• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Closest I have come to drawing.

.40CLTlocal

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
42
Location
Mint Hill
Friday morning my son had tubes put in his ears. My wife and I both took the day off work so we could hang out with him and make sure the anathesha wore off ok. Around 11:45 I hear a knock on the small window that is just beside my front door. Not too strange as my neighbor will do that because the door bell will wake my son up during his naps. But when I look out I see a sketchy and kind of dirty guy. I also see his beat up F-250 in the cult-de-sac with a "Quality Steaks" sticker on the side. Knock on the window seems a little odd now. I open the door, gun on hip. He either doesn't notice or doesn't care. He launches right into his pitch. I stop his mid-sentence and tell him that I am good and we buy whole half cows from a family friend. Getting slightly more argessive he insists that he has chicken and pork too. Again I tell him No and start to close the door. For some reason he lurches towards the door. Muscle memory is a great thing. One move my hand is on my gun and the holster strap is popped open. He stops dead, raises his hands and says "whoa, ok ok." He backs away from the porch, turns and walks back to his truck. He left without going to anymore houses. In reality I think he may have just wanted to get on more word in about his meat but he pegged out my awareness sensor. This whole event also served as a reminder why I carry and that as the hoildays approach, people get desperate. I also had a friend over that is with CMPD last night. After telling him the whole story he proceeded to tell me they had one of the quality steak guy breaking into houses. If my son had not had tubes, we would have been gone so there is no telling what could have happened. Stay safe everyone. The crazy time of year is upon us.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
This time of year who knows what his intentions were. Your incident is what I keep telling people who take their gun off when they are home. The safest and best place for a sidearm when home is on their side, unless sleeping of course.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Tubes in a young childs' ears have not been shown to be effective or needed ... just saying. My pediatrician recommended them but when I inquired as to any facts that support a good outcome, the Dr. said "duh....". Did not get the tubes and the kid is fine.

Its a "shut-the-parents-up" procedure. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
 

.40CLTlocal

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
42
Location
Mint Hill
Tubes in a young childs' ears have not been shown to be effective or needed ... just saying. My pediatrician recommended them but when I inquired as to any facts that support a good outcome, the Dr. said "duh....". Did not get the tubes and the kid is fine.

Its a "shut-the-parents-up" procedure. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

That might be your opinion, but since Friday he is sleeping better and has not tugged at his ear once. After months of infections and dozens of sleepless nights, this was the last option.
 

.40CLTlocal

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
42
Location
Mint Hill
This time of year who knows what his intentions were. Your incident is what I keep telling people who take their gun off when they are home. The safest and best place for a sidearm when home is on their side, unless sleeping of course.

It's either on or very close by 90% of the time.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
This time of year who knows what his intentions were. Your incident is what I keep telling people who take their gun off when they are home. The safest and best place for a sidearm when home is on their side, unless sleeping of course.

+10! What do they say 100% of home invasions happen in the home?
OC 100% of the time at home.


Also as far as the tubes. My dad, who is a doctor, had them put in my ears when I was very young. He says they worked like magic. I was inflicted with constant ear infections and the tubes ended them immediately.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Interesting story. Glad it worked out.

I'm not sure reaching for the gun is the best idea. I'm thinking you might open yourself to a criminal complaint. AOJ* is completely absent. No weapon. No verbal threat. Not even disparity of force--just one guy versus another. Your report that you think the guy was maybe just trying to get in one more word seals the deal--it indicates that even you did not perceive a genuine threat. Had there been a criminal complaint against you, and you stated that to the cops, you would be handing the cops a great piece of evidence against you.

Its one thing to call attention to a gun as a dissuading tactic when elements of AOJ are present; its something else when none are present. When no elements of AOJ are present, you are open to a brandishing charge or the legal equivalent. I understand this was an automatic reaction. My point is that you might want to interpose a different different response, more measured toward what really occurred.

I might opt for a commanding, "Stop! Leave, now!" (That last has worked for me two or three times already.) Shoving the guy in the chest might be a good one, but it opens the door to a battery complaint. Taking a boxing stance might be another.




*For new folks who may not know, AOJ refers to Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. Sometimes it is written AOJ/I, with the I standing for Intent. Without going into it extensively, these are necessary elements of justified lethal force. If you are unfamiliar with these, you want to research them and learn them. People have been killing people for millenia. In the West, the law has had a good 4500 years to sort itself out on the justifications for when one man may legally use lethal force on another. The refinements of the law may be at great odds to what you think is justified. Don't discount or minimize this. If you don't know AOJ, you really, really want to find out.
 
Last edited:

.40CLTlocal

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
42
Location
Mint Hill
Interesting story. Glad it worked out.

I'm not sure reaching for the gun is the best idea. I'm thinking you might open yourself to a criminal complaint. AOJ* is completely absent. No weapon. No verbal threat. Not even disparity of force--just one guy versus another. Your report that you think the guy was maybe just trying to get in one more word seals the deal--it indicates that even you did not perceive a genuine threat. Had there been a criminal complaint against you, and you stated that to the cops, you would be handing the cops a great piece of evidence against you.

Its one thing to call attention to a gun as a dissuading tactic when elements of AOJ are present; its something else when none are present. When no elements of AOJ are present, you are open to a brandishing charge or the legal equivalent. I understand this was an automatic reaction. My point is that you might want to interpose a different different response, more measured toward what really occurred.

I might opt for a commanding, "Stop! Leave, now!" (That last has worked for me two or three times already.) Shoving the guy in the chest might be a good one, but it opens the door to a battery complaint. Taking a boxing stance might be another.




*For new folks who may not know AOJ refers to Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. Sometimes it is written AOJ/I, with the I standing for Intent. Without going into it extensively, these are necessary elements of justified lethal force. If you are unfamiliar with these, you want to research them and learn them. People have been killing people for millenia. In the West, the law has had a good 4500 years to sort itself out on the justifications for when one man may legally use lethal force on another. The refinements of the law may be at great odds to what you think is justified. Don't discount or minimize this. If you don't know AOJ, you really, really want to find out.

All that makes sense but at the end of the day I am not going to let some sketchy dude get within arms reach of me in my own home.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
All that makes sense but at the end of the day I am not going to let some sketchy dude get within arms reach of me in my own home.

I agree with you.

You were on your own property, within your residence, and he was moving towards you. You were completely IMO within your rights to make ready.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
All that makes sense but at the end of the day I am not going to let some sketchy dude get within arms reach of me in my own home.

I understand. The home is a special place in the eyes of the law generally. Your state may not even criminalize reacting the way you did if there is a genuine attempt for him to get into your home. And, regardless of the law, which is already understood to be imperfect because it cannot possibly cover all possible situations, you are all that stands between the threshold and your family. I'm not addressing the wisdom of the law in my prior post. I'm addressing the need for another response to be added to your arsenal. It would be the height of indignity for dad to be arrested for brandishing/threatening while trying genuinely to protect the family.

Also, don't forget that you yourself said you think he was just trying to get in the last word.

Regarding another response, I'm a little embarrassed for failing to mention the obvious one--don't open the door to any sketchy, kind of dirty, strangers. Talk to them through the door. The reason I'm a little embarrassed to forget that solution is because Mas Ayoob recently had a video about it. I'll see if I can find it.

Needless to say, not opening the door undercuts the whole problem.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Found the video:

[video=youtube;YD3zIA6vJkQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD3zIA6vJkQ[/video]


"When called by a panther, don't anther."
 
Last edited:

Shoobee

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
599
Location
CCCP (Calif)
It's more effective to put a No Soliciting sign up on your front door, and to talk through the window not opening the door at all.

Got my No Soliciting sign at the local hardware store.

Don't open the door anymore now.

Don't like to wear the gun in the house.

But I can always get to it when I need to.
 

.40CLTlocal

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
42
Location
Mint Hill
Most of the time I will just wave them off though the window mostly so I don't have to hold back the dogs. They were outside this time. Also because I there was some slight doubt in is intentions, I did not draw. Had I, it would have because he was following through with him threading move.
 

Shoobee

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
599
Location
CCCP (Calif)
Most of the time I will just wave them off though the window mostly so I don't have to hold back the dogs. They were outside this time. Also because I there was some slight doubt in is intentions, I did not draw. Had I, it would have because he was following through with him threading move.

Not talking about drawing. Talking about not opening the door at all for strangers, any strangers. You can talk thru the window.

Zimmerman in Florida has already proved that you can think you are completely justified and still end up in the slammer.

And you really need to get your own No Soliciting sign if for no other reason for the sake of the solicitors.

So they can at least have fair warning.
 
Last edited:

muccione

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
237
Location
Conover
Great job... I would have probably did the same thing. Followed by a call to the police about a guy trying to enter my house until I reached for my firearm. Remember the first one to call the cops is usually the victim. NC has castle doctrine to protect you from things like this.

You shouldn't be fearful of opening your door. You did the right thing. Just add the call to the police
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Great job... I would have probably did the same thing. Followed by a call to the police about a guy trying to enter my house until I reached for my firearm. Remember the first one to call the cops is usually the victim. NC has castle doctrine to protect you from things like this.

You shouldn't be fearful of opening your door. You did the right thing. Just add the call to the police


A simple reading of the statute shows Muccione is incorrect: North Carolina's defense statutes in fact do not protect .40CLT. The statutes are:

14-51.2, which says in relevant part: (b). The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Notice also that section (c) says the presumption is rebuttable. Meaning, the prosecution gets to argue against the defender based, I am guessing, on whether the circumstances don't add up to something protected by the statute.

14-51.3, which says in relevant part: (a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.
(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14‑51.2.


Analysis

The most important part of the story is .40CLT's comment, "In reality I think he may have just wanted to get one more word in about his meat..."

That comment means 14-51.2(b)1-2 do not apply. Those two sections only apply to situations where an unlawful and forcible entry is being made, and the defender knew such an entry was occurring or had occurred.

Separately, 14-51.2 is entirely about lethal force which was not used here. So, it can't possibly protect .40CLT since it protects defenders who use lethal force.

14-51.3 addresses force not lethal. More in line with what occurred here. However, it is still no protection for .40CLT because it is only available "when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another..." Nobody is going to accept that it is reasonable to believe that threatening by calling attention to a gun is necessary to dissuade a salesman from getting in one more word about his product.

Also, like the lethal force statute, this statute is talking about force, not the threat of force implied by putting your hand on your gun. Remember, Muccione is saying NC law provides positive protection for calling attention to a gun as a means of defense.


It would be really helpful if readers take a few minutes and actually try to apply the law as written to the scenario being discussed rather than tossing off a hipshot finding.

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0014


ETA: Removed an incorrect reference to the current law being superceded in the near future by new language.
 
Last edited:

muccione

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
237
Location
Conover
A simple reading of the statute shows Muccione is incorrect: North Carolina's defense statutes in fact do not protect .40CLT. The statutes, which are repealed effective 12/1/12 when a new version goes into effect, are:

14-51.2, which says in relevant part: (b). The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Notice also that section (c) says the presumption is rebuttable. Meaning, the prosecution gets to argue against the defender based, I am guessing, on whether the circumstances don't add up to something protected by the statute.

14-51.3, which says in relevant part: (a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.
(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14‑51.2.


Analysis

The most important part of the story is .40CLT's comment, "In reality I think he may have just wanted to get one more word in about his meat..."

That comment means 14-51.2(b)1-2 do not apply. Those two sections only apply to situations where an unlawful and forcible entry is being made, and the defender knew such an entry was occurring or had occurred.

Separately, 14-51.2 is entirely about lethal force which was not used here. So, it can't possibly protect .40CLT since it protects defenders who use lethal force.

14-51.3 addresses force not lethal. More in line with what occurred here. However, it is still no protection for .40CLT because it is only available "when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another..." Nobody is going to accept that it is reasonable to believe that threatening by calling attention to a gun is necessary to dissuade a salesman from getting in one more word about his product.

Also, like the lethal force statute, this statute is talking about force, not the threat of force implied by putting your hand on your gun. Remember, Muccione is saying NC law provides positive protection for calling attention to a gun as a means of defense.


It would be really helpful if readers take a few minutes and actually try to apply the law as written to the scenario being discussed rather than tossing off a hipshot finding.

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0014

I see no law changes 12/1/2012... It DID change 12/1/2011.. It added the castle doctrine... And other things
Your reading and understanding is not the same as mine.. Lets break it down..

(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, He was NOT invited in or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

If the salesman stopped the closing door or opened the door, It can and would be ASSUMED he has bad intentions.
Now the OP did nothing wrong but show a dumb ass to f-off. But the guy COULD of had bad intentions and it was stopped by this armed citizen.

"In reality I think he may have just wanted to get one more word in about his meat..." This is the after thought after thinking about what just happened.
Next time...Call the cops and tell them what happened. They would have found him and told him he almost got shot for unlawfully attempting to enter a armed citizen's house.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP ...get your own No Soliciting sign if for no other reason for the sake of the solicitors.

So they can at least have fair warning.


I carry my no-soliciting sign in my vocal chords. if I don't want to talk to them, I say so.

An important element of this is that I do listen to them at least for a few moments because:

1. They're just trying to make a living or proselytize their faith. And,

2. Sometimes I am genuinely interested in buying something being offered. Not often, mind you. But occasionally.


A couple of the best people I ever met happened this way. Two Mormons on their mission. I did more than listen, I asked questions. What an amazing educational experience. I learned a good bit about LDS and discovered two people I would have been glad to call friends--really decent human beings. And, they got an opportunity to practice their pitch and a glass of iced tea on a hot summer day in an air-conditioned living room. As a side note related to self-defense, one of them told me that his 21st birthday occurred a while back during his mission. On that 21st birthday he actually received a death threat from someone upon whose door he knocked. Ouch! What a route to martyrdom and sainthood. Takes a bit of courage to keep up with the mission after an experience like that, I would say.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I see no law changes 12/1/2012... It DID change 12/1/2011.. It added the castle doctrine... And other things
Your reading and understanding is not the same as mine.. Lets break it down..

(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, He was NOT invited in or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

If the salesman stopped the closing door or opened the door, I can and would be ASSUMED he has bad intentions.
Now the OP did nothing wrong but show a dumb ass to f-off. But the guy COULD of had bad intentions and it was stopped by this armed citizen.

"In reality I think he may have just wanted to get one more word in about his meat..." This is the after thought after thinking about what just happened.
Next time...Call the cops and tell them what happened.

Yeah! That's right! Tell the cops what happened! And, don't forget that when they ask about the lurch forward, you need to be really careful to make it sound like an attempt to enter rather than an attempt to get in one more word about his product. Gotta spin that just right. Or, you might be arrested for threatening. Nevermind maybe causing the arrest of a family man on hard times during an economic problem who gets a little too pushy. Yeah! Those pesky salesman deserve to go to jail as home invaders! That will teach them!

Hey, tough guy. Did it occur to you that he thought that after the fact because of something he saw or didn't see at the time the incident was occurring?

Nowhere in his story does he say the caller made a deliberate attempt to get into the house. Nevermind that even putting a foot in the door to get in the last word is not an attempt to enter, just an attempt to keep talking to the prospective purchaser. Home invaders trying to get in body-slam the door or kick it or shove it hard. Now, if I can recognize that distinction on the fly on the internet, do you really think a career-minded or anti-gun prosecutor with assistants to help him is gonna miss it?

.40CLT just reacted automatically to the gesture. It probably caught him a little off guard. And, he had no other graduated responses practiced.

But, you are the expert on castle doctrine. Even though you didn't quote the relevant statutory language, nor provide a comparison.

Also, don't try to twist things now. Your first post was a positive declaration of protection by the statute. My analysis stands. If you can show how the statute positively protects by its language alone without inferences and twists and additions, please do.

In the meantime, I'll hunt up that source about the statute changing on 12/1/12.
 
Last edited:
Top