"My gun jammed..."

[Fred Fuller]

From the regional news...

http://www.wyff4.com/news/22345399/detail.html

Homeowner Fires At Robbers, Wounds Teen
Break-In Second In Week

POSTED: 1:48 pm EST January 26, 2010
UPDATED: 8:23 am EST January 27, 2010

SPARTANBURG COUNTY, S.C. -- A man whose home was robbed last week heard someone breaking in again on Tuesday morning, said he grabbed his shotgun and hit one robbery suspect with birdshot.

The incident happened after 9 a.m. at this home on Nodding Hill Road.

The 911 call came in at 9:19 a.m. about a home invasion burglary at 632 Nodding Hill Road in Spartanburg County, said Public Information Officer Tony Ivey.

Ric Clary said, "I was asleep on the couch. I heard this racket. It sounded like a bomb or something going in. I guess it's where they kicked the back door in. I heard glass. I got off the couch, ran in the bedroom, got my gun out from under the bed. The zipper was stuck on the case (and I) couldn't get the gun out. I was shaking all to pieces.

"I come running through there -- he was sticking his arm in the door there -- and I shot him."

Clary told deputies that two, possibly three, robbers were involved. They took off running after he fired, leaving a vehicle in the yard of the house. Clary was not injured.

He said, "Only thing made me mad -- my gun jammed. I couldn't get another shot."
Clary said he hadn't fired the gun in four years.

"I would've fired five times. I had five bullets in it. So it saved their life."

Charlene Cothran, the victim's stepdaughter, also lives in the house.

Cothran said, "I had been gone 45 minutes this morning and I got a call saying that they had came in and my stepdad had shot someone.

"He said they kicked the door in because we had a new lock and they busted the glass on the kitchen door … We think maybe it's someone we know or someone that's been here and knows us and maybe knows what we have. But we have no idea," Cothran said.

Deputies think the other people involved were picked up by someone and driven out of the area. The robbers left a 9 mm weapon on the porch, deputies said.

Tuesday afternoon, Ivey said that wounded robber, a 16-year-old, had shown up at a hospital a short time later. The hospital reported the teen, who had been wounded in the left hand and forearm, to deputies.

The teen is charged with first-degree burglary and possession of a weapon during a violent crime.

Investigators said they determined the 9 mm gun was stolen during a burglary in December in Spartanburg.

Investigators said the teen is being uncooperative. They are continuing to search for his accomplices.

///////////snip
======================

There are any number of points worth thinking about in this story, subjects that get brought up here or over at the Shotgun forum pretty regularly. Questions about what gun to use for HD, how to store it, what to load it with, how to handle a home invasion, when to shoot, when to not shoot or to stop shooting, and so on.

And the article addresses a couple of points that don't get asked about a whole lot. Issues of training and practice, for example.

First of all it's clear that the available gun and ammunition (in spite of the difficulty getting to it due to a jammed zipper in the gun case) and the homeowner's existing level of ability to use it (in spite of only being able to get off one shot) were sufficient to solve this particular problem, this particular time. No argument there. Chalk up one more for the good guys.

My questions for members here: would you be satisfied with this situation as it played out had you been the homeowner in this case? If not, what would you seek to change, and why?

Considered answers only please, no sniping...

lpl

 

[twinsdad]

Change #1 Practice with HD weapon. #2 Keep weapon clean and ready. #3 have weapon readily acessible.

 

[JoeSlomo]

My questions for members here: would you be satisfied with this situation as it played out had you been the homeowner in this case? If not, what would you seek to change, and why?

I would not be satisfied at all.

AT all.

I would look at this as a failure on my part as only ONE round was capable of being fired in my defense prior to having a stoppage. Had the intruders been intent on gaining access, I may not have been able to use my firearm for defense before they set upon me or my family.

I would change the way I treat my defensive tools if I were this gentleman, and ensure that my tool of choice was properly maintained and ready for emergency use in a secure but accessible location. I would NOT select a defensive tool with reliability problems, nor would I cause them through poor maintenance or poor load choice, and I would have a secondary tool should Murphy rear his head despite my best efforts.

Intruders will NOT be afforded the opportunity to invade my home and inflict violence on my family. PERIOD.

 

[Warhawk83]

It doesn't say, but I'm thinking he had a pump gun. Probably short stroked the gun because of all the excitement. I did that a few times when I was learning how to shoot mine.

I would be very upset with myself if it were me. Things could have been MUCH worse if the robber/robbers pressed the issue.

Keep your HD weapon in a zippered case?? What???

If he has no children at the house, he should have had it propped up close by.

 

[coloradokevin]

I place odds in favor of the idea that he didn't cycle the slide properly on his shotgun, thereby inducing a failure. Just conjecture on my part, but it seems likely enough with my read of the story.

 

[DaveBeal]

I'd say the guy's lucky the gun jammed. The bad guys never got into the house; they were just reaching in as he got the one shot off, and then they took off. Continuing to fire as they were outside the house and fleeing - as he implies he would have done - could have gotten him in big trouble.

 

[rocky branch]

Case in point that not everybody can react well in actual combat.

Includes some who think they can.

 

[saturno_v]

I agree with practicing with the chosen FD weapon regularly....however it sounds strange that a shotgun jammed...was it an automatic?? If it was a pump maybe the thing was a piece of rust.

If it was me in the same situation the teen would have been in way worse shape...I do not load birdshot but "00" buck....I want to make sure they stay down once hit....

 

[LEVRLOVR]

I have a new gun

The robbers left a 9 mm weapon on the porch, deputies said.

I have a new vehicle

They took off running after he fired, leaving a vehicle in the yard of the house.

I was uninjured

Clary was not injured.

I recovered stolen property.

Yeah, pretty happy with the whole deal except where my window was broken and my gun jammed, but both of these are easily remedied.



Tongue in cheek JOJO^.
Of course he didn't get to keep the new stuff.

 

[hammerklavier]

Some people talk too much. Don't be like this man.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I would be glad that i was unharmed and that the outcome was good, but would be getting a new gun.

 

[sidheshooter]

The fact that the homeowner prevailed seems to speak more to the moral fiber/courage of the perpetrators than to the tactics used by the defender.

In no particular order:

I'd be concerned about weapon access (obviously enough).

I'm also noting that the guy charged into harm's way with untested gear; if things had devolved into an unstable shooter vs. the homeowner, it would have been a single-shot against a 9mm: undesirable, to put it mildly.

I'm a bit more of an "ensconced defender" sort of fellow, myself, anyways. Charging headlong into the unknown is not my idea of solid tactics... at home or afield...

I'd also be concerned about how quickly, and at what target, the owner shot at: opening up on a disembodied arm could be shaky on legal (AOJ) grounds, although it obviously worked well both tactically and in terms of aftermath here; and I wasn't there to see what he saw, I hasten to add. Did he see the 9mm? The multiple aggressors? O and J seem to be covered but are we really, really sure about the A part (at the moment of the trigger pull)? Just asking.

And, agreed, the guy said way too much about his intentions. As I read the article, he 'fessed up to intending to kill (in anger), rather than defend; admitting that what saved the teen's bacon was equipment failure, rather than required self-control in service of the law. Lightning may not strike twice, but if crime ever does and this guy hits a more solid target, that article will come back to haunt him.

Don't get me wrong: I'd be pretty darn angry too, and I'd be more concerned about my own hide than resultant harm to the invaders, regardless of age...

But I wouldn't let my justifiable anger take me down the road to on-the-spot vigilantism, let alone start bragging about it.

This story is proof that one doesn't always need things stacked in their favor to succeed. However, I'd personally prefer to have a whole lot more ducks in a row than this guy demonstrated, per the story read.

JMHO.

 

[DogStar]

It's a given that he should have kept the weapon in a more accessible location and should have checked it out sometime in the last 4 years. He was lucky that despite his best efforts at making himself a victim, he was still able to get to the shotgun.

I'm a little puzzled about the chronology of events, though. If the bad guys had kicked in the door, then why did it take them ~15-30 seconds to get around to just starting to stick one arm inside the home? The whole purpose of kicking in a door is to gain surprise and confusion, but it seems like these guys just stood around on the porch for a while, juggling their pistol or whatever.

I'm also not sure that I'm comfortable with the fact that the guy's first reaction was to grab his gun and shoot. It's obvious that he was scared out of his mind and the article doesn't tell the whole story, but the story would have been a lot different if he'd dreamed the loud noises and the arm coming through the door had been his step-daughter's.

His failure to positively identify his target and his failure to try to resolve the incident without firing (i.e. shouting "I have a gun, get out of here!") are both things that will get you in a whole world of trouble in some areas, not to mention being ethically questionable.

 

[CornCod]

I am happy that Mr. Clary won his gun battle. Burglars are real skunks. I would be interested to know why his shotgun jammed. He could have short-stoked a pump or perhaps he didn't have a semi-auto shotgun braced firmly against his shoulder causing the scattergun version of limp-wristing. It could have been a cleaning and maintanence issue. Stuff rusts really quickly in South Carolina heat and humidity.

 

[mljdeckard]

Bottom line here is, he survived. It's never pretty, but he walked away.

I don't see myself shooting at an arm through the front door. There are too many things that can go wrong. He was GUESSING his target and what's beyond it, he didn't KNOW.

He doesn't say what kind of malfunction happened with his gun, but I'm going to speculate that if he had fired the gun more than once in five years, the flaw in the system would have revealed itself and he would have either trained around it or replaced the equipment.

Birdshot? Loaded with birdshot, in a case, unpracticed, it sounds to me like this guy just used up his luck ration for this decade of his life.

 

[dayid]

He was GUESSING his target and what's beyond it, he didn't KNOW.

If it's his house, he probably knows what is outside his own door. He wasn't "GUESSING" at his target. His target was someone obviously trying to break into his home.

 

[mljdeckard]

Nope. Check the rule again. "Know your target AND what's beyond it." In shooting through your door, you are ASSUMING that there is no one with, near, or behind the bad guy. Even if you know that the bad guy is trying to get in, you don't know if he is alone or the intent of these other persons who may or may not be with him. This rule ALWAYS applies, even to soldiers in battle.

If he KNOWS what's outside his door, his knowledge obviously doesn't apply when bad guys have ALTERED what may or may not have been outside his door. He didn't KNOW the bad guy was there until he saw the arm. The law in my state says, you are allowed to use deadly force if someone enters your home either by violence or by stealth, with the intent to commit a felony. If there is a hand with a gun inside your house, you could probably defend yourself in that it was necessary to shoot at the hand with the gun. YOU DON'T KNOW about any of the rest of the bad guy (or guys) you hit BEHIND the door. They haven't ENTERED yet. Just because a crime is occuring doesn't mean you can just kill everyone you THINK is involved.

 

[shockwave]

would you be satisfied with this situation as it played out had you been the homeowner in this case? If not, what would you seek to change, and why?

To the first, well of course I'd be satisfied - home invasion averted. If you successfully defended your home against an armed group of breaching criminals, you won. So he gets props for that.

As to the equipment malfunction, that's a secondary consideration. Let's postpone that for a moment and move to number three:

He kept his wits about him well enough to locate and bring his weapon into play, and he had the will to use it. Another prop to the homeowner.

Fourth, there were no fatalities, sparing everyone lots of legal issues.

So he gets 3 props. On to the concerns. His weapon was not in good working order, or he was unfamiliar or not sufficiently trained in its use. Regardless, these are all dings. Quite possibly rust and neglect were culprits. After each use, a firearm should be cleaned and restored to "like-new" condition. Cleaned and stored properly, a gun can be put up for years and will operate flawlessly when needed.

Next, he violated rule 3 and 4 of firearm safety - makes all of us look bad. He fired prematurely, and he was unsure of his target and backstop. Fired blind.

It is gun owners like these who present a danger to themselves and others. If you choose to have a weapon, you can't just throw it under the bed and forget it for years. At the very least an annual inspection, cleaning and test-firing are good ideas. He should reflect on this event and take corrective measures.

A final thought: There have been discussions here lately about how many rounds you need to survive an armed encounter, that the average shots exchanged are 12 or 16 or whatever. But reports seem to indicate that most criminals are not looking to confront armed citizens and a single blast of a shotgun probably will send most running. They're planning on taking a sheep, not a lion.

 

[LoneStarWings]

Would I be satisfied with the outcome? Yes, having the threat retreat & flee after 1 shot is almost ideal. Would I have acted the same way? Doubtful. I believe this man was very lucky in that the perps did not know he was at home and were taken by surprise by the homeowner's shots. Had he shown up with the shotgun at a different time, the armed perps could have very well taken his life....taking up a defensive position in the bedroom and calling the cops *might have been* a better choice, but the timing worked out awfully well for him as it was, so it's hard to second guess it.

Would I be satisfied with my own preparedness? No, if it took me a long period of time to retrieve my weapon from its resting place, and it jammed after 1 shot I would re-evaluate and improve:

A) my choice of weapon
B) my ability to operate and maintain it
C) my method of storing the weapon

 

[Oyeboten]

Any Home with a prior and on-going history of break-ins...keeping a Loaded Shotgun where it could be easily found by burglars when one is not at home, is maybe not a good idea.


Clearly, in many ways, the Homeowner in this instance is not familiar with small Arms, Ammunition options, use or keeping, nor aware of the illegality of continuing to fire on fleeing persons ( which I gather he had wanted to do but was prevented from doing because of the Shotgun 'jamming'.)


Glad it all worked out well...including, how his 'jam' probably saved him from Prison.

 

[junyo]

My questions for members here: would you be satisfied with this situation as it played out had you been the homeowner in this case? If not, what would you seek to change, and why?

No one died, only a bad guy injured, me and mine intact are all wins. The facts that my HD weapon/me didn't work as intended and that the robbers are still at large are negatives. Qualified satisfaction with the total outcome, but some glaring points of failure that need to be addressed. Why did the weapon fail? Was it equipment failure or usage? What steps need to be taken to lower the probability of failure? What's the backup equipment/action plan in case of failure? Why weren't this issues already addressed in light of the fact that he had already recently been the victim of a crime? Complacency could have very well gotten him killed.

 

[Jeff23]

All the problems / errors / drawbacks that everyone mentions are certainly important concerns. Where I live, shooting at someone who's not actually in your house would probably amount to at least manslaughter charge if the intruder died.

Burglars and home invaders have to take their chances, and those chances would be interesting to know. Usually they get people who don't have guns at all. Then occasionally they get a good 'ol boy like Mr. Clary who does his best to fire a load of birdshot at 'em. Then ever-so-rarely would they get somebody who's trained, equipped, etc.

The only place I would slightly diverge from others is that I would not be too ready to sneer at, say, #4 hevi-shot at HD ranges. The pattern opens up much less than most people think and if you've got concerns about shooting through walls it's not a completely invalid choice. Here behind enemy lines in a deep blue state, that's what I have in my HD shotgun. I've looked at every possible shotgun and handgun scenario I can think of--the range in my house is never more than seven yards. Just my .02.

It is important, I think, that we try to find the Mr. Clarys of this world, talk to them about HD, bring them gently and kindly into the fold, and help them become more aware. This is an essential part of 2nd-amendment work.

 

[dayid]

you are ASSUMING that there is no one with, near, or behind the bad guy.

Arm in my door: Intent is clear.
If anyone innocent is helping him break into my house then well, they're no longer innocent and deserve any shrapnel they catch.

 

[jojo200517]

Arm in my door: Intent is clear.
If anyone innocent is helping him break into my house then well, they're no longer innocent and deserve any shrapnel they catch.

Totally agree with you. I suppose the homeowner should practice with his gun and make sure its in working order, my bets is that he will now. I'm betting he just happened to have it and it was better than nothing, he wasn't really prepared in having a dedicated, practiced, well maintained home defense gun. Also he might want to consider picking up something with more oomph than birdshot. 00 bucks and the arm might have been inside the door until someone picked it up, either EMS or the coroner.

I have a new gun

The robbers left a 9 mm weapon on the porch, deputies said.

I doubt they let him keep it seeing how it was used in the commission of a violent crime, i'd bet it was taken into evidence.

I have a new vehicle

The left it parked in the yard

They hauled it away on a roll back too

 

[mljdeckard]

Nope. you are both ASSUMING they are guilty. And read what I said again. If he ENTERS your home, by violence or stealth, with the intent to commit a felony, you are justified in using deadly force. NO ONE HAD ENTERED YET. You could argue that you were shooting at the part of him that is in your house, but if you hit anyone else, you have absolutely no way to assert that that person posed any danger to you at all, or that there was any legal justification to use deadly force.

For castle doctrine, the person must have ENTERED your home. For other deadly force, your life must be in danger. What you are saying here is that it's ok if someone gets killed anyway. YOU WILL GO TO JAIL.