Tonight I had a scare
- Thread starter kyo
- Start date
- Status
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
And it needs to stay that way.
lpl
lpl
anyway, today I went to the gun show in town and picked up the flashlight I needed. Standalone from the gun, one click goes to LED's the next goes to a laser. Bright as daylight in a little package.
On another note, crime is prevalent in Atlanta. Members here have even told me so after I posted this. This didn't happen in he heart of atlanta, it happened in one of the surrounding areas of it. It happens often, and usually the owner shoots the criminal dead and there are no charges. There are many many available articles on that subject. I am not saying I would have shot the guy dead or anything just because, we just wanted to remove the threat.
On another note, crime is prevalent in Atlanta. Members here have even told me so after I posted this. This didn't happen in he heart of atlanta, it happened in one of the surrounding areas of it. It happens often, and usually the owner shoots the criminal dead and there are no charges. There are many many available articles on that subject. I am not saying I would have shot the guy dead or anything just because, we just wanted to remove the threat.
Titan6
member
Your link does not work but that is okay because I went ahead and posted the relevant portions:
So castle doctrine in NY does not extend into one's yard. A very relevant distinction in this case.
Actually it does. Again it depends upon the state and in the case of Texas for example; the time of day. Since you are wrong in your example about Texas I will mention that you can shoot someone stealing your car out of your driveway (or lawn mower) at night and according to the law you will get no billed. In fact there was a highly publicized case in Houston a few years ago about a man who shot and killed another man who was breaking into his car on public street at night. He shot the man from a second story window in his apartment building. The man was found not guilty of any crime. In New York.... they will be sizing you up for a jumpsuit. Texas is no more relevant than NY, AZ, MO to this case but since you brought them up....
Again we already discussed that pointing is generally considered assault. In MO If you had a belligerent trespasser and believed your life in danger you can't point a gun at someone? Hardly. You are allowed to act in your defense. So is it assault every time you point a gun at someone? No.
Suppose you are out hunting and flag your buddy. Did you commit assault? No, you are just careless. There was no intent to commit assault.
How about with property? "son assault demesne" is a legal defense to prevent the theft of your property by using force no greater than that required to prevent the theft. Otherwise I could just go over the border to your house and take whatever I wanted until the police arrived and you could do nothing about it. Try looking up the Law of Torts and giving it a good read in the A&B section. This will give you a general outline although laws vary greatly in fine points.
Again not really true but we don't go through all 50 states do we?
You found correct law but you are putting your (mistaken) interpretation into it. It is up to a judge, jury and prosecutor to decide whether or not there was a crime committed. A forcible felony in GA defined by the dollar amount of the theft. Suppose our OP had a trespasser making off with his $500 chain saw? In GA that would be a forcible felony and therefore covered under the law. But it may not be in NY.
Again you are putting your spin on it which is simply not true. If I find someone in my yard with a weapon acting in a threatening manner towards someone I most certainly can shoot.
Of course. Everything you do these days from driving to work to eating out a restaurant these days seems "fraught with serious risk of major liability". It is a fact of life in America these days.
Let us make it a worse case scenario. You are a CHL holder whose car broke down in the middle of GA at night and you are lost and looking for help. You stumble accidentally into someone's yard and knock over their trash cans. They come out with a shotgun and point it at you. I guess in that particular case [I like to call it the .50 BMG rifle shooting down the airliner scenario] if you were dumb enough to shoot the homeowner we would have a heck of trial on our hands. I would have to see it happen first before I would believe it actually could happen.
No worries here!
Last edited:
Titan6, I'm afraid I do not understand your comment that the NY castle law not extending into one's yard constitutes a relevant distinction. I certainly do not claim to know all of the castle laws, but I'm not aware of any that extend into the yard. Ours does not; Georgia's does not; nor does the law in Texas. Some cover garages, some don't. Georgia's covers the place of business, which is good, but ours doesn't. Ours specifically mentions tents, and while Georgia's apparently does not, case law may provide some protection there.
I heard yesterday that a MO legislator is trying to get the castle law here extended to cover the yard. I doubt it will be enacted (may pass and be vetoed).
Do you know of any castle laws that do cover the yard?
Your comment about Texas is absolutely correct. That provision is contained in a section of the law pertaining to the protection of real or tangible, moveable property, separate and distinct from the castle law. Not to appear argumentative, but the man in Rochester was not trying to prevent the taking of property that he could not otherwise protect. He claimed he fired in self defense. But had he made such a claim, it wouldn't have helped, as you noted. That's not because of anything in or not in the castle law. I'ts because NY, like almost all other states, does not have anything like Section 9.42 of the Texas Penal Code, Deadly Force to Protect Property.
By the way, I'm not sure that the provisions of the Texas law actually depend on whether the shooting takes place on private property or not. The law states that one may under certain circumstances use deadly force when immediately necessary (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B0 to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property. I personally do not believe I would not fire a shot for that purpose (1) unless valuable livestock or something that could be put to criminal use were being taken and (2) I had sound legal advice on what constitutes "immediately" and "escaping."
I agree with you that certainly not every instance of pointing a gun is assault--and most certainly not in your hunting example. In CCW training we were warned that pulling a gun without an imminent serious threat could result in an assault charge. There's also a separate offense--exhibiting a firearm in a dangerous or threatening manner.
Arizona's law reads very similarly to ours, if memory serves, but case law apparently can easily make pulling the gun a felony unless self defense is justified. The legislature tried to amend the law, but in February, then-Governor Napolitano vetoed the bill. Maybe it will be enacted later.
I must confess that I do not understand the Roman Adams decision. To me as a lay person, the Georgia law distinctly speaks to pointing or aiming the gun at someone, and Adams reportedly had the gun pointed upward.
From that in particular and from the rest of the foregoing, you can correctly infer that I'm not an expert on any of these laws and that what the law seems to say may not be all one needs to know. To me, the latter is very important.
It may well be that a person drawing a gun at night will not be charged, particularly if he does not point it at anyone. OK. But in my mind, that does not make it very wise at all for a civilian with gun in hand to investigate the possibility that someone else may be outside at night. I believe the risks of both criminal and civil liability and those of getting killed or injured make it wiser to leave that task to empowered, trained, indemnified LEOs who can call for backup if necessary.
By the way, I do agree with you that if you were to encounter an armed person threatening someone else, you would likely be justified in shooting, but beware the possibility that the threatened party may not side with the person you just shot and may ultimately testify against you--that's not uncommon. You need to be wary of using deadly force to protect a third person unless you know all of the facts.I was referring to a trespasser or innocent person, say, looking for a dog. And if you were to appear with a gun in hand and the other armed party were to then shoot you, even if he had been up to no good at the time, he may well be found innocent of shooting you.
And back to the drawing of the gun, I am pretty sure that as long as the LEO is is fact performing an enforcement duty, he or she can draw without risk of any liability any time, day or night.
I hope this helps.
I heard yesterday that a MO legislator is trying to get the castle law here extended to cover the yard. I doubt it will be enacted (may pass and be vetoed).
Do you know of any castle laws that do cover the yard?
Your comment about Texas is absolutely correct. That provision is contained in a section of the law pertaining to the protection of real or tangible, moveable property, separate and distinct from the castle law. Not to appear argumentative, but the man in Rochester was not trying to prevent the taking of property that he could not otherwise protect. He claimed he fired in self defense. But had he made such a claim, it wouldn't have helped, as you noted. That's not because of anything in or not in the castle law. I'ts because NY, like almost all other states, does not have anything like Section 9.42 of the Texas Penal Code, Deadly Force to Protect Property.
By the way, I'm not sure that the provisions of the Texas law actually depend on whether the shooting takes place on private property or not. The law states that one may under certain circumstances use deadly force when immediately necessary (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B0 to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property. I personally do not believe I would not fire a shot for that purpose (1) unless valuable livestock or something that could be put to criminal use were being taken and (2) I had sound legal advice on what constitutes "immediately" and "escaping."
I agree with you that certainly not every instance of pointing a gun is assault--and most certainly not in your hunting example. In CCW training we were warned that pulling a gun without an imminent serious threat could result in an assault charge. There's also a separate offense--exhibiting a firearm in a dangerous or threatening manner.
Arizona's law reads very similarly to ours, if memory serves, but case law apparently can easily make pulling the gun a felony unless self defense is justified. The legislature tried to amend the law, but in February, then-Governor Napolitano vetoed the bill. Maybe it will be enacted later.
I must confess that I do not understand the Roman Adams decision. To me as a lay person, the Georgia law distinctly speaks to pointing or aiming the gun at someone, and Adams reportedly had the gun pointed upward.
From that in particular and from the rest of the foregoing, you can correctly infer that I'm not an expert on any of these laws and that what the law seems to say may not be all one needs to know. To me, the latter is very important.
It may well be that a person drawing a gun at night will not be charged, particularly if he does not point it at anyone. OK. But in my mind, that does not make it very wise at all for a civilian with gun in hand to investigate the possibility that someone else may be outside at night. I believe the risks of both criminal and civil liability and those of getting killed or injured make it wiser to leave that task to empowered, trained, indemnified LEOs who can call for backup if necessary.
By the way, I do agree with you that if you were to encounter an armed person threatening someone else, you would likely be justified in shooting, but beware the possibility that the threatened party may not side with the person you just shot and may ultimately testify against you--that's not uncommon. You need to be wary of using deadly force to protect a third person unless you know all of the facts.I was referring to a trespasser or innocent person, say, looking for a dog. And if you were to appear with a gun in hand and the other armed party were to then shoot you, even if he had been up to no good at the time, he may well be found innocent of shooting you.
And back to the drawing of the gun, I am pretty sure that as long as the LEO is is fact performing an enforcement duty, he or she can draw without risk of any liability any time, day or night.
I hope this helps.
Last edited:
Titan6
member
I'll make it simple then. The actor in the NY example was not covered by the law, therefore was completely irrelevant. The Deadly Force to Protect Property IS the Castle Law in Texas and other states have similar laws.
Here is the complete final version as was passed with changes indicated:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Sear...CurrBillDocs&QueryText=hb+284&HighlightType=1
I guess, but when I go out to investigate odd noises in my yard at night I bring a 12 GA shotgun loaded with slugs. We had a bear a break into our house once and cause a lot of damage and I'm not really interested in finding out the answer to "what handgun round for 400 pound bear?" question when I know the 12 GA will get it done. And no, I won't have it slung either.
I am certainly am not alone in this just about every person I know that lives in the country keeps a shotgun by the door for the same reason. I can't think for the life of me how having a gun in my hand as opposed to being in a holster is better or somehow "more" legal. There is a big difference between brandishing and carrying and you seem to be confusing the two. If you can point to some kind of law that says carrying a gun is "brandishing" or breaking some other kind of law I guess I could think about it but I can't think of any.
I agree in some cases, they get paid for it so they should do it and it certainly won't bother me any for them to get in tussle I'd rather avoid. Certainly it would be the more prudent course of action. However more prudent does not always necessarily mean "better".
Titan6, I really don't want to appear to be argumentative, but I think if you look into it further, I think you will find that the "castle law" in Texas is in fact embodied in Texas Code 9.32 (Deadly force [in the defense of persons] is "presumed to be reasonable if ... the person against whom deadly force was used unlawfully and with force entered or was attempting to enter...the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment...".
Most castle laws I've read seem to read about the same, with variations; nothing about force in Missouri, something about "tumultuous" in Georgia.
That's not at all the same as Section 9.42, but more importantly, few if any other states have anything like that Texas law on the books.
Yes, opponents and some others have characterized castle laws as permitting the use of deadly force to "protect property." May be, technically and/or in some limited ways. My take is that, since the actor must be "within the castle', the real intent is simply to remove the requirement to show that the intruder was in fact intent on great bodily harm. If the perp had simply been intent on taking the flat-screen, so be it, but why put the resident at risk by giving him the requirement to find out? I invite comment on that.
I've been viewing all this from the point of view of a suburban resident. Country dweller? That's different. Yep, you're just going to have to go outside to check something out from time to time, and I would arm myself also. And I don't think I'd be concerned at all about having a gun in hand. And frankly, I'm not sure that any reasonable innocent visitor would be alarmed. Don't think for a second that I disagree with you.
Back to your previous post, I think it is very important that one not simply conclude that one can necessarily use deadly force should he encounter someone taking a $500 chain saw except under certain very limited circumstances.
As the relevant Georgia code states, one may use deadly force in defense of personal property if and only if it is necessary to prevent a forcible felony.
However, as I read it, a forcible felony is not defined solely by the value of the property. Regarding crimes involving property, forcible felonies include robbery, armed robbery, and burglary. Theft does not seem to be covered.
As I read it, robbery must involves taking something from someone or in the presence someone by threat of force, intimidation, or "sudden snatching." The last of these would seem to cover taking a purse from a chair next to its owner (elevating the crime from that of theft), but precisely what it means and does not mean will be determined by case law and as you say, ultimately by a jury or appellate court.
Let's skip over armed robbery--simply brings in a weapon.
Burglary involves entering a building, structure, room, vehicle, railroad car, or watercraft.
Now it may be that, if one is caught absconding with a high-value item (or perhaps even Timex watch), a citizen's arrest may be appropriate, but even if the evidence is unshakeable, I would be concerned about liability for such things as the use of excessive force and any injuries suffered by the prepreatrator while I were holding him. I just don't see how it could be worth it. Insurance premiums seem a better choice to me.
That is of course a judgment call.
I think it is critical to understand the law before taking any actions that may get one embroiled in it, That certainly proved to be true for a number of people in my prior life, but in involved entirely different fields of the law.
I hope you find this constructive and helpful.
Most castle laws I've read seem to read about the same, with variations; nothing about force in Missouri, something about "tumultuous" in Georgia.
That's not at all the same as Section 9.42, but more importantly, few if any other states have anything like that Texas law on the books.
Yes, opponents and some others have characterized castle laws as permitting the use of deadly force to "protect property." May be, technically and/or in some limited ways. My take is that, since the actor must be "within the castle', the real intent is simply to remove the requirement to show that the intruder was in fact intent on great bodily harm. If the perp had simply been intent on taking the flat-screen, so be it, but why put the resident at risk by giving him the requirement to find out? I invite comment on that.
I've been viewing all this from the point of view of a suburban resident. Country dweller? That's different. Yep, you're just going to have to go outside to check something out from time to time, and I would arm myself also. And I don't think I'd be concerned at all about having a gun in hand. And frankly, I'm not sure that any reasonable innocent visitor would be alarmed. Don't think for a second that I disagree with you.
Back to your previous post, I think it is very important that one not simply conclude that one can necessarily use deadly force should he encounter someone taking a $500 chain saw except under certain very limited circumstances.
As the relevant Georgia code states, one may use deadly force in defense of personal property if and only if it is necessary to prevent a forcible felony.
However, as I read it, a forcible felony is not defined solely by the value of the property. Regarding crimes involving property, forcible felonies include robbery, armed robbery, and burglary. Theft does not seem to be covered.
As I read it, robbery must involves taking something from someone or in the presence someone by threat of force, intimidation, or "sudden snatching." The last of these would seem to cover taking a purse from a chair next to its owner (elevating the crime from that of theft), but precisely what it means and does not mean will be determined by case law and as you say, ultimately by a jury or appellate court.
Let's skip over armed robbery--simply brings in a weapon.
Burglary involves entering a building, structure, room, vehicle, railroad car, or watercraft.
Now it may be that, if one is caught absconding with a high-value item (or perhaps even Timex watch), a citizen's arrest may be appropriate, but even if the evidence is unshakeable, I would be concerned about liability for such things as the use of excessive force and any injuries suffered by the prepreatrator while I were holding him. I just don't see how it could be worth it. Insurance premiums seem a better choice to me.
That is of course a judgment call.
I think it is critical to understand the law before taking any actions that may get one embroiled in it, That certainly proved to be true for a number of people in my prior life, but in involved entirely different fields of the law.
I hope you find this constructive and helpful.
Hungry Seagull
member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,167
I will make it even more simple using Arkansas Law as taught to me.
Castle Doctrine as lethal force in defense of home or family is supported and advocated to the public in Arkansas.
Your home means you have retreated. There is no more retreat availible to you.
Someone breaking into your dwelling. You fire whatever it is you want to at the bad guy. It should stop the action. Sometimes bad guy dies.
DONT Fire on a bad guy standing on your land yelling threats at your home. YOU MAY bring weapon with you to walk outside and ask who the stranger is and what he is doing trespassing onto your land? But it's usually easier to call LEO's and let them come get him outside.
Property crimes outside of the home are bad, but easier to let LEO's know, submit police report to the insurance and go from there. YOu MAY hold the badguy at gunpoint outside of home. But as long as BAD guy does not attempt to kill you you cannot shoot him for trying to steal your bass boat or something.
If you fire on a bad guy inside your home and they run away, dont fire again. Or it will be YOU that get put into jail for killing bad guy trying to run away in the back.
Castle Doctrine as lethal force in defense of home or family is supported and advocated to the public in Arkansas.
Your home means you have retreated. There is no more retreat availible to you.
Someone breaking into your dwelling. You fire whatever it is you want to at the bad guy. It should stop the action. Sometimes bad guy dies.
DONT Fire on a bad guy standing on your land yelling threats at your home. YOU MAY bring weapon with you to walk outside and ask who the stranger is and what he is doing trespassing onto your land? But it's usually easier to call LEO's and let them come get him outside.
Property crimes outside of the home are bad, but easier to let LEO's know, submit police report to the insurance and go from there. YOu MAY hold the badguy at gunpoint outside of home. But as long as BAD guy does not attempt to kill you you cannot shoot him for trying to steal your bass boat or something.
If you fire on a bad guy inside your home and they run away, dont fire again. Or it will be YOU that get put into jail for killing bad guy trying to run away in the back.
Titan6
member
You are not being argumentative. It is the modification of the code that came from the bill. It is the same thing. You just have to read all of it. The law allows for no retreat anywhere you are allowed to be but includes your home.
Why? The law gives me more rights because I live in the county? That is ridiculous.
Two points:
- First, felony trespass is difficult to determine. It often goes to what a reasonable person might think.
- Second deadly force is different than assault. Killing someone for stealing something while legal in Texas (at night) is different than assaulting someone and illegal most other places.
Example: I see the actor stealing my chain saw. I point my gun at the actor. "I say stop or I will shoot!" I have just committed assault; but my actions are protected under the color of law (in most states) to protect my property. The problem is what happens next. Most likely the actor will drop the chain saw and run away. If I shoot him in the back and kill him I most likely commit murder/ manslaughter. If it is night time in Texas, GTG although in my mind there will be some serious explaining at the pearly gates.
Again in most cases I would agree. But there times (seldom) when I would disagree.
I think we agree more than we disagree.
I am aware of the no retreat provision. We don't have it. Our laws are modeled after Florida's, but theirs has evolved to include no retreat and protection of guns locked in cars in employer parking lots. On the downside, not that it's relevant to our discussion, printing is a serious thing down there, and not so much here. Georgia no longer has a duty to retreat, nor do Texas and Arizona.
The no retreat provision does not, in my mind, extend the castle law. It simply says that, if one is outside and in a place where he or she can legally be, one mounting a defense of justifiability cannot be challenged on whether he first retreated as far as safely possible before using deadly force. At one time, that was one of the conditions of justifiability set forth in Texas Code Section 9.32 for justification. No more.
When you are outside, while you (and Arizonans, Texans, your Florida neighbors, and others) need not first try to retreat, you still must provide evidence that the threat of death or serious bodily harm was imminent. The castle law enables one who is inside to presume that unlawful entry per se is evidence of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Most, but not all, such laws also remove the duty to retreat.
Country vs. suburban? In a suburban environment it's just plain foolish, in my view, to put oneself at physical, civil, and criminal risk rather than call in what you pay for, while in a rural environment I think the county sheriff would rather that you attended to the bears or the banging in the shed, largely because it would be all over before he got there anyway. It's a practical matter. Make sense? And, who is going to get bent out of shape when you go outside with a shotgun? Where's the downside?
On the other hand, we just came back home from a first communion party across the street. One of the boys had been visiting relatives in an area with big hilly yards where I once shot at tin cans. The boys had been playing with airsoft guns and jumping around in the backs of pick up trucks. Someone driving by reported terrorist activity and a whole convoy of heavily armed LEOs showed up.
No, I really can't walk around outside with a gun in my hand here.
I am aware of the no retreat provision. We don't have it. Our laws are modeled after Florida's, but theirs has evolved to include no retreat and protection of guns locked in cars in employer parking lots. On the downside, not that it's relevant to our discussion, printing is a serious thing down there, and not so much here. Georgia no longer has a duty to retreat, nor do Texas and Arizona.
The no retreat provision does not, in my mind, extend the castle law. It simply says that, if one is outside and in a place where he or she can legally be, one mounting a defense of justifiability cannot be challenged on whether he first retreated as far as safely possible before using deadly force. At one time, that was one of the conditions of justifiability set forth in Texas Code Section 9.32 for justification. No more.
When you are outside, while you (and Arizonans, Texans, your Florida neighbors, and others) need not first try to retreat, you still must provide evidence that the threat of death or serious bodily harm was imminent. The castle law enables one who is inside to presume that unlawful entry per se is evidence of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Most, but not all, such laws also remove the duty to retreat.
Country vs. suburban? In a suburban environment it's just plain foolish, in my view, to put oneself at physical, civil, and criminal risk rather than call in what you pay for, while in a rural environment I think the county sheriff would rather that you attended to the bears or the banging in the shed, largely because it would be all over before he got there anyway. It's a practical matter. Make sense? And, who is going to get bent out of shape when you go outside with a shotgun? Where's the downside?
On the other hand, we just came back home from a first communion party across the street. One of the boys had been visiting relatives in an area with big hilly yards where I once shot at tin cans. The boys had been playing with airsoft guns and jumping around in the backs of pick up trucks. Someone driving by reported terrorist activity and a whole convoy of heavily armed LEOs showed up.
No, I really can't walk around outside with a gun in my hand here.
Titan6
member
I don't know about that. I would compare 911 response times to DC any day of the week.
Several of the many things wrong with the world these days.
Why do people that that saying "As an ex-XXXXX" that there opinion is more informed or more valid? I am sorry, but isn't a plumber's / babysitter's opinion just as valid as some ex-SEAL? Of course it is, possibly more so.
As a current citizen, tax payer, resident of the state of Texas and the United States of America, I urge congress to quit meddling in our RKBA. These weapons are not issued to any military in the world.
As a current citizen, tax payer, resident of the state of Texas and the United States of America, I urge congress to quit meddling in our RKBA. These weapons are not issued to any military in the world.
shiftyer1
Member
All I know is that if someones on my property 911 is not an option because I live far enough out that the sheriff would show up tomorrow. So investigating noises fall on me and between all the critters including snakes and feral dogs and wild boars, I never go poking around outside unarmed in the middle of the night. I guess maybe I better go to the police academy.
Sounds prudent to me.
Interesting thing: five decades ago and more, I had an uncle who farmed about twenty miles from the nearest town on a state highway. The nearest farm was so far away that we couldn't see houselights, but the highway was at the end of the driveway--maybe three quarters of a mile from the house. I recall knowing that there was a single-barrel break-open shotgun in a closet (empty) and a .32 S&W Hopkins and Allen revolver in a drawer (loaded). They drove everywhere unarmed and went around the farm unarmed night and day. They kept the doors unlocked.
I cannot imagine doing those things today.
That comment arose from discussion of the idea of citizens investigating possible prowlers in a suburban environment in Atlanta. Different environment.
There's been plenty of discussion on it, but consider this: You go outside at night to investigate a noise in a rural area, and there's some risk of ambush, animal attack, or whatever, but what's your alternative? The suburban citizen has an alternative, and he also has one risk that you probably do not: that someone may have called in about a prowler, the police are on the scene, and our citizen shows up with gun in hand...
Probably is, but it does happen--has happened, indoors and out.
The comment is a good one and I'll try to give it the constructive answer that it deserves.
The possibility is covered in books and in tactical training scenarios.
Why? In risk management, one needs to take into account both the likelihood that a risk will materialize and the potential consequences.
In the case of possibly coming upon a policeman, should it happen, it could turn out very very bad!
The likelihood that one will ever need to use either a fire extinguisher or poison antidote, or that a weather alarm radio, carbon monoxide alarm, or smoke alarm, etc. will ever come into play in a life-threatening situation is extremely low ("remote," probably, or maybe even "less than remote," in accepted risk management terms). However, since the potential consequences are "extremely severe" (possible death) for most of those absent mitigation, many people do have some or all of these items at home.
The first step in risk managment is to identify the risks; the second is to analyze them, in terms of both likelihood and potential consequences; the third is to consider and select among various risk mitigation approaches or to simply decide to accept one or more of the risks. After that come the finalization of a risk management plan; implementation, and tracking and monitoring.
That method, and variations thereof, are widely employed in system engineering, health and safety management, business planning, military strategy, architecture, investment decisions, and particularly in the last few years, in the implementation of internal controls over financial reporting--and there are many other applications.
To bring this back into the context of the citizen investigating a possible prowler, I'll jot down a few of the risks as step 1:
- Citizen is ambushed.
- Citizen is encountered by a policeman who is already investigating.
- Citizen shoots, is charged with homicide, and is acquitted.
- Citizen shoots, is charged with homicide, and is convicted.
- Citizen shoots and faces civil suit and wins.
- Citizen shoots, faces civil suit, and loses.
- Citizen encounters someone, points gun, and faces criminal charge (wins or loses).
- Citizen encounters someone, points gun, and faces civil suit (wins or loses).
- Citzen shoots, hits an innocent party other than the person being sought, and faces civil suit.
There may be others worth considering but I'll stop there.
The likelihood of any one of these happening is debatable, hard if not impossible to quantify objectively, and probably very low at best. The likelihood of one of them occurring is obviously somewhat higher.
But the potential consequences of some of them include serious injury or death, very expensive legal expenses and very protracted proceedings, loss of one's fortune, a criminal record with attendant loss of gun rights and employability, and/or loss of personal freedom. Personally, I see any one of those as being extremely severe.
For me, again personally, I see no upside and a whole lot of downside, and for that reason I'm not prepared to accept any of those risks.
That's for a suburban scenario.
This has been discussed in various threads before, with people who have taken training, instructors, LEOs, and attorneys often advising against accepting any of those risks. In our State CCW class, the instruction was to not try it.
Way out in the country, some of those risks, but not all, may effectively fall off the list of possibilities, the alternatives to going out are far more limited, and other risks may come into play if one does not do something.
Pardon the length of this, but I thought the comment (with which I agree) deserved a thought-out answer, and I do hope that this answer proves helpful.
Last edited:
shiftyer1
Member
I understand that more options are available in a city setting. I also have seen response time to a 911 call be over an hour, and depending on the neighborhood nobody ever sees anything. Considering the possible consequences I would still investigate. Some folks just gotta be stubborn. (meanin me) My stuff is just that..........MINE.
GojuBrian
Member
I wouldn't go outside with a firearm to 'investigate'. If I were really that suspicious, I would simply call the LEO's and let them do their job.
I would arm myself and stay alert inside my secure home.
I would arm myself and stay alert inside my secure home.
wow----------internet cops, lawers, judges
damn right i would check it out, and with my gun in my hand.
i have a 1mill light in all my autos. pretty cheap and very handy for lots of things.
i can check my neighbors house from 1/2 mile away and most anything you light up with it does the deer in headlight thing.
no bg as of yet but have spoted a cupple teens tee pee ing a neighbors house. you should have seen them run. kept them lit all the way to the next addition down the road and all the dogs were comming out to greet them barking like hell. me and the neighbor that had woke up and came out were laughing our b--ts off, plus we got around 30 free rolls of tp.
damn right i would check it out, and with my gun in my hand.
i have a 1mill light in all my autos. pretty cheap and very handy for lots of things.
i can check my neighbors house from 1/2 mile away and most anything you light up with it does the deer in headlight thing.
no bg as of yet but have spoted a cupple teens tee pee ing a neighbors house. you should have seen them run. kept them lit all the way to the next addition down the road and all the dogs were comming out to greet them barking like hell. me and the neighbor that had woke up and came out were laughing our b--ts off, plus we got around 30 free rolls of tp.
HarleyFixer
Member
That wouldn't work where I live. I might see a SO 2-3 times a year. If you value ANYTHING around here YOU have to protect it. BTW yes I have succesfully "defended" my property and life on numerous occasions but then I probably have quite a bit more training than the average person.
We often tend to state our opinions based on our own environments. My house is less than seventy five feet from the houses on either side or the one across the street and 911 should bring a response in minutes. For me. going outside to investigate potential danger is all downside and no upside.
In a much more remote location, hunkering down (armed and ready to fire) and waiting for help might make sense if I knew I were under attack--but then it might not in all cases. And what would the sheriff's office say if I called and said "I hear someone near the shed" or "there's a truck at on my property and I heard voices" ?
Both of the above posts are right, in my humble opinion.
One thing about living in the country: you are alone and your kitchen light is a beacon for anyone on the road looking to exchange his getaway car or steal money, propane, anhydrous ammonia, or weapons, or to attack someone. You can't just sit in the house with the shotgun by the door. That's why many people have security systems and extremely bright lights that illuminate the property.
That's a change from when I was a kid, and it's too bad.
- Status
