Tacoma, WA - man shoots burglar in face with a shotgun

[mjbskwim]

The problem I see is that he shot him as he was climbing through the window, was he in fear of his life? It sucks that you should wait till he climbs in and pulls a gun or knife on you before you should shoot him!

Again,am I supposed to interview the guy? Ask him if he needs to kill me or the wife?
Will he be needing the services of my 10yo daughter?

Maybe I just kill the MOFO and be done with it?
Don't over look that you don't have any idea as to the capabilities of this intruder.

Agreed he may have to fight a legal battle,but his family is safe (or just him.I'm not really interested in a fist to cuffs with an intruder.Never was a brawler or interested in fighting others.
Why should I get sued for something I am not good at?
Why would I get sued for not wanting to fight someone WAY younger than me?

I forgot to ask the guy if he had a gun or if he was planning on killing my family when he was climbing through the window.
What was I thinking?

Be creative in your approche to talking to the police...............With your lawyer present of course.

 

[Trailboss]

because the noise/blast from a shotgun inside would destroy what is left of my hearing. Anyone with tinnitus understands.

I've so considered this. I have a pair of electronic ear muffs that are volume adjustable. I can hear my cat breathing in the other room if I turn them up enough, yet, when I fire, it's quiet. Might not be bad to keep a pair handy.

 

[RLW]

Unless you have no other option do not use bird shot to defend yourself. I am a RN and worked in a hospital where GSW's were not uncommon and I have seen guys who were shot with birdshot with little or no injury. I once had a guy that I was told upon report was shot with a shotgun in the chest the night before. When I walked into his room and took his dressing's off I almost laughed. I asked him why he even came to the hospital and he said he was just freaked out when it happened cause the guy who shot him was 15ft away and he thought he was gonna die.

 

[Tony617]

I've so considered this. I have a pair of electronic ear muffs that are volume adjustable. I can hear my cat breathing in the other room if I turn them up enough, yet, when I fire, it's quite. Might not be bad to keep a pair handy.

I have electronic ear muffs as well and I keep them on the nightstand now just in case. I will be reaching for my shotgun first and then if I have time the ear muffs.

 

[Tbucket]

Mjbskwim I agree completely, hopefully they won't give this guy any problems.

 

[Burt Gummer]

I've so considered this. I have a pair of electronic ear muffs that are volume adjustable. I can hear my cat breathing in the other room if I turn them up enough, yet, when I fire, it's quite. Might not be bad to keep a pair handy.

There may be a problem with that, not an expert, so not sure. I use those all the time outdoors, but not at an indoor range. What happens is the initial blast gets its audio clipped, but a micro second later the echo off the walls comes back at you just as the amplified audio is kicking back in - not good. Learned that lesson the hard way at A Place to Shoot at Delta Park. It was like shooting my 45acp with no protection indoors. Made for horrible (even worse) ringing for a week.

The lady at the front says they try to warn people about using electronic hearing protection inside their range and tell people just to turn off the mic function.

I believe that the best solution for someone like me is a suppressed handgun for HD. If used lawfully, there should be no issue with using a suppressor inside your home in a SD situation.

From the SilencerCo site:

When shooting in close quarters, such as a room or hallway, gun fire is loud enough
to cause permanent hearing loss. I f you are in the unfortunate position that you
must use deadly force in order to protect yourself or your family in your home, there
will not be enough time to apply hearing protection. E ven if there was enough time,
hearing protection would make it difficult to hear the position of the perpetrator,
which would give him the upper hand in the situation. H ome protection weapons
that use silencers will save your hearing and increase your situational awareness.

 

[Glockman19]

Now the home owner has to wait for the civil suit to learn how much he owes the perp for the disfiguring and loss of sight.

Should have used 00 buck.

That is the exact reason if I am going to shoot Im shooting to kill!!

 

[Burt Gummer]

Another consideration is what kind of SG you use. I like Saiga 12s with drums for range toys like anyone else, but I wouldn't use one for (pre-SHTF) home defense. Holy crap, could you imagine how the police and media, let alone the jury, would respond to the visual of a shotgun that looks like a Tommy Gun lol.

Pauly (Glasbolt AK polishing services on here) once said he only would use an pump, scratched up old beater for home defense for that one reason. I agree. When it comes to a (again, talking PRE-shtf here) home defense weapon and the ammo you use it will bode much better for you if the weapon/ammo is what any average Joe can go purchase at Bi-Mart.

 

[Dave Workman]

Tacoma ‘lesson for burglars’ blunt: ‘You could get shot’

Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist put it bluntly to the Tacoma News Tribune after a 19-year-old would-be burglar took a shotgun blast to the face Tuesday night.

<broken link removed>

 

[Dave Workman]

That is the exact reason if I am going to shoot Im shooting to kill!!

I strongly disagree. A load of birdshot at close range can kill, but as a citizen acting in self-defense, it is not our intent to kill, only to stop. We shoot to stop. If somebody dies, too bad.

I've written a short piece for the next issue of Western Shooting Journal.

Buckshot is great for putting down a riot, but not so good for home defense for a couple of reasons. it is not a guaranteed killer and with only a relative handful of pellets, you just might miss or not seriously wound. With birdshot, you stand a far greater chance of hitting, and even incapacitating an aggressor.

Buckshot can over penetrate and hit some innocent person. Birdshot typically will not pass through the exterior walls of a house.

But to each his own.

 

[SonicBlue03]

but as a citizen acting in self-defense, it is not our intent to kill, only to stop. We shoot to stop. If somebody dies, too bad.

Exactly.

I find that - for home defense - I want to stop my potential assailant as vigorously as possible. That's why I've got Hexolit32's in my 870s and will be adding their (DDupleks) frangable ammo as soon as I can find someone who carries it.

 

[chemist]

Again,am I supposed to interview the guy? Ask him if he needs to kill me or the wife?
Will he be needing the services of my 10yo daughter?

Maybe I just kill the MOFO and be done with it?
Don't over look that you don't have any idea as to the capabilities of this intruder.

Agreed he may have to fight a legal battle,but his family is safe (or just him.I'm not really interested in a fist to cuffs with an intruder.Never was a brawler or interested in fighting others.
Why should I get sued for something I am not good at?
Why would I get sued for not wanting to fight someone WAY younger than me?

I forgot to ask the guy if he had a gun or if he was planning on killing my family when he was climbing through the window.
What was I thinking?

Be creative in your approche to talking to the police...............With your lawyer present of course.

Amen, guy.
That's what's so great about the OR statute: burglary of a residence is justification for use of lethal force, period. No interview required.

I don't know about WA.

ORS161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]

 

[Redcap]

Amen, guy.

I'm not your guy, buddy.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Workman is right in that shooting to stop is what we - as citizens - should be operating under. You're shooting to stop someone from hurting yourself or those who fall under your mantle of protection. If they die, then that's unfortunate for them.

Just because it's legal to exercise deadly force doesn't mean you're authorized to kill - automatically - anyone you see fit based on the criteria you apply to your own use of force. It's why people who teach many of the self defense courses teach you to shoot center-of-mass to incapacitate your assailant. The slippery slope you get is, "well, if you could shoot them in the head so accurately, why didn't you shoot them in the knee or the shoulder?" Regardless of whether or not it's rational, a prosecutor that can point to precision shooting will put you in a bad spot.

Ok, that was a slight tangent, but it's something people need to think about it. Bob Smith used to teach that relgiously when he taught SAFE I and II in Idaho back in the 90's. Not sure if he's still teaching, but if he is I strongly encourage people to shoot with the man as he knows a thing or two about testifying, lawsuits, et. al.

For those of you who say, "I'd shoot to kill!" I'd strongly reconsider what you bluster up and put in writing in public. Because that can absolutely be used against you in the very rare event that you're faced with that scenario and don't instead make water in your shorts.

 

[Glockman19]

I strongly disagree. A load of birdshot at close range can kill, but as a citizen acting in self-defense, it is not our intent to kill, only to stop. We shoot to stop. If somebody dies, too bad.

I've written a short piece for the next issue of Western Shooting Journal.

Buckshot is great for putting down a riot, but not so good for home defense for a couple of reasons. it is not a guaranteed killer and with only a relative handful of pellets, you just might miss or not seriously wound. With birdshot, you stand a far greater chance of hitting, and even incapacitating an aggressor.

Buckshot can over penetrate and hit some innocent person. Birdshot typically will not pass through the exterior walls of a house.

But to each his own.

The only reason I feel this way, is it seems their is more recourse against the homeowner if just wound. I am not oblivious to the fact that a person shooting another person for any reason is going to have legal issues to some extent. I just feel with the justice system the way it is more chance of working the majority of your life to pay some "victim" that sued you instead of being dead. That is how I look at things now, unfortunately!!

 

[hermannr]

In this case I agree with Dave W. Birdshot has a number of advantages in a self defence situation. #6 is what I have in my shotgun. I do have slugs for backup as my problems are more likely to be of the 4 legged variety.

As for the fear of being taken to civil court...think about this. A person that is breaking into your house, would generally not have any money to pay a lawyer, so he would have to find someone to work under contingency. Unless you are wealthy, (and the potential lawyer will check) the contingency option will not be open to the BG. If you are wealthy, you will have personal liability insurance anyway...then you also have the law on your side. There is also a very good possibility, if you are a homeowner, that your homeowners insurance will cover your lawyer.

The only thing guaranteed in any civil court fight is the lawyers will win, but the chances that someone you legally shot while breaking into your home even trying to sue you is extremely unlikely.

 

[Tony617]

When I bought my first shotgun the guy that sold it to recommended birdshot. So I bought #8 birdshot. I started reading about birdshot vs buckshot and I tried both. Birdshot is for shooting birds so I kept my shotgun loaded with Federal LE 13200 or 8 pellet LE 133 rounds. I practice at the gun range with 00 buckshot and rifled slugs. I have recently switched from 00 to the new Federal LE 132 #1 buckshot with flitecontrol instead. It is hard to find but once I got some and tested it out I'm using that now.

Also the boxotruth did some tests with a 12 gauge shotgun.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm

 

[lamrith]

In this case I agree with Dave W. Birdshot has a number of advantages in a self defence situation. #6 is what I have in my shotgun. I do have slugs for backup as my problems are more likely to be of the 4 legged variety.

As for the fear of being taken to civil court...think about this. A person that is breaking into your house, would generally not have any money to pay a lawyer, so he would have to find someone to work under contingency. Unless you are wealthy, (and the potential lawyer will check) the contingency option will not be open to the BG. If you are wealthy, you will have personal liability insurance anyway...then you also have the law on your side. There is also a very good possibility, if you are a homeowner, that your homeowners insurance will cover your lawyer.

The only thing guaranteed in any civil court fight is the lawyers will win, but the chances that someone you legally shot while breaking into your home even trying to sue you is extremely unlikely.

It is not just them, it is their family, friends etc. People will band together to do some surprising things if they think they can spin it their way and pull it off.. What it really takes is for our judges to start laughing at these suits and throwing them out.

 

[hermannr]

When I bought my first shotgun the guy that sold it to recommended birdshot. So I bought #8 birdshot. I started reading about birdshot vs buckshot and I tried both. Birdshot is for shooting birds so I kept my shotgun loaded with Federal LE 13200 or 8 pellet LE 133 rounds. I practice at the gun range with 00 buckshot and rifled slugs. I have recently switched from 00 to the new Federal LE 132 #1 buckshot with flitecontrol instead. It is hard to find but once I got some and tested it out I'm using that now.

Also the boxotruth did some tests with a 12 gauge shotgun.

The Box O' Truth #3 - The Shotgun Meets the Box O' Truth - Page 1

I liked that boxotruth article, thanks...just confirms why I have #6 in my shotgun...will penetrate one wall, and not be dangerous beyond that one wall, that is what I want to hear.

As for #6 not being lethal to the BG, not a concern of mine. Shot placement will stop them..like in the original story, in the face...the guy stopped his foreward advance...shot in the pelvis, I'm sure they guy would stop. Would I shoot someone in the chest with #6, not intentially, expecially in the winter when they may be wearing heavy clothing.

As for being sued...not worried a bit about that. My personal liability policy will pay for the insurance co lawyer. I've been sued before..no big deal, just a hassel. BTW: judges do throw useless suits out. It takes some time to get to that point, but it does happen,happened with me. Judge says, why are you wasting my time with this...then awarded my lawyer his costs...now it was the other parties problem.

There will always be people out there that want to scam the system...they want you to "settle" because they know they have a weak case and that going to court is expensive.

 

[chemist]

I load #4 buck, backed up with 00.
The real reason for a shotgun isn't the spread, which is usually insignificant at HD ranges, but because the longer sight radius makes it much easier to point accurately than a pistol.

We're not buddies either, Redcap, but we're still on the same side, and I'd run to your house to fight a fire if you called me for help.