http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-homeow ... 3236.story Homeowner in MO confronts two thieves in his garage. One perp has a gun, and the good guy gets the drop on him but doesn't shoot, even as the perp is bringing his gun to bear on him. Come to find out, the perp's gun wasn't loaded (at least when they found the gun it wasn't). A thug going for his gun, once I have mine out and pointed at him, would have been SRT!
This is where training and common sense come in. Your in your house stay in your house and call the police. Even I would not have gone outside that would not have been tactically sound to do and if you had to shoot could you articulate to a court of law you tried to avoid the gunfight.
I see where you're coming from, Signal69. However, it would be hard for me to wait inside while they toted all my stuff away. If they had both hands full, assuming I could see them on the monitor like that homeowner did, I'd feel confident I could draw down on them and have them patiently resting prone on the floor with their hands on their heads. And then I'd call the police to put the silver bracelets on them. Others have to decide for themselves, but for me personally, I wouldn't see any value in avoiding a confrontation if I thought I could quickly get the upper hand. It's our right to protect our property, even if that presents the risk of the bad guys attempting to fight their way out of getting apprehended. From where I stand, the bad guys will lose. I won't take any wild chances, and what I decide to do in that moment won't be related to any concern as to how a jury might react to it, as I will always act within the law.
I hear what you are saying and I have to do some reading on deadly force as far as the protection of property goeslast I know of you could not. Also with the garage being connected to the house would that mean they were in your house? But the biggest example is those guys did not run when they knew the home owner was coming nor was the bad guy afraid even though he had an empty weapon. The home owner had a weapon and wa scared to use it I feel. Maybe he took so soft class and they told him if you pull your gun they will run.
I could be wrong, but even if the law were silent on the protection of property, I don't believe it would be illegal to attempt to stop a crime in progress anywhere on your own property (or even in a public place for that matter), whether inside or outside. The goal would not be to shoot the bad guy, but to get him to surrender. If he then presents a threat to you instead of surrendering, you then have the right to protect yourself to the point of using deadly force if you reasonably had fear of bodily injury or death. Good observation on the homeowner. He probably thought pulling his gun would automatically have them with their hands up. That's a grave assumption to make. And the perps to be so brazen while looking down the barrel of a gun, while having an unloaded one! Most perps do believe that most victims are not willing to shoot under any circumstances. That makes them very dangerous. The good guys have got to be prepared to actually pull the trigger if they feel the need to pull the gun.
What the hell was he waiting on? An armed robber points a gun at me, or even goes for a weapon, while I have my firearm pointed at him, and he is a dead man.
Both the reporter and the local L.E.O. quoted in this news story are happy that nobody was hurt. So they consider it a good outcome that burglars pulled a gun on a homeowner and had a stand-off with him before escaping? The only "good" thing about this incident was that the burglars didn't get any loot. But at the moment one of the robbers pointed a gun at the homeowner, the robber should have been shot. A 'great' outcome would be to have the wounded robber under arrest and naming his accomplice to avoid a 30 year prison term (maybe give him 10 years if he rats out his buddy).
I'm not so sure. The part that concerns me would have been the guy who went behind the tarp and was out of view. If the BG with the gun was armed, I'd have to assume the second BG was as well. Tactically, it was not a great situation for the homeowner. Throw in the fact that his sister and 2 kids were inside the house, and it gets even more complicated. I'm not sure what I would have done, but to stand there and have a mexican standoff seems like a bad idea. And to assume his gun wasn't loaded just because it was found that way is a dangerous assumption. If somebody points a gun at me, it's loaded, weather it is or not.
people always surrender when you pull a gun in the 80s movies. Why didn't it work? Wait.....he forgot to pull the hammer back. That's what you do if they don't surrender. I suspect a lot of people adopt/absorb tactics by watching movies. I remember when I was 18 and playing a paintball game. I came up on someone and took a shot missed and went back into cover and planned to get back out and shoot again like they do in the movies. I learned that you don't take turns. I got pinned and taken out with a cheap foot shot. But I think Signal69 is right. Nothing in my garage is worth dying for. But if he wanted to investigate for himself, he should be ready for the worst case scenario.
I am not expecting the police to go into my garage (if I had one) and do something I am not willing to do myself. As for not shooting him - just about everybody who is not a psychopath or extensively trained hesitates to shoot. It is a lot easier to do on the internet.
Nobody here suggested shooting somebody over property, did they? Going out to make an arrest and stop a crime does not mean shooting him, and, if he draws a weapon and starts to point it at you, then you are not shooring him for the protection of property, but to keep from being ventilated.
I'm certainly no lawyer, but from what I understand, the two BG's: intent: put the homeowner in JEOPARDY by trespassing onto his property with intent to rob while in possession of a deadly weapon proximity: was in close enough PROXIMITY to create bodily harm and/or kill ability: pointed a deadly weapon at the home owner I'm pretty sure that would be a justified shooting, but I could be wrong
Pretty much agree with ya there MP. But to add a little something...perhaps even extensive training wouldn't help some people. One must have a mindset that is willing to do what it takes (within the law, or course) to keep himself and his loved ones safe. Just like John Wayne's character said in "The Shootist": "You've got to be willing." A little hesitation at the wrong moment can get you unwillingly ventilated.
I am not extensively trained and have not yet been clinically diagnosed as a psychopath, however, I scare very easily when someone is pointing a gun at me and I would be very anxious to get off the first shot. I believe that the person that gets off the first shot is already ahead. That dosen't mean that they will win, just that they are one up on the bad guy.
I may be waayyy off base here, but something smells of scam to me. The video is poor quality. The homeowner comes around the tarp with gun aimed at BG, and BG aimed at HO. No shots fired. The BG's weapon is empty. Why didn't the homeowner just bring the frying pan if he wasn't going to use it? The man had family in the house. No way do these perps walk away from my house to come back and do this later. There would have been at least 2 shots from my weapon. These clowns may be just trying to make the news. Who knows this day and time?