A firearm deters a burglar

[SonicBlue03]

Nice job. Maybe next time, assuming there's enough land around your plot, maybe dig some pre-emptive holes.

You know, just in case.

 

[Member 5605]

Well..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScKrmvMTgyA
Pretty much sums it all up.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

the sheriff came, sure there's a report to validate that it happened. Would make a good news story. But somehow, methinks local channels here would find a way to spin it against the OP. Yeah - he's a racist. And a gun nut. And a right wing talk radio listener. The poor tall mexican needed to feed his family. Mean mean OP.

The mexican might even be a poor, hardworking "undocumented worker", merely doing the work that American citizens won't do

 

[PromptCritical]

I believe you have completely mischaracterized the reasoning behind the 21' rule. The point of the rule is to justify shooting an assailant armed with a contact weapon if HE advances to within 21' of you, the defender. Acting to place yourself within 21' of the attacker sounds suspiciously like you were looking for a reason to shoot him.

 

[pchewn]

why the property line?

Maybe the OP does not want the sheriff on his property?

 

[pchewn]

I believe you have completely mischaracterized the reasoning behind the 21' rule. The point of the rule is to justify shooting an assailant armed with a contact weapon if HE advances to within 21' of you, the defender. Acting to place yourself within 21' of the attacker sounds suspiciously like you were looking for a reason to shoot him.

Where does this 21' "rule" come from?

Is it a "rule of thumb" guidance type thing?

It does not sound like a legal rule or law....

 

[papahepcat]

Dude, wow. Glad you're all okay. That must've been scary.

And way to go with the 90 degree angle!

 

[biggie24420]

Well i wish i was there to see it go down like it did. Since ur in da woods..... i would have cuffed the guy and thought him a lesson hahahahahaha no but really glad to hear no one was hurt and I hope the bad guy learned something. Oh the fun i would have with a bean bag round.... taser and pepper spray lol

 

[Atroxus]

Where does this 21' "rule" come from?

Is it a "rule of thumb" guidance type thing?

It does not sound like a legal rule or law....

IIRC the 21' rule comes from a study that was done awhile back that determined that an assailant with a contact weapon could close from 21' faster than the average person could draw and fire. This distance is considered by a lot of people to be the maximum distance that shooting a person that is armed with a contact weapon could be ruled justifiable in court. I don't know of any laws that reference a specific maximum distance though, so I would consider it possibly helpful information, but not law.

 

[SteelyDan]

I am in awe of your wifes super hearing.

"At 5:45 A.M. today, I woke up to my wife screaming some A@$hole is trying to break-in to our house. She heard a nose coming from the far door, that we do not use"

I've never heard a nose approaching...unless you count my wifes snoring!

 

[Greg]

I agree that this deserves some publicity. We should help educate our fellow Americans. Perhaps fewer people would be out to get our guns if they could see them used properly. Perhaps a family considering a gun for home defense would be swayed and then later could defend themselves in a similar manner.

I applaud Dogstar's ability to keep a cool head and not shoot the criminal. If the burgular had been shot, it would give more ammunition to those who would take our guns.

 

[raftman]

IIRC the 21' rule comes from a study that was done awhile back that determined that an assailant with a contact weapon could close from 21' faster than the average person could draw and fire. This distance is considered by a lot of people to be the maximum distance that shooting a person that is armed with a contact weapon could be ruled justifiable in court. I don't know of any laws that reference a specific maximum distance though, so I would consider it possibly helpful information, but not law.

I dunno if I'd call that information helpful, it seems dangerous to me. If a person with a contact weapon can close 21 feet before the average person can draw and fire, then wouldn't it make sense to draw and possibly fire before the attacker is within 21 feet?

I can see the thinking behind the "rule," I just don't agree with the number, or even if assigning a number at all makes much sense. I mean sure, you will have a hard time in court justifying drawing a gun at someone threatening you with a tire iron from 400 feet away (after all, that kind of distance allows on the opportunity to get away), but if the attacker is only 30 or even 50 feet away, they can still close that distance within just a few seconds. What is the sense in waiting until they're close enough to where you don't have time to draw and fire? Wouldn't you defeat the purpose of having a gun if you wait until the attacker is so close that you don't have time to use your gun?

Of course not every situation that arises allows one the time and distance to make such decisions, sometimes an attack may be too close or too sudden to even think about the "21 foot radius"...
but why give up a key advantage if you do have one?

 

[wichaka]

Back in the early 80's, an Officer by the name of Dennis Tueller of the Salt Lake UT. P.D. did a study on knife vs gun, and how much reaction time and distance was needed to accurately get at least 1 shot on a person who is attacking with a knife. It was determined thru tests that at least 21 feet was needed to get at least one accurate shot on the attacker. BUT, it also means you WILL get stabbed.

Tueller wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet. So he measured as volunteers ran to stab a target. He determined that distance could be covered in 1.5 seconds.
But also remember, these tests were done with the Officer knowing that the attack was coming. It takes a certain amount of time for a person to see a threat, recognize it as a threat, and then gather a proper response to the threat.

In tests over the last 20 or so years, the average person needs at least 35+ feet to get 1 accurate shot on a person who is attacking with a knife. More distance is needed if you add the factor of not getting stabbed. This demonstration has been done in many a courtroom, to prove the distance required to stay safe. No one is required to get injured in an attack.

Someone that is shot thru the heart can live 1-2 minutes, and a lot of damage can be done in that amount of time. Remember pistol bullets are not the best thing to drop the human species, so act accordingly.

I'm glad all turned out for the best...but bad information about this subject could have had disastrous results in this instance.

The "Tueller" drill;
The attacker begins at 21 feet to the side of the shooter and run towards the shooter. The shooter unholsters his gun and shoots at the target 21 feet away. The shooter is successful only if he was able to get a good shot before he is tapped on the back by the attacker.

But see above, one shot aint going to stop a determined attacker.

 

[phathom]

Very nice OP. Glad that you and your wife have a setup like that. Mine and my wife's is similar. She takes the Glock (as she shoots way better with it than I do) and calls 911 and I grab the 870 or AR, depending on whichever one is closer and have a similar procedure that you did. Great job. Things like this make me that much happier to have our 2nd amendment.

I gotta admit, the 'six foot tall Mexican' part had me wondering for a second...there can't be too many of those running around :winkkiss:

Hey hey now. I'm one of those, well half, but still 6' tall half mexican

 

[chemist]

Smoking Cubans is illegal.........

Just sayin'

Hahahahahaha...
...best post of the thread.

We need a little leavening here - I can't imagine how long it would take me to get my heart rate back down, or how many nights it would be before I could sleep soundly again.

Props to both of you for doing the right thing - Another example of how firearms PREVENT at least as many violent acts as they cause. Gary Kleck says something like 1.5 - 2 million crimes a year are deterred by armed would-be victims.

Let's hope this story provides some counterbalance in the MSM to today's shooting out of Onalaska.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

IIRC the 21' rule comes from a study that was done awhile back that determined that an assailant with a contact weapon could close from 21' faster than the average person could draw and fire. This distance is considered by a lot of people to be the maximum distance that shooting a person that is armed with a contact weapon could be ruled justifiable in court. I don't know of any laws that reference a specific maximum distance though, so I would consider it possibly helpful information, but not law.

Many are now promoting the possibility that 21 feet of distance is not enough of a safety zone, that 30 feet would be better

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I agree that this deserves some publicity. We should help educate our fellow Americans. Perhaps fewer people would be out to get our guns if they could see them used properly. Perhaps a family considering a gun for home defense would be swayed and then later could defend themselves in a similar manner.

I applaud Dogstar's ability to keep a cool head and not shoot the criminal. If the burgular had been shot, it would give more ammunition to those who would take our guns.

Not necessarily, especially if the OPer had allowed the creep to break in, first