worked out for you. But the fact that something worked for you once doesn't mean it will work for someone else another time and another place.

[OuTcAsT]

it is the legal definitions that count in the state, not the morals ones.

This statement really worries me. Responsible firearms ownership not only encompasses a set of legal obligations, but also a set of moral ones as well.


This thread is a glaring example of the personal responsibility we all share for not just arming ourselves, but, arming ourselves with education about the legal ramifications of self defense in our respective locations.

On another note, while everyone has chimed in about self defense laws, and how they would justify their actions, it occurs to me that everyone who has done so has operated on the premise that the "perp" does not survive the encounter, and is therefore, not a witness. How will you justify it if the person survives to give a statement ? Inquiring minds want to know ?

[TexasJustice7]

Outcast: This statement really worries me. Responsible firearms ownership not only encompasses a set of legal obligations, but also a set of moral ones as well.

My statement should not be a worry to you. Perhaps you did not read my entire statement. Let me explain it to you. I have stated, "Murder" is the taking of innocent life in the eyes of God. A burglar forcing entry into my home to kill me, rob me, rape my daughter, is not innocent.

But what counts for you or me as a permit holder, in whatever State we live in, is to make sure that our actions are in compliance with the laws of the State we live in! If you comply with both the Laws of the State you live in, and the Laws of God then you don't have a problem.

I know that if I have to shoot someone who is breaking my door in, that I will stop him at the entry point of my house, one way in and one way out. I do not have a back door. If I am compelled to shoot an intruder who is forcing his way in, I am in compliance with both God's Law, and the Laws of Texas.

Now I am not trying to preach to you, as there are I am certain atheists and other religious faiths of various people on these forums. If you have a separate morality than I have yours does not trump mine. But in any case
even if we have to shoot someone, and it is not "Murder" in the eyse of God,
we also have to be sure that we are in compliance with the laws of our State. So you might say, I believe in Gods Law that says "Thou Shalt Do No Murder". But I also believe in obeying the laws of the State I live in, in addition to that. I don't see a conflict either between the two.

I will say that the Laws in Texas are probably unique to some extent. I have a sold deadbolt lock and if someone breaks the door down, they are attempting to do me or my daughter harm. I will make sure that does not happen, and I probably will not know what their motivation was. In my area it is usually crack and drugs that motivate such crimes.

But whatever the laws are whether it is Texas or Tennessee or some other
State, we are free to move somewhere else or try and get the laws changed if we don't like the laws. There are lots of people who consider Texas a cowboy state and don't like Texas. I am not originally from Texas but I like Texas Laws and choose to live here rather than anywhere else.

I might add also that criminals or free usually to move to whatever state they want to move to unless of course the terms of their parole or probation say otherwise. If they are looking for easy victims, Texas is not a good place to look. Last count I heard was that there are 400,000 permit holders in Texas.

[scrubcedar]

I appreciate the clarification Mr Ettin. Looking over the original post I was shooting my mouth from the hip with predictable accuracy. Sometimes the grouchy old night shift nurse side of me flares up.
Let's approach this from another direction. The example I provided (the drunken coed) really did not sit well with me. I found it quite disturbing and wouldn't have blamed the DA for trying to find some way to prosecute. All they did was to shout and get no reply. I would hope I would do more than that.
The flip side is it's 3AM, you've just had a break in, your wife is in danger too, no one expects this to be a drunken coed, what are the odds? Shoot first your wife is in danger!
A couple of questions. We've already covered colorado's laws under these circumstances but what about other jurisdictions? In most places wouldn't this be a one way trip to the pokey?
Understanding the laws what would you have done?
The way I read the news reports one shot was fired that broke the pelvis. Instant one shot stop. For someone who couldn't identify their target thats one heck of a lucky shot and seems a little fishy to me. I've seen hundreds (literally) of broken pelvis's. It's a very common injury if you're wearing your seat belt in a really bad auto vs auto accident and takes a great deal of force.
I've never seen one broken by a bullet. I'm trying to imagine where you would have to hit it and how hard on a 20 y.o. female (young peoples bones are much more elastic)and that seems to stretch it past the point of luck. Any thoughts?

[MLeake]

How old were the couple in the drunken coed incident? Did they have any physical infirmities which would make people more threatening to them than such people would be to most of us?

What behaviors was the drunken coed evincing? Was she continuing an approach? Was she just milling about uncertainly? Did her affect in any way show signs of a threat?

A former squadronmate of mine once punched a woman out cold when he was working as a bouncer at a bar in Daytona. He was ejecting her boyfriend, when the girl decided to pull a knife on my former squadronmate. Apparently, the girl wasn't all that big or menacing, but the knife changed things.

My point being, did the coed do anything that might have made the home-owners think she might bring a weapon to bear? Drunk women can still hurt even healthy males, if they have the tools and the will to use them.

There are any number of factors that I don't know about that case, so it's hard to make any judgements about the homeowners.

[youngunz4life]

The requirements for justification in Colorado start with the fact of an unlawful entry into one's occupied dwelling, and they continue with the obligation to show a reasonable belief that the intruder (1) has committed or intends to commit another crime in addition to the unlawful entry or (2) might use force against the occupant.

though this might be true or not tru...I give you the benefit of the doubt plus concede you are most definitely correct(I only stated that because I am not 100% certain):

if an individual is involved in an unlawful entry, it is considered via common sense and other mumbo jumbo to make it sound better and more legal that all your other criteria is true. basically unless you say something detrimental as an example(the guy was drunk, I was very upset, so I killed him), you as the homeowner are given the benefit of the doubt. you won't be charged if someone breaks into your home in the wee hours of the mrng and you kill him as an example while your children sleep. you don't disagree with this do you?

*********************as for the OP.....I give you serious credit but you have an issue. you are being targeted for whatever reason. These perps probably do live close, might have been the first BG's or at least know them possibly, and they'll probably be back. You need an alarm, sensor lights, a fixed door, etc. Do you have a predictable work schedule? do these people know you have guns due to your career? these are a couple of questions to ask. this is a dangerous situation. Maybe it is me, but home invasions and drownings are Hot Buttons for me. Fires are a hot button for my dad. Basically I worry about home invasions and/or drownings with regards to my children. My boss has been robbed three times...he probably won't get insurance to help him again; he had to wheel and deal the last time. Guranteed in my opinion it was close by people like you stated, and they probably understood his work schedule or easiness of the steal. Do you have a beer fridge. It could be something that small. You didn't seem to frightened. are they punk kids? anyways I feel your pain..thx for thread

[Double Naught Spy]

Outcast: This statement really worries me. Responsible firearms ownership not only encompasses a set of legal obligations, but also a set of moral ones as well.

Your statement worries me. No doubt we all have morals, but also no doubt that our morals are not the same. That is why we have laws.

On another note, while everyone has chimed in about self defense laws, and how they would justify their actions, it occurs to me that everyone who has done so has operated on the premise that the "perp" does not survive the encounter, and is therefore, not a witness. How will you justify it if the person survives to give a statement ? Inquiring minds want to know ?

Shooting an intruder breaking in and the intruder survives to give a statement? No problem. My actions will be covered by a variety of laws.

My point being, did the coed do anything that might have made the home-owners think she might bring a weapon to bear? Drunk women can still hurt even healthy males, if they have the tools and the will to use them.

Right, and just because the person breaking in to your home is a neighbor does not mean that they aren't there to do you harm. It is not uncommon for the person making entry to be familiar with the house or the occupant and be a neighbor.

http://www.ktiv.com/story/18783009/s...ux-city-police

[Jayhawkhuntclub]

what would the consequences be of going outside with gun HOLSTERED on your side,and holding them until the police show up?

I haven't read the whole thread, so I may be repeating. But...you also stand a chance of being shot by trigger happy LEOs. Remember the guy with the garden hose that was standing on his porch? They see you with a gun and they make make a bad decision.

[OuTcAsT]

Posted by Double Naught Spy

Your statement worries me. No doubt we all have morals, but also no doubt that our morals are not the same. That is why we have laws.

I agree, morals vary widely, however, they must come into play at some point.

This sums it up : (emphasis added)


Posted by Frank Ettin

What concerns me, staff here in general, and many of our members like OldMarksman and Bartholomew Roberts is that too many people have extravagant notions about Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws.

We need to understand that our society frowns on one human intentionally hurting or killing another. However, our laws, going back to the Common Law of England on which our system is based (and even before then in other systems), recognize that there are situations in which an intentional act of extreme violence against another person can be justified -- for example when absolutely necessary to defend an innocent (whether oneself or another) against an otherwise unavoidable threat of being killed or gravely injured by another person's intention act.

Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws can be an enormous help establishing justification for someone forced by circumstance to use extreme violence against another human. But they are neither licenses to shoot nor "get out of jail free" cards.

The thing that worries me is that nobody even approaches the situation from a standpoint of DE-escalation, only "shoot first and hope the law works in my favor" far too many people see the Castle laws and other SYG laws as a license to shoot. Just saying that common sense should play a role as well.

Frank Ettin also posted :

I think that's very true. Being victimized is a terrible and personal affront and reasonably provokes considerable anger.

It's important to be aware of that and to not let our emotions overcome our judgment and lead us to make serious tactical and/or legal errors.

Exactly my point. If you confront the intruder and he flees the scene, have you not just ended the threat ? Will you give him an option , or simply fire first ?


Posted by Double Naught Spy

Shooting an intruder breaking in and the intruder survives to give a statement? No problem. My actions will be covered by a variety of laws.

Perhaps, depending on the statement and evidence.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by scrubcedar

....The example I provided (the drunken coed) really did not sit well with me. I found it quite disturbing and wouldn't have blamed the DA for trying to find some way to prosecute. All they did was to shout and get no reply. I would hope I would do more than that.
The flip side is it's 3AM, you've just had a break in, your wife is in danger too, no one expects this to be a drunken coed, what are the odds? Shoot first your wife is in danger!...

The problem remains that we have very little data -- only the very limited information published in the media. The DA made his decisions based on a great deal more information, and we have no idea what that was. It's fatuous to speculate.

Originally Posted by scrubcedar

...We've already covered colorado's laws under these circumstances but what about other jurisdictions? In most places wouldn't this be a one way trip to the pokey?..

Again, it depends on exactly what happened and how. The laws of many States create various presumptions favorable to the householder in a case of unlawful entry.

Originally Posted by scrubcedar

...Understanding the laws what would you have done?...

Again, it depends on exactly what is happening and how it is happening. I do believe, however, that my training and knowledge will help me take tactically and legally appropriate action.

Originally Posted by scrubcedar

...I've never seen one [pelvis] broken by a bullet. I'm trying to imagine where you would have to hit it and how hard on a 20 y.o. female (young peoples bones are much more elastic)and that seems to stretch it past the point of luck. Any thoughts?...

I recall reading one account published by Massad Ayoob of a successful use of a pelvis shot to stop an assailant armed with a knife. I relieve that in that case a 9mm +P JHP round was used. And the pelvis shot is widely taught as one option for certain situations. So there seems to be some consensus in the training community that it can be effective.

Originally Posted by youngunz4life

...if an individual is involved in an unlawful entry, it is considered via common sense and other mumbo jumbo to make it sound better and more legal that all your other criteria is true. ...

It's not a matter of "mumbo jumbo." It's a question of what the law is. And if you're suggesting that someone try shading the truth, that's a very bad idea.

Originally Posted by youngunz4life

...you as the homeowner are given the benefit of the doubt. you won't be charged if someone breaks into your home in the wee hours of the mrng and you kill him as an example while your children sleep. you don't disagree with this do you?...

I disagree.

[1] It's not a matter of a "benefit of the doubt." It's a matter of some reasonably favorable laws which may help the householder establish justification.

[2] And while it's generally unlikely that the householder will be charged, it's impossible to say categorically that he won't be.