Last Night - Attempted Home Invasion at My House

[khicks]

imported post

you did good. check the door and door jams real good. the point is how good will they hold up to the next person that trys to get through the door.

 

[TriCityOC]

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:


(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.

If you want to cite statutes...generally state law clearly distinguishes between Physical Force and Deadly/Lethal Physical Force...so try citing statutes that actually apply to the situation. All this statute says is that you can put your bare hands on someone and physically remove them from your property.

 

[TriCityOC]

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

snip...
However, even decent people WILL do what is necessary at the time it is necessary.... and second guess themselves with sadness at leisure. Perhaps for the rest of their lives.

I think Col. Grossman's book "On Killing" would be a good read. I was surprised to learn that the statement above, though logical and commonly believed, is incorrect. The truth is that only about 25% of SOLDIERS, trained to kill, were actually able to put an enemy in their sights and pull the trigger at the moment of crisis. That is based on US Army statistics from WWI and WWII. It is an interesting read. I found that many of the things that I believed about survival instinct are in practice not true for most people.

 

[nobucks]

imported post

By the time of the Vietnam War, Grossman notes that number went up to 90% in the American forces, thanks to conditioning during training to overcome the natural resistance to killing. Even if you're a cook in the US Army, you've been trained to overcome that response. If you've been through BRM (Basic Rifle Marksmanship) you've undergone that conditioning by shooting at human silhouettes and 3D targets, and bayonet training.

 

[dshelman]

imported post

I can only imagine myself at the top of those stairs, my loved ones scattered throughout the house with a wild man growling and pounding at the door:cuss:. I think I would be quaking in my slippers to tell you the truth. The axiom of HankT's is fine and well in other conditions, but it completely changes in the context of home and hearth. I likely would have sprayed the door with my bullets and wizzed in my pj's at the same time.:what:

You're a better man than I am for holding your fire (and your water), even if you didn't have to.

D

 

[HankT]

imported post

dshelman wrote:

I can only imagine myself at the top of those stairs, my loved ones scattered throughout the house with a wild man growling and pounding at the door:cuss:. I think I would be quaking in my slippers to tell you the truth. The axiom of HankT's is fine and well in other conditions, but it completely changes in the context of home and hearth. I likely would have sprayed the door with my bullets and wizzed in my pj's at the same time.:what:

You're a better man than I am for holding your fire (and your water), even if you didn't have to.

Of course, he had to hold his fire.

There was no real threat. For nobucks to have shot through the door in his incident would have been unwise, a poor tactic and a humongous legal headache.If nobucks had shot through the door, he would haveregretted it bigtime.

All of this is covered, of course,inHankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD):

It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


In a situation as nobucks described, one can quake and whizz, in slippers and pj's respectively, but onecannot get away from the prudence, practicality and wisdom of HPCSD. It ALWAYS applies.

NEVERshoot through your front door at a drunken fool tryijng to get in the wrong house. You'll be sorry if you do...especially if you hit him.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

imported post

HankT wrote:

dshelman wrote:

I can only imagine myself at the top of those stairs, my loved ones scattered throughout the house with a wild man growling and pounding at the door:cuss:.  I think I would be quaking in my slippers to tell you the truth.  The axiom of HankT's is fine and well in other conditions, but it completely changes in the context of home and hearth. I likely would have sprayed the door with my bullets and wizzed in my pj's at the same time.:what:

You're a better man than I am for holding your fire (and your water), even if you didn't have to.

Of course, he had to hold his fire.

There was no real threat. For nobucks to have shot through the door in his incident would have been unwise, a poor tactic and a humongous legal headache. If nobucks had shot through the door, he would have regretted it bigtime. 

All of this is covered, of course, in HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD):

It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


In a situation as nobucks described, one can quake and whizz, in slippers and pj's respectively, but one cannot get away from the prudence, practicality and wisdom of HPCSD. It ALWAYS applies.

NEVER shoot through your front door at a drunken fool tryijng to get in the wrong house. You'll be sorry if you do...especially if you hit him.

 

Yes... Open the door for him, THEN shoot him....

:quirky

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

just listining to you think, stimulates me, in ways i cant explain. you are of course totally correct. HPCSD has been proven to be right again.

well that was that one time....

 

[nobucks]

imported post

So, if I live in California, and there's a wildfire in my backyard, does that mean that because firemen arrived to put it out before it made it to my house, there was never a threat to my home?

I agree that the pistol turned out to be incidental to the event. But if there was never a threat, then we never would have called the police. The threat was stopped by the police, but there was definitely a threat.

Had I fired through the door, there would have been legal trouble and regret, to be sure, but, under the Castle Doctrine, it would have been legally allowable. The problem would have been that I would likely have had to prove that in court.

I think the applicable principle here is, "It is always a bad idea to get drunk and try to knock down the door of a stranger."

Joel

 

[HankT]

imported post

nobucks wrote:

So, if I live in California, and there's a wildfire in my backyard, does that mean that because firemen arrived to put it out before it made it to my house, there was never a threat to my home?

No. That's a bad comparison. In the case of the wildfire, it is both a perceived threat--and an actual threat, based on wind, temperature, etc.

In the case of the drunk banging on the door trying to get home, there is only a perceived threat--that it could be some home invader bent on raping, killing and pillaging. There is no real threat. He's just a piss-in-his pants drunk.

Comparison fails.




nobucks wrote:

I agree that the pistol turned out to be incidental to the event. But if there was never a threat, then we never would have called the police. The threat was stopped by the police, but there was definitely a threat.

Perceived threat was definitely present. And justified, I might add. In our society people who perceive a threat have a right, and even aresponsibility to call thepo-po.

(This right/responsibility does not apply to ninnies who call9-1-1 to report anOCer, of course.)





nobucks wrote:

Had I fired through the door, there would have been legal trouble and regret, to be sure, but, under the Castle Doctrine, it would have been legally allowable. The problem would have been that I would likely have had to prove that in court.

Had you fired through the door, you would have done the dumbest thing in your life. Would the Castle Doctrine have saved you from being found guilty of some felony? Let's say "probably yes." It is a probabilistic answer. Which means the probability of successfully being prosecuted for a felony is non-zero.

And a lot of trauma/worry/frustration would accrue because of that no-zero prob. For you and your family. And that doesn't do anything for the legal and other costs. Nor does it measure the psychological costs. If you shoot the drunk in the head--and come to realize he was not an actual threat--you will suffer for it. And the better person you are....the more you will suffer.




nobucks wrote:

I think the applicable principle here is, "It is always a bad idea to get drunk and try to knock down the door of a stranger."

Of course you are correct. Except for implying that it is the only principle.

Sure, "it is always a bad idea to get drunk and try to knock the door of a stranger." That's quite certain. Just ask Carter Albrecht:

Musician Is Killed for Banging on a Door

NYTIMES

September 5, 2007
DALLAS, Sept. 4 — A Texas rock musician was shot to death here early Monday by a neighbor who fired through a closed door, thinking he was scaring off a burglar.

The incident occurred just three days after a new law took effect strengthening the right of Texans to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property.

The musician, Jeffrey Carter Albrecht, 34, a keyboardist with Edie Brickell and the New Bohemians and the Dallas rock band Sorta, was shot in the head after he startled a man and his wife about 4 a.m. by pounding and kicking at their back door, the police said. Mr. Albrecht had just assaulted his girlfriend, who lives next door and had locked him out of her house, the police said...

 

[nobucks]

imported post

HankT wrote:

nobucks wrote:

So, if I live in California, and there's a wildfire in my backyard, does that mean that because firemen arrived to put it out before it made it to my house, there was never a threat to my home?

No. That's a bad comparison. In the case of the wildfire, it is both a perceived threat--and an actual threat, based on wind, temperature, etc.

In the case of the drunk banging on the door trying to get home, there is only a perceived threat--that it could be some home invader bent on raping, killing and pillaging. There is no real threat. He's just a piss-in-his pants drunk.

Comparison fails.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Just because he peed his pants when the cops took him down says nothing about what he might have done had he come into the house.

The Capt. told me that the guy might have passed out and fallen into the house if he had gotten through. Okay, but he might also have done a variety of other things.

"Just a piss-in-his pants drunk" implies a harmless town drunk, not a drunk who goes around trying to knock down a stranger's door, even when informed that deadly force is waiting on the other side.

Joel

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

While I would not fire through a closed door, the moment the door opens and I can see the target.....all bets are off. The intruder can either run the opposite direction or end up full of holes. Their choice. Armed or not, an intruder that just forced their way into my home while I am there is obviously a clear and present danger to life and liberty.

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

Keep an eye on the Obituaries, Hank T will show up one of thes edays, and they will have found him laying on top of his loaded pistol..:banghead:

 

[FrankC]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

Keep an eye on the Obituaries, Hank T will show up one of thes edays, and they will have found him laying on top of his loaded pistol..:banghead:

....with the key to his trigger lock in his hand...

Seriously hank...try not to be such a blowhard!

 

[HankT]

imported post

nobucks wrote:

HankT wrote:

nobucks wrote:

So, if I live in California, and there's a wildfire in my backyard, does that mean that because firemen arrived to put it out before it made it to my house, there was never a threat to my home?

No. That's a bad comparison. In the case of the wildfire, it is both a perceived threat--and an actual threat, based on wind, temperature, etc.

In the case of the drunk banging on the door trying to get home, there is only a perceived threat--that it could be some home invader bent on raping, killing and pillaging. There is no real threat. He's just a piss-in-his pants drunk.

Comparison fails.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Just because he peed his pants when the cops took him down says nothing about what he might have done had he come into the house.

The Capt. told me that the guy might have passed out and fallen into the house if he had gotten through. Okay, but he might also have done a variety of other things.

"Just a piss-in-his pants drunk" implies a harmless town drunk, not a drunk who goes around trying to knock down a stranger's door, even when informed that deadly force is waiting on the other side.

Joel

OK. We'll just have to not agree on the threat part. There is a differentiation to be made betweena perceived threat and an actual threat that is useful.

You may dwell on the potential of drunks to cause you and yours harm. However, drunks do have a higher probability to try to enter houses that are not theirs. I mentioned earlier in this thread that I had one do it to me many years ago in anincident eerily similar toyours. After the wifey called 911, I had made up my mind thatif he broke the door lock and entered my apartment that I would indeed shoot him with my revolver that I had pointed at the entranceway. Thank the good Lord that he didn't do it. He was an old man, couldn't speak english, about 150 lbs and was no threat at all--he just was trying to get back home in an apartment building a few streets away. Every time I think of that incident, I am grateful, so grateful that I wasn't presented with a situation where I would have made the biggest mistake of my life--which shooting him would have been.

One thing we can agree on is that if you had shot that drunk, the quality of your life, and that of your family, would be pretty bad right now. We all knowit. You know it. And your family probably knows it. The onlyperson who might not know itis thepiss-in-his-pants drunk who tried to get in your home.

And that is one of mymajor points in this thread.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

imported post

OK. We'll just have to not agree on the threat part. There is a differentiation to be made between a perceived threat and an actual threat that is useful.

Perception is reality.

I see a guy running towards me with a knife...

I DON'T see the guy behind me who is also running towards the OTHER guy with a knife..

Guess what MY reality is? I see a guy with a knife running at me. Doesn't matter that I'm not the intended target, he is now mine.

 

[HankT]

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

OK. We'll just have to not agree on the threat part. There is a differentiation to be made between a perceived threat and an actual threat that is useful.

Perception is reality.

I see a guy running towards me with a knife...

I DON'T see the guy behind me who is also running towards the OTHER guy with a knife..

Guess what MY reality is? I see a guy with a knife running at me. Doesn't matter that I'm not the intended target, he is now mine.

You have to be concerned with the big "R" word, TW.

The big "R" is the key. Usually is. That's the thing certain gun-first guys tend to forget...

BTW, life's not about walking around armed looking for an impromptu execution opportunity (IEO).

Somehow, from your posts, including this one, I get the impression that you just might think it is.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

imported post

HankT wrote:

TechnoWeenie wrote:

OK. We'll just have to not agree on the threat part. There is a differentiation to be made between a perceived threat and an actual threat that is useful.

Perception is reality.

I see a guy running towards me with a knife...

I DON'T see the guy behind me who is also running towards the OTHER guy with a knife..

Guess what MY reality is? I see a guy with a knife running at me. Doesn't matter that I'm not the intended target, he is now mine.

You have to be concerned with the big "R" word, TW.

The big "R" is the key.  Usually is. That's the thing certain gun-first guys tend to forget...

BTW, life's not about walking around armed looking for an impromptu execution opportunity (IEO).

Somehow, from your posts, including this one, I get the impression that you just might think it is.

Really?

My reality is, I'm probably never going to need to use my firearm in self defense.

Reality is, I hope to never be in such a situation.

Reality is, I may be in a situation requiring me to defend myself.

Reality is, I am prepared to defend my life.

Reality is, I am prepared to defend my life with force, deadly if need be.

Reality is, if I need something, and I don't have it, I'm screwed.

Reality is, If I have something, and never need it, I just carried a bit of extra weight.



Reality is, MY MOTTO IN LIFE is 'Diplomat first, soldier second', try to resolve a situation without violence, deescalate the situation, etc. If that fails, or there is no other option, do ANYTHING you have to do to survive/win the battle.


Reality is, you're not being difficult to further a conversation or ideology, you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

 

[jadedone4]

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

HankT wrote:

TechnoWeenie wrote:

OK. We'll just have to not agree on the threat part. There is a differentiation to be made between a perceived threat and an actual threat that is useful.

Perception is reality.

I see a guy running towards me with a knife...

I DON'T see the guy behind me who is also running towards the OTHER guy with a knife..

Guess what MY reality is? I see a guy with a knife running at me. Doesn't matter that I'm not the intended target, he is now mine.

You have to be concerned with the big "R" word, TW.

The big "R" is the key. Usually is. That's the thing certain gun-first guys tend to forget...

BTW, life's not about walking around armed looking for an impromptu execution opportunity (IEO).

Somehow, from your posts, including this one, I get the impression that you just might think it is.

Really?

My reality is, I'm probably never going to need to use my firearm in self defense.

Reality is, I hope to never be in such a situation.

Reality is, I may be in a situation requiring me to defend myself.

Reality is, I am prepared to defend my life.

Reality is, I am prepared to defend my life with force, deadly if need be.

Reality is, if I need something, and I don't have it, I'm screwed.

Reality is, If I have something, and never need it, I just carried a bit of extra weight.



Reality is, MY MOTTO IN LIFE is 'Diplomat first, soldier second', try to resolve a situation without violence, deescalate the situation, etc. If that fails, or there is no other option, do ANYTHING you have to do to survive/win the battle.


Reality is, you're not being difficult to further a conversation or ideology, you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

.... hat tip to Techno... well said.. !!

What I have "learned" from some posts here is that there are folks who's opinions run the full gambit - carry and a fully unafraid to use, to those who carry and and are learning the skills necessary to engage if need be. Some folks have LEO or miltary backgrounds, so firearms are not an "unusual" item to handle/carry; some have been victims of crimes (which runs another gambit of car broken into all the way to physical assaults, etc) - this all factors into "shoot or don't shoot" decisions - which are often made in seconds, not on a message-board forum over the course of days/weeks, etc.

All in all, everyone is going to do what it takes to go home to families at the end of the day - hopefully that doesn't require the use of a firearm; but if it does..... "Only YOU can make that determination...." (Repeat the above in tone of Smokey the Bear slogans...)

Keep the training smart and sharp (even though ammo availability sucks now); maintain situational awareness; learn, learn and re-learn your skills - "the more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in combat..."

I've had the opportunity (and it continues) to learn a TON of information from folks on this forum - hats off to creator, moderators and the folks that participate... it's all an evolutionary process...

... keep your powder dry...

 

[HankT]

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

HankT wrote:

TechnoWeenie wrote:

OK. We'll just have to not agree on the threat part. There is a differentiation to be made between a perceived threat and an actual threat that is useful.

Perception is reality.

I see a guy running towards me with a knife...

I DON'T see the guy behind me who is also running towards the OTHER guy with a knife..

Guess what MY reality is? I see a guy with a knife running at me. Doesn't matter that I'm not the intended target, he is now mine.

You have to be concerned with the big "R" word, TW.

The big "R" is the key. Usually is. That's the thing certain gun-first guys tend to forget...

BTW, life's not about walking around armed looking for an impromptu execution opportunity (IEO).

Somehow, from your posts, including this one, I get the impression that you just might think it is.

Really?

My reality is, I'm probably never going to need to use my firearm in self defense.

Reality is, I hope to never be in such a situation.

Reality is, I may be in a situation requiring me to defend myself.

Reality is, I am prepared to defend my life.

Reality is, I am prepared to defend my life with force, deadly if need be.

Reality is, if I need something, and I don't have it, I'm screwed.

Reality is, If I have something, and never need it, I just carried a bit of extra weight.



Reality is, MY MOTTO IN LIFE is 'Diplomat first, soldier second', try to resolve a situation without violence, deescalate the situation, etc. If that fails, or there is no other option, do ANYTHING you have to do to survive/win the battle.


Reality is, you're not being difficult to further a conversation or ideology, you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

Reality is a very important and useful "R" word. Probably the most important one.

But I was referring to the other "R" word. The one you must deal with, in our society, at least, as a consequence of your Reality-based decisions and actions.

Never forget the other "R" word. It may be that: "Doesn't matter that I'm not the intended target, he is now mine." is an incorrect statement. That's simply because YOU don't get todefine the other"R" word....so it may indeed "matter."

Best of luck to you in your Reality show. I hope it works out for you.