Things go right for armed homeowner

Seems like the homeowner was as calm and collected as one could be not having gone through that before.

If I had to find criticism...and I don't know if he already did this or not as the story is not full of details (shocker with today's journalism), would be that one should try and get the police coming before confronting the perp, in case things go sideways, at least they are on the way. And maybe he or his wife had already called the police before or maybe he couldn't have known someone was out there until the perp was confronted.

Good to see things ended up good for both parties, I know I don't WANT to shoot someone, and it's always in the back of my mind.

cjwils said:

http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/mar...meowner-for-proper-use-of-a-firearm/611441891

Sometimes we hear that police criticize or even mistreat an armed homeowner who defends the home. We might see a quote in the news such as "He should have staying indoors and called us instead of pulling a gun and confronting the intruder." But in this case, the police have commended a homeowner for doing things right. But there is always something to be learned. Can you suggest anything this homeowner should have done differently in the heat of the moment?

Click to expand...

Heck, I've been scolded on this very forum for saying I'd investigate a bump in the night myself. Apparently guys who take defense courses have been convinced that YOU WILL DIE if you confront an intruder in your home, so their heads must be exploding that this guy went outside!

Kleanbore said:

Yes.

He should have stayed inside.

He had no way of knowing what was going on outside or who else might have been out there, and he could easily have walked into a crossfire. We've seen a number of such outcomes here over the years.

But he didn't.

His next mistake was to order the man to the ground. Not only did that put him on potentially shaky legal ground and put him at risk of considerable civil liability, it was extremely risky. And I have to wonder what the homeowner thought he would have done next had the miscreant chosen not to comply.

When there's a bad man in the driveway you do not want to try to hold him. You want him gone, and you want to be back inside.

Yes, it appears that "things ended up good for both parties", but remember that the police are not the charging authority. It ain't over 'til it's over.

Click to expand...

The problem with don't go outside is it presumes its a burglar. Could just as easily be an animal and not a dangerous one. If I called the police every time one of my cats knocked something over and everyone else did the same thing the police would be so swamped with reports that they would take hours to respond to the real calls. Judgement is always important any time a gun is involved.

Glad it worked out well. But having spent some considerable time in LE, my thoughts on the incident are consistent with Kleanbore's.....

The problem with don't go outside is it presumes its a burglar. Could just as easily be an animal and not a dangerous one.

Click to expand...

And the problem with DO go outside is it presumes there's no serious threat. Could just as easily be a bad guy with a gun. Or two. Or three.
Going to investigate the "bump in the night" really does depend on a kind of wild optimism that there's really nothing serious going on.

If I called the police every time one of my cats knocked something over and everyone else did the same thing the police would be so swamped with reports that they would take hours to respond to the real calls. Judgement is always important any time a gun is involved.

Click to expand...

We always jump back and forth between extremes as though there's no ground between "go out into harm's way" and "call the police every time the wind blows." Waiting, listening, observing from a place of cover, etc. All really good ideas. If it is something you need to go out and fix, you can probably figure that out in a few moments. If it's something you really need to be alarmed about, likewise.

JohnBiltz said:

The problem with don't go outside is it presumes its a burglar. Could just as easily be an animal and not a dangerous one. If I called the police every time one of my cats knocked something over and everyone else did the same thing the police would be so swamped with reports that they would take hours to respond to the real calls. Judgement is always important any time a gun is involved.

Click to expand...

Clearly the best option is to lock your doors at any odd sound, barricade yourself in the bathroom, call the police, stick your fingers in your ears and yell "la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la" and pretend nothing is there to harm you or your family or steal your hard earned things.

Then in 15 minutes when the cops can arrive they'll tell you they probably won't recover the chainsaws that were stolen out of your locked shed while you were in your "safe space". And you'll spend the next year wondering when they'll come back to steal the rest of your tools because your were told only the police have the training to respond to bumps in the night.

Kleanbore said:

Yes.

He should have stayed inside.

He had no way of knowing what was going on outside or who else might have been out there, and he could easily have walked into a crossfire. We've seen a number of such outcomes here over the years.

But he didn't.

His next mistake was to order the man to the ground. Not only did that put him on potentially shaky legal ground and put him at risk of considerable civil liability, it was extremely risky. And I have to wonder what the homeowner thought he would have done next had the miscreant chosen not to comply.

When there's a bad man in the driveway you do not want to try to hold him. You want him gone, and you want to be back inside.

Yes, it appears that "things ended up good for both parties", but remember that the police are not the charging authority. It ain't over 'til it's over.

Click to expand...

Being familiar with mo used by "Terminator of Ukraine" it was foolish of him to go outside.

[Clearly the best option is to lock your doors at any odd sound, barricade yourself in the bathroom, call the police, stick your fingers in your ears and yell "la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la" and pretend nothing is there to harm you or your family or steal your hard earned things./QUOTE]

Click to expand...

Hmmm... well if that's what you think the proper response is you have no further need to read this thread or engage your brain.

I investigate noises outside my house at night. I take a gun when I do it. I don't assume it's going to be the wind, a cat, a raccoon, a deer, a burglar, a vagrant looking to bed down, an axe murderer, or anything at all. But I assume it could be any one of those things. I'm not going to stay inside and call the cops because there's a raccoon in my trash can, but I'm not exactly thrilled about confronting a burglar either. So I'm quite prepared to get back inside the house quite quickly if I need to.

No reason not to go look, but pointing a gun at someone and issuing commands outside of your home seems like an unnecessary risk for a civilian. My guns are for self defense, not for use as a 'threat of force' to make a citizen's arrest. Not to mention that having a gun in your hand when the police show up is less than smart (not saying this guy did that), so handling that issue correctly has to be given consideration.

Kleanbore said:

Yes.

He should have stayed inside.

He had no way of knowing what was going on outside or who else might have been out there, and he could easily have walked into a crossfire. We've seen a number of such outcomes here over the years.

Click to expand...

So did many of you not see the portion of the video showing the man's security camera display, which he stated he turned on prior to going outside to check things out?
He did have a way of knowing what was going on outside, so his primary mistake was not reviewing the video long enough ...

For my home, I've got 360-degree camera coverage, always on, and some potent floodlight coverage around my entire house, so if I choose to go outside, I should know exactly what I'm looking for ... I live in a semi-rural area, and have run the random tweakers and homeless wandering burglars off my property. Also, for those of us who believe in layers of security, I've got a couple quite assertive and well-trained GSDs. Sadly, at night here, the sheriff's deputies who would respond to my area are generally 20 to 45 minutes away, so there's always the chance I might decide to go outside to check things out on my own ... At any rate, I would be making a conscious, informed decision and if anything bad happened, would have to live (or die) with the consequences.

Had he stayed inside, one more (already convicted) felon (who clearly intends to keep on stealing the property of others) would still be on the loose. No one hurt, one bad guy in custody. Positive outcome. Were mistakes made? Sure. And although our hero was more lucky than good, it would appear he's going to be thinking about this quite a bit in the future and likely won't make the same mistakes again.

I am an old dude now, pretty crippled etc. When I was young and felt danger may be approaching, I often found myself standing between it and my family. I did not usually remember how I got there. I just figured it was what men instinctivly did. I raised a little poultry and saw roosters do it too. I really don't think I could have stopped myself. I don't care what other guys do I would have been out there and one of us might have got hurt. I am not saying what should have been done, I am just remembering my youth. There is no point in telling me I was wrong. Cock a doodle do.

Kleanbore said:

Obviously tongue in check, but far from what anyone would responsibly recommend....

I keep the doors locked, but I certainly do not "barricade" myself at "any odd sound".

Click to expand...

I was referencing another thread, of which I'm pretty sure you participated, where the advice was to lock yourself in your bedroom when an intruder was in the house.

Kleanbore said:

Surely you are not recommending the use of deadly force to prevent theft!

Click to expand...

Who said anything about deadly force? I wouldn't have a problem showing up with a flashlight and a firearm if someone was stealing my stuff but he firearm is to protect myself.

Kleanbore said:

Do you really think it prudent to abandon safety to do whatever it is that you think you you would do?

Click to expand...

I do. I don't lead a lifestyle where someone would want to ambush me. Around here, most break-ins and thefts are lowlifes hoping to steal tools and they certainly don't want to encounter anyone while doing so. Much less an armed homeowner and his 2 large dogs.

Kleanbore said:

What such training have you had?

Click to expand...

As much as the thousands of people who successfully defend themselves every year. I'm not against training at all, but I also don't think it's an absolute requirement to be able to protect yourself.

Kleanbore said:

Look--the police will tell you to not expose yourself to potential ambush. The police will not expose themselves to potential ambush unless it is immediately necessary to protect lives--that's their job.

Click to expand...

Of course they say that, to say otherwise puts them at risk of getting sued. Regardless, the sheriff's office is 10 miles from my house. Living in the country, you learn to fend for yourself.

Kleanbore said:

Heading out armed to "respond to bumps in the night" usually has a very bad outcome, except in the movies that some people like to play in their minds.

Click to expand...

Usually? As in greater than 50%? Really? If you've got some data to back that up I'll entertain the thought that you're right, but otherwise I think you're making an incorrect statement based on your personal beliefs.

Old Dog said:

So did many of you not see the portion of the video showing the man's security camera display, which he stated he turned on prior to going outside to check things out?
He did have a way of knowing what was going on outside, so his primary mistake was not reviewing the video long enough ...

Click to expand...

That part did stand out to me. A takeaway is his video system needs to be tweaked, perhaps a camera added to cover whatever blind spot the perp was in when he looked. I do not fault him for investigating a noise after checking what he thought was a good camera option vs. immediately calling the police for a sound.