The Police Just Left My House, Part II

[Frank Ettin]

A lot of peope seem to experience a sort of "road rage" syndrome when it comes feeling the effects of crime. They feel violated...

I think that's very true. Being victimized is a terrible and personal affront and reasonably provokes considerable anger.

It's important to be aware of that and to not let our emotions overcome our judgment and lead us to make serious tactical and/or legal errors.

 

[wstein]

Home invasion prevention.

An angry dog and the sound of a 12 ga racking, then all you will hear is beating feet going the other way. I know, I have used it.

 

[Joe_Pike]

An angry dog and the sound of a 12 ga racking, then all you will hear is beating feet going the other way. I know, I have used it.

Well, I don't have a dog or a shotgun. I do think a shotgun is now in my future, though, and if I was home more I would have already had a dog.

 

[rtpzwms]

Joe,
Replace the glass with lexan and screw it in to the frame it will never break. It will look like hell in a few years/months but its stronger than the plywood you put in. Tie the motion sensors into a recording of barking dogs (more for LOL) but it may make them think you have dogs. Cameras outside pointed at the door would also help (real of fake). One on the inside pointed at where you saw his head so you may get a picture of his face. If you hunt you may have a camera that will work for that. Of course more lights outside, think like
Vegas more bright lights.
Get a cast iron fry pan and place it on the way to the back door. A sudden dash and a good whack on the head, he may not want to come back.

 

[1tfl]

First thing I did after confronting a suspious person at my front door in 1979 was to go buy a 4C battery Maglight and tape it to my Remington 870.

Today, my bedroom safe has in it Glock 21, AR-15, and Rem 870 and all three weapons have flashlights on it... along with pair of Surefire P6.

 

[Frank Ettin]

An angry dog and the sound of a 12 ga racking, then all you will hear is beating feet going the other way. I know, I have used it.

Glad it worked out for you. But the fact that something worked for you once doesn't mean it will work for someone else another time and another place.

 

[OuTcAsT]

it is the legal definitions that count in the state, not the morals ones.

This statement really worries me. Responsible firearms ownership not only encompasses a set of legal obligations, but also a set of moral ones as well.


This thread is a glaring example of the personal responsibility we all share for not just arming ourselves, but, arming ourselves with education about the legal ramifications of self defense in our respective locations.

On another note, while everyone has chimed in about self defense laws, and how they would justify their actions, it occurs to me that everyone who has done so has operated on the premise that the "perp" does not survive the encounter, and is therefore, not a witness. How will you justify it if the person survives to give a statement ? Inquiring minds want to know ?

 

[TexasJustice7]

Outcast: This statement really worries me. Responsible firearms ownership not only encompasses a set of legal obligations, but also a set of moral ones as well.

My statement should not be a worry to you. Perhaps you did not read my entire statement. Let me explain it to you. I have stated, "Murder" is the taking of innocent life in the eyes of God. A burglar forcing entry into my home to kill me, rob me, rape my daughter, is not innocent.

But what counts for you or me as a permit holder, in whatever State we live in, is to make sure that our actions are in compliance with the laws of the State we live in! If you comply with both the Laws of the State you live in, and the Laws of God then you don't have a problem.

I know that if I have to shoot someone who is breaking my door in, that I will stop him at the entry point of my house, one way in and one way out. I do not have a back door. If I am compelled to shoot an intruder who is forcing his way in, I am in compliance with both God's Law, and the Laws of Texas.

Now I am not trying to preach to you, as there are I am certain atheists and other religious faiths of various people on these forums. If you have a separate morality than I have yours does not trump mine. But in any case
even if we have to shoot someone, and it is not "Murder" in the eyse of God,
we also have to be sure that we are in compliance with the laws of our State. So you might say, I believe in Gods Law that says "Thou Shalt Do No Murder". But I also believe in obeying the laws of the State I live in, in addition to that. I don't see a conflict either between the two.

I will say that the Laws in Texas are probably unique to some extent. I have a sold deadbolt lock and if someone breaks the door down, they are attempting to do me or my daughter harm. I will make sure that does not happen, and I probably will not know what their motivation was. In my area it is usually crack and drugs that motivate such crimes.

But whatever the laws are whether it is Texas or Tennessee or some other
State, we are free to move somewhere else or try and get the laws changed if we don't like the laws. There are lots of people who consider Texas a cowboy state and don't like Texas. I am not originally from Texas but I like Texas Laws and choose to live here rather than anywhere else.

I might add also that criminals or free usually to move to whatever state they want to move to unless of course the terms of their parole or probation say otherwise. If they are looking for easy victims, Texas is not a good place to look. Last count I heard was that there are 400,000 permit holders in Texas.

 

[scrubcedar]

I appreciate the clarification Mr Ettin. Looking over the original post I was shooting my mouth from the hip with predictable accuracy. Sometimes the grouchy old night shift nurse side of me flares up.
Let's approach this from another direction. The example I provided (the drunken coed) really did not sit well with me. I found it quite disturbing and wouldn't have blamed the DA for trying to find some way to prosecute. All they did was to shout and get no reply. I would hope I would do more than that.
The flip side is it's 3AM, you've just had a break in, your wife is in danger too, no one expects this to be a drunken coed, what are the odds? Shoot first your wife is in danger!
A couple of questions. We've already covered colorado's laws under these circumstances but what about other jurisdictions? In most places wouldn't this be a one way trip to the pokey?
Understanding the laws what would you have done?
The way I read the news reports one shot was fired that broke the pelvis. Instant one shot stop. For someone who couldn't identify their target thats one heck of a lucky shot and seems a little fishy to me. I've seen hundreds (literally) of broken pelvis's. It's a very common injury if you're wearing your seat belt in a really bad auto vs auto accident and takes a great deal of force.
I've never seen one broken by a bullet. I'm trying to imagine where you would have to hit it and how hard on a 20 y.o. female (young peoples bones are much more elastic)and that seems to stretch it past the point of luck. Any thoughts?

 

[MLeake]

How old were the couple in the drunken coed incident? Did they have any physical infirmities which would make people more threatening to them than such people would be to most of us?

What behaviors was the drunken coed evincing? Was she continuing an approach? Was she just milling about uncertainly? Did her affect in any way show signs of a threat?

A former squadronmate of mine once punched a woman out cold when he was working as a bouncer at a bar in Daytona. He was ejecting her boyfriend, when the girl decided to pull a knife on my former squadronmate. Apparently, the girl wasn't all that big or menacing, but the knife changed things.

My point being, did the coed do anything that might have made the home-owners think she might bring a weapon to bear? Drunk women can still hurt even healthy males, if they have the tools and the will to use them.

There are any number of factors that I don't know about that case, so it's hard to make any judgements about the homeowners.

 

[youngunz4life]

oldmarksman

The requirements for justification in Colorado start with the fact of an unlawful entry into one's occupied dwelling, and they continue with the obligation to show a reasonable belief that the intruder (1) has committed or intends to commit another crime in addition to the unlawful entry or (2) might use force against the occupant.

though this might be true or not tru...I give you the benefit of the doubt plus concede you are most definitely correct(I only stated that because I am not 100% certain):

if an individual is involved in an unlawful entry, it is considered via common sense and other mumbo jumbo to make it sound better and more legal that all your other criteria is true. basically unless you say something detrimental as an example(the guy was drunk, I was very upset, so I killed him), you as the homeowner are given the benefit of the doubt. you won't be charged if someone breaks into your home in the wee hours of the mrng and you kill him as an example while your children sleep. you don't disagree with this do you?

*********************as for the OP.....I give you serious credit but you have an issue. you are being targeted for whatever reason. These perps probably do live close, might have been the first BG's or at least know them possibly, and they'll probably be back. You need an alarm, sensor lights, a fixed door, etc. Do you have a predictable work schedule? do these people know you have guns due to your career? these are a couple of questions to ask. this is a dangerous situation. Maybe it is me, but home invasions and drownings are Hot Buttons for me. Fires are a hot button for my dad. Basically I worry about home invasions and/or drownings with regards to my children. My boss has been robbed three times...he probably won't get insurance to help him again; he had to wheel and deal the last time. Guranteed in my opinion it was close by people like you stated, and they probably understood his work schedule or easiness of the steal. Do you have a beer fridge. It could be something that small. You didn't seem to frightened. are they punk kids? anyways I feel your pain..thx for thread

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Outcast: This statement really worries me. Responsible firearms ownership not only encompasses a set of legal obligations, but also a set of moral ones as well.

Your statement worries me. No doubt we all have morals, but also no doubt that our morals are not the same. That is why we have laws.

On another note, while everyone has chimed in about self defense laws, and how they would justify their actions, it occurs to me that everyone who has done so has operated on the premise that the "perp" does not survive the encounter, and is therefore, not a witness. How will you justify it if the person survives to give a statement ? Inquiring minds want to know ?

Shooting an intruder breaking in and the intruder survives to give a statement? No problem. My actions will be covered by a variety of laws.

My point being, did the coed do anything that might have made the home-owners think she might bring a weapon to bear? Drunk women can still hurt even healthy males, if they have the tools and the will to use them.

Right, and just because the person breaking in to your home is a neighbor does not mean that they aren't there to do you harm. It is not uncommon for the person making entry to be familiar with the house or the occupant and be a neighbor.

http://www.ktiv.com/story/18783009/south-sioux-city-police

 

[Jayhawkhuntclub]

what would the consequences be of going outside with gun HOLSTERED on your side,and holding them until the police show up?

I haven't read the whole thread, so I may be repeating. But...you also stand a chance of being shot by trigger happy LEOs. Remember the guy with the garden hose that was standing on his porch? They see you with a gun and they make make a bad decision.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Posted by Double Naught Spy

Your statement worries me. No doubt we all have morals, but also no doubt that our morals are not the same. That is why we have laws.

I agree, morals vary widely, however, they must come into play at some point.

This sums it up : (emphasis added)


Posted by Frank Ettin

What concerns me, staff here in general, and many of our members like OldMarksman and Bartholomew Roberts is that too many people have extravagant notions about Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws.

We need to understand that our society frowns on one human intentionally hurting or killing another. However, our laws, going back to the Common Law of England on which our system is based (and even before then in other systems), recognize that there are situations in which an intentional act of extreme violence against another person can be justified -- for example when absolutely necessary to defend an innocent (whether oneself or another) against an otherwise unavoidable threat of being killed or gravely injured by another person's intention act.

Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws can be an enormous help establishing justification for someone forced by circumstance to use extreme violence against another human. But they are neither licenses to shoot nor "get out of jail free" cards.

The thing that worries me is that nobody even approaches the situation from a standpoint of DE-escalation, only "shoot first and hope the law works in my favor" far too many people see the Castle laws and other SYG laws as a license to shoot. Just saying that common sense should play a role as well.

Frank Ettin also posted :

Originally Posted by FireForged
A lot of peope seem to experience a sort of "road rage" syndrome when it comes feeling the effects of crime. They feel violated...

I think that's very true. Being victimized is a terrible and personal affront and reasonably provokes considerable anger.

It's important to be aware of that and to not let our emotions overcome our judgment and lead us to make serious tactical and/or legal errors.

Exactly my point. If you confront the intruder and he flees the scene, have you not just ended the threat ? Will you give him an option , or simply fire first ?


Posted by Double Naught Spy

Shooting an intruder breaking in and the intruder survives to give a statement? No problem. My actions will be covered by a variety of laws.

Perhaps, depending on the statement and evidence.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....The example I provided (the drunken coed) really did not sit well with me. I found it quite disturbing and wouldn't have blamed the DA for trying to find some way to prosecute. All they did was to shout and get no reply. I would hope I would do more than that.
The flip side is it's 3AM, you've just had a break in, your wife is in danger too, no one expects this to be a drunken coed, what are the odds? Shoot first your wife is in danger!...

The problem remains that we have very little data -- only the very limited information published in the media. The DA made his decisions based on a great deal more information, and we have no idea what that was. It's fatuous to speculate.

...We've already covered colorado's laws under these circumstances but what about other jurisdictions? In most places wouldn't this be a one way trip to the pokey?..

Again, it depends on exactly what happened and how. The laws of many States create various presumptions favorable to the householder in a case of unlawful entry.

...Understanding the laws what would you have done?...

Again, it depends on exactly what is happening and how it is happening. I do believe, however, that my training and knowledge will help me take tactically and legally appropriate action.

...I've never seen one [pelvis] broken by a bullet. I'm trying to imagine where you would have to hit it and how hard on a 20 y.o. female (young peoples bones are much more elastic)and that seems to stretch it past the point of luck. Any thoughts?...

I recall reading one account published by Massad Ayoob of a successful use of a pelvis shot to stop an assailant armed with a knife. I relieve that in that case a 9mm +P JHP round was used. And the pelvis shot is widely taught as one option for certain situations. So there seems to be some consensus in the training community that it can be effective.

...if an individual is involved in an unlawful entry, it is considered via common sense and other mumbo jumbo to make it sound better and more legal that all your other criteria is true. ...

It's not a matter of "mumbo jumbo." It's a question of what the law is. And if you're suggesting that someone try shading the truth, that's a very bad idea.

...you as the homeowner are given the benefit of the doubt. you won't be charged if someone breaks into your home in the wee hours of the mrng and you kill him as an example while your children sleep. you don't disagree with this do you?...

I disagree.

[1] It's not a matter of a "benefit of the doubt." It's a matter of some reasonably favorable laws which may help the householder establish justification.

[2] And while it's generally unlikely that the householder will be charged, it's impossible to say categorically that he won't be.

 

[TexasJustice7]

DoubleNaughtSpy: Shooting an intruder breaking in and the intruder survives to give a statement? No problem. My actions will be covered by a variety of laws.

If an intruder is breaking down my deadbolt door there is no doubt in my mind that I will shoot him. And likewise, if he survives the encounter he can give his statements. I trust the laws of the State of Texas and none of this conflicts with my morals, which is to obey the Commandment "Thou Shalt Do No Murder".

If one does break in I would not know how many were behind him, as I live in an apartment complex. More may be on the way. If I have the chance I may dial 911 but my primary attention will be to stop the intruder before he gets beyond the door, and hollering to him that the police are on the way, might only serve to give away my location so that he gets to shoot first.

If I thought I woild be safer where guns were against the law, or where a homeowner can't do that, I would move there but I don't believe that for a minute. I do think there are some who think they have a corner on ethics or morals, and I maintain that when it is my abode that a criminal is breaking the door down, their morals don't trump mine and if it is their abode, my morals don't trump theirs.

Before the castle doctrine was written there were lawyers making a considerable profit off taking cases against homeowners and victims of
criminals. So I strongly support the castle doctrine of Texas and I do not believe it will be changed in the near future. Nothing against attorneys however, as I used to work for a lawfirm although I am not an attorney. Some people don't like an attorney just like they don't like the police till they need one.

 

[youngunz4life]

this is in response to post 75(two posts ago)

I agree, shading the truth is not a good idea. that isn't what I meant.

Also, you make a good point about the fact that one must understand that it is possible he/she could be charged. That being said, if an intruder breaks into my home I tend to believe in the justice system as long as I am not malicious in my intent & as long as I don't cross the line(continue shooting a wounded, non-threat individual as an example).

 

[danez71]

scrubcedar said:

Prove that it's not reasonable that ANY intruder, even that drunk girl, might use "PHYSICAL FORCE NO MATTER HOW SLIGHT" in open court.

IMO... this is an area that I think you really miss the boat on.

In a self defense shooting, you have already admitted you shot and possibly killed someone.

Now, the burden is on you to convince/prove to a jury that your actions were reasonable and therefore you are protected under the castle doctrine laws as opposed to all of the murder laws applying to you.


What you're doing, IMO, is relying too heavily on the notion that enough of those jurors will:

1) Have the same definition of 'reasonable' as you do.

And

2) Think to themself...'yes, I would have shot the druken girl (who was unarmed) in the same situation'.

Lets not kid ourselves here. We have all seen some pretty crazy jury decisions, in our own opinions. And thats the key; "in our own opinion".

Remember, you have admitted to a crime and now have to convince/prove others, a jury of strangers, that the amnesty castle doctrine laws apply to you.

 

[TexasJustice7]

[QUOTEDanez071: ]IMO... this is an area that I think you really miss the boat on.

In a self defense shooting, you have already admitted you shot and possibly killed someone.

Now, the burden is on you to convince/prove to a jury that your actions were reasonable and therefore you are protected under the castle doctrine laws as opposed to all of the murder laws applying to you.[/QUOTE]

I think it would be very interesting if anyone has any actual statistics on Castle Doctrine Home Defense Shootings if they have been published for States with the Castle Doctrine, as to how many of these homeowners were subesequently charged, or subsequently convicted of a crime after shooting
someone breaking their door down. I tried to do a bit of checking just for Texas but have not found any statistics on them. Perhaps one of the attorneys on the forum might have information on that.

If someone has a flimsy door that can be pushed open easily I would think that case would come under more scrutiny than someone who had a heavy security door deadbolt locked torn off and broken down to gain entry.
I don't think people should have doors that have glass panes that can be
broken easily by an intruder.

 

[elrotundamundo]

If you decide to confront an intruder and hold them for police, remember that the responding officers will only see you as a "man with a gun" when they arrive. Bad guys and good guys often look alike and they won't be able to tell the difference until they sort it all out. Remember, most of the gun calls they go to are, for lack of a politically correct term, "dirtbag on dirtbag". If you do decide to confront, make sure you tell the dispatcher you are armed, are the homeowner, and give them a physical and clothing description of yourself as well as descriptions of the bad guys. When the cops arrive, holster and comply immediately with any orders including getting on the ground.

Having worked patrol for 16 years, I can tell you that law-abiding citizens often have an idea in their mind that their status as the 'good guy" is obvious and immediately discernible. It is a sad fact that cops eventually get very distrustful of everyone and won't know you are the good guy until they verify it after the volatile situation is controlled. Off-duty plain-clothes officers are killed by friendly fire far to often and we were always told in training to assume that if involved in an off-duty encounter,we might not be recognized as police even when displaying a badge.

Also carry a can of foam-type OC spray so if an apparently unarmed suspect tries to approach you while you have them at gunpoint, you can disable them in a legally justified manner. Foam OC is less likely to blow back in your face if it is windy. (learned that the hard way).