# What would you do to a burgular in your home?



## myusername (Mar 19, 2008)

Hi, this is my first attempt at a poll so I hope it all goes well!

Background to poll:

It is the early hours of the morning, you are asleep upstairs with your darling wife/hubby/partner sleeping next to you. You wake up after hearing some noises downstairs. You creep downstairs and enter your livingroom and suddenly find yourself face to face with a burgular. Assume the burgular looks healthy and strong. He is startled by your sudden appearance and has not moved yet from where you have discovered him.

What would you do?


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 19, 2008)

It depends on so many things -- no time to think, right?  Of the top of my head, under the best conditions -- push him back into kicking range.


----------



## morph4me (Mar 19, 2008)

myusername said:


> Hi, this is my first attempt at a poll so I hope it all goes well!
> 
> Background to poll:
> 
> ...


 
First think I do upon hearing noises downstairs is call the police from the phone by my bed, then I wait until they get there. If I hear him coming upstairs, since I know my house better than he does, I wait for him and make sure he doesn't get past the top of the steps. My story is that I startled him and he backed up and tumbled down the stairs.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 19, 2008)

Laugh like hell as my German Shepherd chewed him up.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 19, 2008)

morph4me said:


> My story is that I startled him and he backed up and tumbled down the stairs.


Haha!

Oh, my!  Officer, he fell down those stairs three freaking times!  I have never seen this happen before!


----------



## myusername (Mar 19, 2008)

morph4me said:


> First think I do upon hearing noises downstairs is call the police from the phone by my bed, then I wait until they get there. If I hear him coming upstairs, since I know my house better than he does, I wait for him and make sure he doesn't get past the top of the steps. My story is that I startled him and he backed up and tumbled down the stairs.



I like this reply! I always keep a mobile phone by my bed with the keypad tones turned off.


----------



## myusername (Mar 19, 2008)

Poll is up and running now! Please vote it's fun! I probably haven't included enough options so pick the option closest to your idea and elaborate at will. Or if none of the options appeal post what you would do instead. Perhaps I should have included a none of the above option!! Have fun


----------



## 14 Kempo (Mar 19, 2008)

As with a confrontation in the street, I will do whatever it takes to protect myself, my family and friends. If I can greet the person cordially and offer them a cup of coffee while we wait for the police, then that's what I would prefer. On the otherhand, I'll do whatever it takes to subdue the infiltrator.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 19, 2008)

I'd give him my stuff, hug him goodbye then get the insurance docs out and give the company a ring about my diamonds,laptops, widescreen tellys etc that had been stolen. What do you mean that's illegal?


----------



## myusername (Mar 19, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I'd give him my stuff, hug him goodbye then get the insurance docs out and give the company a ring about my diamonds,laptops, widescreen tellys etc that had been stolen. What do you mean that's illegal?



LOL! I'm liking it!


----------



## Kingindian (Mar 19, 2008)

i will try to attack him but at first of course i will call police...if they are outnumbered me..i will shout so my neighbours will come...


----------



## 14 Kempo (Mar 19, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I'd give him my stuff, hug him goodbye then get the insurance docs out and give the company a ring about my diamonds,laptops, widescreen tellys etc that had been stolen. What do you mean that's illegal?


 
Gotta luv it, cause one crime deserves another ... LOL


----------



## Kingindian (Mar 19, 2008)

blessing in disguise lol..


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 19, 2008)

We must agree on the situation.  Notice that the original post states that you have already gone downstairs to see what the matter was.  What is making this noise?  You are then face to face with this guy.

So, he is in your face!  None of this -- I will call the police and then do this and that.  Not if we are considering what the original post says!  

Depends on how close -- can I drop straight down to get under his center of gravity?  If so, is there a picture window nearby to try to throw him out?  Even if his mass is greater, I know that if you can get under the center, he will go...


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 19, 2008)

It's hard to take something seriously as this when the poll isn't serious. Though I voted "give the burglar a good beating then call the police, it is most likely I would actually do the first choice... Kill him. 
Killing is a very VERY difficult thing to do. Maybe not for a trained combat veteran who has done so, pr a LEO, but for the everyday person it's not as easy as all that. Unless you've actually done it, IMO you've no idea. 
Ironically as a supporter of the death penalty I do not like killing at all. But sometimes it must be done. There are people out there who just-don't-care. At least not like we (everyday people) do. 
First few days of living (again) in my parents house I realized just how vulnerable we were. My father being deaf and blind, my mother deaf and diabetic with a bad knee, both are in their 80's and myself (without my hearing aids) deaf as well. Anyone could conceivably break a window and get in. The doors are stout enough to warrant all but the most determined break-ins. 
I find it difficult to fall asleep sometimes because I worry about not being able to hear a glass pane being broken and then someone, possibly armed (and this could be with a simple crowbar-- a common burglar's tool) unwanted and uninvited inside the house.  
Someone could conceivably stealthily walk into my room and bash me on the head and I wouldn't hear them. Then my parents are extremely vulnerable.
This does scare me. 
Should I wake in the darkness of my room, with internal alarms blaring and if possible that I manage to get into a position to surprise the intruder... I'd probably would kill him if the opportunity presented itself. Legally I would not be too concerned, and feel that the police would be on our side due to the circumstances (just described) and that in a trial by jury (hopefully) be acquitted. 
I hope/pray it won't ever come to that and that the neighborhood we live in presently stays relatively safe as it has been for years. 
A call would go to 911 most definitely, dispatchers know this address and know the occupants well and thus response time would be near immediate. I wouldn't have to speak to them, just leave it off the hook.
Still, he's in our house, unwanted and uninvited, thus... he dies. Simple as that. There are no weapons in the house per se except my folder which lies by my bed on the nightstand and the kitchen knife set and whatever else I can get my hands on. 
No dogs to bark loudly or mangle the intruder. My parents would love to have one but worry about not having a fence around to prevent the dog from running off into the busy 5 lane highway that is in front of the house. 
Being on fixed income they can't afford it, neither can I at this time. Besides the house is no longer in their name, it's been given to one of my (step) mother's granddaughters, as sort of living inheritance. I am here to help them best as I may. 

An intruder in the home while occupied is far more dangerous than an intruder in an unoccupied home. It takes balls to go into an occupied private residence armed and uninvited. I think any officer here on MT would agree with that. 
Fortunately, statistically most home invasions take place when the home is unoccupied. Good for them, good for the home-owner who doesn't have to make a life or death decision on the spot.


----------



## Kingindian (Mar 19, 2008)

well if im face to face (suddenly without time to call police) of course i will get surprise...i will shout loud to wake up my family ...then will fight as i can.


----------



## morph4me (Mar 19, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> We must agree on the situation. Notice that the original post states that you have already gone downstairs to see what the matter was. What is making this noise? You are then face to face with this guy.
> 
> So, he is in your face! None of this -- I will call the police and then do this and that. Not if we are considering what the original post says!
> 
> Depends on how close -- can I drop straight down to get under his center of gravity? If so, is there a picture window nearby to try to throw him out? Even if his mass is greater, I know that if you can get under the center, he will go...


 
The fact of the matter is that if I heard someone in my house, I wouldn't go and investigate, I'd call the police, grab a weapon and wait.

I told my kids when they became teenagers that if they had friends over, I had to know about it, because if I woke up and came face to face with someone that I didn't expect, I won't ask questions, I'll just attack and keep on attacking until I felt safe. That hasn't changed.


----------



## Kingindian (Mar 19, 2008)

_I had to know about it, because if I woke up and came face to face with someone that I didn't expect, I won't ask questions, I'll just attack and keep on attacking until I felt safe. That hasn't changed._

very logic...me too , i even told my father not to rush suddenly to my room in the middle of the night...i have my nunchaku in my bed side...
and the worse thing..my brother kept his knife near him too...


----------



## tellner (Mar 19, 2008)

"Kill him" is an answer that can get you in serious legal trouble.

My S.O.P. is the same one recommended by all the experts.


Get family to safe rooms
Lock door
Arm my wife, guests who are competent to use firearms and myself
Call police. Give dispatcher directions to where in the house we are
If he gets past the door and the German Shepherd I believe that I am in fear of death or serious bodily injury. Besides, he's just walked into a prepared enfilade position. Take indicated action
If I see total and abject surrender, hold him for the police
If he runs do not chase
If he appears to have a weapon, acts threatening or aggressive, does not obey commands _et cetera_ see #5 above
That's all predicated on having time. If I don't then grab whatever tool comes to hand, issue challenge, prepare for action.

In all cases an attack by an intruder in my home *must* be treated as a deadly force situation. If I can avoid getting in a gun or a knife fight that is ideal. If I can not, then I'm going to make sure the me and mine are alright no matter what.

Afterwards, call the police, call my lawyer, call LFI. Prepare for non-consensual sodomy to be inflicted on me by the legal system.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 19, 2008)

How many of you have burglar alarms in your house? The sort that make a huge noise and wake the whole street up? 
People who break into houses hate noises of any kind, even a small dog is a nuisance to them and they will chose another house to break into.


----------



## tellner (Mar 19, 2008)

myusername said:


> Hi, this is my first attempt at a poll so I hope it all goes well!
> 
> Background to poll:
> 
> ...


 
"You creep downstairs" - wrong answer. 
I'd grab the sppropriate tool and flashlight and release the dog, taking a prepared position and shouting the prepared signal my wife and I have agreed on. That means that ******* has to contend with 80 pounds of fiercely protective dog and a lot of unexpected noise. He'll probably be tripping over things and won't know where the lights are. He is going to be one distracted scumbag. Odds are he'll run. If he doesn't he's at what they call a "distinct tactical disadvantage". 

If I were dumb enough to go down and confront him under the circumstances you outline I'd probably attack right away. He's committed a home invasion burglary while there was a loudly barking dog. He is "strong and healthy" which means he's dangerous. He's close enough that he could kill me while I'm issuing the challenge and trying to get him to surrender.

In other words, the situation sucks. Take advantage of surprise. Make sure he's not a threat one way or the other. Keep an eye out for the rest of the *******s who may be with him. Get to a safer position. Call police. And so on.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 19, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> How many of you have burglar alarms in your house? The sort that make a huge noise and wake the whole street up?
> People who break into houses hate noises of any kind, even a small dog is a nuisance to them and they will chose another house to break into.


I have a psychotically protective Queensland heeler...

and a pump shotgun, the "Ratchet of Doom" is a singular sound, it cannot be confused with anything else and in the dark, will strike fear into anyone.
Not having encountered this, I don't know for sure what I would do, I know what I'd like to do...


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 19, 2008)

Ah, yes, the shotgun!  Definitely a nice choice of firearm for house protection!


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 19, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> Ah, yes, the shotgun!  Definitely a nice choice of firearm for house protection!



Indeed... provided your house has thick insulated walls to protect the family that might be hiding behind them. 
The sound of doom is definitely intimidating to be sure but it's the click of the hammer locking of a pistol that you _might_ not hear that is more deadly, they're easier to conceal in the dark.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 19, 2008)

Do everything I learned from watching Homealone 1-3


----------



## tellner (Mar 19, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> How many of you have burglar alarms in your house? The sort that make a huge noise and wake the whole street up?


 
I do. It's an eighty pound multi-mode self-propelled perimeter alarm system with threat-assessment and threat-neutralization capabilities. We uninstalled the self-replication components, but in theory we could have used the unit to produce dozens of others.

Her name is Papillon


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 19, 2008)

To MA-Caver -- If I were to choose, though, I would prefer the shotgun, because it has the spread -- you do not have to aim so well.  With less training, the shotgun is effective.  I do not own a firearm, not because I do not like the Second Amendment (I do) -- its that I do not wish to have the responsibility of owning a firearm -- I wish to live carefree, not worrying about accidents with a gun.

Like you, I live with a family member -- my Grandmother, who could not put up a fight.  I have confidence thought that should the terrible occur, that I could give some resistance to the intruder.  She would of course make the phone call.

To Tellner:  Yes, the Dawg will never fail!  

My brother has a dog, and it does not matter who comes in the house, for some reason, stepping across the threshold makes the dog go crazy, it is very territorial.  The hair on the dogs back stands up, and it is very scary!


----------



## theletch1 (Mar 19, 2008)

I'll just go back to sleep as soon as the noise of Erica whoopin' their *** dies down.:lol2:  

Really, though, there are so many variables in this scenario that giving a one line answer is out of the question.


----------



## blackxpress (Mar 19, 2008)

Morph4me beat me to it.  My answer to the poll (if it was available) is "none of the above."  If I heard someone downstairs I would not go down there to investigate.  That's a real good way to get yourself killed.  I would jump up, lock the bedroom door and call 911 on my cellphone while waiting, shotgun in hand.  Hopefully, he's not crazy enough to force his way into my room.  That shotgun would make an awful mess.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 19, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> To MA-Caver -- If I were to choose, though, I would prefer the shotgun, because it has the spread -- you do not have to aim so well.  With less training, the shotgun is effective.  I do not own a firearm, not because I do not like the Second Amendment (I do) -- its that I do not wish to have the responsibility of owning a firearm -- I wish to live carefree, not worrying about accidents with a gun.


 Yes true... but I was speaking about the intruder having the pistol that you cannot see in the dark. 
But one's walls in a normal house is not designed to stop bullets or shotgun blasts. So one must aim carefully and have a full choke instead of a wide spread. This is for IN home defense. Outside, yeah wide a pattern as possible for human targets.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 19, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> Really, though, there are so many variables in this scenario that giving a one line answer is out of the question.


 
...kind of why I picked "kill them." I've repelled burglars, back in NY. The sound of my shotgun ("Ratchet of doom!" love that, Don) was enough-that and my "Get out of my house, NOW." After that, though.....plus, my dog is likely to actually try to eat anyone breaking in: he's a 180 lb. fila brasiliero, and really, reallly, really does not like strangers....except with ketchup.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 19, 2008)

elder999 said:


> ...kind of why I picked "kill them." I've repelled burglars, back in NY. The sound of my shotgun ("Ratchet of doom!" love that, Don) was enough-that and my "Get out of my house, NOW." After that, though.....plus, my dog is likely to actually try to eat anyone breaking in: he's a 180 lb. fila brasiliero, and really, reallly, really does not like strangers....except with ketchup.


Your brasiliero looks like a bloodhound.  had to look it up. Cute.


----------



## tellner (Mar 19, 2008)

elder999 said:


> ...kind of why I picked "kill them." I've repelled burglars, back in NY. The sound of my shotgun ("Ratchet of doom!" love that, Don) was enough-that and my "Get out of my house, NOW." After that, though



The choice was stupid. The question was stupid. Answering "Kill him" is felony stupid.

And I'll notice that you didn't even include your own choice as one of the possible options.

You screwed up badly on this one with your "all macho all bloody" versus "fluffy bunny help him burgle your house" setup.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 19, 2008)

tellner said:


> The choice was stupid. The question was stupid. Answering "Kill him" is felony stupid.
> 
> And I'll notice that you didn't even include your own choice as one of the possible options.
> 
> You screwed up badly on this one with your "all macho all bloody" versus "fluffy bunny help him burgle your house" setup.


 
Nah-not felony stupid at all-I live in a remote area where emergency response time is only guranteed at a 45 minute minimum. That means, if I call the cops, the Sandoval County Sheriff-the most likely respondent-might be more than 45 minutes away. He also might be right down the road, but I can't count on him. I can count on my dog, and my shotgun, and if someone breaks into my house-_and someone is at home_-if they don't run out right away when they realize that _*someone is at home*_, it's very likely that they'll be shot, or eaten-in fact, really likely that they'll be shot, because they have to have done something to my dog, and they are obviously not there for the TV set.......(I've explained all this *somewhere* else before. Naturally, if i chose to live somewhere else, my repsonse would be different, as it was in NY.....)


----------



## elder999 (Mar 19, 2008)

..so, just to clarify: not what I want to do, or what I necessarily _would_ do, but the more than likely outcome.


----------



## myusername (Mar 19, 2008)

tellner said:


> The choice was stupid. The question was stupid. Answering "Kill him" is felony stupid.
> 
> And I'll notice that you didn't even include your own choice as one of the possible options.
> 
> You screwed up badly on this one with your "all macho all bloody" versus "fluffy bunny help him burgle your house" setup.



Sorry is any of this directed at me? I'm unsure as you quote someone else but you are referring to my thread.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 19, 2008)

tellner said:


> I do. It's an eighty pound multi-mode self-propelled perimeter alarm system with threat-assessment and threat-neutralization capabilities. We uninstalled the self-replication components, but in theory we could have used the unit to produce dozens of others.
> 
> Her name is Papillon


Too funny. You've really been on a roll lately


----------



## grydth (Mar 19, 2008)

I answered, "kill him" as well...... and macho nonsense had nothing to do with it.

I have a big dog as well, so if the guy is that far along, he's killed the dog and is still looking for more blood....... I also have 2 young daughters and, so sorry, I am taking no chances.

Perhaps I will be in legal trouble, but I won't have 2 murdered daughters. There is no penalty the law could impose that would let the burglar through to my kids. Period.

The bad guy gets the death penalty. Stay out of my house and leave my family alone - or the last thing you ever see will be a huge miuzzle flash out of the dark.


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 19, 2008)

If it is possible, try to identify who the person is before you shoot.  Don't shoot blindly.  Most likely, it will be a bona-fide intruder, but we should take caution to be sure it is not a person we know.  (Some posts already mentioned possible friends of teenage children, etc.)

That said, anyone who dares to enter my house without permission while we're still home is considered dangerous.  I assume he/she has entered with intent to possibly cause harm; thus I will shoot.  

My two dogs, however, will make a lot of noise if someone enters, so the intruder better take warning to stay away.

- Ceicei


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 19, 2008)

Ceicei said:


> If it is possible, try to identify who the person is before you shoot.  Don't shoot blindly.  Most likely, it will be a bona-fide intruder, but we should take caution to be sure it is not a person we know.  (Some posts already mentioned possible friends of teenage children, etc.)
> 
> That said, anyone who dares to enter my house without permission while we're still home is considered dangerous.  I assume he/she has entered with intent to possibly cause harm; thus I will shoot.
> 
> ...


Well consider this... you do have an advantage in a way... yep two dogs and kids that hear well... one is a (jr.) BB and the other a brown. Both I know will defend their family fiercely. Not to mention a very stalwart husband who likes his weapon(s) on top of you with your MA and other qualities. 
But also consider this... *if* it one of your friends that needs to enter chances are good that they'll turn on a light so that they can be seen to be "heard". :wink2: 
I think your sons friends will probably know to call out (and they will... thinking they won't have to worry waking you two up)... 

But yes, you're right on the money there... ID the target and be prepared to shoot if there isn't instant recognition. Anyone else... should know better. I sure as hell would. :uhyeah:


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 19, 2008)

14 Kempo said:


> As with a confrontation in the street, I will do whatever it takes to protect myself, my family and friends. If I can greet the person cordially and offer them a cup of coffee while we wait for the police, then that's what I would prefer. On the otherhand, I'll do whatever it takes to subdue the infiltrator.


I can't believe it. Someone actually used my answer before I could get to it. Good one, *14 Kempo*. :highfive:

And I have this on my side, too: 





Tez3 said:


> People who break into houses hate noises of any kind, even a small dog is a nuisance to them and they will chose another house to break into.


Yep, I don't have a 180 pound...sorry, forget the breed but it was very cool sounding , but I have a genuine, romping, stomping, butt kicking 17 pound...poodle mix.  So go ahead, make her day. (see my pic gallery to know true fear).


----------



## Scarey (Mar 19, 2008)

tellner said:


> "Kill him" is an answer that can get you in serious legal trouble.
> 
> My S.O.P. is the same one recommended by all the experts.
> Get family to safe rooms
> ...




Just keep in mind, if the intruder gets away alive, you're likely to lose everything you own to them in one way or another. Whether that be out the front door with him, or in a court battle because you just injured him. It happens all to often. Some P.O.S. breaks into someone's home and the owner injures him. Then he either gets away, and is caught later, or is taken into custody immediately by the police. Having nothing better to do in jail, he sues the pants off of the person who hurt him, AND WINS!!! The lesson to be learned from this is, in a home invasion situation, never leave the other guy breathing. It's in your best interest to make sure they don't abuse the broken judicial system. Just don't shoot them in the back. I've even heard of a case where the burglar cut themselves on broken glass while escaping, then successfully sued the homeowner for damages. The same has happened with those who were bitten by the family dog. I don't know about everyone else, but I'd rather prove self-defense against a witness who can't talk, than lose everything because I let the bastard live.


----------



## Scarey (Mar 19, 2008)

tellner said:


> The choice was stupid. The question was stupid. Answering "Kill him" is felony stupid.
> 
> And I'll notice that you didn't even include your own choice as one of the possible options.
> 
> You screwed up badly on this one with your "all macho all bloody" versus "fluffy bunny help him burgle your house" setup.



Killing in self-defense is not a felony, it's not even a crime. Also, see my last post.


----------



## chinto (Mar 20, 2008)

in my state it is a black letter law situation of deadly force to stop a burglary. if the intruder were to just lay down on the floor spread eagle and wait for the cops, great!
but you must assume any one who enters your house when you are home, or who you surprise in the act of burglary will be willing to use deadly force to escape and or carry out their plan.  So I would suggest that you treat it as a very very very deadly encounter till you are sure it is not.
use your judgment and call it as you see it, but remember that your life and that of your family if any there are at stake.


----------



## chinto (Mar 20, 2008)

Scarey said:


> Just keep in mind, if the intruder gets away alive, you're likely to lose everything you own to them in one way or another. Whether that be out the front door with him, or in a court battle because you just injured him. It happens all to often. Some P.O.S. breaks into someone's home and the owner injures him. Then he either gets away, and is caught later, or is taken into custody immediately by the police. Having nothing better to do in jail, he sues the pants off of the person who hurt him, AND WINS!!! The lesson to be learned from this is, in a home invasion situation, never leave the other guy breathing. It's in your best interest to make sure they don't abuse the broken judicial system. Just don't shoot them in the back. I've even heard of a case where the burglar cut themselves on broken glass while escaping, then successfully sued the homeowner for damages. The same has happened with those who were bitten by the family dog. I don't know about everyone else, but I'd rather prove self-defense against a witness who can't talk, than lose everything because I let the bastard live.



yep the liberals who want to give the intruder more rights then you have set up a situation where you must consider if you use force that deadly force may be the safest and best option.  ( if you live east of the Mississippi river you may have laws that basically say give him the stuff and call a cab for him or go to jail if you live... if that is the case I suggest you make your politicians there fix that, or live or die with what you got.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Mar 20, 2008)

morph4me said:


> The fact of the matter is that if I heard someone in my house, I wouldn't go and investigate, I'd call the police, grab a weapon and wait.



That's the smartest thing to do if you have the presence of mind to do it. Most people, if woken by a sound, will go to investigate it, probably not thinking of encountering an intruder. Unless the sound is obvious, which if someone is sneaking around your house, it won't be. 



morph4me said:


> I told my kids when they became teenagers that if they had friends over, I had to know about it, because if I woke up and came face to face with someone that I didn't expect, I won't ask questions, I'll just attack and keep on attacking until I felt safe. That hasn't changed.



It _may _be best to run upstairs, lock yourself in the room, and call the police, hopefully, upon being discovered, the intruder will take off. But you can't count on that. If he knows he was seen he may take further action against you to prevent being identified. So morphs second plan of action, to attack and keep attacking until you feel safe, makes sense too. Either way, you are in danger. Danger of being injured or killed yourself during the attack, and danger of being injured or killed if you try to hide until you call the police and wait for them to arrive. 

Either way it's a no win situation, so take advantage of the element of surprise. 



tellner said:


> "You creep downstairs" - wrong answer.
> I'd grab the sppropriate tool and flashlight and release the dog, taking a prepared position and shouting the prepared signal my wife and I have agreed on. That means that ******* has to contend with 80 pounds of fiercely protective dog and a lot of unexpected noise. He'll probably be tripping over things and won't know where the lights are. He is going to be one distracted scumbag. Odds are he'll run. If he doesn't he's at what they call a "distinct tactical disadvantage".
> 
> If I were dumb enough to go down and confront him under the circumstances you outline I'd probably attack right away. He's committed a home invasion burglary while there was a loudly barking dog. He is "strong and healthy" which means he's dangerous. He's close enough that he could kill me while I'm issuing the challenge and trying to get him to surrender.
> ...



Tellners post is similar in tactic to morphs, and I couldn't agree more. If you don't have to confront him, don't. If you find yourself in that situation, take advantage while you have the upper hand.


----------



## MJS (Mar 20, 2008)

myusername said:


> Hi, this is my first attempt at a poll so I hope it all goes well!
> 
> Background to poll:
> 
> ...


 
I have a few things in place, so hopefully he wouldn't get far.  My condo has an alarm, so opening any doors will set it off.  I have a dog, so that is another thing he would have to deal with.  While I don't have a gun, I have some nice hard impact weapons nearby, so grabbing one would be my first option.  Calling the police is a top priority.  

Protecting my family is top priority.  I"m a believer in the fact that I didn't invite someone into my house at that hour, so they get what they deserve.  If its a fall down the stairs, a bite from the dog or a beating from what I have in my hand, then so be it.  I'll deal with the consequences later on.

A while back, a family in Cheshire, CT. was brutally attacked, which resulted in the husband being severely beaten, his wife and 2 daughters killed, and their house set on fire.  The husband was the only one to survive.  The 2 people that did this...well, words can't describe what I feel about them.  They obviously have no regard for human life, therefore, I have no regard for them or anyone who enters someones home unwanted.  Would I go so far as to actually kill them?  Probably not.  However, if its a toss up of them or me and my wife...rest assure I'm going to do my best to make sure its not me or my wife and dog. 

Mike


----------



## atinsley (Mar 20, 2008)

While it is true that the actual taking of a life is no where as easy as saying you will, the choice is clear for me, there is no other option. I don't know what the scumbags intentions are and I am not going to stop and ask questions. I have two young daughters and if someone enters my home, uninvited, I will do whatever is necessary to protect my family.

I may wind up in court; I doubt it, but I may even end up in jail, but at least I know that my kids are alive, my family is safe and the scumbag is never able to terrorize another family.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 20, 2008)

atinsley said:


> While it is true that the actual taking of a life is no where as easy as saying you will, the choice is clear for me, there is no other option. I don't know what the scumbags intentions are and I am not going to stop and ask questions. I have two young daughters and if someone enters my home, uninvited, I will do whatever is necessary to protect my family.
> 
> I may wind up in court; I doubt it, but I may even end up in jail, but at least I know that my kids are alive, my family is safe and the scumbag is never able to terrorize another family.


That much is true. In people's eyes you are justified in that defense. But in the _law's_ eyes (which should be the same as the people's) that is questionable. It has to be taken apart piece by piece and examined closely to determine that you had no-other recourse. 

Something to consider. Yes, you are sitting in jail defending your home and family and (again) justifiably so. But if you're the sole breadwinner of the family you're depriving them of your support. Not to mention that those two precious daughters of yours are deprived from you, their parent. Your wife likewise is dependent upon you as well for your support in all aspects of your life together. 
So decisions like this must be weighed and calculated before hand. Better to take a few days to think about this than a few (micro) seconds as you're bringing your weapon to bear on the intruder. When you're resolved then shoot. 
I would not be surprised that this is the same with LEO's who are facing down their own scumbags on the streets or wherever they meet them. I'll say it again. The taking of a life is no easy matter.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 20, 2008)

For those who are interested, these three videos are of a man who says that the handgun is superior to the shotgun inside the house.  Notice that he also advises to stay in the safe room if you have a choice:






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOq8gP6VCyA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuuEPDrUC44&feature=related


----------



## Balrog (Mar 20, 2008)

Anyone who breaks into my house is bought and paid for, as far as I am concerned.  Killing him would be a mercy killing in a way.  I'm not just whacking him because he's a burglar, I'm whacking him because he is a stupid burglar who thought I had stuff worth stealing.  :lol2:


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 20, 2008)

Of course, if you are eventually forced to clear the outside of the house of intruders, it would be hard to top the minigun for performance!


----------



## thardey (Mar 20, 2008)

It's hard to beat a dog as a security system. We have a mixed-breed Rotweiller, Boxer, Mastiff, and Dane. 

I prefer the pistol, a Single/double Colt .357. I can shoot it without cocking, and so make no prep noise, or I can choose to cock it as a warning. It's only second to the "ratchet of doom" as far as easily identified noises in the dark go.

The way my house is laid out, there's only one entrance to the bedrooms, which is easily defended. The rest of the house, even the kitchen, is wide open and visible from that point. (Makes for great parties, too!) There's also enough ambient light from the street lights outside to be able to see clearly. So, given this, if someone tries to open the door, "Scout," our dog, will sound a warning that will make you jump out of your skin, if they still come in, she will have given me time to open the quick-access pistol safe under my bed, and told my wife to get down behind the bed. Then it's a matter of controlling that bottleneck until they submit, run, or otherwise. 

_IF_ they try to escape, I will be glad to let them go, my first priority is protecting my family, not thinning the gene pool, or enacting justice. They can't hurt my family if they're running away. If they decide to continue, then they are now attacking me, not robbing my house. Oregon is a modified "Castle Doctrine" state, which basically means that I only have to retreat as far as my home, and then retreat isn't really an option.

So, a "burglar" will likely not be killed. An "attacker" will get some after-market holes.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 20, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> For those who are interested, these three videos are of a man who says that the handgun is superior to the shotgun inside the house.  Notice that he also advises to stay in the safe room if you have a choice:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My question on the guy is; is he tactically trained? Is he even a cop? A vet? He should state his credentials before hand so that folks can take him seriously if he is being serious. 
nit-picking but I'd use the widest angle on the video lens to get a better full shot on.  

On the third vid... it is indeed a bad idea to hold a mini-mag (or any flashlight) with your mouth/teeth. The mini-mag is metal and very tough (aircraft aluminum). I've known cavers lose their front teeth because they swung their heads and tapped the rock wall. 

I've also wondered about low angle approaches... but that should be another thread.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 20, 2008)

> Hi, this is my first attempt at a poll so I hope it all goes well!
> 
> Background to poll:
> 
> ...



He hasn't moved yet?  GOOD, stationary TARGET!

BOOOM!  BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

I'd do what the law allows......SHOOT HIM IN THE CHEST WITH MY BENELLI M2 12 gauge and TAKE HIM OUT OF THE GENE POOL!  If he has friends, they're going with him!

As to the 'handgun versus longgun' discussion, that's a matter of opinion and disagreement within tactical circles....and ultimately I don't see it as that important a discussion.  I prefer the shotgun for indoor closework with a pistol in my belt as a backup!

The REAL issue with home defense, however, is to make sure that whatever you're packing you have a property illumination tool!  And if you're going to carry a long gun, make sure you have a good tactical sling so you can use one hand to open doors, and if necessary, drop the gun on it's sling and transition to your handgun or empty hand without fear of having the gun ripped away from you.

On my Benelli M2 tactical I have a Surefire foreend light and XS Big Dot tactical tritium sights.  On my GLOCK 22C I have a Surefire rail light with XS Big Dot tactical tritium sights in the exact same confirguration as the one's on my shotgun!

I also carry a NightOps Gladius hand held light with a STROBING feature for distraction/disorientation when searching the house....I use the landyard so that if I encounter a threat, I can let it drop to dangle on the lanyard around my wrist and use both hands on the shotgun!

I'm a big believer in, even if you have a weapon light, having another illumination tool for the off hand to search!

At the Strategos International Low-Light course they teach some EXCELLENT high-low searching techniques to shine the hand illumintor HIGH around a doorway and enter low so that if someone fires at the light, they aren't firing at you!  LIGHT HIGH, ENTER LOW!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 20, 2008)

atinsley said:


> While it is true that the actual taking of a life is no where as easy as saying you will, the choice is clear for me, there is no other option. I don't know what the scumbags intentions are and I am not going to stop and ask questions. I have two young daughters and if someone enters my home, uninvited, I will do whatever is necessary to protect my family.
> 
> I may wind up in court; I doubt it, but I may even end up in jail, but at least I know that my kids are alive, my family is safe and the scumbag is never able to terrorize another family.


  The State of Missouri has created a little common sense in our 'Defense of Self/Home' law.....we have made it PRESUMED that if someone enters or stays in your dwelling UNLAWFULLY that they are a THREAT to your life, and you may use lethal force to defend yourself.....no OTHER variable need be present than attempting to enter, entering or remaining unlawfully!

FURTHERMORE, Missouri has granted IMMUNITY from CIVIL LIABILITY to anyone who lawfully uses force under those circumstances!  In other words, if CRIMINALLY you are justified, the criminal or his survivors CANNOT SUE YOU CIVILLY!  If they ATTEMPT to sue you, they are responsible for ALL attorneys fees on both sides, court fees, and any other expenses YOU accumulate while defending yourself.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 20, 2008)

myusername said:


> Hi, this is my first attempt at a poll so I hope it all goes well!
> 
> Background to poll:
> 
> ...


 

It would really depend upon the situation which includes the local laws. 

I know in the past when I have heard people in my house, I rolled out of bed grabbed a sword and went dow the hall. I met them at sword point as thye came out of a bedroom. They were surprised. I asked them what they are doing in my house. They asked who I was. I moved teh sword point closer to his face and said I have the sword answer my question. It ended up he was there to see my brother and my brother had to run back to work for something he had forgotten, but has told him to go in and stay in his bedroom. (* I heard him walking to the bathroom and to the kitchen *). I guess if he followed instructions it might have turned out differently. I might not have known he was there or I might have. If he did not answer me or was going to get silly he would have been told to call the police or to face me.


----------



## Carol (Mar 20, 2008)

I left my room once when I was....maybe 11?  5th grade I think.  I went to check out weird noise.  It was early in the morning and I was just waking up.  My mom was at church taking in the sunrise service.  My dad had stayed back and was out in the yard.  

I found the source of the noise.  My dad had gone out at the crack of dawn to prune some of the bushes. He had come in from his work, and fallen to the floor, nearly unconscious.  He was an hideous shade of gray, and I smelled puke.  He seemed to be calling for me but his sounds were incoherent.  He seemed to be reaching for me but I ran away from him.

My mom kept stickers on the phone that said "Call 911 for emergency"  

So, I did.  The dispatcher picked up the phone and asked what the emergency was.  I said to come quick because my dad is dying.    

Cordless phones weren't common at the time.  Dad seemed to be calling for me but I couldn't get to where he was.  I tried to bring the phone towards him but I was afraid of ripping the connector out of the wall.  I tried calling to my dad but the dispatcher kept asking me questions. 

I think it took 5-10 minutes for the paramedics to show up.  Felt like hours.  It drove me nuts because I could hear that my dad was in trouble but I couldn't even touch his hand to comfort him.  After the ambulance left I stared screaming my head off because I thought I had seen the last of my dad and I didn't even get a chance to give him a hug.

A year or so after that, I saw a cordless phone at K-mart and begged my mom to get one for everyone in the family to share.  And....ever since then, its been instinctual.  If I check out an odd noise, I generally have a phone in my hand.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 20, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> I left my room once when I was....maybe 11?  5th grade I think.  I went to check out weird noise.  It was early in the morning and I was just waking up.  My mom was at church taking in the sunrise service.  My dad had stayed back and was out in the yard.
> 
> I found the source of the noise.  My dad had gone out at the crack of dawn to prune some of the bushes. He had come in from his work, and fallen to the floor, nearly unconscious.  He was an hideous shade of gray, and I smelled puke.  He seemed to be calling for me but his sounds were incoherent.  He seemed to be reaching for me but I ran away from him.
> 
> ...



That, Carol, deserves a hug. The fact that you stayed though your instincts cried out to be with your dad, you stayed by the phone to ensure the dispatcher can get whatever information she/he needed... for an 11 yr. old... that took some doing. 
Now in this day and age of wireless communications it's easier of course to be right there where the trouble is and being able to help out where you can.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 20, 2008)

*Dial 1-9-1-1

*Dial 9-1-1

*Barricade and stay on the line with the dispatcher.

In THAT order.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 20, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> *Dial 1-9-1-1
> 
> *Dial 9-1-1
> 
> ...



Andy no disrespect to you and others as this is good advice in theory.

But in my application 911 does not inform the police officers of enough information. They spend multiple times asking the same data over and over. They argue with you about your location and other facts.

But if you Call them and then hang up. They will call you back and treat you with much more respect as they now think you are in trouble and someone else forced the phone off.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 20, 2008)

I figure once they hear the phone drop and then hear *" IF YOU COME THROUGH THAT DOOR, I WILL SHOOT!"*  , over the line,  they'll twig that this just got real.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 20, 2008)

That'd do it for me too, if I were in the shoes of the intruder .


----------



## MJS (Mar 20, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> Andy no disrespect to you and others as this is good advice in theory.
> 
> But in my application 911 does not inform the police officers of enough information. They spend multiple times asking the same data over and over. They argue with you about your location and other facts.
> 
> But if you Call them and then hang up. They will call you back and treat you with much more respect as they now think you are in trouble and someone else forced the phone off.


 
Well Rich, with all due respect, I won't take too much offense to this post, as there are some poor dispatchers out there. However, speaking as one for the past 5yrs, I'd like to comment on a few things. 

Many times, the repeating of the same questions, is due to the caller not cooperating at all! I've taken countless calls from hysterical people who're talking so fast, not clear and not giving the answers to the questions I need to ask! I'm kinda suprised you mentioned the location, because without that, how can help be sent? Just because info. pops up on the screen, does not mean its right! Again, I've taken many calls and the address is wrong, the phone number is wrong. Getting those 2 bits of info first, is the first step in getting them help! 

You really think hanging up is going to get someone there any faster?? LOL, you've got to be kidding me. If the person hangs up on me after saying, just get the cops here, you can bet that I'm still going to ask whats going on. I will not send a cop into a situation without getting as much info as I can, and if it means asking the same question 10 more times, then so be it, because you can bet the cop is going to be asking me. You're worried about getting the cops info. as you said above, yet you encourage people to hang up? Doesnt make sense to me. Hanging up is doing nothing but delaying the process, because I'm calling back. Will I still send a cop? Of course. I will never deny someone help. But, again, its not helping either me or the cops responding.

As for treating people with respect...I don't know about the ones you've dealt with, but I treat every caller in a friendly tone. 

As much as people don't want to admit it, the dispatchers are the first ones that are on the scene, so to speak, as they are the ones that are taking the initial call. Sadly, we don't get a quarter of the credit we deserve, as the job is stressful and demanding.

Like people always say about LEOs...don't judge them until you've walked in their shoes. Well Rich, until you've sat and taken calls from people who just walked in and found a family member who killed themselves, from people whos loved ones are having a medical emergency, from people whos child is missing, from people involved in an assault or domestic, likewise, don't judge until you've walked in their shoes!

Mike


----------



## MJS (Mar 20, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I figure once they hear the phone drop and then hear *" IF YOU COME THROUGH THAT DOOR, I WILL SHOOT!"* , over the line, they'll twig that this just got real.


 
Well, thats fine...just as long as you're prepared to be taken down at gunpoint as well as the bad guy, because the responding officer will not know whos who, until he gets there and sorts things out.   And again, dropping the phone isn't really helping anyone. But hey, if thats what you want to do, knock your socks off.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 20, 2008)

MJS said:


> Well, thats fine...just as long as you're prepared to be taken down at gunpoint as well as the bad guy, because the responding officer will not know whos who, until he gets there and sorts things out.  And again, dropping the phone isn't really helping anyone. But hey, if thats what you want to do, knock your socks off.


 
Bear in mind I'm only dropping the phone because someone is attempting to crash my barricade which if the responding officer has been told by the dispatcher that I have barricaded myself, he probably won't do without announcing some form of police presence which upon recognition that it is a police officer, the game becomes I eject the magazine, extract the chambered round, lock open the slide and put the forty-five away from me and then notify the officer I am coming out slowly with my hands leading.

And if the dispatcher is a good dispatcher, the responding officer WILL know who's who because among the first things out of my mouth will be "when the officer arrives, tell him not to shoot the guy with a red lightstick around his neck--that's me".(Yes, some of us have thought this through).


----------



## MJS (Mar 20, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Bear in mind I'm only dropping the phone because someone is attempting to crash my barricade which if the responding officer has been told by the dispatcher that I have barricaded myself, he probably won't do without announcing some form of police presence which upon recognition that it is a police officer, the game becomes I eject the magazine, extract the chambered round, lock open the slide and put the forty-five away from me and then notify the officer I am coming out slowly with my hands leading.
> 
> And if the dispatcher is a good dispatcher, the responding officer WILL know who's who because among the first things out of my mouth will be "when the officer arrives, tell him not to shoot the guy with a red lightstick around his neck--that's me".


 

Well, yes, if all this is done, it changes things a bit.   This is one of the main reasons why I like to keep people on the phone as long as possible, especially when its a situation like this.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 20, 2008)

MJS said:


> Well Rich, with all due respect, I won't take too much offense to this post, as there are some poor dispatchers out there. However, speaking as one for the past 5yrs, I'd like to comment on a few things.
> 
> Many times, the repeating of the same questions, is due to the caller not cooperating at all! I've taken countless calls from hysterical people who're talking so fast, not clear and not giving the answers to the questions I need to ask! I'm kinda suprised you mentioned the location, because without that, how can help be sent? Just because info. pops up on the screen, does not mean its right! Again, I've taken many calls and the address is wrong, the phone number is wrong. Getting those 2 bits of info first, is the first step in getting them help!
> 
> ...




Mike,

Devil's night I gave a friend a ride home. My truck was hit. I saw movement. I thought it was a person running out who had run into the side of my truck doing 25 mph. I grabbed the phone and had 911 plugged as I was getting out and started dialing as I was walking around to the passenger side of the truck to see if I could help the person. Then I heard laughter and saw kids running away. I hung up the phone. Before I could get into my vehicle, they had called me back and were very clear and concise. I informed them what had happened and that I found egg on my truck and that no one needed help. 

On the other hand, ever other time I have called, in many cases they do not send out anyone or bother to inform the police. I have had to call a second time and they threatened to have me arrested for fake calls. The ex's BF was there at the house threatening to kill me, but as I was a guy, I would not call first. I would only call after. 

I have called in my car (* changing towers as I move so I understand location and direction *). I have told them my number is x and my location is y and I am headed in direction z. As I am slow and clear I can hear the disbelief as to why I would be calling them. Just because I handle stress better and when someone is chasing me in a vehicle and or throwing things at from their vehicle I do not freak out, I react. Those at the other end of the phone think it is a fake. 

But every time I have or was with someone and they called and hung up, not the average person called back but a specialist. I believe they are better trained they are the people who can read over the phone others. 

Yet every time I called directly, including Tuesday morning when I got hit by two deer running out. She asked where I was. I said I am on Fenton Rd (* and I spelled it out using words for letters*)  at address 5166. But it may also be called Denton Hill (* and I spelled it out using words for letters *) as the street name changes at the next street north of me. Her reaction was to yell at me. "Don't you know where you are at?". This being the second deer accident in less than three weeks, and this time the deer that did the most damage did not make it and knowing I would have to argue with the insurance company as I had not had a chance to get the first one fixed, I yelled back. "Of course I know where I am. I am trying to give you enough information to let the officer know where I am and or if you are on a map and you do not see one name but the other you will know where I am." Her reply, "I am sorry, if you do not know where you are at, How can I help you. You must stop yelling at me." My reply, "STOP! Get a supervisor and reply the tape. I was calm until you yelled at me. I was calm until you told me I did not know where I was. I was calm until you implied that I was not being cooperative."  I gave you the information. I dropped my tone and voice and gave it to her again the same way. She then got it. 

I have other examples as well of where from my experience the operators cannot handle someone who has information and or gives it to them in a calm fashion. They do not trust you or respond to your call. They argue with you and yell at you when you were calm. 

But every time I get irrational and yell and or hang up, then I seem to get better service. 

Like I said about the police conditioning me, so have the 911 operators in my area. 


Now, if you say it is otherwise in your area that that is good news. 

If you say that it is much better everywhere else, I just happen to live int eh worst place in the country for 911 service I would believe. Why would I believe you?

1) You are in the business I am not. You would have information I would not. 

2) I know the people they have to choose from for the jobs around here. 

So, like I said no disrespect. I have bed examples in everything I do. Be it interface with the police or with the border patrol or Homeland security or 911.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 20, 2008)

MJS said:


> Well, yes, if all this is done, it changes things a bit.  This is one of the main reasons why I like to keep people on the phone as long as possible, especially when its a situation like this.


 

I understand, but you also understand that my earlier reference was to a door knock that could not be ignored.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 20, 2008)

Just an aside as I just now noticed your and Sukerkin's posts suggest you thought my dropping the phone was for the benefit of the intruder on the other side of the barricaded door.

No. It was a reference that the dispatcher would hear it drop because I achieve "gun control" by using both hands.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 20, 2008)

I agree about the nature of the Dispatcher's job, Mike.  I can also visualise the 'disconnect' between the dispatcher and the responding officers (of whatever service).

From my own experience, many years ago a friend of mine had a psychotropic (don't know if that's the right term) reaction to his drinks whilst we were at a nightclub out in the countryside.  

I was trying to walk him home, not easy because he's twice my size, when he collapses in a fit at the roadside, frothing at the mouth and twitching.  I wedge his mouth open, trapping his tongue, with a pen I have on me and run back to the nightclub.  I have to fast-talk my way past the bouncers to get to the public pay-phone inside (which shows how long ago this was ).

I ring 999, ask for the ambulance service, give my name, address, location and a brief description of the emergency.  They tell me a unit will be there in fifteen minutes.  I thank them and say I will go back to my friend and stay with him.

I run back the mile up the hill and find ... my friend is gone .  I search about for him and he's not crawled off into the woods or gone along the road on his own.  A couple nearby (ahem) see my confused perigrinations, ask me if I'm looking for my friend and tell me that a car coming from the club had stopped and picked him up - so I had little choice but wait for the ambulance to show up and confess what had occurred.

I've often thought what the dispatcher and that ambulance crew must've thought of me for, effectively, wasting their time.

Anyhow, wandering now; clearly it's too late to be posting .  I just thought it might be illuminating to see how, even in a circumstance that is not home-invasion, confusion can reign supreme.


----------



## grydth (Mar 20, 2008)

I do not feel my decision to use deadly force in defense of family is expressly or impliedly based on a conclusion that the police or 911 are incompetent or uncaring.

Actually, both in this region are quite good. On very busy nights, a 911 call can be put on hold. I was told this by a 911 operator 6 days ago. There just are not enough staff to immediately address every call.

Is 911 at fault? No.

But by the same token...Sorry, but when my girls' lives are threatened, no I can't hold. Their sole hope of living through the night may be what's its been since the country was founded - their father's ability and willingness to kill a murderous intruder.

 I think it unreasonable to expect that police can be everywhere or prevent every crime. Even with a crack organization, there are staffng considerations, other calls coming in, weather, transit time....... and during all of that a bloodthirsty burglar can kill my children.... well, unless I get him (them) first. Hope it never comes to that.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 20, 2008)

grydth said:


> I do not feel my decision to use deadly force in defense of family is expressly or impliedly based on a conclusion that the police or 911 are incompetent or uncaring.
> 
> Actually, both in this region are quite good. On very busy nights, a 911 call can be put on hold. I was told this by a 911 operator 6 days ago. There just are not enough staff to immediately address every call.
> 
> ...


 

What I was trying to say but put more eloquently.


----------



## MJS (Mar 20, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> Mike,
> 
> Devil's night I gave a friend a ride home. My truck was hit. I saw movement. I thought it was a person running out who had run into the side of my truck doing 25 mph. I grabbed the phone and had 911 plugged as I was getting out and started dialing as I was walking around to the passenger side of the truck to see if I could help the person. Then I heard laughter and saw kids running away. I hung up the phone. Before I could get into my vehicle, they had called me back and were very clear and concise. I informed them what had happened and that I found egg on my truck and that no one needed help.
> 
> ...


 
Well, after reading this, I have to say I'm sorry that you had the experience that you did.  IMHO, the people you dealt with were not professional at all, and that is sad.  These people are in the business to help others, and by what you're saying here, they should get another job, because having patience is a huge part of it.  

To adress a few more things:

Speaking only for the depts I dispatch for...every 911 call gets a cop.  If I took a call from someone who said someone was there making threats to them and I didn't send a cop, I may as well start looking for another job.  Poor actions on their part.

As I said, I dispatch for 2 towns, and its crucial to make sure when we ask the location and they say High St., that I ask in Middletown or Portland?  Cell phones are worse, especially if the person is not familiar with the area.  We do have a GPS screen which gives the general area, but I personally don't like to rely on it 100%, so I'll try to ask for landmarks, businesses in the area, etc., to attempt to get a better location.  Nothing sucks more than to take a cell call and the person has no idea where they are.  But the dispatcher shouldn't yell at the person.  

On another note, you may find this story interesting.  A dispatcher took a 911 cell phone call from an elderly male, who sounded very much in distress.  He gave his location, said he didn't know how much longer he was going to make it, and then hung up the phone.  The caller was in a different town, so the 1st dispatcher contacted the dispatch center in the town where this elderly male was.  The 2nd dispatcher then made a few attempts to contact the elderly male, but he (the elderly male) kept hanging up on him.  However, he was also stating to the 2nd person that he was sick.  The 2nd dispatcher asked him a number of times if he was ok, and the elderly male said yes.  The dispatcher did nothing else.  Turns out both the elderly male and an elderly friend living with him died.  

This dispatcher, who was facing a suspension over this, ended up quitting.  He had 17yrs on the job.  

Now, if a cell phone call comes in, even if it was dialed by mistake or the phone hangs up, we still call it back to make sure everything is ok.  I took one a few weeks ago from a female who said she just got beat up, gave her location and hung up.  I attempted to call back, but nobody would answer.  I sent a few cops to the general area, as well as contacted the cell phone provider, to see if they could trace the number and give a location as to where this person may be.  

It was a prepaid cell phone registered to someone who didnt live in the area, and the cops found nothing.  But, I at least covered myself.  I've taken calls from people who are calling in a medical.  They then tell me that everything is ok, or the person is going to the hospital by private vehicle.  I make them say on the taped line, that they don't want an ambulance, but I still send a cop to verify that everything is ok.  Its my rear on the line if I didn't and it turns out someone ends up dying.

As I said...there are some good ones and some bad ones.  Its too bad that they all can't take their job a bit more serious, considering they're in the business of helping others.


----------



## MJS (Mar 20, 2008)

grydth said:


> I do not feel my decision to use deadly force in defense of family is expressly or impliedly based on a conclusion that the police or 911 are incompetent or uncaring.
> 
> Actually, both in this region are quite good. On very busy nights, a 911 call can be put on hold. I was told this by a 911 operator 6 days ago. There just are not enough staff to immediately address every call.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I can attest to that.  Staffing, both in the dispatch center and at the PD sucks.  Where I work, there are 2 call takers and 2 dispatchers, one for PD and the other for medical.  Some nights there are 5 people, so that extra call taker comes in handy.  So, on a busy night, you have 1 person taking a domestic and the other taking calls for an accident.  What about the other 911 lines?  Many times, its someone calling in the same accident as the other 20 people passing by, but until the phone is picked up, we don't know that.  I've transferred calls to the state police.  I like to stay on the line when I transfer a call, to make sure someone picks up.  The phone rings endlessly.  

I do my best to prioritize the 911 calls.  Someone calling 911 because their car was broken into is going to get put on hold so I can answer the next one, as that may be a more serious call.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 20, 2008)

*MJS*, I just want to thank you for that insight into the job.  It's something we all should've been able to infer but I think we're all guilty of not understanding the complexities of another mans job at times :rei:.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 20, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Bear in mind I'm only dropping the phone because someone is attempting to crash my barricade which if the responding officer has been told by the dispatcher that I have barricaded myself, he probably won't do without announcing some form of police presence which upon recognition that it is a police officer, the game becomes I eject the magazine, extract the chambered round, lock open the slide and put the forty-five away from me and then notify the officer I am coming out slowly with my hands leading.
> 
> And if the dispatcher is a good dispatcher, the responding officer WILL know who's who because among the first things out of my mouth will be "when the officer arrives, tell him not to shoot the guy with a red lightstick around his neck--that's me".(Yes, some of us have thought this through).


Somehow Andy I think it'd probably be best that if you've already taken care of the intruder on your own and are now in your safe room with your family and if you haven't hung up on 911 dispatcher then tell them to tell the officer what color shirt you are wearing. When you hear the officer(s) come into the house, yes, do exactly as you described with your weapon but toss it out in to the living room or hall way and drop to your knees (everyone do this in the room) with your hands on your head and just wait. 
Am thinking the officer is going to come around the door with his weapon drawn and sees you (and the other occupants) in the room in a submissive posture (oh and  you're as far away from the door as your room permits) this will disarm the officer til they speak to you. If the dispatcher has identified you as the homeowner wearing the purple pajamas then the officer will at least have an idea who you are. Do exactly what he says and it should be fine. 
Other LEO's here please chime in if this is a good method or if there's something better?  
Just my thoughts to what I would do after the deed. However I doubt that I can get my parents to kneel as they're elderly ... so perhaps just sit them on the couch and I kneel beside them hoping for the best.


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 20, 2008)

MJS said:


> As much as people don't want to admit it, the dispatchers are the first ones that are on the scene, so to speak, as they are the ones that are taking the initial call. Sadly, we don't get a quarter of the credit we deserve, as the job is stressful and demanding.
> 
> ...until you've sat and taken calls from people who just walked in and found a family member who killed themselves, from people whos loved ones are having a medical emergency, from people whos child is missing, from people involved in an assault or domestic, likewise, don't judge until you've walked in their shoes!
> 
> Mike


I'll admit it, and say that my experience with 911 dispatch has always been very positive. It's true that I have a lot of interaction with LEO's and PO's in the course of a work week, so maybe have come to know how to give the info they're looking for...or, maybe the military had something to do with it, or whatever. But I've just been fortunate, I guess.

This is not to denigrate or minimize the experiences of anyone else, since I think services vary somewhat, and I can surely picture some of the anecdotes here. But as *skn *said, Mike, thanks for sharing your insights. :asian:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 21, 2008)

I've been a cop for 11 years....before that I was a dispatcher for 2 years.  There are a lot of good dispatchers....of course even as a cop, there are a few dispatchers you hate to hear working your shift. 

Dispatching is a tough job, and not for everyone....I wouldn't want to do it again, it's stressful....I thought it was more stressful than working the road....in the sense of negative stress.

I've come to appreciate truly talented dispatchers, who have a feel for the job and what it requires.


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 21, 2008)

There is a television commercial out right now and it has a couple in bed and they hear a noise in the house at night, the guy gets up to investigate, without a weapon, he sees someone breaking the door down, runs back up to the bedroom, shuts and locks the door.
This is a great example of how cowardly people are becoming. If I had got up to investigate a noise, i would have grabbed my 18.5" pump ( with pistol grips)  shot gun, and used it instead of running to my bedroom. Could i have been killed or injured in the meantime, yes, but then again both my wife and myself could have been killed by allowing the intruder to enter unopposed.


----------



## Scarey (Mar 21, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> There is a television commercial out right now and it has a couple in bed and they hear a noise in the house at night, the guy gets up to investigate, without a weapon, he sees someone breaking the door down, runs back up to the bedroom, shuts and locks the door.
> This is a great example of how cowardly people are becoming. If I had got up to investigate a noise, i would have grabbed my 18.5" pump ( with pistol grips)  shot gun, and used it instead of running to my bedroom. Could i have been killed or injured in the meantime, yes, but then again both my wife and myself could have been killed by allowing the intruder to enter unopposed.




And, this of course, is a ploy by the media to show people what they "should do".


----------



## MJS (Mar 21, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I agree about the nature of the Dispatcher's job, Mike. I can also visualise the 'disconnect' between the dispatcher and the responding officers (of whatever service).
> 
> From my own experience, many years ago a friend of mine had a psychotropic (don't know if that's the right term) reaction to his drinks whilst we were at a nightclub out in the countryside.
> 
> ...


 
We've taken calls of a similar nature.  Someone passing by and seeing a person laying on the ground, on a bench, etc.  Its usually a good assumption, given the area this usually happens, that its someone who is drunk, however, we still treat it as an unknown problem, which gets the whole 9 yards, as far as medical serivces go, when in reality, all thats needed is an ambulance to transport them.

I suppose its better to lean on the side of caution though.


----------



## MJS (Mar 21, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> *MJS*, I just want to thank you for that insight into the job. It's something we all should've been able to infer but I think we're all guilty of not understanding the complexities of another mans job at times :rei:.


 

No problem.   Many times when I'm sharing stories with my family, my wifes jaw drops at some of the stuff I say.  I always tell her, "Sometimes you have to see it to believe it."


----------



## MJS (Mar 21, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> I'll admit it, and say that my experience with 911 dispatch has always been very positive. It's true that I have a lot of interaction with LEO's and PO's in the course of a work week, so maybe have come to know how to give the info they're looking for...or, maybe the military had something to do with it, or whatever. But I've just been fortunate, I guess.
> 
> This is not to denigrate or minimize the experiences of anyone else, since I think services vary somewhat, and I can surely picture some of the anecdotes here. But as *skn *said, Mike, thanks for sharing your insights. :asian:


 
You're welcome and as I said, there are good ones and bad ones.  I just wish that there wasn't so many ones with...for lack of better words...issues.


----------



## MJS (Mar 21, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I've been a cop for 11 years....before that I was a dispatcher for 2 years. There are a lot of good dispatchers....of course even as a cop, there are a few dispatchers you hate to hear working your shift.


 
LOL! So true!  I've had officers call me on the phone and say, "Who the **** is that on the radio???  Please, give them something else to do tonight!!!"



> Dispatching is a tough job, and not for everyone....I wouldn't want to do it again, it's stressful....I thought it was more stressful than working the road....in the sense of negative stress.
> 
> I've come to appreciate truly talented dispatchers, who have a feel for the job and what it requires.


 
I think its beneficial for both sides to see what the other does, and you're 100% correct...it gives a feel.  Likewise, thats one of the reasons I enjoy going on ride alongs.  While I don't get involved like they do, its good to go out with them, and see how they handle the various things that they're confronted with.  Its certainly not an easy job being an LEO and I give them a ton of credit for what they do. 

Mike


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 21, 2008)

Scarey said:


> And, this of course, is a ploy by the media to show people what they "should do".


 

Well, come on, Brinks Home Security would never sell any alarms if it became known that criminals don't care about hearing them go off, now could they?

Untrustworthy things, computers. Passwords and power outages and "glitches" and cut wires and no actual physical deterrent and all.

My security systems, you just oil.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Mar 21, 2008)

If he is in my house, falling down the stairs will be the least of his worries, as he will allready be dead as his body tumbles down them.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 24, 2008)

MJS said:


> I think its beneficial for both sides to see what the other does, and you're 100% correct...it gives a feel. Likewise, thats one of the reasons I enjoy going on ride alongs. While I don't get involved like they do, its good to go out with them, and see how they handle the various things that they're confronted with. Its certainly not an easy job being an LEO and I give them a ton of credit for what they do.
> 
> Mike


  One trait i've noticed about good dispatchers is that they always seem to be one step ahead of the officer working the road.....they have the ability to anticipate what he's going to need before you even have to ask.  It's like a 'Radar O'Reilly' kind of 6th Sense where they always seem to know what you're going to ask for before you do....and when you get on the radio and make a request, most of the time they've already done it.  That kind of dispatcher is a TREAT to work with!

They're also the dispatchers who know exactly which questions to ask the callers first, because they KNOW what the officer is going to ask them!


----------



## Guardian (Mar 24, 2008)

If I look at this reasonably, then I would stay upstairs and shut the door and dial 911 and wait for a response, now if he/she should come up those stairs, then their gone with my shotgun in hand pure and simple because they have crossed the line of no return by coming up the stairs.

If you live in a single floor home, like I do, putting my wife on the floor on her side of the bed (I sleep on the door side/protection for her wise) with her pistol and I would take a kneeling position on my side with my shotgun and she dials 911 while we wait to see if he/she is stupid enough to darken our bedroom door and then that's all she wrote also.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 24, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Bear in mind I'm only dropping the phone because someone is attempting to crash my barricade which if the responding officer has been told by the dispatcher that I have barricaded myself, he probably won't do without announcing some form of police presence which upon recognition that it is a police officer, the game becomes I eject the magazine, extract the chambered round, lock open the slide and put the forty-five away from me and then notify the officer I am coming out slowly with my hands leading.
> 
> And if the dispatcher is a good dispatcher, the responding officer WILL know who's who because among the first things out of my mouth will be "when the officer arrives, tell him not to shoot the guy with a red lightstick around his neck--that's me".(Yes, some of us have thought this through).



While it helps me to know that the homeowner/victim is wearing a red shirt or whatever -- we're still treating a guy with a gun as if they're the suspect.  And if you don't comply with our directions, you may be shot.  



Rich Parsons said:


> If you say that it is much better everywhere else, I just happen to live int eh worst place in the country for 911 service I would believe. Why would I believe you?
> 
> 1) You are in the business I am not. You would have information I would not.
> 
> ...



Rich, I'm not trying to be insulting -- but it seems that there's a pattern in your encounters.  You might look at why it seems to happen that way so often for you.  Sometimes, we have to realize that we are part of the problem.   For example,  you used a phonetic alphabet to spell out the name of the street; that can be great.  Or it can be confusing as hell, especially if there's no warning that phonetics are coming, or it's a unique set of choices.  I once gave a tag out using a military phonetic, foxtrot, for the letter F.  I confused the new dispatcher; she didn't know if I was giving  F or FT.    Not her fault -- mine.



grydth said:


> I do not feel my decision to use deadly force in defense of family is expressly or impliedly based on a conclusion that the police or 911 are incompetent or uncaring.
> 
> Actually, both in this region are quite good. On very busy nights, a 911 call can be put on hold. I was told this by a 911 operator 6 days ago. There just are not enough staff to immediately address every call.
> 
> ...



Very well said; YOUR safety begins with YOU.  Most law enforcement agencies do their best -- but the truth is that we can't be everywhere, and we are primarily REACTIVE.  Cops come when you call them; they don't generally knock on doors asking if there's a burglary or robbery happening right now.



sgtmac_46 said:


> I've been a cop for 11 years....before that I was a dispatcher for 2 years.  There are a lot of good dispatchers....of course even as a cop, there are a few dispatchers you hate to hear working your shift.
> 
> Dispatching is a tough job, and not for everyone....I wouldn't want to do it again, it's stressful....I thought it was more stressful than working the road....in the sense of negative stress.
> 
> I've come to appreciate truly talented dispatchers, who have a feel for the job and what it requires.



As much as I hate it -- I think it's very beneficial that I've had to dispatch.  I know what it's like to be fielding several calls at once, with some cop on the radio taking 5 minutes to get out that everything's fine.  And I've been the cop on the street waiting for a return or information that feels like it's taking hours to come through -- when it's only a minute or two.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 24, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> While it helps me to know that the homeowner/victim is wearing a red shirt or whatever -- we're still treating a guy with a gun as if they're the suspect.  And if you don't comply with our directions, you may be shot.


Well that's understandable... but hopefully the dispatcher will inform you the man with the gun might be deaf and thus won't be able to *hear* your instructions/directions... so please take that into account. 
With roughly 20 million deaf people in this country... it could happen someday.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 24, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Well that's understandable... but hopefully the dispatcher will inform you the man with the gun might be deaf and thus won't be able to *hear* your instructions/directions... so please take that into account.
> With roughly 20 million deaf people in this country... it could happen someday.


Been there, done that.  It's a challenge... but the general rule is simple.  If you got guys in cop uniforms pointing guns at you, drop your gun.  Put your hands up.  Because if you move at all aggressively, I'm going to assume that you mean to do me harm.  And I *WILL* go home at the end of my shift.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 24, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Rich, I'm not trying to be insulting -- but it seems that there's a pattern in your encounters. You might look at why it seems to happen that way so often for you. Sometimes, we have to realize that we are part of the problem. For example, you used a phonetic alphabet to spell out the name of the street; that can be great. Or it can be confusing as hell, especially if there's no warning that phonetics are coming, or it's a unique set of choices. I once gave a tag out using a military phonetic, foxtrot, for the letter F. I confused the new dispatcher; she didn't know if I was giving F or FT. Not her fault -- mine.


 
JKS,

While I understand the pattern effect. I stated the name of the street. I then said I will spell it. I then told her that I could repeat it if required. 

Also see how I get treated in person by customs and going through borders.

I know the problem is mine in the end. I know too much. I do not scream and or get upset easily. I am not the normal call that they get that needs help. But every time I get upset, or I get out of control or speak incoherently they seem to then take action. But if you can still react with adrenaline in your body then they seem to think you are not for real.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 24, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Been there, done that.  It's a challenge... but the general rule is simple.  If you got guys in cop uniforms pointing guns at you, drop your gun.  Put your hands up.  Because if you move at all aggressively, I'm going to assume that you mean to do me harm.  And I *WILL* go home at the end of my shift.


Hey relax will ya? No need to shout... what do you think I am... deaf? wink2: )
Point is that if your dispatcher notifies you that there are hearing impaired people in residence at the location then take to understanding that they're _*not*_ gonna hear you no matter how loud you shout *TURN AROUND! GET ON THE GROUND NOW!* Also they may not necessarily let go of their weapon immediately unless they see you and identify you as a cop. Pointing your flash lights in their faces is a good way for YOU to get shot, because for all *they* know it's a second burglar. Thus turning on the house lights so that you're clearly identified helps THEM as well. 
You are going to have to communicate nonverbally to get your message across! Thus by letting them SEE your weapon and pointing at them then point to the ground and make a palm flat motion they should get the idea. 
But if their back is turned, if they are to their side with most of their back to you then they are going to HAVE to turn around to SEE you to SEE what you are saying to them. 
Not all can read lips very well. But ALL do understand a finger pointing to the floor and the palm spreading flat out. 

As much as it would please you to get home alive I'm sure it would please you even more not to have to shoot an innocent.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 24, 2008)

Good point and experienced by a hearing person - pulled over, flashlight in eyes, asked for documents. I stated I would comply as soon as I could visibly identify I was talking to a uniformed officer of the law.  Did I want to be arrested? No, but I have the right as a citizen to verify that he was indeed an officer of the law.

Great cop - he took the light out of my eyes and shined it on his badge, then his face. I thanked him and asked him to give me light on my purse so I could pull out the documents. He did and everything was fine.

I'm not like Rich, though - I was a young Caucasian female driving a newer Ford Escort. LA cops, I guess. :shrug:


----------



## Mark L (Mar 24, 2008)

My children's bedrooms are at diverse locations around the house. No matter where an intruder is, when I'm in bed they're between me and one of my children. I'm not going to close my door and wait for rescue. I'm not going to loiter to make a phone call (though it will be a great use of my wife's time). IFF comes first (Identification Friend or Foe), don't want to club the kids. For the presented scenario, I'm going to do everything I can to nullify the threat, with great prejudice.

I don't keep firearms, but I do have a beautiful ax handle at my bedside. There's also an assortment of bo's, sticks, and sai's piled in most corners, readily accessible. My wife finds the decor annoying, I think it's exquisitely done.


----------



## fireman00 (Mar 24, 2008)

a.) Open bedroom door.
b.) Let angry, 95lb dog out of bedroom.
c.) Close bedroom door.
d.) call 911.... after 10 minutes.


----------



## morph4me (Mar 24, 2008)

Mark L said:


> My children's bedrooms are at diverse locations around the house. No matter where an intruder is, when I'm in bed they're between me and one of my children. I'm not going to close my door and wait for rescue. I'm not going to loiter to make a phone call (though it will be a great use of my wife's time). IFF comes first (Identification Friend or Foe), don't want to club the kids. For the presented scenario, I'm going to do everything I can to nullify the threat, with great prejudice.


 
My layout is a little better, and my kids know enough to let me know it's them when they come in, as for nullifying the threat with great prejudice, I'm with you.



Mark L said:


> I don't keep firearms, but I do have a beautiful ax handle at my bedside. There's also an assortment of bo's, sticks, and sai's piled in most corners, readily accessible. My wife finds the decor annoying, I think it's exquisitely done.


 
Yeah, some people shouldn't own firearms because of their temprament, and I happen to be one of them so we probably have similar decors


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 24, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> While it helps me to know that the homeowner/victim is wearing a red shirt or whatever -- we're still treating a guy with a gun as if they're the suspect. And if you don't comply with our directions, you may be shot.


 

And I totally understand that, which is the reason why as you note in the post, I have disarmed before opening the door for the responding officers with my empty hands leading slowly.

Another poster made the point of if business had already been taken care of to wait kneeling with the hands on head thing until it's sorted out who's who, which also bears considering.

But don't worry, either way I'm *not* dumb enough to still have a weapon in my hand if I know I'm gonna have to talk to LEO's that are on their way.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 25, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Well that's understandable... but hopefully the dispatcher will inform you the man with the gun might be deaf and thus won't be able to *hear* your instructions/directions... so please take that into account.
> With roughly 20 million deaf people in this country... it could happen someday.


 Then it might be a good public service announcement to all those 20 million deaf people.....that when they see cops running around, it might be a good idea to put the gun down......because, though uniformed cops won't know you're deaf just by looking at you, you SHOULD know they're uniformed cops just by 'looking' at them. 

Deaf doesn't mean stupid......and like I tell cops at the range about running around PLAIN CLOTHES with a gun....the BURDEN is on YOU to make sure, if you're packing a gun, to take steps to be aware of when the uniforms arrive on scene....because they know who they are and you know who they are......but they may have NO WAY of knowing who in the heck YOU ARE!


----------



## morph4me (Mar 25, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Then it might be a good public service announcement to all those 20 million deaf people.....that when they see cops running around, it might be a good idea to put the gun down......because, though uniformed cops won't know you're deaf just by looking at you, you SHOULD know they're uniformed cops just by 'looking' at them.
> 
> Deaf doesn't mean stupid......*and like I tell cops at the range about running around PLAIN CLOTHES with a gun....the BURDEN is on YOU to make sure, if you're packing a gun, to take steps to be aware of when the uniforms arrive on scene....because they know who they are and you know who they are......but they may have NO WAY of knowing who in the heck YOU ARE*!


 
Good advice. We just had an incident locally where an off duty rookie was killed by police because he was armed and attempting to stop an assault and didn't respond to orders to drop his weapon. http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008803220350


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 25, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Then it might be a good public service announcement to all those 20 million deaf people.....that when they see cops running around, it might be a good idea to put the gun down......because, though uniformed cops won't know you're deaf just by looking at you, you SHOULD know they're uniformed cops just by 'looking' at them.
> 
> Deaf doesn't mean stupid......and like I tell cops at the range about running around PLAIN CLOTHES with a gun....the BURDEN is on YOU to make sure, if you're packing a gun, to take steps to be aware of when the uniforms arrive on scene....because they know who they are and you know who they are......but they may have NO WAY of knowing who in the heck YOU ARE!


Good point Sarge. Yet still, deaf people rely on visual clues more than anything else. So it's gotta go both ways. 
Public service messages do need to go out however.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 25, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Then it might be a good public service announcement to all those 20 million deaf people.....that when they see cops running around, it might be a good idea to put the gun down......because, though uniformed cops won't know you're deaf just by looking at you, you SHOULD know they're uniformed cops just by 'looking' at them.
> 
> Deaf doesn't mean stupid......and like I tell cops at the range about running around PLAIN CLOTHES with a gun....the BURDEN is on YOU to make sure, if you're packing a gun, to take steps to be aware of when the uniforms arrive on scene....because they know who they are and you know who they are......but they may have NO WAY of knowing who in the heck YOU ARE!





morph4me said:


> Good advice. We just had an incident locally where an off duty rookie was killed by police because he was armed and attempting to stop an assault and didn't respond to orders to drop his weapon. http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008803220350



The first rule of working in plainclothes -- and that includes detectives in coat & tie, and even sometimes detectives in tactical gear if there's any possibility of any question about their identity -- is YOU DO WHAT THE GUY IN UNIFORM SAYS.  All to often, all too tragically, off-duty or undercover cops forget that rule because they forget that they're effectively civilians.



MA-Caver said:


> Good point Sarge. Yet still, deaf people rely on visual clues more than anything else. So it's gotta go both ways.
> Public service messages do need to go out however.



We have what I'll call a small enclave (for lack of a better word) of deaf families in my jurisdiction.  I've worked domestics among them, taken complaints, and even given the traffic citations.  I've arrested deaf people.  But I'm never going to jeopardize my life questioning whether someone behaving aggressively toward me with a gun is able to hear me.  I owe it to my family and friends to act to protect my life.

I'm not saying that deaf people shouldn't own guns.  But -- if you're deaf, and you own a gun, and find yourself in a self defense situation where you end up holding a gun on someone -- YOU have to be extra aware around and behind you because the cops *are not* going to walk in front of the gun to get your attention.


----------



## tellner (Mar 25, 2008)

Just a correction for jks and anyone else who carries tin

You _*are *_civilians. 
You _*aren't*_ warriors. 
You _*aren't*_ soldiers. 
If you want to be either, then head on down to the recruiting station and become An Army of One.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 25, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Good point Sarge. Yet still, deaf people rely on visual clues more than anything else. So it's gotta go both ways.
> Public service messages do need to go out however.


 Yes, but the problem is that you can't tell a deaf person by looking at them....but you can tell a uniformed officer by looking at him.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 25, 2008)

tellner said:


> Just a correction for jks and anyone else who carries tin
> 
> You _*are *_civilians.
> You _*aren't*_ warriors.
> ...


 
Those distinctions are completely academic and moot when the flag flies.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 25, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Those distinctions are completely academic and moot when the flag flies.


I'd pretty much decided to ignore it.  But since someone else responded...

Perhaps we should move back to the earliest definition of "civilian", and limit the title to those who study the Roman civil law?

Within the context, and within accepted use, the distinction between "civilian" and "law enforcement" is an accepted use of the term.  It was clear from context what I was referring to, and it's a lot easier than using a phrase like "non-law enforcement people."  I suppose I could have used "lay person", but that could lead to other semantic arguments.  

Functionally -- the use of "civilian" to distinguish between members of the general public and sworn law enforcement is accepted.  What's the benefit in playing semantic games?  I've never seen a cop say that they are a serving member of military service, unless they happened to be a reservist or an MP or otherwise an actual member of the military.  Sadly, I have encountered military personel trying to claim to be cops...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 25, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> I'd pretty much decided to ignore it. But since someone else responded...
> 
> Perhaps we should move back to the earliest definition of "civilian", and limit the title to those who study the Roman civil law?
> 
> ...





> A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group.
> A person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity.
> A specialist in Roman or civil law.
> http://www.answers.com/topic/civilian


 


> *ci·vil·ian* (s
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 




> civilian
> One entry found.
> 
> civilian
> ...



Clearly by no reasonable definition are law enforcement personnell 'civilians'.......though not 'military' it is clear that law enforcement agencies, with their governmental power and paramilitary structure are not 'civilians', but those charges with engaging criminal behavior and violence WITHIN a civilized society.


I think the confusion begins with a misunderstanding of the words "'civilian' law enforcement"....some read that to mean that 'law enforcement' officers are 'civilians'.....which is not the case....the term 'civilian law enforcement' denotes a government official who enforces laws against civilian....not, as was noted, a 'civilian' who enforces laws.  A law enforcement officer is not simply a 'civilian'.....but rather is more accurately a civil servant with governmental powers greater than 'civilians' to enforce laws and maintain order.


----------



## Carol (Mar 25, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Clearly by no reasonable definition are law enforcement personnell 'civilians'.......though not 'military' it is clear that law enforcement agencies, with their governmental power and paramilitary structure are not 'civilians', but those charges with engaging criminal behavior and violence WITHIN a civilized society.



Agreed.  In addition, there are social responsibilities as well.  When off-duty, one may have responsibilities that most "civilians" don't have, such as what to do if one is near a crime seen.  As a LEO, one is also forbidden from sitting on a "Civilian Review Board" to discuss the actions of one's brothers or sisters, nor is one permitted to sit on a Selective Service local board.  There may be other distinctions too...those are just the first that come to my mind.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 26, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> Agreed. In addition, there are social responsibilities as well. When off-duty, one may have responsibilities that most "civilians" don't have, such as what to do if one is near a crime seen. As a LEO, one is also forbidden from sitting on a "Civilian Review Board" to discuss the actions of one's brothers or sisters, nor is one permitted to sit on a Selective Service local board. There may be other distinctions too...those are just the first that come to my mind.


 Absolutely....being a police officer means you become removed from other citizens....with powers and responsibilities and duties not held by other 'civilians'.


----------



## MJS (Mar 26, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> One trait i've noticed about good dispatchers is that they always seem to be one step ahead of the officer working the road.....they have the ability to anticipate what he's going to need before you even have to ask. It's like a 'Radar O'Reilly' kind of 6th Sense where they always seem to know what you're going to ask for before you do....and when you get on the radio and make a request, most of the time they've already done it. That kind of dispatcher is a TREAT to work with!
> 
> They're also the dispatchers who know exactly which questions to ask the callers first, because they KNOW what the officer is going to ask them!


 
Yes, that certainly is a plus.


----------



## chinto (Mar 27, 2008)

tellner said:


> Just a correction for jks and anyone else who carries tin
> 
> You _*are *_civilians.
> You _*aren't*_ warriors.
> ...




ok one more time for the people who do not listen or read in the United States of America....  the Supreme Court of th United States of America has RULED that the police and other LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY'S HAVE NO DUTY WHAT SO EVER TO DEFEND OR PROTECT YOU WHEN YOU ARE IN DANGER!!!!!  this has been REAFFIRMED by the COURT more then 4 times in the last 100 years and is the LAW OF THE LAND!!!!!!!!!!


so sure ... call the cops .. but you better take what ever action will protect you and your family while waiting, as if they decide to not show up or not hurry, its their right to do so, and you have zero right to complain!!!  The law of the land is that defense of you and your family is your problem!! That is the LAW in the USA.  So I would suggest you act accordingly!!!!!!!!!


----------



## The_Fish (Mar 27, 2008)

As I&#8217;m assuming (please correct me if I&#8217;m wrong here) that people from England are amongst a minority here, I&#8217;ll quote a few snippets of our self-defence laws that apply to this scenario.



> The concept of the defence exists both at common law and by statute. At common law the defence has existed for centuries and permits a person to use reasonable force to:





> defend himself from attack
> prevent an attack on another person
> defend his property
> Statute:
> A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.





> .... where a forcible and violent felony is attempted upon the person of another, the party assaulted, or his servant, or any other person present, is entitled to repel force by force, and, if necessary, to kill the aggressor ....






> Where the accused believes that he is under attack and acts with reasonable force in self defence to repel the attack, and it turns out that, in fact, he was mistaken and that he was not under attack after all, he will still be entitled to rely upon the defence of self defence, as the court considers the defence from the accused's own viewpoint.




The protectors also have a duty of care to inform any intruders of anything that may harm them, otherwise the intruder can sue the protector! See as follows:



> The circumstances in which an occupier of property may be liable to a negligence claim by a person who has been injured while trespassing on their property are governed by the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, which defines in statute the duty of care owed by an occupier. The Act places a duty on occupiers to prevent injury to trespassers by ordinary hazards which may be found on the premises or by hazards that have been deliberately placed there by the occupier as a means of protecting the premises against trespassers.
> 
> The 1984 Act states that the occupier owes a duty only if:
> 
> ...






There are a lot of complaints about English self-defence laws (and I would say in many other countries too) but I think they are VERY reasonable. You are allowed to use reasonable force to defuse a situation, but to not exact &#8216;revenge&#8217;, &#8216;punishment&#8217; or go above what is deemed reasonable at the time. Once a reasonable level of force is used in bringing down an attacker (upto and including death, and usage of weapons is allowed if again reasonable and provided the weapons used stick to other laws &#8211; using a gun to kill an attacker where killing was necessary won&#8217;t net you a murder charge, but try explaining away why you have a gun in the first place...) and the threat no longer exists, any more force is then conducting an assault of your own &#8211; it&#8217;s unnecessary force. It&#8217;s simple and common sense. A victim does not also have to retreat even if that would be the &#8216;safest&#8217; course of action &#8211; he is permitted to defend as per the rules above. That&#8217;s not to say I disagree with people going above reasonable force in a defence situation &#8211; I do not have a problem with that, simply I would not do it myself knowingly because I have a real fear of arrest & imprisonment.

I think an earlier post I read sums up my thoughts perfectly. If I heard a noise in my house, unlike the many people who said they would call police or arm themselves and prepare, I would go downstairs and investigate, but armed with whatever I could find at hand and my family would likely do the same. Why? I live at home with my parents and my younger sister. My sister and I both like to go out around town and have a couple drinks on different nights, coming in early hours of the morning. It&#8217;s a regular occurrence. I often hear (what I assume to be) my sister coming in from a night out, making little sound in a bid not to wake us. If I called the police every time I heard someone downstairs then I would be wasting valuable police time. Same goes for when I come in and my family are asleep.

My first instinct, then, would be to investigate if I detected something a little off. Most times I know it&#8217;s my sister because of the little tell-tale sounds that make it clear, but sometimes it might not be. If I went downstairs with my bat and found myself looking straight at a burglar, I would challenge him first. Because of the layout of my small house, the bottom of the stairs is right next to two doors &#8211; the front house door, and the one leading into the main lower floor. The only way he is going to be able to run away is come through me, and if he ran at me, regardless of whether his intention was to get away or to attack me, I must treat it as the latter. I&#8217;d call out loud to wake up my family, and try and take him down with a blow to the legs or the torso. I&#8217;d want to make sure I nailed that ******* right away and hold him for the police because I hate people getting away with these sorts of crimes, and I wouldn&#8217;t risk trying to attack him when I am no longer at risk (him running away).

Two recent cases in England that are prime examples are the following:

Case 1 &#8211; a man is expecting an intruder (because of threats) to come for him. An intruder enters his house. He locks himself in a room with his shotgun. Intruder hears the man upstairs, runs upstairs and bursts through the door &#8211; man shoots intruder. Man is acquitted of murder because of the circumstances.

Case 2 &#8211; a man breaks into the house of a farmer and his family. Farmer comes downstairs with his shotgun, looking to protect himself and his family. Intruder runs, farmer gives chase and shoots intruder in the back. Farmer is NOT acquitted of murder because the intruder was running away.

Anyway, sorry for going on a bit much. 

Nick


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Mar 27, 2008)

I don't have a wife or kids to consider.  What I do if someone breaks into my house is hop out my window, go next door and call the police, grab a weapon and stakeout my house from the outside.  If he leaves before the police arrive I tail the perp.  If he has a car I get the license number.  In this day and age with cell phones I'll just grab my phone before I hop out the window.  I'm a light sleeper and rather paranoid so it's likely I'll hear someone coming in (especially sneaky noises like creaking of the floor or subtle brushing of clothing against a wall).  I sleep next to my "blah bat" just in case.  I'll try to let the authorities handle it, that's why they're there.  I've only had my place broken into twice while I was at home and the second time the person fled as soon as they saw someone was there.  The first time my strategy worked perfectly and the invader was arrested before he left.  What's of paramount importance is to remove myself from danger.


----------



## ares (Mar 27, 2008)

If someone is breaking into my home, I don't care if it was my own brother, Not your house, not your stuff, I don't care, you die.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 28, 2008)

ares said:


> If someone is breaking into my home, I don't care if it was my own brother, Not your house, not your stuff, I don't care, you die.


O rly?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 28, 2008)

The_Fish said:


> Two recent cases in England that are prime examples are the following:
> 
> Case 1 &#8211; a man is expecting an intruder (because of threats) to come for him. An intruder enters his house. He locks himself in a room with his shotgun. Intruder hears the man upstairs, runs upstairs and bursts through the door &#8211; man shoots intruder. Man is acquitted of murder because of the circumstances.
> 
> ...


  Well, that's great that guy 1 got acquitted......in Missouri he'd never have been CHARGED in the first place....neither of them would have been.  Our law is FAR more 'reasonable' than England's....in the sense it's designed to protect law abiding citizens NOT CRIMINALS!

Our law is very simple.....anyone who attempts to enter, enters or remains in YOUR residence UNLAWFULLY......is PRESUMED to be a lethal threat, justifying the use of any force INCLUDING lethal force!  Further, lawful use of force used in the above scenario renders the property owner......get this one.....IMMUNE TO CIVIL LIABILITY!  That's right, if some miscreant or his survivors SUE one of us for shooting them while attempting to carry out our television....the court is REQUIRED to dismiss the case.....AND the PLAINTIFF (the miscreant or his survivor bring the suit) is REQUIRED to pay ALL fees involved in the case, INCLUDING the property owners attorney's fees AND any expenses the property owner incurs while responding to the case. 

England's law sounds like it's designed to 'make sure all the subjects play nicey nice and nobody gets hurty hurt.'........our law is designed to 'DISCOURAGE' burglary.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 28, 2008)

chinto said:


> ok one more time for the people who do not listen or read in the United States of America.... the Supreme Court of th United States of America has RULED that the police and other LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY'S HAVE NO DUTY WHAT SO EVER TO DEFEND OR PROTECT YOU WHEN YOU ARE IN DANGER!!!!! this has been REAFFIRMED by the COURT more then 4 times in the last 100 years and is the LAW OF THE LAND!!!!!!!!!!


 Absolutely correct!  The police have a GENERAL duty that DOES NOT extend as a specific duty to any one person.




			
				chinto said:
			
		

> so sure ... call the cops .. but you better take what ever action will protect you and your family while waiting, as if they decide to not show up or not hurry, its their right to do so, and you have zero right to complain!!! The law of the land is that defense of you and your family is your problem!! That is the LAW in the USA. So I would suggest you act accordingly!!!!!!!!!


  I am a cop......but i'm a bit perplexed by the mentality that says it's STUPID to risk your OWN life for your property....but it's smart to call the cops to risk THEIR life for your property......why, because they getting paid $40k a year to do it?  WTF?!

I call the police as backup......but I grew up on a farm in the middle of nowhere where the Sheriff's department response AT BEST was 30 minutes plus......and at 2am was about 2 HOURS!  You saw someone creeping around, you grabbed the ranch rifle and the shotgun and some flashlights and you all went out to check it out!


Now that's not a SUGGESTION that everyone should be on their own.....if you need the police, call them......but I don't consider it 'stupid' to handle the situation yourself....it IS your property.......the choice is yours.


----------



## The_Fish (Mar 28, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Well, that's great that guy 1 got acquitted......in Missouri he'd never have been CHARGED in the first place....neither of them would have been. Our law is FAR more 'reasonable' than England's....in the sense it's designed to protect law abiding citizens NOT CRIMINALS!
> 
> Our law is very simple.....anyone who attempts to enter, enters or remains in YOUR residence UNLAWFULLY......is PRESUMED to be a lethal threat, justifying the use of any force INCLUDING lethal force! Further, lawful use of force used in the above scenario renders the property owner......get this one.....IMMUNE TO CIVIL LIABILITY! That's right, if some miscreant or his survivors SUE one of us for shooting them while attempting to carry out our television....the court is REQUIRED to dismiss the case.....AND the PLAINTIFF (the miscreant or his survivor bring the suit) is REQUIRED to pay ALL fees involved in the case, INCLUDING the property owners attorney's fees AND any expenses the property owner incurs while responding to the case.
> 
> England's law sounds like it's designed to 'make sure all the subjects play nicey nice and nobody gets hurty hurt.'........our law is designed to 'DISCOURAGE' burglary.


 
Putting my own personal opinion aside for the time being, our law exists to try and give people enough room to apply self-defence to keep themselves safe. Any more than that is a person taking revenge, applying punishment or just plain assaulting an attacker - in a sense, two wrongs do not make a right. Our law discourages burglary because we are allowed to do what is necessary to ensure ourselves and our possessions remain safe - simply put though, revenge and punishment are a job for the police, not for us to apply 'vigilante style'.

If a person breaks into my house and I beat him down to the ground and I have two clear options before me, one being to incapacitate and neutralise the threat and the other to just outright kill him, why kill him when incapacitating does the same job? It makes murder not justifiable in this instance - why kill the intruder when we can keep ourself equally as safe restraining/incapacitating him?

Remember why the law exists in the first place. It is there to ensure people are safe, and as such people are allowed to do what is reasonable to maintain there safety, UPTO AND INCLUDING killing the intruder if that is what is seen as reasonable at the time. If killing the intruder isn't necessary and is above what is seen as rational and a reasonable amount of force at the time, then to kill is to subject the intruder to your own malice.

Morally, you're exactly right. In my opinion, law aside, if a person breaks into my house they forfeit the right to protection. They are endangering me and I would feel no symapthy at going completely overkill and outright killing them.

Legally, this is a different case. Laws exist for the protection of ALL citizens, and just because they are breaking one law doesn't mean you can break another law when it is NOT NECESSARY to do so.

Our self-defence laws are reasonable in the sense that any victim of an intrusion or assault can do whatever they see reasonable in doing to protect themselves and fend off the assault - which in reality, is what matters - taking care of yourself. Going overboard out of anger, revenge, or for any other reason above simply what you see reasonable is then doing what is NOT needed - if your intruder is already unconscious before you, you're safe for the time being - stomping on his head multiple times is not required and as such an act of your own malice. See where I'm coming from?

I'm a hypocrite in that I believe the self-defence law here is perfect in a legal, moral sense - allowing us to treat any intruder with deadly force without consequence is a little more anarchic than I would like, and the chance to abuse that is definitely there - but (and here comes the hypocritical part) I am very morally unbound in myself and I feel I don't care what happens to an intruder whether I go overkill or not, I'm just scared of the legal consequences, not the moral ones.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 29, 2008)

The_Fish said:


> Putting my own personal opinion aside for the time being, our law exists to try and give people enough room to apply self-defence to keep themselves safe. Any more than that is a person taking revenge, applying punishment or just plain assaulting an attacker - in a sense, two wrongs do not make a right. Our law discourages burglary because we are allowed to do what is necessary to ensure ourselves and our possessions remain safe - simply put though, revenge and punishment are a job for the police, not for us to apply 'vigilante style'.
> 
> If a person breaks into my house and I beat him down to the ground and I have two clear options before me, one being to incapacitate and neutralise the threat and the other to just outright kill him, why kill him when incapacitating does the same job? It makes murder not justifiable in this instance - why kill the intruder when we can keep ourself equally as safe restraining/incapacitating him?
> 
> ...


 
If you're scared of legal consequences, then it should make you happy that we have eliminated legal consequences to defending ourselves in our own homes......it shouldn't surprise that burglary rates, especially of occupied dwellings, have FALLEN dramatically where these laws have been passed.

Why kill the intruder?  Because burglars are habitual recidivists.....a dead burglar means not meeting him again in the future when he serves his 3 months in jail!  It's like a drop of chlorine in the gene pool!


Some folks read the above and think 'Oh, the poor burglar....how can you feel that way?'....I don't see it that way at all!  If you stick your HAND in a RATTLESNAKE HOLE and get BITTEN.....who's fault is it?  Some guy visits my house to victimize me and gets his HEAD blown off, who's fault is it?  It's more of a natural consquence than anything else....the order of the universe.


----------



## ares (Mar 29, 2008)

about my reply. Sorry if it sounds mean, but my first thought would be about protecting my family. I don't really care about the stuff in my house, it's just stuff, but if someone is breaking into my house in the middle of the night, they are not there to have tea.  I would rather end it right there, then to have them hurt my wife and child. My wife raped my son beaten or kidnapped, I'll take my chances. I will take responsibility for my actions afterwards, but my family will come first.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 29, 2008)

I'm almost ashamed to say that, in my middle-aged state of encroaching right-wingism, I'm inclined to agree with *Mac* in his post #120.

I understand at an intellectual level the legal background that *Fish* laid out so well but there are certain realities that intrude under certain circumstances too. 

For example, in my own personal case, I could not in all likelyhood 'subdue' an intruder as I only have one fully functional arm.  However, I have a certain amount of skill in swordcraft and so could possibly stand a better than even chance of either dismembering (or worse) an intruder.  Where would that leave me in the scales of justice when it comes to the application of reasonable force?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 29, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I'm almost ashamed to say that, in my middle-aged state of encroaching right-wingism, I'm inclined to agree with *Mac* in his post #120.
> 
> I understand at an intellectual level the legal background that *Fish* laid out so well but there are certain realities that intrude under certain circumstances too.
> 
> For example, in my own personal case, I could not in all likelyhood 'subdue' an intruder as I only have one fully functional arm. However, I have a certain amount of skill in swordcraft and so could possibly stand a better than even chance of either dismembering (or worse) an intruder. Where would that leave me in the scales of justice when it comes to the application of reasonable force?


 
I'm not certain how the legal system works on your side of the pond but I wonder if there's anything along the lines of our doctrine of "Disparity of Force"(i.e. the deck is stacked such that whether or *not* any weaponry is in play the opposition still presents a deadly force threat(i.e. four of them, one of you/one of them the SIZE of four of you/intelligence that they have any form of MA/combat training/possession or implied possesion of a weapon/young and strong versus elderly, or male versus female and so on)

If something comparable exists there, your physical limitations would, I dearly hope, be taken into consideration.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 29, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I'm almost ashamed to say that, in my middle-aged state of encroaching right-wingism, I'm inclined to agree with *Mac* in his post #120.
> 
> I understand at an intellectual level the legal background that *Fish* laid out so well but there are certain realities that intrude under certain circumstances too.
> 
> For example, in my own personal case, I could not in all likelyhood 'subdue' an intruder as I only have one fully functional arm. However, I have a certain amount of skill in swordcraft and so could possibly stand a better than even chance of either dismembering (or worse) an intruder. Where would that leave me in the scales of justice when it comes to the application of reasonable force?


  If you live in England, you're probably going to jail......if you live in Missouri you'll just need to pay someone to professionally clean your carpet.

We do not suffer intruders here.


----------



## The_Fish (Mar 30, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> If you live in England, you're probably going to jail......if you live in Missouri you'll just need to pay someone to professionally clean your carpet.
> 
> We do not suffer intruders here.


 
Incorrect, it would simply depend on how far the defendant took it. Having one functional arm would be taken into account and if you were in a situation were you felt threatened enough to use a sword and you attacked the intruder enough so as to neutralise the threat, you are fine.

That is what is meant by 'reasonable' in our law. You can do what you like upto and including murder provided you can justify to a jury that the force you applied was neccessary. Simply put, provided you do not carry on with the attack once the threat has been removed you are fine. It's with the obvious cases where you get the shaft. Example?

Intruder enters house. He is a big fellow, carrying himself confidently. He spots you, and begins to come towards you. You shoot him with a shotgun in the legs to incapacitate him, or if you felt his presence was enough of a threat (which anyone can say ) then kill him. That can be legally justified here.

Same scenario as above, except this time he spots you and runs off. You try and shoot him, then give chase and shoot at him. In this case, you could be arrested. Why? Because once he started running away from you, the threat disappears - there is no reason to chase and shoot, other than your own revenge instincts kicking in.

I understand your views of course. The only reason I don't agree fully with the "Any intruder can be dealt with by deadly force" law is because it is much more open for abuse and allowing people to get away with murder in cases where perhaps it's not justified. Each to their own views I suppose.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 30, 2008)

The_Fish said:


> Incorrect, it would simply depend on how far the defendant took it. Having one functional arm would be taken into account and if you were in a situation were you felt threatened enough to use a sword and you attacked the intruder enough so as to neutralise the threat, you are fine.
> 
> That is what is meant by 'reasonable' in our law. You can do what you like upto and including murder provided you can justify to a jury that the force you applied was neccessary. Simply put, provided you do not carry on with the attack once the threat has been removed you are fine. It's with the obvious cases where you get the shaft. Example?
> 
> ...


  Our laws on self-defense are more clear......it won't even end UP in front a jury if it's within the statute.....because ENDING UP IN FRONT OF A JURY MEANS YOU'RE BEING TRIED FOR A CRIME!  You are aware of that, right?

And just exactly HOW could it be 'abused'?  Oh, you mean some poor unarmed burglar who means no harm might get shot? [rofl]

Bottom....my statement that he'd likely end up charged with murder for his actions, and have a good chance of going to prison in England is accurate....despite your attempt to justify the system, it's designed under the premise that CRIMINAL and CITIZEN deserve equal protection under the law.....that might work for you, but we'll keep our way.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 30, 2008)

Steady, *Mac*, I don't necessarily disagree that I a 'castle doctrine' should be re-introduced over here but *Fish* has an important point when he shows that a system that appears tantermount to 'no fault' can easily be abused.

I'm sure that it has probably happened under the laws in your State and it may even be that those involved in the legal system _knew_ the laws had been 'used' to commit a legal murder.  I have no proof, mind you, just experience of human nature.

The balance comes in where you consider the most 'good' to lie.  For me, I would much prefer there to be more flexible laws when it comes to defending yourself or your home.  As it is sadly the case that the police are not there to protect us then the law should allow for cirumstances wherein we can defend ourselves without fear of the legal consequences.

Would this result in more dead petty criminals?  I'm confident that it would but I believe that my (famously sensitive) conscience could happily live with that.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 30, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Steady, *Mac*, I don't necessarily disagree that I a 'castle doctrine' should be re-introduced over here but *Fish* has an important point when he shows that a system that appears tantermount to 'no fault' can easily be abused.
> 
> I'm sure that it has probably happened under the laws in your State and it may even be that those involved in the legal system _knew_ the laws had been 'used' to commit a legal murder. I have no proof, mind you, just experience of human nature.
> 
> ...


 It is my belief that it is better that 20 criminals die without legal repercussions to the homeowner than 1 home owner defending himself and his property go to prison for doing just exactly that.

As for 'abuse' perhaps you or fish could outline a scenario that you would consider 'abuse' so that we might examine the issue.


----------



## The_Fish (Mar 31, 2008)

Just before I continue, I'm not saying your law is 'bad' - on the contrary, it is a VERY effective law, both from a psychological and physical point of view. Psychologically, people being aware that they can and will be killed for intruding will put some off. Physically, the ability to defend yourself to the fullest without fear of legal reprecussions is great, and for 95% (just a random figure I'm pulling out here) of cases where it is legitimate self-defence, then your law is really good.

If your law is (and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not exactly sure) that you may use deadly force against an intruder, what is to stop a person from simply luring a person into their house/abducting a person to their house/killing a salesman who entered their house/more variations on the above, and then simply claim they were protecting themselves from an unwanted visitor/person who turned on them in their own house? An intelligent person with a penchant for lieing would very easily be able to craft a story about how somebody entered their house when in actual fact he dragged them off the street, and get off scot-free, without even being investigated. That's the only problem I have with your law (and again, if I'm wrong here please correct me, I'm not fully aware) - it's not that you are allowed to treat an intruder with deadly force, it's the fact that there appears to be a very laid-back view on it and instead of there being a full investigation of the incident and interviewing of the defending killer, it's just a matter of "oh, you were defending your home? No problem dude, we'll get rid of this body for you". That's what makes it open to abuse.

Sorry for being a little long-winded there, I find it hard to get my point across in few words.


----------



## ulysses_in_arabia (Mar 31, 2008)

If I find someone I know to be a burglar is in my house when my family is present I will most likely shoot them center of mass until I am sure they are no longer a threat. If the burglar is very very lucky and it is absolutely apparent to my sleepy eyes that he is unarmed and absolutely no threat at all, I would not not immediately shoot him...unless he was between me and where my kids or wife are located at the time. I have very little sympathy towards a criminal that invades a persons home.

Daniel


----------



## ulysses_in_arabia (Mar 31, 2008)

In my state it is not legal to shoot someone in your home unless a reasonabe person would believe that you believed they posed a lethal threat to yourself and your family.  What you say to a first responder after an incident like what we talking about is very important in determining how the investigation will be conducted.  BTW, that is North Carolina.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 31, 2008)

Again, everyone should have a look  at this post, and maybe the entire thread....a burglary while you are in your home *is* a deadly threat, and a deadly response is legally warranted. It's a statistical likelihood that you will be assaulted, raped or murdered if someone breaks into your home and you're there. As far as legalities go, it's simple enough in almost every state in the land-when the police arrive, tell them that you woke up, found someone in your home,were _"in fear for your life"_ (and these are the exact words I instruct people to use if they are forced to respond decisively in an encounter: "I  was in fear for my life.") , and responded to what you thought was iminent bodily harm with deadly intent, and that you have nothing else to say. 

I mean, geez, it's 2 A.M., and there's a stranger in your house-let's have an interview and ask them why they're there-seriously, you can tell them to leave, and if they leave, great-wait for the cops to show up, with the shotgun by your side. If they don't leave, well, my rule is pretty simple-use the shotgun. Sorry if it seems like "blood and guts machoism" or something to that effect, but it's simple practicality.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 31, 2008)

The_Fish said:


> Just before I continue, I'm not saying your law is 'bad' - on the contrary, it is a VERY effective law, both from a psychological and physical point of view. Psychologically, people being aware that they can and will be killed for intruding will put some off. Physically, the ability to defend yourself to the fullest without fear of legal reprecussions is great, and for 95% (just a random figure I'm pulling out here) of cases where it is legitimate self-defence, then your law is really good.
> 
> If your law is (and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not exactly sure) that you may use deadly force against an intruder, what is to stop a person from simply luring a person into their house/abducting a person to their house/killing a salesman who entered their house/more variations on the above, and then simply claim they were protecting themselves from an unwanted visitor/person who turned on them in their own house? An intelligent person with a penchant for lieing would very easily be able to craft a story about how somebody entered their house when in actual fact he dragged them off the street, and get off scot-free, without even being investigated. That's the only problem I have with your law (and again, if I'm wrong here please correct me, I'm not fully aware) - it's not that you are allowed to treat an intruder with deadly force, it's the fact that there appears to be a very laid-back view on it and instead of there being a full investigation of the incident and interviewing of the defending killer, it's just a matter of "oh, you were defending your home? No problem dude, we'll get rid of this body for you". That's what makes it open to abuse.
> 
> Sorry for being a little long-winded there, I find it hard to get my point across in few words.


  If you're going to go to the trouble of setting something like that up.....even if there WAS no law, you could simply put a knife or gun in their hand and claim they were armed.

We police do investigate these sort of things, however.....the likelihood that you're going to successfully murder some guy you know who has been cheating with your wife by luring him to your house at 2am is pretty darned remote.....and i'm not aware of it happening.  

But here's what will give you away

1) You know the guy
2) You either called him (phone/cell phone records), sent him a letter (again paper trail) emailed him, or picked him up (witnesses....etc).....it's not very practical.
3. Cops operate off a very simple principle.....motive and opportunity......if some guy you have a grudge against mysteriously dies, unarmed, in your living room....we tend to dig a little deeper.

Again, we can't make laws to fit every episode of CSI that deals with a crime who's commission rate is so low as to be on par with the fear of catching Ebola.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 31, 2008)

ulysses_in_arabia said:


> In my state it is not legal to shoot someone in your home unless a reasonabe person would believe that you believed they posed a lethal threat to yourself and your family. What you say to a first responder after an incident like what we talking about is very important in determining how the investigation will be conducted. BTW, that is North Carolina.


 That's the way the law used to be in Missouri......but we decided that gives WAAAYYYYY too much latitude to prosecutors to prosecute a homeowner for political reasons......say the home owner was of one race and the intruder another, and the prosecutor starts getting pressured to pursue charges.  We made it PRESUMED that you are in fear for your life if someone has unlawfully entered, remains or ATTEMPTS to enter your residence or vehicle while you are occupying them.


----------



## The_Fish (Apr 1, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> If you're going to go to the trouble of setting something like that up.....even if there WAS no law, you could simply put a knife or gun in their hand and claim they were armed.


 
Good point. I'll concede that.



> We police do investigate these sort of things, however.....




I'll concede that too. The impression I got from your posts (wrongly, I should try not to draw assumptions too much ) is that it just sounded as though there was little in the way of investigation provided it seemed a legit case.



> the likelihood that you're going to successfully murder some guy you know who has been cheating with your wife by luring him to your house at 2am is pretty darned remote.....and i'm not aware of it happening.
> 
> But here's what will give you away
> 
> ...




Don't forget about serial killings or accidental killings, when people don't know the victim. These cases are in the minority, but my problem was that it seemed as though these minority could get away with murder more easily than they would under our law (now and again, there are a number of prolific, high-profile cases in the UK of this sort of nature, and I'm sure there are over in the states too) however you&#8217;ve already stated that a more thorough investigation takes place that I thought (which was no to little investigation). There are some very cold, intelligent, calculating people out there that would be able to commit a crime unknown to all but the most thorough investigations. Again, these people/cases are a minority - it's just my personal view that all bases should be covered.

Again, I completely understand your law, and think it is effective - I just personally cannot justify having a 'blanket' law that covers any intruder and allows the use of deadly force in all such scenarios - I think each case should be judged on it's own merit and a decision made as to whether the defendant used more than a reasonable amount of force as I don't believe in allowing deadly force unless absolutely neccessary.

What would be perfect, in my opinion? Your law of allowing deadly force, provided that any in encounter where somebody was killed by the defending party, there was a thorough investigation to determine that killing the intruder was completely legitimate in the name of defence. Does that happen? If so, I will concede my argument.
 
Curious though, how would you feel about our law if the penalty for burglars was MUCH higher than it is? That's where I feel the problem is - intruders getting let off with poor penalties (assuming they aren't killed by the defender ). In my opinion, you commit a crime then you're really going to pay for it dearly to make you think twice about doing it in the first place, and to deter people from breaking the law again. I am a firm believer in capital punshiment for particularly heinous crimes, for example.


----------



## MJS (Apr 1, 2008)

This happened just a few days ago.
http://www.wfsb.com/news/15754248/detail.html


Will every home invasion result in someone getting killed?  No.  But, seeing that this is the 2nd one in CT that resulted in people getting killed, IMO, the odds of serious injury are pretty high.  There have been others in this state, in which the residents were just tied up, maybe smacked around a bit, etc., but not killed.


----------



## Fiendlover (Apr 1, 2008)

i cant believe there is actually a percentage of people who picked the last option on the poll.  :erg:


----------



## MJS (Apr 1, 2008)

And yet another one today!!
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=8100191


----------



## FearlessFreep (Apr 1, 2008)

I gotta say this now but every time I look at the front page of the forums with this thread as the latest...my mind says "Klondike Bar"


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 1, 2008)

Hey folks! I found it! The best anti-burglar device ever!! :uhyeah:


----------



## FearlessFreep (Apr 1, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Hey folks! I found it! The best anti-burglar device ever!! :uhyeah:



Better deterrent if it's outside...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 1, 2008)

The_Fish said:


> Good point. I'll concede that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 The statistical likelihood of falling victim to a serial killer is on par with winning the lottery.  Can it happen?  Yes, but there are some odd's that are so remote making laws specifically for them causes more problems than they solve. 



			
				thefish said:
			
		

> Again, I completely understand your law, and think it is effective - I just personally cannot justify having a 'blanket' law that covers any intruder and allows the use of deadly force in all such scenarios - I think each case should be judged on it's own merit and a decision made as to whether the defendant used more than a reasonable amount of force as I don't believe in allowing deadly force unless absolutely neccessary.


 That's the problem, however, in making a law about 'subjective reasonableness'....that will change from prosecutor to prosecutor....and HEAVEN FORBID your intruder be a minority of some sort who's supporters hound the prosecutor in to determing you were NOT 'subjectively reasonable'.....then you're facing a prosecution built on a political agenda.  NO, I like my terms spelled out clearly in black and white....'You are allowed to use lethal force against anyone who unlawfully enters, attempts to enter, or remains in your occupied dwelling.'  There's no ambiguity for some rogue prosecutor to pull a 'Duke Lacross' on you.




			
				thefish said:
			
		

> What would be perfect, in my opinion? Your law of allowing deadly force, provided that any in encounter where somebody was killed by the defending party, there was a thorough investigation to determine that killing the intruder was completely legitimate in the name of defence. Does that happen? If so, I will concede my argument.


 In ANY shooting there is a thorough investigation to determine if the shooting was within the bounds of the law......then in Missouri there is what is called a 'Coroners Inquest' where citizens are called in to review the evidence, almost like a jury, to determine if any further action appears to be necessary with the prosecutor.....they merely look at the facts, and look at the law.  If the facts show the citizen acted under the bounds of the law, no further action is taken.




			
				thefish said:
			
		

> Curious though, how would you feel about our law if the penalty for burglars was MUCH higher than it is? That's where I feel the problem is - intruders getting let off with poor penalties (assuming they aren't killed by the defender ). In my opinion, you commit a crime then you're really going to pay for it dearly to make you think twice about doing it in the first place, and to deter people from breaking the law again. I am a firm believer in capital punshiment for particularly heinous crimes, for example.


  Here's the problem with the Western legal system.....it is not effective as a deterrent to crime.  Why?  Well, in psychology they teach us that a 'punishment' needs three things to be effective.

1) You have to believe that you're likely to get caught.
2) You have to believe that the punishment is severe enough to deter the behavior
3) Punishment must be reasonably contemporaneous with the crime.

Ergo, Western Legal proceedings are IMPOTENT as a crime deterrent.....IF you get caught, you MIGHT get prosecuted sometime in the next year, and you MIGHT go to jail for a short time.

The reason that THIS acts as an effective deterrent, i.e. the castle doctrine.....is that IF you get caught, your punishment is SWIFT, SURE and FINAL!

Merely upping the penalty of Burglary won't prevent burglary.....except in the sense that once a criminal gets caught, he'll be out of circulation and not committing crimes.  That's why the wear-housing aspect of Western crime control is it's only effective attribute....that they can't commit crimes when they are locked up.


----------



## The_Fish (Apr 1, 2008)

Interesting, valid points. Something for me to think about, you're speaking a lot of sense.

Thank you for an insightful and friendly discussion/debate, something I haven't had (the insightful and friendly part anyway) in some time.


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 1, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Hey folks! I found it! The best anti-burglar device ever!! :uhyeah:


 
Ma-caver that maybe the best devise ever. Thank you


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 1, 2008)

Post#142 by *Mac* above is one that is applicable to all levels of crime and is one that our governments need to seriously address. 

I can't speak for all people, clearly, but I feel that the enforcement of the law in England these days is more about extracting revenue from the 'mostly honest', who want to abide by legislation, than it is about preventing crime and punishing the guilty.

The criminal justice system must be seen as a deterrent rather than a minor inconvenience if it is to work effectively.  One thing that has to change, in my view, is the overly lenient treatment of so-called 'minors' - we've had a number of very high profile murders and near-fatal assaults by mid-teens in this country in recent years.  For such things my Ghenghis-Khan gene kicks in as in such cases the identity of the guilty is sure and my normal reservations about the death-penalty are put aside when 'reasonable doubt' is removed from the equation.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 1, 2008)

The_Fish said:


> Interesting, valid points. Something for me to think about, you're speaking a lot of sense.
> 
> Thank you for an insightful and friendly discussion/debate, something I haven't had (the insightful and friendly part anyway) in some time.


 Like wise.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 1, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Post#142 by *Mac* above is one that is applicable to all levels of crime and is one that our governments need to seriously address.
> 
> I can't speak for all people, clearly, but I feel that the enforcement of the law in England these days is more about extracting revenue from the 'mostly honest', who want to abide by legislation, than it is about preventing crime and punishing the guilty.
> 
> The criminal justice system must be seen as a deterrent rather than a minor inconvenience if it is to work effectively. One thing that has to change, in my view, is the overly lenient treatment of so-called 'minors' - we've had a number of very high profile murders and near-fatal assaults by mid-teens in this country in recent years. For such things my Ghenghis-Khan gene kicks in as in such cases the identity of the guilty is sure and my normal reservations about the death-penalty are put aside when 'reasonable doubt' is removed from the equation.


  Here's the problem......we have to balance 'effective deterrent' with the concept of living in a free society without an overly-oppressive government.  Give the government ENOUGH power and they can control crime effectively, but at what cost?

My view is that government should be reasonably effective, but not overly so.....and that we make up the difference by empowering law abiding citizens to defend THEMSELVES!


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 1, 2008)

Exactly.


----------



## tellner (Apr 25, 2008)

What would I do to a burgular? I dunno, stab him in the juggler?


----------



## Jim Greenwood (Apr 25, 2008)

I would grab my Glock and my phone and call the police on my way making sure my family is ok and then find him and command him to stop and get on the floor on his belly and see if he wants to reconsider doing dumb stuff and wait until the police get there or... if he didn't comply force him to comply or end it... his choice.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 28, 2008)

A. I will kill only if I have no other means to protect my self or family.

B) I have no 'upstairs'. The kids are on the opposite end of the house (their rooms) so that's a no-go.

C) Dunno about the beating as that's retrubution. I'll fight him if I have to.

D) There is no 'Try'. And I sure won't lock him in a room. Maybe at 
gunpoint hold him. Alot will be situational. If he has a gun, well I'll have to rethink apprehending him, right?

E) Help him? In a pigs eye.

Deaf


----------



## wrc619 (Apr 30, 2008)

I would prefer to pull a gun and await the police.  Unfortunately, all our guns are stateside.  That leaves me with a speargun or an MA weapon.  Since the house is small, I would grab one of my short sticks, and ommence to "discouraging the burglar".  I would use the escape, control, destroy continuum instead of the military version, mainly becaue we don't have any of the cool military security toys at the house.  Of course, my roommate would be calling the five-o at the same time. It is great fun thinking about those scenarios!


----------



## chinto (May 2, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> If you're scared of legal consequences, then it should make you happy that we have eliminated legal consequences to defending ourselves in our own homes......it shouldn't surprise that burglary rates, especially of occupied dwellings, have FALLEN dramatically where these laws have been passed.
> 
> Why kill the intruder?  Because burglars are habitual recidivists.....a dead burglar means not meeting him again in the future when he serves his 3 months in jail!  It's like a drop of chlorine in the gene pool!
> 
> ...



I have to agree.  Also in my state,  it is black letter law that to prevent burglary or arson  is a deadly force situation!  the law says if they are in your home, their right to life, liberty or any thing else is at your discretion.  

Now if you only injure the intruder you will provably be sued civilly for injuring him as he lies through his teeth on the stand... an intruder who was by his very nature a lethal threat who is dead is a neutralized threat!  

but you choose, you decide if you will use force or not, if you will live or die, or what have you. that is at your discretion.   

But you stick your hand into a den or Rattle Snakes and wave it around and get bitten.. your problem. you go to Australian and see a Ti pan and mess with it and die from its very toxic bite... should have left the snake alone should you not?  enter a home illegally and get shot dead.. hmmm same difference i think.


----------



## chinto (May 2, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Here's the problem......we have to balance 'effective deterrent' with the concept of living in a free society without an overly-oppressive government.  Give the government ENOUGH power and they can control crime effectively, but at what cost?
> 
> My view is that government should be reasonably effective, but not overly so.....and that we make up the difference by empowering law abiding citizens to defend THEMSELVES!




absolutely!   as a kid the cops did not scare me at all.. if i had been dumb enough to commit a criminal act let alone get caught doing so.. ..  Actually I would beg them to keep the damned cell door locked.. now my father.. that scared the crap out of me!!  he would have made any thing the courts did look very nice actually! he was not abusive or anything, but there were lines you just did NOT cross in my house growing up.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 4, 2009)

My doberman should have already been set off which would give me a couple extra seconds to chamber a round in my XD and swith on the M6X light laser...  By the time I get there he should be/better be gone but lets say he got thru the dog... pop the light laser on him and ID wether I should be threatened then either give him 1 option or none....  dpends


----------



## just2kicku (May 4, 2009)

If I hear a noise, I always investigate the source armed. If I were to happen across a burglar, I would shoot him. After I had him at gunpoint, go to my Knick knack drawer and make him take out the screwdriver, then shoot him cause he had a weapon.


----------



## Flea (May 4, 2009)

What would I do?  Have a good laugh ...

I have very little money, so all my stuff dates back to whatever I scraped together from thrift stores in college.  I'm 37 now, which means that my possessions are _really_ threadbare.  Go ahead, give me an insurance payout!  Please!!

My ex told me that she came home from work one day to find her apartment ransacked.  The burglar must have been exhausted at the effort, because he was sound asleep in her bed.  :uhyeah:  Hope he didn't quit his day job before embarking on a life of crime ...  The police gave him a wake-up call, she pressed charges, and moved shortly thereafter.  Her stuff was even more threadbare than mine, so she wasn't upset beyond the general insult of being invaded. 

If I had possessions worth protecting I'd get a security system like ADT, but I don't.  My family was robbed in a catastrophic way when I was a small child, so I'm careful not to get too attached to _things_ anyway.  It just isn't worth the angst.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 4, 2009)

Oh btw... I didnt vote due to lack of options outside killing the perp.


----------



## Cirdan (May 5, 2009)

Incapacitate, strip him up, call the police.


----------



## kaizasosei (May 5, 2009)

First i would probably try to scare them off.
If i am able to restrain effectively with grappling or striking, i would then tie them up. If the odds are against me, i would hope to have my sai nearby.    Of course the wisest thing, if it is possible is to inform the police, for the record as well as for possible assistance.

j


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 5, 2009)

myusername said:


> Hi, this is my first attempt at a poll so I hope it all goes well!
> 
> Background to poll:
> 
> ...


Firstly, if I go to investigate noises downstairs, I will always go armed.

Secondly, your post spefically states 'burgular', so we will assume that he is doing something that gives away his purpose, such as wearing a stocking, ski mask, or going through my valuables.  

Thirdly, as my weapon of choice is a nihonto, disembowel, decapitate, dis arm (literally), or cut the throat.  I want him dead.  I want to take no chances that he will live to shoot me after I strike.  He invaded my home and is now in my place of strength and in my sanctuary.  My family is more valuable than he is, so therefore, his life is forfiet.

Daniel


----------



## jks9199 (May 5, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Firstly, if I go to investigate noises downstairs, I will always go armed.
> 
> Secondly, your post spefically states 'burgular', so we will assume that he is doing something that gives away his purpose, such as wearing a stocking, ski mask, or going through my valuables.
> 
> ...


Burglary is (in the Common Law), breaking and entering a dwelling in the nighttime with the intent to commit a larceny or felony.  Most states have expanded the definition by statute, to cover non-dwellings, daylight hours, and other misdemeanors than larceny.

So, anyone breaking and entering your house has already committed burglary.  It's a safe bet that they're up to something when they break in...

(FYI... houses can't be robbed.  Robbery is larceny by force or threat of force.)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 6, 2009)

I will use the force allowed by the state law in which I live.....



> *[SIZE=+1]Use of force in defense of persons. [/SIZE]*
> 
> 563.031.
> 
> ...


----------



## rocksham (May 6, 2009)

reach for machete if I cant get to bowie knife or katana, see how dumb he is, remove extremity for dna sample for the cops


----------



## Guardian (May 7, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> It's hard to take something seriously as this when the poll isn't serious. Though I voted "give the burglar a good beating then call the police, it is most likely I would actually do the first choice... Kill him.
> Killing is a very VERY difficult thing to do. *Maybe not for a trained combat veteran who has done so, pr a LEO, *but for the everyday person it's not as easy as all that. Unless you've actually done it, IMO you've no idea.
> Ironically as a supporter of the death penalty I do not like killing at all. But sometimes it must be done. There are people out there who just-don't-care. At least not like we (everyday people) do.
> 
> ...


----------



## shihansmurf (May 7, 2009)

Being the simple minded combat soldier that I am, my solution is pretty simple to this problem. See, my son's bedroom is on the opposite endof the house as mine so to be able to get to him and ensure his safety in a scenario such as this I would have to go through the home invader. I would utilize a .45 cal solution, which where I live is fully within my rights to do so.

I would then happily call the police and send the body along with them.

Mark


----------



## chinto (Jun 15, 2009)

I have noticed a lot of people think the cops will come and defend you.  at least in the USA  the supreme court has  ruled that the Police have NO DUTY to PROTECT ANY ONE!   so again its your choice, if there is an intruder in your home you decide, and live or die by that choice.   ... good luck.  

Personally in the US i would suggest a fire arm over a blade as juries and cops seem to be a lot more upset by people injured or killed by blades then by bullets or shot from a shotgun.


----------



## Uchinanchu (Jun 16, 2009)

Don't have a downstairs, unless you count the two floors below our apartment.  Highly doubtful anyone is coming thru the front door or windows (typhoon proof wire mesh glass windows with protective bars.  If someone was desperate (crazy) enough to climb on the roof of the apartment complex and shimy down a rope to our balcony, they would find same said glass.  If by chance, one was open, and by chance I was woken in the night by said burglar, I would be more than happy to show them the way down (yes, I said down-not out)  If they came in by coming over the balcony, then that is how they are leaving!  My wife and children's lives are a whole lot more valuable than some scum bag's.  If a 'burglar' breaks into a residence while it is occupied, then that said burglar probably has other plans besides just stealing.


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (Sep 28, 2009)

If I had my gun and I had distence I would order him onto the ground and let him know if he moves he will die. If he moves I gut shoot him with the .45 if he has any forward movment after that it's chest, chest, face.

 If it's empty hand I go in for a kill. If I put him down and have him in control, then I wont kill him unless he tries to fight again.

 If he is anywhere near my kids he dies no matter what he does. He puts his hands up and is still near my kids, all that means is I shoot him between the eyes out of mercy.

 If he is headed toward the kid's room and I am behind him 1. If I have the gun he gets it in the back of the head. 2. if I dont, I come up behind, crush his windpipe and break his neck.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 8, 2009)

I wouldn't do much, aside from beating him half to death...


Twice


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 9, 2009)

Big Don said:


> I wouldn't do much, aside from beating him *half *to death...
> 
> 
> Twice


 
Momma always said that there's no point in doing something half way, if you're gonna do it...go all the way. LOL


----------



## alex.ragnos (Oct 12, 2009)

In my country the criminals records are 10 times those of EE.UU. So if some one gets in your home, first you shot them and then you ask. Its not uncommon to find that some one broke into a house and kick the **** out of the husband and rape the wife/daughters. 
This is the reality of my country argentina. You are forced to kill in order to protect your beloved ones.

Alex.


----------



## sfs982000 (Nov 6, 2009)

Nah, I'm not even going to try to talk tough.  There is nothing in my house material-wise that isn't replaceable.  Better to protect the family and live to fight another day.


----------

