Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 109

Thread: What would you do? (Scenario)

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    You have a family. You awaken to the sound of glass breaking in the front room. You grab your weapon and head out to investigate. As you get to your hall and turn on the light, you look down the hall and see a man, who is armed, that has entered your home.

    He sees you, and also sees that you're armed. He fires off two shots at you, but misses. The man proceeds to flee the scene and run out the door. As the man turns around to run out the door, you notice you have a clean shot on him, right in the back.

    Do you fire? Would this be justifiable? The man has fled the scene, and is exiting your house. Is he still a threat?

    He DID fire two shots at you.

    If he leaves, will you have to worry about him coming back at a time when you may not be home?

    What would you do in this situation?

  2. #2
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    Why is it that so many new users come here and post these what-if scenarios? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not trolling and that you're actually interested in open carry, interested in home-defense, and actually want some advice on this sort of thing...

    With that in mind:

    Tony Santiago wrote:

    You have a family. You awaken to the sound of glass breaking in the front room. You grab your weapon and head out to investigate.
    First mistake:

    Never go on a room-clearing exercise in your own home unless you absolutely must. (For example, if the glass broke in your young child's bedroom or the glass broke somewhere such that your children will be the first people the intruder encounters.)

    Instead, you retreat to a defensible position where you are in the dark and (ideally) the intruder is back-lit by lighting. Back-lighting the intruder is not always possible, so the next best situation is to wait in the dark with your flashlight and firearm ready. You call 9-1-1 and have your loaded firearm (off of safe) at the ready to shoot the intruder (if legal to do so) when he silhouettes himself.

    Tony Santiago wrote:
    As you get to your hall and turn on the light, you look down the hall and see a man, who is armed, that has entered your home.
    Second mistake: You don't go flipping on lights. You already have good night vision since you were asleep. You can already make out the outlines of people without lights being on. You stay in the dark, in the shadows and either orchestrate your home such that the burglar is back-lit or you have a streamlight/surefire or some other high quality toggling flashlight to very quickly identify the threat and then shoot a split-second later. Again, let me reiterate that the flashlight is not a tool to go hunting down the bad guy with. The flashlight is a tool to do a split-second target and threat ID before you make the decision to fire or not.

    You get the jump on the bad guy. He doesn't get the jump on you. Period. Even if you are forced to go on a room-clearing exercise (like you have children you need to defend, etc) you do so in a deliberate manner, room by room, corner by corner, slicing the pie. Unless your burglar is trained to clear rooms, you WILL get the drop on him. You're more familiar with your home than he is. You have every tactical advantage. He just came from outside, where there was light so his night vision is not as good as yours is at the moment and he's on unfamiliar ground.

    Tony Santiago wrote:
    He sees you, and also sees that you're armed. He fires off two shots at you, but misses. The man proceeds to flee the scene and run out the door. As the man turns around to run out the door, you notice you have a clean shot on him, right in the back.

    Do you fire? Would this be justifiable? The man has fled the scene, and is exiting your house. Is he still a threat?
    In my state, it would be unlawful to fire at this point. Joe Horn in Texas managed to kill two unarmed fleeing burglars and get away with it. I don't live in Texas and I'm not so sure I'm as legally lucky as old Joe was.


    Tony Santiago wrote:
    He DID fire two shots at you.

    If he leaves, will you have to worry about him coming back at a time when you may not be home?

    What would you do in this situation?
    This situation is ridiculous. You orchestrate the details in a manner that puts the homeowner into a tactically foolish situation.


    A better situation would be this:

    You awake to the sound of breaking glass. You prepare your firearm, your flashlight, and your phone and call 9-1-1. At some point the you encounter the burglar. The situation of the encounter is irrelevant. Shots are exchanged. You are unwounded. The burglar may or may not be wounded and he flees the scene. You have a clear shot as his back as he flees. Do you fire?

    The answer to the question is, not in my state, but at least one guy got away with it in Texas.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    No injuries? I wouldn't shoot the guy in the back, no.
    Let me add though, that some apartments/condos have a direct line of sight to the front door. When that front door comes in- I've got 0 chance to alert 911. In my situation- If the intruder clearly has a weapon- would you Shoot First!? Very legit question.

    I keep 2 pistols bedside nightly: .45 Taurus semi 6 shot and 9mm Bersa 13 shot

    I really am not sure if I would shoot first and I know a warning shot is frowned upon. I would not be giving away my position though- It's a small place- everyone can see everything at anytime. I always always sleep with my door wide open so the front door is right there. Generally the lighting conditions would not favor either position. But yeah not to hijack the thread- I would not shoot a fleeing intruding in the back. That's just bad form.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    shoot the guy in the back..go to prison.

    Shoot first ? yes, If he is facing me... but only AFTER I yell at the guy, please don't hurt me , really loud.


    Would I go to investigate with my weapon ? Sure....but after I call 911 & talk to the cops. ( yes, he is in the house, I think I see a gun in his hand, I am really scared. ) its an act for the recorded 911 call...you have to cover your butt.

    otherwise I might just hunker down upstairs & yell at the guy, if you come upstairs Im gonna BLOW YOU IN HALF!!!! Get the F out of my house, the cops are coming !!!!!I am talking with the cops right now !!!!!! YER CRAP aint worth you getting Killed.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  5. #5
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    I just have a sign posted at the gate to my drive "There is nothing in this place that is worth your life" Seems to do the trick.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    If he is fleeing and not a threat to someone else (say your son or daughter who just pulled up in the driveway after a date), no.. you cannot shoot him in the back or the front or anywhere else. However, if he continues to be a threat (son or daughter), fire until he's down.

    However, it should never have gotten that far. As soon as you saw him in your house and identified a weapon, you should have opened fire. No warnings, no yelling, nothing. Just shoot.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    Tony Santiago wrote:
    You have a family. You awaken to the sound of glass breaking in the front room. You grab your weapon and head out to investigate. As you get to your hall and turn on the light, you look down the hall and see a man, who is armed, that has entered your home.

    He sees you, and also sees that you're armed. He fires off two shots at you, but misses. The man proceeds to flee the scene and run out the door. As the man turns around to run out the door, you notice you have a clean shot on him, right in the back.

    Do you fire? Would this be justifiable? The man has fled the scene, and is exiting your house. Is he still a threat?

    He DID fire two shots at you.

    If he leaves, will you have to worry about him coming back at a time when you may not be home?

    What would you do in this situation?
    In my state, it is unlawful to shoot a fleeing suspect, armed or not and regardless of whether or not he already shot at you. If you truely feel as though he is no longer a threat then do not shoot. Some suspects flee and fire back, in that case, you should fire to protect your life and the lives of your family.

    That is the only answer you need to hear.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Hunting Mama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Not deep enough in the Woods, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    Okay - this is a ridiculous scenerio. How can you honestly ask if you should shoot him in the back? You were out of imenent danger with his back to you and fleeing. That would put us responsiblegun owners in completely the wrong light, add to that what the media spin would be. Kudo's to those that would choose to do the right thing.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    Hunting Mama wrote:
    Okay - this is a ridiculous scenerio. How can you honestly ask if you should shoot him in the back? You were out of imenent danger with his back to you and fleeing. That would put us responsiblegun owners in completely the wrong light, add to that what the media spin would be. Kudo's to those that would choose to do the right thing.
    Welcome to the forum , Mama
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  10. #10
    Regular Member Hunting Mama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Not deep enough in the Woods, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    Thank You!

  11. #11
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Easy answer. Empty the mag. Fire the RPG. Run over him with your vehicle (preferably a pickup). Then you really turn loose on him with your fully armed M1A2 Abrams that is in your backyard (you haven't put the coin together toconstruct a building to house it yet). Then the hard part; dial 911.

    How's that for a dumb answer to a dumb question?
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  12. #12
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    the wording and time line is too screwy and slow,,,

    as soon as i saw the MWAG,,, i would shoot him,,, until he was no longer a threat,,,
    if i missed, and he shot at me, i would shoot some more,,, until he was no longer a threat,,,
    if i missed again, i would reload,,,
    REPEAT!

    this scenero has us watching and waiting and reviewing the applicable laws
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ass-land (Ashland) OR, , USA
    Posts
    267

    Post imported post

    +1 on SadOwfox reply to You.>>> I don't clear my rooms on my turf, I "wait in ambush , and I never turn lights on the only light I turn on is a stream light on my weapon.

    Also you left out my motion detector light outside that would have picked him up, my very protective pit bull dog, and my 23 round 20ga Saiga shotgun , so the BG more than likely would have not made it out the door, even if he killed my dog, if he did I would just follow up the massive blood trail or tell the cops to send their own K9 to follow the blood to the body.



  14. #14
    Regular Member hopnpop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Paw Paw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    635

    Post imported post

    First, I'd like to thank the powers that be for the CASTLE DOCTRINE LAW.

    Interesting views here.I agree with much of shad0wfax's points. If you know what you're doing, he won't get those two shots off at you. You should have the jump on him. It's your house, know it and know it well. You've got a handful of advantages.

    Also, no matter how vividly you think you describe the situation, no 2 situations are going to be the same. There are still too many variables that come into play - home layout, occupancy, lighting, cover, etc. At 2a.m. in January in Michigan, with every light in the house off,it could be pitch black inside and out, or there could be sufficient lighting from moonlight reflecting off snow. Suchfactors couldchange the dynamics of the whole thing.

    I have no quams with shooting first when there's an intruder in my home. He's not there for tea. Not only did he force his way into my home, but in doing so, ignored the signage on my entries that say: CASTLE LAW ENFORCED HERE, and NOTHING HERE IS WORTH DYING FOR (both with graphics that even the most ignorant could understand). With such a warning on the entries, one should know that his chances of dying or at least being shot in my home are increased.

    As pershooting an armed intruder in the back- place your bets. Circumstancial. Justification could be decided by a jury. On one hand, his back is to you and he's moving toward an exit. On the other, there could be a child's room between him and the exit. In that case, I think you might be justified. If he hasn't fired any rounds or if he's fired 2 shots, it's a very safe assumption that there's more bullets in his gun. I'd rather not take the chance of him taking one of my kids hostage. Then again, maybe there's nothing between him and the exit. In that case, I'd probably keep my gun trained on him so that if he turns around, giving him the ability to take a(nother) shot at me, he can be put down immediately.

    There are just too many variables to definitively say what you'd do. It could be another one of those situations where you think for sure that you'd react one way, but going thru it in reality is completely different than you'd expected. Best defense - plan, back-up plan, back-back-up plan, practice, practice, practice.

    No one has ever walked away from a gunfight complaining that he brought too much ammo.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    shad0wfax wrote:
    snip LOTS OF GOOD POINTS snip
    As shadowfax points out well, if you are in the OP scenario, you have already made some significant mistakes. But hey, in the "fog of war" even well trained people sometimes do foolish things and end up in undesirable situations so I'll take the scenario on its face for comment...

    There are two components to this. A moral/ethical question and a legal question.

    The legal part is fairly easy as it depends on state law. In Missouri it would be legal to shoot as our castle doctrine law assumes that anyone who uninvited breaches your "castle" is there for nefarious purposes and even without seeing a weapon you can use lethal force until they are completely outside your abode, even if you shoot while they are exiting the home. Now there certainly is the question of what happens if for example you shoot the BG, he goes down in your home but is still alive but not a threat and you purposefully walk over and execute him. I'm not sure how that would be adjudicated but I would expect that would draw something like a manslaughter charge regardless.

    Then there is the moral/ethical question. Is it moral to shoot a BG fleeing from your home in the back. One could certainly argue that he is no longer a threat and therefore it would be immoral. It could also be argued that he might run 5 feet, stop, turn around and kill you are put a round through the house that hits a family member.

    My answer to all of it, as with so many of these type issues, is "it depends". Sitting here safely at my desk in daylight I would say that it depends on the demeanor of the BG. Did he panic, fire wildly and is now "holy crapping" out the door? Or did he calmly throw a few shots at you and is now quickly but calmly moving to regroup and renew his attack? Obviously a judgment call and a difficult one to determine even if you were watching a high production quality scenario video trying to make a shoot/don't shoot decision.

    Conclusion: Don't shoot. Even if you are legally justified in your state and even if you can morally justify it, it just isn't worth the hassle. Intentionally shooting a man in the back is typically going to bring you grief one way or another.

    It sort of goes along with HankT's postulate that it is [generally] a bad idea to shoot an unarmed man. It is also generally a bad idea to shoot someone in the back.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    I'd run like a girl the other way and have my wife shoot the guy.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Adams County, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    hopnpop wrote:
    First, I'd like to thank the powers that be for the CASTLE DOCTRINE LAW.

    Interesting views here.I agree with much of shad0wfax's points. If you know what you're doing, he won't get those two shots off at you. You should have the jump on him. It's your house, know it and know it well. You've got a handful of advantages.

    Also, no matter how vividly you think you describe the situation, no 2 situations are going to be the same. There are still too many variables that come into play - home layout, occupancy, lighting, cover, etc. At 2a.m. in January in Michigan, with every light in the house off,it could be pitch black inside and out, or there could be sufficient lighting from moonlight reflecting off snow. Suchfactors couldchange the dynamics of the whole thing.

    I have no quams with shooting first when there's an intruder in my home. He's not there for tea. Not only did he force his way into my home, but in doing so, ignored the signage on my entries that say: CASTLE LAW ENFORCED HERE, and NOTHING HERE IS WORTH DYING FOR (both with graphics that even the most ignorant could understand). With such a warning on the entries, one should know that his chances of dying or at least being shot in my home are increased.

    As pershooting an armed intruder in the back- place your bets. Circumstancial. Justification could be decided by a jury. On one hand, his back is to you and he's moving toward an exit. On the other, there could be a child's room between him and the exit. In that case, I think you might be justified. If he hasn't fired any rounds or if he's fired 2 shots, it's a very safe assumption that there's more bullets in his gun. I'd rather not take the chance of him taking one of my kids hostage. Then again, maybe there's nothing between him and the exit. In that case, I'd probably keep my gun trained on him so that if he turns around, giving him the ability to take a(nother) shot at me, he can be put down immediately.

    There are just too many variables to definitively say what you'd do. It could be another one of those situations where you think for sure that you'd react one way, but going thru it in reality is completely different than you'd expected. Best defense - plan, back-up plan, back-back-up plan, practice, practice, practice.
    +1..... sheesh..... noobs

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    In michigan, you have to be able to see the target before the shooting is justifiable. A good rule, it keeps you from accidentally shooting someone innocent. Therefore, I always leave a light on, in every room, and outside, no exceptions. Simple solution. And no, I wouldnt shoot him in the back, but if he turns to look behind him, and I feel threatened, I would then be allowed to justifiably defend myself.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    I'm torn by the castle doctrine, if someone came in the middle of the night and broke into my home, I'm pretty sure I'd shoot them also. However, as someone who is working on being ethical, compassionate, and a person of Faith, I don't think my property is so important that I need to kill someone for it. That being said, I've drawn on trespassers in the past, and probably will do the same. I don't know the intent of the person, and with a little baby in the house (3 weeks old now!) I am not taking chances that the person is a criminal who is here to do something really bad.



  20. #20
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Depends on whether or not the state has Castle Doctrine. Here in CO, I'd have to call the Coroner after I blew his head off. Complete justification. In other states, you may not use deadly force unless in imminent fear of death or grievous bodily harm at that time. If he's leaving, it becomes problematic.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    I don't believe one is ever justified by killing someone over property. Just my personal moral beliefs. Property shouldn't be so important that we'd take action to take a life. That being said, read my other post.

    Gunslinger wrote:
    Depends on whether or not the state has Castle Doctrine. Here in CO, I'd have to call the Coroner after I blew his head off. Complete justification. In other states, you may not use deadly force unless in imminent fear of death or grievous bodily harm at that time. If he's leaving, it becomes problematic.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    congrats! good luck with the little one.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Thank you, it's been an interesting three weeks. Lack of Sleep plus a move to Colorado!

  24. #24
    Regular Member zoom6zoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dale City, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,694

    Post imported post

    If he's leaving, it becomes problematic.
    Unless he's dragging your wife or daughter out by the hair... no.

  25. #25
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Pace wrote:
    I don't believe one is ever justified by killing someone over property. Just my personal moral beliefs. Property shouldn't be so important that we'd take action to take a life. That being said, read my other post.

    Hey, Pace, how about an address. We can come steal everything that you don't have welded down that is outside. Don't have to worry about being shot do we?
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •