Home Invaders and Protecting Yourself
- Thread starter Enter_Narne
- Start date
- Status
I think the airlock could be a good idea, in a warzone where the laws don't apply and you are making yourself a modern castle. If you were a Columbian cartel boss, and could install some shrapnel based explosives in the ceiling, with perhaps a trip wire with a delayed fuse embeded in the first door's frame. That way when the door was pulled off its hinges, or broken down it would give enough time for the perps to enter the now confined space and then be blown apart. Try a no knock raid/home invasion on that.
A modified version of this could include cctv and a remote switch to activate this manualy in addition the the automatic door removed activation. Another button to buzz them in. Make sure the bad switch has a cover in red and is not easy to confuse with the other
Good people can be buzzed in the second door after the first latches shut and locks, bad people can be dealt with in the lock. A non lethal version could use tear gas/ pepper spray.
Okay now back to reality.
However in reality we have laws. The laws make it pretty clear booby traps are illegal. Without them the "airlock" has lost most of its advantage. Also if the front entrance is that obviously secure, someone will just use the windows or another entrance. It also will make it hard to talk with legit visitors. You won't hear knocks as well, and need a doorbell outside. You entering the airlock removes any advantage it provided in terms of security as others have said because now your in a limited space with someone, and however you were going to get back in can be used by the criminal. You could make it lock behind you and rely on the wife to buzz you in, but what is she going to do when you are unconscious and the guy threatens to kill you? Probably open it.
You harming someone while they are still on the other side of a locked door that is part of an entrance can be used to show you were not in immediate danger prior to using lethal force.
If you go put yourself out with them on the other side of a locked door, you are not following the duty to retreat in many places, and not just standing your ground in places that allow that. You are advancing into a situation that puts you at increased risk on the other side of a door unnecessarily, and then using lethal force. Good luck with that.
Forced entry also has some relevance in a self defense situation. An opened door will not have been forced.
If it is standard for people to enter the front door and enter the "air lock" prior to ringing a bell or knocking, then it is not technicaly entering illegaly yet which gives you no greater freedom in use of force than if outside a normal front door.
You seemed concerned over financial loss.
As far as being sued and losing everything because a criminal chose to make you a victim? Well sorry to inform you, but in many states someone can sue over anything at any time regardless. It does not mean they will win, but they can still take you to court and have thier day in court, and still require you to have a lawyer to defend yourself costing you money.
If they know they do not have a case they can stall the case as long as possible, using a cheap lawyer, while you pay for a good quality expensive one and simply cost you as much as possible for months or years. They can then drop the case, and start it over if it is getting too close to a trial and they might actualy lose the case they know they do not have. You can keep it open if you want to continue to spend tens of thousands for a couple more years to actualy have it resolved, or you can have nothing resolved and drop it not wanting to lose any more. That is the legal system.
I have personaly seen someone go through exactly that. The malicious person wanted to buy some of thier land (that was never for sale), the owner refused and the malicious person brought a false property dispute case that had no merit whatsoever just to punish them. They were not a neighbor, surveys clearly showed the property line, fences clearly showed the line, nobody came onto or ever used the land, yet they had the right to have thier case heard in court. You do not have to do anything wrong to be sued, and what you are sued for does not have to be real.
Determining if it is real or just is a matter for the courts, so it still has to go to court.
The result of the situation I mentioned was many tens of thousands of dollars for the property owner to keep what was already thiers (close to $100,000 if I recall, with less than half paid for by homeowner's insurance in years of legal expenses). The malicious person did nothing illegal, and if you own property it is considered part of your personal responsibility to defend it at your cost. You are not entitled to reimbersal for standing up for your stuff in most cases as that is considered part of being an owner. If you can prove it was intentionaly malicious and they did not really believe they had a case you can try to start a new case and spend more money, but usualy the key factor is not if they had a case, but whether they thought they did or whether it was malicious intent. Good luck proving that.
The same applies for defending yourself or home with lethal force in many states. The criminal or the family can sue, even if they were in the process of torturing you when you used force. Even if they were in the middle of thier magazine emptying bullets into your family members. They can sue, and you will need to pay to have adequate legal defense. They may have no chance of actualy winning, but you still need to go through the motions and you still need to pay the fees. That is American justice. We are a judicial society, and it costs money to take part in the judicial system. They can even wait until you are broke from your good expensive attorney, and then really start trying once the attorney no longer is motivated on your behalf, or you get a new cheaper less capable one. The outcome favors those with lots of cash.
Research civil cases if you don't think the outcome favors those that can afford lawyers long term vs those that cannot.
The good news is the family of the perps will usualy not have a lot themselves as the perps tend to come from lower income brackets, and while they may initialy sue you, once they realize suing people is not like winning the lottery as it is portrayed on TV and actualy costs more than they could actualy win (after lawyers cut is taken), they will probably drop the case if they have no reasonable chance of winning. You will still need to pay for attorneys until then. The system is like a business. It keeps thousands of judges, attorneys, clerks, etc employed. They have no incentive to clean it up or make it a cheaper system and destroy the value of thier profession they worked hard to enter.
The only solution is to go to a state that favors you more, or perhaps does allow reimbersal of costs if you win. Even then, judge ordered reimbersal from a low income family member or the criminal that never is going to pay the tens of thousands you spent is just going to be a moral victory, not a real financial one. You will still likely forever be out the money you spent.
That is part of the American system, and you cannot escape it.
You can however minimize the number expenses by being in a place friendly to self defense so you will not be facing criminal charges from an overzelous DA at the same time you face civil charges from the criminal. A few states additionaly do not allow them to sue over injuries from self defense. (If they try they can usualy still find something to sue over if all they want is to punish you and not really win.)
A modified version of this could include cctv and a remote switch to activate this manualy in addition the the automatic door removed activation. Another button to buzz them in. Make sure the bad switch has a cover in red and is not easy to confuse with the other
Good people can be buzzed in the second door after the first latches shut and locks, bad people can be dealt with in the lock. A non lethal version could use tear gas/ pepper spray.Okay now back to reality.
However in reality we have laws. The laws make it pretty clear booby traps are illegal. Without them the "airlock" has lost most of its advantage. Also if the front entrance is that obviously secure, someone will just use the windows or another entrance. It also will make it hard to talk with legit visitors. You won't hear knocks as well, and need a doorbell outside. You entering the airlock removes any advantage it provided in terms of security as others have said because now your in a limited space with someone, and however you were going to get back in can be used by the criminal. You could make it lock behind you and rely on the wife to buzz you in, but what is she going to do when you are unconscious and the guy threatens to kill you? Probably open it.
You harming someone while they are still on the other side of a locked door that is part of an entrance can be used to show you were not in immediate danger prior to using lethal force.
If you go put yourself out with them on the other side of a locked door, you are not following the duty to retreat in many places, and not just standing your ground in places that allow that. You are advancing into a situation that puts you at increased risk on the other side of a door unnecessarily, and then using lethal force. Good luck with that.
Forced entry also has some relevance in a self defense situation. An opened door will not have been forced.
If it is standard for people to enter the front door and enter the "air lock" prior to ringing a bell or knocking, then it is not technicaly entering illegaly yet which gives you no greater freedom in use of force than if outside a normal front door.
You seemed concerned over financial loss.
As far as being sued and losing everything because a criminal chose to make you a victim? Well sorry to inform you, but in many states someone can sue over anything at any time regardless. It does not mean they will win, but they can still take you to court and have thier day in court, and still require you to have a lawyer to defend yourself costing you money.
If they know they do not have a case they can stall the case as long as possible, using a cheap lawyer, while you pay for a good quality expensive one and simply cost you as much as possible for months or years. They can then drop the case, and start it over if it is getting too close to a trial and they might actualy lose the case they know they do not have. You can keep it open if you want to continue to spend tens of thousands for a couple more years to actualy have it resolved, or you can have nothing resolved and drop it not wanting to lose any more. That is the legal system.
I have personaly seen someone go through exactly that. The malicious person wanted to buy some of thier land (that was never for sale), the owner refused and the malicious person brought a false property dispute case that had no merit whatsoever just to punish them. They were not a neighbor, surveys clearly showed the property line, fences clearly showed the line, nobody came onto or ever used the land, yet they had the right to have thier case heard in court. You do not have to do anything wrong to be sued, and what you are sued for does not have to be real.
Determining if it is real or just is a matter for the courts, so it still has to go to court.
The result of the situation I mentioned was many tens of thousands of dollars for the property owner to keep what was already thiers (close to $100,000 if I recall, with less than half paid for by homeowner's insurance in years of legal expenses). The malicious person did nothing illegal, and if you own property it is considered part of your personal responsibility to defend it at your cost. You are not entitled to reimbersal for standing up for your stuff in most cases as that is considered part of being an owner. If you can prove it was intentionaly malicious and they did not really believe they had a case you can try to start a new case and spend more money, but usualy the key factor is not if they had a case, but whether they thought they did or whether it was malicious intent. Good luck proving that.
The same applies for defending yourself or home with lethal force in many states. The criminal or the family can sue, even if they were in the process of torturing you when you used force. Even if they were in the middle of thier magazine emptying bullets into your family members. They can sue, and you will need to pay to have adequate legal defense. They may have no chance of actualy winning, but you still need to go through the motions and you still need to pay the fees. That is American justice. We are a judicial society, and it costs money to take part in the judicial system. They can even wait until you are broke from your good expensive attorney, and then really start trying once the attorney no longer is motivated on your behalf, or you get a new cheaper less capable one. The outcome favors those with lots of cash.
Research civil cases if you don't think the outcome favors those that can afford lawyers long term vs those that cannot.
The good news is the family of the perps will usualy not have a lot themselves as the perps tend to come from lower income brackets, and while they may initialy sue you, once they realize suing people is not like winning the lottery as it is portrayed on TV and actualy costs more than they could actualy win (after lawyers cut is taken), they will probably drop the case if they have no reasonable chance of winning. You will still need to pay for attorneys until then. The system is like a business. It keeps thousands of judges, attorneys, clerks, etc employed. They have no incentive to clean it up or make it a cheaper system and destroy the value of thier profession they worked hard to enter.
The only solution is to go to a state that favors you more, or perhaps does allow reimbersal of costs if you win. Even then, judge ordered reimbersal from a low income family member or the criminal that never is going to pay the tens of thousands you spent is just going to be a moral victory, not a real financial one. You will still likely forever be out the money you spent.
That is part of the American system, and you cannot escape it.
You can however minimize the number expenses by being in a place friendly to self defense so you will not be facing criminal charges from an overzelous DA at the same time you face civil charges from the criminal. A few states additionaly do not allow them to sue over injuries from self defense. (If they try they can usualy still find something to sue over if all they want is to punish you and not really win.)
Last edited:
JamisJockey
member
Another thing I forgot. If'n someone makes thier way into the "airlock" when you're not home, they will be able to spend thier time accessing the inner door and ultimately your house. Same reason covered and screened front porches can be a danger zone.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
