Home Invasion Qoute from In Gravest Extreme

Since this has been discussed lately and I see lot of home invasions being talked about lately this Qoute really got my attn and i was surprised by it


"If you ascertained that the man you have the drop on is a deliberate intruder into your occupied home (and therefore by definition a deranged or vicious enemy) if you are certain that he has a weapon in or at hand; if you and he are in positions where he can shoot or stab you ----


Shoot him. In the back if you have to. And keep shooting him untill he is unable to shoot back"


Of course i always head this is a no no and go to jail card for shooting someone in the back maybe urban myth becuse if its a justified shoot then its a good shoot front back or side supposedly..

What do you Guys and Gal think? :smilygifs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bud White

Since this has been discussed lately and I see lot of home invasions being talked about lately this Qoute really got my attn and i was surprised by it


"If you ascertained that the man you have the drop on is a deliberate intruder into your occupied home (and therefore by definition a deranged or vicious enemy) if you are certain that he has a weapon in or at hand; if you and he are in positions where he can shoot or stab you ----


Shoot him. In the back if you have to. And keep shooting him untill he is unable to shoot back"


Of course i always head this is a no no and go to jail card for shooting someone in the back maybe urban myth becuse if its a justified shoot then its a good shoot front back or side supposedly..

What do you Guys and Gal think? :smilygifs

---

I think Mas Ayoob is a genius at self promotion. I would NEVER take this advice, even if good ol Mas himself offered to come be an "expert witness" in my defense for free. (FAT CHANCE!) In most jurisdictions that are "urban" or suburban this is a virtual lock for criminal and civil charges.

HOWEVER, having said all of that, I would note with some considerable pride that my own state of Florida is within inches of passing a bill that would strengthen the castle doctrine to the extent that the mere presence of an intruder in an occupied dwelling is enough for the use of deadly force. I still doubt that it will allow for backshooting!

I might be mistaken, but here in Texas, if you catch an intruder inside your house, he's fair pickins for killin.....armed or not and they didn't specify front, back, side, top, or bottom. I recall this from the CCW course scenarios....however, the instructors always warn about the "lawyer" problem.
I don't think there's a city in the country that hasn't seen a homicide carried out by an intruder. In my book, that's enough justification/precedence for me to protect my family and my home, no matter what my angle of aim is on the BG.

Had a student bring up something in class along these lines. She asked what to do if the intruder turned his back to her and started walking towards her. I told if she feared serious bodily harm or feared for her life to shoot the BG. She was shocked that she could shoot someone in the back and not be prosecuted. I told her that in the scenario she gave the BGs momentum would cause him to fall on his back. This would demonstrate the direction of movement towards her.

I also noted that in a gun fight strange things happen and you may unintentionally shoot the BG in the back. It happens. We also tell our students that if they should ever be involved in a self-defense shooting to leave everything at the scene just as it is. Let the crime lab and/or police investigators do their thing. We stress this because we always get a question about if they shoot an intruder and the intruder gets outside the house. Should they drag the intruder back inside. I had one guy insist that a cop told him to do exactly that. :eek:

-Scott-

We are not far from the beach and the closer you get to it maybe weird people come out of the woodwork. To explain;during my ccw class taught by a cop he gave an example when you cannot use force. If you come home and one of these beach guys is snacking on your food and bathing in your shower a greeting may be from the guy "hey Dude good stuff"! You cannot engage in force as you may wind up being the aggresser and go to jail for assualt. I don't understand it but if I am told that the only thing I can do as he walks out with my tv is call 911. This would not be the way it happen years ago but today is today and I have to abide with what I am told.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bud White

"If you ascertained that the man you have the drop on is a deliberate intruder into your occupied home (and therefore by definition a deranged or vicious enemy) if you are certain that he has a weapon in or at hand; if you and he are in positions where he can shoot or stab you ----

Shoot him. In the back if you have to. And keep shooting him until he is unable to shoot back"

---

Mas Ayoob


I have a major problem with this. Even IF it is a "legal" shoot, even IF Mas says this is the way to go as the "Guru" of legal self-defense shootings, you have a moral obligation not to shoot if you don't have to. Having been in a position of having shot people before in my life I can promise you it is not something you want to live with, no matter how necessary or urgent the need may be to shoot. Pulling the trigger on a human being is one thing; living with the fact that you took a human life is another. Trust me, you will see that persons face in your nightmares for many, many years to come.

Make no mistake here, I will drop the hammer on a BG faster than most will, but it will have to be in defense of life and limb, not over property or the fact that he is in my home with evil intent or theft on his mind.

Deadly force is only to be used in defense of life, not property or an intrusion. The BG will make the decision on whether or not I shoot. I won't make that decision, he will make it for me.

I think I am probably preaching to the choir to most of you. But to those few who don't understand the issue I am making it clear.

No man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man – or group or society or government – has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force ONLY in retaliation and ONLY against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense.

Never considered someone walking backwards toward me. But then they are a bit less of a threat that way. I wouldn't recommend shooting someone , except as a last resort and in defense of persons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FortyFive

We are not far from the beach and the closer you get to it maybe weird people come out of the woodwork. I don't understand it but if I am told that the only thing I can do as he walks out with my tv is call 911. This would not be the way it happen years ago but today is today and I have to abide with what I am told.

---

Common law has always held that you can use reasonable force short of deadly force to recover your property. That means you can tackle him. MAYBE even use a TASER? HA! I like that. I'd recommend you keep one of those handy if it's legal in your area.

Although Texas law provides for using deadly force to protect your property, the instructors did caution that this is still a somewhat fertile area for prosecutors to go after you. We were told that if one can "reasonably" assume that you will not otherwise be able to recover the property then you can use deadly force. They used an example of someone stealing a bicycle out of your garage.....technically (by law) legal, but again, some lawyers will try to prosecute you. I real life example just occurred in Dallas last December when two security guards came upon a couple BGs trying to steal their golfcart. One BG got away, the other, a 17 yr old and unarmed, was shot and killed. The grand jury indicted the security guard and he is currently in the system for prosecution. In my own case, I have two alternatives in these situations..... a gun and property insurance.

Regardless of what any State's laws provide, shooting someone in the back, then pleading self-defense, is a real stretch.

Case in point: A couple of years ago, a homeowner in Missoula saw a teenager appearing to be attempting to break into his car parked in his driveway. The homeowner confronted the kid with his .357 revolver, the kid turned away to run & the homeowner shot him in the back of the head from about 6 feet. The homeowner claimed self-defense at trial. He's serving 20 to life now.

I know we're talking about in the home shooting scenarios here, but I think the analogy is appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bud White

Since this has been discussed lately and I see lot of home invasions being talked about lately this Qoute really got my attn and i was surprised by it


"If you ascertained that the man you have the drop on is a deliberate intruder into your occupied home (and therefore by definition a deranged or vicious enemy) if you are certain that he has a weapon in or at hand; if you and he are in positions where he can shoot or stab you ----


Shoot him. In the back if you have to. And keep shooting him untill he is unable to shoot back"


Of course i always head this is a no no and go to jail card for shooting someone in the back maybe urban myth becuse if its a justified shoot then its a good shoot front back or side supposedly..

What do you Guys and Gal think? :smilygifs

---

Reread the statement.....there are four 'IF' parts of the statement. Read all of the 'IFs'. Read them again. Now read the whole chapter 7, titled 'A Gun in Your Home'. I would even suggest reading the whole book.

My decision is made, I'll leave you to yours.

In CT. it's prefectly fine to shoot an intruder in the back. Remember 2 things....1)you did not put yourself in this postition, the BG did. 2)You are NOT a police officer. You are not trained to ask the BG to freeze, drop the weapon, and turn around. What if he spins around quickly & shoots YOU? Again, you're not trained for this scenario & thus you won't react properly. Are you willing to bet your life that you'll react properly? I am not.

Here in the state of Misery (Missouri) the law states you can use lethal force if you catch someone in the act of violently breaking into your home. Once inside they have to be threatening you before you can shoot, literally they could help themselves to a meal or anything else they want and there isn’t anything you can do but call the police.

Interesting; I read the book a long time ago, and this advice struck me as ... well ... odd!

Then, I gave it some thought. If I were at home with my wife and/or kids, experienced a forcible entry of the residence, and saw an armed intruder, back towards me, weapon in hand, facing a room occupied by wife/child, I might well "take no chances." If I challenge, and he's better (or luckier) than I am, my loved one is left at his mercy. No way!

If I have to face some legal "music" for that, so be it; you pays your money and you takes your chances. Better that than stupidly cause the death/torture/mutilation of one who trusted me for protection.

If I had no loved ones at risk, I'd more likely challenge him, from cover, and respond to his reaction, appropriately.

This backing-up deliberately toward you is a move that inmates (read: "career criminals") practice in prison to disarm someone (including LEO's) while minimizing risk to themselves. "They" KNOW that most folks are loathe to shoot someone in the back for fear of legal reprecussions. Once they make contact with your weapon they pivot and sweep the weapon off target (themselves) and now you're involved in an unarmed struggle with someone who's prepared for it. While you're thinking "***, why is this guy backing-up INTO me" you've already lost the battle...he already has the initiative over a confused and disoriented adversary (YOU!!!). Now he's "on" you and you're locked in a struggle over your weapon against someone who's mentally and physically prepared for just this instance.

A tactical cunundrum!

Since I personally have a reasonable fitness level and a fair amount of unarmed combat training/skills my planned response to this action is to smack him solidly (OK, really damm hard!) in the back of the grape (slightly above and behind the left ear) with a heavy blunt object (guess what) as soon as he's in range. My training would have me closing the distance on him as he backs towards me to achieve/maintain initiative/control. If it happens that he's armed (firearm, ballbat, crowbar, 5 cell Maglight, doesn't matter) and moves other than in compliance with my commands he gets shot...front, back, wherever. His choice. I'll deal with the consequences as need be.

If you've programmed yourself to expect instant automatic compliance from a BG just because you've got a gun pointed at him you need to broaden your outlook. If you happen to run into a really really BAD guy he's likely to take your gun away from you and feed it to you unless you're properly prepared. Especially if you solely rely on a firearm for personal defense. You also need to "preplan" for "What if he just runs away?". In that situation I would not shoot...the immediate threat has ceased.