Language when warning a perp.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reminds me of a chow dog i had once,Dang dog never barked a day in her life but get to close and she would rip you to shreds.I was almost sued for an attack when a b/g tried to break in to my home,the dog got the worst out of the deal and had to be put down.Anyways the point i'm trying to make always be alert of your surroundings and never give up your best defence,your position.

A elderly woman once shot a man for breaking in,after it was over she calmly told the police that she didn't know him and they didn't have any thing to talk about.
 
You guys scare the @@@@ out of me.

On my business trip to Prague, Czech Republic, I was working late. When I
was ready to leave, I was the only one left in the office. The office door
had a goofy feature when activated prevents the door from being opened
from the inside or the outside.

:confused:

I accidentally engaged that feature, and after about fifteen minutes of
fumbling with the door, I decided to jump out the bathroom window. Unlucky
for me, the bathroom window opened out into a court-yard. So, basically
I was in people's backyards. And the thought did cross my mind that I may
get shot. Czech Repulic is after all home of CZ and also the home of the
best AK-47 ever made.

Luckily, I located a corridor that was not part of anyone's home and was
able to find my way to the street.

Weird things happen, and maybe somebody will wander into my house. I
won't bust a cap in his buttocks just for being inside my house. I'm going
to warn him first. Then, once his intentions are clear, I'll either shoot him or
tell him where the door is.

Cheers,

Jae
 
Finding a burglar in your living room with arms full of your DVD or china?

Is that a life and death shoot'em? One should consider that. You do have some time. While some folks will say "Castle" and blast him - think that is an always and useful response?

What's a true life and death situation? Is the world black and white?
Click to expand...

If there is one perp in your home, there are likely two perps. Do you really want to engage in a nice exchange of words while his buddy flanks you?

It has been my experience that intruders in the home are not there for the benefit of my family or me.
 
The main point for any of us should be to not have to take a life, or to see other lives being taken. Unfortunately, the actions of the BG may prevent this.

There are four situations when I would shoot without warning:
1. If the BG has a weapon pointed at me.
2. If the BG has a weapon pointed at my family.
3. If the BG is already shooting.
4. If he's in my house and advancing.

Any other scene demands (for me) that I give warning - ONE warning only!

"Freeze!"
"Stop or I'll shoot."

If he does anything else than freeze or stop, I pull the trigger and fire until the threat is negated. Even if he's armed, I got him in my sights and I can get one off if he even twitches that hand with the weapon in it.

I'm not eager to take a life, but nor am I eager to avoid it. I'll do what the scene demands at the time. Each situation is different.
 
I will NOT kill over property.
Click to expand...

Admirable! No one wants to take a life over a toaster.

Fortunately, if someone is in your house, most courts will let you assume they are there to harm you, not just to steal from you. If someone is in your house to steal and meets resistance, they're apt to react violently to either steal or get away. You can't assume they're trying to get away in that case.

However, I once had a short conversation with a BG at gunpoint from 5 feet - cocked and aimed right between his eyes:
"You wouldn't shoot me over $10, would you?"
"I'd shoot you over ten cents." Drop the bill."

In that case, a little intimidation and posturing convinced him he was close to seeing another world, and actually avoided a shooting.
 
Since I will guess that the perp did not ring the doorbell to be invited into your home to steal your toaster and thereby did not "warn" me or my family of his intentions, I am with Keltyke and don't plan to "warn" him of mine under Kelt's exact conditions.

+1

As Mike Tyson said "I throw every punch with bad intentions." I think, just my opinion, that a BG meeting those conditions above has bad intentions towards me too.
 
You know, most of you people scare me to death. I see a whole lot of chairborne commandos on here anymore. You all assume that you're Rambo and will never be overpowered, outsmarted, out drawn or out shot. What is the old saying about expect the unexpected. Remember alot of the people breaking into homes are professional criminals, they too know how to use a gun and really dont have anything to lose in killing the know it all, two to the chest home owner who thinks the sound of a shotgun being racked will send all but the bravest man running for their lives. You people who would shoot someone over a toaster, I sure hope the old lady next door never comes knocking to borrow a cup of sugar or she may end up with a red dot on her forehead. I'm glad I dont live in the war zones...or dreamlands that you folks do. I get tired too of hearing about the super breeds of dogs you guys own too, yes a mean dog is quite a detterent but dogs arent bullet proof or cant survive a poisoned steak "treat" from an intuder. Really people, this is the kind of attitude the anti gun people see. If you CCW dont flaunt it, even on an internet forum. That CC piece is for your protection, you're not automatically deputized because of it. Remember too that once you pull the trigger you cant being that bullet back. The guy stealing your tv with the intent to sell it to help feed a starving family ( yes there are people who steal for their families) wont be coming back. Seriously everyone, leave the Rambo attitudes to Hollywood and think for once before you go off and say or do something that will affect you for the rest of your life.
 
I would never even think of "killing a man over a toaster" Heck I wouldn't think of it for any inanimate object! I will however kill him OVER A HOME INVASION!
As for being outsmarted... That is one reason to not engage in idle chit chat.
As for being a chest beating rambo ninja blood thirsty heartless bastard... I am just an average size guy of full middle age with physical limitations. I have to put the leverage firmly in my court instantly or risk being victimized by a HOME INVADER.
As for a 2 to the chest comment... I prefer one to the chest followed up with a few more for good measure. Gotta save a few in case his buddy wants to play ball too.
If it is a dog eat dog world, I won't be like one of our fellow TFL members... wearing the milkbone underwear.
It is high time the thugs of society realize that crime is a risky profession and many highly respectful type folks refuse to allow themselves to be victimized.
Brent
 
Glenn, He will be dead...

Guess I wasted my time listening to lectures on gun shot wounds and survivability. I will opine that if forensics show that you fired a killing wound on a person on the ground - the Castle doctrine may not save your butt. It will be an interesting test case.

So who proposes the finishing shot?

As far as being flanked - that presupposes you are exploring the house to engage the bad guy. Unless you have to save the kids, clearing for 'the china' - ain't my plan. From a good cover position, you shouldn't get flanked.

There is a lot of posturing for emotional response to territorial violation and a need to punish the BG as compared to planning for an optimal outcome for you.
 
I have never studied ballistic survivability. I have shot a few animals at close range with shotguns and upon butchering I was witness to the devastation internally to both the organs contacted by the lead and other wise untouched organs as well. If the wounded home invader attempts to get up he is still a threat. I am not fearless...
As for going out lookin' for the fight... I seem to have always lived in split plan homes. If the bad guy ain't in my sight he may be headed for my son or daughters bed room.
Brent
 
There's no guarantee - my point - that the intruder will be dead. So stating 'he will be dead' contributes nothing to the real discussion of options. It is posturing.
 
My CHL instructor was asked the same question.

Answer: STOP or HALT! and if they they are a stranger and dont stop, if you have your firearm out you must be in fear for your life so the next step is to shoot.

This is taking into consideration that you are in circumstances like your house at night or in a situation where it is legal to use deadly force to protect yourself.
 
My View

I think warnings are legally optional in New York, my state - it's not mentioned in law that I know of.

I can see it in some circumstances as giving someone a last chance not to get shot, and in others giving someone a last chance to shoot you first knowing now you have a weapon. Soooooooo, I have no plans to give a warning if a god-awful event should happen, I might but I don't add it in as planning. One more thing to add in your thinking, makes one more thing to possibly screw you up at point-of-crisis.

I keep it simple: #1: you are in a situation you feel with reason you will be killed NOW #2 draw, point, shoot, #3 quick prayer for him and you, call 911 and a lawyer.
 
Mr.Armstrong, The whole reason for me not giving warning is to avoid a "gun battle"... One person shooting an intruder is not a gun battle.
Click to expand...
Assuming that (1) the other guy is not armed; and (2) that you are so good that you will always stop him with your first shot; and (3) that the BG is by himself are fairly questionable assumptions. Thus, a gunbattle.
As for most burglars are not murderers... Correct but anyone who enters an occupied dwelling is a home invader not a simple burglar.
Click to expand...
Actually most home burglaries are just that, simple home burglaries. The BGs aren't there to physically harm anyone.
Anyone who enters my home without permission is presumed to be heavily armed and extremely dangerous...
Click to expand...
If that is your assumption, why start a gunfight with them, endangering everyone in the house, when it is not necessary?
 
Actually most home burglaries are just that, simple home burglaries. The BGs aren't there to physically harm anyone.
Click to expand...

If no one is home you may have a bit of a point... If anyone is home it is by definition an invasion of my home.

If that is your assumption, why start a gunfight with them, endangering everyone in the house, when it is not necessary?
Click to expand...

Did you read my presumption? I said "presumed to be heavily armed and extremely dangerous."

So I should see that as not necessary? If I could presume the person was unarmed and harmless than it would not be necessary to engage.

Another poster stated that some thieves are only trying to feed a starving family... First I say that is BS!!! If he has the ability to go through the thinking involved to pull off a heist he is smart enough to work. If he is physically able to tote my things off he can bag my groceries at the piggly wiggly! I would not shoot just to save my belongings but I assure you that the items I own are MINE! I have not the available funds nor even credit cards to replace them.
But that is beside the point... The point is these four walls constitute my castle, as paltry as they may be, Everyone within is a cherished life I have chosen to love and live with. It is a heavy responsibility but one I gleefully accept.
I think I have run myself all out of additional things to say on this subject.
Brent
 
Actually most home burglaries are just that, simple home burglaries. The BGs aren't there to physically harm anyone.
Click to expand...

Right. There's a BIG difference in burglary and home invasion, both in the field and in the court.

Upon discovering the house is occupied, your average burglar will simply turn and leave.

Yes, making the wrong distinction between the two may have fatal results. But people, let's be reasonable and responsible.
 
Fortunately, if someone is in your house, most courts will let you assume they are there to harm you, not just to steal from you.
Click to expand...

Most yes, the ones in NY, No.


I think warnings are legally optional in New York, my state - it's not mentioned in law that I know of.
Click to expand...

My state too and you are correct warnings are optional in NY but the legal situations for shooting are VERY narrow, essentially leaving little choice than to give a warning unless the threat is EXTREMELY severe. NY is essentially a "reasonable belief of imminent death/substantial bodily harm state and it is clear that a simple breaking and entering will not qualify in the eyes of the court.


For what it's worth, here's my take on the situation (BG with an arm load of stuff). I'm going to tell him in no uncertain terms to stop (exact verbiage optional), with my gun pointed at him (finger off the trigger). If he stops, freezes, drops the stuff, runs out the door, jumps out the window then we go to the next step of either his surrender and/or 911. If he makes an aggressive move, runs toward me, drops things and reaches in a pocket or points something at me- I shoot. At that point the BG has escalated the confrontation to a physical one, not me.
As for the argument of "Now he knows you've got guns/valuables/whatever." Well, I guess he does and he MIGHT come back, which would suck, but to shoot someone over what MIGHT happen is over the horizon on my moral compass. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't. I'm saying I won't.
 
I have never studied ballistic survivability.
Click to expand...
Then maybe you should pay attention to those that have.
If no one is home you may have a bit of a point... If anyone is home it is by definition an invasion of my home.
Click to expand...
An invasion of your home is not a home invasion. They are two different concepts. And an invasion of your home, at least as presented here, is most likely a simple burglary. Sorry, but that's just the way things are.
Did you read my presumption? I said "presumed to be heavily armed and extremely dangerous."
Click to expand...
Of course I read it. That is why I said "If that is your assumption, why start a gunfight with them, endangering everyone in the house, when it is not necessary?"
So I should see that as not necessary?
Click to expand...
I tend to view starting a gunfight as a last resort rather than a first option, especially if I am working from the assumption that my opponent(s) will be heavily armed and extremely dangerous. I want to give them the incentive to go bother somebody else instead of encouraging them to start swapping lead with me while my family is downrange.
 
Well, look. After numerous pages of continuing with this thread, maybe an observation would be in order.

1. There are reasons for not firing warning shots in civilian SD situations. They've been stated numerous times and are valid.

2. It' would be shear negligence not to have rules of engagement in military or private security guard duty situations (including warning shots) for obvious reasons.

Replying to point #2 (the subject of the thread) with an argument pertinent to point #1, which isn't relevent to the main point, is a little silly, isn't it?:cool:

Just my thoughts (observation) on the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top