tactical clearing in the country

[gunnie]

..."The stats there come from simulation, role playing, and training exercises, LEO and other, participated in by many who participate on this board and on The Firing Line. They are the source of my belief on this--I've never played the role of attacker or the role of defender with simunitions. Others have, and I do not need to, since I can learn from them."...

so in these fun house exercises, the entry man had night vision, the house was dark, and the defender was only using his eyes? if not, how does that information pertain?

gunnie

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by gunnie: so in these fun house exercises, the entry man had night vision, the house was dark, and the defender was only using his eyes? if not, how does that information pertain?

OK, let me try this. When people try to figure out what works for air combat, for law enforcement tactics, self defense, or any other kinds of engagements that happen rarely, the only way they can do it is by simulation and role playing--virtual simulation, force on force exercises, "war games", whatever. They conduct all kind of exercises, with all kinds of variations.

This has been evaluated over and over, and when it comes to 'clearing' and such, the answer is always the same: the person in a defensive position has the advantage over the hunter.

I had to learn that from what others had already learned from the results of numerous such exercises. That's a little embarrassing to me, because, upon reflection, I could have and should have learned the same thing by simply applying common sense. Yep, I should have been able to reason it out for myself. Anyone should have, now that I look back upon it.

For example, I might have concluded something by asking myself the simple question "what I would do if I were to come upon someone in my yard when he or they might shoot me on sight, and when I cannot lawfully shoot him on sight?".

Why didn't I figure it all out earlier by myself? Why did I have to wait for my CCW instructor, a SWAT team leader friend, fiddletown, hso, Sam1911, TexasRifleman, and many others to point it out?

Heck, I don't know. Ego? Stupidity? Too much television?

It doesn't matter, really, since the threat has not yet materialized, and when I now have the advice of experts, but it is a little embarrassing.

 

[lloveless]

OK,
I lived in the country 600 feet off a country road for 10 plus years(I was a deputy sheriff, and my wife ex-military). I had a pack of 13 dogs to care for the 60 sheep, 30 rheas, 15 goats, and 100 rabbits. You can bet your sweet bippy that predators knew where I lived. Yes I could(still can different house) exit my house discreetly after lighting up my outdoors, and utilize the dark areas to observe the behavior of my dogs. No I am not going to call for back up every time the dogs bark. At least 6 of the dogs weighed more than 100 lbs. We didn't get visitors without them calling first due to the locked gate. People hoofing it in were met 300 feet from house by "the pack". Ya'll need to get real. Those of us in the country do have a plan. Can I be over run-yes, but only by a very determined, well prepared opponent. Most people don't wish to put that much time and effort into a mere robbery/home invasion in the country.
ll

 

[Sam1911]

Ya'll need to get real. Those of us in the country do have a plan.

I'm certain you don't mean to say that everyone in the country has a pack of 13 large dogs who will discover and hold intruders 100 yards from their house -- or anything like that. (Heck, in another recent thread, we had somone present the idea that they loved their dog(s) too much to send them into danger like that -- preferring to trust in their skill with a gun as their first line of defense. Putting their own butt on the line to defend the dogs, as it were. )

Your situation is a GREAT example of what many of us have been saying -- i.e.: have a layer of cover/concealment from which you can observe what kind of problem you are actually facing before you run out into danger. And, it sounds like you have the ability to extend that discreet observation zone out beyond the walls of your house -- if need be -- which is fine as well, as long as those observation areas can't be used to stage an ambush for you as well. (The dogs obviously help mitigate that concern.)

That's a far cry from the original poster's old habit of "hey, the dog is barking, I'd better go out and see what it is."

 

[dogsoldier0513]

WHY leave the safety of your house to start with? Yeah, I know...BTDT, too (pre-911 days). When I did it, I found a 'Peeping Tom' near my 5th-grade daughter's bedroom window. He DID NOT like my AR15.

 

[Justin Holder]

I live in the country (the real country, 3 miles to the nearest pavement), when the dogs bark or the chickens squawk at night, I grab a rifle and a flashlight and go out to see what's up.
Never has the thought of a group of armed thugs hiding out side waiting to pounce crossed my mind. Could it happen? Certainly. But I'll cross that bridge when I come to it, I choose instead to not to live in fear of the unknown. As others have said, if it is going to happen, it is going to happen.

It is a shame we live in a world were people are too scared to walk out their doors after dark.

Country folk, that's true country folk(not suburbanite transplants), know that they have to rely on themselves to handle any problems they might face. The police are not going to save you or your property when the threat is right here, right now.

Try telling an old farmer or rancher that when something goes "bump" out in the night they should call the cops and hide in their house until help arrives, they will probably laugh in your face.

The backyard commandos can do what they like, the country boy will just go get the job done, so he can get back to bed.

 

[Kleanbore]

The backyard commandos can do what they like, the country boy will just go get the job done, so he can get back to bed.

Every time.

Unless, of course, there are some really bad threats out there.

 

[gunnie]

..."OK, let me try this. When people try to figure out what works for air combat, for law enforcement tactics, self defense, or any other kinds of engagements that happen rarely, the only way they can do it is by simulation and role playing--virtual simulation, force on force exercises, "war games", whatever. They conduct all kind of exercises, with all kinds of variations."...

ok, let me try this. let's consider the old horse mounted battle ship. it seems safe to assume the knights of old put one hundred pounds (+,-) of armor on themselves, and their horses because past experience had proven that engaging an opponent with out same would not turn out well for them. swords, spears, arrows, axes and falling stars all had their effectiveness dramatically reduced against the suit of armor. after the knights came to be common, single combatants, and even trained groups of foot soldiers had very little chance of prevailing against a knight. the knight didn't even have to engage them with a weapon. their horses were trained to just walk over them. leaving a broken man in their wake with small odds of surviving, even if he received "medical care" of the times.

throughout europe the knights became a force, even a social class that ANYONE who had studied their prowess would acknowledge. even the royalty they were representing realized that if they got sideways with the knights, it was rolling the dice.

then some guy invented the firearm, and within a few decades the knights were gone. all it took was a new technology to completely change centuries old warfare rules of engagement.

you still haven't shown me any studies or role playing accounts of how a guy with night vision went up against a/an opponent(s) without.

so, your opinion about me being a kamakaze, and mine about you not realizing the advantage one enjoys with sole access to night vision still remains just our opinions.

i really don't care how many foot soldiers without firearms you have evidence of knights prevailing against.

gunnie

 

[Frank Ettin]

...your opinion about me being a kamakaze, and mine about you not realizing the advantage one enjoys with sole access to night vision...

Ah yes, your opinions. Well, all opinions aren't equal. You're of course welcome to yours. Have a nice life.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by gunnie: you still haven't shown me any studies or role playing accounts of how a guy with night vision went up against a/an opponent(s) without.

Personally, I would much rather have my surroundings very brightly illuminated. Interlopers with evil intent will be deterred from coming around in the first place. That's why farmers have those bright lights.

The idea of passive night vision is interesting and it would give you a capability the other guy may or may not have unless there is a full moon and a clear sky, but (1) you still have the issue of having one person try to do what trained teams of professionals do not like to do, and (2) you are not in combat in wartime, you are investigating something that made the dogs bark.

You cannot shoot someone on sight because he is on your property. You can question him and you can ask him to leave. When you do so, you give away your presence and position to anyone else he has with him, who may well have been behind concealment or cover.

What is it that makes not having the light on as a deterrent a good idea?

What is it that makes going out in the dark to talk to someone who may be accompanied by a violent criminal actor a good idea?

 

[mcdonl]

I get the whole train for the worst, hope for the best. That is what we do. I do it in life, in Fire/EMS and in self defense... but lines get blurry in these types of threads:

(1) you still have the issue of having one person try to do what trained teams of professionals do not like to do, and

So this line... You are right, clearing is a tough thing to do, takes a ton of training and by nature leaves the "Clearers" easy targets for an ambush... so.. PROFESSIONALS do not like to do this because when they are called in to CLEAR something a crime has either been committed, or is highly probable. We are talking about bumps in the night that make our dogs bark. Not apples to apples... I bet if you asked the average swat team member who lives in the country if they go outside to investigate something that makes their chickens cluck they may not even consider that "Clearing" as much as just take a quick look around...

(2) you are not in combat in wartime, you are investigating something that made the dogs bark.

Never mind, I was redundant.... Point is, I do not "clear" my yard when I do a skunk/porcupine/coyote check...

 

[Sam1911]

Point is, I do not "clear" my yard when I do a skunk/porcupine/coyote check...

Perhaps there is a distinction. However, you are responding to your early warning system being tripped by something, and you are venturing outside your known safe area to discover what level of problem that something was. Maybe the wind, maybe a raccoon, maybe an armed burgular. Calling it "taking a quick look around" doesn't change the physics of what you're doing and it doesn't remove the risks inherant.

A SWAT officer serving a felony warrant can call what he's doing, "Just popping in to see if Jimmie is home," but that doesn't make the activity less dangerous.

When you tell yourself, "I'm just taking a quick look around," you're really trying to put out of your own mind the very real possibility that something unpleasant is going to find you when you wonder outside.

Of course, in the end, some of us will act in an unreasonably cautious manner, and some of us in a blissfully risky manner -- based on a variety of things to include training, education, history of threats in your area, and a number of intangibles each of us will figure out on their own.

I will continue, though, to advise as much patience, observation, and use of cover/concealment as possible and to maintain that nothing is lost through caution.

 

[mcdonl]

A SWAT officer serving a felony warrant can call what he's doing, "Just popping in to see if Jimmie is home," but that doesn't make the activity less dangerous.

Sam, your comical timing in the delivery of your pearls of wisdom never fail to impress me

I will continue, though, to advise as much patience, observation, and use of cover/concealment as possible and to maintain that nothing is lost through caution.

We ARE talking skunks and porcupines as a rule... I use as much patience, observation and cover/concealment as possible! Trust me.

Point taken.

 

[Sam1911]

Hopefully my witticisms are always taken in the spirit they're meant. I've never managed to insult anyone into agreeing with me so I always strive not to offend.

 

[Sky]

Back on the night vision thing.

Even with flood lights there will still be areas with shadows perfect for concealment if there are trees or buildings around your home/defensive area. All the night vision does is remove the darkness from areas where you would not be able to see otherwise.

I shot a black and brown pig last month between trees in the edge of some thick brush. The moon was 1/4 and my eyes were adjusted to the nightness. There was nothing to see until I brought the NS up for a general scan before I advanced. He was rooting on the edge of the brush and there was no way of seeing him without the scope. No IR was used.

If I sell my suburban home and move back to the country after reading this thread I will certainly have a few new considerations and thoughts before I venture forth into a darkness of unknown character.

 

[dgvc63]

Lot's of lights and dogs get's my vote, although I have had situations where I've went ahead and dove in, armed myself and got my piece of mind without the help of authorities. I'm still here...so I guess I'm somewhere in between on this one. I think you should do everything tactically to keep the advantage within your own environment. However, multiple invaders would/could be hard to deal with especially if they were experienced at raiding. There are entirely too many variables to be able to give a blanket proper response to the original question, each situation would dictate the proper response... get some training and KNOW what to do...

 

[gunnie]

Personally, I would much rather have my surroundings very brightly illuminated. Interlopers with evil intent will be deterred from coming around in the first place. That's why farmers have those bright lights.

PLEASE READ PREVIOUS EXPLANATIONS. TO ME THIS HIGHLIGHTS THAT YOU ACTUALLY KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST....

The idea of passive night vision is interesting and it would give you a capability the other guy may or may not have unless there is a full moon and a clear sky, but (1) you still have the issue of having one person try to do what trained teams of professionals do not like to do, and (2) you are not in combat in wartime, you are investigating something that made the dogs bark.

(#2) VERY TRUE!!! BUT ARE YOU TRYING TO LEND CREDIBILITY TO MY POINT IF VIEW?

IN COMBAT, OUR SOLDIERS ARE ON THE ENEMY'S TURF. HE MAY HAVE EVEN GROWN UP IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, SO SAYING HE HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF KNOWING THAT AREA INFINITELY BETTER THAN THEM IS OBVIOUS. IN CASE THIS THOUGHT ELUDES YOU, LET ME EXPLAIN. HE KNOWS WHICH ITEMS OF THE BATTLEFIELD ARE CONCEALMENT, AND WHICH ARE ACTUALLY COVER. HE KNOWS WHICH BACKYARD HE CAN FLEE THROUGH THAT WILL NOT SLOW HIM UP WITH OBSTACLES THAT IMPEDE/BLOCK HIS PASSAGE TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BLOCK, WHERE YOUR PLATOON ISN'T LARGE ENOUGH TO HAVE MEN WAITING. HE KNOWS WHICH HOUSE ROOFS ALLOW EASY ACCESS/RETREAT, HOW GOOD THAT OBSERVATION POINT IS FOR FIELD OF FIRE, AND AGAIN WHETHER IT HAS COVER, CONCEALMENT, OR NEITHER FOR A SHOOTER. HE KNOWS WHICH HOUSE HE NEEDS TO GET TO TO HIDE IN, OR EVEN GET ASSISTANCE FROM. HE WAS LIKELY INFORMED OVER A CELL PHONE YOUR TEAM IS HEADING HIS WAY BEFOREHAND, AND HAS LIKELY TAKEN POSITIONS THAT OFFER HIM COVER, A GOOD FIELD OF FIRE, A FAST ESCAPE ROUTE THAT ALLOWS AN OPEN TRAIL TO SOME SORT OF SAFE HOUSE. HE CAN EVEN HAVE I.E.D. SHAPE CHARGES AND KNOWS EXACTLY WHERE YOU NEED TO BE LED INTO SO YOU WILL ENTER THEIR KILL ZONE. HE HAS THE ABILITY TO INSTANTLY TRANSFORM INTO A NON COMBATANT CIVILIAN BY JUST DUMPING HIS WEAPON. HE KNOWS YOU CAN'T FIRE UPON HIM IF HE DOES SO WITHOUT FACING THE CHANCES OF COURT'S MARTIAL.

I FEEL SAFE ASSUMING THAT I ENJOY A VAST MARGIN OF SAFETY OVER THE SOLDIERS WHEN INVESTIGATING WHY MY DOG BARKED IN MY OWN BACK YARD! NOT ONLY DO I HAVE THE ABOVE MENTIONED HOME FIELD ADVANTAGES, AS I HAVE A DOG, CALLING THEIR CRIME PARTNER ON A CELL PHONE TO ALERT HIM WOULD ONLY SERVE TO INCREASE MY AND THE DOG'S KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR POSITIONS. THE PERP(S) HAVE VERY LITTLE CHANCE OF SETTING UP AN I.E.D. TO LURE ME INTO. HE HAS NO CHANCE OF BLENDING INTO THE CROWD. HE HAS NO HOPE GETTING BACK UP OR REFUGE AT THE DISTANT HOUSES THAT REQUIRE OPEN GROUND RETREAT TO GET TO.

DID ANY OF YOUR STUDIES MENTION THE OVERALL LACK OF FIREARMS PROFICIENCY AMONG CRIMINALS? MASSAD AYOOB HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THIS TREND AND POINTED OUT GOOD REASONS FOR IT IN PUBLISHED MATERIAL. NO ENTRY FEE REQUIRED. YET AGAIN, THE CHANCES HE WILL BE ARMED AS WELL AS I AM ARE STATISTICALLY EXTREMELY THIN.

You cannot shoot someone on sight because he is on your property. You can question him and you can ask him to leave. When you do so, you give away your presence and position to anyone else he has with him, who may well have been behind concealment or cover.

YOU CANNOT BE ANY BETTER INFORMED ABOUT TEXAS STATE LAW THAN YOU ARE ABOUT NIGHT VISION DEVICES. THIS ASSUMES THE MULTIPLE SAVAGE, METH COOKING, POACHING, IN FLIGHT GANG BANGERS WHO ARE ALL ARMED WOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A REAL THREAT TO MY LIFE BY A JURY...YOU MAKE THAT CALL.

What is it that makes not having the light on as a deterrent a good idea?

AS POSTED ABOVE I WILL NOT BE REPEAT-ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AGAIN. IF YOU DIDN'T TAKE THE TIME TO READ A PREVIOUS ANSWER BEFORE, WHY SHOULD YOU DO SO THIS TIME?

What is it that makes going out in the dark to talk to someone who may be accompanied by a violent criminal actor a good idea?

YOU ARE STILL UNDER THE FALSE CONCLUSION THAT YOUR REALITY HAS A BEARING ON MINE. WHEN I GO OUT INTO THE DARK, IT IS TO CHECK UP ON A POSSIBLE THREAT, UTILIZING ANY ADVANTAGE I HAVE AT MY DISPOSAL. IF THIS IS IN FACT AN ARMED PERSON WHO CAME ONTO MY PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMISSION, AT NIGHT, AND ENDED UP 200 PLUS YARDS FROM THE ROAD RIGHT UP BY MY HOUSE, I DON'T THINK TALKING TO HIM WOULD BE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION. WOULD YOU? IF NOT WHY DO YOU PRESUME THIS IS MY S.O.P.?

YOU ASSUME THAT REGARDLESS OF ANY CHANGES NEEDED IN THE VARIABLES, FACTS AND ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRED TO DO A MEANINGFUL STUDY ON THIS MATTER, THAT THE FINDINGS YOU CITE ARE PERTINENT. YOU HAVE DISMISSED SAME DIFFERENCES AS BEING NON-ISSUE, AND HAVE REPEATEDLY REFUSED/FAILED TO CITE THE BASIS FOR THAT OPINION. YOUR QUESTION ABOUT YARD LIGHTS SHOWS ~BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT~ THAT YOU HAVE VERY LITTLE EXPERIENCE, OR EVEN INFORMATION ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY YOU ARE DISCOUNTING.

(EXACT QUOTE)...'Heck, I don't know. Ego? Stupidity? Too much television?"...

YOU FEEL YOUR WAIT A PERIOD OF TIME THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY BE 1/10th OF THE TIME IT TAKES POLICE TO ARRIVE HERE IS SAFER. WOULDN'T I BE VERY FOOLISH TO ADVISE YOU IT COULD EASILY TAKE THEM AN HOUR TO GET THERE? THIS IS HOW I VIEW YOU TELLING ME THAT MY BEST BET IS TO ALLOW FREE RANGE AND UP TO AN HOUR TO THESE (paraphrase) WANDERING BANDS OF EXTREMELY VIOLENT PEOPLE.

THAT WAY THEY WILL HAVE ALL THE CHANCE THEY NEED TO DEVISE A PLAN THAT MAKES SURE NO WITNESSES WILL BE LEFT ALIVE TO TESTIFY AFTER THEY LEAVE.

but let's expand this beyond what could be realistically considered little more than just smoke blown up our skirts by two arm chair warriors. these are the opinions of the above mentioned soldiers who have observed these things first hand. they don't have the benefit of any "studies" about the matter, but i think you have to agree they are qualified to have an opinion about this beyond mere stats/studies. i can also guarantee absolutely that they would GLADLY trade my risk levels for their own, and i haven't even asked them that question:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=553782

gunnie

 

[Ben86]

I have much the same situation as the OP. Whenever I feel the need to "clear my property" (well the part that is field and actually clearable) I usually use my hand held spot light and my glock 17. A quick sweep with the light (it shines about 300 yards) and it's clear. I do not go into the woods, and if I did have other structures I generally would not approach them by myself.

Get yourself a good spot light, it will save a lot of leg work.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by gunny: PLEASE READ PREVIOUS EXPLANATIONS. (refers to "I would much rather have my surroundings very brightly illuminated. Interlopers with evil intent will be deterred from coming around in the first place. That's why farmers have those bright lights.") TO ME THIS HIGHLIGHTS THAT YOU ACTUALLY KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST....

I understand perfectly well why the technology will give a substantial advantage to anyone trying to shoot someone at night. My comment was about dissuading interlopers from coming around at night in the first place. Is that not a good idea?

YOU CANNOT BE ANY BETTER INFORMED ABOUT TEXAS STATE LAW THAN YOU ARE ABOUT NIGHT VISION DEVICES.

The OP referred to Pennsylvania.

Yes, Texas (alone) does provide for the use of deadly force under some conditions to protect property, and specifically to prevent theft at night or criminal mischief (defacing property) at night.

So, if someone is in the act of taking the generator, or emptying the propane tank, or even spray-painting graffiti on the barn, and if you would be able to articulate the reasons for which he had no other remedy, and that occurs at night, yeah, you can shoot. Doesn't mean it's a real good idea.

Of course, if there is reason to believe that the person presents an imminent danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm, then one may use deadly force defend himself if it is immediately necessary (the old A, O, J, and P conditions).

Deadly force is, of course, not justified as a remedy for trespass.

IF THIS IS IN FACT AN ARMED PERSON WHO CAME ONTO MY PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMISSION, AT NIGHT, AND ENDED UP 200 PLUS YARDS FROM THE ROAD RIGHT UP BY MY HOUSE, I DON'T THINK TALKING TO HIM WOULD BE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION. WOULD YOU?

No, absolutely not. That was my point.

That applies whether I know him to be armed or whether I do not.

If he is poaching raccoons at night, I am likely to see a weapon. Otherwise, maybe, or maybe not. and of course, maybe the one I haven't seen yet is the only one not carrying concealed. Whatever. It would not change my strategy.

IF NOT WHY DO YOU PRESUME THIS IS MY S.O.P.?

I do not.

What you have not said is what you would intend to do, having located at least the first one.

 

[rbernie]

Deadly force is, of course, not justified as a remedy for trespass

Not even in Texas.

Yes, Texas (alone) does provide for the use of deadly force under some conditions to protect property, and specifically to prevent theft at night or criminal mischief (defacing property) at night

True.

So, if someone is in the act of taking the generator, or emptying the propane tank, or even spray-painting graffiti on the barn, and if you would be able to articulate the reasons for which he had no other remedy, and that occurs at night, yeah, you can shoot. Doesn't mean it's a real good idea.

Also true. There is always a gap between that which is LEGAL to do and that which is PRUDENT to do.

I remember doing MOUT (Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain) Training in the Marines (prior to 9/11) and we were always taught that MOUT is a defender's game. Something to the tune of 10:1 odds in favor of the defender. If you go looking for them whether its your yard or your house, you have just reversed roles and odds in the other guys favor

A quote from early in this thread, well worth repeating this far down the rabbit hole. The same principal favoring the defender applies to clearing terrain regardless of whether it's urban or rural; observers always have the upper hand over movers.

There is a broad spectrum of possible scenarios arising from hearing a bump in the night. Could be critters knocking over something, a young couple looking for a place to tryst, a lone actor or small group intending on simple mischief, and culminating in roaming bands of violent meth addicts intent on grievous mayhem. There is no singular response that is appropriate to all of the above, and any planning has to account for the need to identify which scenario is likely in play.

Given this, I'm squarely in the "release the hounds!" camp, without getting too deeply into the discussion of whether NVG or Kleig lights are better. Given either approach, a couple o' ranging dawgs will do a better job of checking things out than you can ever hope to do, and are (sad to say, since I does love mah pooches) far more disposable than am I. They are also great as disruptors, forcing whatever lurks in the night to both reveal itself and to reveal its intentions (fight or flight, and all that)....

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The same principal favoring the defender applies to clearing terrain regardless of whether it's urban or rural; observers always have the upper hand over movers....I'm squarely in the "release the hounds!" camp, without getting too deeply into the discussion of whether NVG or Kleig lights are better. Given either approach, a couple o' ranging dawgs will do a better job of checking things out than you can ever hope to do,...

I think one of the real lessons of this thread ought to be that while you don't want to go calling the cops if what you hear is just raccoons in the barn, you want to be very sure that's what the 'bump in the night" is before you go for a look .

 

[Shadow 7D]

Here is one major difference between 'lighting the place up' and NVG
first, if you have NVGs, you still have an advantage even with stadium or outdoor lights
secondly, you are not giving yourself away, as you are supposed to stay in the dark areas catching the BG's in the light if they just don't run away like cockroaches.

NVG's give you stealth, but to do what???
shoot a guy in the back at 100yard?

 

[gunnie]

so, in light of the opinions at the other thread: how do the advantages of PNV, which allow our soldiers to "own the night" against the trained enemy in the middle east wars lose effectiveness in my back yard against the dreaded untrained criminal adversaries? are american criminals really the ones who we should be calling "rambo" in these pages?

why would the following statements be made, "There is a reason why American soldiers train and fight under the cover of darkness." also, "When I was in Afghanistan the enemy learned pretty darn quickly not to try and engage at night, it was a lost cause.". do you disagree with their ideas?

do the totally untrained garden variety criminals who think targets of opportunity in my back yard are worth risking their lives for posses more fighting ability than the insurgents in the sand? i know they have less reasoning ability based on their objectives, alone. and unlike you, i doubt they will have night vision weapon sights or come with rifles that are hard to conceal, even in their car. i feel they will usually be a mediocre shot with a handgun, at best. i feel that even one who is proficient with a rifle or handgun at distances that my dog will have detected them at will effectively be point shooting at me, observing in the house.

in case you don't recall i have made the caveat of Id'ing my target through a window before even going outside twice for you. with the information provided as to dogs senses, do you feel they will only know about a single perp, while the other goes undetected? but even more puzzling, why would they advance after the element of surprise was totally blown?

i am actually quite capable of determining how much advantage i get with my NV optic, same easily compared to what i can see without it. if you were also able to do that, what would be the reason you broke cover from the shadows into the light for pursuit on your moonlight night scenario? since you understand night vision advantages "perfectly well", why do you assume that more ambient light is an advantage for them with only their eyes, and does not also increase the effectiveness of night vision devices? actually read the posts at the other thread.

if my dog has only one of the (just how many are there, exactly?) perps pin pointed, you assume i will charge out and fire at them. if i can see them, and they are not reacting, they DO NOT see me. if it seemed that i was going to have to engage, do you feel i am smart enough to shoot from where i am, and relocate quickly afterward? do you think i can chew gum and fire a rifle at the same time? what would make me want to change this situation? would you want to?

..."I understand perfectly well why the technology will give a substantial advantage to anyone trying to shoot someone at night. My comment was about dissuading interlopers from coming around at night in the first place. Is that not a good idea?"...

surely you can figure out that it would be to my advantage to not allow them the benefit of also being able to see me also? do you feel this to be a tactical error?

..."The OP referred to Pennsylvania."...

did you think before when i referred to my house in NETEX, gave the distance in yards to concealment, and described the outbuildings, that it was referring those thoughts to his home in pennsylvania?

i was also not under the impression that when you dissed my thoughts that it was directed at him either. this means that i feel it to be a safe assumption that your response to my quoted statements in your postings were directed at myself and not at him. he hasn't even gone beyond the first posting. why did you think i felt texas law had any relevance to him? did you?

..."Yes, Texas (alone) does provide for the use of deadly force under some conditions to protect property, and specifically to prevent theft at night or criminal mischief (defacing property) at night."...

yet another unfounded, unresearched, all encompassing supposition/statement of "fact" on your part?

below from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

..."As of the 28th of May, 2010, 31 States have some form of Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground law."...

being a moderator, i think you should advise the O.P. to check into his state's laws in a great deal more detail than you did when you made your statements!

..."Deadly force is, of course, not justified as a remedy for trespass."...

as for that, when i made the statement...

..."YOU CANNOT BE ANY BETTER INFORMED ABOUT TEXAS STATE LAW THAN YOU ARE ABOUT NIGHT VISION DEVICES. THIS ASSUMES THE MULTIPLE SAVAGE, METH COOKING, POACHING, IN FLIGHT GANG BANGERS WHO ARE ALL ARMED WOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A REAL THREAT TO MY LIFE BY A JURY...YOU MAKE THAT CALL."...

...exactly what part of that statement made you feel i was referring to those who would be considered "trespassers" by a jury?

..."No, absolutely not. That was my point."...

so why was it in reference to my preferring not to allow intruders to see me also by turning on lights for them? i don't need them. THEY do. was that your point?

unless you feel like answering the below question directly, we really don't need to bore THR readers any more with this dispute. please don't bother with anymore supposed variations of plot, numbers of perps, advanced armament trends of perps, or otherwise less likely scenarios than before. specifically, NOT without reasons why such a well prepared force would EVEN train, plan and at great expense equip themselves to this extent for the low monetary value target that my back yard represents, or posting your evidence that this has happened at least once before.

why do you feel that perps in my backyard will fare better against me than insurgents in the sand do against our soldiers?

if your answer (for the third time?) is i will rush out and get myself shot by the extra perps both myself and the dog were unaware of, who knew beforehand that i would do just that, and felt that with their numerical superiority that their best course of action would be to hide behind what they felt to be known cover AND concealment from the night vision sight and 7.62x51x20 rounds of ball ammo loaded semi-auto they knew i would have to observe them and shoot at them with, and that furthermore, your undocumented, in depth studies have revealed they will also have NV sights on their weapons and be more tactically experienced, more capable of stealth and more able with a firearm than me...

i really don't have time for that anymore.

gunnie

 

[rbernie]

yet another unfounded, unresearched, all encompassing supposition/statement of "fact" on your part?

No, it is a statement of fact backed up by Texas state statute.

Chapter 1 defines the legal terms in use: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm

Criminal Trespass and Burglary are defined in Chapter 30: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.30.htm

Chapter 9 defines Justification Excluding Criminal Liability: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm Section 9.42 specifically addresses the legal allowances for using deadly force in defense of property.

What Kleanbore wrote was absolutely correct, and you are both mistaken and being deliberately rude in challenging that.

i really don't have time for that anymore.

I suspect that a number of folk are rather hoping this to be the case. You are so hung up on the idea of arguing for the use of PNV that you are derailing the other salient discussions within this thread.

There are legal issues involved (which vary by jurisdiction) that bear discussing, and there are multiple options for sussing out the nature and intention of the disturbance that also are worth some dialog. Arguing for/against PNV should not be the crux of this thread and yet you seem insistent to make it so.

That is not High Road behavior.

 

[gunnie]

..."No, it is a statement of fact backed up by Texas state statute."...

did you fail to see other mod's printed word "alone" in parenthesis? why would other state's regulations pertain without that part?

gunnie