Bump in the night--Problems with this "drill"?

Pax, I have nothing but respect for all of your opinions. However,
In order to claim self-defense, you must first admit that you did shoot the other person,
Click to expand...
The dead body may be a clue on that scenario.
that you intended to do it,
Click to expand...
I'd rather be defending myself with a self defense claim than an accidental manslaughter charge.
and that you did so with the complete understanding that your actions could have led to the person's death.
Click to expand...
To argue that you shot but you thought it might not kill him is akin to an insanity plea.


Zex,
Not true. The burden of proof IS on the state or who ever the prosecutor is.
Click to expand...
Wrong answer. The burden of proof on the prosecutor is only to prove you shot and killed someone. The burden of proof on you is that you must prove it was in self defense. I don't care what state you're in. Nobody assumes it was in self defense and then the state has to prove otherwise. The only thing that changes state-to-state is the requirements for proving self-defense.


Expect to pay a minimum of $10,000 in defense attorney bills if you commit homicide (Justifiable or not). That goes up to $50 -$75 thousand is if goes to court.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. Plus, now you have the stress in your life of having to defend yourself against a possible musder charge. Not fun.

There was one case here in the PRK some years ago where the resident dialed 911 after arming himself. At one point he put down the phone after saying he was going to block the door. The tape reveals a high-pitched scream and "No! No!" before four shots are heard. The guy, unfortunately comes on and breathlessly says "I just shot him, you better get an ambulance here quick!" In the Grand Jury indictment the prosecutor glossed over the man's protection of his infant son in the same room, saying he could have fled out a window. Jurors returned no-true-bill after hearing the tape, saying it chilled everyone to the bone to hear a man scream like that.
Click to expand...
That's exactly how the scenario SHOULD go! There was an audio recording of this man being in obvious fear for his life. Now, imagine the same guy with no audio recording, and a crime scene that appears that the homeowner way lying in wait, and as soon as the intruder got himself into his sights he shot him. Not as easy to defend against, right?

The smartest thing to do is get 911 on the phone. Have a recording of you telling the intruder that you are armed and the police are on the way. This will most likely end without you having to shoot someone. But if you do, you have a very strong case for self defense.

You guys who want to be dead-quiet then blast him as soon as you can are setting yourself up for a long expensive trial and possibly some time in a 4x6 concrete room.
 
Last edited:
In many states (AZ is one) you do not have to prove that the shooting was justified. The state must prove you were not justified. Again in AZ (and other states) if you are not charged, you are protected from civil suit. Also, in AZ there is no duty to retreat. It is imperative that you know your state laws.

In states with laws that are not so clear, you may be in for a long hard ride. If you are required to retreat in your state, you should make darn sure you did. That is why the best course of action is to retreat to a safe room with a telephone, call 911 and don't hang up until the police arrive.
 
In many states (AZ is one) you do not have to prove that the shooting was justified. The state must prove you were not justified. Again in AZ (and other states) if you are not charged, you are protected from civil suit. Also, in AZ there is no duty to retreat. It is imperative that you know your state laws.

In states with laws that are not so clear, you may be in for a long hard ride. If you are required to retreat in your state, you should make darn sure you did. That is why the best course of action is to retreat to a safe room with a telephone, call 911 and don't hang up until the police arrive.
Click to expand...


Pretty similar in FL, but I'd still rather be in AZ:)
 
AZ is a great state. Freedom rings here and the gun laws reflect it. Aside from our current Govenor's apathy with imigration (except near elections) we have little more than just the federal restrictions.
-Want 50 cal BMG....OK
-Want a 200 round mag for your handgun......OK
-Want a supressor.........OK
-Want to conceal 5 handguns...........OK (with a CCW permit that is)
-Want the 'hot' and/or LE rounds.......OK

If it's not against Federal law, it's OK in AZ

There is even a bill in front of the Govenor to make carrying concealed a PETTY offense.

This border state is a BAAAAD place to invade. ;)
 
I bet your CCW permits are cheaper than ours too :mad:

Having said that, I suspect we've drifted a touch off topic here so back to it for a minute. There are two schools of thought showing themselves here. One is something of a combat defense where you are all stealth and only out to 'get the BG'. The other is the 'scare them off' attempt tactic. It seems to me that both could be valid as long as you were aware of and willing to deal with the consequences.

Stealth BG takeout - less risk to self, possibly higher legal trouble.

Scare 'em first - more risk to self possibly less legal trouble.

Hey, do what you're willing to deal with. I somehow suspect that a combat vet might choose the stealth tactic where joe average might opt for the other, just based on experience and training. I also suspect that that might play into your legal defense if there were any necessary too. To me it would be much more expected for someone with a high level of training or experience to opt for a no warning takeout. Either way, if I were on a Grand Jury here in Texas and a home invasion case was brought to me, it would have to be REAL fishy before I'd vote to take a case like that to trial. You invade, you may get shot. You chose it.
 
As a vet, I'd still rather let em know that I was armed and avoid taking a life, along with defending myself for doing so. I can buy new stuff, but shooting someone sucks. But as I said, my situation was a well-planned one. I do have cover, and a clear shot of anyone coming from the main floor to the upper floor in my house. So if my calling out to them that "the cops are coming and I'm armed" doesn't deter them, (which I believe will about 99% of the time(no that's not a real statistic)), if they proceed, I still have them dead nutz should they come to the floor my family and I are on. And I will shoot to kill at that point, regardless.

Two main points, regardless of which school of thought you go with.

1: Have a plan. Make sure it works for you. Make adjustments as needed. Get advice from others if you aren't sure.

2: As Mr. Lurper said, know your state laws. If you have the duty to retreat, you better at least be able to make it look like you tried.




This is a completely true story.
A friend of mine was broken into about a year ago. He's an Ex-Marine and the big dummy forgot to lock his door one Saturday night. About 2am he heard someone coming in. He got up, gave his wife a gun, and looked down the hallway. There was a figure about 12 feet away, he didn't shoot, he tackled him and took him down. The guy kept saying "stop it, stop screwing around, knock it off," etc. Turned out he was at the right address on the wrong street and was told he could crash at his brothers house. He was just a little too drunk to know he had shown up at the wrong place. Cops were called, stories were checked, and he was just a bit lost. The suprising part of this is that my buddy has alway been more of a "shoot then ask" kind of guy. He's one of the few people that I get to rib for having more guns than me. The 24yo kid was the brother of a fireman that was actually an aquantance of my buddy. The moral of this story is that it could have turned out really badly.


I enjoyed this thread, lots of opinions, no flames, no animosity, go team! :D
 
Ok, we beat that to death. Bottom line:

DON'T SHOOT BECAUSE YOU CAN, ONLY SHOOT WHEN YOU MUST.

That alone will guide you well.
 
1) Get up. Put on pants and flipflops.
Click to expand...
I'd omit the pants and flipflops. Bare feet are quieter and more secure than flipflops.

2) Open bedroom door. Let dog recon. If the dog comes back, grab pistol from holster and verify doors/windows secure while in condition "yellow plus".
3) If dog doesn't come back. Dial 911. Pick up AR15. Load the 30 sitting next to it, chamber a round and turn on the EOTech. Prepare to repel boarders.
Click to expand...
Sounds reasonable to me.

4) If you believe the "box of truth" 5.56 ball overpenetrates less than almost anything else that's a reliable combat cartridge
Click to expand...
Possibly true, but .223 JHP penetrates less in building materials and is more reliable. I'd personally use 55-gr JHP, or if I lived in a house with flimsy exterior walls, possibly 40-gr JHP.
 
You don't need practice aiming with a shotgun, you just point in the bad guy's general direction and he's gone. That's why a lot of people claim the shotgun to be the ideal home defense weapon, it's simple and you don't need a whole lot of skill with it (except holding on tight to it)
Click to expand...

My 12 gauge has a 14" barrel and a modified choke. At 7 yards a 2 3/4" OO buck load will open up to 5".

It would be possible to miss the BG, especially if you are in fear for your life and full of adrenaline.

My point is you have to aim to be effective.
 
KCshooter - your response to Zex was...
Wrong answer. The burden of proof on the prosecutor is only to prove you shot and killed someone. The burden of proof on you is that you must prove it was in self defense. I don't care what state you're in. Nobody assumes it was in self defense and then the state has to prove otherwise. The only thing that changes state-to-state is the requirements for proving self-defense.
Click to expand...

Just FYI: California Penal Code:

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.
Click to expand...
 
Odd law for California, don't they generally hate guns and gunowners?
My bad. Laws have changed quite a bit across the country.
Lurper's advice is the best here, know your state laws.
Still, my best advice is, regardless of tactics, to get 911 on the phone so the entire encounter is recorded so there is no doubt to the fact that you were justified.
 
Intruder Alert

Because of the set-up of my house and the number of gun-toting males inside, we do not have the burglary issue. Though I do not like it, everyone knows we have guns everywhere. My dad and I are collectors of sorts. I had a break-in when I moved into a different house for college and, despite all my sensibilities, I dispatched the armed intruder with the classic Louisville Slugger. It was stupid and very dangeous, but I think it got the message across. I haven't had ay trouble lately. Of course, simply brandishing a firearm seems to be a good option in many cases.
 
Bruxley Nah ... cheated by looking up the dimensions on the net. ;)

KCshooter - Section 198.5 puts the burden on the prosecutor to overcome the initial presumption that the resident had a reasonable fear of death or injury. The DA has to show that the fear was/would have been unreasonable or that there should not have been any reason to use lethal force.

The real key factors are that someone has to enter (or intend to enter) your premisis in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner... or enter (or intend to enter) by violence or surprise, to commit a felony. Since burglary is a felony of it's own that'll technically qualify, though DA's prefer to see a distinctly separate felony.

Which is why I put forth my opinion that someone breaking into my home, at night when I can be expected to be sleeping in the home, is not a rational person (rational would be a daytime heist when no one is supposed to be home). Since I have an irrational felon in my house who is unafraid of awakening and facing me, my logical conclusion is that he plans to disable me by force or kill me to gain whatever he wants. Thus I think this meets the definition of "justifiable homicide" under sections....
197 (1) When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,

197 (2) When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein;

Some of the laws here aren't bad... it's the the way lawyers try to twist the language or situations that make it screwy.
 
Bill, why was that directed at me? I conceeded the point in the post that followed yours:


Odd law for California, don't they generally hate guns and gunowners?
My bad. Laws have changed quite a bit across the country.
Lurper's advice is the best here, know your state laws.
Still, my best advice is, regardless of tactics, to get 911 on the phone so the entire encounter is recorded so there is no doubt to the fact that you were justified.
Click to expand...
That wasn't arguementative, just noting my suprise that CA has a more leinent view than MO does. There is legislation pending the MO senate right now, though, to change that.
 
I didn't read all 4 pages as I can see where this is headed. Forgive me if I repeat something.

Bird vs Buck I'm not convinced if bird shot can reliably kill a human at the FURTHEST distance achieved in the house. I am convinced that 00buck will. I do understand the thoughts of using #4 or #1 instaed though.

Rifle, Shotgun, or Handgun He already said he's staying put if the dog doesn't come back, so leading around the corner with a long gun is moot.

Clear the house or not Agian, if the dog does not return, he isn't leaving the room. If the dog does return, that doesn't mean the clock fell off the wall. The door could be kicked in, or window broken. And the guy fled when he heard fido. You don't just want to go back to bed and leave a quite entry point.

Flip flop, shoes, or bare foot I would agree with shoes over flip flops, but for those of you that said go bare foot, have NONE of you seen DIE HARD?
 
dj

Bird vs Buck I'm not convinced if bird shot can reliably kill a human at the FURTHEST distance achieved in the house. I am convinced that 00buck will. I do understand the thoughts of using #4 or #1 instaed though.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree here. It is totally dependent on your house's set-up too. For example, when I come home to visit my parents, we have, in different rooms spread out: my parents, my girlfriend and I, my youngest brother, possibly my middle brother and his girlfriend. I would much prefer the lower penetration of birdshot in this situation, provided we don't have time to herd everyone into one room of the house. My dad, brother, and I have an established "plan of attack" in case of a break-in, but we all know what happens to the best-laid plans.

Rifle, Shotgun, or Handgun He already said he's staying put if the dog doesn't come back, so leading around the corner with a long gun is moot.
Click to expand...

Being the proud owner of an AR-15, I prefer to lead with the rifle. Of course, I bought all of the nifty little tactical attachments like the light and laser, etc that you can buy from various surpluses. In a bind, though, a pistol is always near in my home and the shoutgun is by the bed.

Clear the house or not Agian, if the dog does not return, he isn't leaving the room. If the dog does return, that doesn't mean the clock fell off the wall. The door could be kicked in, or window broken. And the guy fled when he heard fido. You don't just want to go back to bed and leave a quite entry point.
Click to expand...

I would honestly suggest waiting for PD to respond when searching the home. As long as all my family is in one area of the home, I feel confident that we can wait for a radio car before walking around the house.

Flip flop, shoes, or bare foot I would agree with shoes over flip flops, but for those of you that said go bare foot, have NONE of you seen DIE HARD?
Click to expand...

Good point with Die Hard. I have actually opted to purchase a pair of ATAC boots with the side-zip set-up. They are a breeze to get on and off in a hurry. Flip-Flops are not the greatest idea at all, too much noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top