This is for everybody who continues to insist that anyone in their home is a threat

[XavierBreath]

Rule Four: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

I am glad that I live in a state with Castle Doctrine on the books. Castle Doctrine may absolve me from the bounds of the law if I shoot an unknown person in my home, but it can not absolve my conscience if I kill or maim a family member or friend in error.

There are some burdens we can not escape. One is the personal burdens we carry in our own hearts and minds when we destroy another life because we made a mistake or a hasty decision. I understand the need to protect one's life in the middle of the night. Believe me, I do. I also understand the need to protect my wife, my daughters, my son, and my dogs. That is why I will identify my target prior to pulling my trigger. By identifying my target, I am protecting my wife, my daughters, my son, and my dogs. Saying my son is dead because he was stupid does not alleviate my guilt as I lower his casket into the ground.

When we are under the stress of suspected intruders in our homes in the night, it is even more imperative that we follow the Four Rules. The Four Rules were not penned for range use only. They apply every time you pick up a firearm, and especially when you are shooting at a human being. Identification does not mean that you need the intruder's name and social security number. It just means that you know the intruder is present with hostile intent.

Castle Doctrine was not meant to give people a license to kill indiscriminately in their homes. It was meant to prevent unjust prosecution when someone is forced to save their life.

Others can disagree, That's OK. I won't be coming into your house unannounced in the middle of the night. If you kill a loved one because you failed to identify your target, I hope you find peace within yourself. My two pesos.

 

[Jeff White]

TexasSkyhawk said;

This is some of the worst, most potentially fatal advice I have ever read from so-called credible sources.

Potentially fatal? Are you suggesting that you can't control the environment in your own home? Potentially fatal to ID your target? Shoot at shadows? Is that what they are teaching at FLETC these days?

Jeff

 

[MakAttak]

Rule Four: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

I'll quote this as well. I would say the Chaplain was quite sure of his target. His target was the menacing figure in his house.

You all seem to immediately assume he didn't get a response and just shot at some vague shape.

Given that his brother in law was trying to pull a prank, perhaps that menacing shape took what appeared to be aggressive action?

I'm still confused- are you condemning this guy's choice and saying that people should never shoot what they are unsure of, even if it is making aggressive moves towards you?

It's better to be dead than wrong?

I find it hard to believe that the prevailing advice is wait until you can see the whites of his eyes before you know you should shoot.

I would think this chaplain deserves a little leeway- I very much doubt he just started shooting at some shape hiding in a corner. How many of us are CERTAIN there's someone in the corner and it turns out to be a broom?

This story has little details and you seem to be holding it up as the perfect example of why never to shoot an intruder in your house, Jeff.

 

[XavierBreath]

I apologize for hitting the quote thing, but I feel the need to explain. Since you quoted me, I hope you forgive my quoting you.

You all seem to immediately assume he didn't get a response and just shot at some vague shape.

And you (and others) seem to assume the brother in law was menancing and aggressive, even in jest. There is no indication of either. It is safe to assume, however, that the chaplin would not have shot had he known his target was his brother in law. It is probably safe to assume that the brother in law was not truely a threat to the chaplin's life. It is probably safe to assume that if the brother in law appeared to be a threat, he would have quickly changed that appearance had he known a gun was aimed at him, and he was about to be shot.

are you condemning this guy's choice and saying that people should never shoot what they are unsure of, even if it is making aggressive moves towards you?

Not at all. I am saying that we live with the burden of our decisions whether the legal system pronounces the shooting accidental or not. I am saying that the choice to shoot or hold one's fire is a personal one, with irreversible consequences. Considering that the consequences are irreversible, is it not better to place one's life at slightly greater risk by holding one's fire long enough to make certain an unknown target is not a loved one? Or is it better to just place one's own personal safety above the lives of our loved ones? This is a question we must all answer for ourselves. If we do not answer it before a shooting, we will surely answer it afterwards.

It's better to be dead than wrong?

From conversations I have had with people who killed loved ones, sometimes it is. Again, this is personal perceptions. Personal choices. How many parents with dead children do you know who would give their own life if their dead child could live again? How many times have you read about a parent bargaining with a criminal to take them rather than their child? There's your answer.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I simply can't imagine intentionally taking action that could result in the death of a human bieng without confirming that the individual in question had, at a minimum:

1. The ability to do myself or an innocent grave harm; and
2. The manifest intent to do the same.

You're going to amble up to a silent man, hiding in shadow, in your own house, and attempt to frisk him for weapons, and if one is found, ask his intentions (as he remains silent) as to his presence in your house with a weapon before deciding whether or not he's a threat?

Oh, please.

 

[MakAttak]

Not at all. I am saying that we live with the burden of our decisions whether the legal system pronounces the shooting accidental or not. I am saying that the choice to shoot or hold one's fire is a personal one, with irreversible consequences. Considering that the consequences are irreversible, is it not better to place one's life at slightly greater risk by holding one's fire to make certain an unknown target is not a loved one? Or is it better to just place one's own personal safety above the lives of our loved ones? This is a question we must all answer for ourselves. If we do not answer it before a shooting, we will surely answer it afterwards.

I do not mind you quoting me in the least.

And I fully admit I am making assumptions about this shooting- I have said I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. As such, I am assuming the further facts in the story will tend to be in the chaplain's favor.

And you are right that I would rather be dead than have caused the death of a loved one. Again, in this case, I cannot fault the chaplain. His wife was upstairs. If my wife (although she's only a fiancee, soon to be wife) were upstairs and a dark figure advances towards me after I have asked him to identify himself, he's dead. It is not in protection of myself that I will shoot, but in protection of her. If he kills me, nothing is between him and her and now he is armed for sure. This is why I am shocked at the immediate denouncing of his choice- it's not like he was home alone. Rather, he was protecting his family.

That it turned out to be his brother in law is unfortunate, but I cannot fault the man. He may have been better served to add "Or you'll be shot" to his request for identification, but I'm doubting he thought of that in the heat of the moment.

 

[WeedWhacker]

We've all heard of relatives stealing from relatives, including burglary. Possibility?

What difference would that have made? The homeowner still fired at an unidentified target.

The legal resident discovered someone in his own house, at night, who "faked" a break-in (whatever that means), and who refused to identify himself when confronted! How in the world could a person of a sane and logical mind expect any other outcome other than the intruder being treated as a home invader, and as he remained silent upon being confronted, a home invader looking to attack the homeowner as soon as an opening prevented itself?

The double-standard being applied here is blatant and starting to smell bad.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that shooting the idiotic brother-in-law was the best outcome - what many of us are saying it that the idiot getting himself shot was the only logical outcome in what amounted to a life-and-death home invasion situation for the homeowner.

 

[Jeff White]

This story has little details and you seem to be holding it up as the perfect example of why never to shoot an intruder in your house, Jeff.

I am holding it up as the perfect example of why you should identify your target. If there was light on the subject the homeowner would have recognized his brother in law. Obviously we don't need light. Perhaps we should just place aiming stakes around the house so we can lay our weapon in them and have it trained on a specific area. That way we don't even need to aim. Yeah thats the ticket, preplanned targets throughout the house.

We've come full circle here in Strategies and Tactics, from threads where people are saying they wouldn't mount a light on their weapon, because they wouldn't ever point it at someone they didn't intend to shoot, to threads where shooting at unidentified targets is advocated ....

Let me ask all of you who think that you will surely lose the fight and die if you turn on a light one question. Don't you think in the close confines of a residence you would give your position away by issuing a verbal challenge? If we carry your logic to it's conclusion, you should only safely shoot from an ambush position. I have personal experience in breaking an ambush in a training exercise many years ago when the ambushers blew noise discipline and someone whispered; "We've got them now" as my patrol moved into the kill zone. The problem was, we executed our near ambush drill, firing first and attacking into the ambush. At the end of the short fight, the would be ambushers were putting the keys in their MILES harnesses.

You have to do the best you can to make sure you are making the right use of force decision. In this case I think it's safe to assume that with a little light, the home invader would have been identified as a family member.

A flick of the light switch or a $1.99 plastic flashlight and this stupid situation probably could have been avoided. And it would have not revealed your position much more then the verbal challenge would have.

I'm beginning to think the antis are right. Too many people who are supposedly responsible gun owners have taken to acting like the spread of castle doctrine laws is their license to kill.

Jeff

 

[XavierBreath]

MakAttack,
I'm not faulting the chaplain either. I am not one to judge him, and I am not one to condemn him. If I knew him, I would be there to support him. Finding fault is not my place.

The chaplain's actions can not be undone, and nobody knows what his personal consequences will be. Hopefully his friends and his family will stand by him, and he will successfully assimilate this unchangeable event into his life.

I don't think Jeff is condemning the chaplin either. The story is just being used to open a discussion that invites introspection. These are issues that have different answers for everyone, based on our own lives, our own perceptions and our own values. Nobody has a right to judge another in that regard.

There are, however different choices that can be taken when one is faced with what they perceive to be a threat. Practically the full spectrum of self defense choices are present in this thread. There are no absolutes, only the irrevocability of the actions. We are responsible for the choices we make.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Too many people who are supposedly responsible gun owners have taken to acting like the spread of castle doctrine laws is their license to kill.

I take responsibility for my actions. When I make a mistake, I aim to be quick to 'fess up and accept the consequences. When a possible pitfall is identified in advance, I assess the situation and take reasonable steps to address the matter.

I also have a brother-in-law. I do not know if he owns any firearms, but under no circumstances would I "fake" a break-in (whatever that means) at his house, at night, hide in the shadows, and remain silent and unresponsive when he finds and confronts me. If I decide one day to take a drill to my brainpan and then act in such a manner, I fully expect to be shot, beaten, stabbed, or otherwise subdued as any other home invader could expect.

In-laws do not commonly share the same residence with those on the other side of the marriage. In all honesty, my brother-in-law could be a murderer with a crack habit for all I know, though he doesn't seem the type. If my brother-in-law were to completely lose his mind, break into my house at night, and remain silent when I yelp at him, "who's there!? Identify yourself!", he is going to get shot, just the same as if the serial killer from down the street went through the same course of action.

The critical failures here were ALL on the part of the brother-in-law. For comparison, I did wake to find a stranger in my house one day. Dishes were rattling in the kitchen when they had no business rattling. Though someone who had no business in my house was in my house, I did not jump out the bedroom door with the shotgun blazing. I did grab the shotgun, did grab my glasses, and did ask loudly from the open bedroom door, "who are you and what are you doing in my house?", but kept most of myself and my hardware out of sight around the door. Turns out the maintenance man went to the wrong house and let himself in with the property owner's keys; no harm done. This sort of scenario is drastically different than the original story in that my "intruder" reacted like a normal, honest human to a simple question. In response, I have taken to using sturdy home-made door braces to prevent anyone from entering without destroying a door or window while I am home.

There is such a thing as terminal stupidity, and it is a very apt term for the brother-in-law who "faked" a home invasion.

-edit: fixed typo

 

[TexasSkyhawk]

I am holding it up as the perfect example of why you should identify your target. If there was light on the subject the homeowner would have recognized his brother in law.

Well . . . , IF we're going to play the "IF" game here, I'll play.

What IF the brother-in-law had dressed up in gang clothes and had a panty-hose pulled over his face and brandished a knife or club or toy gun at his brother?

Seems, per the story, that the brother was quite the prankster. Who knows how far he might go to pull of the "ultimate prank?"

Obviously we don't need light. Perhaps we should just place aiming stakes around the house so we can lay our weapon in them and have it trained on a specific area. That way we don't even need to aim. Yeah thats the ticket, preplanned targets throughout the house.

How does this sarcastic, insulting little tirade--which has become frequent in this so-called discussion--in any way take "the high road?" Is it okay for you to do this since you're a Moderator, yet you send me a PM making accusations when I responded to one of your OPINIONS in the exact same manner that you continue to respond with those who disagree with you?

"High Road?" Don't think so. "Forked Road" is more like it.

In many, many cases, participants have offered up exceedingly honest opinions, thoughts, questions, challenges and done so because they are not "experts" or have not spent time behind a badge or in a uniform where addtional training was to be had.

They're here and reading to learn and have an exchange. Such sarcastic crap and holier-than-thou is not only not necessary, it is out-of-line. The result is you get it right back atcha.

And that's how discussions turn into useless melees with a big fat cyber padlock on them.

Think I'll be sticking to the Handoading and Reloading forum.

Jeff

 

[Jaenak]

The article says the brother-in-law underwent surgery and was in stable condition. He therefore didn't "pay for his stupidity with his life". I do however agree that it wasn't recklessness on the one guy's fault, it was the lack of common sense on the part of the brother-in-law. If you're entering a house at night unanounced and refuse to identify yourself when asked to do so YOU WILL GET SHOT! I don't care who they are or how responsible anyone is. However, this is one reason why you should ALWAYS use a tactical light in a home defense situation!! Not only does it give you a chance to see if the target is carrying a weapon and is about to shoot you, not only does it give you a tactical "one up" because the target is now blind, but it also allows you to identify the intruder.

 

[sm]

Rob Pincus hit on something earlier I want to bring to surface again.
I forgot to make note of his post number, sorry.

Just because there is a threat, does not mean one is wise to run toward threat to engage.

Engage the threat without engaging is an option or "tactic".
Best tactic may be to evade and assist others in evading to safer areas.

I was not present during the situation of which this thread is about, so I have no idea why the Chaplain chose to not evade.

 

[roo_ster]

If there was light on the subject the homeowner would have recognized his brother in law.

It would have increased the odds, but it is no certain thing, especially if BIL took measures to increase the "reality" of his "fake" B&E.

Just as a firearm is not a magic threat-neutralizing wand, a light is not a magic thread-identifying wand.

If we carry your logic to it's conclusion, you should only safely shoot from an ambush position.

"Only" is too strong a modifier, but it is preferable to engage from a position of advantage.

How many times have we all read something to the effect of, "Hunker down in your bedroom and wait for the burglar to come to you instead of clearing your own home." Sounds like an ambush position to me.

Too many people who are supposedly responsible gun owners have taken to acting like the spread of castle doctrine laws is their license to kill.

An awfully broad brush to paint folks with when they disagree with you on the preferred technique in a particular case.

-----

I give the cops who shoot in fear of their lives the benefit of the doubt. From your writings, I'd say you are on board with that. Seems only equitable to extend that benefit to the taxpayers.

 

[shadowalker]

The fact he was a BIL is irrelevant, family members do violence against each other all the time. This wasn't a case of the BIL coming to ask to borrow a cup of flour or asking to stay the night or mistaking his BIL's house for his own or the spouse stumbling around in the night and getting shot.

I agree that you should identify your target, but I don't think this is a very good story to make that point. This is more of a story along the lines of how stupid decisions sometimes have painful consequences (for the BIL).

This was a case of the BIL intentionally presenting himself as an intruder, making him a threat to the home owner and not responding to a hail.

He is still someone who made entry to the house uninvited, at night with unknown intentions.

 

[MakAttak]

I am holding it up as the perfect example of why you should identify your target. If there was light on the subject the homeowner would have recognized his brother in law. Obviously we don't need light. Perhaps we should just place aiming stakes around the house so we can lay our weapon in them and have it trained on a specific area. That way we don't even need to aim. Yeah thats the ticket, preplanned targets throughout the house.

You may be holding it as an example for identifying your target, but I think you've made a poor choice. The example cited where a girl jumped out to scare her parents after making it look like a home invasion is a good example.

In this one- you are right- I see a need for a light on my HD gun. I didn't need this example for that.

However, as has been pointed out- the light may not have been enough if the guy was trying to "play the part". It might have changed it, but any number of things might have changed it, but the Chaplain did attempt to Identify the intruder. Suggesting a hard and fast rule of "always fully identify your target" is foolish. I will not shoot at human shaped forms in the dark, but I will shoot at a human shaped form that is making aggressive moves towards me in the dark that has also refused to identify itself. I will not leave my family to the mercy of an intruder simply because I do not know his full intentions.

 

[Dallas239]

I'm beginning to think the antis are right. Too many people who are supposedly responsible gun owners have taken to acting like the spread of castle doctrine laws is their license to kill.

I don't belive that you're just beginning to think that, I believe that you've thought that way for a long time. In fact, that seems to be the entire point of this thread, and I've gotten the same impression for many of your posts. Many of your posts espouse opinions typical of elitist gun-grabbers, and especially of elitist gun-grabber cops.

This story is a tragedy, and it's a good example of how doing the right thing sometimes turns out badly. But you didn't present it that way, you presented it as yet another story of idiot gun owners. Not only that, but you premptively lumped your fellow highroaders into that category. No posts in this thread were necessary to convince you that your fellow highroaders aren't worthy of gun ownership, since your belief of that is clear from the initial post.

The bottom line seems to be that you're right, and everyone else is wrong. Your way will always be the right way, and you will be 100% in control and identify your target 100%. You will neither risk your life nor anyone else's without 100% certainty. You don't need to allocate risk because you never take any. If this actually reflects reality, then congratulations on your achievement of perfection. Of course you've never explained how, if you have 100% control of your environment, an unknown person came to be in it. But I guess I will never know the answer to that. I probably wouldn't understand anyway.

*plonk*

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

Torts and leaving your doors unlocked/automatically shooting at anything that moves

i cant believe that someone tried to argue that somehow a homeowner was more legally liable because he leaves his doors unlocked...

is owning a home and living there no longer enough to establish that other people do not have a right to be there without permission?

I didn't say the laws that I've looked at said you can't shoot no matter what if your doors are unlocked. I said that it's going to look a lot worse on your end if you always leave your doors unlocked and a person accidentally walks into the wrong place and without being able to see who it is you shoot them right away. From what I've looked up, if you have the attitude that you're going to shoot whoever comes into your house right away, carry around a chambered firearm with you at all times, and leave your doors unlocked, many are going to argue that you should have been able to reasonably foresee someone being harmed, even an innocent person who accidentally walks into the wrong place or thought a friend said to meet him there. That doesn't mean that you can't shoot at all if someone comes in, that means that if you're going to leave your doors unlocked it's probably not the best idea to shoot no matter what just because someone happens to be in your house.

I'm just saying that I was doing some research on tort law the other day with landowners owing a legal duty of care to both the anticipated and/or discovered trespasser, such as letting them know about deadly problems on their property if they're aware of them while the trespasser would not be aware, and if the landowner breaches this duty of care, they can be held liable for damages in a civil case. I'm just stating what I've read from some legal sources. I don't know much about civil law, but I have read from many sources that it's not a wise idea (from a legal standpoint even if you do live in a Castle Doctrine state) to leave your doors unlocked and unconditionally shoot whenever someone comes in your home.

Many on THR have brought up certain deadly force/concealed carry laws that they don't necessarily fully agree with, but they bring them up anyway to warn others about them. That doesn't mean they're bad THR members.

Regardless of what's legal or not, I'd say that it's probably not a good idea if you're going to leave your doors unlocked to shoot at everyone who comes in your home unconditionally, until you've actually reasonably identified them as a threat. Even if it is perfectly legal, do you really want to kill your next door neighbor's friend who innocently misinterprets directions and accidentally walks into the wrong place and is just standing there when you walk in? Or a relative who decides to pay an unexpected visit just to be friendly because they care about you but decides to walk in because she sees that your door is unlocked and you didn't answer the door right away?

 

[axegrinder]

I've gotta go with TexasSkyhawk, jfruser, and Dallas239.
Mr. Jeff White, this forum is called The High Road. Please
strive to stay on it, don't bulldoze your allies along the way.

Steve

 

[CryingWolf]

A group of young adults organized this game in my area. I wondered about them being mistaken for prowlers or other BGs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin_(game)

I played this over twenty years ago at it was very fun. If I remember correctly you had fake money to purchase your equipment. You would draw (out of a hat) your "Mark". It was your job to take out your "Mark". I would never dream at trying to break into a friends house to eliminate my "Mark", too many other / easier / funner ways to get the job done.

I once sent my "Mark" out to my car to get something I forgot, well I had set my car alarm but didn't lock the car doors. When the alarm went off, we all came out laughing. I also put a note at the bottom of my friend's "Mark" cereal box when I spent the night at his house one night. This one cost me a bit because His sister and Dad also ate the cereal. You get deductions for taking out innocent people.

It really ends up being like a tag game. And yes everyone does end up wearing gloves (poison was one of the cheaper things you can buy)

Anyway I would hope that people who play games like this use some common sense. B&E could get you into real trouble. Most that would have happened when I played was a Mom would get mad at a sticky door knob etc.

 

[lawboy]

So what that it was his BIL ... maybe he was up to no good. Maybe the homeowner should have shot him even if he had been able to see him. People are assuming an awful lot of things in order to make the shooter out has unjustified or even unwise. The shooter was 100% right. The BIL was 100% wrong, took his life into his own hands foolishly, and nearly lost it.

Is it a tragedy? I don't know. We will never know what the BIL was up to sneaking into their home at NIGHT, unannounced and refusing ID himself. Maybe it was an attempted joke, maybe not. One thing is for sure, regardless of his intentions, it was NOT a practical joke, or any kind of joke. It was damn fool hardy and the homeowner is without blame and should be without guilt. Period.

 

[achildofthesky]

There I was...

When I read this story it took me back to 1984 when I was living in Breckenridge Colorado with a co-worker from our mutual employer, the Breckenridge Ski Area. As friends from work we decided to share a townhome about a mile from town. The layout of the unit was bedrooms upstairs and living and kitchen down.

One evening I had gone to bed early, knowing I was on duty the next day and plowed into a deep sleep. At some point after midnight there was a crunching, scritching and a creaking coming through my dream hazed state and I awoke to hear the same noises in real time.

I quickly slid from bed groggy as can be and grabbed my Browning challenger plinker pistol and stood at the foot of the bed. The noises were coming from the window above the head of the bed (remember that the bedroom is on the second floor) and I could see shadows moving outside the window as there was a section of roof that was over the entrance below. I was in a state of disbelief when I heard the window jamb being pried open and then slid aside. A foot, then leg then torso came through the now open window and I clicked off the safety and threw down on the target and said something to the effect of "stop it right there or I will shoot you" (though said a bit more colorfully).

The movement immediately stopped and I flipped the lights on as the switch was right next to me. The "perp" turned out to be my roommate's boyfriend trying to get in as they forgot or lost their keys or something. My roommate was waiting outside in the snow below... The guy very nearly jumped out the window off the roof and to the ground saying don't shoot over and over once he saw the pistol aimed at his noggin from from about 6 feet. I stood there for what seemed like minutes ('prolly just a split second or 3) before lowering the gun a bit and determining who it really was.

They thought that they were getting into my roommate's bedroom but made a very nearly fatal mistake. Made for a good story after a while but I was just a tickle of the trigger shoe from dropping him. I am sooooooo relieved even now, just telling this that I took the time to identify a bit better instead of shooting first.

It would be pretty easy to second guess this situation to no end. If he would have kept coming in, not stopping when I spoke, I ABSOLUTELY would have shot him in the head. Imagine the mess with the issues of degree of threat, the legal quagmire and possible to likely incarceration for shooting a perceived "intruder" that surely would have followed if I shot first.

I was exceeding lucky to be ahead of the situation by being relatively light sleeper but it could easily have had a different outcome if I didn't awake first and he'd stepped on my bed while I was still sleeping. Scary stuff doncha know...

Think about it

Patty

 

[Bix]

WeedWhacker said:

Originally Posted by Bix
I simply can't imagine intentionally taking action that could result in the death of a human bieng without confirming that the individual in question had, at a minimum:

1. The ability to do myself or an innocent grave harm; and
2. The manifest intent to do the same.

You're going to amble up to a silent man, hiding in shadow, in your own house, and attempt to frisk him for weapons, and if one is found, ask his intentions (as he remains silent) as to his presence in your house with a weapon before deciding whether or not he's a threat?

Oh, please.

No, I wouldn't do any of that. I would leave.

 

[camslam]

Dallas239 Quote:
I'm beginning to think the antis are right. Too many people who are supposedly responsible gun owners have taken to acting like the spread of castle doctrine laws is their license to kill.

I don't belive that you're just beginning to think that, I believe that you've thought that way for a long time. In fact, that seems to be the entire point of this thread, and I've gotten the same impression for many of your posts. Many of your posts espouse opinions typical of elitist gun-grabbers, and especially of elitist gun-grabber cops.

This story is a tragedy, and it's a good example of how doing the right thing sometimes turns out badly. But you didn't present it that way, you presented it as yet another story of idiot gun owners. Not only that, but you premptively lumped your fellow highroaders into that category. No posts in this thread were necessary to convince you that your fellow highroaders aren't worthy of gun ownership, since your belief of that is clear from the initial post.

The bottom line seems to be that you're right, and everyone else is wrong. Your way will always be the right way, and you will be 100% in control and identify your target 100%. You will neither risk your life nor anyone else's without 100% certainty. You don't need to allocate risk because you never take any. If this actually reflects reality, then congratulations on your achievement of perfection. Of course you've never explained how, if you have 100% control of your environment, an unknown person came to be in it. But I guess I will never know the answer to that. I probably wouldn't understand anyway.

*plonk*

WELL SAID. +1 a thousand times over.

 

[h-word]

It's all been said before, but just in case anyone has a burning desire to hear my opinion...

I keep a good flashlight with my XD40 as it works in my advantage to stun and identify an intruder in my house. I have no qualms about shooting someone who intends to do me harm, but before I pull the trigger I would like to know if the dark shadowy figure is a armed whacked out bad guy or just some dumb kid after my LCD TV.