Thread: Self Defense: Yea or Nay

Originally Posted by bigTlilODD

A lot of home invasion robberies are committed by criminals dressed as law enforcement and announce themselves as such.

You have three options:
-Show me a warrant
-Get the fuck out
-Die

Take your pick

Originally Posted by reality

Identify. Then shoot them. By identify I mean try to ascertain who they are without drawing attention to yourself.

Then shoot them?

No caveats about not shooting depending on who they are?

Originally Posted by jbeukema

Then shoot them?

No caveats about not shooting depending on who they are?

I can't imagine how armed men in my house would be legal. Cops have to announce. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that a group of armed men in my home are there illegally, in which case it is my right and duty to shoot the fuck out them. Even if theyre in uniform. Gotta love that Castle Law.

If it was family you don't shoot.

Make sure the wife and kids are secure, and find a defensive position from which I can safely ambush. You do arrange and choose furniture with that contingency in mind, don't you?

On that note, does anybody know if the Taser shotgun shells are available for purchase yet? Don't want to mess up the carpets unnecessarily.

Of course, most of these home invasions occur in the wee small hours, when you will be both really groggy and pissed, and less tactically minded.

In a somewhat related matter Jerome Ersland was just convicted today of 1st degree murder for his actions in a robbery in OKC in 2009. For those unfamiliar with the case I'll gove a quick rundown:

Ersland was working at a pharmacy in Oklahoma City. Two kids came in and attempted to rob him. One kid pulled a gun and Ersland shot at him but missed. He did hit the other kid who was unarmed and that kid hit the floor. Ersland then chased the kid with the gun out of the store but came back in after a couple of seconds. He walked back to the counter stepping over the body of the kid that he shot and went to a drawer in the back of the store where he grabbed another weapon and then walked back to the kid on the floor and shot him 5 times. The security camera footage can be seen here.

This was a proper verdict and it seems that the jury was out for less than 4 hours.

Use of force is a serious matter. I see all kinds of comments here and elsewhere saying this, that or the other should happen in such and such a case. I see all kinds of comments about how a "threat" can be determined and what should be done to eliminate that threat. Many of those comments tend toward the "shoot the sumbitch until he stops twitching and then twice more for good measure" ideology. Even today I am seeing those kind of comments not just here but on another forum which is geared far more toward the ideals of "conservativism" than this one is. I understand that mindset but it is misguided and dangerous.

Before exercising the use of deadly force you MUST make sure of what you are doing and who you are doing it to. If you are a pharmacist who just got robbed at gunpoint I can understand that your adrenaline is pumping but exercising deadly force against an incapacitated target is STILL wrong. If you are a cop who is confronted by a suspect holding a weapon you STILL need to assess whether that suspect has an intent to use that weapon and if your house is being broken into by unknown people with guns you STILL need to assess whether they intend to use them or not.

Ersland initially did everything right. He recognized the threat, took cover, took aim at a legitimate target without putting anyone else at risk and took his shot. It was the stuff after that where he screwed up. In Tucson we don't have all the facts yet but it seems that Jose Gurena handled things just about right. He recognized a threat, picked up his weapon and (based on the weapon still being on safe) was in the process of assessing the threat when he was shot. It seems that the SWAT cops who shot Guerena are the ones who fucked up. It appears that they instigated a threatening situation and then opened fire before assessing the situation.

The overarching rule regarding use of force is "Only use that force which is necessary to eliminate the threat". We are human. We won't always abide by that rule 100% but we always need to be aware that when we choose to or are left with no option but to use deadly force we are committing ourselves to an act which will have consequences that are quite likely to be irreversible.

How would a police officer react to his wife if she just woke him up and said I saw a man in the bushes with a gun?

In my hometown two late teen guys picked up a couple of 16 year old girls. Their plan was to go drinking. The boys stopped at a convenience store and went inside and one guy distracted the clerk while the other shoplifted a case of beer. As they left the store the clerk realized what happened and he grabbed a gun and ran out the door and shot at the car as it drove away. One of the girls was shot and immediately died.

The girls had no idea what was going on - they thought the boys were old enough to buy beer.

In another case 80 miles away a boy and his date ran out of gas. He mowed the lawn of a fellow that lived nearby, and his lawnmower was there, along with his gas can. He went to get the gas can. The home owner heard the noise and shot and killed the kid. Dead over a can of gasoline! And, it was the kids own gasoline.

When I hear people talk about the security that gun ownership provides I think of those two kids.

Trespassing or theft can get you killed. Yeah, the teen girl didn't know she was getting a ride from a thief and became a victim of the actions of the thief.

I never need to worry about such an incident. I have one of these by my doors;

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

So far in Imagination World, Traveler has the best aim (bullet in the head), EricOKC has the best range (shot before they even enter) and tsquare has the most bang for the buck (grenade).

I would shoot them in the eye with an RPG before they even set foot on my lawn. Beat THAT.

An M1A1 Abrams from a hill about a mile away, if I can't get a BBS in the harbor or my real favorite, a Predator operated from Arizona.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Seriously... I'd take a look. If I could ID them, and ID them as possible friendlies (assuming I knew I didn't do anything deserving of the SWAT team) they might not take fire from me. Plus, they would have to be very very good to get to the house through the woods w/o the dog going crazy. And with relatives in 2 of the 3 surrounding houses they would likely get caught in the cross fire once things get going.

Past that, my personal belief is that your status in hell is determined by the number of your enemies you take with you.

After all, it is a good day to die.

Well, we can be sure you're not in any apparent danger of dying today, cause that's the ONLY time people say that.

After calling 911 I'd slip out the basement and join them, then ask that we go over the plan one more time, just to be sure

Originally Posted by lutherf

In a somewhat related matter Jerome Ersland was just convicted today of 1st degree murder for his actions in a robbery in OKC in 2009. For those unfamiliar with the case I'll gove a quick rundown:

Ersland was working at a pharmacy in Oklahoma City. Two kids came in and attempted to rob him. One kid pulled a gun and Ersland shot at him but missed. He did hit the other kid who was unarmed and that kid hit the floor. Ersland then chased the kid with the gun out of the store but came back in after a couple of seconds. He walked back to the counter stepping over the body of the kid that he shot and went to a drawer in the back of the store where he grabbed another weapon and then walked back to the kid on the floor and shot him 5 times. The security camera footage can be seen here.

This was a proper verdict and it seems that the jury was out for less than 4 hours.

Use of force is a serious matter. I see all kinds of comments here and elsewhere saying this, that or the other should happen in such and such a case. I see all kinds of comments about how a "threat" can be determined and what should be done to eliminate that threat. Many of those comments tend toward the "shoot the sumbitch until he stops twitching and then twice more for good measure" ideology. Even today I am seeing those kind of comments not just here but on another forum which is geared far more toward the ideals of "conservativism" than this one is. I understand that mindset but it is misguided and dangerous.

Before exercising the use of deadly force you MUST make sure of what you are doing and who you are doing it to. If you are a pharmacist who just got robbed at gunpoint I can understand that your adrenaline is pumping but exercising deadly force against an incapacitated target is STILL wrong. If you are a cop who is confronted by a suspect holding a weapon you STILL need to assess whether that suspect has an intent to use that weapon and if your house is being broken into by unknown people with guns you STILL need to assess whether they intend to use them or not.

Ersland initially did everything right. He recognized the threat, took cover, took aim at a legitimate target without putting anyone else at risk and took his shot. It was the stuff after that where he screwed up. In Tucson we don't have all the facts yet but it seems that Jose Gurena handled things just about right. He recognized a threat, picked up his weapon and (based on the weapon still being on safe) was in the process of assessing the threat when he was shot. It seems that the SWAT cops who shot Guerena are the ones who fucked up. It appears that they instigated a threatening situation and then opened fire before assessing the situation.

The overarching rule regarding use of force is "Only use that force which is necessary to eliminate the threat". We are human. We won't always abide by that rule 100% but we always need to be aware that when we choose to or are left with no option but to use deadly force we are committing ourselves to an act which will have consequences that are quite likely to be irreversible.

(Emphasis mine).

I disagree completely.

If someone with a gun is breaking into my home, I am going to shoot him. The fact that he has a gun is all the intent that I need to know.

Originally Posted by John Drake

An M1A1 Abrams from a hill about a mile away, if I can't get a BBS in the harbor or my real favorite, a Predator operated from Arizona.

Or armor piercing bullets from guns that hit targets 300 feet away right?

I noticed someone had actually voted no on the poll and was going to look at who, but there's really no need, its you isn't it?

Originally Posted by smurf

(Emphasis mine).

I disagree completely.

If someone with a gun is breaking into my home, I am going to shoot him. The fact that he has a gun is all the intent that I need to know.

Great. Disagree all you like but I would suggest that instead of emphasizing the part of my post that you did you should consider emphasizing this part:

We won't always abide by that rule 100% but we always need to be aware that when we choose to or are left with no option but to use deadly force we are committing ourselves to an act which will have consequences that are quite likely to be irreversible.