Home Invasion Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeffersonwasright, I'm going to try not to pile on, but you need to revisit your mindset. If you need to shoot, plan on killing them. That is the only way to count on stopping them, and if you can't legally and morally justify killing them, you can't shoot them. Pistols suck for fighting. Anyone who takes a pistol to a fight they can't avoid is a fool. Put all your rounds in the upper body (above the horizontal and between the vertical lines through the nipples); throat, face (outside corner of the eyes to the bottom of the nose in a triangle. Shoot them to the ground, and keep shooting until you KNOW that they are no longer a threat. Ammo is cheap; your life is expensive. While some wounds may be fatal, few are immediate stoppers. If they turn and run, be grateful, and hold your fire.

First, layer your home defenses. I like having a fenced yard for a lot of reasons - 6', chain link, padlocked gates. There is also a "no trespassing" sign that even before the fence made it a crime to come to the door unless invited. We have no family in the area and no one has any reason to come to the house without calling us first; we're busy and tired and rarely socialize. In reality, the only folks who come to the house are pizza drivers, and there is an entry in their computer describing the need to call if I don't perceive their arrival in the driveway.

We have dogs. You can have any dog you want that fits your life style. We like large working breeds, and have mostly had Rottweilers. ANY dog can alert you to things going on outside. The larger dogs have more attention getting barks, so you pay more attention, and those outside are already warned. A pack is really useful - the offender might evade or stop one; three is a whole different situation. Anyone who keeps coming is either dumb or a criminal. If you have an outside door that is unlocked other than to pass through it, slap yourself. The locked door, as noted above, gives notice to all that they are unwelcome. It also prevents errors like someone walking in and meeting your stranger hating dog that thinks the neck is a nice place to hold. (We have one. We will not get to shoot anyone here unless they kill Bozo first, because he will almost certainly kill them.) At this point, with a trespass notice (see your state law to make sure you give notice correctly), barking dog(s), and a locked door, I can be reasonably sure that anyone who attempts to get in is a violent criminal who presents a serious risk to us.

Make up your mind to offend people. Their feelings mean nothing, and if you give their feelings any consideration to the detriment of your safety, you again need to slap yourself. If someone comes to the door, they need to be informed in a loud clear voice that they are unwelcome. Don't worry about using rough language - worry about not communicating well enough. My response to those folks is a verbal fireball. The number of *s it would take to enter them here would make the mods turn pale. At a minimum: "You at the door, don't move (other than as directed). Hands in the air, palms toward me. Back away from the door. The police have been called. Any action other than those directed will be responded to as an act of criminal aggression." (Or words to similar effect.) As also noted above: call 911, and leave the line open. Your words will be heard and given to responding officers, so they should know that this is important. The recording will help in the subsequent investigation. There have been two justifiable homicides in the Spokane area in the last decade in which the 911 call made it clear from to the start that the resident was in reasonable fear.

Now: Re-read the first paragraph about shooting the offender.

Avoid stupid people and stupid activities. Home invasions are not random. Don't have a pot grow, or otherwise deal drugs. Don't get involved with someone else's spouse. Etc.
 
Ambush?

I personally think that's an appropriate course of action. It's not a requirement in states like Texas, though, nor are homeowners typically charged for shooting an intruder, regardless of the intruder's identity, condition or motive. Still it seems that a verbal warning to someone attempting illegal entry could potentially save the homeowner a lot of trouble. The question is, why don't more homeowners do it? Why are there so many stories now of homeowners who wait quietly inside the house, then open fire when the intruder appears?

You begin with a post that is rather strange and vague. Then you come back sounding like and anti gun lawyer fishing.

I am only aware of one story of a homeowner hiding, in some state far away, and she did not shoot from ambush. The word ambushed or dry-gulched are Hollywood inspired words that usually means a bad guy is sitting along a trail behind some bushes "laying in wait". But the word ambush survived the Hollywood cowboy movies and got use in war movies. It is now in the dictionary meaning surprise "attack".

It depends on who is hiding from who and why.

Honest people never hide ready to ambush(or attack). They hide and often pray the bad person will leave without stealing too much or raping and killing. Nowadays they are often on cell phones to police. It is one indicator of who is the good guy. The person who is on their own property fearfully calling police is generally the good guy.
 
Way back up the line of this thread someone suggested acquiring a Rottweiler. I live alone in a smallish apartment and have a fourteen-pound rat terrier who thinks he's a Rott--I think of him as a micro-mastiff. No, he could not take down an intruder, but he invariably lets me know when someone is at the door. Occasionally it's a raccoon or stray cat, but he lets me know. Any edge in awareness is useful. Gives me time to come awake, begin to assess what's going on, and arm myself as needed.

The legalities and philosophical implications of using deadly force have been hashed out exhaustively here. If it's a life-or-death situation, the intruder's or mine, I will do what I have to in order to see to it that it's not my life that's lost. I would hate to have to kill someone, but even at 75 I'm not ready to die if I can prevent it.

What follows, follows. That's what lawyers are for.
 
I would seek a qualified attorney's advice on exactly what to do when confronted with a stranger in my home, under the circumstances in which I suppose that I may encounter one.

But that's just me. I'm a gambler. Call me "Mr. Vegas."
 
I personally think that's an appropriate course of action. It's not a requirement in states like Texas, though, nor are homeowners typically charged for shooting an intruder, regardless of the intruder's identity, condition or motive. Still it seems that a verbal warning to someone attempting illegal entry could potentially save the homeowner a lot of trouble. The question is, why don't more homeowners do it? Why are there so many stories now of homeowners who wait quietly inside the house, then open fire when the intruder appears?
Please refer to all these stories of homeowners lying in wait. Sounds like internet, antigun BS.
Since you refer often what the law does and doesn't allow in Texas...
Here's a place for you to start. It's the actual law, "in Texas".
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/chl-16.pdf
 
Last edited:
I would say that 99.9% of homeowners are not prepared for a home invasion, and are caught off guard. Being awoken in the middle of the night then finding a stranger in one's home is going to illicit an initial fear response, followed by a self defense response (be it fight or flight). Having the presence of mind to offer a verbal warning is a learned response from extensive situational practice and training.

Again, my question had to do ONLY with a verbal warning issued while the would-be intruder is still on the other side of the door. My concern upon discovering that an intruder is already in my home would be only how to end the threat.

As to "homeowners who wait quietly then open fire", I think this is either an unintentional misstatement/mischaracterization or a deliberate attempt to portray armed homeowners as stealthy gun nuts ready to kill.

I intended no such meaning. Maybe you've been sensitized to my choice of words by the intense political pandering of the last few years.

Whatever ends the threat fastest and safest.

We're on the same page; don't think otherwise. :cool:
 
Doesnt have to be a warning...can just be a simple fact...."hey Mr. bad guy i know youre busy and all trying to bust down my door so you can rob us and probably kill us but i just wanted to let you know that as soon as you break through my door you will be able to turn around and see your brain matter all over the place."

You're absolutely right, and this probably should have been said earlier. It goes with the "I'd rather not be forced to shoot." idea.

Yelling a warning through the door = good idea.

Shooting a warning through the door = not such a good idea.

"I've already called the police, and I have a gun. Might be a good time to re-evaluate your plan here!"
 
I would say that 99.9% of homeowners are not prepared for a home invasion, and are caught off guard.n.

I will whole hearted agree with this. I've had a gun pointed at me one time in my life and I will never forget it. And this was from a distance, from another car.

I hope I never have to face a situation where I am awakened in the night to an intruder. I try to prepare, try to condition but in the end it is a frightful situation that in no way can I really be prepared for.

I actually had a dream the other night that I was faced with an intruder and had to discharge my 9mm. Even in the dream there was an instance of hesitance. I did fire and shot him in the head.. In real life, well that's another story..
 
Again, my question had to do ONLY with a verbal warning issued while the would-be intruder is still on the other side of the door. My concern upon discovering that an intruder is already in my home would be only how to end the threat.



I intended no such meaning. Maybe you've been sensitized to my choice of words by the intense political pandering of the last few years.



We're on the same page; don't think otherwise. :cool:
Choice of words isn't my interest. I want some facts, so
please link to pages with all the info you have access to re: homeowners lying in wait to shoot burglars in Texas, and not being charged. I'm writing a book and doing a spot on CNN and would be happy to use these atrocities to protect the children.
 
Your drunk neighbor comes stumbling in because the door is unlocked and he's inebriated to the point of getting his house wrong. You shoot him. Cops come, find his car full of beer cans, no sign of forced entry, and no weapon. Who do you think is in trouble now?
In Ohio?

Him.

As I once told a British anti-gunner in usenet who was having a hissy fit because some homeowner in a Houston suburb shot a drunken Scotsman who tried to kick in his back door and refused to desist:
  1. If that's how liquor affects you, stop drinking.
  2. If you can't stop on your own, get help.
  3. If you won't stop drinking on your own, won't get help to stop drinking, and insist on unlawfully entering other people's homes, get shot.
He didn't like that.

I didn't care... and I let him know it.

Your stupidity and alcoholism in no way trump my right to be secure in my home.
 
I personally think that's an appropriate course of action. It's not a requirement in states like Texas, though, nor are homeowners typically charged for shooting an intruder, regardless of the intruder's identity, condition or motive. Still it seems that a verbal warning to someone attempting illegal entry could potentially save the homeowner a lot of trouble. The question is, why don't more homeowners do it? Why are there so many stories now of homeowners who wait quietly inside the house, then open fire when the intruder appears?

I live in a small 2 bedroom residence, one way in thru a deadbolt door. I don't holler if they are breaking the door in but I will shoot them thru the door if the door is coming down. I do not do breathalyzer tests, drug tests, or IQ tests.'
I have a disabled daughter and I will make sure they do not get beyond the point of entry. There will not be any opportunity for them to grab a TV so that question will not come up. But then I live in Texas. I would not make a sound because you may not know how many intruders may be breaking your door down, and once they hear you they may shoot you thru the door. I will deal with the legal issues afterward. I really get perturbed by those who think that anyone is entitled to break a door down, enter a residence, take what they want, and do whatever they want before a home owner can use deadly force. And drunks don't just break down a deadlock bolted door because if they do they are a deadly threat as far as I am concerned. If I were not prepared to defend my home without hesitation I would not bother to own a handgun. In Texas you do not have to wait to be physically assaulted by an unarmed attacker before using deadly force.
 
If the perp is unarmed and doesn't advance toward me I don't think that I would shoot. If he takes my DVD player and runs out the door I would just wave at him. After all, a new DVD is cheaper than a new carpet and lawyer fees.

I understand what you're saying but I don't like it. He will either come back because you didn't do anything or go on to someone else and possibly hurt them. If he's not careful he just might find me prying my DVD player from his hands after he's been shot!!
 
The best communication is whatever works

Verbal warnings are not real convincing if you voice is squeaky or trembling.

Warning shots are forbiden in most places.

But when a pump shotgun goes Clank Clank everybody, even deaf people seem to hear it.
 
The real world

I don't believe that one....

So if I forget to lock my door anyone can walk in and I cannot defend myself until I talk to him first?

What if I think I locked my door?

What if I locked it but my wife unlocked it?

I'll have to research it, but I've always believed a person in a house that wasn't theirs was breaking and entering, no matter how they got in.

You can always defend yourself if attacked. Unless it is a wet noodle or pillow type attack.

But someone just being in your house, by walking in an unlocked door is probably only guilty of a misdemeanor or tort.

When I left California I believe you could not shoot someone who was hitting you with his hands or fists.

When I was training security guards for exposed firearm permits I spent some time reading and talking about the baton issue. It says if attacked by someone with a knife, if you have a baton, you "should" (quotes are mine) try the baton first and if that fails then use your firearm. They always use the word "threat of deadly force can be made" like to make a felony citizens arrest. But reading further that does not mean you can actually shoot. You can only shoot if attacked and great bodily injury or death might result.

Know your state laws. In most places if some intoxicated male walks in your unlocked door at 2am and grabs your sleeping wife by the hand inviting her to go dancing you have a problem.

Just lock up and force any intruder to break something. Being aware that in many places that might be a misdemeanor unless other crimes are committed. Like refusing your order for him to leave. (I am guessing based on what little I know about law and how much I know about most laws being weaker than we think they are. Maybe someone will jump in here with more exact information.

Basically you cannot shoot someone for wandering into your unlocked house. Or your locked house. And you must be real convincing about how much of a treat he or she was when you say you chose to "defend myself". Were you in fear of your life or great bodily harm.

I think "breaking and entering" is a misdemeanor, certainly not a violent crime. It escalates when you see him attempt to steal something and you attempt a citizens arrest.

Whether or not your state has a citizens arrest law they all pretty much permit citizens to detain felons for the police if you know a felony happened and someone at least tells you that person did it. You can detain on a misdemeanor if you saw it happen. (If memory serves)

In the real world, in most places, if the other guy has a long criminal record you are not likely to be charged. And they usually do have a long arrest history.
 
When I left California I believe you could not shoot someone who was hitting you with his hands or fists.


So, a 4'8" woman who weighs 94 lbs is being beaten to death by a 6'4" who is bludgeoning with her fists and there is a CA state law that prohibits her from using a firearm to defend against deadly force just because the force comes in the form of fists? I would be interested to see the citation for that law. I know CA can be kind of goofy, but...

When I was training security guards for exposed firearm permits I spent some time reading and talking about the baton issue. It says if attacked by someone with a knife, if you have a baton, you "should" (quotes are mine) try the baton first and if that fails then use your firearm.

Was that some sort of company policy? Why on earth would anybody train someone to defend against a knife attack (lethal force) with a baton ("less lethal" force) when they have the option of defending themselves with a firearm? Good heavens, I hate to think that is being taught somewhere. It will get somebody killed in a ugly way. If you are close enough to touch the attacker with your baton (to deliver baton strikes), then you are close enough to be repeatedly and viciously stabbed and slashed until such time as you are maimed, gutted, bleeding out, or just plain dead. An attack with a bladed weapon is clearly using lethal force. Why would a company train their guards to treat it any other way?


Just lock up and force any intruder to break something.

In California, "burglary" is defined by Penal Code 459 PC as "entering a structure with the intent to commit a felony (or a petty theft) once inside". There is no need for a "break" of any sort to occur. In fact, there does not even have to be a door. In most states, you can be charged with burglary (or the state equivalent) even if you go in an open doorway. And everywhere I have lived, burglary (or the state equivalent) is chargeable as a felony (although I know in CA it can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor).

Respectfully,
Gonzo
^^^
NOT AN ATTORNEY, NOR HAS HE EVER PLAYED ONE ON TELEVISION!
 
Last edited:
I've always had at least one firearm in my various residences. Except for a shotgun that I no longer own, they were all small caliber, either rifles or revolvers. It was clear to me in the past that if I shot an intruder with these small rounds, it probably wouldn't be shooting to kill, but rather to disarm or disable. That's OK with me, because killing someone - unless I'm staring down the barrel of their gun - conflicts with my personal beliefs. At those times when I lived in states without a "castle doctrine," I was also aware that shooting an intruder who was unarmed could be much more expensive and risky if he lived than if he died. That was OK with me, too. I've learned over the years that there's often a price to be paid for doing the right thing. I know many people won't agree with me on these points, but I wanted to present my views.

To get to the question, my situation recently changed when I bought a 9mm semiautomatic. With the larger caliber of this gun and its large capacity mag, it's a shoot to kill weapon. It's extremely unlikely that anyone entering my house uninvited in the middle of the night would live to talk about it. Bearing in mind how I feel about all this, is it ill-advised from a personal safety perspective to shout a warning through the door if someone is attempting to force their way inside? I don't mean standing directly at the door, of course, but rather in a position removed from the immediate area, but where a verbal warning could be reasonably expected to be heard outside. Is there any historical or even anecdotal data to indicate that such an approach places the homeowner in more or less danger than killing the intruder after they enter the home?

This line of questions and statements are somewhat suspect...But, getting past that,

For a sincere suggestion, you might want to talk with your attorney as to what would or
would not be a legal defense for the use of deadly force in your state of residency.

Enroll in a training class of a reputable self defense training institution,
continue training and up date your training at every opportunity.

Cause as someone once said,
"A man's got to know his limitations."


Best of luck on your quest.


.
 
You can always defend yourself if attacked. Unless it is a wet noodle or pillow type attack.

I think you are wrong, but I'll let those who know more than I do respond to specific points.

I know in my state I can defend myself with lethal force if I feel I am physically threatened. A bad guy in my house at 2am is a threat to my family. I am not going to wait around to see if he is holding a wet noodle or a hand gun.

A pillow attack? People get smothered out with pillows on TV so I consider that a lethal weapon also.

I think I could tell the difference between a drunk and a burglar, but on the other hand, a good burglar will act like a drunk who is lost as soon as he is spotted! So no, I'm going back to if you are snooping around inside my home at 2am you are subject to lethal force, and you're going to get it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top