Investigating a noise:

however, allowing an individual or individuals to break into my home while I hide in my bedroom feels too much like being victimized to me. there is no way police will arrive to catch the BG. so while I'm hiding in my bedroom waiting for Mr. Bad Guy to take what he wants, he will be free to victimize another family tomorrow night.
Click to expand...

1. Why do you care about feelings over your physical safety? Think about it.

2. If one takes up to date modern FOF training, the person hiding in the bedroom is not cowering or passive. They usually:

a. Take a defensive position so as to win the fight in need be.
b. Call the law and loudly inform the BGs that you have called the law and are armed
c. Discuss outcomes in the cold light or reason. Usally after you've been shot with sims, paintball or airsoft. If you get killed in the incident, will the rest of society gather to feed and clothe your family? How many here have sent money to the guy with no arm in praise of his actions? Cold blooded rationality has something to be said for it.

3. As I've said many times - you have to be able to distinguish between the emotional and cognitive evaluations of your action's consequences.

It is pretty established that exploring the house and engaging increases your risk - is it worth it? If the emotional and/or ideological is your prime motivation as compared to personal and family physical safety, engage in behaviors that maximize the emotional or ideological outcome.
 
From BillCA:
No BG, but that "unusual noise" was present. Rather than calling our local PD, spending 2 minutes on the phone describing the situation (before they dispatch), the 45 second delay (at least) before dispatching and their average 9 minute response (dispatch to arrival) I decided to look first. Had it been a BG, (a)it's doubtful they would have heard me coming, (b) I did approach the area cautiously and (c) my 3" .45 wheelgun would have evened the odds considerably. I thought I had a BG when seeing the hood open, but my neighbor's build is easily ID'd even at night.
Click to expand...

Bill, I presume you know what you are doing where you live, but people should know that your action would have been illegal in many places. In Missouri, merely producing a gun outside, if you are not in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, would be a crime.
In addition, a CCW holder cannot detain a criminal.

So: there's more risk to me in going outside than in staying in.

From Double Nought Spy:
David, do you drive? Is it really worth getting killed over? Come on.
Click to expand...

Surely you jest! Would anyone seriously equate the risk of driving with the risk inherent in walking into a gunfight or ambush?
 
David, do you drive?
Click to expand...
Yes. If there is a reasonable alternative to me driving to work I'm open to it. I'm not aware of an alternative. There is a reasonable alternative to going outside.
Is it really worth getting killed over?
Click to expand...
No. That is why I do everything I think reasonable to reduce the chance of me getting killed. I drive a large vehicle with top safety ratings. I keep it well maintained. I attend driver safety programs on a regular basis, and have attended driving schools. There is always a trade-off. Taking a chance on getting killed in a traffic accident is the price I pay to get my paycheck. I feel that is a worthwhile investment. Intentionally putting myself in danger and at a disadvantage for easily replacable and probably insured property doesn't strike me as a good investment. That's the difference, IMO.
 
Those of you who feel that, for whatever reason, you will need to go looking, why not get some training?

I know that in the basic class at Gunsite (250) you get several trips through the "fun house" and an outdoor simulator. I believe that some other major schools, like Thunder Ranch, also include some instruction in a "shoot house" in even their basic classes. And then take some advance courses, preferably including some force-on-force instruction.

That kind of training will be expensive and time consuming. But it will at least give you some small idea of what you'd be up against if you chose to go looking for a possible bad guy in your home or on your property. It will also introduce you to various techniques for doing something that is unavoidably difficult and dangerous. (And just as a guess, I'd kind of suspect that after taking that sort of training, some of you won't be quite so anxious to go investigating things that go bump in the night.)

scriverdog said:
...I have Mr. Ayoob's books on my nightstand right next to my pistol and shotgun....
Click to expand...
I met Massad Ayoob about three weeks ago and took his LFI-1 class. You might be interested in the fact that he strongly recommended not going looking for a possible bad guy and spent a good deal of time discussing why it was a bad idea to do so. (see post #25, above)

scriverdog said:
...it seems to me that when we lose the will to stand up to crime, the BGs win...
Click to expand...
But it also doesn't do anyone any good to stand up to crime and lose. Let's not forget the story that started this thread. A Good Guy with a gun and a friend goes looking for a Bad Guy; the Good Guy loses an arm, and the Bad Guy gets away. This is a sad result for the Good Guy and his family, and it is not a good example of effective crime fighting. The Good Guy stood up to crime, and the Bad Guy won.

The point is to stand up to crime in ways that will give you, the Good Guy, victory. If you find yourself in a fair fight, you don't understand tactics.
 
Those of you who feel that, for whatever reason, you will need to go looking, why not get some training?
Click to expand...

The key question in this is: is there any who had not looked at one time or another? If you hear a noise, the tendency is to go find out what it is. Most everyone knows that the likelihood is that it's something innocent (or not so innocent, depending on whether you have children/pets) so you want to find out what happened. If you hear a crash in the night and call 911, only to have the cops tell you that the opening you didn't think was big enough for a dog/cat/raccoon was in fact sufficiently large for said animal, you will quickly become 1) THAT person and 2) find yourself at the bottom of the priority list. No one wants to be THAT person, so we tend go looking and trust that the noise we hear isn't consistent with human activity.

This gets back to what pax was saying. There is no "one size fits all solution" to this scenario, and even if there was, no one would use it. If people would rely on both reason and instinct (human activity tends to sound like human activity, even if someone is being covert), they wouldn't need the solution.
 
In some of the other "what should I do?" threads, statistics, percentages, odds, and studies were tossed out there to advocate one course of action over another.

Example (paraphrased): 83% of the time, complying with an armed robber results in no injury. Therefore, you should comply. The odds/percentages say you should.

Where is that same reasoning in this thread? The vast majority of "noises" turn out to be nothing at all, so where is the argument that you should just go check it out? Afterall, the odds/percentages say that you're probably going to find nothing.

Or do the statistics only work the other way around?
 
The key question in this is: is there any who had not looked at one time or another? If you hear a noise, the tendency is to go find out what it is. Most everyone knows that the likelihood is that it's something innocent (or not so innocent, depending on whether you have children/pets) so you want to find out what happened.
Click to expand...
Sure, and I don't think anyone is saying never go check on a noise. I check on noises all the time. But if I hear a noise and think I need to grab a gun before checking on the noise, I'm going to get some help first.
 
Or do the statistics only work the other way around?
Click to expand...
No, the stats work much the same way, with a little difference. If you are in a robbery you already know what the situation is, and thus can make an accurate assessment about what might happen. With "unknown noise" you have no idea. A comparison might be "unknown crime" info. Hard to figure out what to do if you don't know if it is a burglary, a robbery, rape, murder, etc. Obviously a burglary or a robbery gives a better chance of compliance being the right choice than a rape or murder.
Again, that is why there are noises and then there are NOISES! If the noise is such that you think you better grab a gun, odds are you're in a problem. If lights and noise from you don't make the BG go away, odds are you are in a problem. How do you minimize your loss of resources?
 
From Fiddletown:
Those of you who feel that, for whatever reason, you will need to go looking, why not get some training?....That kind of training will be expensive and time consuming. But it will at least give you some small idea of what you'd be up against if you chose to go looking for a possible bad guy in your home or on your property. It will also introduce you to various techniques for doing something that is unavoidably difficult and dangerous. (And just as a guess, I'd kind of suspect that after taking that sort of training, some of you won't be quite so anxious to go investigating things that go bump in the night.)
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine)

Good advice, and while I haven't done it yet, I trust your judgment regarding your guess. It is consistent with what others who have taken training have said on this thread and on the one about "clearing a house".

I, for one, cannot comprehend why people with neither training nor experience would choose to disregard the advice of experts.
 
Say you hear a noise and you go outside to check it out. You find someone prowling around your house. I wonder what the percentages say about how many times they run away and how many times they attack you and cause you injury. I would be willing to bet that at least 75% of the time the confrontation results with the suspect fleeing.

I ask again, where is the same reasoning of "you should listen to the stats" that was the argument in the other threads?

***Of course, the 75% stated above is not based on a scientific study...but that's not the point. It's close enough (or maybe even a little low).***
 
And to my way of thinking "checking on a noise" doesn't necessarily mean going out for a look. I can look out the window. I can wait quietly and listen closely for further noises. It's been my experience over a lot of years that so far I've always been able to identify the noise as something innocuous without having to go wandering about.

As far as the statistical side of things go, remember that the odds that it's something to worry about are independent from the odds that if it is a BG and you go looking for him, something bad will happen to you. Yes, it's extremely unlikely that it's a BG. But if it is, and you put yourself in to a situation in which you're at an extreme tactical disadvantage, it becomes almost a certainty that you will lose. Remember Mas Ayoob's story about the NTIs (see post #25) -- the [highly skilled and highly trained] good guys never won.
 
As far as the statistical side of things go, remember that the odds that it's something to worry about are independent from the odds that if it is a BG and you go looking for him, something bad will happen to you. Yes, it's extremely unlikely that it's a BG. But if it is, and you put yourself in to a situation in which you're at an extreme tactical disadvantage, it becomes only a certainty that you will lose. Remember Mas Ayoob's story about the NTIs (see post #25) -- the [highly skilled and highly trained] good guys never won.
Click to expand...


It's not that simple though. First, there has to be a badguy. Let's just make that a given. There IS a badguy. Now, he has to INTEND to hurt you, have the ABILITY to hurt you, and then actually ACCOMPLISH hurting you. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that 3 out of the 4 times you find yourself in that situation, you would walk away unscathed. Simply because only one of those 3 things has to NOT happen for you to be okay.

(Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating one way or the other. For the record, my instructions to my wife are to stay concealed, cover the doorway to the bedroom with the pistol, and wait for the police. I understand the tactics involved in clearing houses vs. defending a position, etc, and you'll never here me argue that clearing space is more advantagous.)

But in one thread, it's suggested that you should so something because of the stats and then in another, that line of reasoning is completely ignored. That's what I am addressing.

If you're going to say that 83% of the time compliance leads to no injury, therefore you should comply, then you have to accept that if 75% of the time confronting a badguy leaves you unharmed, it's not "wrong" for someone to take that course of action. You can't have it both ways.
 
From Hondo 11:
Say you hear a noise and you go outside to check it out. You find someone prowling around your house.
Click to expand...

Not withstanding the obvious question of why you decided to assume the risk of doing so, (1) what did you intend to do if you did encounter someone (I'm assuming that you are a civilian with no police powers), and (2) would you report it if they went away? A neighbor of mine had a can of gasoline taken from a shed this summer, and he didn't.

I wonder what the percentages say about how many times they run away and how many times they attack you and cause you injury. I would be willing to bet that at least 75% of the time the confrontation results with the suspect fleeing.
Click to expand...

That might be interesting to know. The availability of statistics on cases in which people are not attacked would depend upon three things: (1) whether people do report such incidents, (2) whether the police consider them serious enough to retain records of them, and (3) whether there is a central database of the numbers. I don't know, but I suspect that all three conditions are not met. Means you won't find your stats. Police shootings, aggravated assault, rape, murder, yes, but prowler incidents? David Armstrong, any input on this? Anyone else?

However, if you get mugged or shot, or if you shoot someone, or get charged with brandishing or assault, I'm sure you will become a statistic. I'm not sure how you would apply it analytically to your question.
 
Not withstanding the obvious question of why you decided to assume the risk of doing so, (1) what did you intend to do if you did encounter someone (I'm assuming that you are a civilian with no police powers), and (2) would you report it if they went away? A neighbor of mine had a can of gasoline taken from a shed this summer, and he didn't.
Click to expand...

Are you asking me specifically? I didn't say *I* would go outside or that I advocated it for anyone else. I simply made the point that if stats and adherance to those numbers is good for one side of the argument, then it's good for the other side as well.

Very few things in this realm are abosulute. "It depends" is the answer that covers almost any scenario you can dream up. SOP's/Guidelines are good to have as a starting point, but things rarely stay so scripted. That's why I don't like absolute answers and why it drives me nuts when people tell others (or imply) they are "wrong" in their way of thinking.
 
From Hondo 11:
I simply made the point that if stats and adherance to those numbers is good for one side of the argument, then it's good for the other side as well.
Click to expand...

You were asking about how many prowlers who were encountered outside ran away and how many attacked. I'm not quite sure what you would do with that information, but I simply opined that I doubt the such stats are available. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

SOP's/Guidelines are good to have as a starting point, but things rarely stay so scripted.
Click to expand...

I'm with you there, but if you were to entertain assuming the risk of going outside to face a prowler, it would be a very good idea for you to first find out what your legal standing would be if you went outside armed and encountered someone, with different possible outcomes, in the state where you live.

Where I live I can get into nothing but trouble. My state is not unusual in that respect, and we now have some of the better gun laws.
 
If you're going to say that 83% of the time compliance leads to no injury, therefore you should comply, then you have to accept that if 75% of the time confronting a badguy leaves you unharmed, it's not "wrong" for someone to take that course of action. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
It's not having it both ways. In both situations IMO the goal should be to minimize danger and loss of resources. In the robbery, you have two choices, comply or fight back. With the noise, you have multiple choices on what to do. With the robbery initial compliance minimizes danger and loss of resources. With unknown noise outside, going out maximizes potential danger and loss of resources, while there are many other options that can give similar results with less chance of loss. As fiddletown pointed out you have two different sets of odds to deal with, one favorable and one unfavorable. Minimize the unfavorable (attack by BG) while maximizing the favorable (stopping noise without placing yourself in danger). Sort of "If flipping on the porch light makes the BG go away, why do you want to flip on the light and go outside? Will that make him go away more?"
 
And to my way of thinking "checking on a noise" doesn't necessarily mean going out for a look. I can look out the window. I can wait quietly and listen closely for further noises. It's been my experience over a lot of years that so far I've always been able to identify the noise as something innocuous without having to go wandering about.
Click to expand...
Exactly. What some are also missing is the idea that if there is a problem it can best be solved also without going out for a look. Turn on the lights. Yell out the window "Get away from my stuff, I'm calling the cops!" Wait it out a bit to see if the noise can be ID'd. All sorts of options that solve the problem without wandering around increasing your danger.
 
Means you won't find your stats. Police shootings, aggravated assault, rape, murder, yes, but prowler incidents? David Armstrong, any input on this? Anyone else?
Click to expand...
Can't speak for anyone else, but all the info I've seen leads me to believe there is no source for that information.
 
I realize that a source for those specific stats probably doesn't exist. That's why I just threw out the 75% and clarified that it was just a seat-of-the-pants number. I think it's probably a little low too. It's pretty rare, respectively, for someone who's breaking into a house, garage, etc, to attack instead of running away. Even more rare is the one who decides to attack and has the ability to hurt you. And even rarer still is the one who decides to attack you, has the means to hurt you, and accomplishes exactly that.

As for minimizing loss or resources- you have to decide whether you want:

A. No injury to you, yet some property loss. (Stay inside and call the police)

B. Injury to you and no loss of property. (Go outside and the BG hurts you)

C. Injury to you and loss of property. (Go outside and the BG hurts you AND takes your stuff)

D. No injury to you and no property lost. (Go outside and not get hurt and BG takes nothing...OR...find some other way to deter them from inside.)

I think most people would take D and you can possibly accomplish that from inside as well as outside. You probably have a better chance of staying unhurt if you remain inside, but you have probably a better chance of deterring the theft by going outside. It's a risk/reward decision that can only be answered by the person facing it.

I'm not arguing that going outside is the RIGHT thing to do. I am saying that telling someone it's the WRONG thing to do isn't correct either. THAT's my point.
 
but you have probably a better chance of deterring the theft by going outside. It's a risk/reward decision that can only be answered by the person facing it.
Click to expand...

That's if the crook decides not to engage. The debate is that if you do decide to explore the house or search outside, you are at a disadvantage if the crook wants to ambush you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top