Do You Challenge? With a Gun?

So, Clint, let's review:

If Suburban J. Ninja, living in a "Castle Doctrine" state, shoots and kills one of yours rather than calling the police or just waiting to see if the Uninvited Guest is going to take him down, you will take justice into your own hands and defy the law?

In my opinion, there's something of a double standard in that. Not saying you are necessarily bad or wrong or that the original shooter acted in a moral or appropriate manner, but if it's not okay to shoot even under circumstances established law recognizes as justified, it's certainly not okay to commit premeditated arson or whatever in response to that shooting. At the very least, a person so doing should be prepared to pay the legal price of their acts.

What this discussion points up, I think, is the importance of understanding and managing one's risks before a shoot/don't shoot situation ever arises. Many such could be avoided by careful planning and consistent actions. The best way to get out of trouble is to never get into it to begin with.
 
Last edited:
I'm relating this incident here, because it is a real world incident. I had previously written about this on another board the day after it happened (12-16-2002). The tale goes to several points already made in this thread.

The details were extremely sharp at that time...

I used to work at this small town retail grocery store as the night manager. I also carry 24/7. Well, I had an encounter of the suspicious kind one night at work about 3 1/2 years ago.

Our store closes at 9:00pm. At 8:45 I went out the back door to lock up the cage where the milk crates and other items are stored. Now, behind our store is the alley and a 1/4 acre parking lot on the other side of the alley, used mostly by the county (their buildings are right behind us on the next block over). I saw a white '93 Buick with 2 white males back into the lot and park there. Lights off and engine running. I completed locking the cage and then went inside and secured the back door. The only other employees at this time was my boxboy and my checker. I asked both of them if they were expecting someone and described the car. They both said no, they weren't expecting friends.

I locked the front doors at slightly passed 9pm. We still had 3 customers inside. At 9:10, I escorted the last customer out with her groceries. She was parked directly across from the north door. Just as I closed the trunk of her car and was about to turn around and bring the shopping cart back inside, there was a "BANG" and I caught a glimpse of a flash, orangey-reddish...I looked to my west, from where the "shot" had come from and there sat the car, about 75 yds away. Another car had just passed this car heading west. Had I heard a 22 or possibly a 25 gunshot? Was it a firecracker? Was it a backfire from the other vehicle?

I then looked to my customer, who had paused in getting into her car. I motioned with my left hand for her to proceed and leave. I was in a low crouching position and my right hand help my P11 (dry fire exercises do work!). No, I have no recollection of retrieving it or of decreasing my target size. I remember thinking of the distance to the other vehicle and the occupied houses beyond it. My gun hand stayed at my side. My customer backed out and drove quickly to the east. As she backed out, I used her vehicle as partial cover and was quick to make it to the store as she drove off. This particular entryway is inset from the building and was therefore out of the line of fire from the suspect vehicle.

I unlocked the door and told my boxboy and checker to get to the rear of the store and relocked the door. I dialed 911 from the office, and gave a complete as possible a description of the vehicle, the two occupants, and the circumstances that led up to the call.

The office is around the corner of the door I came in from, offering complete protection from that side of the building. An added plus is that if someone came through the door, I would be behind them.

The other front door was opposite me to the south, anyone coming from that side of the building would be completely in my line of fire and unprotected. The only other door was the back door, which I had already secured (and no, I won't say how it is secured. Suffice it to say that it would require more than a battering ram to break). All of this kinda flashed through my mind in the first second or two before the 911 call was actually answered.

When the operator informed me that the suspects were being questioned, I reholstered my weapon, called my help back and we finished with our closing procedures.

As I was counting the safe, an officer came up in his car and motioned me outside. He told me that the two males in the car were waiting for someone in the store. The police had frisked and questioned the kids and searched the car. The officer, a newbie, had found no weapons or fireworks. Officer Rydell said he would continue to watch the store until the vehicle left.

So... We finished counting the money in our tills and I finished running my nightly reports. I performed my security walk through. I set the alarm codes and we left the building.

As soon as I turned and stepped out from the entryway, I noticed that the white car was still right where I had seen it last. I walked across the parking lot to the street where my truck was parked. The boxboy walked to his car which was parked behind my truck. The checker walked to her car, which was parked in the last space next to the store in the lot. As she began to open her car door, the white car's engine engaged. It moved towards the girl, without using it's lights.

What's going on now? Why don't they turn on their lights? The police said they found nothing. It's heading for the new girl! She doesn't see them! This and many more thoughts were tumbling from my mind, as I instinctively ran over to the girls car, placing me in front of the now approaching but slowing vehicle.

The vehicle stops and the two males get out of the car. I drew my P11 and aimed at the male on the passenger side, closest to the girl. At he very same moment I yelled, "FREEZE!" I barely heard another yell for the same thing. Without taking my aim off of the kid, my vision suddenly expanded to include a patrol car behind the suspect car and officer Rydell pulling a bead on the driver.

It has been many years since I have experienced visual and auditory exclusion. But I recognized them for what they were. I did not see or hear the squad car pull in behind the kids' car. I didn't see Rydell get out. I barely heard his shout. The two young men were franticly babbling about being friends, the girl was babbling the same thing. Rydell lowered his weapon and I lowered mine.

Those two boys got a real tongue lashing from Rydell and from myself. I holstered my weapon when Rydell pointed at it with a questioning look on his face. At the same time, the girl begin tongue lashing her friends...we grinned at each other.

The kids left, after being told that in the future, they needed to park in the open under the lights and let me know they who they were waiting for. I was positive that they would do so in the future... One of the boys had fouled himself.

The cop and I chatted for a few minutes after everyone else had left. This was the first time I had ever drawn on someone and I was just a little shaky. Same for the cop. We talked just a bit about guns and our favorite carry pieces. The adrenaline rush began to wear off and we parted company.

I NEVER want to have to do that again! But it's nice to know that training pays off.
 
They teach the flawed tactic of not drawing unless you intend to shoot......in order to cover their own butt, not yours.
Click to expand...

This might be a CYA on for them, but when you're in public it's a CYA for you, too. At home, you are pretty much given carte blanche. In public, you might have some 'splainin to do and it probably goes a long way in court to prove you were in fear for your life if you can show you didn't draw and threaten, but drew and shot.

In the exact circumstances stated, My gun would be out before I entered my house, assuming that's what I decided to do. Most likely I'd stay outside, gun in hand, behind a tree, and call 911.

edit: I misread, thinking you were entering knowing an intruder was present.

If I entered and THEN discovered him in there, I'd draw and shoot. There's no way of knowing how a surprised criminal will react, and I wouldn't want to find out the hard way by hesitating.
 
nbk2000 wrote:

Just because the law says you're justified in doing something, doesn't mean you'll escape the consequences of your actions
Click to expand...

How would you like to live with this: In 1992 a Japanese exchange student named Yoshihiro Hattori was shot to death in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Dressed as John Travaolta, he and a friend went to the wrong house looking for a Halloween party. Apparently, the woman answering the door was frightened by him. Her husband, Rodney Pearis responded by appearing at the door with a loaded pistol and when the Yoshihiro failed to understand the command "Freeze", Pearis shot him.

Pearis was found innocent of murder at a trial attended by Yoshi's parents and widely followed in Japan. This verdict meant that to Pearis's peers and to the legal institutions of Louisiana Pearis's reaction made sense. It was something they judged a reasonable person might justifiably do when faced with confusion and foreigness at his doorstep. Pearis, they concluded, had a reasonable fear for his life and safety.

It is fair, I think, to regard the Pearis case--his actions and his acquittal--as a product of the cultural strain in America among whose most prominent beliefs is the need to have firearms at the ready to protect one's wife and children, a point of view which believes in the imminent threat of random violence in everday life (which is the operative characteristic of terror), and feels itself justified at responding preemptively to the threat.--Author unknown

Another account of this tragic shooting, and how his macho got Pearis in deeper:

http://www.blogd.com/archives/000124.html
 
California

In California, you can NOT shoot someone in your living room just because he is standing there. He can even be walking out with your flat screen and you can NOT shoot him. You can only use deadly force if you feel that he or she is threatening your life. I guess the challange thing would very from state to state then. Some states you can shoot somebody if they steal a loaf of bread. Me, I would just give them some food if they were that hungry.
 
And here was the critical error, the one that, more than anything else, caused the tragedy to occur--at least the only knowing error: Peairs went out into the carport. What he should have done was to make sure no one had come inside, locked all the doors and windows, called for the police, and waited inside with his gun, using it only if someone tried to enter. Going out and confronting thugs may be in accord with the macho code, but it is tactically unsound and generally unwise.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here would suggest it is a good idea to do what Peairs did. As quoted it is "tactically unsound and generally unwise".

In California, you can NOT shoot someone in your living room just because he is standing there. He can even be walking out with your flat screen and you can NOT shoot him. You can only use deadly force if you feel that he or she is threatening your life.
Click to expand...

This is a little misleading. In CA you are assumed(by law) to be in fear for your life if you use deadly force against someone who forces their way into your home. You have no duty to retreat. BTW, even picking a lock is force, and obviously pushing a door open that you are standing behind is also force.
 
casingpoint said:
...the cultural strain in America among whose most prominent beliefs is the need to have firearms at the ready to protect one's wife and children, a point of view which believes in the imminent threat of random violence in everday life (which is the operative characteristic of terror), and feels itself justified at responding preemptively to the threat.
Click to expand...
Well, no. What many of us do believe in, is the ability to be responsible for our own self-protection, since it is no ones responsibility but our own. But the libral elite does like to paint this as a paranoia issue, instead of one of personal responsibility.

I assume you posted this because you agree with this assessment? Would you care to address this as it relates to the incident I wrote about a few posts back? Post #62, to be exact.

I would be interested to know how you would have handled that particular scenario.
 
My CHL instructors views were similar to CPT Charlies. You could start at level 1 and go up the continuum or you might be in a situation where you go from 1 to deadly force. Or you might have to start at step 5. It depends upon the situation. One of my instructors said it possible to go from Deadly Force ( draw your gun, but not use it), back down to step 1.

You just start out at what force is required and work up or down, hopefully the situation can be de-escalated to where the other fellow ceases and desists.
 
casingpoint,

From the blog,

"Here's what occurred that night, October 17, 1992. Hattori and Haymaker, on their way to a Halloween party, unknowingly arrived at the wrong address (two numbers in the address had been transposed). They walked up to the house and knocked (rang?) at the front door. . . ."

Halloween party? October 17? I smelled a rat then, and I smell one now. I am not surprised that he was acquitted. The jury didn't convict him then, and I don't judge him or our culture guilty now.
 
Antipitas,

That statement was left intact to present a point of view, but it certainly is not mine.

I've been in several close encounters of the dangerous kind over the years, and my personal position is just the opposite. Be dead on ready, or dead on a morgue table.

You handled the situation at the grocery store as well as an experienced LEO if you ask me. Most of us probably would have flicked on the tactical lights and shot the neighborhood up with our synthetic stock pump shotguns, then flattened anybody left standing with high capacity, laser sight jamomatics before drawing the mandatory backup snub noses and mopping up our nightime special oops! exercise. You, on the other hand, said nothing about having to change underwear when it was over. :D
 
Thanks for clearing that up casingpoint, I appreciate it.
You, on the other hand, said nothing about having to change underwear when it was over.
Click to expand...
Did that back in 69. Got over it real quick! :D

As for my handling... Hindsight says I should have called when I first spotted the idiots. Lots of "could haves," could have then happened. Most not leading to that encounter. (Always trust that "spidey sense.")
 
Its true that castle doctrine does not superscede what the Court(not the person feeling well in their opinion that it was prudent and reasonable,if that was the case ,every shooting the person(even a gang shooter( could say its p and r because they felt threatened or were angry cause of words of they Thought the person MIGHT), and prosecutors will investigate and detectives will see if our prudent and reasonable definitions Apply to the Courts interpretation of the statutes and prior case law or precedents.....THe more SELF control we Exercize,the better.....Their was a case years ago on halloween where a teen 17 or so if i'm remembering correctly walked into a house uninvited and was speaking another language,he thought he was going to a party where he was invited but he got the wrong house by accident........the homeowner pulled a gun on him and the young male panicked raising his voice...the homeowner didn't realize the kid was saying i have the wrong house don't shoot,but he couldn't understand the language and killed him anyways. I think that homeowner who was arrested was released later after investigation but surely it cost him some legal defense costs which were high,yes He got off but not totally....he had to live with the thought of killing a young male,perhaps an older minor,who he found out wasn't attacking him.....EAsy for me to say for i'm not in his shoes but if the man backed away,the kid wouldn't have kept coming,he was approaching to try and say i'm Alright,he couldn't imagine he would get shot,even though rather than laying down,he panicked and tried to deesclate it by approaching and talking in that foreign language..the howowner later said he was real sorry and was taken into account his sincerity which then he was not fully prosecuted. Even so since a few mistakes i made when i was younger with overZeal....at time i walked away from threats even being cursed to my face.....i didn't care if they thought they got the best of me....their is a fine balance of the priveledge of carrying a gun like a policeman concealed in most cases,yet probable cause works for them,they can do offense,civilians defense. One thing i learned from studying the laws Is realizing them and obeying them is actually a form of tactical training
not just tactics on what to do,but on what not to do,as we grow in understanding these,we can keep our licenses for life,a very great priveledge and responsibility that others in most all nations and even in some states here cannot do even if they are mature and not threats at large.....LEt us set the example and who knows,maybe other states will open new CCW laws giving some others what we have been Entrusted with,i thought at first no way,but many states now have them,which didn't pre 1989. thanks for listening .......bill
 
Life is a thousand shades of gray, not BLACK/WHITE.

It's one thing to shoot a stranger when you aren't be sure of the reasons for their being there, automaticly ascribing hostile intent despite lack of supporting evidence (mask, weapon, etc.). That's not showing self-restraint.

It's an entirely different situation when you know that your first-born son, the sole heir of a family name going back six generations, is murdered by an idiot for no reason other than the idiots fear.

Then it's not a matter of that person having murdered only that one person, but by killing him, all future possibility of the continuation of my family name, my genetic lineage, and the history of my ancestors.

In essence, the murder of at least 6 people, and more than a century of oral history.

That IS worth burning the murderer and all HIS lineage to ashes. Law is irrelevant then, for I'd already be dead as far as my future was concerned, so what difference if they execute my body later? Eye for an Eye, to hell with what the Lord said!

Now, if my son was shot while trying to break into someones home to steal or what-not, than I'd have less problem with that, as his own actions would have been the reason for his death, no less than if he was driving while intoxicated. I'd not confuse the instrument of his demise (car) for the reason (his stupidity).

BTW, nbk2000 made the statements to which you replied to (Edison Carter, Roberta X), not Clint, so keep it straight. Unless you'd prefer I refer to you two as Syme and Julia, respectively. Sorry, Winston is already taken. :p
 
One may feel that on the theft,but Standing order of most courts would ask this question......is the theft of personal property,would the courts or the State's penalty for stealing a tv Be enforced with San quentin,death row,which may be construed as Excessive force......Tv's can be replaced,many have homeowners policies which cover at replacement value.....$300 tv worth $100 now,you get a tv new = or greater than your own if the tv is discontinued. Exception if they try to steal the gun out of your hand which then could be used on you(no witnesses!) or used to murder another. Yet who will take that tv set and use it to Assault somebody with. Castle laws are not proven through court all the way,other predecents and statutes can still be invoked upon Discretion of the judge and the jury's thoughts even. Castle laws can be backed and enforced,but its not written in stone.....Conservative judges may lean more to it but a liberal one may lean more toward past statutes and pre castle laws Feeling the castle on that case doesn't apply and interpret as such,Sure you can appeal for thousands of $$'s and you may win but you cannot pick your judge. So even if castle law says on the face that you can defend with legal force early,the Tv will not thank you for helping,people Do though. Oh i may very well say drop the stuff and get out and he may leave...but if he turns his back on me walking out with the set i sure am not going to shoot him in the back thinking well that was his problem or he shouldn't have entered........3 times i ran into this situation believe it or not,and 2 were my fault....Once i entered a house(i was tired and like in a daze after work) and found out i was in the wrong house,what if the guy in there just shot me. the other was i entered a car that looked like mine and my key even opened it but wouldn't start the car.....Now i existed it quickly but what if the guy nearby thought i was car jacking him....And one or 2 times people entered my unlocked house,its not unlocked anymore and said oops,i'm so sorry,and i didn't pull my gun on them to make sure,i had some distance and didn't panic and my family was in here......I think of it like this,even a mother bear or lion or Elephant are very very defensive over their cubs.....if you even get near one saying aww such a cute kitten i wish i could just hug it,the lion or bear that thinks its to be robbed of its cubs,not an elephant,who will group together to defend even a cub that't not his.....will kill an intruder even if they meant no harm.....I really need to be wiser and do better than an animal who wasn't given a good sense of common sense or wisdom. Have a great day everyone. :)
 
NOTCLINT, where do you get off lecturing people about self restraint, and then threatening to wreak deadly vengeance upon a hypothetical someone who might shoot dead your progeny after he has illegally entered their home in the dead of night?

You are rational when you threaten murder and arson, but we are deficient somehow when we draw down on a midnight intruder?

If that is the kind of offspring you produce, your line WILL be short.

EC
 
NBK, the UnClint, whoever you are today...

NBK2000 said:
Life is a thousand shades of gray, not BLACK/WHITE.
Click to expand...
No, it actually isn't -- it just looks that way if you stand far enough away. Up close, the physical world is a whole series of questions, all of which have definite answers, most of which can be put in yes/no form. "Shades of grey" talk is, in my opinion, an attempt to evade responsibility. Olympian detachment might be fine for Greek gods but we are mortal men and women; we live down where questions require answers.

NDK2000beta said:
It's one thing to shoot a stranger when you aren't be sure of the reasons for their being there, automaticly ascribing hostile intent despite lack of supporting evidence (mask, weapon, etc.). That's not showing self-restraint.

It's an entirely different situation when you know that your first-born son, the sole heir of a family name going back six generations, is murdered by an idiot for no reason other than the idiots fear.
Click to expand...
And yet -- every bad guy ever shot, and the hundred times as many scared off at gunpoint, is some mother's son (or daughter), the bearer of some father and mother's genes, going back countless generations. One is the flip side of the other. Always. When you shoot a man, you're shooting a man. Good, bad -- end result is just so much meat, all potential for further interaction gone. Every death is heartbreakingly tragic to someone. Should they all be avenged, or merely the "idiotic" ones? Why?

(It should be pointed out that in most cases where someone is shot by a lawful gun owner, "idiotic fear" isn't a part of it. Things like forcible entry or approaching while demanding money (or worse) and threatening force are quite clear to the intended victim and to prosecutors and Grand Juries).

I'm not here to cherish strangers. They make their choices. When their choices present a danger to me, I react. And I understand and accept the consequences.

My responsibility -- the responsibility of any true adult -- lies in accurately evaluating the danger. No one can judge that for you; indeed, one measure of adulthood is your ability to make those judgements for yourself with sufficient accuracy and your willingness to accept the results of your decisions.

NDK2000 said:
Then it's not a matter of that person having murdered only that one person, but by killing him, all future possibility of the continuation of my family name, my genetic lineage, and the history of my ancestors.
Click to expand...
H'mmm. I've Scots ancestors, too; but you have two choices here: either what you've said holds true for every killing, from a serial murder sizzling in the electric chair to the most innocent of his victims, from a man shot breaking into a home to a grandmother dieing from a druggist's error -- or it is pure sentimentality.
Potentialities are only potential. Our society counts persons as equal -- or killing a man who'd had a vasectomy or a post-menopausal woman would count far less than killing a sixteen-year-old

NDK2000 said:
In essence, the murder of at least 6 people, and more than a century of oral history.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Not at all. When you kill a man, all you kill is the man. His ideas, his history, all live on, as long as there is but one recorded account or one other person to remember it.
 
only sons are important, no matter who you are

Well said, RobertaX. If I walk in to my house once the last son has grown and gone, and find my hypothetical baggy-pants-and-Goth kid in my living room, I'll still challenge. But if he's a bad guy and he pulls a knife or a gun and I have to shoot him then I have shot somebody's baby. Maybe their only son. Maybe one who carries ten, or twenty, generations.

UnClint's kid is more important to HIM than anybody else and that's understandable; and his over-the-top post as to what he'd do if that kid was killed is understandable too. I still have trouble coping with what happened to my youngest son in January, and that was "just" an aggravated assault with a gun in his teeth, he didn't end up with more holes in him than he started with. But because these are real human lives we're talking about, we do as little as possible to defuse a situation and stop the threat, so that we don't kill somebody's only son when we could have just stopped that same only son.

Springmom
 
Roberta X said:
And yet -- every bad guy ever shot, and the hundred times as many scared off at gunpoint, is some mother's son (or daughter), the bearer of some father and mother's genes, going back countless generations. One is the flip side of the other. Always. When you shoot a man, you're shooting a man. Good, bad -- end result is just so much meat, all potential for further interaction gone. Every death is heartbreakingly tragic to someone. Should they all be avenged, or merely the "idiotic" ones? Why?
Click to expand...

Actually, we might be doing society a favor by offing some of these scumbags. It brings new meaning to taking out the trash. Do we want the offspring of gang bangers, thugs, and low lifes roaming the streets to terrorize our future generations? Not me. I'm sure most here would agree that many of those offspring end up in the same vicious cycle. Call it the lack of a good role model or worse yet, having very bad role models.

The point is, if you don't defend yourself from these scumbags, it will be your future generations that are lost. I AM a son, a brother, and a husband (not to the same people mind you... my family tree does not loop back upon itself) and my self preservation is more important to me than some scumbags family. You reap what you sow.
 
The General "public" Nere Demands Moderation Of A Needless Post

First off , I have lots of love for ya SpringMom so i will say , don't let them get to ya girl.Only sons are important BUT NO MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN ANY CHILD ANY ANY ANY ANY ANY , UNDERSTAND ANY??? Come on people i just heard people put more value on one life more than another and it made me sick.I would like everone to go back and read this entire post and see what they think about what they said and what it might have done positive or negitively to the post as a WHOLE.I was going to lash out at many but guess what ITS NOT COOL.I like Capt. Charlie's signature the best , WHAT KIND OF AMBASSATORS ARE YOU TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Some here have underreated ,over reacted ,ect and I will go as far as to state that some have just flat out talked out of their butts.Then again some have shown they are true diplomats and we thank you . But now I think it is time for moderation , now.Thank you everyone for ur time and understanding.I know there where many many people that read Eric's sticky concerning this very thing but I think we need to see the PENDULM NOW.LET HER SWING ERIC. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top