The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old April 12, 2012, 10:22 AM   #1
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,443
It Worked-M1 Carbine for home defense

Homeowner uses a M1 Carbine to shoot home invader.

Not a fan of warning shots but in this case (and location) I think it fit, as in helping the shooter establish he didn't want to hurt the bandit, just wanted to stop him. Warning shot didn't do it but shooting him in the leg did.

http://www.independent.com/news/2012...et-prowler/?on
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is online now  
Old April 12, 2012, 11:38 AM   #2
Water-Man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2008
Location: N. Georgia
Posts: 1,548
Not a very good idea of firing through a door.
__________________
PROUD TO BE A VETERAN
Water-Man is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 11:45 AM   #3
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
French doors are usually glass, so unless they were curtained, the homeowner likely had a good view of the intruder. I haven't kept up on California's household self-defense laws but as I recall from when I lived there, this would probably be ruled as a good shoot...if the reporting is accurate.
Don H is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 11:51 AM   #4
Water-Man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2008
Location: N. Georgia
Posts: 1,548
I'm well aware of what french doors are. Still not a good idea to shoot through them.
__________________
PROUD TO BE A VETERAN
Water-Man is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 11:56 AM   #5
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,443
Quote:
the suspect began breaking through the French doors on the back porch of a nearby home. The 54-year-old owner, said Harwood, told the man to leave, but he continued trying to get in. The homeowner grabbed a WWII-era M1 carbine and fired a warning shot into the ground near the suspect. It had no effect. Approximately 10 seconds later he fired through the door at the suspect,
Don't know, I wasn't there, but sounds to me like there wasn't any glass in the door any more.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is online now  
Old April 12, 2012, 12:49 PM   #6
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,336
Not sure about his particular location, but in many places telling authorities that you intentionally shot the intruder in the leg will lead to more problems than it solves. A smart lawyer and sympathetic jury and that intruder could wind up owning that poor man's house. And it will the civil case that does it (if it happens).

The police or prosecutor might consider it a good shoot, (or at least one they think they cannot win a conviction on - which is apparently what originally happened in the Martin-Zimmerman case), BUT a resulting civil suit has a much lower standard for conviction. And, in this case, both sides are alive to tell their stories (and embellish them as they see fit).

The warning shot is actually more acceptable to me than telling the cops you meant to shoot him in the leg, "only" wounding him.

The reason is that by "shooting to wound" you are admitting (in the eyes of the court) that you did not think deadly force was needed. Its all about the4 difference in what language means in ordinary conversation, and what it means in court.

For example, its common to say "I pulled up to the stop sign, waited a minute, looked both ways again, then pulled out." But what that says in court is that you waited at the stop sign a full 60 seconds, then pulled out. And, if there is another witness or two who says you only waited 30 seconds before pulling out, you have lied to the court, or at the least, your credibility is shot, over this simple statement, which makes ALL your testimony suspect.

IF you "only" shoot to wound, then this implies that you did not think deadly force was necessary. And, if deadly force was not necessary, you should NOT have shot at all. Because using the gun at all (shooting) IS deadly force in the eyes of the law..

Again, this may not be critical in the criminal case (or it may be), but in a civil case, it might be the ammo that lets the other side eat you for lunch. With stand your ground/castle doctrine laws under such attack currently, its uncertain exactly how "good" this shooting may turn out to be. Depending on the specific wording of the law, it might protect the homeowner from criminal conviction, and still leave him liable for civil penalties, if found guilty in civil court. And civil courts standards are much less ..rigorous than a criminal court.

I believe that if one has to shoot, one shoots to "stop" the attack. WHERE the bullet hits, and what effect it has on the attacker is irrelevant to you, so long as it stops the attack. Stick with that. Shoot to STOP. Never shoot to kill, or shoot to wound. Shoot to stop. Tell the cops anything else, and down the line some lawyer type will try their best to twist your statement into an "admission of guilt". And they might just be sucessful, if they can convince 7 people (majority of a jury) that their version of what happened is the truth, and your's is not.

Good Luck to the homeowner, I hope his local laws protect him from losing everything to his attacker. He still might lose everything though, even if he wins. His defense attornies will insist on being paid, most likely.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 12:50 PM   #7
spacecoast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,115
Quote:
I'm well aware of what french doors are. Still not a good idea to shoot through them.
Yeah, those doors are expensive.
spacecoast is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 01:08 PM   #8
RedBowTies88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Location: 609 NJ
Posts: 705
Must be nice to be able to legally own an M1 carbine stupid NJ.


I'm a big fan of light semi auto carbines for HD situations.
__________________
"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 21. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
RedBowTies88 is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 03:06 PM   #9
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
I'm sorry, but if I ever had to shoot someone in a SD situation I will be aiming for the center mass.. And if there was some bizzaro highly unlikely happenstance where I did for whatever reason deem a warning shot the right thing to do (maybe a 12 year old with a knife or something) I wouldn't go around telling the cops that. Like others here have said, that is a great way to lose big time in a civil court. Civil court too often comes down to emotion and a permanently disabled bad guy who's momma is there to swear he was a "good boy" and "never did nobody wrong" can sturr up a lot of it.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 03:20 PM   #10
Skadoosh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,775
Quote:
It Worked-M1 Carbine for home defense
Not sure what the title of this thread implies...was there a doubt that a M1 Carbine wouldn't work?
__________________
NRA Life Member (2003)
USN Retired
I think that one of the notions common to the anti-gunner is the idea that being a victim is 'noble'; as if it is better to be noble in your suffering than disruptive in your own defense.
Skadoosh is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 04:01 PM   #11
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Water-Man
I'm well aware of what french doors are. Still not a good idea to shoot through them.
Would you care to expand on why it was not a good idea to shoot through them?
Don H is offline  
Old April 13, 2012, 11:51 AM   #12
curt.45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2008
Location: Fort Wayne Ind.
Posts: 799
my story would have been something along the lines of, My first shot missed because he kept coming toward me my second shot missed but hit him in the leg because he was moving toward me but when I hit him in the leg he stopped coming at me so I stopped shooting.
curt.45 is offline  
Old April 13, 2012, 06:14 PM   #13
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 3,244
The M1 Carbine is my preferred HD and truck rifle.

Yes I have AR-15, AK, etc..and have owned M1A (Springfield), Mini-14, as well as FAL.

The M1 Carbine just as so many good attributes it works well at conflicts from zero to 100 or more yards and the 'significant other' can shoot it well.

Plus a Ruger 10/22 works well as a understudy with peep sight. No need for those $400-500 .22 ARs!

Deaf
__________________
"The government has confiscated all of our rights and is selling them back to us in the form of permits."
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old April 13, 2012, 06:31 PM   #14
Nnobby45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,148
M1 Carbine ammo now available in CorBon DPX. I suspect that should alleviate any "stopping powe"r concerns that some may have about the little Carbine.

My Auto Ord. carbine feeds it fine. Run a bunch of practice ammo thru to make sure it works-- run some carry ammo thru, then practice with less expensive stuff. And lube it good.
Nnobby45 is offline  
Old April 13, 2012, 06:33 PM   #15
Nnobby45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,148
Quote:
my story would have been something along the lines of, My first shot missed because he kept coming toward me my second shot missed but hit him in the leg because he was moving toward me but when I hit him in the leg he stopped coming at me so I stopped shooting.
Might be more story than a good attorney would recommend.
Nnobby45 is offline  
Old April 13, 2012, 06:33 PM   #16
dsa1115
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 428
That prowler was darn lucky the homeowner was using a M1 carbine and not a M1 Garand.
dsa1115 is offline  
Old April 13, 2012, 07:39 PM   #17
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,339
Quote:
Not a very good idea of firing through a door.
Assuming that the defender is certain that the person on the other side of the door is attempting to illegally enter an occupied dwelling and that there's no other reasonable way to prevent that from occurring, AND assuming that shooting to prevent such a crime from occurring is legal in the area in question, then it's an excellent idea to do so from a tactical standpoint.

Basically, it provides an opportunity to neutralize the threat while minimizing the risk to the defender. That's a pretty valuable opportunity.

There are clearly some safety issues involved that should be weighed, and those issues may dictate a different course of action depending on the circumstances.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old April 13, 2012, 08:13 PM   #18
frumious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 13, 2009
Location: Carrollton TX
Posts: 521
44amp, I didn't know it only took a simple majority of jurors to convict.

-cls
frumious is offline  
Old April 13, 2012, 08:16 PM   #19
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 1,701
Quote:
Would you care to expand on why it was not a good idea to shoot through them?
If the glass was still in the doors, there are obvious problems. First, shooting through glass is a bad idea, as even a warning shot will throw glass at the person outside the door.

case in point, a raid on a drug house involved a glass door in the county south of here. Back sliding door was locked. Deputy smashed it with his shotgun a couple times, but gee, recoil pads won't break glass. He fired the shotgun through the door, which was curtained, and blasted glass into a resident that was just inside the door. The guy was disciplined for that shot and the department was sued, iirc

Not an absolute comparison, I know.

In this case, if I understand, the invader was outside. firing a warning shot at an invader outside your home, when there is plenty of opportunity to move away, no weapon presented, and no definite imminent threat of danger, is not good. If the door was open or the glass broken, it would have been a whole lot smarter of the old guy to wait at least until a weapon was presented or the guy broke the external line of that door, and actually entered the home with at least a hand or foot, and then, used deadly force. No warning shots at the guy outside, let him in, and engage in defensible deadly force.

Use of deadly force does not HAVE to lead to a fatality. He had a carbiine. He could have stuck it in the guys mouth and pulled the trigger as he stood there screaming, or he could have jabbed it into his belly and double tapped him in the navel, or he could have even knocked loose a knee or femur with a joint shot.

Shooting outside the home and hitting an unarmed man was a bad idea, no matter the outcome. Inside the home the legal situation changes astronomically. The way it reads, there would have been no significant change in the tactical situation either way if the guy had waited until the intruder actually passed into or through the door.
briandg is offline  
Old April 13, 2012, 09:02 PM   #20
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
The scenario as presented is very defensible in this state since it is legal to use deadly force to prevent a burglary, robbery or to prevent an unlawful entry, made in a "violent and tumultous manner", into a habitation. But then, as we all should know, laws vary greatly among the states as regards self-defense situations and generalizations may be quite invalid in some situations.
Don H is offline  
Old April 13, 2012, 11:49 PM   #21
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 1,701
That right there is the ultimate point. Armed or unarmed, and inside or outside.

It seems obvious that the guy was attempting entry, and did present a threat, but in either a criminal trial against the homeowner or shooter, the jury is going to be the ulitmate arbiter for or against guy. I wouldn't want to be in his position for that one reason.

Without a solid legal basis for deadly force without entry, like your state law or the texas property invasion law, or even the stand your ground laws, his position is a little iffy.
briandg is offline  
Old April 13, 2012, 11:52 PM   #22
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 1,701
many years ago, my dentist heard someone outside his home, and found a guy rummaging through his car. he grabbed his M1 carbine and confronted the burglar with it. He has never given me full details, but in the end, he was stabbed in the chest, and the guy got away.

as he waggishly puts it, he's the only person stupid enough to take a gun to a knife fight, and still lose.

Really bright guy. Got a lot of respect for him. I don't think, however, that he handled this well.
briandg is offline  
Old April 14, 2012, 12:16 AM   #23
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by briandg
many years ago, my dentist heard someone outside his home, and found a guy rummaging through his car. he grabbed his M1 carbine and confronted the burglar with it. He has never given me full details, but in the end, he was stabbed in the chest, and the guy got away....
Glad your dentist recovered. But unfortunately, his story helps illustrate that it's not necessarily enough to have a gun. One must also be able to use it effectively.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old April 14, 2012, 07:34 AM   #24
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 1,701
yes, I've been seeing him for over 30 years. an old friend of my family. I first heard the story from my mother in law; he spent 3 days or so in the hospital from the chest wound.

It utterly floored me that he would have taken a rifle outside to confront a thief, let the guy draw a weapon, and then NOT MANAGE TO FIRE for whatever reason.

Like I said, I never got the entire story from him. I just saw him a couple weeks ago, and it came up in conversation again, and he still ain't gonna tell the whole story. I kinda wonder if he went out with an unloaded gun.
briandg is offline  
Old April 14, 2012, 07:55 AM   #25
shep854
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2004
Location: Birmingham AL
Posts: 555
This just shows that lawyers will spin anything to win their case. If the defender had shot & killed the intruder, the howl would have been, "Why didn't the defender just shoot him in the leg to stop him?"
Anyway, a leg shot is a poor stopper, unless you are able to break a major bone.
----
"One must also be able to use it effectively."--Frank Ettin
And be prepared to use it effectively. If that horrific 'crunch time' comes, can you pull the trigger? If you don't think you can, don't get a gun for HD.
__________________
Powder smoke- The Smell of FREEDOM!
I don't shoot to kill; I shoot to live.
Registration? NEVER!!
shep854 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13023 seconds with 9 queries