More Tales Of Self-defense

[Todd]

Even as the anti-freedom forces in Kalifornia are gearing up to deprive gun
owners of their rights, let's take the time to review some more self-defense stories from the past week:

Early Friday morning, a 51-year-old homeowner in west Houston, Texas, heard suspicious noises outside his townhouse. When he went to investigate, he found a man trying to break into other people's homes. 21-year-old Joseph West approached the homeowner with his fists raised. The homeowner, fearing for his life, shot and killed the intruder. The case is under review by a grand jury, but grand juries in Texas generally don't indict homeowners protecting their property.

Another case in Texas: Robert Garcia of Corpus Christi awoke to a neighbor's phone call. The neighbor had spotted someone sitting in Garcia's front yard. Armed with a .357 Magnum revolver, Garcia went outside to confront the man. The man refused to leave and lunged at Garcia. Garcia shot him once in the thigh. The intruder, Cristoval Hernandez, was treated at a nearby hospital and released. The local police will not press charges, and the county district attorney refuses to prosecute Garcia.

New Orleans, Louisiana: A female cashier at a Central City package store found a man trying to break into the store. The cashier screamed for the man to stop, but he wouldn't. She shot the man with a .38-caliber revolver and struck him in his jaw and right shoulder. He was in fair condition at a local hospital and charged with burglary. Investigators say they believe the shooting was justified.

Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens save lives and protect property. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise doesn't have a firm grip on the facts.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/935897
http://www.caller.com/2001/june/09/today/localnew/2409.html
http://www.nolalive.com/neworleans/t-p/index.ssf?/newsstory/o_robbershot08.html
http://www.sacbee.com/news/calreport/calrep_story.cgi?story=N2001-06-06-1645-3.html

 

[unusuallyconfused]

Sounds interesting. Is this one of those threads that if I give my opinion I am going to be called a bunch of names? I am just not up to it today. So, I will remain silent for now. I of course am not on a jury and don't know all the facts, but I am for the right to bear arms to all the communists out there. Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode.........except no Chinese or black lists.

 

[Todd]

Sounds interesting. Is this one of those threads that if I give my opinion I am going to be called a bunch of names? I am just not up to it today. So, I will remain silent for now. I of course am not on a jury and don't know all the facts, but I am for the right to bear arms to all the communists out there. Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode.........except no Chinese or black lists.

I won't call you names, I may call you over for a hug and a snuggle but never a name

 

[unusuallyconfused]

I won't call you names, I may call you over for a hug and a snuggle but never a name

And you said you were not charming!

 

[Weevil]

Sounds interesting. Is this one of those threads that if I give my opinion I am going to be called a bunch of names? I am just not up to it today. So, I will remain silent for now. I of course am not on a jury and don't know all the facts, but I am for the right to bear arms to all the communists out there. Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode.........except no Chinese or black lists.

What communists????

 

[unusuallyconfused]

What communists????

Well I figured it was my best shot at not getting any flack, you see, I certainly couldn't say anything about the left or I would be in for it.............alas I am a wimp today. Sigh*

 

[Weevil]

I guess. I think that calling the left "Communists" is pretty ridiculous but that may just be me

I'm a socialist.

 

[unusuallyconfused]

I guess. I think that calling the left "Communists" is pretty ridiculous but that may just be me

I'm a socialist.

I think I should stop while I am ahead! I meant that communists were a safe bet to talk about, but If I started on the left I would have trouble. I did not say those on the left were communists, at least I didn't mean to!

 

[Andra_Jenny]

From herever after to refused as Leftist so that we can put all of the Happy Marxist camp in one broad general terminology.

I do not call you names.

I just accuse people of being as smart as I am...




















and they all know I am the dumbess ass here !











SHUT UP DUMBASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Closet Desire]

Going in harm's way...

Despite some of my posts I am a gun owner and believe in a person's right to defend one's self and loved ones.

However, two of these cases appear to be bad judgement at best and stupidity at worst. He was sitting in his yard? Yep, this is grounds for an armed confrontation. Why not call the police and get on with it? Breaking into neighbor's homes. Yeah, bad news, but armed confrontation? Bad judgement.

Why? So many things can go wrong including a bad guy who's quicker on the draw.

Want the rest of the story? The part that hasn't been written yet and probably won't be quoted here? The law may decide not to prosecute, but if it did you're talking major expenses and emotional trauma. No legal case? Whew. Now you're in for the civil drama...and the odds are you'll lose.

It will go something like this. Mr Jones, was this man breaking into your home? No. You mean you confronted him? Yep. Are you a police officer? No. Are you certified as an expert on weapons? No. Have you had any formal training at all? No. And so on.

So, a man who was actually not committing anything more serious than trespassing (a misdemeanor) is now maimed for life. Oh, if you're thinking a bullet can enter a body and not cause permanent damage then you're mistaken. There are not "safe" places to take a bullet.

Pain, suffering, disability, medical bills, lost earnings. Ouch. Unlike criminal law civil law only requires a preponderance of the evidence to prove the case.

Defend yourself when your life is in danger. No problem. Create a situation or make a situation more serious than it was and you're going to pay a price.

Win your case? Wonderful! Now check your bank balance and see how much it cost you. Start at four zeros and count up from there.

Don't believe me? Look around...

 

[Morden]

I don't know. I can't see the whole reason for the gun thing. I know in some ways it helps, but I don't think its something that should be taken wihtout a large bag of salt. All though I detest the whole thing with people abusing and destroying property. I don't think shooting them is the answer.

 

[Never]

An unarmed twenty-one year old is shot and killed and you find that justified?

 

[Closet Desire]

I don't...

...except under unusual circumstances.

Like most professions there are skills and techniques that officers, well-trained security personnel, and executive protection specialists are trained in. The latter two apply to armed private citizens as well since they are not obligated to protect the public.

One of these skills is about responding with an appropriate level of force. It starts with verbal, open hand, closed hand, non-lethal force (OC spray), lethal force (baton, ASP, gun). What's taught varies from place to place, but it follows these guidelines.

Is there a time when a young, unarmed man is a deadly threat? If he is strong and fit, knows you are armed, and makes an attack which may result in him relieving you of your weapon then he is a deadly threat. There's a rule of twenty-one which basically says that a healthy attacker can cover a distance of 7 yards in less time than it takes for a TRAINED officer to draw, aim, and fire. That's a sobering statistic. If he has a knife, which you didn't see, you're screwed because when he slashes you're going to raise your arm, the knife is likely to sever the tendons in your arm, and you will not be able to draw and fire. I've spoken to officers who experienced this (a woman officer) and it was the most terrifying experience of their lives.

It's a nasty business and most private citizens "protecting" their property haven't a clue about all the implications. One should follow the cardinal rule of executive protection...DO NOT GO IN HARM'S WAY. DO NOT EXPOSE YOUR PRINCIPAL TO UNECESSARY RISKS.

See someone breaking into your car? Confront them and you run so many risks that it sends shivers up my spine. Is the thief armed? Does he have an accomplice you don't know about? If you fire your gun and miss you can be assured that you will pay for any property damage or personal injury it causes...even if the shooting was justified. If your judgement is way off you may leave a widow, find yourself permanently disabled, or even sentenced to prison. Personally I'm not willing to take those risks to protect my property.

Just some observations...

 

[p_p_man]

Yes I agree with everything you say...

...considering the last time the majority of men had a fight was when we gave or received chinese burns in the school playground we are simply not able to hold our own against a determined attacker.

We probably won't get the police response we would like, or perhaps the justice we deserve or even witness the punishment we think is justified but at least we will be unharmed.

Last year a stranger, a big well built man asked me to walk down the street with him. I did what most people do in those cicumstances said yes without thinking. It was broad daylight about three in the afternoon and although I grew wary after agreeing to walk with him I didn't feel any real danger.

I got him home and saw him into his front door. On the way he told me that the previous week he had been attacked, at about the same time of day, by a group of boys aged somewhere between 12 and 15 and that since it had happened his nerves were completely shot. He now had to ask people to walk with him because he felt safer.

OK they weren't intruding on property but they did have knives which they threatened him with. He was too shocked to resist and gave them what money he had. I have no doubt if he had taken some action he would either be dead by now or severely injured.

Now this was a man who stood about a head over me, very muscular and someone you would consider could look after himself and they were what I would call children.

I agree with Closet Desire, let the intruder get away, let the mugger have what he wants. It's the only way to stay safe.

Changes in the the police and judicial system to combat crime can be made in other ways.

 

[Closet Desire]

Violent people...

...have their own set of rules.

My son is a world level competitor in judo. One on one he's a match for most troublemakers he might run across. Even caught one on CCTV one night at the train station. Still, he got the shit beat out of him and had to spend the night in the hospital. He got out of it with a broken nose and some serious bruising.

What kind of monster did this? A gang twelve 14-16 year old girls.

He went in harm's way when he knew better. His girlfriend also spent the night in hospital.

Sometimes it doesn't matter what's right or wrong...just what's prudent.

 

[p_p_man]

Yes I remember you posted...

...about your son before...

Again I agree.

The violent do have their own rules.

They're not held back by what onlookers are thinking
They don't care what injuries they inflict
They have absolutely no control over their tempers
They have an insanely strong mob culture
They do not consider the consequences of their actions

I suppose the above can be summarised as:

They don't care...

 

[Ally C]

Todd

Each case will have specific details which are particular to it, so I think that it's unwise to generalize with a list of 'stories' as if they all seemlessly relate to one another. Specific incidents can rarely if ever be lumped together to make sense of random violence.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

One local martial arts teacher, a 10th Dan, got robbed at a fast-food restaurant when he went to the bathroom. He stepped up to the urinal, whipped it out, began to piss, and felt a gun in his back and a voice demanded his wallet.

"What did you do sensei?"

"I gave him my wallet. But I always lock the door now when I take a piss!"

1st rule of self-defense - Awarness.

Your point about closing the distance is very true. I have twice beaten people in combat who tried to draw on me simply by not thinking, moving, and doing that to which I was trained.

These were fools with guns in some ways...

But they are also a people living in fear, because they have been taught to live in fear. Now the question is, by whom?

 

[Closet Desire]

It is...

...often fear that makes one foolish...or cautious. Which you choose can mean the difference.