Closest I have come to drawing.

[Shoobee]

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.

Putting up a sign if you don't want to patiently entertain door to door solicitations is the wisest approach.

Otherwise keep your hand off your gun.

 

[Citizen]

Putting up a sign if you don't want to patiently entertain door to door solicitations is the wisest approach.

Otherwise keep your hand off your gun.

Hmmm. Its very interesting that you thought I was arguing with you or criticizing you such that you had to come back and reinforce or clarify your earlier comment.

Heh, heh, heh.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Putting up a sign if you don't want to patiently entertain door to door solicitations is the wisest approach.

Otherwise keep your hand off your gun.

Sorry, but you worry about your gun, I can put my hand on my firearm anytime I feel like it in my home, bugger off.

 

[Shoobee]

Hmmm. Its very interesting that you thought I was arguing with you or criticizing you such that you had to come back and reinforce or clarify your earlier comment.

Heh, heh, heh.

The only reason to touch your gun is when you are drawing it to fire it.

 

[WalkingWolf]

The only reason to touch your gun is when you are drawing it to fire it.

So how do you clean your handgun? How do you put it in a holster? When buying a weapon do you shoot it at the counter?

I'm touching my handgun now, and there is nothing you can do about it? :lol:

 

[gary737]

The only reason to touch your gun is when you are drawing it to fire it.

Wrong!

Anyone within a 21 foot radius of you can be on top of you before you can react to that person. With someone closer than that, if you feel threatened and you DON'T move you hand to your gun, you are foolish.

 

[muccione]

Found the first source about the law being changed on 12/1/12. I do now notice that it only referenced a bill, not a signed law.

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2012/05/counter-attack-on-ncs-castle-doctrine.html

I apologize for any confusion. Will edit the earlier post to remove the error.

Thanks to tough-guy Muccione for calling it to my attention.

Here we go... With the name calling. You can do that if you want... I'm tough, I can take it. So sorry for point out your mistake and your feelings getting hurt. You pointed out mine...Did I call you names? Your so understanding of someone trying to get into your house but call people names when pointing out your simple reading mistake.

As I said my interpretation and yours is just different.
Maybe in VA salesmen are allowed to try and bully people. I did not know that hard economic times makes it ok for such actions. The car salesmen must be real fun in VA, As you leave and say no thanks he grabs your arm and holds you there while more surround you preventing you from going, just to tell you ONE more thing. Real estate brokers locking you in the house....

My OPINION is the OP reacted fine and within his legal rights. Had he actually drew, the cops more than likely would have done nothing to him, the salesman was out of line and just learned a valuable lesson. Just be the first to call the cops. Maybe the town will stop allowing door to door sales. To me its just people on hard economic times casing your house, neighborhood.

Perhaps Citizen you should stay in the VA part of the forums if your going to do childish name calling.

 

[Citizen]

Here we go... With the name calling. You can do that if you want... I'm tough, I can take it. So sorry for point out your mistake and your feelings getting hurt. You pointed out mine...Did I call you names? Your so understanding of someone trying to get into your house but call people names when pointing out your simple reading mistake.

As I said my interpretation and yours is just different.
Maybe in VA salesmen are allowed to try and bully people. I did not know that hard economic times makes it ok for such actions. The car salesmen must be real fun in VA, As you leave and say no thanks he grabs your arm and holds you there while more surround you preventing you from going, just to tell you ONE more thing. Real estate brokers locking you in the house....

My OPINION is the OP reacted fine and within his legal rights. Had he actually drew, the cops more than likely would have done nothing to him, the salesman was out of line and just learned a valuable lesson. Just be the first to call the cops. Maybe the town will stop allowing door to door sales. To me its just people on hard economic times casing your house, neighborhood.

Perhaps Citizen you should stay in the VA part of the forums if your going to do childish name calling.

(sigh)

No, this isn't just a matter of differing opinion. Your opinion is not supported by the statute. You said the statute protects .40CLT. It doesn't. I showed how it doesn't. Your opinion has to float on twists and adding things that aren't there.

Regarding salesman, you're now evading the point that you would cause an arrest record for someone who was just trying to get in one more word about his product. You use a strawman argument in the quote above. I didn't say anything about salesmen committing battery or false imprisonment. You're exaggerating and then arguing with an exaggeration I didn't give.

Cops not arresting the guy for even drawing the gun is not protection from the statute. It is protection afforded by cops on their own judgement. Yours is an inapplicable argument.

I used the tough-guy to describe your attitude. You're arguing from emotion, certainly not a plain reading of the statute. Note that I did not call you a(ss), d(ick)head, or jerk. I tailored the word to something that fits the behavior. Correct name calling is not an offense. It is simply a shorthand way of saying, "You're arguing from emotion rather than rationality and seem to want to be hardnosed against against people who trying to make a living, etc."

But, I think I made my point back in the post where I quoted the statute. At this point you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and to be right. If you had a valid argument you would have already shown where my analysis of the statute was wrong, not gone off on tangents, exaggerations, strawman arguments, etc.

 

[NC-Heel]

I am of the belief that you should never reach for a holstered weapon unless you are intending to draw and discharge that weapon to stop an aggressor. Police grip their pistols because they are trained to escalate a situation so they are always one level above the subject. When a law abiding citizen does it they become the aggressor. I read the OP's account so I know how he described the man but what if it was someone like you or me, legally ccw'ing, out trying to make a living. We go to a house giving our sales pitch, the guy partially opens the door and we try to reorient ourselves to speak face to face with the potential customer. He perceives this as a lurch and reaches for his weapon that I may or may not have noticed. At this point I fear for my life and draw my concealed weapon and end the actions of the aggressor, the guy reaching for a weapon.

What if the dirty looking guy had been an undercover officer and had the wrong address or whatever, I can give you story after story where they serve no knock warrants on the wrong house so it happens. What do you think would happen then when you reached for your weapon?

No, Solicitation signs do not work, I always have to point out the one I have posted. There are several correct ways to answer a door with a stranger. The OP says he usually doesn't answer the door because he has to hold the dogs back. I'm betting he had to in this situation also. I have to keep my 2 150 pound dogs at bay when I answer the door also. This is the method I use. Door only gets opened enough to make contact. Most of my body stays behind the door so only a deliberate and aggressive move could open the door any further. I place my weak hand on the door knob while keeping my strong hand on my holstered weapon that is either concealed by the door or my body depending on which side the door opens from. This way I never have to reach for anything becoming an aggressor, every action I make is a reaction. One foot is placed directly against the bottom of the door to act as a door stop. I have live fire trained to fall to my back, draw my weapon and fire at an aggressor in case of a home invasion.

My friend Don, Sootch00 from youtube, doing this very same training I am referring to.

 

[ncwabbit]

i agree with walking wolf, my firearm is on my side whenever i am awake. I also put my hand on my firearm when there are strangers on the cul-de-sac or when my neighbor is in the backyard.

wabbit

ps: citizen - glad you were able to wreak havoc by spreading mis-information through your reading of NC Statutes. honestly it is truly appreciated.

pps: davidmcbeth: wasn't sure i saw your medical shingle hanging as you spout off medical advice...

 

[chiefjason]

Locked storm doors are a wonderful thing. You can talk through them, answer their questions, see if anyone is with them, and tell them to leave. If they jerk open the locked door to try and get in the new CD will be kicking in.

And FWIW, the Castle Doctrine protects you in the home and on the immediate property.

14‑51.2. Home, workplace, and motor vehicle protection; presumption of fear of death or serious bodily harm.
(a) The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Home. – A building or conveyance of any kind, to include its curtilage, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed as a temporary or permanent residence.


Curtilage- The area, usually enclosed, encompassing the grounds and buildings immediately surrounding a home that is used in the daily activities of domestic life.

Glad to hear he left ASAP when he realized you were armed. I've had similar experiences with door to door realizing they had something else to do when they saw I was armed.

 

[Citizen]

i agree with walking wolf, my firearm is on my side whenever i am awake. I also put my hand on my firearm when there are strangers on the cul-de-sac or when my neighbor is in the backyard.

wabbit

ps: citizen - glad you were able to wreak havoc by spreading mis-information through your reading of NC Statutes. honestly it is truly appreciated.

pps: davidmcbeth: wasn't sure i saw your medical shingle hanging as you spout off medical advice...

Huh!?! What misinformation? If I got it wrong, show me. Give me a reasoned analysis.

 

[Citizen]

Still waiting for that reasoned analysis. (Actually, this is just a bump to make sure they get a chance to see it; and to see my next commentary.)


Apparently some people think of castle doctrine as a magic talisman. Just utter any of the words in the incantation in any order and a protective pale blue aura springs to life around the talisman: home, threat, etc. Just saying the words does it!

Apparently some people fail to take into account that the law and lawyers will compare the actual circumstances to the text of the statute.


If you've got a better analysis, give it.

 

[.40CLTlocal]

Wow this really took off since I checked it last. I can give a few more details. I posted a pic of the front of the house so I can give a layout. There is a step up the is about 3.5ft wide in front of the door. The glass door opens towards the garage. The guy was standing just off the step and I was holding the glass door with my weak (left) hand. I was 70% inside still. I mulled over his intentions for a while afterwards. The whole "one last word" was a complete afterthought. The only thing going through my head was someone I didn't know, who I had already made clear that I was not interested to, was moving in a quick motion towards myself and the entrance to my home. From where he was standing he could have reached the door in one step.

 

[Citizen]

Wow this really took off since I checked it last. I can give a few more details. I posted a pic of the front of the house so I can give a layout. There is a step up the is about 3.5ft wide in front of the door. The glass door opens towards the garage. The guy was standing just off the step and I was holding the glass door with my weak (left) hand. I was 70% inside still. I mulled over his intentions for a while afterwards. The whole "one last word" was a complete afterthought. The only thing going through my head was someone I didn't know, who I had already made clear that I was not interested to, was moving in a quick motion towards myself and the entrance to my home. From where he was standing he could have reached the door in one step.

Of course it was. Your phrasing in the OP suggests it was.

The point I am making is that if he was genuinely intending to attack, you would have noticed it through other signs. It is the absence of other signs that leads you later to conclude he was probably only trying to get in the last word.

Other signs, for example, when somebody is rushing the door, the movement forward is different than taking a step to emphasize something--the balance and speed are different. The facial expression changes in anticipation of the greater physical effort. These and other signs form the little subtle cues we don't usually pay attention to. But, they're present or not. Why not take some time to go over that moment of the encounter again in your mind just to make sure one way or the other.

 

[.40CLTlocal]

Of course it was. Your phrasing in the OP suggests it was.

The point I am making is that if he was genuinely intending to attack, you would have noticed it through other signs. It is the absence of other signs that leads you later to conclude he was probably only trying to get in the last word.

Other signs, for example, when somebody is rushing the door, the movement forward is different than taking a step to emphasize something--the balance and speed are different. The facial expression changes in anticipation of the greater physical effort. These and other signs form the little subtle cues we don't usually pay attention to. But, they're present or not. Why not take some time to go over that moment of the encounter again in your mind just to make sure.

This whole comment is based on personal interpretation. Someone could seem totally insane to you but be harmless and at the same time the most dangerous people are the calm measured ones that you would not expect. My instinctual and immediate interpretation was that he could mean harm by his movement. Anymore over processing and I am left with slower reaction time and could leave myself and family defenseless. I am not advising a shoot first and ask questions later, but gut reaction can mean a lot.

 

[WalkingWolf]

This whole comment is based on personal interpretation. Someone could seem totally insane to you but be harmless and at the same time the most dangerous people are the calm measured ones that you would not expect. My instinctual and immediate interpretation was that he could mean harm by his movement. Anymore over processing and I am left with slower reaction time and could leave myself and family defenseless. I am not advising a shoot first and ask questions later, but gut reaction can mean a lot.

Sometimes you just have to tell people to "bugger off"~of course I am talking about the salesman. :lol:

 

[ncwabbit]

Found the first source about the law being changed on 12/1/12. I do now notice that it only referenced a bill, not a signed law.http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2012/05/counter-attack-on-ncs-castle-doctrine.html

I apologize for any confusion. Will edit the earlier post to remove the error.

Thanks to tough-guy Muccione for calling it to my attention.

that work? and you go to a blog to find out about NC statutues...really?

how bout this: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutes.asp maintained by the NC General Assembly...might work a tad better eh?

wabbit

 

[Citizen]

This whole comment is based on personal interpretation. Someone could seem totally insane to you but be harmless and at the same time the most dangerous people are the calm measured ones that you would not expect. My instinctual and immediate interpretation was that he could mean harm by his movement. Anymore over processing and I am left with slower reaction time and could leave myself and family defenseless. I am not advising a shoot first and ask questions later, but gut reaction can mean a lot.

You're right. Its getting over-processed. We're not trying to process out your reaction. I've already said it was probably an automatic reaction. In fact, if you spend any time processing the situation before taking action, you're even further behind the reaction curve.

So, I'm not trying to over-process. The problem is Walking Wolf trying to assert that reaching for the gun against an unarmed man is both legal, best, and appropriate. His dodging around the question trying to prove his point is the problem. Its just begetting more and more refinement of argument in order counter his off-base assertions.

Just to illustrate, but by no means criticize, let me pose this question. The guy is standing closer, and suddenly his hand comes up to slap the homeowner's face. Does a person automatically react by reaching for the gun to prevent entry, or does he automatically react by flinching his head back and raising an arm to block? You see, the reaction is automatic. It is not thought out at the time it occurs. And, we don't want to stand around thinking it out. We want an automatic reaction. For obvious reasons.

The problem arises when the homeowner only has reaching for the gun as his reaction. The old adage that you'll revert to your training under stress applies. Get startled, get stressed, and the gun-reach is automatic--if it is the only tool in the toolbox. The point isn't to convince you to overprocess. As I mentioned earlier, the point is to have other tools in the toolbox. Lets leave talking through a closed door out of the discussion because maybe a situation develops in public or somewhere else. The other options I mentioned were a shove back, and a stern command to stop. If you get those practiced a bit, you'll instinctively know which is best in the next situation because you will have already been seeing the encounter unfold up to that point. Just practice up a bit so you have another tool or two in your toolbox.

And, of course, if you call the police don't tell them that on afterthought he was probably just wanting to get in the last word. That erases any indirect protection from an expansive interpretation of the castle doctrine statute.

 

[Citizen]

that work? and you go to a blog to find out about NC statutues...really?

how bout this: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutes.asp maintained by the NC General Assembly...might work a tad better eh?

wabbit

No, I went to the blog to find out the statute number so I could look it up on the NC legislature website. I had already been to the legislature website and discovered the search feature, besides requiring antique search methods, didn't recognize terms like defense of home, defense of habitation, etc. So, Mr. Sarcastic Rabbit, I did go to the legislative website first. Even read all hundred or whatever chapter titles to try to find something. It was only after that point that I googled again. I ignored all the newspaper-type returns because news-services are notorious for omitting the statute numbers.

So, when I got to the blog, I spotted what I was looking for--the statute number. While skimming for that I also noticed the language about the repeal. So, I grabbed what I went for--the statute number--and went back to the legislature's website, not noticing that the revision was just a bill.

So where is all this havoc that you're hyperventilating about? The next poster called it to my attention. I checked it out, found the error, and deleted the offending language from my post. How long was it already corrected before you came along with your sarcasm? Your complaint was lodged at 7:54PM. I had corrected it a 2:37AM. It had already been corrected for what? A little over 17 hours before you came along slinging an accusation about havoc when only one poster mentioned it?

And, thank you for clarifying. The reason I asked huh? Was because you referenced reading the statute. This opened the door to the question whether you disliked my analysis, the repeal error, or both. So, you caused the necessity for the clarification, Mr. Does This Help.

Looks like there is more than one person who needs to calm down around here. The whole point of these discussions is to use the quiet and relative safety to think our way through these situations and learn. You can't do that if you're angry, offended, etc. So, just try it. Reason, you know. Its what sets us apart from the animals, and let us engineer better guns.