Reacting to home intruder

[Kleanbore]

I have convinced three intruders "not to do anything" on three different occasions--at gun point, and using some industrial strength coaching. And believe me, I was very ready to shoot for center mass. All elected to exercise some judgment, in the event.

All of these incidents preceded the enactment of castle laws in the two states involved. As to whether that would have made much difference other than in terms of evidentiary procedure, one can only speculate.

In all three occasions there was a car in the driveway. The perps at least had reason to suspect the house to be occupied.

One was one of those cases mentioned by fiddletown in which one had to go forth for the sake of the safety of family members. It does happen.

I think, knowing what I have learned since, that I would probably have acted a little differently in the other two cases. In one of them I would not--could not, in fact , have called the police. There was no phone.

I have since had some rather good tactical pistol training, and I do recommend it for those who can avail themselves of it. I haven't had any FoF training relevant to the issue at hand. Regarding "reacting to a home intruder" I imagine that such training would only reinforce ideas imparted by those who have taken it.

On a few other occasions I was lucky that there was no one in the house. Based on what I consider to be very good advice, you will not find me going looking for them, should it happen again.

I sometimes kick myself for not having realized the obvious to start with--if you don't want to risk getting shot for no good reason, do not make yourself any more of a target than you have to. Looks good on the screen, and you can always get by with it if there's no one there, but it does not constitute a really smart strategy.

Of course, if anyone really doesn't want to accept what the experts and professionals have to say, he or she can still get some airsoft guns, bring in a couple of fit people to use them and offer a reward for the winners.

I don't have to. I need simply to stand in various places and look at the approach that I as the homeowner would have to take to "clear." I'd be a walking duck. Why it took the likes of Mas Ayoob, hso, and others to point that out I just do not know.

 

[beeenbag]

Kleanbore

Let me just say that I agree with you 100% that it is not the safest thing to do, clearing your own home that is.

My house is relatively small. From my bedroom I can hear (at night, no tv or anything) whatever happens thoughout the whole house. Now all I would have to do to "clear" 85% or so of my house, is peak out my bedroom door. Heck I can see alot of it laying in bed with the door open. All that is left after stepping out my door is spare bedrooms and another bathroom. The kitchin and living room is all one big room seperated by a counter.

So my train of thought here is basically who hears who first. If I hear him first Ill pretty well know where he is at. So if he hears me after im sneaking to my bedroom door, there is still nowhere to really hide. My living quarters are no where near dark (wifes candle warmers and wot not) I just can't see how I could be at a disadvantage.

Other homes that are more complex and darker, yeah I agree it would be more dangerous.

So I honestly would feel better having to engage if I had to, inside my living room, from my bedroom door, than I would inside my bedroom. I'm not comfortable at all with the thought of engaging inside my bedroom, cause once he is in there, thats it. No where to retreat to if necessary.

Aside from what is tactically correct and what the experts say, do you understand where im coming from?

 

[Kleanbore]

Aside from what is tactically correct and what the experts say, do you understand where im coming from?

I think most of us think of these things from the standpoint of our own situation. In my case, the upstairs bedroom is the safest place to be because anyone coming up the stairs will walk right into my line of fire; going down the stairs, on the other hand, would be extremely dangerous, as I would be covered by however many people within an arc starting at 90 degrees to the right and expanding to more than 120 degrees to the right and behind as I descend, and once I'm off the landing, 100 degrees, with ample opportunities for concealment throughout. Suicide, and it gets worse as I proceed. Keep in mind that anyone there needs only to watch possible points of ingress into his space, but I have absolutely no way of knowing where he or they might be. Go ahead, ask me why I didn't figure this out long before reading the writings of Mas Ayoob. No, I'm not the smartest guy around. Rainbowbob figured out the basics when he was about ten.

A simpler floor plan all on one story might be somewhat safer, but the fact remains, fighting from a defensive position is safer than seeking out an opponent--by far. I do not understand why you think you would be safer looking out, where you could be fired upon, than staying in the bedroom behind concealment or better yet, cover. You do not "engage him" inside your bedroom. You do not let him into the room. If the door to your room opens, you do what you have to do.

Now let's go back to the first post. Did the trainer on the NRA disk actually say to get into a closet, or did he say to get into a defensible position and let the threat come to you?

Realize that if he does come to you, when you are behind something with your gun trained at his only possible avenue of approach, he has no chance at all. And you have a very, very high chance of not getting hurt--at all.

Step out of that position and the odds start to change toward his favor, even in a relatively simple floor plan.

That's in the abstract, of course. If you want to try out the possibilities, get two other guys and three airsoft guns and play some games.

One other thing: if someone is brazen enough to come in forcibly knowing that you are at home, you can assume he's probably a bad dude, but you cannot count on his coming in when both of you can get to the safe room--or to your gun, for that matter--and you sure as heck cannot necessarily assume that he is alone. When you think through the mitigation possibilities for those factors, you have to do so with our specific layout in mind.

I hope you find this helpful.

 

[KodiakBeer]

You do not "engage him" inside your bedroom. You do not let him into the room. If the door to your room opens, you do what you have to do.

Sell your guns and get a stouter door.

I'll keep my guns and defend my home and property.

You make your choices and you live with them.

 

[Sam1911]

Sell your guns and get a stouter door.

Wow! Good advice there, and not even a little bit disingenuous!

When someone counsels us to take the safest, proven route to preserving life in the face of violent aggression -- it is only fitting and proper that we should denigrate them, question their courage, and toss out the most dilapidated and threadbare strawman the internet has ever known: "Sell your guns!" Yup, sell 'em, 'cause you're not man enough to defend your toaster and tv at the near certain risk of your life. Sell 'em, cause you're too intellectual and face a problem logically instead of charging into the threat, leading with your ... manliness. Sell 'em -- because you challenge me to think beyond my own bravado.

A simpler floor plan all on one story might be somewhat safer, but the fact remains, fighting from a defensive position is safer than seeking out an opponent--by far.

This really sums up so very much of the debate over house clearing.

Going on the "offensive" -- meaning leaving your position of defense and searching the building for lethal threats -- is a totally, nearly UNIVERSALLY, losing proposition.

The "experts" tell you not to do it. Of course, who cares what the "experts" say, right?

All the "training" and advice from the "professionals" means nothing to me.

I keep reading these illogical statements here. It is quite curious. To paraphrase: "The people who research these things have discovered nearly universal truths. Those truths don't apply to me because I'm not the kind of person who researches these things."

As if the people who try so hard to study and understand what happens in real-life encounters should be ignored -- denigrated even -- because they tried too hard.

Nothing makes up for instinct.

And if instinct was worth a hill of beans, none of us would need training, advice, or a "Strategies and Tactics" forum.

-sigh-

 

[KodiakBeer]

When someone counsels us to take the safest, proven route to preserving life in the face of violent aggression -- it is only fitting and proper that we should denigrate them, question their courage, and toss out the most dilapidated and threadbare strawman the internet has ever known: "Sell your guns!" Yup, sell 'em, 'cause you're not man enough to defend your toaster and tv at the near certain risk of your life.

Oh Puhleeeze... If your plan is to barricade yourself and call the police, then your best defense is a stouter barricade.

You all miss the point no matter how many times it gets made. Your situation is not his situation is not my situation. Police response time to my house is 30 minutes minimum. Other people have family members in different rooms on different floors. Other people may have a couple of big mean dogs to let out and clear the house.
So, when somebody says that the correct "tactical" approach to a home invasion is to hide in your bedroom and call the police, it ignores the reality that people don't all live in identical bungalows with a ten minute police response.

You make choices based on your reality and I'll make choices based on mine. Don't try and tell me I'm "wrong" because my situation is different than yours.

 

[BigDeesul]

Properly trained blackbelts walk away from bar fights. Let them go.


Instinct can only take you so far.



d

Very true, sir, just using the black belt thing as a bad example. Instinct will definitely only take you so far, but I've always trusted mine and acted on it, and I've been in a lot of bad situations. More than most people, and I'm still here. I will continue to act on my instincts, as it's never failed me, and I'm still kickin. LOL.

 

[Sam1911]

Oh Puhleeeze... If your plan is to barricade yourself and call the police, then your best defense is a stouter barricade.

There's no reason a stouter barricade isn't a fine idea for your "panic room" or what have you.

However, the point has been made over and over that this isn't simply hiding behind an impenetrable barricade. This is creating a "no fly zone" at a pinch point (your bedroom door in this case -- for some it's the top of the main staircase, or other) where your weapon will create a near impenetrable lane of fire the invader will have to try to pass to get to you. This isn't hiding and praying they just go away. This is maximizing the effect of your lethal force and minimizing the danger to yourself.

You all miss the point no matter how many times it gets made. Your situation is not his situation is not my situation.

That really isn't a point of contention. But there are strategies that can be applied somewhat broadly. What some here are simply saying is that -- for 97%+ of homeowners in 2010 in the USA, there's no compelling reason to go stalking through your house looking to pick up a few extra holes in your carcass.

Police response time to my house is 30 minutes minimum.

While, as I've stated, police response isn't really the focus here (efficiency of defense is) -- you can't wait 30 friggin' minutes? What's the matter? You gotta poop or something? You'll wait 10 hours for a deer to show up under your tree stand, but you can't wait 30 lousy minutes to stack the odds in favor of you not being shot to death? Wow.

Other people have family members in different rooms on different floors. Other people may have a couple of big mean dogs to let out and clear the house.

Yup. And once you've got that worked out, hole up and stack the odds in your favor. You don't help your family by getting dead -- no matter how much that TV meant to them.

 

[BigDeesul]

Kleanbore, I apologize if I have offended you in any manner by using your name in a previous post. It was not my intention to personally attack you. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and unfortunately ours are not the same. I hope we can debate other issues in the future. Happy shooting.

 

[Robert101]

I sure hope the bad guys aren't reading these posts because it would tend to reinforce the idea that only the police will attempt to stop them and offensively do them harm. Get what you can before the units roll up. All occupants in the house are taking a defensive postion and will not engage. Now go ahead and paste and copy all you want...... the above described is a characterization of the safe tactics suggested in many of the posts here.

 

[Sam1911]

I sure hope the bad guys aren't reading these posts because it would tend to reinforce the idea that only the police will attempt to stop them and offensively do them harm. Get what you can before the units roll up.

Yes, it's true. The very best burglars and robbers read our S&T forum to pick up the latest tricks.

All occupants in the house are taking a defensive postion and will not engage unless you enter their defensive fire zone.

With a little more text, this begins to make sense...

Now go ahead and paste and copy all you want...... the above described is a characterization of the safe tactics suggested in many of the posts here.

Do you have a counterpoint? If the odds are demonstrably stacked heavily against you if you attempt to clear your house against armed invaders, what property is so valuable to you that you'll trade away almost certain success (living to file an insurance claim) for 3:1 or worse odds of ending up on the losing team (wherein you won't be alive to file the insurance claim when they take your TV anyway...)?

 

[Ryder]

the host illustrates that you should call 911 first (thats a given)

Is it?

It would be impossible for me to get to the phone without exposing myself to someone who just kicked in my door or climbed through a window.

Calling for rescuers that are 30 miles away won't even cross my mind. Pretty sure the the neighbors can manage it though after they hear what sounds like WWIII breaking out

 

[coloradokevin]

First, I believe it is far more important to listen for the intruder, rather than look for the individual in your home. You won't see a person until such time as they are in a position to see you, but the audible cues they provide can tell you a number of things (ex: where they are, what they are doing, and whether or not they are alone... all good things to know before you walk into a potential fight).

In most cases, a text book scenario won't exactly match the way a situation plays out in the real world. As such, you'll need to be prepared to adapt to whatever fight an intruder might bring to the table, and the circumstances that surround their illegal entrance into your home.

This might be a good time to remember that there is only one good side of an ambush to be on. You'd rather take the bad guy by surprise than end up being surprised by the bad guy yourself (in other words, be the ambusher, not the ambushee).

In my case, only the master bedroom of my house is occupied, and I know the layout of my house can work to my advantage in the unlikely event of a home invasion. First, based on the geography and landscaping features of my lot, as well as neighborhood lighting and visibility, I'd almost guarantee that any unlawful entry into my home would encourage the burglar to enter either the living room or the kitchen/dining room area of my house. To leave either of these areas the burglar would have to pass through a spot that is in a direct line of sight with my bedroom. In fact, virtually any room-to-room movement in my house would force a burglar to pass through a point where I'd have a line-of-sight on them from the back of my bedroom. This can be a huge advantage for me if I'm ever the victim of this type of crime! Moreover, I have a large and enthusiastic german shepherd/akita mix, who will gladly alert me to any unfamiliar things that go bump in the night (she's useless as an attack dog, but she's far more "aware" than I am).

So, with my specific situation in mind, here's how I imagine things might play out (at least on paper):

1) I become aware of an intruder in the house.

2) I pick up my shotgun (bedside) and listen for movement. I want to know how many people are in my house, where they are at, and what they are doing.

3) If I'm fairly certain that the intruder isn't near my bedroom door, I'll quietly open the door.

3a) If it sounds like the intruder(s) are coming towards my door, I'm putting the bed between myself and the door, and preparing for the fight when the door opens (NOTE: While it isn't a strong security measure, I still always lock the door to the bedroom at night. Even though these interior doors can easily be kicked, someone will almost always try the doorknob first).

4) After opening the door, I'm going to be able to control much of the house from a position of relative concealment behind my bed. This alone will likely bring the intruder to my "ambush" in short order.

5) If the bad guy has not moved from the kitchen (which does provide access to the basement and garage) or the living room, I'm going to wait and listen to them for a bit.

6) Based on what I hear at this time, I can determine whether or not I feel confident in pursuing them further into my home, or if I feel more comfortable just waiting in a position where I can ambush the bad guy. I may or may not choose to yell to the individual at this time as well.

All of this might take place in a period of just a few seconds, or potentially over the course of a number of minutes.

Another important consideration in these scenarios is your own level of experience, skill, and confidence! While one person may be confident in their ability to safely clear a home, another person may not. What works for me may not work for you. What works for me has not often been the same plan that my spouse would take!

 

[rainbowbob]

...maximizing the effect of your lethal force and minimizing the danger to yourself...

Word.

 

[Manco]

I sure hope the bad guys aren't reading these posts because it would tend to reinforce the idea that only the police will attempt to stop them and offensively do them harm.

So we might trade a few additional home invasions for fewer homeowners getting ambushed in their own home because they foolishly tried to clear it--take your pick. The common case, at least from what I've seen, will still be home invaders getting ambushed by armed homeowners.

Get what you can before the units roll up. All occupants in the house are taking a defensive postion and will not engage.

It depends on the situation. Every time somebody has tried to break into my home, I've been ready for them. So if they ever do get in (my home is hardened against break-ins), then they will be severely wounded or killed. On the other hand, if they somehow manage to get inside before I am prepared to ambush them, then I will retreat to where I can set up another ambush. If they merely take what they can see and leave, then so be it, but if they bumble into my field of view, then they're going to be shot.

The point is to survive by defending oneself while maintaining a tactical advantage, not deliberately administering justice through the barrel of a gun; if the two happen to coincide, then that's fine, but clearing even one's own home is a dangerous task. If your family or household is well trained to act as a cohesive team in clearing buildings, and are keen on doing so, then knock yourself out, so to speak, but most of us don't have that luxury and would rather ambush than be ambushed (even in the Old West, most of the "gunfights" were really ambushes, and guess who virtually always ended up dead).

 

[Cubes]

As for several people who said they can't get to a phone - you mean to tell me that you have the internet and a computer, but no cell phone? Or you can't buy another home phone and put it next to your gun?

How about this mindset that "I'm not calling someone a half-hour away": Would you rather know that you just have to hold them off for a given amount of time until reinforcements will arrive, or would you rather rely on only yourself to eliminate an unknown amount of crims? You mean you're not going to call at all? My machismo will certainly not be wounded by calling for help when people are potentially trying to kill me! Look, I say out of love, with the rate of robbery/burglary going on, I just don't want to read about one of the people here getting themselves killed just because they didn't ask for help.

It's called home defense. Play it safe, bunker in as long as you can until help arrives, however long that is. Your property may be nice, but everything you own in your house is just crap that your relatives/next of kin will fight over when you're gone. Let's try to postpone that eventuality as long as possible, eh? If you're going to use a gun, you'd better be prepared to die for whatever you are using it to protect. Defend the living, not the LCD. /rant

 

[Gouranga]

...All occupants in the house are taking a defensive postion and will not engage..

I would say for many of the folks who have responded here, is that they will take up positions that allow them to most effectively protect and engage to protect the most valuable items they have (their lives and family). The concept of having an ambush point in your home, a spot where you neutralize any numerical advantage they have was a concept proven effective as far back as 480 BC with Leonidas.

I think most folks are not talking about hiding in a closet screaming for help, they are talking about trying to attain a tactical advantage. Sometimes, depending on circumstances, it is best to give up some ground (i.e. personal property) to get the tactical advantage.

Good example, in my case, if I got real lucky and the BG broke in while my children happened to all be in my bathroom brushing their hair or something, this hunker down and wait philosophy would work great. Instead of meeting me with a 40, they would come around a corne, meet me with a 40, my wife with a 12 gauge, and my oldest daughter with a 22 (yeah she can shoot a small rifle), all hunkered down behind cover with a clear backstop. Yeah they may get my TV, Stereo, computer, but they would not get my family.

Now that being said, you need to analyze your own tactical circumstances in your home. Go through as many scenarios as you can think. What are the likely points of entry? where are your family members likely to be? What is the police response and does your situation allow for you wait for them....all questions which will probably be unique to everyone here.

I personally hope the bad guys are reading this posts. IF they have any intelligence they are seeing that there are a group of people who have planned for their arrival ahead of time and have planned their response to them appropriately. Even with the best prep, these BGs will not get THAT prepared.

 

[rainbowbob]

The concept of having an ambush point in your home, a spot where you neutralize any numerical advantage they have was a concept proven effective as far back as 480 BC with Leonidas.

I'm sure the tactic was used to great advantage by folks living in caves.

 

[KodiakBeer]

While, as I've stated, police response isn't really the focus here (efficiency of defense is) -- you can't wait 30 friggin' minutes? What's the matter? You gotta poop or something? You'll wait 10 hours for a deer to show up under your tree stand, but you can't wait 30 lousy minutes to stack the odds in favor of you not being shot to death? Wow.

A home invasion is not a deer hunt - it's my home and it's being invaded.

Let's look at this from a broader cultural perspective. If 10% of the population is armed (it's probably much higher) and they exercised that right in self defense then we'd actually be doing something to fight crime. At a gut level I simply can't accept allowing somebody to cart off what's taken me a lifetime to accumulate.
Calling the police is simply giving somebody a "free pass" to loot your house until he hears the sirens and is warned that it's time to go. The police will show up and make a report - they won't actually investigate - and you'll call your insurance agent.

It's almost like home invasion is a legitimate business. You can rob me and I promise I won't shoot you. I'll call the police who will give you plenty of warning before they arrive. You sell my my valuables for 5 or 10% of the value and I'll stick the insurance company. What a country!

Or, we could defend our homes...

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Let's look at this from a broader cultural perspective. If 10% of the population is armed (it's probably much higher) and they exercised that right in self defense then we'd actually be doing something to fight crime. At a gut level I simply can't accept allowing somebody to cart off what's taken me a lifetime to accumulate....Or, we could defend our homes...

But you're still missing the point.

No matter what the cultural or philosophical issues may be, if one goes looking for the bad guy, or the bad guys (since you don't even know how many adversaries you're dealing with), you are giving him, or them, a significant tactical advantage. That is not a particularly effective way to defend your home.

If you are going to insist on clearing your house single handed, I suggest that you at least pay a visit to Thunder Ranch or Gunsite and get some training in a shoot house on how to best manage the exercise. Or better yet, do some force-on-force training. If you do, you may reconsider your views. If you don't, and if you haven't, I suggest that you really don't have a very good idea of what you'd be up against.

 

[KodiakBeer]

No matter what the cultural or philosophical issues may be, if one goes looking for the bad guy, or the bad guys (since you don't even know how many adversaries you're dealing with), you are giving him, or them, a significant tactical advantage. That is not a particularly effective way to defend your home.

I have the advantage, not them. I'm better armed, better trained and know the layout of my own home. I'm not going to put on a camo headband and charge out Rambo-style.

If you are going to insist on clearing your house single handed, I suggest that you at least pay a visit to Thunder Ranch or Gunsite and get some training in a shoot house on how to best manage the exercise. Or better yet, do some force-on-force training.

You're making assumptions.

 

[shockwave]

Let me second coloradokevin's thoughts on this subject.

In most cases, a text book scenario won't exactly match the way a situation plays out in the real world. As such, you'll need to be prepared to adapt to whatever fight an intruder might bring to the table, and the circumstances that surround their illegal entrance into your home.

And I agree with his analysis. The situation is probably never going to happen. Some people here have experienced it, but most won't. Intruders breaking into your home, especially while you're there, is a rare event.

The question of who is breaking in, when, and why, how and where will all factor into how to prepare an optimal response. We do know, and I'm sure most of us agree, that the absolute worst-case scenario will be a person or persons kicking in the door and entering for the purposes of home invasion. In this case, taking the best-defended spot and covering is the recommended strategy.

That's only a small subset of the possibilities. A case discussed recently was the guy whose house was getting checked out by a couple of punks. A different response was needed for that. Not barricade, but confrontation and challenge.

Any kind of threat to your premises will have its own logic and require flexible thinking and strategy. This also would apply to home-clearing. There's no one-size-fits-all response to this kind of thing.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Kodiakbeer: A home invasion is not a deer hunt - it's my home and it's being invaded.

You are right. The ability of the deer to kill or maim you is far more limited than that of one or more armed home invaders. You have the upper hand in a deer hunt.

It's almost like home invasion is a legitimate business. You can rob me and I promise I won't shoot you. I'll call the police who will give you plenty of warning before they arrive. You sell my my valuables for 5 or 10% of the value and I'll stick the insurance company. What a country!

Who has said anything about not shooting? How would the police give anyone plenty of warning? Do you really think they come with the sirens on?

Or, we could defend our homes...

Home defense is exactly what it's all about.

Posted by Fiddletown: If you are going to insist on clearing your house single handed, I suggest that you at least pay a visit to Thunder Ranch or Gunsite and get some training in a shoot house on how to best manage the exercise. Or better yet, do some force-on-force training. If you do, you may reconsider your views. If you don't, and if you haven't, I suggest that you really don't have a very good idea of what you'd be up against.

I think it's a pretty good bet that those who so insist have never participated in relevant exercises of any kind; some are even loathe to do so.

Those who have trained always have a different point of view.

I can understand how someone who has never thought it through would think little or nothing of picking up a gun and going after someone in the house. It works on television, where the script writers make sure that the protagonist, though stalking out in the open for dramatic effect, always gets the better of the antagonist, the script for whom prevents him from firing at that exposed target. It always works when it turns out that there is no one there. It may even work occasionally work in a real situation, if the stars and the moon happen to line up just right.

But there's no rational reason to expect that it would constitute a successful strategy.

What I cannot understand is why people continue to argue against the advice of both those who have developed and trained in successful defensive tactics and those who know from training and experience what is involved in clearing a structure as part of a properly trained an equipped team.

Is it that they somehow feel that their guns give them the aura of invincibility given by the writers to the televsion hero? Is it ego? Is it a part of that same instinctive view of masculinity that makes all of us men very protective of our reputation as good drivers? Is it something in some individuals that resists cognitive and rational processes in decision-making?

Whatever it is, there seems to be a lot of it going around. And whatever it is, I'll wager that it will cause many of the same folks to resist the advice of getting any training that might show them reason to reconsider.

Posted by Kodiakbeer: I have the advantage, not them.

Yes, until you step forth and present yourself as a very easy target.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I have the advantage, not them. I'm better armed, better trained and know the layout of my own home...

Really?

[1] How do you know that you're better armed? And if an inturuder can ambush you, that becomes irrelevant.

[2] How do you know you're better trained? What is your training?

[3] Knowing the layout of your house doesn't necessarily help you. All the intruder needs to know is that you're coming and from where you're going to be coming. The latter will be obvious.

The ensconced adversary always has the advantage over the lone hunter.

If you are going to insist on clearing your house single handed, I suggest that you at least pay a visit to Thunder Ranch or Gunsite and get some training in a shoot house on how to best manage the exercise. Or better yet, do some force-on-force training.

You're making assumptions.

Then explain how my assumptions are wrong.

 

[duns]

A lot of good points on both sides of the debate. To try to take some of the emotion out of it, I'm going to propose a simple risk analysis of the two options (1) engage intruder(s) and (2) seek defensive position and call police.

Assumption common to both options: value of my life = $1,000,000.

Option 1: Engage intruder(s)

Probability of death = 10%
Statistical cost of this option = 10%*$1,000,000 = $100,000


Option 2: Seek defensive position and call police
Probability of death = 1%
Expected cost of stolen items = $10,000
Statistical cost of this option = 1% *$1,000,000 + $10,000 = $20,000

Conclusion -- on a cost-benefit analysis, Option 2 is preferable.

Try changing the values of the parameters (value of life, the two probabilities, and the value of goods stolen). Is the conclusion still the same?