How Not to Respond

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zerodefect said:
Guys with guns sneaking up my driveway, dont need to be shooting for me to guess their motives
Click to expand...
Agree. Strong grounds for suspicion. And that's it until something transpires that would be actionable.

The homeowner should have armed himself, called the police, and remained inside.

He claimed he was protecting his family. Going outdoors and leaving the door unlocked is no way to do that.

He's lucky he wasn't killed.
 
Checking in Ohio, going in and out of the house was bad mojo.

But all this guy would have to do is say "Hey!" and the bad guy turns on him most likely with his pistol, allowing him to stand his ground:

1. Home owner didnt create the situation.

2. Obvious threat of immediate death.

3. No reasonable means of retreat, since paper and stick house.

4. Reasonable force.

So he'd just about meet the "Stand your ground" laws. Cant tell for sure since bad guy was off camera.

Going outside made him a buffer and distraction between the danger, and his family. A killdeere bird technique might not be so bad afterall.

Also, he draws their line of fire away from the house.
 
Zerodefect said:
1. Home owner didnt create the situation.
Click to expand...
That could be argued--the folks outside had done nothing unlawful yet. We have seen cases in which someone went out to confront someone, used force, and had his attempt to mount a legal defense of self defense denied. Let the threat come to you..

Zerodefect said:
2. Obvious threat of immediate death.
Click to expand...
Which may in fact be what happens. leaving his gun to the perps and his family unprotected.

In this case, (1) the guys outside turned out to be bad guys, (2) the homeowner was not injured. and (3) his reckless use of the firearm did not harm an innocent.

Regarding (1),we have seen cases in which a defender encountered an unwise neighbor unlawfully pursuing a burglar, or an officer out of uniform pursuing a suspect. Sometimes the defender gets shot.

Regarding (r), he could still serve time and lose his gun rights forever. That can still happen. Where did he learn to handle a firearm?

The guy did nothing right and everything wrong.
 
Two things. It says a lot about the society we live in that a lot of people say he was morally correct but legally wrong. Shouldn’t they be the same?
The second point is more subtle but pervasive. Every jurisdiction has ‘rules’ (laws) about what actions are allowed. In Texas for example, lethal force can be used to protect life AND property ( under certain conditions). Other jurisdictions have a ‘duty to retreat’.
You can bet your bottom dollar criminals know these requirements also! “He can’t shoot unless I enter his house AND threaten his life, etc”
This guy changing things up and pushing the limits keeps the lowlifes guessing. TSA uses the same principals.
I’m not saying he was right, and if he’d hit one of the miscreants he’d be in a very bad situation legally and probably civilly. But, I still think he had the moral high ground.
 
In general I agree with keeping everything absolutely legal and as clear as possible in SD situations. But the problem with that is, as we keep giving an inch here, an inch there it will eventually be a requirement that one can only use force during the time of their very last heartbeat. Any action before that is a violation of the criminals ‘rights’.
 
Bad tactics absolutely on the homeowners part but I would consider a man, carrying a gun, after dark, with no light, running towards my home, on my property a threat.
It appears to me that the bad guy opened fire first going by the homeowners actions.
I don't know that the homeowner was "recklessly shooting up the neighborhood" because I don't what was in his line of fire.
I missed the part about the homeowner claiming they were stealing his car, only heard him say he was concerned about protecting his wife.
Based on one edited newscast/video I'll withhold condemning the guy at this point.
 
Zerodefect said:
Guys with guns sneaking up my driveway, dont need to be shooting for me to guess their motives.

I expect that we'll see much more of this. And maybe castle doctrine needs tuned up a bit in some states.
Click to expand...

Many years ago during deer season two armed men came out of the woods just after dusk and walked up to my house. One of them had killed a deer on the adjoining property and they asked permission to bring it out across my property since that was the closest road access. I told them to drive their truck into my property and load up their buck. By your logic I should have shot them out of an abundance of caution.

Sorry, society just isn’t there yet.
 
Scrapiron45 said:
I don't know that the homeowner was "recklessly shooting up the neighborhood" because I don't what was in his line of fire.
Click to expand...
Doesn't mater. He was shooting from the hip without using the sights.
Scrapiron45 said:
I missed the part about the homeowner claiming they were stealing his car, only heard him say he was concerned about protecting his wife
Click to expand...
Going outside and leaving the door unlocked is a terrible way to do that.
 
AJC1 said:
That guy got lucky. I checked and he was covered by his states stand your ground law... I'm not trying to get in a shootout over a car because one stray bullet is everything you will ever have in a civil suite... if I'm fighting to protect my kids, all rules out the window.
Click to expand...

This can go the other way too. Catch one wrong, and all your troubles are over.
 
The single point of departure for me was going outside. It may not legally be true but my mind says the senerio changes to mutual combat. Call the cops, get armed, set off car alarm as a distraction, and draw attention, and further ascess.
 
twarr1 said:
It says a lot about the society we live in that a lot of people say he was morally correct but legally wrong.
Click to expand...
I cannot see any moral righteousness in his reckless and unthinking actions.
 
I don’t understand why we insist on giving the perp more benefit of the doubt than the homeowner.

Guy walking up my driveway with a rifle held respectfully because he’s just shot a deer that leapt across onto my property, and wants permission to retrieve, is a vastly different scenario than “shady looking guy with gun at the ready comes sneakily running up my driveway at night clearly looking for trouble.” And if the homeowner committed a felony by brandishing a firearm and going outside, how much more guilty is the perp who A) was trespassing, B) also brandishing a firearm, first, and C) demonstrated criminal intent by approaching property.

Natural law says the perp had no right to be there, was threatening deadly force, and homeowner ought to be well within his rights to investigate the trespasser, and if things escalate, to send this cretin to his maker. The fact that it might be considered wrong speaks volumes about our society.
 
Mosin77 said:
I don’t understand why we insist on giving the perp more benefit of the doubt than the homeowner.

Guy walking up my driveway with a rifle held respectfully because he’s just shot a deer that leapt across onto my property, and wants permission to retrieve, is a vastly different scenario than “shady looking guy with gun at the ready comes sneakily running up my driveway at night clearly looking for trouble.” And if the homeowner committed a felony by brandishing a firearm and going outside, how much more guilty is the perp who A) was trespassing, B) also brandishing a firearm, first, and C) demonstrated criminal intent by approaching property.

Natural law says the perp had no right to be there, was threatening deadly force, and homeowner ought to be well within his rights to investigate the trespasser, and if things escalate, to send this cretin to his maker. The fact that it might be considered wrong speaks volumes about our society.
Click to expand...

We do not discuss what’s moral and what’s right here. We discuss what the law allows. We don’t make the laws. What we discuss here is how to stay within the law period! Rants about what’s moral and what it says about our society contribute nothing to the discussion and are off topic.


This is the Strategies, Tactics and Training forum, it’s not the; “Our society is going to hell in hand basket because some guy should have been legally allowed to use deadly force in that situation” forum.
 
Mosin77 said:
I don’t understand why we insist on giving the perp more benefit of the doubt than the homeowner.

Guy walking up my driveway with a rifle held respectfully because he’s just shot a deer that leapt across onto my property, and wants permission to retrieve, is a vastly different scenario than “shady looking guy with gun at the ready comes sneakily running up my driveway at night clearly looking for trouble.” And if the homeowner committed a felony by brandishing a firearm and going outside, how much more guilty is the perp who A) was trespassing, B) also brandishing a firearm, first, and C) demonstrated criminal intent by approaching property.

Natural law says the perp had no right to be there, was threatening deadly force, and homeowner ought to be well within his rights to investigate the trespasser, and if things escalate, to send this cretin to his maker. The fact that it might be considered wrong speaks volumes about our society.
Click to expand...
It's a fear response because the jury is bound to be at least 50 percent of a political team that doesn't even believe you a. Have a right to self defense and b. The right to even own a gun.
 
Jeff White said:
We do not discuss what’s moral and what’s right here. We discuss what the law allows. We don’t make the laws. What we discuss here is how to stay within the law period! Rants about what’s moral and what it says about our society contribute nothing to the discussion and are off topic.


This is the Strategies, Tactics and Training forum, it’s not the; “Our society is going to hell in hand basket because some guy should have been legally allowed to use deadly force in that situation” forum.
Click to expand...

That’s fine, Jeff. I know every state’s laws are different but at least a couple to my recollection explicitly apply the castle doctrine to land and not just house. And a homeowner does have the right to carry a gun on his own property. So although I agree (and said as much) that I think the homeowner was tactically foolish, I think it’s an open question whether this was illegal or not, and in many jurisdictions it would probably not be considered as such -whether we attribute the lack of charges to “prosecutorial lenience” or because they know perfectly well there’s nothing to prosecute. The news clip has the tone of “good job guy” rather than “can you believe this crazy psycho actually used a gun last night?” which rather suggests that pressing charges is probably not in the cards. It might be a different tone in San Francisco or NYC (with more potential legal trouble for the homeowner.)
 
I think shoes and a shirt are great things to be wearing in a gunfight.

Putting the fight on pause, mid way through it, to go put them on? Not so much. But if you're going to do that, perhaps the act of calling the police might be squeezed into the costume change.
 
Mosin77 said:
whether we attribute the lack of charges to “prosecutorial lenience” or because they know perfectly well there’s nothing to prosecute.
Click to expand...

Prosecutorial lenience is a real thing. I have related a couple incidents from my LE career where that was the only thing that saved the homeowner from prison in other threads here. The thing is, you can’t make a decision to use deadly force counting on prosecutorial lenience.
 
Jeff White said:
We do not discuss what’s moral and what’s right here. We discuss what the law allows. We don’t make the laws. What we discuss here is how to stay within the law period! Rants about what’s moral and what it says about our society contribute nothing to the discussion and are off topic.


This is the Strategies, Tactics and Training forum, it’s not the; “Our society is going to hell in hand basket because some guy should have been legally allowed to use deadly force in that situation” forum.
Click to expand...


We, the people, actually do have a say in “making the laws”. We vote for “LEGISLATORS”. And people who think otherwise, and have become sheep, have delivered us into this situation.
 
skfullen said:
We, the people, actually do have a say in “making the laws”. We vote for “LEGISLATORS”. And people who think otherwise, and have become sheep, have delivered us into this situation.
Click to expand...
I meant, that we the moderators here in ST&T don’t make the laws. This thread is not long for this earth if we can’t stay on topic. Since when is a civics lesson on topic here?
 
Mosin77 said:
how much more guilty is the perp who A) was trespassing, B) also brandishing a firearm, first, and C) demonstrated criminal intent by approaching property.
Click to expand...
Assertions not supported in law or by evidence....
 
One great strategy is to nuke your ring camera if you do something stupid in front of it.

My cameras are aimed towards the street, and their field of view is limited forward. They'd catch this perp coming up my drive armed and clearly dangerous. But they wont catch what happens next.

The ring camera might though, which is why I'd bin it, before anyone noticed it existed.
 
Zerodefect said:
One great strategy is to nuke your ring camera if you do something stupid in front of it.

My cameras are aimed towards the street, and their field of view is limited forward. They'd catch this perp coming up my drive armed and clearly dangerous. But they wont catch what happens next.

The ring camera might though, which is why I'd bin it, before anyone noticed it existed.
Click to expand...

Are you really suggesting destroying evidence? Seems like that’s a felony just about everywhere.

You do know that the video from your ring camera is stored in Amazon’s cloud? Amazon has a habit of sharing that with the police without your knowledge. Seems to me you’re just digging the hole deeper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, and Related Concepts
Replies
0
Views
440
Kleanbore
K
J
  • Locked
Lake St Louis Learns about Castle Doctrine the hard way
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
DT Guy
DT Guy
K
  • Locked
Duty to Retreat, "Stand Your Ground", and Castle Doctrine
2 3
Replies
53
Views
13K
USNCPO
U
K
  • Locked
Success and Failure in Self Defense--Discussion
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Kleanbore
K
K
  • Locked
Success and Failure in Self Defense
Replies
0
Views
417
Kleanbore
K
Back
Top