Reacting to home intruder

[beeenbag]

I just received a dvd from North American Hunting Club title "American Rifleman Personal Firearm Defense". Some of you may have seen it, but in the home defense segment the host illustrates that you should call 911 first (thats a given), then barricade yourself - he went into a closet. From a crouched position inside the closet holding a firearms he starts telling the intruder that he is armed and prepared to defend himself and to not come into the bedroom area or he will feel threated and defend himself. Now my question is, how could you possibly hole up in a closet and let an intruder have the run of the place and the advantage of knowing your position while you wait for the police?

I could be way off base here but, me personally, I feel the need to protect my home.

His scenario is living alone of course and not having to worry about other family members throughout the house, which kinda plays in my situation because its only me and the wife who sleeps beside me and would be with me all the time.

So I was just wondering if there are alot of people who agree with "barricading" or would try other means of securing your home

Sorry for the long post and I tried searching this topic and came up empty so if its played out please post a link for me to read up.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I'd barricade if I had a short police response time, but I don't. Anybody would have plenty of time to cart everything of value away long before the police arrive. Most of the valuable stuff I own is not replaceable with even a very fat insurance check.

I'm going to deal with it myself while the wife calls 911 with a revolver in one hand.

 

[BigDeesul]

I have a 2 year old daughter to protect, so the last thing I would do is crouch in a closet. If the intruder were unarmed, I would beat them until unconscious, then wait for the police while applying pressure such as stepping on their neck until police showed up. I would be armed the whole time, of course. If they were armed and I was able to tell they were armed, It's obvious they intend to do harm and I would not hesitate to put .45 Hollow point projectiles into them until they were no longer a threat. I hope to god this scenario never plays out, but I care about my family, not the P.O.S. scumbag that invaded my home. I would never shoot an unarmed intruder, but they definitely wouldn't be walking out.

 

[Kleanbore]

Now my question is, how could you possibly hole up in a closet and let an intruder have the run of the place and the advantage of knowing your position while you wait for the police?

While I wouldn't choose a closet, I would always choose to wait in a defensive position rather than to go looking for one or possibly more of an unknown number of intruders in the house. Who "wins" will depend upon who walks into whose ambush. I intend for the winner to be me.

The "American Rifleman Personal Firearm Defense" DVD and the National Rifle Association’s “Personal Protection In The Home” course are but two that call for getting to a safe place and calling. On the other side of the coin? No responsible instructors recommend trying to clear your house* Further, all of the people who have trained to do so who have posted here recommend against it. Most would not try it themselves.

People who do clear structures do so because, as sworn officers or the like, they have to. Highly trained, heavily armed with carbines and shotguns and special grenades and, where I live, machine pistols, they wear comprehensive protective armor and operate in teams. And the ones I've talked to do not like to do it at all.

If they come for you, let 'em have it. Otherwise let 'em go. Much, much safer all the way around.

________
*That is, after you have gotten your loved ones to safety.

 

[beeenbag]

I guess it would be a matter of how willing you were to protect your stuff and home, and im not saying apply lethal force at first to protect your things but rather, apply physical force, or asses the situation as life threatining, then resort to lethal force if necessary. In my state, Kentucky, you are allowed legally to protect your propertly with "physical force". Once the situation escalates and/or the perp. threatens your life or you feel threatened for your life or serious bodily injury you can apply lethal force. I would be willing to apply the necessary force to stop a home invasion and protect my home all within the realm of the law.

 

[rainbowbob]

While I wouldn't choose a closet, I would always choose to wait in a defensive position rather than to go looking for one or possibly more of an unknown number of intruders in the house. Who "wins" will depend upon who walks into whose ambush. I intend for the winner to be me.

Wife in the bathtub with a phone, me behind the mattress with a .38 aimed at the the "funnel of death" (i.e., back-lit doorway).

I agree with kleanbore on this one...with a possible exception to "always".

It may depend on whether they have made it in the house or not. If I hear noise (e.g., window breaking or door being kicked) and the dog is going nuts... I *might* attempt to defend against entry if I think I can obtain a safe defensive position from which to do so.

 

[rondog]

JMHO, but if someone breaks into my house, I'm NOT going to hide and tremble. And I'll call for help after the s.o.b. is dead. Right way or wrong way, doesn't matter. I plan to go on the offensive and make him stain his pants.

 

[GEM]

I think it is pretty clear from various training exercises that the untrained (or even trained) homeowner, that goes through the house looking for an intruder with any common sense, is easily ambushed. Seen it as a BG and a GG in training.

Protecting your stuff means your own body. Is even that wonderful emotional picture of Grandma that is irreplaceable worth a hole in you?

Unless you have to get to someone to protect them - the mantra is to stay put.

The rational mind should talk over the emotional mind that is all in a fury over the territorial violation.

 

[Kleanbore]

I guess it would be a matter of how willing you were to protect your stuff and home, ...

I don't think that's the issue at all.

I hate to put it quite this way, but I believe the issue is whether one understands what he is doing.

This has come up numerous times. Here are just a few of the valuable responses from people who know the score.

From HSO, Moderator:

I'll repeat what I said before, I helped run scenarios in a shoot house using simunition. The "house" was as familiar to us as our own homes (more so because we set it up for each scenario). The patient people that sat and waited and paid attention fared much better than the people that moved around. That was the case when we were the people moving through "our" house with a student waiting inside. The students that couldn't be still and wait were seen and hit far more often than the ones that waited for us to come to them.

The odds are never in your favor when your hunting through the place in the dark for a BG unless there's no BG there. The fact that most of the time there's no BG there leads people into the false sense of security in "clearing" their own house. Try going to a course where you have to actually do this with someone waiting for you somewhere in the "house" and you'll learn the difference.

(Emphasis added)

That's worth reading twice, and maybe again slowly.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=6569840&postcount=89

From mbt2001, member from Texas:

Aside from the home lighting, locks, storm doors, alarm systems and so forth, your house needs to be made to contain a shooting lane from the Master bedroom, or which ever room that you are going to call the police from and cover your loved ones. In some houses, that may be the stair well, in others the hall to the "sleeping quarters", it really depends on how your house is set up.

In my house, the bedrooms are on the north side, the other rooms on the south, bridged by a living room. I have positioned book cases in the bedrooms hall facing wall to stop bullets shot into those rooms. Any shot would be glancing, BTW, as firing straight down the hall will put rounds into a bathroom door jam.

Anyway, if you hear a noise, cover the door and wait. If after 5 or 10 minutes you hear nothing, then go an check it out. The point is that you do not need to engage on the move, when you can wait and if you have to engage 1) the police are on the way 2) your chances of success go up 3) it is pretty clear that the assailant meant you bodily harm, as he made his way through the house to your bedroom where he was shot.

Clearing a house is the most dangerous thing that you can do. I will say it again, clearing a house is INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS. It takes more than one person, typically 4 people, using team tactics. Hollywood makes it look neat, but you need to remember that in NCIS / 24 and all those shows, if someone were to engage, at least one of those officers would be dead. That is why you need at least 4 to do it properly, and those 4 need to have training, so that if someone pops out, he goes down.

That should illustrate the issue rather well, I think.


http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=6570604&postcount=109

Here's one more from HSO:

I helped teach a defensive handgun course that involved a shoot house and simunition. I knew every little angle and hiddey-hole in the place because I helped build it and I "lived" in it over and over again as the BG in the scenarios. The lead instructor and I would sometimes act as home invaders in scenarios instead of BGs already in the house waiting for the homeowner to come hunting through the place. Even though it was "our" house we would find ourselves taking hits because there just is no way to cover all the angles by yourself. Regardless of whether you know the position of ever stick of furniture and every shadow there just isn't any way to pick LEFT and RIGHT at the same time as your FIRST direction to look. The idea that you can safely clear your own home by yourself is self delusion. Try running a shoot house sometime and then try to make it through with someone unfamiliar with the place in it. It's sobering.

What's the alternative? Get training for you and your wife to work as a two person team clearing the house. It's still suicidal, but less so than solo. Of course she might think that the money is better spent on an alarm system, 10X lights, controllers and cameras and a nice sturdy door.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=6569071&postcount=70

On one of the occasions on which I have actually had to take up a firearm to defend against a home invader, I had to venture forth because the guy was already threatening loved ones. Fortunately, he turned out to be alone; fortunately, I was able to remain hidden and engage at the right moment; fortunately, he had only an improvised edged weapon; and fortunately, he was completely outgunned by Smith, Wesson, and me. So, things came out OK.

On some other occasions in the past I went forth with gun in hand to investigate noises. A little tactical analysis and a little common sense now tell me that the reason everything came out all right was very simple: as HSO said, there was no one there.

There have been many other valuable posts on this; my selection of these three was not intended to slight anyone else.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by BigDeesul: If the intruder were unarmed, I would beat them until unconscious, then wait for the police while applying pressure such as stepping on their neck until police showed up. I would be armed the whole time, of course.

Oh, gosh! Prosecutors and plaintiffs' attorneys could have a field day with that, I'm afraid. Good way to lose everything.

One could quote the authoritative literature until the proverbial cows come home, but member Cosmoline put it very clearly and economically in another post when he said "shoot for defense, not for justice." It applies equally to any other kind of physical force.

I would never shoot an unarmed intruder, but they definitely wouldn't be walking out.

A citizen can effect an arrest under some circumstances in Illinois, but he is not indemnified against civil suits, and he faces exposure to criminal prosecution if he uses excessive force. Not recommended.

 

[W.E.G.]

The intruder was armed.
Two to the body, one to the head.

The intruder was not armed.
911 and order him to get running.

Its a bad idea to try to capture human beings all by yourself.

You can play hide-and-seek in the closet if you want, but if its my house, I think not.

 

[KodiakBeer]

A citizen can effect an arrest under some circumstances in Illinois, but he is not indemnified against civil suits, and he faces exposure to criminal prosecution if he uses excessive force. Not recommended.

In most states (perhaps not Illinois...) it's simply your word against theirs and since you're the home owner, no prosecution would be forthcoming if you were to butt-stroke some invader with your shotgun (or whatever).

I'm not advocating this. You may just have some scared teenager and I'm not going to shoot or butt-stroke them. I am going to hold them spread-eagled on the ground until the police arrive. If they run for it, they can keep running. If they're armed, all bets are off.

 

[GEM]

It is an assumption of many in interactions with bad guys that:

1. They are better shots and never miss
2. Their shots will be immediatively effective
3. The bad guys will miss them
4. They will win any hand to hand interaction.

That Justice quote is awesome, btw.

 

[rainbowbob]

The students that couldn't be still and wait were seen and hit far more often than the ones that waited for us to come to them.

I learned this by the time I was ten years old from playing "guns" obsessively. My brothers and friends regularly accused me of cheating because I always had the patience to find concealment and wait for them to come to me.

I never lost.

...I'm NOT going to hide and tremble...

I'll hide - but hopefully not tremble (although that is certainly a possible physiological response to extreme stress).

This isn't about justice, or righteous indignation...it's about using strategies and tactics that will increase the odds of winning the fight, as kleanbore pointed out.

 

[beeenbag]

Even if the intruder is NOT armed in kentucky you can "legally" use deadly force to stop the "threat"

503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle -- Exceptions.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
(b) The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used;
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties, and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a peace officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
Effective: July 12, 2006
History: Created 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 2, effective July 12, 2006.



Also, if someone is commiting robbery persay, I have the right to stop them, even if its in my outbuilding where no one "dwells" I can apply physical force to stop them. Now I did not say deadly force, but physical. Then if the situation goes haywire and I feel my life and/or serious bodily injury is in danger then I can apply deadly force.


503.080 Protection of property.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
(a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or
(b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is:
(a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or
(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in his possession.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Effective: July 12, 2006
History: Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 5, effective July 12, 2006. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 33, effective January 1, 1975.



so, again I would have to say, the law is on the homeowners side when it comes to stopping someone from robbing or breaking and entering and what you do about a situation that rises up is based on how willing you are to protect your property and/or your home.

 

[beeenbag]

I agree totally that who ever is on the move is at a definite dissadvantage. If the situation allowed I would be the one in wait, such as a loud attempt at entering without success at first. In which situation I would deploy such ambush at the entry site. Then on the other hand if entry is obtained before my knowledge, of course im not gonna jump up grab my pistol and run to the living quarters screaming "GERONIMO" or anything like that, but I will assess the situation and do what I think I need to do to stop an unlawful entry of of my home. Whatever "common sense" tactics apply, besides doing nothing.

I personally, feel I have worked too hard to obtain things that are "priceless" to me, to let some thug pill head (thats what we have problems with in my area -prescription drug abusers) take whatever he wants and have me and my wife in fear within my own home.

 

[shockwave]

Y'know, as I read through the various versions of this thread that keep popping up here, I get the sense that there may be some kind of generational thing going on. If it isn't generational, it may be cultural, but whatever it is, it's really weird and strange to me.

For one thing, if someone was trying to get into my house, or God forbid already in it, calling 911 would not occur to me. Eventually, after all the excitement was over, I'd get around to it, but not while the situation was happening.

Another thing concerns the term "clearing." It wasn't explained or clarified before, and I'd like to see this term make explicitly clear now. To "clear" a house in a technical sense means to investigate and ensure there are no hostiles in it. However, what is unclear to me is the degree of the suspicion required before "checking something out" becomes "clearing."

For example, I've got an interesting project today. I'm going to trap a nuisance raccoon on my property. I have a large trap-cage and will bait it and set it out by darkfall. I imagine that around 9pm or so I'm going to hear a bit of a commotion outside. When I do, I'll grab a flashlight and go out and investigate.

I won't barricade myself in the bedroom closet and dial 911 because I heard an odd noise outside. And at any other time, if I hear odd noises, if there's a bump in the night, my upbringing has taught me to go investigate and see what's going on. There's a whole gestalt to this, such that some kinds of disturbances warrant grabbing a firearm, and some don't.

If I heard the sound of a door being kicked in or glass breaking, I'd grab the nearest gun, take up a defensive position and not move once behind cover, aiming into the focus area and going SA with the magnum. Given more time, the SG would be in play. It all depends on what is going on and how it fits into the general pattern of things.

 

[beeenbag]

+1 shockwave

Also, how many times is an intruder going to break into someones house and then sit and wait on the homeowner to come looking for him. Odds are, IMHO, if someone is going to kick in your door or break into your house, they are either looking for something to steal and moving around looking through things etc. or they are coming for your hide. Either way I don't think they are gonna break in then "stake" you out.

 

[KodiakBeer]

For one thing, if someone was trying to get into my house, or God forbid already in it, calling 911 would not occur to me. Eventually, after all the excitement was over, I'd get around to it, but not while the situation was happening.

Another thing concerns the term "clearing." It wasn't explained or clarified before, and I'd like to see this term make explicitly clear now. To "clear" a house in a technical sense means to investigate and ensure there are no hostiles in it. However, what is unclear to me is the degree of the suspicion required before "checking something out" becomes "clearing."

Wow! Excellent points!

Even beyond that, I can't grasp the "tactical" mindset of cowering in your bedroom while your property gets carted off by some tweaker. Is that $500 insurance value on your grandfathers military sword going to replace it? People should defend their homes - call that what you will.

 

[altitude_19]

Depends on the state you're in.
Castle doctrine states: I don't intend to warn them with anything other than a laser dot.
Non-castle doctrine: "GET OUT OF MY HOUSE! I HAVE A GUN!" I know some trainers add to the script, but I'm less than eloquent under pressure.
As for barricading: It's simpler if you live alone. I understand the need to secure one's loved ones beforehand. THEN barricade everyone in one room.

 

[Averageman]

I frequently deployed while in the Military; at the time I had a very young Wife and a newborn Son.
I installed great locks and told her to lock and deadlock both doors and lock the bedroom door everynight and sleep with the Baby. If anyone gets in the dog will let you know, go to the bathroom and lock that door; then get in the walk in closet and lock that door. Put the barrel of the shotgun under the door handle and set to the side of the door, if the knob turns scream once and pull the trigger.
Anyone who would have broken through those 3 door to get to the 4th would have got a nice door knob in the forehead followed by #4 Shot.
I'm not going to clear rooms, announce myself or beg them to leave, I've never heard of a suckerpunch being delivered with a firearm, but thats what they'll get.
Nothing in this house is worth your life, but if you want to come in and check.........

 

[Kleanbore]

so, again I would have to say, the law is on the homeowners side when it comes to stopping someone from robbing or breaking and entering and what you do about a situation that rises up is based on how willing you are to protect your property and/or your home.

Two different things, beeenbag. Robbery is a crime against persons, not property.

I personally, feel I have worked too hard to obtain things that are "priceless" to me, to let some thug pill head (thats what we have problems with in my area -prescription drug abusers) take whatever he wants and have me and my wife in fear within my own home.

Nonetheless, beeenbag, I'm sure you are aware that you may not use deadly force to protect property in Kentucky. So what's your point?

Look: the question here is really not whether you can defend your property (you can, short of using deadly force). It's not whether you can use deadly force in the event of a home invasion (you can , to protect persons). It's whether you have any chance at all of succeeding if you step out of a defensive position. You don't have much of a chance, by the way, unless there turns out to be no one there.

Capisce?

 

[TechBrute]

I'm sure most people are familiar with the way we can defend ourselves here in the Lone Star State. Legality notwithstanding, I have 4 kids in the house, so hiding in a closet is just flat out irresponsible of me as a parent. I wouldn't go looking for the intruder, but I would certainly be making my way through the house to secure the ankle biters.

In a situation like mine, other things can be brought into play to help gain an advantage. For example, I have 250 pounds of dogs, 200 of which have aggressively defended both the children and the home in the past. They aren't bulletproof, but they lend a certain presence to the house.

If someone was stealing my tv, I think the insurance-funded new tv is plenty reason to not have it on my conscience to have taken a life. I would, however, take more aggressive measures to defend the firearms in my home. I definitely don't want someone else's life on me because they were killed with my gun when I could have kept it from being stolen.

 

[HOWARD J]

In MI with the blessing of the castle doctrine you may defend you & yours with lethal force at home--in your car--anywhere you have a legal right to be.
BUT when the bushhhhey headed little kiddies are breaking into your garage ( to steal things ) or stealing your car in the garage or driveway---you had better not touch one hair on their little heads or you will end up in jail or have libel suits filed against you.
This really sucks---b/cause I would like to have the right to punch holes in them !!!!!!!

 

[beeenbag]

so, again I would have to say, the law is on the homeowners side when it comes to stopping someone from robbing or breaking and entering and what you do about a situation that rises up is based on how willing you are to protect your property and/or your home.

My bad, that was a bad choice of words. Burglarizing is not considered a crime against a person, thats what I should have said. Nevertheless if a burglary is taking place on my personal property whatever it may be, I most certainly WILL apply physical force if necessary to stop it. Now if the situation is escaladed, not on my own behalf, other forces may be necessary. If I do not press the issue and that force is taken I realize there are physical reprecussions that may take place, such as me getting injured or killed. I also realize that I will have to explain the situation to the leos and I may even have legal reprecussions. That is just how I am, I will do whatever the law will allow me to do to protect mine and my own.

I may be old fashioned for my young age, but I believe in doing what you feel is right, and letting someone who is not worthy carry off my belongings, whether out of my buildings, my car, or even my own occupied home, is not right in my book. Now like I said, I will not engage someone with deadly force who is "burglarizing" my property, but physical force is VERY legal to use.

Kleanbore I am not disputing the fact of what your saying, which basically boils down to the old "he who does not fight, lives to fight another day" (or however that goes), is not by far the safest way to get by.

If the situation ever arises, which I hope it never does, I couldn't stand knowing that I was "bunkered" up somewhere letting someone destroy or steal MY belongings, and I shouldn't have to.

Then again, No one could ever sit in front of their computer screen and tell someone else "exactly" what they would do in any type of extreme stress situation like we are discussing. Call me hard headed but, I study my state laws quiet often so I know everything that I am legally allowed to do to stop any type of criminal actions against me or my family so that if the time comes I will hopefully act upon my "legal" rights to the fullest extent.

Still yet, everyone has an option even inside the legal realm of things. You can walk the legal line so to speak to prevent everything you can, or you can leave it up to the leos and just protect you and your families safety. It is summed up by what I said earlier about

what you do about a situation that rises up is based on how willing you are to protect your property and/or your home.

Thank you for your debates kleanbore, you have made me think and probably other also.