As much as we love these videos, we must once again caution you, gentle reader, that it’s a bad idea to recreate a defensive gun use (DGU) for the media. It can be used against you in civil court and/or a subsequent incident. (Check that trigger finger.) As for the advisability of holding home invaders at gunpoint, that’s a rocky road. The bad guys might attack you, they might have hidden friends and the cops could get the wrong idea. “I really tried to be as forceful as possible,” Smith told the AP. “I didn’t want them to get me into a conversation. You can’t let them get too close to where they can grab the gun.” Perhaps it’s best to let these people go. Still, result. [h/t Billy Wardlaw]
Let them go?
Are you high? What on earth could justify letting them go so that they can come back and shoot you in the back?
Keep them in your sights, supine and whimpering for mercy. If they make any move that makes you feel threatened, kill them.
I can’t believe any responsible American could recommend anything less.
Survival first, responsibility second.
I’m not confident in my ability to keep one bad guy at bay, never mind two. Rather release them back into the wild than end up dead. Or worse (family raped, injured or killed).
I’m not saying that’s the best course of action. But it might be.
Not all of us are the operator you are Skyler.
Good grief. How hard could it be? You’ve already got them on the ground at short range.
Unbelievable advice.
I think it’s time you go back to Walt, Skyler.
Who is walt?
OK, you have guy on the ground. He tries to crawl out your front door. You still shoot him? Just asking, not judging.
How is he going to crawl without your being in fear that he has a weapon?
You can dance a lot of angels on the head of a pin in fantasy world. In the real world, if you tell someone to freeze while you’re pointing a gun at him, and he makes a movement that seems at all untoward, then you shoot him.
But yes, if he can move across the ground without moving his arms or legs or other appendage, then yes, you should not shoot him. But that only applies if you think that he won’t then retrieve a weapon to come and attack again.
I see no scenario where someone could really move about without there being a reasonable fear for my safety in the fact pattern presented.
No responsible adult should ever advise allowing him to run away. I think the risk of liability to you for giving such advice (if it is at all actionable) is much higher than the homeowner for fearing for his safety.
I don’t disagree with RF. I’m also not going to shoot an unarmed man in the back while he is crawling on his belly out my front door.
Rumor has it that dead and/or quadriplegic bad guys are lot easier to control at gunpoint.
The best ending to one of these incidents is that no one gets killed. I’ve said it before, you only fire when there’s no other option.
The second best ending to one of these incidents is when only the bad guys get shot.
I agree. If you can avoid taking a life, do it. If they, by their actions, remove that option from you, its their fault they are dead.
Seriously, criminals tend not to be too bright, but I think most of them can understand cutting your loses – why go back for a second chance at death?
What happens when he tells his friends what transpired and they all decide to come back for round two?
It ain’t hollywood. A well oiled team of pro’s with mp5’s and nvg’s ain’t lurking in the bushes waiting for Arnold to show up.
Most of these guys are addicts and once they start running they don’t look back.
Thank you for some non- High Speed Low Drag logic JWM. Geez, some of you guys have World of Warcraft living in your brains.
I fully expect in a DGU, I will shoot till the threat is ended, and the BG would at least be wounded.
Things probably would not go that way. In any event, I have zero desire to arrest a prisoner.
I may order him to do this or that, but he is always free to run.
That part of my job is done.
It would have been cheaper for the tax payer if he had just capped those two druggies. Just sayin.
There are plenty of vermin that should have been laid out long before they committed serious crimes, the two assholes in Connecticut that burnt the house down with a man’s family inside come to mind.
Catch and release is a judgement call. George Zimmerman can tell you what happens when you interrupt a felonious assault with gunfire. The 92 year old WW2 vet dropped a problem on the floor with one shot and no conversation, that’s one down and two in jail for the cost of a single .22 bullet. Every situation is different, but I’m not comfortable with letting bold, dangerous people walk out of my house back into the night.
At that moment it will be your choice to make. Just remember that every move you make will be under a microscope held by the system. Hopefully if, and that’s a big if, the moment comes you will choose wisely .
Exactly. Humanistic considerations aside, I would rather risk a new encounter with the same thugs than have the first one become a never-ending nightmare because I chose to execute two would-be felons on my living-room floor.
No conversations. No warnings.
“As for the advisability of holding home invaders at gunpoint, that’s a rocky road. The bad guys might attack you, they might have hidden friends and the cops could get the wrong idea. … Perhaps it’s best to let these people go.”
If I am in a half-way defensible position in my home, hear the burglars break in, and I am ready (armed), I am going to try and hold them every time. If you let them go, they could easily try and break in again … and the next time they will know that you are armed so they will be better prepared. Or they will break in to another person’s home and could physically harm those people. We owe it to ourselves and our neighbors to incarcerate home invaders, rather than let them go to terrorize someone else.
Could there be accomplices outside ready to come into your home? So what. That is why we have “high capacity” magazines and a decent defensive position. Could a criminal try to grab your gun? Not if the criminal is laying spread eagle on his stomach on the floor — with his face down. Like I said earlier, we owe it to ourselves and our neighbors to get these scumbags off the streets and in prison. Sometimes that takes a little bit of “risk” and courage. So be it.
As for the police harming you in the process, that is where communication is critical. Assuming you called 911, you must tell them your size, race, what you are wearing, and identify yourself appropriately when the police arrive. And since you already have the criminals laying spread eagle on their stomachs and face down, there is little risk of the situation going south when police arrive.
we owe it to ourselves and our neighbors
I don’t owe my neighbors sh!t. If they won’t take care of themselves, I’m not going to do it.
I agree with the rest of your comment, though, especially in defense of my home. If I didn’t shoot the BGs immediately — which is something I’d like to avoid if possible — I’d prone them out and call 911. However, on the street, no. The situation is too unmanageable. I’d just prefer to get out of Dodge, leaving the BGs to wonder why they ain’t dead.
Ralph,
I truly understand your position about not owing your neighbors anything. There are lots of times that same thought crosses my mind. And I certainly agree that no one owes anything to a neighbor that has tried to screw them.
That said, we will be in big trouble in this country if no one gives two cents about anyone but themselves. It is in everyone’s interest to take bad guys off the streets. If the good guys don’t stick together as a community, the bad guys will take over. And when the criminals get the upper hand, they will come after you like everyone else.
That said, we will be in big trouble in this country if no one gives two cents about anyone but themselves. It is in everyone’s interest to take bad guys off the streets. If the good guys don’t stick together as a community, the bad guys will take over.
Unfortunately, the way things are now, that’s a proposition that’s almost entirely risk for pretty much zero reward for anyone who undertakes it. Just ask George Zimmerman. Taking responsibility for your community is noble, but if anything happens, especially if it involves a firearm, and suddenly you won’t be a good neighbor anymore. No, instantly you’re that dangerous nut who was a
Sorry, accidentally hit publish in the middle of a word and the edit function wasn’t available.
As I was saying, you’re that dangerous nut who was always looking for a fight. All in all, unless things change, it’s just not realistic to look out for anyone other than yourself and your family.
My job description in life does not include ridding the streets of criminals.
I’m not advocating going out on the streets in search of criminals. All I am saying is that releasing criminals from your home — so they can simply go attack your neighbors instead of you — is a disservice to your community.
Executing criminals who are no longer a threat to me is not in my job description either. Good topic RF.
Comments are closed.