Man Uses AK-47 Against 5 Home Invaders, Killing 3 And Injuring 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
Yes, a pistol may have worked but either way it fortunately turned out ok for the victim. 5 suspects is a lot of suspects.

For those who say a so-called Assault Weapon has no legal purpose.

Only problem is it looks like he pursued them outside and continued a gunfight although if the suspects kept shooting as described he could still claim ongoing self-defense.

From thr the article:

"The defender continued the gunfight with three occupants of the car that delivered the two home invaders. The group fled the scene in the car."



Screenshot_20191015-124617_Chrome.jpg




http://concealednation.org/2019/04/...ysnqvAL9j7pLktsltOQ7E1QkZLKb9iqRExCQS5_X_sv3Y
 
The Supreme Court already ruled in D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects people's rights to possess firearms in the home for the purpose of self-defense.

Then do we have right to self-defense against multiple armed intruders?

Of course.
When danger strikes, there is no more secure feeling like twenty, thirty, or more rounds in an AK/AR/FAL/M1A secure. Banana clip to the rescue!
And judge Benitez eloquently described several cases in which having more than 10 rounds could have made a critical difference when he overturned CA's ban on larger than 10 round capacity magazines ruling with judgement - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-2#post-11098192

"From the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a 'lethal pause,' as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack. In other words, the re-loading 'pause' the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine."

Yes, a pistol may have worked but either way it fortunately turned out ok for the victim. 5 suspects is a lot of suspects.

For those who say a so-called Assault Weapon has no legal purpose.
Those who served in the military and saw combat would say going against 5 armed persons (regardless of weapons they may possess) with a pistol is not a good idea, even with a rifle.

And to those who call for an "update" of US Constitution/Bill of Rights to reflect current/modern times; well, for many citizens, home invasion by multiple intruders is a reality and MAY NEED current/modern firearms (with current/modern technologies such as night sights, red dot optics, sound suppressors, ergonomic controls, arm braces, binary triggers, etc. etc.)

And as judge Benitez pointed out, "lethal pause" to reload a small capacity magazine is "dangerous" for the defender and I can foresee the same argument being addressed to the Supreme Court so the "We the People" can better defend ourselves using "modern" firearms in common use like AR15s and AK47s.
 
Last edited:
And as judge Benitez pointed out, "lethal pause" to reload a small capacity magazine is "dangerous" for the defender and I can foresee the same argument being addressed to the Supreme Court so the "We the People" can better defend ourselves using "modern" firearms in common use like AR15s and AK47s.

That would be great since these supposedly modern designs date back to the 40's and 50's. Never mind a new shooter looking for a centerfire rifle is basically most logically served by getting an AR-15 due to price, availability, and serviceability.
 
And the key phrase is "in common use". :)
Is there a rifle in use that has outsold the AR-15 within the United States?
Here's Cornell Law School explanation of 2A "bearing arms" post DC v Heller - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2

"The Second Amendment ... civilians ... were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time... the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory. Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars—that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals ... Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.

... Using this “individual rights theory,” the Court struck down a District of Columbia law that banned virtually all handguns, and required that any other type of firearm in a home be dissembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times. The Court rejected the argument that handguns could be banned as long as other guns (such as long-guns) were available, noting that, for a variety of reasons, handguns are the “most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.

Subsequently, in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Court emphasized that, under Heller, the protections of the Second Amendment extend to firearms that were not in existence at the time of the Framers."​

And to me, this means, for self defense against multiple armed intruders, the protections of 2A extend to firearms in common use like AR15s (which is the most popular long gun currently) using 30+ capacity magazines to reduce/eliminate the "lethal pause" judge Benitez pointed out.
 
Last edited:
Makes a good case for using an AR type rifle for home defense. I don't know about pursuing them outside the house.... it is one of those decisions you make at the time and you have to live with the consequences.

A few less crooks are a good thing. Maybe the home invaders will think twice about doing it. But then, they may start carrying guns with 30 round magazines too. That said, you see unknown people in your yard or back of your house with rifles, you know there is trouble ahead and you have the right to defend yourself.
 
this kid was probably up to no good in his personal life but good on him defending his castle anyways. This is why real high-cap mags, like pmag 60s, are worthwhile.
 
Even with an AK47 against 5 armed intruders the kid is lucky to be alive! I really get the impression that the shootout was just the end of the story and this wasn't just a random break-in with 5 armed guys. He probably followed the assailants outside and continued shooting for good reason.

I think the defender should seriously consider anonymously moving to a new area of the country for his safety.
 
Even with an AK47 against 5 armed intruders the kid is lucky to be alive! I really get the impression that the shootout was just the end of the story and this wasn't just a random break-in with 5 armed guys. He probably followed the assailants outside and continued shooting for good reason.

I think the defender should seriously consider anonymously moving to a new area of the country for his safety.
I suspect you're correct. Might be a gang thing and they have memories. Sad actually as this stuff happens where I live too.
 
I suspect you're correct. Might be a gang thing and they have memories. Sad actually as this stuff happens where I live too.
Probably. Whatever. While most people don’t, some do change.

If he was able to legally have a firearm and they came to kill or rob him then he was within his right.

Following them outside might not be the brightest idea, but I get it. It’s the chase instinct.
 
Saw it on the Local news here. Also, some (very limited) video footage.

Nothing random about this one.

Even so, the last time I checked, murder was still illegal.

Regardless of what happened before all this, I'm glad the H.O. was able to defend himself and have his day in Court.

Also, having a hard time feeling much empathy for those who 'died trying'. (For those who are left behind? Yes.)
 
Everyone, instead of going on different tangents, let's stay focused on victim defending his life against multiple masked robbers.

Why are we judging the resident as a criminal? If he was, police would be pressing weapons charge but they are not pressing any charge for the shooting, even after giving chase into the front yard from inside the house.

To me, threat to his life still persisted, especially when 3 in the car opened fired at him. At that point, he had every right to return fire at the car and robbers regardless which direction their bodies faced:
  • Two masked men armed with guns went into the home of 20-year-old resident and demanded cash
  • Resident initially complied and reached under the couch (pretending to get money) and instead pulled out his AK-47 and began shooting at the suspects
  • Resident pursued the robbers into the front yard. The pile of brass in the front yard has been described as being from several different guns.
  • The defender continued the gunfight with three occupants of the car that delivered the two home invaders. The group fled the scene in the car.
  • The car crashed a couple of blocks away. One suspect was found in the car, dead. One wounded suspect was found at Capitol and 71st Street, he was the suspect that died at the hospital. The third suspect from the car was wounded, fled the scene, and was being treated in the hospital.
  • The resident was not wounded during the incident
  • Police do not expect any charges to be filed
The city/county I used to live in before moving to our retirement location was gangland battleground and home invasion robberies with 5-7 armed intruders with 2 posted outside at the end of the street (getaway drivers) with radios was common place. Police said these gang banger intruders anticipated armed home owners and moved fast and hard to overwhelm even armed home owners.

One home invasion by multiple intruders involved a 20 year old resident living with his dad. When 2 armed intruders demanded drug money at the door (They apparently got the wrong address - You know, even drug dealers/gang bangers make mistakes), 20 year old called 911 and armed himself. When asked the operator what he should do after telling the armed intruders that they had the wrong house, 911 operator said to do whatever to protect his and his dad's lives. When the armed intruders kicked the door open, 20 year old opened fired killing both. Police did not press charges.

And there were many such home invasions and I do not recall police pressing charges. Of course, home invasions to unarmed residents ended up with rape, robbery and murder, even if residents complied as if it was a gang initiation for new members, they had to kill. Police chief and Sheriff each year went in front of camera and pointed this out and highly recommended residents to arm themselves to defend from multiple armed intruders until police could respond (Sadly for many, police arrived to put bodies in bags).

During 6 years we lived there, we changed from Glock 22/23 and Sig 1911/M&P45 and shot gun to AR15s (.223 for wife and .300 BLK for me) with Glock 22/23 as back ups. Wife carried 2 pistols on person at all times in and around the house.

BTW, here's another recent thread discussion where a family was robbed by 3 masked armed robbers and home owner defended the family by killing them with his AR15 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-killing-them-all.856344/page-2#post-11236127
 
Last edited:
I support any legal citizen legally defending themselves with whatever arms they feel neccessary.

For me, my AR is for SHTF scenarios not general HD. I have my reasons and others have theirs, and there is no absolute as everyone's situation is different.
 
I support any legal citizen legally defending themselves with whatever arms they feel neccessary.

For me, my AR is for SHTF scenarios not general HD. I have my reasons and others have theirs, and there is no absolute as everyone's situation is different.
Thankfully, retirement location is low crime rural area for us to return back to just Glock 22/23 but I have 9mm PCCs and .223 ARs on ready standby if threat assessment is such that we need greater firepower to defend the family (We have 3 very alert guard dogs that provide us with that added time for assessment).
 
  • Two masked men armed with guns went into the home of 20-year-old resident and demanded cash
  • The defender continued the gunfight with three occupants of the car that delivered the two home invaders. The group fled the scene in the car.
Where did you get these two facts from? The accounts I read said 4 armed men forced their way into the house: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...meowner-opens-fire-during-break-in/ar-BBSsm9Z Not that I believe any "News" service to be all that reliable.

4 armed men forcing their way into a house with a 5th armed man also on the scene just doesn't sound like a simple intrusion / robbery to me. I don't blame the 20 year old for defending himself and even following the intruders out side as they retreated. And I think it is appropriate and encouraging that the defender isn't charged for defending himself and his residence. If I ever have to actually pull the trigger I don't foresee myself stopping until the threat has been completely eliminated.

Why does it take 5 armed men to rob what doesn't look like too fancy of a house???? What did they expect to get there that would be worth much after being split 5 ways? I guess, in retrospect, they certainly could have used a 6th or 7th. But I have no experience with the proper way to conduct a robbery / home intrusion and the proper number of guys to take along with you so who am I to judge.
 
Last edited:
Where did you get these two facts from? The accounts I read said 4 armed men forced their way into the house: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...meowner-opens-fire-during-break-in/ar-BBSsm9Z Not that I believe any "News" service to be all that reliable.

4 armed men forcing their way into a house with a 5th armed man also on the scene just doesn't sound like a simple intrusion / robbery to me. I don't blame the 20 year old for defending himself and even following the intruders out side as they retreated. And I think it is appropriate and encouraging that the defender isn't charged for defending himself and his residence. If I ever have to actually pull the trigger I don't foresee myself stopping until the threat has been completely eliminated.

Why does it take 5 armed men to rob what doesn't look like too fancy of a house???? What did they expect to get there that would be worth much after being split 5 ways? I guess, in retrospect, they certainly could have used a 6th or 7th. But I have no experience with the proper way to conduct a robbery / home intrusion and the proper number of guys to take along with you so who am I to judge.
All it takes is for the perpetrators to get the address wrong or to get bad intel.

If the cops can kick in the wrong door, why can't somebody looking to rob a drug house?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top