# A 79-year-old homeowner in Benzie County, Michigan, greeted an alleged intruder with a shotgun blast



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

to the legs.

Is that justified?

When the homeowner, a 79-year-old man, heard an intruder in the pole barn around 11:20 at his home in Inland Township he grabbed a shotgun and confronted the man, according to Benzie County Sheriff's Deputies.

After telling the man to get off his property, the homeowner reported the intruder came toward him in a threatening manner, deputies said.

https://upnorthlive.com/news/local/sheriff-armed-homeowner-shoots-intruder-in-barn
Deputies said the homeowner fired a single shot and hit the the intruder in both legs.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Hopefully the intruder story will match the homeowners so that the homeowner will not regret letting him live.


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not giving legal advice, but it looks like Michigan has an unusual stand your ground law. https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/03/gun_owners_need_to_understand.html

The tricky part is that he was outside his house, in the dark. He will have to convince a prosecutor about his feelings--and worse, he may face a wrongful injury personal lawsuit....

(_My own rule of thumb_---you come through my bedroom door, I will probably shoot you--with a police riot shotgun--twelve gauge)

geo


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

Surely he was in fear of his life....


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I think thieves should be shot on sight.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Would be better if he had aimed higher. He now has a boatload of trouble.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

If you carry, I highly recommend a membership with this organization. Dues are affordable. You get a free attorney if you discharge your weapon in an event like that.

https://www.uslawshield.com/


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

The asinine thing is that a civil suit is even an issue. A person should be legally barred from such a suit for damage suffered in the process of committing a crime.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

We all are surely aware that right and wrong are not really related to law. Not sure about the protocol in Michigan, but it seems that there is no unified stance on such things. I nearly shot a tow truck driver who came down my driveway around midnight and when I got my pants on and out the door, he was eyeing my Deere 1020. (In my defense, he did step out of his towtruck.... until I shined the flashlight on my other hand, at which time he stepped right back up) Claimed that somebody on another road had called about a tractor stuck in mud. Yeah, right, guy plowing at midnight. At any rate, if I'd done what I seriously wanted to do, I would surely be in jail. The moral here is two-fold. Learn the law in your state, as it applies to you. and part 2, keep that(law) in mind, even if you're scared right out of your britches.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

All I can say is you have a 5th Amendment right --use it. More than a few dozen videos on youtube validate my position.

Most all police and forensic shows extol the virtues of openly speaking to the establishment, problem is what you say and what they hear and report may not be the same. We have all experienced that in life were someone took something the wrong way, it's bad enough in a social situation but it takes on criminal charges when you talking to a officer of the court who is burdened with a backlog of cases and may even have something against you from seeing something on your property a sticker on your vehicle or just don't like the look of you. The police have botched plenty of cases over 300 people recently had their convictions overturned by DNA proving they were innocent. In any death by natural or other causes the first person they zero in on is the closest person living on the property those that have a possible reason then fans out. 

A friend almost found out about swoop and squat scam believe it or not criminals use the laws against honest criminals so having a dash cam is more important than any other defensive measure you do for yourself and they cost less than 100 dollars.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Ole guy probably just did not want to kill anyone, what kind of messed up world is it when the lesser evil is to kill them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> to the legs.
> 
> Is that justified?


If he felt threatened in that situation the shooting was probably justified.
The fact that most of the shot hit the legs really doesn't matter that much.

Stopping the threat and surviving is the goal.
He made a poor ammo choice if he used "bird shot"


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

https://upnorthlive.com/news/local/prosecutor-offers-reminder-of-michigan-self-defense-laws

“In the state of Michigan people certainly have a right to defense themselves, but you cannot defend property with lethal force,” said Benzie County Prosecutor Sara Swanson. “So I would encourage people if a situation arises like this, and there is somebody in your yard or outside call the police and let them handle the situation lock your doors, and hunker down on the inside.”

“Once a homeowner goes out and fires a firearm, now unfortunately there is now an investigation whether or not it was justified and it could have been avoided,” Swanson said.


The 37-year-old is still in the hospital. A warrant has been issued for his arrest.

He is facing trespassing and illegal entry charges.

Looks like it's up to the prosecutor at this point.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doozie said:


> “Once a homeowner goes out and fires a firearm, now unfortunately there is now an investigation whether or not it was justified and it could have been avoided,” Swanson said.


It could have been avoided if the one breaking in had gotten a real job rather than choosing to steal.



doozie said:


> “In the state of Michigan people certainly have a right to defense themselves, but you cannot defend property with lethal force,” said Benzie County Prosecutor Sara Swanson. “So I would encourage people if a situation arises like this, and there is somebody in your yard or outside call the police and let them handle the situation lock your doors, and hunker down on the inside.”


That's the standard statement: "Let the authorities handle it while you hide".

That's not really "protection".

That's waiting for someone to come and do some paperwork after someone else has taken your stuff.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

The likelihood is that the gentleman protecting himself is going to have substantial legal bills.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> The likelihood is that the gentleman protecting himself is going to have substantial legal bills.


Sadly, it could bankrupt him.

I wonder if he'd been charged if he killed the guy. I guess he still might have faced a civil suit.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It could have been avoided if the one breaking in had gotten a real job rather than choosing to steal.
> 
> 
> That's the standard statement: "Let the authorities handle it while you hide".
> ...


I think the point of the prosecutors statement was to let others there know they can't just shoot people they find on their property.

There is alot left out of the story, was the man shot in the pole barn, what were his exit possibilities if he was, did he approach the shooter to get past him or did he actually make threatening movements after/during leaving the pole barn.
I'd say there is more to be considered before justifying things.

Note that Person shot was not charged with burglary, and protecting your "stuff" according to the prosecutor is not enough to justify using lethal force. Even if one only "thinks" that burglary was his intention.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doozie said:


> I think the point of the prosecutors statement was to let others there know they can't *just shoot people they find on their property*.


That's not what happened in this case.



doozie said:


> Note that Person shot was not charged with burglary, and protecting your "stuff" according to the prosecutor is not enough to justify using lethal force. Even if one only "thinks" that burglary was his intention.


None of that matters.
It's just you once more arguing the anti-gun side of a shooing.



doozie said:


> did he actually make threatening movements after/during leaving the pole barn.


The shooter said he "made a threatening movement towards him".
He was there and he knows.



doozie said:


> I'd say there is more to be considered before justifying things.


You always say that in every shooting thread, and you always argue the anti-gun position.
Then you deny you are anti-gun.
The pattern never changes and is repeating itself here.

Let's not do the whole routine again.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

doozie said:


> I think the point of the prosecutors statement was to let others there know they can't just shoot people they find on their property.
> 
> There is alot left out of the story, was the man shot in the pole barn, what were his exit possibilities if he was, did he approach the shooter to get past him or did he actually make threatening movements after/during leaving the pole barn.
> I'd say there is more to be considered before justifying things.
> ...


The problem is that if that is the norm, then people will squat on your property and you will have to go through the legal system to have them removed. I know if you squatted on the mayors or governors yard they would be arrested and jailed on trumped up charges.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Evicting squatters is a complicated mess in some places


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not what happened in this case.
> 
> 
> None of that matters.
> ...


I don't believe I've responded to EVERY shooting thread, and you are the only one with a "routine".

It isn't necessesary to repeat what the shooter claims, and for all we know he is a liar ("people lie", why, you've even said so yourself numerous times)

It is ALSO entirely possible that the shooter was approached in a threatening manner. (Whatever that means, and has not been explained in this story)


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

doozie said:


> I don't believe I've responded to EVERY shooting thread, and you are the only one with a "routine".
> 
> It isn't necessesary to repeat what the shooter claims, and for all we know he is a liar ("people lie", why, you've even said so yourself numerous times)
> 
> It is ALSO entirely possible that the shooter was approached in a threatening manner. (*Whatever that means*, and has not been explained in this story)


Maybe someone will explain this to you some day, or, heaven forbid, demonstrate it to you. Hopefully not when you are 80 years old.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doozie said:


> I don't believe I've responded to EVERY shooting thread, and you are the only one with a "routine".


That's not really what I said. Context matters.



doozie said:


> It isn't necessesary to repeat what the shooter claims, and for all we know he is a liar ("people lie", why, you've even said so yourself numerous times)


There's no reason to cast doubt on his story.
He was at home minding his own business.



doozie said:


> It is ALSO entirely possible that the shooter was *approached in a threatening manner*. (Whatever that means, and has not been explained in this story)


Does it really need to be explained?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

What's a shame is an otherwise law abiding senior citizen could now end up in prison and/or bankrupt because they simply wanted to protect their life and property from a criminal. What a crying shame! Thank goodness we have a stand your ground law!


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Maybe someone will explain this to you some day, or, heaven forbid, demonstrate it to you. Hopefully not when you are 80 years old.


Then go ahead, what is your definition of approaching someone in a threatening manner.

Is it someone approaching you with a weapon or something he found in the pole barn, arms raised,or fists clenched.

Or just runnng or walking in your direction?

How close was he?

Was the pole barn lit or dark?

Things to consider....in this particular story of course.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

doozie said:


> Then go ahead, what is your definition of approaching someone in a threatening manner.
> 
> Is it someone approaching you with a weapon or something he found in the pole barn, arms raised,or fists clenched.
> 
> ...


If I'm 79, your on my property and you advance on me, you are a threat. Period!


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> The likelihood is that the gentleman protecting himself is going to have substantial legal bills.


The NRA keeps track of such things. On average if you did everything right, and were justified it taking the shot. Your legal fees will average $50,000.00


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

And as an aside, I do feel for the old guy, I think it's terrible people feel the right to make themselves at home on someone else's property, or target the elderly. Hopefully it's something that may well work in the old guys favor in some way.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> If you carry, I highly recommend a membership with this organization. Dues are affordable. You get a free attorney if you discharge your weapon in an event like that.
> 
> https://www.uslawshield.com/


At the very least you should know a lawyer who you can call at zero dark thirty. When the police arrive hand them your drivers license, and SHUT UP. Tell them, "my lawyer is on his way, he should be here shortly." Do not give a statement, do not answer any questions.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

muleskinner2 said:


> At the very least you should know a lawyer who you can call at zero dark thirty. When the police arrive hand them your drivers license, and SHUT UP. Tell them, "my lawyer is on his way, he should be here shortly." Do not give a statement, do not answer any questions.


Great legal advice! The same my lawyer gave me!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> doozie said: ↑
> Then go ahead, what is your definition of approaching someone in a threatening manner.


It's simple English.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/threatening


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I think you know when you see it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

HDRider said:


> I think you know when you see it.


That's the thing. 
Some people *don't* know it when they see it and sometimes even a trained eye can miss it if the attacker hides it well enough.
That's the reason these incidents aren't as easy to judge as some assume.
I never thought the old homeless guy limping towards me on a crutch was a threat. All he asked for was a cigarette..........
He was the first one that hit me, left a nice long bruise over my eye and down my face.
Yeppers, I was looking for it and STILL didn't see it coming.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

doozie said:


> Then go ahead, what is your definition of approaching someone in a threatening manner.
> 
> Is it someone approaching you with a weapon or something he found in the pole barn, arms raised,or fists clenched.
> 
> ...


police protocol says if the person is coming toward them... period. and I believe the distance is something like 30 feet away.. weapon or no weapon.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

This is why I recommend the US Law Shield. 

$11.00 per month. If there is an incident, your lawyer is available 24/7, and no cost. 

They also have educational videos explaining the law, case studies, etc. 

Peace of mind.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> police protocol says if the person is coming toward them... period. and I believe the distance is something like *30 feet* away.. weapon or no weapon.


It's 21 feet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill



> Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover *21 feet* (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in *1.5 seconds*. These results were first published as an article in _SWAT_ magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, "How Close is Too Close?"[1][2]


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> If I'm 79, your on my property and you advance on me, you are a threat. Period!


Wasn't he safer staying in his house and calling the police? After all, he's 79 years old.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

doozie said:


> Then go ahead, what is your definition of approaching someone in a threatening manner.
> 
> Is it someone approaching you with a weapon or something he found in the pole barn, arms raised,or fists clenched.
> 
> ...


And all of it depends on if the evidence fits what the shooter states happened.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Wasn't he safer staying in his house and calling the police? After all, he's 79 years old.


If one enjoys being a victim they can hide and call for a good guy with a gun to save them.

If you heard someone out in your barn at night would you do nothing other than call and wait for the police to show up? 



Irish Pixie said:


> And all of it depends on if the evidence fits what the shooter states happened.


There's no reason to think it wouldn't.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

My guess it would take anywhere from 30 minutes (absolutely best case, a miracle in fact) to four hours (or longer, most likely) for a sheriff deputy to come to my house.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> My guess it would take anywhere from 30 minutes (absolutely best case, a miracle in fact) to four hours (or longer, most likely) for a sheriff deputy to come to my house.


If the shooter's area is as sparsely patrolled as your area you'd have to agree a 79 year old man was safer staying in his home, correct?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> If the shooter's area is as sparsely patrolled as your area you'd have to agree a 79 year old man was safer staying in his home, correct?


No. Maybe a shot from a further distance....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If one enjoys being a victim they can hide and call for a good guy with a gun to save them.
> 
> If you heard someone out in your barn at night would you do nothing other than call and wait for the police to show up?
> 
> ...


Nope, I wouldn't go to my barn if I heard someone out there- there is nothing out there that is more valuable than I am.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> No. Maybe a shot from a further distance....


Maybe...


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Wasn't he safer staying in his house and calling the police? After all, he's 79 years old.


I was answering a direct question from Doozie. Not commenting on the man's actions.

To answer yours, probably. But it is HIS home and property. He should be free to walk on it anytime he chooses without fear for his safety.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

It’s a shame when ones hard earned possessions are considered free for the taking. Of course that train of thought just invites more of the same. The police usually have lots of practice at providing paper work for insurance claims. If you can afford insurance on such things. 
Hmm, if someone hears something late at night in the barn do you ignore it or go and check to make sure the trespasser has not got hurt and need medical assistance. Would hate to get sued by someone getting hurt and then not getting assistance. 
Hopefully the homeowner will have thinks work out for him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, I wouldn't go to my barn if I heard someone out there- there is nothing out there that is more valuable than I am.


You wouldn't try to protect your animals?
In the time it takes police to respond they could be gone.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Urban mind in a rural setting..


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Urban mind in a rural setting..


I tend to think of it as a "victim's mentality".


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I tend to think of it as a "victim's mentality".


I don't know if there is a difference.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I don't know if there is a difference.


There's not really.
Just different terminology for the same mindset.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I prefer to call it safe. I'm a woman that has been sexually assaulted, do I need to draw a picture? There is nothing in that barn that is more valuable than I am. 

Would you want your wives, daughters or granddaughters out alone investigating someone in their barn? If you would, I feel sorry for them.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I prefer to call it safe. I'm a woman that has been sexually assaulted, do I need to draw a picture? There is nothing in that barn that is more valuable than I am.
> 
> Would you want your wives, daughters or granddaughters out alone investigating someone in their barn? If you would, I feel sorry for them.


As men, we are by nature, a protector, and do not want harm to you or those in our charge.

Sadly, be ready for what is in the barn to come to the house. Be safe.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> As men, we are by nature, a protector, and do not want harm to you or those in our charge.
> 
> Sadly, be ready for what is in the barn to come to the house. Be safe.


I'm armed, I'm just not stupid.

So you wouldn't want your women to be alone in a barn at night when they heard someone out there, correct? Does that make you and them have a "an urban mind in a rural setting" or "a victim mentality"?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm armed, I'm just not stupid.


I have never considered you stupid, anything but.

The article was about a man going to the barn.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

I guess I'd be getting sued. The dogs would have torn him up pretty badly before I could get there unless he tripped a driveway alarm...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I have never considered you stupid, anything but.
> 
> The article was about a man going to the barn.


Until it morphed with these posts:



Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, I wouldn't go to my barn if I heard someone out there- there is nothing out there that is more valuable than I am.





HDRider said:


> Urban mind in a rural setting..





Bearfootfarm said:


> I tend to think of it as a "victim's mentality".





HDRider said:


> I don't know if there is a difference.





Bearfootfarm said:


> There's not really.
> Just different terminology for the same mindset.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Until it morphed with these posts:


So what's your point?
How did those posts change the article?



Irish Pixie said:


> So you wouldn't want your women to be alone in a barn at night when they heard someone out there, correct?


Incorrect.
I'd worry more about the intruder.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

At what point would it be "safe" to investigate the noise in the barn? Do you need to be male? What is the age cut-off? Is there a physical fitness requirement? I think the founders realized the answer to these questions when they wrote the second amendment. The second amendment makes it OK to inspect your property any time you darned well please, if you take the necessary precautions. If you choose to call the police, which might be an option in your area, that is your prerogative. But if you want to go out there and check things out you can do that to. You don't have to be an 18 year old martial arts expert either. You can be a 79 year old woman. Even if you are a 79 year old woman and are faced with an 18 year old martial arts expert that means you harm, you are allowed to check on your property without fear. .357 does 1,240 FPS, the best karate kick comes nowhere close to that. Refer to Samuel Colt's teachings on this subject.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

God created man, Sam Colt made them equal. I paraphrase I'm sure, didn't look it up.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I think the guy is screwed. At least in NY he would be. I asked a Judge I know about that situation once. The judge told me "Dead men tell no tales".


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

By the way, in thirty two years in my home I dialed 911 twice because I needed police and I needed them now
Both times it took over 45 minutes to respond.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Somewhere on here there was a member who had a tag line that said something on the order of, 'When the police are needed in seconds, they are only minutes away'. True words. You are responsible for your own safety and security.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Would you want your wives, daughters or granddaughters out alone investigating someone in their barn?


My wife and daughter would do fine.
The Granddaughters are all too young.



> I'm a woman that has been sexually assaulted, do I need to draw a picture?


That really doesn't change anything.
Either one takes responsibility for their own safety, or they rely on the Govt to protect them.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

There was someone here in the past with a great signature line. I'll get it close.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

This is Texas, but informative


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Stuff like this is why it pays to take the right precautions. Imagine that our very own gun-grabber is the lawyer set against you in an ensuing civil trial. Having a crown stamp on the muzzle of your pistol that says "smile and wait for flash" is not going to help you. Having cute posted signs that indicate an intent to do bodily harm to trespassers is not going to help you. Grabbing a shotgun, loaded with 7 & 1/2 shot, and blasting an attacker, and then saying "I heard a noise in the barn, I thought it was the raccoons again, so I grabbed the shotgun" is going to go way better than using your tactical shotgun loaded with tactical buckshot and dropping the neighborhood meth head in between all the body targets riddled with buckshot. There are things that just won't go well for you in a civil proceeding. If you can hit a soda can, accuracy is proficient, having human silhouette targets is a liability in this day and age. 7& 1/2 shot will make people reconsider their business model if they are within any distance to pose a threat. AR-15 platform rifles are cute, useful and good, I use one frequently around the homestead and to hunt. Sadly, in a bad scenario that ends in a civil proceeding, an AR-15 is going to be a noose around your neck. A chicken coop and a double barrel with a flashlight taped to it loaded with bird shot is going to balance things pretty well on all fronts.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

HiiiiiiiiiYa! Karate! BOOM, Smith and Wesson.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

barnbilder said:


> Stuff like this is why it pays to take the right precautions. Imagine that our very own gun-grabber is the lawyer set against you in an ensuing civil trial. Having a crown stamp on the muzzle of your pistol that says "smile and wait for flash" is not going to help you. Having cute posted signs that indicate an intent to do bodily harm to trespassers is not going to help you. Grabbing a shotgun, loaded with 7 & 1/2 shot, and blasting an attacker, and then saying "I heard a noise in the barn, I thought it was the raccoons again, so I grabbed the shotgun" is going to go way better than using your tactical shotgun loaded with tactical buckshot and dropping the neighborhood meth head in between all the body targets riddled with buckshot. There are things that just won't go well for you in a civil proceeding. If you can hit a soda can, accuracy is proficient, having human silhouette targets is a liability in this day and age. 7& 1/2 shot will make people reconsider their business model if they are within any distance to pose a threat. AR-15 platform rifles are cute, useful and good, I use one frequently around the homestead and to hunt. Sadly, in a bad scenario that ends in a civil proceeding, an AR-15 is going to be a noose around your neck. A chicken coop and a double barrel with a flashlight taped to it loaded with bird shot is going to balance things pretty well on all fronts.


How come I can only "like" this once?


----------



## gerold (Jul 18, 2011)

gilberte said:


> HiiiiiiiiiYa! Karate! BOOM, Smith and Wesson.


I would never shoot anyone unless I had to. A few times the dogs have let me know when some one is out to steal gas from auto. I just go out on the porch and fire a shot in the air and say the next one is for you. Has worked for me. Most times the dogs keep them away at night. I do have lights which works in most cases.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

“I'm armed, I'm just not stupid.” Thats good 

“So you wouldn't want your women to be alone in a barn at night when they heard someone out there, correct?”

As to regarding male or female. Why not ? Equal rights with men and all of that stuff. As several have said a gun even things up nicely. If its a matter of nothing in the barn is worth being harmed or causing harm thats ok also. Male or female should have little to do with it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gerold said:


> I would never shoot anyone unless I had to. A few times the dogs have let me know when some one is out to steal gas from auto. I just go out on the porch and fire a shot in the air and say the next one is for you. Has worked for me. Most times the dogs keep them away at night. I do have lights which works in most cases.


I agree. Shooting to scare someone off usually does not mean you have to actually shoot them.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

In the carry classes, you are told that if you shoot, shoot to kill. This is, however, instruction for close in threats.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> Maybe...


That works to run people off. Just shoot in a safe direction.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

Redlands Okie said:


> Evicting squatters is a complicated mess in some places


I wish I could remember where it's at but right now homeless people are invading a upscale neighborhood they are being pushed out by worsening crime not enough space under these overpasses with the closest availability of water and income is this area of homes. The homeless ( drunks dopers and petty thieves with some excons mixed in wrapped in a mentally challenged coating are threatening home owners trying to blackmail them into giving them money destroying private property like mailboxes breaking windows and into vehicles climbing over fences -- if you have children that is dangerous. they leave drug paraphernalia like needles.

Anyone that checks their property and does not have a firearm is a fool in today's world, bums kill each other for nothing recently a bum killed another for $1.14 that was a reported news story. Our legal system deals with murderers daily they know these people will and can kill for no reason at all most of them should be in an asylum or in prison but because they don't have any money the justice system can wring out of them it's catch and release minimum time in county and out on the street.

Police are allowed to fire on a person with a knife when policy deems they are within range of being a mortal threat to officers and this is with all their nifty equipment,why because some people are not stopped with Tazers or pepper spray in enough time to prevent them form killing someone. 

Apparently the government does not see theft as a problem because they are so used to stealing themselves and lying but they have an advantage they can just squeeze us for more taxes, fines, fees, permits, registrations, and paper F__k us to death to make ends meet where as we call ill afford to keep loosing and replacing hundreds or thousands of dollars of items all the time, because we have monthly bills to pay children to get through school medical bills and all the crap they dump on us. We just fought 2 wars for oil killed thousands lost over 10,000 but our sh_t isn't worth killing for? One main reason to kill people like this is they become entitled and threatening today give me a dollar tomorrow beat you down and strip you naked. they are like idiot children testing limits until they injure themselves or someone else --but they won't stop until there is serious consequences for a grown person that should know better a dirt nap teaches the rest of them to cut it out, because when does it stop ? if they want to get laid just rape your wife or kids you dog is a threat so they kill it bums kill people all the time It's the court that has to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that with or without a weapon that person could not have killed him or injured him to a point where he would loose his life or the ability to care for himself and family.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

Darren said:


> That works to run people off. Just shoot in a safe direction.


yea and then they say you threatened them for nothing and you go to jail because a firearm is a lethal weapon in the eyes of the law it is not a deterrent.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I have no idea who they were. All I know is they skedaddled. Sheriffs in rural counties would laugh their ass off if a trespasser on posted land tried to file a complaint about shots fired. The comment would be, "Did you get shot? No? Quit wasting my time otherwise I'll call him up and ask him if he wants to press charges for trespassing."


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

4tu I have a personal favor to ask. Please please toss in a period or comma more often in your sentences once in a while. Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I do not. Usually its a interesting read regardless. Just frustrating trying to decipher the text.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Yes! Sometimes it's so easy to get caught up in the thought(s) you are trying to convey that you forget about the poor reader trying to decipher your message


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Once he ventured on to the property, especially inside the building, he was in the danger zone. I feel anything the farmer does at that point is justified.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> If the shooter's area is as sparsely patrolled as your area you'd have to agree a 79 year old man was safer staying in his home, correct?


Are his horses or cows (or goats, barn cats, tractor, tools, etc) safer with an unknown person in the barn while you hide in your house waiting 30 minutes or (much) longer for a sheriff to show up?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I know of no firearms instructor or LEO or anyone other than Joe Biden that would advise a warning shot. That statement should stand alone regardless of the situation.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Crummy deal. 
Win or lose, the landowner is going to get tied up in court and likely have to spend a bunch of attorney money.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I agree. Shooting to scare someone off usually does not mean you have to actually shoot them.


In some states firing a "warning shot" can get you arrested.

It's foolish to pull the trigger other than as a last resort and firing random shots into the air is irresponsible gun handling. 

Don't take your self defense advice from Joe Biden
(And NO, mentioning his name does not make this post "political")


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Article with professional view of warning shots, and why not to discharge your weapon in that manner. 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/27/ccw-weekend-why-you-should-never-fire-warning-shots/


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I would rather go to jail for firing a warning shot than for shooting someone. Your mileage may vary but firing a gun on my property is not a crime at any time unless I shoot someone or something. Note I never said I would fie a warning shot into the air in a dangerous fashion. Making assumptions makes you look foolish.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I simply provided information to further the discussion.

Were you offended?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I would rather go to jail for firing a warning shot than for shooting someone.


Logical people would rather not go to jail, period.
If you want to scare someone, yell at them.



painterswife said:


> Note *I never said* I would fie a warning shot into the air in a dangerous fashion. Making assumptions makes you look foolish.


No one made any assumptions.
You agreed firing a warning shot was a good way to scare off someone.



> painterswife said: ↑
> I agree. Shooting to scare someone off usually does not mean you *have to* actually shoot them.


No one here has said anyone had to be shot.
We see this denial game most every day.
I suspect we will see more of it soon.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I simply provided information to further the discussion.
> 
> Were you offended?


Why do I need to be offended to offer my opinion


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

*1. What goes up, must come down.*The stereotyped warning shot is fired skyward. Shooting live ammunition into the sky is a practice normally associated with Third World countries where respect for human life is not as great as in the United States. There are many cases on record where such bullets “fell from the sky” and killed innocent people. In one New England case, a man carelessly fired a warning shot upward in the state’s largest city; the bullet struck and killed an innocent bystander who was on the upper porch of a tenement building.



https://gundigest.com/article/self-defense-warning-shots-good-idea


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

*2. To fire the warning shot safely, the shooter would have to aim it into something that could safely absorb the projectile.* This would force the shooter to take his eyes off of the potentially dangerous criminal opponent he was trying to intimidate – always a poor idea tactically.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

*3. What appears to be a safe place to plant the warning bullet, may not be.* I know a police officer who, trying to break up a riot, fired a warning shot from his 12 gauge shotgun downward from the upper floor walkway of a hotel into what appeared in the dark to be a soft patch of earth. It was, instead, darkened pavement. Double-ought buckshot pellets caromed off the hard surface, one striking a young woman in the eye.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

*5. Warning shots can lead to misunderstandings with deadly unintended consequences.* Years ago in the Great Lakes area, two police officers were searching opposite ends of a commercial greenhouse where a burglar alarm had just gone off. One confronted the burglar, who ran. The officer raised his arm skyward for the traditional silver screen warning shot. As is often the case, the blast just made the suspect run faster. On the other end of the building, the brother officer heard the shot and shouted to his partner, asking if he was all right. But the powerful handgun had gone off so close to the first officer’s unprotected ear that his ears were ringing, and he didn’t hear the shout. The second officer then saw the suspect running. Concluding that the man must have killed the partner who didn’t answer, that second officer shot and killed a man who was guilty only of burglary and running from the police.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

*4. Suppose the person who caused you to fire the warning shot runs around a corner.*Another gunshot rings out; someone else has shot the man, in a moment when deadly force was not warranted. The bullet goes through and through, fatally, and is not recovered. The man who wrongfully shot him claims that he fired the warning shot, and it was your bullet that caused the wrongful death. It’s your word against his…unless you can say, “Officer, you’ll find the bullet from MY gun in the friendly oak tree right over there.” But it would have been better in these circumstances if you had not fired at all.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

*6. A single gunshot sounds to earwitnesses (and, depending on the circumstances, even eyewitnesses) as if you tried to kill a man you were only trying to warn.* Did you yell the standard movie line, “Stop or I’ll shoot”? It could sound to an earwitness as if you threatened to kill a man for not obeying you, and then tried to do exactly that. Don’t make threats you don’t have a right to carry out, and as will be noted elsewhere in this book, the confluence of circumstances that warrants the shooting of a fleeing felon is extremely rare. (Remember that there are usually more earwitnesses than eyewitnesses; sound generally travels farther than line of sight, especially in the dark. Remember the infamous case of Kitty Genovese, who was murdered as 38 New York witnesses supposedly watched and did nothing. A study of the incident shows that only two of those witnesses actually saw the knife go into her body. However, more than 38 apparently heard her scream, “He stabbed me!”)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> *Why do I need to be offended* to offer my opinion


Only you can answer that.
We can only observe the behavior.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

*7. Even if there are no witnesses and the man claims you shot at him and missed, evidence will show that you did fire your gun.* If he claims you attempted to murder him, it’s his word against yours.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

*8. Murphy’s law is immutable:* if your weapon is going to jam, expect it to jam on the warning shot, and leave you helpless when the opponent comes up on you with his gun.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> *7. Even if there are no witnesses and the man claims you shot at him and missed, evidence will show that you did fire your gun.* If he claims you attempted to murder him, it’s his word against yours.


I am curious what would you do if you were in this situation? Shoot the person, warning shot or something else?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

*9. The firing of a gun even in the “general direction” of another person is an act of deadly force.* If deadly force was warranted, well, “warning shot, hell!” You would have shot directly at him. The warning shot can tell judge and jury that the very fact that you didn’t aim the shot at him is a tacit admission that even by your own lights, you knew deadly force was not justified at the time you fired the shot.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

*10. If the man turns on you in the next moment and you do have to shoot him or die, you’ve wasted precious ammunition.* With the still-popular five-shot revolver, you’ve just thrown away 20% of your potentially life-saving firepower. In one case in the Philippines, a man went berserk in a crowded open-air market and began stabbing and slashing people with a knife in each hand. In a nearby home, an off-duty Filipino police officer heard the screams, grabbed his six-shot service revolver (with no spare ammunition), and ran to the scene. When he confronted the madman, the latter turned on him. The officer fired three warning shots into the air, sending half of all he had to protect himself and the public into the stratosphere. He turned and ran, trying to shoot over his shoulder, and missed with his last three shots. He tripped and fell, and the pursuing knife-wielder literally ripped him apart. Responding officers shot and killed the madman, but their off-duty brother was already dead by then.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Only you can answer that.
> We can only observe the behavior.


Yes, you do make a lot of asinine assumptions about what people feel.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Wow. I am sorry you are having a bad day. It’s 5:00 here. Miller time! You’ll feel better.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Wow. I am sorry you are having a bad day. It’s 5:00 here. Miller time! You’ll feel better.


No bad day here. You making assumptions about how people feel as well?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Yes, you do make a lot of asinine assumptions about what people feel.


There have been no assumptions.
You constantly show us what you think and feel.

Why are you perpetually offended over every little thing?
Why the constant outrage?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There have been no assumptions.
> You constantly show us what you think and feel.
> 
> Why are you perpetually offended over every little thing?
> Why the constant outrage?


Your opinion therefore moot. You must be constantly outraged to assume others are. See how that goes when you make assine assumptions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Your opinion therefore moot.


LOL
Patterns never change.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

You are using harsh words. That is your choice. 

People make opinions based on those word choices. 

Humans are like that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> Patterns never change.


Your opinion therefore moot.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I don’t think that means what you think it means. 

moot
mo͞ot/
_adjective_

1. 
subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.
"whether the temperature rise was mainly due to the greenhouse effect was *a moot point*"
synonyms: debatable, open to discussion/question, arguable, questionable, at issue, open to doubt, disputable, controversial, contentious, disputed, unresolved, unsettled, up in the air
"a moot point"


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> You are using harsh words. That is your choice.
> 
> People make opinions based on those word choices.
> 
> Humans are like that.


Yes and they are just opinions not reality. You have still not answered my question about what you would do in the situation discussed.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I don’t think that means what you think it means.
> 
> moot
> mo͞ot/
> ...


I think it means exactly what I wrote.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Your opinion therefore moot.


History has shown that once you start this routine there will be nothing original to follow, so your silliness here is now mute for the rest of the day.

I bet you will quickly show you don't understand the above.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

painterswife said:


> I think it means exactly what I wrote.


Must every conversation you have degenerate into this nonsense?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> Must every conversation you have degenerate into this nonsense?


That statement is false. Not every post I participate in degenerates and many that I don't participate in degenerate.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Must every conversation you have degenerate into this nonsense?


The empirical evidence would say most end up this way.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The empirical evidence would say most end up this way.


More threads that you participate in than I do go that way.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Anyway........

I individually posted the 10 reasons why not to fire warning shots to save people clicks.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Unless your practicing with a weapon or checking its functions it’s probably best to NEVER fire a gun unless you intend to kill something. Alice links are a few good examples.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Anyway........
> 
> I individually posted the 10 reasons why not to fire warning shots to save people clicks.


Still curious what you would do in this situation.? Shoot, warning shot or something else?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

What happens to a curious cat?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> What happens to a curious cat?


Why don't you want to answer? You posted quite a bit about why people should not choose certain actions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I individually posted the 10 reasons why not to fire warning shots to save people clicks.


They all made perfect sense.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

1. I posted a lot of situations, and I have no idea which one you are referring to.

2. Your posts appear to be hostile. I choose not to engage further.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> 1. I posted a lot of situations, and I have no idea which one you are referring to.
> 
> 2. Your posts appear to be hostile. I choose not to engage further.


Why is it hostile? Are you triggered by questions?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm, thank you for your comments. I enjoy research. 

It would be interesting to know how many on HT have CCW permits.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Still curious what you would do in this situation.? Shoot, warning shot or something else?


No one knows what they would do. You can even simulate similar situations in training. You can even have experienced similar threatening situations. Unless you are there, at the time, in the exact situation, you have no idea what you are going to do.

I will say that Alice is spot on in the warning shot department. If you feel threatened enough, particularly on your own property, firing a warning shot is the absolute last thing you should do. The next worst thing is leaving any other story to be told, other than your own.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> No one knows what they would do. You can even simulate similar situations in training. You can even have experienced similar threatening situations. Unless you are there, at the time, in the exact situation, you have no idea what you are going to do.
> 
> I will say that Alice is spot on in the warning shot department. If you feel threatened enough, particularly on your own property, firing a warning shot is the absolute last thing you should do. The next worst thing is leaving any other story to be told, other than your own.


I do know what I would do. I plan for situations. I have also experienced several different situations already in my life. 

If I thought a gun was warranted I would have never left my home. I would have turned on all my lights, in the barn as well. Called the cops, called a few neighbors and stood on my porch with my gun. There is nothing in my barn that insurance would not replace and no reason for me to go to jail for shooting someone over belongings.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I guess the answer is, it depends.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> It would be interesting to know how many on HT have CCW permits.


I got mine in the mid 90's as soon as they started them here.

I was already working in a gun shop at the time and several of our regular customers were certified instructors for the mandatory classes.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> I do know what I would do. I plan for situations. I have also experienced several different situations already in my life.
> 
> If I thought a gun was warranted I would have never left my home. I would have turned on all my lights, in the barn as well. Called the cops, called a few neighbors and stood on my porch with my gun. There is nothing in my barn that insurance would not replace and no reason for me to go to jail for shooting someone over belongings.


I think it is important to plan. It is doubtful that I would shoot someone over belongings either. But, it is just as doubtful that I would sit on my porch while someone was rummaging around my property. If I confronted someone, and they made a threatening move towards my person......well, that is a different story. As I said, planning is great and prudent. But, you are either a willing victim or you aren't. Police are not reliable to defend you and they have freely admitted it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> I think it is important to plan. It is doubtful that I would shoot someone over belongings either. But, it is just as doubtful that I would sit on my porch while someone was rummaging around my property. If I confronted someone, and they made a threatening move towards my person......well, that is a different story. As I said, planning is great and prudent. But, you are either a willing victim or you aren't. Police are not reliable to defend you and they have freely admitted it.


You think someone whould continue to rummage after you turned all the lights on called the police? I think that would be odd. Then there would be the arrival of my neighbors., who would also be armed and in their trucks. The person would be either running for the hills or standing with their hands over their heads by that time.

Planning when you own a gun is more important than anything. If you are willing to use a gun then you should have considered any scenario you can think of before reaching for it. If you have not planned then you really should not have a gun.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Hiro said:


> Police are not reliable to defend you and they have freely admitted it.


The Supreme Court has ruled the police have no duty to protect anyone.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> You think someone whould continue to rummage after you turned all the lights on called the police? I think that would be odd. Then there would be the arrival of my neighbors., who would also be armed and in their trucks. The person would be either running for the hills or standing with their hands over their heads by that time.
> 
> Planning when you own a gun is more important than anything. If you are willing to use a gun then you should have considered any scenario you can think of before reaching for it. If you have not planned then you really should not have a gun.


That is pretty unrealistic. If someone has chosen to rummage about, they obviously have no regard for your property. Do you think they have regard for you? You are relying on your neighbors? What if you live somewhere your neighbors are the likely perpetrators? That may be the world you live in. But, it isn't the world most of us reside in.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> That is pretty unrealistic. If someone has chosen to rummage about, they obviously have no regard for your property. Do you think they have regard for you? You are relying on your neighbors? What if you live somewhere your neighbors are the likely perpetrators? That may be the world you live in. But, it isn't the world most of us reside in.


So what would you do? I know who I can count on. My neighbors would also never fire a shot unless someone brandished a gun in a menacing fashion. I know that I would not choose to go towards someone who might continue to rummage. I know that belongings are not a good reason to confront some if you think you need a gun.

Remember very few stand your ground laws will stand if you are not in fear for your life. I would only need to fear for my life if they came into my home. Rummaging through belongings is not a good excuse.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> So what would you do? I know who I can count on. My neighbors would also never fire a shot unless someone brandished a gun in a menacing fashion. I know that I would not choose to go towards someone who might continue to rummage. I know that belongings are not a good reason to confront some if you think you need a gun.
> 
> Remember very few stand your ground laws will stand if you are not in fear for your life. I would only need to fear for my life if they came into my home. Rummaging through belongings is not a good excuse.


I believe that I started out the conversation between us with the statement that no one knows what they would do unless they were confronted with the exact circumstances. You do what you think is best. I'll do what I think is best and it is likely the subject of this story did what he thought was best. I do know this 79 year old man is alive right now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Hiro said:


> You are relying on your neighbors?


Why would neighbors risk their lives and liberty to help someone who won't take action themselves? If they "plan" they would plan to stay at home where they belong.

Would one even have neighbors close by when they claim to live in a National Forest?

I think someone is just rambling now.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> I believe that I started out the conversation between us with the statement that no one knows what they would do unless they were confronted with the exact circumstances. You do what you think is best. I'll do what I think is best and it is likely the subject of this story did what he thought was best. I do know this 79 year old man is alive right now.


That is the difference between us. I plan for as many circumstances as possible. I know what I would do in this situation. I don't put myself in situations where I would have to shoot someone on my property. Leaving my home and going to the trouble is not needed if I am already well protected.

You might not have prepared or planned for this situation but many others have.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why would neighbors risk their lives and liberty to help someone who won't take action themselves? If they "plan" they would plan to stay at home where they belong.
> 
> Would one even have neighbors close by when they claim to live in a National Forest?
> 
> I think someone is just rambling now.


Relying on other people to come to your defense is poor planning, imho. But, I have known people that were rational, caring, productive and helpful people for many decades that became the very antithesis of that in short order due to a mental issue or substance abuse.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> That is the difference between us. I plan for as many circumstances as possible. I know what I would do in this situation. I don't put myself in situations where I would have to shoot someone on my property. Leaving my home and going to the trouble is not needed if I am already well protected.
> 
> You might not have prepared or planned for this situation but many others have.


That makes no sense. Plans only last until your first contact with a hostile force. The "I don't put myself in situations where I would have to shoot someone..." implies you have such control......you don't. You are deluding yourself to think that is the case. But, it is your choice.....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> Relying on other people to come to your defense is poor planning, imho. But, I have known people that were rational, caring, productive and helpful people for many decades that became the very antithesis of that in short order due to a mental issue or substance abuse.


I am not relying on them to come to my defense. I already have a gun. I am not leaving my home. There is no defense in that situation. Neighbors are just an extra layer if something bad happened. I can rely on them for that. I have in the past and will in the future just as they do I. Sorry that you don't have that support. I do and have planned for it. 

Remember we are discussing a certain situation not just what ever might happen.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

As pointed out, one can never be sure as to what they will do, BUT, I know exactly what I can legally do.....


Part of the research of any property should be laws that are local to that state or area...….

I know on my property by researching the laws, that once the perp enters my property , I can do anything I want short of torture, but depending, that is even debatable contingent on how it was carried out. 


One of my requirements was stand in my front yard and see no other house and secondly be able to hold my rifle at a 45degree angle and fire in a 360 degree circle with no fear of hitting another house.


So knowing what you can do is way more important than what you might do......


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Even when you do the right thing, you may be arrested and charged.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Let me take this opportunity to justify a absurd purchase and how you might want to consider a much less absurd option.....


Criminals are like cockroaches.....they scatter when the lights come on and they make a bunch of options.

One of my favorite ones are the variable strobing flashlights that create the Bucha effect...…. 

Also it needs to pack enough candela to keep it from being a aiming point, if you can look/aim a gun at it, it aint bright enough...something in the 300 to 800 dollar range .


A flash light can be a great device to keep a situation from escalating , but it has to be powerful enough, a mag light is not going to cut it here.

Yes, I went for slight overkill at 150 million lumens...… But ,.....one glance at it and you will not see much for a hour or so, more than a glance and you might not ever see right again....it puts daytime on perps up to 2 miles away like daytime over a huge area, while it is certainly overkill and must be treated with respect...if it keeps me from shooting some one or saves a life, it was worth every penny.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

shawnlee said:


> A flash light can be a great device to keep a situation from escalating , but it has to be powerful enough, a mag light is not going to cut it here.
> 
> Yes, I went for slight overkill at 150 million lumens...… But ,.....one glance at it and you will not see much for a hour or so, more than a glance and you might not ever see right again....it puts daytime on perps up to 2 miles away like daytime over a huge area, while it is certainly overkill and must be treated with respect...if it keeps me from shooting some one or saves a life, it was worth every penny.


I want one of these, you got a link ?


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

You can find good deals on ebay for used ones...…

https://www.peakbeam.com/products/mbpkg-go/


Be careful, I shined it on a stop sign almost a mile away and it blinded us all pretty good from the reflection, like 5 minutes before we could see clearly again....I am guessing we all got permanent minor damage...….. Probably like 2 years worth of being in the sun wearing cheap sunglasses


Be very careful, its no joke !


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

painterswife said:


> I do know what I would do. I plan for situations. I have also experienced several different situations already in my life.
> 
> If I thought a gun was warranted I would have never left my home. I would have turned on all my lights, in the barn as well. Called the cops, called a few neighbors and stood on my porch with my gun. There is nothing in my barn that insurance would not replace and no reason for me to go to jail for shooting someone over belongings.


Your plans are what you believe is best for you and your circumstances. Thats all fine and dandy and pretty neat that you think that far ahead. In general the above plan sounds fine except the “stand on the porch” part. Maybe best to stay out of sight ? When the lights go on the intruders should assume they have been discovered. Why let them know exactly where your at ?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

One thing I am noticing in these discussions is that many assume there is going to be logic involved by all parties. Or actions that those in chat consider to be common sense or practical and assume others will also. The fact that someone has broken in or trespassed is the first sign that logic might be lacking and someone’s thinking process is a bit different than the homeowners. Drugs, being scared, and other things can easily remove logical actions. Are you all still ready ?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Wasn't he safer staying in his house and calling the police? After all, he's 79 years old.


Evidently he was more than capable of staying safe, especially if you compare how the robber ended up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Remember we are discussing a certain situation not just what ever might happen.


Actually we were discussing the absurdity of firing a warning shot when you got all wound up.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hiro said:


> I think it is important to plan. It is doubtful that I would shoot someone over belongings either. But, it is just as doubtful that I would sit on my porch while someone was rummaging around my property. If I confronted someone, and they made a threatening move towards my person......well, that is a different story. As I said, planning is great and prudent. But, you are either a willing victim or you aren't. Police are not reliable to defend you and they have freely admitted it.


That may have been the best answer yet.

Confront, cover and call. If the perp leaves, you have a good description to give the sheriff. If the perp stays the sheriff gets him. If he attacks, you shoot him, and not in the legs.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

oneraddad said:


> I want one of these, you got a link ?


Me too


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Actually we were discussing the absurdity of firing a warning shot when you got all wound up.


Hypotheticals are used when the present argument begins to slide.

Some people find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Other people seem to seek out the wrong place.
And then there are the people who have to suffer the above mentioned and be judged for their response.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Actually we were discussing the absurdity of firing a warning shot when you got all wound up.


Due to the high cost of ammo these days I can no longer afford warning shots.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Due to the high cost of ammo these days I can no longer afford warning shots.


I like maintaining the element of surprise also.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why would neighbors risk their lives and liberty to help someone who won't take action themselves? If they "plan" they would plan to stay at home where they belong.


Elderly or disabled neighbors sometimes need looking after. No doubt in my mind that I would jump to the aid of a neighbor if I felt they were in physical danger.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> *Elderly or disabled* neighbors sometimes need looking after.
> No doubt in my mind that I would jump to the aid of a neighbor if I felt they were in physical danger.


That's a different scenario.
They aren't able to act alone.


----------

