Investigating a noise:

[Sigma 40 Blaster]

I gotta go with the majority. If you hear something outside, try to see what it is FROM SAFETY. I am assuming you and yours are in the house safe or FAR away (meaning your daughter or wife isn't on their way home from somewhere when you hear these mysterious noises outside).

If you don't see anything stay alert, if you do see something call the police, make sure anyone in the house is safe and STAYS put. You put yourself in a safe defensive position and get ready to stand your ground if need be.

[BillCA]

I'm going to say that the one size fits all solutions don't always work for everyone. There are situations, locations and circumstances that don't fit neatly with the "call the cops" advice nor the "stop 'em at gunpoint" mentality. I'll give a couple of examples.

I live in a townhome complex. Since my truck is too tall to fit in the garage, it's parked on the street at night. But my townhome sits back off the street, down a walkway about 50 ft. There have been a rash of thefts recently of catalytic converters from vehicles (fortunately not here yet). Last week when I was still up at 3:30am I heard odd noises like a power tool. By the time I opened the front door the noises had stopped. Almost gave up until I heard a tool clank, then I investigated further. Walked out to the street cautiously (checked my truck first) then spotted an open hood on a truck about 60ft away. Easily ID'd my neighbor replacing the battery in his truck so he could go to work.

A friend has a modest (4200 sq ft) house in Missouri on 200+ acres. The house has, essentially 3 stories, a veranda round half the house and a detached garage/workshop. At night, a perimeter alarm system protects the house and garage. If the garage alarm is tripped it beeps inside the house and after 2 minutes rings a loud bell by the garage. If the house perimeter is breached, the alarm sounds like a collision between a submarine and a cruiser with horns and klaxons. Most late night noises can be attributed to deer or loose dogs roaming at night. One night he heard rapid footsteps outside the house. He dismissed it as being deer. A few minutes later an IR beam alarm beeped in his bedroom indicating movement on the veranda deck. Visual inspection from inside showed nothing. A moment later he heard footsteps outside but saw flashlight beams at the corner of the house. Since deer never use flashlights, he hit the "all exterior lights" code and watched a pair of teens set a 50-yard-dash record for the nearest treeline.

The police? In his location, a sharp turn about 1/4 mile away has a serious accident every four or five months. Average response time - Code 3 - is 17 minutes. The response time to his wife's call of "prowlers" around their house had the deputies arriving 49 minutes after the call was made.

[Frank Ettin]

Bill,

[1] In your case, you ventured out and there was no BG, so all was well. What if there was a BG who heard you coming and was able to attack you from ambush? Would you have been able to effectively defend yourself?

[2] In your friend's case, he had previously rigged his property to minimize any need to go out looking, and in fact didn't go out looking

I generally agree with the "one size doesn't fit all" approach. But in these sorts of situations, no matter what you may do, you must run smack into a Major Truth: if you go looking and there is in fact a BG, he has a tremendous tactical advantage and the likelihood of your getting hammered is substantial -- you will most likely lose.

[BillCA]

Fiddletown:

In response to your reply;
[1] No BG, but that "unusual noise" was present. Rather than calling our local PD, spending 2 minutes on the phone describing the situation (before they dispatch), the 45 second delay (at least) before dispatching and their average 9 minute response (dispatch to arrival) I decided to look first. Had it been a BG, (a)it's doubtful they would have heard me coming, (b) I did approach the area cautiously and (c) my 3" .45 wheelgun would have evened the odds considerably. I thought I had a BG when seeing the hood open, but my neighbor's build is easily ID'd even at night.

[2] While he didn't go outside on this incident, he has had to do so on others. Missouri has a terrible meth problem and lots of property theft from yards. If it ain't nailed down, they'll find a way to take it. When his garage alarm beeped one night, circled wide around the garage with his Glock. He found a young couple trying to load an old Pontiac engine block someone else had dumped on his land. He would have interrupted them, but they were saving him the effort of recycling it. Once they got it into the truck, he let 'em leave and reported it. Kids picked up the next day at the recycler nearby.

For the most part, I agree that one should call the PD once it has been established that there is a strange noise outside. This works mostly for suburban and urban areas. But where you can't see common areas (as in my case) I think it's prudent to at least try to look/listen before calling the PD. In rural areas with long response times, reliance on the PD to provide any real assistance or deterrence isn't prudent.

[OldMarksman]

From BillCA:

A friend has a modest (4200 sq ft) house in Missouri on 200+ acres.....The response time to his wife's call of "prowlers" around their house had the deputies arriving 49 minutes after the call was made.....

I live in a suburb, but I've often wondered what I would do differently if if I lived on a farm miles from the nearest municipality.

When I was young I used to visit relatives on farms, but there were no meth producers around and I don't remember any difficulties. One uncle kept a Model 1911 under his pillow, and I don't remember whether the other one had anything at hand. Looking back, I'm really amazed that I didn't see a shotgun.

There remains the question of what to do. I do think there may well be a case to be made for a different approach when you are out in the country and really on your own due to the long police response time.

Having said that, I still believe that in town, the only wise thing to do is to follow Keltyke's advice posted at 11:46 AM.

[pax]

It occurs to me that one reason this type of thread gets so heated is because people really want very simple answers to incredibly complex questions.

It's really tempting to haul out the "never" and "always" hammers, or stoop to impugning others' motives, because that's a lot easier than really listening to someone else's points, or than carefully enumerating your own reasons for preferring the solution you prefer.

And when it comes to scenario-type questions, most of us tend to visualize our own houses and our own neighborhoods, forgetting that other people's circumstances -- and thus the scenario they're picturing -- may be very different from our own.

Just musing, appropos of nothing much.

pax

[KUHIO]

A noise outside your home, and a noise inside are two very different scenarios. Generally I would verify, if possible, the intrusion. If it is occuring outside of your domain, let 911 handle it, don't go looking for a gunfight.

[computerguysd]

I've got a pretty good view of my property from my bedroom window. My property is insured.

LEGALLY, if I start wandering around to figure out what has my dogs, or my driveway alarm go off, while the law says I can protect property, I would still face 12 people that don't know how to get our of jury duty, if I go "looking for trouble".

911 in my area can be over an hour away, or more. That said, I've got a good defensive area in my house/bedroom.

If a BG, or BGs. are IN MY HOUSE, I have the right to shoot to kill. Old solid walls, great tactical location if BGs approach my "safe zone".

Hopefully, 911 responds, if they don't, they've been alerted and I have a planned defense of the home.

[scriverdog]

this thread has given me a lot to think about.

I don't have any expertise to add but I'm posting because I'm really bugged. I will admit up front that my reaction to the dialogue is emotional. I have my flame suit on so fire away and tell me where I'm wrong.

I chose to own firearms to avoid having my family victimized. we each may define that in different ways. admittedly, if everyone survives a break-in, that is the best that can be hoped for.

however, allowing an individual or individuals to break into my home while I hide in my bedroom feels too much like being victimized to me. there is no way police will arrive to catch the BG. so while I'm hiding in my bedroom waiting for Mr. Bad Guy to take what he wants, he will be free to victimize another family tomorrow night. NO, I don't have anything worth dying for. but once someone breaks into my home, a conflict I didn't ask for has begun, like it or not.

the bad guys reading this forum now understand that the prevailing wisdom from those with the experience here is to avoid the confrontation. if they can break in knowing they are unlikely to be confronted in an occupied home, we may as well leave the doors unlocked because it'll be open season on home owners.

my point is, I don't need firearms to hide in my bedroom with my wife. it seems to me that what keeps us safe is the bad guy not knowing what he is walking into. yes, I understand that the crack head, actually anyone willing to enter an occupied home isn't thinking rationally.

I want to make it clear that I am a novice and certainly no hero. I'm not looking for a gun fight and I'm not itching to shoot anyone. but once an individual enters my home uninvited, prevailing wisdom aside,I will have no heistation drawing down and firing on the individual(s). Right or wrong, the way I see it, if I don't, tomorrow night it could be your home. And I'll have to live with wondering if I could have done something that might have prevented that.

I have Mr. Ayoob's books on my nightstand right next to my pistol and shotgun. I have more work to do to fortify my home, to train and to plan for the day I hope doesn't come. I will do more to educate myself and to prepare. But it seems to me that when we lose the will to stand up to crime, the BGs win and the liberals may as well come take my guns.

[Double Naught Spy]

In response to your reply;
[1] No BG, but that "unusual noise" was present. Rather than calling our local PD, spending 2 minutes on the phone describing the situation (before they dispatch), the 45 second delay (at least) before dispatching and their average 9 minute response (dispatch to arrival) I decided to look first. Had it been a BG, (a)it's doubtful they would have heard me coming, (b) I did approach the area cautiously and (c) my 3" .45 wheelgun would have evened the odds considerably. I thought I had a BG when seeing the hood open, but my neighbor's build is easily ID'd even at night.

Wow, you can get 911 there in about 12 minutes for a non-priority call? Y'all are doing quite well. Many major PDs are thrilled to be under 8-10 minutes for a call where somebody is being beaten with a hammer whilst on the phone with 911.

I don't know now many police departments routinely spend much time on "unusual noise" calls. That is so low down for a busy PD that if an officer showed up within an hour that would be good...if they ever showed up at all (not dispatched).

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Given the one size fits all problem, I have an idea.

If you think that you might need to go outside and search - get some friends with airsoft guns. Have one of two of them be outside noise makers and wait for you outside when you go to search. Their job is to either be obvious outside or hide (as if they heard you come out).

You need to find them, engage, retreat or whatever seems reasonable.

Same for them - flee from you, engage you - whatever.

That might give you something to think about when you say you will do XYZ.

[OldMarksman]

Form Glenn E. Meyer:

If you think that you might need to go outside and search - get some friends with airsoft guns. Have one of two of them be outside noise makers and wait for you outside when you go to search. Their job is to either be obvious outside or hide (as if they heard you come out).

And become aware of the law in you area!

Leaving the dwelling or car means that you are not operating under castle laws ("occupied dwelling or automobile").

In many locations, one cannot walk around outside unless the gun is concealed. That's true where I live in a densely populated area in Missouri.

And if there's an outdoor confrontation, in many areas (including mine) your first obligation is to avoid engagement. So why go outside in the first place? (I know, in Texas after 30 minutes after sun-down...).

None of this is intended to take away from Glenn's suggestion, which would no doubt prove quite illuminating.

[Frank Ettin]

Glenn, that's an excellent idea and should work inside the house too for anyone who wants to get an idea of what house clearing can be like. And if someone doesn't want to go to such lengths, just think about how many times you've gone looking for your spouse or a kid and had him (or her) blindside you from a direction you never expected?

It is a simple fact of life, and there's no getting around it, no matter how well armed you may be, if you go looking, whoever you may be looking for has a substantial tactical advantage. The only way to even the odds is with force of numbers, and that is why when properly done house clearing is a team activity.

[David Armstrong]

Had it been a BG, (a)it's doubtful they would have heard me coming, (b) I did approach the area cautiously and (c) my 3" .45 wheelgun would have evened the odds considerably.

But what if they did hear you coming, and they also had a 3" .45 wheelgun?

[2] While he didn't go outside on this incident, he has had to do so on others.

Has he had to do so, or has he chosen to do so? Basic questionn I always ask. "Is it worth getting killed over?" As long as they are outside, there is rarely any real need to go out and track them down. Usually they will run away with light and noise. If light and noise doesn't run them off, do you really want to go out and find out why these folks are bold enough not to be bothered by the lights and noise?

[Double Naught Spy]

Has he had to do so, or has he chosen to do so? Basic questionn I always ask. "Is it worth getting killed over?"

David, do you drive? Is it really worth getting killed over? Come on.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

however, allowing an individual or individuals to break into my home while I hide in my bedroom feels too much like being victimized to me. there is no way police will arrive to catch the BG. so while I'm hiding in my bedroom waiting for Mr. Bad Guy to take what he wants, he will be free to victimize another family tomorrow night.

1. Why do you care about feelings over your physical safety? Think about it.

2. If one takes up to date modern FOF training, the person hiding in the bedroom is not cowering or passive. They usually:

a. Take a defensive position so as to win the fight in need be.
b. Call the law and loudly inform the BGs that you have called the law and are armed
c. Discuss outcomes in the cold light or reason. Usally after you've been shot with sims, paintball or airsoft. If you get killed in the incident, will the rest of society gather to feed and clothe your family? How many here have sent money to the guy with no arm in praise of his actions? Cold blooded rationality has something to be said for it.

3. As I've said many times - you have to be able to distinguish between the emotional and cognitive evaluations of your action's consequences.

It is pretty established that exploring the house and engaging increases your risk - is it worth it? If the emotional and/or ideological is your prime motivation as compared to personal and family physical safety, engage in behaviors that maximize the emotional or ideological outcome.

[OldMarksman]

From BillCA:

No BG, but that "unusual noise" was present. Rather than calling our local PD, spending 2 minutes on the phone describing the situation (before they dispatch), the 45 second delay (at least) before dispatching and their average 9 minute response (dispatch to arrival) I decided to look first. Had it been a BG, (a)it's doubtful they would have heard me coming, (b) I did approach the area cautiously and (c) my 3" .45 wheelgun would have evened the odds considerably. I thought I had a BG when seeing the hood open, but my neighbor's build is easily ID'd even at night.

Bill, I presume you know what you are doing where you live, but people should know that your action would have been illegal in many places. In Missouri, merely producing a gun outside, if you are not in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, would be a crime.
In addition, a CCW holder cannot detain a criminal.

So: there's more risk to me in going outside than in staying in.

From Double Nought Spy:

David, do you drive? Is it really worth getting killed over? Come on.

Surely you jest! Would anyone seriously equate the risk of driving with the risk inherent in walking into a gunfight or ambush?

[David Armstrong]

David, do you drive?

Yes. If there is a reasonable alternative to me driving to work I'm open to it. I'm not aware of an alternative. There is a reasonable alternative to going outside.

Is it really worth getting killed over?

No. That is why I do everything I think reasonable to reduce the chance of me getting killed. I drive a large vehicle with top safety ratings. I keep it well maintained. I attend driver safety programs on a regular basis, and have attended driving schools. There is always a trade-off. Taking a chance on getting killed in a traffic accident is the price I pay to get my paycheck. I feel that is a worthwhile investment. Intentionally putting myself in danger and at a disadvantage for easily replacable and probably insured property doesn't strike me as a good investment. That's the difference, IMO.

[Frank Ettin]

Those of you who feel that, for whatever reason, you will need to go looking, why not get some training?

I know that in the basic class at Gunsite (250) you get several trips through the "fun house" and an outdoor simulator. I believe that some other major schools, like Thunder Ranch, also include some instruction in a "shoot house" in even their basic classes. And then take some advance courses, preferably including some force-on-force instruction.

That kind of training will be expensive and time consuming. But it will at least give you some small idea of what you'd be up against if you chose to go looking for a possible bad guy in your home or on your property. It will also introduce you to various techniques for doing something that is unavoidably difficult and dangerous. (And just as a guess, I'd kind of suspect that after taking that sort of training, some of you won't be quite so anxious to go investigating things that go bump in the night.)

Originally Posted by scriverdog

...I have Mr. Ayoob's books on my nightstand right next to my pistol and shotgun....

I met Massad Ayoob about three weeks ago and took his LFI-1 class. You might be interested in the fact that he strongly recommended not going looking for a possible bad guy and spent a good deal of time discussing why it was a bad idea to do so. (see post #25, above)

Originally Posted by scriverdog

...it seems to me that when we lose the will to stand up to crime, the BGs win...

But it also doesn't do anyone any good to stand up to crime and lose. Let's not forget the story that started this thread. A Good Guy with a gun and a friend goes looking for a Bad Guy; the Good Guy loses an arm, and the Bad Guy gets away. This is a sad result for the Good Guy and his family, and it is not a good example of effective crime fighting. The Good Guy stood up to crime, and the Bad Guy won.

The point is to stand up to crime in ways that will give you, the Good Guy, victory. If you find yourself in a fair fight, you don't understand tactics.

[buzz_knox]

Those of you who feel that, for whatever reason, you will need to go looking, why not get some training?

The key question in this is: is there any who had not looked at one time or another? If you hear a noise, the tendency is to go find out what it is. Most everyone knows that the likelihood is that it's something innocent (or not so innocent, depending on whether you have children/pets) so you want to find out what happened. If you hear a crash in the night and call 911, only to have the cops tell you that the opening you didn't think was big enough for a dog/cat/raccoon was in fact sufficiently large for said animal, you will quickly become 1) THAT person and 2) find yourself at the bottom of the priority list. No one wants to be THAT person, so we tend go looking and trust that the noise we hear isn't consistent with human activity.

This gets back to what pax was saying. There is no "one size fits all solution" to this scenario, and even if there was, no one would use it. If people would rely on both reason and instinct (human activity tends to sound like human activity, even if someone is being covert), they wouldn't need the solution.

[Hondo11]

In some of the other "what should I do?" threads, statistics, percentages, odds, and studies were tossed out there to advocate one course of action over another.

Example (paraphrased): 83% of the time, complying with an armed robber results in no injury. Therefore, you should comply. The odds/percentages say you should.

Where is that same reasoning in this thread? The vast majority of "noises" turn out to be nothing at all, so where is the argument that you should just go check it out? Afterall, the odds/percentages say that you're probably going to find nothing.

Or do the statistics only work the other way around?

[David Armstrong]

The key question in this is: is there any who had not looked at one time or another? If you hear a noise, the tendency is to go find out what it is. Most everyone knows that the likelihood is that it's something innocent (or not so innocent, depending on whether you have children/pets) so you want to find out what happened.

Sure, and I don't think anyone is saying never go check on a noise. I check on noises all the time. But if I hear a noise and think I need to grab a gun before checking on the noise, I'm going to get some help first.

[David Armstrong]

Or do the statistics only work the other way around?

No, the stats work much the same way, with a little difference. If you are in a robbery you already know what the situation is, and thus can make an accurate assessment about what might happen. With "unknown noise" you have no idea. A comparison might be "unknown crime" info. Hard to figure out what to do if you don't know if it is a burglary, a robbery, rape, murder, etc. Obviously a burglary or a robbery gives a better chance of compliance being the right choice than a rape or murder.
Again, that is why there are noises and then there are NOISES! If the noise is such that you think you better grab a gun, odds are you're in a problem. If lights and noise from you don't make the BG go away, odds are you are in a problem. How do you minimize your loss of resources?

[OldMarksman]

From Fiddletown:

Those of you who feel that, for whatever reason, you will need to go looking, why not get some training?....That kind of training will be expensive and time consuming. But it will at least give you some small idea of what you'd be up against if you chose to go looking for a possible bad guy in your home or on your property. It will also introduce you to various techniques for doing something that is unavoidably difficult and dangerous. (And just as a guess, I'd kind of suspect that after taking that sort of training, some of you won't be quite so anxious to go investigating things that go bump in the night.)

(Emphasis mine)

Good advice, and while I haven't done it yet, I trust your judgment regarding your guess. It is consistent with what others who have taken training have said on this thread and on the one about "clearing a house".

I, for one, cannot comprehend why people with neither training nor experience would choose to disregard the advice of experts.

[Hondo11]

Say you hear a noise and you go outside to check it out. You find someone prowling around your house. I wonder what the percentages say about how many times they run away and how many times they attack you and cause you injury. I would be willing to bet that at least 75% of the time the confrontation results with the suspect fleeing.

I ask again, where is the same reasoning of "you should listen to the stats" that was the argument in the other threads?

***Of course, the 75% stated above is not based on a scientific study...but that's not the point. It's close enough (or maybe even a little low).***