Using the Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force for Home Defense - Page 2

Slopemeno · April 4, 2010, 12:10 AM

I also find that the odds of actually *connecting* are way, way, higher with a long gun.

Glenn Dee · April 4, 2010, 02:46 AM

Living in an apartment complex... I use a revolver dedicated to bumps in the night. It's loaded with frangible rounds, and readily available. I also have a side by side 12Ga loaded with bird shot not far away.

I wonder if anyone has any experience with frangable 223 ammo. I'd think this might make a S/D, H/D rifle a lot more practical.

JohnH1963 · April 4, 2010, 10:19 AM

One thing I took away from this post is how a jury might view certain weapons and the prudence behind weapons selection.

For example, it might be more prudent to select the Ruger mini-14 vs. the AR. The AR brings back my military days and gives me a certain nostalgic feeling when I shoot it over the mini-14. However, I am not Mr. Money where I can have seperate weapons for self defense and other weapons for that nostalgic feel. I have to strategically make my purchases so the weaponry suits all of my needs.

I realize we are in peacetime, but its not peacetime when the wrong people come knocking at the door. If someone decides to commit a hostile act against your household, then chances are they are armed and determined. I dont feel as if a Glock pistol is going to ward them away as easily as a rifle.

I have seen many guys at the range simply not connect rounds to the target with a compact Glock. I am ashamed to admit that there were times in the past where for some reason I was not connecting either...not connecting the rounds to target in a controlled environment. However, there has not ever been a time where I did not connect the rounds to the target with a rifle. Out of a company of over 200 men in Basic Training many many years ago, there was only one man who could not connect the rounds to target with the M16. I remember that guy because they made him run around without the canvas camo covering around his helmet(no that man was not me).

Doc Intrepid · April 4, 2010, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnH1963

"I realize we are in peacetime, but its not peacetime when the wrong people come knocking at the door."

My youngest son just returned last month from a tour in Afghanistan. My oldest son is stationed in Germany, and expects to rotate to Afghanistan later this year.

I think I understand what you mean, in that there are no tanks and infantry crawling through Milwaukee or Oklahoma City, but we are decidedly not "in peacetime".

Otherwise, I agree with you that weapons selection with juries and prosecutors in mind is a wise lesson to learn.

Dwight55 · April 4, 2010, 05:15 PM

Since my 1911 is on the night stand, . . . both MBR's are in the safe, . . . I don't feel there is much of a chance of needing an MBR during a break in or a full fledged home invasion.

I do, however, have "hopefully" enough layers of security, that if it becomes a home invasion type, . . . when the door gets kicked, . . . I'll be ready and I'll have the MBR.

I will involve myself in the purposeful intent of sending as much lead down range as I can in a very short time, . . . and part of that scenario is to intimidate the other guys enough that they just may decide that the next house down the road may look more inviting.

I'll get my hearing checked after I have repaired the door, the windows, the roof, and whatever else needs touched up. Hopefully, I will be vindicated by the LEO's, . . . but if not, . . . someone else hit the right idea of jail being preferable to a personal and final trip to the morgue.

May God bless,
Dwight

Greg · April 13, 2010, 11:58 AM

I don't ever want to shoot anybody with any type of firearm, ever. I will avoid doing so unless absolutely forced to, with no other option. If I'm not in my home I will run from a fight if I can.

If I'm in bed and my home alarm goes off, I have a wife and two children at home to think about. If the doorbell rings at 2:00am, I won't answer it. If someone needs to reach me at that time of the night they will have the means to contact me by phone.

My last resort in a worst-case scenario in my home is a shotgun. I would never even point a gun at anyone, anywhere unless I was afraid that they were going to kill or inflict great bodily harm on one of the members of my family, and I had no other choice but to stop that threat. Even then, I would take no pleasure whatsoever in stopping the threat. I would have to live with it but I would have no choice but to look at it in terms of if I had not stopped the threat, I would have allowed my wife or one of my children to be killed without acting responsibly to save their lives. A horrible thought, but I do have a moral obligation to protect my family when they are threatened with death or great bodily harm by an intruder.

Double Naught Spy · April 13, 2010, 12:24 PM

Quote:

However, in my readings over the years of several different articles on real life happenings, I have found that whenever the homeowner utilized heavy weaponry then the result was the burglar retreating from the house with speed. On the other hand, when the homeowner had standard weaponry then sometimes the attackers stood their ground and decided to fight.

I don't think your examples do a very good job of supporting your argument.

Quote:

For example, during a recent burglary over here the homeowner utilized an AK-47 to fire a few rounds through a door which resulted in the burglar retreating at a fast rate of speed. However, in another incident, an off-duty cop used his .380 pistol to engage some burglars and his opponents decided to stand their ground fighting back with their pistols.

So you have one guy with a rifle shooting through the door at a single burglar and the burglar retreats and you attribute this to being the use of the rifle. When taken in context, however, you have a burglar that may or may not be armed who does not have a target to fight with and who is in a position to readily escape. It was not likely that the burglar was interested in fighting to be able to burglarize the home. As such, regardless of what was being shot through the door (and the burglar would have no idea if it was a rifle or pistol), the burglar was going to retreat. That was the prudent decision to make. So the gun type here isn't an issue.

Compare that to a single officer with a pistol going up against multiple opponents who are all armed with pistols. The did not run because they knew they had the advantage of numbers and firepower and were obviously in line of sight with the officer. A victory (and related glory) were quite probable.

So based on the examples given, the bad guys acted in manners that I would expect regardless of the weaponry being used for defense.

Greg · April 13, 2010, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Compare that to a single officer with a pistol going up against multiple opponents who are all armed with pistols. The did not run because they knew they had the advantage of numbers and firepower and were obviously in line of sight with the officer. A victory (and related glory) were quite probable.

I think I understand what you mean but I don't think that a law enforcement officer would experience any glory upon being placed in a position that required deadly force. I sympathize with anyone that has ever been placed in the position of taking a human life under any circumstances.

Dwight55 · April 13, 2010, 10:16 PM

Quote:

My last resort in a worst-case scenario in my home is a shotgun. I would never even point a gun at anyone, anywhere unless I was afraid that they were going to kill or inflict great bodily harm on one of the members of my family, and I had no other choice but to stop that threat.

I would certainly hope I do not correctly read the hesitation I see in this statement. ANY sort of hesitation during a violent confrontation, . . . a home invasion, . . . an interrupted burglary, . . . or being on the wrong end of a purposeful rape/mugging/assault/beating, . . . can and will only end one way: death of the victim, . . . OR, . . . serious hurt to the victim, . . . and in either case, . . . someone will be seriously sorry they hesitated.

If one of my perimeter alarms goes off at the wrong time, . . . I am up, . . . I have a gun in my hand, . . . and it is oriented into the direction I anticipate any incoming trouble will be coming from.

Hesitating until I am sure that someone means to inflict great bodily harm on one of the members of my family, . . . will probably mean that the harm will be started before I can get over the hesitation.

Most of the Powell doctrine can never be applied directly to home defense, but the point of taking the initiative with as much overwhelming offence as is available, . . . offers the only hope possible to thwart an attack on or in ones home.

May God bless,
Dwight

Kmar40 · April 14, 2010, 07:24 PM

The Powell Doctrine is a misnomer. The doctrine is actually attributable to Caspar Weinberger.

The Powell Doctrine should more accurately be to always stop when the job is half-finished. Reluctant warrior indeed. He's a four star version of a towed jumper.

towelie · April 14, 2010, 09:21 PM

Just the sound alone from an AR or an AK would be far more frightening than a pistol.

I'm not really afraid of getting charged with a crime were i to defend my home with a semi automatic centerfire rifle. In fact, that's exactly what i'd do, and screw what the prosecutor says later. There's no way to charge someone with a crime if they acted responsibly defending their home from a dangerous intruder with a semi automatic rifle. If a problem does arise, most court appointed attorneys should be able to handle it if you toss them a little extra money. But if you need teh ghost of Johnny Cochran, you obviously did something horribly wrong.

Come and take it. · April 14, 2010, 11:28 PM

Penetration is my concern, and here is why.

Most feel that a bullet that penetrates is bad in home defence as it will pass through walls. However the criminals may where a flak vest. In this case if you are using some type of magsafe etc type of ammunition or a low velocity handgun you may find yourself undergunned.

Body armor in use by criminals is a rising trend.

Also I rotate my defense guns around so home defense wont be boring. Maybe the criminal may get lucky and I only have my pistol. Another week he may not be so lucky if I have a 12 guage autoloader.

Dr. Strangelove · April 15, 2010, 01:34 AM

It's great, but maybe we should look at all of the points, not just the "overwhelming force" portion: (stolen from Wikipedia)

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?

The "Powell Doctrine" is a viewpoint of using war as a means of last resort, and in that case ending the war quickly and decisively with the fewest friendly casualties.

Secure your home, have a plan to defend it if necessary, but do it with weapons that will get the job done with the least amount of risk to those who aren't targets.

JohnH1963 · April 16, 2010, 02:02 AM

"There's no way to charge someone with a crime if they acted responsibly defending their home from a dangerous intruder with a semi automatic rifle."

There are many ways a person can be charged with a crime for defending themselves. Look at the many news articles where there seemed to be a legitimate self-defense situation, but the jury or judge felt otherwise. If you brandish a pistol...if your pistol goes off...if you display your pistol...then some prosecutor somewhere is going to figure out a way to get you.

The entire system is rigged against you and you have to ask yourself if pulling your pistol out is worth spending a few years in prison. If you are not willing to spend a few years in prison then the self defense situation is probably not justified...

misnomerga · April 16, 2010, 07:14 AM

Quote:

My youngest son just returned last month from a tour in Afghanistan. My oldest son is stationed in Germany, and expects to rotate to Afghanistan later this year.

Just want to take a moment in this discussion about home defense to tell Doc Intrepid to pass on my thanks to his two boys for their service to our country and its "home defense." Doc, tell them I appreciate their service and am very grateful.

OldMarksman · April 16, 2010, 10:00 AM

Quote:

There's no way to charge someone with a crime if they acted responsibly defending their home from a dangerous intruder with a semi automatic rifle.

In some states, the law does not permit the use of deadly force to defend the home.

In others, the law (1) establishes the presumption (usually rebuttable) that the fact of a forcible, unlawful entry provides the occupant with reason to believe that he or she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and (2) states that the occupant has no duty to retreat. In some, an attempt to enter will suffice, while in others the intruder must have entered the home.

"Responsibly" is subject to judgement. Should one shoot through a door at a target he could not identify, or should the evidence indicate that he used excessive force, it will be difficult to establish that he acted responsibly.

**Glenn E. Meyer** · April 16, 2010, 11:01 AM

The trial determines if you act responsibility, if the situation is ambiguous.

With no offense - the oft said - "If it is a good shoot, yak, yak" - is one of the most clear indicators that the poster doesn't know what they are talking about.

Greg · April 16, 2010, 02:43 PM

Quote:

I would certainly hope I do not correctly read the hesitation I see in this statement. ANY sort of hesitation during a violent confrontation, . . . a home invasion, . . . an interrupted burglary, . . . or being on the wrong end of a purposeful rape/mugging/assault/beating, . . . can and will only end one way: death of the victim, . . . OR, . . . serious hurt to the victim, . . . and in either case, . . . someone will be seriously sorry they hesitated.

If one of my perimeter alarms goes off at the wrong time, . . . I am up, . . . I have a gun in my hand, . . . and it is oriented into the direction I anticipate any incoming trouble will be coming from.

Hesitating until I am sure that someone means to inflict great bodily harm on one of the members of my family, . . . will probably mean that the harm will be started before I can get over the hesitation.

My home alarm has gone off a number of times due to one of the kids getting in late and forgetting that the alarm was set. I would never point my shotgun at 'movement', because the movement may be one of my teenagers. The scenario for you may be different.

I have rehearsed these scenarios numerous times in an attempt to enable myself to think more clearly in the event that the flag is raised. I do not have perimeter flares in my yard or infrared cameras. I do the best that I reasonably can.

youp · April 16, 2010, 03:35 PM

I have subjected my hearing to many different abuses. Including the discharge of fire arms in confined spaces. Notably a 357 and a 41 both of the magnum varieties. I can still hear most everything. Once in a while I will come across some young soft speaking cashier that I cannot hear. Besides having tinnitus offers my the option of selectively ignoring my wife.

I will always apply what I learned in the State of Virginia circa 1975. You cannot shoot him outside. He has got to be in your home. Let him come through the window and if he falls back out get out there and push him back in.

For an average run of the mill home invasion or attempted invasion. Trying to protect your front lawn from a bad guy will get you on a first name basis with many of them in a concentrated bad guy environment.

My Mrs has the 870 and specific instructions. You confront him and he sees the shotgun and does not run, shoot him. Insurance will clean the carpet and fix the damage. He runs do not shoot him in the back. Bad juju.

I have built several apartments and homes. Plumbed them actually. There is a fairly good chance I could cut my way into your condo, apartment, and modern built home with a good knife. Built a hospital and the only room I could not knock my way into with my fist was the Psych room.

Now an end of the world as we know it go ahead and get your AK...

Greg · April 16, 2010, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Let him come through the window and if he falls back out get out there and push him back in.

With all due respect, never, ever do this. If you ever have to protect your family from an intruder with deadly force, law enforcement will be able to tell. Don't ever manipulate a scene in any way.

zxcvbob · April 16, 2010, 04:01 PM

Quote:

I also have a side by side 12Ga loaded with bird shot not far away.

Bird shot is for birds. (someone had to say it)

markj · April 16, 2010, 04:17 PM

If the door frames were made from say C-4 and had a remote trigger say by the bed, you wouldnt need to get up, just push the button, bad guy gone. I hate to be woken up late at night.

Kmar40 · April 16, 2010, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Body armor in use by criminals is a rising trend.... Another week he may not be so lucky if I have a 12 guage autoloader.

A shotgun won't penetrate body armor (with the exception of some rare high velocity, hardened sabot type round made especially for the purpose).

LOUcifer · April 16, 2010, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Bird shot is for birds. (someone had to say it)

LOL...true indeed

biohazurd · April 16, 2010, 07:56 PM

Yes like others have said YMMV. I for instance live in a rural area. (No houses for miles.) So i usually have my Ak loaded up close to my bedroom. I keep a few handguns on my nightstand/bed that i would grab apon hearing a disturbance, (4 dobermans barking and growling to their hearts content.) which i would use to fight my way to my ak or mossy 12. Be aware i am single have no children, nor spouse, so i dont really have to worry about overpenetration in my house. Besides my supercool belongings...

April 4, 2010, 05:15 PM	#30
Dwight55 Senior Member Join Date: June 18, 2004 Location: Central Ohio Posts: 2,470	Since my 1911 is on the night stand, . . . both MBR's are in the safe, . . . I don't feel there is much of a chance of needing an MBR during a break in or a full fledged home invasion. I do, however, have "hopefully" enough layers of security, that if it becomes a home invasion type, . . . when the door gets kicked, . . . I'll be ready and I'll have the MBR. I will involve myself in the purposeful intent of sending as much lead down range as I can in a very short time, . . . and part of that scenario is to intimidate the other guys enough that they just may decide that the next house down the road may look more inviting. I'll get my hearing checked after I have repaired the door, the windows, the roof, and whatever else needs touched up. Hopefully, I will be vindicated by the LEO's, . . . but if not, . . . someone else hit the right idea of jail being preferable to a personal and final trip to the morgue. May God bless, Dwight __________________ www.dwightsgunleather.com If you can breathe, . . . thank God! If you can read, . . . thank a teacher! If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran!

April 15, 2010, 01:34 AM	#38
Dr. Strangelove Senior Member Join Date: August 1, 2008 Location: Athens, GA Posts: 1,406	"Powell Doctrine?" It's great, but maybe we should look at all of the points, not just the "overwhelming force" portion: (stolen from Wikipedia) The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States: Is a vital national security interest threatened? Do we have a clear attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Is the action supported by the American people? Do we have genuine broad international support? The "Powell Doctrine" is a viewpoint of using war as a means of last resort, and in that case ending the war quickly and decisively with the fewest friendly casualties. Secure your home, have a plan to defend it if necessary, but do it with weapons that will get the job done with the least amount of risk to those who aren't targets.

April 16, 2010, 11:01 AM	#42
Glenn E. Meyer Staff Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 13,159	The trial determines if you act responsibility, if the situation is ambiguous. With no offense - the oft said - "If it is a good shoot, yak, yak" - is one of the most clear indicators that the poster doesn't know what they are talking about. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm Being an Academic Shooter http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm Being an Active Shooter

April 16, 2010, 03:35 PM	#44
youp Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2005 Location: south of Canada, eh? Posts: 438	I have subjected my hearing to many different abuses. Including the discharge of fire arms in confined spaces. Notably a 357 and a 41 both of the magnum varieties. I can still hear most everything. Once in a while I will come across some young soft speaking cashier that I cannot hear. Besides having tinnitus offers my the option of selectively ignoring my wife. I will always apply what I learned in the State of Virginia circa 1975. You cannot shoot him outside. He has got to be in your home. Let him come through the window and if he falls back out get out there and push him back in. For an average run of the mill home invasion or attempted invasion. Trying to protect your front lawn from a bad guy will get you on a first name basis with many of them in a concentrated bad guy environment. My Mrs has the 870 and specific instructions. You confront him and he sees the shotgun and does not run, shoot him. Insurance will clean the carpet and fix the damage. He runs do not shoot him in the back. Bad juju. I have built several apartments and homes. Plumbed them actually. There is a fairly good chance I could cut my way into your condo, apartment, and modern built home with a good knife. Built a hospital and the only room I could not knock my way into with my fist was the Psych room. Now an end of the world as we know it go ahead and get your AK... __________________ Use enough gun.

April 4, 2010, 12:10 AM	#26
Slopemeno Senior Member Join Date: January 19, 2007 Posts: 2,110	I also find that the odds of actually connecting are way, way, higher with a long gun.

April 4, 2010, 02:46 AM	#27
Glenn Dee Senior Member Join Date: September 9, 2009 Location: South Florida Posts: 1,420	Living in an apartment complex... I use a revolver dedicated to bumps in the night. It's loaded with frangible rounds, and readily available. I also have a side by side 12Ga loaded with bird shot not far away. I wonder if anyone has any experience with frangable 223 ammo. I'd think this might make a S/D, H/D rifle a lot more practical.

April 4, 2010, 10:19 AM	#28
JohnH1963 Junior member Join Date: October 22, 2008 Posts: 416	One thing I took away from this post is how a jury might view certain weapons and the prudence behind weapons selection. For example, it might be more prudent to select the Ruger mini-14 vs. the AR. The AR brings back my military days and gives me a certain nostalgic feeling when I shoot it over the mini-14. However, I am not Mr. Money where I can have seperate weapons for self defense and other weapons for that nostalgic feel. I have to strategically make my purchases so the weaponry suits all of my needs. I realize we are in peacetime, but its not peacetime when the wrong people come knocking at the door. If someone decides to commit a hostile act against your household, then chances are they are armed and determined. I dont feel as if a Glock pistol is going to ward them away as easily as a rifle. I have seen many guys at the range simply not connect rounds to the target with a compact Glock. I am ashamed to admit that there were times in the past where for some reason I was not connecting either...not connecting the rounds to target in a controlled environment. However, there has not ever been a time where I did not connect the rounds to the target with a rifle. Out of a company of over 200 men in Basic Training many many years ago, there was only one man who could not connect the rounds to target with the M16. I remember that guy because they made him run around without the canvas camo covering around his helmet(no that man was not me).

April 13, 2010, 11:58 AM	#31
Greg Member Join Date: April 13, 2010 Posts: 27	I don't ever want to shoot anybody with any type of firearm, ever. I will avoid doing so unless absolutely forced to, with no other option. If I'm not in my home I will run from a fight if I can. If I'm in bed and my home alarm goes off, I have a wife and two children at home to think about. If the doorbell rings at 2:00am, I won't answer it. If someone needs to reach me at that time of the night they will have the means to contact me by phone. My last resort in a worst-case scenario in my home is a shotgun. I would never even point a gun at anyone, anywhere unless I was afraid that they were going to kill or inflict great bodily harm on one of the members of my family, and I had no other choice but to stop that threat. Even then, I would take no pleasure whatsoever in stopping the threat. I would have to live with it but I would have no choice but to look at it in terms of if I had not stopped the threat, I would have allowed my wife or one of my children to be killed without acting responsibly to save their lives. A horrible thought, but I do have a moral obligation to protect my family when they are threatened with death or great bodily harm by an intruder.

April 14, 2010, 07:24 PM	#35
Kmar40 Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 2009 Posts: 668	The Powell Doctrine is a misnomer. The doctrine is actually attributable to Caspar Weinberger. The Powell Doctrine should more accurately be to always stop when the job is half-finished. Reluctant warrior indeed. He's a four star version of a towed jumper.

April 14, 2010, 09:21 PM	#36
towelie Member Join Date: April 7, 2010 Posts: 38	Just the sound alone from an AR or an AK would be far more frightening than a pistol. I'm not really afraid of getting charged with a crime were i to defend my home with a semi automatic centerfire rifle. In fact, that's exactly what i'd do, and screw what the prosecutor says later. There's no way to charge someone with a crime if they acted responsibly defending their home from a dangerous intruder with a semi automatic rifle. If a problem does arise, most court appointed attorneys should be able to handle it if you toss them a little extra money. But if you need teh ghost of Johnny Cochran, you obviously did something horribly wrong.

April 14, 2010, 11:28 PM	#37
Come and take it. Senior Member Join Date: May 16, 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 987	Penetration is my concern, and here is why. Most feel that a bullet that penetrates is bad in home defence as it will pass through walls. However the criminals may where a flak vest. In this case if you are using some type of magsafe etc type of ammunition or a low velocity handgun you may find yourself undergunned. Body armor in use by criminals is a rising trend. Also I rotate my defense guns around so home defense wont be boring. Maybe the criminal may get lucky and I only have my pistol. Another week he may not be so lucky if I have a 12 guage autoloader.

April 16, 2010, 02:02 AM	#39
JohnH1963 Junior member Join Date: October 22, 2008 Posts: 416	"There's no way to charge someone with a crime if they acted responsibly defending their home from a dangerous intruder with a semi automatic rifle." There are many ways a person can be charged with a crime for defending themselves. Look at the many news articles where there seemed to be a legitimate self-defense situation, but the jury or judge felt otherwise. If you brandish a pistol...if your pistol goes off...if you display your pistol...then some prosecutor somewhere is going to figure out a way to get you. The entire system is rigged against you and you have to ask yourself if pulling your pistol out is worth spending a few years in prison. If you are not willing to spend a few years in prison then the self defense situation is probably not justified...

April 16, 2010, 04:17 PM	#47
markj Senior Member Join Date: October 27, 2005 Location: Crescent Iowa Posts: 2,830	If the door frames were made from say C-4 and had a remote trigger say by the bed, you wouldnt need to get up, just push the button, bad guy gone. I hate to be woken up late at night.

April 16, 2010, 07:56 PM	#50
biohazurd Senior Member Join Date: March 29, 2009 Posts: 335	Yes like others have said YMMV. I for instance live in a rural area. (No houses for miles.) So i usually have my Ak loaded up close to my bedroom. I keep a few handguns on my nightstand/bed that i would grab apon hearing a disturbance, (4 dobermans barking and growling to their hearts content.) which i would use to fight my way to my ak or mossy 12. Be aware i am single have no children, nor spouse, so i dont really have to worry about overpenetration in my house. Besides my supercool belongings...