Home defense, what do u expect most likely scenario to be?

[Wombat of Doom]

Growing up in the San Joaquin Valley of California, I have lived through being the armed guy on the other side of a door that got kicked in not once, but twice, so that is my vote. I was 14. Happened again when I was 17 in a different part of that state.

But having had it happen, I suspect it to be most likely. I call it a bit of confirmation bias.

 

[revjen45]

"Best part of that is you can say you were "trying" to shoot them in the leg , really sorry I was a little high and he can't make any more children"
Shooting to "wound" can be used against you vis-a-vis your own mental state, i.e. you didn't think it merited lethal force but you shot anyway. If you were really in existential peril you wouldn't shoot to wound. If you have to make a pelvic shot to stop an assailant from rushing you then that's your stopping shot.
If, God forbid, I ever do have to shoot an Orc it will be to STOP, not to "wound" or "kill" the perp.

 

[wired]

"Best part of that is you can say you were "trying" to shoot them in the leg , really sorry I was a little high and he can't make any more children"
Shooting to "wound" can be used against you vis-a-vis your own mental state, i.e. you didn't think it merited lethal force but you shot anyway. If you were really in existential peril you wouldn't shoot to wound. If you have to make a pelvic shot to stop an assailant from rushing you then that's your stopping shot.
If, God forbid, I ever do have to shoot an Orc it will be to STOP, not to "wound" or "kill" the perp.

Cite where that has been an issue in court please.

 

[Dak605]

The guys with all types of crap hanging off their guns aren't going to do as well as the guy with a simple red Dot or night sights. Red Dot needs to be left on at all times.

So the most likely scenario with a lot of people would be them picking up their gun fiddling with it and while they're fiddling with it they miss their opportunity to defend themselves properly..

 

[revjen45]

Cite where that has been an issue in court please.

OK, say you meant to shoot him in the leg because you didn't think you needed to kill him.
Macht nichts to me.

 

[wired]

Cite where that has been an issue in court please.

OK, say you meant to shoot him in the leg because you didn't think you needed to kill him.
Macht nichts to me.

A simple citation please. You are repeating someone elses theory.

 

[Member 34319]

Thankfully, my neighborhood has no crime.

That was a factor when we chose the neighborhood.

We are far enough away from the bigger cities, and our home is pretty far into the neighborhood which only has two entrances/exits.

Security measures are also in place, in case.

My likely scenario.

The microwave falls onto the stove in the middle of the night, causing me to gear up as if I'm going to war.

 

[revjen45]

" A simple citation please. You are repeating someone elses theory."

Yup. Please feel free to ignore it.

 

[wired]

" A simple citation please. You are repeating someone elses theory."

Yup. Please feel free to ignore it.

Couldnt find anything huh?

 

[revjen45]

Didn't bother to look...

 

[wired]

Didn't bother to look...

Did you know it was BS so you didnt bother?

Make a statement. Back it up with facts.

 

[WillametteWill]

Cite where that has been an issue in court please.

Finding specific cases where something like this occurred can be extremely difficult. I prefer to source two of the top use of force / defensive gun use resources, the Force Science Institute and Attorney Andrew Branca. (I've also attended courses by Massad Ayoob receiving consistent information.) I'm presuming you are discussing using a firearm in a situation where lethal force is justified but you choose to try and injure the person instead of using the most effective means to stop the deadly force encounter. Because, of course, if we are using a deadly weapon to stop a situation where it is not justified we are no doubt committing a crime.

So going on this assumption that deadly force is called for but you chose to use a deadly weapon to try and injure the person, here are some of the issues that can be used against you:

• You are not using techniques taught my nearly every mainstream defensive shooting school
• You are not using techniques used by law enforcement (see link below to Force Science Institute article)
• You are likely going to need to shoot the person more times to stop them, this is never favorably looked upon by prosecuting attorneys or juries
• By firing more rounds with your name on them, you are more likely to miss and hit a bystander
• You are more likely to run out of ammo since you will likely need to fire more rounds
• You are providing more of an opportunity for the other guy to shoot back, thus creating some of the above conditions but with the bullets coming at you
• The more shots you fire the more likely you are to encounter a malfunction
• If we are thinking of a disabling pelvic gridle shot, a handgun is a poor choice of tools for shooting in this area unless absolutely needed (i.e. body armor, only area exposed from hard cover) this is really a rifle shot

Article on why police should / do not shoot to wound:
Force Science
Quote from firearms / self-defense attorney Andrew Branca from article:

Further, if you are foolish enough to state out loud that you only shot to wound, it opens the door to the State arguing that you lacked the good faith subjective fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm necessary to justify your use of deadly force. After all, if you'd feared imminent death, you'd have shot to neutralize the threat decisively, not just make him more angry with a pistol-caliber bullet wound to an extremity. If there was no genuine fear of death or grave bodily harm, your use of deadly force was not lawful self-defense, and off to jail you go.​

This is from someone who has a very specific focus in deadly force self defense law. A major goal of what we do as self defenders is to not give a deputy district attorney a reason to charge us and not give the jury a reason to convict us.

Just sharing a perspective, respectfully.

 

[wired]

Finding specific cases where something like this occurred can be extremely difficult. I prefer to source two of the top use of force / defensive gun use resources, the Force Science Institute and Attorney Andrew Branca. (I've also attended courses by Massad Ayoob receiving consistent information.) I'm presuming you are discussing using a firearm in a situation where lethal force is justified but you choose to try and injure the person instead of using the most effective means to stop the deadly force encounter. Because, of course, if we are using a deadly weapon to stop a situation where it is not justified we are no doubt committing a crime.

So going on this assumption that deadly force is called for but you chose to use a deadly weapon to try and injure the person, here are some of the issues that can be used against you:

• You are not using techniques taught my nearly every mainstream defensive shooting school
• You are not using techniques used by law enforcement (see link below to Force Science Institute article)
• You are likely going to need to shoot the person more times to stop them, this is never favorably looked upon by prosecuting attorneys or juries
• By firing more rounds with your name on them, you are more likely to miss and hit a bystander
• You are more likely to run out of ammo since you will likely need to fire more rounds
• You are providing more of an opportunity for the other guy to shoot back, thus creating some of the above conditions but with the bullets coming at you
• The more shots you fire the more likely you are to encounter a malfunction
• If we are thinking of a disabling pelvic gridle shot, a handgun is a poor choice of tools for shooting in this area unless absolutely needed (i.e. body armor, only area exposed from hard cover) this is really a rifle shot

Article on why police should / do not shoot to wound:
Force Science
Quote from firearms / self-defense attorney Andrew Branca from article:

Further, if you are foolish enough to state out loud that you only shot to wound, it opens the door to the State arguing that you lacked the good faith subjective fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm necessary to justify your use of deadly force. After all, if you'd feared imminent death, you'd have shot to neutralize the threat decisively, not just make him more angry with a pistol-caliber bullet wound to an extremity. If there was no genuine fear of death or grave bodily harm, your use of deadly force was not lawful self-defense, and off to jail you go.​

This is from someone who has a very specific focus in deadly force self defense law. A major goal of what we do as self defenders is to not give a deputy district attorney a reason to charge us and not give the jury a reason to convict us.

Just sharing a perspective, respectfully.

I understand those are theories and perceptions. I have NEVER seen anything to back it up in terms of case law supporting the theory that shooting to wound is any worse of a defense in a questionable shooting than shooting to kill. Just because someone repeats a mantra someone else repeated doesnt make it fact. If someone breaks into my home and I shoot them in the shoulder and they stop doing whatever it was that threatened me I am not going to get charged with something because they werent killed. That is preposterous. A good shoot is a good shoot. I dont know what its like where you live but where I live we dont have "overzealous prosecutors" going after homeowners involved in self defense shootings. They are busy prosecuting the home invaders.

 

[WillametteWill]

A good shoot is a good shoot.

I wish this was true but this is nowhere close to the real world. George Zimmerman. Ended up a lawful use of self defense but only after $100,000 in legal fees and nearly going to jail forever. Many objective analysis will look at Kyle as justified as well. Unfortunately ultimately courts and jury will not. There are endless, easy to find examples of these cases for both citizen defenders and officers.

I've worked with dozens of DDA's and assisted with prosecuting cases. You may not think you have ones near you that are overzealous but I would not count on this. I completely agree with you that if someone breaks into your home and you are clearly (if there is such a thing anymore) justified in using deadly force and you wound them that you (likely) will be fine. But if you have the same attacker, armed with a knife, and the distance is beyond contact and a homeowner states that they were shooting to wound the intruder, this can easily be spun by prosecuting attorneys (and don't forget the civil case that follows) to allege that lethal force was not justified if you admit that you were shooting to wound. I will not put myself in this position nor will I recommend my students use this tactic.

Here is my overriding thought process; do the right thing and give prosecutors no reason to charge me and civil attorneys no reason to want to take a case against me.

 

[wired]

I wish this was true but this is nowhere close to the real world. George Zimmerman. Ended up a lawful use of self defense but only after $100,000 in legal fees and nearly going to jail forever. Many objective analysis will look at Kyle as justified as well. Unfortunately ultimately courts and jury will not. There are endless, easy to find examples of these cases for both citizen defenders and officers.

I've worked with dozens of DDA's and assisted with prosecuting cases. You may not think you have ones near you that are overzealous but I would not count on this. I completely agree with you that if someone breaks into your home and you are clearly (if there is such a thing anymore) justified in using deadly force and you wound them that you (likely) will be fine. But if you have the same attacker, armed with a knife, and the distance is beyond contact and a homeowner states that they were shooting to wound the intruder, this can easily be spun by prosecuting attorneys (and don't forget the civil case that follows) to allege that lethal force was not justified if you admit that you were shooting to wound. I will not put myself in this position nor will I recommend my students use this tactic.

Here is my overriding thought process; do the right thing and give prosecutors no reason to charge me and civil attorneys no reason to want to take a case against me.

I wouldnt use George Zimmerman as an example of a good shoot. Just saying.

Kyle's going to jail.

 

[Lawbider]

Our hyper alert mutt will bark, I'll grab my handgun, no lights, no red dot, I kinow my house and fields of fire in the dark, they don't, and they will either die or I will defending my wife. I'll worry about the court battle if I'm still breathing when the dust settles...

 

[waltermitty]

My location (South Seattle) saw an increase in assaults, burglary and home invasion targeting older Asians. The perception circulating by rap musicians (et al) is that elderly Asians lack total trust in banks and are more likely to keep large amounts of money (and jewelry) at home.

I had 3 males come through the kitchen door after kicking it in. I engaged them just as they crossed the threshold and repelled them (details withheld). Didn't have the dog then. The fence was rased from 4 to 6 feet. The panel door (with window) was replaced with a steel frame solid core and I now have perimeter sensors on the property giving me and added half minute or so of warning. Other improvements still in the works incrementally.

I felt my home was a random target and very pleased at Seattle PDs response and outcome.