Armed encounters and escalation of force?

[FL-NC]

I also will be explaining it to a jury at some point.

I think I would rather have a lawyer do that. One that I paid.

 

[Robert]

have seen a few homicides

In what capacity?

 

[Robert]

my expertise nor my knowledge of law

Are you a lawyer?

 

[Old Dog]

So verbalization during an encounter within the confines of your home in the middle of the night not knowing if you are addressing one or multiple assailants is the correct scenario that was done recently and the homeowner was met with a hail of gunfire. I wouldn't use gunsite as the know all be all agent concerning deadly force you would be better to speak to your SAO and review some shootings from your state as they are in a much better position legally to address the shootings than a for profit company like you have suggested. however its a free country and you can claim that as a defense me I have seen a few homicides and yes they are all homicides even after being cleared by the state that fact does not change. But for the ones who maligned me saying I was shooting through a door or at someone in my yard you do not know my expertise nor my knowledge of law and therein is your shortfall not mine.

Let's get right down to it. Your ability to read and understand context is apparently lacking. You're arguing points that I -- and others, in the other thread -- have not attempted to make. At this point, I'm probably not the only one reading your posts who has a concern about your inability to understand that one must first identify a subject -- anytime, anywhere, even in one's own residence -- as a potential (or immediate) threat and secondly, time and circumstances permitting, utilize other options other than immediately resorting to deadly force. Your presumed "expertise" is not at issue here -- it's some concerning statements you've made. As far as knowledge of law, a superficial knowledge of statute means nothing when not viewed in the context of real-world results.

What you have suggested, in the previous thread, is that anyone that is within the confines of your house uninvited will be summarily shot by you, with no attempt at identifying the individual(s),no attempt at any sort of verbal intervention (you say it's not necessary), and further, that this action by you is fully supported by statute, that you would be found justified in use of deadly force with no charges filed.

Some of us have disagreed. Don't take it personally. We all have different experiences.

 

[Blue Jays]

In the current national climate I simply do not answer my door for unexpected and unscheduled visitors.
Any sob story will have zero impact on my decision to keep my very strong and reinforced doors LOCKED.
If there is any reason to believe there might be a tiny sliver of truth I will call 9-1-1 for them to lend a hand.

 

[21H40]

So verbalization during an encounter within the confines of your home in the middle of the night not knowing if you are addressing one or multiple assailants is the correct scenario that was done recently and the homeowner was met with a hail of gunfire. I wouldn't use gunsite as the know all be all agent concerning deadly force you would be better to speak to your SAO and review some shootings from your state as they are in a much better position legally to address the shootings than a for profit company like you have suggested. however its a free country and you can claim that as a defense me I have seen a few homicides and yes they are all homicides even after being cleared by the state that fact does not change. But for the ones who maligned me saying I was shooting through a door or at someone in my yard you do not know my expertise nor my knowledge of law and therein is your shortfall not mine.

I'm having a difficult time understanding exactly what you're recommending here.
First, who is my SAO? What is an SAO?
Second, are you advocating shooting through your door without knowing who is on the other side?

I'm not a lawyer, but shooting at a target you haven't identified seems like a bad idea.

 

[GEM]

I understand not wanting to identify oneself but it one quotes expertise, it is polite to state it. Are you are lawyer, trainer, LEO, military - whatever?

As far as identifying unknowns - just watch the video of a dad. His daughter came home earlier than expected and decided to jump out and say: BOO! She left the front door ajar. Dad drives up and sees it and goes to 'clear'. BOO and then a 357 mag BANG. The daughter died in Dad's arms, saying: Dad, I love you.

Hell of an interview. I come home and see the door open, I call the law and wait. If it takes 20 minutes for them to arrive because you live in the boonies - well, that's ok. Unless one really knew you had to rescue someone (horror show), be cautious.

Another case, kids TP a house. Homeowner is annoyed and chases them off with a canoe paddle. A kid comes back to apologize, homeowner says (later that he felt they would invade). He testifies that he reached into the closet for something of wood and steel to scare them. My word, it was a shotgun and surprise when he lifted it, it just went bang through the door, decapitating the kid. Surprisingly, he got just some of misdemeanor manslaughter conviction.

 

[FL-NC]

Both are deadly force. For a trained practitioner, so is kick-boxing.

It is a good idea to carry pepper spray for occasions when deadly force is not appropriate.. I would not characterize the purpose as one of "escalation of force".

Pepper spray has been identified as causing permanent injuries and even fatalities in some instances.

 

[Jeff White]

Pepper spray has been identified as causing permanent injuries and even fatalities in some instances.

There isn't a less lethal force option that doesn't carry those risks. That's why they are appropriately classed as Less Lethal options and not non-lethal options. There was a spate of lawsuits against LE agencies when OC started being used in the wake of the Rodney King incident. There was a spate of lawsuits when Tasers came into widespread use.

Just like no force option works on everyone, there is someone out there who will be harmed or killed by a force option that doesn't have that effect on the majority of the population.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Weapons are primarily defined by the intent of the user and the weaknesses of the target.
Anything can be a weapon.
Almost anything can be fatal - even words.
Doubt me?
Yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater... .

 

[upptick]

... At this point, I'm probably not the only one reading your posts who has a concern about your inability to understand that one must first identify a subject -- anytime, anywhere, even in one's own residence -- as a potential (or immediate) threat and secondly, time and circumstances permitting, utilize other options other than immediately resorting to deadly force.....

I would argue that it's even MORE important to have absolute target identification if you're going to shoot inside your house, where you know loved ones are present.

 

[upptick]

RE: discovering an unknown person inside one's residence

Several years ago my brother got up around 5:00 a.m., which is his routine, and discovered a sleeping stranger on the couch in his living room. He armed himself with the nearest weapon -- a golf club -- and approached the man. The light was dim and he first wanted to know if he knew the person. He did not. My brother next opened the front door, then used the club to tap the guy on the foot to wake him. The guy woke up, looked at my brother, took a look around the house, and within a couple of seconds jumped up and bolted out the door. It turned out he was a neighbor's guest who had been out drinking and mistook my brother's house for his friend's. In other words, "shooting first and asking questions later" would've resulted in a terrible, terrible tragedy.

 

[starnbar]

Let's get right down to it. Your ability to read and understand context is apparently lacking. You're arguing points that I -- and others, in the other thread -- have not attempted to make. At this point, I'm probably not the only one reading your posts who has a concern about your inability to understand that one must first identify a subject -- anytime, anywhere, even in one's own residence -- as a potential (or immediate) threat and secondly, time and circumstances permitting, utilize other options other than immediately resorting to deadly force. Your presumed "expertise" is not at issue here -- it's some concerning statements you've made. As far as knowledge of law, a superficial knowledge of statute means nothing when not viewed in the context of real-world results.

What you have suggested, in the previous thread, is that anyone that is within the confines of your house uninvited will be summarily shot by you, with no attempt at identifying the individual(s),no attempt at any sort of verbal intervention (you say it's not necessary), and further, that this action by you is fully supported by statute, that you would be found justified in use of deadly force with no charges filed.

Some of us have disagreed. Don't take it personally. We all have different experiences.

I'm having a difficult time understanding exactly what you're recommending here.
First, who is my SAO? What is an SAO?
Second, are you advocating shooting through your door without knowing who is on the other side?

I'm not a lawyer, but shooting at a target you haven't identified seems like a bad idea.

The SAO is the State Attorneys Office, The second part of your question I WAS ACCUSED OF SAYING I WOULD SHOOT THROUGH A CLOSED DOOR THAT IS ALSO A LIE The third part was I was quoted as shooting randomly within the confines of my home. Let me address/ this in the middle of the night with me and my spouse in the bedroom and I hear a intruder in the dark in my house I AM NOT GONNA ASK WHO IS THERE? I HOPE YOU KNOW THE REASON FOR THAT. Have you had any military training if so when you are in country on patrol in the middle of the night do you give away your position by asking who is there? Or do you wait( SILENTLY) until you can identify? this is not like being at the front gate where you say (halt who goes there). There are many cases of a homeowner yelling out and the response with some of them has been GUNFIRE. There is one person on here who espoused his gunsite training (thousands of dollars) until I brought up the fact one of these so called (instructors) shot himself in the leg holstering a weapon and later on shot a kid with a airsoft rifle in a field in broad daylight that was removed within minutes of posting as of 2022 this guy was still an instructor at gunsite so pay your money and take your chances. As a post note I took it as a given that most on this site have had some training evidently the training they received or not probably depends upon whether they are unfortunate enough to encounter an armed intruder in their domicile or multiple armed persons once the element of surprise is gone and contact made it isn't a what if anymore. Hence my refusal to give away my position.

 

[The Night Rider]

I WAS ACCUSED OF SAYING I WOULD SHOOT THROUGH A CLOSED DOOR THAT IS ALSO A LIE

No one accused you of that.

The statement about shooting through a closed door was a reference to a recent case in which a homeowner did exactly that because a teenager knocked on his door and scared him.

If you believe that somebody stated that you said you would do that, show us the post.

This by the way, is the reason people are concerned about your reading comprehension skills.

Have you had any military training if so when you are in country on patrol in the middle of the night do you give away your position by asking who is there? Or do you wait( SILENTLY) until you can identify? this is not like being at the front gate where you say (halt who goes there).

Yes I do have military training and Challenge and Password is literally a task in the SMCT.

I was actually in the army when they changed the Challenge from "Who goes there?" to "Who is there?" And they would actually ding you if you said it wrong during your SQT.

Friendly Fire incidents are a thing

 

[starnbar]

Nothing wrong with my reading but I tire of innuendos and just to end the conversation if I may anyone who believes that an unwanted/unknown person in your home in the middle of the night in the dark is from the welcome wagon you may be in for a real shock. The real truth is criminals real criminals don't give a damn if you are armed and they don't give a damn if you are calling the police they will hurt you in a heartbeat you can take that advice anyway you want to to include saying I don't know what I am talking about so be it I did not live to be over 70 years of age by being stupid Have you planned out any levels of interaction other than shooting someone? The Army called it "escalation of force" though I've heard it referred to as a "continuum of force." I am sure there is a new phrase to describe the steps between "hello" and bang. This was one of the comments

 

[Old Dog]

There is one person on here who espoused his gunsite training (thousands of dollars)

No innuendos slung towards you.

And I was the only person in this thread who brought up training at Gunsite.

Here is what I said.

"Verbal judo" or "tactical verbal skills," along with training on recognizing attack indicators and confronting EDPs should be high on the list of any citizen gun-carrier after initial basic firearms safety training and before spending thousands on a week at Gunsite.

anyone who believes that an unwanted/unknown person in your home in the middle of the night in the dark is from the welcome wagon you may be in for a real shock. The real truth is criminals real criminals don't give a damn if you are armed and they don't give a damn if you are calling the police they will hurt you in a heartbeat you can take that advice anyway you want to to include saying I don't know what I am talking about so be it I did not live to be over 70 years of age by being stupid

Thank you for the tips. No one has implied you are stupid.

What we haven't accepted is your seeming insistence that you will automatically go to deadly force options if someone is inside your home, uninvited. While in your state, you may be within your legal rights to do so, as others have pointed out, yet you seem unwilling to accept that there still may be the possibility of criminal and/or civil action toward you afterward, depending on the circumstances. We've also advocated that there may be a situation or time to issue some type of verbal directives or warnings, and that it may be prudent to do and that it may not result in a good outcome for you if you have the opportunity for a different response and you fail to avail yourself of that opportunity. That's all a number of us have been saying yet you're arguing stuff that we haven't been saying.

 

[dweis]

Finding a proper expression for the stages of a potential or actual forceful encounter seems to face too many variable scenarios to be easily described as a course of action. In a civilian setting we who are prepared to defend ourselves with necessary force face a challenge of recognition which can lead to escalation or deescalation. The environment we are in at any given time could present a threat. That makes me evaluate and only escalate as a last resort. Consider see a person near you. It that person a possible threat, a probable threat, a definite threat or no threat. One could deem a person to be a probable threat then realize there is no threat. At that point we are deescalation. The opposite would be escalation. Perceiving degree of any threat is a matter of instinct and judgement on which the response rests. Most important is to be aware and disciplined so that your instincts and judgement are sharp. Fear drives instincts and awareness drives judgement. The challenge is dealing with both forces at the same time. If you can do that your action within the continuum of force will be a safeguard against too much or too little force. Yet a safeguard is not a guarantee.

 

[fastbolt]

Man, what happened to common sense and a civilized desire to avoid the use of force unless circumstances left us no alternative?

It seems that too many folks nowadays don't have enough life experience or knowledge of society's laws to understand when the use of force is reasonable, as well as the difference between bare fear and reasonable fear, and only using sufficient force to protect oneself (or an innocent third person, depending). Then, there's the folks who seem eager to 'prove themselves', or who seem all too willing to take umbrage at the slightest provocation. Well, people are always going to be people, I suppose, and not everyone seems interested in considering the potential consequences of their decisions and actions.

Another possible vulnerability for folks is mistakenly thinking that they 'instinctively' know what's right regarding the use-of-force in self defense, reactionary language, etc. If you want to know how the laws work, it usually requires learning them and how they work. It's not like they're common sense, and some folks might be sadly surprised to discover that their 'gut reaction' to some situation may not come close to meeting the legal standard of a 'reasonable person' in the cold light of day.

 

[starnbar]

As I stated before a unwelcomed person in the dark in my house in the middle of the night has already committed a forcible felony and as explained I will not give up my position of cover until I can identify this person this means I am not going to vocalize to do so cost you any element of surprise. As far as legal consequences hell you can get sued for walking past somebody's house twice within 30 minutes litigious suits have become more common than not. What I have stated and what I will say is I am the owner of my house I will not be intimidated, threatened, put in fear of my life, or set upon by person, or persons unknown to me within the confines of my home I will use the force necessary to defend myself and family against such encroachments set upon me by uninvited person/persons with questionable intent. Will I be sued you better believe it even if the Pope on Vatican stationary writes me a note I will be sued

 

[The Night Rider]

First I've got to say, Punctuation and paragraphs is a thing Bro, It's almost impossible to read your WALLOFTEXT posting style.

Having said that,

Anyone who believes that an unwanted/unknown person in your home in the middle of the night in the dark is from the welcome wagon you may be in for a real shock.

Anyone who opens up on an unknown person in their home at (really any time) in the middle of the night may also be in for a real shock when they realize they just shot their spouse returning to bed or their kid coming in late (or if the kid doesn't live at home possibly coming home for an unannounced visit). Or maybe your neighbor's drunk kid.

There was a homeowner in Boulder several years ago who woke up in the middle of the night and found someone in his bedroom and shot them.

Then found out it was a drunk college girl who walked right through his unlocked front door because she thought it was the house she was staying at (his neighbor).

No, he wasn't charged, Yes the DA decided he was 100% justified but he still killed a kid he didn't have to kill and unless he is completely without a conscious he's going to carry that for the rest of his life.

Google "Accidentally shoots his child he thought was an intruder" and see how many hits you get

The real truth is criminals real criminals don't give a damn if you are armed and they don't give a damn if you are calling the police they will hurt you in a heartbeat

I am 100% in agreement here but you're not issuing a challenge to scare off the "real" criminals.

You're issuing a challenge to make sure you don't kill your Spouse, Child, Drunk Neighbor kid or some Crackhead petty burglar who hears you say that and leaves before you have to kill them.

I am not going to vocalize to do so cost you any element of surprise. As

What "element of surprise" ? It's not like they don't know you're in the house.

 

[Kleanbore]

Consider see a person near you. It that person a possible threat, a probable threat, a definite threat or no threat. One could deem a person to be a probable threat then realize there is no threat. At that point we are deescalation

That's really not what we mean by deescalation.

Deescalation involves the use of words or gestures to reduce stress levels and to cause a person exhibiting signs of aggression to cool it. If there is no such situation, there is nothing to deescalate.

The opposite would be escalation.

A several members have said, the civilian has little business "escalating" force; that's for the sworn officer on duty, acing to effect compliance. The civilian acting lawfully will employ reasonable force--and no more--for justified defense.

 

[starnbar]

First I've got to say, Punctuation and paragraphs is a thing Bro, It's almost impossible to read your WALLOFTEXT posting style.

Having said that,


Anyone who opens up on an unknown person in their home at (really any time) in the middle of the night may also be in for a real shock when they realize they just shot their spouse returning to bed or their kid coming in late (or if the kid doesn't live at home possibly coming home for an unannounced visit). Or maybe your neighbor's drunk kid.

There was a homeowner in Boulder several years ago who woke up in the middle of the night and found someone in his bedroom and shot them.

Then found out it was a drunk college girl who walked right through his unlocked front door because she thought it was the house she was staying at (his neighbor).

No, he wasn't charged, Yes the DA decided he was 100% justified but he still killed a kid he didn't have to kill and unless he is completely without a conscious he's going to carry that for the rest of his life.

Google "Accidentally shoots his child he thought was an intruder" and see how many hits you get



I am 100% in agreement here but you're not issuing a challenge to scare off the "real" criminals.

You're issuing a challenge to make sure you don't kill your Spouse, Child, Drunk Neighbor kid or some Crackhead petty burglar who hears you say that and leaves before you have to kill them.



What "element of surprise" ? It's not like they don't know you're in the house.

element of surprise
Yeah but am I still in the bedroom or have I moved around I am a light sleeper what room is the right one? I have seen some really stupid criminals as a side note most are not ROCKET SCIENTISTS. I have watched some commit a felony on the street at one end while we are at the opposite end of the street in a marked unit looking right at them.

 

[Kleanbore]

As I stated before a unwelcomed person in the dark in my house in the middle of the night has already committed a forcible felony and as explained I will not give up my position of cover....

That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Let's stay on topic.

 

[Old Dog]

I will use the force necessary to defend myself and family against such encroachments set upon me by uninvited person/persons with questionable intent.

Deadly force is not always necessary, nor reasonable, within the context of law.

 

[Blue Jays]

Reading countless posts on THR about "random unknown people entering unsecured homes" leads me to believe many people must seriously resolve to examine window and door locks each night prior to sleep!