Woman gets beaten in her own home by burglar

Number one, you didn't say "in your own house". I can see the assumption since the thread started with a home invasion video but it's a distinction that needs to be made.

While some places have a castle doctrine and while someone breaking into your house constitutes a higher level of threat than an altercation at a bar, I don't think completely skipping any UoF continuum and going straight to hollowpoints is generally legally advisable, let alone morally. People have gone to jail or killed themselves over much more cut-and-dry situations.

If I'm searching my house, yes I'm going to have my firearm. But I recognize that I don't want to take a life over some belongings. If the guy attacks me and I'm confident he doesn't have any weapons in his hands, no. I'm not going to shoot him. I'm going to dump him on his head and phone the police.

If I'm not confident he is unarmed or if I am clearing with my weapon drawn and he attacks me, yeah, I'm going to hose him down. Because then, even if he doesn't intend to shoot me with it, we're going to be fighting over a firearm.

 

The button-snap holsters are pretty easy for children to work out how to use, and while there are other retention methods (SERPA, 5.11 thumb-drive, cant-release, etc) these are not foolproof; there is no substitute for proper awareness and gunhandling. The sentence"There is no way a child is getting it if I'm wearing it" is exemplary of poor gunhandling doctrine, and poor habits will spring from this.

 

If someone enters your home illegally, you can use any force necessary to stop the threat.

Maryland law states:

Maryland also continues to follow common law principles on the issue of when one may use deadly force in self-defense. In the case of State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. 482, 485, 483 A.2d 759, 761 (1984), the Court of Appeals of Maryland summarized those principles, and stated that a homicide, other than felony murder, is justified on the ground of self-defense if the following criteria are satisfied:


(1) The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his assailant or potential assailant;


(2) The accused must have in fact believed himself in this danger;


(3) The accused claiming the right of self defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict;


(4) The force used must have not been unreasonable and excessive, that is, the force must not have been more force than the exigency demanded.

See also Roach v. State, 358 Md. 418, 429-30, 749 A.2d 787, 793 (2000).

In addition, when one is in one's home, one may use deadly force against an attacker if deadly force is necessary to prevent the attacker from committing a felony that involves the use of force, violence, or surprise (such as murder, robbery, burglary, rape, or arson). See Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 190 A.2d 538 (1963).

 

I'm not disputing that it may be legal in some locations but again, that doesn't mean it's always the right decision morally or otherwise, especially considering that that law doesn't apply across the entire US, much less other countries.


And as vocally Christian as you are, can you really condone shooting someone to death in any circumstance where there may be another way to survive?

 

I heard about this but was unable to watch it at work. I feel horrible about this. As an instructor, what could I have taught this woman? Get a gun! At 5'11" 220lbs(the attacker) she had no chance. Having a gun could have equalized the situation, assuming she could get to it.. I don't think any martial arts training would have helped in this situation. I could be wrong? Thoughts and Prayers go out to the victim and her children.

 

It is a good video. A little bit of selling of GJJ but I think they genuinely want to help people and know what training in GJJ can achieve.
Nice offer to the woman in the attack at the end.

 

I get the impression that people have some really flimsy doors in the US. Surely a door is your first line of defense. If it can be kicked in so easily, it’s not really fit for purpose.

To be honest I have a pretty flimsy door here, but it’s a rental and I live in London which is pretty safe, plus I'm on the other side Back in Moscow, almost everyone has either a reinforced steel door and door frames or two doors, the outer being some sort of metallic beast, you would need a team of people and a battering ram or explosives to get past that. Of course someone can always go through a window, but climbing through a load of broken glass is probably quite loud, painful and would alert the resident to an intrusion allowing enough time to grab a blade or bat etc..

 

I would buy and fit a far better door then that, if it can be kicked in that easily.

If your talking tacticool, its about creating a large enough reaction gap, so that you can do something about it.

Whether thats remove your child out of the back, or draw your desert eagle and see how poorly your few hours of training will serve you.

Personally, I would withdraw to a safer place, whilst armed and call the police.

 

If I lived in a place where I felt I needed to carry a loaded gun in my own home to feel safe...I'd move.

 

Of course sometimes its not the place its the persons mentality that makes them need to carry a gun.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ar-Pistorius-shoots-girlfriend-dead-live.html

which also shows the problem with openly wanting to shoot unknown people in your house.

 

Actually this is a bd example, because it is really not clear cut whether Pistorius just wanted to kill his girlfriend or not. To me it looks more like shooting someone in anger, and then trying to come up with a cover story.

 

very true, however untill the case goes through court, that will be his defence to the police.

It also highlights the main thrust of the argument towards gun control in the usa.

(I'm aware that SA is a different place)

If you look at the general stats from the USA, you are far more likely to shoot a member of your own family, then you are to shoot a attacker inside your own home.

Whether that's due to poor training, high levels of domestic violence or good criminals I wouldn't like to say.

 

Indeed.

I knew the answer, my question was more cynical/sarcastic

 

It isnt a matter of "getting past". It is a matter of opportunity or situation.
There can be a situation whereas none of these will be available.

Such confidence of people with a HK P30L, 2 pit bulls, a Presa Canario and a Cane Corso.

 

The paradox or strange thought:
* A gun is the ultimate protection. (Thinking it is a force-field or shield)
* It costs less to buy a gun than to move


Note: Yes, I had moved

 

If you dont feel safe at home, then having a gun on you 24/7 wont make you feel that much safer.

Remember Stress is a killer!

 

Decades ago, my wife and I were on a double with another couple.
This was in daylight.
The women of the other couple wated to explore a unpopulated street because she wanted to "take photos of colorful architecture".
A gunman appeared out of nowhere, grabbing her and pointing a gun to her head demanding money.
We handed over our cash.
Afterwards, the fellow of that couple stated that he should have pulled out his gun.
I told him if that was the case, your girlfriend would have certainly died

A gun is the NOT "holy grail" of protection...you have to be able to get to it to use it

Borderline paranoid

 

Some people don't hesitate at all, actually. And I didn't feel extra confident when I carried a gun, like you say. It meant I couldn't safely grapple someone. It was a burden; an intrinsic escalation of force. I hope, if I had to protect someone, I would kill to do it. I've been close to needing to seriously maim or kill in self-defense a few times (nobody was hurt, thankfully), and I'm very grateful it didn't escalate. Waiting in the dark to potentially kill another human being who is trying break into where you and your loved ones are hiding is an emotionally horrible experience.

Also, have you had any small arm training for combat taught by a professional? Not target shooting of stationary targets, but live fire movement drills, room cleaning, weapon retention, use of tactical flashlights, adrenal shooting training, instinct shooting, etc etc?

Furthermore, why not a carry a knife instead? It tends to be a superior CQC weapon anyway, and your kid can't injure him/herself or anyone else as readily with one.

 

How prevalent are totally random home invasions in the US?
We hear about home invasion in the press here in Aus, but mostly you find it's drug or criminally linked. As I am not involved in drugs and my criminal links extend no further than stealing my neighbors unprotected Wifi (love you Tom).
I really would struggle with the concept of having to carry a gun continiously around the house for something that unlikely.