What to do in THIS HD scenario?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, Leadcounsel - you are incorrect on the effects of handgun rounds.

I have sat in lectures with Peter Pi and heard trauma surgeons and military experts explicitly say that handgun rounds do not guarantee the results you seem to take for granted.
 
i have, and came to the conclusion that most of your postings are little more than rambo fantasies. part of it comes from the parameters of the scenarios you conjure up. you put things in black and white, substituting absolutes where variables exist in real life.

when will you ever happen upon two armed masked men in your home and instantly know they are bad guys there to rob you? they have guns in their hands and are up to no good. they didnt see or hear you moving around (what are they, blind and deaf?) and you want to tiptoe behind them and execute them before they get upstairs to your family.

i'm just waiting for you to post a thread about how many different tactical routes you take to get to and from work.
 
and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
Click to expand...

You? The lawyer? Shootin em in the back? You dont think you'll get indicted? read the underline part, come on, your a lawyer, you dont think you may have a problem with that..? cant the argument be made that they were fleeing from you whenthey are laying there with wounds in the back....there goes your reasonable beleif huh....

Reading some of the chest poundings makes me giggle...My motto...if you are gonna pull the trigger start liquidating assets cuz your gonna be feeding some "bottom feeder" or 'shyster" or "shark" or "scumbag defense lawyer" (or whatever term is happily used for the guys who you love to villify until you need them to keep you out of the klink) to the tune of 50K....

WildandwhatthatadieuAlaska
 
Glenn,
If bullets are so ineffective, why bother? The fact is that the LEO and Military are correct that there is no guarantee, and are also cautious about the limits of weaponry. That's their job to be cautious and set expectations accordingly. It's called underpromising and overdelivery. The bottom line is that bullets against people are pretty darn effective.

Spaceman:
Yes, granted, this is a cut and dried scenario. However, ANY scenario where someone else is in my house is pretty cut and dried. If YOU cannot tell whether someone is there legally or not, that's your problem. I think a person could quickly tell whether intruders were there lawfully or not...

I don't see anything "fantasy" about the scenario,and you're the first to bring it up in many postings... Seems less rambo and more reality. In fact, I bet many people here on TFL own guns FOR EXACTLY THIS SITUATION -- AWAKENED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT BY ARMED INTRUDERS.

It is just one in any number of black, white, or gray scenarios. Many people post black, white, or gray scenarios including myself. I also respond to those with my thoughts.

If you have nothing to ADD to the conversation, why are you posting? People here would like USEFUL input, not naysayers who say this will never happen.

My suggestion for you is that if you don't like this scenario and have nothing to add, move along.... and have a nice day. :D
 
wildalaska,

there will be two pieces of evidence that will dictate they were not fleeing; forensics and my statements. forensics will determine they were not fleeing based on their location, body movement, etc. my statements to the police are going to accurately reflect MY state of mind and their actions including being armed and committing numerous felonies IN MY HOME, where I am completely immune from prosecution.
 
If you have nothing to ADD to the conversation, why are you posting?
Click to expand...
you mean, if i don't placate your ego by agreeing that shooting an intruder in the back from a concealed position without announcing myself is the best way to handle this situation, i shouldnt be posting in this thread? don't you want other people to express their opinions about your intended actions?

people postulate these types of scenarios until they are blue in the face. but when it comes down to it, it will only be by sheer luck that they react in the manner which they said they would.

the world is a dynamic environment. there are myriads of variables, lending to uncountable options. a mistake many make is thinking that just because they carry a gun they will prevail. or that because they wear body armor they will never get hurt (but if a bad guy wears armor they'll never be able to react like a good guy does, is that because the good guy is shooting "Good Guy Bullets", guaranteed to hit bad guys even if they arent aiming at them? and bad guys shoot "Bad Guy Bullets", now with 30% less chance of hitting innocents!).

remember folks, our guns are but one option in our quest to defend ourselves. in some cases they can be the only option, but thats more the exception than the rule.
 
there will be two pieces of evidence that will dictate they were not fleeing; forensics and my statements. forensics will determine they were not fleeing based on their location, body movement, etc. my statements to the police are going to accurately reflect MY state of mind and their actions including being armed and committing numerous felonies IN MY HOME, where I am completely immune from prosecution.
Click to expand...

With statements like that I begin to question whether you are a lawyer...

PS beat the criminal rap, enjoy your civil liability

WildanddidyoueverhearofthehamsandwichAlaska
 
Wild...

You're right... I should wait until the BG shoots first to return fire, but only if I think he might hurt me...

Look, the fact that they are in MY HOME, ILLEGALLY, WITHOUT MY PERMISSION, WITH FIREARMS, is threat enough.

I'd hate to think you're one of those bleeding hearts that would wait until Saddam nukes the US before taking any aggressive action...?

As far as the civil liability, re-read the statute. Homeowners are immune.
 
Spacely:

In THIS thread, let’s examine your postings for relative helpfulness vs waste of time:

First posting was several sarcastic paragraphs which we can appreciate but it’s no help.

Your second posting was multiple sarcastic attacks on me. Not helpful. Your post was also a general MIS-statement of the law, which overwhelmingly in most states gives a homeowner the right to confront lethal force with lethal force in their home. Armed perps are lethal force, so shooting them is 100% justified in all but the most communist states. Your mis-statment is harmful. More useless sarcasm to follow…


Your third posting was changing the scenario. Would be nice but not within the confines of the conversation…. Would you care to join the conversation? If not, you’re not helping. The posting was THAT YOU ARE SURE THEY ARE BURGLARS. If you can't tell the difference in your home, well, I just don't know what to say to that...

Your forth posting was yet again another sarcastic attack on me. How is this helpful again….?

Your fifth posting was… drumroll please… another attack on me. Big surprise!

Your sixth posting was mildly useful, mixed with attacks against me again…. Pattern?

So, in 6 postings you’ve posted the following useful information: Things do go down as you always want them to.

Thanks for the invaluable addition to the conversation! Any more pearls of wisdom?

I’m merely trying to drum up some interesting conversation and having people think of how they might react in a realistic scenario. I’m sorry if the scenario isn’t to your liking. My deepest and most sincere apologies. However, you have a choice and I suggest you move along if you don’t like the scenario presented, or start your OWN post with you OWN non-Rambo scenario.

Thank YOU!
 
Glenn,
If bullets are so ineffective, why bother? The fact is that the LEO and Military are correct that there is no guarantee, and are also cautious about the limits of weaponry. That's their job to be cautious and set expectations accordingly. It's called underpromising and overdelivery. The bottom line is that bullets against people are pretty darn effective.

You have been claiming one shot stops and almost instaneous stops as a guarantee for your Glock 40 rounds. That is pure BS. The reason we use bullets is that I have trouble concealing and lifting a Bofors L70 40mm gun. You are really off base if you truly think that your shooting abilities and round guarantee that you will be a steely eyed dealer of death.

Also, you lack of logic is rather amusing. It's like when you claimed I was suggesting a Rambo attack and I didn't - then you claimed I edited my post - with no such notations on my posts (in another thread). You are really sinking here as a self-proclaimed expert. But that's ok with me.
 
I'd hate to think you're one of those bleeding hearts that would wait until Saddam nukes the US before taking any aggressive action...?
Click to expand...

Sigh...and off we go into ad hominem land eh counsel?


As far as the civil liability, re-read the statute. Homeowners are immune.
Click to expand...

Now I know you are not a lawyer.

WildwhypretendAlaska
 
Reading some of the chest poundings makes me giggle...My motto...if you are gonna pull the trigger start liquidating assets cuz your gonna be feeding some "bottom feeder" or 'shyster" or "shark" or "scumbag defense lawyer" (or whatever term is happily used for the guys who you love to villify until you need them to keep you out of the klink) to the tune of 50K....
Click to expand...

I think a good rule of thumb is: Don't start shooting unless you are convinced that you and yours have no realistic chance of survival otherwise. That way, even if you do lose everything defending yourself (too many potential factors for anyone, even a super-all-state-knowing lead attorney, to say ahead of time what will and will not fly), you can still be satisfied that it's better than being dead.
 
Wild…


Let me help you… follow the bouncing ball if you will…


CRS: 18-1-704.5 (4): Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
 
Place your bets gentlemen!

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • peeing_contest.jpg
    peeing_contest.jpg
    19.3 KB · Views: 283
I didnt read all of the responses but heres my meager contribution.

If possible I would wait for the BG,s to go into the room they are headed into, then sneak up the stairs in my socks as quietly as possible. There I would silently gather up my family into the pre-ordained room, where my wife would call the authorities on the cell phone that LIVES in that room, while I cover the entrance with the Mossy. Maybe thats not Navy Seal enough, but Im gonna play the percentages when my families involved.

Maybe, nobody has to get shot. Not until they breach the family room, then its all 12 ga. and 9mm's(my wife's glock)



I think I read one response where someone immediately questioned the intent of the intruders based on thier armed condition. I agree. If someone comes in my house armed, they advance immediately from burgaler to assasin in my mind, weather or not thats what there doing.

Gotta go read the rest now!
 
Well, since Wild Alaska has gone silent, I'll explain civil lawsuits.

First, a plaintiff must be harmed. In the case where a home invader with a gun is shot, he could allege being harmed. However, if he's dead his estate must filed the suit for him.

Second, a person must hire an attorney. Attorney's value $. Not the promise of money, but REAL HARD cash money, and lots of it. A civil suit of this nature would likely cost the plaintiff tens of thousands of dollars. BG's that are robbing you and their families are probably in short supply. Another option is a contingency fee, which means that the Attorney will work for some portion of the final settlement/judgement, generally about 1/3rd, PLUS the costs (which will amount to a large chunk of money, which again the BG doesn't have).

An attorney working for cash MIGHT take a loser case just for the $, but probably will not because attorney's like to win. An attorney will NEVER take a loser case on a contingency basis because he won't be paid for his years of work. Simple fact.

Now, given that his client was in my home uninvited or illegally, with a gun, wearing a ski mask, with clear intent to do harm and rob, and was shot (maybe killed) in the process, that's not a very good case. ON TOP OF THAT, Colorado statutes provide for complete immunity from civil liability in such defensive shootings and it doesn't matter if it was in the back or if I tickled him to death. Homeowners have the absolute right to use lethal force to confront lethal force.

Now, presented with these facts AND the immunity statute, NO LAWYER IN THE WORLD is going to take this loser of a case because the judge will read the complaint and then the answer and toss it out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top