When things go BUMP in the night. What kind of person are you?

Lots of food for thought in this thread.

Me, I wouldn't try to clear the house unless I had no other option to keep my family safe. Someone once told me that the proper term for clearing a house is "Looking for someone to kill you."

That said, I'm realistically aware that it will probably be necessary for me to move from my downstairs bedroom to my children's upstairs hallway or bedrooms. I've thought through our floor plan and where the danger points are, walking through in daylight, low light, and no light to see how it changes with the lighting. I'm aware that doorways are dangerous, and have decided which spots are more defensible than others, if I'm not safely hidden in my room with the gun pointed at the door.

Bottom line. I'd rather huddle in a safe room and plan for the police to handle it unless the safe room is violated. But with as many family members as I've got, I don't see all of us getting to the safe room without me physically moving from Point 'A' to Point 'B'.

pax

If you don't risk anything, you risk even more. -- Erica Jong
 
I'm with Mr. Barrick. Our house has a bad layout for hunting around at night: the stairs that lead from the bedrooms to the rest of the house have blind corners on both sides of the landing. Besides, the only things that I really care about, my family, all sleep upstairs. I'd push the 911 button on the alarm panel (connected with cellular backup) in our room, grab my gun and take a position at the top of the stairs that allows me to see the flight, but remain hidden. If someone is foolish enough to walk up the stairs, they's be warned once: "I'm armed and the police are on the way". If they continued, they'd be "stopped" by a 45ACP to the chest.

By the way, if you're a barricade in place type, do you always keep a cell phone or other way to call 911 in your bedroom? If I were a BG, first thing I'd do in a house is take the phone off the hook so the homeowner can't call out.
 
FYI 911 isn't something to rely on. When I was in college I worked security jobs, more than once 911 would be busy (911 was my "backup"), even if you got thru they were not to likely to come.

If you really NEEDED help you needed to call fire department in that city, they always responded quickly.

I don't claim to have years of experiance in LE/covert ops or any such, but I do get tired of some of the stuff that is "taught" by "experts".

The police in your area might actually respond to calls, have you ever done any checking to find out? How long does it take on average? What is longest time they have ever taken to respond to a call? Do they ignore or chose not to respond to some calls?

I live in MN, and at least twice when 911 was called from work weather prevented any quick response from LE. Both times mild snow storms early in the winter led to lots of minor and majer traffic problems and LE couldn't respond to every call right away. Because of the volume of calls, and also because of poor driving conditions.

Other times the call seems to magically disappear from their records.

I am not saying don't call 911, but people should remember it isn't a magic wand that will make problem dissappear.

Also a true safe room is supposed to be hardend to the point that it can resist attack for as long as it is expected for help to arrive.

You really should have a plan B in case 911 doesn't work. Also you should realize a GOOD response time is anything under 10-15 minutes.
***

I wish someone would do some reprints of the newsletter Cooper and Tappin used to write. I was a bit to young to read them when they first came out :)

I have seen some ideas quoted from that newsletter that sound usefull to me. Like having a light switch in master bedroom wired to turn on light somewhere away from bedroom to draw fire away.
 
rlpinca,
With all due respect, do not take advice from a LEO or a website, unless it happens to come from the lawmakers themselves.

In the great state of Texas, if somebody breaks into your home, you are legally justified in shooting them. They don't have to have fangs or a crowbar. They committed a felony, and your life could possibly be in danger. Many other states have the same type of law, it's called "Make my day" or something like that.
Now if they lie down on their slitthering belly and beg for mercy, that's a different story. As long as they are standing, they present a threat. Front sight, squeeze.

But don't take legal advice from me either. I won't shoot anybody unless there is no other action to be taken. I will barraced myself in my room, if possible. I'm not stupid enough to go looking for some goon in the pitch black.

Stinger
 
If I wake in the wee hours of the morning to some fool with my tv in both hands, I need not worry about doing anything...........he will be easy to spot at the emergency room..........he's the guy with the triple hernia. that thing weighs a flippin ton.:D
 
I have talked to a Texas DPS officer and a chl instructor about this specific scenario not too long ago. I had heard that about Texas and a few other states. They said, if you or someone else is being endangered, then you can shoot. What sense does it make to legally be able to shoot someone just because they are trespassing? Imagine the media going crazy wtih something like that.
Click to expand...
Try actually reading the law. :rolleyes: You are wrong about the Texas law. Read it for yourself and see.
 
Regardless of whatever the law is in any particular state, common sense is common sense.

I would immidiately arm myself and make my wife aware there was a problem. I would quietly remain still from whatever vantage point I had. (whether it be behind the bed or simply sitting in the dark) I would instruct my wife to call 911 (anybody ever hear of cell phones?)they canot be "taken off the hook".

I would then maintain surveilence and wait for the cops. But just as soon as I located the threat i would zero in on it. I would not shoot someone who was not in my house. Enter the house and everything changes. I am going to apply common-sense, and common-sense would dictate to me not to take any chances with anyone who would be so brazen and bold as to break into my house, especially with me home!

As far as however the state wants to rewrite common-sense laws, it comes down to his word against mine......and he won't be saying much..............
 
quote:
"it comes down to his word against mine......and he won't be saying much.............."

I agree with you totally on that one, kungfool. :)

Rich
 
If I'm wrong about the law in Texas try shooting an unarmed trespasser that is posing no immediate danger to your or your family and see where you end up. Like I said before, no state(that I know of) has a provision to allow someone to kill another person out of revenge or protection of property.

If you're sure about it, then post a link to an official DPS related site and show me that it says killing a kid messing around in your backyard is legal. There are pages that list such laws.

Although not an official site, here's a story about a DA telling ranchers they cannot shoot at illegal aliens tresspassing on their property. He says you are allowed to use force, but not deadlyforce.

http://www.ranchrescue.com/news_articles/delriolive_2000aug01_trespassers.PDF

I went ahead and looked it up in one of my books.

Texas Penal Code, Title 2, Chapt 9, Sub chapter D
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
1 if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41(I'll post that if anyone is interested); and
2 when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is IMMEDIATELY necessary:
A to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
B to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
3 he reasonably believes that:
A the land or property CANNOT be protected or recovered by ANY other means; or
B the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.



It leaves alot of vague areas, but a jury would have fun with it. It says nothing about shooting a tresspasser like many believe they are able to, unless they are breaking a few laws, and even then under very specific circumstances.

Like I said in an earlier post. Protect your family, that's your responsibility as a man, but you can't do that from a prison cell.


<<Try actually reading the law. You are wrong about the Texas law. Read it for yourself and see>>

Nope, your turn to read it. Because of ignorance of the law, or just listening to urban legends about it, alot of people are in prison for doing what they thought was allowed.

How do you like them apples?:D :D :D :D
 
Are you really sure you want to argue this point?

Nope, your turn to read it. Because of ignorance of the law, or just listening to urban legends about it, alot of people are in prison for doing what they thought was allowed.
Click to expand...
Well you sure seem to be one for missing the obvious. Of course since you don’t live in Texas I wouldn’t expect you to know the law here, I certainly don’t claim to know New Mexico law, but I know when to admit it...

You posted the main part of the law that states when deadly force can be used when there has been a theft. Let me restate the parts you seem to be ignoring:
to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and he reasonably believes that: the land or property CANNOT be protected or recovered by ANY other means; or the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Click to expand...
Now I took it out of its outline form and stated it in a (perhaps) more readable format. It is confusing and it does not allow wanton use of deadly force. HOWEVER, you insist on claiming that deadly force is not allowed in defense of property and I will again state, you are wrong. Please note that I am not discussing the morality of doing so, nor the practicality of doing so, only the legality of doing so. Also, FWIW there are many, many instances of the use of deadly force in defense of property here in Texas, which never even went to a Grand Jury. Start tossing in the cases the went to a Grand Jury and were no-billed and you get even more. Those remaining cases that went to trial are almost all of a nature that section 9.42 as a legal defense was grasping at straws. There are far, far more instances of the use of deadly force in defense of property that are no-billed than there are instances of people in jail for misunderstanding the law. In fact, I’d like you to find me one, just one, case here in Texas where somebody legitimately thought that they were protect by the law to use deadly force in defense of their property but wound up in jail. I have no doubt that it has happened on occasion (I mean hey there have been innocent people on death row, it happens) but it is a very, very rare occurrence. You really shouldn’t make claims of knowledge where there seems to be such a glaring lack of it.
 
I didn't mean to get into a pissing contest with you. Here is the part of Dr Jones's post that I was arguing about.

In the wonderful, lovely land of Texas, you CAN shoot anyone who tresspasses on your property

I was disagreeing with the tresspassing part, not the part about protecting your property from damage. The way alot of people think it works is that someone is on your property without your permission, you can use deadly force. That's the part I was concerned with. I know I said it has no provision for protecting property, but I meant to say trespassing. Even if theft is in progress, you have to walk a fine line when the law says reasonable or

I do keep up on the law there in Texas, I used to live in Amarillo for a little while and go there a few times a month and am thinking about buying some land west of there. So knowing what is acceptable is in my best interest.

How am i displaying a glaring lack of knowledge? Because I disagreed with you? That's a little bit arrogant. Like I said, I was argueing the tresspassing part and I thought that's what you were disagreeing with. The way I took your post was that you were trying to say you COULD shoot an unarmed tresspasser that isn't commiting any of the listed crimes which is a common misconception.
 
I apologise if my post was misconstrued. I MEANT to say that you are legally OK to shoot someone in defense of your property, not for simple tresspassing. (In TX, at least...)

However, if you happen to catch them "tresspassing" towards your home with an AK-47 in tow, I'd feel MORE than OK in sniping them down from my home window...
 
YOU FORGOT A 4TH SOLUTION - SEND OUT THE DOGS OF WAR!

i mean that literally of course. I always use mt dogs as mobil responce/warning units. if the bg has a gun he only has a 50% chance of escaping unscaved, if unarmed or only with a knife/blougen type weapon he is basicly toast. My pitbull takes no prisioners and she tends to go for the nether reigons as well. as for megan? well what do you think happens when 120lb of musle and teeth hits bg in the dark? (Saints are STRONG DOGS TOO)
enclosed is pic ov mobile security force.
Of course I back them up with a 38 revolver and a 12 gage pump
(soon to be loaded with tatical buckshot instead of field loads)
If I ever get that second Saint I want well (not sure if I want to just adopt or perhaps help rescue by offering to foster dogs who are between homes) so much the better<vbg>
 
As a safety precaution, I keep the magazine full, the chamber empty, the trigger lock on,and hide the key. The point of this is that I don't want to be facing the barrell of my own 12 gauge.

Once I get the trigger lock off. I will go to the top of the stairs. That is where I would decide when I should rack it.

Before I give away my position I would like to know where the bad guy is exactly.

Michael
 
I KINDA LIKE THE NEW LOCK SOLD BY MOSSBERG

IT mounts to the wall studs and locke the gun actipon & barrel. preventing firing or cycling of shotgun while locked up. 1 key unlocks the gun lower from muzzle plug and loaderup. looks like a neat idea sorta like the a police cruser style lockup for your home
 
There's nobody in this world to pass our russian terrier in the night time. External lighting is automatic and blinding. That aside, the way to go is to alert the security company who will get the police in tow, get the 9 mm universal wrench, flashlight and handcuffs and go see. The house topography doesn't allow camping without moving a bit first. But the threat won't be able to be inside the house at all.
 
No security plan is one-hundred percent effective. Dogs are a good choice for a roving alert system but a 10-lbs. ankle-biter is just as good as a 120-lbs. Rottweiller if it wakes you up when something is going on in and around the house.

As for one of the posts suggesting leaving a shotgun locked up and chamber empty, I would recommend that the fewer things you have to do in a stressful situation the more likely you are to be able to perform those tasks successfully. If you're grabbing the shotgun, a round needs to be chambered for it to be of use.

Alerting the bad guy to your presence isn't a bad idea when you're at the top of your staircase and he's downstairs. Why would you get into a fight with him if he left when you announced that you were upstairs, armed and awaiting a police response? If he doesn't leave and trys to make his way upstairs, then you are in a better position to deal with him and can judge his intent by his actions (most people won't rush a guy ensconced with a firearm telling him to leave if their intention isn't hostile.).
 
pbarrick:

I agree that the fewer things you have to do in a stressful situation the better, however it can also be argued that you don't want to grab a fully loaded, chambered weapon when you are suddenly roused in the middle of the night.

I personally keep my 12 completely unlocked, mag loaded, chamber empty, hammer down, by my bed. All I have to do is rack the slide (don't even need to press the slide release) and I'm set.

I think that there is a lot to be said for the sound of a racking 12ga. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top