I think she did great other than leaving the house. For the others that mentioned the need for photos etc... for the police for later, that's what security and game cams are for. The OP did mention a long private road prior to the residence. Even if you can't afford a "security" camera system or it just won't work for your situation you can always get a cheap game cam and set it up in a tree or bush or something near the road to catch all vehicles coming and going. I have one watching the road in front of my house and it works just fine and with a 16GB memory card I don't have to download the pics and change batteries but once every 3 or 4 months.
Sounds to me like the Mrs. handled the situation well. A camera? I was always taught to stop the threat first. Camera's in my experience have never been much of a deterent. My only advice would have been similar to Glockman. Don't leave the kids in the house to confront a threat. If you can, let it come to you. Bunker down with the kids,pistol and phone handy and If he had been lucky enough to get past the two dogs and get to the house you still have time to call the cops while he has to break in. You also have the advantage of terrain in your home. You can funnel your attacker and if they persist and you just so happen to kill them well they had by now made their intentions clear. However, everyone,yes even the BG,in this case made it out unharmed. In my book that is a job well done.
The lady did just fine as far as she went.
However, I agree that she should have stayed in the house although it is natural to go out to meet guests under almost every circumstance.
The odd thing here is that the private road was so long and there are multiple no trespassing signs.
MD does require a plate on the front of the vehicle. However, taking a photo with anything including a cell phone is a big NO NO.
Most take more than one key operation, usually through a couple of menus. That would require taking your eyes off the suspected BG.
Even if starting the camera is a one button thing, it has to be aimed.
Once you decide to confront a BG you must never take your eyes off him for even a millisecond You must intently watch him with special attention to his hands and feet.
Why feet? Because he can not transition from a relaxed standing position to a charge without shifting his weight which usually requires a shift in foot position.
A small pocket gun or a knife can be produced in less time than most can react unless ready and on intense alert.
Also, women have been abducted just with the threat of a weapon, using strong arm tactics so the fact that he appeared to be unarmed does not mean it was a false alarm.
I would get a game camera and place it so that it is invisible to a visitor and is focused on the rear of the vehicle as all states do not require a plate on the front and you have no idea in which state an intruder's vehicle is registered. PA, which is adjacent, requires only a rear plate.
Ideally two game cameras with the second camera located so as to get a photo of the driver...however the location of the sun at a particular time of the day, glare on the windshield, etc., can make that iffy.
If you purchase the second camera, study how the red light cameras are set as they manage to get the driver's image regardless of weather.
But whether to go out side is a difficult question. It is similar to never going out of your bedroom at night when your alarm goes off or you hear a bang in the dark.
Sounds great to say never ever and call 911, but be honest....do you really want to call the cops every time you hear the floor creak or the wind blow a shutter, or the house pet tips over his supper bowl?
In real life, we go see what the noise was unless we know for a fact that it is a break in.
So all in all, she did great.
Correction: If the camera is properly mounted only one will be needed as it can be mounted to get the back plate going in and the driver when coming out.
KTM - Glad everything worked out and that your wife is able to handle herself. Sounds like you and the family will learn from this event and be in a better position if something were to happen again. There's always something to learn from these experiences.
Originally Posted by hank85
Originally Posted by ppkheat
I like that idea.
To the OP, your wife did fine. Im glad that she and your children are ok. Im not going to Arm chair this, as I see it, they are still with you, She did just fine..
Seems like she did fine. I would be weary the next few days.
At my age, I am weary all the time.
but she is much younger and needs to be wary.
She should not be weary at her age.
In fact, she should be wary of being weary.
Until such time as she becomes weary of being wary.
It is easy to review after the fact, and there are valuable lessons to be learned, and some pretty good suggestions too. Glad she is ok.
Originally Posted by packinnova
Packinnova beat me to the game camera suggestion. I would put one up ASAP at the height where the license plate can be captured. Look, the guy showed up in a van. He was planning on carrying something away. Theft, maybe, maybe worse. I would never assume it was random, nor would I assume he won't come back. Stay alert, stay safe.
Here's the deal as I see it. You ask what would have happened if he didn't stop approaching her (and I assume you also mean that she went ahead and shot him)?
Originally Posted by ktm rider
To be honest, you live in Maryland, and I don't know all the in's and out's of Maryland's self defense law. As a whole, Maryland is a pretty "gun un-friendly" state. So, I don't know what the police would do.
However, with an overview of the circumstances you have an obvious trespasser in a very remote location advancing on a lone woman who is armed with a gun. You can make a legal argument that your wife was legitimately "in fear of her life" at the time she shot him based on the presumption that a man who chooses to advance on a woman armed with a gun and demanding that he back off and leave, yet continues to advance, is effectively saying that he believes either she won't shoot him, or that he can effectively disarm her and then kill her.
Based on the very rural and remote setting, the conspicuously posted "No Trespassing" signs, and the fact that she was home alone with two small children, I would hope that any sane prosecutor would see this as a legitimate self defense shooting.
However again, it is Maryland. If you were in the middle of Baltimore, I think you would be quite lucky not to go to trial. I don't know how reasonable the police and prosecutors are in the more rural areas.
Personally, I think your wife handled the situation very well and next time, hopefully she will at least get an ID on the license plate.
I'm glad everything turned out okay. :hand10:
An anti gun anti self defense prosecutor would take the position that as long as you are in the house and he is outside, you are not in imminent danger. He would argue that by going outside, she caused the situation to turn into a dangerous one. That she should have stayed in the house and called 911.
He would probably argue that had she been surprised outside the house, say while riding the lawn mower, she would have been put in danger by events not of her own making. But in this case, she caused herself to be in danger.
Therefore she could well end up in court.
Different states, different laws.
In a stand your ground state, she would be OK under those circumstances. She was in a place she has a right to be and in danger.
So she should find out exactly what is the law in MD.
That said, I go out to meet whoever drives up and our house is just as remote.
So, by that logic, no one is allowed to exit their home and greet who ever comes up their driveway on their property.
Originally Posted by oldcurmudgeo
I mean, I can see some nut job prosecutor trying that theory out... But it's insane to think every time someone drives up to your house, You Must Remain Inside.
But then again, I wouldn't live in Maryland. Beautiful, remote property like that is a majority of our state in Missouri. And we don't hate guns.
That is what makes it so dangerous for a well meaning honest person.
The gun hating prosecutor would insist that by her instructing the children and her other actions that she knew that going outside could result in a confrontation and that so long as she was safe and inside she could and should avoid what would turn into a deadly confrontation.
Of course most of us go out to meet most of our visitors but most of us do not shoot one.
I am not a lawyer, but it is my suspicion that one would be more easily defended by his lawyer if he took the position that he always carried because of the remote location, snakes, bears, dangerous neighborhood, etc., but that he had no idea that particular visitor was violent and that things just escalated by bad luck.
That would shelter him from the accusation that he knowingly entered into a situation that had the potential for violence.
Thanks for all the input. We are looking in to a camera system for the house.