Pincus suggests verbally warning home invader

[maroonandwhite]

I would always "warn" if I have a safe opportunity to do so...why wouldn't I???

I not armed just so I can shoot someone, especially if it can be avoided; if the home invader (or the thug in any given situation) can be warned and he decides to make an intelligent decision to disengage then so much the better.

This is right in line with most every other training I've had including Massad Ayoob.

I tend to agree with this BUT I think I would have to be barricaded in my room with my wife and with the door shut and locked to feel comfortable with this. Any other way and I feel like I would just be giving away my position. Luckily we both sleep in the same bed so I don't have to do much to get in that position.

[mikegideon]

I would always "warn" if I have a safe opportunity to do so...why wouldn't I???

I not armed just so I can shoot someone, especially if it can be avoided; if the home invader (or the thug in any given situation) can be warned and he decides to make an intelligent decision to disengage then so much the better.

This is right in line with most every other training I've had including Massad Ayoob.

 

I agree that shooting anybody should be the last option. There are also some variables. In my case, if somebody makes it into my house, they're going to have to break something, and it's gonna be pretty loud. That goes a long way to show intent, and I'll be one scared puppy if it happens. I'm not going to shoot anybody just because I can. There are just very few things they can do at that point to make me stop fearing for my life. I wouldn't shoot somebody that was headed out the door. 

[broox]

I would do everything possible in my opinion to keep from using deadly force.  I think most people underestimate the amount of trouble/grief/cost that even a justified self defense shooting could bring on you.  Like say if you were involved in a shooting, but the police cleared you of any charges. Then, I don't know, maybe the president of the United States brought a lot of attention to the case, and then you found yourself back in jail, awaiting a trial, where you were already guilty in the media's eyes, and your life was going to super difficult for at least the next few years.

 

Like many of these hypothetical/subjective scenarios, there is no right answer for everybody. Even "erring on the side of caution"  means different things to different people

[Twin]

My home is my holy domain. If someone breaches it, they can expect me to defend me and mine. The idea that I would run out of my own home to avoid hurting an intruder is offensive. The only reason I would even consider doing that would be to avoid all the crud with the state. If scared away, a thug can just come back another night, with more dudes, and guns.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Twin

[mikegideon]

My home is my holy domain. If someone breaches it, they can expect retaliation. The idea that I would run out of my own home to avoid hurting an intruder is offensive. The only reason I would even consider doing that would be to avoid all the crud with the state. If scared away, a thug can just come back another night, with more dudes, and guns.

 

Retaliation=prison in ANY state. Not a good word in this context.

[JAB]

To verbally warn a total stranger only lets them know where you are.

 

My thought, exactly.  I tend to view 'home invasion' robberies as being entirely different than a burglar who breaks into someone's home when the residents are away.  A home invader would be breaking in knowing full well that the residents are home.  Therefore, my line of thinking is that such an invader is prepared to 'deal' with the residents - i.e. inflict serious, bodily harm or death - if the invader meets with any sign of resistance.

 

I do think that, perhaps, the region in which one lives could make a difference in response.  In New York or New Jersey, meeting a homeowner armed with a firearm might not be as likely.  In East Tennessee, however, for someone to be 'anti-gun' often really means they don't like handguns and only believe in owning one shotgun with which to defend their home.  Any home invader who knows anything about this area has to assume that the home owner will be armed.  That being the case, were I to be the victim of a home invasion, it would be my assumption that the invader knows I am likely to be armed, has chosen to invade my home anyway and is prepared and equipped to meet my threat of armed defense with deadly force.  Therefore, I would have no desire to give him a 'heads up' and a chance to shoot me, first. 

 

For that matter, such home invaders might even be prepared to take preemptive measures.  There was a case in South Knoxville a couple of years back where two individuals intended to invade the home of a sixty-something year old cancer patient (probably looking for his pain drugs.)  The gentleman was in another room when the invaders knocked on the door.  As the gentleman's son approached the door, the invaders shot through the door and killed him and killed the gentleman's fiance who was sitting in a recliner.  The gentleman returned fire with a handgun, killing one of the would-be invaders and wounding the other.

 

The Knoxville News-Sentinel is doing some 'new' things with their online material (requiring a paid log-in to view some things) so I am not sure if this link about that story will work or not:

 

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/jul/25/three-shot-killed-in-apparent-home-invasion/?comments_id=1410870

 

I know that isn't exactly the same thing but my point is that shouting out a warning, to my thinking, only constitutes:

 

1. Giving up any element of surprise you might have had,

2. letting the invader know that you are armed - meaning he probably wants to go ahead and take you out now and

3. helpfully assisting the invader in pinpointing your location so he has a better chance of shooting you, first.

 

I absolutely, positively do not want to shoot anyone, ever, period.  That said, I have an infinitely greater desire to never be shot, myself.  In some, other instances I might issue a warning, first.  Heck, if someone were creeping around my (fenced in) yard at night I would certainly yell for them to go away (I live in a rural area where 'cutting through' yards does not happen.).  Once they are in the act of entering my home while I am there, however, to my thinking they intend to seriously harm or kill me and, at that point, I am protecting my life, not just property.

Edited August 27, 2013 by JAB

[2.ooohhh]

This is not my practice but I have seen our neighbor up in Fentress county use it to good effect. I wondered about it at the time but after comparing it to JAB's post it actually seems to be relatively effective. The  first shot woke me from a dead sleep several hundred yards away and I was out the back door with the shotgun as he was yelling at the intruders.

 

 

Verbal Warning- "If y'all don't leave right now i'll shoot ya again!"

 

 

• Shouted after the first shot maintained the element of surprise.
• Clearly communicated to the invader(s) that he was armed.(gunshots tend to do that)
• Gave them a brief opportunity to retreat after quickly realizing the error or their ways.
• Also it let me as his neighbor know immediately that he had identified 2 legged trespassers rather than a coyote or wild boar.(he's a little odd but hasn't been loony enough to started screaming commands at the local wildlife yet.)

[tnguy]

So, how is it living next to Joe Biden?

[2.ooohhh]

So, how is it living next to Joe Biden?

Oh it certainly wasn't a warning shot, neighbor filled one of them boy's backs with bird shot. Figured out through the grapevine the next week the guy he shot and a friend were trying to make off with his 4 wheeler.

[TMF]

Like many of these hypothetical/subjective scenarios, there is no right answer for everybody. Even "erring on the side of caution" means different things to different people

For me it means surviving.

Perhaps I look at it from a different angle. I would never use deadly force unless I was in fear for my life or the lives of my wife and kids. Obviously anything that happens to me would immediately remove all barriers between sociopath(s) who have forcefully entered my home and my family. If I risk my own life to intervene verbally I am ultimately putting their lives in danger. I see no reason to do that. It is stupid and reckless to risk your family's life because you're worried about being sued or prosecuted. None of that matters if your family is raped or killed.

I've had this scenario in my own family and have mentioned it here before. Four of my family members were assaulted by armed intruders on their rural property. My uncle shot one of them three times, which ended the incident with the criminals retreating and later seeking treatment at the hospital. The one who was shot survived, but had permanent medical issues, such as having to crap into a bag, and died a few years later from medical complications. The whole incident cost my uncle less than $.50, or however much it cost back then for 9mm ammo.

[dcloudy777]

Verbal commands / warnings are another tool that needs to be in the toolbox.  Each armed encounter is its own animal, with way too many variables for a "one-size fits all" solution.  Just like you need to be prepared to use deadly force if it's warranted, you need to be prepared not to if it isn't. 

Edited August 27, 2013 by dcloudy777

[Dennis1209]

My thought, exactly.  I tend to view 'home invasion' robberies as being entirely different than a burglar who breaks into someone's home when the residents are away.  A home invader would be breaking in knowing full well that the residents are home.  Therefore, my line of thinking is that such an invader is prepared to 'deal' with the residents - i.e. inflict serious, bodily harm or death - if the invader meets with any sign of resistance.

 

I do think that, perhaps, the region in which one lives could make a difference in response.  In New York or New Jersey, meeting a homeowner armed with a firearm might not be as likely.  In East Tennessee, however, for someone to be 'anti-gun' often really means they don't like handguns and only believe in owning one shotgun with which to defend their home.  Any home invader who knows anything about this area has to assume that the home owner will be armed.  That being the case, were I to be the victim of a home invasion, it would be my assumption that the invader knows I am likely to be armed, has chosen to invade my home anyway and is prepared and equipped to meet my threat of armed defense with deadly force.  Therefore, I would have no desire to give him a 'heads up' and a chance to shoot me, first. 

 

For that matter, such home invaders might even be prepared to take preemptive measures.  There was a case in South Knoxville a couple of years back where two individuals intended to invade the home of a sixty-something year old cancer patient (probably looking for his pain drugs.)  The gentleman was in another room when the invaders knocked on the door.  As the gentleman's son approached the door, the invaders shot through the door and killed him and killed the gentleman's fiance who was sitting in a recliner.  The gentleman returned fire with a handgun, killing one of the would-be invaders and wounding the other.

 

The Knoxville News-Sentinel is doing some 'new' things with their online material (requiring a paid log-in to view some things) so I am not sure if this link about that story will work or not:

 

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/jul/25/three-shot-killed-in-apparent-home-invasion/?comments_id=1410870

 

I know that isn't exactly the same thing but my point is that shouting out a warning, to my thinking, only constitutes:

 

1. Giving up any element of surprise you might have had,

2. letting the invader know that you are armed - meaning he probably wants to go ahead and take you out now and

3. helpfully assisting the invader in pinpointing your location so he has a better chance of shooting you, first.

 

I absolutely, positively do not want to shoot anyone, ever, period.  That said, I have an infinitely greater desire to never be shot, myself.  In some, other instances I might issue a warning, first.  Heck, if someone were creeping around my (fenced in) yard at night I would certainly yell for them to go away (I live in a rural area where 'cutting through' yards does not happen.).  Once they are in the act of entering my home while I am there, however, to my thinking they intend to seriously harm or kill me and, at that point, I am protecting my life, not just property

 

 

I'm not going to debate you on your reasoning because I agree with you, however...

 

Would / are you going to use your above statement for the record after a self defense shooting for the police report the DA is going to review and decide that the Grand Jury needs to hear / see it?

 

Is the police, District Attorney, Grand Jury and jury going to see eye to eye with your assumptions?

 

I'm left-handed and might not be thinking in my right mind but, just something to consider.

[TMF]

I'm not going to debate you on your reasoning because I agree with you, however...

Would / are you going to use your above statement for the record after a self defense shooting for the police report the DA is going to review and decide that the Grand Jury needs to hear / see it?

Is the police, District Attorney, Grand Jury and jury going to see eye to eye with your assumptions?

I'm left-handed and might not be thinking in my right mind but, just something to consider.

Why would it matter? If you're in fear for your life then you're in fear of your life. If you are more concerned with being prosecuted than staying alive then you aren't in fear for your life, obviously.

Regardless what happens afterward, we all have a basic right to life and a right to defend that life. A court of this world can't take that away, they can only hold you accountable afterward. Staying alive and keeping my family alive trumps anything else, and it should. All this war gaming nonsense I read in these threads tells me that folks aren't worried about staying alive they're just wanting an excuse to shoot someone when it is within the limits of the law.

[Peace]

Retaliation=prison in ANY state. Not a good word in this context.

This.

 

     Fear (castle doctrine or not) is your defense in the law from homicide (in self defense).   We would do good to consider ourselves people who do not restore justice and do not aggress (We are not law enforcement or judge, and we are not marauders).  In a home defense scenario, we defend, period.

 

 

     IF you ever find yourself in that horrible situation, the aftermath will go better for you if you start now to think, speak, and breathe the idea of defense and understand what the law calls "fear of serious bodily injury or death" - that fear is the respect of the capacity for human violence and is no sign of weakness.  

 

     I hope none of us ever have to use lethal force to defend ourselves, our loved ones, or other innocent men, women, or children, but if we do, every word we have typed in the interwebs may be used by the prosecution against us.  When we learn from each other through these wonderful forums, we might want to think about how each word we type can be twisted.  We are defenders.  We hone our skills because of the consequences of being unprepared - not in hopes of using them.  We hope we never, ever have to bring those skills to bear.

 

Give a verbal warning if you can - understanding that it may not be appropriate against say.. a rapidly advancing bad guy in your home.  We train mentally and physically to make that judgement.  

 

That is all.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Peace

[K191145]

My home is my holy domain. If someone breaches it, they can expect me to defend me and mine. The idea that I would run out of my own home to avoid hurting an intruder is offensive. The only reason I would even consider doing that would be to avoid all the crud with the state. If scared away, a thug can just come back another night, with more dudes, and guns.

 

All my doors are locked with a deadbolt and the knob lock, it would take a violent action to breach them including comming through a window. If that happens I know it's not a mistake from some drunk woman at the wrong house, or a relative or friend, it's definatly a home invasion from violent persons intending to do me physical harm or kill me. I absolutly "PLAN" not to give them any chance or time to do anything. As far as the state goes, if they breach my locks or windows and force their way into my home i'm confident they will see it as a justifiable shooting, it was that way before the castle law in Tennessee.

[RobertNashville]

My home is my holy domain. If someone breaches it, they can expect me to defend me and mine. The idea that I would run out of my own home to avoid hurting an intruder is offensive. The only reason I would even consider doing that would be to avoid all the crud with the state. If scared away, a thug can just come back another night, with more dudes, and guns.

The smart (and correct) move is ALWAYS to leave and get away from the threat if it can be done safely.

 

We are civilians; we are not law enforcement and we are not soldiers (if you want to act like LE or Military then join up; they can always use good people). Civilians have a basic human/god given/natural (take your pick) right to defend our lives IF they are in actual danger.  Anything beyond that is called murder and prosecuted as such and rightfully so.

Edited August 27, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Twin]

Someone that has broken into my house poses a potential danger to me, as his intentions, theft or violence, cannot be readily known. The castle doctrine dictates that I need not retreat, if I suspect myself or my loved ones to be in danger of bodily harm. Being a criminal is dangerous, I got news for ya.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMFFMcp8WdI

 

The smart (and correct) move is ALWAYS to leave and get away from the threat if it can be done safely.

 

We are civilians; we are not law enforcement and we are not soldiers (if you want to act like LE or Military then join up; they can always use good people). Civilians have a basic human/god given/natural (take your pick) right to defend our lives IF they are in actual danger.  Anything beyond that is called murder and prosecuted as such and rightfully so.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Twin

[RobertNashville]

Someone that has broken into my house poses a potential danger to me, as his intentions, theft or violence, cannot be readily known. The castle doctrine dictates that I need not retreat, if I suspect myself or my loved ones to be in danger of bodily harm. Being a criminal is dangerous, I got news for ya.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMFFMcp8WdI

Thank you but I don't need to watch a youtube video to understand the (actually mislabeled) "castle doctrine"...which totally misses the point I was making anyway.

[JAB]

I'm not going to debate you on your reasoning because I agree with you, however...

 

Would / are you going to use your above statement for the record after a self defense shooting for the police report the DA is going to review and decide that the Grand Jury needs to hear / see it?

 

Is the police, District Attorney, Grand Jury and jury going to see eye to eye with your assumptions?

 

I'm left-handed and might not be thinking in my right mind but, just something to consider.

 

I would not be too worried about a DA, etc. seeing the above statement because I believe that it explains why I would be in fear of death or serious, bodily harm.  The link I posted would, hopefully, provide real world evidence of an actual incident (one of many, lately) to support why I believe, as I do, that home invaders enter a home having accepted that they will likely have to injure/kill the residents to get what they want and demonstrate why my fear is a 'reasonable' one.

 

Of course, that is just me and my way of thinking.  I am neither a lawyer nor a self defense expert - just a guy who doesn't want to be killed by a home invader.

Edited August 27, 2013 by JAB

[Guest Wildogre]

I can tell you what I did many years ago.

 

I was living in a trailer park while attending my Officers Basic Course. This was in the days before cell phones and I did not even have a landline. 

 

One night i woke up and saw the side of the trailer moving and the back door knob turning.  

 

Scared out of my mind I racked the slide and yelled "Come in and stay" who ever it was left and I heard three motorcycles start up and drive away.

 

Verbal commands worked that time and that place.

[broox]

"Come in and stay"    I like that.

[James in Franklin]

"The only gunfight you ever "WIN" is the one you avoid" (someone else). It all depends on the exact circumstances you are facing, and those factors can be numerous, but if I can talk my way out of a defensive gun use, I'll try to do so. Think of that bookkeeper in the Georgia school recently who talked down a moron who came to kill a bunch of kids .... but didn't.

[chances R]

I would always "warn" if I have a safe opportunity to do so...why wouldn't I???

I not armed just so I can shoot someone, especially if it can be avoided; if the home invader (or the thug in any given situation) can be warned and he decides to make an intelligent decision to disengage then so much the better.

This is right in line with most every other training I've had including Massad Ayoob.

 

 

Exactly my point.  The best gunfight is the one that is avoided.

[Guest TresOsos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTcBgs2huRo

Edited August 28, 2013 by TresOsos

[rugerla1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTcBgs2huRo

Always loved that scene! He says it and shakes his head like "You should know this" ha ha