[quote]Dave_ wrote:
Regardless, if someone broke into my house in the middle of the night while my (future) wife and kids were in bed - they wouldn’t be leaving in the traditional way. [/quote]
You mean they won’t leave in a body bag?
[quote]jakshafter wrote:
My wife is also proficient with it as well as my shotgun.[/quote]
Your wife sounds hot.
That is all.
I keep a Magnum in my nightstand as well, but it sure ain’t a gun!! har har har.
The cop that was teaching my CC permit class said if you shoot a home intruder and do not kill him you should move because you are at a very high risk of retaliation. He went on to say that you should always load your personal protection weapon with hollow points or hydro ballistic rounds and always shoot to kill.
S&W M&P .40 FTW!
You break into my home and I will shoot you with the intent to kill.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
I keep a Magnum in my nightstand as well, but it sure ain’t a gun!! har har har. [/quote]
[quote]Dedicated wrote:
HoratioSandoval wrote:
Just remember that even though I’m sure most people coming into your house are looking to do harm, there are the rare cases where an Alzheimer’s patient, roofied girl or accident victim get confused. Take the time to identify your target. Even if you don’t have any criminal or civil liabilities, your life would still suck.
Uh, I see your point, but I think it would be fairly easy to distinguish between a roofied girl or Alzeimer’s patient and a criminal intent on getting in and doing no good. The first two examples probably wouldn’t be too successful getting past the front lawn.
D[/quote]
Some woman tore my car door open a couple months ago. I was driving by slowly because there was an ambulance with flashers going in front of her house and the next thing I knew my door was flung open and a hysterical woman was trying to get me out of the car, she had mistaken me for someone else.
Some of these guys would have assumed she was a car jacker and shot her.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Some woman tore my car door open a couple months ago. I was driving by slowly because there was an ambulance with flashers going in front of her house and the next thing I knew my door was flung open and a hysterical woman was trying to get me out of the car, she had mistaken me for someone else.
Some of these guys would have assumed she was a car jacker and shot her.[/quote]
My main point was the state of the individual. I doubt the hysterical woman was sedated by roofies or had Alzheimer’s. Sounds like she was on meth or crack if anything. Just a funny thing to me I pointed out. And yes, you should always be sure of your target if you intend to kill somebody.
D
[quote]Dedicated wrote:
HoratioSandoval wrote:
Just remember that even though I’m sure most people coming into your house are looking to do harm, there are the rare cases where an Alzheimer’s patient, roofied girl or accident victim get confused. Take the time to identify your target. Even if you don’t have any criminal or civil liabilities, your life would still suck.
Uh, I see your point, but I think it would be fairly easy to distinguish between a roofied girl or Alzeimer’s patient and a criminal intent on getting in and doing no good. The first two examples probably wouldn’t be too successful getting past the front lawn.
D[/quote]
Yep - it usually is. But it is surprising just how much the dark, grogginess and adrenaline can play tricks on us. Cops train for these situations all of the time, and they still sometimes wind up shooting kids holding toy cars.
[quote]Dedicated wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Some woman tore my car door open a couple months ago. I was driving by slowly because there was an ambulance with flashers going in front of her house and the next thing I knew my door was flung open and a hysterical woman was trying to get me out of the car, she had mistaken me for someone else.
Some of these guys would have assumed she was a car jacker and shot her.
My main point was the state of the individual. I doubt the hysterical woman was sedated by roofies or had Alzheimer’s. Sounds like she was on meth or crack if anything. Just a funny thing to me I pointed out. And yes, you should always be sure of your target if you intend to kill somebody.
D[/quote]
This was a decent neighborhood so I think she was just hysterical because her husband had a heart attack or something.
She scared the shit out of me for a fraction of a second before I realized she was no threat.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Some woman tore my car door open a couple months ago. I was driving by slowly because there was an ambulance with flashers going in front of her house and the next thing I knew my door was flung open and a hysterical woman was trying to get me out of the car, she had mistaken me for someone else.
Some of these guys would have assumed she was a car jacker and shot her.[/quote]
From the way you describe that situation, then I’d say a pistol whipping was in order. Knock her out and move along.
EDIT: But now that you’ve explained the situation, I’d say ask her what’s wrong.
[quote]Tithonus81 wrote:
I read in the news a while back that some guy tried to break into someone’s house and fell onto some glass sculpture/modern art thing. Maimed himself and then went and SUCCESSFULLY sued the guy.[/quote]
Can’t be true. No jurisdiction in the country would allow such a suit unless there is some detail we’re missing. Trespassers like that have no right to sue for any injuries sustained on a homeowner’s property unless the owner acted intentionally (i.e., a booby trap).
[quote]eic wrote:
Tithonus81 wrote:
I read in the news a while back that some guy tried to break into someone’s house and fell onto some glass sculpture/modern art thing. Maimed himself and then went and SUCCESSFULLY sued the guy.
Can’t be true. No jurisdiction in the country would allow such a suit unless there is some detail we’re missing. Trespassers like that have no right to sue for any injuries sustained on a homeowner’s property unless the owner acted intentionally (i.e., a booby trap). [/quote]
its true happens all the time actually here is from a while back
I mean yes the actions of the ranch owner was contraversial but the jury was deadlocked,and there was no proof that he had actually pistol whipped the tresspassers.
however he was charged with weapons possion and the land he owned was given to the people that illegaly crossed the boarder and trespassed on his land.
there is also cases where people have broken into a home and people attacked them and they in turn lost there homes because of it.
I heard something about in some countries in europe the law is as such where you can not protect your properity with force you must let them take wha tthey want,how true this is I dont know but we are slowly going towards this.
personally I live too far out for anything anymore
It takes about 45 minutes for police or fire or medical to reach my house and in that time anything can happen.
also at my home I walk outside and Ican go shooting if I want,my nearest neighbor is about half mile away no one will call anyone if anything happens.
if someone breaks into my house and because I live in the middle of the desert where it is dark and help is that far away,you honestly think I wont do something even if it means loosing my land in the process.
touchy system we have here really is.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Dedicated wrote:
HoratioSandoval wrote:
Just remember that even though I’m sure most people coming into your house are looking to do harm, there are the rare cases where an Alzheimer’s patient, roofied girl or accident victim get confused. Take the time to identify your target. Even if you don’t have any criminal or civil liabilities, your life would still suck.
Uh, I see your point, but I think it would be fairly easy to distinguish between a roofied girl or Alzeimer’s patient and a criminal intent on getting in and doing no good. The first two examples probably wouldn’t be too successful getting past the front lawn.
D
Some woman tore my car door open a couple months ago. I was driving by slowly because there was an ambulance with flashers going in front of her house and the next thing I knew my door was flung open and a hysterical woman was trying to get me out of the car, she had mistaken me for someone else.
Some of these guys would have assumed she was a car jacker and shot her.[/quote]
I had something like this happen sort of. Some old redneck got a rather bad case of road rage behind me. When we came to the next stop light he got out of his car and started coming up to my car. Luckily this had been during hunting season as i got out of the car with my rifle. He said nothing and got back in the car and drove off but I’m pretty sure i freaked out some of the other drivers around us. One gave me a thumbs up though so that made it better.
I started this thread on deadly force a couple of years ago. It starts out with a good article about a guy that shot and killed a naked intruder. The intruder was holding a tube of lube. Can’t get better facts than that. The homeowner was not charged.
http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=764945
EDIT: for those who are curious about the legal standard for deadly force, the following report of the NH AG’s investigation of the fatal shootings of Franconia police corporal Bruce McKay and Liko Kenney (Bode Miller’s cousin) is extremely detailed regarding the circumstances surrounding the shootings and the application of the legal standard to the circumstances.
http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases/pdf/062507franconiareport.pdf
One thing that strikes me after reading the report, even in the middle of nowhere, which Franconia is, there are potentially a shitload of witnesses.
How many of you are familiar with Castledoctrin?
There seem to be fewer and fewer places including your own home, where you can protect yourself without nasty repercussions.
Shame it wasn’t a shotgun. Imagine the sheer joy of blasting some scumbag’s head off as he smashes into your room! The look of surprise on their face, then the realization in their eyes that they’re about to die…sweeter than sweet.
Not quite as good would be to blast 'em in the balls, so they get to go through life with no equipment. But then they might hunt you down later, so better to simply blast his head clean off.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Not quite as good would be to blast 'em in the balls, so they get to go through life with no equipment. But then they might hunt you down later, so better to simply blast his head clean off.[/quote]
If you angle the shot right, I’m sure you could blow the balls off and hit the spine.
[quote]Tithonus81 wrote:
Luckily he killed him. I read in the news a while back that some guy tried to break into someone’s house and fell onto some glass sculpture/modern art thing. Maimed himself and then went and SUCCESSFULLY sued the guy.
Shoot to kill.[/quote]
EXACTLY!!!
the world is fucked up. Head shots are a kill.
here’s a tricky gun case that will make you laugh.
At the 1994 annual awards dinner given by the American Association for Forensic Science, AAFS President Don Harper Mills astounded his audience in San Diego with the legal complications of a bizarre death. Here is the story.
“On 23 March 1994, the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound of the head. The decedent had jumped from the top of a ten-story building intending to commit suicide (he left a note indicating his despondency). As he fell past the ninth floor, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, which killed him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the eighth floor level to protect some window washers and that Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide anyway because of this.”
“Ordinarily,” Dr. Mills continued, "a person who sets out to commit suicide ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended. That Opus was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not have changed his mode of death from suicide to homicide. But the fact that his suicidal intent would not have been successful caused the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands.
"The room on the ninth floor whence the shotgun blast emanated was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing and he was threatening her with the shotgun. He was so upset that, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window, striking Opus.
"When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. When confronted with this charge, the old man and his wife were both adamant that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. The old man said it was his long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her - therefore, the killing of Opus appeared to be an accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.
“The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple’s son loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal incident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son’s financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.”
There was an exquisite twist. "Further investigation revealed that the son had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother’s murder. This led him to jump off the ten-story building on March 23, only to be killed by a shotgun blast through a ninth story window.
“The medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.”
[quote]Blaze_108 wrote:
here’s a tricky gun case that will make you laugh.[/quote]
Urban legend. Never happened.