[Indifferent]

I am looking for a home defense tool now. I originally looked at Glocks, I love Revolvers but after hearing that unmistakable "chouk chouk" from across a huge store, I have found my tool.

Now the Pump Shotgun is quite the intimidating beast.
I really love the look of those "Coach Guns" but I assume they don't make an intimidating sound to them.

So....
How crappy are those Padners, Mavericks, and is it worth the money to pick a 590 over the 500? I like synthetic unless its old school o/u SxS, although at Big 5 I saw a Charles Daly, as wells as a Interstate Trench gun that Trenchy looked really cool, but the guy at B5 was a punk, didn't want to show me it unless I said I was buying a Shotgun that day (it was the Big 5 in Buena Park California, the Manager at that!!!!) so I said I was, looked at them, then said thank you sir, now I'm going to go buy one at Turners! ha. that punk. Sorry for the side story. (oh he didn't even clear the action for me to show its unloaded)

Anyways, I plan on taking it to the range a little, but really its all about the protection, our little 22lr is fun but not something to protect a family with.

Anyways, any help, guidance, etc would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

[ZombiesAhead]

You could buy a tape recorder that plays the sound of a 12ga being racked and get a coach gun.

Any pump action 12ga in the Mossberg 500/590 line or the Remington 870 line will be fine for HD. I'm sure the Maverick would work but I don't know much about it.

I use a 590 but if I were on a budget I would buy any used Mossberg 500/590 or Remington 870 that I saw at the pawn shop/used gun store. I would then put an 18.5"-20" barrel (no choke) on it (for maneuverability in-house) and load it up with at least 3 rounds of buck shot. No bird shot for HD.

That's really all you need. Anything more you will start to get decreasing returns for your money unless you're going out hunting zombies.

A light could help identify your target but is not essential. A bead sight is all you need at close-range at most. You do not need more than 3-4 rounds of buck in any HD scenario. You do not need ghost rings, sidesaddles, shell-holding slings, special fore-ends, bayonet lugs, heat shields, or a 9 round magazine. You will not fire more than a few shells of buck before any HD situation is over.

[JShirley]

Giving away your position and armament is often thought to be A Bad Thing.

If you're dead set on using this "I am armed!" announcement, a brisk closing of a double's action will get the message across just as well...as will any semi-auto going into battery.

John

[Ergosphere]

Giving away your position and armament is often thought to be A Bad Thing.

It's, ah... difficult... to justify the use of lethal force against someone who doesn't even know you're there, regardless of the illicit nature of their presence.

[ZombiesAhead]

The reason the "racking-the-slide" argument is wrong is not because it gives away your position, but it is pointless for another reason.

If you shoot someone, you really should have given them some verbal command to "stop" or "leave" "before i shoot" first.

In court, "racking a slide" does not count towards conveying to the intruder that you have been forced out of all other options but to use lethal force.

[Harvster]

It doesn't matter what the bad guy knows in a self defense situation. You do not need to announce your presence or ask them to leave. The only thing that matters is that you felt yours or your family's lives were in danger. The intruder may not even speak the same language as you. Now it's not 100% certain you won't face possible charges, but, that can be said no matter what you do.

[ZombiesAhead]

It doesn't matter what the bad guy knows in a self defense situation. You do not need to announce your presence or ask them to leave. The only thing that matters is that you felt yours or your family's lives were in danger.

In my state, you need to prove you have exhausted all other options Iamong other criteria) to use a deadly weapon on someone - an intruder, for example. As a concealed carry license holder, I have been especially rigorous in studying what justifies this action.

You'll probably end up in court no matter what - if not a criminal trial, at least you will face civil charges even if the shooting was justified. If you care about protecting your own freedom or if you have a family to support, it is important to do as much as possible to stay out of jail or to not lose it all in a lawsuit. Thus, in almost all jurisdictions it is wise to not do anything you don't have to do.

This is not directed at anyone specifically.

On a moral level, even if you could shoot an intruder and manage to stay out of both civil and criminal court, wouldn't you rather ask them to leave first if you have the opportunity?

I really wouldn't ever want to kill anyone. Hopefully, if you own a gun for self defense you have both this mindset and yet you also would be willing to kill as a last resort - otherwise, that gun is more dangerous to you than it is to the criminal.

Just some thoughts, not to be taken personally by anyone.

[Fred Fuller]

A pump shotgun is not an intimidating beast because of the noise it makes.

A pump shotgun is intimidating because (in 12 gauge) it has a .730" bore size and can launch projectiles of one ounce and more at muzzle velocities of up to 1600 fps or so.

Even so, it takes building the appropriate skill set to use it effectively. Contrary to popular mythology, you CAN miss with a shotgun, and pretty easily too. People do it all the time.

Bottom line as with ANY new firearms acquisition, it's your training and practice that make the difference, NOT the gun. Software trumps hardware.

Stay Safe,

lpl/nc

[okiewita40]

A pump is a good HD weapon. In as far as too what your looking at the Mavrick is a Mossberg 500 with a crossbolt safety and synthetic furniture. Look at it as a less expensive Mossberg 500. As far as the Mossberg line goes a 590 is just a higher capcity 500. You can't go wrong with either nor could you go wrong with the Remington 870. Just the Remington is a slightly heavier weapon over all.

Just handle all of the above and make your own choice. I have a 500 at my home and use a 870 for work.

[Dave McCracken]

Get out to the local range and talk to shotgunners. You really should shoot a few before shucking out shekels.

Good defensive shotguns are not scarce. Good defensive shotgunners are. Become the exception....

[Indifferent]

Thanks for the posts!
Yes, I would surely like to ask them to leave or try to leave myself, But if that can't happen, then you have to do what you have to do, knowing that it was what you had to do.

As for use of the tool, of course I will practice.

So now its a touch choice, I really like the SxS and O/U.

Decisions.....
I have looked at so many new tools this past month. Its like you can have so many of them, and still want another.

:)

[Markbo]

a Coach gun has 2 shots and one tiny bead . My Mossberg has 8, plus another 6 on the side saddle mount and excellent front and rear sights. I have a Coach Gun. It's absolutely beautiful and a joy to handle.

It is not a primary defense weapon of mine lessin' the neighbor folk wanna see about rustlin' some of ourn livestock er them thar boys spect to come sparkin our youngun!

[wnycollector]

I have the 20" 8 shot maverick. I really like it for the $$$. I picked it up for $198 at a gun show. It has gone through ~300 rounds for buck, slugs and birdshot w/o a single problem.

I also have an 18" beat up, no blueing left, 16ga that handles like dream...but if I need to deal with a BG in the house I'm grabbing the maverick!

[JShirley]

wouldn't you rather ask them to leave first if you have the opportunity?


Not if I perceive them as a deadly threat. It's not worth giving someone holding a weapon an opportunity to hurt me or my family.

If I don't perceive them as a deadly threat, I won't be shooting. I'm fine with an intruder running, as long as I don't have reason to believe they're a violent felon.

[Markbo]

Shirley, I play that out in my mind all the time. People here particularly talk about not giving your position away and not hesitating to defend yourself.

I hope I never shoot anyone in my entire life. I am going to make damn sure I never shoot a neighborhood kid (maybe drunk and beligerent) looking for booze or some quick cash. I will take my chances warning anyone in my house to get out or else.

Besides... I have 4 dogs. What kind a maroon would want to fight off 4 dogs while I am screaming at them to get out? But I am a little confused by this statement:
I'm fine with an intruder running, as long as I don't have reason to believe they're a violent felon.

I'll be honest with you... I don't understand that statement at all. If you think it is a violent felon (they all carry violent felon ID?) you will shoot them anyway?

[JShirley]

Bo,

Legal to shoot a fleeing violent felon if you believe he's likely to still be a danger. And if I let a violent felon escape to hurt others, am I not also somewhat culpable? Should I let someone covered with (someone else's) blood get away? Are my tender sensibilities so delicate as to let loose a danger on someone less prepared? What kind of monster would that make me?

If I *know* someone is a violent felon, he's not leaving if I can reasonably stop him. Holding him may be legally questionable, but shooting is not.

John

[Ergosphere]

wouldn't you rather ask them to leave first if you have the opportunity?
Not if I perceive them as a deadly threat. It's not worth giving someone holding a weapon an opportunity to hurt me or my family.

If I don't perceive them as a deadly threat, I won't be shooting. I'm fine with an intruder running, as long as I don't have reason to believe they're a violent felon.

If I *know* someone is a violent felon, he's not leaving if I can reasonably stop him. Holding him may be legally questionable, but shooting is not.

:what:

Texas aside, for a shooting to be justified, the situation must be such that a reasonable person would believe there is an imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm. I can foresee one home-defense situation where it would be justifiable to shoot without announcing your presence in some way: if an intruder is attacking someone else, such as a family member.

For the vast majority of circumstances, I think it would be impossible to justify shooting an intruder without there first being some sort of confrontation or warning given. And, to my knowledge, it is not legal for non-LEO to shoot fleeing violent felons.

Texas aside, of course. ;)

Sorry for being off-topic, but I'm a bit shocked to see this from a moderator...

[Indifferent]

Well I bought a Mossberg 500
Hooray!

[JShirley]

Be shocked. I'll follow my conscience, and you follow yours. Mine just doesn't allow me to let any obvious threat to leave to plague, rape, and kill others.

for a shooting to be justified

You may want to look at your state law. I think you are in CA, so you probably can speak to that. Georgia, on the other hand, allows lethal force against anyone not an occupant of the house, who has not been invited, who is in the house. I believe states with so-called Castle Doctrine include Florida, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and, yes...Texas.

As far as what CA says (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/187-199.html)...
197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.


198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.



198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.



199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

[ZombiesAhead]

Bottom line is that it's not worth shooting someone who doesn't pose an imminent, fatal threat to you (edit: or someone very close by, sometimes)

Shooting anyone in the back is going to land you in some hot water.

[Markbo]

And I repeat... just because someone is in your house, how can you KNOW they are a "violent felon" when so far, all they have done is commit simple B&E.

If you're OK with shooting people in the back for the sole reason they are in your house, go right ahead. I answer to a Higher Authority than the Texas State Legislature.

[JShirley]

That's pretty funny- appealing to a higher power when I have repeatedly stressed the need for doing the morally correct thing.

I do suggest not giving an armed criminal in your house any advantage.

I have also never suggested shooting anyone in the back- unless you KNOW they are a violent felon. How would you know this? Well, there are police bulletins put out for certain types of criminals, and escaped convicts. You might also witness a violent felony, or see incontrovertible proof.

In sum: giving away your position and armament is a Bad Thing. Giving any advantage to the bad guys is a Bad Thing. Performing any morally incorrect action is- by definition- a Bad Thing.

What is morality? Well, that's both an individual and societal question, and beyond the scope of this thread.

It probably bears repeating for some folks that firearms are not magic icons. Merely possessing one will not automatically make danger run from you, and announcing you have one will not solve the problem every time. In fact, such an announcement may make things worse. Verbal challenge is a police tool. It can be used with discretion by ordinary citizens, but only with caution.

[USP45T]

Congrats on the 500 Indifferent. I just put a 590 on order. 51663=$445 otd. I bought it thinking I'd keep it stock, now I can't stop searching for accessories.

I knew something like the "shoot people in the back" comment was gonna show up before this thread died. (internal voice--deep breath, try to stay highroad).

I'm not announcing anything to anyone except for calling out my son's name prior to acquiring the target, once I've spotted an unknown in my home.

No civil suit here, unless it followed a criminal charge but we're talking about a justified shoot. Maybe you guys should lobby your local politicians and have that law changed. Oh, you guys were talking about CA, nevermind.

markbo, why would you only "sometimes" shoot someone posing a fatal threat to someone very close by? You don't assume you could be next? and, a drunk and beligerent neighborhood kid looking for booze or some quick cash never killed anyone?

JShirley, for some reason I feel like I'd be better off if I sat here for the next 12 hours and read through your 7,066 other posts.:) Good stuff. I hate pissing matches but some of the stuff here is foreign to my way of thinking. civil suits and asking an intruder to leave is strange. My thought is that the intruder knew what they might face when the broke in and they are ready for you. My only experience with this was confronting a thief in our garage at 3am. I had a baseball bat and my fil a single-shot 12g. When my fil yelled 'come on out of there" my jaw dropped. i thought we had lost the upper hand and i was gonna have to face someone with more than a bat. the guy quickly jumped out of the door and ran to the side of the garage. I was 18 (1988), the next day I bought a 500A for $179. It was daylight when Detroit police showed up.

[Todd A]

Bottom line is that it's not worth shooting someone who doesn't pose an imminent, fatal threat to you (edit: or someone very close by, sometimes)


And I repeat... just because someone is in your house, how can you KNOW they are a "violent felon" when so far, all they have done is commit simple B&E.

Conneticut statutes allow me to use lethal force to prevent or terminate a forced entry into my home. I am not going to ask what your intentions are or if you have been convicted of a felony. If you are in my home I will shoot. I am not a mind reader.

We recently had a high profile case in Cheshire,CT of two felons commiting a "simple B&E" that turned into a triple murder(among other crimes). Somehow I do not believe they revealed their complete intentions to the good Doctor or his family.

[ZombiesAhead]

Wow, a lot of bloodlust in here since my last post. If you feel like dealing with a civil suit, you _may_ get off on criminal charges in a lot of these fantasy-situations you guys are playing out.

But it's not worth it unless you REALLY REALLY want to kill someone in your home. We live in a very litigious society.

Again, the smart advice is: "Don't shoot unless they pose an imminent, fatal threat to you or a family member right nearby you."

[riverdog]

I think I'd sue the perp's estate if I was forced to shoot him -- emotional distress and all that. I'd be feeling so bad about having to drop the hammer I wouldn't be able to communicate well with the police when they arrived.

[JShirley]

a lot of bloodlust in here since my last post

I have no desire to kill anyone. I just love my fellow humans enough to not want an obvious threat to be able to hurt others.

In GA, the family of someone killed while in commission of a felony is prohibited from being able to bring a lawsuit.

John

[rbernie]

Sorry for furthering the thread drift, but...

Texas aside, for a shooting to be justified, the situation must be such that a reasonable person would believe there is an imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm. I can foresee one home-defense situation where it would be justifiable to shoot without announcing your presence in some way: if an intruder is attacking someone else, such as a family member.Quit pickin' on Texas. :)

If I wait until an intruder is within striking distance of my family, I have virtually no ability to repel the intruder with my firearm. I do not understand what defensive scenarios you (and hopefully your family) have analyzed, but that's a pretty basic construct. Distance is your friend.

Sorry for being off-topic, but I'm a bit shocked to see this from a moderator...I'm equally shocked that folks don't know the laws of the land. It is not unreasonable for me to presume that an intruder in my house at night presents me-n-mine with a credible threat of death or serious bodily injury. The laws of the land in many many jurisdictions agrees with that assessment. That's not blood lust. That's the statement of a adult and a responsible gun owner.

For the vast majority of circumstances, I think it would be impossible to justify shooting an intruder without there first being some sort of confrontation or warning given. And, to my knowledge, it is not legal for non-LEO to shoot fleeing violent felons.If they're fleeing, I let 'em flee. But if they're coming up the stairs, I will presume that they are in need of Stopping.

My warning to potential intruders is a locked door, an alarm system, and a canine or two. Make it past that, and I'm not going to dwell on whether somebody really, REALLY means to be there - their actions clearly demonstrate so.

I owe them no further warning, and to provide them with one MAY prove to be A Bad Idea. I have no idea how many there are, or what they may have in the way of tools and intent.

That's not blood lust - that's plain common sense.

If you feel like dealing with a civil suit, you _may_ get off on criminal charges in a lot of these fantasy-situations you guys are playing out.
Fortunately, the Texas statutes defining the lawful use of deadly force also provide civil liability protection in the event that a shooting is determined to be criminally justified. In other words - if it's a good shoot in the eyes of the law, then no civil liability can be imposed. Texas law enforces this by allowing the defendant to collect the entirety of their legal fees from the plaintiff when the suit is inevitably tossed out of court.

[Markbo]

That's pretty funny- appealing to a higher power when I have repeatedly stressed the need for doing the morally correct thing.

Hmmm... I went back and re-read all your posts and do not find a single instance you have appealed for the morally correct thing... unless you think shooting a possibly unarmed person that CANNOT harm you from across your home is morally correct.

I stand by my repeated question... you cannot KNOW if someone in your house is a violent felon. You cannot unless you know who they are and know their criminal and personal history. I'm throwin' the flag on this stuff. http://ar15.com/images/smilies/anim_bs.gif

markbo, why would you only "sometimes" shoot someone posing a fatal threat to someone very close by? You don't assume you could be next? and, a drunk and beligerent neighborhood kid looking for booze or some quick cash never killed anyone?

I never said that.. I don't know how you made that assumption as I never addressed anyone else being very close by. Sure a drunken kid could kill me. I never said I would run down and help him and give him the opportunity either... my statement was meant to infer that I WILL identify my target first. And if I believe he is a stupid teenager I will give him the opportunity to leave alive.

...If you are in my home I will shoot. I am not a mind reader...

Then you may very well be committing murder.

...We recently had a high profile case in Cheshire,CT of two felons commiting a "simple B&E" that turned into a triple murder(among other crimes). Somehow I do not believe they revealed their complete intentions to the good Doctor or his family.

Then by definition it was not a simple B&E, now was it?

[Rustynuts]

Get a Saiga 12! Good for HD and fun at the range. 10-rd mags availabel and if you're a bad shot (or have a zombie outbreak), there are 20-rd drums! Go here for info. Oh, and racking the AK bolt sounds just like racking a pump, or at least as menacing.

http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?act=idx

Stock
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t67/Krustyboomer/saiag12_adjsight.jpg

Converted (you can also get collapsible stocks)
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t67/Krustyboomer/S-12money-web.jpg

[Indifferent]

Wow.... I opened a can worms.
All I wanted to know was, if I ever needed to use one, what did you think.
I still think a SxS is one cool tool.
But my Mossy is coming home soon.
Should NEVER have to use it. Dont want to have to use it, but I will if ever needed.
Do I care about the laws of my State or City or Country?
Yes.



Do I care about my Family more?


Yes!
So since I want to play at the range the Mossy will serve me well.
Since I want to protect myself the Mossy will serve me well.
Since I live in an Urban Jungle (Ghetto) the sound of the Mossy will serve me well.



Am I suprised how this topic turned to bloodlust? YES!
To the ones that answered very maturely, I thank you!
Thank you all, but very much so;
JShirley, Riverdog, Rbernie, Markbo, Alexd, Dave McKrackin, wyncollector

I am prepped.

Now how many rounds should I keep on hand for Zombies?

By the way, counter-suing the perps estate is not that bad of an idea out here in Idiot ville- Southern California!

[Markbo]

How many rounds you keep is up to you. I have 8 + 5 in/on my Mossy and a couple more boxes in the same room. I have no idea of the statistics on how many shots are fired on average by a home owner during an assault, but I do know I don't want to run out of ammo so I don't think 20-30 rounds is overdoing it at all

By the way, counter-suing the perps estate is not that bad of an idea out here in Idiot ville- Southern California!

Except that the perp - as discolsed by his own chosen line of work - is likely to have nothing and his family won't even be able to afford a lawyer to defend themselves where you on the other hand won't GET a lawyer without a huge amount of money up front. If you go down that road, you'd better be sure he has got something to sue for.

[USP45T]

sorry Markbo. someone else made referrence to sometimes dealing with a deadly threat close by, not you.

[JShirley]

I went back and re-read all your posts and do not find a single instance you have appealed for the morally correct thing.

Well, Markbo, perhaps we understand things differently. I wrote what I believe to be a very careful examination of my moral responsibilities here:

And if I let a violent felon escape to hurt others, am I not also somewhat culpable? Should I let someone covered with (someone else's) blood get away? Are my tender sensibilities so delicate as to let loose a danger on someone less prepared? What kind of monster would that make me?


Or, did you mean since we appear to have different beliefs, what I have said cannot be the morally correct thing? I believe I am speaking for following right action with all of the preceding/following statements:

It's not worth giving someone holding a weapon an opportunity to hurt me or my family.
(Re: inviolability of self & protection of family)

I'll follow my conscience, and you follow yours. Mine just doesn't allow me to let any obvious threat to leave to plague, rape, and kill others.
(Re: assumption of societal responsibility)

Performing any morally incorrect action is- by definition- a Bad Thing.
(Re: elucidation of the concept)

So, we have an obvious difference of opinion. I just haven't felt any need to throw virtual stones, but either I'm not explaining well, or you're understanding poorly. Let me know how I could be clearer.

As far as target id, you seem to be making an unwarranted assumption, and as far as absence of weapon or absence of potentially lethal threat, since I have EXPLICITLY STATED those factors, I fail to see how you are not factoring them.

I'm fine with people disagreeing with me- good folk can disagree, as long as each strives to do the right thing as they understand it- but it would be nice if you actually read what I said.

John

Indifferent, there has been some thread drift, but it's a good idea to carefully think through your responses to various threats well before you might encounter them. It's also a GREAT idea to look at your state law. In Georgia, as I mentioned, the family of someone committing a felony when killed cannot sue. We always have to do the things we understand to be right. I knew before I left for Afghanistan, for instance, that I might "meet" someone through my sights that was trying to do the right thing as he understood it, just as was I. And I would shoot him down with absolutely no malice.
Fortunately, I didn't have to make any of my kills with a rifle. Not because it would keep me up at night, but because that would mean the enemy got way too damn close. :)
I personally use a Mossberg 500 with Ghost Ring sights. It's really important that a shotgun fit you well. For me, that meant going with a shorter LOP stock. Try out several different ammo brands, so you can find something you can afford to shoot that works well in your weapon.

Question: Now how many rounds should I keep on hand for Zombies?



Answer: None. Zombies don't use shotguns.

[Markbo]

Well THAT post was very clear, thank you Shirley... and no I never said that because you think differently you are wrong.. Let me try to address you latest:

And if I let a violent felon escape to hurt others, am I not also somewhat culpable? Should I let someone covered with (someone else's) blood get away? Are my tender sensibilities so delicate as to let loose a danger on someone less prepared? What kind of monster would that make me?

That is obviously your moral stand. Which I have stated over and again and you have NEVER responded to - HOW DO YOU KNOW SOMEONE IN YOUR HOUSE IS A VIOLENT FELON? You cannot and therefore your 'what if' is moot.


(Re: inviolability of self & protection of family)

This can easily be debated that it is not a moral stand, but simply an instinct of survival except as it relates to the inviolability in culture.

(Re: assumption of societal responsibility)

Who asked you to do this? Who asked you to hunt down and kill someone that you have shown by your non-response that you CANNOT identify as a violent criminal. And if it were taken to the extreme... what are you doing here in front of your computer... why aren't you hanging around outside jails and prisons and halfway houses?

(Re: elucidation of the concept)
Uhhhhhh...What!?
http://www.thirdwayblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/caveman_1.jpg

You have elucidated nothing with that statement other than to say "immoral is bad". Well that's a big fat Duh... you have not elucidated a concept of morality in any way because... and I really am surprised at this... you refuse to answer my oft-repeated question. How can you simplify or clarify a 'concept' when you can't even elucidate your intended action is even possible?

Look, I don't want to get into a pissing match with you either. You say you will shoot anyone, I say I want target identification... the logistics and arena in which I plan to do it are completely immaterial. Perhaps my home is set up in a way that allows me and yours is not... it could be that simple.

Perspective... I preach about it all the time on THR... my perspective is not yours and vice versa. We should be open enough to each others ideas and giving perspective of where we are coming from allows that clarify. You not answering a question after being asked... what 4 times??... clarifies what?

Nothing... not a darn thing.
You may think I am a stump... I know I am not. I am an analytical thinker that always seeks clarity.

Eschew Obfuscation! :neener:

[Ergosphere]

You may want to look at your state law. I think you are in CA, so you probably can speak to that.

Yeah... California almost doesn't allow self-defense at all. :cuss:

There's no duty to retreat inside one's home, at least, though you can't use deadly force to protect your property. Outside the home, the case law is such that essentially you're only justified in using deadly force if deadly force is already being used against you... in this case, there's no presumption of innocence and you must prove (to a "reasonable person" standard) justification.

[rbernie]

HOW DO YOU KNOW SOMEONE IN YOUR HOUSE IS A VIOLENT FELON?If they are in my house uninvited - AFAIK they are commiting a felony. If they break down my door/window to gain entry, they are violent.

I fail to grasp how anyone could presume otherwise.

[zxcvbob]

Conneticut statutes allow me to use lethal force to prevent or terminate a forced entry into my home. I am not going to ask what your intentions are or if you have been convicted of a felony. If you are in my home I will shoot. I am not a mind reader.

Just to spin things out of control, :D what does Conneticut say if it's the police making a "dynamic entry" and they have the wrong address or otherwise have no warrant?

[Gary A]

A round is chambered to prepare the shotgun for use, not to scare someone with the sound. If it scares the BG away, that's fine, but it's not to be expected.

[Marshall]

This is simple.

If they've broken into my home, they made the decision to be considered armed, dangerous, a threat to me and my family and are a committing a felonious act for being there. Don't let anyone make you feel responsible for the felons well being after breaking into your home, unless your laws say differently. And some states do, believe it or not. I'm just glad I don't live in one of those few states.

[Markbo]

If they are in my house uninvited - AFAIK they are commiting a felony. If they break down my door/window to gain entry, they are violent.

I fail to grasp how anyone could presume otherwise.

Bernie (your other name isn't wayne is it?) since you are in Texas:
If someone breaks into your house, that does not automatically make it a felony. That is just a fact. Breaking a window/door etc is not violence... it is a mechanical act. It is not an act against a person. Against a person's private property, sense of well being, etc I agree... but it is not a thunk on the head. Now if they break in with guns, clubs or are masked or most importantly to me... kick the door in and start running... they are making a bad, bad move. That is an attack!

If they manage to get in with minimal noise/damage and are rummaging around for something to steal, they are not behaving violently.

And presumption is exactly my point. I will not presume just because someone broke in my house, they must be shot. Won't do it. What if it is a friend or neighbor with a key? What if it's that misguided teenager who needs some shaping up but not buckshot in the back. What if it's that drunk Brit who was swinging on some strangers swing set a few years back in Houston? He was visiting Houston and got out of his cab at the wrong address. He was knocking on the door - they couldn't understand what he was saying - so he went and sat on the swingset. When he came back to the door, they shot him. They were within their rights... but they have to live with the fact, they shot a guy for being drunk and lost.

There are what if's in life. Despite what many here would try to portray (and may of us wish were true) life is not a black and white world we live in... it is simply shades of gray.

And perspective... MY perspective is that I have a plan, I have the floorplan and I have levels of security that allow me to not have to confront ANYone that comes in in my house face to face until they have had more than enough warning. It allows me the option of letting them run before the cops get there - because the cops are getting called the instant I know someone is in my house - or confronting them and holding them. In my own personal opinion only... that is right thing to do IF my life is not in danger. And were we disagree is obvious - just because someone in is my house, I don't believe my life is in danger.

I might feel threatened... afraid... angry... I am sure the adrenaline will be pumping like crazy. But to me that is all the more reason to remain level headed and not do something that does not need doing...yet.

I am not a vigilante. The cops around here would gladly try to find him/them. Sneaking around my house to shoot someone just because I am "Saving society" is total BS... right that minute I have ONE ultimate goal and that is the protection of myself and my family. If I am at the mall and I see someone accosted, that is entirely different and I would intervene in a heartbeat.

But when I lose sight of what personal defense is and make it about me hunting down bad guys, that is waaaay beyond what we are talking about.

Now if said intruder makes ONE step except out after I order him 'or else'.... then everything changes. There will be no more warning. There will be no fair chances. There will be one dead threat.

Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that?
Mark

[JShirley]

Bo,

You say you will shoot anyone

No. Why don't you go back and read what I said? If you won't actually read what I wrote, there really is no point replying, is there?

[ingram]

you cannot KNOW if someone in your house is a violent felon. You cannot unless you know who they are and know their criminal and personal history. I'm throwin' the flag on this stuff.

Nor do you (JS) have the ability to predict the future, you are going to kill someone because you think they might rape, assualt, or kill someone after you scare them away from your house. Assuming this based off a brief encounter is unfounded, while I would agree with someone arguing that the odds of this person going out and committing a violent felony would be greater than the general public, you have absolutely no insight into what those chances really are.

Also your excuse that not shooting someone who is no longer a threat to you, but POSSIBLY to someone else in an undefined future somehow makes you responsible for their actions later is absolutely ridiculous.

What I see, is bloodlust and a whole lot of ridiculousness, I will second the amazement that this is coming from a moderator.

I wont be commenting here again, and most people will be inclined not to at all, but when idiocy is spread the members here shouldn't care who is saying it, and voice thier opinion against.

You are not omnipotent. Your right to kill stops when the immediate danger to your life or loved ones is over. Killing based off absolutely unfounded speculation is not something anyone here should ever advocate. Moderator or otherwise.

[JShirley]

Nor do you (JS) have the ability to predict the future, you are going to kill someone because you think they might rape, assualt, or kill someone after you scare them away from your house. Assuming this based off a brief encounter is unfounded

Not true- EVERYONE has the ability to predict the future, accurately or not. I deliberately gave extreme examples (intruder covered with another's blood, police bulletin, etc) to point out situations when it would be obvious the person is an immediate and deadly threat to society.


Main Entry:
pre·dict Listen to the pronunciation of predict
Pronunciation:
\pri-ˈdikt\
Function:
verb
Etymology:
Latin praedictus, past participle of praedicere, from prae- pre- + dicere to say — more at diction
Date:
1609

transitive verb: to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason

[BlackJackal]

If someone ever broke into my house and was armed they are a threat, why would they have a gun if they didnt plan on using it?, if they didnt have a weapon then i wouldnt shoot, hold them for the police to come.

[JShirley]

This is the weird part- there may be (US) states where shooting an intruder would be justified, but holding them may not be. I know of a situation in GA where a very capable man stopped, and disarmed two men who were coming to kill him. He would have been justified in killing them, but got in legal trouble because he did not let them leave.

If the intruder does not appear to be an immediate threat, and wants to run, let them.

[Markbo]

If the intruder does not appear to be an immediate threat, and wants to run, let them.


This will be my last post on this thread as well. That statement is not just from what all you have said before in this thread... it is schizophrenic 180° opposite!



Color me done!

[rbernie]

I said:
If they are in my house uninvited - AFAIK they are committing a felony. If they break down my door/window to gain entry, they are violent.
And you replied with:What if it's that drunk Brit who was swinging on some strangers swing set a few years back in Houston? He was visiting Houston and got out of his cab at the wrong address. He was knocking on the door - they couldn't understand what he was saying - so he went and sat on the swingset. When he came back to the door, they shot him. They were within their rights... but they have to live with the fact, they shot a guy for being drunk and lost.
Your example has absolutely ZERO to do with my premise. I think that a spirited exchange of ideas is A Good Thing, but let's maintain our intellectual honesty while doing it. If they are on my porch, they have not physically broken into my house.

Read this article (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5653636.html), or any one of a scad that are just like it, and tell me at what point the clues aligned for these homeowners to figure out that the intruder in their house was violent? As far as I can tell, that clue usually appears right about the time that the last option to Prepare To Repel Boarders disappears.

The couple in that article were darn lucky. Where do YOU think that scene was going, had the unarmed hubby not flung himself upon the (apparently armed) intruder and bought the wife the time needed to retrieve the firearm and return?

That was fixin' to be a bad, bad scene.

If they manage to get in with minimal noise/damage and are rummaging around for something to steal, they are not behaving violently.Yes, they are. They illegally entered my property via the use of FORCE; the fact that they're being quiet doesn't mitigate that. Ye gods - are you postulating that B&E isn't A Bad Thing anymore if you're quiet about it?

You are not omnipotent. Your right to kill stops when the immediate danger to your life or loved ones is over. Killing based off absolutely unfounded speculation is not something anyone here should ever advocate. Moderator or otherwise.You guys are making this far harder than it really is.

Have you ever woken up in the middle of the night, without knowing why? Then heard a crash? Then heard scuffling, and a muffled thud? Then wondered why the dog is silent? Then wondered where your kids were? Then realized, OH HOLY MOTHER OF SHIVA! I gotta do something! Someone's in my house! Then tried to quietly wake the spouse and tried to get them to call 911 without making too much noise, then retrieved a firearm and scurried to your ready position while your spouse whispers far too loudly into the phone? Ever done this, all the while thinking PLEASE, PLEASE let me get into position to guard the kids before whoever forced their way into the house in the middle of the night hears me or my spouse, figures out that we're up here and decides to come up those stairs? Wondering WHY DIDN'T I HEAR THE DOG? @#$!....

Lemme tell ya - when you get outside the master bedroom and you swing toward the kids rooms and you hear a noise that sounds like someone pounding up the stairs, you WILL NOT be thinking, "Hmm. Should I rack the action and let the intruder(s) know that I'm here?".

Sweet baby jeebus.

You may scream, you may try your best command voice instructing The Bad Guys to exit the house, you may drop your shotgun and pee your pants, you may flatten against the door frame and shoulder your weapon, or you may charge for the top of the stairs with all the energy you can muster out of that sound sleep you were in. You might do any a number of things. But you won't know what that thing is until you get there.

But the one thing that I can pretty much guarantee you that you will NOT be doing is playing a mind game and debating whether or not the intruder is potentially violent or not, or whether they are a misguided neighbor or not. It just doesn't work that way.

And as an aside - I can pretty much guarantee you that if its the drunk neighbor stumbling up the stairs, there is no 'warning' that you can provide that will register in their alcohol-addled mind and cause them to stop doing whatever they are doing. If there are impaired, they will keep coming; target ID is your only hope and any warnings will prove useless. If they are not impaired, they may or may not keep coming once they know you're home. But I will advise you that my experience is that most 'non-violent' B&Es occur during the day when the burglar knows that nobody's home. When they come into the house at night, it's generally because the intruder(s) are unafraid of being discovered. That is Bad JuJu Fixing To Happen.

If you are smart and trained and capable of snapping to the ready, you just MIGHT get yourself into a ready position to guard that which you most value. And THEN you might decide that a warning is tactically sound, or maybe you'll decide that it's better to wait in the darkness for the police to come. Maybe there was nobody coming up the stairs yet. Maybe there was, in which case you have less than a second and a half to ID the intruder and make The Decision.

Lemme know what you decide when you get there. Until then - try not to color things (and people) so black-n-white.

ETA: In rereading the above, it occurs to me that my intent may be lost on some. Lemme boil it down to simple concepts.


Being in your house is no different that being out-n-about. Any event sufficient to cause you to draw a weapon in potential self-defense should be treated exactly for what it is.
Being in your house does not alleviate the need for prudent Target Identification. 'Castle Doctrine' allows the presumption of self-defense, but you still need to perform the basic ID of the target before making The Decision. The same due diligence you would use outside of your house probably applies inside of your house.
Any intruder that has broken his/her way into my house while me-n-mine are in it will be presumed to be violent until proven otherwise. The statistics for nighttime invasions in many areas are NOT happy ones.
If I make contact with an stranger who has forced their way in my house, and we are at a distance greater that 1.5 seconds apart - I may offer them the opportunity to demonstrate their pacifist nature.
If we contact each other at a distance less than 1.5 seconds apart - I will probably err on the side of caution for me-n-mine. I am in my house. They are not invited. Less than 1.5 seconds of separation distance is inadequate to safeguard me-n-mine from someone with ill intent, and my crystal ball telling me the state of their mind isn't working today.

[GigaBuist]

Contrary to popular mythology, you CAN miss with a shotgun, and pretty easily too. People do it all the time.

Somebody's been watching me shoot trap! :D

[junyo]

I wish I were as omniscient as some of you guys seem to be. I'll just say this, "Rodney Peairs". Perfectly legal, even understandable, yet a completely innocent man is dead, another ruined. Wanna bet he wishes he had clearly ID'd the target before he fired?

[Todd A]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TODD A
...If you are in my home I will shoot. I am not a mind reader...

Then you may very well be committing murder.

Sec. 53a-20. Use of physical force in defense of premises. A person in possession or control of premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be in or upon such premises, is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only (1) in defense of a person as prescribed in section 53a-19, or (2) when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or any crime of violence, or (3) to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by force into his dwelling as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work, and for the sole purpose of such prevention or termination.

Not murder,legal use of deadly force.

[JShirley]

Wanna bet he wishes he had clearly ID'd the target before he fired?

And by this, you are insinuating that those of us who are unwilling to telegraph our position and intentions to an intruder are somehow going to fire without a clear visual? That just makes NO sense.

If we don't have a clear enough visual, it may be difficult or impossible to know it's not a family member or house resident. Personally, the ONLY time I reasonably see using verbal challenge is when I already have a clear sight picture of the target, distance to work with, and can tell his hands are empty.

John

[junyo]

And by this, you are insinuating that those of us who are unwilling to telegraph our position and intentions to an intruder are somehow going to fire without a clear visual? That just makes NO sense.
Many people in the thread have stated that the mere presence of an unknown figure in their home and the technical legality pretty much means that they're going to shoot.
I am not going to ask what your intentions are or if you have been convicted of a felony. If you are in my home I will shoot. I am not a mind reader.So I'm insinuating nothing, I'm taking people at their word.

And let's not be cute with phrasing; what you're calling "telegraph[ing] our position and intentions to an intruder" isn't shouting "Hey dude I'm over here and about to shoot you!". Telegraphing your position could occur through lots of different mechanisms, depending on the lighting in the home, how loud you are and how keen the hearing of the unwanted visitor might be. The rustle of clothes, the fetching/making ready of a weapon, the opening of a door of moving down the hall to get to the kids could all telegraph your position. You haven't claimed to be against any of that. So we're not really talking about taking no action that may give an intruder data as to your presence or location. We're talking only about a specific form of noise, in the form of a warning of some sort that an armed property owner is aware of their presence, that that presence is unwelcome, and/or giving the unknown person of unknown intent at least some small opportunity to persist/stop/retreat/explain before potentially ending their life. So without advocating a complete silence regimen to insure that you can operate in your home in utter darkness/silence, you're talking about being fairly willing to take a chance on revealing your position, willing to identify the target to the extent of your external guess (persumably in the dark since a weapon light or will lit room would reveal your position), just not willing to give clear warning before firing.

[dewage83]

How crappy are those Padners, They are just that. save your money. mine came with a broken extractor and one of the workers,for the guy a bought it from, couldnt see it in a "store" environment and tried telling me he couldnt ship back a working gun. the owner cleared things up quickly but not after the man threw shell after shell at my feet to SHOW me it was fine.(although having never shot it) buy a mossberg or maverick ive heard nothing but good things about them.

[Indifferent]

I already did buy a Mossberg 500 20" 8 Shot.

[dewage83]

sorry about that i read the WHOLE thing after i posted. i couldnt see how all the fuss was being made over a good home defense/ range gun so i skipped it until after but figured i would relate MY bad experience with my pardner.
GOOD CHOICE (its next on the list):)

[Todd A]

Junyo

That was me who said that. At no time did I say I wouldn't identify my target.
I do know how to use a flashlight. :uhoh:

[dewage83]

whoa. i hear ya but the debate became heated and was too off topic FOR ME. i have to say PERSONALLY you do what ever makes you feel safe and who gives a crap what some guy on the other end of this computer screen thinks.

[Todd A]

Dewage83 that comment was for junyo.

Sent you the info you requested by pm.

[dewage83]

sorry about that

[JShirley]

that the mere presence of an unknown figure in their home and the technical legality pretty much means that they're going to shoot

I guess those who replied in that vein assumed the reader would know they wouldn't be randomly cranking off shots in their own home. Most times, you have to see the target to shoot it.

For Pete's sake, you have to use a wee little bit of common sense. I have yet to see anyone write "fire blindly". :rolleyes: :banghead:

John

[Marshall]

JS, agreed!

There are different levels of seriousness for a burglary charge. The most serious kind involves forcefully breaking into an occupied home during the night. The least serious burglary offense involves a daytime unlawful and unforced entry into a commercial building or structure that does not have occupants.

Criminal studies show that burglars often have drug habits they support with their activities. Burglars also frequently engage in larceny-theft related activities like shoplifting and may have a history of assault.

The case we speak of here involves the most dangerous kind. You cannot know the intruders state of mind and it may be an unfortunate scenario for you or your family if you go asking what their intentions are.

I'm with JS on this. No one is suggesting blindly shooting, we're all just a tad more educated than the average Joe-No-Gun on this subject. I think it's a little insulting to our moderator to think he wouldn't use proper judgment.

I know where JS was coming from on the point he was making. I would hate to be in the position of being broken into in the middle of the night in my home, do nothing, and find out the next day this intruder killed a person at the next home he broke into, while me letting him run off didn't put an end to things. No, we don't go hunt bad guys to prevent killings. But when someone places themselves inside my home in the middle of the night by forcible entry, they're placing their future in my hands.

Yes, shooting is the last thing anyone wants and there's no way to really prove any scenario here, on the forum. Draw up a scenario and if you're broken into in the middle of the night, odds are there will be something happen you didn't put in your scenario. But if after sizing up the situation and coming to the conclusion we have a "bad man" in the home, his fate is very iffy at best, in my home.

[huckster]

If I had to go to court after a home invasion scenario...

I wouldn't want my comments on an internet forum dredged up...

either for or against.

[JShirley]

Huckster, as long as your dialog follows the law and common sense, I don't see the problem.

[huckster]

JShirley - I guess I don't trust lawyers or courts to interpret things like internet posts.

[JShirley]

You do have a point- you could just say "I don't trust lawyers" and that would pretty much cover it! :p

John

[Markbo]

I have yet to see anyone write "fire blindly".

Just as we have yet to see you say "Identify the target before shooting", but repeat if he is in your house, that is all the excuse you need.

[JShirley]

You know, since my second post said It's not worth giving someone holding a weapon an opportunity to hurt me or my family I would have thought it was obvious the only way to know they were holding a weapon was to have a visual. I also have never said anything- other than relating what the law says- at all close to your "if he is in your house, that is all the excuse you need" statement.

Feel free to point out any single post where I said something remotely like what you're pseudo-quoting.

The truth is, you really have never been arguing with me. You've been arguing with your own unwarranted assumptions. I have been more than clear enough to be understood well. That you- apparently deliberately- have misunderstood really has nothing to do with me.

John

[Markbo]

Thank you John. You also said:
If I don't perceive them as a deadly threat, I won't be shooting. I'm fine with an intruder running, as long as I don't have reason to believe they're a violent felon.

You also said this:
If I *know* someone is a violent felon, he's not leaving if I can reasonably stop him. Holding him may be legally questionable, but shooting is not.

I asked repeatedly for a clarification how you would have this information and you have yet to reply. I can only go by what you say and sometimes what you say is a little... unclear. Can we agree on that point?


And by this, you are insinuating that those of us who are unwilling to telegraph our position and intentions to an intruder are somehow going to fire without a clear visual? That just makes NO sense.

If we don't have a clear enough visual, it may be difficult or impossible to know it's not a family member or house resident. Personally, the ONLY time I reasonably see using verbal challenge is when I already have a clear sight picture of the target, distance to work with, and can tell his hands are empty.

For me this is where is comes to perspective... I don't HAVE to have a clear visual of anyone to order them to leave. I don't care at that point who they are. We would be separated by a story of space and a single straight enclosed stairway that would drop them into a dead end - as far as they can see from the bottom. I seems to me that you don't have that and thus in all of our imaginary (not in a bad way) confrontations, you would HAVE to confront someone. Is this a fair assumption? We have to assume because in all your declarations of clarity... you have never stated this.

Is that the reason you would not order from a safe place (your bedroom, out of BG's sight?) for him to leave or do you believe at that point they will storm your safe room? To maintain a tactical advantage or simply to stay out of his line of sight on his way out?

Because of our backgrounds and current floorplans (there's that perspective thing again) we must be who we are and live how we live. I don't have to confront anyone face to face. I don't have to determine if they are violent felons. I don't have to shoot them even if I think they are because I am willing to let my local Constabulary do their jobs. I don't have to shoot anyone if I can get them to leave - right now. I don't feel the need to protect society based on assumption of violence or criminal past. I can only judge what I see at that moment.

I can be in the confines of my safe room, barricaded in, on the phone with the police actually seeing nothing. But the instant I believe they are making their way further in instead of quickly out, go to the next level. In fact there are those that might argue, go hide and call police and if they come to you during their rumblings... then confront them. I don't think I would choose that route because it almost guarantees a violent encounter.

Even seeing someone in my house does not mean I have identified a target. It only means I see someone in my house. A target - TO ME - must mean a threat. And I don't intend to show my face or my ars to allow that to happen and force an encounter if there is another non violent way to do it.

It is difficult enough to have an ongoing short conversation that actually takes days and days to have. It is certainly well known that tone and inflection is not easily transmitted in paragraph long written words. It is even more difficult to make our own positions very clear when we don't clarify where we are coming from... i.e. without supplying perspective. You - and I and everyone else - may make perfect sense to ourselves. That does not mean that we make perfect sense to everyone else.

And attacking others cognitive abilities because they don't know what is going on inside our heads is... a little narrow-minded, don't you agree? And we are all guilty of it. I am pointing fingers only at myself.

I hope my perspective is a little clearer to you.

[vikz]

I'm a little confuse about all this post on SELF DEFENSE , It seems like some people forget the fact that a home intruder is in your house ILLEGALLY and you guys are worried about the Bad Guys well being, lets say I/you did not shoot and the BG did kill one of our love one do you guys think he cares about your love one??and how would you feel knowing that you could have prevented it..NO for him its survival of the fittest..IMHO if somebody is in my house ILLEGALLY he is in there to do harm..its better them than me..

[Markbo]

...It seems like some people forget the fact that a home intruder is in your house ILLEGALLY and you guys are worried about the Bad Guys well being...

Not one bit. I am concerned about the well being of someone that may not BE a BG. Perhaps this will help you understand the distinction:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=205304

[vikz]

Markbo IMHO anybody who is in my house ILLEGALLY in the middle of night I consider as a Bad guy if he or she is not then he or she is not supposed to be BREAKING in my house ILLEGALLY..O yah I forgot to mention they would be very lucky if they can pass my 3 german sheaperd ..

[Markbo]

"Nice doggie... OW... OWWWW... OOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!





help"