Neighborhood Watch

[Jonesy]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

TexasNative wrote:

I see the difference, I just don't think it's applicable in this circumstance.

According to the OP, two LEOs state that "the Commonwealth holds that you have a duty to retreat." If you don't think that's intended to give people the impression that it's the law, then you have a completely different frame of reference from me.

I think most laypersons would believe that a LEO telling them that the Commonwealth holds that they have a duty to do something, they're not talking about charity, or morality, or anything other than the law. If the LEOs don't understand how that statement would be perceived by laypersons, then they shouldn't be making presentations to Neighborhood Watch groups, because they're out of touch with the folks they're serving.

And I say that to you, too, 229. If you believe you can say that as a LEO to an ordinary run-of-the-mill citizen and not leave them with the impression that you're telling them it's the law, then you've lost touch with the reality of us "common folk."

~ Boyd

ETA: IOW, what Citizen said. He's concise and to the point. I'm a lot more long-winded.

Let's look at the entire string of text..

"They said that the Commonwealth holds that you have a duty to retreat, even if someone is trying to break into your home, you should leave via another exit! "

I see the use of the word "should" and that negates the assumption that this is some legal requirement.

They are only encouraging you to get away. Nothing implied that it was a legal requirement.

What I get from it is this....

The Commonwealth's attorney is not going to look too favorably if you blast someone with your shotgun for just being in your home. If you could escape and you killed him... it is not going to look good for you.

I have agreed with you at times on this board, but I couldn't disagree more with what you say here. The police telling people in such a context that "the commonwealth holds that you have a duty to retreat, even if someone is trying to break into your home" is clearly a statement that there is law requiring retreat in such a situation, which is clearly incorrect. It is irrelevant if they follow up by saying you should leave by another exit. These police are likely not lying, just misinformed.

Further, standing your ground in your own home does not mean you will have to shoot an intruder, often an intruder will retreat when giving a verbal warning, when seeing a weapon, etc. You cannot use deadly force on an intruder in your home unless you have a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm.

You give the example of shooting someone with a shotgun just for being in your home when you could have escaped. Again, You have NO DUTY TO RETREAT unless you were at fault in causing the incident. This is true inside your home or out in public. If an intruder is advancing on you such that you have reasonable fear of serious bodily harm youcan use deadly force in self defense. to help your legal position verbal warnings to stop and some retreat may help, but the law does not seem to so require.

People should be informed of what the law requires, and should not be informed by police of a duty to retreat that does not exist in the law and may even put them in greater harm.

 

[TexasNative]

imported post

Steering back away from addressing the supposed ignorance of posters here, or any other of their personal characteristics (referring to LEO 229's most recent post, not the two intervening ones since then)...

As supported by others who have posted in this thread, when we hear "the Commonwealth holds that you have a duty to retreat" from someone who has invaded your home, we're left with the impression that the speaker is telling us that the law requires us to retreat. Again, that's why I say it's unprofessional for a LEO to say that.

And contrary to your post, 229, home invasions don't necessarily mean the residents are be tied up or robbed. We can talk about how we respond to someone in our homes later. This discussion, as I understand it, is about how we think the LEOs referenced in the OP were unprofessional, and you disagree, despite mounting (and unrefuted) evidence indicating your position isn't supported by the citizenry.

ETA clarification in first paragraph that I'm referring to 229's most recent post.

 

[Jonesy]

imported post

alnitak wrote:

I am not an expert, but it seems that leaving the home is tactically wrong:

1) You are leaving a defensible position. Chances are you are holed up in the bedroom or hallway with only one means of entry that you are protecting. Why leave a defensible position and open youself up to attack from multiple directions?

2) Your are leaving a known situation for an unknown one with no intel. What if the BG has friends waiting outside? What if you exit the home only to come face-to-face with an armed BG, who happens to be sitting in ambush or a defensible position?

3) Keeping all yor "forces" together makes sense. Why risk getting separated from your family -- probably unarmed people (children) you need to protect? Have you and your family practiced exit techniques (more likely only gather and defend)? Can you cover them at all times? Are your physical abilities relatively equal so you can move together as a unit?

There may be more considerations, but these seem sufficient for me to stay put and defend.

Well said, I couldn't agree more. There may be a few instances when it may be prudent to flee, but many times such will not be the wisest tactical decision.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

alnitak wrote:

I am not an expert, but it seems that leaving the home is tactically wrong:

1) You are leaving a defensible position. Chances are you are holed up in the bedroom or hallway with only one means of entry that you are protecting. Why leave a defensible position and open youself up to attack from multiple directions?

2) Your are leaving a known situation for an unknown one with no intel. What if the BG has friends waiting outside? What if you exit the home only to come face-to-face with an armed BG, who happens to be sitting in ambush or a defensible position?

3) Keeping all yor "forces" together makes sense. Why risks getting separated from your family -- probably unarmed people (children) you need to protect? Have you and your family practiced exit techniques (more likely only gather and defend)? Can you cover them at all times? Are your physical abilities relatively equal so you can move together as a unit?

There may be more considerations, but these seem sufficient for me to stay put and defend.

If you have family.... you need to stay together. Some people live on the top floor of a townhouse and cannot leave. But they can all move to one location. You do not need to immediately go downstairs and blast the intruder with your gun.

We can play "what if" games all day.

You are acting like the burglar has devised some type of elaborate plan to counter your escape attempts and will deploy a team of men to ambush you.

But the norm is that burglars do not surround a house so they can catch you. So that is nonsense!!

Unless they are there to kidnap someone... this simply does not happen. Burglars normally work alone or in a pair.

You know your house, yard, and neighborhood better than a burglar. You can easily tell your kids and spouse to run for Ned Flanders' house while you watch their back.

Or you can stay inside and hope you are not shot, killed, and your family harmed.

I am speaking from experience in what I provide. Your chances on meeting a burglar that wants to harm you is very remote. They want your property.. not you.

The armatures do it at night while the pros do it during the day. The difference is the pros know when to go in and have less of a chance to meet the occupants.

 

[TexasNative]

imported post

None of which addresses the fact that I have no duty to retreat from someone who has broken into my house. Nor does it address our collective opinion that it is unprofessional for a LEO to tell us that the Commonwealth holds that we have a duty to retreat from someone who has broken into our house.

It just ain't true. I can't see any option other than 1) he had no clue how most folks understand the word "duty," b) he was ignorant of relevant law, or iii) he was misleading his audience in the hopes of getting them to behave in the way he wanted them to (what lots of folks call "lying"). All of which are unprofessional.

~ Boyd

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

1. Burglary is a property crime. Most burglars avoid people.

2. Home invasion is a crime against persons, or usually develops into one. If you break into somebody's home when you KNOW people are there, or you stick around after you find out people are there, you're usually open to other "possibilities" than mere theft. Ask the doctor in Connecticut who had his family raped and slaughtered. LEO229 would have had him run out the back door (or jump out of a window) and leave his family.

3. LEO229 would have us trust in the good sense, and better nature of someone KNOWINGLY and unlawfully in our homes against our will. And if you can't trust in home invaders, whom CAN you trust in?

4. If you have such a drinking problem that you force you way into other people's homes, get help... or possibly get shot. Your alcoholism isn't my concern. My personal safety is. Years ago, a drunken Scot scaled a Houston homeowner's high back fence and tried to kick in his back door. The homeowner told him he had a gun and would shoot if he made it through the door. He partially kicked the door in and was shot dead. Don't want to get shot? Don't kick in people's doors. It puts them in reasonable fear of imminent threat to life and limb.

5. I've only ever visited Virginia, never lived there. In Ohio, even on the street, you have a LEGAL duty to retreat, ONLY if you can do so "in perfect safety". I've go NO duty to retreat in my own home and don't ever plan to, certainly unless my "visitors" have a Lahti anti-tank rifle or some other form of overwhelming firepower.

6. "The Commonwealth holds that you have a duty..." means ONLY one thing. Claims to the contrary are at BEST sophistry, at worst dishonest attempts to deceive and mislead. LEO229's "argument" reminds me of a conversation I once had with Ft. Knox MPI after my supply sergeant's estranged (and deranged) husband started making threatening phonecalls to her in my supply room. He plainly stated that he intended to "get her". The MPI said to me, "But what does that really mean? Maybe he meant he'd get her an icecream cone." It's one thing for police to try that BS in order to avoid doing their jobs. It's quite another for them to use it to try to get you to endanger yourself in your own home. It is however par for the course when LEO229 justifies police incompetence or misbehavior.

I see you do not know much about property crimes.

There are different levels for different intent for burglaries

• Unlawful entry

• Burglary

• Burglary of an occupied dwelling

• Burglary with intent to commit assault

• Home Invasion Robbery (Burglary with intent to commit murder, rape, robbery)

Burglary is NOT always a property crime. Burglary can be done with the intent to assault, murder, or rape the occupant.

A home invasion is far different than a simple burglary. This is where the occupants are sought out, tied up, and robbed.

I am not telling you to trust anything. Only suggesting you think about the links I posted and understand what can happen.

That is what I have been doing here for years. I am thinking outside the box and giving you something to consider. So many on here would simply agree... "ya, we all concur that anyone in my home should be shot."

In your own words you boast that someone being drunk and lost in your home is not "your problem". that is sad that you would kill and blow it off as his problem, not mine.

And the MPI was right. "I am going to get her" is not enough. You can take it as a threat but it simply does not fly in court. It is the same as me saying "I got something for ya'!" I could have a bullet, an ass kicking, or the money I owe you. "Get her" could mean something as little as pay her back by closing out our bank account and keep the money.

IMO... So it seems that you are just an unreasonable person.

Could ANYONE be at all surprised that you'd be in the corner of a batterer in direct violation of his commander's lawful order not to have ANY contact with his wife? And by the way, I told the MPI that I wasn't moving an inch until the husband was arrested. Apparently he agreed with me and not you, since within the hour, he was brought in in cuffs. Apparently communicating threats of violence to a woman, against direct lawful order is "reasonable", but doing something to STOP it, ISN'T.

I'm not your babysitter. I'm not your substance abuse counselor. If you kick in my door in an alcoholic rage, my concern is for ME, NOT you. I didn't sit on your chest and pour gin down your throat. YOU got YOURSELF drunk. If that causes you to do stupid things that put others in reasonable fear of life and limb, shame on you. STOP DRINKING. You have absolutely ZERO legal right to impose your violent alcoholism on me IN MY HOME. I have precisely ZERO duty, legal OR moral to pander to your stupidity by imperiling myself.

And again we see the classic pattern:

"I have no duty to protect you."

"You have no right to protect yourself."

 

[Jonesy]

imported post

TexasNative wrote:

None of which addresses the fact that I have no duty to retreat from someone who has broken into my house. Nor does it address our collective opinion that it is unprofessional for a LEO to tell us that the Commonwealth holds that we have a duty to retreat from someone who has broken into our house.

It just ain't true. I can't see any option other than 1) he had no clue how most folks understand the word "duty," b) he was ignorant of relevant law, or iii) he was misleading his audience in the hopes of getting them to behave in the way he wanted them to (what lots of folks call "lying"). All of which are unprofessional.

~ Boyd

Agree 100%. LEO 229, we all understand that it may be prudent and safest to retreat at times, but such is not required unless one is at fault in causing the incident.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

TexasNative wrote:

Steering back away from addressing the supposed ignorance of posters here, or any other of their personal characteristics (referring to LEO 229's most recent post, not the two intervening ones since then)...

As supported by others who have posted in this thread, when we hear "the Commonwealth holds that you have a duty to retreat" from someone who has invaded your home, we're left with the impression that the speaker is telling us that the law requires us to retreat. Again, that's why I say it's unprofessional for a LEO to say that.

And contrary to your post, 229, home invasions don't necessarily mean the residents are be tied up or robbed. We can talk about how we respond to someone in our homes later. This discussion, as I understand it, is about how we think the LEOs referenced in the OP were unprofessional, and you disagree, despite mounting (and unrefuted) evidence indicating your position isn't supported by the citizenry.

ETA clarification in first paragraph that I'm referring to 229's most recent post.

And you are all certainly entitled to read it that way.

It seems that everyone wants to fight what I think. :lol:

I read it one way and told you exactly why. Feel free to read it how you like. I do understand why you see it that way. I am not blind.

We will have to agree to disagree. Neither side willing to vary their interpretation.

You added with the discussion on home invasion robbery.

Yes, the definition of a home invasion does not require being tied up and robbed. But this is typically what happens. I used it as a quick example. A home invasion can involve a burglary, abduction, assault, and robbery.. all rolled into one.

A better example would be:

I break in, find you, and force you to open the safe.

This is one way a home invasion robbery can play out.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Well, obviously I am the odd man out.

So many trying to convince me to tell people to stay in their home and shoot people.

Not going to do it. Sorry guys. :lol:

 

[peter nap]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

HardChrome wrote:

My neighborhood has a Neighborhood Watch as well but I use it differently. I call the rep AFTER I call the police rather than before.

I had a prowler situation just last night. A neighbor knocked on my door to tell me that someone was sitting in my yard and the police were on the way.

By the time I got out the door with my pistol and a flashlight, the first officer was just pulling up. Two more showed up and none said anything about the gun on my hip and neither did any of the several neighbors who were out by then.

Turned out to be a kid waiting for his girlfriend but it was good to see such a good response by the police.

I'm not going to rely on some neighbor to translate my call to the police while I wait by the phone.

Someone sitting in your yard is not actually a "prowler".

Unless he is walking around your house checking doors and windows looking inside it is a suspicious person.

Someone sitting in my yard is is suffering from a desire to harm himself!

 

[TexasNative]

imported post

How about this? You find a Neighborhood Watch to address as an LEO (in your purty little uniform with your jackboots and everything! ), let me know when and where, and I'll come and grill you when you tell the assembled citizens that they have a duty to retreat. Then we can ask them what they think about you telling them the Commonwealth says that they have a duty to retreat, when there is no law that says that.

Sound good?

~ Boyd

 

[ravonaf]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Well, obviously I am the odd man out.

So many trying to convince me to tell people to stay in their home and shoot people.

Not going to do it. Sorry guys. :lol:

It's fortunate we don't need your permission to defend our homes.

 

[Marco]

imported post

They would be impersonating a chew toy.

 

[peter nap]

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

They would be impersonating a chew toy.

Zeus Toy:lol:

 

[Jonesy]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Well, obviously I am the odd man out.

So many trying to convince me to tell people to stay in their home and shoot people.

Not going to do it. Sorry guys. :lol:

Will you retreat out of your home if someone breaks in? I suspect in most cases not.Most of us were not suggesting shooting anyone, only clarifying that there is NOT a duty to retreat when not at fault. Why is this so hard to grasp?

 

[Marco]

imported post

He can make it to the fence in 0.2 sec can you.:lol:


I allow uninvited guest to meet a God, up close and personal.
It will be a religious experience.

Thor

 

[alnitak]

imported post

EO 229 wrote:

If you have family.... you need to stay together. Some people live on the top floor of a townhouse and cannot leave. But they can all move to one location. You do not need to immediately go downstairs and blast the intruder with your gun.

I wasn't talking about clearing the house or going downstairs and engaging the intruders. I'll leave that to the experts. I'm talking about gathering my family together in the safest, most defensible position I have, calling 911, and protecting them until the LEOs have made the house safe again. Please don't put words into my mouth.

We can play "what if" games all day.

You are acting like the burglar has devised some type of elaborate plan to counter your escape attempts and will deploy a team of men to ambush you.

No...I don't think they will set up an ambush. But it doesn't seem far-fetched to think they may have a lookout or two waiting outside. What if we run right into their arms and they panic??

But the norm is that burglars do not surround a house so they can catch you. So that is nonsense!!

Unless they are there to kidnap someone... this simply does not happen. Burglars normally work alone or in a pair.

You know your house, yard, and neighborhood better than a burglar. You can easily tell your kids and spouse to run for Ned Flanders' house while you watch their back.

Watch their back from a distance while they run into the arms of a lookout, who may have a knife or gun? Then what do I do -- shoot through my kids to save them? Oh wait,...I can't shoot since I must retreat!...I think not!

Or you can stay in side and hope you are not shot, killed, and your family harmed.

"Hope" has nothing to do with it. I will employ the best defensive tactics I can and use whatever means I have available. I think that is a more prudent option than running into an unknown situation and turning my back on a possibly armed intruder.

I am speaking from experience in what I provide. Your chances on meeting a burglar that wants to harm you is very remote. They want your property.. not you.

I agree. They can have all the property they want. I am not going to engage someone and risk my family over "things."

The armatures do it at night while the pros do it during the day. The difference is the pros know when to go in and have less of a chance to meet the occupants.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

ravonaf wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Well, obviously I am the odd man out.

So many trying to convince me to tell people to stay in their home and shoot people.

Not going to do it. Sorry guys. :lol:

It's fortunate we don't need your permission to defend our homes.

It's a choice... not a permission. :lol:

 

[Marco]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote: snip

So many trying to convince me to tell people to stay in their home and shoot people.

I've read the entire thread and don't see anyone saying that.

Can you please provide where someone made that statement.

 

[crazydude6030]

imported post

If I was there and a LEO told me a had a duty to retreat i would take that as meaning law regardless of how they meant it. I say that because they are the ones who write tickets and decide charges. So if they are using terms like "Duty to retreat" then personally i would take that to mean i had to leave my house.

Just my two cents.

Alnitak wrote:

I'm talking about gathering my family together in the safest, most defensible position I have, calling 911, and protecting them until the LEOs have made the house safe again. Please don't put words into my mouth.

Maybe slightly off topic, but in my house we practice doing this very thing. Living in a town house if someone where to break in we would have little chance to retreat without engaging the invader. We have several game plans depending on the situation. Always need to be prepared.