Sheriff: "You are more than welcome to shoot home invaders, we prefer that you do actually."

[ilikegunspdx]

Story one year old.

"Hopefully you'll shoot a lot better and save the taxpayers money". Just awesome.

Skip to 2:37 mark

View: https://youtu.be/qDKCDgjOkg8?si=gorj4sb_MmhXrTtS

Read More

 

[Certaindeaf]

The force told me that my spirit Floridian said something good.
I still didn't click though.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Shoot a home invader...sure.
However...
After doing so don't expect to be congratulated ...have offers by law enforcement to buy you ammo...
Given the keys to the city...or much positive to be honest here.

Do expect to :
Be judged by those not present ....
Have your actions to include before , during and after , be scrutinized to the smallest detail by law enforcement....
See your actions second guessed by everyone on the internet....

Understand that even if it was a lawful shoot....
You will have consequences ...some that you expect...many that you won't...
Ramifications of your actions can be long lasting and come out of unexpected quarters ...
Others may never accept your actions....
Your own view / outlook of your actions may change over time....

At the end of the day I would suggest that :
When talking to anyone about your actions you keep to the Three C's ...
Clear , Complete and Concise...
You keep in mind that if that person choose not to invade your home...he would probably be still alive or at least not shot.
You did what you had to do , in order to stop a threat.
Andy

 

[Mikej]

View: https://youtu.be/452XjnaHr1A?t=21

 

[eb in oregon]

Your own view / outlook of your actions may change over time....

My outlook, view, and actions will never change over time in regards to anybody invading our home. Regardless of consequences. We spent over 50 years building a life and home together, it's ours, and if not invited and violent it will not end well for those intruders. Period. I didn't spend 24 years in uniform to abrogate our rights to criminals and leftist nit wits.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

My outlook, view, and actions will never change over time in regards to anybody invading our home. Regardless of consequences. We spent over 50 years building a life and home together, it's ours, and if not invited and violent it will not end well for those intruders. Period. I didn't spend 24 years in uniform to abrogate our rights to criminals and leftist nit wits.

That is all well and good for you.

My post* was from my experiences with a similar situation.
Andy

*Edit to add :
My post...as in the whole post , all of which is important for context...should be taken as a whole..
not just the bit you quoted.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Shoot a home invader...sure.
However...
After doing so don't expect to be congratulated ...have offers by law enforcement to buy you ammo...
Given the keys to the city...or much positive to be honest here.

Do expect to :
Be judged by those not present ....
Have your actions to include before , during and after , be scrutinized to the smallest detail by law enforcement....
See your actions second guessed by everyone on the internet....

Understand that even if it was a lawful shoot....
You will have consequences ...some that you expect...many that you won't...
Ramifications of your actions can be long lasting and come out of unexpected quarters ...
Others may never accept your actions....
Your own view / outlook of your actions may change over time....

At the end of the day I would suggest that :
When talking to anyone about your actions you keep to the Three C's ...
Clear , Complete and Concise...
You keep in mind that if that person choose not to invade your home...he would probably be still alive or at least not shot.
You did what you had to do , in order to stop a threat.
Andy

Agree and a couple thoughts related to this. The Jury who will judge you may be hard-set in the opposite mindset re guns and self protection as you. This is especially true in like places like Portland or Seattle. Also your children may be the subject of harassment at school, "your Dad is a murderer".

Also re home invasion in general, Andy's post reminds me of a quote from Clint Smith (I don't recall exact words), "the goal of training is to be able to think so you never have to shoot in the first place". In the home invasion context, if the threat can be stopped before ever getting into the house you may not have to shoot at all.

Seems to me the thought/planning process should be how to identify them when they are on the perimeter. There you have lots of options and more time to deal with it. It's possible to just scare them away with a flashlight or your voice (I've done both on separate occasions). Then what can be done to make it harder for them to get in? Slowing them down getting in the house also gives you more options such as confronting them from a place of maximum advantage. Once they get in your house you have much fewer options and no time. So identifying the threat early if possible and dealing with it in a smart way for me is the "thinking so you never have to shoot in the first place". Just some thoughts that popped in my head fwiw.

 

[Mikej]

Agree and a couple thoughts related to this. The Jury who will judge you may be hard-set in the opposite mindset re guns and self protection as you. This is especially true in like places like Portland or Seattle. Also your children may be the subject of harassment at school, "your Dad is a murderer".

Also re home invasion in general, Andy's post reminds me of a quote from Clint Smith (I don't recall exact words), "the goal of training is to be able to think so you never have to shoot in the first place". In the home invasion context, if the threat can be stopped before ever getting into the house you may not have to shoot at all.

Seems to me the thought/planning process should be how to identify them when they are on the perimeter. There you have lots of options and more time to deal with it. It's possible to just scare them away with a flashlight or your voice (I've done both on separate occasions). Then what can be done to make it harder for them to get in? Slowing them down getting in the house also gives you more options such as confronting them from a place of maximum advantage. Once they get in your house you have much fewer options and no time. So identifying the threat early if possible and dealing with it in a smart way for me is the "thinking so you never have to shoot in the first place". Just some thoughts that popped in my head fwiw.

People that have lived in portland for many years have a different mind set than those that have lived more rural or in a city the does work.

 

[DB is Here]

In 2010 we had an armed intruder in our home at 3am in the morning. The alarm did sound, showed an open door to the garage.

I was armed, I announced I was armed then jacked a round in my Marine Magnum. Once the sound of the pump shotgun was heard by those downstairs it got very quiet for about 3-5 seconds, I again announced that I was armed and if I saw anyone coming upstairs, they'd be shot.

Then the sound of someone going out the back window was heard by me upstairs.

All this to say, I'm glad he didn't come up stairs, I'm glad I didn't try to go down and confront him, I'm glad it ended peacefully with me only losing a small TV, a Wi-Fi speaker and $7 from my wallet.

It took PC Sherriff deputies 22 minutes to get to our home, 6 months later I got my stuff back and the deputy stating the guy was armed as he entered folks home at night.

My take-aways:
1) You are your first responder
2) Have a plan if something happens and practice it with those under your roof.
3) Pick your spot that they won't be allowed pass w/o opposition, mine was my bedroom.
4) Get 911 on the line ASAP and most of all keep your cool.

 

[eb in oregon]

My post...as in the whole post , all of which is important for context...should be taken as a whole..
not just the bit you quoted.

Your post was taken as a whole, I just didn't find it necessary to quote the entire thing as it's there for others to see if desired. I'll ask you though, if we allow the left to abrogate our rights before we legally use them why are we even defending them? I'm all about not having to shoot, but I'll not refrain from doing so if the circumstances warrant it. There is a fundamental difference between wanting to shoot an intruder and having to shoot an intruder and I prefer to not have to do so.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Your post was taken as a whole, I just didn't find it necessary to quote the entire thing as it's there for others to see if desired. I'll ask you though, if we allow the left to abrogate our rights before we legally use them why are we even defending them? I'm all about not having to shoot, but I'll not refrain from doing so if the circumstances warrant it. There is a fundamental difference between wanting to shoot an intruder and having to shoot an intruder and I prefer to not have to do so.

My post has nothing to do with your question....
And as a reminder....political content must be directly 2nd Amendment or firearm related.

Also...If you took my 1st post as a whole...
Then you would know that I have no issue with shooting a threat if need be...
I was pointing out however that the outcome may have less than desirable consequences.
Andy

 

[eb in oregon]

My post has nothing to do with your question....
And as a reminder....political content must be directly 2nd Amendment or firearm related.

Also...If you took my 1st post as a whole...
Then you would know that I have no issue with shooting a threat if need be...
I was pointing out however that the outcome may have less than desirable consequences.
Andy

I disagree as if people are placed in fear of using their constitution rights (due to the efforts of others to demonize those rights) then those rights essentially don't exist. And please enlighten me regarding how my posts don't reflect the 2nd amendment or is not firearms related, you have confused me. Understand me, I'm not challenging you, I'm saying we have a difference of opinion.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

@eb in oregon

You keep using the term "rights"...
Rights..as in plural...not singular...as in the 2nd Amendment.

Rights are ( among many other things ) political.
So unless a political post , thread or comment is specifically about the 2nd Amendment...or directly firearm related....
It is against forum rules.

With all that said...

I am not going to clog up this thread with any more conversation with you.
Further attempts to discuss this with me will be ignored.
Andy

 

[Xaevian]

Mess with the, get the horns.

No bull in that statement. Pretty simple.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Depends greatly on the State and even which city. What the Sheriff somewhere in Florida says.. isn't gonna be used as "legal justification" in Portland, Oregon. See Michael Strickland's case.

 

[eb in oregon]

Depends greatly on the State and even which city. What the Sheriff somewhere in Florida says.. isn't gonna be used as "legal justification" in Portland, Oregon. See Michael Strickland's case.

I live in Clackamas County, it isn't as crazy as Portland and home invasion is considered a serious crime. However there is a fundamental difference in "brandishing" vs violent home invasion.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I live in Clackamas County, it isn't as crazy as Portland and home invasion is considered a serious crime.

Clackamas is not Multnomah (where Michael Strickland was charged and sentenced)

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Depends greatly on the State and even which city. What the Sheriff somewhere in Florida says.. isn't gonna be used as "legal justification" in Portland, Oregon. See Michael Strickland's case.

Very true.

In any event...even if some Sheriff says : "Go ahead and shoot the home invader "....
He ain't going to be the one that will be facing all the troubles , scrutiny , issues , etc...for doing so.
You will be.

Of course someone will take that Sheriff for task...but only for his statement...which is not the same as actually doing as the statement said.

In any event...

It is up to you , how you defend yourself and home.
Do so as you wish....do so smartly....Do so as in what works best for you...and your situation...
What works well for others...and where they live / their situation may nor be best elsewhere.
Self defense / home defense is not the time or place for one size fits none options.
Andy

 

[eb in oregon]

Clackamas is not Multnomah (where Michael Strickland was charged and sentenced)

I can't say I didn't know that.

 

[eb in oregon]

Where Strickland made his mistake was pointing his Glock at people rather than demonstrating he was legally armed and afraid for his safety. He should have pointed it at the ground and retreated to a safe area. Even judges who support the 2nd amendment have issues with pointing a loaded firearm at others who have not yet attacked you or are not armed. Personally I'm on Strickland's side, but he made a mistake and it cost him.