Recently I read about a young mother who shot a guy after he broke into her house. And then I saw this video:

http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679792 ... 77235.html

The woman called the cops and actually asked the police if she could shoot the intruder, then calmly waited until he stepped through the door before blasting him with a shotgun. The man's partner-in-crime escaped, only to be caught later and is now being charged with murder.

While I personally believe in a person's right to defend themselves and their property and I congratulate the young woman on having the presence of mind to call the cops and grab a weapon to do just that, I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that she waited several minutes then killed him as he came through the door without even giving a warning. She could have held him there until cops arrived or shot his leg so he couldn't escape, instead of just ending his life. It's not like she was in any immediate life threatening danger.

On the other hand, the guy knew it was illegal to break into a house and was armed with a hunting knife, so he was expecting some resistance and should have known that he could be shot or killed. I'm not sure he deserved death for breaking into a house; definitely a few years in jail, but not death.

What do you think of this whole situation?

If someone breaks into my home, they will be lucky to leave alive. Granted I am trained to first detain, if the subject resisted or continued to pose a threat, I would have to use lethal force. So yes, if someone has to resort to lethal force to defend themselves, they should do so.

i actually just heard about that on the radio

my government teacher once told me this: 'if someone breaks into your home, you can shoot them dead, no questions asked'

especially in that case. If she had someone to protect, who couldn't, and the opposed was armed with a deadly weapon, it's more than okay to fire. I would do the same for my baby brother (he's 2), and fire until i was sure he was dead.

I use the most deadly art to defend my home. The ancient Russian/Australian art of sudden fist, but there's almost no reason to kill the robber, he could have children or loving parents, I don't even know him, but he doesn't know me either, neither of us can justify it if we kill each-other.

So no, I wouldn't just say I could kill a dude if he entered my house, fucked if I know, it could be one of my friends, I'd just tell him he was making a mistake, because I'd hunt him down after with a few of my friends and get my stuff back.

Okay, this is some advice I got from a cop friend of mine in regards to home defense.

If somebody breaks and enters your house, and you are ready to reply with deadly force, first give a warning and call the police. If the intruder refuses to yield, use deadly force immediately. The reasoning behind this is that if you utilize non-lethal force against an intruder, and you don't have video or audio surveillance of the incident, they can say anything in a court of law to dispute your own claims. Long story short: dead men tell no tales. Yes, he/she may have a kid, may have a family; they really should have thought of that when they refused to leave after the home owner said they had a loaded weapon. Remember, the home owner may have family too, it makes sense that they would defend that family by any means necessary.

...legal advice is for those who are planning to be robbed.

In the instant of realization there is a clarity that comes to the mind. It is thrilling, terrible, exciting, and horrific all in the same moment. The knowledge that some unknown person is inside one's home without permission, without warning, and without courtesy. The victim does not know why the intruder has come. The victim is not safe in assuming that the person is present for the sole reason to pilfer items. Residential home invasions and criminal barricades begin because home owners assumed that the invaders were thieves.

Those who are trained to physically detain other individuals will have an advantage over others who do not. Those who have experience with martial arts and self defense will have an advantage over those who do not. Those who own, and are trained in, a fire-arm will have an advantage over those who do not. ...in that moment of the silent mental scream where the victim realizes that their life is at risk, there is a question which perhaps only their soul can answer.

"Should I kill them?"

...prattling on about the question and what could be is the domain of those who have not experienced this moment.


No offense is meant to those who might try to imagine it, however.

Put it this way, you have to move a fridge and all you have is a bicycle and a tractor. You're not going to get anywhere with the bicycle so you're forced to use the tractor.

If you don't have the training and the means to use non-lethal force and restrain the number of attackers, then you move right up the continuum of force until you find a level that neutralizes the threat to yours and your families safety. Your goal is to make it to the next day in one piece. You can contemplate the philosophical implications once the incident is over.

Legal consultation is for those who are willing to be prepared for any given situation. There is some validity to the point of self-victimization, that by expecting crime to happen they in turn facilitate it's proliferation. However, preparing for such an encounter is not the same as instigating it. One instigates or makes themselves vulnerable to criminal activity long before they ever plan to deal with it. The fact is that one's choice of locale will affect the probability of such a crime occurring to them.

If one lives in an area where robberies and thieving occur at a higher than average rate then building and asset security is much more important than firearms discipline. Likewise if one lives in a community where home invasions are common then the capacity to rapidly evaluate people's motives is far more important than self-defense training. And if violence is common in a neighborhood, then an understanding of force and the legal text surrounding it's use is important to understand. After all if you overstep your bounds as a citizen in the application of force because you did not understand the legal text, it will cost you; you can't defend your home or family while you're in jail, or the hospital. Remember, fortune favors the prepared.

By attempting a robbery I believe the victim forfeited his life by placing it in the hands of the mother, just as if her life is in their hands. Yes, there is the moral situation of "should I" or "shouldn't I", but the home is one of the few sanctuaries one can call their own aside from the mind. To be invading it with malicious intent is more than asking for some form of self defense, be it a bat or gun.

I feel as if shouting out a warning would only put yourself at a disadvantage when faced with an intruder. The knowledge that you are ready to reply with force will tell the intruder that the homeowner most likely has a gun- as most will not be as willing if they had nothing but a bat. Sure, the bat gives one an advantage, but when faced with an unknown robber or rapist would you rather have the bat or gun? The intruder may well back off, but that person will probably assault another home or maybe even come back later when he has a better element of surprise.

The robbers deserved everything they god, in my opinion. I feel that legal boundaries only blur that distinct line. Something so simple as "This is my home, I will defend it from an intruder with lethal force" has to be muddled by "But you killed him" or "He demands compensation because giving him a broken leg with your bat wasn't necessary to get him to leave" and all that.

I know that if anyone ever broke into my house and I did not know who the person was I would definitely use deadly force against them. But I also know that you have to be careful how you do it and where it happens because the law can easily fuck you even if you were defending yourself. For example where I live you cannot kill someone unless they are physically in your home and have a deadly weapon with them. Otherwise if you kill them outside of your home then you will go to jail, if you kill them in your home and they dont have a deadly weapon you will go to jail. If you shoot them in the back you will go to jail.

So all I know is that if someone breaks into my home and if I do make the choice to tell them to leave and they refuse I will kill them and then place a kitchen knife in their hand. Because they were the one who chose to come into my home univited with malicious intent. If they needed financial help there are better ways to get it than to steal from someones home, especially someone who they do not know.

I do not know this for a fact but from what I have heard about Texas is that if someone is on your property without your permission you can shoot them right then and there. Now don't get me wrong I wouldnt shoot someone from just being on my land unless they were doing something malicious. But if they refused to leave I would call the police first unless they threatened my life.

Gasmask wrote:I use the most deadly art to defend my home. The ancient Russian/Australian art of sudden fist, but there's almost no reason to kill the robber, he could have children or loving parents, I don't even know him, but he doesn't know me either, neither of us can justify it if we kill each-other.

So no, I wouldn't just say I could kill a dude if he entered my house, fucked if I know, it could be one of my friends, I'd just tell him he was making a mistake, because I'd hunt him down after with a few of my friends and get my stuff back.

Well, I see your point that there are other ways of going about someone breaking into your house other than killing them. Although if someone were to break into my house, I would of course grab the bottle of pepper spray and nail the guy in a heartbeat. However, if I didn't have pepper spray I wouldn't hesitate to grab the nearest knife for self-defense. You just don't think "Well what if he has children" when someone breaks into your house - you just don't. And if the robber/serial killer/rapist whoever it is has kids? Well, he should have thought twice before breaking in!

This is kind of like the Stand Your Ground law in Florida. It has some sense to it, ie defend yourself if you can rightfully do so. However both laws permit the murder of an individual through escalated force. This I disagree with. If you escalate the force, that is to shoot someone trying to punch you, you're no longer defending yourself and have instead become the agitator. But I've seen example after example where in the States the law's been twisted so backwards you couldn't right it if you'd written the damn things.

I remember a while back, there was a story in the news here, in which a man who owned a jewel shop (What's that called? a jeweler?) had been closing down his shop for the day, and then suddenly two men, armed with firearms had busted through the door, demanding that the owner of the shop handed over all his money/valuable things. The shop owner refused, and grabbed a hunting rifle, and proceeded to shoot the two robbers.

He was later sent to jail for that.

It really parted the waves here, because yes, it's not right to shoot people, but most admitted that if they had been in his situation, they would do the same. I guess it's a matter or not of if you can decide to be the victim or not. Roles can shift really fast like that.

I think the woman in the first story should have yelled a warning to the intruder, but I also think that she was right to defend herself, her home, her family. The intruder made the decision to enter someone's home without permission in the first place. Isn't that just as wrong?

Leli wrote:This is kind of like the Stand Your Ground law in Florida. It has some sense to it, ie defend yourself if you can rightfully do so. However both laws permit the murder of an individual through escalated force. This I disagree with. If you escalate the force, that is to shoot someone trying to punch you, you're no longer defending yourself and have instead become the agitator.

What would you do if a stranger tried to punch you?

If a stranger punches you, chances are they intend to fight you. Fight: to exchange blows, usually until one or the other cannot continue. Most street fights go beyond this, and the stranger continues to assault you even though you may be curled up on the ground. There would probably be one or more of his friends in the background to provide backup, who may or may not participate in the assault.

Now, I am assuming that you are in a public place when you are punched by a stranger and not in a bar, and neither party is intoxicated. Bar fights are different, and drunk people should not have firearms.

If I was assaulted by a stranger, there would be many uknowns; I don't know how strong he is or if he has any martial arts experience, and I would much rather not bet my skills against his. I would draw my gun and make sure he knew I had it (it's pretty hard to mistake a pistol for anything else). If he continues in a threatening way, by preparing to punch or taking a threatening step forward, then he is getting shot. Period. If he is armed with a knife, a bat, a crowbar, etc. he is getting shot. I will not risk my safety nor my life assuming that I am strong enough to overpower him physically, because I'm really not that muscular.

I've always seen it like this, we as a society have rules in place to protect peoples safety right? If you want to live in society you have to follow the rules. If you intentionally break those rules, you lose their protection as well, and your own safety is forfeit.

This is why we should all support jury trials. The law is static and inflexible but situations are infinitely variable. Juries exist to keep a static system of law from reaching ridiculous conclusions such as sending a person to jail for shooting a home invader or exonerating a person for shooting someone who only punched him. Juries keep the law from becoming the farce it becomes whenever juries are removed from the equation.

viper45 wrote:Recently I read about a young mother who shot a guy after he broke into her house. And then I saw this video:

http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679792 ... 77235.html

The woman called the cops and actually asked the police if she could shoot the intruder, then calmly waited until he stepped through the door before blasting him with a shotgun. The man's partner-in-crime escaped, only to be caught later and is now being charged with murder.

While I personally believe in a person's right to defend themselves and their property and I congratulate the young woman on having the presence of mind to call the cops and grab a weapon to do just that, I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that she waited several minutes then killed him as he came through the door without even giving a warning. She could have held him there until cops arrived or shot his leg so he couldn't escape, instead of just ending his life. It's not like she was in any immediate life threatening danger.

On the other hand, the guy knew it was illegal to break into a house and was armed with a hunting knife, so he was expecting some resistance and should have known that he could be shot or killed. I'm not sure he deserved death for breaking into a house; definitely a few years in jail, but not death.

What do you think of this whole situation?

Well, lets just say, if I spent 21 minutes (I check several news sources, her call with 911 lasted 20-21 minutes), with some dude outside my house with a hunting knife trying to smash his way through all of of the doors leading into my house, I'm sure as hell not wasting any time or ammo with a warning shot.

Now add in to the mix, that it was two men trying to break into the house, she didn't know how the other one was armed and the fact that the cops believe that both men were high, it would have been very very very stupid of this young mother to attempt to hold them at gun point until the cops arrived. As to the leg shot thing, real life doesn't work like it does in the movies. A leg shot doesn't mean the intruder will go down and they can be fatal.

I'll bring up the North Hollywood Shootout. One of the two robbers there, went down only after he took 29 rounds to his legs. The other guy took a bullet to his right hand, drew a pistol with that hand, dropped his pistol when his right hand was shot again, picked the weapon up with his right hand and continued using it.