Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: CCW Holder Catches Intruder

  1. #1
    Regular Member OPS MARINE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    392

    CCW Holder Catches Intruder



    In my opinion, leaving and then returning to the house was a bad idea. I'm glad it turned out well for her, though.
    "Most people respect the badge. Everybody... respects the gun."

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    434
    That may the most pro RKBA newscast I've ever seen.

    I might cry.

    It's such beautifully simple common sense and yet so rare.

    Thank you for sharing

  3. #3
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448
    "Don't...shoot...the Sheriff la la la" (Sorry Bob Marley) Nice sweater carry!
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Eastpointe, MI
    Posts
    53
    It ended well, and the coverage was surprisingly very good, however she did some things wrong:

    She re-entered the house, unless she had some reason to believe that there was some reason for someone to legally be in there she should have stayed outside the house, and took cover behind the engine block of the car, or other suitable cover while observing the house, and called 911, she is not an entry team, nor did she have anything personally at stake.

    She hung up on 911, she should have been on the phone with them the entire time, even if only having the line open with the phone in a pocket, the reason being that 911 calls are recorded, and if she had to fire, it would be documented as a justifiable shoot.

    She did not break concealment even in the house, she should have at a minimum had the revolver out, and at a low ready, though a high ready would probably have been more appropriate.

    She carried out a conversation with the intruder, you never, ever do that, it lowers your guard, and increases the intruders confidence. Her dialog with the intruder should have been limited to screaming commands at him, specifically "STOP, GET ON THE ******* GROUND DO IT NOW!!!!! I HAVE A GUN, AND I WILL SHOOT YOU!, SPREAD YOUR LEGS, AND PUT YOUR ARMS OUT, SPREAD EAGLE,PALMS UP! CHIN ON THE GROUND!" If he attempted to say anything she should have simply yelled "SHUT THE **** UP!!!!!" The idea is to assert dominance, break auditory exclusion, and remain in control.

  5. #5
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Small Arms Collector View Post
    She carried out a conversation with the intruder, you never, ever do that, it lowers your guard, and increases the intruders confidence. Her dialog with the intruder should have been limited to screaming commands at him, specifically "STOP, GET ON THE ******* GROUND DO IT NOW!!!!! I HAVE A GUN, AND I WILL SHOOT YOU!, SPREAD YOUR LEGS, AND PUT YOUR ARMS OUT, SPREAD EAGLE,PALMS UP! CHIN ON THE GROUND!" If he attempted to say anything she should have simply yelled "SHUT THE **** UP!!!!!" The idea is to assert dominance, break auditory exclusion, and remain in control.
    Only one disagreement here ... "I have a gun and I will shoot you" ... in some states that would be considered assault, so to get around it, "I have a gun and if you move I will be forced to shoot you" puts the decision in the BG's hands ... if he moves, you will shoot, if he doesn't move, you won't be forced to shoot. IANAL
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    1
    Agreed- you really don't want to say "I will shoot you" since the BG's attorney will come after you on that (you're still on the 911 call that's being recorded, right??)

    I prefer something quick, simple, and open to some interpretation. "Don't make me shoot you," following the command I've given. It implies that you're prepared to ventilate the bad parts out of them, but that the decision is ultimately theirs to make.

    Bottom line, in a high-stress environment you're not thinking about your wording, and that can come back and bite you later. Find something that works for you (and is legally defensible) and practice it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by okboomer View Post
    Only one disagreement here ... "I have a gun and I will shoot you" ... in some states that would be considered assault, so to get around it, "I have a gun and if you move I will be forced to shoot you" puts the decision in the BG's hands ... if he moves, you will shoot, if he doesn't move, you won't be forced to shoot. IANAL
    Agreed, be very careful how you word things. Personally I would call police after I have the situation under control, its one less thing you can loose control on. I want both hands on my weapon and I do not want to give up my location to the bad guy while calling 911. Plus 911 is my pick up dead body service, that and I don't care for the operator to tell me that i can or can not defend myself or my property.
    Last edited by zack991; 09-13-2010 at 12:39 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by Small Arms Collector View Post
    She carried out a conversation with the intruder, you never, ever do that, it lowers your guard, and increases the intruders confidence. Her dialog with the intruder should have been limited to screaming commands at him, specifically "STOP, GET ON THE ******* GROUND DO IT NOW!!!!! I HAVE A GUN, AND I WILL SHOOT YOU!, SPREAD YOUR LEGS, AND PUT YOUR ARMS OUT, SPREAD EAGLE,PALMS UP! CHIN ON THE GROUND!" If he attempted to say anything she should have simply yelled "SHUT THE **** UP!!!!!" The idea is to assert dominance, break auditory exclusion, and remain in control.
    "I will shoot you" is psychologically the WRONG thing to say. For the proper effect, very calmly(I know it is hard to do in a stress situation) say: I will Kill you.

    If he moves after you have him down, you have several options. Put one next to his head, put one in a leg, kick him as hard as you can in the cajones, deliver a heel to the head(miss the temple unless you are trying to kill him), etc.. Most of the later stuff is for a female. For me the calm approach works best. They seem to always believe me when I tell them the consequences of stupid actions on their part.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I am in the camp of folks who will not say, "I will kill you." Killing the BG is not my goal. Stopping him is.

    If I feel that a warning is warranted (not likely), I will tell him to stop, "or I will shoot." I don't care whether he thinks this threat is as strong as "or I will kill you," because, if he is undeterred due to the weakness of my statement and does not stop, I will shoot.

    In the aftermath, the prosecutors will have one less argument to try to prove that I had criminal intent.

  10. #10
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I am in the camp of folks who will not say, "I will kill you." Killing the BG is not my goal. Stopping him is.

    If I feel that a warning is warranted (not likely), I will tell him to stop, "or I will shoot." I don't care whether he thinks this threat is as strong as "or I will kill you," because, if he is undeterred due to the weakness of my statement and does not stop, I will shoot.

    In the aftermath, the prosecutors will have one less argument to try to prove that I had criminal intent.
    I did not say it was the goal. The goal is to stop whatever you feel is threatening to you. And actually saying what I recommended is likely to REDUCE the chances that use of deadly for will be required. And there is the fact that it is extremely likely that only two people will hear what was said and that if deadly force is required only one will be there to testify.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    I did not say it was the goal. The goal is to stop whatever you feel is threatening to you. And actually saying what I recommended is likely to REDUCE the chances that use of deadly for will be required. And there is the fact that it is extremely likely that only two people will hear what was said and that if deadly force is required only one will be there to testify.
    The whole world has now heard your intentions.

    Anything you say on this board may be used against you in a court of law. Including civil court. Good luck.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The whole world has now heard your intentions.

    Anything you say on this board may be used against you in a court of law. Including civil court. Good luck.
    Not where I live. If Deadly force is justified, no civil suits allowed.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    After one's conviction in criminal court, because the jury believed the intent was to kill and not to defend, that result will just about guarantee an unfavorable outcome in civil court.

    Regardless of what is said on the scene and who is alive to testify about it, what is said on this board may be used in criminal court as evidence of state of mind--long before the case gets to civil court.

    Oh, and many States consider killing someone so that they cannot testify to be death-penalty eligible. So, I strongly recommend not ever posting anything about a victim of your shooting not being able to testify against you.

    Moving on.

  14. #14
    Regular Member frommycolddeadhands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Knob Noster, MO
    Posts
    451
    The only problem I had with the broadcast was the opening line where the news anchor states she was "armed with a conceal carry permit".

    No, she was armed with a pistol. I doubt waving her permit at the man would have had the same effect.
    God is the one driving this stagecoach, I'm just riding shotgun.

  15. #15
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    After one's conviction in criminal court, because the jury believed the intent was to kill and not to defend, that result will just about guarantee an unfavorable outcome in civil court.

    Regardless of what is said on the scene and who is alive to testify about it, what is said on this board may be used in criminal court as evidence of state of mind--long before the case gets to civil court.

    Oh, and many States consider killing someone so that they cannot testify to be death-penalty eligible. So, I strongly recommend not ever posting anything about a victim of your shooting not being able to testify against you.

    Moving on.
    Actually it would help. As I have stated it is a psychological tactic.

    And tactics designed to reduce the likelihood of having to use deadly force does not fit your ridiculous scenario.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by frommycolddeadhands View Post
    The only problem I had with the broadcast was the opening line where the news anchor states she was "armed with a conceal carry permit".

    No, she was armed with a pistol. I doubt waving her permit at the man would have had the same effect.
    I thought the same thing.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    I agree with eye95. Saying you will kill someone, even to control the BG shows intent on your part to commit murder. Telling them that you will shoot if they move puts the ball in the BG's court and makes it self defense. The difference could be between living the rest of your life a free man or spending it behind bars, if you don't get the death penalty. When it comes to something like this, intent holds a lot of weight. But, IANAL.

    I have always thought that if I came home and my door was open, or if I suspected someone was in my house, I would not enter, I would call 911 and wait outside. She took a heck of a chance going back in; what if the intruder was armed? I would let the police "clear" the house, they are trained to do that and I am not. Anyone who emerged prior to the police arriving would do so on the wrong end of my .45, I would attempt to hold them for the police, but unless they presented an imminent threat to me, I would not shoot them if they fled the scene. The fewer gun battles you fight, the greater your chances of a long and healthy life! Give the police a good description and let them do their job. Completely different scenario if the BG tries to harm me.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Good analysis Ruby, eye95, and others.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

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