Home defense question

I might have missed it.. but whos word is it against yours?? The intruders??? you effed up if thats the case LOL. Some wise police officer once told me Id rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6, and when the plaintiff is 6 feet under its hard for him to offer case testimony.
 
Last edited:
FhvnLT4A said:
I might have missed it.. but whos word is it against yours?? The intruders??? you effed up if thats the case LOL. Some wise police officer once told me Id rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6, and when the plaintiff is 6 feet under its hard for him to offer case testimony.
Click to expand...

1) When I took LFI-1, Ayoob said that in the US, 80% of people shot with a handgun survive. So the perp may well survive.

2) Forensic evidence can determine a fair bit about what went on -- the distance between victim and perp at the time of the shooting, their relative positions, etc.

3) If you or someone else in the family is on the phone with 911 at the time of incident, that tape will provide evidence as well.
 
I was kind of joking....sorry if it seemed like I was pointing fingers.

I am curious... shot with a handgun how many times? Once, twice? ( that I was actually seriously asking about) .

The only way a perp is going to survive IN MY HOUSE, is if he turns and runs OUT at the first sight of my gun and I dont shoot him. Since I will be in my safe room, he is going to have to advance at least 13 feet into my home uninvited, and make a turn into my bedroom. At that point he will be more than halfway into my fatal funnel. My wife will HOPEFULLY be ON 911 and I HOPE they hear me screaming "get away GET AWAY GET AWAY" after every single shot. Hopefully my two walls, and the neighbors brick garage stops any through shots from causing any strays. yah, I sometimes loose sleep over this. I am probably a little paranoid about it. I am suppose to be able to feel safe in my home arent I ?
 
FhvnLT4A said:
I am curious... shot with a handgun how many times? Once, twice? ( that I was actually seriously asking about).
Click to expand...
He didn't go into detail. What he said was that in the US, 80% of people shot with a handgun survive; 80% of people shot with a long gun die. So I think he was talking overall numbers.

Yes, I would expect that a person shot multiple times is more likely to die, and people closer to a trauma center are more likely to survive than those out in the boonies.

Sorry for being a little bit harsh. People often trot out the "there will only be one side of the story," but it often isn't true and if someone acts on that belief it might get them in a heap of trouble. What happened, happened and concocting a story that is not supported by the evidence might turn a good shoot in a murder rap. Once the investigators think you have lied, they are not going to believe a word you said.
 
Last edited:
I want to move to Lakeland Florida, there a drug runner killed two Deputies AND their dog, when he was caught he was shot 76 times! Sheriff Jud was asked by a national news anchor why did they shoot him 76 times, he said "because we ran out of bullets" the Medical Examiner then said that he died of natural causes, when asked about it, he said "if you are shot 76 times you will just naturally die"

THAT IS MY KIND OF TOWN!
 
If a person breaks into a home and rushes an UNARMED occupant, the occupant would still be in "clear and immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury", so I wouldn't agree with the statement that the occupant's being armed (and fearful of being disarmed) is the reason to shoot.

Sorry for being a little bit harsh. People often trot out the "there will only be one side of the story," but it often isn't true and if someone acts on that belief it might get them in a heap of trouble. What happened, happened and concocting a story that is not supported by the evidence might turn a good shoot in a murder rap. Once the investigators think you have lied, they are not going to believe a word you said.
Click to expand...
Best option is for there to be only one story -- the one told by the 911 recording, as after the fact, the homeowner will remain silent and only talk to her attorney. Chances are the intruder isn't going to be speaking up during his attack, and will not tell the same story as the 911 tapes -- once the investigators know the perp has lied, they are not going to believe a word he says.
 
DavyJones said:
The end result was in favor of the homeowner, however, the wording at the end of the press release is troubling to me.

It says: "...the district attorney has determined there is insufficient evidence to conclude the homeowner did not act in conformity with Chapter 278, 8A and therefore there is no probable cause to support criminal charges."

To me this says, "the district attorney was looking for a way to charge the homeowner who was acting in self defense but couldn't find the necessary evidence." In other words, the homeowner starts off as guilty instead of innocent, and its only a lack of evidence against him that saves him from being charged. The scales of justice seem very skewed.

Wouldn't it be nice if the guy whose home was broken into was assumed innocent until there was evidence to the contrary? [thinking]
Click to expand...

Remember, Martha and Deval Patrick, don't want you to have guns. I'm sure they both had stomach pains for a week after finding out they couldn't crucify a "self-helper". Douchebags, both of them.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Mass compliant list Question
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
steven grammont
steven grammont
Private Sale Question for 2024
Replies
13
Views
359
MAJoe
M
Post ban fixed mag AR15 style rife question
Replies
3
Views
141
Shevchenko
Shevchenko
Question on LTC's
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
drgrant
drgrant
Preban AR Lower Question
2 3
Replies
62
Views
2K
drgrant
drgrant
Back
Top Bottom