Input and thoughts on burglary - Page 2

Input and thoughts on burglary

This is a discussion on Input and thoughts on burglary within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Buy a new tv, move to a "castle doctrine" state, give the lawyer your address, wait and see if his buddy the burglar shows up...betcha ...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 64
Like Tree33Likes

Thread: Input and thoughts on burglary

  1. #16
    Member Array paching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Kissimmee, Florida
    Posts
    407
    Buy a new tv, move to a "castle doctrine" state, give the lawyer your address, wait and see if his buddy the burglar shows up...betcha he won't.
    Why?? Because at the last second, the Police are minutes away.


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by dcselby1 View Post
    ... And if the insurance would not cover a bitter TV, just turn him in. Just a thought.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus100 View Post
    ... the tv should be covered by your homeowners insurance ...
    Ahhh...The feel good statement "Insurance will replace it"...Makes my head explode every time I read it or hear it.

    What's your deductible?

    Ever had to deal with an insurance company on a loss like this?

    Do you know how much your rates are going to go up after you make a claim? I have, and basically I paid $800 for a $300 replacement unit over a 3 year period (car stereo, $0 deductible).

    All of you should have an honest face to face sit down with your insurance agent and pose that scenario. Walk it through step by step as if you were actually filing a claim. Ask how long it will take to process, what all information you will need to prove what was stolen, how much your rates will go up after the claim & for how long. You won't like the results.

    On topic, hopefully someone will pull this very stunt on one or more of these civil lawyers. Happened with the jackwagons that put the law on the books that anyone can condemn & seize a property if they intend to develop it. IIRC one of the judges that approved the law lost his cabin/vacation property that way.

    In this scenario, I'd keep loading him up with stuff until he collapsed under the weight and was pinned to the floor. It's not kidnapping or unlawful detaining. You were helping him load up on the stuff he wanted. I guess he should have thought that through before he asked for the oak coffee table and leather sleeper sofa.
    Tzadik likes this.
    Sticks

    Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
    A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
    See also Sheep

  3. #18
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    22,131
    My gun would be out and covering him. However since there is no weapon visible, shooting him in most states would be hard to justify. Not advocating anything, BUT...... a good hard kick to the side of the knee should slow him down enough for the cops to get there and take charge of him.

    Sounds like you need a new group of friends.....or at least 1 new friend.
    Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.

    USAF Retired
    NRA Life Member

  4. #19
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,301
    In my home, I'll always assume the worst...no talking...entering my home uninvited will be considered a serious threat to me and mine...'nuff' said.
    atctimmy and Eagleks like this.
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  5. #20
    Member Array Sfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Northern Idaho
    Posts
    34

    What i would do...

    If he has my TV and is calm and determined to leave with it... then I would let him. Now, if he calmly tried to come back for more after that, then I would assume he meant me and mine harm and that would be the end of his games. It may seem wrong that it would need to be done this way, but right or wrong, I would not want to be tied in court and lose the house that the TV was supposed to be in because a legal loophole. And no, I would never put in a HO claim on this dollar amount. You should either have a rainy day fund to cover a sudden $1500 cost, or be working on getting a rainy day fund that can cover a $1500 loss long before you go shopping for another... but that is getting off subject. This may seem like a terrible situation, but I guarantee you it is worse for the BG, in fact, if ever I DO walk in on a BG stealing my things, I sincerely hope he DOES have his hands full with a big heavy object of mine, that is in my opinion a best case scenario... if it costs me $1500 to watch someone leave that I don't have to shoot, and I know without a doubt that there is no way he can go for a weapon while he is leaving, then that is an excellent ending to an otherwise terrible scenario.

    On another side note (and I don't mean for this to make me sound like I am against the castle doctrine idea, because I am definitely pro castle doctrine, in fact, I honestly wish every state had the damn law...) but why do we continue to make ourselves look terrible in regards to this relatively new law? Every time I hear someone talk about it, they always say something like, "well MY state has this law, so therefore he's a dead man..." this sounds terrible, it sounds like you are going to shoot the ******* just because you can...

    atctimmy -
    "As for me I live in a castle doctrine state so he gets drilled ASAP."

    Why not say something to the effect of "In this scenario, I would feel the need to stop the threat, yada yada, and thankfully my actions would be backed up by my states castle doctrine... yada yada..." But instead, 98% of the time everyone always leads their statement with "my state has a castle doctrine, so i'm going to shoot and smile with my nose high in the air...". Again, I love the castle doctrine, I just think we might be inserting our feet into our mouthes when we use it to justify our scenario'd actions...

    just my $.02 and something to think about.
    Ishmael and EdC like this.

  6. #21
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Gastonville
    Posts
    6,668
    Why not say something to the effect of "In this scenario, I would feel the need to stop the threat, yada yada, and thankfully my actions would be backed up by my states castle doctrine... yada yada..." But instead, 98% of the time everyone always leads their statement with "my state has a castle doctrine, so i'm going to shoot and smile with my nose high in the air...". Again, I love the castle doctrine, I just think we might be inserting our feet into our mouthes when we use it to justify our scenario'd actions...
    Simply put, because I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I don't feel the need spew legal double speak to make a point.

    In Ohio he is presumed by law (and by me) to be a lethal threat just by being there. I don't need to do any calculations about lawyers or law suits I just need to concentrate on staying alive. My best bet is to act first in a swift and violent manner. With that in mind I have already determined under the protection of the law that I can shoot first and ask questions later. I intend to do just that. It is one less thing to clog up my brain at the critical moment and hopefully will allow an extra split second to help me survive the encounter. The law is a fantastic law and IMO really helps the good guys.

    If, on the other hand, you want to speak lawyer speak then go right ahead. I prefer straight answers to straight questions.
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  7. #22
    Member Array Sfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Northern Idaho
    Posts
    34

    No offense meant, even though I used your quote.

    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    Simply put, because I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I don't feel the need spew legal double speak to make a point.

    In Ohio he is presumed by law (and by me) to be a lethal threat just by being there. I don't need to do any calculations about lawyers or law suits I just need to concentrate on staying alive. My best bet is to act first in a swift and violent manner. With that in mind I have already determined under the protection of the law that I can shoot first and ask questions later. I intend to do just that. It is one less thing to clog up my brain at the critical moment and hopefully will allow an extra split second to help me survive the encounter. The law is a fantastic law and IMO really helps the good guys.

    If, on the other hand, you want to speak lawyer speak then go right ahead. I prefer straight answers to straight questions.
    I mean no offense, I used your quote simply because it was the most recent example i could find. And i do not mean that one shouldn't shoot because they are afraid. I only mean that when talking about the castle doctrine, we should word our comments carefully. We CCW'ers have to be conscientious of our image at all times, and I think that if we want this castle doctrine to stay and hopefully grow, we should be careful not to make it look like we want to use it as an excuse to shoot somebody. thats all =)

    Not trying to say you should act any differently, just that we should describe our actions differently... but Im rambling now...
    Ishmael likes this.

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,863
    I know what it is here , not Wisconsin :

    1. Any person who breaks into a house that is occupied, is assumed to be a threat, or they would not have broken in while it was occupied. And, if not occupied at the time, there's still more.
    2. Any citizen can use the "reasonable " force to perform a citizen's arrest of a person they have reason to believe or who they see commit a felony, up to and including deadly force in order to protect themselves from a threat of serious injury or death.

    A burglary is a felony, and assuming it was an unoccupied home at the time.... the homeowner has every right to perform a citizens arrest, detain them, or to restrain them from leaving by whatever level of force is reasonably necessary. If the home was "occupied" ..... 'any' level of force is legal if the owner feels threatened with serious injury or death, and it is assumed the person means harm to the occupants if they broke in while it was occupied.

    Now, if he has the TV in his hands... he would be advised to set it down right where it was and he's under arrest.... and I will be standing between him and any exits... so charging at me may be deemed an attack to which I may need to protect myself. Second, I bet he'll be laying on the floor waiting for the Police to arrive. If he attempts to escape and under a citizen's arrest, he can also be charged with resisting arrest, escape from custody , and similar charges as well. If he swings or fights, he's going also for assault / battery while committing a felony, etc. He can start racking up more charges and never get out of prison if he wants...

    Many burglars are armed these days, so I would "assume" nothing..... just because I can't see it (knife, gun, etc) doesn't mean he doesn't have it.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array Guantes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    5,272
    Shughes,

    I think that with more time here you will come to realize that there are very few, if any, here that are bloodthirsty. Even so, the majority, are quite adamant about protecting and defending themselves, their families and their property. Most have at a minimum, a general knowledge of their area statutes and their application to various situations. With that in mind, it is not uncommon to mention such things as Castle Doctrine, without feeling the need to elaborate on the various nuances of self defense related to such statutes or in general. The feeling is that most are aware of those nuances and those that are not will ask questions which will result in an explanation of them. To feel the need to explain them every time one responds in a thread, for no other purpose than concern over image, either individually, or generally is a waste of space. Chances are, that those who would negatively view the lack of explanation, without proposing a question on same for clarity, would view the actions just a negatively even with an explanation.
    "I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".

  10. #25
    Member Array Sfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Northern Idaho
    Posts
    34
    Thank you, and hindsight being what it is i would have to agree with you, especially on how others may view my comments. It does not make anything I say less true, just apparent that that section of my comments was unnecessary. On further note, Though my membership here is short, and I am not a frequent poster, I have been reading posts on here for the last 2.5 years. but it only takes a few readings to know that you are right about the lack of "bloodthirsty" posters, and any member on here can tell you that. My concern lies instead with how "anti gun" people view us. I know it is a constant uphill battle that we fight to maintain and grow our gun rights, and I would just like us all to be a little more cognizant of how we could be perceived by those looking for ammunition. But again, you absolutely right that what I say and when, and how it could be perceived. so without further adieu, I do apology as this subject was only a side comment in a post unrelated. Thank you for your clarification on that matter, and I will be more careful in the future on such matters.

  11. #26
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,541
    I would simply introduce him to my two dogs, a Dob/lab mix & a Chocolate lab and see where the conversation leads.

    If questioned by the local DA, I would simply explain to him that apparently my dogs haven't read the laws pertaining to home buglaries.

    Thats if the punk sticks around long enough to "play" with the dogs.
    JoJoGunn likes this.
    I would rather die with good men than hide with cowards
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

    M&Pc .357sig, 2340Sigpro2340 .357sig

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Doubledown View Post
    This came up at a party last weekend. The initiator is a lawyer (no idea how he got invited) discussing the new WI law. WI does not have Castle Doctrine but also has a stand your ground law so you do not need to retreat.

    You come home from an outing, walk in and find a misunderstood individual in your house carrying your flat screen so both hands are full and no weapon is visible. Of course there is the inevitable what are you doing blah blah blah. Your gun comes out and the individual says hey I am not armed and I won't hurt you I just came to take all your stuff. Do you attempt to hold them for the police? What if they have the balls to keep walking past your gun and towards the door? Lawyer says A) cannot shoot as you are in no danger. B) If you forcibly hold and do not allow to leave you are committing kidnapping/wrongful imprisonment and can be charged and or sued by the criminal civilly in WI because of the BS laws were are stuck with for now. I started trying to look this all up but got really sleepy after 1 paragraph. I do know that WI says you do not have the right to protect any property regardless as long as you are not threatened.

    I brought up the possibility of a hidden weapon but lawyer countered with BG snuck into your house because he knew it was empty so had no intention of encountering me (not home invasion), and maybe he is not wearing a shirt with only athletic shorts and sneakers, no place to hide a weapon.

    So do you let him go, maybe help him load his car. Do you hold him at gun point? Tackle and hold pinned to the ground? Or just shoot his butt.
    Wow, glad I live in Texas. Down here in God's country you can blast the heck out of them.

    If your state doesn't let you protect your property with deadly force, does it allow you to protect your property with force? If you are using force to protect the property and then it esscalates into a situation that requires deadly force well then I guess you get to use your gun. If not, make sure your first attempt to stop the theft with force a good one.

    Beyond that, well I guess you kiss your stuff goodbye. Sucks for you.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  13. #28
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Gastonville
    Posts
    6,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Shughes View Post
    I mean no offense, I used your quote simply because it was the most recent example i could find. And i do not mean that one shouldn't shoot because they are afraid. I only mean that when talking about the castle doctrine, we should word our comments carefully. We CCW'ers have to be conscientious of our image at all times, and I think that if we want this castle doctrine to stay and hopefully grow, we should be careful not to make it look like we want to use it as an excuse to shoot somebody. thats all =)

    Not trying to say you should act any differently, just that we should describe our actions differently... but Im rambling now...
    No offense was taken. I'm just trying to point out that I don't really care what the antis think. I prefer to let my yes mean yes and my no mean no. I try to speak the truth as I see it and I'll leave the lawyer speak to the lawyers.
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array JoJoGunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    2,964
    As with atctimmy, I too live in a "Castle Doctrine" state. This guy is in my house for reasons of theft, or worse. I confront him, so now he knows I can identify him. He's probably on drugs and his state of mind will not be clear so he will most likely do harm to me or my wife. If I kill him in the commission of a home invasion, oh well. The law says that I can if I feel my life was threatend and most likely, a surprised burgular will do just that.

    My dog however will have probably mauled him so badly, I will have to shoot and put him out of his misery. That's another story though.

    Engaging him in a "conversation" about the bad of breaking into my home and stealing my stuff will not happen. I have already assumed he is there for no good reasons including attempting to injure or kill me now that he's caught. His life expectancy just went down to zero. I don't try to reason with criminals, because you cannot.

    You either hate or like lawyers, they can be your ally or your worst enemy depending on what kind of litigation they do. Most of the so-called Ambulance Chasers are not in a very good light in my world. The one's you describe will fall into my extreme dislike category every time.

    Oh, and you need to ask him that if he suprises some guy in his house what would he do? Probaby drop, roll up into the fetal position and beg for mercy.
    oneshot likes this.
    "A Smith & Wesson always beats 4 aces!"

    The Man Prayer. "Im a man, I can change, if I have to.....I guess!" ~ Red Green

  15. #30
    Senior Member Array Cold Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    919
    This will be controversial, but...it would depend what type of mood I'm in. Shooting people is generally not fun, so I like to avoid it. However, I may walk in and put two to the chest and one to the head without hesitation.

    I wouldn't talk to the police and I would pay for a good lawyer no matter what state I'm in.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

concealed carry

,

craigslist dothan al

,
defensive burglary
,
defensive carry
,
does wisconsin have castle doctrine gun law
,
law burglar hurts themselves while commiting crime on your property cane the sue
,

stand your ground law wisconsin

,
thoughts about burglary
,
thoughts from burglars
,
washington can i hold a burglar at gunpoint
,
where does the wis castle doctrine stand
,
wisconsin laws on burglary
Click on a term to search for related topics.