Pincus suggests verbally warning home invader

[RobertNashville]

Yes, words do mean things. You're still dodging your words that I have quoted twice now where you stated that if the opportunity to retreat exists, then there does not really exist a danger to the victim's life. If there isn't a danger to life, then there is no legal justification for the use of deadly force. If there is no legal justification for use of deadly force then one is obligated to deescalate and retreat.

 

I've dodged nothing; you simply refuse to understand what I've said and if you don't understand it at this point, which you obviously don't then I don't know how to explain it to you any more plainly.

[dunndw]

If you're trying to force entry into my home, I will attempt to warn you away. If you GAIN entry...the undertaker is going to need both hands to count the holes in you.

I don't retreat when I'm in my home...end of friggin story.

[Chucktshoes]

I'm continuing to dodge; you simply refuse to allow me to continue to dodge what I've said and if you don't accept my back pedaling at this point, which you obviously don't then I don't know how to explain it any more plainly how my words don't actually mean what I said.

Got it.

[Guest tdoccrossvilletn]

Sure I'll warn him/her just as I'm pulling the trigger.

Sent from my mind using ninja telepathy.

[RobertNashville]

Got it.

I guess changing what I said and pretending it's a quite so you can make fun if it plays well with some.
 

Edited August 29, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Peace]

:slap:    

 

same team...  maybe we could use a TGO   :cheers: night.   Personal beverage does not have to foam - or be fermented.

[TMF]

You clearly are.

I didn't and don't say that the victim has any sort of "duty" to retreat and most certainly didn't say such a duty should be imposed. I don't think what I said is that unclear; there is a hell of a difference between saying that the victim should "disengage if he can" vs anything even remotely like saying that the victim should have a duty to retreat imposed on him.

Frankly, I'm a little stunned that anyone would not disengage IF they could do so safely; even more stunning d at what some are willing to post about that concept on an open internet forum.

Do wha? Once they are in your home your life is in danger. It's that simple. You can't safely disengage anything when your life is already in danger without taking a risk with your life. Sure, it may work out for you, but now YOU are assuming risk. I love my kids too much to take that risk and the law supports me in that; even if it didn't, I gives a f***. Their lives are more important than anything else you could possibly think of.

[TMF]

Gotta agree with Robert here. Some seem to have this fantasy going on where the bad guy doesn't shoot back. Or doesn't have a partner. Or flying bullets don't hit targets they weren't intended to.

Look, if you're hunting for ears to nail to your bedpost, more power to you. If you're looking to survive another day to provide for your family, you might want to be more realistic about how things can play out.

Sooo, you're saying if there are multiple armed intruders in your home they are more likely to be defeated with words than bullets?

I don't need ears. I just want my family to survive. If you are suggesting that talking to armed intruders gives you a higher probability of surviving than if you shot at them, I think you should start searching the web and YouTube and see for yourself how armed intruders respond to words versus bullets.

[TGO David]

No one should be worrying about the potential legal ramifications of using deadly force at the moment of imminent threat but they damn sure had better considered it BEFORE the threat.

 

Goal one is surviving a life or death encounter; goal two should be surviving the aftermath which is why a person needs to prepare for that aftermath, as much as possible, before the event.

 

Apparently the saving grace here is that if you fret so much that you hesitate to act and end up dead, you won't have to deal with the aftermath.

 

Wait... that's not a saving grace.

[TGO David]

So here's my take on a few things as they relate to this thread:

 

 

Warn vs. Do Not Warn

 

If I am occupying my residence or vehicle and someone invades it, there is no need to warn them about what will follow.  The only warning that needs to exist is the line between whatever public property they crossed to enter mine with the intent to harm me or anyone else occupying that property with me.  Any piece of property that I am occupying, be it my home, my garage, my car, my yard... is my castle.  I should not be required, and legally am not, to flee from my castle because some criminal seeks to harm me or remove me from it by force.  That is the basic premise of "Stand your Ground" and frankly is a basic human right.

 

Attempting to warn someone off as they endeavor to break into my house or car-jack me would waste precious seconds and, in the scenario of a home invasion, would likely place me at a tactical disadvantage by disclosing to them my position and state of readiness if they were to continue their pursuit.   If someone is breaking into my house, I am going to use my superior familiarity with the "lay of the land" as an asset and I will hit them with everything at my disposal from a position that they will only discover as they receive fire.

 

Standing on the other side of the door warning them that you have a gun and that they should leave only discloses to them where to start sending rounds from their own weapons if they have them.  I also provides them with at least partial intelligence about the number of people inside the house, how prepared (or not) those people are, and where they can find them once they breach the door.  Further, all of that unnecessary shouting robs me of the listening that I should be doing to keep tabs on how many are outside, where they are, and what their state of readiness is.

 

Trying to warn someone off from breaking into your house seems to pose more tactical disadvantages than advantages.  Being that there is no legal obligation to do so, and arguably no moral obligation either, I see no point in it.

 

 

 

Posturing and Nonsense

 

While this is off of the topic of the thread, it none the less addresses things I've noticed in the thread once again from several of the usual suspects.  I'm going to just leave this here and say that the other moderators and I are tiring quickly of the self-created drama, baiting, word-twisting and sissy slap-fighting that a very small number of members characteristically engage in.  It's not hard to guess who they are, so let me just be clear in saying that we're about to clean house if the behavior doesn't stop.

 

Consider this the warning from inside the house.   :cool:

[jgradyc]

Okay, after reading the comments here and posting myself, I took a really radical step... I listened to the video. :rofl:  I thought his comments made sense in a generic, trying to apply to everyone, way. 

 

It also contained some good advice. I did not know that any old cell phone not on a service plan could still call 911. Is that true?  If so, it's a great tip, but I'd hate to wait and find out that it's wrong advice.

 

He doesn't say call out in all circumstances. It's part of a measured response.

 

Unfortunately, he conflates the term home invasion with burglary. Home invasion implies that someone is known to be home. Home invasion, at least to me, implies a high level of threat to the residents who are known to be home and... at least in my rural neighborhood... known or presumed to be armed. Anyone who breaks into a home out here after dark knows that they are likely to be met with deadly force and... one would assume... the bad guys are prepared to respond accordingly.

 

I would break his rules of engagement if I thought it gave up any tactical advantage under the circumstances.  So, all in all, this is decent advice that one could apply or modify to their given situation.

 

At least it made me think about scenarios and that is always good.

 

EDITED:  Oh, and if it's not clear because this post rambled too much.  So far, I can't envision a circumstance that would warrant a verbal warning... except if I could see the perps before hand and would continue to hold a tactical advantage after warning them. I don't see how that would happen, but I suppose it could.

Edited August 29, 2013 by jgradyc

[tnguy]

Sooo, you're saying if there are multiple armed intruders in your home they are more likely to be defeated with words than bullets?

I don't need ears. I just want my family to survive. If you are suggesting that talking to armed intruders gives you a higher probability of surviving than if you shot at them, I think you should start searching the web and YouTube and see for yourself how armed intruders respond to words versus bullets.

 

Well, you're assuming armed. It depends on why the invaders are invading (You can't know this but you might have information that gives you reason to believe one thing over another). I'm certain that for certain invaders, knowing they will face alert, armed opposition could cause them to retreat. They are criminals, they are likely dumb but probably not completely irrational. If they can perform their deed at a less risky location, they may retreat (perhaps we should shout out the address of a known gun control advocate :) ). Or they may not.

 

And a lot of other factors play in as well. The layout of your house, the location of your family, whether you have a good defensive position, the outcome of other similar invasions in your location, whether you have enemies or something people would want to steal and likely a dozen other things. All I'm saying is that if your aim is survival and your first instinct is to Rambo up, you may want to examine that a little longer.

[tnguy]

Unfortunately, he conflates the term home invasion with burglary. Home invasion implies that someone is known to be home. Home invasion, at least to me, implies a high level of threat to the residents who are known to be home and... at least in my rural neighborhood... known or presumed to be armed.

 

Good point.

[Erik88]

I think we're making this more difficult than it needs to be but that's normal for us I suppose. :up:

 

It's really going to boil down to the actual situation that occurs and every one will be unique. You can't put a one size fits all approach on this.

 

If someone enters my home and I feel that a warning will allow me to avoid the headache and legal issue at come after killing someone then I'm going to take that option(this is probably less likely). I certainly wouldn't suggest that anyone should retreat from their own home unless you are severly outnumbered and it's your only option.

 

If someone enters my home and I feel that a warning will give away my position and put me in greater danger then there is no way I'm going that route.

[chances R]

I think we're making this more difficult than it needs to be but that's normal for us I suppose. :up:
 
It's really going to boil down to the actual situation that occurs and every one will be unique. You can't put a one size fits all approach on this.
 
If someone enters my home and I feel that a warning will allow me to avoid the headache and legal issue at come after killing someone then I'm going to take that option(this is probably less likely). I certainly wouldn't suggest that anyone should retreat from their own home unless you are severly outnumbered and it's your only option.
 
If someone enters my home and I feel that a warning will give away my position and put me in greater danger then there is no way I'm going that route.

I think that was all Pincus was saying as well. No use drawing a 'red-line' now, because as the PREZ has shown, that line is subject to change.

[RobertNashville]

Do wha? Once they are in your home your life is in danger. It's that simple. You can't safely disengage anything when your life is already in danger without taking a risk with your life. Sure, it may work out for you, but now YOU are assuming risk. I love my kids too much to take that risk and the law supports me in that; even if it didn't, I gives a f***. Their lives are more important than anything else you could possibly think of.

 

Of course, if someone breaks into my home it's reasonable (and mostly, although not automatically always legal under TN law) to assume my life is in danger and that danger gives me the legal authority to employ deadly force. But, engaging in a gunfight with one or more thugs is also dangerous to my life...to the lives of anyone in my home...and to the lives of my neighbors as well and it makes sense to me that it's better to avoid a gun battle if it can be avoided.

 

Employing deadly force may be the only option and if it is I will but I absolutely believe that the very best and safest outcome in a potentially deadly force situation is an outcome where no one has to discharge their weapon(s) at all and everyone walks away unharmed. To that end, I will give a verbal warning, if I can do so without increasing the danger to me/others, giving the thug(s) the opportunity to make a wise and rational decision and leave.

 

One of the rules of life I have lived by is "Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence and de-escalation - original author unclear/unknown".

 

Maybe that mindset makes me an outcast here but if it does then it does.

 

Regards,

Edited August 29, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Twin]

My main beef with this, is that criminals aren't logical people most of the time. That's why they do stupid things that get them caught. They are animals. A lion might scare away a pack of hyenas one day, for them to kill him in his sleep the next. Letting them get away only subjects you to possible further, even more aggressive violence, and/or them going somewhere else and committing the crime against someone unable to defend themselves. You are essentially throwing a threat back out into society, when you have the chance to neutralize it.

 

 

Of course, if someone breaks into my home it's reasonable (and mostly, although not automatically always legal under TN law) to assume my life is in danger and that danger gives me the legal authority to employ deadly force. But, engaging in a gunfight with one or more thugs is also dangerous to my life...to the lives of anyone in my home...and to the lives of my neighbors as well and it makes sense to me that it's better to avoid a gun battle if it can be avoided.

 

Employing deadly force may be the only option and if it is I will but I absolutely believe that the very best and safest outcome in a potentially deadly force situation is an outcome where no one has to discharge their weapon(s) at all and everyone walks away unharmed. To that end, I will give a verbal warning, if I can do so without increasing the danger to me/others, giving the thug(s) the opportunity to make a wise and rational decision and leave.

 

One of the rules of life I have lived by is "Your number option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence and de-escalation - original author unclear/unknown".

 

Maybe that mindset makes me an outcast here but if it does then it does.

 

Regards,

Edited August 29, 2013 by Twin

[tnguy]

My main beef with this, is that criminals aren't logical people most of the time. That's why they do stupid things that get them caught. They are animals. A lion might scare away a pack of hyenas one day, for them to kill him in his sleep the next. Letting them get away only subjects you to possible further, even more aggressive violence, and/or them going somewhere else and committing the crime against someone unable to defend themselves. You are essentially throwing a threat back out into society, when you have the chance to neutralize it.

 

In this scenario you describe, the goal is not survival but to remove criminals.

Edited August 29, 2013 by tnguy

[Chucktshoes]

In this scenario you describe, the goal is not survival but to remove criminals.

Wouldn't that be a win-win?

[tnguy]

Assuming you, your loved ones and your neighbors get through unharmed, probably.

[TMF]

All I'm saying is that if your aim is survival and your first instinct is to Rambo up, you may want to examine that a little longer.

 

Rambo up?  When someone illegally forces entry into my home where my wife and kids are it's called a home invasion.  Automatically assuming deadly force is the best way to eliminate the threat to my family is "Ramboing up"?  Well in that case, they drew first blood, not me.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="tnguy" post="1023424" timestamp="1377793865"] Assuming you, your loved ones and your neighbors get through unharmed, probably.[/quote]The neighbors aren't my problem. I have an obligation to ensure the well being of only 2 people on this planet. Everyone else is on their own. When a person crosses my threshold uninvited, they make themselves a danger to those I am obligated to protect. If it is within my power to do so, they will never threaten my family again. Edited August 29, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[RobertNashville]

My main beef with this, is that criminals aren't logical people most of the time. That's why they do stupid things that get them caught...

My decision to offer a verbal warning, under the conditions I've already stated in previous posts, is my decision to make...how the thug(s) chooses to react to that warning, if given, it is their decision to make.

Maybe they'll chose wisely and maybe they won't; that is not within my power to control.


 

...They are animals. A lion might scare away a pack of hyenas one day, for them to kill him in his sleep the next. Letting them get away only subjects you to possible further, even more aggressive violence, and/or them going somewhere else and committing the crime against someone unable to defend themselves. You are essentially throwing a threat back out into society, when you have the chance to neutralize it.

 

Yes, they may come back some day.

 

Yes, they may go somewhere else and harm other innocents.

 

Both possibilities are regrettable; I don't want them to come back later or go somewhere else and possibly hurt others but those are only possibilities. It's also possible that the thug(s) decide that whatever they were after is not worth the risk of death so they move to honest work...or, they may find Jesus and become a pastor and help hundreds of other people.  There are many possibilities, certainly some more likely than others, but that's still all they are, possibilities.  I will not, at least not in a functioning society, employ deadly force against someone because of what they might do someday.

[Glock30]

What, and give them time to fire a "warning shot" at me? No way.

[Pcdokk]

If I am asleep in my home in the middle of the night and I hear a window breaking or a door being kicked in, it makes perfect sense to arm myself and protect the lives of my family and myself. No warning verbalizations required. IMO this is a home invasion and by the nature of the word "invasion" this indicates someone has entered my home with the intent to harm my family or me. I have every legal right to protect myself but as far as I can tell there is no legal obligation for me to warn an intruder I am about to put a few rounds in their 10 ring.