Previous Post
Next Post


“To be clear here, our point is NOT that there are never legitimate instances of self-defense. From what we know now, this homeowner felt genuinely threatened. Our point is to question a culture that instructs people to go for the gun FIRST and kill. This individual could have been deterred with any number of nonlethal methods. No one had to die here.” That’s the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence’s take on a shooting that took place Monday morning in south Austin. As reports, “A man who feared for his — and his family’s — safety shot and killed a man who had run away from a South Austin group home Monday morning, according to Austin police.” . . .

When the man went to a home on Brantley Bend, he banged on the door and was able to force his way into the front entryway.

“The homeowner was alerted to the previous banging by his wife,” said Senior Police Officer Veneza Bremner. “At which point, he went to the front door and fired his weapon at the suspect, striking him in the front of his body.”

Unquestionably tragic. The man who broke in was autistic. So while terribly unfortunate, it was a reasonable response from the homeowner’s perspective, faced with a forced entry of his home by an agitated stranger.

“The homeowner feared for his life and his family’s life,” said Bremner.

Perfectly reasonable…unless you’re a CSGV acolyte. A few comments from the CSGV’s myface post:

Levi Tooker How sad that people’s first thought upon hearing banging at their door is not “maybe somebody needs my help”, but rather “I need to kill this person in case they’re trying to kill me”.

In this case, the homeowner’s first thought was probably more along the lines of, “Who is this angry person who’s just broken into my home and how do I protect my family?”

Andrew Angove More guns, more guns, more guns–because there’s absolutely no legitimate reason for a stranger to be at your front door. Just open and shoot, ask questions later, right? People today are sick. Society is taking huge steps backwards because of bullshit like this.

Sorry, Andrew. This wasn’t really a case of open and shoot. More like, shoot after forcing entry into someone’s home.

Ross Miller Another case where, if the homeowner did not have a gun, both people would be alive now. 

Tell me more about why every moronic, paranoid, asshole should be armed?

Yes, and if the homeowner hadn’t been armed he, his wife, his three children or maybe all of them could have been injured or killed by a seriously disturbed individual.

Patti Brown There are ways to keep would be intruders out like keeping outside lights on, doors and windows locked, security system. If a gun owner won’t do any or all of these then they’re just wanting to shoot someone. In this case the man was autistic. I’m referring to other situations. There are non violent ways of protecting you and your loved ones. Only harm an intruder if they’re trying to harm you first. What if I’m out on a walk, need help and knock on your door? Gonna shoot first and “oops” after? This poor man and his family didn’t deserve this! So sickeningly little regard for human life.

Yes, Patti, please feel free to keep your lights on and doors and windows locked at your home, just as this homeowner likely did. We’re sure that if a similar situation happens at your home – and we hope it doesn’t – we know you’ll be prepared to reason with the intruder. Non-violently, of course.

Erin Palmer While I’d of course prefer we just stop shooting each other, I so frequently think, “How about you shoot him in the knee?” Are you trying to protect your family or log a kill? Sure looks suspicious to me.

That’s right, Erin. When you find yourself standing in your living room facing someone who’s just kicked in your front door, adrenaline pumping and family behind you, aiming for a knee is definitely the way to go. This does look suspicious.

You have to give the CSGV props, though. At least they don’t have the ban-on-sight policy for dissenting commenters so rigorously enforced by the intellectual cowards who run the Moms Demand Action page.

Karen Webb I’m as anti gun culture as any. But you need to understand this, The shooter in this case is an ordinary guy who believes he was protecting his family. This man forced himself into that house, and there probably wasn’t enough time to determine his motives. I would have to hope my dogs and alarm system would deter him, but this homeowner chose the legal option of using his weapon. In this area of our town, we have had several instances of door banging and doors kicked in for robberies and assault. The fault here lies with the home where this man was living, that was understaffed and just cited for having untrained staff too boot. He should not have been out on the streets. Do some research before getting on your soap box, this attitude of every single person that defends himself with a weapon is evil incarnate will not get any thing done towards real reformation of our gun laws. It just creates more division.

And this one:

Jason Tillotson I’m for gun control, but when exactly is it you people think it’s ok to defend yourself? After he’s broken in and raped your wife and killed your kids? Don’t let your ideology overpower your intellect. There are so many senseless acts of gun violence we could focus on rather than this one.

One more:

Eric Gerhart This is an unbalanced reaction to an appropriate case of self defense. Coalition, stop going crazy on every instance or you will undermine your position. Seriously. Take it down a notch. Home defense is what happened here. Nothing zealous, nothing paranoid, nothing malevolent. Intruder forced his way inside. Resident shot him. Totally reasonable. Strapping an assault rifle in Target? Arming teachers? Crazy and stupid. This case? Unfortunate yet justified.

So a few voices of reason are heard in a wilderness of reactionary hoplophobia. We suppose there’s always reason for hope.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I see three people who are one good introduction away from conversion. Anyone can be saved.

    • I wouldnt be surprised if two out of those three were actually POTG in disguise. Taking a page from the anti playbook with the ”I support gun control, but…” statements.

  2. You enter my home illegally the time for talking and less than lethal approaches is over. Period.

    • whats really interesting is the number of people saying to use a Bat, a frying pan, mace, pepper spray…

      Of course the people talking about mace and what not dont know that most areas that have crazy strict gun laws ALSO ban things like mace unless you are LEO… Why? because people would use it! And no weapons are ok with these people.

      • The logistics of using Mace in a home would be really problematic. That stuff is best used outside. You’re as likely to incapacitate your own self spraying it in a small indoor space as the bad guy. And if he happens to be done of those psychos who has been sprayed with Mace a ton of times in order to become immune to its effects, you just debilitated yourself more and gave him more and easier power to hurt you. They don’t think their arguments through.

        • yeah, use mace outside…..

          sad but true tale: Moms worthless lap rat had a mouse very temporarily cornered in a small gap. Nothing else was at hand so i give him a tiny squirt of mace, then when he was busy rubbing his beady lil eyes, i clocked him good with a old Belgian trade gun (only thing it prolly ever killed). Afterwards, we aired out the house for half an hour while coughing.

    • For whom are you beating your chest? Dudes on the interwebz?

      I’m glad you weren’t the first comment. You represent us well, bro. /sarc

      • What was wrong with his statement? What’s your alternative suggestion? Negotiation? Someone breaks in, and most gun owners are drawing down on them. Or are you just tone policing him because you think he makes you look bad? I don’t think he makes any of us look bad. It’s just a plain statement of the consequences of breaking into our houses. I said something quite similar, though more longwinded down thread.

  3. “To be clear here, our point is NOT that there are never legitimate instances of self-defense” hahahah we realy are winning against these anti gun orgs 15 years ago they never would have even acknowledged that self defense is ever an option

    • It’s better than that. They have finally realized that they cannot eliminate firearms. So now they are trying to paint you as a bad person for using firearms when less-lethal alternatives were available (in their opinion of course). This really is the last desperate act of a dying philosophy.

  4. “To be clear here, our point is NOT that there are never legitimate instances of self-defense”

    More whining from people with no self defense skills or training.

    Nice hindsight bias as well. Now that we’ve had four days to review the facts in comfort and leisure versus the homeowner who actually lived this terror in the moment and had to act within tens of seconds at most.

    Kudos to the homeowner for protecting his family.

  5. I got banned from CSGV’s facebook page the other day. A moronic, uninformed middle-aged white lady commented something to the fact of, “The handgun is as useless as the AR15. You cannot hunt with with them and they are not good for self defense!” My comment to her was, “Actually, I hunt with an AR15.”

    Boom. Banned. Just goes to show you that CSGV does not care about anything accept hearing their own rhetoric.

    • Actually, too, a lot of people hunt with handguns. Double fail on her part.

      But that’s not really surprising.

      • FYI I’m also banned from commenting on the CSGV Facebook page, despite commenting respectfully.

        • Huffington Post, MDA, CSGV… All three are places that I have been banned from because I expressed an opinion that the intolerable “tolerants” didn’t like…

      • No reason really. She kind of reminded me of my mother; completely mislead by the emotional appeals of the liberal media.

      • Why not? Is there something wrong when I said an old fat white guy wearing a Navy shirt approached me in a fair last year screaming at me open carrying at a pro-2A booth was “endangering the children”?

    • Handguns will put food on the table if needs be. I just went deer hunting with my buddy a few months back and he was using his, oh my… Insert long gasp with the right hand extending to the forehead in an “I’m getting the vapors” motion, AR15 variant. I plan to use my AK74 next season and many game animals have been taken by AK47 variants in 7.62×39 also. Dumb people won’t take the time to evaluate their hate of useful objects. I can shave with my assisted opening knife or what the average Joe might call “a switchblade” even though it is not. Either way it doesn’t say “politically correct and gender neutral youth scouts of the greater U.N.” so haters gonna hate.

    • Because you mentioned “AR-15” in a legitimate context. You have to understand that these guys, since Sandy Hook and Aurora have turned the letters “AR-15” into something other-worldly. Sometimes they’ll even bolster their “gun cred” by giving a pass to grandpappy’s wooden goose-stick; “At least it’s not an AR-15!!!”

      To them, “AR-15” is semaphore. It’s semaphore for “evil”, “exceptionally insane”, “icon of darkness”. To them, no normal sane person has even ever SEEN an **AR-15** in person.

      To us, it’s just another firearm; to them, it’s symbolic.

      You might as well have said “Actually, I rape babies.” – owning an AR-15 is just about as excusable, to them.

      • LMAO @ “To them, no normal sane person has even ever SEEN an **AR-15** in person.” (which means no normal sane person has ever been inside a gun store. ‘They’ clearly haven’t.)

  6. Posting legitimate self defense instances as cause for gun control?
    So I guess that means they’re done then?
    On the fast track to a three digit bank account and all the relevancy of a Microsoft Zune.

  7. “Patti Brown There are ways to keep would be intruders out like keeping outside lights on, doors and windows locked, security system. “

    Ya just gotta love the delusions that keep people like Patti Brown warm at night.

    Just wow.

    So, keeping outside lights on keep intruders out of your house? Patti, how exactly does that work here in the physical world where, you know, laws of physics kind of matter? Visible light at ordinary intensities cannot stop a physical being from doing anything.

    Another thought: How do we know at this point whether or not this homeowner had his lights on?

    Lights, locks on doors and windows and security systems do not stop all intruders. They are deterrents that will stop SOME intruders…most likely the ones that have no intent to harm anyway.

    I find it quite an interesting study of human psychology how ideas so colossally stupid as “a light will keep an intruder out” get said with such pompous certainty as if it is, in fact, provably true.

    And here’s a happy thought…that woman likely votes.

    • Also, if this guy is an autistic who escaped from a group home, his break-in could just as likely happen in broad daylight as at night, so outside lights won’t do anything. And if the homeowner had a security system with loud alarms, an autistic low-functioning enough to be in a home would be likely to react violently and unpredictably to the sound because they have sensory issues. In this case lights make zero difference and a house alarm might have made the situation worse.

      I can’t understand how liberals can’t even come up with arguments that make sense in the examples they are actually using.

    • I also can’t quite wrap my mind around the cognitive dissonance required to believe that someone who just violently banged on your door and broke it open to gain entrance to your house would be amenable to dispassionate verbal persuasion.

      The only reasonable conclusion to someone violently breaking into a house is that such person has the ability, opportunity, and intent to use that same violence against the occupants of that house. (From the perspective of the occupants of that house, they must reasonably conclude that they face the use of force trifecta: ability, opportunity, and jeopardy.)

      The hoplophobes can be idiots in their own homes, if they so choose. The rest of us can uphold our moral right – and obligation – to defend our own lives and the lives of our loved ones.

      • LMAO @ “would be amenable to dispassionate verbal persuasion.”

        It’s boggling for sure. I think there is a total mental disconnect happening there.

    • When I read her comments, I felt sorry for Ms. Brown. To believe that just turning on the lights and locking her windows will protect her from a determined attacker just shows how dangerously naive she is. She really has no idea. I’m a reasonably articulate person but when I’ve tried to gently explain the nature of personal threats to people like this, I usually get met met angry denial. The don’t know and don’t want to know.

      • I don’t feel sorry for her, I feel sorry for her kids, who didn’t get to choose a mother with the ability to think and are rendered sitting ducks should a disoriented autistic break into their house.

        • Do we know for sure she has kids? Maybe she doesn’t and is only endangering herself with her foolish view of the world.

  8. I think what a lot of them are missing is, even if he could have known the full facts of the situation it was STILL appropriate for the homeowner to use armed self defense. Autism is a spectrum, but if you are low-functioning enough as an autistic to be in a home for it then you are actually potentially dangerous. The literature is teeming with information about how unpredictably violent low-functioning autistics can be. This isn’t because they are “bad” obviously. Or “mean”. They simply can’t function in the world normally, something sets them off and they react, sometimes in ways that regular people consider violent and in ways that are physically harmful to either the autistic person or others.

    Given that, this autistic individual breaking into his home absolutely poses about the same threat/risk level as a random criminal breaking in. By physically breaking into the house (whatever the autistic’s thought processes may or may not have been or his level of reasoning/understanding of what he was doing), he already broke a serious social boundary by strong arming his way into a house. To think that if something random were to set him off he wouldn’t be violent toward the family shows a profound ignorance of the realities of low functioning autism. (I assume low function not just because of the group home but a high functioning autistic would be unlikely to break into a house unless he had criminal intent, so it’s either a high-functioning autistic with criminal intent, in which case: armed self defense appropriate. Or it’s a low functioning autistic who can’t even understand the problems with breaking into a house and is clearly strong enough to commit violence and is totally unpredictable, in which case: armed self defense appropriate.)

    Waiting around to see if the autistic is going to hurt anyone is about as goofy as waiting to see if the criminal just wants your TV or to rape someone in your house. These aren’t “wait and see” situations.

    His handlers should have kept him under control and then this wouldn’t have happened. It is not the homeowners “fault”. He responded to a threat.

    • “even if he could have known the full facts of the situation it was STILL appropriate for the homeowner to use armed self defense.”

      Exactly this part.

      While appreciate the comments regarding autism, that appropriateness comes from the fact that he invaded the man’s home, not because of the autism. The autism is irrelevant.

      The only thing a home defender has to articulate is that he (or family) was under imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. It is commonly held that the mere act of invading someone’s home is such an imminent threat. The intruder’s medical history does not matter.

      You said it well here:

      “poses about the same threat/risk level as a random criminal breaking in. By physically breaking into the house (whatever the autistic’s thought processes may or may not have been or his level of reasoning/understanding of what he was doing), he already broke a serious social boundary by strong arming his way into a house.

      • Absolutely agreed. My points about autism are merely to point out that the liberal argument about “awww he’s just a scared autistic person who wandered off from a group home and wouldn’t hurt a fly” is completely false. So their argument doesn’t work on any level. They’re appealing to emotions and hoping people don’t understand the autism spectrum and how it works, which is especially egregious since liberals actually tend to be somewhat educated on things like autism because it’s one of those “social justice” things they go on about. So the problem isn’t that they don’t understand autism and that autistics can pose a genuine threat to someone even if they don’t “mean it”. The problem is that they know this and they hope that you don’t because they want to make an appeal for gun control. Full stop someone breaks into your home, you are authorized to use deadly force. But being able to call bullshit on the examples they’re using is also good. And I call major bullshit here.

      • When faced with any home invader, you must first inquire as to whether this fellow citizen may be autistic, or have any of the following afflictions before making any attempt at defending yourself with lethal force…

        • LOL, then criminals will just lie about being autistic to gain the upper hand. Though as I and others have pointed out… autistic doesn’t mean “unable to be a criminal with criminal intent”. It’s a spectrum disorder. And while a low functioning autistic may be violent without realizing what their outbursts mean, a high functioning autistic absolutely can kill people with intent, just like every other “normal” person. Not being “neurotypical” does not mean not being functional or morally capable of understanding right and wrong. Though I dont’ really care about your personal philosophies as to whether you think beating me to death is wrong, try it and see what happens, autistic or not.

  9. “FELT genuinely threatened”
    I always look for slippery words that inject doubt into a self defense story.
    Someone forcefully entering your home IS a threat, not a feeling.

    • The legal standard is reasonable belief (of death or great bodily harm), using the reasonable-man standard/doctrine.

      In many states, the very act of home invasion is prima facie evidence of reasonable belief.

  10. Wait, what? The homeowner should not have shot the home invader because he was autistic? Well, now, I guess that being autistic is a free pass. Although I do seem to recall that the little sh!t who killed those children in Newtown was autistic, too. But I’m sure that he was harmless.

    • The fact he had handlers implies he was dangerous to himself or others. Good point about Newtown. It’s commendable for someone to try to explain autism so people aren’t cruel to people with autism whether high functioning or low functioning. But high functioning autistics can still be bad people with criminal intent. And low functioning autistics can be unpredictably violent.

      I hope the home this guy was being kept in is held responsible for his death. The homeowner might have pulled the trigger in self defense, but the people who weren’t properly containing him, killed him.

      • Monsanto, GMOs, Roundup, etc. do not cause autism any more than measles vaccinations do. Which is to say, they don’t. Please stop spreading uninformed nonsense. Thank you.

        • So either the number of kids classified is going up and the population hasn’t really changed at all (1 in 100/150 – not sure what the currently number *is*) or the population is really going up.

          And if the population is going up, and it’s not the measurements changing – then SOMETHING is causing it. And it’s likely something that started happening in the past 30 years.

        • And it’s likely something that started happening in the past 30 years.

          The first place I’d look is the over-diagnosis of ADHD, and the over-prescription of psychotropic drugs to children.

        • It’s probably a multitude of things all conflating. Some of it might be better diagnosis. Some of it might be overdiagnosis (i.e. the numbers aren’t as high as we think because it’s currently fashionable to diagnose someone on the autism spectrum when we might have diagnosed them otherwise previously), some of it could be chemicals/drugs/crap we’re putting in our bodies and children’s bodies that we weren’t before. Some of that may be what’s going on invitro during the pregnancy… stuff that might not be as harmful to people outside the womb may be more harmful gotten from the mother inside it. One factor we KNOW is relevant in some way is that people (particularly men) who have children later in life are at greater odds of having an autistic child.

          On the subject of better or overdiagnosis, there was a time when only the MOST developmentally handicapped child would have been diagnosed with autism. I have a family member on the autism spectrum who is so high functioning that if you met him and didn’t understand autism you would just think he was a little bit “odd” and maybe pedantic.

          For every case of true debilitation to a highly obvious degree there are hundreds of cases that aren’t THAT extreme and in previous generations would have just blended into the population as the “weird kid”.

        • Peter, the only uniformed statement here is yours as you can’t prove a negative. Secondly, lighten up, my primary point was correlation is insufficient evidence for accusations and if you practice such you are subject to the same faulty logic being turned on you. Finally, statistical analysis itself cannot be uniformed, only misapplied. If it is unsupportable it will be shown so. Calling something nonsense is only opinion, back it up with something as others have done here.

  11. “From what we know now, this homeowner felt genuinely threatened. Our point is to question a culture that instructs people to go for the gun FIRST and kill. This individual could have been deterred with any number of nonlethal methods. No one had to die here.”

    Somehow I doubt the folks at CSGV would ever say or support someone who said the following:

    “From what we know now, this protestors felt genuinely aggrieved. Our point is to question a culture that instructs people to commit violence and riot first. This injustice could have been protested with any number of nonviolent methods. No property had to burn here.”

    Evil folks (like CSGV & their supporters) are out there who wouldn’t feel an nanosecond of remorse if a criminal committed a heinous crime just like this one here:

    • I find it heinous how many times the writer of that article had to utter “gang rape”. I’m not some touchy feely kind of guy, but that was just uncalled for. There’s absolutely no sensitivity whatsoever to the victim here. I’m all for freedom of the press, but if I were this guy’s editor, I’d kick his ass to the curb.

  12. CSGV got the memo. Just make stuff up, scream louder, for the children. The gun culture pulled the trigger…
    Like PBS Frontline. The NRA pulled the trigger at Columbine, Tucson, Newtown.

    Nope, wasn’t the crazy person’s fault.

    Even the smarter anti’s are on to it, now.

    The question is, what’s next?

    My bet is a big under the radar gun grab via Executive Action,
    having sensitized the sheep through constant fear mongering…

    And it will have to be soon, as even the StateRunMedia is on the run…from the truth…

  13. “The homeowner was alerted to the previous banging by his wife,”

    One of those times when it didn’t come out right, eh Officer?

  14. “This individual [home invader] could have been deterred with any number of nonlethal methods.” — Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

    Really? How does the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence know this for a fact? Even better, how was the homeowner supposed to know this with so much confidence that he was willing to bet his family’s life on it?

  15. Yep they were ripping the poor homeowner to shreds on the evening news Monday night. I listen to people like that talk and I am dumbfounded and tempted to wonder if they even live on the same planet? How can you watch something like that, a beligerent fully grown man kicks a man’s door in while his family is home, and then make the comments linked above? Its like they are attacking some image in their head of who they want to think the homeowner was without putting themselves in the homeowner’s shoes. Its like they read far enough into the article to hear armed man shoots escaped autistic man, and then ad-lib’ed the rest.

    Yes this is horrifically tragic and so sad given the circumstances, which were only known after the fact I might add, but how can you sit there and say the man should have done anything less than ensure that at all costs this man coming through his door did not harm his family? The sad thing is, if this had actually been a home invasion and the homeowner had not shot the man and ended dead or severely beaten and same for his family, CSGV would be dancing around in the pools of blood saying “I told you so, you gun nuts are delusional, see this man had a gun in his house and it didn’t save him against a determined criminal!” or whatever inane bullshit they think up.

    • I know we want to feel sad for the autistic man. And it is sad. Not keeping a close watch on him is about equivalent to letting a toddler play on train tracks. But the fact that this man KICKED IN THE DOOR and broke in, means he is absolutely capable of destruction not only of property but also people. Even in hindsight, there is no reason to think the homeowner could have or should have acted differently. There is just as much a chance he would have spun out and started throwing stuff and hitting people and god knows what else. Autistic or no, he could have killed people whether he meant to or not. Whether someone understands their actions or not, those actions still bring the same consequences. Breaking in someone’s door is a reason for someone to use armed self defense. If he did that, no matter his capability of understanding his actions, he could have done worse. Violence doesn’t necessarily require “evil intent” or full understanding of what you’re doing, particularly when dealing with low functioning autistics.

    • But I totally agree if it had been a demented criminal and the homeowner hadn’t shot but had a gun that yeah, that would have been the narrative. It doesn’t matter if they are morally or intellectually consistent. All that matters to them is controlling over people and taking away the rights of the many to protect the few (without any evidence that their rights squashing would have any positive benefit whatsoever.)

  16. “There are ways to keep would be intruders out like keeping outside lights on, doors and windows locked, security system. If a gun owner won’t do any or all of these then they’re just wanting to shoot someone.”

    I’ve heard of a duty to retreat, and that’s bad enough, but now a duty to reinforce? Seriously?

    • They really mean you have the duty to be a good little victim and cower and pray and wait for the police to arrive because you aren’t qualified to defend your own life. It’s how Europe’s subjects believe about their personal worth and value and the pseudo-intellectual left LOVES Europe. I wish they loved it enough to move there.

      I’m fine with people living in a totally “gun free zone” if that’s how they want to live. But I’m NOT fine with them taking away my rights to do it here. They can move to Europe where they have no real rights to anything if they want to be constantly babysat and controlled by their government and at the mercy of criminals. I’m not here to judge other people’s masochism. I just don’t want it negatively affecting me and my rights.

  17. I think it’s funny how many of them omitted the “forced his way in” part of the story and have tried to convince themselves that this guy shot an autistic kid on his doorstep for banging on his door. When the facts don’t fit the narrative, just repeat the parts that do and skip the rest, right?

    This battle is lost for them. The war ain’t over, but CSGV, the SPLC, and the Bradys are going to be soon forgotten as even a participating faction.

    • That’s a good point. Not too long ago I had someone banging on my front door. I didn’t draw down on them. But they didn’t physically force their way into my house, either. Loud knocking on someone’s door and actually breaking into someone’s private home are two very different things.

      • About 10 years back I woke up at zero-dark-30 to the sound of my door being pounded on and a woman screaming.

        Glock 23 in hand I looked out of the door’s peephole and saw a guy holding onto a screaming woman by her hair.

        The guy turned to face my still-locked front door and said – “Call the Sheriff ! I’m a cabbie and she tried to to run from paying her cab fare!”

        So I called Polk County Sheriff dept. and five min later the situation was in hand. (Yeah, Polk County Sheriff run by “Grady (Because we ran out of bullets) Judd”.

        Until I heard the cabbie’s side of the story, it would have been real easy to think that was a woman being assaulted by the guy.

        Glad I left the damn door locked.

  18. “Unquestionably tragic. The man who broke in was autistic.”

    There are varying degrees of Autism. This wasn’t an old person with Alzeihmers who thought he was locked out of his house. This wasn’t a case of dimensia or trauma. This is a result of someone attempting to break into another persons house. Until they begin classifying the varying grades of Autism with something that would legitimately debilitate someone to requiring constant care we should not treat them as if they are severely mentally retarded.

    • “A group home is a private residence for children or young people who cannot live with their families, or people with chronic disabilities.”

      I just educated myself on what a group home is. However there is no explanation as to what extremes they will accept individuals to live with the group. Autistics can become very violent, as many other disorders, it doesn’t immediately mean it was an accident. If anyone can look into the legal history of the individual would probably help shed light.

    • Even if he was severely mentally retarded, has nobody seen “Of Mice and Men”. Being severely mentally retarded isn’t equivalent with being harmless. Sometimes it just means someone is more dangerous because they don’t know their strength or what they’re capable of and don’t understand the consequences to others or themselves of their outbursts.

      Oh yeah, THAT situation makes me feel safer. Not. There is a reason some people have handlers. Those handlers are responsible for this outcome, and I hope they get sued to hell and back for it.

    • A kid I went to high school with is currently serving multiple life sentences for murdering and dismembering two people, he was also a suspect in a massacre at a restaurant, but that was not proven. He is on the spectrum for autism.

      Now I’m not saying his autism had anything to do with his violent tendencies, but it certainly did not stop him from murdering. I have no idea what the intruder in Austin was like but there’s nothing to say his autism made him just socially awkward instead of potentially violent.

  19. In my city, a teenager high on a drug called “wet’ (marijuana and PCP) lunged at a police officer while holding a butcher knife. The officer shot him to death. All that matters to a potential victim is the severity of the threat. The motivation is irrelevant.

  20. “Our point is to question a culture that instructs people to go for the gun FIRST and kill.”

    Excuse me but a criminal brazen enough to enter an occupied house can not be given the benefit of any doubt. It needs to be made quite clear that such an endeavor is a potentially and preferentially lethal one.

    • What gets me is how they really seem to think we just sit around frothing and foaming at the mouth just thrilled at the idea of killing someone. They don’t get that guns are not meant to necessarily “kill” the intruder/violent psychopath/etc., they are meant to STOP THE THREAT and do so more effectively with less risk to the person defending themselves that non-lethal methods that tend to also fail a lot more and put you at the mercy of a now ENRAGED person trying to hurt you.

      I know my odds are best with a gun–especially as a woman. Why on earth would I use something “less lethal” that would also be less effective? Pepper spray is a bad idea in a home defense situation and anything else would require me to get VERY close to the bad guy and require either more strength than I have to effectively use it against a superior opponent (physical strength superior obviously not morally or intellectually superior if they are trying to hurt me), or more skill than a gun would require? And almost all other self defense methods either require potential bystanders who might come to your rescue (like a rape whistle) or require a lot of RUNNING. Well, dude, I’m not running out of my own home. You break in and it is on.

      Their arguments make zero sense unless they believe criminals and crazy people have more inherent value than innocent people minding their own business often in their own homes.

      Break into my house I’m going to do the most effective thing that gives me the best odds of surviving. If you don’t want to risk dying at my hands, don’t break in. Those who aren’t mentally competent to understand their behaviors or their strength need to be kept on a leash.

      • I was watching some Star Trek the other day and the thought struck me that if I could get a phaser set on stun, I would carry that exclusively. It never fails to incapacitate instantly, and you don’t have to worry about the legal consequences of killing someone. Best of both worlds.

        However, we live here in the real world, so a gun it is.

        • Same here. And I know some anti gun person would say “Use a stun gun/taser” but those things (especially what’s available on the general market) are not nearly as effective as a lot of people think, you get ONE shot so you better not miss, and approximately thirty seconds later if you haven’t run FAST AND FAR, you are in worse trouble than you started out in. No thanks.

          Plus, I honestly don’t think criminals are scared at all of stun guns. I’ve never seen a youtube video of someone going: “Oh shit, she’s got a stun gun” and running. Though I have seen criminals react that way to actual guns.

        • Summer –

          4 oz cans of Caspian-based Bear Repellant has a range of about 20 feet.

          I pack a can when I’m out cycling and someone thinks its funny to sic their bull terrier on me.

          (Yeah, that actually happened. I was surprised how fast I could pedal…)

        • Not from, in addition to…

          A few months back there were a few posts here in TTAG about animal attacks.

          And learned bear spray has range of about 20 feet and is relatively not as critical in aim that a pistol would be. I realized riding a bike and turning around in the saddle and then trying to aim the pistol would be a bit difficult under *very*stressful conditions (And a likely massive adrenaline dump that trashes fine motor skills). The other consideration was that no matter how justified the shoot would be it would be *very* expensive, likely tens of thousands of dollars I don’t have.

          If I *have* to shoot, I will. The long range bear spray is another tool to stop the attack.

          I mentioned it to you because you made the observation that mace, et. all is very short range, as in arms length range. The 20 foot range gives you the ability to pepper their ass well out of arm’s length.

          And then if necessary, introduce them to a hollowpoint at 1000 fps or greater. Several, if necessary.

          So it seems to me…

        • Oh yeah. I remember that article now. That’s a good point. I remember people were discussing how in that case a form of “mace” actually WAS the best weapon because of how sensitive a bear’s eyes and nose and such are to it.

          Good points re: range and aim and such. But my question: Is it a felony to use it for a purpose other than its intent like wasp spray is? i.e. you could use wasp spray to kill wasps but if you used it in self defense you might be facing criminal charges because of asinine rules about wasp spray. I swear I don’t know what’s wrong with people.

          with regards to things like mace/bear spray/etc. it’s really an outdoor tool/weapon obviously, but I would be worried about the direction of the wind. I certainly don’t want that crap in my face.

        • “Is it a felony to use it for a purpose other than its intent like wasp spray is?”

          Like arm braces, I think it’s all about intent. If you go biking around with a can of wasp spray it might be a little suspicious (unless you’re deathly allergic to wasps!) but if you have bear spray or such on you while biking in the wilderness (where a bear attack is remotely possible) and you’re assaulted or someone sics their dog on you, it’s not unreasonable that you’d use it as a tool to defend yourself with.

      • Consider also: even using gun-control advocate statistics*, about 2/3 of all firearm injuries are non-fatal.

        (Note: no obvious breakdown of self-defense firearm use; it’s an anti-gunner study. At best, it indicates that the range of claimed self-defense gun uses is anywhere from 100,000 to 2.5MM per year. But the study includes just shy of 500,000 firearm injuries, meaning that it is reasonable to conclude that most, if not the vast majority, of defensive gun uses are non-fatal.)


      • ” Is it a felony to use it for a purpose other than its intent like wasp spray is?”

        Maybe. Maybe not. I think you mentioned living in a ‘Deep Red’ state. I’d ask those in your area qualified to answer…

  21. I have personal experience with the mentally ill, autistic people and the developmentally disabled. Worked in a state facility in Illinois many years ago. Many were violent and had to be controlled by psychoactive drugs. And more than a few had the occasional violent outburst. If some lunatic busts through my door I’m not waiting to interview him. Sorry all you PC weirdos…

  22. I have lights on front and back porch, reasonably good locks on doors, naturally doors and windows are weak points. Mainly to slow one up and make noise. The Scot Terror does not yap at every thing, so when he rumbles I pay attention. If all that is not a deterrent, then the next light one sees when in the house is the light beam coming from a flashlight clamped under the 12 gauge barrel. Could be the last thing too. I have had, over the years, people banging on my door in the late evenings, or early mornings, I have yet to shoot one for that. I am not a brave man, anything that wakes me up in the witching hours is a cause for concern. Daylight in some areas may not be too safe either. Gun control advocates may seem “reasonable” at times, but, their reasons are warped. To them, we are all criminals or otherwise subhuman. Like somehow we are taking unfair advantage of home invaders. When someone breaks into your house, there is no time to give them a sanity test, or ask their business, I would rather they left the way they came in, but much faster. That might not be the case.

  23. What do liberals hate the most? Guns. What do liberals love the most? Retards. Seriously if this guy would have been a Rhodes scholar they wouldn’t be half as sad. If he was a fortune 500 CEO they’d be jumping for joy. That’s what’s really sick about this country.

  24. Oh know, the anti gun folks think someone shouldn’t have used a gun. Who could have predicted it…

  25. CSVG: Yeah, maybe that guy walking fast towards you at 2am in a dark alley needs help too. Let me know how that works out for you. I’m sure anyone doing any as openly suspicious and ill-advised as BREAKING INTO SOMEONE’S HOME just has good intentions.

    Trying to reason that people should give someone breaking into their house the benefit of the doubt is beyond idiotic considering the odds are more in favor of that person being a threat to the family — autistic or not.

  26. I still hate the “arming teachers is dumb!” True, because then how could Adam Lanza have slaughtered 20 kids so the antis could dance on their graves trying to legally get their opinions enforced?

  27. I live in a nice middle class neighborhood. However there is a university here and lots of nearby student housing, lots of rental houses occupied by students. My husband travels a lot on business and have had on more than one than once, had someone try to see if front door was unlocked. Our male Golden really takes exception to a stranger at the door in the wee hours of the night. But do let the person know house is occupied by a very grumpy old woman who has a gun. Figure some are just drunk college students, beat feet out of there. I did not get to be an old woman by not taking my personal safety seriously. Break into my home and I will take ballistic measures to render you no longer a threat.

  28. Just read the new report.
    1. Became agitated at a group home and took off.
    2. Staff member followed him.
    3. Staff member then abandoned him to check those at the group home
    4. He started banging on doors in the neighborhood.
    5. 911 calls were made about the door banging.
    6. At 6:30 AM got to last house
    7. Banged on door. Broke door and entered house.
    8. All physical barriers gone, homeowner was between him and homeowners family.
    9. Shot.

    I’d really like to hear the staff members reasoning for abandoning the person. No cellphone? No other staff at group home? No 911 call for help?

    How often has this group home had runaways?

  29. The key point here is the mindset of the anti’s – reality has no place in their belief system. It takes on the feeling of a relgious fanaticism, whereupon if you don’t agree, you must be evil. And therefore your comment on their FakeBook must be censored. Therefore you are the cause of what they fear, the person breaking and entering. The law abiding gun nuts of the NRA made Adam Lanza do it….

    Somewhat OT as its in ref the islamofascists attack in paris, but related to the same mindset, and said much better, here:

    • Read especially Howard Deans reflexive reply equating 2A rights activists to ISIS jihadis….
      And remember what his function was in the Democratic Party.
      At some point you realize that some of these anti’s are much cloer to Elliot Rodgers, or Jared Loughner, or Adam Lanza…and reasoning with facts is a non-starter with them….

      • Good and scary article. Of course the “elites” allowing access to us are not actually in danger of dying like the people who let the ISIS people into the building. They are doing it for more money and power. There is no direct threat to them which makes them far more cowardly than the person about to lose their literal life. I like to think I am the type of person who would die to protect my freedom and not give in to a terrorist wanting to harm other people to protect my own life. But I have no idea which kind of person I am either until I’m faced with an awful situation and have to choose. I think most of us go through our lives hoping we’ll never be given such a choice, that way we can keep our delusions about what good people we are. Finding out you actually did turn out to be noble and brave and awesome sort of sucks when you die for it.

        I also don’t disagree that a lot of the antis do have a lot in common with crazy shooters. There has always been a part of me that thinks they are so scared of people having guns because they are scared of themselves having them. Their own self-awareness of their lack of control (even subconsciously) is the driver that allows them to project that onto others. It’s a theory anyway.

  30. “To be clear here, our point is NOT that there are never legitimate instances of self-defense…”

    BULLSHIT! They’ll look for any excuse that they can find to claim that a DGU didn’t count as a legitimate act of self-defense. Just look at this article below. In each example they listed, they act like the person that was defending himself wasn’t in danger because the attacker didn’t have a gun:

    • Well, to be fair, the quote did not say they believe there are legitimate self defense GUN uses…just legitimate self defense.

      In general, they choose their words very carefully. Leaving “gun” out of that opening statement was likely purposeful and part of the narrative.

      • Yup. They all seem to imagine they are Buffy, where everything in their environment becomes a weapon that they can use with military level skill (probably part of the arrogance of their pseudo-intellectualism where they are smarter and therefore better than everybody else.)

        I would not be at all surprised if most of them having run through fantasies in which they are throwing plates at attackers from the kitchen, and actually winning.

  31. The problem with waiting to use lethal force until it is absolutely necessary is that you can’t possibly know if it’s necessary until it’s too late.

  32. I’ve taken the liberty of trolling the daylights out of the CSGV facebook page, and I encourage everyone to join in the fun. It looks to me like even some of their die-hard adherents are unable to follow the logical gymnastics of their dear leader on what is pretty clearly a valid home defense shooting. Those people may be converted and see the light yet.

    • My favorite comment over there is some moron stating that the homeowner should have used some less lethal method, like a Taser or “buck shot as the first round instead of firing off 3 rounds.”

  33. Its hopeless to even have a discussion with Center To Support Government Violence members. They whine about criminals and mental nut cases getting shot by people defending their lives and property, but would celebrate if peaceful citizens were gunned down by agents of the government. The intellectual disconnect in the mind of the average CSGV member is boggling.

  34. It is a sad case, but I do not blame the homeowner for defending his home and family. It seems that what once were home robberies when unoccupied have transitioned to violent armed home invasions. Just think about a few recent cases where multiple armed men not only invaded occupied homes, but inflicted deadly and senseless violence:
    1. An 82 year old grandmother tied to a chair and beaten to death during a home invasion.
    2. An 81 year old unarmed man shot to death during an home invasion by three thugs.
    3. Two parents wounded during a home invasion and their baby kidnapped and thrown in a trash bin tobdie.
    4. A young couple tied up, beaten, heads taped in plastic bags, and left to suffocate and die during a home invasion.

    In an increasingly violent works, our last safe haven is our home and we have every right to defend it and our families. The real vikan in this case is the group home who allowed a violent man free.

    • If that’s not an argument for every homeowner having the maximum firepower and weaponry they can afford, then I’m not exactly sure what is.

      The liberal response to that is obviously that they just think the odds of that happening to any given individual are very small. So really their self defense recommendation is luck. Sorry, no.

  35. Here are my thoughts – let me know if this sums it up.
    One’s Home is one’s Castle (this is where “Castle Laws” are derived from if I’m not mistaken).
    The act of breaking into a house/home (where one can most reasonably expect loved ones and belongings to be secure) should be a clear demarcation beyond which the use of lethal force should be expected and defended. (because being unexpectedly encroached withing the bounds of one’s house/home puts the resident at a disadvantage, which should be balanced by the availability of lethal force)

    In other words – if you break into my house, expect to die. Even if your intentions are mischievous rather than malicious. At 2 AM, I can’t be expected to accurately interpret your intentions, your abilities, or your mental status – I don’t know if you’re there to leave a bag of dog poo or to rape my daughter.

  36. I’m not going to rush and call this a good shoot based on what I’m reading. The guy was literally retarded, he was going around the neighborhood banging on doors and “was able to force his way into the front entryway.” We need more detail on what exactly that means. I have worked around people with severe mental retardation and autism before, they don’t always understand what boundaries are.

    Legally, yeah one’s home is one’s castle… but you just shot a retarded guy, maybe because he needed to use the bathroom or something. You can see why some people would find this really horrible, because it is.

    In a previous apartment I lived in I had police and firemen storm my place when I was butt naked and tell me to get the hell out because one of my neighbors had a gas leak. They didn’t even really knock, just came in the front door and the porch screen door at the same time. Shit happens, that doesn’t mean you get to start blasting until you identify a genuine reason to.

    The fact is some desperate person in distress or shock might force entry into your home some day. For his own sake I hope the home owner at least tried to communicate before shooting, I hope he had a good reason… because if he didn’t he has to live with that.

    • “Legally, yeah one’s home is one’s castle… but you just shot a retarded guy, maybe because he needed to use the bathroom or something. You can see why some people would find this really horrible, because it is.”

      Most people know very little about autism, let alone having directly experienced an agitated, angry, violent, autistic adult’s propensity for mayhem. If somebody in that state kicks your door in, trust me, you aren’t going to be wondering whether they might just need to use the bathroom. A person in that state isn’t going to be in any way reasonable and will be quite able to do serious harm to both himself and you and your family. And, yes, it’s a horrible thing to have happen. But so is getting bad hurt by an out of control, enraged autistic adult.

    • It doesn’t matter if you UNDERSTAND that you just squeezed the life out of a rabbit. What matters is the rabbit is dead.

      If a severely mentally retarded person breaks into my house with no understanding of what they are doing, I don’t care. Their handlers should have kept a leash on them. It is NOT my responsibility to be killed to protect an innocent violent mentally disabled person who doesn’t understand they are being violent. The result is the same whether you have the cognition to understand it or not.

      Those who are severely mentally disabled should be kept under tight control while around others they could harm. That may sound harsh, but I don’t say it to be cruel. I say it for their own safety because I wouldn’t even feel guilty defending myself against someone who posed a threat to me but “didn’t really understand what he was doing.” And even those who would feel guilty about it would likely still pull the trigger to protect themselves. It is the guardian of the mentally disabled person who is morally and physically responsible for keeping that person out of danger and from causing danger to others. Just like I won’t call and wait for the police to arrive and try to reason with a rapist, I won’t do it with an escaped mentally disabled person, either.

  37. -Jason Tillotson

    “I’m for gun control, but when exactly is it you people think it’s ok to defend yourself?”

    I think I found my new anti-censorship internet forum comment tactic…..

    “I’m absolutely for gun control, but….”

    Fight fire with fire!

  38. The Dr. who stated that immunizations cause autism has admitted to fudging his research. The Mercury as a preservative in the serums may be the cause. In the article this cause isn’t ruled out.

    Where I live parents can ask for the serums without Mercury. Sounds crazy, huh? “When I pick up my new car I’d like the working brakes option please.”

    I have autistic students and parents want to know. Japan hadn’t had any autism until they began to eat our fast food. Please if you want people to believe that some groups want to confiscate guns investigate this and be open to the possibility.
    What’s in it for you to keep using roundup?
    Does this feel out of control? Does it feel like we can’t control the food industry? I get that. Gun control people are afraid too. They don’t have a good way to fix a problem that goes to Cain & Abel.

    • I don’t know what causes autism, but I definitely don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that exposure to various chemicals that we weren’t typically exposed to routinely 30 years ago could have contributing factors. I understand the need to distance ourselves from frothing at the mouth idiots like Jenny McCarthy, but that doesn’t mean there is NO truth or partial truth underneath the hysteria. If we don’t trust our government why the hell would we trust our corporations that are even more corrupt and don’t give a crap about the safety of anything they produce short of things that are obviously immediately harmful and will result in lawsuits.

  39. Now this is the way to do it. Take the fight to them and call them out/link them. Name and shame. Your social media channels do not belong to you, they belong to Facebook/IG/Twitter, whomever. You are just leasing the space for a minute. These antis need to realize that their favorite tool, social media, can be used to damage them too.

  40. ” What if I’m out on a walk, need help and knock on your door? ”

    Then you should understand I’m going to answer the door with a gun in my hand. That would not be a good time to try to force your way past me. Calmly and respectfully explain your problem, and the very least you can expect from me is that I’ll call 911 for you. Attack me, screaming, and I’ll call 911 as well, but you won’t hear the call.

  41. To paraphrase the patron of Sam Jackson beer, Samuel L. Jackson, “Yes he deserved to die! And I hope he burns in hell!”

    I will not, refuse to, shall not, have to be a psychic to pull the trigger on a raving lunatic, genuine or medical, once they are inside my home. This position is non-negotiable.

    Or… put signs up at my domicile. Trespass at your own risk.

  42. A guy broke into my house October 2013. When I illuminated him with my pistol in hand and happened to see that he was unarmed (thankfully due to the position he was in when I saw him) I decided not to shoot unless the situation escalated from there. Turns out the guy had just got out of jail the previous day, had a history of drug use, burglary and assaulted a police officer. Had I not had a gun, its clear to me I would have been worse off. The thing is no one knows about this unless I tell them. It was not newsworthy since no one got shot which is fine with me, but then I see ignorant comments that refer to people such as myself as “paranoid” etc. I kept my cool and defused a situation without firing a shot. Had I been in the situation outlined in this article I would have pulled the trigger as well. The thing is that there are probably more situations like mine out there than there are unfortunate tragedies but no one knows about them because as far as the media is concerned nothing happened because no one died! I don’t like to takes sides in politics as I consider myself a Libertarian but I’m sick of being attacked by the left simply because I choose to use a tool (gun) and they do not. Why is it I feel I have to defend rights that we are all entitled to have? The fact that we have to fight for rights is a natural indicator that someone is trying to take those rights away and that disturbs the hell outta me!

    • Wow Greg! I’ve tried to imagine every scenario when preparing for the possibility of a home invasion and I know it must have been hard to deal with someone in your home. I can’t imagine the stress you must have been under. If you don’t mind sharing more about that such as time of day and what “position” you found him I would appreciate it and anything else you want to share. Thanks 🙂

      P.S. I agree withat your other statement about the media and rights as well.

      • I know what you mean about preparing. The funny thing is that I had a gun set up for home defense with tactical light and laser, but because my daughter had recently visited I locked up the guns and after she left the only gun I took the time to unlock was my EDC which was a M&P Shield which I set on my nightstand. Anyway with that being said, he broke in October 7th 2013 at 5:30am (it was still dark). My mother had visited for dinner the night before and fell asleep on the couch. She woke me up when she heard someone attempting to enter the back door. Thankfully she left the lights off which gave me the advantage. As I entered the back area of the house I could hear some one making noise about 10 feet away. I reached with my support hand and turned on the light and saw him in a crouched position with his hands in front of him at which point I instructed him to leave (in more words or less lol). My initial intention was to hold him for the police but my mother’s phone froze up (bad timing!) so I opted to tell him to leave. After the 3rd verbal command instructing him to leave was issued, he finally left. 15 minutes later the police arrived and tracked him down with a K9 and arrested him. Again, had things not played out the way they did and had I not found him in the crouched position and unarmed, I would have shot him. In my mind there is little or no time to assess the situation when someone is in your home. Things just worked out this time and the perp got to live. Had he made a move toward me or had been armed it would have been done. Even when the police arrived, the first thing they told me was that I could have shot him. I know I could have but I didn’t feel it was necessary at the time. BTW one thing I had done prior to all this is train myself to disengage the safety on my EDC and clear malfunctions in the dark. I practiced until it was 2nd nature. I didn’t even remember disengaging the safety. I just did it. Practice at home and at the range was what allowed me to think clearly in this case while an unimaginable amount of adrenaline surged though my body. Practice practice practice and repeat repeat repeat!

  43. The homeowner in this instance also happens to be a local Austin-area firearms instructor.

    I’ve met him a few times and he was an assistant instructor at one of the defensive pistol classes I attended. Very, very nice guy with a well-rounded training resume which includes quite a bit of martial arts training as well as many hours of firearms training and certs.

    I doubt his decision to shoot was made without consideration to all the factors at play. A man at your door posing a threat to you, your wife and I believe in his case, 3 kids? Sad all around and I hope he knows he’s got a lot of support.

Comments are closed.