Self Defense Shooting Interview

Status
Not open for further replies.
WOW...he gave this guy way more chances than I would have. At the end he said that he shot the guy and then went outside and waited for the police to show up...:uhoh: didn't he say that his wife and 2 year old were in the house? I don't think I would have left this guy alone in my house...shot or not!

Anyway...sounds like he did alright...although I think I would have waited for him at the top of the stairs. AND remember to take your safety off:mad:
 
Very interesting interview. They homeowner gave the intruder way too many chances but got the job done in the end.

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why anyone would want to be a burglar/home intruder in the state of Texas. It makes no sense at all.
 
He's very lucky the whole thing went the way it did. If someone comes into my house uninvited and won't listen to my command to stop, I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger. Why didn't he go for COM? Instead he lowered the gun? Why???
 
Sorry that nice guy had to resort to such actions, but glad he did...another BG will cause no further harm :D
 
Remember the line John Wayne gave in "The Shootist"? " You have to be willing. Most people aren't, they'll draw a breath or bat an eye I won't ."

I don't care how baaad of an internet commando you are, when you're looking through a gun sight at another human being, there will be a certain amount of mental intertia to overcome before you're able to shoot.

I've been in this guys shoes, right up to pulling the trigger( the BG stood down one heartbeat short of too late) my pulse was racing, I felt like I couldn't breathe, there was a roaring in my ears , my palms were sweaty and I don't know how to express it but it was like every cell in my body was SCREAMING "Oh God please don't make me do this". 12 years ago & I thank God to this day that dude put up his hands.
 
Last edited:
It was weird that he BG just walked in and didn't say a word. He must have been on drugs. Hopefully he survived and will live to change his ways.

I'm glad this guy was armed. Hopefully his story will help others realize the riskiness of having no good means of self defense.
 
Treo - I have been fortunate in that I have not been in that position as of yet. I am certain that many of my reactions will be as you describe, so that is why I continue to practice to enchance my proficiency and train to defend myself in various situations. I would like to think that I have made that decision in my mind, but will not know for certain until such a time.
 
"I pulled the trigger, and the gun didn't go off before the safety was on."

Why don't I like safeties, reason #104. People recount in force on force classes that people forget safeties constantly - to the point that every person in the class with a safety-equipped gun forgot it at least once.

Also note that the invader was unarmed, and the homeowner shot him, and no legal trouble befell him.
 
Not necessarly the safetys' fault. Guy did have a two-year old. I can fault him the lack of practice, tho. Knowing exactly how to fire your piece should be second nature, especially if it is your primary (or only) defensive weapon. Just because some of us don't like safetys doesn't mean they do not have value to others. Betcha he'll remember it the next time!;)
 
He's very lucky the whole thing went the way it did. If someone comes into my house uninvited and won't listen to my command to stop, I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger. Why didn't he go for COM? Instead he lowered the gun? Why???
Click to expand...

I don't understand it either. So could the next plausible scenario be that the homeowner gets charged with malicious wounding because some anti-gun prosecutor takes the homeowner's words, "I lowered the gun," to mean he didn't really believe his life was in danger? Didn't Mr. Ayoob warn about this in one of his books? Didn't he advise that shooting to wound is not an option because a shooter used deadly force when his words indicate he felt less than mortally threatened? I take the homeowner's words to mean he only intended to wound the invader. Even with a Texas jury, mounting any kind of legal defense is VERY expensive.
 
So could the next plausible scenario be that the homeowner gets charged with malicious wounding because some anti-gun prosecutor takes the homeowner's words, "I lowered the gun," to mean he didn't really believe his life was in danger?
Click to expand...
No.
 
The home owner should not have let the intruder get well within his house. What if after the home owner retreated in the kitchen and pass the stairs the intruder bolts upstairs where his wife and daughter was hiding?

Did his wife have a gun?

He should of had his gun at the first sign of trouble. He should of been staked out at the front door since the bike was left on the porch.

He should of given one command followed by two to three shots. Retreating back he could of fallen and then been pounced on. The objective is to prevent the criminal from getting inside your home at all. :cool:
 
Not necessarly the safetys' fault. Guy did have a two-year old. I can fault him the lack of practice, tho. Knowing exactly how to fire your piece should be second nature, especially if it is your primary (or only) defensive weapon. Just because some of us don't like safetys doesn't mean they do not have value to others. Betcha he'll remember it the next time!
Click to expand...

Indeed. But the classes I've heard about it happening in aren't composed of total newbies, either. 15 year SWAT, 20 year cops, IDPA shooters, etc. Every single force on force class, no matter how experienced, if you have a safety equipped gun you will forget to take off the safety at least once. Period.
 
You should not do interviews if you are in this situation....
Click to expand...

I'm a cop, and I'll be the first one to tell you that if you shoot somebody don't make any statement without your lawyer present. Nobody would hold that against you.

I saw a video of Joe Horn walking a detecting through his shooting ordeal. The video was taken the the same night as the shooting. No lawyer. Just Joe Horn, the detective, and the camera man. Mind boggling...
 
I like the homeowner's statement: "I wasn't going to fight with him, I might have lost...and if I lose we all lose." [paraphrased]
 
LUGGO - "You should not do interviews if you are in this situation...."
Click to expand...


You ain't kidding!!!

All the way through that video I kept saying, "What the Hell are you doing giving this taped interview?! Shut up! Shut up!"

Didn't do any good, however, as the dude just kept on running his mouth. :uhoh:

Bad ju ju!

L.W.
 
Hind sight is 20/20 and I'm glad this guy and his family are unharmed. However, a simple little thing like locking his front door would have averted the situation.

I must say, a scary sob who does not accelerate the pace or run away after the first pull of the trigger is one bad dude.
 
I took it to mean he intended to STOP the intruder.
Click to expand...

OK, respectfully to Chris and mister, I concur he wanted to STOP the intruder, but I believe he chose to do so by inflicting a less than lethal wound; thus he lowered his gun. The link below says the intruder suffered an abdominal wound and is NOT deceased. In watching the video, I think most would agree the shooting occurred at very close range and the opportunity to inflict an immediate mortal wound was certainly significant.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA.070208.1B.guns.3c7c070.html

I believe this is a dangerous mindset for self-defense in the home AND on the street. Should a shooter end up in court, I think this leaves the door wide open for an attorney to argue the shooter didn't actually believe his life was in danger but he chose to employ lethal force anyway. My argument is possibly weakened somewhat by the fact that this occurred in a home, but self-defense cases on the street are far less legal slamdunks than those which occur in a home against an unknown invader. Therein lies the danger.

I'm only arguing Mr. Ayoob's point that if you do not have the right to kill someone, you certainly don't have the right to wound them (paraphrasing). Especially in the case of street shootings and in states which require retreat, this could cause you great harm in civil and criminal court. Shooting to wound can open a Pandora's box for someone with no criminal intent and only trying to legally protect themselves and their families.

I'd like to give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt and say he was considering what was behind his target, but there's really no evidence of that seeing how he stated his family was upstairs. I'm glad he and his family are OK.

Also, previous posters are darn sure right; NEVER do these interviews!!! He still might be facing a civil suit in the future OR another grand jury could certainly be convened. Grand jury shopping by vindictive prosecutors is not unheard of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top