It Worked-M1 Carbine for home defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
French doors are usually glass, so unless they were curtained, the homeowner likely had a good view of the intruder. I haven't kept up on California's household self-defense laws but as I recall from when I lived there, this would probably be ruled as a good shoot...if the reporting is accurate.
 
the suspect began breaking through the French doors on the back porch of a nearby home. The 54-year-old owner, said Harwood, told the man to leave, but he continued trying to get in. The homeowner grabbed a WWII-era M1 carbine and fired a warning shot into the ground near the suspect. It had no effect. Approximately 10 seconds later he fired through the door at the suspect,
Click to expand...

Don't know, I wasn't there, but sounds to me like there wasn't any glass in the door any more.
 
Not sure about his particular location, but in many places telling authorities that you intentionally shot the intruder in the leg will lead to more problems than it solves. A smart lawyer and sympathetic jury and that intruder could wind up owning that poor man's house. And it will the civil case that does it (if it happens).

The police or prosecutor might consider it a good shoot, (or at least one they think they cannot win a conviction on - which is apparently what originally happened in the Martin-Zimmerman case), BUT a resulting civil suit has a much lower standard for conviction. And, in this case, both sides are alive to tell their stories (and embellish them as they see fit).

The warning shot is actually more acceptable to me than telling the cops you meant to shoot him in the leg, "only" wounding him.

The reason is that by "shooting to wound" you are admitting (in the eyes of the court) that you did not think deadly force was needed. Its all about the4 difference in what language means in ordinary conversation, and what it means in court.

For example, its common to say "I pulled up to the stop sign, waited a minute, looked both ways again, then pulled out." But what that says in court is that you waited at the stop sign a full 60 seconds, then pulled out. And, if there is another witness or two who says you only waited 30 seconds before pulling out, you have lied to the court, or at the least, your credibility is shot, over this simple statement, which makes ALL your testimony suspect.

IF you "only" shoot to wound, then this implies that you did not think deadly force was necessary. And, if deadly force was not necessary, you should NOT have shot at all. Because using the gun at all (shooting) IS deadly force in the eyes of the law..

Again, this may not be critical in the criminal case (or it may be), but in a civil case, it might be the ammo that lets the other side eat you for lunch. With stand your ground/castle doctrine laws under such attack currently, its uncertain exactly how "good" this shooting may turn out to be. Depending on the specific wording of the law, it might protect the homeowner from criminal conviction, and still leave him liable for civil penalties, if found guilty in civil court. And civil courts standards are much less ..rigorous than a criminal court.

I believe that if one has to shoot, one shoots to "stop" the attack. WHERE the bullet hits, and what effect it has on the attacker is irrelevant to you, so long as it stops the attack. Stick with that. Shoot to STOP. Never shoot to kill, or shoot to wound. Shoot to stop. Tell the cops anything else, and down the line some lawyer type will try their best to twist your statement into an "admission of guilt". And they might just be sucessful, if they can convince 7 people (majority of a jury) that their version of what happened is the truth, and your's is not.

Good Luck to the homeowner, I hope his local laws protect him from losing everything to his attacker. He still might lose everything though, even if he wins. His defense attornies will insist on being paid, most likely.
 
I'm sorry, but if I ever had to shoot someone in a SD situation I will be aiming for the center mass.. And if there was some bizzaro highly unlikely happenstance where I did for whatever reason deem a warning shot the right thing to do (maybe a 12 year old with a knife or something) I wouldn't go around telling the cops that. Like others here have said, that is a great way to lose big time in a civil court. Civil court too often comes down to emotion and a permanently disabled bad guy who's momma is there to swear he was a "good boy" and "never did nobody wrong" can sturr up a lot of it.
 
Water-Man said:
I'm well aware of what french doors are. Still not a good idea to shoot through them.
Click to expand...

Would you care to expand on why it was not a good idea to shoot through them?
 
my story would have been something along the lines of, My first shot missed because he kept coming toward me my second shot missed but hit him in the leg because he was moving toward me but when I hit him in the leg he stopped coming at me so I stopped shooting.
 
The M1 Carbine is my preferred HD and truck rifle.

Yes I have AR-15, AK, etc..and have owned M1A (Springfield), Mini-14, as well as FAL.

The M1 Carbine just as so many good attributes it works well at conflicts from zero to 100 or more yards and the 'significant other' can shoot it well.

Plus a Ruger 10/22 works well as a understudy with peep sight. No need for those $400-500 .22 ARs!

Deaf
 
M1 Carbine ammo now available in CorBon DPX. I suspect that should alleviate any "stopping powe"r concerns that some may have about the little Carbine.

My Auto Ord. carbine feeds it fine. Run a bunch of practice ammo thru to make sure it works-- run some carry ammo thru, then practice with less expensive stuff. And lube it good.
 
my story would have been something along the lines of, My first shot missed because he kept coming toward me my second shot missed but hit him in the leg because he was moving toward me but when I hit him in the leg he stopped coming at me so I stopped shooting.
Click to expand...

Might be more story than a good attorney would recommend. ;)
 
Not a very good idea of firing through a door.
Click to expand...
Assuming that the defender is certain that the person on the other side of the door is attempting to illegally enter an occupied dwelling and that there's no other reasonable way to prevent that from occurring, AND assuming that shooting to prevent such a crime from occurring is legal in the area in question, then it's an excellent idea to do so from a tactical standpoint.

Basically, it provides an opportunity to neutralize the threat while minimizing the risk to the defender. That's a pretty valuable opportunity.

There are clearly some safety issues involved that should be weighed, and those issues may dictate a different course of action depending on the circumstances.
 
Would you care to expand on why it was not a good idea to shoot through them?
Click to expand...

If the glass was still in the doors, there are obvious problems. First, shooting through glass is a bad idea, as even a warning shot will throw glass at the person outside the door.

case in point, a raid on a drug house involved a glass door in the county south of here. Back sliding door was locked. Deputy smashed it with his shotgun a couple times, but gee, recoil pads won't break glass. He fired the shotgun through the door, which was curtained, and blasted glass into a resident that was just inside the door. The guy was disciplined for that shot and the department was sued, iirc

Not an absolute comparison, I know.

In this case, if I understand, the invader was outside. firing a warning shot at an invader outside your home, when there is plenty of opportunity to move away, no weapon presented, and no definite imminent threat of danger, is not good. If the door was open or the glass broken, it would have been a whole lot smarter of the old guy to wait at least until a weapon was presented or the guy broke the external line of that door, and actually entered the home with at least a hand or foot, and then, used deadly force. No warning shots at the guy outside, let him in, and engage in defensible deadly force.

Use of deadly force does not HAVE to lead to a fatality. He had a carbiine. He could have stuck it in the guys mouth and pulled the trigger as he stood there screaming, or he could have jabbed it into his belly and double tapped him in the navel, or he could have even knocked loose a knee or femur with a joint shot.

Shooting outside the home and hitting an unarmed man was a bad idea, no matter the outcome. Inside the home the legal situation changes astronomically. The way it reads, there would have been no significant change in the tactical situation either way if the guy had waited until the intruder actually passed into or through the door.
 
The scenario as presented is very defensible in this state since it is legal to use deadly force to prevent a burglary, robbery or to prevent an unlawful entry, made in a "violent and tumultous manner", into a habitation. But then, as we all should know, laws vary greatly among the states as regards self-defense situations and generalizations may be quite invalid in some situations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top