UPDATED - Lady friend discovers tactical utility of Dragon's Breath...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've emailed links to several people when this thread was started. One co-worker keeps asking me if I've shot any Dragon's Breath yet, then informs me he wants to be there when I do! :D

Thanks for the follow-up! This is still one of my favorite threads here on THR.
 
Darrin,

If we happen to have a TN THR shoot on a rainy day, or the day after a good rain, I'll bring some. I bought a few rounds at Knob Creek last fall and haven't had the opportunity to shoot them.
 
Am I the only one who is disturbed by the wife immediately using deadly force on the intruders? Or at least intending to use deadly force. I'm not familiar with Arkansas law, but most states require the BG to demonstrate the capability, opprotunity, and intent to use deadly force in order to use deadly force in your defense. In the story the only criteria I saw met was opprotunity, and that could be argued.
 
You may not be alone, but I'd guess you're in the minority.

A young mother with kids in the house watching two bangers breaking in? I'd say she was perfectly justified fearing for the safety of her children and self and acted appropriately.
 
Sounds like she got the drop on them. Taking the story at face value, there were no weapons in evidence, other than the homeowner's shotgun. The BGs were still breaking into the home. One was still trying to get in. I'll bet a "Get the hell out of here," with the shotgun pointed at them would have motivated the sufficiently to leave the premisis.

If they continued or refused to leave then I believe they Darwined themselves into the deadly force triangle. They would have the opprotunity, if they stayed the homeowner would have to believe they had the intent and the capability to inflict serious harm on her or her loved ones.

Like I said, I don't know Arkansas law specifically. It may be the case, as those of you in CA pointed out, that just being in the house was sufficient cause. I know that in a majority of the states I've lived in this would not be the case.
 
I am surprised she didn't burn the house down. i gave a buddy a Dragon's Breath round to fire over his lake and he came back and said that the only way he'd shoot another one would be in a boat on the ocean while it was raining!!!

I'm just glad that guy's wife had the intestinal fortitude to do what was necessary to protect home and hearth!! She sounds like a fine wife to have.
 
Dport, it's not quite that simple. In Louisiana, where this happened, there's a good "your home is your castle" law - if someone breaks in, this is considered to be prima facie evidence that they represent a threat to you and/or your family, and you're entitled to use lethal force against them without waiting for them to launch an attack. In a case such as this, where two men were breaking into a house occupied by a woman and two young children, there's also the "disparity of force" legal perspective - she would be automatically at a disadvantage waiting for two stronger men to attack her, and would therefore be justified in taking preventative measures as she did. Finally, her husband's a law enforcement officer, and it has always been regarded as "accepted unless/until proven false" that someone breaking into a LEO's house is probably trying to get revenge, or even, or something like that - so the use of lethal force is more than acceptable under such circumstances (at least, that's the attitude of local LEO's and DA's with whom I've spoken).

Even non-LEO's are given wide latitude in this sort of circumstance. I know of several cases locally where residents used lethal force against intruders, where the intruders were either unarmed or armed only with "weapons" such as a screwdriver or baseball bat. None of the cases made it to the Grand Jury - the DA simply ruled the shootings justified on the spot. I daresay that if a GJ had been empanelled, they would have returned a "no true bill" after about five minutes' wait (or perhaps long enough to have a cup of coffee). People around here have no sympathy whatsoever for BG's... which is as it should be, IMHO.
 
dport...

"Am I the only one who is disturbed by the wife immediately using deadly force on the intruders?"

Wife at home, husband at work.

11:00 at night.

Two young children in bed.

Two intruders, breaking in.

Yeah, I am not disturbed at all by her actions. In fact, I would congratulate her if I ever met her. And if it ever got to a jury trial in which I was a jury member, there is NO way I would vote to find her guilty.
 
Preacherman,
It is that simple. You said it yourself. In LA, I mistakenly thought it was AR, the law says she was justified. That's good enough for me, in that state.

I am well aware of disparity of force and other situations that merit deadly force. In many states, she would have had to retreat, even though they were in her home. There were two intruders, no weapons in evidence, one was no threat as he was still trying to get through the window. Depending on time/distance, I'm using my own house to get a feel for this, she could have issued a warning, which I understand she was under NO obligation to do, and she could have affected the same outcome. I doubt two urban youths are going to face down a 12ga when someone has the drop on them. And if they do, then she already had the advantage.

The absolute last thing I want to do is discharge my firearm at someone. I'm more inclined to look for alternative before using deadly force. Again depending on time/distance, she did not exhaust all her alternatives. Under LA law she was under no obligation to. I realize it's easy to Monday morning quarterback this, and they way I train, if the deadly force triangle is present then deadly force will be used in response.

I wonder if she was truly prepared for the emotional baggage that would go along with taking a life, even if it was justified.
 
Mindset

The story reads to me as if the Lady of the House had her reasons :D

In TX, Criminal Tresspass during the hours of darkness= Deadly force authorized.

Like the man typed, who knows what preceded this event to put her in the mindset of 'not this house', but I bet 'the word' got out that this is definately the wrong house to revisit. And further in the post I read she recovered well enough emotionally to make sure she had her own HD shotty next time. Let's hope there's not a 'next time'.

Personally, I'm glad she was able to defend herself, and appreciate the humor in the story as presented. I have some good experience firing these rounds over water about 50+ yards, and it's a hoot - I cannot imagine the 'singed and soiled' clothes that went back out of that window!
:D Thanks, Preacherman!

Best,
 
In many states she would have had to retreat within her own home? I believe I know of two, but I'll have to try and do some reading on the subject to be sure. Otherwise, two male invaders vs one woman is sufficient threat for deadly force in most states so far as I know. That said it might have been better had she issued a warning(certainly better for the curtains) but I don't think there are many places that would require it.
 
Name a state in which you have to retreat in your own home.

There was such a court decision in Mass. for about ten minutes, then it was overturned. I don't know of any state that requires this today, but I'm willling to be educated.

In Oklahoma we have the aptly-named "Make my day" law. If they are in the house, you are entitled to assume they are there to hurt you. Actually that is the common law, but we passed a law so there would be no temptations for aggressive district attorneys and judges who wanted to make a name for themselves.
 
I was not aware the duty to retreat was overturned in Mass. When I lived in RI I was told I had to retreat (edited to add: I just checked RI law. It explicitly states there is no duty to retreat). IIRC in IL, MO, and VA you don't have to retreat, but you have to justify deadly force. I'm sure if someone had the inclination, which I don't, some enterprising person could find the laws for all 50 states.

This excerpt from www.findlaw.com is a faq about the use of deadly force. Depending on the location, the lady's actions may or may not have been justified, just going on the limited information in the story.

Q : What is considered "reasonable force"?

A : States vary widely on what they consider "reasonable force." In general, if you use force against an intruder, use no more than appears necessary. That is, if a shout sends the burglar running, don't pull a gun and shoot him in the back. If a single blow stops a burglar in his tracks, don't beat him to a pulp. If the intruder isn't threatening bodily harm to someone in the house, you're on shaky ground if you use deadly force. Some courts have held that a homeowner who could retreat safely isn't justified in beating or killing the intruder. Likewise, courts have held that a homeowner isn't justified in attacking a burglar if it appears that a shout or warning would be enough.

What about booby-trapping your home to keep burglars out? Despite the popularity of the movie "Home Alone," people have gotten into serious legal trouble for that sort of thing. Even if you're fed up with repeated break-ins, you can't set up a gun rigged to shoot anyone who comes through the window. First, it's not up to you to impose a death sentence on someone who might try to break in, and second, the next person through the window might be a firefighter trying to save you.

Here's another quote from Findlaw. Other than the misinformed gun stats it pretty much sums up the use of deadly force.
If There's an Intruder in Your House

"Honey, did you hear a noise downstairs?" Everyone's afraid of finding someone in the house at night. If it happens to you, do all you can to avoid a confrontation. Your life is more important than your stuff.
-Run away if you can and call police.
-If you can't get yourself and your family out of the house, lock yourselves in a room.
-If you’re face to face with an intruder, stay calm and be cooperative.

What about using force?

You do have a legal right to protect yourself and your property. Some homeowners keep a gun handy for just such an occasion, although more people get shot with their own guns than use them to frighten off or disable intruders. If you did shoot an intruder or whack him over the head with an iron pipe--then found yourself in court on assault charges--you could argue that you acted in self-defense or in defense of your property. It would be up to the jury to decide whether or not to believe you.

Basically, the law says that you can use reasonable force to defend yourself if you're being attacked or if you have a reasonable belief that you will be. That is, you don't have to wait until the intruder is actually coming at you with a knife. The key word here is "reasonable"; the jury would have to decide whether a reasonable person would have thought that the toy gun was real or that the hand going into the pocket was reaching for a weapon. States vary widely on what they consider "reasonable force." In general, if you use force against an intruder, use no more than appears necessary. That is, if a shout sends the burglar running, don't pull a gun and shoot him in the back. If a single blow stops a burglar in his tracks, don't beat him to a pulp. If the intruder isn't threatening bodily harm to someone in the house, you're on shaky ground if you use deadly force.

Some courts have held that a homeowner who could retreat safely isn't justified in beating or killing the intruder. Likewise, courts have held that a homeowner isn't justified in attacking a burglar if it appears that a shout or warning would be enough.

What about booby-trapping your home to keep burglars out? Despite the popularity of the movie "Home Alone," people have gotten into serious legal trouble for that sort of thing. Even if you're fed up with repeated break-ins, you can't set up a gun rigged to shoot anyone who comes through the window. It's not up to you to impose a death sentence on someone who might try to break in. And the next person through the window might be a firefighter trying to save you.

I'll concede the point about the duty to retreat. It looks like it was just a court ruling. I'm glad I was wrong. I'm no fan of the duty to retreat. However, I believe my point is still valid. Had the lady not been in a state with a "make my day law," as someone put it, she most likely would not have been justified using deadly force.
 
Last edited:
Good on Mom for protecting herself and kids and she was perfectly justified to do so. Bad on Dad for not letting her know what the HD shotgun was stoked with--there would not be quite so many smilies here if she had burned the house down with her kids in it.

Preacher-
Any intel on if it was a real Dragon's Breath and not one of the cheaper (read less intense heat) knock-off muzzle blast rounds?

Denny
 
dport...

"I was not aware the duty to retreat was overturned in Mass."

I do not believe that it has been, but I don't have a ready reference to prove one way or the other. I will try to look and see if I can find something.

However...

The duty to retreat is only in force if you can do so safely. Massad Ayoob makes that observation in the latest American Handgunner in his story about two businessmen who shot and killed an intruder whom they reasonably believed to be armed with a handgun.

In this thread's case, the wife could possibly have escaped herself, but what about the two young children who were asleep? Could she have wakened them and escaped safely? It would be problematical at best.
 
Am I the only one who is disturbed by the wife immediately using deadly force on the intruders? Or at least intending to use deadly force. I'm not familiar with Arkansas law, but most states require the BG to demonstrate the capability, opprotunity, and intent to use deadly force in order to use deadly force in your defense. In the story the only criteria I saw met was opprotunity, and that could be argued.

The fact that she shot first doesn't bother me in the least.
A woman alone trying to defend herself and her family against two gangsters. Just the fact that they broke into her home was enough justification in my mind to let peices of them all over the lawn.
Realistically, she is a cop's wife who was afraid and defending her children from two guys who probably had some kind of record anyway.
Legal or not, I doubt that much would have come of it.
They should have given her a medal.
 
So where does one find these Dragon Breath rounds? A-Z Weapons do not answer their phone and their website is not functioning properly. Sportsman's Guide and CTD do not carry them.
 
I'm glad she did what she did and I'm glad that she has the right to defend herself.

Texas is relatively lenient regarding deadly force.
It is a defense to prosecution if you use deadly force, after dark, to protect property that you can reasonably assume could not be recovered (doesn't matter indoors or out). (at least it was up till 1999, don't know if the law has changed since then).

Yayyyyyyyy!!! Texas!!!! :D
 
An update...

I'm informed that three BG's were taken into custody recently in connection with a burglary last month in a town near here. During "discussions" with the officers, one of them asked why one of the BG's had burn scars on his face. Turns out that the BG was one of the pair that broke into my friend's house, and the burning particles from the Dragon's Breath (at a range from him of about 15 feet!) had embedded themselves in his face. (His friend, behind him, was shielded from the main blast.)

Anyway, turns out he'd taken six months off crime, to recuperate and get his nerve back. Unfortunately for him, he and his two buddies decided to "get back up to speed" by robbing an old lady at 2 in the morning - and she has a pet Rottweiler, who decided that this was free food being presented to him on a silver platter! The one who got in first (through a window) was still there, half in and half out of the window, screaming, when the cops arrived, and the dog was still firmly attached to his leg, with the old lady flatly refusing to call the dog off! :D

Apparently, it took the cops some time to get the dog to let go - he was having too much fun to want to stop. The BG ratted out his buddies to the cops, who speedily arrested the other two, and they'll all be doing two-to-five in the slammer, with any luck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top