You're on your own

[Foxfyre]

Everybody is right here, except those that think there is never a reason or justification to own and/or defend yourself with a gun.

Yes, if you can barricade yourself from the intruder, by all means do so. Yes, if you can escape from the house or apartment when somebody is breaking in, by all means do so. Yes, if there is no imminent threat, you wait for the police to arrive.

But if somebody ignores a verbal warning or warning shot and is breaking in my front door, I'm going to shoot him. And if that means the police have something to tag and bag when they finally do arrive, well I would count it as a good thing that it wasn't me or a loved one.

 

[Sallow]

I am often amazed by the number of people who believe that the police are there to prevent crime...

They are and they do..

They aren't and they don't

Cops show up after a crime and analyze the blood spatter.

When police presence is beefed up in neighborhoods, crimes go down.

Maybe you should watch an episode of cops or two. And stop and frisk was really a big success in NYC.

 

[Sallow]

Everybody is right here, except those that think there is never a reason or justification to own and/or defend yourself with a gun.

Yes, if you can barricade yourself from the intruder, by all means do so. Yes, if you can escape from the house or apartment when somebody is breaking in, by all means do so. Yes, if there is no imminent threat, you wait for the police to arrive.

But if somebody ignores a verbal warning or warning shot and is breaking in my front door, I'm going to shoot him. And if that means the police have something to tag and bag when they finally do arrive, well I would count it as a good thing that it wasn't me or a loved one.

The best defense against a break in is a big dog.

Second best..is a 12 gauge shot gun. The *click clak* alone sends criminals a runnin'

 

[Sallow]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what else are the cops supposed to be saying? I don't find their responses so unbelievable. In fact, you are on your own until the police arrive. That's a fact - a hard one, but a correct one.

The question is way too general to answer anyway. What do you do until the police arrive? I think that has an awful lot to do with what the intruder is doing. Is he holding you at gunpoint? Not too hard to figure out what to do in that case - stand there with your hands up. Is he mucking around in some other part of the house, as yet unaware that there is anyone home? Get the hell out, if you can; run to a neighbor's house and call the cops.

What should they say - pull out a gun and shoot the intruder? I'm sure all of our John Wayne conservatives here can't wait to hear that one. As for me - unless I am cornered, I'm going to try to get out of the house and then call the police from my cell or a neighbor's phone.

What's the uproar over what the cops are saying or not saying in this video? Maybe I'm just dense . . .

Yeah just yell for help for up to an hour before the cops show up.

The ******* cops should be telling people to get a gun and learn how to use it.

Depends on where you live.

NYC cops are very quick to respond.

I imagine cops in the south are slow.

 

[Foxfyre]

Everybody is right here, except those that think there is never a reason or justification to own and/or defend yourself with a gun.

Yes, if you can barricade yourself from the intruder, by all means do so. Yes, if you can escape from the house or apartment when somebody is breaking in, by all means do so. Yes, if there is no imminent threat, you wait for the police to arrive.

But if somebody ignores a verbal warning or warning shot and is breaking in my front door, I'm going to shoot him. And if that means the police have something to tag and bag when they finally do arrive, well I would count it as a good thing that it wasn't me or a loved one.

The best defense against a break in is a big dog.

Second best..is a 12 gauge shot gun. The *click clak* alone sends criminals a runnin'

The second best thing is to return to a national mentality that the law abiding citizen deserves all the means of self defense and benefit of whatever doubt, and the would be law breaker who would do harm to others does not.

 

[Gracie]

Everybody is right here, except those that think there is never a reason or justification to own and/or defend yourself with a gun.

Yes, if you can barricade yourself from the intruder, by all means do so. Yes, if you can escape from the house or apartment when somebody is breaking in, by all means do so. Yes, if there is no imminent threat, you wait for the police to arrive.

But if somebody ignores a verbal warning or warning shot and is breaking in my front door, I'm going to shoot him. And if that means the police have something to tag and bag when they finally do arrive, well I would count it as a good thing that it wasn't me or a loved one.

Ding ding ding. Winner!

 

[Sallow]

Everybody is right here, except those that think there is never a reason or justification to own and/or defend yourself with a gun.

Yes, if you can barricade yourself from the intruder, by all means do so. Yes, if you can escape from the house or apartment when somebody is breaking in, by all means do so. Yes, if there is no imminent threat, you wait for the police to arrive.

But if somebody ignores a verbal warning or warning shot and is breaking in my front door, I'm going to shoot him. And if that means the police have something to tag and bag when they finally do arrive, well I would count it as a good thing that it wasn't me or a loved one.

The best defense against a break in is a big dog.

Second best..is a 12 gauge shot gun. The *click clak* alone sends criminals a runnin'

The second best thing is to return to a national mentality that the law abiding citizen deserves all the means of self defense and benefit of whatever doubt, and the would be law breaker who would do harm to others does not.

We haven't had that "national mentality". For most of this country's history..there have been restrictions on just what citizens had access to in terms of self defense. It's only been fairly recent that that's reversed. And with dire consequences.

There really is no reason whatsoever anyone other than LEO, Military or Guards in high risk professions should have assault rifles. Heck..I would go farther then that..no civilian should own anything other than revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles. And those need to have trigger locks. They should be fully registered. I would also put in place an original owner rule, register ammo and require insurance.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeah just yell for help for up to an hour before the cops show up.

The ******* cops should be telling people to get a gun and learn how to use it.

The cops would be incurring a great deal of liability with this advice. The advice you suggest is beyond the scope of LEO's duties. Further, should a citizen seek advice of this nature some research on their part would do a world of good. This did not make the cops look bad it made the idiot who asked the questions look like a fool.

A cop telling someone to buy a gun and get training is a liability? You're ******* stupid!!!!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

The best defense against a break in is a big dog.

Second best..is a 12 gauge shot gun. The *click clak* alone sends criminals a runnin'

The second best thing is to return to a national mentality that the law abiding citizen deserves all the means of self defense and benefit of whatever doubt, and the would be law breaker who would do harm to others does not.

We haven't had that "national mentality". For most of this country's history..there have been restrictions on just what citizens had access to in terms of self defense. It's only been fairly recent that that's reversed. And with dire consequences.

There really is no reason whatsoever anyone other than LEO, Military or Guards in high risk professions should have assault rifles. Heck..I would go farther then that..no civilian should own anything other than revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles. And those need to have trigger locks. They should be fully registered. I would also put in place an original owner rule, register ammo and require insurance.

Baloney. While I have no problem with reasonable safety precautions, I grew up at a time when just about everybody had a firearm in their home, kids took their hunting rifles to school, and everybody over the age of six or eight knew how to load and fire a rifle or shotgun and what to point it at and what not to point it at. And in all those years not a single law abiding citizen shot another law abiding citizen. And nobody ever discussed what it was and was not legal to own in firearms. And anybody who showed up to harm anybody could expect to get shot first, and the sheriff would be called afterwards.

And while requiring people to have liability insurance if they are going to be discharging a firearm in a public place seems to be a reasonable policy, it would just enrich insurance companies, and do little or nothing to make the world safer from those who would use firearms for illegal purposes. Those using firearms for illegal purposes would have little incentive to incur the cost of insurance.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah just yell for help for up to an hour before the cops show up.

The ******* cops should be telling people to get a gun and learn how to use it.

The cops would be incurring a great deal of liability with this advice. The advice you suggest is beyond the scope of LEO's duties. Further, should a citizen seek advice of this nature some research on their part would do a world of good. This did not make the cops look bad it made the idiot who asked the questions look like a fool.

As i said cops don't stop crime, they come in and analyze the blood spatter and the fact that a cop would not suggest a person learn how to protect themselves is proof that they don't give a shit.

 

[George Costanza]

Yeah just yell for help for up to an hour before the cops show up.

The ******* cops should be telling people to get a gun and learn how to use it.

The cops would be incurring a great deal of liability with this advice. The advice you suggest is beyond the scope of LEO's duties. Further, should a citizen seek advice of this nature some research on their part would do a world of good. This did not make the cops look bad it made the idiot who asked the questions look like a fool.

As i said cops don't stop crime, they come in and analyze the blood spatter and the fact that a cop would not suggest a person learn how to protect themselves is proof that they don't give a shit.

Citizen goes into police station and asks what he should do between the time the cops are called and the time they arrive. Cop says: "Get a gun. If there is an intruder in your house, shoot him."

Citizen gets a gun and learns how to use it. Six months later, an intruder is in his house. He shoots the intruder, hitting him in the neck, permanently paralyzing him from the waist down. Turns out, the intruder was the citizen's next door neighbor who was sleep walking and wandered into the citizen's house while sound asleep.

Also turns out, the next door neighbor is a highly successful neurosurgeon, whose career was ended because of the injuries he received in the incident. He was 35 years of age at the time - he had 40 years of millions-per-year medical practice ahead of him, all of which is not worth zip any more. He also has a wife and four children, who have now been deprived of their husband/father's earnings and support.

The wife sues the citizen. Guess who else will be a named defendant in the lawsuit . . . . (Hint: He wears a badge and works for a department that will also be named as a party defendant.)

 

[MikeK]

I find it sad, unfortunate, and somewhat annoying that so many American citizens seem so utterly baffled about something which should occur to them as both a natural instinct and a common sense situation.

I know I am not allowed to carry a gun in public because I don't have a permit. But I don't need a permit to have a gun in my home. So if someone breaks into my home while I am there, and I hear it happening in time, I am well prepared to defend myself against being harmed by the intruder.

But the fact I am equipped and prepared to disable or kill the intruder does not mean I have license to do so just because he broke in -- which is a critical legal point to be aware of. Because the law in many (not all) places requires one to retreat from potential harm, if possible, rather than using deadly force. So if one shoots an intruder, even in one's own home, and it is found that the shooter was able to retreat (out a nearby back door, for example) but chose to use deadly force, not only could the shooter be criminally charged, an intruder who survived the shooting could sue for damages in civil court.

So getting back to common sense, if someone is breaking into your home and you hear it happening, get your weapon and position yourself so there is no question about retreating if you decide to shoot the intruder.

What I mean by decide is it is entirely possible the intruder, rather than some menacing hulk, will be some pathetic looking wretch, quite possibly a desperate junkie, who falls to his knees in tearful terror when he sees you aiming your weapon at him. In this event there are two things to consider: First, if you shoot this sorrowful creature, and if you have a normal conscience, you will regret it in the future. Last, you will make a bloody mess all over your carpet and possibly a hole in your wall. As it is, if you don't shoot him all he will do is piss, which is easy to clean up. So the best and, later, the simplest thing to do is order your cowering intruder to lie face down, arms entended, and call 911 to come and remove him.

But if the intruder is in any real way menacing, or does not respond to your commands to lie down, or if you're somewhat psycho, or if you're really pissed off and you just want to shoot him, aim for the belly and defend yourself against his verbal threat to kill you and his movement toward you. Just be sure you're not standing near an unimpeded means of retreat.

And, of course, your story is your life was threatened and you had no choice.

 

[Foxfyre]

I find it sad, unfortunate, and somewhat annoying that so many American citizens seem so utterly baffled about something which should occur to them as both a natural instinct and a common sense situation.

I know I am not allowed to carry a gun in public because I don't have a permit. But I don't need a permit to have a gun in my home. So if someone breaks into my home while I am there, and I hear it happening in time, I am well prepared to defend myself against being harmed by the intruder.

But the fact I am equipped and prepared to disable or kill the intruder does not mean I have license to do so just because he broke in -- which is a critical legal point to be aware of. Because the law in many (not all) places requires one to retreat from potential harm, if possible, rather than using deadly force. So if one shoots an intruder, even in one's own home, and it is found that the shooter was able to retreat (out a nearby back door, for example) but chose to use deadly force, not only could the shooter be criminally charged, an intruder who survived the shooting could sue for damages in civil court.

So getting back to common sense, if someone is breaking into your home and you hear it happening, get your weapon and position yourself so there is no question about retreating if you decide to shoot the intruder.

What I mean by decide is it is entirely possible the intruder, rather than some menacing hulk, will be some pathetic looking wretch, quite possibly a desperate junkie, who falls to his knees in tearful terror when he sees you aiming your weapon at him. In this event there are two things to consider: First, if you shoot this sorrowful creature, and if you have a normal conscience, you will regret it in the future. Last, you will make a bloody mess all over your carpet and possibly a hole in your wall. As it is, if you don't shoot him all he will do is piss, which is easy to clean up. So the best and, later, the simplest thing to do is order your cowering intruder to lie face down, arms entended, and call 911 to come and remove him.

But if the intruder is in any real way menacing, or does not respond to your commands to lie down, or if you're somewhat psycho, or if you're really pissed off and you just want to shoot him, aim for the belly and defend yourself against his verbal threat to kill you and his movement toward you. Just be sure you're not standing near an unimpeded means of retreat.

And, of course, your story is your life was threatened and you had no choice.

Well my theory is that while it is the sensible and safest thing to do, a homeowner should not be required to flee his/her home to prevent an encounter with somebody breaking into that home. The Florida law allowing one to 'stand his ground' was completely intended when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment into the Constitution.

We aren't speaking of prudence here. We are speaking of the right to be safe and secure in our own premises. We are speaking of the right to defend our lives and our property from evil intent of any other person.

A just legal system would recognize that a person who has received a verbal warning and a warning shot who is breaking in your front door will and can harm you and it has to be assumed that is the likely outcome should he successfully enter. Any citizen should have the right to shoot to kill with inpunity in that situation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The cops would be incurring a great deal of liability with this advice. The advice you suggest is beyond the scope of LEO's duties. Further, should a citizen seek advice of this nature some research on their part would do a world of good. This did not make the cops look bad it made the idiot who asked the questions look like a fool.

As i said cops don't stop crime, they come in and analyze the blood spatter and the fact that a cop would not suggest a person learn how to protect themselves is proof that they don't give a shit.

Citizen goes into police station and asks what he should do between the time the cops are called and the time they arrive. Cop says: "Get a gun. If there is an intruder in your house, shoot him."

Citizen gets a gun and learns how to use it. Six months later, an intruder is in his house. He shoots the intruder, hitting him in the neck, permanently paralyzing him from the waist down. Turns out, the intruder was the citizen's next door neighbor who was sleep walking and wandered into the citizen's house while sound asleep.

Also turns out, the next door neighbor is a highly successful neurosurgeon, whose career was ended because of the injuries he received in the incident. He was 35 years of age at the time - he had 40 years of millions-per-year medical practice ahead of him, all of which is not worth zip any more. He also has a wife and four children, who have now been deprived of their husband/father's earnings and support.

The wife sues the citizen. Guess who else will be a named defendant in the lawsuit . . . . (Hint: He wears a badge and works for a department that will also be named as a party defendant.)

Yeah and he rode over on his unicorn.

You might as well use aliens in your example.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I find it sad, unfortunate, and somewhat annoying that so many American citizens seem so utterly baffled about something which should occur to them as both a natural instinct and a common sense situation.

I know I am not allowed to carry a gun in public because I don't have a permit. But I don't need a permit to have a gun in my home. So if someone breaks into my home while I am there, and I hear it happening in time, I am well prepared to defend myself against being harmed by the intruder.

But the fact I am equipped and prepared to disable or kill the intruder does not mean I have license to do so just because he broke in -- which is a critical legal point to be aware of. Because the law in many (not all) places requires one to retreat from potential harm, if possible, rather than using deadly force. So if one shoots an intruder, even in one's own home, and it is found that the shooter was able to retreat (out a nearby back door, for example) but chose to use deadly force, not only could the shooter be criminally charged, an intruder who survived the shooting could sue for damages in civil court.

So getting back to common sense, if someone is breaking into your home and you hear it happening, get your weapon and position yourself so there is no question about retreating if you decide to shoot the intruder.

What I mean by decide is it is entirely possible the intruder, rather than some menacing hulk, will be some pathetic looking wretch, quite possibly a desperate junkie, who falls to his knees in tearful terror when he sees you aiming your weapon at him. In this event there are two things to consider: First, if you shoot this sorrowful creature, and if you have a normal conscience, you will regret it in the future. Last, you will make a bloody mess all over your carpet and possibly a hole in your wall. As it is, if you don't shoot him all he will do is piss, which is easy to clean up. So the best and, later, the simplest thing to do is order your cowering intruder to lie face down, arms entended, and call 911 to come and remove him.

But if the intruder is in any real way menacing, or does not respond to your commands to lie down, or if you're somewhat psycho, or if you're really pissed off and you just want to shoot him, aim for the belly and defend yourself against his verbal threat to kill you and his movement toward you. Just be sure you're not standing near an unimpeded means of retreat.

And, of course, your story is your life was threatened and you had no choice.

No one I know who owns a weapon is trigger happy and just a waiting to pump someone full of lead.

And in my state there is no retreat requirement not that i would retreat anyway. Sorry but I'm not running away while my wife and dogs are in the house. You might but I won't.

 

[George Costanza]

As i said cops don't stop crime, they come in and analyze the blood spatter and the fact that a cop would not suggest a person learn how to protect themselves is proof that they don't give a shit.

Citizen goes into police station and asks what he should do between the time the cops are called and the time they arrive. Cop says: "Get a gun. If there is an intruder in your house, shoot him."

Citizen gets a gun and learns how to use it. Six months later, an intruder is in his house. He shoots the intruder, hitting him in the neck, permanently paralyzing him from the waist down. Turns out, the intruder was the citizen's next door neighbor who was sleep walking and wandered into the citizen's house while sound asleep.

Also turns out, the next door neighbor is a highly successful neurosurgeon, whose career was ended because of the injuries he received in the incident. He was 35 years of age at the time - he had 40 years of millions-per-year medical practice ahead of him, all of which is not worth zip any more. He also has a wife and four children, who have now been deprived of their husband/father's earnings and support.

The wife sues the citizen. Guess who else will be a named defendant in the lawsuit . . . . (Hint: He wears a badge and works for a department that will also be named as a party defendant.)

Yeah and he rode over on his unicorn.

You might as well use aliens in your example.

Don't be too sure. Plaintiff's attorneys are going after deep pockets when they have a good case. The homeowner in my example probably does not have deep pockets. The governmental body that backs the police agency involved would have have deep pockets. It could easily be argued that what happened in my example was reasonably foreseeable by the police officer advising the homeowner to get a gun and use it. If so, game over for the police officer involved, the police agency involved and the governmental body involved.

 

[George Costanza]

Well my theory is that while it is the sensible and safest thing to do, a homeowner should not be required to flee his/her home to prevent an encounter with somebody breaking into that home. The Florida law allowing one to 'stand his ground' was completely intended when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment into the Constitution.

We aren't speaking of prudence here. We are speaking of the right to be safe and secure in our own premises. We are speaking of the right to defend our lives and our property from evil intent of any other person.

A just legal system would recognize that a person who has received a verbal warning and a warning shot who is breaking in your front door will and can harm you and it has to be assumed that is the likely outcome should he successfully enter. Any citizen should have the right to shoot to kill with inpunity in that situation.

"Hark to the story of Solomon Gray,
Who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right - dead right - as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."

This old poem about what could happen to an assertive driver, intent on maintaining his or her right of way, has application here. Sure, it's great to talk about defending your home against evil doers. But what if you shoot and miss? What if your gun misfires? Deer hunters have been known to shake so badly when drawing down on a 12-point buck, they don't have a chance in hell of hitting anything. And then what happens if the intruder has a gun also, and is much more familiar with using it than you are?

You would have been right in trying to defend yourself - but you'd be just as dead as if you'd been wrong.

I have a gun in my house, and if I had to, I would use it against an intruder. But only if using the gun was an absolute and total last resort. Retreat would be an option that I would utilize before ever turning a gun on someone. I would only do so if retreat were impossible for myself or other members of my family.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Exactly what is the point of this thread?

That people need to protect themselves and the cops "advice" is to lock yourself in the bathroom and yell for help while their swilling coffee and doughnuts.

Ridiculous hyperbole.

As George Costanza correctly notes, it depends on the nature and context of a given situation, and some situations clearly don’t call for an armed response.

Sound and comprehensive firearms training involves knowing when to use a gun and when not to.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well my theory is that while it is the sensible and safest thing to do, a homeowner should not be required to flee his/her home to prevent an encounter with somebody breaking into that home. The Florida law allowing one to 'stand his ground' was completely intended when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment into the Constitution.

We aren't speaking of prudence here. We are speaking of the right to be safe and secure in our own premises. We are speaking of the right to defend our lives and our property from evil intent of any other person.

A just legal system would recognize that a person who has received a verbal warning and a warning shot who is breaking in your front door will and can harm you and it has to be assumed that is the likely outcome should he successfully enter. Any citizen should have the right to shoot to kill with inpunity in that situation.

"Hark to the story of Solomon Gray,
Who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right - dead right - as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."

This old poem about what could happen to an assertive driver, intent on maintaining his or her right of way, has application here. Sure, it's great to talk about defending your home against evil doers. But what if you shoot and miss? What if your gun misfires? Deer hunters have been known to shake so badly when drawing down on a 12-point buck, they don't have a chance in hell of hitting anything. And then what happens if the intruder has a gun also, and is much more familiar with using it than you are?

You would have been right in trying to defend yourself - but you'd be just as dead as if you'd been wrong.

I have a gun in my house, and if I had to, I would use it against an intruder. But only if using the gun was an absolute and total last resort. Retreat would be an option that I would utilize before ever turning a gun on someone. I would only do so if retreat were impossible for myself or other members of my family.

I am the same. I would not shoot somebody just protect things. I absolutely would shoot somebody, even with the possibility that the shot could be lethal, if my or somebody else's life was in jeopardy.

The only point that I am making, is nobody should have legal protection to violate my rights. The guy breaking into my home or private work place should have no rights or any kind of legal protection of any kind during the commission of that act. I should not be required to be in a position for him to hurt me or others should that be his intent. And neither should I be legally required to hand over my property to him just because he wants it. And if I defend myself or my property against such a person, it should be my legal right to do so and to do so with no legal consequence.

All laws are not sensible. All laws are not fair. And all laws do not protect the intent of the Constitution.

 

[Gracie]

It's my house. My home. My pets are in there with me. So is my husband. It will be a cold day in hell that I retreat from my own abode because some schmuck decided to break in and intrude in MY domain.
They will get what's coming to them. If I go to jail over it, so be it.