Home Invasion Question

[Delos]

nice post

That is recklessness beyond belief.

1. Bullets don't go into a black hole when you fire them. If that "warning shot" goes through a window or some other aperture and kills somebody, you OWN that. It seems the very height of folly to me to risk killing or maiming a totally uninvolved innocent third party in order to protect a CRIMINAL actively engaged in committing one or more crimes.
2. Shooting someone is DEADLY FORCE, whether you shoot them in the heart or the earlobe. It risks substantial likelihood of permanent maiming or death. If somebody's not dangerous enough to KILL, they're not dangerous enough to SHOOT. Stating that you "shot to wound" is prima facie evidence that you were not in sufficient fear of life and limb to do what was necessary to REALLY eliminate an immediate and credible threat of great bodily harm or death.

Your words indicate to me that you do not take the use of deadly force nearly serious enough.

That lack of seriousness may well cost you your finances, your freedom, or indeed your life.

You must live in a very crowded city. A very high crime city.
I live on the edge of a small town that is only to my east. I have a full basement that will catch bullets easily. I do almost nothing involving firearms that involves guesswork.

To me, someone who would shoot someone on a guess, because of darkness and personal fear, describes "folly".

Let me be really honest. The fact that many people are armed and ready to protect life and property is good. It makes everyone safer. It is good when criminals do not know who might be armed. The fact that we are having this comparison of assumptions is good.

Every time a person takes a pistol to a gun range it makes our country a little safer.

To me "shooting to wound" means you can talk later if the situation is different than assumed. Juries and intellectuals pondering issues have the advantage of time.

When my finger is on a trigger, any occasion to buy time at low risk I will take that risk. Any warning shot I might fire will be more safely fired than many target range shots.

There is a big difference between noon in a big city crowd, and living in rural areas, with a full basement below empty of people.

You are among the few to use the words "credible threat of great bodily harm or death". I am glad to see you use those words. Many are exaggerating about the unknown possibilities and how to best deal with the unknown. Recent news articles from a thousand miles away do not impress me. Stories about my area do.

 

[Old TexMex]

This is really funny.
A whole string of guys who don't know ( or use) the four rules of gun safety.

 

[cmort666]

You must live in a very crowded city. A very high crime city.

I live in a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio.

Compared to where I'm from in Chicago, it's Lake Woebegone.

I still wouldn't take one scintilla of one iota of a scrap of risk to protect a home invader.

I live on the edge of a small town that is only to my east. I have a full basement that will catch bullets easily. I do almost nothing involving firearms that involves guesswork.

Will you know EXACTLY what's underneath you when you [presumably] fire into the floor... like a gas line, gas heater or gas water heater?

To me, someone who would shoot someone on a guess, because of darkness and personal fear, describes "folly".

They are:

1. In my house illegally and without my permission.
2. Ignoring or defying my commands to leave the premises.

The one "guessing" is you. You're guessing that they mean you no harm... having already demonstrated defiance of both the law and your clearly articulated demands for them to depart.

To me "shooting to wound" means you can talk later if the situation is different than assumed. Juries and intellectuals pondering issues have the advantage of time.

Shooting to wound means that they didn't REALLY pose an immediate and credible danger to your life and limb. That being the case, why shoot AT ALL?

When my finger is on a trigger, any occasion to buy time at low risk I will take that risk. Any warning shot I might fire will be more safely fired than many target range shots.

When you're forcibly in my home against the law and against my expressed will, there ISN'T any time. Get out or get shot. I'm not interested in "low" risk to myself. I'm ONLY interested in NO risk to myself. The law, at least in Ohio, is on my side. I have NO duty to incur ANY risk. Nor will I. There are people who are willing to allow irresponsible or evil people to impose the risks of THEIR idiocy and malice upon them, and to drag them down into the cesspool of stupidity and depravity which they call their "life".

I'm not one of those people.

There is a big difference between noon in a big city crowd, and living in rural areas, with a full basement below empty of people.

Legally and morally there's NO difference. I don't care if I'm in Cleveland, Ohio or Catawissa, Missouri; I am not incurring ANY risk to protect an intruder from the consequences of his own actions.

 

[Delos]

Very well written?

Gosh, my wife came back to bed last night after a bathroom visit. An unidentified figure in my dark room and I barely woke up.

Maybe I need re-training.

A few weeks ago I went to lock my garages pedestrian door at dusk. I was a little late and it was almost totally dark. No one had ever walked in that door after dusk before. As I opened my inner door my neighbor that I help fix our dirt/ice road in winter was half inside my door. Too dark to see who it was at first -- and I did not run for a gun????

He is a very good man in later stages of Alzheimer's. He gets lost often. His wife is about exhausted from keeping track of him.

It was the first time he ever wandered into my garage looking for a shovel to fix a road drain. Usually he brings his own and I join him.

I do not label everyone a possible "home invader". I do not fantasize about what crimes might be committed by some dark figure in the night.

But everyone needs a hobby.

 

[NMPinNYC]

Excellent! I see what you did here. You have made absolutely sure that in a post mortem home invader situation, a web search will indicate your desire to spare a life and limit any premeditated harm... Well done!

 

[cmort666]

A few weeks ago I went to lock my garages pedestrian door at dusk. I was a little late and it was almost totally dark. No one had ever walked in that door after dusk before. As I opened my inner door my neighbor that I help fix our dirt/ice road in winter was half inside my door. Too dark to see who it was at first -- and I did not run for a gun????

He is a very good man in later stages of Alzheimer's. He gets lost often. His wife is about exhausted from keeping track of him.

So what you're saying is that you DIDN'T shoot someone whom you identified as NOT a threat and who NEITHER threatened you NOR defied your commands?

The other day, I saw the maintenance guy for the apartment who lives across the hall. I didn't shoot him either...

I do not label everyone a possible "home invader". I do not fantasize about what crimes might be committed by some dark figure in the night.

I don't need to "fantasize" I only need to Google "Hayes and Komisarjevsky".

 

[Delos]

Yup, the high road

Excellent! I see what you did here. You have made absolutely sure that in a post mortem home invader situation, a web search will indicate your desire to spare a life and limit any premeditated harm... Well done!

Yes, I want to be seen as the good guy who was not totally hung up on the word Home Invasion and Shooting Center of Mass.

Seems like every cat burglar looking for trivial valuables and tramp looking for food is now a potential "Home Invader" and must be shot "center of mass" when he does not comply with instructions.

The crazies are on he march:
Every bullet fired, not just is downtown Los Angeles, must be fired center of mass or it is a danger to others.

Every psycho street person at the soup line needs to be advised. On a cold night if you walk toward someone else's refrigerator, in the dark, in a drunken stupor, you are assumed to be a murder rapist.

Because the word "Home Invasion" means whatever anyone wants it to mean. The old Cat Burglars are now punishable by death. If people still hung clothes on clotheslines overnight we would find a reason to shoot clothes snatchers.

 

[Delos]

The other day, I saw the maintenance guy for the apartment who lives across the hall. I didn't shoot him either...

I think we are making progress here.

 

[Will Carry]

"Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is." The Outlaw Josey Wales.

 

[cmort666]

Every psycho street person at the soup line needs to be advised. On a cold night if you walk toward someone else's refrigerator, in the dark, in a drunken stupor, you are assumed to be a murder rapist.

Which is precisely why you DON'T break into occupied dwellings. People who care about their own safety and that of their families won't risk their lives to protect YOU.

Again, if your overriding priority is to not shoot anybody, that can best be achieved by not possessing a firearm.

 

[Delos]

upside down and inside out

Which is precisely why you DON'T break into occupied dwellings. People who care about their own safety and that of their families won't risk their lives to protect YOU.

Again, if your overriding priority is to not shoot anybody, that can best be achieved by not possessing a firearm.

So now not shooting someone is protecting them???

Everyone but you should give up their guns????

If I promise to shoot anyone who wanders in at night "center of mass" am I back in the club??

 

[cmort666]

So now not shooting someone is protecting them???

If they forcibly and unlawfully enter your home, not shooting them most certainly is protecting them from the consequences of their own actions by endangering yourself.

I'm not going to protect a home invader by endangering myself.

Everyone but you should give up their guns????

Everybody whose overriding concern is to avoid shooting somebody should give up their guns. It's a 100% foolproof way of achieving that goal.

To paraphrase Nancy Reagan: "Just say no to guns and self-defense."

If I promise to shoot anyone who wanders in at night "center of mass" am I back in the club??

The club of people who put their own safety above that of a home invader? I guess.

But you've made it clear that you don't want to be a member. You're more of a candidate for the "Better to be shot than to shoot" club. Just go to the next gun buyback and you're in.

 

[SMSgt]

Kick a door in...Er, break a window for entry........

In Texas, they's might get more than they want.

Boy Uses Dad's AR-15 to Shoot Invader - YouTube



.

In FL, even opening an unlocked door to gain illegal entry is "forced entry." Likewise, attempting to illegally enter is illegal entry.

 

[TexasArmed]

In FL, even opening an unlocked door to gain illegal entry is "forced entry." Likewise, attempting to illegally enter is illegal entry.

I saw that video too. I always deadbolt lock my doors, and I believe in stout ones and I have video of the outside area too.
I think we have people with agendas who want to rewrite and reinterpret our laws in Texas for the way they would like for them to be instead of the way they are.

While I don't believe in warning shots, shooting thru a locked door with someone knocking, if it is being beaten down and heaving in, I won't wait for a visual. Mama bears will protect their cubs and I have a small residence. I am positioned in front of a dead-bolted door between that door and my disabled daughter in the next room. I and not those with their anti-gun agenda, shoot to wound will be responding to the threat of someone breaking my door in. In Texas if you breaking a door down that is a home invasion. No I won't let the Chicago Mayor decide what that is here. I will worry only about Texas Law. And I have no duty to retreat, nor room to retreat and no back door.

In regard to that video which was previously posted in this thread, I had someone tell me that the 15 year old boy could have used his cell phone, called police and escape thru the back door. Seems like some will go to any length to justify not stopping the home invader. But if the day comes that I
cannot protect my disabled daughter, from home invaders who kick my door in, while then I will let the good tax payers spend about $50,000 per year for my disabled daughter's 24/7care. Just hope they got deep pockets, because she does not have the money to pay for it, and I am not legally obligated to do it. If that happens then I will just go visit her.

 

[mc5aw]

Some interesting comments and perspectives in this thread ...

I'm not convinced any home owner owes any unauthorized visitor the benefit of the doubt for the causation behind that visitor's unauthorized entry. If Old Man Smithers next door has a history of sleep walking or dementia, that's his business not mine. If I'm awoken at 2am to find Smithers wandering about my kitchen speaking in tongues and wielding a butcher knife, I will be on the phone with 911 and retreat to a safe area ... only because I recognize Smithers and know his track record. If I don't recognize Smithers, then the home defense scenario will end differently.

Call 'em what you like ... cat burglars, prowlers, peeping toms, home invaders ... any person who has gained unauthorized entry to a residence is doing so unlawfully. States that recognize the Castle Doctrine afford citizens more latitude in defending themselves within the confines of home, vehicle, etc. In the above example, a Castle Doctrine state would allow a home owner to shoot Smithers in the kitchen on sight, with no legal ramifications.

A few months back, I was surprised by the sound of rustling on my front porch at 3am. The bedroom window is just above the front stoop, so noises can be readily heard. I peeked out the blinds and saw three shadowy figures running away. My 10 year old daughter was ill, and in the bed, so I went downstairs and alerted my wife, who was awake and reading in the den. I went outside with a nightstick and flashlight, not knowing if an attempted home invasion was in progress, or something less serious. I have no idea why I left my firearm inside ... it was stupid, I know. Going out the back door, I quietly made my way around front, and saw the shadowy figures about 15 yards down the block. I shined the light on them, and they immediately jumped into the bushes. I walked over, truncheon raised, and found three quivering teenage boys hiding. At their feet were two baseball bats and a hammer. I gave them a very stern verbal command, and one showed himself, then proceeded to spit out some gobbly gook about why they were on my porch and running around at 3am with bats and a hammer. I sent these three stooges on their way in short time, with the warning of serious bodily injury if they were near my house ever again. A they ran off into the night, the police arrived (having been called by my wife). I explained to the responding officers what had transpired, and they retrieved the bats and hammer from the bushes. Then they went to look for the teens. Half an hour later, an officer arrived back at my house to inform me that the teens had been apprehended hiding in the cemetery. One kid lives down the street, the other two were his friends. PD brought them back to the first kid's house, and dad wasn't too pleased. The teens said they were just looking for stuff to break on people's porches, to which the first officer explained that they could have been shot and killed for their stupidity. Back at my house, the officer told me, that upon seeing shadowy figures on my front stoop, I should have shot them. I replied that I'm glad I didn't, because I didn't need dead teenagers on my resume for simple teenage stupidity. The officer's comment wasn't gratuitously callous, but one from the experience of seeing too many similar situations end with violence perpetrated on an unsuspecting homeowner.

The moral of the story? I'm not sure. I could have issued a beat down to three teenagers for their behavior, and done so with impunity. I didn't, instead sending them on their way, and hopefully scared straight. Although within my rights to fire upon them when on my property, I didn't, and did not think to. Foolhardy? Maybe, maybe not. These three idiots were out doing what every teenage boy has done at some time. Was it worth dying over? Not for them, nor for me to have taken life. That said, it was a valuable learning experience for me ... hopefully more so for them ... and I am ever vigilant in our small community that has seen drug-related break ins on the rise. If a next time ever happens, my response will be different in that I will be armed, but I will use the same judgment and prudent decision making as needed.

 

[cmort666]

Call 'em what you like ... cat burglars, prowlers, peeping toms, home invaders ... any person who has gained unauthorized entry to a residence is doing so unlawfully.

Not to mention the fact that there's no physical law of nature which dictates that somebody who shows up at your home intending to be a "cat burglar" can't make an ad hoc decision to become anything from a rapist to a cannibal. After all, Hayes and Komisarjevsky swear up and down that they didn't show up intending to rape and burn to death that doctor's wife and daughters in Connecticut.

I find it curious that some people are FAR more willing to give an unlawful intruder the benefit of the doubt than the homeowner who shoots him in reasonable fear of immediate threat to life and limb.

 

[jlrhiner]

^^^Thats called common sense^^^.

Something that can't be handled in most scenarios. Fluid situations call for the ability to think on your feet and you will mostly fall back on whatever training you have. Or run around screaming like a little girl. (no offense to the little girls)

 

[Delos]

But you got there so fast

If they forcibly and unlawfully enter your home, not shooting them most certainly is protecting them from the consequences of their own actions by endangering yourself.

I'm not going to protect a home invader by endangering myself.


Everybody whose overriding concern is to avoid shooting somebody should give up their guns. It's a 100% foolproof way of achieving that goal.

To paraphrase Nancy Reagan: "Just say no to guns and self-defense."


The club of people who put their own safety above that of a home invader? I guess.

But you've made it clear that you don't want to be a member. You're more of a candidate for the "Better to be shot than to shoot" club. Just go to the next gun buyback and you're in.

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

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

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.

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

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".

Back when the Los Angeles police were blaming every accidental shooting on the gun they changed procedures, then ground of parts so revolver could not be cocked. Began rapid fire emptying revolver into criminal. Everything was the poor guns fault. But in range training they constantly drew and fired, drew and fired. Never draw and aim and give instructions. Some of us think that is the main reason people get shot by accident. The individual constantly trained until even he did not know why the revolver "just went off".

How you think and how you train has repercussions. Do not think every knock at the door is danger. Sometimes its your mother in law with cookies.

 

[mc5aw]

Not to mention the fact that there's no physical law of nature which dictates that somebody who shows up at your home intending to be a "cat burglar" can't make an ad hoc decision to become anything from a rapist to a cannibal. After all, Hayes and Komisarjevsky swear up and down that they didn't show up intending to rape and burn to death that doctor's wife and daughters in Connecticut.

Exactly ... That's why I won't be engaging in a fact-finding Q&A with Mr. Illegal Entry at 2am. The burglar who gets caught in the act of burglering can quickly become a killer while trying to protect himself and escape.

I find it curious that some people are FAR more willing to give an unlawful intruder the benefit of the doubt than the homeowner who shoots him in reasonable fear of immediate threat to life and limb.

I think it has something to do with a diminishing sense of personal accountability over the past generation. Too many folks are willing to blame something else for aberrant behavior ... poverty, climate change, social disenfranchisement, blah, blah, blah. I grew up being taught to respect my elders, lead a clean lawful life, and work hard to be a good person. I wasn't perfect, nor am I now. But I always took my man-pill when making a mistake, and learned from the experience. There's far too many news stories about trying to find causation behind criminal acts ... the "whys", and "becauses", and "boo hoo hoos" get silly after a while. Some people do bad things because they are bad people. I don't need to understand what makes Charles Manson tick to believe he should have met up with Old Sparky decades ago.

Same goes for Mr. Unlawful Intruder. In someone's house to commit a crime doesn't require much analysis paralysis.

 

[Kanewpadle]

Ok, so are we all on the same page yet? Warning shots are not smart. Period.

I have an alarm sign posted in front of my house. Strong doors and deadbolts. A little dog that barks. And ample lighting.

So if ANYBODY I don't know comes in my house for any reason, they are in immediate consideration of being shot. They have already been warned and chose to ignore them.

If they APPEAR intoxicated that's their problem. My first duty is self preservation and to protect my family. They may only APPEAR to be intoxicated when in fact they are not. Either way they are responsible for their actions.

I don't understand why people would advocate trying to reason with someone like that. After a verbal command is ignored all bets are off.

I really can't understand the lack of common sense when it comes to protecting yourself and family. It's really quite simple. Mess with me or my family and you put yourself in a no win situation.

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