Funny thing happened last night!

[Frank Ettin]

Wow, how did this get to be about assassinations. If someone is at credible risk of being assassinated, it's an entirely different sort of security problem.

 

[Kleanbore]

Let's stay away from targeted assassinations, drug wars, gangs, and so forth here.

 

[JustinJ]

If he is making reasonably repetitive noises you will know he is in the house and what room he is in--and that's just about it.

No, not rely. And given you don't know the layout of my home you really can't say.

Navigation isn't the problem. And why are you assuming that it will happen at night? Most burglaries do not.

Because noises in the night is what the discussion has been about and most of us don't hang out in the bedroom for most of the day. Most burglaries occur during the day because robbers don't want the occupants to be home and generally try to verify a home is empty before attempting entry, often by knocking with a BS story at the ready.

But The Armed Citizen only reports successes.

Yes, i'm aware of this. The accounts do however point to a stark contrast between what the simulations you refer to 'prove' happens and what actually happens in the real world.

How about the neighbor's long lost nephew who had written down the wrong address and forced the door: the inebriated party-goer coming home to the wrong block (that happened in Boulder CO, but the man became so violent when trying to get in that the tragic shooting has not resulted in charges); the relative of the person taking possession of a new house who comes to the wrong place and forces the door;

First, the above happening is such a miniscule probability its hardly even worth considering. Second, the effort needed to enter my home at night by a drunk is way beyond what they could accomplish quickly and quietly.. Lastly, while i have no desire to shoot an innocent it is completely unreasonable to expect any homeowner to put themself at further risk by trying to identify a stranger in their home before acting regardless of where they encounter him. The same idiot in the wrong house could just as easily walk in on the "safe" room.

the sleepwalking child who comes in on the one night of the decade on which you left the door unlocked; the neighbor or fireman who breaks in to save you from a fire you have not yet detected; and so on?

Well, the fire might make me aware something is up, or the horn, or the flashing lights outside. And in the 1 in a billion chance a child sleepwalks into my home on the night i forgot to lock the door, arm the alarm and put down the "anti-door kick in" device i would guess the height might tell me its not a criminal intruder.

But if I sneak down the stairs in the dark and see a grown man or men going through my stuff i'll call that good enough identification.

I too would once grab a gun and go looking, before I really knew any better. Then my CCW instructor said forcefully, "let the threat come to you" and recommended the NRA course. I started looking into the subject. As Sam said earlier, we have covered this ground many times before

I agree, clearing a room or house against expectant bad guys is not a good idea. But i don't agree that is a realistic premise for a middle of the night break-in in my neighborhood. And so what if we've covered this before? Just because you or any other moderator say so doesn't mean we must all agree.

Yet you continue to disagree, offering up "I believe", "I would venture", "I think in reality", and "it seems highly improbable"; and supposing that "the last thing he will want to do", "most people will not", "it seems highly improbable", and the like.

I use those terms because i don't care to come off as pompous by acting as though my opinions are the end all be all, especially about a topic with so many variables and perspectives. Like acting surprised somebody could disagree with a position i hold.

It is not clear whether you are arguing just for the sake of argument or are just naive, but it is quite clear that your opinion is counter to the nearly unanimous views of everyone from whom we have heard in the last several years who is qualified to offer advice on this subject.

Do you have any idea how that reads? See my last statement if not. I'm arguing because as i said, i don't agree with the premise that criminals break in just to hide in wait with a gun. If they do, then yeah, i'd be screwed. But an assasin coming into my home is just not something that somes reasonable. And unlike you i know my home, i know the vantage point available to me from the stairs from which i know i can see essentially the whole downstairs while remaining hidden by the dark, I know the creek my upstairs hallway makes when walked on, i know the thud sound when somebody comes up my stairs, I know how my dogs will react to an intruder, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm arguing because as i said, i don't agree with the premise that criminals break in just to hide in wait with a gun.

It isn't that simple. One does not have to expect that this is an assassin who's snuck in to execute you. Anyone who breaks into your home is going to be on extremely high alert listening for the noises you make waking and responding and/or moving about. Maybe that will scare them off. Maybe it won't. Or maybe you're movement is in such a way as to pen them in so they have "no choice" but to act violently in order to effect an escape. Either way, moving TO CONTACT is going to be a very bad thing for all involved. We're all going to assume they don't want to be shot and will take steps to avoid that, and we know that you (our lawful defender here) don't WANT to shoot them. So moving to contact doesn't make sense, as that pushes the issue to a shoot-or-be-shot confrontation.

Warn them off. Move to a defensive position. If they are insistant on violence, make them come into YOUR target zone, not vice versa.

And unlike you i know my home, i know the vantage point available to me from the stairs from which i know i can see essentially the whole downstairs while remaining hidden by the dark, I know the creek my upstairs hallway makes when walked on, i know the thud sound when somebody comes up my stairs, I know how my dogs will react to an intruder, etc, etc, etc.

Much of this is in no way counter to what any of us have said. In fact, it reads almost exactly like what we've counseled people to do. Listen, observe from safe vantage points. Use advantage of position. Use the info and advantage your dogs give you.

The only disagreement here seems to be that you appear to be advocating going "bad guy hunting" in some of your posts, and that IS foolhardy.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: it is completely unreasonable to expect any homeowner to put themself at further risk by trying to identify a stranger in their home before acting regardless of where they encounter him.

Are you still arguing that it is not necessary to identify one's target before shooting?

The same idiot in the wrong house could just as easily walk in on the "safe" room.

If you have warned the intruder to stay away, you have reason to believe that a forcible entry into your saferoom constitutes an imminent threat, and that means you have effectively identified him.

But i don't agree that [(expectant bad guys, apparently)]is a realistic premise for a middle of the night break-in in my neighborhood.

Do you have a basis for assuming that someone in your house will not be "expectant", or alert if you prefer?

And so what if we've covered this before? Just because you or any other moderator say so doesn't mean we must all agree.

One more time, you seem to want to disagree with the informed opinion of just about every expert who has spoken or written on this subject. And one more time, it is not clear whether you are arguing for the sake of argument or because you are naive. But everyone else agrees that you are very wrong.

I'm arguing because as i said, i don't agree with the premise that criminals break in just to hide in wait with a gun.

That premise has never been put forth. We can assume that criminals break in to commit some crime, ranging from the taking of valuables to sexual assault to kidnapping and to murder. But if they are armed, and it is not prudent to assume otherwise, I think we can agree on the premise that they will likely shoot if they get the chance.

And unlike you i know my home, i know the vantage point available to me from the stairs from which i know i can see essentially the whole downstairs while remaining hidden by the dark, I know the creek my upstairs hallway makes when walked on, i know the thud sound when somebody comes up my stairs, I know how my dogs will react to an intruder, etc, etc, etc.

Remaining hidden and waiting for someone to come up your stairs is not house clearing. It is something that makes sense, and it what we have been advising.

Of course, one should not count on darkness.

 

[Hunter125]

my priority is my safety > my neighbor's safety > my property > his safety. If I had other people in the home, they would be equal to my safety

I might be in the minority here, but nothing I own is more important to me than another human life. I don't care who it is, what they have done, or even if they are currently robbing my house.

Now if they threaten my life, my family's life, or the lives of anyone I feel responsible for the safety of (i.e. someone staying at my house) it becomes a whole different ballgame and I'll do what I have to do.

 

[Skribs]

By commiting a forcible felony in my home, I have to assume that they are ready to commit a violent felony against me or any resident/guest inside. Whether or not they're armed, they have the capability to assault someone, and it only takes a short trip to the kitchen to grab a pretty nice-sized knife. If someone is in my home who does not have permission to be or a warrant, I am going to consider them hostile until they cease their action and surrender or leave.

ETA: I'm not saying I seek to do them harm. But I am saying that I don't see any reason to consider their safety a primary concern so long as they're in the act of a home invasion.

 

[Skribs]

I haven't read the stuff on the NRA site, but I have to wonder how many of those situations fell into:
1) Protecting family members before bunkering down
2) Checking to figure out what that noise was and encountering the interloper

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I agree that clearing your own house on a whole should be at the bottom or very close on your list of ideas. It's a dangerous thing to do, even when you have 3 or 4 other guys with rifles with you. Doing it by yourself can be extremely dangerous. But I would like to make a few points.

What about body armor? Yeah you might think it "mall ninja", but a decent plate carrier can be dropped over your head in less time it takes to put on a bathrobe. If you HAVE to leave your place of protection, why not put some points in your favor and wear some armor. Sure it doesn't protect everything, but it's better than a t-shirt and a smile.

I have somewhat of an issue with the force-on-force examples showing that the ambusher always wins. The setup is not realistic. I would bet that the people doing those tests were all either military, law enforcement, or firearms trainers. In other words, people who already know about ambushes, shootings, and tactics. John Q Homeowner and your average burglar don't have that training. They aren't thinking like that. And more importantly, in all those force-on-force tests, both the searcher and the ambusher knew the scenario, knew there was an opposing force, and were already mentally and physically prepared to fight the other. There's really no way to really simulate a homeowner actually clearing their house, because the simple fact that the participants know it's a non-lethal test already changes how they act and react. Burglars don't enter homes just to find the most tactically advantageous spot to lie in wait to murder the occupants. And a sleeping homeowner does not wake up hearing a noise and immediately go through rehearsed room clearing tactics.

 

[Sam1911]

There's really no way to really simulate a homeowner actually clearing their house, because the simple fact that the participants know it's a non-lethal test already changes how they act and react. Burglars don't enter homes just to find the most tactically advantageous spot to lie in wait to murder the occupants. And a sleeping homeowner does not wake up hearing a noise and immediately go through rehearsed room clearing tactics.

No real argument there, except to say I can't decide if I think that makes the idea better or worse!

Prepared, aware intruder vs. prepared, aware defender ... or ... inept/amateur intruder vs. inexperienced/groggy/non-pro defender.

Still, of course, you may have some idea of your capacities as a defensive-minded type, but you never can tell just who is the criminal breaking into your place.

 

[SleazyRider]

I am curious about something. Is it not true---and I can't remember where I read this---that a burglary in the dead of night is the least likely home-defense scenario, statistically speaking?

 

[Skribs]

Sleazy, whether or not that's true, in my situation, a burglarly while I'm home during daylight hours would work something like this.

I hear door open (whether forced or picked or whatever). I turn around in my computer chair, grab the gun from the back of my U-shaped desk (its in a paddle holster under the desk), point it and say "get out." Yes, I have clear LOS to my door from my desk. My "bunker" is the initial entry at that point. Actually any room in my condo has a pretty decent view of some point in the entryway.

ETA: Ragnar, very good points all around, from body armor (I'm looking at getting some when I've got my guns squared away with the modifications I want) to the difference between training force-on-force and on Joe Homeowner vs. Sleazy McSleaze. I guess we could do the whole Pink Panther thing, hire someone to continually try to assassinate you in order to sharpen your skills when you're not expecting to need force-on-force.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Ragnar Danneskjold: I have somewhat of an issue with the force-on-force examples showing that the ambusher always wins. The setup is not realistic.

Do you have some knowledge to support that assumption?

To which specific setups are you referring?

I would bet that the people doing those tests were all either military, law enforcement, or firearms trainers. In other words, people who already know about ambushes, shootings, and tactics.

You would lose that bet, and if you had read the extensive descriptions of members' experiences that were posted about two years ago, you wouldn't have made it in the first place. Some of the participants have been highly expereinced. Some have not.

And more importantly, in all those force-on-force tests, both the searcher and the ambusher knew the scenario, knew there was an opposing force, and were already mentally and physically prepared to fight the other.

Your point?

There's really no way to really simulate a homeowner actually clearing their house, because the simple fact that the participants know it's a non-lethal test already changes how they act and react.

That argument would invalidate simulation in air combat, under sea warfare , chemical and nuclear disaster simulation training, and fire rescue simulation.

Burglars don't enter homes just to find the most tactically advantageous spot to lie in wait to murder the occupants.

Of course not, and that has been discussed here with in the last twenty four hours. They enter the house for whatever purpose they have in mind, and assuming that it is not mayhem or sexual assault, their plan is to do the deed and get out without being captured or shot. The problem arises when the homeowner stumbles upon them.

The bad guy or guy is not "lying in wait for you", he's doing something. But if he hears you coming, he will likely step out of sight. And then what?

Here is a diccssion of the subject from two years ago today.

Here's one contribution:

Clearing a house on your own is foolish. That's not my opinion. That's a stone cold fact known by almost everyone (I'd say everyone, but exceptions prove the rule) who's been trained to do clearings - on a team - for a paycheck.

BG could have been anywhere in your garage. Behind a car, crouched in the corner, by the workbench, under the car, in the car, 10 feet to the right of his buddy, over by the ladder, etc. He has to do one thing - shoot you. You have to do the following: 1) locate source, 2) determine threat level (is it a neighbor borrowing a saw?), 3) aim, 4) shoot, 5) scan for another (are home invasions EVER a one-man deal?). You have an OODA loop, he has a job - shoot anybody who comes through THAT ONE DOOR!

If I hear a noise that's suspicious enough to send the wife and kids to the upstairs master bedroom, then it's suspicious enough for 5-0.

Here's my two choices: 1) huddle-up behind the bed with my family and wait for a BG to come through THAT ONE DOOR, or 2) enter the garage with weapon at low ready, get shot in the guts, blow my shot cuz the shock took me off my game, get disarmed, listen to two BG's party with my wife for the next hour while I bleed out, then explain things to St. Peter. I'll take door #1 thanks.

Heres anotherone that adreese a point that is commonly made:

Does it not matter that you know your own house, while a BG does not?

Not in the dark with your heart racing your vision tunneled your hands sweating and the BG crouched behind the comfy chair that isn't out of place.

I've been at professional SWAT competitions where a team of pros clears a house on a timer and they get gunned up because they make simple mistakes like not looking closely enough behind furniture and doors.

Everyone thinks they have the home field advantage in their house. They're wrong. Home field advantages are for games, not life and death. You want all the advantages on your side, not just some. All the advantages exist when you're barricaded with the lights shining down a clear line of fire and only one approach to you that is straight down that line of fire and not half asleep walking through your house "checking things out" with a gun in your hand.

When I used to help teach this we walked everyone through the shoot house and around every piece of furniture in every room talking about clearing and shooting in the office or home. We did this after a couple of hours just going over shooting in the office or home in the class room. We showed them "how" to do it in theory and while we walked through. We started their first scenario with the lights on and then only after they completed it did we drop the lights to low light and after that to dark. They all got shot on the first, second and third runs before they could "kill" me (Ok, one guy "killed" me before I could get a shot off because he out-patienced me. I moved thinking he had gone out of the scenario and he put two in the chest and one in the head like he'd been doing it all his life.{I was so proud of him!}).

....until you take a course with Simunition or with Airsoft and try to clear your house you can't appreciate how suicidal it is. Or you could just take our word for it.

Now, would I do it if I had to get to Michaela? With Gwen or Paul backing me up, sure. Paul and I have done it at his old house when he insisted on going in when he was robbed for the second time in 2 months. Gwen and I have practiced it, but I wouldn't put much stock in it. With Dan Mounger I'd be as comfortable as with the guy I used to teach this with. By myself? Yeah, but I'd try like hell to be wearing my vest and carrying the AR and the P14 with the +2 mag and Jackalope going ahead of me. I'd still be doing it as a dead man intent upon taking the threat to the grave with me to save her. Did you hear that part? I'd consider myself already dead if I had to do it without a partner I trusted and knew as much as I do about the techinique. That's how bad I consider doing this to be. You'll never find me clearing my house outside of that particular circumstance.

This is the thought process that I went through before finally realizing the error of my ways:

I had to learn from the experts before I really tried to figure out for myself that it was a very poor tactic indeed. Why, I do not know.

But I could have figured out for myself, had I really tried.

As someone comes down the stairs in my house, he or she is exposed from the side, and then from the back and side. He or she is a ready target for anyone who might happen to be in any of a number of places.

As he or she comes into the foyer, the number of places a potential burglar or two might be waiting is multiplied several fold. It is highly unlikely that he or she could spot a person before that person could shoot, much less positively identify the target and fire effectively. Worse if there were two.

Then, depending upon which route is chosen, opportunities for ambush become even more abundant.

But I did that a couple of times over the years. It seemed to me to be the right thing at the time. What makes us do that? A false sense of invulnerability? Too much television? Lack of training? Lack of having thought it it through?

Fortunately, there was never anyone there. Never anyone to put me in danger, and never anyone for me to shoot by mistake.

And a sleeping homeowner does not wake up hearing a noise and immediately go through rehearsed room clearing tactics.

A wise one doesn't. That's the whole point here.

 

[Skribs]

KB, I do think there is a difference in training force-on-force, and using force-on-force training to look at statistics. That said, I do agree that the defense position increases the odds, and if the BG is prepared for someone, he can get the drop on you easier than if he isn't prepared, and you have no idea of knowing his level of preparedness. If he/they are busy grabbing stuff, their hands are probably full, too.

As to training for wargames, with wargames or force-on-force, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the object to win? With a real HD situation, both people are generally caring more about surviving the encounter. Although it usually means the same thing, and that's why a defensive position is preferred, how many times in a force-on-force will the BG say "I quit" when the gun is even shown?

Just some things I'm thinking about.

Fortunately, there was never anyone there. Never anyone to put me in danger, and never anyone for me to shoot by mistake.

It seems to me that in these situations, you were probably trying to figure out what that noise was, rather than bunker down and call 911 on the dog knocking over the neighbor's trash bins. I could be wrong, that's just my interpretation. I do agree on not going immediately through the clearing procedure. I do it more for peace of mind if it seems like nothing is there, but something (i.e. a noise) had made me feel that there might be something amiss.

 

[JustinJ]

Quote:
I'm arguing because as i said, i don't agree with the premise that criminals break in just to hide in wait with a gun.

That premise has never been put forth. We can assume that criminals break in to commit some crime, ranging from the taking of valuables to sexual assault to kidnapping and to murder. But if they are armed, and it is not prudent to assume otherwise, I think we can agree on the premise that they will likely shoot if they get the chance.

That is the exact premise your references to force on force training puts forward.

Are you still arguing that it is not necessary to identify one's target before shooting?

Define identify. If I feel the intruder has a reasonable potential to be a danger based on a number of factors while illegaly in my home in the middle of the night...then no, i'm not going to ask to see his ID. Because i feel i have the right to put my gf's and my safety above an illegal intruder in my home.

Do you also propose that i get rid of my dogs because they aren't going to ID an intruder before attacking?

If you have warned the intruder to stay away, you have reason to believe that a forcible entry into your saferoom constitutes an imminent threat, and that means you have effectively identified him.

What about your sleep walking child neighbor or fireman with helmet and radio blaring in his ear? Or even a drunk at the wrong house. Any of those could potentially not hear your warning. If the rule is to always ID a target then you have the same obligation as a person investigating a bump in the night. To my knowledge there is no exemption for those holding up in a room.

Quote:
There's really no way to really simulate a homeowner actually clearing their house, because the simple fact that the participants know it's a non-lethal test already changes how they act and react.

That argument would invalidate simulation in air combat, under sea warfare , chemical and nuclear disaster simulation training, and fire rescue simulation.

Are you saying that such simulations are reliable predictors of real world outcomes? One would think there would be far fewer wars if so.

Quote:
And more importantly, in all those force-on-force tests, both the searcher and the ambusher knew the scenario, knew there was an opposing force, and were already mentally and physically prepared to fight the other.

Your point?

His point is pretty obvious. Such a simulation is completely unrealistic.

They all got shot on the first, second and third runs before they could "kill" me (Ok, one guy "killed" me before I could get a shot off because he out-patienced me. I moved thinking he had gone out of the scenario and he put two in the chest and one in the head like he'd been doing it all his life.{I was so proud of him!}).

Unlike swat kicking in a door a homeowner is in no rush unless he is trying to reach other family members. If something unidentified awoke me in the middle of the night i'm able to take all the time in the world to check things out. We've already established bad guys won't be laying in ambush trying to outwait a homeowner.

Does it not matter that you know your own house, while a BG does not?

Not in the dark with your heart racing your vision tunneled your hands sweating and the BG crouched behind the comfy chair that isn't out of place.

If a bad guy breaks into my house and starts unplugging the tv, grabbing the xbox, going through my drawers, etc. etc. my only chance to hear anything is if he makes too much noise while breaking in or accidentally knocks something over. With the AC going there is no way i would hear anything else. Given most robbers will intend to be quiet it is incredibly likely that if i'm awoken by a noise to begin with i will not be lucky enough to hear a second, much less one that will tell me somebody is in the house. Its a moot point given i have dogs who will certainly hear an intruder but many don't. So as i originally pointed out the question then becomes does a person call the police, wait and then check or wait and back to bed. I'm not calling the police with such a level of uncertainty, going back to bed seems the worse idea of all so the realistic option for most people will be to check. I can't speak for others but being awoken in the middle of the night by a single noise does not put me into fight or flight. If i had no dogs my plan would be to slowly walk down the pitch black hall, listen, look and wait, move down pitch black stairs to landing, listen, look around corner and wait, go to next place, repeat and so forth. Simple, reasonable and not the suicide mission portrayed above.

Now if i did have no dogs and heard something that i were able to identify as intruder(s) with a reasonable level of certainty then yes, i'll hold up in the room, cover door and call police but i'm not yelling out. For one i'm not sacrificing the element of surprise, making myself a target from and i would prefer the bad guys be caught by police than get away.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: That [that criminals break in just to hide in wait with a gun ]is the exact premise your references to force on force training puts forward.

NO! You have either been refusing to listen, or unable to comprehend.

Define identify. If I feel the intruder has a reasonable potential to be a danger based on a number of factors while illegaly in my home in the middle of the night...then no, i'm not going to ask to see his ID. Because i feel i have the right to put my gf's and my safety above an illegal intruder in my home.

If you do not know what is meant by identifying your target, you have no business with a gun.

If the rule is to always ID a target then you have the same obligation as a person investigating a bump in the night. To my knowledge there is no exemption for those holding up in a room.

Of course; we have always advised against shooting though a closed door.

Are you saying that such simulations [simulation in air combat, under sea warfare , chemical and nuclear disaster simulation training, and fire rescue simulation] are reliable predictors of real world outcomes?

If you want an education on that, you will have to go elsewhere for it. If you are just arguing, knock it off.

Such a simulation is completely unrealistic.

Somehow that fails to ring true, considering the qualifications of those who design the simulations--and yours.

We've already established bad guys won't be laying in ambush trying to outwait a homeowner.

Yes, and it is irrelevant to the discussion.

If i had no dogs my plan would be to slowly walk down the pitch black hall, listen, look and wait, move down pitch black stairs to landing, listen, look around corner and wait, go to next place, repeat and so forth. Simple, reasonable and not the suicide mission portrayed above.

Ya think so, huh.

Why don't you avail your self of some of the training that you hold in such low regard and see what you think after that?

Look, if you want to walk forth into harms way after having been given abundant advise to the contrary, go right ahead. There is little risk that you will mislead other members into doing so.

But don't shoot anyone you cannot see and reasonably identify, and don't fail to try to prevent the use of deadly force by calling out.

And do not promote such strategies here.

 

[Art Eatman]

Sorry, but this has gotten circular. Too much like wiping with a wagon wheel: No end to it.