Broke my own rule..

[Trent]

Warden - that's a good point.

There's no streetlights out here. No glow from city lights, either. If it's cloudy, or no moon, and I hit the kill switch on the motion activated flood lights, you often can't see your hand in front of your face.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Trent: I like to observe wildlife at night, on well-lit full(ish) moons. Watching coyote, fox, and other critters hunt at night is fascinating. (Especially with snow cover, when they're more easy to see and track)

Great. I wish I had the opportunity.

I guess the line a fellow has to draw is how much of my "living" does one want to sacrifice for safety?

None. But we were not talking about looking at night critters. We were talking about investigating an unidentified noise in the trailer.

I feel more secure when I am armed, than when I am not, but no less alert. Being armed doesn't give one a reason to lower the alertness factor.

No argument there.

Empty handed, she's an easy target.

And so is a heavyweight wrestler with a Benelli shotgun.

You went looking for the source of a noise. Turned out to be benign.

Might not have been.

 

[Trent]

Hmm. I can't refute that logic.

Back to my original point - "I broke my own rule" by investigating a disturbance outside after dark. I was pretty sure I'd stuck my neck out too far, and now I'm quite convinced I did, indeed, do that very thing.

But, I learned a few things here. Rather learn some lessons the easy way, typing and reading, than the hard way, bleeding and dying.

I'm still pretty confident in my abilities, BUT.

If a guy had been in the woods, I'd be toast the moment that flood light unexpectedly lit me up. Or maybe earlier, the moment I stepped out the door and the interior lights of the house silouhetted me.

 

[Trent]

PS anyone have a link to the incident in Texas?

Now I'm curious.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Trent: PS anyone have a link to the incident in Texas?

Now I'm curious.

If you are referring to the arline mechanic, the link on a Dallas TV station website was taken down some time ago. Here is an excerpt from the report:

Doctors had to amputate the arm of a Watauga, Texas homeowner Wednesday morning after he was injured in a fight with a crook. The man interrupted a robbery attempt in front of his house and ended up getting stabbed and then shot with his own gun, reports CBS station KTVT-TV in Dallas.
...
According to reports, the homeowner heard some noise near his portable trailer parked outside his house in the 6000 block of Sundown Drive and went outside. His wife called 911 and woke a friend who had stayed the night at the house.

The robber, who was armed with a knife, struggled with the homeowner and his guest in the driveway. During the scuffle the homeowner dropped his gun and as the men clamored for the weapon, it went off and hit the homeowner in the arm. The house guest was also stabbed during the altercation.

Officials later said doctors amputated the man's arm because his injuries were so severe. The injury is a detrimental loss for the victim, who works as a mechanic for American Airlines and was also a part-time contractor.

This incident was discussed at some length here and on The Firing Line after it happened several years ago.

There were other reports of the same incident. I do recall that the defender had a shotgun. I also seem to recall unconfirmed speculation about a second attacker who was not apprehended.

 

[Trent]

Damn, 2 on one odds, with superior firepower on their side, and they lost.

Jeez. That's an eye opener.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Trent: If a guy had been in the woods, I'd be toast the moment that flood light unexpectedly lit me up. Or maybe earlier, the moment I stepped out the door and the interior lights of the house silouhetted me.

That, I think, is probably the most significant risk.

Another that has been discussed here at length may not apply in your situation, but it is worth keeping in mind. It is the risk of being shot by a first responder in pursuit, or by an unwise armed citizen following someone from his place.

 

[conw]

Headlamp while clearing a structure - NO! That's Darwin award material.

It's not like someone would necessarily just shoot at the light, and it's not like all they can see is the light.


I don't really think you necessarily have to stay inside but it's a good idea for sure to not go into the trailer over nothing but property. If you can get as much distance as possible while carefully maintaining a view of the trailer you should be able to get enough information to decide whether to call the police.

 

[beatledog7]

There is an additional aspect here that I didn't see pointed out (forgive me if I missed it).

Rhetorically, Trent's wife (but it could have been anyone's wife) reported the unknown noise in the trailer, and because he's a man and feels protective, he decided to investigate. If she's like most women with whom I've been romantically aligned, she didn't tell him about the noise and come flying back inside to have him douse the lights and hunker down behind the bed.

Do men feel a need to protect/appease/impress those we love that makes us do things we otherwise probably would not? If our subject had been out with the dog and heard the noise himself, would he have made a different decision?

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Install Motion dector Lights at your house and train the wife to cover your back. Send the Dog out to see what it is . An Irish Wolfhound is plenty big enough to take care of it's self.

Alls well that ends well.

 

[Fred Fuller]

There might be a bad guy. If there's a bad guy, I shouldn't go! There might NOT be a bad guy. If there is NOT a bad guy, I really don't need to go.

The choice is between a very bad decision and an unnecessary action.

Very neat summary.

 

[Skribs]

If there is NOT a bad guy, I really don't need to go.

Like I said, it's more for peace-of-mind than anything else. For me, it boils down to how likely do I think it's a BG vs. an innocent "bump", and using the tools at my disposal to figure it out.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: it's more for peace-of-mind than anything else.

If there is nothing dangerous, I suppose one might gain some "peace-of-mind". But if there is, one (and/or one's survivors) will rue the day.

For me, it boils down to how likely do I think it's a BG vs. an innocent "bump", and using the tools at my disposal to figure it out.

Yep.

It's risk management at its simplest.

And when one takes into account the likely outcome should, one go forth and encounter one, or perhaps more than one, violent criminal actor, the decision should be very obvious indeed.

The potential consequences are serious injury or death; the conditional probablity is that if they are there, the person who goes forth to meet them is most likely to lose.

So, the obvious prudent decision is to not go forth unless or until one has reason to assess as remote the likelihood that the source of the noise was anything more than innocent.

 

[Skribs]

If there is nothing dangerous, I suppose one might gain some "peace-of-mind". But if there is, one (and/or one's survivors) will rue the day.

Better when I'm armed and alert than if I were to think "eh, probably nothing" and just go back to the couch/bed/computer chair.

An

d when one takes into account the likely outcome should, one go forth and encounter one, or perhaps more than one, violent criminal actor, the decision should be very obvious indeed.

The potential consequences are serious injury or death; the conditional probablity is that if they are there, the person who goes forth to meet them is most likely to lose.

I'm going to agree with you on the conditional probability, but that isn't the only aspect of risk management.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: I'm going to agree with you on the conditional probability, but that isn't the only aspect of risk management.

No, and the other aspect is the potential consequence. And that's a really big thing here.

So, if the likelihood that the threat is more than benign is greater than remote (or, some would hold, less than remote), it would be foolhardy to wade in unless there were another significant risk to be mitigated.

 

[Skribs]

What I meant was, you're looking at the conditional probability of success under the condition a BG is present. The other aspect, which you hinted at in your post, is the probability of there being a threat vs. something benign. Depending on the situation, one can tell whether to:
A) Check it out just to verify there's nothing there (while being cautious and alert)
B) Pause, listen, and assess the situation as to whether to revert to A or C, or
C) Fall back and call 911.

Obviously, if there is something worth moving forward for (i.e. get to your kids) then the priority changes.

 

[kingcheese]

Had it been me i would most likly tried tfigure out what was going on before i left my house, if it was a person i would have lite up the yard, be it a outside light, a flash light, or a road flare, get my shotgun ready and hope the guy just left, by running away, or whatever, if i did end up by the trailer i would have locked the door and left it till i had help and some daylight to work with

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: The other aspect, which you hinted at in your post, is the probability of there being a threat vs. something benign.

Yes, again.

Depending on the situation, one can tell whether to:
A) Check it out just to verify there's nothing there (while being cautious and alert)

If there is still a sufficient indication that there may be a threat to cause one to want to check it out, that would be a very dangerous strategy. Just plain foolish. If there is a threat, one does not want to find out the hard way that there is; one will most likely lose. Goes back to the conditional probability.

I do not need to verify that there isn't a threat by putting myself at risk.

I need only to stay out of harms way, and I can do that by staying in a safe place unless and until it is very likely that I will not get hurt.

One can usually solve that problem by waiting.

Now, once I am highly confident that I will not walk into an ambush, I might want to see whether anything is amiss. Or not.

It would not be worth the effort to find out hat a couple of rakes had fallen over. On the other hand, it a section of siding has come off and exposed livestock in an incubator to danger, one would want to fix that.

Goes back to this:

There might be a bad guy. If there's a bad guy, I shouldn't go! There might NOT be a bad guy. If there is NOT a bad guy, I really don't need to go.

The choice is between a very bad decision and an unnecessary action.

 

[MtnCreek]

IMO, a few good dogs do a lot to address the problem. They’ll either keep the critter or person on the other side of the fence or they’ll engage the critter or person that has crossed the fence. If they continue to bark and are in the back yard, I’ll arm myself with a weapon suitable for a coyote and investigate. Some potential risk, but whatever they’re barking at is beyond their reach, so it’s probably a critter in the pasture. If they hush, I’ll give it a few minutes and then open the garage door (from inside the house). They’ll (at least one) will come in the garage with that look of pride because they’ve just dismantled a critter in the yard. If they ever fail to come in the garage, I’ll assume something got the better of them; around here that would have to be a person or persons.

Edit:

Look in to the woods, see four or five sets of eyes reflecting back at you. Can't tell if they're bad guys or deer until you hear them snort and run.

A person's eyes do not light up.

 

[fireflyfather]

I have had GREAT luck with the use of my lights when I was LEO,seesm perps have a belief that only cops use BRIGHT lights.

Broke up a knife fight involving my (innocent) neighbor a few months ago with nothing more than 100 lumen flashlight and a shouted "Police..."(now a normal voice) "are on their way"