Middle of night - door is kicked in - do you shoot? - Page 10

Middle of night - door is kicked in - do you shoot?

This is a discussion on Middle of night - door is kicked in - do you shoot? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Pure Kustom, You've seen some of the speed shooting skills on multiples I have with firearms, and I'm going to be hard pressed to take ...

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 191
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Middle of night - door is kicked in - do you shoot?

  1. #136
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    4,952
    Pure Kustom,

    You've seen some of the speed shooting skills on multiples I have with firearms, and I'm going to be hard pressed to take 4-5 people out before I get taken out myself if I rush out into the living room.

    It's one of the reasons I've mentioned a few times that waiting/formulating a quick plan if it's an option in the scenario is a viable option and not just running into a room full of bangers or an LE entry team.

    Brownie

    edr9x23super,

    I agree that your situation as you describe it is a very viable option in your particular set of circumstances. Well thought out with the 6P principle based on the layout of your home.

    The fatal funnel you've got them in is to your advantage, not theirs. Not everyone in this thread has the same advantage of that funnel however.

    For instance, I've got a ground floor only home. The choke point/funnel for me is the hall to the bedroom where I'll be in bed in the middle of the night. In my own situation, rushing out of the bedroom into the hall is a mistake, hence the comments earlier that I'd wait.

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor


  2. #137
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by edr9x23super View Post
    they hustle and bustle to the stairway, covering the 40 or 60 feet in about 5 to six seconds, looking for bedrooms, feeling their way along, not knowing what to expect.

    I am already at the top of the stairs by now before they even reach the bottom of the stairway.
    So, you are claiming you will wake from a sound sleep at 3:00AM, retrieve your gun and position yourself in less than five seconds?

    Me, I have a small room in my bedroom that has a telephone. I will quickly change into a skin tight suit with a cape and the invaders will have no chance whatsoever, whether they are bangers or LE.

  3. #138
    Senior Member Array Pure Kustom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Mesa,Az
    Posts
    1,081
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    Pure Kustom,

    You've seen some of the speed shooting skills on multiples I have with firearms, and I'm going to be hard pressed to take 4-5 people out before I get taken out myself if I rush out into the living room.

    It's one of the reasons I've mentioned a few times that waiting/formulating a quick plan if it's an option in the scenario is a viable option and not just running into a room full of bangers or an LE entry team.

    Brownie
    If anybody runs into an open room, They deserve to get shot!!! The homeowner has that advantage it is his or her home. It is their suroundings. The intruders don't know the layout of the home, they don't know where the furniture is, they don't know where the main bedroom is, they probably don't know how many people are in the house. And they probably don't know that the homeowner has a firearm and is ready to use it. If the home owner has had proper training. He has all the advantages.

    Rocky

  4. #139
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087

    Read the news

    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    I don't understand where your comment comes from about LE identifying themselves when they make entry. I've never heard of an LE entry team that didn't [ in fact it's SOP everywhere to my knowledge ], yet you seem to be suggesting there have been instances of their not doing so.
    Read the news stories. This is always a contentious issue. What was said, wasn't said. Were SOP followed. Did the innocent civilian have a fair chance to process what was happening, make a rational decision?

    There are enough incidents reported each year that cast serious doubt on the underlying assumption of properly announced entry.

    And, even with such, the homeowner has no chance of discerning immediately (instantaneously) if s/he is dealing with the real deal or with thugs.

    I've seen plenty of people walk the streets with cool T shirts or caps emblazoned "NYC POLICE." There are plenty of small business who could turn out look alike products. It wouldn't take more than a cap and some sort of tactical clothing to make the thug look legit., especially in dim light in the middle of the night.

    There are no easy answers to this dilemma. But there are things which can be done to reduce risk and accident, and denying the problem exists is not a step in the right direction.

    And please note, I'm not talking about legitimate raids which must unfortunately be made from time to time. I'm talking about preventing tragedies and accepting responsibility for who actually caused the tragedy. It is the latter at which we (society) often severely fail.

  5. #140
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    4,952
    "Did the innocent civilian have a fair chance to process what was happening, make a rational decision?"

    A fair chance is not something LE wants to give anyone in the home they enter.

    "There are enough incidents reported each year that cast serious doubt on the underlying assumption of properly announced entry."

    I don't see them reported on CNN, or internet news in any quantity to validate that statement.

    "And, even with such, the homeowner has no chance of discerning immediately (instantaneously) if s/he is dealing with the real deal or with thugs."

    No they don't, that's the way of entry work. The SOP's are written and trained skills are practiced for one reason,------officers safety upon entry. It is what it is. Is it fair to the occupants in the home? No, it's not, nor is it supposed to be fair.

    Has entry into homes been abused? I'd have to think yes, it probably has. Does that mean entry should be stopped by police to capture/take BG's down? No it doesn't.

    Life isn't fair in about any subject we could discuss. If we stopped any activity that wasn't fair to one group of people, we'd become more PC as a society that we already have become which in itself has caused more people to suffer injustice than the rare occurrence of wrongful entry.

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  6. #141
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    13,120
    Here are some statistics on the matter of discussion:

    Botched Paramilitary Police Raids

    I couldn't find any similar maps on Home Invasions to compare this to, so here's another set of resources:

    Law and Civil Liberties -- Police Tactics and Misconduct

    I don't think I can generalize on what I'd do in the middle of the night. The matter is just too situationally dependent. The likelihood of not being shot by a real LEO team would be low if I was armed, but to the contrary, I have nothing to hide.

    I guess I'd rely on my alarms, my dogs, and other security measures to give me a millisecond heads up.


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard

  7. #142
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    4,952
    I count 33 incidents of "death of an innocent" on the map.

    I count 65 raids on innocents on the map.

    I count 16 officers killed.

    I count 15 deaths of a non violent offender

    The source of the information is the Cato Institute. It's non-profit, made 22.4 million and had 95 full time employees, 70 adjunct instructors and 20 "fellows" [ whatever that means ].

    As a professed quasi libertarian organization, one would expect anti-government reporting.

    What we don't have is the total number of raids made throughout the country for a percentage to be formulated. My guess is though 33 "innocents" have died, that statistical number is so low as to be "insignificant". Now before anyone wants to hollar about no life is insignificant, consider the insurance companies who hire people to calculate probabilities and make policy that hurts/kills millions of people yearly by denying them health benefits or services.

    Like I've stated, life isn't fair. 33 people or more will die on the roads this week in the US. We don't take cars off the roads.

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  8. #143
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087
    Rock and Glock's post from Cato has been shown here before and it is one reason I find this entire subject very disturbing, although it first came to my attention very very many years ago when a CA wine grower was shot during a botched entry to the wrong place. (And his widow was not compensated because the police claimed they identified themselves and he should have complied with them faster.)

    I think one thing which would have a very positive influence would be to change the burden of proof about what happened from the homeowner to the authorities, in any instance where an innocent (unintended target of the raid) is involved. And do such a change in a way that reduces the years of litigation on behalf of the innocent victim. As things stand now, if you are shot during a botched raid, wrong house, you or heirs will wait 2/3 of a decade for compensation; it will be inadequate; and your lawyer will pocket a substantial amount; the IRS may claim much of the rest.

    I'm absolutely convinced the types of incidents Cato documented would be reduced if legislators took the bull by the horns and tweaked the law a little to give an innocent homeowner both substantial legal defenses and reasonable paths to compensation.

    As for a shoot out with invading BGs; there is no choice but to take your chance. They didn't come in force with no plan to use force. You are up the creek. Fight it out and go down fighting if that is your fate.

    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    What we don't have is the total number of raids made throughout the country for a percentage to be formulated. My guess is though 33 "innocents" have died, that statistical number is so low as to be "insignificant".

    Brownie
    It is only insignificant if it isn't you and yours. Moreover, the stats don't take into account stuff like the scenario in the original post here; where someone is criminalized for protecting themselves.

    The stats don't include the physical and emotional trauma to victims, especially children who may have been in the home at the time of the raid.

    I'm always amazed that in a society where everyone gets up in emotional arms over animal rights and a cock fight or dog fight, there is little outcry about the fate of real human beings.

    I'm not impressed at all by the argument that it is OK because we are talking about rare events.

  9. #144
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    4,952
    "I think one thing which would have a very positive influence would be to change the burden of proof about what happened from the homeowner to the authorities, in any instance where an innocent (unintended target of the raid) is involved."

    Like embedded press who follow soldiers actions while their fighting terrorists oversees?

    You do realize that type of documentation [ embedded press ] has gotten soldiers killed by their hesitating to act fearing one small SOP mistake will get them a court martial unnecessarily right? How do you document a he said/she said situation which is what we have now without impeding the officers actions which creates more risk than they already take?

    I understand there are mistakes, but are the mistakes widespread and abusive is the more important question. Are there reasonable measures taken to insure the officers safety, the information is valid to issue the warrant and work within the confines of the 4th amendment? I think there are by the very evidence produced by the numbers from Cato's research.

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  10. #145
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    4,952
    [QUOTE=It is only insignificant if it isn't you and yours. Moreover, the stats don't take into account stuff like the scenario in the original post here; where someone is criminalized for protecting themselves.

    The stats don't include the physical and emotional trauma to victims, especially children who may have been in the home at the time of the raid.

    I'm always amazed that in a society where everyone gets up in emotional arms over animal rights and a cock fight or dog fight, there is little outcry about the fate of real human beings.

    I'm not impressed at all by the argument that it is OK because we are talking about rare events.[/QUOTE]

    The woman in the OPs post who shot the agent has not been proven to be criminalized to date, thats a stretch to state she has at this time and only an assumption on your part as the full story has not been disclosed.

    I didn't think you'd be impressed by the argument it's a rare event, but they are rare events nontheless. As such the stop gaps in place within the system we have in place seem to be working to avoid victimizing innocent people unnecessarily.

    The alternative of no raids on suspected drug dens/dealers or terrorists, etc is unacceptable and would put millions more innocent people in jeopardy of injury or death.

    The difference between innocents killed and cops killed in raids is 17 people. Think the cops were victimized by the drug dealers? How about the number of people victimized by the woman's drug dealer son in the OP's post? I bet he has victimized people on a magnitude of 10-1 or more over the 33 people who have died nationwide according to Cato's report.

    Would you care to guess how many lives have been victimized by drug related crimes nationwide and give us your impression of how we compensate those victims as well. They've been as traumatized by the gangs and drug related crimes in exponential numbers across the US as well.

    You seem to want to concentrate on this one small problem of innocents being victimized by authorities who've made mistakes, unlike the drug dealers and bangers who overtly victimize and traumatize the nation in numbers that look to be in the tens of thousands.

    There has to be a trade-off, you can't have drug dealers running amok even more than they do, they have to know the no knock may come at any time, it restricts their activities and therefore produces less victims to some degree over the alternative.

    Think of the children who've been victimized by their parents who've neglected them. Want to guess how many nationwide? I bet it's more than 33 people, what do you think?

    Yes, in the grand scheme nationwide, 33 innocent people is insignificant and demonstrates there is restraint in the courts relative the people's 4th amendment rights. People are human, they make mistakes. Compared to the mistakes that victimize people in other areas, this victimization is extremely low.

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  11. #146
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087

    Two wrongs don't make a right

    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    Would you care to guess how many lives have been victimized by drug related crimes nationwide and give us your impression of how we compensate those victims as well.

    You seem to want to concentrate on this one small problem of innocents being victimized by authorities who've made mistakes,
    Brownie
    Two wrongs don't make a right. One problem (mistakes and the consequences) can be fixed with legal and procedural changes. The other problem (criminals) has existed from the start of time and will continue to the end of time.

    And it is more than "assumption" on the fate of the woman discussed in the original post. She is in jail, charged, and frankly the way things work I doubt she will get off without at least some charge sticking-- even though she did not precipitate the tragic event. And even if she does get off entirely, she is still (if story is true) an innocent victim.

  12. #147
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    13,120
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post

    What we don't have is the total number of raids made throughout the country for a percentage to be formulated. My guess is though 33 "innocents" have died, that statistical number is so low as to be "insignificant". Now before anyone wants to hollar about no life is insignificant, consider the insurance companies who hire people to calculate probabilities and make policy that hurts/kills millions of people yearly by denying them health benefits or services.
    Agreed. It's obviously statistically irrelevant. Ergo, not worth a legislative effort to change. The cost to society is greater (to prevent or avoid) than the sum of the individual costs. Please save my money.

    I'm always amazed that in a society where everyone gets up in emotional arms over animal rights and a cock fight or dog fight, there is little outcry about the fate of real human beings.
    I believe the use of "everybody" is a stretch unless you belong to PETA...... I eat veal, beef, and all kinds of meat. The issue is whether the cost of errors is greater or less than than the benefit of non-errors.

    Whether you want to react in the scenario is the question at hand, and given my situation, I probably would, given the probability that the LEO's have misidentified my address as very low. Ergo, I assume it is BG's. If I'm wrong, woe to me.

    I think one thing which would have a very positive influence would be to change the burden of proof about what happened from the homeowner to the authorities, in any instance where an innocent (unintended target of the raid) is involved. And do such a change in a way that reduces the years of litigation on behalf of the innocent victim. As things stand now, if you are shot during a botched raid, wrong house, you or heirs will wait 2/3 of a decade for compensation; it will be inadequate; and your lawyer will pocket a substantial amount; the IRS may claim much of the rest.
    While interesting conceptually, I don't think it is good public policy to shift the burden of proof to the LEO's. That darn slope is too slippery.


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard

  13. #148
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    4,952
    "And it is more than "assumption" on the fate of the woman discussed in the original post. She is in jail, charged, and frankly the way things work I doubt she will get off without at least some charge sticking-"

    She shot a Federal agent, she better be held accountable. He wasn't at the wrong house, and he was lawfully there on a warrant to arrest.

    You can't possibly be telling the members here that you believe she is not culpable for the agents death------ or are you? It's the agents fault for the sons criminal actions which led to the warrant being served?, the judges fault for issuing the warrant? and the justice systems moral obligation to save everyone from themselves and their mistakes?

    You see, the agent didn't make a mistake serving the lawful warrant. The lady who shot him broke the law by shooting an agent of the law and the courts unlawfully. The three legs of SD use were not met in this case, so she is culpable for murdering the agent.

    "One problem (mistakes and the consequences) can be fixed with legal and procedural changes."

    You are right:

    It would be a mistake to rescind no knock warrants. It might right something in your mind, yet the consequences will create another whole set of wrongs to the millions of people victimized by the drug dealers and bangers in this country if allowed to continue their activities and not taken down.

    Procedurals and safeguards are in place and seem to be very effective at protecting the general public [ 33 innocent people killed nationwide ]. It would appear on the surface that you would also believe there should never be collateral damage in a war, and that we shouldn't be waging war against anyone if even one innocent person is killed by mistake.

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  14. #149
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087

    Culpability, who precipitated/initiated the action?

    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    She shot a Federal agent, she better be held accountable. He wasn't at the wrong house, and he was lawfully there on a warrant to arrest.

    You can't possibly be telling the members here that you believe she is not culpable for the agents death------ or are you?
    Brownie
    Actually, perhaps YES. The agents themselves may have caused an unnecessarily unsafe situation with their tactics. If so, the tragedy was was avoidable, and culpability shifts. There is such a thing as negligence.

    Please go back and re-read what I wrote. I didn't say no-knock should be illegal. I said legislation (perhaps policy) was necessary to make certain children and other innocents are not dragged into the midst of a violent situation not of their making. Is it not negligence to do such a thing?

    Culpability here assumes that the woman was in a position to adequately assess what was going on. Somehow, I doubt it. I don't know for sure, but I do doubt it. And I doubt it for precisely the reason others here have suggested; anyone can dress up and yell police. That is the crux of the problem for the individual citizen. Surely we can find better ways of doing things. We don't have to be bound by "the one way" when we know that there are often unsatisfactory results. And I do take exception to the notion that a few unnecessary deaths through the years are OK for the greater purpose of law enforcement. That argument can be turned on its other side; a few unnecessary LEO deaths could be tolerated for the sake of the safety of innocents. Neither way is right.

    So, the question is really what can be done to prevent these sorts of incidents --rare, and not so rare as they may be, because each is one tragic. It is tragic that the agent was killed and it is tragic that this woman was brought into a situation not of her own making.

  15. #150
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    4,952
    "Actually, perhaps YES. The agents themselves may have caused an unnecessarily unsafe situation with their tactics. If so, the tragedy was was avoidable, and culpability shifts. There is such a thing as negligence."

    You take great liberty to try to explain away the woman's culpability and question the agents actions over the woman's actions. There was no forced entry, so they knocked and announced themselves with identification/ID's.

    "Culpability here assumes that the woman was in a position to adequately assess what was going on. Somehow, I doubt it. I don't know for sure, but I do doubt it."

    Agents are in suits or sports jackets. As it wasn't a "raid" with swat types dressed in black, but a warrant service, they would be clearly identifying themselves as federal agents with proper ID including photos with the ID's. Yes, the creds can be faked, but if you go there, give me one instance where any BG had federal cred ID's to attempt to enter a home [ that's even more slim of a chance than it's the BG's dressed in swat gear who are in your home ].

    Obviously she didn't assess properly, as she shot an agent. That's her culpability on her actions, not any of the agents. As any civilian in the same situation, you have to be in fear for your life, the person you shoot has to have the means, motive and ability to cause your death or serious bodily harm. Her actions were not reasonable nor prudent and her assessment of their presence was not on the agents but herself, as it would be on anyone who shoots another person.

    "Please go back and re-read what I wrote. I didn't say no-knock should be illegal. I said legislation (perhaps policy) was necessary to make certain children and other innocents are not dragged into the midst of a violent situation not of their making. Is it not negligence to do such a thing?"

    The situation didn't turn violent in this case until the woman opened fire on agents. Thats again her culpability, and her actions are not something the agents could predict nor expected in this case. One can never know what another will do or how they will react to being arrested, so with your theory, no arrests should be made as the perp might get violent and innocents may be injured? The woman created the situation she finds herself in, not the agents merely by their presence at the house lawfully.

    "And I do take exception to the notion that a few unnecessary deaths through the years are OK for the greater purpose of law enforcement"

    Clearly you do, but it is what it is, and as has been established that the safeguards are well in place to prevent misfeasance on LE's part as much as possible. It's also not for the greater purpose of law enforcement, it's for the greater purpose of the community, big difference.

    "That argument can be turned on its other side; a few unnecessary LEO deaths could be tolerated for the sake of the safety of innocents"

    As is the case down through history and is accepted as part and parcel of the job that men and women will die, yet I don't see you making a case for protecting the agents/LE through legislation/policy who have a job to do as you are trying to do here on the other side.

    "It is tragic that the agent was killed and it is tragic that this woman was brought into a situation not of her own making."

    The woman [ the wife of the dirt bag they were there for ] wasn't brought into a situation not of her making, she engaged agents with a firearm, those actions and results are on herself and not the agents there lawfully.

    It's quite clear by your, "perhaps", "I doubt it's" and innuendos of wrong doing on the part of the agents without benefit of the facts, that you are clearly anti-LE to an extent which jades your judgment in this matter.

    It's clear you have no idea how warrants are served by them on the populace from your statements or how the courts have determined they shall be served, the guidelines they have to follow while serving the warrants, or the rights the people have while being served nor the procedures in place to guarantee the populations rights while being taken into custody.

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. A Minneapolis police SWAT team kicked in the wrong door....
    By DIXIETWISTER in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 9th, 2010, 11:15 AM
  2. Replies: 56
    Last Post: March 21st, 2009, 06:02 PM
  3. Middle of the night.
    By Pure Kustom in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: January 30th, 2009, 12:19 AM
  4. Its the middle of the night, and someone starts banging on your front door...
    By frankinstine in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: December 1st, 2008, 05:31 PM

Search tags for this page

arizona castle docterine

,

benelli 121

,

carry wife middle of night

,

door kicked in without no knock warrant in ga

,

fbi kicked in door in midland tx

,

no knock raid

,

where to shoot in the middle of the night

Click on a term to search for related topics.