Realistic AR home defense scenarios--things to think about

[jesuvuah]

Yes, I navigate my house in the dark regularly, and it is dangerouse. With two young boys who love things like legos, well let's just say the peep would be just as likely to break his neck as he would get shot.

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk

[26 Inf]

Just who "forced the situation" here?

Once again, how do you know the intruder(s) who have defeated multiple levels of security to gain entrance into an occupied habitation are there only for "property"?

Why were terms like "ambush the intruder", "punch your CONUS kill card", and "If you're separate from your children, I don't really see too much of an issue for overt push toward them" utilized in regards to defending one's self and loved ones?

Moose, I am tiring of this, and in foul humor after mowing, so excuse me.

[Defaultmp3]

Why were terms like "ambush the intruder"

Because stealth is utilized set up an ambush. Ambush is not a dirty word here, merely a description. Posters were talking about sneaking around the house.

"punch your CONUS kill card"

Because there is no reason to kill the intruder(s) if you don't have to, since it tends to also present a greater threat to you/your family's safety. There are also a number of societal and psychological factors to consider in the long-term post-shooting situation, that would skew the rational person to not want to kill someone unless absolutely necessary.

"If you're separate from your children, I don't really see too much of an issue for overt push toward them"

I don't think you understand my statement. My point is that a fast, overt, non-stealthy push toward your loved ones, and then setting up a defensive position, is generally the best course of action in a home invasion, with probably the lowest overall risk, if you must traverse the house to reach another strong point.

[MegademiC]

Deleted- addressed last year.

[Moose-Knuckle]

Moose, I am tiring of this, and in foul humor after mowing, so excuse me.

Last edited by 26 Inf; Yesterday at 16:28. Reason: was kind of a jerk post

Figures.

Well enjoy your weekend and stay safe.

Because stealth is utilized set up an ambush. Ambush is not a dirty word here, merely a description. Posters were talking about sneaking around the house.

I appreciate your response and clarifying what you were saying. When I quoted you I didn't realize at the time your post was from July of last year.

No, ambush is not a dirty word in the least and is defined as; "a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position". IMHO if a homeowner wakes up to invader(s) in his home it is he/she who are the victims of a surprise attack. When going and investigating that bump in the night I wouldn't want to make noise, announce myself, back light myself etc. so as to draw attention to myself, give away my wife's position, and or walk into a volley of gunfire from the perp(s).

Because there is no reason to kill the intruder(s) if you don't have to, since it tends to also present a greater threat to you/your family's safety. There are also a number of societal and psychological factors to consider in the long-term post-shooting situation, that would skew the rational person to not want to kill someone unless absolutely necessary.

I think that is reasonable and worded much better than the post I quoted above.

I don't think you understand my statement. My point is that a fast, overt, non-stealthy push toward your loved ones, and then setting up a defensive position, is generally the best course of action in a home invasion, with probably the lowest overall risk, if you must traverse the house to reach another strong point.

I've spent a lot of time over on Liveleak and even YouTube watching home invasion and home burglary security camera footage. It happens in an instant. My own house layout negates such action as to make my way to my children's bedrooms, bring them back to safe position, and wait as their rooms are on the opposite side of the house from our master.

[Defaultmp3]

IMHO if a homeowner wakes up to invader(s) in his home it is he/she who are the victims of a surprise attack. When going and investigating that bump in the night I wouldn't want to make noise, announce myself, back light myself etc. so as to draw attention to myself, give away my wife's position, and or walk into a volley of gunfire from the perp(s).

There is a large difference if you are investigating a suspicious sound, versus aware of an active home invasion and are defending against it. My comments are about the latter, not the former. In the former, there is certainly huge value in minimizing your signature (whether it be to prevent the potential intruder from detecting you or waking up your spouse in a false alarm), but then that's not really an ambush, either, as you are actively investigating and moving about, rather than lying in wait.

I've spent a lot of time over on Liveleak and even YouTube watching home invasion and home burglary security camera footage. It happens in an instant. My own house layout negates such action as to make my way to my children's bedrooms, bring them back to safe position, and wait as their rooms are on the opposite side of the house from our master.

In such a scenario, making it to your children's room and setting up a defensive position there would generally be the ideal course of action, given my limited understanding of your house's layout and CQB in general; there is no need to have to bring them back, and this is in fact something that instructors I've attended have spoken to before. I would still think that generally it would be best to make your way to your children's room as fast as prudently possible, without an emphasis on stealth, in order to minimize the amount of time your children would be undefended, and the amount of time you are spent outside of a defensive position.

[Doc Safari]

Because there is no reason to kill the intruder(s) if you don't have to, since it tends to also present a greater threat to you/your family's safety. There are also a number of societal and psychological factors to consider in the long-term post-shooting situation, that would skew the rational person to not want to kill someone unless absolutely necessary.

.

In college I took a class with a lawyer/law professor who was pretty realistic about self-defense scenarios. Yes, it's a given you don't want a person's death on your conscience if you don't have to, but consider this: If the person is dead, they can't sue you. Their family might sue you for wrongful death, but if it's a good shoot it should be thrown out of court. If the perp survives on the other hand, he may get 51% of a jury to say you acted negligently or caused undue pain and suffering (imagine your aim was off and you shot him in the scrotum for example). In an odd twisted way, in certain scenarios you might be better off if the guy took a solid CNS shot and dropped like a sack of potatoes.

[100]

just saw the new Bruce Willis - Death wish movie and at the end of the movie bad guy was breaking into his house. that tactocool table was the bomb.

tactical-table-1519996327.jpg

[26 Inf]

In college I took a class with a lawyer/law professor who was pretty realistic about self-defense scenarios. Yes, it's a given you don't want a person's death on your conscience if you don't have to, but consider this: If the person is dead, they can't sue you. Their family might sue you for wrongful death, but if it's a good shoot it should be thrown out of court. If the perp survives on the other hand, he may get 51% of a jury to say you acted negligently or caused undue pain and suffering (imagine your aim was off and you shot him in the scrotum for example). In an odd twisted way, in certain scenarios you might be better off if the guy took a solid CNS shot and dropped like a sack of potatoes.

If the person is dead, they can't sue you. Their family WILL sue you for wrongful death

FIFY

if it's a good shoot it should be thrown out of court.

If a legit lawyer files a complaint properly alleging the plaintiff's claim, the only way it isn't being heard is if the plantiff's attorney left out something in the filing which enables the defendant to say 'even if all this is true, the plaintiff has shown no right to seek relief.'

In deciding whether to let a case go forward the court looks at the facts in a manner which most favor the plantiff.

Most attorney's, having been admitted to the bar, know if the facts are valid, so if they file, it will be heard, unless, as I've said, they made an omission in filing.

So it really doesn't matter if the bad guy is dead, or if he survives, either way someone will probably file. Pulling that trigger, which some posters seem so anxious to pull, is going to cost you some money, no matter what.

There is a difference in what a dead person is worth, versus one who survives with disabilities.

I think you need a better law professor.

In an odd twisted way, in certain scenarios you might be better off if the guy took a solid CNS shot and dropped like a sack of potatoes.

If your goal is stopping an immediate threat to you or someone else, a CNS shot is the only sure immediate stopper. Absent hits to the brain stem, shots that impinge the spine, are survivable, hits to the cervical spine generally will cause sufficient imparment to stop: http://www.spinalinjury101.org/details/levels-of-injury

[Doc Safari]

I think you need a better law professor.

I actually think New Mexico's laws are the issue. There is no right of "self defense" in this state, only justifiable homicide. That's not the only screwed up law. When I worked in law enforcement it was a dirty little secret that if you raped a woman but left her alive, you would do more time in prision than if you killed her in the process, because the penalty for rape (at least in the 1990's) was more severe than non-first degree murder. True story. Of course we didn't advertise that. Similarly, IIRC if you shoot a perp and he survives, he can get pain and suffering. I believe that if the family sues after his death, pain and suffering can't be a part of it because he's dead and didn't "suffer". Things could have changed and I could be oversimplifying things, but that was the gist I got.