Home Invasion Question

[Delos]

Common sense

And no reputable firearms instructor would ever advocate a warning shot. I wonder why?

Everything changes. Common sense has been replaced by avoiding lawsuits.

My first pistol class in prison system was the old slow fire cock the hammer, exhale, be surprised when it goes off.

My first CPR class involved a hammer blow to the heart to get it started again.
The same basic blow used in martial arts that often causes fibrilations and death.

Center of mass is about my stomach. Center of entire body on a long legged man is his crotch.

When boys are taught to hunt deer the center of chest from all angles the deer might be standing is taught.

But our language must be politically correct. If our point is teaching a big city policeman how not to miss and cause injuries to others in the crowd the language must be reasonable for that situation. Center of mass has caught on for awhile.

In rural areas people understand center of chest area.

Sorry guys, I want to be able to interrogate the surviving unidentified dark figure in my home that did not respond to instructions and was walking away. Loud shouts, warning shot into my basement, a downward shot to upper leg, anything it takes to bring him down and alive.
If he is rushing toward me game is probably over.

But I came up though the "minimum necessary force" training. It is what you see police and prison guards doing in the real world.

Back when I began the Correctional Officer thing we were not allowed to carry handcuffs. Very violent inmates were taken to isolation in arm locks. Constantly combative had neck locks used. It staggers my imagination to ponder them thinking neck locks were better than handcuffs. But the bosses spent time reading books in offices not out leading on the scene.

It is a changing world guys. At least some of what we were taught to teach will be different tomorrow.

The original post here had the unfortunate statement about a gun being a Killer Gun. We are all sensitized to the anti gun campaign against so called Killer Bullets. I went back and read his every post. Nothing there to indicate any anti gun persuasion. This conversation took some wild swings in mostly honest debate. But much really educational stuff has been said.

 

[Kanewpadle]

Everything changes. Common sense has been replaced by avoiding lawsuits.

My first pistol class in prison system was the old slow fire cock the hammer, exhale, be surprised when it goes off.

My first CPR class involved a hammer blow to the heart to get it started again.
The same basic blow used in martial arts that often causes fibrilations and death.

Center of mass is about my stomach. Center of entire body on a long legged man is his crotch.

When boys are taught to hunt deer the center of chest from all angles the deer might be standing is taught.

But our language must be politically correct. If our point is teaching a big city policeman how not to miss and cause injuries to others in the crowd the language must be reasonable for that situation. Center of mass has caught on for awhile.

In rural areas people understand center of chest area.

Sorry guys, I want to be able to interrogate the surviving unidentified dark figure in my home that did not respond to instructions and was walking away. Loud shouts, warning shot into my basement, a downward shot to upper leg, anything it takes to bring him down and alive.
If he is rushing toward me game is probably over.

But I came up though the "minimum necessary force" training. It is what you see police and prison guards doing in the real world.

Back when I began the Correctional Officer thing we were not allowed to carry handcuffs. Very violent inmates were taken to isolation in arm locks. Constantly combative had neck locks used. It staggers my imagination to ponder them thinking neck locks were better than handcuffs. But the bosses spent time reading books in offices not out leading on the scene.

It is a changing world guys. At least some of what we were taught to teach will be different tomorrow.

The original post here had the unfortunate statement about a gun being a Killer Gun. We are all sensitized to the anti gun campaign against so called Killer Bullets. I went back and read his every post. Nothing there to indicate any anti gun persuasion. This conversation took some wild swings in mostly honest debate. But much really educational stuff has been said.

Good luck with the minimal force arm lock thing. I'm getting too old to try and use physical force. And by the way, more and more home invasions are committed by more than one bad guy. I don't want my family to see me getting the snot beat out of me when I was supposed to be protecting them.

Shooting them in the leg may actually be worse. Femoral artery? Shatter the bone so bad that the leg has to be amputated? Next thing you know he's suing you in court.

And why in the world would you interrogate him? That's the cops job if he's alive to answer.

You're not working at the prison anymore. You're at home. Sorry to offend, but your thinking is not realistic.

 

[Delos]

Sure a nice night

That's interesting. Most people I have ever talked with think it is better to take someone alive?
I wonder why police carry all that pepper spray, stun guns, and batons, when you say just shoot center of mass?

One friend who was shot in the leg said it is really painful and then shortly you feel how hot the bullet is.

Seldom does one hit an artery or leg bone. And a tourniquet usually works for leg bleeding. Much safer than a body wound.

Maybe you are right. Maybe the fact that I have never lost has shaded my judgment. I have always figured out how many people needed, what equipment needed, how many pounds of chain. Common sense usually works the best. Even a dog has trouble seeing a telescoping baton coming.

Maybe I have forgotten how they all lie in court, and lawyers seem to not care what the truth really is.

None of this is likely to happen anyway. There is not enough mass murderers to go around. Most do not sneak around at night. At least not in North Dakota winters.

I only had to point a handgun at anyone about twice in my life. Seems to work okay.

Nights have warmed up a bit. 21 degrees last I looked. I do not see any mass murders out in the bushes. An owl is making friendly hoots for another owl. Maybe one of you gun happy shoot anything types could come shoo it off for me. It is illegal to shoot raptors in farm country so you would need to shoot to scare? But then I would have mice again?

 

[Delos]

Lets take it one at a time….

Good luck with the minimal force arm lock thing. I'm getting too old to try and use physical force. And by the way, more and more home invasions are committed by more than one bad guy. I don't want my family to see me getting the snot beat out of me when I was supposed to be protecting them.

Shooting them in the leg may actually be worse. Femoral artery? Shatter the bone so bad that the leg has to be amputated? Next thing you know he's suing you in court.

And why in the world would you interrogate him? That's the cops job if he's alive to answer.

You're not working at the prison anymore. You're at home. Sorry to offend, but your thinking is not realistic.

Minimum necessary force is more important if there is two or more of you and one of him, and you are in a police capacity.

The old aikido arm lock controls did not work well in a standing position as taught.

I have never heard of anyone having a leg amputated from a pistol shot since antibiotics were discovered.

Interrogate means question. It is the first thing everyone should do -- "talk". His first 5 words tells you if he is in a drunken stupor or on uppers for example. Nothing magic here.

No I am not working the prison anymore. But like any job you tend to learn what is really important about what you are working with. I know almost nothing about horses. I supervised convicted felons at work and recreation day after day. Broke up their fights. Listened to their tragedies. Called the hospital when some cut their wrists.

Every average person should learn to shoot and at least appreciate handguns. They should start small and work up to their comfort level. Sam Colt and Smith&Wesson made men and women equal. A woman with a .22 handgun hit's hundreds of times harder than with her fists. Her arms are a hundred yards longer. Holes can mark the trunk of the vehicle her child is being kidnapped in.

Wounded attackers leave a blood trail. Usually they can be arrested at nearest hospital. Much better situation than taking blood and skin samples from under a dead woman's fingernails.

 

[cmort666]

That's interesting. Most people I have ever talked with think it is better to take someone alive?

I haven't got the SLIGHTEST desire to "take" anybody.

I don't get paid to "apprehend" people, nor am I equipped (or desire to be) to do so.

An intruder in my home is going to do one of two things, flee or get shot until the threat is neutralized. Nothing would make me happier than to have a home invader see my 4" Model 29-2, shriek girlishly and flee into the night. His other option is to be "Mozambiqued" with 200gr. Gold Dots. It'd be better for both of us if he took option one, and I will strongly encourage it. I'll tell the police what he looked like, and what direction he took. That's THEIR job, NOT mine.

I wonder why police carry all that pepper spray, stun guns, and batons, when you say just shoot center of mass?

I couldn't care less what cops carry or why.

1. I'm not a cop.
2. I don't want to be a cop.
3. I don't want people to think I'm a cop.
4. I have ZERO desire to "apprehend" or "detain" anyone. Run or get shot.
5. I don't possess pepper spray, batons, handcuffs, a battering ram, a slim jim or any other sort of police paraphernalia. I have no desire to do so.

It seems to have eluded you that MOST of us aren't cops, corrections officers, time lords or anything else of the sort. We're private citizens who wish to remain unmolested in our homes and to treat others in a like fashion. We're not interested in "arresting" anyone or risking our lives or those of our loved ones to protect the Hayeses and Komisarjevskys of this world from the consequences of their own actions. If that takes shooting them center of mass until the threat is neutralized, that's exactly what we'll do, without any warning shots, negotiations or invocations to Thor, the god of thunder.

I leave the "mall cop" schtick to Paul Blart...

 

[cmort666]

The O.P. ask a simple question, should he shout a warning through the door or wait and shoot.

If somebody's kicking your door in, it's almost NEVER for YOUR benefit.

There's nothing wrong with saying, "I have a gun, don't enter or you'll be shot". If he does, SHOOT him, center of mass until he's no longer a threat.

And from your first post on you have given extreme statement answers.

Certainly "extreme" to someone more concerned with the welfare of a home invader than of his own or his loved ones.

You don't even know if the pounding on the door is the next door neighbor needing help because house is on fire. All you had to do is say yes talk to him or her through the door.

I also don't know if it's Doctor Who being chased by Cybermen.

You'd have to wonder why somebody would kick in the door of an apparently unoccupied dwelling because HIS house was on fire.

You even drug Nancy Reagan into this. She was talking about drugs and you changed her words to Guns. Shame on you.

I gave you very sage advice and am not ashamed of it in any way.

Your obvious goal is to avoid killing somebody in self-defense, and it appears to trump all other considerations. I gave you a 100% foolproof way of not shooting somebody with a gun, namely not to possess one.

And this center of mass stuff has gone way to far. Maybe no one can shoot anymore. My father said that when he was young "if you did not shoot a squirrel in the head you did not bring him home".

Elmer keith never shot an elephant "center of mass".

1. I'm not the Lone Ranger. I've never even played him on television. I haven't the slightest intention of trying to shoot any guns out of any bad guys' hands or shooting to wound, which as any sensible person knows, is likely to result in a miss and a bullet going who knows where.
2. That doctor's family in Connecticut wasn't slaughtered by squirrels. Neither were Sharon Tate or the LaBiancas.
3. Elephant stampedes are fairly uncommon in NE Ohio. Home invasions, not so much.

My plans regarding self-defense are informed by actual events, not reruns of "The Cisco Kid".

 

[Delos]

I tried

Somehow this joke reminded me of you?

If you close your dog and your wife in the trunk of the car and you come back to let them out 20 minutes later, which one is happy to see you?

 

[cmort666]

Somehow this joke reminded me of you?

If you close your dog and your wife in the trunk of the car and you come back to let them out 20 minutes later, which one is happy to see you?

I'm pretty sure that Tex Watson would be happier to see you than me.

The question is, if he met either of us before he met Sharon Tate, would she still be alive after he met you or after he met me?

 

[mc5aw]

Here's a link to a home invasion story from yesterday, courtesy of FoxNews. BG #1 got deep sixed by the home owner, while BG #2 escaped. Both of these individuals apparently entered the home through a second story window, somehow struggled with the homeowner, and then were on the business end of the homeowner's firearm. From the story, it's fair to assume the BGs were up to no good, and would have harmed or possibly killed the homeowner (and his children) in the furtherance of their criminal activity. Had the homeowner attempted a warning or wounding shot, or even attempted to ascertain the BGs identities and motives, I believe he would have been killed. As it turned out, one BG was taken out of circulation due to the homeowner shooting for his life.


Police: Home Invasion Victim Shoots, Kills Intruder - Philadelphia News, Weather and Sports from WTXF FOX 29


Something else I will add. Irrespective of how civilized human beings think they are, primal urges lie deep within everyone. To deny that is delusional. Pushed far enough, the common man can resort to acts of savagery he himself could never have imagined. I think of my wife and child being threatened by a home invader ... that person, should he be wounded or subdued by myself, would not be dealt with according to the tenets of the Geneva Convention. I'm not proud of stating that, but I'm a realist, and know that the primal urge would be unleashed full force in an effort to protect my loved ones, as it would be with most reasonable, law-abiding family men I am acquainted.

As far as warning shots, the Joey B. recommendation of launching two off the back porch is asinine, unless you live on a large plot of land in a rural community. Most folks live in residential areas where discharging a firearm outside poses risks to neighbors. To do so inside, would put a hole in the floor or ceiling, and potentially endanger anyone upstairs or downstairs. The only warning shot I plan to fire in a scenario that calls for a shot, is one directed at the immediate threat. Should the threat not stop threatening, the first shot was a warning that other shots will be coming in short succession. A verbal warning should suffice as far as warnings go, provided a warning is even timely or necessary. For the linked story, I don't think the home owner had a chance to extend a warning when confronted by two BGs in his home. Thus, his shot(s) resulted in lethality.

 

[Delos]

Very Good

If somebody's kicking your door in, it's almost NEVER for YOUR benefit.

There's nothing wrong with saying, "I have a gun, don't enter or you'll be shot". If he does, SHOOT him, center of mass until he's no longer a threat.

.

I think we are making progress here.

 

[cmort666]

As far as warning shots, the Joey B. recommendation of launching two off the back porch is asinine, unless you live on a large plot of land in a rural community.

It's asinine regardless of where you live, including in a Buddhist temple in the wilds of the Onon mountains, because you have now rendered your own firearm ineffective for wont of ammunition. I must pointedly note that slow Joe didn't say a word about her filling the pockets of her bathrobe with shotgun shells so that she could RELOAD. His recommendation was that she leave herself with an EMPTY shotgun, and no ammunition, faced with one or more potentially armed home invaders.

But then that's something a sniveling coward hiding behind phalanxes of men armed with machineguns WOULD say, ISN'T it?

 

[cmort666]

I think we are making progress here.

Yes, you now apparently realize that somebody kicking in your door is an existential threat, likely necessitating the use of deadly force.

 

[Delos]

question answered

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 think your question has been answered as best possible.

 

[Delos]

Be Quick

Hey, jeffersonwasright, note that at 1:45pm and 11:14am this date cmort666 finally said yell a warning though the door.

Quick, read it before it gets buried.

 

[cmort666]

Hey, jeffersonwasright, note that at 1:45pm and 11:14am this date cmort666 finally said yell a warning though the door.

Quick, read it before it gets buried.

I find it odd that you would consider that noteworthy, given that I never said not to. It's not REQUIRED, but it may deter somebody who's not serious about the endeavor.

The ones who don't take the hint will probably need to be shot center of mass until the threat is neutralized.

 

[Delos]

Center of Mass

I find it odd that you would consider that noteworthy, given that I never said not to. It's not REQUIRED, but it may deter somebody who's not serious about the endeavor.

The ones who don't take the hint will probably need to be shot center of mass until the threat is neutralized.

Do those police silhouette targets still have the bullseye over the heart? Is that center of mass?

I thought the center of mass thing was to prevent missing and hitting a bystander. Center of mass then would be a stomach shot.

And no one has yet defined "Home Invasion". The word seems to be evolving to mean any entrance to a home misdemeanor or felony crimes. Originally it meant a group coming in fast with weapons drawn? The way it gets used here and elsewhere is confusing. You never shoot for misdemeanors.

We got the "give a warning" thing worked out. Not sure about the "identifying what you shoot" part. Did we cover that?

 

[cmort666]

Do those police silhouette targets still have the bullseye over the heart?

Why? Do you know anybody who was attacked by one?

 

[Delos]

It is what it is, better to say what you mean

Why? Do you know anybody who was attacked by one?

That is called an indicator of what they said and what they really mean. Sometimes the rules get years ahead of what they are really doing. Sometimes the rules are just wrong, but sound nice.

Why do you parrot center of mass when no one is shooting center of mass, the targets are not center of mass, no vital organs are center of mass.

I am old fashioned apparently. I know in court lawyers say what they mean to say. They tend to pick things apart looking for other peoples contradictions.

You are caught up in a media or hollywood trap perhaps. The real world is what it is.

The debate is over - I won. Are you better than every carpenter? Every plumber? Ride a Segway better than Mall Cop?

 

[cmort666]

That is called an indicator of what they said and what they really mean. Sometimes the rules get years ahead of what they are really doing. Sometimes the rules are just wrong, but sound nice.

Not being or wanting to be a cop or wanting people to think I am one, what cops do is AT BEST peripheral to anything I do.

I haven't done many stop and frisks on the street lately either.

Why do you parrot center of mass when no one is shooting center of mass, the targets are not center of mass, no vital organs are center of mass.

"NO ONE"?

Aside from the fact that your assertion is irrelevant, it implies access to data which I strongly suspect you lack.

Of course too, I don't have access to an ultrasound machine with which to find the EXACT locations of an assailant's vital organs during a violent encounter... assuming that I could talk him into getting into one instead of trying to kill me. Then there's the whole matter of, once having located his vital organs clinically, getting him to stand still so that I can shoot at them in probably poorly lit surroundings.

 

[TexasArmed]

And no one has yet defined "Home Invasion". The word seems to be evolving to mean any entrance to a home misdemeanor or felony crimes. Originally it meant a group coming in fast with weapons drawn? The way it gets used here and elsewhere is confusing. You never shoot for misdemeanors.

QUOTE]

Not trying to get in the middle of your dialogue with another here, but "Home Invasion" is kind of irrelevant if someone has broken into your home and it is occupied in Texas. (See Texas Law 9.42 previously quoted in this thread) relating to the use of deadly force to protect property during the night time. There are even cases where someone is fleeing with property during the night time and have been chased down and shot in their vehicle).

Your State has a Castle Doctrine Like Texas, but I realize your state laws may be different. The person who began this thread, I think lives in Texas.

Now if you have a moral reservation about our laws that's your right, but Texas gun owners are responsible to obey Texas Law, not North Dakota Law. I have no such moral reservations myself. I don't waste warning shots and use revolvers which have limited capacity. I use Hollow Points because they don't penetrate beyond the target as much as other rounds might. I shoot for center of mass because I am not as expert as some of the lone rangers on this forum and clint eastwood types, who can hit a silver dollar in the air with it moving. I have cataracts that may have to be removed so I do my best to hit the target and don't fire perfect scores at the range. If I wasted a shot trying to shoot for the leg, or else if I was trying for a head shot, I might miss. Then I would have one less round if it were an actual gunfight. While most actual gunfights may last less than five rounds, in the stress of the moment I am not sure I could reload fast enough if confronted with multiple assailants.

So basically what I am trying to say, is that each of us may have different situations where we live, different types of resident structures. Some of us may have a big ranch house but some may live in an apartment complex. So we have to adapt and our primary obligation is to comply with our State Law. If we don't like the state law, where we live, we can vote to change it, or move. We can't tell people in other states how to run their laws or their business. We can't even tell them what their morals have to be. And I have to say too that if we have qualms about using deadly force to protect your property, your family, yourself, maybe you ought to live close to a police station and keep no gun. That is not how I choose to live my life and I won't allow anyone to impose on me or force me to live mine some other way than I am living it. And maybe your state has more restraints than Texas has, and that's fine. I think a review of 9.42 of Texas Law is fairly clear on the use of
deadly force regarding property and other sections 9.31 9.32.

I do not agree with laws that provide a duty to retreat, but if I lived in such a state I would have to either comply, try and get it changed or move. That's my take on all of this. But that is the way it is in Texas, castle doctrine and no duty to retreat in your home.