How to handle a break in

[xXxplosive]

Considder getting some training with a defensive firearm. Just because you have a gun, doesn't necessarilly mean you know what to do with it when the chips are down. Your greatest defensive weapon lies between your ears.

Get out to the range and practice so you are completly comfortable with your firearm and can handle it's functions in the dark if necessary. As far as the few who think it's OK to hunkerdown in a room while your home is being assaulted and ransacked while you and your family are there think again. Anyone invading a home knowingly with a family there and asleep is there to do you bodily harm if necessary otherwise the breakin would have occured while the premises were vacant, most likely during daytime hours.

Fear and a gun is not a good combination. Get some practical training to build confidence in both your self and your equipment. Join a range or go to a public shooting facility, train with an expert if you can. You owe it to youself and your family if you are going to have a defensive firearm. Just being a gun owner and spewing some macho talk won't cut it if your ever placed in a real life threatening situation.

Been there, done that.
As I said, It Hits You Like A Truck and then it's up to you. Ready.....................Or Not.

 

[Route2]

Always enjoy Jeff & Kleanbore's posts.

Seems to me that most are saying the same thing: If you pull a weapon, be prepared to use it. If pressed by the intruder, use it.

 

[catspa]

Here's my point, as clearly as I can put it: A gang of criminals who has broken into my home presents, in my mind, a clear threat to my life and loved ones. A plan of defense that revolves around scaring them off, if it gets in the way of using deadly force to resist their attack, can mean "game over" for me. I'm not willing to die for somebody who breaks into my home.

Do armies win battles or sports teams win trophies by underestimating their opponents? No they do not. If I'm not prepared to deal with the biggest, meanest son-of-a-biscuit that kicks my door in, then I'm not prepared.

I once held a half-dozen men at shotgun-point, inside a home in the middle of the night. They weren't hardened criminals, but they were drunk and mad, and a couple of them were visibly armed. I didn't want to kill them, but I was ready to if they moved on me, and they knew it, and held still. They all left alive, and I did too.

I later heard that one of them, a younger fellow, bragged up to his buddies that they should have jumped me and shoved my shotgun where the sun don't shine. Another one of the bunch turned on him and told him, "Shut up. We never shoulda been there, and we coulda died there." I'm convinced that's what saved my life, them knowing I was serious. Being all liquored up, they would have taken any hesitation as weakness, and it would have been the end of me.

So I'm sorry, fellas, for being born 100 years too late and not fitting in very well with the values of our modern litigational system. It is what it is.

Parker

 

[Jon_Snow]

There are a million scenarios that could act out but going back to the 911 recording, you can’t always assume that what gets on that tape will help you. Imagine an invader who plays the rap of “Just moved in down the street, man I’m sorry, I thought my locks were jacked up, I’m not here to try to do anything man, I’m just confused, sorry man…” while closing range & then he attempts to attack you. On the tape all someone will hear is someone apparently confused getting shot by a homeowner. In some places that’ll play out in your favor, in some it won’t.

They won't just hear that. They'll also hear you yelling out commands like: "Keep your hands in the air! Stay where you are! Stop! Backup! Don't come any cloeser!" etc. If someone is in my home you better believe I'll be yelling commands at him/her until they are on the ground and unarmed.

 

[Kleanbore]

I once held a half-dozen men at shotgun-point, inside a home in the middle of the night. They weren't hardened criminals, but they were drunk and mad, and a couple of them were visibly armed. I didn't want to kill them, but I was ready to if they moved on me, and they knew it, and held still. They all left alive, and I did too.

Excellent outcome!

So I'm sorry, fellas, for being born 100 years too late and not fitting in very well with the values of our modern litigational system. It is what it is.

Try 4000 years too late. In one of the earliest bodies of written jurisprudence, the Code of Ur-Nammu (codified before Hammurabi), the law specified that a if person occupying his home killed a burglar at night, it was justifiable as self defense. Not so during the day, because the homeowner could see better in the light and had more options.

I do not believe that the time of day was a factor in Talmudic law, nor is it mentioned in any castle law that I know about. It is covered in Texas code Section 9.42, which addresses the defense of property.

But I digress. Murder has been prohibited everywhere, and for a very, very long time. The question becomes one of when the killing of one person by another is justified and when it is not.

The judges who established the English Common Law nine centuries ago invested a lot of thought into that question. For example, how would one determine that the killer had not in fact been the aggressor, or that the death simply resulted from consensual combat gone bad? That question gave rise to the "duty to retreat to the wall." And so forth.

Why does that matter today? Well, the English Common Law serves as the basis of the laws in all of our states except one. Things have evolved, of course. Some states have eliminated the duty to retreat. Some states have re-instated the castle doctrine, establishing that the fact of an unlawful entry (sometimes "tumultuous"or "with force") provides at least some basis for reasonable belief that imminent danger exists. But no state allows individual citizens to dispense justice.

It is a common misconception that we are bound in dealing with our fellow man by developments embodied in modern laws. Not so.

That may or may not be important. What is very important is having an understanding of the laws that govern the use of deadly force. To my knowledge, nothing prohibits the use of deadly force when it is immediately necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm, and in some cases to prevent forcible felonies. If it is not the case that such force is immediately necessary, the legal prohibitions and the ramifications of ignoring them are not a product of the last 100 years.

As a matter of fact, the penalties for an unlawful shooting today are probably a lot more lenient than they were 100 years ago!

 

[YammyMonkey]

Jon- They'll hear you yelling & being "irrational" while the confused person is trying to be calm & get things sorted out. Or so one side will say.

Get out to the range and practice so you are completly comfortable with your firearm and can handle it's functions in the dark if necessary. As far as the few who think it's OK to hunkerdown in a room while your home is being assaulted and ransacked while you and your family are there think again. Anyone invading a home knowingly with a family there and asleep is there to do you bodily harm if necessary otherwise the breakin would have occured while the premises were vacant, most likely during daytime hours.

Agreed on the training & the need for a mindset that creates a line in the sand which, if crossed, will result in the use of deadly force. The foolishness of going intruder hunting is that you've evened the playing field for the badguy(s) somewhat. Stay put in a strong defensive position & if that line in the sand is crossed you go on the offense to drive repel boarders. The idea is to give you the best chance of winning the encounter & going out in your tighty whiteys with a light & a weapon cuts those chances considerably.

 

[catspa]

Thank you, Kleanbore, for posting that. Seriously, I found it quite interesting. However, I would suggest that at many times and places in the last 4000 years, a person who expected the law and lawmakers to dispense justice justly would have been sadly disappointed.

Excellent outcome!

I was lucky that night. Killing is an ugly, terrible, brutal thing, and the only reason we would even consider it is to prevent something worse.

Murder has been prohibited everywhere, and for a very, very long time. The question becomes one of when the killing of one person by another is justified and when it is not.

Murder has been committed everywhere, and for a very long time. The prohibition of it has not done very well at preventing it, and is somewhat hypocritical if the government doing the prohibiting engages in the same practice to further its own interest. The question you refer to is the one that governments are willing to preside over - but the manner in which they do so sometimes changes the nature of the equation.

But no state allows individual citizens to dispense justice.

Right you are. Each state claims a monopoly on the use or threat of deadly force. But an intruder who kicks in my door does not threaten the state. He threatens me. The state is not a stakeholder, strictly speaking, in the situation - it is a third party whose efforts in the justice department have fallen short of preventing this criminal from crossing the line of decent society and embarking on a life of crime. The state will not (and cannot, in practical terms) protect me, and yet they claim the power to micro-manage how and when I protect myself.

Does not the state (in America, anyway) exercise only the legitimate power granted them by the consent of the governed? Are not we the people the source of whatever authority the state can wield?

Let's imagine for a moment that you and I are neighbors, and that a fellow who dislikes you is standing on your porch getting ready to punch you in the nose. Suppose I yell across the yard and say, "Hey, neighbor! Defend not your nose! Soon I will come over there and take the nose-puncher into custody, and will decide his fate without your input, and charge you handsomely for doing so." I might let him off scot-free, or I might take a crowbar to his kneecaps, just depends on how I feel when I get over there, whenever that may be. And furthermore, whatever damage he does to your property, I can make him pay for, but he pays me, not you. If I feel like giving you some of the money, I can do that. If I want to lock him in a place where wild animals tear him limb from limb, I can do that. I can make him a deal where he walks if he will go over and punch my other neighbor in the nose, or I can just give him 50 bucks of your money and send him on his way. And once he punches your nose, if you hit him back I can do any of those things to you, too.

Say what? You have no interest in being my neighbor under those terms? Hmmmm. Well okay, I have an idea. How 'bout I get together 10 or 20 other neighbors, and charm them into voting me that kind of authority. Wouldja feel better about it all then? Hmmm. All the people in the county, maybe several thousand or more? Hmm. All the voters in the state, maybe several million? Would you feel better if I convinced you that you needed my protection from the really bad guys? What is the source of the amount of the state's authority that exceeds the authority of the people who (supposedly) formed it?

And what shall we say of the person who homesteads a location beyond the effective reach of official "justice", whether in the Texas of the 1850's, the North Dakota of the 1870's, or the farther reaches of rural America today? When the wolf is at the door and the sheriff is nowhere to be found, how should we feel about the fellow who solves his immediate problem to the best of his ability with the information and resources he has at hand? You seem to be saying that the only justice he is entitled to is what has been (or will be) approved by the local or regional committee. I'm not so sure.

Parker

YM: In your own home, you can set things up the way you want. You can place your furniture so as to funnel traffic or obstruct it, you can arrange the light switching so you are in the dark and an entry or hallway is lit up, you can control your TV or other devices with a remote, you can place yourself to see things before you are seen. I think the defender has some distinct advantages, if he chooses to use them.

 

[Kleanbore]

The state will not (and cannot, in practical terms) protect me, and yet they claim the power to micro-manage how and when I protect myself.

Not sure where you got that idea. You have the responsibility and the right of protecting yourself. No one manages when and how. However, we do have a system of laws to determine just what constitutes protecting yourself and what does not.

Does not the state (in America, anyway) exercise only the legitimate power granted them by the consent of the governed? Are not we the people the source of whatever authority the state can wield?

Yes, and yes.

What is the source of the amount of the state's authority that exceeds the authority of the people who (supposedly) formed it?

You have answered that question.

We have decided that we will have laws to govern our affairs. We have elected representative governments that have enacted bodies of law that include criminal codes, most of which are rooted in the precepts of the English Common Law of old.

We have organized police departments, elected prosecutors, and appointed or elected judges to carry out those laws. We empanel juries of our peers to try cases that come before those judges.

If one citizen assaults, kidnaps, defrauds or otherwise steals from, or injures another, justice is administered through due process.

Same thing in the event of homicide. The interesting thing about homicide or the use of deadly force is that it may or may not constitute a criminal act; it may involve an accident (as opposed to negligence), or it may be justified as an act of self-preservation. Over the centuries, laws have evolved to address that issue. Each case will be investigated to some extent, a charging decision will be made, and there may or not be a trial. If there is a trial, there may be an acquittal or a conviction.

How else would you have it?

An act of self preservation is distinctly different from the administration of justice. The former is an individual right and responsibility, subject to very formal legal scrutiny under the latter. The responsibilities for the latter have been vested in formal organizations in three branches of government in each of our states and in the Republic.

And yes, before the states were formed there were sometimes territorial committees elected to administer justice. Not as rigorous, perhaps, but it was the best they had.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

Quote:
It's a lot less fuss if he runs the hell away.

yes but he's easier to track if he's limping, better yet if he's bleeding.

The strategy is going to be different depending on the given situation. I believe the "plan" is just a base for taking action and you shouldn't hobble yourself with it because it's not going to go according to plan.
My base plan is to hole up with my 870 with a 45 back-up and watch the door/window/ hallway, call 911 if there's time, announce nothing because I do not owe anyone an announcement.
If someone is outside shooting at my home or trying to set it on fire the "plan" changes to countermeasures.

 

[Hugo]

Never ever fire warning shots in a self defense situation. Warning shots are for the Navy. From what I've heard it looks really bad in court and if you think about it a bit it is quite stupid.

If yelling "I've got a gun to defend myself! Get out of my home!" doesn't work then neither will a "warning shot". Then you might have to shoot the bad guy if they flip out and keep coming at you or a loved one. Sad if it comes to that but some people just aren't sane or civilized.

 

[lamebums]

Jon- They'll hear you yelling & being "irrational" while the confused person is trying to be calm & get things sorted out. Or so one side will say.

If the so-called "confused person" was trying to be calm and really hadn't broken into that house but had simply entered the wrong one, then the best way to get things sorted out would be to comply with whoever occupies the house. After all, the bad guy is in someone else's house without their permission.

 

[YammyMonkey]

To you & me absolutely, but is that what 12 sheep will think as well?

 

[xXxplosive]

Took a poll amongst people who I know this past weekend who are all firearm owners naturally, at my wife's German Shepard training class she attends.
Had to ask the question just to hear for myself what other's were thinking about this Calling Out A Warning " I am armed" or "I have a gun" or "I will shoot" to an intruder entering your home.

Must have polled at least a dozen men there and two women who are armed at home. Much to my suprise none of them suggested that they would call out any type of a warning, mainly not to give away their position. Also, no one suggested they would considder holding up in any one room waiting for an intuder to come to them or their family members bedrooms, not even the two women. Seems the bedroom living space area is off limits and not the best place to have an exchange of gun fire if necessary.

Also, all would call the police first but none wanted to be confined into any space / bedroom allowing a home invader to prowl their home, especially if kids are their asleep in their rooms.

Everyone felt that they were familiar enough with their living space in the dark to take offensive action if necessary and refused to be held hostage in there own home by anyone.

And right......all of the members polled have German Shepards in home as well as being armed.

 

[DHJenkins]

Based on the layout of my house and my close proximity to the local substation, this is our plan:

1) Wake up wife, if she's not the one that woke me up.

2) Wife grabs P99 & cell phone and takes a secondary defensive position inside the bedroom

3) I grab 12ga & SIG and take up primary defensive position in bedroom.

4) Rack shotgun loudly (I don't keep one in the chamber for this specific reason).

5) Wife calls police while I maintain my position & wait for a target to present itself.

At no point would I call out a warning or attempt to clear my house before LEO arrived. IMO, racking the shotgun is enough warning; It will not identify the gender or state of mind of the person holding it, nor will it betray their location - and I believe an intruder will more likely fear the ensuing silence far more than someone yelling in fear, giving away their position.

Hooting & Hollering also lets them know you're probably staying where you're at, which I don't like either. Better to have nervous BG's wanting to leave because you might pop out of somewhere they don't know about.

 

[Cards81fan]

While I agree, that Castle Doctrine is not an license to kill, there will be no verbal warnings or use of force continuumm for me. Why? Because I have no desire or obligation for such things.

1) Wife will call 911

2) I will go to source of noise (easy to find in my small 1000 sq ft home) with gun in hand.

3) Upon intercept of intruders, and a BRIEF (milliseconds) glance to determine it is not a fireman, etc..., I will engage in the use of deadly force to secure my home.

It's that simple, and I know in my venue (Oklahoma) that it will stand up in a court of law (Pharmacist's delayed coup de grace notwithstanding). If using my firearm in such a manner toi defend my home, wife, and child isn't responsible use of a firearm, I don't know what is.

 

[Kleanbore]

1) Wife will call 911

2) I will go to source of noise (easy to find in my small 1000 sq ft home) with gun in hand.

3) Upon intercept of intruders, and a BRIEF (milliseconds) glance to determine it is not a fireman, etc..., I will engage in the use of deadly force to secure my home.

I do not know your layout, but in most of the training courses, the strategy of "clearing" a house is strongly recommended against. The reason is the risk of being ambushed, perhaps by more than one person firing from more than one direction at once.

Does you home layout provided for a strategy of getting into a safe place and letting the perp come to you?

 

[Hungry Seagull]

You can debate a break in until blue in the face and winded.

But at some point you must either stop the action or it will stop you. If you have nothing in place to stop the action, then congratulations, you are about to join the ranks of those victims of crime.

That is all I put here. There is a temptation to immerse the reader of this thread in further discussion about our way of home defense.

I leave the reader with a simple thought. Home defense with deadly force is legal within our Law in our state and is upheld and supported as a fundenmental right and protected against prosecution as LONG as it is done correctly. (Basically when, if or not to shoot)

 

[Cards81fan]

Quote:
1) Wife will call 911

2) I will go to source of noise (easy to find in my small 1000 sq ft home) with gun in hand.

3) Upon intercept of intruders, and a BRIEF (milliseconds) glance to determine it is not a fireman, etc..., I will engage in the use of deadly force to secure my home.

I do not know your layout, but in most of the training courses, the strategy of "clearing" a house is strongly recommended against. The reason is the risk of being ambushed, perhaps by more than one person firing from more than one direction at once.

Does you home layout provided for a strategy of getting into a safe place and letting the perp come to you?

That's my issue, it does not. Our house is quite small (1000 sq ft - turning on a light in one room sheds useable ambient light in all or all but one of the other rooms in the house), and our bedroom has two entrances: 1 to the hall, and the other to the bathroom which in turn connects to the hall. So there's no way to post up in the bedroom and know EXACTLY which way an intruder will enter.

The house is so small and built in such a way that the master bedroom is in one corner of the house, but the front door (at the opposite corner of the house) is only about 20 feet (so maybe 8 - 10 running steps) away. There are only 6 windowed rooms in the house, so it would be very easy to discern where the point of entry would be (as described in the scenario presented by the OP). One end of my house to the far end of the other is never more than 10 steps (one room).

It would be difficult to impossible to be at a point in my house and be in a position to have intruders on multiple sides. Based on these facts, it would behoove me to catch an intruder off guard very quickly. I do agree though that in any larger house, the sit and wait method would likely be the better option. I just want to point out that it may not always be the same situation for every househould

 

[ROVERMAN]

Option 1 for sure... remember this is a defensive situation and unless your or a family life is in immediate threat of death, injury or sexual assualt you are going to have some serious leagl issues if you pull that trigger.Now having stated that bit of obvious info if the latter does happen, be prepared to apply as much force as needed to end the threat.

 

[eric.cartman]

Option 1.

1) Get family in bathroom (from where wife can see the bedroom).
2) Make sure wife has gun and knows to shoot anyone who comes through the door.
3) Me behind bed, where wife can see me, aiming my gun at the bedroom door.
4) THEN call 911.

I'm the first line of defense. If i fall, I want wife to be able to defend the family.

 

[thesolidus]

Silly option L;
You and the family don gas masks and then dump a large can of pepper spray down the stairwell then lock the door!

Crooks gone, family safe!
(Minus is the whole house smells like salsa for weeks and the couch cushions now burn bare skin....)

 

[chuckusaret]

It is only me and my wife. I doubt anyone would continue an invasion of my house after they trip the alarm(Siren)and all the lights on the inside and outside of the house come on. If they do, I keep a XD40 for me and a 12 ga for my wife at our bedside. I have no hang ups when it comes to self defense.