PDA

View Full Version : When an unarmed burglar goes for your gun....


Sriracha
March 3, 2010, 11:26 AM
Hi everyone,

Sorry if this topic has been covered before, but I couldn't find it with the search function.

Scenario: You find an unarmed burglar in your house. You point your weapon and order him to leave. He charges you, possibly trying to take your weapon. What would you do? Assume that the burglar is not big enough to be a lethal threat by himself, but is strong enough to possibly disarm you.

Thanks for your advice,
Sriracha

(Please do not advise me that I should simply shoot the burglar upon discovering him. Even if I could get away with it legally, I simply would not do it.)

Composer_1777
March 3, 2010, 11:43 AM
Golden rule of firearms my friend. Don't point it at someone if you aren't willing to shoot them. Arming yourself will only put you in worse danger, i suggest you not even use it.

KenpoTex
March 3, 2010, 11:46 AM
Your "conditions" are a little contradictory...he's "not big enough to be a lethal threat by himself" but is "strong enough to disarm you."

First of all, how "big" does one have to be to be a deadly threat? Second, if he's strong enough to disarm you (which any average adult male is) do you not consider that a deadly threat?

Why do you completely rule out the possibility of shooting him immediately upon discovery? Would your feelings about this change if he obviously was armed?

rikerz
March 3, 2010, 11:49 AM
How are you for certain he ISNT armed? BG in my home is shot. period . My family comes first and the BG comes last, sorry for his luck.

The Tourist
March 3, 2010, 11:50 AM
I would call ADT and find out why my alarm system has failed.

First rule of protection. A "layered" system of doors, locks, superior glass and a rudimentary alarm is the best advice.

Having anyone get inside the wire virtually assures you of losing. Best case, you get knocked over. Besides serious injury, the worst case is that your wife no longer feels safe in her own home and demands you sell your home at a loss in this bear market so she can sleep.

Mike Faires
March 3, 2010, 11:56 AM
Why would you confront anyone with a firearm that you were not prepared to shoot?
OK your scenario, you confront a BG in your home and point a firarm at said BG. Did he assure you on a stack of bibles that he was not armed? If he is not armed what did he use to break in to your home? A slap bar, a rock, a club , a baseball bat? Any of these are a weapon under these conditions.
Or did he say he was lost and took a wrong turn on the way to Mid Night Basketball?
Are you kidding me? In my house, I confront if he claims to be unarmed he gets ,one chance period to kneel down, cross his ankles, lace his fingers together behind his head while waiiting for the LEO to arrive. Any movement from that point forward is grounds for removal from the gene pool.

KLRANGL
March 3, 2010, 12:00 PM
I agree with Tourist, a layered system is the best. When it comes down to shooting someone, that really should be because you've expended all your other resources.

But in the case of the OP, if someone who breaks into your house doesn't turn and run at the first sign of you bringing your gun to bear, then you shoot. To me, that is the logical thing to do, because you do not want to get into a hand-to-hand, and you do not know if he is, in fact, unarmed.
Your locality will determine whether you end up in court after the fact.

All that said, if you know someone is in the house, get the family to a safe place, call the police, and wait.

Pyzon
March 3, 2010, 12:01 PM
Please do not advise me that I should simply shoot the burglar

I simply would not do it.

Just what would be the purpose of your weapon in this scenario ?

If finding a BG in your home that has chosen to advance towards you, to possibly (or likely) overcome and disarm you is not enough to cause you to use that weapon, you'd be far better off not to have it in your possession in the first place.

Granted, firing at a fellow human being is not to be taken lightly. It will change your life forever, and may even cause you emotional and/or financial ruin in many states, but consider what may evolve if your weapon is in the BG's hand instead of yours.

Shoot him if he disregards your instuctions and advances towards you is my advice, my friend.

Maromero
March 3, 2010, 12:07 PM
Yo are better served with a can of pepper spray.

CWPinSC
March 3, 2010, 12:09 PM
He charges you

My CWP Instructor made sure we knew that anything, even bare fists or feet, could be considered a deadly weapon. He said, "If someone comes at you with their fists, you must assume they're Joe Fraizer."

Back in high school, I watched my math teacher, who was about 35, weighed about 145, and stood all of 5'8", bodily throw a 200 pound bully out the classroom door bare-handed. Literally picked him up by the collar and belt and slung him out the door. The teacher was a Paris Island Drill Sergeant in the Reserves.

Size does not determine threat.

The "charge" is an attack, he's in my home. Gun aimed COM. "STOP OR I WILL SHOOT YOU!" Anything except instant, complete compliance - BANG!

Scorch
March 3, 2010, 12:12 PM
Let's see. Hmm. So while you are holding him at gunpoint, the burglar goes for your gun. Sounds like poor survival instincts to me. He is attacking you. You pull the trigger, repeat as necessary.

pax
March 3, 2010, 12:23 PM
Scenario: You find an unarmed burglar in your house. You point your weapon and order him to leave. He charges you, possibly trying to take your weapon. What would you do? Assume that the burglar is not big enough to be a lethal threat by himself, but is strong enough to possibly disarm you.

If the gun were lying on a table in front of him, and he went for it, you would be justified in shooting. That would be an obvious deadly threat, as he was reaching for a weapon and apparently intended to use it. Yes?

By the same reasoning, if an intruder charges you and grabs for your gun, you know one important thing: you know that the intruder believes he can get that gun and use it on you. That's why he's charging you. Regardless of what you might believe about his armed status or his ability to defeat you, you know that he thinks he can do it -- and because you are not a mind-reader, you also know that he may very well be in possession of facts not immediately obvious to you.

Do you choose to believe what he believes, and act accordingly?

I think that would be fairly defensible in a court of law. Of course, IANAL and TINLA. I'm just a practical person thinking about practical things. On a practical level, I think it's important to first survive the encounter.

pax

The Tourist
March 3, 2010, 12:27 PM
KLRANGL, as in the case of most "scenarios," the deck is usually stacked. In other words, a condition is outlined offering a limited number of pre-conceived outcomes. It has been my experience that the OP is actually looking for "permission."

Well, there's no burglar in his house now, unless the guy is a whiz as a typist. There is ample time to take a serious look at his security profile, and then look deeply into his wife's eyes--decide how hot flying lead makes her life better.

As for financing a layered system, it might mean doing without a bigger TV or a shinier Harley. It may mean placing the real needs of the safety and security of your family above that new 1911 and alligator skin holster.

Perhaps a quick call to ADT (they offer free consulting) might end the entire need for this debate. It would be no fun, but it would end.

stargazer65
March 3, 2010, 01:09 PM
OK, somebody tell me what IANAL and TINLA mean.:confused:

OldMarksman
March 3, 2010, 01:16 PM
OK, somebody tell me what IANAL and TINLA mean.

"I am not a lawyer" and "this is not legal advice."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL

Maromero
March 3, 2010, 01:19 PM
Look it up. Lazy.:D I Am Not A Lawyer and This Is Not Legal Advice. Most lawyers that post in the net use these terms regularly as to leave no way to understant or interpret that a post constitutes legal advice.

Old Grump
March 3, 2010, 01:29 PM
(Please do not advise me that I should simply shoot the burglar upon discovering him. Even if I could get away with it legally, I simply would not do it.)You only have two options, give him the gun and beg for mercy satisfied in your mind that you have just given this gentleman the tools he needs to defend himself from his victims. Or run screaming from the room to protect yourself and your gun and let him have your property and family. If him charging you does not constitute an attack then you have no intention of defending yourself and you don't need a gun.

WC145
March 3, 2010, 01:34 PM
If I'm on duty and an unarmed suspect goes for my gun, the assumption is that if he gets he'll use it on me or someone else, lethal force is justified to keep him from getting it. No difference in this scenario - try to take my gun, I'll kill you to keep you from it.

OldMarksman
March 3, 2010, 01:43 PM
I confront if he claims to be unarmed he gets ,one chance period to kneel down, cross his ankles, lace his fingers together behind his head while waiiting for the LEO to arrive.At that point, should the perp elect to comply, the resident would have effected a citizen's arrest and subjected himself to immense civil liability.

He would also be a sitting duck should the perp's accomplice decide to ambush him. There's also the little matter of what might happen should a law enforcement officer who had been pursuing someone from another scene at which violent criminal action had just occurred should enter the house and see the resident with gun in hand. Remember the incident in Boulder?

Of course, should the perp elect to leave, the resident may not employ deadly force to enforce his command.

Any movement from that point forward is grounds for removal from the gene pool.Such "removal" would undoubtedly constitute grounds for a murder charge unless the perp had been attacking the resident. The forensic evidence would probably make it stick--lay opinion.

Castle doctrine laws provide a defense for a resident or in some cases, for the occupant of an automobile, who employs deadly force against an intruder by establishing a presumption that the intrusion in itself provides reasonable belief that imminent danger (to the actor and to anyone else in the house) exists. Contrary to the widely repeated assertions of the Brady Bunch, they were not intended to legalize murder, nor do they bestow upon the actor the roles of criminal investigator, jury, judge, or executioner.

No, I'm not going to risk holding anyone at gunpoint in my house.

Back to the original question: I think pax nailed it. If the perp tries to disarm the resident, what would a reasonable person expect his purpose to be?

Note: It is necessary to know the laws in one's jurisdiction. In some states, the resident is expected to retreat from the house.

BillCA
March 3, 2010, 02:03 PM
Scenario: You find an unarmed burglar in your house. You point your weapon and order him to leave. He charges you, possibly trying to take your weapon. What would you do? Assume that the burglar is not big enough to be a lethal threat by himself, but is strong enough to possibly disarm you.

Okay, the key element are:
- Burglar
- inside my home
- At gunpoint for my protection
- Ordered to leave
- The burglar charges at me.

Note that size or his status as armed or unarmed are not key elements here. In many states, there may be a duty to retreat. Know your state laws clearly - read them yourself. Most say to retreat if you can do so safely. When being charged or confronting an intruder by surprise, this is not possible.

In your scenario the response would be squeeze trigger, and move. Rinse, Repeat as often as needed. Once the intruder goes down and complies with instructions (or is no longer a threat┬╣) I stop making holes in him.

Once he has attempted an attack, I won't risk letting him go (get out of my house!), unless he is right next to a door. My concern is that he may try to turn the tables again, perhaps by running up the stairs/down the hall seeking a hostage.

By breaking in to my home, the person has committed a felony in California. So I am confronting a felon who, while at gunpoint decides to charge into the gun and myself. Clearly, this is not a rational person. A rational person would either (a)surrender and wait for police or (b)flee potential harm and capture.

So now, he's an irrational felon in my home trying to get to my firearm. Since he's acting irrationally, if he gets the upper hand, I cannot count on his charity, mercy or even a kind word. He's irrational and may do anything from just shooting me to putting my head on a stick.

┬╣ No longer a threat means he is unconcious, unable to move, injured but following instructions or becomes very responsive to orders.

rattletrap1970
March 3, 2010, 02:08 PM
He becomes Un-armed and Un-Alive.

Maromero
March 3, 2010, 02:14 PM
If someone has broken in your house, does their mere precense is to be considered a threat to you and your family, thus warranting the use of deadly force or do we have to engage in a meaningful dialogue as to the intruders intentions.

In the event someone detains an intruder (legal or ilegal) does his lack of compliance (if you move you die) constitute a risk to the homeowner that warrants the use of deadly force?

IANAL & TINLA, but I did stay in a Hollyday Express last night!

OldMarksman
March 3, 2010, 02:27 PM
If someone has broken in your house, does their mere precense is to be considered a threat to you and your family, thus warranting the use of deadly force or do we have to engage in a meaningful dialogue as to the intruders intentions. Depends entirely on statutes and case law in the jurisdiction at hand...not as they relate to "dialogue", but as to whether the break-in provides a presumption of a threat of imminent danger, and whether you must retreat before using deadly force.

In the event someone detains an intruder (legal or ilegal) does his lack of compliance (if you move you die) constitute a risk to the homeowner that warrants the use of deadly force?If he attacks, maybe, unless where you live you must first retreat. You may not use deadly force to prevent his departure, except in a couple of states (New York, I think, is among them) and under very rare circumstances.

Best not to say "you die"--ever.

OuTcAsT
March 3, 2010, 03:06 PM
Scenario: You find an unarmed burglar in your house.

There is realistically no such thing. as someone else pointed out, he had to use something to gain entry.

You point your weapon and order him to leave.

If I point my firearm at him, I intend to fire. Also, if I have the drop on him, I am not giving up my tactical advantage by saying anything. If I do decide to order him to leave, he better beat feet away from me.

Assume that the burglar is not big enough to be a lethal threat by himself, but is strong enough to possibly disarm you.


Making that kind of "assumption" will likely get you killed.

(Please do not advise me that I should simply shoot the burglar upon discovering him. Even if I could get away with it legally, I simply would not do it.)


Then if you own firearms, keep them locked in a vault, and leave them to me in your will.

TheBigO
March 3, 2010, 03:11 PM
If this guy was in my house, he made one mistake, if he then charged me he made his last.

Buzzcook
March 3, 2010, 03:17 PM
If you won't shoot then your options are running, fighting, or giving up.

I advise learning to run and fight. Non-leathal devices might be something to look into.

As above security starts outside the house.

45Gunner
March 3, 2010, 03:19 PM
Scenario: You find an unarmed burglar in your house.

I think the "Judo Principal" applies to this scenario: Judo know if he has a gun. Judo know if he has a knife. Judo don't know if he has a deadly weapon.

If he is in my house in the middle of the night, somehow he got thru my alarm system and how is it that my dog is not barking? Did he kill my dog? He is definitely not invited and he hasn't come for tea and crumpets. I can only assume the worst and take appropriate action.

rattletrap1970
March 3, 2010, 03:19 PM
Well to answer the question as it was posed.

I have to assume I heard the burglar and went to investigate and I would do so armed. Now I see him and he sees me. I see he's unarmed (as far as I can tell). However, he goes for my gun.

1. I immediately take that as a threatening move both because I know he has the potential to disarm me. I do not know what, if any, training this person has in hand to hand combat.
2. I do not know if this person is a carrier of and diseases (Do I want to risk getting opened up in a tussle ?)
3. I don't KNOW he's disarmed because I haven't searched him.
4. I don't KNOW he doesn't have accomplices.

The was the question was posed. Yes. The determining factor is the threatening move directly at me with the my perceived belief that he wants to take my weapon.

Puntmefar
March 3, 2010, 03:32 PM
well from a legal stand point in KY. where i life the law says u have the right to use deadly force against a intruder if he/she enters illegally by force or violence and the law assumes that a intruder has entered with intent to use force or violence. that being said its not allways best to act in that mannor is he is unarmed i would go for a bat or some blunt weapon b4 i went for a gun usually a intruder will run at the first sighn of trouble its simpy human nature to run if ur already doing somthing wrong

Ticman
March 3, 2010, 04:59 PM
Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!

Never under estimate your opponent. (or BG on this case)

Evan Thomas
March 3, 2010, 05:43 PM
Actually, it's pretty simple, I'd say.

If this is a burglar, who has broken into your home somewhat stealthily, but you've heard a bump in the night (breaking glass, squeaking floorboards, etc.): DON'T confront him. DON'T go investigate, whether you're armed or not. Hole up in your bedroom, behind cover if possible, call 911, arm yourself, and announce your presence: "I am armed and the police are on the way. Leave now. DO NOT come up the stairs (down the hall), because I will defend myself." If he's after your stuff and takes some, fine. That's what insurance is for. It's not worth risking your life to defend mere stuff, nor is it worth the risk of the legal complications and huge expense you'll incur if you have to shoot. If he leaves, great. You've won. If he doesn't, and breaks into your bedroom, the police dispatcher is on the line and listening as you do what you have to do to defend your life.

If this is a home invader who has broken in violently, if you're right there when he breaks in, retreat if you can and proceed as above. If you can't retreat, a home invasion is a sufficient reason to defend yourself with lethal force -- right then, without messing around: no telling the BG to comply or else, no waiting to see what he does. Your life is at risk, and you are entitled to defend yourself.

But those who've advised that your first move, before any of this happens, should be to beef up the security of your home, are right on the money. Best if the BG doesn't make it into the house in the first place.

Sriracha
March 3, 2010, 05:43 PM
OP here. Thank you for the thoughtful replies.

I had some difficulty in posing a realistic scenario, but my underlying question is sincere. I've no hidden agenda. But perhaps I should elaborate on what's bugging me.

My first instinct is as pax and others point out: survival comes first. I must shoot a man who is trying to get a weapon to kill me. What worries me is that, at the end of the encounter, there will simply be an unarmed dead man on my floor. There is no evidence that he actually went for my gun or tried to assault me. I surely hope that a jury would grant me a reasonable doubt. But it does make me worry.

In my current residence in Georgia where this is less of a worry, but I will likely live in other states.

Yes, the layered defense that many of you suggest is always good. But despite this, we could still find ourselves holding a criminal at gunpoint. And at the moment he charged, it would be difficult to juggle between gun and OC spray. So, this question would still come up.

From your feedback, my tentative conclusion is this: I would be morally/legally justified in shooting. But if I am much bigger than the attacker, perhaps as an act of kindness, I might just punch them out. But this kindness would add risk to my own life, and is not generally a good strategy.

- Sriracha

The Tourist
March 3, 2010, 06:15 PM
Vanya, my wife and I have done that very thing. We have converted a walk-in closet to a safe room.

Oh, we still use it for clothes, but it has spare handguns, spare ammunition, a charging stand for a cell phone, a flashlight, etc.

Granted, it's a fall-back plan, but the 9-1-1 call will be made from there, and I suspect the few terrifying minutes will lapse.

podrav
March 3, 2010, 06:25 PM
Sriracha,
It's a good question to think through, and probably crosses the mind of every new gun owner. Don't be offended by any of the replies!

As stated, you should not point a weapon until you are ready to use it. If you know you are not going to pull the trigger, keep your gun locked up until you are prepared. Why hand an "unarmed" attacker a better weapon.

Nnobby45
March 3, 2010, 07:02 PM
Mas Ayoob once pointed out that if he were going for a gun then deadly force would likely be justified, and that would include attempting to arm himself with yours.

Also, if you want to assume that your attacker is unarmed because you can't see a hidden knife in his hands, that's your call. Not an expert, but they say things happen real fast in those situations and the appearance of Bubba being unarmed may be deceiving.

Evan Thomas
March 3, 2010, 07:06 PM
Yes, the layered defense that many of you suggest is always good. But despite this, we could still find ourselves holding a criminal at gunpoint. And at the moment he charged, it would be difficult to juggle between gun and OC spray. So, this question would still come up.
Preventing this question from coming up is one of the best reasons (and there are many) for not going out of your way to confront a burglar. If you're trying to "clear the house" or "investigate a noise," you are extremely vulnerable if you're facing an armed intruder. And if you're facing one who's unarmed, then, yes, the scenario you propose is possible. But if you're behind a locked door, ideally with a bookcase or other actual cover between you and the door, and he has to come to you, you're in a much stronger position, both tactically and legally, in the event you have to defend yourself with lethal force.

Sriracha, you get a lot of points with some of us here for being reluctant to shoot unless it's absolutely necessary. That doesn't mean you shouldn't plan on defending yourself with a gun, it just means you need to make sure, as far as possible, that you don't find yourself in a situation like the one you've outlined. So -- don't plan to confront an intruder. If he has to break down a door in order to reach you, you'll have no doubt about his intentions if he does, I do assure you... :cool:

KLRANGL
March 3, 2010, 08:24 PM
Sriracha, I understand your concern with the legal aftermath, but if you find yourself in a situation where you are truly faced with impending loss of life, you should not hesitate to pull the trigger, regardless of legal entanglements.
As much as I advocate not getting into a lethal force situation if at all possible, it is just as important to remember that you can not hesitate at the crucial moment when you are faced with death. Being dead is much worse than the possibility of going to jail (though some would say jail itself is worth than death)
And for the record, I consider an (apparently) unarmed attacker who is smaller than me, knows I have a firearm, and still lunges at me, to be just such a moment.
But avoiding that moment should be a life goal...

James K
March 3, 2010, 08:33 PM
State laws vary, but under the common law and the statutory law in many states, you can presume that anyone who has broken into or forcibly entered your home poses a threat of death or great bodily harm to you or your family even if you don't see a weapon. You can act accordingly.

If the other person has entered your home without breaking in (e.g., just walked through an open door during a garden party), shooting that person could be a problem. At worst, he has committed unlawful entry, but he may be the guest of your boss and just looking for the bathroom.

Jim

BlackFeather
March 3, 2010, 08:51 PM
Depends on the gun.

I would try to slam the butt stock of my shotgun into their face. Possibly kick them in the chest.

Some pistols won't fire if you drop the magazine. You may be careful as I have heard of fingers being disconnected and even severed in a fight over a pistol. A light may help blind them enough that they can't see where the gun is.

I can understand not wanting to shoot someone, threat or not, I personally would. On the other side you risk missing and the bullet will travel. A shotgun will go far as well.

I can't see why most didn't think this far...

The Tourist
March 3, 2010, 08:56 PM
Okay, fair enough. There is no or a broken alarm in place, you got the guy dead-bang in the act, within the Castle Doctrine and there he lays for the world--perfect double tap center mass, bled out on your carpeting.

Can you tell us about the next five years of your life? How many court appearances, even if exonerated? How much in attorney's fees and settlement costs--that's both civil and possibly criminal? The level of lost wages? Did the newspaper take a great photo, or did you look like Larry the Cable Guy? Have one-too-many of your poker buddies called you "killer"?

You're life is never going to be the same. I pay 44.00 bucks per month for ADT...

scorpion_tyr
March 3, 2010, 10:30 PM
You find an unarmed burglar in your house. You point your weapon and order him to leave. He charges you...

At this point he becomes a lead magnet.

Anytime an intruder doesn't do exactly what I tell him to do, he's going to magically attract bullets, unless I am positive he is fleeing the house and he's not going to get any closer to my wife or daughter in the process.

If that happens, he's welcome to leave and tell all his little BG friends not to go to that house with the green door.

podrav
March 3, 2010, 10:33 PM
The Tourist,
I'm not suggesting an alarm system is bad, but I don't see how it would help in the scenario you painted - you are home, the BG breakes in, and you shoot him.

I think an alarm system is affordable considering other costs we pay for insurance, or on fancy coffee at starbucks

ubersoldate
March 3, 2010, 11:19 PM
I do have two small kids in the home.
I catch you ransacking my house, I shoot first. I dont give a **** if the burglar is a blind one armed midget.
I know the laws in my state, I have many different measures of defense when it comes to home security, so if you blow through all of them and end up inside, you will die inside.

BillCA
March 4, 2010, 12:34 AM
Sriracha,

Your concern that arriving police will simply find "an unarmed dead man on my floor" and take make assumptions about the circumstances is a valid one.

Your best bet is to follow legal advice that says you give out the minimum information before asking to talk to a lawyer. "He broke into my house and came at me! I thought he was trying to kill me! sums it up. Details can wait until you've talked to your lawyer.

When you call police and tell them you need an ambulance and police they'll ask what's happening. He broke into my house and he's been shot. describes it without saying YOU shot him. Dispatchers will want to know WHO shot him and where the gun is. Tell them only "I have the gun and I'll put it down when they get here. Just resist any question they ask about WHO shot the intruder.

In a good shooting, it should be obvious who the defender and attacker were. Your lawyer will help you answer the necessary questions.

Sefner
March 4, 2010, 12:36 AM
I think the "Judo Principal" applies to this scenario: Judo know if he has a gun. Judo know if he has a knife. Judo don't know if he has a deadly weapon.

If he is in my house in the middle of the night, somehow he got thru my alarm system and how is it that my dog is not barking? Did he kill my dog? He is definitely not invited and he hasn't come for tea and crumpets. I can only assume the worst and take appropriate action.

Another vote for this. You never know for certain that an attacker is unarmed. Many people trained with a knife know to hold the knife behind their forearm so that your victim can't see it until the last second. You don't know if there is another guy in the apartment, if the guy is tripping on PCP, you know nothing. But more importantly, you have a gun and this person is charging you. That brings up two possibilities:

1. That person is deranged in some fashion. No rational person would charge a man with a gun. If this is the case they are capable, willing, and have the opportunity if they take your gun, of doing great bodily harm to you. If this is the case you should fear for your life.

2. That person is rational. No rational person would charge a man with a gun pointed at them unless they thought they had some sort of advantage (they are armed, think you are surprised, or have a buddy sneaking up behind you...). If this is the case they are capable, willing, and have the opportunity to do great bodily harm to you. If this is the case you should fear for your life.

Notice that the last sentence in either possibility is the same...

cubesmoothie
March 4, 2010, 05:04 AM
yep yep, if i think he's trying to grab my gun, and i cant reasonably kick the snot out of his face, i'll unload the pistol at his midsection. I'm not going to play any silly, shoot him in the knee games. This dude will kill me if he gets my gun. Even if my pistol rounds fail to stop him, the magazine will be empty and he wont be able to shoot me with it. Hopefully he doesn't die.

N.H. Yankee
March 4, 2010, 07:54 AM
Well my first line of defense is a 100lb dog with no sense of humor, if the perp gets past Miss congeniality then he most likely would have to use lethal force. The next and last thing he's going to hear is BANG. He by now would have been informed to lay down and cease any aggressive movement and Miss congeniality will be instructed to return to her corner.

The way I see it, if he or she is dumb enough to come into my house and not obey commands then this is an act of aggression. There have been rare instance where some village idiot has wandered into the wrong home unintentionally. Drunk or whatever and this doesn't give one the right to use lethal force. Now I for one keep my doors locked at ALL times, and windows are secured at night and usually during the day also. if someone is in my house then they have forced their way in which to me is an act of aggression but the law may not see it that way.

How is one supposed to know in the matter of a mere seconds if someone is armed especially in a dark house, also a perp could have a hidden weapon. My philosophy is inform any unwanted person that if they get within 15 feet of me or my family I am going to consider it an act of aggression and I will respond with lethal force. This is in the perfect world, we don't always have the time to do this and then all bets are off.

pax
March 4, 2010, 09:28 AM
Can you tell us about the next five years of your life? How many court appearances, even if exonerated? How much in attorney's fees and settlement costs--that's both civil and possibly criminal? The level of lost wages? Did the newspaper take a great photo, or did you look like Larry the Cable Guy? Have one-too-many of your poker buddies called you "killer"?

Tourist, no matter how bad it is -- and it could be very bad indeed -- I thought through all those things and decided it would beat being dead.

Then I went and got good training to improve my chances of survival, and studied the law to improve my chances of a good outcome after survival.

YMMV, of course. (But don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you is either a trigger happy idiot or a bloodthirsty villain. That's not the way we do things on TFL.)

pax

The Tourist
March 4, 2010, 10:47 AM
Pax, I never mentioned being 'dead,' this is the circumstance for those who "win."

Now before you jump on me, you must remember that I went through the system. It took me three years to get my reputation, my income level and my record wiped clean.

And that wasn't for killing someone, that was for simple CCW.

Not every municipality in America likes guns, has a Castle Doctrine, understanding LEOs or a DA that plea bargains the way we'd like to see it. And that's the problem with placing too much faith into scenarios hosted by gun hobbyists.

If you want to eat an omelet, you must break the eggs. If you want the power for armed resistance, you will face our legal system.

Cremon
March 4, 2010, 10:55 AM
I encourage everyone to check out the articles in the below link. Some of the views being expressed here are a bit naive.

These stories are actual accounts of where a firearm was used in self defense. There are over 4,000 of these articles and it happens almost every day. Whether or not the guns NEEDED to be used is a matter for debate but very few of these people were prosecuted.

This link is for all the armchair quarterbacks who have never been in a situation where their front door was kicked in, yet still like to sit back and lecture the rest of us on how we should think and act in these situations...

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

The Tourist
March 4, 2010, 11:11 AM
Cremon, the flaw here is defining 'shooters' as "very few." If something befalls you, the problem is 100%.

And that's my problem. I don't think any fudd here has an issue with what you've said. We've been members of gun clubs and gunshop patrons for decades. We were raised on articles by Ayoob and debates such as this. In my case, we actually know people who were killed.

You remember 'Dirty Harry,' don't you? SW couldn't keep 29s on the shelf. Do you remember a movie called "Wild Hogs"? It's so bad that a slang term called "born again bikers" is floating around.

If we glorify the ideals of "shoot 'em all" enough times we're not going to get a minor statistical blip on shootings. We're going to create a premise where folks pull the trigger in questionable circumstances because "only a few get prosecuted."

Hey, being a mentor is part of the responsibility of earning gray hair. I feel this is right, and I changed my sig line.

spacecoast
March 4, 2010, 11:11 AM
No way I'm going to hole up and yell that we're armed and for him to leave. I have a daughter at the other end of the house, so my wife gets the BUG and I go out to try and eradicate the vermin who has invaded our space. He has maybe one verbal warning/chance to live, and will survive only if he does exactly as ordered. I would hate to kill anyone but will do it if necessary.

Intruder rule #1 is just like gun safety rule #1 - they are ARMED until proven otherwise.

Tourist, you are living a fantasy if you think ADT provides any real protection or help in a situation. If they're even aware (and many alarms won't sound unless the window frame is moved), they're only going to call the cops to help clean up the mess, whether or not that mess is me or the BG is between him and me.

The Tourist
March 4, 2010, 11:12 AM
I'm not living in a fantasy. I buried a friend.

spacecoast
March 4, 2010, 11:14 AM
Therefore your opinion is highly subjective/emotional, my condolences.

Cremon
March 4, 2010, 11:17 AM
Therefore your opinion is highly subjective/emotional, my condolences. Agreed.

The Tourist, I respectfully must completely disagree with you. And wholeheartedly so.

If someone breaks into my home, I'll shoot them and risk going to jail. When weighing the slim risk of dying against the slim risk of going to jail (all things being equal) I am with pax - jail wins for me every time for me - sorry. I don't think having had to say good bye to a good friend changes things in this kind of debate. I have lost plenty of friends in my life and I still think the way I do for defensive situations in my home.

It's not just me I am thinking about - its my family. I have a wife and 3 children in my house. I will not negotiate with an intruder in my home.

And if I HAVE to go to jail so that my wife or one of my kids won't run the risk of being killed, I'll do it tonight.

45Gunner
March 4, 2010, 11:22 AM
Another consideration, especially where people are concerned about the legal ramifications, i.e. legal fees, and consumption of time involved in defending your decision: I am most fortunate to reside in a State (Florida) that has a Castle Doctrine. If someone is in my house, I do not have to find an escape route and give him free rein to completely pillage and destroy, steal, or otherwise turn my world upside down.

For the younger crowd, you have grown up with what goes on today. For us more senior people, there was a time when one could leave the front door open and unlocked and not have to worry about someone coming to rip you off. Cars could be left parked with the windows open. Kids could play in the streets even after the sun went down. Somewhere along the way the world changed. It became a nasty place where you can trust next to no one. Certain factions are drug-crazed maniacs that want what you have and they want it now, and will do anything to get it. I, myself, have been a victim of a home invasion robbery which caused me to be shot and left for dead. I survived and vowed never to let that happen again. My view may be tainted but if someone is in my house, the sign I have posted by the door will apply:
"If you are found here at night, you will be found here in the morning."

Now, ask me if I give a damn about the legal ramifications? Consider how much time I spent in the hospital recovering from multiple gunshot wounds, how much time I spent looking at mug shots, talking with detectives, going over the same thing time and time again, how much time I lost from work, and most importantly; how much time I lost from living. I won't even mention the change in my persona and psychological trauma that was caused. To think that I survived a year in Vietnam only to get shot in my own house was, at one time, unthinkable.

Put yourself in my shoes, knowing what I know, and ask yourself; If I find someone in my house at night, what am I going to do? If you don't answer, I will shoot him upon finding him, then you really need to sell your guns, build yourself a safe room, and hope the police will arrive before you're killed.

Cremon
March 4, 2010, 11:28 AM
In Tourist's defense, he lives in Wisconsin, which not only does not have the Castle Doctrine, but does not issue CCW permits (only one of two states that don't - the other is Illinois). So I do understand where you are coming from, Sir. I just don't feel it applies to ME since I live in a Castle Doctrine state.

I can't say what I would do if I lived in Wisconsin unless I actually lived there.

The Tourist
March 4, 2010, 11:33 AM
Hey, guys, I'm not criticizing the debate, I think a look at the issues on any topic is a good thing. The problem is with these scenarios.

Have you heard the concept of "turn -about"?

I just mentioned one death. To that end, I am now "too emotional." How would you like it if the reverse happened?

Here's a scenario. I think this is a good, well run forum. So I invite all of my friends. Gray beards. Fudds. Guys who've actually been in fights. Guys who've heard it all.

So from that moment, every time some guy opines to "kill them all," twenty guys jump on him as a poser, a newb, or a guy who watches too much TV.

And that's the problem with these scenarios. Not all of the homeowners get a free ride. Many of them will be hurt or killed. A large number of them will go through the sausage machine we call "the legal system." And more than a few of them will suffer from PTSD no matter how much they boast now.

I don't consider myself too emotional, I consider you unschooled.

Edit: Cremon, the State of Wisconsin does recognize self defense , but thanks for your support.

Glenn E. Meyer
March 4, 2010, 11:48 AM
Let's cool this down.

Closed