Defending your home, how far would you go?

[TheStatutoryApe]

I tried reading all of this but eventually started skimming.

This is what I know of California law.
You, as a citizen, have more or less the same rights to act as a police officer does when he arrives to protect you. Problem is that the police follow strict rules about what they are and are not allowed to do in certain situations and if you decide to play police officer you will be expected to follow the same procedures to within a rather strict degree of reason.

What are you allowed to do?

Well powers to arrest state generally that you have to have observed a person commit a misdemeanor in order to arrest them for it. So if you do not observe the person actually breaking into your home (breaking and entering is a misdemeanor) then you can not arrest them for it. If you find the person is actually in your home then you can say that they are trespassing but for a person to be considered a trespasser you must at least have a sign saying "no trespassing" and even then will likely still have to confront the person and request that they leave. If you request that they leave and they refuse then you can arrest them for trespassing.

As far as stealing goes the thief must actually remove your property from your home for it to be considered theft.
I believe that the law says five hundred dollars in value makes something grand theft which is then a felony.

For a felony you need only have reasonable suspicion to arrest a person. What constitutes reasonable suspicion is of course a problem. I'm not sure if you can arrest a person for attempted grand theft or if there is even such a crime according to the law. So you are probably unable to arrest a person for suspicion of grand theft unless you find them in your home and see that items of such a value are in fact missing from your home. In court you may also have to prove that you were aware at the time that what was missing was in fact worth enough to constitute grand theft.

Now arresting a person is another story all together. Technically as a citizen you are allowed to arrest a person under the circumstances I outlined above. The problem is what actions exactly are you allowed to take to arrest a person? Well if you are arresting a person for trespassing and they decide to leave what then? The point is that they are in your home uninvited and you wish them to leave so if they try to leave you then have no more reason to arrest them. So if you attempt to detain them because you are somehow certain in your own mind that they have commited some other crime yet you have no evidence then you are guilty of false imprisonment. Also if you believe a person has commited a felony but you are unable to demonstrate that you had reasonable suspicion you are yet again guilty of false imprisonment. Further if you so much as make a person believe that they are unable to leave when they should have legally been allowed to do so you can be found guilty of false imprisonment. So in most cases it is not a good idea to attempt to arrest someone on your own. Generally you should wait for the police to arrive and you can have the person arrested immediately remanding them to the custody of the police so you have no liability in the manner and circumstances of their arrest.

As for self defense it is quite difficult to prove in most places here. And the police generally do their job with a rather high level of prejudice. Remember that the police don't arrest you for commiting a crime, they arrest you because they believe you may have commited a crime. The court decides whether or not you actually commited one. So if the police have any reason what so ever to believe that you may have commited a felony they can arrest you and it is dependant upon the policy of the police department and the temperment of the officer just what level of prejudice they will use. If the criminal is conscious and relatively unhurt when the police arrive he may decide right then that he wishes to press charges against you and you will likely be arrested. If he says nothing then you will not likely be arrested. If the criminal is unconscious and/or requires medical attention you may or may not be arrested depending on the judgement of the officers. If the person is severely injured or dead you will most likely be arrested. Again, remember, this doesn't mean you have broken the law, you don't have to have broken the law, they only need reason to believe that you may have. The court decides whether or not you have broken the law and in a state as litigeous as CA the specifics of the law really matter rather little because it ultimately comes down to the jury and verdicts in such cases can swing wildly either way.


At any rate, I would personally probably try to beat the crap out of the guy. If there were more than one I would probably try to find a bat or something. People who break into houses often come back. They may even leave your place because they thought they heard you moving around and then just go right over to your neighbours and break into their place instead. At the very least you always want to call the police no matter what. These people are often on drugs as well which makes them unpridictable they may look to hurt or rape someone. They may also be attempting a home invasion in which case they are not going to just leave. A good reason both for attempting to defend yourself and for not attempting to defend yourself because if they are on drugs they will likely be that much more dangerous and difficult to take down. You will also need to be sure to take them down as quickly and effectively as possible to make sure that they don't get back up. This means you have to be very careful because if you kill one you will very likely wind up in jail. I know the consequences of a decision to use force against an intruder and anyone who thinks that they may try the same ought to be aswell.

 

[Santa1]

The problem I have with the law (UK anyhow) is that if I break into your house, and decide to munch on some of your fruit, and it's out of date, I can then sue you for poisoning me.

There have been loads of cases where people have broken in and injured themselves and then sued the homeowner successfully. The intruder doesn't even get charged in most cases.
(I'll look for a case or two now). So although I don't agree with shooting someone in the back and the law covering you, I also think it is dreadful the law defends the scum as it does.
Hence, I think people who intentionally break the law should automatically forfiet their rights.

It's equally bad in Norway, I remember a local case a year ago where a man had to hold down a burglar for 50 minutes before the police came (which is not atypical for norwegian police). He got fined for 10.000 kr ~ 2000$ (Currency rate at the date of the fine) for holding down the burglar.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

There was an intruder in my house about ten years ago. I went to bed early and my wife woke me up at about midnight. "There's someone in the house" she said to me. I told her to stay behind me while I went down. I wish I had a baseball bat or anything I could hold in my hand as I went down the stairs to face I knew not what. Just to stop it from shaking. When I got downstairs there was a woman, passed out cold, on the floor. I called the police and they took her away.

I don't think I would involve myself in any fight, I have no valuable experience in that regard. I don't know how to use a weapon anyway. My only hope is to struggle with the intruder to distract them so my family can perhaps escape.

 

[JaredJames]

See, I have to agree with cyrus on in the sense of I wouldn't hurt an inturder unless they presented a threat, a real and justifiable threat.

My problem is with the law on these matters. If I was to hear a noise downstairs and go investigate it, upon getting downstairs I find an intruder (no idea of their intention). I shout "I've called the police get out", and at this point, they turn around, look at me and have a 12" kitchen knife in their hand. I don't care whether they took it from my kitchen and are simply using it to aid in the crime or actually intend to use it on me. The fact is, they are waving a knife at me, a deadly weapon. If I then (as a relex action) grab the nearest heavy object, throw it/hit them with it, breaking their arm. I face getting done for assault. I could also be sued for using extreme force. (Obviously this is in the UK).
Now to me, I have used reasonable force to defend myself. At 3am, having just woken and being pumped on adrenaline, that was a sound judgement to me and constituted reasonable force to defend myself. Yet I am the one treated like a criminal.

OK, he may have just been turning to see who shouted, and OK he may have intended to run. But can you take that chance? If there are kids upstairs, do you wait to see if that person is going to use the knife? (In america I would substitue my 'heavy object' for a gun). I may not agree with lying in wait for the intruder and ambusing them (premeditation comes in and the law gets messy), or shooting someone in the back. But to me if someone shows a sign of being a threat to myself/my family they should be disarmed/taken down by any means necessary. After all, they are in the wrong, they should not be there.

If I am driving down the road and hit an uninsured driver, they get the blame. Because they don't have insurance and therefore shouldn't have been there/been driving. Now, if you decide to unload both barrels of your shotgun into the wall of your house / in my case take a couple of practice swings with a golf club in my kitchen, and an intruder happens to get in the way, surely the same logic would apply there? They shouldn't be there, therefore it is their fault.

 

[JasonRox]

See, I have to agree with cyrus on in the sense of I wouldn't hurt an inturder unless they presented a threat, a real and justifiable threat.

Hmm... not too long ago you seemed thrilled about the idea of killing someone who would break into your house.

 

[JaredJames]

Hmm... not too long ago you seemed thrilled about the idea of killing someone who would break into your house.

No, look at every post I have made. I have always said I would not shoot someone in the back or give chase if they ran away. They would have to prove a threat (turning and coming at me, holding a weapon etc.).

 

[JasonRox]

No, look at every post I have made. I have always said I would not shoot someone in the back or give chase if they ran away. They would have to prove a threat (turning and coming at me, holding a weapon etc.).

You were arguing that they forfeit their rights only because someone is going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit.

If you were the police officer following rules like that, I bet you'd be dead before the speeder. No one will tolerate such a abuse of power.

 

[JaredJames]

Look I'm not going through this again. In my OPINION should a person be actively breaking the law (shall we say, where no doubt exsits that they are doing so), they should forfiet their rights. That is my opinion on it and like I also stated, if someones in my house illegally and I confront them, that is what will be going through my mind, right or wrong. I also stated that if the laws did not side so heavily with the criminal and had suitable punishments (longer jail terms) to act as a deterent I would not think like that.

 

[JasonRox]

Look I'm not going through this again. In my OPINION should a person be actively breaking the law (shall we say, where no doubt exsits that they are doing so), they should forfiet their rights. That is my opinion on it and like I also stated, if someones in my house illegally and I confront them, that is what will be going through my mind, right or wrong. I also stated that if the laws did not side so heavily with the criminal and had suitable punishments (longer jail terms) to act as a deterent I would not think like that.

Ok, they forfeit their rights. But you don't gain the right to kill them.

So I should kill someone who pulls into my driveway to turn around and change directions.

I should kill someone who takes my wi-fi... sometimes it might even be for help. (Check directions on laptop. Or search for a tow truck driver or garage. Who knows.)

So many little laws are broken everyday. If you think the law is a measure to whether or not someone has rights... that is sad my friend. Sad sad sad.

 

[JaredJames]

Ok, they forfeit their rights. But you don't gain the right to kill them.

So I should kill someone who pulls into my driveway to turn around and change directions.

I should kill someone who takes my wi-fi... sometimes it might even be for help. (Check directions on laptop. Or search for a tow truck driver or garage. Who knows.)

So many little laws are broken everyday. If you think the law is a measure to whether or not someone has rights... that is sad my friend. Sad sad sad.

At what point did I say it gives you the right to kill them? You are putting words in my mouth. I said, any injury resulting from actions taken by them/me should be their fault.

Now if someone is in my house, and they pull a knife on me. If I stab them first then there should be no recourse for me. However if they simply attempt to run and I stab them on the way out a window, that is wrong. I pursued them with a weapon/with intent and that would make me no better.

As before I am not going to discuss this as this is my OPINION. No matter what you say it will not change. I judge all situations differently and in the case of an intruder I would rather defend my property than run outside. My choice. I am not going to discuss with you why I am wrong, because yes in the eyes of the law I know I am wrong, bearing in mind they are laws which protect the criminal more than the victim (UK).
I simply wanted to know what everyone would do in this situation. Not a debate on it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

At what point did I say it gives you the right to kill them? You are putting words in my mouth. I said, any injury resulting from actions taken by them/me should be their fault.

It may be a better and more logically consistent statement to say that your rights should trump those of the persons who infringe upon them. This way we are not taking away anyones rights, only creating a hierarchy of importance of individuals rights in particular circumstances.

I understand what you mean but others can obviously take your comment wrong.

 

[turbo]

It may be a better and more logically consistent statement to say that your rights should trump those of the persons who infringe upon them. This way we are not taking away anyones rights, only creating a hierarchy of importance of individuals rights in particular circumstances.

I understand what you mean but others can obviously take your comment wrong.

That's a more reasonable interpretation than some that I have read in this thread. A person who invades your home has set up a situation in which confrontation can have dire consequences for perpetrator or victim(s) or both. Any rational legal response to the injury or death of the perpetrator must take into account the fact that the perpetrator was the one who set up the confrontation, not the home-owner.

Like I said before, I didn't shoot the person who invaded my home, but he was lucky. He identified himself right away after I barked at him, and then tried to come up for some lame excuse for being in my house uninvited, AND he turned and ran out the front door when I ordered him to leave. The fact that he used the same MO to rob another relative makes me disappointed in myself. I should have held him at gunpoint and made him call the State Police to arrest him for home-invasion instead of letting him run off. Some of my wife's relatives would have been ticked off that I got the creep arrested, but I still should have done it.

 

[JasonRox]

If you came to my house with a gun Jason, in the scenario you posed, whether I tried to get out or confront you I would have to negotiate squeaky floorboards, an open plan setup so you wouldn't need to look hard to find out where I was. Now, given I live in the UK, guns aren't really a problem here so I wouldn't be too concerned about them.

How would you know I have a gun before seeing me?

Honestly, when someone walks in your house, you HAVE NO CLUE what's going on.

You live in some world of imagination here. If a criminal walks in your house and has a weapon, I'm pretty sure they will be capable of using it before you can.

 

[skeptic2]

In my OPINION should a person be actively breaking the law (shall we say, where no doubt exsits that they are doing so), they should forfiet their rights.

This is the type of statement that gets people into trouble. When you say "where no doubt exists" that may be to you at the time of the incident but there may be doubt to a police officer, to a defense attorney, to a judge or to a jury. By the time you get to court there are no cases where no doubt exists. Because to the authorities there is doubt, the person you are certain broke the law, is only a suspect and suspects have rights. The right to an attorney, the right of not incriminating himself and the right to be presumed innocent. In fact the burden of proof will be upon you to prove his guilt.

The law generally favors a measured response. You can't kill a person for stepping on your lawn even though he may be guilty of trespass. When you say a person committing a crime forfeits his rights, it may lead you to a response beyond what the law would consider reasonable.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I should have held him at gunpoint and made him call the State Police to arrest him for home-invasion instead of letting him run off.

I'm sure that you probably know at least some of your sheriffs and they likely would take your side but do you know if that would actually be legal to do where you live technically speaking?

I've been thinking about it and I would have to imagine that even in places like Texas or what have you where you can supposedly shoot an intruder in the back as they run away that there have to be laws that specify stricter guidelines and that people are just not very willing to enforce them in all circumstances.

 

[JaredJames]

What are'nt you guys understanding here? I don't care if I get in trouble. As far as I am concerned, an intruder forfiets their rights the moment they enter my house. This isn't a debatable issue as I have continually stated. I DO NOT want you to point flaws in mine or anyone else opinions on what they would do. I really can't see how I could make this clearer.
Over the last 8 pages I have said over and over:
What would you do in that situation? What does the law let you do? and Do not have a dig at what anyone says as their opinion. I do not want a debate on whether one opinion is right or wrong.

 

[Cyrus]

We are pointing out how your opinion is not only wrong, but dangerously wrong. For you, and the intruder in your house.

 

[JaredJames]

We are pointing out how your opinion is not only wrong, but dangerously wrong. For you, and the intruder in your house.

From what I've read here, a lot of states in America have laws allowing you to defend your home (or neighbours) by shooting someone without much restriction. Now if that isn't giving up the intruders rights, what is?
So you assumed I don't know it's wrong legally? I know full well it is wrong legally, all I said is that is how I feel about it. I refer you to my last post as I just can't be bothered to say it all again. Please just answer the questions or let it be.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

From what I've read here, a lot of states in America have laws allowing you to defend your home (or neighbours) by shooting someone without much restriction. Now if that isn't giving up the intruders rights, what is?

Actually I don't think that this is correct. You may be interpreting what others have said correctly (I didn't read it all) I'm just not certain that the laws are quite as lenient as people think they are. The thing that works to your advantage the most in many places here in the US is that the police/sheriffs will likely be on your side as well as the DA, judges, and potential jurors. So regardless of whether you have technically broken the law the likelihood that you would actually go to jail for it is slim. And in most places you must claim self defense and have at least some small ability to back that claim up. You can not shoot a person just for trespassing or walking off with your TV, though there are supposedly some few places where you can (or at least get away with it).

Edit: and in many places, such as here in California, you are highly unlike to get away with shooting an intruder at all.

 

[BobG]

When I said I would confront them first, at what point does that say I would just attack them?

If my landlord, in the middle of the night, turns and comes at me in a threatening manner, I'd put him on the floor. If an alzheimers patient, in the middle of the day, comes at me in a threatening manner, I'd try to use a reasonable response to defend my self but if they did prove dangerous I would have no problem with dropping them. A landlord can't just enter your home (well in my house they have to give at least 24 hours notice as per the contract), so they would be intruding.

Obviously, killing an intruder, at least for me is an extreme last resort only to be used if they trully are a threat to myself/families life.

I DO NOT agree with shooting a person in the back, lying in wait for an intruder etc. They must initiate hostility to me, that would be when I judge the threat level. A person running away is no longer a threat.

A landlord had to give advance notice before entering where I lived, too. The landlord just happened to be an idiot.

If I would have shot him, nothing would have happened to me. The only criteria when someone has "broken" into your home is that you have reason to fear for your life. If the landlord walks out of the bathroom and I shoot him on sight, I'm perfectly justified. I don't have to give him a chance to actually point a gun at me. The fact that we lived in a third floor apartment and had no safe escape would just add to the justification.

There's just a difference between morals and the law. In my case, listening for a minute or two allowed me to kind of figure out what was happening before I ever left the bedroom (kind of, because it's still hard to understand what the heck would ever possesses him to fix my bathroom in the middle of the night). He and his dad were talking about the repair job and you could hear what they were doing to the plumbing.

If I had had a gun and chose to shoot them just because they pissed me off, no one would have been able to prove that I knew what was going on before I left the bedroom.

Besides, running out of the bedroom into an unknown situation just blasting away would be dumb for a whole host of other reasons besides the morality side of things.

 

[0xDEADBEEF]

Blah balh blah I didn't check the whole thread but no one else seems to care much about laws here:
First castle doctrine:
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

[...]use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.[...]

States with a Stand-your-ground Law
No duty to retreat anywhere. [stronger form of castle law]
* Alabama
* Arizona
* Florida
* Georgia
* Indiana
* Kentucky
* Louisiana
* Oklahoma §21-1289.25
* South Carolina (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.")
* Texas
* Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
* Utah
* 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...)

[...many states with strong or weak castle laws...]

States with no known Castle Law
* Iowa (Law does not require retreat from home, but may require retreat within the home)
* New Hampshire[26]
* New Mexico
* Virginia
* District of Columbia

All states but the last four seem to justify shooting intruders to your home one way or another.

At first it looked like the UK was similar, but someone there was locked up when he killed an intruder:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law

In R v Lindsay (2005) AER (D) 349 the defendant who picked up a sword in self-defence when attacked in his home by three masked intruders armed with loaded handguns, killed one of them by slashing him repeatedly with that sword. The prosecution case was that, although he had initially acted in self defence, he had then lost his self-control and demonstrated a clear intent to kill the armed intruder. In fact, the defendant was himself a low-level cannabis dealer who kept the sword available to defend himself against other drug dealers. The Court of Appeal confirmed an eight-year term of imprisonment. In a non-criminal context, it would not be expected that ordinary householders who "go too far" when defending themselves against armed intruders would receive such a long sentence.

We should all return to the good old stuff though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmgang

 

[JaredJames]

The UK is against defending your home. The law says reasonable force, but who judges reasonable? A person in a situation like that is going to have a very different idea to a jury under no stress.
If you shoot someone in the UK, you're going to jail. Look up Tony Martin, a man who took the law into his own hands after the police did nothing to help him. He shot a guy in the back as he ran off, he deserved jail time. But at the same time, I understand why he did it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

All states but the last four seem to justify shooting intruders to your home one way or another.

If you read through that wiki article you will see that there are all manner of guidelines regarding such laws depending on what state you live in. There may also be any number of other local laws which may influence what are and are not acceptable actions to take in a given situation. Here in California you could possibly even be nailed on something as small as whether or not your fire arm had been properly locked up before the break in.

Really there are any number of laws like this on the books from the old days that are not necessarily going to be applied in the same manner as they were back when they were instituted. The effect often being that you will have little successful recourse to them. Shooting someone in your home is not something you can easily justify in most places.

 

[JaredJames]

Here in California you could possibly even be nailed on something as small as whether or not your fire arm had been properly locked up before the break in.

Stupid question, but how would the police/lawyers prove that? I mean if the gun cabinet is in your bedroom, but you keep the gun outside it loaded, unless you tell the police it was in said state how would they go about proving it? Even if it is downstairs then they would still have to prove it wasn't in it (obviously shooting the guy upstairs in such a case would be suspicious).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Stupid question, but how would the police/lawyers prove that? I mean if the gun cabinet is in your bedroom, but you keep the gun outside it loaded, unless you tell the police it was in said state how would they go about proving it? Even if it is downstairs then they would still have to prove it wasn't in it (obviously shooting the guy upstairs in such a case would be suspicious).

People are often not thinking in such situations and will say things that maybe they oughtn't have. Some may realize their mistake and start changing their story which will just add suspicion. Also if you killed someone in your home it would be a crime scene and they will go over it with a fine tooth comb. Depending on how thurough their investigation of your residence they may notice a lack of evidence that you retreived your gun from a locked location or maybe even that you don't actually own anything to keep your gun locked in.

Its a what if, and a relatively small one maybe, but a good example of just one of any number of things that could land you in jail regardless of any law that says you are allowed to defend your home with lethal force.

 

[baywax]

The UK is against defending your home. The law says reasonable force, but who judges reasonable? A person in a situation like that is going to have a very different idea to a jury under no stress.
If you shoot someone in the UK, you're going to jail. Look up Tony Martin, a man who took the law into his own hands after the police did nothing to help him. He shot a guy in the back as he ran off, he deserved jail time. But at the same time, I understand why he did it.

Very similar laws in Canada. If you really harm the intruder before they're over your threshold, you are at fault.

If you harm them after they're over the threshold, you will be at fault if you use undue force.. or deadly force. For instance, if I break the intruder's spine and render them paralyzed for life.. I'm at fault. If I offer them tea and a bit of a spanking I think I'll be let off with 2 years of sex addiction counseling and anger management. That's why its good to have a basement and a cement mixer at home.

 

[Cyrus]

Very similar laws in Canada. If you really harm the intruder before they're over your threshold, you are at fault.

If you harm them after their over the threshold, you will be at fault if you use undue force.. or deadly force. For instance, if I break the intruder's spine and render them paralyzed for life.. I'm at fault. If I offer them tea and a bit of a spanking I think I'll be let off with 2 years of sex addiction counseling and anger management. That's why its good to have a basement and a cement mixer at home.

Not true, at all. I saw this show on court tv where some homeowners had a problem with the concrete falling apart in their basement. When the contractors went to remove the old concrete and replace it with the new concrete they found human bones. What happens is the dead body decomposes and leaves a big void in the concrete which collapses in on itself a few years later. So, make sure you live in that house for a longggggggggg time before you sell it. (Or just fill the void back up a few years later and then sell it).

 

[baywax]

Not true, at all. I saw this show on court tv where some homeowners had a problem with the concrete falling apart in their basement. When the contractors went to remove the old concrete and replace it with the new concrete they found human bones. What happens is the dead body decomposes and leaves a big void in the concrete which collapses in on itself a few years later. So, make sure you live in that house for a longggggggggg time before you sell it. (Or just fill the void back up a few years later and then sell it).

:rofl: (snicker)

 

[KingNothing]

I would politely inform them that I am a broke college student, and ask that they take whatever they want, so that the landlord's insurance might replace it all with newer things.

 

[montoyas7940]

I would politely inform them that I am a broke college student, and ask that they take whatever they want, so that the landlord's insurance might replace it all with newer things.

My tenants property is not covered by my property insurance. You may want to look into a renters policy; they are inexpensive.

I have actually accidentally walked into the wrong house. It scared me worse than it did the little old lady who lived there. She was sitting on the couch watching tv and just smiled. I think she was glad to have "company".

 

[WhoWee]

So you're in bed, here a noise downstairs and decide to investigate. You find it's an intruder. What do you do?

For me, it's simple. My view is if a person enters my home illegally and with intent to rob/kill/damage my family or property. I will take whatever action is necessary to defend them.
I know it's hard to judge what you would do, but given my reaction to past situations much like this, I would confront them and if they failed to leave/tried to attack me I would take appropriate action to deal with the situation, take down the intruder.
As far as I am concerned, the moment a person enters my property they forfiet all rights they have, and any injury sustained to themselves as a direct result of thier/my actions they deserve (yes that includes me killing them if they really tried to fight).

I know in the UK, the law is rubbish and basically says "hide in your room and hope they leave you alone", but would that really be on your mind if your family is in danger? It does say 'you may use reasonable force' to defend yourself, but how do you judge that at 3am, when you've just got up and have no idea of the intentions of the intruder?

So what would you do? What does your countries law let you do?

I don't think anyone really knows what they will do until they are confronted with the reality of the situation.

The first thing one SHOULD do is attempt confirmation of an intruder - then call the police and provide as much information as possible.

If you live in a populated area, inform the police of who is in the house with you, where you are, where the intruder(s) is/are, whether you have theability to protect yourself (I'm in the rear bedroom with wife and 4 kids, the intruder is in the family room at the front corner of the house near the garage, I have a hand gun with me but door doesn't have a lock, I can see a van parked on the street and there may be someone inside, there is a motion detector security light at the rear entrance). You might also ask how long and what you should do until (and when) the police arrive.

If you live in a remote area, you are faced with a different set of problems and should have a survival strategy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think anyone really knows what they will do until they are confronted with the reality of the situation.

There have been a few times that I was concerned and had no problem grabbing the 12 gauge and checking the house. If I had found someone, they would have gotten one chance to lay on the floor before I shoot.

I am never more than twenty feet or so from a loaded weapon that is ready to fire. But then I grew up in L.A. There is nothing like the reality of someone you know getting raped or murdered in their own home to help clear the fog and put things into perspective. From my point of view, all of this "oh help the poor soul" nonsense is just that. There are times when it comes down to you or them. It is important to remember that.

What is the conversion rate from anti-gun to pro-gun for victims of violent crimes? Probably about 90% in my experience.

If a person or persons can secure themselves in a safe place and call the cops, that makes the most sense. But in many cases that would not be possible or practical; even if it was, I would be sitting there with a gun pointed at the door.

 

[WhoWee]

If a person can secure themselves in a safe place and call the cops, that makes the most sense. But in many cases that would not be possible or practical; even if it was, I would be sitting there with a gun pointed at the door.

I agree. However, I highly recommend that if you wait behind a closed door for the Police to arrive, it's best to inform them (when you call) of where you are and that you're armed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree. However, I highly recommend that if you wait behind a closed door for the Police to arrive, it's best to inform them (when you call) of where you are and that you're armed.

ABSOLUTELY! You don't want to shoot or get shot by the cops.

I was once in a situation where I could hear a woman being raped [or worse] in an apartment complex near my location. I was quite surprised that the cops didn't tell me to say put. I ran out to try to find the location of the screams while they were on their way. I was worried sick that the cops might shoot at me when they arrived, but I had told the operator what I was wearing.

When the chopper arrived, the screams stopped and we never found them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This all got me thinking about a period in my life that I hadn't thought much about for a long time. Since it obviously has a direct effect on my opinion of personal defense, I thought it worth sharing.

Over a period of about three years, between ages 10-13 years for me, we knew a number of people who were affected by violent crime. First, a woman from our church who lived down the street from my grandmother, was raped and murdered, in the middle of the day, in her own home. Then, probably a year later, a very close friend of our family was murdered by a known serial killer. He was a young man, about 18 years old, and he was found by his mother [my nursery school teacher] in his bedroom. It was an absolutely terrible scene. The police recognized the MO but I don't think an arrest was ever made. Then, a 13 year old schoolmate was murdered while working in a liquor store. And get this, his best friend died of a brain hemmorhage at the funeral!

Anyway, yeah, the world is a dangerous place. Don't be a fool.