What do we think of this man's actions?

[ohwell]

While talking like John Wayne and doing this and that is very macho is it realistic and or smart? 20 guys ? that if they are armed most likely have gun skills at least as good if not better than his and have less reservations than he might in pulling the trigger. There is a video, they interviewed him not much cover on those front steps or in that yard that I could see and if you break the law in regards to fireing a weapon they arent turning their heads they dont want it to become an accepted practice. Please if these are the reactions you think you would really have you need to take a carry class or at least look into the state and federal laws that apply. I sympathise with his situation but his response seems unthoughtout, rushed, illegal and tactfully dangerous. And who uses an AK47 for hunting? Not that you couldnt.

 

[Cosmoline]

Warning shots against humans are virtually always a bad idea, as witnessed by this incident. If there's justification to use deadly force, USE IT. If there isn't, then stay back and in a secure position.

Going out to chat with the gang is just stupid all around, as is firing shots into the ground. Was the ground threatening him?

Think of it this way, your house is itself a key tool to separate out the merely obnoxious from the truly dangerous. Stay inside of it, lock your doors, and whatever kicks the door down or comes in through the window is what you shoot. If you go out on your porch you both lose the concealment and you put yourself in the truly impossible position of sorting out the 19 idiots from the 1 true threat to your life. Even if the threat is shooting at you, you may not be able to see the gun. These guys love hiding behind other people, and they mill around like lemmings. Let them sort themselves out for you, and don't bandy words with them.

If we were discussing a story where a man and his family were killed because 20 armed gang members stormed the house through multiple entraces, and we learned that they had been standing outside threatening the family first, wouldn't someone suggest that the man could have prevented the death of his family by taking the fight outside the house?

No. Because in that case going out and confronting them would have made him an easy target, and they would have simply shot him and walked right in the front door which he thoughtfully unlocked and opened. In no event is coming out and issuing edicts a good idea.

If you wait inside for them you are banking on them not deciding to squeeze a round or 2 into your home.

And if you go out and confront them they can easily kill you, walk over your corpse and do WHATEVER THEY WANT to your family. So again, going out and leaving concealment and cover is a BAD idea. It's natural for men to want to go out and physically confront the threat. We're hard-wired to do it. But you have to resist this instinct and resist it hard. If the threat is genuine it will just get you killed. If the threat isn't genuine, then you can end up doing something stupid like shooting at the ground or worse at unarmed idiots.

 

[Averageman]

What he should have done..
Go in the House.
Arm Yourself.
Call 911
Pack bags, family and Ak and move to Texas where this crap isnt tolerated.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Carl N. Brown: Two men menaced a woman in her front yard. She held them off by brandishing a firearm til she could retreat to safety. The judge ruled she had "an absolute right" to have a gun at her home for self defense and threw out a charge of "going armed".

Weapons possession laws vary, unfortunately, but that's just part of the problem the defendant faces.

Again, if one is accosted in his yard, or across the street, or anywhere else, and if one has reason to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm (disparity of numbers will indeed make a difference), and if one has no alternative to the immediate use of deadly force, one may lawfully pull a gun, point it, and if the threat does not dissipate, shoot to stop. If one can produce sufficient evidence to support his account, and if no one produces strong contradictory evidence, one should be OK, legally. That's the fundamental principle of our self defense laws everywhere.

One might face a weapons charge in some jurisdictions, but his use of deadly force would be justifiable. That is to say, one would not be convicted of assault, aggravated assault, manslaughter, or murder, because his actions were justified.

It looks as if the defendant here made two very serious errors.

The first was in going outside. He did not have to put himself at risk of death or serious bodily injury. In doing so, he most likely eliminated any chance of mounting a successful defense of justification, had it come to the actual use of deadly force.

The second error was firing the warning shots. All responsible trainers and all attorneys I know advise strongly against that. It can weaken or even defeat an argument that deadly force was in fact immediately necessary, and it endangers third parties.

Interestingly, the authorities have charged him only with weapons violations and with said endangerment--and not with unlawfully threatening the perps with a weapon, which would likely have happened in most states. That's good. Fact is, he could well have been charged with much more serious crimes. That's true in most jurisdictions.

We'll see whether his argument that he fired to attract attention via the shots fired locators gets him anywhere.

I know it was Tennessee and not New York, but disparity of force (numbers), reasonable fear of imminent death or greivous bodily harm, and all that are supposedly based on common Anglo-American law.

Yes, and according to the English Common Law, one had the duty to "retreat to the wall" before resorting to deadly force. Same thing where I live.

Some states, including Tennessee, Texas, and several others have eliminated the duty to retreat. Don't try going out with a gun to confront someone in any of them, however, unless your are in Texas, it is night time, the perps are taking your property, and there is no other way to prevent the property from being taken. That's purely from the legal standpoint; you still might end up full of lead.

The things to take away here are that one should never

• Leave a postion of relative safety when a dangerous situation arises;
• Wilfully engage in any confrontation, particularly while armed;
• Present a weapon in any circumstance in which self defense is not jusitified (laws do vary somewhat here);
• Fire warning shots.

I'm not sure the guy isn't getting off easy.

 

[easyg]

I don't see that the homeowner did anything wrong at all.

 

[bpsig]

I HAVE TO AGREE NO WARNING SHOTS. THE THREAT BEING SAID TO YOU ABOUT KILLING YOUR FAMILY WOULD BE THE END OF THAT GROUP OF GANG MEMBERS.
I CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW ANYONE CAN LIVE IN A PLACE THAT IS SO WISHY WASHY TO DEMAND A MOTHER MAY I SAVE MYSELF AND ARREST SOMEONE FOR NOT LETTING THEMSELVES BE KILLED. :banghead:

 

[scorpiostang]

I don't know why everyone is so anti this guys tactics. He acted on instinct, diffused a situation, and then only thing that happened is he put 4 holes in his lawn that you can't even see. In my opinion this shows well placed warning shots worked in the situation and the defendant never lost his head. When you deal with scum criminals in a huge gang they obviously aren't threatened by show of force if they think you won't fire. I also would rather confront them on my terms than have them storm my house or burn it down from the outside. But I'm also no home defense guru so that's just my view. Also being a longislander one has to wonder why I see cops sitting making speed traps when theirs gangs of 20 plus people wondering around.

 

[Sky]

My father is 84 and still fishing and having a good life. He grew up on the (?) second largest ranch is Texas. His father / my grandfather was the foreman on this ranch.

A guy stole two Morgan Mares (horses) from Cherry Homes Ranch and was caught a little while later at a water well. The posse/ranchers cut the rope on the well and took him to a nearby hill where a Live Oak grew and hung the thief. To this day that hill is known as "Dead Mans Hill"..

The ground was rocky and mostly limestone so when they cut him down they didn't even bother to bury him (figured he had been enough trouble). Today we convict people of heinous crimes and they spend how many years on death row? Yes I know we are more civilized now. Tell that to the victims.

In 1903 before the automobile caught on it was a hanging offense to steal a horse in Texas. Back then a hand shake was your bond and your word had meaning; your actions had consequences. Don't get me wrong there certainly were the Good bad and ugly but it just seemed like a lot more good people were in control.

We now stand idly by maybe shooting our mouth off and letting our personal property be defaced destroyed and or stolen. Hoping someone will come to save us because we are believed to be to stupid to protect our own property; beaten down for fear of someones interpretation of some esoteric law written by someone who has never had to face a mob hell bent on doing you or yours bodily harm.

I am a strong supporter of Law and Order and firmly believe it should be EQUAL FOR ALL but should also be flexible enough to be judged to fit the situation. That's what our courts are supposedly for if you have big bucks.

In the old days if this happened in Texas a Ranger or Sheriff might have showed up and said good job. Just my opinion which only means something to me.

I have made it this far and have never been in trouble and plan on making it a bit further with the same results. I am certainly not a warmonger or someone who likes confrontation; neither do I want to have to kill anyone. Have had opportunities to "push a button and make them disappear" in free fire zones but chose not to kill old men and women with babes in their arms digging clams. Probably were gonna feed a battalion of bad guys but it was my decision for I had the button.

The back seat driving on this event (if we have all the facts) is great! We get it out and everyone gets to think and wonder or practice in their mind what they think they would have done.

Very few of us around here have been faced with 25 bad guys letting you know you and yours belong to them. Pray God it never happens to any of us.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by bsig: THE THREAT BEING SAID TO YOU ABOUT KILLING YOUR FAMILY WOULD BE THE END OF THAT GROUP OF GANG MEMBERS.

Well, this is what the criminal code of good ol' gun friendly Texas says about that:

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

You will find that that is the general case in this country.

Here's what good ol' gun friendly Florida puts on the web:

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

I CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW ANYONE CAN LIVE IN A PLACE THAT IS SO WISHY WASHY TO DEMAND A MOTHER MAY I SAVE MYSELF AND ARREST SOMEONE FOR NOT LETTING THEMSELVES BE KILLED.

He was not arrested for not letting himself be killed. Reportedly, he was arrested for a weapons charge and for shooting his gun into the air.

If his objective had been to not let himself be killed, he would have stayed inside and not exposed himself to possible gunfire from those outside.

In going outside with a gun, he put himself in great physical danger, and very fortunately, he came out OK. He most probably also forfeited any chance he might have had in a legal defense, had charges of assault, aggravated assault, or criminal manslaughter been pressed.

This is most unfortunate. It seems that a decent person who was ignorant of the law and who did not think very clearly about the tactical risks inherent in his course of action has gotten into serious trouble with the authorities.

At least he wasn't gunned down by the alleged gang members as he stepped outside.

Maybe, just maybe, others may learn from his misfortune and avoid similar consequences.

I am a real believer in training. What is the law? What should one do in the event of a threat? When is it permissible to present a weapon? What is the best stance, grip, sight picture, trigger pull, etc.? How does one use cover and concealment to best avoid getting killed or injured? What should I do after the encounter? Those are the things one needs to know.

It seem that our defendant here was ill prepared in several of those areas.

I feel for him and hope for the best for him, but I do not put high odds on his acquittal.

Let's avoid following suit.

 

[P.shooter]

A guy stole two Morgan Mares (horses) from Cherry Homes Ranch and was caught a little while later at a water well. The posse/ranchers cut the rope on the well and took him to a nearby hill where a Live Oak grew and hung the thief. To this day that hill is known as "Dead Mans Hill"..

The ground was rocky and mostly limestone so when they cut him down they didn't even bother to bury him (figured he had been enough trouble). Today we convict people of heinous crimes and they spend how many years on death row? Yes I know we are more civilized now. Tell that to the victims.

I won't derail the thread, but I'd love to have a discussion with you sometime about the benefits of trial by jury vs lynching and error rates on death sentences.

Regarding the topic at hand, on the very limited information available I believe he took the right action. No one got hurt. The only place I can see "reckless disregard" is if he fired shots into the air as that AP report said. Strange that they referred to it as a "assault-style rifle" while his sister called it a hunting rifle.

 

[ohwell]

20 people gang members that could have all been armed, Unless his name is Clark Kent or he has a grenade instead of an AK47 and he steps out in the open and fires I feel he's lucky to be alive let alone in trouble for breaking the law they could have shot him and claimed self defense lets be realistic.

 

[crossrhodes]

????

From the interview on Fox he stated he went back out side to help his cousin who was surrounded by the gang. I'm sure the police will use the statements from the 20 law abiding witnesses that were standing around the yard against him.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Why did he go back outside?

Yep ... this is where this guy (first) screwed up.

Go inside, put your family somewhere safe, have them dial 911 and stay on the phone until the cops arrive. Arm yourself and cover the door.

 

[DaisyCutter]

Get your pistol.

Go in your garage,
grab a road flare,
empty your gas can into a 5-gal Home Depot bucket.

Advise the crowd, "Get off my property or you'll get wet".


The crowd will laugh at you.

AS they step forward in defiance, fling the gasoline on the crowd.

Light the flare.



Okay, I jest.



Seriously????


30 gang members on the lawn doesn't happen to regular people.


They all knew each other. Nobody was a stranger. This was over money, drugs, territory, or respect.

 

[uspJ]

30 gang members on the lawn doesn't happen to regular people.


They all knew each other. Nobody was a stranger. This was over money, drugs, territory, or respect.

This is what I was thinking. I would have liked for the story to have a bit more elaboration into what set this chain of events into motion.

 

[HerrWolfe]

He screwed up. Firing a gun to get folks off the lawn is illegal, pure and simple. I don't doubt for a minute that if any one of the "gang members" had forcefully entered his home, he could have used a firearm to legally and permanently detained that person. Think about it...would you want some high and mighty homeowner to shoot a kid [gang banger] that came on his lawn just to get a softball [shoot off his mouth].

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I find it interesting that the shooter is living out the notion of being judged by 12 instead of being carried by 6 like so many folks here claim as a mantra or who have otherwise expressed the sentiment, yet so many are condemning him.

My father is 84 and still fishing and having a good life. He grew up on the (?) second largest ranch is Texas. His father / my grandfather was the foreman on this ranch.

A guy stole two Morgan Mares (horses) from Cherry Homes Ranch and was caught a little while later at a water well. The posse/ranchers cut the rope on the well and took him to a nearby hill where a Live Oak grew and hung the thief. To this day that hill is known as "Dead Mans Hill"..

The ground was rocky and mostly limestone so when they cut him down they didn't even bother to bury him (figured he had been enough trouble). Today we convict people of heinous crimes and they spend how many years on death row? Yes I know we are more civilized now. Tell that to the victims.

In 1903 before the automobile caught on it was a hanging offense to steal a horse in Texas.

Interesting. I can find nothing on Cherry Homes Ranch, Dead Man's Hill, or the penalty for stealing horses was ever hanging in Texas. I am fairly certain that lynching was never legal under Texas law. Those who were hanged for stealing horses were lynched.

 

[Diggers]

This guy did a stupid thing going inside to get a gun then going back outside.

He was arrested for negligent behavior, which the police or DA is saying endangered lives. i.e. firing the AK 4 times in that situation.

It seems he intentionally fired the gun into his lawn....SO the reason for the arrest seems pretty thin.

HOWEVER what DaisyCutter said 30 gang members in your front lawn doesn't happen to regular folks.

Its like what a DA I know says. She says 99% of home invasions are in some way drug related. i.e Some one in the home is in the drug trade.

The other 1% are mostly mistakes because they got the address wrong.


So yeah the odds are good this guy isn't just some average joe, these guys probably had a reason to be there.

 

[ohwell]

I find it interesting that the shooter is living out the notion of being judged by 12 instead of being carried by 6 like so many folks here claim as a mantra or who have otherwise expressed the sentiment, yet so many are condemning him.

I am not condemning him personally just his actions. He plain and simple broke the law that in some peoples eyes makes him no different than the people he accosted. I hope nothing like this ever happens to anyone specially the people that would repeat how he handled the situation if they dont end up dead they will most likely lose their gunownership rights depending on the state laws where they live. I believe all gun owners have an obligation to learn and follow the existing laws in their own areas so they dont needlessly put pressure on politicians to pass more restrictive laws and mess it up for the rest of us.

 

[bgrav321]

I was just thinking some about the whole safer on your porch or in the house deal. While it may not be tactically sound, if 30 people are coming into your house, they will already have the weapons drawn, and you really don't have that much chance of survival. AND, your family is almost certain to get slotted as well. By stepping onto the porch, he put any confrontation as far away from his loved ones as possible, and I think he would have had the drop on them as well.

They come in, they're armed and fingers on the trigger. And they would have come in probably multiple doors and windows, and he would have died quickly. On the porch, they're all in front of him, and people are reluctant to make a move when there is a Kalashnikov pointed at them first.

This guy did technically break the law, but I guess I'm just sort of doubting the hide in your house and it will all be ok wisdom, but ONLY because there are 30 of them. In most cases I would agree with it but his decisision (this is conjecture) probably protected his family and kept a potential bloodbath outside his home. He, and his AK, were between the potential perps and those he cared about.

One more thing, this is another good reason for justification of assault weapons in the hands of civilians (in case you needed one.) A remington 700 sporting rifle just doesn't cut it for this kind of stuff...

 

[Sky]

Correction!!!

Spoke with dad this morning. It was Cherryhomes ranch not Cherry Hills.... I was maybe 8 when he told me the story so I think that is pretty good!!

Also Sid my grandfather was foreman on the Johnson Brothers ranch which claimed (even had a sign) to be the largest Polled Hereford ranch in Texas.

Dad used to have to do the cattle drives to market when he was around 12 years old and hated it. Still had rustlers and BGs along the trail or so he was lead to believe.

Only the old ranchers and some of their kids know of Dead Man's Hill ; it's not like it's a public record duly recorded in the court house with full legal description and all that..

It was a different time back then.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by bgrav321: I was just thinking some about the whole safer on your porch or in the house deal. While it may not be tactically sound, if 30 people are coming into your house, they will already have the weapons drawn, and you really don't have that much chance of survival.

If thirty people are coming into the house, you would have a battle royal, but no one was coming in to his house. The guy said he was afraid that they would harm his family, but to my knowledge, none of the castle doctrines in this country, either those embodied in statutes or those based on case law, permit the use of deadly force simply because someone is concerned that a person or persons may enter the house unlawfully.

By stepping onto the porch, he put any confrontation as far away from his loved ones as possible, and I think he would have had the drop on them as well.

He also exposed himself to potential gunfire. "Had the drop on them"? Try a little paintball with thirty against one who is not behind cover and see what happens.

Reflect for a moment what would happen next, had the famiiy been the targets.

This guy did technically break the law,

If one technically breaks the law, he breaks the law, unless he can mount a successful necessity defense. I do not know if that would be possible in a case like this.

He, and his AK, were between the potential perps and those he cared about.

For a moment, anyway. Now he doesn't have his AK. And had shots been fired, well--let's go back and see what Cosmoline said about that:

Posted by Cosmoline: And if you go out and confront them they can easily kill you, walk over your corpse and do WHATEVER THEY WANT to your family. So again, going out and leaving concealment and cover is a BAD idea.

One more thing, this is another good reason for justification of assault weapons in the hands of civilians (in case you needed one.) A remington 700 sporting rifle just doesn't cut it for this kind of stuff...

We do not refer to semi-automatic rifles as assault weapons here. Yes, a carbine or shotgun can be effective for home defense in the hands of a trained shooter, but only if he or she is not put out of action first.

Frankly, it is never a good idea to shoot anything other than a shotgun with birdshot into the air in a densely populated area. The chance of hitting an innocent is too high--and the shooter would be responsible.

Looking back, it seems as if the shooter made four mistakes, any of which is potentially serious:

1. By going outside, he put mimself at great risk of being killed or injured and disarmed, and he may have lost any chance of a successful defense of justification had he needed to shoot;
2. By pointing the gun at people simply because they were in his yard and wer making verbal threats, he put himself at risk of being charged with assault, aggravated assault, or brandishing;
3. By firing his weapon into the air, he put others at risk and further increased his exposure to serious assault charges;
4. Doing these things resulted not only in his being charged with crimes, but also in his weapon being taken, leaving his family defenseless.

Obviously, it could have been worse.

One has to wonder what he was thinking. Did he not realize the danger of going out into the open? Did he think he could gun down the entire crowd? Did he think that, if he did get them to leave, they would not return? Was he unaware of the dangers of firing into the air in a densely populated area? Was he really relying on the shots fired locator to bring the police quickly?

I am sure that the defendant in this case would do things a lot differently, given a chance to face the situation over again.

I am also pretty sure that he had not had competent training or instruction in either the legal or the tactical aspects of home defense.

I would be interested in knowing whether the defendant got his ideas about what would be proper and what would be effective from books or movies or television.

One other thing. In Post #23, bubba613 made this pertinent observation:

An AK, while kewl and all, screams ninja. If he had used a Marlin 30-30....

Jury simulations have indeed shown that the chance of conviction is higher, and the likely penalty is more severe, when one uses kinds of guns that appear more threatening than the norm. I don't think it should be that way, but it is. How this may impact the outcome for the defendant remains to be seen, but it is something to reflect upon in the selection of defensive weapons.

 

[ColdDeadHand]

Time to leave NY.
Why do so many people submit to fascist rule?

 

[FLAvalanche]

What do I think of this man's actions?

He did what he thought he had to do to protect his family.

When it comes down to the nitty gritty and it's time for you to protect your family are you going to do it or are you going to hesitate and worry about laws?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by ColdDeadHand: Time to leave NY. Why do so many people submit to fascist rule?

Anyone who believes that New York and the neighboring states are unusual in this regard needs a reality check and really needs to consult with a knowledgeable local criminal attorney before he or she finds himself in the same predicament as the defendant.

New York's laws on gun ownership and on the carrying of weapons are unduly restrictive, but the laws on self defense are for the most part pretty reasonable and are similar to those in many other states. Some states are better--stronger castle doctrine, no duty to retreat--but those differences will not help the defendant here at all.

Had this incident (someone going outside with a firearm and threatening people who had been making verbal threats) occurred in Arizona, the defendant would most probably been charged with aggravated assault. In Missouri, at least the felony charge of exhibiting a deadly weapon in a threatening manner when not engaged in a lawful act of self defense would be brought to bear. In Florida, he would face mandatory prison time. In Colorado, Kansas, Texas, Virginia--I could go on and on. And I haven't even come to what happens when one fires a gun in a municipality when not engaged in lawful self-defense.

There seems to be a wide-spread misconception that New York criminal code is somehow a lot different from those in other states. Well, New York started out with the same English Common Law that formed the basis of the original codes in every other state except Louisiana. In fact, until a castle doctrine was codified where I live in Missouri, the laws here were just about the same. When an incident occurs outside of one's domicile or automobile, Missouri laws are virtually indistinguishable in effect from those in New York State.

Not that that change matters here. Get a gun and go out and point it at people and you are in hot water just about everywhere. And then shoot it? That's worse. The idea that the defendant has been victimized by New York laws is simply not properly founded.

Posted by FLAvalanch: He did what he thought he had to do to protect his family.

Yes indeed. Too bad he exercised such poor judgment.

When it comes down to the nitty gritty and it's time for you to protect your family are you going to do it or are you going to hesitate and worry about laws?

Well, I'm going to try to do it, but you can bet your boots that I 'm going to try something that works and something that is not likely to get me killed or maimed, and I sure do hope I know when I'm justified under the law.

The poor defendant isn't much help to his family now, and when he rejoins them without any hope of ever owning a firearm again, his ability to protect them will be impaired.

It could have been worse. He could have been killed or maimed, or he could have shot someone and been convicted of manslaughter. Fact is, had he been killed, the shooter might well have prevailed in a claim of self defense.

Had he stayed indoors, the gang might well have left; he would not have made a target of himself; and had it stopped there, the pour soul would not be out on bond awaiting trial. Had they broken in, and presented such a threat to his safety that he had no alternative to deadly force--well, it comes down to how well he could use his AK-47.