Home invasion...two down!

Scbadvr said:

Just have to remember if you're ever in that situation the criminal has already decided something you own is worth more than his life.

Click to expand...

Actually, the miscreant(s) have decided that something that you own is worth being violent towards YOU, not themselves. You stand between them and what they want, and in the moment you have no way of determining how far they're willing to go to get what they want.

rbernie & scbadvr,
To clarify my previous comments, my wife and I have established plans if someone were to break into our home uninvited. Separate plans for daytime while we are up and about, and nighttime while we are in bed. I also realize no plan is perfect, and circumstances change rapidly. Obviously, if we are confronted presents a whole different set of reactions, as opposed to someone rummaging around downstairs while we are in bed.

Kleanbore said:

Hogwash.

Doe burglars expect to be killed?

Click to expand...

rbernie said:

Actually, the miscreant(s) have decided that something that you own is worth being violent towards YOU, not themselves.

Click to expand...

They know full well that their life is on the line and they are playing the odds that they won't get killed.

Interesting discussion. Mindset, or the willingness to exercise deadly force in self defense, remains at the vanguard of employment of deadly force. Skill, and the level of training and practice realized, in conjunction with the tools, i.e., firearm employed, have an impact on the outcome. Discussion focused on victim emotions following survival, (if you are dead, we need not concern ourselves with this element,) will be as varied as the number of episodes we care to examine.

One person, Lance Thomas, will be a single case study that may be applied to other victims who defended themselves successfully. Thomas, as you may know was a skilled watchmaker/repair master, who was victimized in his business establishment several times and defended himself killing his attackers in each encounter. Interviews with him touch on nearly every point discussed in this discussion. When asked he stated he felt no guilt or remorse for shooting his attackers. He also practiced extensively and employed service style pistols in his defense. One of the main stream news networks interviewed Thomas. The video is available on YouTube.

Like many on this forum, I’m old. Age engenders experience youth does not yet possess. Accordingly, my deadly force experiences in combat and law enforcement may only relate to me, not you or others who have not realized similar life threatening events. Lance Thomas and I are on the same page regarding employment of deadly force. We both do not regret taking a life to save our life, we both maintain skill levels to accomplish the required task of survival, and we subscribe to the tools necessary to complete the job.

I would suggest unless you have actual trigger time, hypothesizing remains your only asset analyzing the outcome and subsequent emotions of your first life threatening experience. However, having said this, your mindset before the altercation will have the greatest influence on the outcome.

There’s a difference in B&E’s, breaking and entering, perhaps a local term, and a Home Invasion. And perhaps the person or persons commuting the crime. I would think the latter to be carried out by a more hardened individual (s) willing to do what it takes and the former some druggie perhaps looking to feed a habit.
I recounted in past threads of coming home to a B&E in progress. Fortunately in my case a non-violent person looking for cash or goods to convert to cash.
He spent over a year in jail and was deported.

I think people over estimate how much courage they have. The number one priority is to keep your family safe. If you can get out of the house without a confrontation, you do that in every single situation. I would personally rather have everything in my home taken by a burglar, then put my family in a potentially deadly situation, IF that situation does not already exist. That being said, if there is no other option, but to resort to deadly force, so be it.
Much like the Japanese Samurai, if you are in a dangerous situation, and draw, you better have the training and courage to use the weapon with deadly force. There is no in between. Once that fire arm is drawn, you better be able to use it in that situation, AND be confident that you can retain it in a struggle. This is not a weekend warrior scenario. How many people can truly say that they would survive a confrontation like that? How much training does it take?

One knows of course before you pontificate on training (which I like to do and support) that the overwhelming percentage of handgun purchasers have little training in their usage. Yes, we have a lot of armed forces veterans but depending on their service they can have a fair amount to trivial firearms training.

One does see that the majority of DGUs have no shots fired. That is probably because an economically motivated criminal is deterred. However, not all interactions are such.

It is also the case that most folks will not take H2H retention classes and as you get older, physical entangled scenarios are not attractive.

Avoidance is your friend. Don't go to stupid places with stupid people and do stupid things.

Mas calls it the question - if you deploy a lethal instrument you must be willing to use it. That is not saying that you must use it in an incident. That's a cliche that you sometimes hear.

I have seen folks freeze in FOF. One said that they were giving up the gun because they cannot use it after experiencing the exercise. Another who claimed to be a martial arts superstar froze and was knocked on his butt to the disgust of the instructor.

GEM said:

Mas calls it the question - if you deploy a lethal instrument you must be willing to use it. That is not saying that you must use it in an incident. That's a cliche that you sometimes hear.

I have seen folks freeze in FOF. One said that they were giving up the gun because they cannot use it after experiencing the exercise. Another who claimed to be a martial arts superstar froze and was knocked on his butt to the disgust of the instructor.

Click to expand...

I am about 1/3 through Tom Givens' 2019 Concealed Carry Class book. In it he recommends using photos of real people, not just cardboard silhouettes, as targets when practicing defensive shooting at the range. His logic is to get used to seeing you are about to shoot a human being before you face the real life situation. This may avoid a last minute psychological block by the surprise of the human target when you must shoot immediately.
You may have to shop around for ranges that allow human image targets. The NRA Range in the NRA Headquarters basement in Virginia very specifically forbids such targets.

Craig

"Avoiding Armed Robberies
America’s liberal gun laws are often criticized as a contributor to the U.S.’s relatively high rates of violent crime. Homicide rates in the U.S. are among the highest in the world, exceeding homicide rates in some nations that have clamped down on civilian gun ownership.


However, Kleck studied crime rates from Great Britain and the Netherlands, two nations with much stricter gun ownership laws than the U.S., and concluded that the risk of armed robbery is lower in America because of loose gun laws.


The rate of burglaries at occupied homes (“hot” burglaries) in Great Britain and the Netherlands is 45%, compared to a rate of 13% in the U.S. Comparing those rates to the percentage of hot burglaries in which the homeowner is threatened or attacked (30%), Kleck concluded that there would be an additional 450,000 burglaries in the U.S. in which homeowners are threatened or attacked if the rate of hot burglaries in the U.S. was similar to the rate in Great Britain. The lower rate in the U.S. is attributed to widespread gun ownership."

The Use of Guns for Self Defense to Deter Crime (thoughtco.com)

Wright and Rossi also interviewed some 2000 inmates and found that most would avoid preying on folks they thought were armed.

Craig_VA said:

I am about 1/3 through Tom Givens' 2019 Concealed Carry Class book. In it he recommends using photos of real people, not just cardboard silhouettes, as targets when practicing defensive shooting at the range. His logic is to get used to seeing you are about to shoot a human being before you face the real life situation. This may avoid a last minute psychological block by the surprise of the human target when you must shoot immediately.
You may have to shop around for ranges that allow human image targets. The NRA Range in the NRA Headquarters basement in Virginia very specifically forbids such targets.

Craig

Click to expand...

This was the reason the Army went to shooting human torso targets vs bullseye targets.

If anyone breaks into an occupied home there's no time to determine what they intend to do. My wife was in the house when a guy kicked the front door down shortly after I drove off to work. They were both surprised to face each other but my brave wife had enough composure to pull out her cell phone and try to take his picture. He panicked, turned & ran away immediately so all she was able to photograph was his ass-end. But she saw his face & later identified him in a lineup. The guy was part of a team of burglars that had broken into a bunch of houses before this one was caught. He ratted on the rest of them later but he told police during interrogation he remembered our house very clearly because he thought the "woman was running after him with a gun".

If my wife had shot him in the back that would have been wrong. However if the guy had attacked that would have changed things completely & if she shot him I believe it would have been the right thing to do. Lawyers love to turn tables on real victims in favor of criminal offenders & the Lib, anti-gun media will try to do the same but that doesn't mean they are morally right.

Anyone that is involved in a struggle during a home intrusion has no reason to feel that it isn't a life-death situation. Value for life is one thing we should all share but feeling "guilt" for killing someone that was (even potentially) threatening lives of innocent people for no reason other than to steal their property or perhaps much worse is insane. I don't see any reason to doubt this man was afraid for the safety of his household. He did the right thing IMHO & he should feel relief not guilt.

Unfortunately, the law may try to do everything possible to destroy him but that is another issue.

Charlie Martinez said:

If my wife had shot him in the back that would have been wrong. However if the guy had attacked that would have changed things completely & if she shot him I believe it would have been the right thing to do. Lawyers love to turn tables on real victims in favor of criminal offenders & the Lib, anti-gun media will try to do the same but that doesn't mean they are morally right.

Click to expand...

I think it's more accurate to say that the US has an adversarial justice system and a skilled & committed attorney will do everything within the law to get their client acquitted. I don't have any special affection or dislike for lawyers either way but I think this is kind of a case of "don't hate the player hate the game." Over half the Mods here are attorneys so it would be interesting to hear their take on this.

Phaedrus/69 said:

...and a skilled & committed attorney will do everything within the law to get their client acquitted.

Click to expand...

That has not been my experience with most attorneys. Sadly, I've had to deal with many, and they couldn't care less. They want to get paid. It makes no difference to many of them at all. You are describing the exception. Not the rule.

Bronco72 said:

I would rather feel guilty than be dead ! I also feel thankful that I have never been in that situation, but am ready to do what has to be done..

Click to expand...

You know, this whole "guilt" thing has me a bit mystified. Perhaps regret, but these criminals could have been at the library, educating themselves in new job skills, seeking help, thru governmental programs, helping their grandmother move her pictures into the attic, or any of dozens of other things. But, instead, they chose to commit felonies, transport themselves to your location, break into your home, and endanger your life. They chose this. They went out of their way, in order to do it. Are you supposed to feel guilt, because you defended yourself, in your own home ? You didn't decide "well, Thursday, 10AM, right now, I'm selecting to be attacked, by two felons, in my home".

So, if criminals make extremely bad life choices, and wind up dead, as a result of that poor judgement; why are we supposed to feel guilty ?

I'm just not buying that box.

Like many of you on this forum I am a little older (mid 60's) and have extensive experience with firearms. I have been in situations twice where I have had to pull my legally concealed firearm that I have cared for over 20 years. The one I remember most, I was checking into one of the older style hotels in a large Texas city, near the airport that has the doors facing the parking lot. I had made my way to the 2nd floor through the stairway in the middle of the hotel. This stairway led into a breezeway that led from one side of the hotel to the other. When I walked through the breezeway there was no one there and I turned and went to my room, three doors down. I sat down my bags and as I did noticed movement in my peripheral vision, in the breezeway, which amounted to nothing more than pigeons flying through it. I put the card key in the door, opened the door and bent over to pick up my luggage when I again picked up movement in my peripheral vision. I rose looked to my right just in time to see a large man in a brisk pace heading my direction and in his raising hand was a piece pf pipe. I turned took a step back away from him, drew my 4" 1911 and pointed it at his chest. As I said he was big, about 6'2" and 250-275lbs, about the same as I am, and to see him come to a complete stop and perform a 180 that would make a ballerina proud was amazing. He immediately started screaming at the top of his lungs "Don't Shoot" and repeated this over and over as he ran down the stairs and across the parking lot and disappeared into a wooded lot behind the hotel. It's a good thing that he did so because I had taken up the small amount of creep in that guns 4lb. trigger and the gun was about discharge into his chest. I went into the room and called the local police and after the three law enforcement agencies that arrived had finished their investigation and left, I went to the bathroom and puked. Though I know taking that mans life was something I could have done, and had he advanced 2 more feet, I would have, I was glad he chose to retreat. I have worked Shore Patrol duty in the Navy and had to pull my sidearm several times, but again was lucky enough to never have had to discharge it. I practice religiously and am extremely proficient with my firearms. I'm an old Boy Scout and believe in being prepared, but I don't think anyone can prepare themselves mentally to take a human life and just go on like it meant nothing.

Kleanbore said:

On what do you base that conclusion?

On the basis of being deposed as an expert witness for the defense and the prosecution multiple times, and throughout legal battles of my own. As I've mentioned, I've dealt with many attorneys over my lifetime and most just plain don't give a crap. It's simply a paycheck for them.

Does that surprise you?

When they abandon their clients on the basis of non-payment, despite arrangements being made, yes, it does. And by arrangements being made, I mean a payment schedule previously agreed upon by the attorney and client. Suddenly, it's "pay me the whole amount" or hit the road. As a side note, most state Bar associations agree that if a fee is agreed upon, in writing, that's the fee, and can't be inflated, even if more work was done. And if payment arrangements have been made, in writing, and those arrangement are "modified" by the attorney without a discussion with the client, those can actually be grounds for disbarment. Especially when the agreement was being honored by the client. Do you disagree?

What is "it"?

Click to expand...

"It" is whether their clients come through the process and gets acquitted. I was answering the question posed which I quoted partially from.
As a side note, I did mention that this was my experience. Yes, there are amazing attorneys out there who are compassionate and do their job above and beyond any expectation. In my experience, those are not the norm. If that is not someone else's experience, they are very lucky in my view.

I don't know a ton of attorneys personally, but based on the few I do know I doubt you'll run into many that don't like to win.

P5 Guy said:

"Avoiding Armed Robberies
America’s liberal gun laws are often criticized as a contributor to the U.S.’s relatively high rates of violent crime. Homicide rates in the U.S. are among the highest in the world, exceeding homicide rates in some nations that have clamped down on civilian gun ownership.


However, Kleck studied crime rates from Great Britain and the Netherlands, two nations with much stricter gun ownership laws than the U.S., and concluded that the risk of armed robbery is lower in America because of loose gun laws.


The rate of burglaries at occupied homes (“hot” burglaries) in Great Britain and the Netherlands is 45%, compared to a rate of 13% in the U.S. Comparing those rates to the percentage of hot burglaries in which the homeowner is threatened or attacked (30%), Kleck concluded that there would be an additional 450,000 burglaries in the U.S. in which homeowners are threatened or attacked if the rate of hot burglaries in the U.S. was similar to the rate in Great Britain. The lower rate in the U.S. is attributed to widespread gun ownership."

The Use of Guns for Self Defense to Deter Crime (thoughtco.com)

Wright and Rossi also interviewed some 2000 inmates and found that most would avoid preying on folks they thought were armed.

Click to expand...

This is interesting. I'll have to look into this.

Kleanbore said:

Do you honestly believe that attorneys who do not care about winning their cases will stay in business?

That is preposterous.

Click to expand...

Large legal firms are going bankrupt in record numbers. There are no jobs for new attorneys. Perhaps there is something to that. Perhaps not. As I said, this has been my experience. You making light of that changes nothing.