Non-Compliant Intruder
- Thread starter bg226
- Start date
- Status
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Compliance
Advise him that you've noticed that he seems to be armed, and that if he blinks, he's all done...or lie flat on the floor with arms outstretched , fingers open...in slow-motion. His call.
Advise him that you've noticed that he seems to be armed, and that if he blinks, he's all done...or lie flat on the floor with arms outstretched , fingers open...in slow-motion. His call.
atlctyslkr
Member
If this happens to me after July 1 the intruder wouldn't get that far. We have a stand your ground law that goes into affect. An intruder that fails to follow orders will be shot. I wish more states had laws like these. It lets criminals know we mean business.
Mannlicher
Member
a good question, and a difficult one.
While I am fully prepared to use a gun to insure the safety of my wife and myself, I don't think I could just pop a cap on a guy that won't 'obey' me.
I am not saying that it would be a Mexican Standoff though, after just a small bit of dialog on the issue, I would probably have to shoot him, since at that point, it pretty much has turned into 'me or him', and the me part has darn little wiggle room left.
While I am fully prepared to use a gun to insure the safety of my wife and myself, I don't think I could just pop a cap on a guy that won't 'obey' me.
I am not saying that it would be a Mexican Standoff though, after just a small bit of dialog on the issue, I would probably have to shoot him, since at that point, it pretty much has turned into 'me or him', and the me part has darn little wiggle room left.
XLMiguel
Member
Prudent man test - what would a prudent man do when faced with a person he believes to be armed and a mortal threat. For me in that circumstance, an non-compliant intruder will soon be a neuratlized intruder, I would be in fear for my life.
The bulge in the subject's waistband could be anything. The proliferation of cell phones, PDAs, multitools, pagers and any number of other things people carry these days means you can't automatically assume that the person is armed. Then again you can't assume he's not either.
If the subject is just standing there looking at you and refuses to interact with you, you may be dealing with an Emotionally Disturbed Person, or someone who is metally deficient or retarded or high from ingesting any number of substances.
Criminals are usually much more afraid of an armed citizen then they are of the police. Based on your scenario where the subject just stands and looks at you, I'd say that you are most likely dealing with one of the above rather then a criminal. An EDP can be very dangerous. However the criminal and civil repercussions of shooting a mentally deficient or retarded person who did nothing but stand there and stare at you could be severe even in a state with so called stand your ground laws.
Personally I would back away to a phone (keeping the subject covered as much as possible and keeping watch in his direction if I had to lose visual on him to get to the phone) and call the police. I'm not going to kill someone who may be a deaf/mute, retarded, mentally deficient or stoned out of his mind on some substance. If he makes any threatening moves or reaches for the bulge in his waistband then it's a totally different situation.
atlctyslkr said;
Statements like this posted on a public forum just further Josh Sugarman, Tom Diaz and Sarah Brady's cause. You have just stated that you would kill someone for criminal trespass to land. A crime that is a misdemeanor in most places. There are any number of reasons a person may not be a threat and may be uncooperative. To state that you would gun him down in cold blood is the exact same argument the antis are using to fight these laws. All it will take is a couple of shootings of mentally retarded, deaf/mute drunk or high subjects that didn't pose any threat outside of the fact that they were somewhere they weren't supposed to be, and the momentum will shift to the antis side and these laws won't be available to protect the people they were designed to protect, the citizen who is in a legitimate self defense shooting. We'll go back to the days where citizens will have to face civil and criminal prosecution in legitimate self defense actions.
The so called stand your ground law is not your 007 license to kill. Responsible citizens identify and can articulate an actual threat before they use deadly force.
Jeff
If the subject is just standing there looking at you and refuses to interact with you, you may be dealing with an Emotionally Disturbed Person, or someone who is metally deficient or retarded or high from ingesting any number of substances.
Criminals are usually much more afraid of an armed citizen then they are of the police. Based on your scenario where the subject just stands and looks at you, I'd say that you are most likely dealing with one of the above rather then a criminal. An EDP can be very dangerous. However the criminal and civil repercussions of shooting a mentally deficient or retarded person who did nothing but stand there and stare at you could be severe even in a state with so called stand your ground laws.
Personally I would back away to a phone (keeping the subject covered as much as possible and keeping watch in his direction if I had to lose visual on him to get to the phone) and call the police. I'm not going to kill someone who may be a deaf/mute, retarded, mentally deficient or stoned out of his mind on some substance. If he makes any threatening moves or reaches for the bulge in his waistband then it's a totally different situation.
atlctyslkr said;
Statements like this posted on a public forum just further Josh Sugarman, Tom Diaz and Sarah Brady's cause. You have just stated that you would kill someone for criminal trespass to land. A crime that is a misdemeanor in most places. There are any number of reasons a person may not be a threat and may be uncooperative. To state that you would gun him down in cold blood is the exact same argument the antis are using to fight these laws. All it will take is a couple of shootings of mentally retarded, deaf/mute drunk or high subjects that didn't pose any threat outside of the fact that they were somewhere they weren't supposed to be, and the momentum will shift to the antis side and these laws won't be available to protect the people they were designed to protect, the citizen who is in a legitimate self defense shooting. We'll go back to the days where citizens will have to face civil and criminal prosecution in legitimate self defense actions.
The so called stand your ground law is not your 007 license to kill. Responsible citizens identify and can articulate an actual threat before they use deadly force.
Jeff
TallPine
Member
OTOH, how does one get into such a situation in the first place?
Is there any legal requirement to give a warning to someone who has forcibly entered an occupied residence?
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Legal
To re-coin an old phrase.
Just because it's legal, doesn't always mean that it's right. There's at least a moral obligation to give a man a chance to back off before blowing him into the next realm. As has been pointed out, drunk, mentally impaired, confused...or a true miscreant freezing like a deer caught in the headlights.
Any or all these things can be part of the reason why it seems to be prima facia non-compliance without the perp having the intent to fight. Cover him well, protect yourself by taking advantage of any cover, and be prepared, sure...but don't be too quick to drop the hammer on anyone until you're 101% sure that you don't have a choice.
To re-coin an old phrase.
Just because it's legal, doesn't always mean that it's right. There's at least a moral obligation to give a man a chance to back off before blowing him into the next realm. As has been pointed out, drunk, mentally impaired, confused...or a true miscreant freezing like a deer caught in the headlights.
Any or all these things can be part of the reason why it seems to be prima facia non-compliance without the perp having the intent to fight. Cover him well, protect yourself by taking advantage of any cover, and be prepared, sure...but don't be too quick to drop the hammer on anyone until you're 101% sure that you don't have a choice.
Don't ever assume the BG is rational and you can 'talk to him' .He may be a psychopath high on drugs or alcohol. If you wait for him to act you will be giving him a 1/4 second head start [the time for you to react !!]. If he has broken in he is there to HARM YOU !!! ....Tell the officer he went to reach something under his jacket and you feared it was a gun .
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Rational
No talkin' really needed. The shotgun leveled at the groin kinda speaks the universal language.
No talkin' really needed. The shotgun leveled at the groin kinda speaks the universal language.
Roadwild17
Member
Well in my apartment, If I'm standing there looking at a person and Hes looking back at me, were pretty close to physical contact range, so the question gets even tougher.
So, I'm sleeping and hear someone break in to my apartment. My roommate isnt there so I grab my gun to check it out. (I hear a break in so my first assumption that my roommate just came in is out the window.) I step out of my room and walk to the living room. There about 8 feet away from me is a guy just standing there looking at me as I inform him that I am armed and order him to the ground. If he just stands there, motionless, I would probably do the thing that would hurt most guys, KICK his family jewels and retreat to a phone while covering him as much as possible. Were only about 8 feet away so its not like I'm exposing my self by closing in to about 4 feet to the BG.
So, I'm sleeping and hear someone break in to my apartment. My roommate isnt there so I grab my gun to check it out. (I hear a break in so my first assumption that my roommate just came in is out the window.) I step out of my room and walk to the living room. There about 8 feet away from me is a guy just standing there looking at me as I inform him that I am armed and order him to the ground. If he just stands there, motionless, I would probably do the thing that would hurt most guys, KICK his family jewels and retreat to a phone while covering him as much as possible. Were only about 8 feet away so its not like I'm exposing my self by closing in to about 4 feet to the BG.
Shoot him to the ground!
Nobody I know has been prosecuted for shooting a home intruder. In each case the prosecutor and police ruled that it was justified.
In one case the home owner chased the armed bad guy down the street, shooting as he was running. The prosecutor had no problem with that.
Okay, I'm sure Mas Ayoob will come up with some case from Tibet where a home owner shot an intruder who was drunk on fermented yak milk and was prosecuted.
Nobody I know has been prosecuted for shooting a home intruder. In each case the prosecutor and police ruled that it was justified.
In one case the home owner chased the armed bad guy down the street, shooting as he was running. The prosecutor had no problem with that.
Okay, I'm sure Mas Ayoob will come up with some case from Tibet where a home owner shot an intruder who was drunk on fermented yak milk and was prosecuted.
Mannlicher
Member
Overall, good advice Jeff,
however, your statement:
needs to be discussed. There have been a LOT of heinous murders commited by perps that were Emotionally Disturbed. I don't want to harm anyone, but then, at the time of the incident in this scenerio, I might not be willing to bet my life that the guy is just disturbed. I do not feel that his being disturbed gives him a 'bye', or should give him an advantage over me. I would rather take my chances down the road in court, than let the possibility of his being disturbed cause me to lower my defenses.
As I said in my first reply here, this is a difficult question indeed.
however, your statement:
needs to be discussed. There have been a LOT of heinous murders commited by perps that were Emotionally Disturbed. I don't want to harm anyone, but then, at the time of the incident in this scenerio, I might not be willing to bet my life that the guy is just disturbed. I do not feel that his being disturbed gives him a 'bye', or should give him an advantage over me. I would rather take my chances down the road in court, than let the possibility of his being disturbed cause me to lower my defenses.
As I said in my first reply here, this is a difficult question indeed.
Mannlicher,
I never suggested anyone lower their defenses. And I did post that emotionally disturbed persons can be very dangerous. I'm saying that if he's just standing there looking at you, he's not a threat that justifies the use of deadly force.
Cover him, open some reactionary distance and move for the phone. Put something like a table or chair or counter between you and him.
If he moves for the bulge in his waistband or moves towards you he's bought and paid for. But I don't think it's morally justifyable to shoot the retarded man who walked off from the home for the developmentally disabled just because he entered your house.
Another thing that wasn't mentioned in the scenario was how the intruder entered. If he broke in, it's a somewhat different situation then if he just let himself in through an unlocked door.
mete,
The next time you advocate lying to the police and perjuring yourself will be the last time. We don't advocate illegal acts on THR.
Editorial Comment
We, the online firearms community are our own worst enemy when it comes to this issue. I am absolutely unable to comprehend why so many seemingly rational members of this forum are so anxious to cut a notch in the grip of their home defense weapon.
Just because the law says you can shoot an intruder doesn't make it morally right or even legal depending on the circumstances. How many well publicized killings of deaf/mutes, drunks, mentally ill people, kids playing a prank....do you think it's going to take before the media turns public opinion against stand your ground laws.
Then to top it off we have people on a forum named The High Road, whose mission is to promote the responsible use of firearms, who post things like;
and;
So the fence sitter who surfs in here thinks; "The Democrats are right, these guys just want a license to kill. What if the retarded teenager who lives with his widowed mom down the street was to stumble into one of their houses? Maybe people shouldn't have guns."
When we lose the culture war, the second amendment will mean as much to the American people as the provision to keep the government from quartering soldiers in peoples homes, it will be a quaint anachronism. The best case scenario after that is you'll have to go underground with your guns. The worst case is you'll lose your life or liberty.
Jeff
I never suggested anyone lower their defenses. And I did post that emotionally disturbed persons can be very dangerous. I'm saying that if he's just standing there looking at you, he's not a threat that justifies the use of deadly force.
Cover him, open some reactionary distance and move for the phone. Put something like a table or chair or counter between you and him.
If he moves for the bulge in his waistband or moves towards you he's bought and paid for. But I don't think it's morally justifyable to shoot the retarded man who walked off from the home for the developmentally disabled just because he entered your house.
Another thing that wasn't mentioned in the scenario was how the intruder entered. If he broke in, it's a somewhat different situation then if he just let himself in through an unlocked door.
mete,
The next time you advocate lying to the police and perjuring yourself will be the last time. We don't advocate illegal acts on THR.
Editorial Comment
We, the online firearms community are our own worst enemy when it comes to this issue. I am absolutely unable to comprehend why so many seemingly rational members of this forum are so anxious to cut a notch in the grip of their home defense weapon.
Just because the law says you can shoot an intruder doesn't make it morally right or even legal depending on the circumstances. How many well publicized killings of deaf/mutes, drunks, mentally ill people, kids playing a prank....do you think it's going to take before the media turns public opinion against stand your ground laws.
Then to top it off we have people on a forum named The High Road, whose mission is to promote the responsible use of firearms, who post things like;
and;
So the fence sitter who surfs in here thinks; "The Democrats are right, these guys just want a license to kill. What if the retarded teenager who lives with his widowed mom down the street was to stumble into one of their houses? Maybe people shouldn't have guns."
When we lose the culture war, the second amendment will mean as much to the American people as the provision to keep the government from quartering soldiers in peoples homes, it will be a quaint anachronism. The best case scenario after that is you'll have to go underground with your guns. The worst case is you'll lose your life or liberty.
Jeff
Technosavant
Member
As long as he's just standing there, we're standing there. I might even (if possible) move to a more comfortable position (seated in a chair). If he wants to stand there, so be it. If he makes any moves, he'd better be moving slowly to lay face down. If not, I hesitate to make any comments about my actions on an open forum, but such behavior on the part of a perp would not be generally considered conducive to good health and long life.
I don't plan to investigate any intruders without a phone on my person, no matter what firearm I happen to be holding. This might be a good argument for handguns for home defense- you can dial the phone while still covering the perp.
I don't plan to investigate any intruders without a phone on my person, no matter what firearm I happen to be holding. This might be a good argument for handguns for home defense- you can dial the phone while still covering the perp.
atlctyslkr
Member
It is not my intent to kill anyone. I have to think about my family. I am more than willing to wait for the police to show up. They are pretty good about showing up when something exciting happens. I just don't want to give someone the chance to gain the upper hand in a situation. If the suspect ran off I'd let them run. I'm hoping that others on this forum will give me the benefit of the doubt.
Stand your ground laws are not meant to make it the wild-wild-west but to keep law abiding citizens from having to waste precious seconds worrying about what some DA is going to do.
I don't want anyone in my house I didn't invite, period. I would not just shoot someone if they were willing to leave and I certainly would not go outside and confront someone on my property. I only intend to use deadly force when the perceived benefits outweigh the potential damage to me or my family. Just because I have gun doesn't mean I won't use a baseball bat.
Sorry for my earlier post that was harsh. Crime is up in my area and I'm just sick of it. This post touched a nerve.
sm
member
Mr. Jeff White,
Thank you for your sensible, rational posts.
~
Frankly, some folks around here scare the hell out of me.
There are good folks that undergo Medical Reactions to Perscribed Meds, there are Deaf, Schizophrenia, Dementia, Alztheimer's Disease...
I have spoken with Multiple Personalites of Shizophrenia folks...
Some will remember I was faced with one in the bed of my truck, and that "bulge" was a cell phone that gained access to family.
I suggest attending some court trials in local jurisdictions, doing volunteer work with kids, the elderly, a hospital in general. Heck asssit The local LEO/ FireDept programs.
A good training class would be great.
In the event the person asks you
" Do you hear the voices?"
The correct response is " No. I do not hear the voices, I know they are real to you."
There is more to responsible firearm ownership than firearms.
Thank you for your sensible, rational posts.
~
Frankly, some folks around here scare the hell out of me.
There are good folks that undergo Medical Reactions to Perscribed Meds, there are Deaf, Schizophrenia, Dementia, Alztheimer's Disease...
I have spoken with Multiple Personalites of Shizophrenia folks...
Some will remember I was faced with one in the bed of my truck, and that "bulge" was a cell phone that gained access to family.
I suggest attending some court trials in local jurisdictions, doing volunteer work with kids, the elderly, a hospital in general. Heck asssit The local LEO/ FireDept programs.
A good training class would be great.
In the event the person asks you
" Do you hear the voices?"
The correct response is " No. I do not hear the voices, I know they are real to you."
There is more to responsible firearm ownership than firearms.
TallPine
Member
My assumption was that an "intruder" was someone who broke in, not just wandered in. Everyone who keeps a gun for defense of the home should keep their doors locked whenever possible, just for the purpose of avoiding some bum or drunk or kid or whatever walking in accidentally. It's foolish to have a gun but not lock the doors ...
CSA 357
Member
he is inside my house? mod 12 winchester and #4 buck shot i would not give him a chance , i dont think he would be there to take up money for the red cross,*csa*
RioShooter
Member
My doors are ALWAYS locked. If an intruder is in my house he either kicked-in a door or broke through a window. Very few words will be exchanged between us. I didn't exactly invite him in for a chat.
While you're sitting there talking to a non-compliant intruder, bulge or no bulge in his waistband, his armed buddy comes around the corner and shoots you dead. This happend in Indiana last week. The intruders then killed everyone else in the house, including kids aged 11, 8, and 5.
Homeonwner comes home and catches intruder in the kitchen, draws on him, does not fire. 2nd intruder kills homeowner and 3 generations of his family.
What would that guy give to make a different decision with the 3 seconds fate gave him.
Intruder, draw, shoot, live to fill out the police report.
http://channels.netscape.com/news/s...ff/story/0001/20060606/2103592495.htm&sc=1110
Homeonwner comes home and catches intruder in the kitchen, draws on him, does not fire. 2nd intruder kills homeowner and 3 generations of his family.
What would that guy give to make a different decision with the 3 seconds fate gave him.
Intruder, draw, shoot, live to fill out the police report.
http://channels.netscape.com/news/s...ff/story/0001/20060606/2103592495.htm&sc=1110
I don't want to keep a guy in my house. I will be ordering him out of the house where I have the opportunity to get him away from my family and where I have the chance to put more distance between him and me. Let the LEOs run him down. I want the threat to my daughter and wife and me minimized with distance and shielding.
The-Fly
Member
since i keep my doors locked 24/7, anyone in my house who isnt uninvited will have a very short life span if they do not IMMIEDATELY comply with my orders. I figure if some idiot doesn't respond to orders while being held at the business end of a 870 loaded with 00 buck, he's either insane, or waiting for his buddy to take me out.
- Status
