Home Defense by Nick

[Richard]

Flyersfan 31, I mean not to put words into your mouth. If you feel that is the case then my apologies are due to you.

The basis of what I say is that what you say sounds awfully similar to what those who DO seek to ban my 2nd amendment rights are saying. (If you understand that sentence, nod yes.)

Basically, I've had it up to here with those who pretend to understand the need for home defense (perceived or real) and attempt to put down my rights. BTW: I don't need to 'prove' to others I want or need to carry. If thats not you, welcome to the team.

No one is required to carry. Although that would not be a bad idea.

Be advised: don't stand twixt me and the bad guy.

 

[Richard]

BTW: I prefer to let the 'bad' man guess. Such a disposition has diffused several confrontations already. Basically, no brandishing required.

And it has nothing to do with the 'wild west'. If you think it some brand of 'penis compensation', you are wrong.

EDIT: BTW: no one, I mean no one, has suspected there is a loaded firearm within reach in the cockpit. I just don't talk about it. But if the time comes, I swear I'm Johnny on the spot and will act accordinly. Don't believe? I don't g-a-****. If the time comes, you will be a believer and you will be underequipped. THAT is the diff. Take this as a threat, a warning, I don't care....

 

[SkyHog]

Which seems to beg the question of whether the "average" home intruder really is "cracked out and bound and determined to kill you." If not, might it make sense to have the first one or two loads be frangible to allow for a warning shot without inadvertently killing your neighbor or roommate, or to allow for a potentially non-lethal shot? Just like in aircraft emergencies, it's probably better to think through the possibilities beforehand. Does anyone know what the actual statistice are about the percentage of home invaders who are armed? Those who attacked people in the home? (I specify armed because if they aren't, they're going to need to get close to you before they could do serious damage, and you want to be taking care of this from a distance if at all possible.)

Nah, Grant, if I'm shooting someone, they're going to die. Plain and simple. They got to the point where they threatened my life or property, and I'm not going to play nice just in case they're not on crack.

 

[Richard]

In the field--people tend not to maintain them that well. I'm personally a nut when it comes to cleaning and inspection / function checks..but most aren't.

I agree. And there is nothing 'nuts' about maintaining your sidearm. I wish more would dedicate themselves to that level of devotion.

 

[SkyHog]

I agree. And there is nothing 'nuts' about maintaining your sidearm. I wish more would dedicate themselves to that level of devotion.

I love the smell of Hoppes-#9. That alone makes me enjoy it.

 

[gprellwitz]

Nah, Grant, if I'm shooting someone, they're going to die. Plain and simple. They got to the point where they threatened my life or property, and I'm not going to play nice just in case they're not on crack.

What criteria do you use to determine if you're going to shoot them or not? LEO goes through extensive training to help make that determination. I'm pretty sure (or at least I hope) that you'd feel bad for killing some 13YO who broke in looking for food to feed his little sister. I'm also sure that you wouldn't feel bad about killing some 13YO crack-head who planned to kill you and then go through all your possessions at leisure. How do you make that determination when the moment comes? I was proposing that maybe a frangible round as the first bullet would give you some leeway. If you make the determination that it might be the former, then you shoot near the kid to scare the bejeezus out of him. If, OTOH, you're convinced that he has murderous intent, then you put that shot right into him. No matter what, if he doesn't high-tail it, then you have the rest of the shots ready to take him out.

 

[Richard]

he says ' I really think we need a little bigger, faster plane'

Usually the saying is, "she's a keeper". But in this instance, HE'S a keeper.

 

[SkyHog]

What criteria do you use to determine if you're going to shoot them or not? LEO goes through extensive training to help make that determination. I'm pretty sure (or at least I hope) that you'd feel bad for killing some 13YO who broke in looking for food to feed his little sister. I'm also sure that you wouldn't feel bad about killing some 13YO crack-head who planned to kill you and then go through all your possessions at leisure. How do you make that determination when the moment comes? I was proposing that maybe a frangible round as the first bullet would give you some leeway. If you make the determination that it might be the former, then you shoot near the kid to scare the bejeezus out of him. If, OTOH, you're convinced that he has murderous intent, then you put that shot right into him. No matter what, if he doesn't high-tail it, then you have the rest of the shots ready to take him out.

That is a tough call Grant. Initial reaction says "They shouldn't have been in my home."

Secondary reaction says I'd feel horrible for shooting a kid without malicious intent.

I should also point out that my first action is not to shoot the person, but rather to point the gun at them and let them know that they will be shot. Depending on their reaction, they're either shot or detained until the police arrive.

 

[Richard]

EDIT: BTW: no one, I mean no one, has suspected there is a loaded firearm within reach in the cockpit. I just don't talk about it. But if the time comes, I swear I'm Johnny on the spot and will act accordinly. Don't believe? I don't g-a-****. If the time comes, you will be a believer and you will be underequipped. THAT is the diff. Take this as a threat, a warning, I don't care....

That wasn't nice of me. When I wrote that I was thinking of certain non-aviation situations best left unmentioned. We're all pilots, we have that in common.

 

[gprellwitz]

That is a tough call Grant. Initial reaction says "They shouldn't have been in my home."

Secondary reaction says I'd feel horrible for shooting a kid without malicious intent.

I should also point out that my first action is not to shoot the person, but rather to point the gun at them and let them know that they will be shot. Depending on their reaction, they're either shot or detained until the police arrive.

In my book, anytime you're threatening deadly force it's at least a momentus call, and in most cases should be a tough call, though you won't have a lot of time to deliberate. That's why I think you need to think through things ahead of time, just as we do with aviation emergencies.

And I'm glad to hear you talking (see you writing?) about warnings. If you mentioned that earlier, I missed it.

We don't have any guns in the house, but since we lived so long in the city of Chicago where it was illegal, that's not surprising. Perhaps because of that, we've never found the need to go out and get one, and I understand that the CC laws in IL are pretty draconian, so it would have to be a home defense piece only. Having read a bunch of threads here on POoA (Pistol Owners of America) I've entertained the notion of getting a piece, though!

 

[Richard]

What criteria do you use to determine if you're going to shoot them or not?

You shoot to impare, ie, kill. You aint gonna' shoot out a kneecap and hope to God the bad guy howls in pain. That sort of defeats the purpose, plus you're over relying on having your wits about you, being a marksman in extreme circumstance. Nobody wants to talk about body mass and centering.

If he points, I kill. It's that simple. No, not simple as in extinguishing a life but in the seriousness of firearms. Basically, don't brandish unless you are committed to using deadly force.

Perhaps to better define the answer to your question: It's situation-dependent. whether it's an intruder rummaging the cupboards or a real bad guy, if he does not respond to the challenge, you treat him as a bad guy. You put him down.

The challenge to him is to cease whatever he is doing and then he acknowledges. If lacking that, you put him down. I'm not or have ever been a LEO or formally trained in home defense. I'm also not some lily livered BS artist who's gonna' purposely shoot near the dude trying to scare him into submission or retreat.

Being a realist living in a civilian world, the bad guy has ONE opportunity to respond to a challenge.

 

[Richard]

That is a tough call Grant. Initial reaction says "They shouldn't have been in my home."

Secondary reaction says I'd feel horrible for shooting a kid without malicious intent.

I should also point out that my first action is not to shoot the person, but rather to point the gun at them and let them know that they will be shot. Depending on their reaction, they're either shot or detained until the police arrive.

Don't EVER EVER EVER EVER point unless you are committed to follow through. Said another way, if you point at me but are not committed, I will walk to you and beat your ass into the next century. Don't EVER....

Detaining under duress is one thing but you better be ready to take it to the next step if they move in an unanticipated way. Oh yeah, you should have anticipated their next move.

 

[SkyHog]

Don't EVER EVER EVER EVER point unless you are committed to follow through. Said another way, if you point at me but are not committed, I will walk to you and beat your ass into the next century. Don't EVER....

I think that goes without saying. If I point my weapon at something/something, I am committed to following through with the demand.

But that's not to say that I will pull the trigger every time I point the gun. If I point my gun at the "bad" guy and he immediately submits and drops to the ground when I tell him to, I'm not going to shoot him just because I pointed my gun at him.

But any aggressive maneuver, and the coroner will be pulling lead samples from his chest and face.

 

[Richard]

In my book, anytime you're threatening deadly force it's at least a momentus call, and in most cases should be a tough call, though you won't have a lot of time to deliberate. That's why I think you need to think through things ahead of time, just as we do with aviation emergencies.

I'm glad to see someone made the connection. Correlation, dude! Absolutely does one need to be thinking of the 'next two things'. The tough part is not having any time to think, it needs to be automatic. That, unless you want a stand off or duel.

POoA (Pistol Owners of America)

I like it!

 

[Richard]

I think that goes without saying. If I point my weapon at something/something, I am committed to following through with the demand.

But that's not to say that I will pull the trigger every time I point the gun. If I point my gun at the "bad" guy and he immediately submits and drops to the ground when I tell him to, I'm not going to shoot him just because I pointed my gun at him.

But any aggressive maneuver, and the coroner will be pulling lead samples from his chest and face.

When he submits is when the confronatation changes. I agree with everything you said here. (Emphasis in bold is mine)

 

[SkyHog]

When he submits is when the confronatation changes. I agree with everything you said here. (Emphasis in bold is mine)

Ok, good, I wanted to make sure you weren't one of those that would later criticize a person for pointing a gun at someone and not shooting them on the ground because "I've always been told you destroy what you point at."

Its not black and white, there's some grey there, and that grey is called "submission."

 

[jmaynard]

The coolest thing was flying back in our 182 from the SHOT show in Orlando back to Harrison, AR ( which is an awesome plane - especially for my first plane) and he says ' I really think we need a little bigger, faster plane'

...to which the appropriate response is "here, twist my arm!"

 

[jmaynard]

I'm pretty sure (or at least I hope) that you'd feel bad for killing some 13YO who broke in looking for food to feed his little sister. I'm also sure that you wouldn't feel bad about killing some 13YO crack-head who planned to kill you and then go through all your possessions at leisure. How do you make that determination when the moment comes?

You don't.

It's simple: I shoot to end a threat to my life or the life of a loved one. If he comes at me in such a way as to make me reasonably fear for my life, he's become a target, nothing more. His motives are entirely irrelevant.

FWIW, I expect that I'd react the same way to killing either one. For a kid to get to that point is a waste of a life, and was so before he ever threatened mine.

I was proposing that maybe a frangible round as the first bullet would give you some leeway. If you make the determination that it might be the former, then you shoot near the kid to scare the bejeezus out of him. If, OTOH, you're convinced that he has murderous intent, then you put that shot right into him. No matter what, if he doesn't high-tail it, then you have the rest of the shots ready to take him out.

This requires too much thought in the actual event. It's an ambulance chaser's wet dream. It's been demonstrated that an attacker with a knife can close with an armed defender and inflict serious injury or death before the defender can fire if he's within 21 feet. You don't have time to think. You must react, effectively. If that first shot doesn't work, you may not have time for a second. Further, under the deadly force laws of the states I've looked at, firing is using deadly force, regardless of the ammunition involved and regardless of any intent to aim away from the other person. (I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.)

If I draw my pistol, and get other than total and immediate submission, I will shoot to end the threat. That means using expanding ammunition to lessen the risk of overpenetration, and shooting to the center of mass to maximize the likelihood of stopping the threat and hitting what I aim at. Anything else is overthinking the problem.

 

[Richard]

Let's be clear...there is no "overshooting", no "over penetration", no "off center targeting". Shoot for effect, that is all.

If you point, you are committed. Only two possible outcomes...the bad guy stands down...voluntarily or involuntarily. As many rounds as it takes or you can squeeze off. Hand to hand, the firearm is still a weapon.

Nothing personal mind you.

I don't want to say anymore. Kinda' like, He who says it the most, does it the least. And I know I've been talking....

 

[Richard]

The only justification for gun ownership that i find unreasonable is to protect ourselves from our own government. It sounds so Wacoish to me, and honestly, no homeowner will win a battle against the United States government without the use of huge, unobtainable weapons that even the whole country of Iraq apparently failed to procure.

"Love your country, fear your government" is becoming more of an alarm every day.

The only hope of the people in those sad days will be to get the standing military to lay down there arms and disobey the orders of their leaders. I hope the ranks would see the folly of standing against civilians. Call me a crackpot, I really don't care. Worse, I would hate to say I told you so.

I'm not preparing for that eventuality, but I think it's coming. Especially when I witness more and more the otherwise sane men who rally the cry.

 

[gprellwitz]

"Love your country, fear your government" is becoming more of an alarm every day.

The only hope of the people in those sad days will be to get the standing military to lay down there arms and disobey the orders of their leaders. I hope the ranks would see the folly of standing against civilians. Call me a crackpot, I really don't care. Worse, I would hate to say I told you so.

I'm not preparing for that eventuality, but I think it's coming. Especially when I witness more and more the otherwise sane men who rally the cry.

Well, to respond to this, I think we would need to move it over to the SZ.

 

[dmccormack]

What criteria do you use to determine if you're going to shoot them or not? LEO goes through extensive training to help make that determination. I'm pretty sure (or at least I hope) that you'd feel bad for killing some 13YO who broke in looking for food to feed his little sister. I'm also sure that you wouldn't feel bad about killing some 13YO crack-head who planned to kill you and then go through all your possessions at leisure. How do you make that determination when the moment comes? I was proposing that maybe a frangible round as the first bullet would give you some leeway. If you make the determination that it might be the former, then you shoot near the kid to scare the bejeezus out of him. If, OTOH, you're convinced that he has murderous intent, then you put that shot right into him. No matter what, if he doesn't high-tail it, then you have the rest of the shots ready to take him out.

The simple answer is: Know your jurisdiction.

In other words -- how have the courts handled self-defense cases in the past?

That's the only way to assess what will happen to you after shots are fired.

(Yet there is still no assurance you will be vindicated. Better tried by 12 than carried by 6.)

Fifteen states have passed Castle Doctrine laws, which presume that a criminal entering your home or vehicle is sufficient threat to warrant deadly force.

For a good book to get you thinking through all the scenarios and your options, read Ayoob, In the Gravest Extreme.

 

[jlwilson]

You don't.

It's simple: I shoot to end a threat to my life or the life of a loved one. If he comes at me in such a way as to make me reasonably fear for my life, he's become a target, nothing more. His motives are entirely irrelevant.

FWIW, I expect that I'd react the same way to killing either one. For a kid to get to that point is a waste of a life, and was so before he ever threatened mine.


This requires too much thought in the actual event. It's an ambulance chaser's wet dream. It's been demonstrated that an attacker with a knife can close with an armed defender and inflict serious injury or death before the defender can fire if he's within 21 feet. You don't have time to think. You must react, effectively. If that first shot doesn't work, you may not have time for a second. Further, under the deadly force laws of the states I've looked at, firing is using deadly force, regardless of the ammunition involved and regardless of any intent to aim away from the other person. (I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.)

If I draw my pistol, and get other than total and immediate submission, I will shoot to end the threat. That means using expanding ammunition to lessen the risk of overpenetration, and shooting to the center of mass to maximize the likelihood of stopping the threat and hitting what I aim at. Anything else is overthinking the problem.

Guess I went to bed too early last night. Looks like there was some great 'conversation'.

Jay did you take LFI-1? This is exactly what Massad Ayoob teaches. He's a well known law enforcement officer/writer/trainer who is probably best known for his course on 'The Judicious Use of Deadly Force'. He teaches that you shoot to stop the threat. Never to wound or deter, but to stop it. And that you've made that decision based on AOJ, ability, opportunity and jeopardy. It's a whole lot like Sully's decisions in the last couple of minutes of that flight. You have to have trained to be prepared. The drill that you mentioned is called the Tueller drill. We actually did that in Mas's class and even the nice little 86 year old gentleman with arthritic knees closed the gap in 2.1 seconds. With lots of training it's difficult to draw from concealment and place an accurate shot on a moving target in that amount of time. And that's not counting the stress that you would be under that would cause all your fine motor skills to go by the wayside.

Carrying concealed and knowing that you could do what you had to IF you really had to, are decisions that have to be carefully thought out before you ever strap on your sidearm. It's not for everyone. Some people just could not make that decision. And it's definitely not a decision that you make lightly. However, as Dan said, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Joyce

 

[jmaynard]

Jay did you take LFI-1? This is exactly what Massad Ayoob teaches.

I'd love to, but haven't yet. I got the information from the folks who've taught my carry permit classes, and I'm sure they're well familiar with Ayoob's writings.

Carrying concealed and knowing that you could do what you had to IF you really had to, are decisions that have to be carefully thought out before you ever strap on your sidearm. It's not for everyone. Some people just could not make that decision. And it's definitely not a decision that you make lightly. However, as Dan said, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Indeed. This, along with recognizing that true freedom means being able to make choices, is why I don't advocate that people be required to be armed. I thought long and hard about whether I could use a firearm to defend myself and my loved ones, even if that meant killing, before I chose to do so.

 

[dmccormack]

What criteria do you use to determine if you're going to shoot them or not? LEO goes through extensive training to help make that determination. I'm pretty sure (or at least I hope) that you'd feel bad for killing some 13YO who broke in looking for food to feed his little sister. I'm also sure that you wouldn't feel bad about killing some 13YO crack-head who planned to kill you and then go through all your possessions at leisure. How do you make that determination when the moment comes? I was proposing that maybe a frangible round as the first bullet would give you some leeway. If you make the determination that it might be the former, then you shoot near the kid to scare the bejeezus out of him. If, OTOH, you're convinced that he has murderous intent, then you put that shot right into him. No matter what, if he doesn't high-tail it, then you have the rest of the shots ready to take him out.

First, private citizens are not required to have the same level of training as LEO, and this is as it should be.

Second, your state of mind, the threat, and the conditions will all help determine the shoot/no-shoot decision.

So in your case if the hungry, mentally deficient 13 year old is 6'3", in your hallway at 2 AM carrying a baseball bat (he just finished playing in the local Special Olympics series), and you are 5'2", 125 lb female, nearly every jurisdiction will find in the homeowner's favor (if the DA is stupid enough to take the case to trial).

If, however, a 6'1", male, 200 lb retired infantry officer is accosted in broad daylight by a clearly under-the-influence 5'2", 130 lb 13 year old "crackhead".... -- well, you'd better believe the DA is gonna ride this one to higher office.

This really isn't all that hard, folks.

• If you're going to carry (in the home or out), know how to defuse a situation.
• If you carry, know how to shoot.
• If you carry, know when and when not to shoot.
• If you shoot, make sure you know why you shot and be prepared to tell you story in court, when the sun is shining, the perp is wearing a suit, and you're sounding more-and-more like a vigilante.

 

[flyersfan31]

The only justification for gun ownership that i find unreasonable is to protect ourselves from our own government. It sounds so Wacoish to me, and honestly, no homeowner will win a battle against the United States government without the use of huge, unobtainable weapons that even the whole country of Iraq apparently failed to procure.

Agreed. One Abrahms, or an Apache with a Hellfire, will defeat even the most ardent opponent of the New World Order.... if you really believe that will come to pass.

 

[lprellwitz]

When he submits is when the confronatation changes. I agree with everything you said here. (Emphasis in bold is mine)

Heard about this conversation a bit this morning - a very interesting thread, to be sure.

Having grown up with a firearm in the house, my thoughts mirror what some have said here:

- If you are going to own a firearm, take the proper steps to: be responsible, learn how to shoot, keep it safe from any kids (or anyone else in the house who shouldn't gain access).

- If you have any doubt as to your ability to use a firearm if the situation arises, DO NOT OWN ONE, unless you're ready for it to possibly be used against you. Not a bravado or macho thing, but basically, when under stress, we'll all revert to our base nature. For some, that base nature doesn't jive well with instinctively firing a weapon in a stressful situation. Just know what your type is, and act accordingly.


Not sure that owning a gun is for me, but if it was, and I was in a threatening situation, I'd probably be in my dad's frame of mind (Honey, I think we split a bit on this one): 'You get one chance to stand down, without a trigger being squeezed. Any aggressive or threatening move, and it turns into "I'll do whatever I need to do to get you to stop as fast as I can" - and I go for vital organs first.' Let the judge and jury work it out.