What is right, and wrong, with the "You picked the wrong girl" Glock commercial

[Trebor]

I've had several friends post links to a Glock commercial where a young woman defends herself from a home attacker. They all post some variation, of "You go Girl!" or "What a great ad."

The thing is, if you actually watch the commercial with a critical eye, it's almost an ad for what NOT to do when faced with a possible home invasion.

Yes, it's just an ad, but a critique can be a learning experience. Here's the article I wrote with some possible lessons learned.

The "Home invasion" Glock commercial - What could the young woman do better?

"There’s an ad for GLOCK pistols circulating around the Web that portrays an attractive young women, home alone, who is unexpectedly confronted by a home invader.

The commercial runs a little over two minutes. I’ve embedded it in the video sidebar. Take a look and than come back here. While it’s a fictional situation used to sell a product, critiquing the video does offer some lessons."

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ok - what do you think is wrong?

Don't be coy with us?

I know - she should have got a shotgun and blasted through the door!

[BarryLee]

I’ll play:

Get a good quality door and lock set.

Call the Police after the second knock.

Stand further back from the door.

Determine why an out of work actor is working for your local EMS.

[Nanuk]

I think you take life to serious. The add is meant as a semi-comedic portrayal. Look at the other Glock adds with the Gunny.

[southjk]

Yeah, it's not meant to be taken as a step by step how to. I like the "gunny" series of ads.

Did anyone notice that she was watching the "wrong diner" Glock ad on TV?

[skoro]

... was having Gunny Ermy show up to haul off the wimpy "assailant."

[Brian Pfleuger]

I realize the commercial is meant to be humorous but that doesn't mean we can't use it for tactical discussion.

After the second knock, she should have gone to the bedroom, locked the door, retrieved her gun and called 911.

She did a good job of realizing that the threat ended as soon as the BG saw the gun and not shooting him.

Her awareness when she came home was rather poor. I mean, stereotypical panel van, bright white, parked right there, with a stereotypical burglar sitting there staring at her and she was oblivious.

[mehavey]

While not denigrating the go-to-bedroom/lock-the-door counsel, it does in the face of my own view of right & wrong, ...and the law as I understand it.**

This would be my HOME I'm defending, not just some spuriousm piece of real- estate. It is an extension of "self."
And if I'm not mistaken, one does pick up the right to use deadly force in defense of the home
(**someone correct me) if that home is threatened. It is the one time that "property" is viewed in that light.
(**Again, correct me if I'm wrong).

If/when competently able to defend yourself, by hiding in the furthest reaches of your dwelling you are effectively
ceding the initiative to the attacker... to do anything he wants to your home and everything in it.

That's not to say that 911/Request police isn't your immediate second action, but it shouldn't take the place of active defense if/when able.

YMMV of course, depending on local politics. But being an easy mark when my back is against that last wall isn't one of mine.






BTW: The girl's actions in the Ad still weren't the brightest. But what the heck...

[g.willikers]

I'd like to play.

1. Should have paid more attention to what's going on around the neighborhood, while walking to the house.

2. Should have looked through the adjacent window to see who was out there, instead of relying on the peep lens.

3. Should of retreated to the bedroom, closed and locked the door, and gotten the gun.
And stayed there.

4. If she was feeling macho and insisted on staying in the living room after getting her gun, she should have been a lot further away from the door and using cover, with as much furniture between her and the door as possible.

[pax]

This would be my HOME I'm defending, not just some spuriousm piece of real- estate. It is an extension of "self."
And if I'm not mistaken, one does pick up the right to use deadly force in defense of the home
(**someone correct me) if that home is threatened. It is the one time that "property" is viewed in that light.
(**Again, correct me if I'm wrong).

As requested: you're wrong.

Your home is not an extension of yourself. It is a piece of property. You do have the right to defend your life, regardless of where you are – inside the home or outside the home, you have the right to protect your life. You do not necessarily have the right to use deadly force to protect property, but you do have a right to use deadly force to protect human life.

Inside the home or outside the home, the right to protect your life carries with it the duty to correctly (within the limits of reasonableness) assess the situation before you act. For the most part, written laws and case law are there to provide guidelines for judges and juries to understand your actions when they look back at what you did. The (idealistic) goal for most of these laws is to help the authorities figure out whether you were protecting an innocent life when you acted, or were instead needlessly slaughtering the other person when you had some other way you could have solved your criminal problem.

This attempt to parse the necessity of killing the attacker is the origin of the "duty to retreat" laws, which have been widely – and correctly – criticized for forcing good citizens to die or be seriously injured rather than allowing innocent victims to defend themselves from deadly attacks.

Some states, either in repealing bad duty to retreat laws, or in clarifying muddy case law, have chosen to enact "Castle doctrine" laws, which are laws that specifically codify your right to act in self-defense within the home. But even such laws do not actively permit you to protect your property using deadly force; they simply allow you to make certain legal and practical assumptions about the motives and ability of anyone who breaks into your occupied home, and to protect your own life and the lives of your family members based on those assumptions.

Short version is, you do not (invariably) have a legal duty to retreat within your home, as long as you live within a "Castle doctrine" state. Mostly. With some exceptions. And you better read the fine print. Even in Texas, you still need to read the fine print.

On a practical level? It is not lawful, nor is it smart, to shoot through the door before the attacker actually enters the home. But it's damn stupid to stand there in the open and wait for the door to come flying open, even if you are armed. Guns, you see, do not stop incoming fire...

It is far smarter and far safer to grab your defensive firearm and set up a tactical ambush. You want to find someplace safe and easy to protect inside the home, preferably behind a locked door, where you can see the intruder as he enters, but not easily be seen by him. From there, you can perform the indicated response without endangering the single most important thing inside your home: your own life.

If your family members are there with you, get your family members behind you when you set up your tactical ambush. Get them out of sight and out of the line of fire, but within your sphere of control. Protect those precious lives.

People get so hung up on protecting stuff. They forget that the most valuable thing inside their home is a human life. Protect that most important thing, first and always. When you have your priorities in line, everything else falls into place, both legally and practically.

pax

Edited to add: State laws vary widely on what happens inside the home. This is one case where the devil really is in the details, and it is absolutely worth your while to look up your own state laws for yourself. Even if you have a very strong written law, be aware that your strong written law may have been gutted by case law. Start at www.handgunlaw.us, but don't stop there.

[veamon]

I was waiting for the Hollywood slide-rack...

[mehavey]

safer to grab your defensive firearm and set up a tactical ...

OK, I can live with that.

However.... (and I can think of a lot of "howevers" -- usually having Molotov cocktails in the sentence somewhere) where those what-was-going-to-happen details can be very troubling indeed.

[STEINER]

I like the ..."Go away, I have a gun and I called the police". In a loud voice with 911 on the phone. That works for me.
The only problem with that is that if the perp is a stalker, he will leave, figure out another way to get to her at a later date.
It would be nice to have some closure.

[ClydeFrog]

If you want to see a real event of a home invasion where a home owner/victim(a middle age woman), see on Youtube the clip of NJ attack where the thug storms in & starts to viciously beat the unarmed victim.

That woman needed a Glock!

As for the Glock ad. It was okay. I've seen worse. The production values were decent. As for tactics Id say the young woman(or any gun owner/license holder), should have been more alert after the first knock.
That was what some call the "moment of clarity" or the "ah-hah" moment as Oprah calls it.
The woman should have armed herself after the first knock/incident. She should also have had a cell phone/cordless phone on her. If the thug or bad guy busted in, the 911 operator could be on the recorded line & hear what goes on/dispatch units to the location.
The woman also didn't say anything or at least try to deter the house-breaker.
Some tactics instructors like Massad Ayoob or other training courses/LE academies call it a "command voice". It's not going to stop all thugs or prevent every event, but it does demonstrate your motives/actions later in a LE investigation or prosecution. If she said; HEY GET OUT OF HERE, or DONT COME IN HERE! it would show she made a effort to resolve the event without lethal force.
The woman also stands directly in front of the doorway.
This is what cops & spec ops call the "vertical coffin". When the crook stood off to the side, she too should have been out of the doorway's path. The thug could still hear here if she yelled go away or if she was on the line with the PD.

As some tactics instructors & armed professionals have stated in other topics; guns do not make you bullet-proof or a superhero.
You still need proper methods & tactics.

There are other little ticky-tacky things like no dogs or security DV/CCTV systems(which are practical & can be used now with a smartphone or tablet).
She could have had a white light & blinded him or used a green laser aimer too but that's not critical.

Clyde
PS: the actor who played the home owner was a hottie too

[FireForged]

What right with it? It invokes emotion, its speaks to females to do not yet have a firearm, its paints glock as a good choice for women, it make glock seem magical and it has a everything ends well for the good guy as a closing.

Whats wrong? Nothing, it covers the aspects needed in a commercial. Its not a tactical training film.

[Nanuk]

OK, since mods felt obliged to delete my post I'll play.

Tactically: Everything is wrong with it. The gun is locked up in another room and if he had just forced entry she would have been done. She goes to the door twice to look, when she does get the gun she stands in the open close to the door in a stand a and deliver stance.

Safety: The gun was secured in a hidden safe in another room. She kept her finger off the trigger.

Marketing: Great job, attractive female scantily clad, glam shot of the GLOCK. The Gunny. Made with a hint of humor.

[TimSr]

I don't think the ad was meant to be instructional or sell guns. I think they were produced mostly as political ads to show that guns are not just for criminals.

I believe the robber in that ad was unarmed, which also shows that even if criminals could be unarmed, lots of people would still be vulnerable.

Ads were well done at giving guns a friendly heroic image, protecting the defenseless from evil, while making you chuckle and feeling warm and fuzzy. I love it!

[FireForged]

its a commercial ...and you don't think marketing a product has anything to do with it??

[40-82]

Living in readiness to defend yourself requires significant commitment and for most people a reordering of their view of the world. Such preparation forces people to think about a side of human nature that most would prefer to pretend didn't exist. An expectation of such a change in lifestyle won't sell very many Glocks. The hope that a Glock locked away in a safe in a backroom and forgotten until a need exists requires less, offers an attractive bit of reassurance, and who knows just might work.

We all know of cases where people with no training and unrealistic expectations managed to retrieve a gun and save themselves. I enjoyed the ad for what it was. If someone is naïve enough to think of it as a training film, nothing I might suggest is likely to make much of an impression.

[CTS]

By the time the guy was busting through the door she still didn't have her finger on the trigger. Not prepared to shoot. Don't pull a gun if your not prepared to use it. Could get you killed with your own gun.

[BigD_in_FL]

Get a good quality door and lock set.

Call the Police after the second knock.

Stand further back from the door.

Determine why an out of work actor is working for your local EMS.

Exactly........where was her cell phone calling 911/boyfriend/neighbor/etc.?
Where was the deadbolt? Those bathroom door locks can be opened with a mere shoulder shove. And on and on...........

[Double Naught Spy]

What did she do wrong? Mind set. Even though fearing something might be about to happen and even going as far as getting a gun, she went back each time and sat down on the couch and wanted to believe that her home wasn't going to be invaded, the proverbial "It won't happen to me" syndrome.

I think the home invader picked the right girl. He just was stupid in his timing. Telegraphing scary behavior preceding a break-in with plenty of time between sending to give the occupant inside time to prep (even though she didn't use it initially) is not so likely in the real world.

And yeah, it was most definitely an ad to sell Glocks.

[Dragline45]

Shes cute, whatever shes selling, ill take 5. I'm a sucker for redheads

In all seriousness, I guess she should have called 911 after she retrieved her gun. Besides that I didn't see much in the video that led me to believe she was doing the wrong thing.

[mehavey]

I think [normal] people are [naturally] reticent to call "911" for anything short of a confirmed threat.
It's a combination of self-doubt, feeling silly, 'it's-probably-nothing', and dislike of flying above the
radar/being put on record if it is nothing....

Then there's also the I-can-take-care-of-it-myself factor....
Which is where we came into this conversation.

[kgpcr]

Cmon guys its a Glock commercial not a tactical training film.