Weapon mounted lights and felony aggravated assault.

Posted by buck460XVR:
What does that [the importance of avoiding an unintentional shooting] have to do with covering someone who is a potential threat until it is known the there is no threat.
If I have reason to believe that deadly (or in a handful of states, non deadly physical) force would be justified (and that means immediately necessary), I will be justified in presenting a weapon. Usually, the presence of a "potential threat" does not rise to the level of an imminent threat requiring the use of force.

Why are you assuming folks are going to pull the trigger and shoot without identifying their target?
I am not.

But there is a risk that it might happen. Triggers can and do get pulled unintentionally. Even police officers who have been trained to keep their fingers off the trigger do touch the trigger without realizing it. In a high-adrenaline situation, that could have devastating results.
 
Limited question:

A TV show ("The Best Defense") I happened to be watching asked this question: If you KNEW for certain that you would face a home invasion tomorrow night, what weapon would you have at the ready?".

Now, this overlooks the obvious- have professionals there instead of yourself.

For the purposes of this thread, I transform the question to, "If you were expecting a home invasion and the only change you could make was to add or remove a weapon-mounted light, would you or would you not? And why?

Remember also you do not ALWAYS have to have the light turned on especially if you also carry a hand-held light anyway.

Lost Sheep
 
#OldMarksman...

Then in your view the battle is already lost before it starts.

This has nothing to do with bravado. I for fear of being charged with assault am not going to cower in a closet while someone invades my home and violates my family. The REASON I own firearms in the first place is because I have an inalienable RIGHT, a human right to protect myself and my family. I am protected by law to do so. This is the road I have taken. I will investigate things that go bump, and I will shoot any who have already committed a forcible felony* against me/my property and family. This is Castle Doctrine and while we are lucky enough to have it here, it is not negotiable. It can not to be debated by jury, it is what it is.

Edit: * Breaking an entry = forcible felony. It doesn't have to involve "breakage" per se, someone entering, invading "opening" a sliding door can legally be shot through the glass under Castle Doctrine.

-SS-
 
Last edited:
Post by Sweet Shooter:
Then in your view the battle is already lost before it starts.
Not at all.

This has nothing to do with bravado.
How about prudence?

I for fear of being charged with assault am not going to cower in a closet while someone invades my home and violates my family.
Nor should anyone else.

The reason for letting the threat come to the defender is to greatly reduce the risk of walking into a trap, an ambush, or crossfire.

The REASON I own firearms in the first place is because I have an inalienable RIGHT, a human right to protect myself and my family. I am protected by law to do so. This is the road I have taken.
Good for you.

I will investigate things that go bump, ....
Many people know better.

It is evident that you could benefit from some training.

....and I will shoot any who have already committed a forcible felony against me/my property and family.
One should shoot before someone has committed a forcible felony against your family.

If the crime has been committed and deadly force is no longer immediately necessary, shooting will likely get you an attempted murder charge--if the perp survives. One may defend, but one may not punish.

This is Castle Doctrine and while we are lucky enough to have it here, it is not negotiable. It can not to be debated by jury, it is what it is.
Nothing that you have said has anything to do with castle doctrine.
 
Post by Sweet Shooter:

Quote:
I will investigate things that go bump, ....
Many people know better.

It is evident that you could benefit from some training


Oldmarksman,

The point is that you do not always have the ABILITY to hunker down and wait for a LE response.

My home for example is a newly built floorplan that has the master bedroom on one end of the house with a "greatroom" in between it and the other bedrooms. A bump in the night coming from one of the spare bedrooms puts the noise source across the house and in proximity to my daughters bedroom.

Even (especially) if i can identify the sound as an intruder. I dont have the luxury of waiting on local PD. My daughter is in peril and im going to grab my HD gun and go. If that noise turns out to be benign...good. If it turns out to be an unknown (to me) individual, they will have a gun pointed at them until i can figure out who and what is going on. If they respond with any kind of threatening move, im going to shoot them.

ETA..you are quick to point out the need for people to get more training, without ANY IDEA of that persons background and current level of training. Id advise you to get out of the books so much and look at the real world. Those of us that have made a living with a gun tend to have a better grasp on SD usage with them then someone that only talks about it in a courtroom or on the internet.

Get real. No man worth his salt is going to just hunker down when his family is in danger
 
Last edited:
#OldMarksman:
"It is evident that you could benefit from some training."
"Nothing that you have said has anything to do with castle doctrine."

We can all (including you) always benefit from continual training.

I have had first-hand experience with the Castle Doctrine laws. Someone opening a door and entering your home (illegally) constitutes a forcible felony and Castle Doctrine requires merely that to permit me to use deadly force. A nice guy might give a con a chance if he feels in control. I have seen that done. But that is dangerous.

-SS-
 
The point is that you do not always have the ABILITY to hunker down and wait for a LE response.

Some people do. Everyone is not in even remotely the same situation.

You have a nice new large house, with your kids sleeping on the opposite end. I have a small old house, so cluttered with stuff some hoarders would be jealous, its never completely dark unless the power is out, and my kids sleep in their own homes several states away.

What is right, and makes sense for you is much different than what does for me.
 
Quote:
The point is that you do not always have the ABILITY to hunker down and wait for a LE response.
Some people do. Everyone is not in even remotely the same situation.

You have a nice new large house, with your kids sleeping on the opposite end. I have a small old house, so cluttered with stuff some hoarders would be jealous, its never completely dark unless the power is out, and my kids sleep in their own homes several states away.

What is right, and makes sense for you is much different than what does for me.

I absolutely AGREE...but im not the one making blanket statement telling people its wrong to go see what that "noise was".

See posts 72, 83, 85, 91, 96 and 105. In at least those 6 posts Oldmarksman has said not to go and investigate that "Bump in the night". I simply pointed out that some folks WILL go and see what it was.

Obviously, if you are a single guy living alone and there are voices coming from a spare bedroom....barricade somewhere and call 911.

The real world is not that black and white. Sometimes we MUST GO.
 
Last edited:
Posted by Sharkbite:
The point is that you do not always have the ABILITY to hunker down and wait for a LE response.
It is most certainly true that one may not always have the ability to hunker down. There is no question about that. In my house, I may have to draw and shoot from wherever I happen to be at the time.

But the idea is not to wait for LE. In most cases they will not arrive in time. But the idea is to let the threat come to the defender.

Even (especially) if i can identify the sound as an intruder. I dont have the luxury of waiting on local PD.
I don't think that anyone, anywhere, should ever assume that they can wait for the police to arrive.

The thing to do is to get yourself and your family to a position of safety, call the police, and prepare to open fire from a position of safety if necessary.

For a number of years, FoF exercises relative to this question were conducted at the National Tactical Invitational. Defenders who were thoroughly familiar with the layouts of the shoot houses went out in search of intruders who were not. In other exercises, the defenders let the intruders come to them.

As I recall, over a several year period, only one, or maybe two, of the "hunter" defenders prevailed.

Should one not want to accept those results (though they are accepted by most professionals and trainers), one might want to set up some exercises using Airsoft equipment. Vary the participants, and provide an incentive for success.

My daughter is in peril and im going to grab my HD gun and go.
Good. You have no choice, unless she happens to be capable of defending herself from where she is. Either way, you should have a plan.

..you are quick to point out the need for people to get more training, without ANY IDEA of that persons background and current level of training
An implication that one would go forth in search of an intruder (and I may have misinterpreted that) gives an idea of a person's level of training. A statement that one would would intend to shoot anyone who had already committed a forcible felony against one's family would nail it.

Id advise you to get out of the books so much and look at the real world.
I have been involved in several defensive gun use incidents over the years. I now know that I could have handled each of them better than I did.

I have taken a gun and gone looking for possible intruders in the house. I now know that I shouldn't have.

Get real. No man worth his salt is going to just hunker down when his family is in danger
That applies to women, too.

We have discussed this ad nauseam. The first thing to do is attend to the safety of the family. The second is to defend, from a defensible position.
 
Last edited:
Posted by Sharkbite:
In at least those 6 posts Oldmarksman has said not to go and investigate that "Bump in the night".
And in one more since then.

I believe that every qualified trainer will recommend the same thing--very strongly.

I simply pointed out that some folks WILL go and see what it was.
That tells us absolutely nothing about the wisdom of doing so.

I've done it myself--before I knew better.

The real world is not that black and white. Sometimes we MUST GO.
Sometimes we must go to ensure the safety of others. That is not the same thing as going to see what the noise was.

A couple of years ago, when I was upstairs and my wife was confined to a recliner downstairs, she shouted that someone had entered the back door.

I drew faster than I ever had and came down the stairs like I did when I was twenty years younger.

I turned out that the back door had been blown open by the wind.

I went down to protect her, and not to investigate the noise.

Here's a pretty good read for those interested in home defense:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/defend-yourself-rob-pincus/1114902298?ean=9781440238314
 
Kyle Lamb, Larry Vickers, Travis Haley, Gunsite, Front Sight, Rob Pincus., Sure-fire, etc. All top trainers in weapons and tactics. All say the same thing. "Dont go if you dont have to, but if you HAVE to go...go smart"

All teach basic home defense building clearing in at least SOME of their classes. They recognize what the reality of the situation is. Sometimes we HAVE to go
 
Sharkbite, in the hypothetical described the homeowner's actions would certainly be defensible, if charges were lodged.

'Cause we read about home defenders all the time being charged in cases like this? I agree with post #35: Mas Ayoob makes a living out of scaring people.
 
Posted by Derbel McDillet:
I agree with post #35: Mas Ayoob makes a living out of scaring people.
Derb, Mas makes his living primarily by teaching use of force law, a subject in which he is considered a preeminent expert.

He also, when he does agree to take a case, serves as an expert witness, I believe primarily for the defense, in trials that have to do with the use of firearms.

For the testimony of an expert witness to be admissible in court, it must first be established that the witness does have the proper experience and expertise.

Should I ever be charged with a crime in a self defense case, Mas would be my first choice as an expert witness.

Do you have anything of value to contribute to the discussion here?
 
Pertinent Article from The Tactical Professor

(Claude Werner)

https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/the-importance-of-target-identification/

Relevant excerpts:

...gunowners cannot take the risk of shooting someone at home without establishing a positive ID.


Responding with a firearm to a noise at night in the home absolutely requires that you visually verify your target before shooting. You probably will need a flashlight for that.

Next time you go to the range, take the flashlight with you. Instead of just blasting 50 holes in a silhouette, shoot two shots at the silhouette 25 times. Sequence is very important in how you do this.

Have your gun in your shooting hand and your flashlight in your support hand.

The gun is not pointing at the target and the light is off.

Before each two shot string, say out loud “Who’s there?”

Wait to listen for an answer. If you go to the range with someone, have them stand behind you and sometimes respond with “it’s me, Daddy” or something similar.

If they say that, immediately put your gun down on the bench and abort that sequence.

... illuminate the target without pointing the gun at it.

Finally, bring the gun up and fire....

(Emphasis Added)

Claude wrote this and linked a news report about a recent tragedy. It had nothing to do with aggravated assault charges or anything similar.
 
My HD weapons, 1911, 870 and AR all have weapon mounted Surefire white lights. Also have tritium sights on each.
Someone in my home, here in Florida, is at risk, and pointing a light at them is the least they might encounter.
 
I've read through the thread, and simply don't understand the problem. With the weapon mounted lights on any of my handguns or long guns I can light up any room in my house almost as well as turning on the lights by simply pointing the muzzle safely at the floor in front of me. No reason to point any of them at someone until you determine if it is a real threat or not.

As far as giving up my position, that is also a non-issue. An intruder will be able to see me during a day time incident much better than at night anyway. If simply turning on the weapon light alerts an intruder to my presence there is a fairly good chance they will decide to leave. If so, mission accomplished. I'm not LE and it isn't my job to detain them. I truly don't ever want to be in a position to have to shoot someone.
 
Back
Top