Post natural disaster such as a big hurricane. Power and most phones are out. During the night a window breaks or a door is kicked open to the home. Someone having presumably entered the home through the broken window or kicked in door is rummaging through the house, probably using their own flashlight. Is turning on their flashlight the best thing for the homeowner to do first? Should the homeowner illuminate their target before shooting? Especially in states that have clear castle doctrine laws which state that a homeowner may presume the intent exists to inflict grave bodily harm by someone unlawfully entering their home by force?
Top Ten Failures of the Concealed Carry Crowd
- Thread starter Bttbbob
- Start date
Post natural disaster such as a big hurricane. Power and most phones are out. During the night a window breaks or a door is kicked open to the home. Someone having presumably entered the home through the broken window or kicked in door is rummaging through the house, probably using their own flashlight. Is turning on their flashlight the best thing for the homeowner to do first? Should the homeowner illuminate their target before shooting? Especially in states that have clear castle doctrine laws which state that a homeowner may presume the intent exists to inflict grave bodily harm by someone unlawfully entering their home by force?
I sure do. Non-lethal alternatives are critical where I live.
Maybe you guys can be successful getting "huh" added to the dictionary. If your homeboy had done any homework, he would realize the importance of non-lethal alternatives. He certainly jumped into the legalities of this issue without the slightest trace of background information, citing neither case law or statute. The speculations of a layman on legal issues is usually less than worthless.
whodat2710
New member
OK, I have really enjoyed watching the urine fly and the comments degrade to personal atacks. Here's my take:
1. Yup, I hope I am not one of those, but I have met those who are.
2. I think that adding something that is widely debated to a "definitive" top ten list is probably a bad idea.
3. I would agree. Sometimes I find myself forgetting to grab the pocket knife or flashlight (especially if I leave the house during the day)
4. Biggest possible problem on the list. Train and practice all you want, but if you walk around clueless to your surroundings...
5. I would say it is more of a failure to use those fundamentals. I was at the range with an "instructor" teaching a first time shooter basic marksmanship in the next lane. The first thing he did was draw 3 little circles above the printed sillouette(sp.) target for the newbie to use as a warm up before he made a pretty target to hang on his fridge. The guys first shot was only about 3" off, but because of the placement of the cute little circle it hit the angle iron that protects the clips and I lost a good set of shooting goggles and took a decent size piece of shrapnel in the face.
6-8. All inter-connected.
9. Definitely could be a problem, but I don't know how you can guage that, or how pervasive it is throughout the gun owning population. For every mishap there are millions of rounds fired with no problem.
10. Anyone that thinks this wouldn't be a problem should find a knitting forum.
-
Here's the problem with any list like this, all someone has to do is find one important item that is not on the list but should be, or one they don't think should be on the list, then they can start pissing about how terrible it is. Easiest fix for that is to claim the list as "my" top ten right from the get-go. That might open the discussion up to people who want to add useful insight or comments rather than try to prove that "the" list is wrong.
-
Anyway, decent list and worthy of discussion. I don't think it is limited to the CC crowd, and it is a good checklist to glance at to make sure you aren't falling into one of those categories.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
It's already there, hotshot.
So are you speaking as a legal expert from Texas? You know, the state that a Grand Jury declined to indict for shooting and killing two burglars of his neighbor's home (whom he didn't even know) while he was on the phone with 911 who told him at least 15 times not to go outside and not to take his gun if he did go outside? Is that where it's so "critical" to have non-lethal alternatives, and where laymens' speculation on legal issues is so useless? Please allow me to give your meme its proper due:
And finally:
Shwew! Thanks for the laugh Junior!
Blues
Rich kid,
An old saying says, "It is better to be suspected a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
Perhaps if you had done any homework, you would realize that "huh" is already in the dictionary:
Huh - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
—used to express surprise, disbelief, or confusion, or as an inquiry inviting affirmative reply
Maybe the definition expressed in the Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary might be more appropriate for your level of mastery of the English language:
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/huh
1chiefly US — used at the end of a statement to ask whether someone agrees with you ▪ It's pretty good, huh?
My use of "huh" as in, "Ironic, huh?" was an inquiry inviting affirmative reply. And, thus, in regards to your posts above, I must repeat my inquiry inviting an affirmative reply: it is ironic that you would choose to pick apart my proper use of a word as defined by Merriam-Webster as an indicator of my alleged lack of intelligence, huh? Or would you prefer the Canadian vernacular? It is ironic, eh?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eh
—used to ask for confirmation or repetition or to express inquiry ; used especially in Canadian English in anticipation of the listener's or reader's agreement
An old saying says, "It is better to be suspected a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
Perhaps if you had done any homework, you would realize that "huh" is already in the dictionary:
Huh - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
—used to express surprise, disbelief, or confusion, or as an inquiry inviting affirmative reply
Maybe the definition expressed in the Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary might be more appropriate for your level of mastery of the English language:
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/huh
1chiefly US — used at the end of a statement to ask whether someone agrees with you ▪ It's pretty good, huh?
My use of "huh" as in, "Ironic, huh?" was an inquiry inviting affirmative reply. And, thus, in regards to your posts above, I must repeat my inquiry inviting an affirmative reply: it is ironic that you would choose to pick apart my proper use of a word as defined by Merriam-Webster as an indicator of my alleged lack of intelligence, huh? Or would you prefer the Canadian vernacular? It is ironic, eh?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eh
—used to ask for confirmation or repetition or to express inquiry ; used especially in Canadian English in anticipation of the listener's or reader's agreement
I would invite your opinion to the following question:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/general-firearm-discussion/39694-blind-carrying-gun.html
Bttbbob
New member
So, you are going to argue that a handicapped person with a gun and a person capable of using illumination and doesn't, to be the same? Wow, just wow. Sorry I won't be drawn into that argument.
No, Bob. I am asking you to apply your below statement to the situation a blind person carrying a gun would be faced with:
I would like your explanation as to how a blind person could fulfill your requirement. You seem to be a man of hard and fast rules that people should abide by all the time.
Bttbbob
New member
Not really sure where you got that out of my posts but that's your take. I gave 10 observations if the major mistakes I have seen over the many years of doing this. Is everyone guilty of it, no.
Is it the same mistakes that I see in the majority of carriers, yes.
If you are talking about my statement "it's never ok to shoot at someone that doesn't need shooting" then yes I guess you could say some hard and fast rules. Just like I don't walk out into rush hour traffic or step in front of moving trains nor jump out of airplanes without a working parachute.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Well, I guess now I will have to retract everything I've said about you, Bob. I honestly thought you started a thread to engender discussion about training, but it seems if anyone asks you to expound and/or explain your list, or something you've said subsequently, they're simply trying to draw you into an argument. Navy's (and others') point throughout the thread has been simple and succinctly-stated:
Your training, and experience as a trainer, is certainly worthy of consideration, but others' training and experience is too, and the conclusions(s) they draw from it will not always be consistent with yours. That does not necessarily make them wrong, or even argumentative.
The hypothesis that Navy proposed was one in which many variables of responses could reasonably be suggested:
And your answer was completely non-responsive to the scenario hypothesized by Navy:
First, what possible reason would an LEO have for "rummaging through my house" without identifying himself? Absolutely none is the only correct answer. 100% of the time, an LEO has no business entering my home in an emergency situation without identifying himself in the first place, and rummaging through any part of my home during a blackout after illegally breaking in takes away any thought that he might be there just checking up on mine or my family's safety in the second place. Truth is, and if you were even trying to be responsive to the hypothetical you would have said this too, in the given scenario, there is no way that's a cop.
As to a family member, that presents even more variables that are circumstance-specific to someone's home situation. For instance, we (my wife and I) don't have kids. Either my wife is next to me in bed when that bump in the night happens during an emergency in which both of our senses are on high alert, or she's not. If she's not, and she's not in the on-suite bathroom that the door is right next to where I sleep within the bedroom that's behind a locked door, then, and only then, would your suggestion that it might be a family member in my home rummaging through the house, probably with their own flashlight, hold any water, and yeah, in that unbelievable, inexplicable scenario, I would illuminate the darkened figure to make sure it wasn't her. Otherwise, if I make the decision to open the locked bedroom door (which I can't think of a reason I would, but...) and see a figure rummaging through my house slightly illuminated by their own flashlight, center of mass better get ready, because that's what I'm aiming at and opening fire on.
If the same scenario takes place in a home with kids or other residents in the house, of course that would change the response. But to say that the same response is appropriate 100% of the time isn't "training," it's brainwashing your students into not being capable of evaluating a given situation and being able to think for themselves what the best response is.
The word "tactics" is defined as:
1. (usually used with a singular verb) the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.
2. (used with a plural verb) the maneuvers themselves.
3. (used with a singular verb) any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success.
Definition #3 is what Navy was talking about, but none of those definitions are consistent with applying a singular solution in rote fashion to every instance of potential danger.
I strongly suggest you reevaluate your tactics, Bob, for your students' sake.
Blues
Bttbbob
New member
Police go into houses they don't belong in lots if times. But one of the things that I will never be a proponent of is shooting at something or someone that I have not identified as a threat. It's just not done by anyone responsible with a gun.
And no, regardless of what someone else thinks, I would not shoot at something not clearly defined as a threat.
I won't be changing my tactics or training to do something that I know is irresponsible.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
In what scenario does a cop have the authority to be involved in the *real* hypothetical you keep distracting from with your non-responsiveness?
In Navy's hypothetical, there is no way it was a cop in the house. The only possible exception would be if the cop thought the house was empty due to the disaster contemplated in the hypothetical, in which case, he would be a threat to the occupants because he would transform from cop to burglar the very instant he broke into the house with the intention of looting instead of identifying himself and stating out loud that he just wanted to make sure everyone was safe.
You keep giving answers for some unknown and unstated scenario which Navy's hypothetical is wholly inconsistent with.
Another red herring that is not consistent with Navy's hypothetical. He clearly stated that the very act of breaking in was protected by the law in his hypothetical scenario as carrying with it the presumption of a deadly threat.
So first, the occupant in the hypothetical hears the burglar break in. Second, the burglar is rummaging through the house, and in the hypothetical, is "probably" using their own flashlight to do so (remember, everyone in the hypothetical is in the midst of a total blackout). Third, the law protects the homeowner in presuming anyone who breaks in is a deadly threat.
So with those circumstances contained in the hypothetical, what are you going to do, or maybe more to the point, what and how are you going to train your students to respond? Are you going to shine your flashlight on them and give away your position, which obviously, if they are going about their business of "rummaging through the house," they are unaware of up to that point? Are you going to leave the light off and make a vocal demand to identify themselves? If so, is there any answer that would make you think they weren't a threat? After breaking in and "rummaging" your home? Really, it's a fair set of questions since you're giving such relentlessly inflexible answers to the hypothetical that you have yet to actually take into consideration the full width and breadth of circumstances on.
Actually, it's done all the time, and supported by LE, prosecutors and courts in scenarios very similar to Navy's all the time too. Plenty of cites are available, which I would be glad to provide, but people who live in jurisdictions with strong Castle Doctrine laws already know it's true. Florida has a strong CD law, doesn't it Bob? Why yes, yes it does:
[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another ifa) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]There are exceptions to those rules, one of which is if the person entering the residence is a cop. Let's look at how that reads:
[SIZE=-1]
Like I said, in the scenario Navy offered, there is no way that's a cop, and if by some brain-dead mistake on his/her part it is still legal and protected by law for the homeowner to consider him/her a threat.
[/SIZE]
But the only thing that counts in your answers to that hypothetical is illuminating the subject with a flashlight 100% of the time. That's ridiculous Bob, and if that's what you're teaching your students, you owe them a refund.
And the only way to "clearly define" a threat is to shine a flashlight on it. Got it.
And you also won't listen to logic or reason, which I presume means you don't teach logic or reason either. Students beware.
Blues
Bttbbob
New member
Logic and reason are things that we teach. But you forgot morality also. Just because its legal does that make it moral.
I'd like to meet the Instructor that would tell you to shoot at something or someone just because they have a ummm Flashlight. Yes states like Florida have serious homeowner protection as it should be. But to take a shot without proper identifying the threat is irresponsible and immoral.
Show me one Instructor that teaches shooting g at a person only holding a flashlight, and I will show you one that hasn't done this for very long.
Ask any Cop you know, if when he is investigating a crime at night If he will shoot at someone he suspects of a crime without illuminating him and identifying a weapon or threat.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
And the non-responsiveness continues. "Only holding a flashlight" after having broken a window or kicking in a door and rummaging through the house. Do you need the hypothetical posted for (at least) a third time?
You have got to be kidding, right? It would take me longer than I have right now, but I could show you documented (with on-scene video) cases where unarmed suspects have been shot in the back for a $2.00 bus fare and left to bleed out and die on a busy street. Where a guy in freakin' handcuffs was shot in the head in a train station. Where SWAT enters homes in no-knock warrant fashion and shoots everyone from the family dog to kids to Iraq War veterans when they were doing nothing wrong, and in some cases, the cops were at the wrong freakin' address to begin with. At this point in our nation's history, I literally couldn't care any less what cops have to say about good tactics. I don't trust them to know the meaning of the words anymore.
Still, the hypothetical wasn't about cop tactics, it was about a homeowner who already knows that their house has been broken into and the burglar is in the commission of the felony of looting the home. The only reason the burglar's flashlight is significant (to me anyway, Navy may have a different take) is because it will illuminate the burglar to at least the degree necessary to determine that it is indeed a burglar, and not a family member. And after Katrina and the many theft and looting crimes that cops committed there, I don't even care if it is a uniformed cop, because the only "legal" way they'd be in my home after breaking a window or kicking in a door, would be if they were serving a no-knock warrant, which they would announce loudly and repeatedly that they were indeed cops starting the very second that the structure was breached. A cop with "official business" in my home certainly wouldn't be skulking around quietly rummaging through my stuff and expect to be treated like a cop. A homeowner who shoots that cop is doing his city and neighbors a favor.
Oh well, you don't want to discuss the side-issues that came up out of your OP, Bob. You just want to repeat red-herring-arguments that justify you thinking you're always right in your own mind. I'm sure another similar post will follow shortly, but I won't see it for awhile because I gotta go visit my FFL because I found an out-of-state buyer for one of my weapons. Have at it, Bob, the floor is yours.
Blues
New Threads
-
-
Mystic Seaport Museum, Shelburne Museum Vermont
- Started by Harry45255
- Replies: 0
-
-
Reloading Newbie Here—What’s the Real Cost Advantage?
- Started by michaelstrahan
- Replies: 4
-
Members online
No members online now.
