Attacker gives up?

[zollen]

zollen, i guess we will just have to agree to disagre

i dont believe that your kinda practice will help me, and you believe it will

the time i use to practice goes into tracking targets, breathing, trigger control, and rapid reloading, i dont get my guns out unless i am going to shoot it

might be the reason that i dont htink practice like your saying will help is because my house is small and very open, there is in fact, no place to hide

May I recommend using your household object (with similar length as your rifle) as your training tool, then you would not have to take out your firearm running around in your house.

I fear your range training would not improve your home defense at all. You seems to focus on long range tactical shooting and military style drills, but your home is small and very open (as your mentioned before), you need to practice quick target acquisition in CQB and learn to take advantage of your home environment. These are the only way to improve your home defense.

Are you serious about using your firearms for home defense?

 

[Deanimator]

Actually, there are several problems:

1. While you are doing so, you are vulnerable to ambush;
2. there is some risk of a negligent discharge; and
3. the perp may well be aware that you cannot use the gun to hold him, which makes the idea reater pointless.

4. The cops may decide that YOU are the criminal and shoot you in the back multiple times without warning. This happened in New Mexico or Arizona in the last couple of years.

 

[Averageman]

I have fought someone to submission before.
You roll around gouging and choking and punching and bleeding and then they give-up, tap out or submit or they end up passing out in a choke hold.
Now if it was all for training or some sort of male ego thing thats a whole different ballgame; but if it is the real deal and this guy just had his thumb in your eye a minute ago with the intent of killing you it is the real deal.
With that much emotion and stress,....
Well I take my hat off to some of you who have such great restraint and planning for such an event.
I just dont often see a fight to the death going quite that easy.

 

[kingcheese]

I have fought someone to submission before.
You roll around gouging and choking and punching and bleeding and then they give-up, tap out or submit or they end up passing out in a choke hold.
Now if it was all for training or some sort of male ego thing thats a whole different ballgame; but if it is the real deal and this guy just had his thumb in your eye a minute ago with the intent of killing you it is the real deal.
With that much emotion and stress,....
Wellto submission before.
I take my hat off to some of you who have such great restraint and planning for such an event.
I just dont often see a fight to the death going quite that easy.

i wasnt planning on rolling around, i did mention a sid eby side somewhere

zollen, if i get wheat your saying your talking mostly about muscle memory?

if so i could see that working, thats what i was getting at with my range training though, faster reload and quicker aim

 

[matt_borror]

if someone breaks into my house i don't think I owe them the benefit of the doubt. if they give up IMMEDIATELY they can chill at gunpoint until the cop comes. you make it sound like when someone breaks into your house the have good intentions.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by matt_borror: if they give up IMMEDIATELY they can chill at gunpoint until the cop comes.

Or until you are shot by an accomplice, or until they choose to leave.*

*Unless, of course, you are interested in being charged with murder or attempted murder.

 

[GEM]

Just for grins, in a FOF class - the bad guy was righteously held at gun point in the living room and then he decided to urinate on your couch.

Now that was a problem to solve. At the NTI, we also had a guy decide to urinate into your gas tank. Yes, you had a gun but so what.

 

[M-Cameron]

Or until you are shot by an accomplice, or until they choose to leave.*

*Unless, of course, you are interested in being charged with murder or attempted murder.

playing the "or" / "what if" card is dangerous........because is every situation, you can think of 1000 reasons not to do something because something else might happen......

or they can go and get his buddies and come back at a more convenient time....

or they can go and break into someone else's home........

or they can go and get drunk and run into a bus filled with nuns, children and cripples....

or he can hold him at gun point until the police arrive and make their lives a lot easier by not having to spend their night looking for some guy........if he really wants to make a run for it, hes going to......but if hes stupid enough to stick around( and criminals arent always the smartest bunch).....i mean honestly though....there arent many people who will second guess a guy holding them at gunpoint.

 

[bdickens409]

WOW, when I first started reading this I thought how simple this would be to answer. It’s simple to me, just do the right thing. If you are unwelcome and in my home you should be under my control and if you do not comply with my every wish you will end up with large sopping holes until you comply. If the lawyers get involved it just what happens sometimes when you do the right thing but it should not stop you from doing what is right.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by M-Cameron: playing the "or" / "what if" card is dangerous......

All risk management involves "playing the 'or' / 'what if' card".

Step one in risk management is to identify each risk.

Step two is to analyze each risk, in terms of the likelihood of occurrence and of the potential consequences, should the risk materialize.

Step three is to identify and analyze potential mitigation avenues.

Step four is to decide among the alternatives--to decide whether to accept the risk without mitigation, or to choose upon one of the mitigation approaches.

Most of the risks have been identified in this thread. Let's focus on one of them--the risk of being ambushed by an accomplice.

If one's house has in fact been unlawfully invaded, the likelihood that more than one person involved is probably much greater than remote--perhaps likely. Why? Several reasons come to mind; among these are safety in numbers and the desirability to have more than one person to handle the taking of property and getting out very quickly.

The potential consequences of being ambushed by a second person while one' attention is focussed on the first is obviously very severe indeed.

Taking the likelihood and potential consequences of that single risk in combination identifies the course of holding an intruder as a very high risk strategy. And that's before looking at any of the other risks.

For that reason, I would not choose to try to detain an invader by myself.

So far we have focussed on the downside, which is really the essence of risk management. Just for kicks, let's consider the upside: suppose that the stars and moon do happen to line up just right and you do successfully hold the perp without getting injured. What have you gained if he is released on bond the next day?

 

[Kleanbore]

bdickens409: It’s simple to me, just do the right thing.

Centuries--many centuries, in fact--of legal thought have gone into the discussion of what constitutes doing the "right thing", in many areas of human conduct.

If you are unwelcome and in my home you should be under my control and if you do not comply with my every wish you will end up with large sopping holes until you comply.

According to the learned judges who have given us the common law over time (and to the Code of Hammurabi and Roman Law before that); to our elected legislators; and to higher courts throughout this and most other lands, that concept is not one of the "right things".

You may defend yourself and family and you may use deadly force if it is immediately necessary to prevent certain forcible felonies, but you may neither enforce the law nor decide upon and exact punishment. Those things are left to others in civilized societies.

If the lawyers get involved it just what happens sometimes when you do the right thing but it should not stop you from doing what is right.

"If lawyers get involved"? Understand that arriving policemen, detectives, the state's prosecuting attorneys, judges, and jurors will "get involved" and, working in concert according to due process, decide whether you did "the right thing."

If you have seriously injured someone because he did not comply with your every wish, the answer will be a resounding no.

One needs to understand what is lawful and what is not, and abide by it.

 

[matt_borror]

I love all these what iffers..........you are the people who will freeze up whenever some asshat does invade your house. i'm tired of trying to play to everyones political correctness. if you break into my house i'm more than likely going to blow your ass away. sure there are a few instances where this would not be smart, but when you invade my house its not my job or place to decide whether or not you are a misguided soul and will never do it again. thats a job for the judge. I have common sense and will use it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I love all these what iffers..........you are the people who will freeze up whenever some asshat does invade your house...

Highly doubtful -- considering that some of those whose comments you're criticizing have considerable training.

....i'm tired of trying to play to everyones political correctness. if you break into my house i'm more than likely going to blow your ass away. sure there are a few instances where this would not be smart, but when you invade my house its not my job or place to decide whether or not you are a misguided soul and will never do it again....

Where do you get that business about political correctness? And this is not about whether or not your antagonist is a misguided soul. That is completely irrelevant.

It's about whether you can articulate the reasons your use of lethal force under the circumstances was legally justified. If you can't, you might wind up spending a few years picking up the soap in the shower for guys with no necks.

Do you have any idea what the self defense laws are in your State of Maryland? If not, you might want to consider getting yourself educated.

....I have common sense and will use it.

Really? You don't seem to have enough common sense to forebear from making "bloodthirsty" declarations to strangers in a public place.

 

[bdickens409]

Kleanbore
I understand what you are saying but IMHO that is what is wrong with this country. If I do the right thing will it come back on me? The way I see it, I am going to do what I think is right and if I am required to pay a price for that well so be it.
With all that said what is the right thing for me may not be the right thing you or the next guy. Thats what makes THR such a nice place to come and talk to others.

 

[matt_borror]

I didn't criticize anyone else's comments either. i simply stated how i would react.whether you think my comments were directed at you is your business and if you think i'm not justified at shooting someone when they break into my house I challenge you to find the law stating so. I'm not bloodthirsty and far from it. I'm saying in these situations common sense goes a long ways. The way the laws are written and the way lawyers work leave lots of gray areas in the law which are open to interpretation. I'm simply stating I'm not going to be one of those people debating that when someone breaks into my house and poses a threat to myself and family. I fully understand your point of view and appreciate it, but I've thought about it enough to know what to do. No one can fully plan out what they would do or would not do until they're in that situation and the variables are flying at you. Preparation is a great thing and its foolish to not be prepared.

 

[mljdeckard]

Just because you can get away with killing someone doesn't make it ethical or moral. The goal here is not to get to shoot someone. The goal here is to NOT GET SHOT.

 

[matt_borror]

Totally agreed...I don't want to shoot anybody, but when is shooting someone MORALLY correct?? It's hard enough to define a legal definition, nearly impossible for a standard for morally shooting someone. Just depends on the situation and who's in it.

 

[mljdeckard]

When it is better than letting them kill you.

Utah's law allows deadly force in your home under narrow circumstances that don't include your life being in danger. If someone enters your home either by violence or by stealth, with the intent to commit a felony, you are allowed to use deadly force. This is to extend a higher level of protection in your home, as you have a higher expectation of safety and security, and more at risk in your household than out on the street. This doesn't mean it is ethical or moral to shoot every person you catch burgling you. I'm not killing someone over my flat panel. If he drops it and runs, I let him go. If he drops it and CHARGES ME, THEN the deadly force light comes on.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...if you think i'm not justified at shooting someone when they break into my house I challenge you to find the law stating so...

Well you might want to start by looking at some standard Maryland jury instructions on the self defense as quoted in this Wikipedia article (emphasis added):

...Self-defense (MPJI-Cr 5:07)

Self-defense is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:

1) The defendant actually believed that <he> <she> was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend <himself> <herself> in light of the threatened or actual harm.

<Deadly-force is that amount of force reasonably calculated to cause death or serious bodily harm. If the defendant is found to have used deadly-force, it must be decided whether the use of deadly-force was reasonable. Deadly-force is reasonable if the defendant actually had a reasonable belief that the aggressor's force was or would be deadly and that the defendant needed a deadly-force response.>

<In addition, before using deadly-force, the defendant is required to make all reasonable effort to retreat. The defendant does not have to retreat if the defendant was in <his> <her> home, retreat was unsafe, the avenue of retreat was unknown to the defendant, the defendant was being robbed, the defendant was lawfully arresting the victim. If the defendant was found to have not used deadly-force, then the defendant had no duty to retreat.>

Defense of Others (MPJI-Cr 5:01)

Defense of others is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following four factors are present:

1) The defendant actually believed that the person defended was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend the person defended in light of the threatened or actual force.
4) The defendant's purpose in using force was to aid the person defended.

Defense of Habitation - Deadly Force (MPJI-Cr 5:02)

Defense of one's home is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:

1) The defendant actually believed that (victim) was committing <was just about to commit> the crime of (crime) in <at> the defendant's home.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the conduct of (victim)....

Note several interesting themes:

• The defendant (the person claiming self defense) must reasonably belief that he, or another, is in immediate peril of either an attack or being the victim of a crime committed in his home. It's not sufficient that the defendant believed that; the belief must be reasonable.
• The amount of force used in defense must be reasonable considering the nature of the threat.
• Lethal force would be reasonable only if the defender reasonably believed that the threat was potentially lethal.
• What may constitute a reasonable belief may well be clarified in Maryland case law.

Your statements in posts 99 and 112

...If they're in my house I'm going to shoot after I have a positive ID...

...if you break into my house i'm more than likely going to blow your ass away....

seem to indicate a predisposition to deploy lethal force without regard to the nature or level of the threat. And that would sure seem to be inconsistent with Maryland law regarding the standards for justifying the use of lethal force.

One reason many of us emphasize the importance of training and practice is that in the event of a confrontation one ideally should be sufficiently proficient with his defensive tools to perform the mechanical functions on demand and reflexively. One's attention needs to be on assessing the situation and quickly deciding the proper act. If one concludes that he needs to fire his gun, this would be the wrong time to have be thinking about how to make the gun work. Think about what's happening and what to do -- not how to shoot and hit your target if that's the correct response.

You will have only an instant to decide what to do. On the other hand, the police, DA and grand jury will be able to take their sweet time second guessing your actions. Consider the cases of --

Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona thought he was justified. He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.

Mark Abshire in Oklahoma thought he was justified. Nonetheless, despite this happening on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal grinder before finally being acquitted.

Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona, thought he was justified. But he was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.

Three men familiar with the rules of the use of lethal force in self defense and in gun friendly States thought they were justified in using lethal force in self defense. And in fact each was ultimately vindicated. Nonetheless, each went through a long, arduous and very expensive ordeal before he was vindicated.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by fiddletown: Your (matt_borror's) statements in posts 99 and 112

Originally Posted by matt_borror, post 99
...If they're in my house I'm going to shoot after I have a positive ID...
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt_borror, post 112
...if you break into my house i'm more than likely going to blow your ass away....​

seem to indicate a predisposition to deploy lethal force without regard to the nature or level of the threat.

Yep. Any indication of such a possible predisposition could prove extremely harmful as indications of state of mind in the event of a shooting. Posts to that efffect are permanent and discoverable.

From the S T & T rules:

Everyone who posts here or anywhere else on the Internet should understand that such posts are permanent, and they may be subject to discovery in legal proceedings at any time in the future. Should any member ever find himself or herself involved in such proceedings, posts containing comments that could be interpreted unfavorably could prove damaging.​

Let's all remember that.

 

[Fred Fuller]

I think we've about covered the territory on this topic, and it's probably a good time to draw the veil on it before anyone (else) bruises their sternum.

lpl