Relying a home security system and no gun...can get you killed.


PDA






gopguy
July 24, 2009, 10:12 AM
Comments on the home invasion murders.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6791

If you enjoyed reading about "Relying a home security system and no gun...can get you killed." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
springmom
July 24, 2009, 10:31 AM
I do get their point but...

....I found myself wondering about the incredible challenges presented in having that many special needs kids, not so much in terms of securing firearms but in terms of getting a field of fire that didn't have a child either behind the BG or (worse) in front and a potential hostage.

This is probably not the best scenario for beating the drum on carrying in the home. Seven guys= a couple of shots (if possible, per above) and five more who can grab your kids as hostages. This was a no-win situation, no matter what they'd carried or not carried, owned or not owned.

Proof positive that this is a dangerous world and evil is out there that *can* take you out.

Jan

meytind
July 24, 2009, 10:32 AM
The article mentions the main problem in the beginning. These were rich people who's wealth was discussed on TV. If you don't advertise what you have, you are less likely to be targeted to begin with, but yes, if they had a gun, they could have barricaded the family in a room and just fired through the door as the badguys tried to break it down.

Maelstrom
July 24, 2009, 10:36 AM
I consider myself a pretty substantial obstacle when armed and on my home territory, but seven on one is a really bad situation. Incidentally, the previous post about round capacity of your firearm seems to have been answered here.

Matrix187
July 24, 2009, 10:57 AM
Yeah.. this is a case where any high cap semi auto rifle would come in handy, or be required maybe.

hardluk1
July 24, 2009, 12:34 PM
The system in that house was for locating lost kids,to find where they might have gone. And security systems don't fire off alarms as shown on tv , typicaly 20 second delay so you can disarm the system or if a threat is know you can then hit the panic botton that will send notice if your door gets kicked in. I have never seen an alarm go off like these tv commercials. But remeber thats not what these folks had cameras for. Even under best of conditions with a house full of your closest friends try to round everyone up and hussle them to any room in a matter of seconds. The best they could have done would have been to grab the closest kids and run AFTER you hit the panic botton on the alarm and still leave people out to die??? This was a no win deal to begine with when that many people are depending on your help. Even with a gun on hip it would still have cost your life as these people were intent on getting in . Beside in a house this big you can't move across it faster than they can get in from different directions. To many people to watch, to many moves about safe rooms in houses. I use to build maga homes and all had security systems and even though your in town ,in a multi millon dollar home it still might take 10 minutes + for the law to get there. Just a no win for that family. To Bad.

Steve N
July 24, 2009, 12:37 PM
Some questions that I haven't seen the answers to anywhere:

Was the alarm system set?

Did the alarm system sound inside the house, or to a security company, or both?

Were the victims shot in their bed, before even being awakened?

Were there signs of the victims struggling with the intruders?

I've got a feeling this was cold-blooded, premeditated murder. Just break in, shoot the family, and steal the safe. If you shoot the family first, there's no chance they could pull a gun on you.

gopguy
July 24, 2009, 12:42 PM
Hi Jan,

I agree it seems like a no win scenario, but being armed would have given options and a chance. We see how being unarmed played out.

Maelstrom. I discounted the revolvers for the reason of capacity. Anything where you would have needed a reload in a seven on one situation as you are being rushed is about impossible. Granted there are some seven and eight shot centerfire revolvers, but light and portable is debatable and the one shot stop iffy at best.

My point was being unarmed left them no options. It is probable they knew the thugs were on the grounds before they got in the house, they may have held off the attack (assuming both mother and father could have been armed) from different points. The object lesson is relying on the security system was folly. It is my hope the piece would get those who don't like guns and are relying on cell phones or security systems to think a bit more realistically.

BBQLS1
July 24, 2009, 12:50 PM
Not commenting about Pensacola, but I always see the security system TV commercials and think how silly they are.

Guy breaks in, alarm goes off and all is well. IMO a home security system is to alert you, you need a gun in hand.

ccsniper
July 24, 2009, 01:01 PM
i like this statement, at my house almost everyone is armed or at least in arms reach of a gun/guns

I consider myself a pretty substantial obstacle when armed and on my home territory,

Z-Michigan
July 24, 2009, 01:15 PM
I think Springmom pretty well nailed it. I also think as the country goes crazy, we all need to think more about conventional physical security - good locks, solid doors, planned windows, maybe a gate on your driveway, etc. It might not have mattered here, but you need everything that can help you.

Having an AR or AK in hand would certainly have scared the attackers silly, but it would not have guaranteed a successful defense. Definitely would have been better than dying without a defense though. But as already noted, how could you practically have a carbine ready to go for an unexpected attack like this, with the kid situation?

Deltaboy
July 24, 2009, 01:48 PM
7 guys vs 1 armed man is not good unless your properly trained with at least a Lever action Rifle. God Rest their souls this is a sad sad story.

hardluk1
July 24, 2009, 02:48 PM
Even if you carried a gun 24/7 sh*t happens ,could have been in the shower ,knock'n a chunk off or just watch'n a good tv add on security systems . 7 men with a want to do harm to you will get the job done. All that while with'in arms reach all the time or carry'n all the time even in your home. None of us have any idea how you will act till the sh*t hits the fan. With all those kids around all you would need to drop your gun would be 1 man to hold a gun to one of your childrens head or another one just shoots you.. If you say other wise ,,,u r of sh*t. You should be willing to eat one for your family. To many full of poop mucho types. To many people in that house, one shoot from a good guy would have turned that place into some else all together. Could have been a couple bad guys die bit all the kids died too. Think about that . How many would die for there family when push come to shoot.

rbernie
July 24, 2009, 02:52 PM
This is probably not the best scenario for beating the drum on carrying in the home. Seven guys= a couple of shots (if possible, per above) and five more who can grab your kids as hostages. This was a no-win situation, no matter what they'd carried or not carried, owned or not owned.I concur. Perhaps, with an appropriate layered defense (dogs, locked doors, entry alarms, accessible firearms, and a home invasion plan), the odds could have been evened somewhat. But even that's a crap shoot, and the odds are still heavily in favor of the intruders. Factor in the notion that the house was rigged for special needs kids (making accessible firearms a difficult thing to arrange), and frankly this is a case study in how sometimes the bad guys win through sheer force of numbers.

damien
July 24, 2009, 02:58 PM
7 guys vs 1 armed man is not good unless your properly trained with at least a Lever action Rifle. God Rest their souls this is a sad sad story.


I suspect these guys are very cowardly men. One goes down, the others will run.

Jeff White
July 24, 2009, 03:36 PM
I suspect these guys are very cowardly men. One goes down, the others will run.

Shooting is contagious. It happens all the time in military and police scenarios. You have a bunch of armed people looking for trouble, the first round goes off, doesn't matter who fired it, and everyone else is likely to start shooting thinking they have been fired upon.

I think rather then counting on them turning and running when you shoot one, you should expect the whole house to erupt in gunfire and prepare accordingly.

withdrawn34
July 24, 2009, 03:46 PM
This was a well-planned, well-executed crime; it is unlikely that having defensive firearms would have made a difference without a plan by the victims, of which there were none.

The only way this could have turned out would be to have a plan ahead of time involving exterior motion sensors and driveway sensors - for early warning - and then a planned safe room and secured defensive posture.

However, with so many special needs kids, and such a large home, as well as a lack of an early warning system, the likelihood of implementing such a plan is none.

The crooks knew exactly what to hit and where; it's likely they worked in the home at some point, perhaps as repair or helpmen... or perhaps just posing as such. In such large homes, it's not uncommon to have such service people coming and going all the time - if someone is not watching all of them and checking out who comes into their home, such things can happen. With a pair of people as genuinely good hearted as these folks, they may have been too trusting of people and not paid attention to strange going-ons.

Pizzagunner
July 24, 2009, 03:51 PM
My carry piece is a 1911, but all of the pistols I have stashed around the place are 9mms sporting 15+1 147gr. JHPs or more. The shotgun holds eight and the AK 30+1 as well. The presumption being that in the case of a home invasion I am going to be outnumbered by anyone who has the slightest clue as to how best commit the crime.

I don't want to be taken down for a lack of firing back.;)

springmom
July 24, 2009, 10:40 PM
I don't want to be taken down for a lack of firing back

:) No one does. But I remember when my kids were little; it was like herding cats in a sack to get them into the bedrooms with the promise of story and bedtime snack. And none of them were particularly "special needs". Imagine, instead of three little ones, having 13, and I think we can assume that those 13 would be unlikely to be able to figure out what was going on and get to a safe room independently (even assuming there were some safe rooms in the house). Imagine those seven men coming in; dad and mom start shooting, a little one runs in between to daddy and...

...well, you get my point.

All of us who carry guns for self defense like to think we are up to the task if we are attacked. Many of us spend a great deal of money and time training for that "just in case" day. But honestly; unless you ran your house like a fortress, with a moat full of hungry Dobermans and a band of claymores just beyond them, do you HONESTLY think you could have a house with 13 kids in it and keep security up all the time? The fact of the matter is, if someone really wants to mount a small army and take your house, they can probably do it. You may take one or more with you, but you're not likely to come out of it alive if they really, really REALLY don't want you to and there are that many of them. Gun ownership is no guarantor of invicibility; it just gives us a better chance in most cases.

This wasn't one of them.

Jan

doc2rn
July 24, 2009, 10:51 PM
The worst part is the robbers didnt get the safe with the valuables, so this was a sensless act of violence. I hope they still have the gas chamber in FL. I know its not very high road but this reaks of C.S.S.
Should have had a safe room on every level.

bigfatdave
July 24, 2009, 11:00 PM
7 men with a want to do harm to you will get the job done.True, but being armed can be a deterrent. In the case of multiple invaders, either your first few shots will trigger the shooting that was going to happen anyway, or it may scatter the intruders.
No home is 100% invader proof, the goal is not to be an obviously soft target, or an obviously profitable target.

hardluk1
July 25, 2009, 10:03 AM
Ain't it about time to close this tread?????

msb45
July 25, 2009, 10:13 AM
In before the close. My only point is that "paranoid" people who rely upon more than a six shooter or double barrel shotgun might actually have a point.

It's about options, not absolute certainty.

rbernie
July 25, 2009, 10:18 AM
No home is 100% invader proof, the goal is not to be an obviously soft target, or an obviously profitable target.
I certainly agree with this. It might have proven that, had perimeter barriers been maintained and locked at all times and other security measures taken, that this band of bozos might never have hatched this scheme.

Ain't it about time to close this tread????? Why? I think that any discussion about the limitations of armed defense is just as valid as a discussion of the virtues of an armed defense.

ccsniper
July 25, 2009, 10:46 AM
All of us who carry guns for self defense like to think we are up to the task if we are attacked. Many of us spend a great deal of money and time training for that "just in case" day. But honestly; unless you ran your house like a fortress, with a moat full of hungry Dobermans and a band of claymores just beyond them, do you HONESTLY think you could have a house with 13 kids in it and keep security up all the time? The fact of the matter is, if someone really wants to mount a small army and take your house, they can probably do it. You may take one or more with you, but you're not likely to come out of it alive if they really, really REALLY don't want you to and there are that many of them. Gun ownership is no guarantor of invicibility; it just gives us a better chance in most cases.


best reply so far

Limeyfellow
July 25, 2009, 12:39 PM
To be honest, I don't think anything short of a permanent attachment of well trained security on the actual premises maintaining the border and considerable other measures would have saved the family. With that many children, many of them having special needs there simply no way of getting them to a safe room in time, having easy access to firearms, maintaining border security and not many are going to be able to best a 7-1 outnumbering by armed assailants. It simply is a no-win situation.

bigfatdave
July 25, 2009, 02:26 PM
not many are going to be able to best a 7-1 outnumbering by armed assailants. seven on TWO.
What, moms can't be armed too?

psyopspec
July 25, 2009, 02:34 PM
To the thread title of

Relying a home security system and no gun...can get you killed.

I would reply, "No. Having 7 armed men come into your home bent on killing you... can get you killed."

What's the author's source on the couple having a 1 min. warning that their home was being invaded? From what I've seen, their camera system was intended to enable them to watch the children, NOT detect and alert them to a home invasion. Or about the home being gun-free? Is this a publicly known fact in the case?

These were rich people who's wealth was discussed on TV.

The perps didn't get the idea for their crime from basic cable. One or more worked in the home as a handyman in the weeks leading up to the attack.

Those of you thinking that you can fend off an attack from seven men with a plan and some training need a bit of a wake-up call. Forget long gun vs. hand gun, hell, forget having to reload by getting an airsoft gun that holds hundreds of rounds, and run a little force on force to see who comes out on top. Would the results mirror reality? Probably not, but they'd give you a good idea of just how useless a handgun, even <gasp> a Glock 19 is against a group of people wanting to kill you and jack your stuff.

84B20
July 25, 2009, 03:09 PM
Just a point about alarm systems. I can set my alarm to sound as soon as any door or window is breached. I just have to enter a short key sequence and even the front door is armed to go off immediately. I suspect many professionally installed systems can work that way. Of course the moment that happens, out comes the flashlight mounted 870.

Cosmoline
July 25, 2009, 03:13 PM
One or more worked in the home as a handyman in the weeks leading up to the attack.

And these folks had real soft hearts. It's the old maxim, no good deed goes unpunished.

Had Byrd Billings or his wife been carrying something in the class of a Glock 19 with a spare magazine, they would have had thirty shots at their disposal. This would have given them ample firepower for dealing with seven miscreants, if he were able to react quickly.

No way. Only if the intruders were unarmed and standing still. Both of them with shoulder arms would have been a better bet but even then your best bet against those numbers is hand grenades or a match and powder magazine. The best you can hope for with small arms is to dissuade the rest by killing a few and getting the heck out of Dodge--a task made near impossible with a bunch of special needs kids.

The best way to keep this from happening is a gallows and death for each and every participant.

jakemccoy
July 25, 2009, 03:54 PM
It's not really seven on one. If you have a gun, and shoot one intruder, the others will probably try to get away somehow. Yeah, they may shoot back wildly without aiming, or maybe they'll high tail it instead. Anyway, they would have been mentally unprepared for a homeowner shooting back and hitting someone center mass. It's not like this was a SWAT team that attacked.

People like to talk about how the homeowners had no chance regardless. I'd like to hear from a SWAT team member on this subject. Why do you wear all that gear? Even if it's just one person in the house you're raiding, is it an easy task to raid a house? Has any SWAT team member been shot by one dude with a handgun when you're raiding a house? (I know the answer to the last question is yes.)

Also, keep in mind that the homeowners here had WAY MORE to lose than these landscapers with guns. You cannot underestimate a person who has everything to lose, has a gun and is desperately trying to protect his family. If you don't have a gun, there would be ZERO chance of scaring them away, and there was ZERO chance in this case. Layered security (solid locked doors, alarm, dog, gun) would have given the homeowners here a good chance of survival.

By the way, I'm not sure how many people here actually read the article. The author acknowledges the odds of surviving this type of encounter, and basically argues that the odds increase with a gun. I agree.

Kwanger
July 25, 2009, 09:10 PM
jake mccoy,

SWAT teams.....do not generally target the homes of good hearted, kind folk. The kind of people they are usually called in on are likely to have a completely different mindset and be in vastly different circumstances to someone focussed on caring for 13 kids than expecting 7 armed murders with a plan to come bursting in. This situation just doesn't compare.

Given a bit of warning, an accessible gun and at least some forethought given to the possibility, there just may have been a possibility that this could have ended up diffferent...but as has been discussed already, whether that would have been better or worse, we don't and can't ever know.

Heinous crime and all 7 perps need to die for it.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 25, 2009, 10:22 PM
Dayumm, they invaded Tony-Montana-house-style. :eek: :eek: EBR/HDR needed indeed. May they rest in peace and their children all find homes.

trex1310
July 25, 2009, 11:27 PM
Some questions that I haven't seen the answers to anywhere:

Was the alarm system set?
No

Did the alarm system sound inside the house, or to a security company, or both?
Both

Were the victims shot in their bed, before even being awakened?
No, they were bound with zip ties and shot several times.

Were there signs of the victims struggling with the intruders?
No

I've got a feeling this was cold-blooded, premeditated murder. Just break in, shoot the family, and steal the safe. If you shoot the family first, there's no chance they could pull a gun on you.
Or identify you. The lone shooter was well known to the Billings.

Officers'Wife
July 25, 2009, 11:42 PM
Unfortunately, this sounds like a case that nothing could have prevented, save for the likely case that the invaders were already felons that had been released with unreliable 'tracking.'

Corporal K
July 25, 2009, 11:44 PM
The best you can hope for in a situation like this is to break up the attack. The criminals are essentially cowards looking for easy prey. Once the lead starts flying in their direction and especially if you can drop one of them, the likelihood of the others sticking around is greatly diminished. Even if they kill you, you will have protected your family and gone out "with your boots on".

rbernie
July 25, 2009, 11:48 PM
The theory is fine. But I cannot believe that getting to a firearm and then finding the intruders with the guns and dispatching them in the melee, without the intruders randomly shooting back, is an exercise with a high probability of a happy outcome. Most likely is that a lot of the kids wind up dead/wounded and the bad guys suffer minor casualties.

No good answers here. This was not a scenario to be solved with a gun; it needed to be solved by being less obvious with the wealth, being more careful about the hired help, and having a solid perimeter.

jakemccoy
July 26, 2009, 01:45 AM
jake mccoy,

SWAT teams.....do not generally target the homes of good hearted, kind folk. The kind of people they are usually called in on are likely to have a completely different mindset and be in vastly different circumstances to someone focussed on caring for 13 kids than expecting 7 armed murders with a plan to come bursting in. This situation just doesn't compare.

Given a bit of warning, an accessible gun and at least some forethought given to the possibility, there just may have been a possibility that this could have ended up diffferent...but as has been discussed already, whether that would have been better or worse, we don't and can't ever know.

Heinous crime and all 7 perps need to die for it.

Maybe I wasn't clear about what I was trying to say.

Based on the firepower and security systems of people in this forum, many people here are likely more equipped than those of the average street pusher. I wasn't asking about a SWAT team breaking into the home of the soft-hearted folks in this Florida case. I was asking about a SWAT team breaking into a home of a person that is well equipped, or even equipped, period. With that in mind, refer to my questions above. Anyway, my questions were directed toward a SWAT team member, not to any "Internet experts"...no offense.

My overall point is that I'll have to disagree with the people that say there is no chance. If there is no chance in a home raid, then SWAT teams would have no fear and there would be no need for all the equipment they wear. Plus, those guys are the best of the best in law enforcement. In contrast, this ragtag group of 7 guys in this case had nowhere near the capabilities or training of a SWAT team.

I just can't stand it when people are so willing to give up hope in the name of being so-called realistic. There is a realistic chance of survival in this type of case. You can analyze this situation and determine how you would harden your home and do things differently. The changes may cramp your lifestyle a bit, but are you willing to die in order to live a carefree, oblivious lifestyle?

jakemccoy
July 26, 2009, 02:14 AM
No good answers here. This was not a scenario to be solved with a gun; it needed to be solved by being less obvious with the wealth, being more careful about the hired help, and having a solid perimeter.

Why not add a gun and a dog to your idea of a solid perimeter?

A gun should definitely be part of the solution while we're working on one.

rbernie
July 26, 2009, 10:01 AM
Absolutely. But it is not the only tool in the bag.

Kwanger
July 27, 2009, 09:34 AM
Jake - And I think you missed the point of my reply. We're not hypothesizing here, we're talking about an actual incident. The reason I twisted it round a bit was to point out that the reason a SWAT team or equivalent plans to the enth degree and 'wears all the gear' as you put it, is because they are planning for worst case scenario. Why are they planning for worst case scenario? Because the people they are going to apprehend usually give them reason to do so. And yes, you are right, sometimes despite all the planning, things go wrong and team members get shot, although you are concentrating on that point, where in reality most situations are resolved with no shots fired by either party, let alone a team member being injured or killed.

But what I'm saying in this exact case here is that the homeowners were not doing all the things you advocate. Of course it's possible if they were, as I've already said, the outcome could have been different, for better or for worse. However, they weren't, and most likely had never considered the concept, and even if they had a gun, it would most likely, in this exact case, have not helped. As someone else pointed out above (which mirrors my thoughts on this), my feeling is that it is likely that one of the perps, either by accident or design, identified himself to the homeowners, which was the primary reason for their deaths.

LRaccuracy
July 27, 2009, 05:30 PM
Regardless of the circumstances, having a gun on your person MAY give you a chance of survival when attacked but we all know it's never a guarantee. I would rather have a 1% chance than no chance at all.

Don't be complacent in your own home. Criminals don't care when and where they attack you.

U.S.SFC_RET
July 27, 2009, 05:45 PM
Want security? Get friendly with the little old lady who lives across from you. she will tell you if someone is poking around. Cut the bushes short and close around your house.
The old 1X2 piece of lumber still works all around the world. Place one to stop the sliding door. Place them to stop the windows from being jimmied up as well.
Get a German Shepherd Dog. Not the American Kennel Club kind. The specialist breeding kind. Train that dog to "check the house" 24/7. Checking the house to turn on his nose and start looking. I did it.
Have that dog go before you when there is a bumo in the night.
I recommend using a shotgun with #4 buckshot for the house. I know it is hard to find. Can't find it the go with #1.
Put up fake CCTV cameras if you want to go on the cheap. make them plainly visible. the ones that blink.
With a little planning that firearm should be your last line of defence not your first.

If you enjoyed reading about "Relying a home security system and no gun...can get you killed." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!