Homeowner shot confronting intruder in NH- how could this have been different?

[ClickClickD'oh]

If someone hears a bump and cannot know whether it is an intruder or not, do they go investigate or not?

Congratulations, you have yet again presented the False Dilemma fallacy.

In the end, your advice is unworkable and absurd. You cannot barricade yourself every time you hear a noise,

Strawman fallacy & Appeal to Extremes logical fallacy

Seriously. At least try to have a conversation here instead of just making things up. It's pretty clear you have zero intention of discussing what is actually being said.

Who said anything about a second story?

Really? Seriously?

I mean... come on. At least keep up with the thread.

I'm going to take my chances on going on the offensive first, and believe it's 100% stupid NOT to do so

Okay, fine. What ever. I don't care. Your brains, not mine. Just do us a favor. Take at least one force on force class that deals with opposed entry and structure clearing, then come back and honestly tell us what you learned.

JUST

ONE

CLASS.

That's all I'm asking, because the forum full of guys that don't are telling the guys that do that we are being stupid. Fine. Be a guy that does and come back to us.

Simple... shoot first. Here in Texas we have the Castle Doctrine. Once you break into someone's house you have just entered a free fire zone! You don't have to say a word.....

Please, no one take this as legal advice. Please. It's shockingly bad advice. Like, full on, "holy F did someone just say that" bad.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

So now what are you going to do?

See, this is why some of us say that proper home defense is more about planning and hardening then it is. "I have a gun, my home is safe".

Have a house key on a chem light. Tell the dispatcher the key is coming out a window. This will allow the officers to 1) Know which room is occupied by the residents, 2) Allow them to make entry into the house without destroying kicking down a door or sending a dog through a window and 3) maybe extract the residents through the window if it's a ground floor location.. removing your from the danger of being caught up in the goblin rodeo.

 

[Hanzo581]

Please, no one take this as legal advice. Please. It's shockingly bad advice. Like, full on, "holy F did someone just say that" bad.

There are certainly situations that are exceptions (where other known people are in the house you may mistake for intruder), but if you are in an area where you have no duty to retreat what would you do when encountering an intruder?

Wait and question him? Maybe ask their intentions? Who they are? What their sign is?

 

[Kleanbore]

Take at least one force on force class that deals with opposed entry and structure clearing, then come back and honestly tell us what you learned.

JUST

ONE

CLASS.

That should do it.

Or, you can read accounts right here on THR from people who have participated in that kind of training.

It has also been suggested that some tryouts with Airsoft guns might be educational.

 

[ATLDave]

Click' and Klean', I do feel like we're having a hard time communicating. I don't think any of us is being deliberately perverse or engaging in fallacies on purpose, we're just talking past each other.

It seems to me that both of you want to treat the presence of an intruder as a binary question: either there is or is not an intruder. And that's true insofar as it goes. But, in a large number of cases, that's not a knowable thing at the time - the only way to know one way or another with certainty is to go and see for yourself. Certainly various tools and techniques and technology can help to reduce the uncertainty or the number of uncertain events. I do not think it is possible to eliminate it in all cases, though... perhaps this is the crux of our disagreement.

But once you accept that there will be some set of circumstances in which the presence of an intruder (as an explanation for a strange noise or some other phenomenon explainable by innocent-and-non-innocent causes), then some of the approaches for dealing with a known or likely intruder become unworkable. Similarly, approaches for dealing with a known no-intruder circumstance (or, equally, a circumstance in which there is no reason to even suspect an intruder) seem inapplicable. In my experience, these small-but-non-zero-chance-of-intruder circumstances arise with some frequency. At least every few years in my personal life. An intruder has never been the explanation (unless one counts the time a possum got into my kitchen or the like).

In other words, a person's knowledge of an intruder's presence isn't always a 1 or 0. Sometimes, it's a .85, and it probably makes sense to treat that like a 1. But a non-trivial portion of the time it will be more like a .1 or a .05 or .01. In fact, it's in one of those states a lot more often than it's a 1. Those are the circumstances I'm talking about. I don't think that's a "fallacy."

There, that's my level-best attempt to see if we can actually communicate about the same thing.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

but if you are in an area where you have no duty to retreat what would you do when encountering an intruder?

Wait and question him? Maybe ask their intentions? Who they are? What their sign is?

You know, a big part of my classes, when I'm teaching civilian self defense, deals with how you handle yourself and present yourself during a conflict. I teach that in the modern world, there are witnesses everywhere. Phones, ears, cameras etc. Everything you say and do will show up in a court of law. That's why I tell people that if they are in an encounter, get Shakespearian. If you are backing away, get your hands up. Get the Jazz hands going. Let the jury that is going to be watching the tape see for themselves in clear images that you were doing your best to not have to kill a person. Even if you had every right. Because yeah, castle doctorine, or SYG is great, but it generally does jack and squat for the civil trial. That is assuming you had $30k to $50k for the criminal trial.

Appearing to be doing everything possible to avoid the fight is always better than, "Simple... shoot first. Here in Texas we have the Castle Doctrine." That's a one way ticket to bankruptcy, even if you were in the right. Remember, it's going to be a group of people you have never met, might not be like minded and probably don't share your outlook on life that will decide your fate. Positioning yourself as the innocent victim who was pushed to the most extreme before resorting to taking someone life is always better than appear to be a blood thirsty individual looking for an excuse to kill.

Also, please everyone read 9.31, 9.32 and 9.42. There is more to it than "Castle Doctrine, *BLAM BLAM BLAM*"

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

It seems to me that both of you want to treat the presence of an intruder as a binary question: either there is or is not an intruder.

No. that's not at all what we have said.

We have both specifically mentioned other means of determining the presence of something out of the ordinary other than having to personally go see what the problem is.

the only way to know one way or another with certainty is to go and see for yourself.

False Dilema

 

[ATLDave]

Appearing to be doing everything possible to avoid the fight is always better than, "Simple... shoot first. Here in Texas we have the Castle Doctrine."

We can vigorously agree on that point. My personal rule of thumb (not legal advice, although I am a lawyer) is that you should never shoot someone unless/until you would rather go to jail/be sued than find out what happens next (if you don't shoot).

 

[ATLDave]

No. that's not at all what we have said.

We have both specifically mentioned other means of determining the presence of something out of the ordinary other than having to personally go see what the problem is.



False Dilema

It appears that our disagreement is whether one can drive the number to a 0 or 1 in all cases all the time without leaving your bedroom. I don't think you can. You appear to. It appears to be the irreduceable crux of the difference. And that's probably as much of a conversation as we can productively have. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Hanzo581]

You know, a big part of my classes, when I'm teaching civilian self defense, deals with how you handle yourself and present yourself during a conflict. I teach that in the modern world, there are witnesses everywhere. Phones, ears, cameras etc. Everything you say and do will show up in a court of law. That's why I tell people that if they are in an encounter, get Shakespearian. If you are backing away, get your hands up. Get the Jazz hands going. Let the jury that is going to be watching the tape see for themselves in clear images that you were doing your best to not have to kill a person. Even if you had every right. Because yeah, castle doctorine, or SYG is great, but it generally does jack and squat for the civil trial. That is assuming you had $30k to $50k for the criminal trial.

Appearing to be doing everything possible to avoid the fight is always better than, "Simple... shoot first. Here in Texas we have the Castle Doctrine." That's a one way ticket to bankruptcy, even if you were in the right. Remember, it's going to be a group of people you have never met, might not be like minded and probably don't share your outlook on life that will decide your fate. Positioning yourself as the innocent victim who was pushed to the most extreme before resorting to taking someone life is always better than appear to be a blood thirsty individual looking for an excuse to kill.

Also, please everyone read 9.31, 9.32 and 9.42. There is more to it than "Castle Doctrine, *BLAM BLAM BLAM*"

Huh? Walking away with hands up? Cameras and witnesses everywhere? None of these things have anything to do with an intruder in your home.

These decisions are often made in seconds, if you are hesitating thinking about jury perception you likely won't have to worry or pay for defense because you'll be dead.

 

[Kleanbore]

t seems to me that both of you want to treat the presence of an intruder as a binary question: either there is or is not an intruder.

Not I.

But, in a large number of cases, that's not a knowable thing at the time -

True fact.

the only way to know one way or another with certainty is to go and see for yourself.

If one has not installed other methods, that's true.

In other words, a person's knowledge of an intruder's presence isn't always a 1 or 0.

Yep. Rarely is.

Sometimes, it's a .85, and it probably makes sense to treat that like a 1.

I would treat .5, or .25. or .15 the same way.
When you get into your car to drive to the store, your chances of having a collision are extremely remote. But the consequences could be severe. Would you ever even consider not fastening your safety belt?
Unless I am almost certain that the noise I have heard does not indicate the potential that serious danger exists somewhere in the house, I would choose to not expose myself to the possibility. It's all downside, with no upside. The tgreat, should there be one, can come to me, or depart.
If I really thought I would have difficulty sleeping without having verified that there were no one in the house, I would have a wireless camera set on order before nightfall today.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Okay, since we are going to dance around the "but how do you know there isn't an intruder in the house" issue, let's discuss how I know there isn't an intruder in the house.

I have an alarm system and I have a dogs. Okay, let's assume that my house gets broken into by movie bandits and they can "bypass" the alarm... and the dogs have both decided tonight is their night off. We will assume those two conditions just for argument.

That's why I also have a motion activated light at the end of the hallway leading to the bedroom. That way I can see just be looking if this light has come on and it has the added benefit of making it real hard for any intruder to see up the hallway. I wired this light through a standard time so that it's active from 2300 to 0600. You can get this setup at Home Depot for less the $50. I also have a pair of IR wireless cameras in the house. On in the kitchen (for catching those late night fridge raids) and one near the home theater system. No need to get the super expensive professionally installed stuff, this can be done on the cheap to. While you are at it, pick up a couple extra $15 IR illumination and place them near ground level and angled so that people hiding behind furniture will cast a giant shadow on the IR cameras.

So yeah, if the dogs don't care, the alarm is green, the IR cameras don't show anything and the motion lights are out... there is no one in the house.

You can take these extra steps for far less than a good class costs.

 

[Kleanbore]

So yeah, if the dogs don't care, the alarm is green, the IR cameras don't show anything and the motion lights are out... there is no one in the house.

Yes, and you don't have to risk finding out otherwise the hard way.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Huh? Walking away with hands up? Cameras and witnesses everywhere? None of these things have anything to do with an intruder in your home.

You can't think of any external witness that could be used in an investigation or trial resulting from a home intruder? Your own security camera recordings maybe? The 911 dispatcher call? Testimoney from your neighbor that heard shouting? Statements by your own family to the police?

These decisions are often made in seconds, if you are hesitating thinking about jury perception you likely won't have to worry or pay for defense because you'll be dead.

Lol. Okay

Someone has never practiced on a law enforcement firing line.

 

[bassjam]

It appears that our disagreement is whether one can drive the number to a 0 or 1 in all cases all the time without leaving your bedroom. I don't think you can. You appear to. It appears to be the irreduceable crux of the difference. And that's probably as much of a conversation as we can productively have. Thanks for your thoughts.

Click seems to think that EVERYONE has a house exactly like his. It's one thing to give advise to set up other's house like their own to HELP the discussion, but to simply assume everybody's situation is the same as his and then talk down to anyone who doesn't see eye to eye, well, I hope I never take a class from someone like that. A good teacher needs the ability to listen as well as teach. Or at the very least some reading comprehension skills.

You're arguing the case of Schroeder's cat. Until you visually see an intruder, you don't know if he's there or not so you have to assume he's both there and not there.

In Click's world, he's already opened that box and seen the cat so he knows if the cat is alive or dead. But he fails to understand that the VAST majority of the people reading this thread to not have multiple layers of protections and alarms set up, they don't KNOW if there is an intruder or not without visual confirmation.

 

[Hanzo581]

You can't think of any external witness that could be used in an investigation or trial resulting from a home intruder? Your own security camera recordings maybe? The 911 dispatcher call? Testimoney from your neighbor that heard shouting? Statements by your own family to the police?



Lol. Okay

Someone has never practiced on a law enforcement firing line.

My only job is to protect my family, if you want to take a few minutes to figure out why that guy(s) are in your house that's your business. I'm not worried about staging a scene. This isn't a movie.

 

[ATLDave]

You're arguing the case of Schroeder's cat. Until you visually see an intruder, you don't know if he's there or not so you have to assume he's both there and not there.

I almost explicitly referenced Schroedinger's cat, and then decided communication was proving difficult enough without introducing quantum mechanics into it!

 

[Kleanbore]

...the VAST majority of the people reading this thread to not have multiple layers of protections and alarms set up, they don't KNOW if there is an intruder or not without visual confirmation.

That's true. So, the question is, what happens if there does happen to be someone in the house?

There are several possibilities, and while some are better than others, none of them are very good.

Staying out of harm's way and not knowing is almost always better.

Staying out of harm's way and being able to tell what's going on is best, and regardless of what "the VAST majority of the people reading this thread" may have now, they can avail themselves of the means to know that for less than the cost of a good handgun.

 

[bassjam]

Staying out of harm's way and being able to tell what's going on is best, and regardless of what "the VAST majority of the people reading this thread" may have now, they can avail themselves of the means to know that for less than the cost of a good handgun.

We could have saved a lot of quoting and silly arguing had someone offered such solutions on the first page lol!!

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Click seems to think that EVERYONE has a house exactly like his.

No I don't. But hey, let's not start having a conversation based on what is being discussed instead of just presenting one logical fallacy after another...

You're arguing the case of Schroeder's cat. Until you visually see an intruder, you don't know if he's there or not so you have to assume he's both there and not there.

False Dilema. You falsely assert that you can't know your house is secure without visual confirmation. Simply put, male bovine fecal matter. If you guys would ever stop with the logic fallacies we could actually have a discussion.

But he fails to understand that the VAST majority of the people reading this thread to not have multiple layers of protections and alarms set up..

Quite the contrary. Based on experience teaching people how to defend themselves and their homes, I know for a fact that most people are drastically unprepared, poorly equipped and definitely not ready for it. Most people think that they've got a shotgun under the bed, so they're safe and never bother to realize that the best forms of home defense prevent you from needing the shotgun in the first place.

Okay, you don't have your house set up to be defensible or to even provide you with a basic awareness of your surroundings. So what. What is keeping you from setting your house up properly? Do they not sell lights where you live? Are there no Home Depots? Amazon doesn't deliver to you?

Nothing I have mentioned costs more than a couple boxes of ammunition or requires professional attention to set up. There is absolutely no reason to remain in the "I've got a gun, I'm good" camp.

Do you have a defensive plan? I assume that your and your family have plans for such things as fires and tornadoes right? Okay, so have a home intruder plan too. Walk through it. Analayze and improve it. Ask how each and every step can be improved to make you and your family safer. That is the goal after all, not protecting your TV. Why aren't you taking steps to make your plan not "wander the house with a gun"? Which is the absolutely least safe home defense plan.

...they don't KNOW if there is an intruder or not without visual confirmation.

Well, if you want to use Piss Poor Planning as your excuse...

if you want to take a few minutes to figure out why that guy(s) are in your house...

You know, since everyone else is making things up, why don't you just try to cram some words into my mouth too.

What I meant, and should be clear to everyone that has ever done any training, is that things like screaming "STOP! GET AWAY!" Don't take extra mental process, don't disrupt your action chain and can absolutely be trained in. I know everyone that has done even one class has done this drill:

Hands up, palm out to attacker
Shout: STOP
Shuffle step back
Shout: STOP
Shuffle step back, grip pull, rotate, join, push
Shout: STOP
Two rounds.

It's a two second drill.

You are absolutely right. This isn't a movie. If the jury isn't on your side, you go to jail (or write a giant check depending on what type of court you are in). A jury hearing a 911 dispatcher tape where you've told them you are hiding in the bedroom, they hear you yelling STOP and then gunfire is going to be much better than one in which you tell the dispatcher "TEXAS CASTLE LAW", you go after the intruder then there is gunfire.

 

[bassjam]

No I don't. But hey, let's not start having a conversation based on what is being discussed instead of just presenting one logical fallacy after another...


False Dilema. You falsely assert that you can't know your house is secure without visual confirmation. Simply put, male bovine fecal matter. If you guys would ever stop with the logic fallacies we could actually have a discussion.

Nobody else had made a darned thing up. Just because you say it's happened, doesn't mean it's so.

Quite the contrary. Based on experience teaching people how to defend themselves and their homes, I know for a fact that most people are drastically unprepared, poorly equipped and definitely not ready for it. Most people think that they've got a shotgun under the bed, so they're safe and never bother to realize that the best forms of home defense prevent you from needing the shotgun in the first place.

This was the one area we agreed on, yet you STILL utilized your poor reading skills and decided to argue. I 100% agree, most people DO NOT have multiple layers of protection, nor have they prepared. If you had come into this thread with some helpful information on how to set these things up to help a homeowner know when there is an intruder in their home, you may have answered the question right then and there. Instead you chose to argue when valid points were brought up, and dismissed them as "fallacy". Because as it is, most people can not tell when a bump in the night is an intruder with 100% certainty.

Clearly you have ideas on how to change that. Show us the way. Share your ideas. Because your arguments for the sake of arguing are not adding to the conversation. If anything I'm questioning your ability to be a guide or instructor of any kind.

 

[RPZ]

See, this is why some of us say that proper home defense is more about planning and hardening then it is. "I have a gun, my home is safe".

Have a house key on a chem light. Tell the dispatcher the key is coming out a window. This will allow the officers to 1) Know which room is occupied by the residents, 2) Allow them to make entry into the house without destroying kicking down a door or sending a dog through a window and 3) maybe extract the residents through the window if it's a ground floor location.. removing your from the danger of being caught up in the goblin rodeo.

No disagreements there. Even in a rental there are some things you do at a minimal or modest cost, but for me, if I owned my own house there is much that can be done to harden etc and little excuse for not doing it. If not all at once due to time and cost, then in stages.

 

[old lady new shooter]

That is EXACTLY what you said. See below.

Please provide statistics on the likely hood of someone searching their own home getting killed. I've seen the "Armed Citizens" in the NRA mags where 90 year old men (and women) search their own home with a gun and "get the bad guy". Prove to me those are anomalies, and that most people who do this die.

Here are my thoughts. I am an old lady living alone.
1. HARDEN YOUR HOUSE TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR A BG TO GET IN.
2. HARDEN YOUR HOUSE TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR A BG TO GET IN.
3. HARDEN YOUR HOUSE TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR A BG TO GET IN.

4. SLEEP WITH YOUR WEAPON, TACTICAL LIGHT, CELLPHONE AND LANDLINE WITHIN REACH. The light is really important -- besides allowing you to see whom you're shooting you can effectively blind the BG by shining it in his eyes, especially if it has a strobe setting or you blink it on and off.

Then, if you do hear a noise in the night, 5. FIRST LISTEN AND TRY TO DETERMINE WHAT THE NOISE ACTUALLY IS. A rat trying to gnaw its way in through the screening on a crawl space or a squirrel scampering across the roof do not make the same kind of noise as a wannabe intruder. Tree branches rubbing on a window if the sound continues and stays the same are also not an intruder. Breaking glass on the other hand is not likely to be something benign, a hummingbird or large moth flying into a closed window makes a thump, it does not break the glass.

Personally I am not going out of my bedroom, but if the noise does sound like an intruder I will be ready if/when he reaches the doorway.

 

[old lady new shooter]

The huge majority of home burglaries happen in the daytime when no one is home.

When anyone attempts or forces entry into an occupied home at night, odds are high that they are chemically impaired. And even then even a simple vocal challenge will cause them to flee. Even the slightest hint that the homeowner might be armed will almost always result in panicked flight. Anyone who stays after that can be presumed to have little or no judgement and to be a true threat to life.

In more than ten years on the street I saw many many cases where "Who the hell is in my living room?" was more than enough to send the intruder howling in fear into the night. I saw a dozen or more cases where armed homeowners either captured and held or shot intruders. I never saw a case where the armed homeowner was injured or killed.

I think people are overthinking this. The huge majority of burglars aren't going to even try to break in if they know someone is home, and if challenged will almost always run away. The individual in the original story made a serious mistake in initiating a verbal and physical challenge without being armed. Had he been the outcome would have very likely been much more favorable.

Bottom line is you don't need SWAT training to defend your home. Most criminals are abject cowards who will run away at even the slightest hint that the homeowner is armed and ready to act in self defense.

Honestly I am less worried about what I call "rational criminals" (who break into houses to steal stuff to get money) than about crazies. A huge percentage of Bad Things That Happen around here are perpetrated by the numerous homeless mentally disturbed and in many cases substance-abusing people about whom the authorities do nothing. A "rational criminal" is going to observe that I have security doors that he can't kick in, dusk-to-dawn lighting away from the bedroom and motion detector lights on the sides where the bedroom is, and really good window locks, and leave to find an easier target. A crazy OTOH might just decide to dive through a window for some "reason" known only to him.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Simple... shoot first. Here in Texas we have the Castle Doctrine. Once you break into someone's house you have just entered a free fire zone! You don't have to say a word.....

Deaf

And if it's a drunken friend of the neighbor's teenage son?