Last Night - Attempted Home Invasion at My House

[nobucks]

imported post

They finally gave us a copy of the report yesterday. My wife emailed the chief and the captain of patrol operations yesterday, so I expect that we'll be talking to one or the other sometime soon.

Interesting info from the report: Officers observed that the subject had wet his pants.

 

[nobucks]

imported post

I just got off of the phone with the captain of patrol operations. Here's what he told me as to why they didn't take the guy in.

I'm paraphrasing, but, he said, basically, that the officers didn't take the guy in because they determined that his motivation was not to harm anyone or to steal anything, he was just drunk and at the wrong house. If they had taken him to jail, they would have just ended up letting him go in the morning, and the DA wouldn't have pursued charges anyway.

I understand that, although I don't necessarily agree with it.

Here's a quote, though, that I do take issue with. Maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard a police officer say. He told me, "If you have a gun, one thing to think about is that if he had gained entry and you had shot him, we would never have known his motivation."

So, basically, acc. to the police, if someone knocks down my door, I should determine what his motivation is before I shoot. Should I ask him, "Excuse me, but why did you break down my door?" :banghead:

He also didn't have an answer to my question, "So, he meant to break down someone else's door?"

 

[lechwe]

imported post

nobucks wrote:

Here's a quote, though, that I do take issue with. Maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard a police officer say. He told me, "If you have a gun, one thing to think about is that if he had gained entry and you had shot him, we would never have known his motivation."

So, basically, acc. to the police, if someone knocks down my door, I should determine what his motivation is before I shoot. Should I ask him, "Excuse me, but why did you break down my door?" :banghead:

He also didn't have an answer to my question, "So, he meant to break down someone else's door?"

Sounds like the cop was telling you it would have been easier if you had shot him. You should still talk with the Chief and I would pursue the scumbag and take him to court for the cost of repairing your door.

Well done on how you handled the situation.

D

 

[nobucks]

imported post

In the context of the conversation, he was definitely suggesting to me that it was a bad idea for me to have had the gun out at all.

My wife wasn't home when he called, so she's going to call him back this afternoon. I have no doubt that she'll give him an earful.

 

[lechwe]

imported post

So you have someone on the other side of the door late at night trying to break it down. You have your daughters and wife there and you are not sure if the person is alone or armed with bad intent. The cop who was not there and has no idea what was happening thinks it was a bad idea to even have your weapon out. The dumb-ass should have to spend a week on patrol without his weapon.

There you go. You've gone and gotten me all fired up now. Makes me want to call them too.

You still handled it well. Much better perpared than I am. I'll have to work on that.

 

[MSC 45ACP]

imported post

Its sillychit like that cop's comments that REALLY frost my balls! He has NO CLUE how much training you have or your level of competence with the weapon. He had no answers for your questions, but he didn't like the idea of your being armed. Whataputz...

 

[pyite]

imported post

That really is ridiculous. I would not have been able to keep my cool talking to that cop. something along the lines of "I dont give a $#@* what his motivation is."

 

[HankT]

imported post

nobucks wrote:

So, basically, acc. to the police, if someone knocks down my door, I should determine what his motivation is before I shoot. Should I ask him, "Excuse me, but why did you break down my door?" :banghead:

Nah, that's not what the cops are suggesting. You're distorting their point. Sure, they have a biased perspective and so they spin their message. Just like you spin yours. Let's face it, although you titled this thread "Attempted Home Invasion," it was not really a home invasion in any legal or even common sense of the term.

There was never any real danger to you and yours in the incident. Just the appearance of danger. It was just a piss-in-his-pants drunk.

You and wife did what was called for and nothing more. But, remember,if you had remained snoring and she did everything the same, the outcome would not have been different. To a large degree your actions were inconsequential. But you didn't hurtanything, that's for sure. So, that's very good. Shooting through the door would have been unethical. Shooting the drunk through the door would probably have been catastrophic.

I had a virtually identical situation as yours over 20 years ago. I've thought a lot about what me and my wife did that night. We did almost exactly what you two did.

And I am soooo grateful for that whenever I think about it.

Unfortunately, at the time I had no HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD) to guide me. But now, through the miracle of digital networks, we can all be thankful for the creation of this irrefutable construct. Here it is one more time:

It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


Thanks for posting yet another corroboration of HPCSD.

 

[pyite]

imported post

HankT wrote:

nobucks wrote:

So, basically, acc. to the police, if someone knocks down my door, I should determine what his motivation is before I shoot. Should I ask him, "Excuse me, but why did you break down my door?" :banghead:

Nah, that's not what the cops are suggesting. You're distorting their point. Sure, they have a biased perspective and so they spin their message. Just like you spin yours. Let's face it, although you titled this thread "Attempted Home Invasion," it was not really a home invasion in any legal or even common sense of the term.

There was never any real danger to you and yours in the incident. Just the appearance of danger. It was just a piss-in-his-pants drunk.

You and wife did what was called for and nothing more. But, remember,if you had remained snoring and she did everything the same, the outcome would not have been different. To a large degree your actions were inconsequential. But you didn't hurtanything, that's for sure. So, that's very good. Shooting through the door would have been unethical. Shooting the drunk through the door would probably have been catastrophic.

I had a virtually identical situation as yours over 20 years ago. I've thought a lot about what me and my wife did that night. We did almost exactly what you two did.

And I am soooo grateful for that whenever I think about it.

Unfortunately, at the time I had no HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD) to guide me. But now, through the miracle of digital networks, we can all be thankful for the creation of this irrefutable construct. Here it is one more time:

It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


Thanks for posting yet another corroboration of HPCSD.

if said drunk would have gained entry into his home by force it would not be bad strategy to shoot him. I will not get into a physical altercation with anyone (armed or not) that has forced their way into my home and run the risk of them overpowering me and harming my wife and daughter. They will cease and desist and exit my home or they will be shot.

 

[zack991]

imported post

pyite wrote:

HankT wrote:

nobucks wrote:

So, basically, acc. to the police, if someone knocks down my door, I should determine what his motivation is before I shoot. Should I ask him, "Excuse me, but why did you break down my door?" :banghead:

Nah, that's not what the cops are suggesting. You're distorting their point. Sure, they have a biased perspective and so they spin their message. Just like you spin yours. Let's face it, although you titled this thread "Attempted Home Invasion," it was not really a home invasion in any legal or even common sense of the term.

There was never any real danger to you and yours in the incident. Just the appearance of danger. It was just a piss-in-his-pants drunk.

You and wife did what was called for and nothing more. But, remember,if you had remained snoring and she did everything the same, the outcome would not have been different. To a large degree your actions were inconsequential. But you didn't hurtanything, that's for sure. So, that's very good. Shooting through the door would have been unethical. Shooting the drunk through the door would probably have been catastrophic.

I had a virtually identical situation as yours over 20 years ago. I've thought a lot about what me and my wife did that night. We did almost exactly what you two did.

And I am soooo grateful for that whenever I think about it.

Unfortunately, at the time I had no HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD) to guide me. But now, through the miracle of digital networks, we can all be thankful for the creation of this irrefutable construct. Here it is one more time:

It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


Thanks for posting yet another corroboration of HPCSD.

if said drunk would have gained entry into his home by force it would not be bad strategy to shoot him. I will not get into a physical altercation with anyone (armed or not) that has forced their way into my home and run the risk of them overpowering me and harming my wife and daughter. They will cease and desist and exit my home or they will be shot.

Agreed, more people die from physical attacks then getting shot to death.

 

[nobucks]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Let's face it, although you titled this thread "Attempted Home Invasion," it was not really a home invasion in any legal or even common sense of the term.

Hence the word, "Attempted," and, one of the reasons why he didn't go to jail. Like one officer told me that night, "From our standpoint, it would have been easier if he would have broken down the door."

BTW, no spin, the Capt's point came through loud and clear in the conversation that I had with him.

Joel

 

[John Wolver]

imported post

hankt.... i think your slightly out of touch....

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

His drunk ass is lucky he picked your door instead of mine, ain't no chance of hitting an innocent bystander or neighbors house from the inside to the outside of my front door.. Man my ears would still be ringing from the muzzle blast!

 

[HankT]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

His drunk ass is lucky he picked your door instead of mine, ain't no chance of hitting an innocent bystander or neighbors house from the inside to the outside of my front door.. Man my ears would still be ringing from the muzzle blast!

Well, I gotta admit. Some folks do love an impromptu execution opportunity (IEO).

I bet some might even wet themselves at the thought....

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

http://www.learntocarry.com/docs/CastleDoctrine.html

F---You let me in for the third time is all I need along with three credible witnesses inside the home dip SH!!

All I can say is call ahead if you plan on shouldering my front door in an agressive manner at the wee hours of the morning.



563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she[/b] reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself[/b] or a third person from what he or she[/b] reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:


(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

http://www.learntocarry.com/docs/CastleDoctrine.html

F---You let me in for the third time is all I need along with three credible witnesses inside the home dip SH!!

All I can say is call ahead if you plan on shouldering my front door in an agressive manner at the wee hours of the morning.



563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she[/b] reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself[/b] or a third person from what he or she[/b] reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

Have you given any thought to how you would feel after shooting/killing a drunk like described in nobucks' incident?

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

I would feel like his alcohol caused himyet another big problem ..

 

[HankT]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

I would feel like his alcohol caused himyet another big problem ..

That's all you would feel? Nothing else? Wouldn't you feel something else if you shot the drunk and/or killed him?

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

I'm not busting on nobucks for following his instincts, I'm just saying what I would do, NEWS FLASH, he and I are 2 completely different people.

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Carnivore wrote:

I would feel like his alcohol caused himyet another big problem ..

That's all you would feel? Nothing else? Wouldn't you feel something else if you shot the drunk and/or killed him?

It'd be bout like when I walk up on a Deer, I'd check the point of impact/bullet placement.