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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Billings Murders

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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
Kwanger said:
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?
 
Last edited:
rbernie said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top