How to handle a break in

[YammyMonkey]

This is not intended to grow into a manhood measuring event. I'm simply explaining the why behind my opinion so the folks here can make a reasonable, educated decision; something that it seems a lot of people skip in the rush to dispense advice.

No, YammyMonkey, if you have inferred that I think that the 911 dispatcher might help me with an encounter with the intruder, you are not reading it right--at all.

Good.

For most of the rest I'd reference Jeff's post above.

????

They will show up, and they will be the ones with the questions.

I was making reference to the "Are these the cops or are these the bad guys pretending to be cops?" dilemma. If someone is pounding on my door after I called 911 for a home invader I'll be calling 911 back to see if someone really is on scene. I can also, at that point, make clear who I am, what I look like, where I am & where the officer(s) should go so I can toss them a chemlight with a front door key attached.

Cannot agree at all. If you are in your home in most jurisdictions, it is doubtful that you can actually create any downside risk...

Going in reverse order of concern here, the first issue I have with this statement are that in a lot of jurisdictions you may not be on the hook for a criminal trial, but you could very well be on the hook for a civil trial. I know CO law exempts you from both in an honest SD situation in the home but I doubt most places are the same. Do you really want to have a jury "of your peers" listening to everything you might say during a 911 call? Even if it is only your livelihood/posessions that are at risk?

The "why" behind my limited pertinent info to 911 & hangup approach:

You don't need the distraction & that recording can't be used against you at some point. You don't know what you'll say in the heat of the moment & if you live in a state where you could end up in court over defending your home a 911 tape with your voice screaming "Die (insert non High-Road word or phrase here)!" will not help you. Likewise an "OhmygodwhatdidIjustdo?" could be construed by opposing council to mean you really weren't threatened & didn't need to shoot the poor future pediatric cardiac surgeon who broke into your house to feed his poor mother (aka meth habit).

The second is that it is the dispatcher's job to talk to you; aka distract you from the task at hand. Whether they intend to or not, this is what is happening. Why do you think cops & criminals alike have a rap of some sort they use on people they're approaching? This conversation can give away your position, keep you from hearing someone approaching & slow your OODA loop considerably.

When the time for shooting comes the time for talking has passed.

 

[catspa]

What would happen if you didn't call 911 right when you heard the breaking glass or whatever? What if you identified the threat, neutralized it (I almost typed "neutered it") or drove it off by whatever means necessary, and then called them? I guess I'm asking, is there any substantial benefit to calling them before defending your home and family? Are they going to say, "You should have called us sooner" and make it stick?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Parker, a good half an hour from the nearest LE response...

 

[YammyMonkey]

As far as I'm concerned calling 911 is an "if time permits" item. If you think you have the time then do it. If the threat is right NOW then call when you get it resolved. In your case getting on the phone sooner would help get things moving since the response time sucks. You might save yourself a few minutes of standing around with a bad guy on your floor.

On a related, but oft ignored note... If you're concerned about having to shoot someone you need to have the ability to treat traumatic injuries to yourself or those you care about. There's nothing that says you won't get hurt in the process & it would suck to win the fight but die anyway because you didn't know how to apply a tourniquet or direct pressure to an extremity wound. This goes double+ for people with slow ambulance response times.

 

[rmt22]

mistake NOT to call 911 immediately. Once you make that call you have "I called the police" defense to what happens next. And it is possible that they may respond in enough time to catch the fleeing suspect or if he get the drop on you they may save your family.

When people review your actions (and they will do this) you need to have acted reasonable and that would mean calling 911 if possible.

 

[scottgun]

mistake NOT to call 911 immediately. Once you make that call you have "I called the police" defense to what happens next. And it is possible that they may respond in enough time to catch the fleeing suspect or if he get the drop on you they may save your family.

When people review your actions (and they will do this) you need to have acted reasonable and that would mean calling 911 if possible.

This would make sense if you and the attacker are on 'neutral ground'. You want to go on record and the one who is the victim.

If you are in your own home, and someone you don't know breaks into your house, there isn't that burden to get on record as being the victim, the facts of the incident will already be apparent that perp is not where he is supposed to be and you are in your own home.

I would be more concerned about removing the threat, and then dialing 911 as a follow up. Dialing 911 won't stop the threat or protect you.

 

[Kleanbore]

Do you really want to have a jury "of your peers" listening to everything you might say during a 911 call? Even if it is only your livelihood/posessions that are at risk?

I cannot predict exactly what might unfold, but in general, the answer is "yes", and I'll add that I would also like them to hear everything else that is recorded, and to the jury I'll add the detectives and the charging authority.

It would seem to me that the recording would help eliminate other possibilities--that an injured person was really an invited guest, for example, as he may well claim afterwards--or help substantiate that the unfortunate shooting of an innocent person was in fact unintentional.

This conversation can give away your position, keep you from hearing someone approaching & slow your OODA loop considerably.

Well, that's also true during the time you are placing the call, but nothing requires you to stay in conversation if an encounter occurs and things heat up--you just stay on the line.

By the way, the intruder will know my position--I will have told him to get out.

When the time for shooting comes the time for talking has passed.

I'm afraid I simply cannot agree with that. During a shooting there's obviously no time for talking, but the time for talking does not pass. After a shooting it would be to a homeowner's great advantage for the police to know that he was in fact the shooter and that anyone down was an intruder; for them to know his location; for them to be able to give him instructions (e. g., "put the gun down"--I wouldn't do that until I knew the police were there); and for them to know, if the homeowner happened to know, that there was another intruder in a particular location in the house.

No, weighing the risks of having the incident recorded against the potential benefits, I think I have to come down on the side of having a recording.

Considering the risks inherent in the aftermath, I believe the best mitigation is to have the line of communication open after a shooting--or if there has not been a shooting, if an intruder has barricaded himself in another room.

The most serious risk, I think, lies in the arriving officers' not having the best information. Jeff White mentioned what he has done knowing that the owner has someone at gunpoint; he would need to have a way of knowing that. He mentioned that, when arriving at a prowler call where the homeowner stated he was armed, he has has had there dispatch call them back if they hung up the phone and tell them where the officers were approaching from. Personally, I do not want to rely for that on a land line that may easily be disabled or have to decide whether to answer a ringing phone that might be a darn survey when I am very stressed and very occupied.

Most of what I've read seems to indicate that the spouse should call and stay on the line, freeing the other to handle any encounter.

I really don't think the risk of shooting a responding policeman entails a very high likelihood at all, but I shudder to think of the severity of the potential consequences for all involved. All the responses I've seen or heard described have been swift and silent, and I've seen armed officers running around houses and garages from multiple directions. Since I would never, ever shoot anyone in the yard, I would pose no risk to them. I do not want them to pose a risk to me, either.

All of the above is based on the assumption that one would be able to make the call in the first place. Yes, I think it's a very good thing to try to do so if at all possible, But there would seem to be a high likelihood that there simply won't be time. Any intruders who know the house to be occupied are going to act with great speed and without warning. I have had three home invasions, but have never had to fire a shot, and I never called. In one instance there was no phone, in one the phone line had been disconnected by the intruder after his entry (it was easily reconnected from inside after the fact), and in one the old dial phone simply could not digest all the nines and zeros (there was no 911 then) fast enough as the door was breached.

 

[xXxplosive]

In my earlier post I made mention of this.....but not to be a PIA but could someone explain to me the benefit of yelleing out.

"I Have a gun" or "I'm armed". What is with this and how would it benefit you in your own home ?

I have cleared my house on more than one occassion when the dog went off or my wife heard something in the wee hours of the morning and woke me....What's with this fear yelling other than giving up your position ?

Who would know your house inside better than you in the dark ? You should be able to walk it with your eyes closed and why would you hide in your bedroom with a gun while your home is being ransacked in the back door out the front ?

Seems some here should reconsider getting better trained ?

 

[Deanimator]

"I Have a gun" or "I'm armed". What is with this and how would it benefit you in your own home ?

I'm perfectly comfortable with shooting somebody who poses an immediate, credible threat to my life and limb. It's a lot less fuss if he runs the hell away.

Unlike some people (and some here), I'm not willing to endanger myself to preserve the safety of a home invader or other violent criminal. At the same time, I'm not actively SEEKING to shoot them either.

What's the Kellerman argument against guns? That you're allegedly "n times more likely to be killed (or shot) with a gun than to use it to kill an assailant. The fundamental fallacy of this is the assumption that you can ONLY defend yourself with a gun by KILLING somebody. If you see my gun and run away, I've defended myself every bit as much as if I shoot you in the heart 15 times. In both cases, the threat has been neutralized. And if you run away, my annoyances (carpet cleaning, talking to the police as a possible murder suspect, etc.) are vastly minimized.

I'll shoot you if I have to... but only if I HAVE to, and if you run away, I won't have to.

 

[Jon_Snow]

Here's one thing none of us like to think about; what happens if you don't win the gunfight? If you're on the line with 911 the dispatcher will hear gunfire and when you fail to respond there's an ambulance on its way immediately. Of course, maybe your intruder is a hardened criminal and after hitting you in the stomach he walks up and shoots you in the head, but maybe he's just a dumb meth addict and freaks out and runs once you're down. You could be unconscious or otherwise unable to call 911 back and tell them you're injured, in which case you have to wait for the police to show up, find you and then have them call an ambulance.

 

[xXxplosive]

I see your point, although I may not agree.

Not to ridicule your statement, but..........

So by yelling out a warning, your hopping for less of a hassle and maybe he'll leave on his own like a bear raiding your cupbord.

Thats your idea of protecting your home and family ?

All I can say is, don't bother stopping over at our house at 3:00AM unexpected....we won't be yelling warnings here.

IMO some here should reconsider practical training if your going to utilize a firearm for protection.

Like the military sign says......" Smile And Wait For The Flash".

 

[Grey_Mana]

The dog should get a vote

Somebody breaks in, I'm going to be listening to understand what the dog is doing - is he worried, is he busy fighting, does he need any backup?

If he is barking his 'bring the 12 gauge and make it hot' voice, well then that's the help I bring.

If he is barking his 'I don't know what's going on but something woke me up" bark, it probably isn't a living creature that caused the noise.

If he is barking his 'I'm afraid of you, scary scary monster' bark then I'm going to infer that there is a threatening human in my house. 2 or 3 warning shots will be fired per person, each to center of mass.

If he is barking his 'hey buddy, could you pour that treat jar on the floor' friendly noises, I'm assuming somebody is there but my concern is lower. Maybe that'll be a mistake, but everything is case-by-case.

 

[Deanimator]

I see your point, although I may not agree.

Not to ridicule your statement, but..........

So by yelling out a warning, your hopping for less of a hassle and maybe he'll leave on his own like a bear raiding your cupbord.

Precisely.

The person who crawls in through the window is likely hoping just to steal things.

The person who kicks in the door likely has other things in mind.

Neither of those are set in stone. I'll shoot either of them if necessary.

As far as me being in your house without your permission at 3:00am, actions have consequences. That's why I'm NEITHER a burglar nor a home invader.

 

[xXxplosive]

Hi Grey:
Just a comment here....we've always had German Shepards and some were better than others just like people. When we almost had a break-in which I wrote about in a previous post.....that guy as ferocious as he could be, was fast asleep under a towel and knew nothing.

Moral: Don't Always Rely on The Dog..............

 

[xXxplosive]

So can someone else explain the calling out fear factor here..."I'm Armed" ?

I still don't get it.

What if you hear in return "So Am I"....what then ?

You head for either the bathroom or under the blankey ?

I'm pretty much amazed at the responses of the armed citizens here in defense of their Castles and their Loved ones.

Again, 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.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm perfectly comfortable with shooting somebody who poses an immediate, credible threat to my life and limb.

I'm not sure that "perfectly comfortable" would best describe my feelings, but I agree with the sentiment.

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

You can say that again!

Unlike some people (and some here), I'm not willing to endanger myself to preserve the safety of a home invader or other violent criminal.

Neither will I, nor have I inferred a different view from anyone here whom I can recall. Among the folks in my neighborhood, different story.

What's the Kellerman argument against guns? That you're allegedly "n times more likely to be killed (or shot) with a gun than to use it to kill an assailant. The fundamental fallacy of this is the assumption that you can ONLY defend yourself with a gun by KILLING somebody. If you see my gun and run away, I've defended myself every bit as much as if I shoot you in the heart 15 times. In both cases, the threat has been neutralized. And if you run away, my annoyances (carpet cleaning, talking to the police as a possible murder suspect, etc.) are vastly minimized.

Very well put. I remember when Dr. Milton Eisenhower put forth the same argument as Kellerman. How many times has the mere presence of a weapon saved lives?

I'll shoot you if I have to... but only if I HAVE to, and if you run away, I won't have to.

Exactly!

As stated above, I've been through that three times in my lifetime. Could have fired, would have fired had I needed to, didn't have to.

By the way, it was pretty darn scary each time.

 

[Deanimator]

What if you here in return "So Am I"....what then ?

That's what they call an "epitaph"...

 

[wrs840]

Great thread. Lots of good good thoughts here, and I learned some stuff.

You are going to feel really dumb when you find out the cat stepped on the remote turning the TV on. Plus you will have to fix an unnecessary hole in the floor.

And that's pretty dang funny...

Les

 

[catspa]

Deanimator:I'm perfectly comfortable with shooting somebody who poses an immediate, credible threat to my life and limb. It's a lot less fuss if he runs the hell away.

This may not be the first time your intruder has posed an immediate, credible threat to an innocent homeowner, but I think we can safely agree that he has not been killed before.

With all due respect to Kellerman, et al, an intruder who runs the hell away may well pose a threat again, to you or someone else. If it's you, he now has some idea what he's up against. If it's somebody not as well prepared as you, he may succeed in committing rape/murder/kidnapping/torture/whatever.

OTOH, an intruder that perishes in your kitchen, his crime-committing days are over. And at the risk of sounding like Captain Obvious, had some previous homeowner smoked him, he would not have made it to you.

In a closed system with a fixed number of BG's and GG's, killing intruders would eventually result in no more left to intrude, assuming no crossover. Intruders running away from armed homeowners would result in the eventual reduction of unarmed homeowners, as some perished and others converted to arms. But the number of intruders would remain the same.

Parker

 

[Kleanbore]

OTOH, an intruder that perishes in your kitchen, his crime-committing days are over. And at the risk of sounding like Captain Obvious, had some previous homeowner smoked him, he would not have made it to you.

In a closed system with a fixed number of BG's and GG's, killing intruders would eventually result in no more left to intrude, assuming no crossover. Intruders running away from armed homeowners would result in the eventual reduction of unarmed homeowners, as some perished and others converted to arms. But the number of intruders would remain the same.

One might infer from that that the writer may be suggesting that the homeowner might be justified in executing a death sentence without trial or due process.

Some centuries ago it was determined that a more balanced approach should be followed.

Murder is illegal. Homicide may be justified when and only when an actor has reason to believe that it is immediately necessary to prevent imminent death or serious injury. In general, the intent of castle laws has been to establish that the fact of an unlawful invasion of an occupied domicile is evidence that the danger of death or serious injury is in fact imminent.

Should there be any indication that the invader had elected to leave, that evidence would be very much in question.

Not for me, thanks. Not even if I could get away with it. No one has given me police powers, I have not been elected to represent the state in matters of law, I am not currently serving on a jury, and I am not empowered to preside over a trial court or impose sentence.

Or was something else meant by that "closed system" analysis?

 

[YammyMonkey]

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.

After the fact I’m a very big fan of “I’m going to cooperate with your investigation but I need to talk to my lawyer first.” If the police are already leaning toward taking you to jail there’s nothing you can say to keep yourself out. If they’re not there’s a LOT you can say that’ll help someone put you in prison & take everything you have for a very long time. While this is more of a concern outside the home there are still places where you must make every effort to retreat in your home & even then you’ll be treated as a criminal for defending yourself. Regardless of the situation shut up & get a lawyer is what every lawyer & honest LEO will tell you to do for your maximum benefit.

I’m not a fan of yelling out. I don’t want to give up any remaining element of surprise if I don’t have to. In my situation I’ll have to move outside the bedroom a little to get into my son’s room but that’s where we’ll stay put. I don’t want to clean blood off my new cherry floor any more than the next guy but I’m very much in favor of taking every small advantage I can. Again, it could go either way but I’m not going to depend on the other guy’s willingness to run away at the sound of my voice or the threat of a weapon. The flip side to that is you having a real hard, bold, not scared of you kind of intruder who will just come after you guns blazing if you give him that intel. If I get eyes on someone who is not an immediate threat I’d go straight to a “get on the ground or get shot” rap using the Man Voice ™. If he complies, great. I’ll hope for the best but stack the deck in my favor in case of the worst case scenario.

Kleanbore- How do you think the previous experiences helped or hindered you during the subsequent invasions?

 

[rainbowbob]

...why would you hide in your bedroom with a gun while your home is being ransacked in the back door out the front ?

Because I have home-owner's insurance that covers most of the stuff going out the back door.

I DON"T have insurance that covers the risks inherent in an armed encounter - including the attorney's fees that may be required if I succeed in winning that encounter.

 

[catspa]

Kleanbore:In general, the intent of castle laws has been to establish that the fact of an unlawful invasion of an occupied domicile is evidence that the danger of death or serious injury is in fact imminent.

Should there be any indication that the invader had elected to leave, that evidence would be very much in question.

Let's remember that this is a case where the occupant (a better term than "homeowner", sorry it didn't occur to me before) is in their own home, peacefully minding their own business. The intruder approaches the home, and finding it locked or otherwise secured, but believing the occupant is inside, chooses to force entry. This act doesn't pass the "reasonable man" test. As a reasonable man, you know when you are at somebody else's home, and if you find it locked, you don't break in. You attempt to contact the person, perhaps by phone or email, perhaps you call a mutual friend to see if they know the person's status, perhaps you knock on the door or honk your horn in the street, but breaking in is a crime. As such, it shows criminal intent.

So here is an unlawful invasion of an occupied domicile, constituting evidence that the danger of death or serious injury is in fact imminent. The OP hears numerous voices, and reasonably presumes that he is outnumbered. The thought instantly occurs to him, "Am I outgunned as well?" He fears for his life, and the lives of his family, and he knows that even if he calls 911 RFN, a lot of stuff can happen before the cops get here.

The question we should be asking is, how much legal wrangling, administrative checklists, and hesitation can we hang on this poor fellow before the intruders isolate his position, advance on him, and overwhelm his defenses? Whatever that amount is, we should stop well short of it, and give him every chance to survive until morning, even if it means losing one or more intruders. If the intruders were going to elect to leave, they never would have broken in to begin with.

I am willing to make a value judgement on this, and say that I would rather see BigGuy52, kyo, rainbowbob, or any of our fellow members do what's necessary to protect themselves and their families without hesitation than perish because they worried about doing the legal dance steps in the correct order. "YES - no - no - maybe - should I have said that louder, or repeated it in Portugese - where's that "redial" button - let's see, press "1" for serious emergencies - okay, how serious does it have to be..."

If an intruder perishes, that's okay with me. He broke into the wrong place at the wrong time, thinking he would bust in, take what he wanted and possibly kill who got in his way. He thought wrong, and now he's no longer a threat. To anybody, forever.

The police, the legislators, the lawyers and judges - they're all somewhere else, far away. in this situation there's just you, your loved ones, and some guys that'd probly kill you at the drop of a hat. To borrow a phrase from Sanford Strong, you're nothing special to them - all you are is "next". Once they kill you, somebody else will be "next". Then somebody else, then maybe a stay in a federally sponsored criminal reunion and training facility, then release, then somebody else. How long must the trail of victims extend before they stop living high on a life of crime?

Parker

 

[Jeff White]

This may not be the first time your intruder has posed an immediate, credible threat to an innocent homeowner, but I think we can safely agree that he has not been killed before.

With all due respect to Kellerman, et al, an intruder who runs the hell away may well pose a threat again, to you or someone else. If it's you, he now has some idea what he's up against. If it's somebody not as well prepared as you, he may succeed in committing rape/murder/kidnapping/torture/whatever.

OTOH, an intruder that perishes in your kitchen, his crime-committing days are over. And at the risk of sounding like Captain Obvious, had some previous homeowner smoked him, he would not have made it to you.

Parker, no law anywhere in the United States, no so called Make my Day law or castle doctrine law gives you the legal right to impose and carry out a death sentence. It is not your job nor your civic duty to kill an intruder so that he won't intrude on someone else. Dispensing of justice is still a function of the state.

Castle doctrine laws simply give you an official presumption that you were justified in using deadly force. They do not forbid the police and states attorney from investigating the circumstances of the shooting and if the physical evidence makes it look like you killed someone who no longer presented a threat to you or anyone else's safety by retreating, expect to be arrested, charged and quite possibly convicted. Expect to have your computer seized during the investigation and expect to have this thread and your posts in it found and used to help convince a jury that you have a cavalier attitude towards the use of deadly force and killed someone who was no threat to you or anyone else at the time you killed him.

Only the state can decide someone will be a threat in the future and take action to see that they aren't. You cannot shoot someone for what they might do in the future.

I think too many people have bought into the Brady Organization's propaganda that Castle Doctrine laws are a license to kill. They aren't.

 

[Kleanbore]

Great post, Jeff (#73).

I can only add that too many people have also helped reinforce the Brady Organization's argument (and that of others, including various legislators, columnists, attorneys, and others who have testified against castle laws as "legalized murder") by making ill-advised statements to the effect that they feel they are entitled to shoot someone who has ceased to constitute an imminent treat simply because they had unlawfully entered their domicile, regardless of what forensic or other evidence may show.

Such statements do not help our cause at all.

Also, as you point out, as they are permanent, discoverable records, they may always come back to haunt their authors in the future, should investigators, charging authorities, or prosecutors look to establish mens rea in an after-the-fact process involving facts that may not indisputably support a defense of justification.

 

[Kleanbore]

If the intruders were going to elect to leave, they never would have broken in to begin with.

Parker, I'm not sure what you mean by that. It makes no sense. Everyone who enters any structure intends to leave.

OK. They broke in, knowingly and willfully. Let's assume their intent was in fact criminal--that it wasn't a case of having the wrong address.

In the OP's home state of Illinois, the first condition justifying the use of deadly force has been met: the entry was "made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner."

Necessary, but not sufficient. They are in, and their entry was unlawful, but do they see a gun and decide to leave, or do they continue in attempting or committing a criminal act?

The actor must also reasonably believe "that deadly force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling", or that it is
"necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling".

See Illinois Compiled Statutes, (720 ILCS 5/7‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑1.)

The "actor" and the evidence may well convince detectives and the charging authority, and if it comes to that, a grand jury and a trial jury that, based on what the actor knew at the time, a reasonable person would have believed that deadly force was in fact immediately necessary to prevent imminent assault, etc.

Where the rub would come in is where any evidence, testimony, or inconsistency in either would indicate that the act had become unnecessary. And it is at that point that state of mind can become crucial.

No, it's not a matter of "legal wrangling, administrative checklists, ...or doing the legal dance steps in the correct order." It's simply a matter of whether the use of deadly force was necessary, whether the incident occurred in the home, in a mall, or in a parking lot. The Castle Doctrine makes the burden easier within the occupied domicile.

The question is and always will be whether the occupant had reason to believe that the immediate use of deadly force was justified under the law as it is written and as it has been interpreted by the courts.

And all of that supports Deanimator's comment that if the intruder runs away, the "annoyances (carpet cleaning, talking to the police as a possible murder suspect, etc.) are vastly minimized".