Home Invasion Question

[Jeffersonwasright]

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?

 

[laskt9]

In general you do not pull the trigger unless the intruder does not comply with you request. If you yell get out of my house and they do not leave its time to act. If they do leave get on the phone and call the police. It's better to not have to use your gun unless you have to. Or at least that's how I feel

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[mc5aw]

If you suspect a home invasion in progress, you should be on the phone to LEO as you are voicing your warnings to the BG. Your call will be recorded, and there will be documented evidence that you made every effort to dissuade the BG from entering your home. "Go away!", "Leave me alone!", "Get out of my house!", etc. are all reasonable attempts to avert a violent situation. Should the scenario go south, and you are put in a position to use deadly force, deadly force is what you employ to save your life ... not wounding force, or scare 'em away force.

While I respect your personal beliefs, I believe that owning a firearm for self defense is an all-or-nothing proposition. No one wants to haphazardly take a life, but thinking a firearm should be used as a diversionary tool rather than a deadly weapon is foolhardy. Carefully research civilian & LEO shootings and see how many BGs were completely incapacitated when wounded vs. how many BGs fought on. Also research big game hunters sentiments on the fighting tenacity of wounded animals. In the case of defending oneself from a violent aggressor, you shoot until the threat is eliminated.

 

[Kanewpadle]

If you're staring down the barrel of a gun, you have no choices other than to say a prayer. Nobody in their right mind wants to take a life. We simply want to stop them from hurting us. If they die as a result, so be it. At that point in time, personal beliefs or legality don't matter if you are truly defending yourself.

Some instructors advocate a warning. Some do not. I won't until I identify the person. Then I will tell them to stop. You will have milliseconds to make a shoot/no shoot decision. But don't count on a verbal warning to scare them off. You will only succeed in letting them know exactly where you are.

 

[HereSinceTheLongHunters]

It is not required on our state, but mc5aw's advise about vocalizing your warning while on the phone is the same as the LEO instructor's at the CPL class I took. They also stressed the fact that people will keep coming without knowing they're injured for minutes simply on adrenalin. If that worst case happens, the advise is to keep firing at center mass until they go down. The legal aspect of the class is as or more valuable than the shooting skills, especially since every state is different. I highly recommend that you spend the time and money for the training and information. It really helped me process and settle all of those questions.

 

[walkin' trails]

Anyone, after a shooting, will find themselves in a position where they have to articulate what actions they took. Its always best to have an attorney present when that occurs. Before something like that happens, it is best to get familiar with your state/local laws on the use of deadly force.

In terms of "shooting disarm or disable," most people find that when leveling a firearm at a deadly threat, the fight or flight thing kicks in and the gross motor skills take over, and with the tunnel vision and all - people find that center mass of the threat is the best they can reasonably do.

 

[Ironbark]

A verbal warning would be situational at best.

If someone bursts into your bedroom at 2am, shouting a warning is probably not the 1st thing that will pop into your mind.
Alternatively, hearing someone creeping around down stairs at 2am is a completely different scenario.
It is a good thing to discuss, research and understand what the potential repercussions of a self defense shooting are and more importantly to be comfortable with them long before every purchasing a firearm for the express purpose of self defense.
At the moment of truth you do not need indecision keeping your finger off the trigger.

IB

 

[Jeffersonwasright]

Thanks for the excellent comments! Just to clarify, I was referring only to a situation where a would-be intruder is attempting to forcibly enter the home through a locked door. The law in Texas is very clear on this issue, so my concern is only for whatever impact it might have on my personal safety to warn an unknown assailant who is still on the other side of the door. No warning is required in Texas in this situation, either before or after an individual forces their way into the residence. An individual attempting to force their way in can in fact be shot through the door, and the homeowner - according to law - will be held blameless if he believed his life was in danger. I would never shoot blind though, so my concern is only whether to attempt to warn such a person away before they enter, or wait for them to gain entry, and then shoot. Again, not a legal issue, just trying to sort out the best approach for myself beforehand.

FWIW, I was prompted to ask about this as a result of a 911 recording that I heard on YouTube earlier today. During the call, the Oklahoma homeowner waited patiently inside with the 911 operator on the line until the intruder broke down the door. Then he fired three shots. He is not expected to be charged, but I couldn't help wondering why he didn't attempt to warn the burglar away.

Thanks again for everyone's input!

 

[jlrhiner]

Sometimes, bad guys have to live (or die) by the decisions they make. IMHO, every home invader needs to be waited on on the other side of the door by an armed homeowner. If 90% of their worthless butts were killed just inside the door, maybe this insanity would stop.

 

[MaximumLawman]

I really think you should invest in a good alarm system and a Rottweiler. A small caliber or large caliber Rottweiler. Doesn't matter.

 

[mc5aw]

Thanks for the excellent comments! Just to clarify, I was referring only to a situation where a would-be intruder is attempting to forcibly enter the home through a locked door.

This example is still too general to give a consistent response. We've had discussions about this in the past. Is the intruder a meth head looking for a quick drug money score? Is he one of a trio of BGs who are trying to enter and perpetrate a violent home invasion? Or is he simply the town drunk who is so plastered that he's keying into the wrong house? Awareness of one's situation will help to determine one's actions. Coming down in the middle of the night and seeing/hearing your back door being jostled might first warrant a stern, "The police are on their way! I have a gun! Go away!" BGs should be inclined to leave, while the town drunk may not process your command. Obviously, you need to be armed when addressing this situation, no matter who is paying a visit. Hopefully, LEO will be on the scene before you are forced to act, but that is often times wishful thinking.

 

[brokenprism]

... but I couldn't help wondering why he didn't attempt to warn the burglar away.

mc5aw's first post in this thread is golden. It was very balanced, reasonable, insightful, and sensitive to where the OP is coming from. That said, I'll go down a less tolerant path. It's just my opinion, of course.

One good reason not to shout a warning (as a poster has already said here) is that it gives your location away. (So do steady-stream flash lights at night.) You lose a tactical advantage that you need. 'Tactical' is not a dirty word -- do you want to live? Are people counting on you for some kind of support, or even your simple reassuring presence? Then you have a duty to survive this if the knock (or the shattering glass) comes. How do you know the guy at the door is acting alone? What if his job is to distract and occupy you while his buddy comes through the back door to subdue you, or take your wife or child hostage, and then unlock the front door?

I read an interesting statement by the FBI recently. Whereas in years past burglars avoided the use of weapons -- which added time to their sentences -- we are now, as a Nation, so broadly and predictably armed for legitimate self defense, that the bad guys are beginning to arm themselves again for 'illegitimate' self defense! And they're working in crews more often than they used to, for the purposes of shock, awe, and tactical advantage through overwhelming numbers. There are too many 13-rd Gkocks out there to ignore, so they form larger teams.

I don't want to shoot either, but I look at this philosophically (and even religiously). Anyone who is trying to break into my house, where my 10-yr old daughter lives, has already forfeited his right to compassionate treatment and restraint from me (the other reason the Texas homeowner remained silent, I suspect; he was morally willing to 'take out the trash...'). When an aggressor makes a foolish life-or-death choice, and has the gall to involve me in it, his rights end at my door.

You mentioned "shooting to kill." Another member called it "shooting till the threat is down." That's the proper view to take; you want to stop a threat from proceeding, pure and simple, and expired aggressors are incidental to this goal; the goal of survival. If you happen to miss the Vulcan pinch point with your generous 'warning' shot, and hit an aorta, oh well. Bad for him, and better his than yours. But it was his choice to be at your door, and now your actions may have some input into whether he appears the next night at someone else's door.

BTW, personally, I wouldn't linger near an entrance trying to forestall an invasion. I'd grab cell phone, gun, and daughter, and retreat to the most defensible part of the house -- the part I have already selected in case I ever have to go there -- and make my stand there. If in my absence the bad guys plunder the house, fine. The cops are coming, and it's only stuff. But they're not coming upstairs.

 

[tacman605]

First eliminate the thoughts of shooting to disable or wound because of the caliber you were carrying at the time. Many a person shot with a .22 was killed instantly because the bullet hit the right spot.

Every situation would/could be different dependent on your state law, your level of training and the actions of the suspect. If your state law says you do not have to give a warning, you can shoot through the door and so on do what you feel you have to do but realize when this happens and you then find out you have shot your neighbors 12 year old who was banging on your door to alert you of a fire at his house you also have to live with the aftermath.

Everyone has to make their own decisions in regards to the given situation. As for myself I will identify my target before shooting, give a warning if appropriate from a position of cover and will use whatever force needed to stop the threat from harming me or mine whether that is the simple display of a firearm and intent to use it to multiple rounds fire with a reload if the threat remains.

Once you engage, engage with the purpose of shooting until he stops whatever he was doing that made you shoot him in the first place. Whether or not your state has a castle doctrine or not just because you can shoot, should you. There have been several high profile cases where the castle doctrine and stand your ground laws have been questioned and challenged.

If I find a person in my living room at 0300 my intent is to stop the threat which includes the suspect leaving my home willingly to be apprehended outside away from my family. If he is armed all bets are off unless he chooses to comply same if unarmed. If he complies great if he poses a threat then he is dealt with accordingly.

 

[DigiRebel]

I am curious why you consider a 9mm to be a "shoot to kill" weapon when other loads you've had were not. 9mm is a great little round, but definitely not the man-stopper some rounds can be. (Also don't get me wrong, I love my 9mm, for me the purchase was made because the gun would be fun to shoot more than because I wanted to be able to crack the engine block of a Mack Truck.)

Shooting to wound, is a great idea in theory... in fact the one anti, that I have discussions with on a regular basis, wants to believe that a 20 gauge fired at the legs is enough to stop a dedicated attacker, and while it MAY be is it worth taking that chance? (Its like buying sub-par insurance, it might help you, but if you can't be 100% sure of it what's the point?) I, like you, don't want to kill anyone (ever, for any reason) even hurting someone is a terrifying prospect for me, and if it was JUST me in danger, I'd be less inclined to act in my own defense. That all said, I have a wife, and almost more importantly 2 little ones. The discussion at that point is open and shut, you endanger my kids or wife and we're past the point of a discussion, or even a warning shot. (To be honest this rule applies whether I have my 9mm, a baseball bat, or just my bare hands if need be.)

As for firing a warning shot through the door, I am glad you have the law on lock. That's number 1, know the laws as they stand, make an informed decision. After that, though, I would hold my fire until they were through the door. First off, someone breaking in, I am going to need to replace the door whether they crowbar it or I shoot it, so that point is null. Second, I'd MUCH prefer the police to do the job that I pay my taxes for, if they can arrive before the door breaks, good (in a situation like this every second I can stall before needing to take a shot the better.) (In fact, this is one of the major reason's I think Joey Biden's "Shoot your 12 gauge through the door!" line is moronic.) Third, (and has been mentioned) the longer you have to prepare/identify the person breaking in/talk to the police/get your family out of the area where gun play might be happening the better.

 

[wheelyfun66]

While gun forums are a great place to chat, trade pics, share opinions and pose questions of those more knowledgeable...

I feel that you might benefit from some overall philosophy training! There are many alarming statements in your original post, regarding your overall mindset. (caliber of weapon, shoot to kill, shoot to wound, should I give verbal warning...etc...)

One excellent resource is the book by Masaad Ayoob, In the Gravest Extreme., which deals with self-defense shootings, overall mindset, post-shooting suggestions, etc..
Although written in 1980, it remains relevant to this day.

 

[Delos]

Sorry but this must be said

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?

I am sorry to respond in a negative way. There is so much wrong with the wording of your post that you might be surrounded by anti gun people.
1. You can never shoot someone unless you are in imminent danger, usually that means a person is near you with a weapon and threatening to use it.
2. There is no such thing as a "Killer gun" and magazine capacity has nothing to do with it. Killers are deranged people.
3. All the castle doctrine does is say that you are not required to run from an aggressive person.
4. If someone walked in your house uninvited in the middle of the night then you did not lock your door. If you did it is breaking and entering.
If you leave your door unlocked all night you must confront an intruder and tell him to leave. You must call police and explain the situation.
Obviously if he attacks you when you are trying to call police the situation has changed and you are now able to defend yourself.
Obviously if you have a gun and he does not then the Minimum Necessary Force issue comes up. No court approves of someone shooting someone who was unarmed, was only drunk perhaps, and thinking he is in the right house for example.

Somewhere you have heard all the anti gun rhetoric and they phrase it wrong intentionally.

Tell them to walk in a restaurant cooking area and tell you which knife is a killer knife. No knife is a killer knife. Only some people are killers. Just like hammers. No hammer is a killer hammer.

 

[Lost Lake]

If you leave your door unlocked all night you must confront an intruder and tell him to leave. You must call police and explain the situation.

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.

 

[SMSgt]

OP, you are either poorly informed on the lethality of any caliber, living under the many lyths of internet lore, and throwing a line upon the waters.

Go have a talk with a lawyer who's well versed in criminal and civil matter in regards to self protection in the state of Texas.

 

[MaximumLawman]

1. You can never shoot someone unless you are in imminent danger, usually that means a person is near you with a weapon and threatening to use it.

Not true.

4. If someone walked in your house uninvited in the middle of the night then you did not lock your door. If you did it is breaking and entering.

Not true. Door doesn't have to be locked to constitute breaking and entering.

If you leave your door unlocked all night you must confront an intruder and tell him to leave. You must call police and explain the situation.

Not true.

Obviously if you have a gun and he does not then the Minimum Necessary Force issue comes up. No court approves of someone shooting someone who was unarmed, was only drunk perhaps, and thinking he is in the right house for example.

Also wrong.

 

[Dikinalaska]

Nope. You have to actually break or disable something to enter the premises or property for it to be breaking and entering. Hence the "breaking" part. Being on private property with the intent of doing something unlawful is criminal trespass. That's where the notion of having to tell someone to leave if your door was unlocked comes into play. 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?