CCW Holder Catches Intruder

[video=youtube;TLXTnUPhKOY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLXTnUPhKOY[/video]

In my opinion, leaving and then returning to the house was a bad idea. I'm glad it turned out well for her, though.

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

"Don't...shoot...the Sheriff la la la" (Sorry Bob Marley) Nice sweater carry!

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.

Small Arms Collector said:

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.

Click to expand...

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- 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.

okboomer said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Small Arms Collector said:

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.

Click to expand...

"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 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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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. :shocker:

OldCurlyWolf said:

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. :shocker:

Click to expand...

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not where I live. If Deadly force is justified, no civil suits allowed.

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.

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

frommycolddeadhands said:

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.

Click to expand...

I thought the same thing.

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.

Good analysis Ruby, eye95, and others.