|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 12, 2012, 10:22 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
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 Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
April 12, 2012, 11:38 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 23, 2008
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 2,126
|
Not a very good idea of firing through a door.
|
April 12, 2012, 11:45 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
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.
|
April 12, 2012, 11:51 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 23, 2008
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 2,126
|
I'm well aware of what french doors are. Still not a good idea to shoot through them.
|
April 12, 2012, 11:56 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
Quote:
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
|
April 12, 2012, 12:49 PM | #6 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,617
|
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. |
April 12, 2012, 12:50 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,461
|
Quote:
|
|
April 12, 2012, 01:08 PM | #8 |
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.) |
April 12, 2012, 03:06 PM | #9 |
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.
|
April 12, 2012, 03:20 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 2,016
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member USN Retired |
|
April 12, 2012, 04:01 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
Quote:
|
|
April 13, 2012, 11:51 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2008
Location: Fort Wayne Ind.
Posts: 866
|
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.
|
April 13, 2012, 06:14 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
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
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
April 13, 2012, 06:31 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
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. |
April 13, 2012, 06:33 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Quote:
|
|
April 13, 2012, 06:33 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 10, 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 444
|
That prowler was darn lucky the homeowner was using a M1 carbine and not a M1 Garand.
|
April 13, 2012, 07:39 PM | #17 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,910
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
April 13, 2012, 08:13 PM | #18 |
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 |
April 13, 2012, 08:16 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
|
Quote:
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. |
|
April 13, 2012, 09:02 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
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.
|
April 13, 2012, 11:49 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
|
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. |
April 13, 2012, 11:52 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
|
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. |
April 14, 2012, 12:16 AM | #23 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"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 |
|
April 14, 2012, 07:34 AM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
|
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. |
April 14, 2012, 07:55 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2004
Location: Birmingham AL
Posts: 632
|
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!! |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|