consequences of not being sure of your target...

Status
Not open for further replies.
If expert advice and simple contemplation of the potential consequences doesn't help convince you, a couple of sessions of FoF training will.

Been there done that, but even you have to agree sometimes the options out-way the risks.

If you are in a safe place, what will happen will not be all that serious.

If, on the other hand, you go out to be ambushed, you may wait 25 minutes for help.

And if by chance the responding offers happen to be close when you call, do you really want to be outside with a gun, looking very much like what they are looking for, when they arrive?

You are preaching to the choir here. Just because we here might have a safe place does not mean EVERY loved one we have will.

And yah..personally I'd rather be killed by a cop than my sister be killed by her ex. You?


I have cleared my house and lived to tell about it, but I am wiser now.

And in the case I mentioned , the alternative was what? Let an untrained ,unarmed, unprepared loved one deal with the situation alone? Till "professionals" arrived in a half an hour?
 
there is not that much known about the kid he was adopted a couple years ago. be interesting to know more. i had a foster kid who was a great kid, really squared away. he lived with me from 15 - 18. when he was 12 he killed his biological father. you'd never have thought he was capable.
 
The Japanese student was drunk and did not respond to commands to stop (may not have understood them), broke THROUGH the front door met fatal consequences.
 
Sorry guys. I just can't wrap my head around hunker down and wait for the police.

The point is to avoid confrontation if at all possible. If the police arrive before the potential bad guy(s) actually try to do any harm, then great. If not, then the bad guy(s) will be facing hostile fire from you when they break into the house.

Going outside to confront them is more dangerous from both tactical and legal perspectives. Tactically, they may be hiding and waiting for somebody to come out, which would put you at a huge disadvantage, for one thing. You may prevail anyway, but then legally you'd have to justify your actions, which can sometimes be more difficult than expected, whereas shooting a home invader in most states automatically gives you the legal presumption that your life was in immediate jeopardy.

Maybe you have better response times than I do. A lot can happen in the 25 minutes they take here.

That's why you should be armed and ready to face the bad guy(s) if you're forced to, but I still think that you should not unnecessarily escalate (potentially) the situation yourself.

I HAVE responded to a call from MY sister needing help. Her ex was outside causing all sorts of grief. She called 911 then me. I was there in 5 minutes, the cops in 30 minutes.

If you know the situation and all of the people involved, then it's up to your own judgment whether to show up and possibly make things better or worse. One of the main points here is to think twice before acting in case matters could be made worse by an action (or inaction), rather than simply choosing to act when you didn't necessarily have to and assuming that this is always the right or best thing to do.

In your example, your sister's ex was outside while she was presumably inside, which should give you a reason to question whether coming over right away would be a good idea. I'm not saying that you should or shouldn't, but that you should think about it first. How well do you know him? Would your coming over help calm him down, or would it likely enrage him further? The same principle applies to calling the police, for that matter, although I think most here would agree that police officers showing up usually has a sobering effect on people looking for or causing trouble.

In all honesty, in most such situations I'd be strongly inclined myself to come over right away, just so that I'd be nearby in case the situation escalates to deadly force, although I'd be very careful in approaching him (obviously trying to keep the level of violence down to friendly conversation if possible). In situations like the one in question in this thread, however, it is usually best to take a defensive stance, even to the point of not leaving your own home since you're right next door anyway. Obviously, if things get hot all of a sudden, then you should act immediately, but I see no point in potentially forcing this to happen (let the bad guys make this mistake, if they're even going to).

He saw me and took off.

Those who know me would probably do the same thing if they're causing trouble for my sister. :evil: However, those who don't know me may not.

By the time the cops showed up, I had two cups of coffee at the kitchen table. He was there just to write up the report.

I'm glad that it worked out for your sister and you, but when different people are involved, especially when they're unknown, sometimes different strategies would be optimal.

Really, just because one isn't LEO doesn't make you an untrained idiot. My sister and her kids survived just fine that night.

But you're still not a cop, and bad guys often respond differently to cops than private citizens because cops represent the law and all that entails (including a whole "gang" of other cops backing them up), while generally speaking you, like me, are just some chump. ;) It doesn't matter whether you are far more lethal than the average LEO, either--you don't have a uniform or badge, and you have to be careful about when you can brandish a weapon to demonstrate that you mean business (some would argue never unless you intend to fire, although I don't like dealing in absolutes). Every situation is different, and when unknowns are involved I think it is generally better to hunker down and let the police handle it if possible.
 
The Japanese student was drunk and did not respond to commands to stop (may not have understood them), broke THROUGH the front door met fatal consequences.


not even close

funny to read though its interesting how facts get distorted we had the crime move from louisiana and now this
 
now we could ask why peirs never called the cops or came outside after killing the kid. it was a neighbor who called for help. and his case is a classic example of why stepping outside with your magnum is not a good move
 
Every situation is different, and when unknowns are involved I think it is generally better to hunker down and let the police handle it if possible.

And there is the crux of the matter. In rural areas like mine the police CAN NOT defend you. Trust me, If I can avoid using lethal force I will.

But lets be honest here. Giving advice to hunker down and let the LEO handle it by default sounds great on an online forum. And yes that is the best option.

However,in the real world, waiting for LEO can get unprepared people killed. There is NO blanket answer. And to believe, and advise, there is is folly.
 
And there is the crux of the matter. In rural areas like mine the police CAN NOT defend you.

That's often true even in urban areas with 5-minute response times--that's why we, the members of THIS forum, have GUNS! :D Having said that, the question is whether it would be better, in the case that is the topic of this thread, to investigate and clear the area around the house yourself or wait for the police. Obviously if you're actually attacked while inside the house, then you would defend yourself with lethal force if necessary, but is it a better idea to venture outside of the house? Most of us here are saying that one should generally stay inside, and I gave a couple of reasons for it, one tactical and the other legal. If you disagree, then tell us why it would be better to go outside.

Trust me, If I can avoid using lethal force I will.

That's definitely good, but the main point is maximizing safety for your loved ones and yourself.

But lets be honest here. Giving advice to hunker down and let the LEO handle it by default sounds great on an online forum. And yes that is the best option.

However,in the real world, waiting for LEO can get unprepared people killed.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that you do nothing but wait for the police in all cases. However, in this specific case, since you're right next door, having everybody wait inside until something, if anything, actually happens may be the best option. Some consider it imperative that you at least make a beeline for your sister's home (leaving your own home undefended if you're the only one who can competently use a firearm, by the way), and that's another option, with the key point being that you should wait inside, ready to shoot bad guys if need be, rather than beating the bushes for prowlers (where they may be ready to shoot you instead :uhoh:).

There is NO blanket answer.

Well, this we can both agree on. We need to be adaptable, and one way of improving this ability is to analyze many scenarios, real and imagined, and incorporate the key principles of sound strategy and tactics that we derive from this exercise. Most of us are saying that it is better to lie in wait for home invaders than to look around for them outside. Feel free to argue otherwise, but if you do, then give some pointed reasons, not just a blanket statement that police cannot defend us--we already know that, but they're still usually the best option for clearing areas outside and in some cases, depending on how events unfold, even inside houses.
 
No, in this scenario the point was to prevent an armed intruder from forcing his way in to his sister's home.

The context in which I had made that particular statement was that you were already inside the home that was (apparently) being targeted, having decided to run over to your sister's home as a precaution and having done so fortunately without encountering the prowler. After this point, the best strategy, in my view, would be to wait inside for the police to arrive to check things out. If the prowler breaks in before the police arrive, then shoot him, but before that happens, if it even happens at all, get inside and stay there.

The question of whether to go to your sister's house in the first place is a separate matter, and depends on your personal situation and what you know. I consider this a valid option under many (if not most) circumstances, but I still wanted to point out the issues and what you should consider, which I've done separately.
 
Biker and Kleanbore and others, I understand and respect your point and would not argue that the guy "should" have gone outside to do what he did. There is a good chance he did NOT take into account the negatives fully, but we can't know.

Where I differ is... I don't see this case as highlighting the negatives of going outside. It was basically a freak occurrence (son in mask part obviously) and while I'm not saying we can't learn anything, I would argue it's hard to derive any relevant conclusions besides those specific to a similarly rare situation.
 
you think you are more likely to get a positive end result by going outside? why? i think the opposite has proven true
 
In respect of all the hypothetical scenarios here I think for the most part everyone is in agreement. If the sister was in what appeared to be danger of(fill in the blank), then the most strategic option would be to defend from inside her house. So an effort to gain ground in her house he would have to leave his and B line for hers being alert and aware of surroundings along the way. The unknown is rather he pursued the offender or encountered him along the way.Rather he was leaving his house undefended or not, I don't now that that would be a concern giving the likelihood of the offender to recognize that he had been discovered and would then turn his attention to a neighboring house. If it was unclear which house was undergoing the attention of the offender,tactically that changes everything. It sounds as though it was not a call made due to current forced entry but a sinister looking man outside a window. Would it not have been wise to announce loudly,"Hey, what are you doing? I have called the police,and I am armed!", from inside the house while in contact with the sister after or simultaneously, if plausible with cell and land line,calling the police.
If in fact the offender was committing forced entry then the man would be aware the offenders positioning by description of his sister and may have been in line of the quickest available route to the offender. Which is subject to debate of rather that is sound tactics due to the unknown variables of lighting visibility and so forth.
But you're still not a cop, and bad guys often respond differently to cops than private citizens because cops represent the law and all that entails (including a whole "gang" of other cops backing them up), while generally speaking you, like me, are just some chump. It doesn't matter whether you are far more lethal than the average LEO, either--you don't have a uniform or badge, and you have to be careful about when you can brandish a weapon to demonstrate that you mean business (some would argue never unless you intend to fire, although I don't like dealing in absolutes). Every situation is different, and when unknowns are involved I think it is generally better to hunker down and let the police handle it if possible.
I agree but I would think that it is more likely that the offender is shot by an armed citizen trained for self defense vs and officer trained to diffuse and arrest. If I was the offender I would fear the citizen more as it would be better to get a chained bracelet than a bullet,but then again if they did that much thinking to begin with they wouldn't be the offender.



Please take this as more of a question of approve, disapprove. I am not a trained LE and don't intend to make this post sound like I'm all knowing in tactics. Sorry if it gives that impression,I am posting it in anticipation of your thoughts both as private citizens and LEOs more as an educational tool for myself.
 
Last edited:
Posted by conw: Where I differ is... I don't see this case as highlighting the negatives of going outside.
Too much is unknown.

Was he accosted in what he reasonably believed to be a violent attack on the way to his sister's house with the intention of joining her? If so, the error was not his.

Ws he looking for a prowler? That course of action is rife with risks of all kinds. If that's what he was doing, it seems to have resulted in an unnecessary death that would not have happened but for his action, and that's where this case would illustrate his error.

Do not take that as an assessment of legal culpability in this instance. But we do have to realize that, when one heads out armed on the basis of concern about the actions of someone else and things turn bad, justification can be put into question. Consider the limitations of castle doctrines, limitations regarding remedy for trespass, and the question of preclusion.

Personally, however, I would place that risk below that of being killed or injured by prowlers or by "friendly fire."
 
92 posts suggest a vibrant discussion, so I don't regret my OP.... even if the reference to rule #4 is likely N/A....

One thought that came to me as I've read through the lively exchange over the past few days is that when you go looking for something, or when you go out to accomplish a task with the fear of something lodged in your mind, I think it can bias your evaluation of what you actually see.

a.) Was the "prowler" moving towards the dad with intent to attack him...

or...

b.) Was the son conceding that he was "busted" and coming out to explain himself to his dad.

Given that the son apparently neglected to take off his mask and drop the knife... both of these events could look very similar.

But obviously, the father interpreted the events as case (a.) and the rest is history.

One thought that I've considered in the past, which this story reinforces, has to do with how to respond to the "bump in the night" which has the potential to be a home invasion....

The one thing that I feel I need to know for sure, is whether my kids are asleep in their beds or not. And since we all bed down on the second floor... my first priority is to put my glasses on and a loaded pistol in my hand and get tot he head of the stairs b4 a potential BG does. And my second priority is to have my wife check each of the kids beds to ensure we know where they are.

I think there's an appropriate sense, in which I need to "fear" assessing the situation incorrectly and doing something terrible myself, just as much (if not more) than I "fear" failing to act, and in doing so, allowing someone else to do something terrible to someone I love.

Fortunately, our environment is very, very quiet and I still have very good hearing... So a lot can be gleened by being dead still and listening intently.

Another thought...

When deciding "to do something" I should have a very decided purpose about what I'm trying to accomplish and then not get sidetracked into something I don't want to engage in.

The dad in this story, chose to go next door to the defense of his sister. Perhaps if he was purposefully committed to getting to her side, he would have intentionally bypassed the dark figure lurking outside... which was apparently not an immediate threat to her.

It's way to easy to arm chair QB an incident like this ..... so I intend no condemnation of the dad... he obviously just lived out a terrible event. But the scenario is very compelling, none the less, and sparks ones thinking in a different way.
 
In respect of all the hypothetical scenarios here I think for the most part everyone is in agreement. If the sister was in what appeared to be danger of(fill in the blank), then the most strategic option would be to defend from inside her house. So an effort to gain ground in her house he would have to leave his and B line for hers being alert and aware of surroundings along the way. The unknown is rather he pursued the offender or encountered him along the way.

There are many unknowns in this case right now, and this is certainly one of them. Sometimes no matter what you do, stuff happens, and in this case it is quite possible that the father happened to encounter his armed, ski-masked son along the way, given where the shooting apparently took place. It seems that in most cases home invaders prefer to use the same entrance most defenders would: the front door. Obviously this makes the probability of encountering bad guys outside pretty high, even if you're just running over real quick.

Rather he was leaving his house undefended or not, I don't now that that would be a concern giving the likelihood of the offender to recognize that he had been discovered and would then turn his attention to a neighboring house. If it was unclear which house was undergoing the attention of the offender,tactically that changes everything.

The best course of action depends on what you know and what you don't know. It also depends on other factors, such as whether your sister and the members of your own household are armed and able to defend themselves, and all of the obvious implications that arise from that knowledge. All I'm really saying, ultimately, is to take a moment to assess and evaluate, rather than charging in right away without thinking--you may have to take risks no matter what, but take the fewest, most acceptable ones rather than doing more than you have to and possibly exposing yourself or others unnecessarily to danger as a result.

It sounds as though it was not a call made due to current forced entry but a sinister looking man outside a window. Would it not have been wise to announce loudly,"Hey, what are you doing? I have called the police,and I am armed!", from inside the house while in contact with the sister after or simultaneously, if plausible with cell and land line,calling the police.

Unless you have an immediate reason to hide, issuing a verbal challenge is generally advisable. Let them know that you're armed and prepared to defend against them, and hopefully they'll get the message and leave. Have your sister shout out the same message, whether it is true or not. Be ready to act quickly, of course, because in this scenario, with an unknown prowler, you don't know what their motivations really are.

If in fact the offender was committing forced entry then the man would be aware the offenders positioning by description of his sister and may have been in line of the quickest available route to the offender.

Right, he might have had no choice if that's what happened. Currently we don't even know how far the offending son had gotten in whatever he was attempting to do, though. If he was kicking the door, then obviously that would be the time for decisive action, come what may.

Which is subject to debate of rather that is sound tactics due to the unknown variables of lighting visibility and so forth. I agree but I would think that it is more likely that the offender is shot by an armed citizen trained for self defense vs and officer trained to diffuse and arrest.

My ultimate goal is to achieve the lowest risk with the smallest level of violence necessary, and this is what police officers are best at, hence all the emphasis on waiting for them in case they arrive on time (while being armed and ready for the worst case scenario, of course). Even if we disregard training, the mere sight of a patrol vehicle, uniform, and badge has an immediate effect in most (albeit obviously not all) cases, whereas a private citizen doesn't automatically receive the same level of "respect." If the situation can be defused instead of ending in bloodshed, then I'll take that, and I think the father in the specific case being discussed, in hindsight at least, would agree. Now, I'm NOT saying that he definitely did the wrong thing because frankly we don't know enough yet, but he might have, and it's good for us to consider hypothetical variations of such an incident.

If I was the offender I would fear the citizen more as it would be better to get a chained bracelet than a bullet,

As for who bad guys fear more, obviously they fear private citizens more once we've drawn our weapons, but I don't think that bringing arms to bear is the preferred course of action in the vast majority of cases. :uhoh: I feel that this should be self-explanatory, but in any case once weapons and fighting are involved, people are going to get seriously wounded or killed, including possibly the good guys.

but then again if they did that much thinking to begin with they wouldn't be the offender.

While they may not be the intellectual type ;), I would still venture to guess that those who plan to break into occupied homes have probably done more thinking on the subject, on the average, than the vast majority of law-abiding citizens who are busy just living their lives, even those who own guns for home defense. What I wish to emphasize here is that those who have gotten far enough into the subject to be physically and mentally prepared to apply lethal force in defense of self and others should also be mindful of when and where NOT to apply their deadly skills and tools. In general, if you can avoid a fight without jeopardizing safety, then that's what you should do (preaching to the choir for the most part, I know).

More to the point regarding the scenario in question, if hypothetically you're already inside your sister's home, then don't go outside. Verbally warn the would-be home invaders that you're armed and the police are on their way, and leave it up to the bad guys whether there is going to be a fight--they'll have their say in the matter anyway, and I think that staying inside makes it easier for them to decide to bug out, in addition to putting you in a better defensive position. Leaving your own home to get to your sister's is a different matter but with similar considerations, depending on what is known and other factors that I mentioned previously.
 
There have been a number of cases where people have been charged with armed robbery even though they used a toy gun. The reason is because they intended to make the victim THINK it was a real weapon and that his life was in jeopardy.

This is exactly what happened here. The boy concealed his identity and brandished a realistic looking weapon. He made his father THINK that he was in a life and death situation with an unknown stranger and that he had to act immediately to stop the threat. Under those circumstances any reasonable person would come the same conclusion. The father made a reasonable decision based on the limited information he was given. The son made a foolish suicidal mistake that caused him to get killed.
 
Yep, the boy deserves the brunt of the blame here if what we have read so far is true. If the father didn't teach his son prior about the dangers involved in todays world of lurking around in the dark in the dress of criminals then he has some blame as well.
I liken this teaching in some ways to what adults with children need to do if they are raising them around heavy equipment on farms, ranches, or construction. I taught all my kids to approach from a visible angle, wait for the operator to acknowledge before getting within it's operating parameters. In this case, if you are out in the dark as kids will do make yourself and your intent known to those not in your game or activity. In this case it goes without saying that a mask and knife should be the thing you are getting rid of at the same time you are saying it's me dad.
Back when I was a kid we did stupid stuff at night all the time with the local cop and towns people, the worst that ever happened was one of my Buddy's got caught by a home owner with a lighter that was shaped like a gun. The cop came and stuck him in the old turn of the century flat iron cell while he waited for his dad. He sang like a bird and by the time our little band made it back to our riverbank campsite all our parents had been alerted. Life was simple back then in the upper midwest, today we all could have been shot for what was just silly pranks.
 
Those faulting going out and looking are thinking in idealistic terms rather than typical real situations.

If you know there is a prowler or burglar outside of your own home, you probably don't want to go outside.

However in real life most of the time you are not going to know what made that noise, or what that shadow that just went through the yard was, etc
It may be racoon, domestic cat, coyote etc making noise, or it could be a prowler. You don't know till you take a look, and you can't call the police and hunker down every time a racoon gets into the trash.

Also if a family member living next door called me and felt they might be in danger, I would be assisting them.
There is not going to be any "well you should just handle it yourself, because if I go over there then legally..."
The reality is that assistance would often be safer for everyone if I first check outside the home before trying to gain entrance.
Checking the perimeter I may figure out what the issue is. Trying to enter the home, or entering the home and proceeding to find the hunkered down resident I may be mistaken for the problem and end up with a friendly fire situation.
Now if I see signs of forced entry or hear a struggle I would proceed inside, but proceeding inside would not be my first course of action when arriving.


So someone said they would go over there and then maybe help them defend from inside if needed. Well legally that may seem ideal, but in reality that is often a less realistic or safe approach.
 
Last edited:
He sang like a bird and by the time our little band made it back to our riverbank campsite all our parents had been alerted. Life was simple back then in the upper midwest, today we all could have been shot for what was just silly pranks.

Substitute roll of TP or egg for lighter, and gravel pit for river bank and you just told the story of my (mispent :rolleyes: ) youth
 
Last edited:
I know this is mostly off topic, but those hung up on the video game that he supposedly was playing need to actually go check it out.

The "violence" depicted in that game is literally as realistic as having two plastic lego people hit each other with plastic swords. It's about as non violent as you can get with something involving "monsters". On top of that 15 years old is plenty old enough to know better unless he has some sort of documented mental deficiency.

Blaming video games for such violent acts is the same cop-out answer and solution as blaming guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top