Pro's and con's of announcing to an intruder that you're armed

Status
Not open for further replies.
In 1976 or so I was living in NY’s East Village with a girlfriend.
Back then it was a very high crime area.
Our apartment had a loft bed and I kept a Mossberg 500 loaded but chamber empty.
Late one night someone was trying to jimmy our apartments door open.
I told him numerous times that there were people inside and to go away.
This only encouraged him to jimmy harder.
Finally I picked up the shotgun, chambered a shell and shouted for him to get the F$&$ out of here before I blasted him.
I heard a voice crying, “Oh crap!” followed by feet running downstairs.
Does this qualify as announcing that I was armed?
I'd say so. :)
 
The problem with announcing that you're armed is the expectation that the bad guy will run away. If they don't, then you panic. People in this camp will not fire their weapon. They are also the type to look for "less lethal" ammo. This tactic and these gun owners make no sense for me. For them, get a bat.
 
There is nothing "passive" about defending oneself with a gun without firing, and that strategy provides a much greater likelihood of still possessing a firearm should it be needed again.

This passive strategy from the above quote imo only lets the assailant and entire viewing world know that the homeowner has a gun to wave around but wont use it, perhaps providing a greater likelihood the perps will be back again due to lack of fortitude.

Personally, and I’m not a big tough guy but
I have a mindset that I will not be pray and will defend my family in my home. That does not including giving up my position and to an intruder.
 
Understand that you may use reasonable force to defend yourself and your family, against an attack that is occurring or is about to occur, but you may not do so unless you have reason to believe that is is immediately necessary to do.

What someone "may" or "may not" do varies heavily depending on where it happens and all of the circumstances around it. And that is what is great about attorneys- they are the best tool to explain something to the authorities or a jury, since they go to a long, difficult, expensive school to do this job. They also charge $ to provide this service. I allow people who I pay to provide services the opportunity to perform the services I pay them for. This also made me wonder- in the aftermath of a HD shooting, how does anyone definitively prove what was said, and by whom? Or if what was said was heard and understood? Simulated gunfights in training tend to be chaotic- the things that are "missed" (missed, as in undetected) by the participants are amazing in training- and even more so in the chaos of an actual gunfight. It seems to me that unless audio visual equipment was in play, this would be difficult to determine. I would think such a matter would fall into a burden of proof situation, which I suppose is another question for an attorney.
 
This passive strategy from the above quote imo only lets the assailant and entire viewing world know that the homeowner has a gun to wave around but wont use it,
"Passive"? "Won't use it"? In each of my several incidents, I was within a second or two for firing, and the perps apparently sensed that. I was ready to fire, but the fact that I did no have to resulted inn a much, much better life for me in the hours, days, weeks, months ,years, and decades afterward.
 
If someone tries to break into your house, the experience will be a bad one. If he gets in, it will be much worse.

There are various things that can happen:

Among the very worst:

  • You or a loved one is killed or injured by the attacker.
  • You or a loved one is killed or injured by an officer who has been summoned by a neighbor or who is in hot pursuit. THAT HAPPENS
  • You shoot an innocent. THAT HAPPENS
  • You defend yourself successfully, but you do not prevail in the legal aftermath. THAT HAPPENS
  • You defend yourself successfully, but you become the target of retribution from the perp'a friends and family.
Better, but not good:
  • You prevail after a long and costly investigation, etc., but you are faced with cviil suits.
  • You prevail, but you or family members are denied admissions, memberships, credit, employment, or promotions. HAPPENED TO COUSINS OF MINE AFTER A JUSTIFIED USE OF DEADLY FORCE INCIDENT.
Still better:
  • The legal aftermath is relatively smooth and not too costly, and your guns are not taken.
  • You are able to have any lawsuits thrown out under civil immunity laws.
  • Social and professional repercussions are not severe.
  • You are able to deal with the shock and emotional trauma.
Best:
  • The are few if any complications.
  • The shock and emotional trauma are relatively short lived.
That last one can best be brought about by not shooting anyone, however one achieves that.
 
Last edited:
It appears that your objective is to shoot. Mine is not.

I'm sorry that this is what you got from my reply. I hope to not ever have to shoot anyone. I don't want to deal with the self "remorse", the litigation or the mess. Just because I said that I didn't feel obligated to give someone that broke into my home uninvited does not mean that I want to shoot. My level of defense will depend on the uninvited guest level of aggression.
 
8 AM, Sep 5, 1960 — first day of training — Infantry Training Regiment, Camp LeJeune, NC

Gunnery Sergeant Bryant: “Never, I mean F—————G NEVER, intentionally let the enemy know where you are until you begin to shoot them”.

I have subscribed to that order ever since and will do so until the day I die.
 
“Never, I mean F—————G NEVER, intentionally let the enemy know where you are until you begin to shoot them”.
Should go without saying, but apparently needs to be said; in warfare, the intent is to kill. Both sides know they WANT to kill each other.

Home intrusions are a different game.

(Crossposted with Kleanbore)
 
A lot of... Passionate... posts in this one.

I think many situations make it wise to announce your presence and the fact that you are armed and prepared.

Sometimes the home invader did not think the dwelling occupied and will choose escape on his own once they know someone is in there.

Also, when you announce that you know that someone is in your home and they do not respond you have additional data on your situation and can adjust your plan accordingly. It can be an important part of identifying the target.

"I know you're here, I am armed! I've called the police!"
"Agarn, it's me, Bill..."

Vs

"I know you're here, I am armed! I've called the police!"
[Silence] or threats

My research and study suggests that if you are actively in a fight for your life, maintaining your silence makes perfect sense.

Prior to when the fight starts, it makes sense to try to deter the conflict.

I don't suggest standing in the worst defensible position in your home when you make the announcement, but there is certainly a case for announcing your presence and preparedness
 
Every negligent "home defense" shooting of a loved one could have been easily prevented by a verbal challenge.

A verbal challenge helps prevent you from pointing death at somebody you care about in a high stress situation in which fatal mistakes can be made.

^This.
 
The problem with announcing that you're armed is the expectation that the bad guy will run away. If they don't, then you panic. People in this camp will not fire their weapon. They are also the type to look for "less lethal" ammo. This tactic and these gun owners make no sense for me. For them, get a bat.
That's a really broad generalization.
I would consider announcing a warning if it were warranted. If they flee, great. I'd try to get as much info as possible to relay to police.

if they stay, well.... they have been warned and will then have to face a determined man defending his home and family. And I'm not loaded with rubber bullets.
 
In announcing, you haven't told the bad guy something he doesn't already suspect or know. What you have done is give up part of your tactical advantage. Hopefully you have a safe space where you can fort up until the cavalry arrives. Do NOT leave a safe space with the intent to engage or clear your house. Unless you are a professional you are probably going to lose that contest no matter how many schools you have attended and videos you have watched. Clearing a dwelling/building is a very dangerous proposition. Hunker down and make him/them come to you. My main concern isn't legal battles in years to come but rather my family and I surviving the next few seconds.
 
When I lived in a more urban environment - on the same street as several Frat houses - verbal communication prevented some confused (inebriated) people from getting shot while trying to enter the wrong house. Something like that happened at least once a semester. The risk/benefit analysis for that location led me to choose to verbally challenge anyone attempting to enter through the front door.

In my new house, the situation's a bit different. It isn't unusual for the mailman to drop packages on the side porch - even inside the storm door - to keep them out of sight from the road. He's a good kid, and we had a discussion about it when we first moved here. The expectations and rules of engagement are just different here than when we lived inside the city. A neighbor walking towards my house with a shotgun during daylight hours is NOT a threat here - and would be met with a "hello" and a wave before gunfire. OTOH it would have been a threat inside the city limits, though met with locked doors and a call to 911 instead of a conversation.

I keep thinking about the recent news with gun owners shooting people who probably didn't need to be shot. I have worked out rules of engagement for my home because I feel it is important to know how to react AND when to escalate levels of force.
 
There are too many variables when facing a home intruder to definitively say what I'd do. I can tell you that I was in a shoot/don't shoot situation once, against a drug addict who tried stabbing me with a screw driver. It would have been a justified shooting but I managed to disarm him without taking the shot. I'm thankful I made the decision I did.
 
It seems to me that unless audio visual equipment was in play, this would be difficult to determine.
These days you should assume there is audio/video recording of the event.

Remember the stabbing of those college kids in Idaho? They got audio recordings of part of the incident from the house next door.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ctims-house-stabbing-four-students-death.html

At about 4.17am, a security camera next door picked up the sounds of voices or a whimper, a loud thud, and the sound of a dog barking 'numerous times'.

If you (or someone else in the house) calls 911, that could be a source of audio recording.

It's even possible that the criminal might record the incident either intentionally or unintentionally.

Man intentionally records himself burglarizing homes.
https://www.13wmaz.com/article/news...ounty/93-931c9c69-ed9d-4897-a607-c43ee2dda8fb

Teen unintentionally records himself breaking into cars on a stolen camera.
https://www.kron4.com/news/video-florida-sheriff-nabs-teen-who-recorded-himself-on-stolen-gopro/

Man unintentionally records himself during a burglary on a stolen phone.
https://www.wftv.com/news/local/orange-county-deputies-arrest-man-suspected-multip/26850486/

Man intentionally records himself assaulting someone.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texa...and-breaking-jaw-79-year-old-african-american

Juvenile records himself invading a home.
https://www.waff.com/2021/12/13/juv...charges-limestone-county-after-armed-robbery/
 
A lot of... Passionate... posts in this one.
Yet those of us advocating for making verbal announcements -- time and circumstances permitting --don't seem to have swayed the hardcore others in the opposite camp, nor even garnered consideration for such, in spite of reasoned arguments and examples. Ah, well.

Hopefully, none here will have occasion to find out that reality often turns out differently than hypothetical situations on the internet.
 
Should go without saying, but apparently needs to be said; in warfare, the intent is to kill. Both sides know they WANT to kill each other.

Home intrusions are a different game.

(Crossposted with Kleanbore)

Yes, war is different than civilian hostilities. However, when a person engages you with a potentially lethal threat it does not matter if that person is a uniformed combatant or a civilian intruder, mugger, etc. A lethal treat is a threat whether in combat on a battlefield or your local house of worship. An enemy is an enemy. I treat all enemies the same. If they are endangering me, I will never let them know where I am unless I have to do so, and that would likely be when I determined I have to shoot. The OP was depicting an intrusion. In PA we have a castle doctrine which is clearly stated. If person(s)enter your house without your permission no warning is required. So why would I give them one?

combat is combat no matter the environment. I have experienced wartime CQB, but no so in peacetime. I cannot imagine why one would be different than the other in terms of defending yourself. So many times I have read people state war fighting and civilian fighting are different. Mostly I expect those statements are made by folks who have experienced neither.
 
Mostly I expect those statements are made by folks who have experienced neither.
You'd be wrong.

Mostly, those statements are made by folks who have been paying attention and actually bothered to educate themselves.

I'd suggest a quick read, Massad Ayoob's Deadly Force: Understand Your Right to Self Defense. He's actually been in a few hundred criminal and civil trials subsequent to citizens (and law enforcement) using and misusing deadly force.

I've experienced both, by the way, and combat is not combat no matter the environment, you're simply putting forth a specious argument. The OP is addressing scenarios in which an uninvited person enters your home. If you cannot understand that this does not always require a lethal force response, apparently, nothing we can further say will convince you otherwise.
 
There is a drawback to announcing that I haven't seen mentioned here. If you DO announce and they leave, what is to prevent them from coming back later when you aren't there? After all, you have stated that you're armed and now they want your gun(s).
OR, if you try and keep them there waiting for the police, YOU could now be charged with "unlawful restraint".
There is one advantage I have and that is that I am now a "senior citizen" with certain physical problems and limitations. I also live alone as both my ex-wife and ex-girlfriend have passed away and my nearest relative is over 100 miles away. IOW, the chance of a "friendly" coming in at any time (esp. after dark) is statistically zero. The bottom sill of the windows in my bedroom are almost FOUR FEET above the floor with no way to get out easily. If some perp gets that far into my house - - -.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top