Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Getback on December 28, 2008, 10:55:31 AM
-
Just called the police for the 2nd time this week. Earlier some one tried to break into my garage. I noticed the light was on and it shouldn't have been. Then today just about 30 minutes ago a pickup pulls up and parks by my house. I think I have guests so I throw some clothes on but no one knocks on the door. So I think maybe they are looking at my neighbors house that is abandoned. I step outside and it's a bunch of teenagers trying to break into my neighbors house. They see me and run. I got there license plates # and gave that to the police. However I think it's a stolen dealers plate that they probably ripped off immediately. Geeze, I am thinking seriously about getting a handgun for the first time in my life.
-
If you've never owned/used a handgun that is probably not the preferred defense weapon for you. While certainly not a lost investment it will not provide you the proficiency on the front end that a short (legal minimum) barreled shotgun will. You can purchase a quality pump 12 gauge shotgun for a few hundred bucks and load it with buckshot. You now have a forgiving weapon that will allow you to defend your castle (remember that phrase when researching your applicable gun laws) that will not require the time and effort to achieve and maintain a level of proficiency a first handgun will require.
We had kids breaking into barns/sheds and had our tractor stolen when I was in high school. The advice the Sheriffs left with us was if we needed to shoot someone to make sure that you killed them. Don't shoot at anyone to scare them, "wing" them or anything but end their life. Doing either of the former opens up many more problems than anything it would ever solve.
Stay safe.
-
I worked security for a while and had to get a gun permit. Also I had to qualify with a hand gun. I told them I had never owned one. However I scored really high on the test shooting with both hands. I think that comes from my squirrel hunting days with open sights.
-
Just called the police for the 2nd time this week. Earlier some one tried to break into my garage. I noticed the light was on and it shouldn't have been. Then today just about 30 minutes ago a pickup pulls up and parks by my house. I think I have guests so I throw some clothes on but no one knocks on the door. So I think maybe they are looking at my neighbors house that is abandoned. I step outside and it's a bunch of teenagers trying to break into my neighbors house. They see me and run. I got there license plates # and gave that to the police. However I think it's a stolen dealers plate that they probably ripped off immediately. Geeze, I am thinking seriously about getting a handgun for the first time in my life.
Get a 12 gauge or 10 gauge shotgun with goose shot or buck shot in it.
-
Just called the police for the 2nd time this week. Earlier some one tried to break into my garage. I noticed the light was on and it shouldn't have been. Then today just about 30 minutes ago a pickup pulls up and parks by my house. I think I have guests so I throw some clothes on but no one knocks on the door. So I think maybe they are looking at my neighbors house that is abandoned. I step outside and it's a bunch of teenagers trying to break into my neighbors house. They see me and run. I got there license plates # and gave that to the police. However I think it's a stolen dealers plate that they probably ripped off immediately. Geeze, I am thinking seriously about getting a handgun for the first time in my life.
Depending on the state you live in, and the laws regarding "self-defense" I wouldn't recommend buying a handgun to defend against a intruder. They've (legal system) have made it virtually impossible to do this anymore, watch the movie Felon. I've had experience with my apartment being broken into, and decided to get a security system, and a nice door wedge (fits under the door knob).
I used to be in the United States Marine Corps. and have been trained with both armed and unarmed combat, but, I have enough common sense and legal smarts to know that with my training, and the way that the law is in favor of the criminal, my rear end would be in hotter water than the person breaking into my home. Sometimes, using your brain instead of your brawn is the ideal path to explore. As much as I'd like to say bash their brains in, I wouldn't want to put that machoistic mentality into someone only to see them get the cuffs thrown on them in the end.
Continue calling the police, lock your windows and doors, install deadbolts and a security system in your garage and home, and talk to your neighbors about suspicious individuals lurking around in the neighborhood. Living in constant fear of your personal belongings being stolen is horrible, and no one should have to experience it, but it's something that unfortunately happens to millions of people every year, possibly, every day. You'll get through this.
I worked security for a while and had to get a gun permit. Also I had to qualify with a hand gun. I told them I had never owned one. However I scored really high on the test shooting with both hands. I think that comes from my squirrel hunting days with open sights.
That's nice and all, but until the day you've taken human life, you'll never be able to honestly say that you'd be able to do so. Firing a warning shot could prove to be just as effective as shooting one of the punks, just make sure you shoot in a safe area. Better yet, load a few blanks, so no worries about a round getting discharged and hitting someone a 1/4 mile down the road.
Like I said, use your head, and you'll get through this unphased. Keep calling the 5-0, use your tax dollars to the full exent.
-
I worked security for a while and had to get a gun permit. Also I had to qualify with a hand gun. I told them I had never owned one. However I scored really high on the test shooting with both hands. I think that comes from my squirrel hunting days with open sights.
There's a big differance between being at the range, take aim for 30 secs and hit close from the bulleyes at 20y and being under stress being someone is in your living room, and shooting at someone without having a chance to aim while your hand is all shaky. Most in this board will tell you they are cool hand luke John Wayne all in one, but don't fool yourself. Just go to the range, rent a 45, put a target at 25y, lower ur gun toward the ground, then raise it and shoot 4 shots without using the iron sight as fast as you can, and see how well you did. Big diff.
At any rate, shooting someone in self defense, even an armed guy who broke into your home is going to start a snowbolling series of events in your life that will probably made you wish u'd let the guy run away with your TV. :uhoh
-
Get you some white chaulk and draw a outline of a body on the ground in front of the garage :aok
-
At any rate, shooting someone in self defense, even an armed guy who broke into your home is going to start a snowbolling series of events in your life that will probably made you wish u'd let the guy run away with your TV.
"Armed guy"? "snowbolling series of events"?
Like the guy killing you?
-
What you think will happen once you have a dead body in your house? You call the police, they knock at your door, pat you in the back, and you all go have a beer? Meanwhile, the parents and friends of mister scary realize how evil their loved one was, and decide to volonteer to the Salvation Army?
-
What you think will happen once you have a dead body in your house? You call the police, they knock at your door, pat you in the back, and you all go have a beer? Meanwhile, the parents and friends of mister scary realize how evil their loved one was, and decide to volonteer to the Salvation Army?
Being that I am a Policeman Frenchy I think I have a pretty good idea about what would happen.
Trust me, anything that "could" happen is a whole lot better then you being the dead body in your house.
-
Frankly, I don't want to kill anyone. If you could see the look on one of those guys faces, like he was making a decision. It was scary and I was concerned for my life. To take some ones life for stealing a radio, power tool or about anything material is unwarranted. However, I sure don't want to be a statistic. As of right now I am installing some security devices and tomorrow I am putting up a 6 ft fence or at least starting one. Then I am getting another dog. Someone stole my sweet Amadeus. I think it was the neighbors who abandoned the house next to me.
I couldn't believe the gull of these guys showing up in daylight. They would have had to be casing the place. I heard a vehicle very early this morning. I looked out the window but couldn't see it. I bet they were in my driveway with their lights out. When I heard this truck I recognized the sound from this morning.
Anyway, I am taking some security measures. Best get started.
-
I had the same problem a while back, punks ripping off my garage, and I bought a video seurity system. Haven't gotten any action on it yet, but I'm sure I will next summer. I'm able to monitor it while at work, during the work day is when most of the breakins occured, so the po po's are just a phone call away.
-
Move to Colorado. We have the "Make my day" law. Some people call it the castle law. Fairly cut and dried with its function and use.
-
I had the same problem a while back, punks ripping off my garage, and I bought a video seurity system. Haven't gotten any action on it yet, but I'm sure I will next summer. I'm able to monitor it while at work, during the work day is when most of the breakins occured, so the po po's are just a phone call away.
Which one do you have? Been thinking about that for some time.
-
if you have ever seen "it takes a theif" on discovery there are alot of easy cheap solutions to tighten up security around the house. Locks and bars and things.
I've had neighbors houses broken into and I went into hysteria mode and got a gun, but like some else said you can't just live in fear, so the cheaper easier solution that helps you sleep soundly is to beef up your security measures so your can keep them out instead of waiting them to come in so you can use your gun.
And as someone else said gun laws vary, and how you can use them. I know in florida I am fully authorized to shoot and kill someone if they are breaking into my home and I feel my life is in danger, however as others said I don't think i could A. ever kill anyone and B. In the heat of the moment be able to even aim properly. So the gun is more or less an intimidation measure, plus i got a cop next door who has an arsenal in his house :devil
just fix up all the possible ways they can get in and check out "it takes a theif" im sure they have a website with tips.
-
What you think will happen once you have a dead body in your house? You call the police, they knock at your door, pat you in the back, and you all go have a beer?
There are many states in the U.S. that have a "make my day" law. They are based on the Castle Doctrine. Many of these states have added a "Stand your Ground" clause to the Castle Doctrine.
Many of these states give the homeowner immunity from a civil lawsuit.
Here is a snipped from the law in North Carolina.
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section..[15]
Oklahoma, where I lived for many years, passed it's "Make my Day" law back in 1987. The law was pushed through by Sen Charles Ford (R) who said about the law....
"the purpose of the law is to protect the victim of crime who defends his home and his family against unlawful intrusion from any criminal prosecution or civil action," Sen Ford said last week.
"We considered it outrageous that someone who protects his home and family should suffer. Our law says you can use any force, including deadly force, to defend your home."
So yes, in many states in the United States if you catch someone in your house, you can shoot and kill them and face no repercussions. You do not have to even announce yourself. Someone breaks into your home in Oklahoma and you can kill them and are immune to criminal and civil prosecution.
Not sure if the officers will take you out for a beer after they show up, but I had several friends who were in law enforcment in OK and knowing them it is possible.
(edit: I might also add that burglery in Oklahoma dropped a TON after the law was passed. It almost was cut in half in just a few years)
-
My Dad always said if your going to shoot some one make sure you Kill them!
By the way. Some states require that the Criminal intruder be dead in the House, not just on the property. So if the slime bag crawls out the door, drag him back in!
Here is a thing to think about! If you do get a Gun/Pistol/Rifle to defend your house, make sure that you are willing to pull that trigger! Because if you don't most likely the criminal will be willing to take it from you and use it.
-
What states allow this "make my day" rule? You provided two, but there are fifty states.
-
Getback, as others have said its very important to know your states gun laws before you protect yourself with a gun. In many states you must be in immediate physical danger to shoot someone. In some states you literally need to back yourself into your closet and wait for the bad guy to come to you and threaten your life before you can shoot. Some of the things suggested here like firing warning shots before you shoot someone or loading blanks would end up with you in jail in a few states. And killing a teenager for petty theft from your neighbors house isn't going to go over very well anywhere in the country. Not to mention, killing someone for theft will likely weigh heavily on your own mind for years.
Where exactly do you live? If you think the neighbors stole your dog, you have abandoned houses around you, and you have repeated problems with crime at your house and around the neighborhood, I can't help but wonder why you still live there? I understand sentimental value of houses that have been in the family for a long time or even the feelings associated with being ran out of your own neighborhood, but at some point you've got to take a step back and look at the big picture.
I lived in a crappy area (Riverside, CA) for long enough to appreciate what you are going through. I then moved to a much smaller but rapidly expanding town in Arizona that wasn't much better. Hard drugs were the main problem in both areas. After years of dealing with the problems of living in these types of areas, not just the crime but everything, my wife and I made a conscious decision to re-prioritize our lives and put more value on our day to day lifestyles. We moved to a small mountain town and never looked back. When we rented our current house it was on a handshake, and we've never even got keys to our front door. I haven't taken the keys out of my truck ignition for years. I leave my fancy down jacket or sunglasses at the local bar and they are waiting for me when I come back. We had a very small crime wave a few summers ago when some meth heads were passing through town (its too cold for them here in the winter). I heard of 2 cars being broke into and some things were stolen. These guys were found and 'ran out of town' before the cops even really knew what was going on.
All I'm saying is you are not trapped in your current situation and you can make changes that will end the crime and end the thoughts of protecting yourself with a gun. Well maybe thats not completely true... I have a shotgun at the ready for 'home defense' but its more likely it'll be used against a bear or mountain lion attacking my dog than another person.
-
Being that I am a Policeman Frenchy I think I have a pretty good idea about what would happen.
Trust me, anything that "could" happen is a whole lot better then you being the dead body in your house.
Great, so you can comment on that. When I got my concealed, I read the recomanded books, talked to police officers that I met at the range, because "what happens when the shooting stops" was my main concern. Call me paranoiac, but as much as I support protecting your familly with a firearm, I know that we live in a society filled with monked up values ranging from soccer moms to money hungry lawyers and clueless judges.
So between the chitchating and J. Farman's "The Farman method of Defensive Handgunning", I figured that this is what would happen to me once I had to shoot someone in my house in fear for my familly's life:
Farman's advises to leave the house with your flock, and so did the couple SLC police officers I chatted with. They said they are not in the "rescuing business" anymore, so they will surround your house like if it was still full of bad guys, and if I stay in it, the first thing that will come in will be a flash grenade or a dog. Neither of both will know that I'm "the good guy". Then the smoke settles, and everyone is taged, they'll collect my firearm as evidence, the scene will be treated as a criminal homicide, I'll be read my Miranda rights, blood sample, gun residue test, interrogation. It's my understanding that Police has to treat the case as a standard criminal investigation till I get cleared by the County Attorney about a week later.
<To me that means right there, that my neighbors will be awaken by a bunch of police cars, see guns drawn toward my house, and me leaving handcuffed for shooting someone. Doubt my daughter will have many friends staying home after that, nor Bobby Goestochurch lending me his snowblower.>
The SLC concealed instructor said that in Salt Lake county about 80% of the self defense shooting end up in "wrongfull death" civil suit of an average cost of $50,000 and a 10 years length suit. They also warn about lawyers that are pretty good at describing you as the local gun nut, that lured "honor student 1976" into his house so he could try his new lazer scope with his man killer special edition bullets..
<Great so now I have to leave the next 10 years with a Damocles sword on the top of my head, and barely make hands meet at the end of each month, probably not being able to pay for my kid's college.
Then I doubt that familly and/or friends/gang of the rat I shot will stay on the sidewalk crying. They might gear up and my house will be called "the Alamo", but will probably settle for the coward approach of "drive by" my daughter on her way to school. Since I don't want to take that risk, that means I'll have to freacking move out of the house/state, go thru the hassle of finding a new job for my wife and I, break my kid's heart because we have to move once again to a new place and she really loved it here, had so really great friends.>
That's what I mean with "snowballing undesirable events". Granteed I prefer to use my 1911 and ruin the rest of my life, rather than having my familly member killed. After familly meeting, we concluded that the "house defense" plan was to stay upstair and shoot at anyone coming upstairs. Let the bad guys run away with TVs and laptops from downstairs. In other words, we are protecting the bodies, not the goods. It seems the best economical option anyway, plus an extra chance of "delaying staying out of trouble". :uhoh
-
My Dad always said if your going to shoot some one make sure you Kill them!
By the way. Some states require that the Criminal intruder be dead in the House, not just on the property. So if the slime bag crawls out the door, drag him back in!
Do not ever do that, its where the shooting took place not where they guy crawled to.
If you start dragging a body around, the investigation will take a turn to an area you dont want it to.
shamus
-
Getback, as others have said its very important to know your states gun laws before you protect yourself with a gun. In many states you must be in immediate physical danger to shoot someone. In some states you literally need to back yourself into your closet and wait for the bad guy to come to you and threaten your life before you can shoot. Some of the things suggested here like firing warning shots before you shoot someone or loading blanks would end up with you in jail in a few states. And killing a teenager for petty theft from your neighbors house isn't going to go over very well anywhere in the country. Not to mention, killing someone for theft will likely weigh heavily on your own mind for years.
Where exactly do you live? If you think the neighbors stole your dog, you have abandoned houses around you, and you have repeated problems with crime at your house and around the neighborhood, I can't help but wonder why you still live there? I understand sentimental value of houses that have been in the family for a long time or even the feelings associated with being ran out of your own neighborhood, but at some point you've got to take a step back and look at the big picture.
I lived in a crappy area (Riverside, CA) for long enough to appreciate what you are going through. I then moved to a much smaller but rapidly expanding town in Arizona that wasn't much better. Hard drugs were the main problem in both areas. After years of dealing with the problems of living in these types of areas, not just the crime but everything, my wife and I made a conscious decision to re-prioritize our lives and put more value on our day to day lifestyles. We moved to a small mountain town and never looked back. When we rented our current house it was on a handshake, and we've never even got keys to our front door. I haven't taken the keys out of my truck ignition for years. I leave my fancy down jacket or sunglasses at the local bar and they are waiting for me when I come back. We had a very small crime wave a few summers ago when some meth heads were passing through town (its too cold for them here in the winter). I heard of 2 cars being broke into and some things were stolen. These guys were found and 'ran out of town' before the cops even really knew what was going on.
All I'm saying is you are not trapped in your current situation and you can make changes that will end the crime and end the thoughts of protecting yourself with a gun. Well maybe thats not completely true... I have a shotgun at the ready for 'home defense' but its more likely it'll be used against a bear or mountain lion attacking my dog than another person.
1. It's not really relevant where exactly he lives, theft is a crime of opportunity. I live in northern Michigan, the county has three stop lights, but the breaking and entering rate is ridiculously high. Many people have summer homes, we call them snow birds, meaning that once snow is on the ground, they flee to the south. This gives criminals the greatest opportunity to raid many homes. Granted, being a white male/female in Harlem would be 100x worse, but, just saying location is the only cause of theft is wrong.
2. Financial problems could be a stem of why he hasn't moved out yet, or even that he doesn't want to "retreat". Manhood and pride outweigh common sense the majority of the time. It happens. And, we don't know if he's trapped. The housing economy is non-existent.
Great, so you can comment on that. When I got my concealed, I read the recomanded books, talked to police officers that I met at the range, because "what happens when the shooting stops" was my main concern. Call me paranoiac, but as much as I support protecting your familly with a firearm, I know that we live in a society filled with monked up values ranging from soccer moms to money hungry lawyers and clueless judges.
So between the chitchating and J. Farman's "The Farman method of Defensive Handgunning", I figured that this is what would happen to me once I had to shoot someone in my house in fear for my familly's life:
Farman's advises to leave the house with your flock, and so did the couple SLC police officers I chatted with. They said they are not in the "rescuing business" anymore, so they will surround your house like if it was still full of bad guys, and if I stay in it, the first thing that will come in will be a flash grenade or a dog. Neither of both will know that I'm "the good guy". Then the smoke settles, and everyone is taged, they'll collect my firearm as evidence, the scene will be treated as a criminal homicide, I'll be read my Miranda rights, blood sample, gun residue test, interrogation. It's my understanding that Police has to treat the case as a standard criminal investigation till I get cleared by the County Attorney about a week later.
<To me that means right there, that my neighbors will be awaken by a bunch of police cars, see guns drawn toward my house, and me leaving handcuffed for shooting someone. Doubt my daughter will have many friends staying home after that, nor Bobby Goestochurch lending me his snowblower.>
The SLC concealed instructor said that in Salt Lake county about 80% of the self defense shooting end up in "wrongfull death" civil suit of an average cost of $50,000 and a 10 years length suit. They also warn about lawyers that are pretty good at describing you as the local gun nut, that lured "honor student 1976" into his house so he could try his new lazer scope with his man killer special edition bullets..
<Great so now I have to leave the next 10 years with a Damocles sword on the top of my head, and barely make hands meet at the end of each month, probably not being able to pay for my kid's college.
Then I doubt that familly and/or friends/gang of the rat I shot will stay on the sidewalk crying. They might gear up and my house will be called "the Alamo", but will probably settle for the coward approach of "drive by" my daughter on her way to school. Since I don't want to take that risk, that means I'll have to freacking move out of the house/state, go thru the hassle of finding a new job for my wife and I, break my kid's heart because we have to move once again to a new place and she really loved it here, had so really great friends.>
That's what I mean with "snowballing undesirable events". Granteed I prefer to use my 1911 and ruin the rest of my life, rather than having my familly member killed. After familly meeting, we concluded that the "house defense" plan was to stay upstair and shoot at anyone coming upstairs. Let the bad guys run away with TVs and laptops from downstairs. In other words, we are protecting the bodies, not the goods. It seems the best economical option anyway, plus an extra chance of "delaying staying out of trouble". :uhoh
Well, it's hard to say, like I said earlier, what someone will/would do to protect their family, or their own life. Many people would flee, leaving their family behind. You see it all the time, the mother and father make it out of the burning building leaving their three children behind to burn to death. The natural response is that "Oh, I'd never do that, I'd die to protect my family." That's not a concrete answer. Fear and selfishness are two very powerful emotions, which sometimes unfortunately outweigh love and devotion. It's hard to think about, but it happens.
-
My Dad always said if your going to shoot some one make sure you Kill them!
By the way. Some states require that the Criminal intruder be dead in the House, not just on the property. So if the slime bag crawls out the door, drag him back in!
Here is a thing to think about! If you do get a Gun/Pistol/Rifle to defend your house, make sure that you are willing to pull that trigger! Because if you don't most likely the criminal will be willing to take it from you and use it.
Yeah, that could have worked in the 1960's. Ever seen the hit television series CSI? There are three different ones, Las Vegas, Miami, and New York. Forensic science has come leaps and bounds forward in the last ten years, ever hear of black light? They use that at all homicide/shooting/stabbing/assault cases. They'd find the nice smear trail of blood.
So no, do not even consider this advice to be of sound logic.
-
Which one do you have? Been thinking about that for some time.
I bought the SVAT DVR system with 4 night vision cameras from Walmart online. I wanted to get it from SAMS Club, but it was 3 weeks to get it to the store and online didn't offer any quicker options. Walfart offered NDA shipping, and we wanted the system NOW, so we ordered through them and had it delivered to my work the next day. Easy install, I ran the wires through the attic and have 1 camera watching the side of my house with the bedroom windows ( I hid it behind a downspout ) one on the front porch ( hiding between the downspout and the support post ) and 2 on the back of the house ( hiding between my outdoor speakers and the soffit ) Was about $700 total and the only problem I had was getting the online viewing to work, but I called SVAT and Lisa took control of my Visterd machine and clicked a few places and I was good to go at work. Occasionally, ATT will change my IP address, so it's a simple matter of going to whatsmyip.org and getting the new IP and logging in at work. I shrink the window to about 2x2 and am able to see all 4 views clearly and still have enough room to get my work done on my 19" square monitor. It plugs into the back of the modem and my gamer hosts it. It runs in the background all the time and I have seen no bad effects while flying.
-
1. It's not really relevant where exactly he lives, theft is a crime of opportunity. I live in northern Michigan, the county has three stop lights, but the breaking and entering rate is ridiculously high. Many people have summer homes, we call them snow birds, meaning that once snow is on the ground, they flee to the south. This gives criminals the greatest opportunity to raid many homes. Granted, being a white male/female in Harlem would be 100x worse, but, just saying location is the only cause of theft is wrong.
I'm not sure what you are arguing here? I'm not suggesting location is the CAUSE of the crime, simply that the likelyhood of being a victim of crime can be accurately estimated by location. Thats not an opinion, that is fact that many people like insurance adjustor's use every day.
Just because your town is small doesn't mean its immune to crime. And I wasn't suggesting that simply moving to a smaller town will stop the crime. But that is not to say that you can't easily pick a place to live that has low crime, and almost no violent crime. Believe it or not there are still plenty of places like that across the country.
-
What states allow this "make my day" rule? You provided two, but there are fifty states.
States with a Stand-your-ground Law
* Alabama
* Arizona
* Florida
* Georgia
* Indiana
* Kentucky
* Louisiana
* South Carolina (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.")
* Texas
* Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
* Washington (Homicide justifiable in the lawful defense of self or other persons present; and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished ...or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony... or upon or in a dwelling, or other place...)
I allready mentioned OK and NC, but would like to add Delaware and New Mexico to the list. They have "stand your ground" type statutes in their laws.
Every state is different. Find out what your state laws are. I find myself in Pennsylvania now, and they don't have a "make my day" law, but they DO have one pending on the books. In Oklahoma they are currently trying to pass a STRONGER "make my day law" that allows it's citizens to use deadly force anywhere they perceive danger, not just in their homes.
-
I bought the SVAT DVR system with 4 night vision cameras from Walmart online. I wanted to get it from SAMS Club, but it was 3 weeks to get it to the store and online didn't offer any quicker options. Walfart offered NDA shipping, and we wanted the system NOW, so we ordered through them and had it delivered to my work the next day. Easy install, I ran the wires through the attic and have 1 camera watching the side of my house with the bedroom windows ( I hid it behind a downspout ) one on the front porch ( hiding between the downspout and the support post ) and 2 on the back of the house ( hiding between my outdoor speakers and the soffit ) Was about $700 total and the only problem I had was getting the online viewing to work, but I called SVAT and Lisa took control of my Visterd machine and clicked a few places and I was good to go at work. Occasionally, ATT will change my IP address, so it's a simple matter of going to whatsmyip.org and getting the new IP and logging in at work. I shrink the window to about 2x2 and am able to see all 4 views clearly and still have enough room to get my work done on my 19" square monitor. It plugs into the back of the modem and my gamer hosts it. It runs in the background all the time and I have seen no bad effects while flying.
Just a suggestion, if all of your cameras are hidden then your security system is only doing half its job. Part of the idea is to let people know they are being watched. Most criminals are smart enough to know that if there is a camera then their actions are likely being recorded somewhere. If you are really afraid of people ripping off your real cameras there are plenty of fakes available. Some of them even come with working lights and motion.
-
Do not ever pull the trigger on someone unless you think your life or the life of another is in immediate danger... AND you need to be able to articulate that reason in court.
Some more thoughts to also keep in mind:
1. Do NOT shoot to wound or kill. You shoot to end the situation. If you wound, so be it. If you kill, so be it.
2. Do NOT shoot to save property. I dont believe there is a state in the union that dosent have laws frowning upon that.
3. Shotguns and revolvers are the home defense weapons that are most often "smiled" upon in court. Either of those two weapons are more defendable vs if you used an AR15 (etc) or an auto-loading handgun. Time and time again that has shown to be the case. An "assault" rifle and/or a hi-capacity handgun are quite often painted as "offensive" weapons where as the shotgun is a hunting device and the revolver a true defense handgun (or so goes a typical defense). Also, a revolver is quite simple to operate and maintain, and have less things to go wrong.
4. Whatever you do, have a flashlight handy with whatever firearm you dicide to use for defense and do NOT.. do NOT... shoot at anyone you do not have positive ID on as being a threat to you, your family, or another innocent.
5. Make sure you VERBALIZE everything. You MUST give the perp a chance to surrender, identify themselves, identify their business in your house, etc. You MUST be loud enough so your neighbors, your family, neighbors dog, the 911 operator on the phone receiver you've just put down to confront the perp, etc can all hear the situation. Be L O U D enough so even you cringe as you speak.
I spent 7 years of my life volunteering in the uniform of a deputy sheriff in Iowa. This stuff was drilled into my head monthly. Regardless of laws, all of what I have posted above is quite true and is taught country-wide.
-
While that may be true in Iowa most states have different laws on the subject.
As I allready posted Oklahoma does not require you to declare, and it's 100% fine to kill an intruder to protect your property.
-
3. Shotguns and revolvers are the home defense weapons that are most often "smiled" upon in court. Either of those two weapons are more defendable vs if you used an AR15 (etc) or an auto-loading handgun. Time and time again that has shown to be the case. An "assault" rifle and/or a hi-capacity handgun are quite often painted as "offensive" weapons where as the shotgun is a hunting device and the revolver a true defense handgun (or so goes a typical defense). Also, a revolver is quite simple to operate and maintain, and have less things to go wrong.
All really good advice, but this point especially I think deserves more attention. As I've expressed before in other threads here, a semi-auto pistol like the common 1911 just doesn't make that great of a home defense gun. Too many people live in a fantasy, especialy when it comes to guns and protecting themselves. Not to turn this into another 2nd amendment debate, but you really dont need an assault rifle or hand cannon to protect yourself inside your house. Hunting weapons like shotguns do a much better job. If you must have a hand gun then a quality revolver is 100x better than any of the semi-autos simply because when you pull the trigger is going to work, no question about it.
When people come on asking about what model 1911 to get for home defense or what assault rifle to get for the same its painfully obvious that these people are watching too many movies and not thinking for themselves enough.
Like I said before, if you really think you NEED a semi auto pistol or 'battle' rifle to protect yourself you are simply living in a fantasy. Anything that would require that much firepower is not going to be a home defense situation. This is a typical "for when the zombies come" type of argument pushed by the extremes. However, I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to own them.
-
While that may be true in Iowa most states have diff. laws on the subject.
As I allready posted Oklahoma does not require you to declare, and it's 100% fine to kill an intruder to protect your property.
I didnt say it was the law... I said it was a good rule to follow. There are tons of "what if's" and believe me when I say that if you open fire without verbally confronting the perp first, your legal battle will be a much harder one vs than if you simply asked him who and why... ESPECIALLY if you had the time. If he has a knife and is coming for you as soon as you are seen... dont hesitate.. open fire. But if he is 20ft away, hands exposed and empty, and makes no move... do yourself a favor and verbalize. Trust me. ;)
Regardless of the laws of your state, you can and will be sued and depending on the judge if can and will go to court either civil or criminal. Count on it.
-
My Dad always said if your going to shoot some one make sure you Kill them!
By the way. Some states require that the Criminal intruder be dead in the House, not just on the property. So if the slime bag crawls out the door, drag him back in!
Here is a thing to think about! If you do get a Gun/Pistol/Rifle to defend your house, make sure that you are willing to pull that trigger! Because if you don't most likely the criminal will be willing to take it from you and use it.
Your Dad is a fool at giving advice on this and you'd be an even bigger fool to believe it's good advice. Once you tamper with a crime scene you have just changed your role from victim defending to felon obstructing especially when there is a fatality.
Deadly force is a last resort and should be used in that context only. While Frenchy has gone beyond the level of paranoia I am comfortable with he has a good point. You barricade yourself when possible and secure your family in the most tactically prudent place in your house. You need to secure the avenues of approach to as few as possible. You can't be in more than one place at a time. You increase the defensive posture to make it safer for your loved ones while you hold the threat back and wait for help to arrive.
For those advising homicide for theft consider this. No state will sentence anyone to death for theft. Burglary is not a capital crime, particularly one that is happening at an abandoned house. You will find yourself in a world of hurt in more than one court with that stupid "kill them all and let God sort them out" mentality. You defend life with deadly force not property. Not even LEO's are authorized to shoot fleeing burglars, thieves, shoplifters or con men unless life is in danger so why would you think you are.
One last thing. Continuing to prattle on about shoot to kill will come back to haunt you should you do find yourself in a shooting situation. That will be used against you to paint you as the aggressor and someone looking for any excuse to murder, yes I said murder on purpose, anyone you decide to. Remember that the jury will be of those who couldn't get out of jury duty so if that is your opinion of juries you can imagine how perceptive they will be at determining fact from an attorney's flamboyant arguments. Keep in mind that a lawyer does not take an oath to tell the truth and a judge's position is also not to maintain only truth is used in a trial. It is "assumed" that the truth will surface and be made known but the primary folks running, and directing the trial are not required to use it or be limited by it and that includes the prosecutor. The defense lawyer has an open check to use anything they can think of during the trial. Think "twinky defense".
-
Hey ... I have a 1911 :eek: What's wrong?
-
I'm not sure what you are arguing here? I'm not suggesting location is the CAUSE of the crime, simply that the likelyhood of being a victim of crime can be accurately estimated by location. Thats not an opinion, that is fact that many people like insurance adjustor's use every day.
Just because your town is small doesn't mean its immune to crime. And I wasn't suggesting that simply moving to a smaller town will stop the crime. But that is not to say that you can't easily pick a place to live that has low crime, and almost no violent crime. Believe it or not there are still plenty of places like that across the country.
Oh, I'm not arguing, just throwing in my two cents. :)
I do disagree with the "accurately estimated by location" line though, regarding theft. There isn't a city, or town for that matter that doesn't have at least one breaking and entering per month. Obviously larger cities will have considerably higher rates of crime in theft, reported or not. Smaller cities, and towns have crimes in the same manner as well, just not as much, and as frequent. Statistically speaking, smaller towns are ideal locations to live to avoid theft. Yes it still happens, but no where close to the same rate as it would occur in a larger city.
The part about insurance adjustor's made me laugh out loud. Professional hustlers and liars.
Basically, it doesn't matter where you live, if you have something someone else wants, and they are willing to become a felon to gain this item, they'll steal it.
States with a Stand-your-ground Law
* Alabama
* Arizona
* Florida
* Georgia
* Indiana
* Kentucky
* Louisiana
* South Carolina (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.")
* Texas
* Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
* Washington (Homicide justifiable in the lawful defense of self or other persons present; and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished ...or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony... or upon or in a dwelling, or other place...)
I allready mentioned OK and NC, but would like to add Delaware and New Mexico to the list. They have "stand your ground" type statutes in their laws.
Every state is different. Find out what your state laws are. I find myself in Pennsylvania now, and they don't have a "make my day" law, but they DO have one pending on the books. In Oklahoma they are currently trying to pass a STRONGER "make my day law" that allows it's citizens to use deadly force anywhere they perceive danger, not just in their homes.
This isn't 100% failproof though. No law, or statue is. Per wikipedia "use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine." It all depends on the circumstances of the crime/shooting. If you start blasting the person with a shotgun when they step one foot in your door could lead you straight to prison.
"In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:
An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally -- e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to Retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)"
Here's the problem, the prosecution would hire some $1000 an hour psycharistrist to prove that you just stone cold murdered the fool busting through your front door.
We can discuss this in circles all day long, but the fact of the matter is simple, it's far easier to just secure your home the best that you can possbile do, and call the police/flee the area, and hope the intruder doesn't have the intention to kill/maim/rape you or your family.
Granted, if those options weren't available, the use of deadly force would present itself. The question I ask, could you live with yourself after killing someone? I'm sure you could if your loved ones life depended on it, but taking human life is absolutely miserable.
-
All really good advice, but this point especially I think deserves more attention. As I've expressed before in other threads here, a semi-auto pistol like the common 1911 just doesn't make that great of a home defense gun. Too many people live in a fantasy, especialy when it comes to guns and protecting themselves. Not to turn this into another 2nd amendment debate, but you really dont need an assault rifle or hand cannon to protect yourself inside your house. Hunting weapons like shotguns do a much better job. If you must have a hand gun then a quality revolver is 100x better than any of the semi-autos simply because when you pull the trigger is going to work, no question about it.
When people come on asking about what model 1911 to get for home defense or what assault rifle to get for the same its painfully obvious that these people are watching too many movies and not thinking for themselves enough.
Like I said before, if you really think you NEED a semi auto pistol or 'battle' rifle to protect yourself you are simply living in a fantasy. Anything that would require that much firepower is not going to be a home defense situation. This is a typical "for when the zombies come" type of argument pushed by the extremes. However, I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to own them.
Hehe. Reality has slipped you by, my firend. Do not draw the line as to who needs what. You and the law are not to be that judge ;) . I happen to have a safe full of firearms and if the crap ever hits the fan I'm grabbin the AR15 "A4" with a ACOG TA31 mounted on top, my Sig 226/9mm, and a harness full of mags for both (along with some other gear). However, I've been well trained (likewise, I'm a firearms hoobyist) in the use of firearms. I only suggested the shotgun and the revolver for home defense for the average user due to the ease of use, a shorter learning curve, and the commonality. If someone wants to use an AR15 or an AK variant for home defense, then so be it. All I suggest is that the user take the time and LEARN the firearm and understand how devistating they are. I fire thousands of rounds a year out of a half dozen of my firearms (I reload my own ammo, too). I wouldnt suggest an AR15 to a person new to firearms, or an autoloader handgun either. Too much to learn.
btw... my "bedside" gun is a semi-auto Sig232 in .380ACP (it is also my carry piece). It is locked in a "quick release" box. I also have 2 lights right next to it as well.
-
Well I'm not going to run out and buy a gun. Instead I've installed brighter flood lights and starting on the front door lights. Tomorrow I am looking into a new fence and gate. I've told my neighbor about the situation so they are alert to it as well.
I'm really thinking about a security camera. Hope to get one cheap.
-
Oh, I'm not arguing, just throwing in my two cents. :)
I do disagree with the "accurately estimated by location" line though, regarding theft. There isn't a city, or town for that matter that doesn't have at least one breaking and entering per month. Obviously larger cities will have considerably higher rates of crime in theft, reported or not. Smaller cities, and towns have crimes in the same manner as well, just not as much, and as frequent. Statistically speaking, smaller towns are ideal locations to live to avoid theft. Yes it still happens, but no where close to the same rate as it would occur in a larger city.
The part about insurance adjustor's made me laugh out loud. Professional hustlers and liars.
Basically, it doesn't matter where you live, if you have something someone else wants, and they are willing to become a felon to gain this item, they'll steal it.
This isn't 100% failproof though. No law, or statue is. Per wikipedia "use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine." It all depends on the circumstances of the crime/shooting. If you start blasting the person with a shotgun when they step one foot in your door could lead you straight to prison.
"In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:
An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally -- e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to Retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)"
Here's the problem, the prosecution would hire some $1000 an hour psycharistrist to prove that you just stone cold murdered the fool busting through your front door.
We can discuss this in circles all day long, but the fact of the matter is simple, it's far easier to just secure your home the best that you can possbile do, and call the police/flee the area, and hope the intruder doesn't have the intention to kill/maim/rape you or your family.
Granted, if those options weren't available, the use of deadly force would present itself. The question I ask, could you live with yourself after killing someone? I'm sure you could if your loved ones life depended on it, but taking human life is absolutely miserable.
Whoo hooo, I live in Indiana.
-
Hehe. Reality has slipped you by, my firend. Do not draw the line as to who needs what. You and the law are not to be that judge ;) . I happen to have a safe full of firearms and if the crap ever hits the fan I'm grabbin the AR15 "A4" with a ACOG TA31 mounted on top, my Sig 226/9mm, and a harness full of mags for both (along with some other gear). However, I've been well trained (likewise, I'm a firearms hoobyist) in the use of firearms. I only suggested the shotgun and the revolver for home defense for the average user due to the ease of use, a shorter learning curve, and the commonality. If someone wants to use an AR15 or an AK variant for home defense, then so be it. All I suggest is that the user take the time and LEARN the firearm and understand how devistating they are. I fire thousands of rounds a year out of a half dozen of my firearms (I reload my own ammo, too). I wouldnt suggest an AR15 to a person new to firearms, or an autoloader handgun either. Too much to learn.
btw... my "bedside" gun is a semi-auto Sig232 in .380ACP (it is also my carry piece). It is locked in a "quick release" box. I also have 2 lights right next to it as well.
Exactly the reply I was expecting. The "when the crap hits the fan" is a perfect example of this fantasy. What exactly do you mean by 'when the crap hits the fan'? Take a step back towards reality and imagine a situation when you would likely use deadly force to protect yourself. What situation are you going to really use an assault rifle as it was intended, that is taking down multiple medium range targets? We can argue all day, and there will be many people coming on here to say that they must have their assault rifles and hand cannons to protect their home. Its STUPID idea, in no reasonable situation are you going to be required to have a high powered rifle or auto loading hand gun to protect yourself.
I have a firm grasp of reality, and would have words with someone who argues that I haven't given this topic a lot of thought and come to logical conclusions. Hey, I have a safe full of guns too. I even have a 1911 and what some would consider an assault rifle. The only thing that could be gotten to and fired in a reasonable amount of time is my shotgun though.
You are setting yourself up. As others pointed out, when you kill someone with an assault weapon you are putting yourself in a whole different situation. Besides, in legal self defense situations like inside your house at close ranges a shotgun is simply going to be a better weapon. You can argue about your personal experiences and training till your red in the face but its not going to change the facts. Even highly trained military and law enforcement personal use shotguns as the preferred weapon for close courters combat. Are they all wrong? If you are shooting someone out of the effective range of a shotgun then you are probably breaking the law, and very unlikely 'protecting' yourself.
-
5. Make sure you VERBALIZE everything. You MUST give the perp a chance to surrender, identify themselves, identify their business in your house, etc. You MUST be loud enough so your neighbors, your family, neighbors dog, the 911 operator on the phone receiver you've just put down to confront the perp, etc can all hear the situation. Be L O U D enough so even you cringe as you speak.
Sorry that has got to be the silliest thing I've ever heard. If anyone is in my house and I've ID'd them as not being family/friends/etc and its the middle of the night the last thing im doing is yelling at the so they can get the first shot in. The first and last thing they'd hear is the boomstick blowing their heads off.
-
Sorry that has got to be the silliest thing I've ever heard. If anyone is in my house and I've ID'd them as not being family/friends/etc and its the middle of the night the last thing im doing is yelling at the so they can get the first shot in. The first and last thing they'd hear is the boomstick blowing their heads off.
Check with your state, but that mentality will end up with YOU in jail and possibly facing some large charges in most places.
Of course ever situation has to be weighed individually, and there is almost no point to this argument because of all the variables of each possible situation.
A little side story, this happened not once but twice to two different friends in the course of about 2 months. The story is basically a long night out partying ends with a ride home from a DD that doesn't really know where person in question lives. This person gets dropped off a few houses away from their own house, but since they all look the same, and this person is extremely drunk, they go to the wrong house. In one situation the door was un-locked, my friend stumbles inside and passes out on the couch. The next morning the owners get a nice surprise but its all laughs as they all knew eachother anyway. However for another friend the story was not so nice. The front door was locked so he went around to a back sliding door which is always open. This guy happens to be a big intimidating looking type and starts banging on the door to his friends to let him in. Well the elderly man living their was not impressed and came to that part of the house with his shotgun, except rather than confronting the drunk he stayed covered in the shadows near the back of the room, at the ready with his gun. Luckily he called the cops also. Eventually my friend busted open the door and pretty much fell into the house at the same time the cops arrived. If the cops didn't get their this guy would have probably been shot.
Sure my drunk friend was in the wrong, he was at the wrong house. However would his mistakes justified him being shot? He's a great guy that doesn't even drink that much, he just got out of control drunk this one time (who hasn't?). This is just one situation with many variables that goes to show that blowing someone away as soon as they enter your house might not be the best mentality. This type of arming and preparing yourself for a full scale invasion may not be the healthiest mentality for you OR your neighbors!
My point is simply this: If you think you need a 'safe full of guns' including assault rifles and auto loading hand guns to protect yourself inside your own house you are simply living in a fantasy. Stop watching so many movies and give the possible situation some real thought.
-
5. Make sure you VERBALIZE everything. You MUST give the perp a chance to surrender, identify themselves, identify their business in your house, etc. You MUST be loud enough so your neighbors, your family, neighbors dog, the 911 operator on the phone receiver you've just put down to confront the perp, etc can all hear the situation. Be L O U D enough so even you cringe as you speak.
Okay, so you make your presence known, ask the perp to leave peacefully, which he doesn't, and you eventually kill him. Does this stand up in court? Unless you have audio/video proof, and some witnesses, absolutely not. In theory it's nice, but in our legal system it equates to nothing.
Well I'm not going to run out and buy a gun. Instead I've installed brighter flood lights and starting on the front door lights. Tomorrow I am looking into a new fence and gate. I've told my neighbor about the situation so they are alert to it as well.
I'm really thinking about a security camera. Hope to get one cheap.
:furious
Wow. You're worried about your personal safety, and personal belongings and you are planning to go cheap. What's wrong with that picture?
You are setting yourself up. As others pointed out, when you kill someone with an assault weapon you are putting yourself in a whole different situation. Besides, in legal self defense situations like inside your house at close ranges a shotgun is simply going to be a better weapon. You can argue about your personal experiences and training till your red in the face but its not going to change the facts. Even highly trained military and law enforcement personal use shotguns as the preferred weapon for close courters combat. Are they all wrong? If you are shooting someone out of the effective range of a shotgun then you are probably breaking the law, and very unlikely 'protecting' yourself.
QFT. My absolute favorite weapon of choice when doing MOUT is a reliable shotgun, either pump action or automatic. Cannot be beaten, unless by a flamethrower ;)
-
Hehe. Reality has slipped you by, my firend. Do not draw the line as to who needs what. You and the law are not to be that judge ;) . I happen to have a safe full of firearms and if the crap ever hits the fan I'm grabbin the AR15 "A4" with a ACOG TA31 mounted on top, my Sig 226/9mm, and a harness full of mags for both (along with some other gear). However, I've been well trained (likewise, I'm a firearms hoobyist) in the use of firearms. I only suggested the shotgun and the revolver for home defense for the average user due to the ease of use, a shorter learning curve, and the commonality. If someone wants to use an AR15 or an AK variant for home defense, then so be it. All I suggest is that the user take the time and LEARN the firearm and understand how devistating they are. I fire thousands of rounds a year out of a half dozen of my firearms (I reload my own ammo, too). I wouldnt suggest an AR15 to a person new to firearms, or an autoloader handgun either. Too much to learn.
btw... my "bedside" gun is a semi-auto Sig232 in .380ACP (it is also my carry piece). It is locked in a "quick release" box. I also have 2 lights right next to it as well.
AKHog is right, you are living in a fantasy world.
Using a rifle to defend your home is idiotic. I don't care how proficient you are with it, there's no way to stop those rounds from penetrating and killing your neighbor.
And you have no need for the range a rifle provides. Maybe if you were living on a farm, but in that case the intruder is not an immediate threat to you.
Save it for "when the zombies come".
-
Jeez guys enough with all the gun talk, guns aren't really the answer, as I said before, take measures so they don't get in the house, shooting and killing people, even if you can while still following the laws, should be the absolute last option.
here are some home security tips from the show I had mentioned earlier
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/ittakesathief/tips/homesecurity/homesecurity.html
there are simple, cheap and most importantly non lethal ways to protect your home better.
I know people who have slept through robberies so guns are not the answer to everything...
-
well akhog, all im saying is im not going to risk my life or that of my loved ones to find that out.
He's inside my house in the middle of the night, uninvited. I need no other justification to remove his presence.
Yes, im all for turning the light on to ID who it is before pulling the trigger and I'm all for not shooting unless they are actually in my house (i could care less if they take stuff outside my house or my car, its not worth blood). I am not however, inclined to ask that person to surrender once they break into my home. I'll shoot. I do not know if he's alone or if he has a buddy that is armed. Will not risk that.
"Jeez guys enough with all the gun talk, guns aren't really the answer, as I said before, take measures so they don't get in the house, shooting and killing people, even if you can while still following the laws, should be the absolute last option."
Agreed. However, once they get into the house the rules change. That's what we're talking about here. The problem is that when these crooks learn that they can take things from your home they will be back.
This is not the old cops and robbers game.. these are usually gang members, desperate druggies or downright 'professionals'. Once one of them does it they tell others and your house is marked as a source of income for them and they do come back. They're not stupid, these people cut the alarm/phone/cable wires hooked to your home and some even carry cellphone scramblers so you cant call for help from a cellphone.
You can put as much high tech non-lethal security measures you want to give your conscience a buffer zone... once they do break into your home its not a game anymore.
-
He's inside my house in the middle of the night, uninvited. I need no other justification to remove his presence.
So you are willing to KILL someone for breaking into your house. This simply sounds ridiculous to me, and I'm guessing there is nothing that can be said over a forum to change either of our opinions.
Unfortunately I find that more and more people have the same mentality.
"Its not a game anymore", I think to some people when someone breaks into their house the game is just starting.
-
GET ONE OF THESE!!!
(http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/4695/Civilian-Gunner-GatlingGun.jpg)
-
For the paranoid reasons I stated earlier, I hope mister scary will leave my house when I yell "leave, leave NOW!". It's a sickening feeling for normal person to think of creeping on someone and blowing their head up in the name of "you are in my house". :o
-
Update. It's dark now. The lights I installed on the garage are so bright it makes my chimney look like there's a light on it. Kinda cool. Couldn't get the front porch light to work. Must have caused a short. When I got back into the house all the lights were dead. So I reset the breaker and am going to call an Electrician tomorrow.
-
If you've never owned/used a handgun that is probably not the preferred defense weapon for you. While certainly not a lost investment it will not provide you the proficiency on the front end that a short (legal minimum) barreled shotgun will. You can purchase a quality pump 12 gauge shotgun for a few hundred bucks and load it with buckshot. You now have a forgiving weapon that will allow you to defend your castle (remember that phrase when researching your applicable gun laws) that will not require the time and effort to achieve and maintain a level of proficiency a first handgun will require.
I agree, make sure it's a pump.
I'll never forget the night I heard someone fiddling with our door... Go to the gunsafe, grab the pump, nothing sounds like it or scares 'em off faster.
Keep safe sir. :salute
-
Frenchy and Akhog,
May be a matter of opinion. The question I'd like to ask you two is: Why would you take any risk to your life and the lives of your family?
You know the guy broke into your house. You ID the guy as being a complete stranger.
What is the point in risking him shooting you first and doing whatever he pleases with your loved ones afterward?
Not to mention that it is highly unlikely the thief is alone in the break-in.
Its almost as if you guys are more scared of what the law will say after the fact than what these criminals may do to your family. I do not understand this view, I'm sorry.
-
snip
You defend life with deadly force not property. Not even LEO's are authorized to shoot fleeing burglars, thieves, shoplifters or con men unless life is in danger so why would you think you are.
Actually, in Texas deadly force may be legally used to defend property. You may even, specifically, legally kill a fleeing burglar. See 9.42(2)(B) of the Penal Code, appended below. The test is simply that you have no other way to stop the criminal, or that if you do it involves serious risk to yourself or others.
LEO's, of course, due to training, equipment, and the assistance of other LEOs, are expected to be more capable of stopping criminals by other means. Most armed civilian individuals would be presumed to have acted reasonably if they were alone, encountered a crime in progress, and killed the criminal since they would be presumed to not have the wherewithal to act that a LEO has.
*********************
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is 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
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
-
Some of you dont read very well. *sigh* Must I always spell things out? Must I always point out those who put words in my mouth or incinuated things that I did not say or even come remotely close to describing?
First off, anyone remember the Rodney King Riots (1992?)? Anyone remember which stores were not burned down and were not looted? Let me give you a hint: Korean grocery stores with the owners on top armed with a multitude of "assault" rifles (semi-auto rifles w/ detachable mags). To say that those kinds of rifles are not needed is a matter of opinion. Anyone know the first "right" the Nazis took away from the Juden? Their "right" to own firearms. Ask the victims of Pol Pot what they were told to first do prior to going to the instituionalizing "gatherings" (they were to turn in all firearms). Ask white Kenyen farmers what they lost first prior to losing their land in 1999-2002. Ask Guatemalan indians how they defended themselves in the 1982 siege of their land by a then correupt govt. I could go on and on with regards to more then recent cases in which firepower in the hands of the lawful thwarted the lawless (or could have). Remember, the 2nd Amend is all about protecting the people from the govt. Make your opinions well known, I wont hold that against you. But for j00! to make statements of "you dont need ..." simply says that you are not understanding the big picture. People have a far greater chance of being hurt by a Porche than they do of an "assualt" rifle. BTW... in 2006, less than 1/3 of 1% of the gun crimes in this country were commited withv an "assault" rifle.
Secondly, I didnt say I would grab my AR15 and go searching for the "bump" in the night. I said what my bedside gun is. I wouldnt use a rifle to clear out my home, I'd use a handgun (but it isnt idiotic to use one either). I use a handgun so I can menouver and have a free hand to use on a light. The only time I'd use a rifle to clear a building is if I was in an urban combat environment and it was day or the rifle has a light mounted on it. I said I would grab my AR15 if the crap ever hit the fan... what that crap will be is anyone's guess (but I doubt it will be zombies). Oh... and the chance of a 5.56 NATO or 7.62x39 Soviet round going though multiple walls of my house and multiple walls of my neighbors house and actually hitting someone is so minute not for me to worry about it if my life is in danger. There is a reason I use the .380 ACP for home defense, I am far more educated on projectile penetration and performanace than the average bloke. There is a reason LEO's leave the shotty or the rifle in the trunk when going into a building.
Let me say for the 3rd time... verbalizing prior to you shooting will only do you good. Obviously, if the perp has a weapon, is **obvioulsy** high on PCP, or is obviously there looking for a fight and you simply do not have time to verbalize then you will simply have to be more thorough when you dictate what happened. You will be asked 1000 times as to why you did not give them a chance to identify, surrender, etc. It doesnt matter what your state laws are because beleive me you do not want to be in court defending your actions if you shot a guy who was a family guy, poor, mentally ill or challenged, and without a criminal history. It is highly suggested you verbalize, it will save you tons of time and money, and it may save someone's life. Taking the life of another is not to be taken lightly, regardless of the danger (or lack of danger) to your self. Start thinking of all the "what if's" about the perp in your house being completely innocent and void of any maliciaous intent? If you have the perp lit up (via flash light, etc), and you are barracaded, and you have the time... verbalize. Dont play tough guy, you'll be so scared and jumpy that you're going to want to give him a chance.
-
I read the original post only. I will be brief. If you decide to get a gun for protection, I recommend getting training and a concealed carry licence if it is available. If you already have training with handguns, then train with the one you choose. You never know how it will perform, or if it will perform with the ammo you select untill you get several hundreds of rounds through it. That's all I have to say about that.
Make sure your neighbors are aware of what is going on...more eyes and lights on in the neighborhood always helps. -Good Luck.
-
You are exactly right TAC, despite the guys here that brandish the law book, we all know and have seen that it doesn't mean nothing when you end up in a court of law where the opposing lawyer will skillfully demonstrate that "deadly force" wasn't necessary. I will state the "Leave, leave NOW!", hopefully those guys will "Oh digydy dam someone's here" and leave. Now if the bad guys still keep going, or even start the shooting, there will be no mistake on the three required rules of deadly force : "I was in a genine fear for my life, the human predators had the means and the ability to inflic great bodily harms to me".
I do not want to shoot at an unarmed 17 year old honor student with a momentary laps of judgement, because no matter what the local law is, I'll end up in court, and I don't have 50 grands, and I might even freacking loose.
I'll take my chances, you take yours. I might end up shot dead after my warning call, you might end up shooting dead your neighbor's kid.
-
If you grab a firearm, don't do the BS racking a round in to scare the guy. The only thing an intruder in your house should hear is a gunshot, if it's the neighbors kid, oh well, his parents shoulda taught the idiot not to go into other peoples home/property and screw around in the dead of night.
We could play the what-if's all day long.
-
you guys are using the absolute most extreme scenarios for getting a gun, the rodney king riots and nazi germany? come on now, we're talking about drug addicts who want a few extra bucks for more crack or meth or whatever. These aren't master criminals, and there are rarely houses getting robbed by master theives, I've said it twice, I'll say it again, take the cheaper, non lethal measures to keep them out, once they see its too much of a pain in neck to break in, they'll go find another house with an unlocked door or window....thats the reality of these crimes
yes there are special cases, but thats like getting struck by lightning, it's just not likely, you can't live in fear your whole life of these things
-
So you are willing to KILL someone for breaking into your house. This simply sounds ridiculous to me, and I'm guessing there is nothing that can be said over a forum to change either of our opinions.
Unfortunately I find that more and more people have the same mentality.
"Its not a game anymore", I think to some people when someone breaks into their house the game is just starting.
In the words of my towns Chief of Police : 'All day long.'
You are a damn fool and a coward if you think otherwise.
Go hide in your closet and pray that the bad men go away...
-
AKHog is right, you are living in a fantasy world.
Using a rifle to defend your home is idiotic. I don't care how proficient you are with it, there's no way to stop those rounds from penetrating and killing your neighbor.
And you have no need for the range a rifle provides. Maybe if you were living on a farm, but in that case the intruder is not an immediate threat to you.
Save it for "when the zombies come".
People can defend their families, themselves and their property with whatever reasonable force they feel like. It's idiotic to assume every bullet will go through several brick walls, intact, and strike lil Timmy while he sleeps in his bed.
-
Ask the victims of Pol Pot what they were told to first do prior to going to the instituionalizing "gatherings" (they were to turn in all firearms).
Sorry but thats a lie. The average Cambodian did not own, nor could not afford to own a firearm. It was a full fledged civil war. My wife is Cambodian, her father was an officer in the Cambodian armed forces and killed during the war.
Given you f*****d this fact up so significantly I'm guessing you dug these 'facts' out of a pro-gun-to-the-point-of-being-a-nutcase email that does that rounds every so often. Either that or made things up. I'm guessing the other facts about Kenyan (I think you mean Zimbabwe) farmers and the jews in Nazi germany are total fantasy too.
So if you feel the need to keep your right to defend yourself in your home do it without lies, thanks.
-
For those who don't feel the need to protect themselves I am envious right now. I have lost that wonderful peace of mind. It's probably going to get worse before it gets better. These guys today were brazen. They came to my house in broad daylight on a sunny Sunday and intended on breaking into the house next door (I have an easement drive). Right now I'm not even sure if I should have the lights on and heaven forbid I get lost in playing Aces High. I usually play every day, not today.
Worse yet, I think I've lost my privacy. I think they were watching me the first time they broke into the garage and left when I moved from the computer. That is the most uneasy feeling. Yeah I have the blinds down and the curtains pulled but there are always cracks to peak through.
Anyway, I'm going to take the necessary steps to keep the odds of this from happening again. Hopefully deterrent works. Most criminals go for the easy target first. They seem to be a bit lazy to me.
-
Getback, unless you're really willing to kill someone, don't get a handgun.
I'd suggest something to scare them off, and if the time comes where you actually HAVE to shoot them, wound them (which should be your very very VERY last resort.)
I'd get a cheap shotgun, .410, or 20 gauge. Get the 8 dove shot, so it's little BBs, so if you shoot, it'll either not hurt them really bad, or they'll be far enough away for you to not hit them.
Pistols are very dangerous, and it's very easy to shoot yourself with one. If I ever got a pistol, I would never load it unless I decided I had to. Even though at a certain distance, you're gonna kill, shotguns are much safer.
Small caliber rifle may be good too.
-
Frenchy your babbling. But I do love these horror stories,by so called experts, who have never had such a thing actually happen to them.
I could post a thousand stories but I'd get bored after two. The general consensus of the stories is however that the average cop is smart enough to tell the difference between the honest working citizen fearing for his life, and the rock riding scumbag whose already got 5 pages of burglary pinches and other assorted violent felonies.
But do keep condescending, pontificating, and telling juicy little urban horror stories. After 31 years in a uniform I guess I just haven't heard enough of them.
-
Get a 12 gauge pump with a short 20" smoothbore slug barrel, remove the magazine plug so it holds 4 rounds, and load it up with #4 heavy game loads. Keep the chamber clear when storing it. If someone gets inside your home, racking that first round into the chamber is the only thing you need to "say" and the perp KNOWS you mean buiesness. 9 times out of 10 the perp is going to be long gone before you even get a chance to call the cops just from hearing a shotgun being pumped.
BUT if you do need to fire, #4 heavy game loads will seriously wound a perp out to around 15-20 yards, and will flat put them down within 20 feet or so. Think about what your MAX engagement range is going to be inside your home. Never aim for the head, arms, or legs. Center of the chest every time. If you chamber that first round though you had better be prepared to send it downrange on target.
If you drop a perp in your home, don't touch anything. Don't even unload your gun before the police arrive. Lay it on the ground where you fired it from and don't touch anything. Let the police reconstruct what happened and don't say anything to the police without a lawyer present first.
-
For those who don't feel the need to protect themselves I am envious right now. I have lost that wonderful peace of mind. It's probably going to get worse before it gets better. These guys today were brazen. They came to my house in broad daylight on a sunny Sunday and intended on breaking into the house next door (I have an easement drive). Right now I'm not even sure if I should have the lights on and heaven forbid I get lost in playing Aces High. I usually play every day, not today.
Worse yet, I think I've lost my privacy. I think they were watching me the first time they broke into the garage and left when I moved from the computer. That is the most uneasy feeling. Yeah I have the blinds down and the curtains pulled but there are always cracks to peak through.
Anyway, I'm going to take the necessary steps to keep the odds of this from happening again. Hopefully deterrent works. Most criminals go for the easy target first. They seem to be a bit lazy to me.
BTW, did you put any thoughts in getting a dog? I have a German Shepard that does wonder at barking as soon as someone puts steps into the yard ... any time of day or night. It's also amazing how people freack out about a barking German Shepards ... especially when they run toward them. My dog brought a lot of peace of mind with her non stop working superhero sensors.
RIch, I'm not really worried about the cop part, more about the laweyr part.
-
BTW, did you put any thoughts in getting a dog? I have a German Shepard that does wonder at barking as soon as someone puts steps into the yard ... any time of day or night. It's also amazing how people freack out about a barking German Shepards ... especially when they run toward them. My dog brought a lot of peace of mind with her non stop working superhero sensors.
RIch, I'm not really worried about the cop part, more about the laweyr part.
I was about to post this myself.
Fifteen years ago my parents were considering buying a house out in the country.They didn't because they neither own or want firearms,and were worried what would happen if there was a home invasion so far away from a fast police response.They're dog lovers,and I told them nothing says "Don't rob this house" like a 100 pound German Shepherd.
-
BTW, did you put any thoughts in getting a dog? I have a German Shepard that does wonder at barking as soon as someone puts steps into the yard ... any time of day or night. It's also amazing how people freack out about a barking German Shepards ... especially when they run toward them. My dog brought a lot of peace of mind with her non stop working superhero sensors.
RIch, I'm not really worried about the cop part, more about the laweyr part.
Well actually I am. I have to get a fence up first. My first goal is to put up a deterrent.
-
Culero,
I'm aware of the Texas law and a rather controversial shooting that happened recently there. Texas isn't the entire US, much as Texans would like to think they are. (I'm married to a Texan)
Do you really feel trespass is a capital offense subject to the death penalty? Particularly trespass on property not your own that has been abandoned?
I have an idea that the law in Texas is going to be tightened up a bit. Frankly, I think the Castle Doctrine is fine but it was taken to an extreme in the Texas statute you cited and I don't doubt that there will be some modifications to it.
I don't have a bit of a problem with a person defending his family and himself in their home against an unlawful home invasion. I do have a problem with a civilian leaving their home and family to go hunting for bad guys on a neighboring piece of property, especially an abandoned piece of property.
Unlike almost everyone else here posting "expert opinion" here on the board, I've had to go hunting for bad guys on unfamiliar property and in the dark. Even for somewhat familiar property it's not something an untrained civilian should be doing. It's something I won't and don't do any longer either since I've retired. I'll be happy to stay in a spot and defend it until help arrives.
-
Culero,
Texas isn't the entire US, much as Texans would like to think they are. (I'm married to a Texan)
I feel your pain sir and I salute you :salute for fighting this fight along with me.
-
I agree with Mav, there's no way the Texas Castle law will continue down the course it has been. I was really surprised at the Joe Horn case, and i think that, in looking back the lawmakers are going to pull back at least a little when it comes to using lethal force to protect property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy
-Sik
-
You know, there was a time when crime wasn't a problem. That was back when if a criminal was caught red handed by the owner, the owner could shoot to kill to defend what was rightfully his.
I fail to see where the problem with that stance is. Texas did a good thing in my opinion by bringing that back into todays age.
Criminals feel they are entitled to someone elses property, and they'll continue to feel that way until someone stops them.
Everyone says, "Is it worth killing someone over a TV?" How about the civilized people wake up, take a stand, and make the criminals say to themselves, "Is this TV really worth me getting shot over?"
In the Joe Horn case, he saw a crime happening right in front of him, he acted in accourdance with the law, and killed two people who in my opinion deserved to be killed. They were career criminals, illegal aliens to boot, one had already served time for drug trafficing and was then deported, only to return illegaly and continue to commit crimes. Mr Horns actions prevented who knows how many more crimes from being committed, yet people want to condemn him for doing what the law allowed him to do.
I think once a person starts down a road of criminal behavior, they deserve whatever they get. Break into my home, I'll drop you where I find you, and I wont loose sleep over it. Would I shoot someone over my TV, or a loaf of bread? Sure will. It's not theirs, it's mine, and if they come into my home to take what's mine, I will stop them. I don't care what their background is, I don't care about their "reason", "excuse", whatever they have for their behavior. They DO NOT have a right to come into my home and take what is mine, but I should have the right to defend what is mine.
-
You know, there was a time when crime wasn't a problem. That was back when if a criminal was caught red handed by the owner, the owner could shoot to kill to defend what was rightfully his.
I fail to see where the problem with that stance is. Texas did a good thing in my opinion by bringing that back into todays age.
Criminals feel they are entitled to someone elses property, and they'll continue to feel that way until someone stops them.
Everyone says, "Is it worth killing someone over a TV?" How about the civilized people wake up, take a stand, and make the criminals say to themselves, "Is this TV really worth me getting shot over?"
In the Joe Horn case, he saw a crime happening right in front of him, he acted in accourdance with the law, and killed two people who in my opinion deserved to be killed. They were career criminals, illegal aliens to boot, one had already served time for drug trafficing and was then deported, only to return illegaly and continue to commit crimes. Mr Horns actions prevented who knows how many more crimes from being committed, yet people want to condemn him for doing what the law allowed him to do.
I think once a person starts down a road of criminal behavior, they deserve whatever they get. Break into my home, I'll drop you where I find you, and I wont loose sleep over it. Would I shoot someone over my TV, or a loaf of bread? Sure will. It's not theirs, it's mine, and if they come into my home to take what's mine, I will stop them. I don't care what their background is, I don't care about their "reason", "excuse", whatever they have for their behavior. They DO NOT have a right to come into my home and take what is mine, but I should have the right to defend what is mine.
Agree 100%
-
Get you some white chaulk and draw a outline of a body on the ground in front of the garage :aok
Don't forget the cow blood and some spent shotgun shells......
We took a 12 ga and shot piece of 1/2 inch plywood.. then painted on it.. "this is the pattrern from the back door" then placed it outside by father in laws barn/shop.
-
BTW, did you put any thoughts in getting a dog? I have a German Shepard that does wonder at barking as soon as someone puts steps into the yard ... any time of day or night. It's also amazing how people freack out about a barking German Shepards ... especially when they run toward them. My dog brought a lot of peace of mind with her non stop working superhero sensors.
RIch, I'm not really worried about the cop part, more about the laweyr part.
Agreed on the GSD (German Shepard Dog). I have family that train police dogs for law enforcement and compete nationally in Schutzhund protection. There really is no way to overstate how good a german shepard dog is for protection. Mine is trained in three languages and recallable (by code word) only in one. Once I send her, she's not stopping until I personally recall her.
Add to that the fact that nothing can step onto my property without gaining her notice, and you have a dual purpose defender. At worst, should the bad guy get lucky enough to get a kill shot on her, (as mind numbingly bad as that is), she gained me time to end his incursion with a pull of my shotgun's trigger. If he hits her with anything short of an incapacitating blow, she's just getting mad. As well, legally, should any member of your family, including dog, receive injury (or death) during a break-in, you are fully justifiable in ending the intruder's life. ( I believe that stands in all 50 states, though I could be wrong)
I've had friends tell me they could stop her with one shot. So I invited them to take a few protection bites in a suit, and pretend they were trying to shoot her. All of them left with a different view. Something changed when they saw a blur of fur and teeth coming at them, or so they say.
GSD's are extremely loyal to their handler. Should you get one, just like any other home defense, I would fully recommend you learn how to handle it. Fully train it, and gain its' respect, and you (and your family) will be safe in any situation. I can put mine in a down in a shopping mall and walk away out of sight, (was specifically done during her training) and she won't move an inch until I personally recall her. If you do get one, be prepared to put in the time for a quality dog. You're not going to get a GSD out of the box that can do what mine does. It took years of training of both of us. Although, it's probably the same time it would take to get extremely proficient in handgun defense.
My GSD is a recallable bullet with a brain, and early warning system all wrapped in one.
-
You know, there was a time when crime wasn't a problem. That was back when if a criminal was caught red handed by the owner, the owner could shoot to kill to defend what was rightfully his.
I fail to see where the problem with that stance is. Texas did a good thing in my opinion by bringing that back into todays age.
Criminals feel they are entitled to someone elses property, and they'll continue to feel that way until someone stops them.
Everyone says, "Is it worth killing someone over a TV?" How about the civilized people wake up, take a stand, and make the criminals say to themselves, "Is this TV really worth me getting shot over?"
In the Joe Horn case, he saw a crime happening right in front of him, he acted in accourdance with the law, and killed two people who in my opinion deserved to be killed. They were career criminals, illegal aliens to boot, one had already served time for drug trafficing and was then deported, only to return illegaly and continue to commit crimes. Mr Horns actions prevented who knows how many more crimes from being committed, yet people want to condemn him for doing what the law allowed him to do.
I think once a person starts down a road of criminal behavior, they deserve whatever they get. Break into my home, I'll drop you where I find you, and I wont loose sleep over it. Would I shoot someone over my TV, or a loaf of bread? Sure will. It's not theirs, it's mine, and if they come into my home to take what's mine, I will stop them. I don't care what their background is, I don't care about their "reason", "excuse", whatever they have for their behavior. They DO NOT have a right to come into my home and take what is mine, but I should have the right to defend what is mine.
If u read my paranoic comments earlier, I totaly agree with you, but your question should be "I am ready to spend the next 10 years in and out of court, and spend all my savings for a TV".
Schutzhund ... I know Schutzhund :aok
(http://cecilemioni.com/sitebuilder/images/Cecile-and-Honey-233x178.jpg)(http://cecilemioni.com/sitebuilder/images/Honey-bite-work-on-the-A-fr_0-257x181.jpg)
Really amazing what u can achieve with it. How old was ur dog when u started? Do u think that 2 years old is too late?
-
If u read my paranoic comments earlier, I totaly agree with you, but your question should be "I am ready to spend the next 10 years in and out of court, and spend all my savings for a TV".
Yeah I know. I kinda went off on a tanget there. I guess I'm saying we shouldn't even have to ask that question because it shoudn't be an issue. The fact that it is, is a product of our society getting soft on crime. Since when did people start thinking it's better to punish the victim of a crime for defending himself and his property vs the criminal who created the entire chain of events in the first place?
It just makes no sense to me, and the fact that the courts allow stuff like that to happen blows me away.
-
Yeah I know. I kinda went off on a tanget there. I guess I'm saying we shouldn't even have to ask that question because it shoudn't be an issue. The fact that it is, is a product of our society getting soft on crime. Since when did people start thinking it's better to punish the victim of a crime for defending himself and his property vs the criminal who created the entire chain of events in the first place?
It just makes no sense to me, and the fact that the courts allow stuff like that to happen blows me away.
Hornet, the difference being the value of life placed over all else. That is a value this nation holds dear, both to the betterment and the detriment of its' citizenry. You may not agree, but there is a gradation in your response to a situation, in the law.
Killing an intruder may seem like a cut and dry matter to you. Yet, there are many shades of gray that can be applied to that. Killing an intruder, armed, who is actively intent on harming you and yours is one side. Killing an unarmed intruder who is a stupid kid on a dare from his friends, or an out of work parent just trying to feed their children is the other. The law must be taken into account in all matters, not just the ones you see as pertinent.
-
Hornet, the difference being the value of life placed over all else. That is a value this nation holds dear, both to the betterment and the detriment of its' citizenry. You may not agree, but there is a gradation in your response to a situation, in the law.
Killing an intruder may seem like a cut and dry matter to you. Yet, there are many shades of gray that can be applied to that. Killing an intruder, armed, who is actively intent on harming you and yours is one side. Killing an unarmed intruder who is a stupid kid on a dare from his friends, or an out of work parent just trying to feed their children is the other. The law must be taken into account in all matters, not just the ones you see as pertinent.
Whatever happend to respecting others property and home? There is no shade of grey. My home, you may not enter it unless I allow you to enter it. That's cut and dry as it should be. There is NO legitimate reason for anyone to enter someone else's home without permission.
The armed intruder that wants to chop me up into little peices, the dumb kid who breaks in on a dare, or the out of work parent just looking for some food, NONE of them have a right to enter my home, and NONE of them have anything to fear from me until the enter my home. At that point they are all the same, uninvited criminals who I don't know, and have no idea of their intentions. They are all the same.
In a home invasion situation you do not have the time to figure out, "Gee I wonder what this person is really after? Do they want to hurt me, or are they just after my TV?" Doesn't matter because they shouldn't be there in the first place. The FACT that they broke into my home PROVES that they have no value for my life at all, so why should I place a value on theirs?
Shades of grey is nothing but a copout. It's right or wrong. It's wrong to break into someones home for any reason, and the owner has the right to stop you with any means available.
-
If u read my paranoic comments earlier, I totaly agree with you, but your question should be "I am ready to spend the next 10 years in and out of court, and spend all my savings for a TV".
Schutzhund ... I know Schutzhund :aok
(http://cecilemioni.com/sitebuilder/images/Cecile-and-Honey-233x178.jpg)(http://cecilemioni.com/sitebuilder/images/Honey-bite-work-on-the-A-fr_0-257x181.jpg)
Really amazing what u can achieve with it. How old was ur dog when u started? Do u think that 2 years old is too late?
Mine was just under her first year when she started basic obedience. (Begleithund certified at (BH) at 16 months) She certified SchH III at 5 years old. She's 7 now. (and perfectly content to lie on the couch)
My mother swears that "real" protection shouldn't be started until after 2 years old, and she's been doing it for a long time. Training when the dog is young can ruin its' confidence, creating an unmanageable wreck. Play introduction with burlap started when my girl was still a young pup. It should be mentioned that each dog has a different personality and adaptation to the work. If you're into Shutzhund, you'll also know to check their hips for dysplasia. Also, check into your pedigree and see if your dog came from German broodstock. They have been much more successful at eliminating issues with maturing GSD's due to a better approach at the genomics of the breed.
It depends on where you are with your dog, but I would maintain that 2 years old is a great time to work out his/her limits and be able to train well. Just don't get in with those trainers that use shock systems (horrible way to train and ruin a good dog, who associates you with "PAIN" other than "REWARD". Find a good trainer that uses positive behavioral reinforcement, you'll be much happier with the result! ( a protective, loving, slobbering bullet you can call back)
-
Shades of grey is nothing but a copout. It's right or wrong. It's wrong to break into someones home for any reason, and the owner has the right to stop you with any means available.
It's also wrong to purposefully cause an accident and endanger my family's safety. Are you inferring it is therefore applicable that insurance defrauders be stopped using guided missiles? What about speeders?
I therefore maintain it is inherently necessary to ascertain intent prior to use of force. This is why my protection trained dog is my first line of defense. Intent is ascertained the second the intruder takes another step forward, and not at the price of my or my "human" family's safety.
-
Getback, unless you're really willing to kill someone, don't get a handgun.
I'd suggest something to scare them off, and if the time comes where you actually HAVE to shoot them, wound them (which should be your very very VERY last resort.)
I'd get a cheap shotgun, .410, or 20 gauge. Get the 8 dove shot, so it's little BBs, so if you shoot, it'll either not hurt them really bad, or they'll be far enough away for you to not hit them.
Pistols are very dangerous, and it's very easy to shoot yourself with one. If I ever got a pistol, I would never load it unless I decided I had to. Even though at a certain distance, you're gonna kill, shotguns are much safer.
Small caliber rifle may be good too.
Lawls.
If you shoot someone inside a home with a shotgun, it's not going to make any difference what gauge the shotgun is, or what size shot was in the shell, the person on the receiving end is going to be in a world of hurt.
-
People can defend their families, themselves and their property with whatever reasonable force they feel like. It's idiotic to assume every bullet will go through several brick walls, intact, and strike lil Timmy while he sleeps in his bed.
You're right, people can defend themselves however they like. All I'm saying is it's not a good idea to use the rifle when you have a shotgun and a handgun right beside it.
And I did not say every freakin' bullet would penetrate and kill someone. The mere possibility of it warrants using a different weapon.
-
Sorry but thats a lie. The average Cambodian did not own, nor could not afford to own a firearm. It was a full fledged civil war. My wife is Cambodian, her father was an officer in the Cambodian armed forces and killed during the war.
Given you f*****d this fact up so significantly I'm guessing you dug these 'facts' out of a pro-gun-to-the-point-of-being-a-nutcase email that does that rounds every so often. Either that or made things up. I'm guessing the other facts about Kenyan (I think you mean Zimbabwe) farmers and the jews in Nazi germany are total fantasy too.
So if you feel the need to keep your right to defend yourself in your home do it without lies, thanks.
Oh, I didnt make any of them up. I did more than one research project in college on gun control for my poli sci courses. I didnt gather any of my info from popilist sources like most, I actually dug. Just becasue your wife is Cambodian doesnt make her or you and expert on the matter, not that I am either, however I remember my facts and calling me a liar is a bit drastic. Want to call my bluff? Are you going to apologize when I post the sources? Do you want to be made an even bigger fool that the one you just made of yourself? There are three things in this world I am quite well versed in: Small arms, gun control, and history (WWII, Vietnam, and Asian Colonial history to be exact).
Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge would have shot anyone on sight if they had a firearm of any sort. Any sort of firearm, ammo, non approved books, anything western, etc. There was to be no resistance of questioning of the Khmer Rouge. It took Vietnam to save Cambodia since the people couldnt do it themselves. Over 1 million died. That was only 30 years ago. Not long enough to brush it off, imo.
Read up. Check into the other events I mentioned as well and hold fast your tongue.
-
double post.
-
Your analogy is not even comparable.
I KNOW when I leave my home, get behind the wheel of my truck, and head on down a public road that I have to deal with everyone else on the road and that there is a very real risk that I could be involved in an accident. I'm prepared for it by having insurance on my truck to protect it, myself, and others if I am involved in an accident. If it should happen the police will find out who was at fault and the courts will deal with it acourdingly.
When I am sitting inside my home I have every right to expect that no one will enter my home without my permission and that I'm not at risk to everyone else out there. To do so, by steping one foot inside my home, is against the law. Someone cannot accidentaly break into my home. They have the intent to do so before it happens. Once they are in, intent to commit a crime is proven, and I don't know what else they intend to do, and I'm not going to be one to take chances trying to find out. I shouldn't have to, since they shouldn't be there in the first place.
My home is not a public avenue for anyone to come strolling through whenever they please and I have to first detirmine what their intentions are. My home is my private property where I have EVERY reasonable expectation that no one will enter.
-
Getback, unless you're really willing to kill someone, don't get a handgun.
I'd suggest something to scare them off, and if the time comes where you actually HAVE to shoot them, wound them (which should be your very very VERY last resort.)
I'd get a cheap shotgun, .410, or 20 gauge. Get the 8 dove shot, so it's little BBs, so if you shoot, it'll either not hurt them really bad, or they'll be far enough away for you to not hit them.
Pistols are very dangerous, and it's very easy to shoot yourself with one. If I ever got a pistol, I would never load it unless I decided I had to. Even though at a certain distance, you're gonna kill, shotguns are much safer.
Small caliber rifle may be good too.
Do NOT shoot to wound, ever. EVER.
Small caliber rifle? As in 5.56 NATO? or as in .22LR rimfire?
Loaded guns are not the problem, not following the 10 rules of firearms safety is. ;)
-
A little side story, this happened not once but twice to two different friends in the course of about 2 months. The story is basically a long night out partying ends with a ride home from a DD that doesn't really know where person in question lives. This person gets dropped off a few houses away from their own house, but since they all look the same, and this person is extremely drunk, they go to the wrong house. In one situation the door was un-locked, my friend stumbles inside and passes out on the couch. The next morning the owners get a nice surprise but its all laughs as they all knew eachother anyway. However for another friend the story was not so nice. The front door was locked so he went around to a back sliding door which is always open. This guy happens to be a big intimidating looking type and starts banging on the door to his friends to let him in. Well the elderly man living their was not impressed and came to that part of the house with his shotgun, except rather than confronting the drunk he stayed covered in the shadows near the back of the room, at the ready with his gun. Luckily he called the cops also. Eventually my friend busted open the door and pretty much fell into the house at the same time the cops arrived. If the cops didn't get their this guy would have probably been shot.
Sure my drunk friend was in the wrong, he was at the wrong house. However would his mistakes justified him being shot? He's a great guy that doesn't even drink that much, he just got out of control drunk this one time (who hasn't?). This is just one situation with many variables that goes to show that blowing someone away as soon as they enter your house might not be the best mentality. This type of arming and preparing yourself for a full scale invasion may not be the healthiest mentality for you OR your neighbors!
This.....is exactly what Hornet was talking about. If that old man had shot your drunk friend, the old man would have been in the right. Your friend is the one that started the chain of events that led to him breaking into that old couples home. Your friend, not the old man, would have been to blame if any gunfire had erupted that night. Why? Because he had no business being where he was, and it was HIS choices that led to him being at the back door of the wrong house in the middle of the night. My sympathies would have been with the old man for having had to defend himself, not with some drunk that couldn't find his way home.
-
You're right, people can defend themselves however they like. All I'm saying is it's not a good idea to use the rifle when you have a shotgun and a handgun right beside it.
And I did not say every freakin' bullet would penetrate and kill someone. The mere possibility of it warrants using a different weapon.
Using a rifle to defend your home is idiotic. I don't care how proficient you are with it, there's no way to stop those rounds from penetrating and killing your neighbor.
:huh
YOU may not think it's a good idea, I'm sure others think it's a very good idea. Using a shotgun in my home is option #3. After my AR15 with JHP's, and Sig P226 9mm with Winchester whitebox rounds, THEN its my Mossberg 500. Whichever firearm I get to first. (The Sig is under the table beside my bed)
My wife would be PISSED if I peppered the walls with buck shot...
Anyway, not every gun owner in America owns a rifle, a shotgun and handgun...
-
My wife would be PISSED if I peppered the walls with buck shot...
She'd get over it. :D
-
Well.... :D
-
Oh, I didnt make any of them up. I did more than one research project in college on gun control for my poli sci courses. I didnt gather any of my info from popilist sources like most, I actually dug. Just becasue your wife is Cambodian doesnt make her or you and expert on the matter, not that I am either, however I remember my facts and calling me a liar is a bit drastic. Want to call my bluff? Are you going to apologize when I post the sources? Do you want to be made an even bigger fool that the one you just made of yourself? There are three things in this world I am quite well versed in: Small arms, gun control, and history (WWII, Vietnam, and Asian Colonial history to be exact).
Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge would have shot anyone on sight if they had a firearm of any sort. Any sort of firearm, ammo, non approved books, anything western, etc. There was to be no resistance of questioning of the Khmer Rouge. It took Vietnam to save Cambodia since the people couldnt do it themselves. Over 1 million died. That was only 30 years ago. Not long enough to brush it off, imo.
Read up. Check into the other events I mentioned as well and hold fast your tongue.
Post your sources, I've been to Cambodia, I have a large extended family of Cambodians. I've also met Hang Ngor on several occasions, had dinner with him quite a bit. I've had the privilege of hearing quite a bit about the war. Post your sources please.
As for the rest, well here's a start: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
-
Post your sources, I've been to Cambodia, I have a large extended family of Cambodians. I've also met Hang Ngor on several occasions, had dinner with him quite a bit. I've had the privilege of hearing quite a bit about the war. Post your sources please.
As for the rest, well here's a start: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
Your link regarding the Nazis is in regards to a well known falicy of what "could" have been an organized Jewish revolt in Germany. I did not argue that the Jews could have or would have revolted, I argued that their ability to own firearms were taken away PRIOR to the general populace and by order of the govt. Also, did you notice the quote by Hitler in the footnotes? You need to head to the ER, you just shot yourself in the foot. ;)
Ah yes, you want to play the "I know so-n-so, he told me XYZ" game with me. If you truely did meet who you say you did and kneww him as well as you say you do, then feel very blessed. As for my sources on the Khmer Rouge, the first or second chapter of "The Stones Cry Out", by Molyda Szymusiak (Buth Keo) details all they were instructed to leave behind or give up (including any weapons). I'll dig out the page number, keep your bonnet on. Also, "Year Zero Death", by Raymeond Naqui (spelling?) displays a very vivid picture of the structure of how the Cambodians were re-educated and also detailed the "absolutes", as in no weapons, no unapproved education, no unassigned food, no nothing without a Khmer Rouge approval. I'll see if I can dig out my research projects and get even more sources for some exact quotes. But, if you really think the Khmre Rouge was going to let the people have firearms, or they didnt detail that it was forbidden and for people to turn in any firearms... then you didnt learn anything when you were being spoken to by Haing Ngor, which whom you say you know (or knew, actually). The Khmer Rouge was absolute.
-
Killing an intruder may seem like a cut and dry matter to you. Yet, there are many shades of gray that can be applied to that. Killing an intruder, armed, who is actively intent on harming you and yours is one side. Killing an unarmed intruder who is a stupid kid on a dare from his friends, or an out of work parent just trying to feed their children is the other. The law must be taken into account in all matters, not just the ones you see as pertinent.
Its funny how this urban myth persists. :lol The "out of work parent stealing to feed his kids"? :rofl
Out of all the tens of thousands of thieves, burglars,robbers, dope dealers...ect I pinched in my career I cant name one who was doing it to "feed his kids". :lol Mostly, 95%, were stealing, burglarizing, and robbing, in order to buy drugs or otherwise support their narcissistic lifestyle. Even boosters, "shoplifters", are either druggies or just dont want to pay for their batteries or diet pills. Even 95% of pro boosters are junkies. I worked a methadone clinic off duty for about a year once and it was like Old Home Week from my retail security days where I would pinch up to 85 boosters in a 20 day period.
This "feeding his kids" thing is just hilarious to us in Law Enforcement. Hahahahahaha. But do keep informing us on current trends Moray. We need the laugh.
-
You know, there was a time when crime wasn't a problem. That was back when if a criminal was caught red handed by the owner, the owner could shoot to kill to defend what was rightfully his.
I fail to see where the problem with that stance is. Texas did a good thing in my opinion by bringing that back into todays age.
Criminals feel they are entitled to someone elses property, and they'll continue to feel that way until someone stops them.
Everyone says, "Is it worth killing someone over a TV?" How about the civilized people wake up, take a stand, and make the criminals say to themselves, "Is this TV really worth me getting shot over?"
In the Joe Horn case, he saw a crime happening right in front of him, he acted in accourdance with the law, and killed two people who in my opinion deserved to be killed. They were career criminals, illegal aliens to boot, one had already served time for drug trafficing and was then deported, only to return illegaly and continue to commit crimes. Mr Horns actions prevented who knows how many more crimes from being committed, yet people want to condemn him for doing what the law allowed him to do.
I think once a person starts down a road of criminal behavior, they deserve whatever they get. Break into my home, I'll drop you where I find you, and I wont loose sleep over it. Would I shoot someone over my TV, or a loaf of bread? Sure will. It's not theirs, it's mine, and if they come into my home to take what's mine, I will stop them. I don't care what their background is, I don't care about their "reason", "excuse", whatever they have for their behavior. They DO NOT have a right to come into my home and take what is mine, but I should have the right to defend what is mine.
+1
-
Being that I am a Policeman Frenchy I think I have a pretty good idea about what would happen.
Trust me, anything that "could" happen is a whole lot better then you being the dead body in your house.
Allow me.. "`tis better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".
-
Culero,
I'm aware of the Texas law and a rather controversial shooting that happened recently there. Texas isn't the entire US, much as Texans would like to think they are. (I'm married to a Texan)
I wasn't sure you were aware of what exactly Texas law regarding the use of deadly force to protect property is, due to the portion of your post that I quoted:
"You defend life with deadly force not property. Not even LEO's are authorized to shoot fleeing burglars, thieves, shoplifters or con men unless life is in danger so why would you think you are."
This statement is wrong, in Texas. If you will read the statutes I posted for your convenience, you will see that the use of deadly force is indeed authorized to not only defend property, but to prevent those caught in the act of committing property crime from escaping with that property.
You are required to use no force or as little as is feasible if possible, but if you aren't capable of stopping the crime any other way, you are free to use deadly force. The circumstances and the capabilities of the person on the scene are relevant, which is why I pointed out that there are different expectations for LEOs and citizens.
Based on this post, even though you say you understand the Texas law, I doubt that you do.
Do you really feel trespass is a capital offense subject to the death penalty? Particularly trespass on property not your own that has been abandoned?
No I do not. Neither does Texas law. This bit is part of why I don't believe you understand it. Trespass is not mentioned anywhere in the statute excerpts I posted, nor did I mention it. I am only addressing your apparent misunderstanding about protecting property (specifically, the loss thereof).
I also do not believe that property crime is or should be a capital offense, in case you are wondering. But I do agree with the concept behind this facet of Texas law - that a property owner should be able to act in whatever way necessary to stop someone they've caught in the act of taking their property. If that property owner has no other way to do that, and kills the thief, I am 100% OK with that.
If it was me in that situation, I might or might not use deadly force. I would use less or no force if possible. If less or no force was not an option, I would still decide if the circumstances warranted the thief's death - for instance, I wouldn't kill someone for stealing an orange off one of my trees, or kids that were toilet-papering my house at night.
I'm glad that Texas law allows property owners the freedom to use their judgment and act as circumstances warrant.
And, speaking to your Joe Horn reference, I believe he acted legally. If I was his neighbor, I'd be grateful for his courage. He's going to have to suffer consequences that I wouldn't want to have to suffer, and probably wouldn't have to defend a neighbor's property. But, he did eliminate a couple of amazinhunks that I doubt anyone in the neighborhood will miss, and I bet his neighbors see less burglary in the near future, so I won't condemn him for what he did.
I have an idea that the law in Texas is going to be tightened up a bit. Frankly, I think the Castle Doctrine is fine but it was taken to an extreme in the Texas statute you cited and I don't doubt that there will be some modifications to it.
Again, you demonstrate your misunderstanding of Texas law here. This isn't about Castle Doctrine at all. Its about prevention of loss of property. There is a big difference.
I don't have a bit of a problem with a person defending his family and himself in their home against an unlawful home invasion. I do have a problem with a civilian leaving their home and family to go hunting for bad guys on a neighboring piece of property, especially an abandoned piece of property.
I agree, mostly. Just as all LEOs are not equal, neither are all citizens. Generalization is something I'll always quibble with. In this case, my quibble is that some (many) cops are less qualified than some (many) civilians in this regard.
My stance is that when I see a crime being committed, I should report it to law enforcement and stay out of their way while they do their job. I believe that's what you are recommending, so I don't think we are really that far apart in terms of what we advise people to do.
I'm just trying to point out that while the advice you are giving regarding the law may be true in some places, its not true everywhere.
Unlike almost everyone else here posting "expert opinion" here on the board, I've had to go hunting for bad guys on unfamiliar property and in the dark. Even for somewhat familiar property it's not something an untrained civilian should be doing. It's something I won't and don't do any longer either since I've retired. I'll be happy to stay in a spot and defend it until help arrives.
Again, I agree.
Interesting anecdote:
A few years ago, a local citizen observed someone breaking into his neighbor's garage. He called the police, then went outside with his pistol. The burglar saw him and took off running. The citizen shouted for the burglar to stop. He didn't. The citizen shot him in the back, killing him.
The grand jury (correctly, IMO) no-billed the citizen.
The police, when they investigated, found a large cache of stolen property in the burglar's apartment. They cleared a boat-load of local burglaries.
I and many others in this community are grateful to the citizen who shot the scumbag. It could have been any of our houses next. This is an example of why I am glad Texas law is as it is, and will work to see it stays that way.
-
Your link regarding the Nazis is in regards to a well known falicy of what "could" have been an organized Jewish revolt in Germany. I did not argue that the Jews could have or would have revolted, I argued that their ability to own firearms were taken away PRIOR to the general populace and by order of the govt. Also, did you notice the quote by Hitler in the footnotes? You need to head to the ER, you just shot yourself in the foot. ;)
Ah yes, you want to play the "I know so-n-so, he told me XYZ" game with me. If you truely did meet who you say you did and kneww him as well as you say you do, then feel very blessed. As for my sources on the Khmer Rouge, the first or second chapter of "The Stones Cry Out", by Molyda Szymusiak (Buth Keo) details all they were instructed to leave behind or give up (including any weapons). I'll dig out the page number, keep your bonnet on. Also, "Year Zero Death", by Raymeond Naqui (spelling?) displays a very vivid picture of the structure of how the Cambodians were re-educated and also detailed the "absolutes", as in no weapons, no unapproved education, no unassigned food, no nothing without a Khmer Rouge approval. I'll see if I can dig out my research projects and get even more sources for some exact quotes. But, if you really think the Khmre Rouge was going to let the people have firearms, or they didnt detail that it was forbidden and for people to turn in any firearms... then you didnt learn anything when you were being spoken to by Haing Ngor, which whom you say you know (or knew, actually). The Khmer Rouge was absolute.
So basically you're taking the lack of ownership of ANY possessions and trying to turn it into a 'they took their firearms' argument. The fact is that the average cambodian civilian did not own firearms, and still do not.
You said:
Ask the victims of Pol Pot what they were told to first do prior to going to the instituionalizing "gatherings" (they were to turn in all firearms).
Which is rubbish, because they didn't own firearms. The only other people with firearms would've been regular armed forces or police, and they were usually killed on the spot.
Play the I know so and so card? I dunno, I've been part of a khmer family for around 20 or so years now. I got married in phnom penh. I think I have a fair idea of what went on there. And what you're saying about the cambodians and firearms being handed in is a very very long stretch of the imagination.
-
Not going to ave a pissing contest with you over laws and law enforcement. When you put your bellybutton in a uniform and do the job for a few years, you can start to talk to me about it. Until then you are another self proclamed expert with no clue about the subject other than reading and talking.
I guess you hit the PM button by mistake.
I'm not surprised to hear you say this. You have no idea who I am or what my background is, but being a donut shop expert you can just intuit it. Typical response from exactly what's wrong with law enforcement in this country.
FYI, I've known a lot of cops in my time. I admire most of them because they are mostly professional in their behavior and they mostly do a good job of what they are supposed to do. I appreciate that very much. The entire community should.
Unfortunately, many of them do suffer from the delusion they are the sole and exclusive repository of wisdom regarding any subject that relates to how they earn a living. They seem to think they are somehow anointed
priests who possess knowledge that may only be known by the initiated.
Of course I understand that they have to deal with a butt-load of stupidity on a daily basis, and sympathize with that. Its got to be frustrating. I also understand that they study and train to do what they do, and therefore are entitled to be regarded as expert in their field.
Its still no excuse for arrogance. I find it unfortunate that a class of people who are otherwise fine folks who deserve to be admired tend to also be obnoxious when discussing their jobs or anything related to that subject.
FYI, Maverick, with all due respect you are the one here that doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.
The only thing I ever disputed here with you was the truth about your comment that deadly force is only legal when used to defend life. I only sought to add to the discussion that this isn't necessarily the case, and cited Texas law as an example.
Every reply you've made since then (until you decided to switch to the "I'm an expert so STFU" argument :)) has demonstrated both your lack of understanding the law as it applies in Texas, or your apparent refusal/inability (choose one) to read it, or perhaps just your disgust at being called out because you're Mighty Cop. Its all in very simple and plain to understand language - deadly force is allowed to be used in defense of property in Texas. Its all I ever argued with you about.
You've tried to stretch me into advocating shooting trespassers (which this was never about), you've tried to dodge the corner into Castle Doctrine (which this was never about), you've tried to move the discussion to people doing something illegal like going armed onto property they don't own or have an invitation to (which this was never about), you've even ignored that I have specifically agreed with you regarding how I should behave in these situations.
Just the fact that some lowly civilian tried to comment to you regarding a point of law from his home state has apparently annoyed you, now to the point of using the "I wore a badge, I know All, so you STFU!" argument. Please, spare me.
As a parting shot, I'm amused to remember the last time I disputed with a group of cops about something related to shooting. I heard a lot of the same kind of BS you're pitching now, until it was my turn to shoot. Taking all their pot money home was nice, but the looks on the arrogant salamanders' faces was priceless :)
-
Hornet, the difference being the value of life placed over all else. That is a value this nation holds dear, both to the betterment and the detriment of its' citizenry. You may not agree, but there is a gradation in your response to a situation, in the law.
Killing an intruder may seem like a cut and dry matter to you. Yet, there are many shades of gray that can be applied to that. Killing an intruder, armed, who is actively intent on harming you and yours is one side. Killing an unarmed intruder who is a stupid kid on a dare from his friends, or an out of work parent just trying to feed their children is the other. The law must be taken into account in all matters, not just the ones you see as pertinent.
Sorry, not seeing shades of gray there either. If someone is willing to take a stupid dare ~ the reason it's 'dared' in the first place instead of a commonplace act is that there's a possible deadly consequence. If an out of work parent is trying to feed their kids, they need to swallow their pride and get over to the local food bank instead of entering the home of others to steal.
The law is taken into account in all matters regarding intruders. If they enter, they're taking the chance that they'll be killed for it. If they're only injured & not killed they ought to consider themselves lucky; if they're killed it will serve as a reminder that breaking into someone elses home has consequences of the deadly kind.
-
Sorry, not seeing shades of gray there either. If someone is willing to take a stupid dare ~ the reason it's 'dared' in the first place instead of a commonplace act is that there's a possible deadly consequence. If an out of work parent is trying to feed their kids, they need to swallow their pride and get over to the local food bank instead of entering the home of others to steal.
The law is taken into account in all matters regarding intruders. If they enter, they're taking the chance that they'll be killed for it. If they're only injured & not killed they ought to consider themselves lucky; if they're killed it will serve as a reminder that breaking into someone elses home has consequences of the deadly kind.
I agree with all that. But, I agree with MORAY, too. Just because its justified doesn't mean it shouldn't be avoided if possible. While you are right in that one's actions expose oneself to consequences, its also true that circumstances can moderate consequences. Even if you are entitled within the law to use deadly force, doing the right thing means making sure you don't unless necessary.
-
After reading all these posts i'm rather glad I live in a country with tight gun control laws. I have a good security system,flood lights and a fluffy white alsatian,more than sufficient. As it has been pointed out,most burglars anywhere are opportunist dopeheads looking for the easy break in. Ive never understood the need for a huge arsenal of weaponry to defend your property. For some people out there their biggest concern in a break-in would be "desert eagle,AK or spas 12? hmmmmm."
If you want to use an automatic rifle to defend your family,then so be it. It'll probably scare the heck out of them, but cant see how spraying bullets is gonna help. You really need more than 6 bullets to protect your loved ones? It'll only take 1 to open pandora's box.
Dont get me wrong tho, I'd own a firearm if I was in the US. probably not an AK47,with its sucky fire selection switch,i'd empty the mag into the ceiling. Revolver sounds more than adequate.
my 2 cents (adjusted for inflation)
-
I agree with all that. But, I agree with MORAY, too. Just because its justified doesn't mean it shouldn't be avoided if possible. While you are right in that one's actions expose oneself to consequences, its also true that circumstances can moderate consequences. Even if you are entitled within the law to use deadly force, doing the right thing means making sure you don't unless necessary.
Yeah, I agree with that as well. I guess it's just easier to say that I agree with you than it ever is to say I agree with Moray because his posts are so pompous and holier than thou.
-
Hey I like this Texas chick :cool:
-
Yeah, I agree with that as well. I guess it's just easier to say that I agree with you than it ever is to say I agree with Moray because his posts are so pompous and holier than thou.
:aok You got that right. Shades of grey is just anouther way of saying you are unwilling to take a stance on right and wrong but are willing to put your and your families life on the line for a "what if" situation. I consider anyone in my home uninvited a direct personal threat against me no matter what their intentions are and I will deal with that threat in the most expediant manner available to me. Steel on target, center mass, till the target is on the ground. The way I was raised and my personal beliefs will let me sleep at night afterwards.
-
FYI, Maverick, with all due respect you are the one here that doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.
Actually Maverick sounds like he's forgotten more then you've ever known. Even worse you sound like a fool Culero.
That rant of yours sounded like you just got off your ritalin.
As a parting shot, I'm amused to remember the last time I disputed with a group of cops about something related to shooting. I heard a lot of the same kind of BS you're pitching now, until it was my turn to shoot. Taking all their pot money home was nice, but the looks on the arrogant woots' faces was priceless
Ever notice how these characters with their Internet cop obsessions never fail to say how they can outshoot the police?
-
Actually Maverick sounds like he's forgotten more then you've ever known. Even worse you sound like a fool Culero.
That rant of yours sounded like you just got off your ritalin.
So, you also believe that Texas law does not allow the use of deadly force to protect property? If so, you're just as off-base as Mav on this.
Ever notice how these characters with their Internet cop obsessions never fail to say how they can outshoot the police?
No cop obsession at all here. If I'd wanted to be one, I would have been. I've declined more than one invitation to join a local police force. I respect the job, but its not for me.
Ever notice how many cops seem to think you have to be a cop before you know how to read and understand the law? Ever notice how many cops seem to think you have to be a cop to be a disciplined shooter? That's more akin to obsession, or rather delusion, if you ask me. Practice makes perfect, buddy, and the law is a public document. You work for the taxpayers, not the other way around. Get over it.
-
Yeah, I'm sure Police Dept.'s all over your area were breaking your door down to join. :rofl
Your a funny little guy Culero. To bad your going to be turned into soylent green the minute Skuzzy comes back from lunch.
-
Yeah, I'm sure Police Dept.'s all over your area were breaking your door down to join. :rofl
snip
Not at all. But friends who are officers have more than once told me they'd like to see me working with them. Its a good career but not one I'm suited to by temperament and I know that. Besides, I already have a good job :)
-
:aok You got that right. Shades of grey is just anouther way of saying you are unwilling to take a stance on right and wrong but are willing to put your and your families life on the line for a "what if" situation. I consider anyone in my home uninvited a direct personal threat against me no matter what their intentions are and I will deal with that threat in the most expediant manner available to me. Steel on target, center mass, till the target is on the ground. The way I was raised and my personal beliefs will let me sleep at night afterwards.
No shades of gray here. My wife was taught how to shoot her pistol at close range and she was also told to drop the intruder. She will squeeze the trigger on target till the weapon stops making noise. Home invasions have gone up around here. We just had an innocent young man break into a house that was not his. He was so drunk he did not realize he was wrong and paid the ultimate price for it. Will be interesting to see how this investigation turns out.
Law here is like the one in Texas. No warning,NO duty to retreat,and if you believe they are breaking in to steal or harm you can use deadly force.
-
Yeah, I agree with that as well. I guess it's just easier to say that I agree with you than it ever is to say I agree with Moray because his posts are so pompous and holier than thou.
:rock
-
No shades of gray here. My wife was taught how to shoot her pistol at close range and she was also told to drop the intruder. She will squeeze the trigger on target till the weapon stops making noise. Home invasions have gone up around here. We just had an innocent young man break into a house that was not his. He was so drunk he did not realize he was wrong and paid the ultimate price for it. Will be interesting to see how this investigation turns out.
Law here is like the one in Texas. No warning,NO duty to retreat,and if you believe they are breaking in to steal or harm you can use deadly force.
While that is tragic, that young man is the one that started the chain of events that lead up to his own life ending. The choices were his, not the shooters. He chose to drink, he chose to drink to a point where he didn't know he was going into the wrong home. Those were his mistakes, not the homeowners, and they led up to his life ending.
-
Ever notice how many cops seem to think you have to be a cop before you know how to read and understand the law? Ever notice how many cops seem to think you have to be a cop to be a disciplined shooter? That's more akin to obsession, or rather delusion, if you ask me. Practice makes perfect, buddy, and the law is a public document
So true.
-
Yeah, I agree with that as well. I guess it's just easier to say that I agree with you than it ever is to say I agree with Moray because his posts are so pompous and holier than thou.
If by "holier than thou" you mean correct and astute, thank you.
I'm sorry if you think this way about me. You don't know me, and I don't know you. But at no point have I made it a point to insult you, we've even joked about things "in-game". Your opinion here is clearly based by posts you have seen dealing with others (such as Lazs when he was here), with whom I have gotten into things at length. Texas, I've never had any issues with you and would appreciate the same respect I give you. Unless, that is, respect isn't all that big in Texas.
Thank you.
Just as background on this matter, My grandfather was police chief just outside of St. Louis, MO for many years. He was a lifer on the force. He pulled his weapon many times, but used it only once. He aimed at a fleeing suspect who he saw running from a robbery call one night. He ordered him to stop, he kept running. My grandfather aimed for his legs, at the same time the guy tripped. He was hit in the lower abdomen and died on the way to the hospital. I only ever heard him talk about it once, just prior to his own death. He was still trying to come to grips with it. The guy did do the robbery, there was no denying it...there was property (jewelry) on him. Nor was there denying the fact of his "other" life factors. He really was what rich46 calls that "mystical" criminal. Just a guy, down on his luck, with a family in a house that was being taken away from them. A guy that had run out of options and did what he thought he had to for his family. I'm not saying this particular criminal was correct in his judgment. He was not. He payed for his bad judgment with his life. My grandfather was cleared on the incident, (he was just a beat cop at the time) and went on to become detective and then chief. He said that incident, by itself, taught him the value of clear judgment and mitigated response.
There is no possession on this planet worth a human life. You"good christian" folk should go back to reading those bibles, instead of thumping your hands about your chests like the monkeys you are. Justifying murdering someone over a TV.... simply mind blowing. There is only one thing that is worth killing another human being for..... defensively. When your life (or your family/friends or innocent stranger's life) or his, is in the balance. Shame on anyone who feels otherwise. I'm incredibly relieved I don't know any of you personally. Your lack of grounded, rational thought is disgusting.
-
There is no possession on this planet worth a human life. You"good christian" folk should go back to reading those bibles, instead of thumping your hands about your chests like the monkeys you are. Justifying murdering someone over a TV.... simply mind blowing.
Sweet. I need a new one. What's your address? I'll come take it peacefully.
-
It doesn't matter if they want a freakin Q-Tip, if someone BREAKS INTO MY HOME, they will pay for it.
-
If by "holier than thou" you mean correct and astute, thank you.
I'm sorry if you think this way about me. You don't know me, and I don't know you. But at no point have I made it a point to insult you, we've even joked about things "in-game". Your opinion here is clearly based by posts you have seen dealing with others (such as Lazs when he was here), with whom I have gotten into things at length. Texas, I've never had any issues with you and would appreciate the same respect I give you. Unless, that is, respect isn't all that big in Texas.
You're right Moray, you've never spoken disrespectfully to me at all ~ and that opinion was formed entirely off of posts to other people. I'm sorry. Having a smart mouth is one of my big faults, and I always regret being rude afterward.
-
Get you some white chaulk and draw a outline of a body on the ground in front of the garage :aok
:rofl :rofl :rofl Best idea yet!!!!!
-
If you don't want bad things to happen to you,don't break into other peoples homes.
It really is that simple.
-
If you don't want bad things to happen to you,don't break into other peoples homes.
It really is that simple.
QFT
-
Thought I heard someone around my car few nights ago. You boys are making me paranoid. :uhoh
Watch out! I have a flash light. :rofl