Bump in the yard 0545hrs

[KodiakBeer]

I learn something new everyday.

Pax!

 

[beeenbag]

I study my laws quiet often. In ky you can use physical force to stop a crime on property. You can have a gun but if you point it at them then it is as good as fired, it is considered deadly force just pointing it. There are a few crime against property laws that allow the use of deadly force such as arson or someone trying to "take over" one of your building structures.

So now its known I know my limits within the laws..... please continue.

 

[sm]

so ok I now have the place lit up.

-Never stand in the doorway of death.
It is unwise to stand still in any "frame", especially one that lights you up.

Not just the actual doorway, or window,(wide open for all to see and hear) this includes peeking out blinds and curtains. This includes any shadows you give off, as again, you are back lit.
You need to be able to observe, report, from a safe place, while you communicate to others in the home/office/hotel room, and have trusted neighbors, and/or LEO on the phone.

-If one has trusted neighbors, or even family living next door/across the street, have a game plan.

Besides landline, and cell phone, consider a walkie talkie. I have used such, with trusted neighbors, or co-workers in hotel/motel/business settings.

Compressed air horns ( marine) are useful to signal for assistance, and have been successful in thwarting bad guys.

Re: Mirrors.
Some properties use mirrors for blind spots, for say driveway use, or accessing barns, sheds, and the like.

Mirrors work for good and for evil, just as bad guys have learned to use the mirrors in businesses, to aid them in their crime, instead of the business thwarting crime.

Meaning, if you have a use for mirrors, say on the porches, or yard to see blind spots, then keep in mind, a bad guy might use them against you. So, pretend you are a bad guy, when you set these up.

You need to know your layout, better than anyone else, and keep advantages to self.

-Silence.

Do Not discuss any security measures, practiced plans and such, except to those that live in the house.
Too many folks blab what they have done, and what they will do, and wonder how come their security measures were defeated, or used against them.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Where I come from, those who allow others to loot their home and property without interference are called "residents of Chicago".

I love it when anyone that offers an idea that is different than "kill 'em all and let God sort them out" that person has their manhood and character called into question by the real men in the thread. Classy.

Being a "resident of Chicago" is not a slur on anyone's manhood or character. It is pointing out that some people live under oppressive political regimes that will imprison you for doing what would be thought moral and legal in other places.
If you live in such a place, you may have an actual "duty to retreat" from a criminal rather than confronting them, or face imprisonment.

Your options (defensive and otherwise) are framed by your zip code.

 

[Jon_Snow]

There is a school of thought that runs through all these threads that one should never confront a criminal on your property or even in your house, but just hole up and dial 911 (with gun at the ready). That's fine if that's what you want to do, and if the cops are five minutes away.

I don't think I said that you shouldn't confront someone in your house and I apologize if I gave that impression. There's a big difference between someone in your house and someone in your yard. The situation we have been discussing deals only with intruders in the yard. It'd be a whole different story if they entered the house.

 

[TexasRifleman]

It is pointing out that some people live under oppressive political regimes that will imprison you for doing what would be thought moral and legal in other places.
If you live in such a place, you may have an actual "duty to retreat" from a criminal rather than confronting them, or face imprisonment.

Your options (defensive and otherwise) are framed by your zip code.

For the purposes of this thread, using deadly force to protect only property, I believe that every zip code outside of the state of Texas will prosecute for that.

Not sure of Alaska but of the 48 contiguous, 47 of them have these "oppressive political regimes" by that definition.

It's not a question of being a "real man" it's a question of potentially going to prison if you decide to use a firearm to defend property. If one decides to go out and confront the bad guys yes, there's a 90%+ chance they will simply run, but what if they don't?

So, the reality is that you simply can't start an armed confrontation over property alone in many places so any discussion of strategy and tactics must necessarily be around defensive actions, not how to confront the criminals.

 

[KodiakBeer]

For the purposes of this thread, using deadly force to protect only property, I believe that every zip code outside of the state of Texas will prosecute for that.

Can you point to one single post in the entire six pages of this thread where somebody has advocated shooting a thief?

Try framing your replies on what people say rather than creating a straw man to argue with. You'll make more sense that way.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Can you point to one single post in the entire six pages of this thread where somebody has advocated shooting a thief?

Confronting a thief with a gun may result in you having to shoot them. That's been in this thread since post #1. Whether someone advocated shooting or not doesn't matter. Many have advocated approaching the bad guys and that can result in having to shoot. That would likely end up with a prosecution in most states.

The judgment call of going out armed for a property only crime WILL be called into question if one has to shoot, that's just reality and it needs to be considered with all the other strategies and tactics one might choose. Staying out of prison is usually a sound tactic.

 

[Joe Demko]

Can you point to one single post in the entire six pages of this thread where somebody has advocated shooting a thief?

Honeychild, you go running out after any lowlife with a gun in your hands, you damned well better be prepared to use it. If you just want to write checks with it you aren't prepared to cash, you really shouldn't be out there with it.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Confronting a thief with a gun may result in you having to shoot them.

In my world, we call that a self-defense shooting. What do they call it in your world?

 

[TexasRifleman]

In my world, we call that a self-defense shooting. What do they call it in your world?

Many states call it murder if you initiate an armed encounter over a property only crime and have to shoot someone. It's difficult to claim self defense in these cases, even in castle doctrine states, if you begin the confrontation yourself over what is otherwise a property only crime, or a crime of simple trespassing.

That's just the reality in today's legal system, and something to be considered with all the other things to consider. The idea in S&T is to minimize the risks to the law abiding citizen and the legal ramifications of actions need to be considered.

Is a car stereo worth the legal cost of shooting someone? Even if you walk there will be attorney's fees, bail money, perhaps loss of income etc.

It all comes into the decision making process when planning a strategy. You can't simply ignore it, that would be foolish.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by KodiakBeer: There's no such thing as "brandishing" a weapon on your own property when stopping a crime in most states, and certainly not in mine.

In AK that may be true, and in some states where concealed carry is normally required one need not carry concealed on one's own property, but generally, if an act constitutes assault or aggravated assault on the courthouse lawn, it constitutes assault or aggravated assault in your front yard, or in your back yard, for that matter. Remember, these guys were not trying to enter, unlawfully and with force, a habitation (domicile, whatever) or occupied automobile, nor did the OP have reason to believe that they posed an immediate threat of violence against any person or persons.

You have every legal right to stop a crime on your property.

Yeah, but how you may stop it depends upon the severity of the crime; in Texas one may use deadly force to stop theft at night; in all other states, not so.

You have every legal right to order someone off your property.

Yep. In some states you can even point a gun at a trespasser, but not in most.

Which all begs the question, should the resident who goes outside with the shotgun somehow successfully manage to avoid all of the tactical risks discussed in previous posts above, just what does he intend to do with the gun if he encounters the prowlers? He cannot shoot; in most jurisdictions he cannot threaten; in virtually all jurisdictions, he cannot try to hold the perps.

So--why take the gun?

Oh yeah, for protection. He might get injured or killed.

Problem is, that might happen anyway.

There is a much better way. See Post 65.

Those who advocate doing what the OP started out to do might ask a policeman what he would do if summoned to the scene by the homeowner. For one thing, the sworn officer has certain rights that the citizen does not have. For example, if he is performing his duty, he will not be charged with a crime if he exhibits a weapon except when it is necessary to do so in lawful self defense.

For another, at least where I live, he will not go forth into the darkness to investigate an unknown number of potentially violent criminal actors without backup.

Why would anyone else?

 

[Boris bush]

Confronting a thief with a gun may result in you having to shoot them. That's been in this thread since post #1. Whether someone advocated shooting or not doesn't matter. Many have advocated approaching the bad guys and that can result in having to shoot. That would likely end up with a prosecution in most states.

The judgment call of going out armed for a property only crime WILL be called into question if one has to shoot, that's just reality and it needs to be considered with all the other strategies and tactics one might choose. Staying out of prison is usually a sound tactic.

Oh my gosh.

A property owner has every right to expell anyone on their property without permision. So I can see it now. The OP posts how he went to the fridge and gets a piece of pie to offer the unwelcome person and tell them to get off his land. You will shoot back "why did you take a piece of pie?!!, Don't you own a shotgun?" (and you know you would)

No matter what he did you are gonna step up on that box and talk down to him. He has the right to throw them off his property. The shotgun is insurance he will be able to defend himself if the criminal unlawfuly on his property gets froggy. His intent was not to murder a steero thief. Even I understand that and the OP never said he was going to shoot anyone. At what point does doing the logical thing and being smart and taking a shotgun become murder? You are making no sesnse. He did not feel like giving away his property he worked hard to obtain. It is not that hard to understand.

Some of you guys make no sense. If the shotgun was a bad idea to bring along to throw off people not legaly on his property, then what the heck is he supposed to take? Pie? Flowers? a gift card to walmart?

Some of you guys are borderline comical......

 

[Sam1911]

Sam, you seem pretty knowledgeable about what is or isn't tactically correct.

I'm just a student, like you. I've read a lot, practiced a bit, and find myself listening harder and harder to folks I respect, the older I get.

I have no neighbors, alot of outside obsticles (sheds, outbuildings, garden close to home, you get the idea) so lighting is financially impossible to cover all areas.

What would you do to stop the crime, saying you had to for whatever reason, besides just flashing lights and such?

Good question, and fair. Of course the first answer is a total cop-out: I can't really see how I'd do what I'd do in your place 'cause I can't see your place! We'll have to keep it pretty general. I see Larry & sm have give you some great advice, and I'll second all of it.

First off, the time to prepare for stopping a property crime is NOW. Not when someone's in your yard making off with your "stuff."

If anything is so valuable that you would risk your life for it, move it out of harm's way. Some have said that a man shouldn't have to fear that his "stuff" will be fooled with, on his own land. That's a great social goal, but it isn't now -- and never has been, ever -- the way the world works. Some folks will take whatever they can get, however they can get it. Some may sneak behind your back, some may deceive you, some may just kill you for it.

So, if it's valuable, get it into your security zone. If you can't move it to a secure location, lock it up. If you can't lock it up, disable it so it's useless to a thief (especially motorized items). Make your yard a "target poor" environment. Reduce the reasons why you'd feel compelled to go out after "stuff," in ways that will risk your life.

This really highlights part of your question to the effect of "saying you had to for whatever reason." "Whatever reason" is a pretty tough sell. As someone said a bit ago, (paraphrasing) "When I go to bed at night, everything I'd die for is inside the house. Stuff outside the house is just stuff."

So, if you have some "whatever reason" that would compel you to exit your security perimeter to confront petty thieves, re-evaluate your priorities. That motorcycle, boat, snowmobile, lawn mower, or whatever else "valuable" item isn't going into the casket with you.

And your "pride" will heal.

With that out of the way, let's talk about observation:

Portable lights are great, and many kinds of area lighting are cheaper and easier to install than ever before. But how about a different tack? Night vision equipment. Some of the "1st Generation" gear is available now for not much over $150. Just one idea, but it's more flexible than area lighting and does a very good job of preserving your concealment.

Knowledge is power. What is causing that noise you heard? Animals or people? Now, it is possible that the noise is animals and you logically decide to go eliminate that problem. Fine. If it's people, what are they doing, and how many are there? Do you see weapons?

Maybe you'll discover it's Jimmy, the punk kid from down the street and you think you know him well enough to scare him off without catching a bullet or getting stabbed. (And maybe you're right.) O.k. That's your call. But at least you KNOW.

If it's two or more adult dudes who may or may not be armed and who are desperate enough to commit a serious crime, the chances I'll go rescue the lawn mower get real slim. Surprise them and you may find out that theft isn't the only crime they're willing to commit.

Personally, if I see bad folks in my yard, from a very early point, I'd be on the phone with emergency services. EVEN IF they can't respond to a "homeowner with a gun and trespassers" call promptly, chances are I'll want as much of a 911 tape record as I can get. If this ends up in court, I want the record to be absolutely clear as to what happened and why. I wouldn't be planning an ambush (in the yard, anyway) but I'd want to know how many of them there were and how prepared for aggression they appeared to be. That would inform my decisions about confronting them by proxy.

I'd also be taking down and communicating to 911 whatever identifying information I could ascertain, including vehicle descriptions (if any). The time to try and put the finger on these dudes is now.

Having done that, I'd await instructions from the dispatcher. It would take an awful lot for me to disregard their instructions (and "go get 'em!" isn't likely to be one of those instructions!).

If my assessment told me that the threat was "low-level" I'd make sure my people were someplace secure, my weapon(s) were handy, and my doors were as secured as possible -- and then light them up, fire off the air horn, hit the car panic buttons, turn on the sprinklers, yell to them from a concealed location, etc.

But I am not hefting my gun and wandering out to put myself at more risk.

Most thieves will flee at discovery. If so, GREAT! If not, well, I'm still inside my shelter zone and have a decent chance of keeping them from entering my home.

You need to decide as best as you can just what you will risk your life to go protect. If you say, no matter what, I WILL go out to stop someone from stealing from me, then I can't say much to help you. If that is just part of your personality, then I wish you the very best of luck, and I hope you don't find yourself in that situation. Like the OP, you may get very lucky.

tell me how to tactically stop the crime all by my lonesome cause that is how it would have to go down.

I can't, and I won't try. There are some things that are beyond the control of any man. Having a gun and some bravery is not a guarantee of being free from crime, and they can't ensure that your own actions won't lead to your death.

 

[Boris bush]

I'd await instructions from the dispatcher. It would take an awful lot for me to disregard their instructions

"sir do you have any firearms in the house?"

yes.

"hang up and go register your firearms for future confiscation"........

had to do it.

You must live alone then. The first thing I will do is retrieve the kids and put them in the safe room while the wife mans the street howitzer. No one comes in the room without knowing the challenge word. I already know what I will be doing, while the wife is telling 911 who is where and what they are wearing and where in the house they are. I never plan on leaving the house, but a thief is in my yard or getting in one of my cars or trucks will know (s)he is not welcome and needs to leave. Wether or not they want to come in is up to them. At that point it is game on. There will not be a murder wrap either. I have every right to tell anyone not legaly on my property to get off. So does the OP and that is exactly what he did.

Pat on the back and a highfive to the OP!!!

 

[Sam1911]

I'm asking because if this situation ever pops up I will have to put a stop to it, call me hard headed, but it basically is me vs. them and thats it.

Let's turn your question around, as you seem to have a very set way of looking at it:

What will STOP you from moving out to stop a crime? What is the limit where your brain tells you, "NO. I CAN'T do this?"

The idea that it's "me -vs.- them and I HAVE to stop them" is instinctive, but obviously quite dangerous, and it will easily fool you into stupid behavior if you let it.

SO... what level of danger do you imagine is just too great to risk your life over the possessions you can't carry inside?

 

[TexasRifleman]

property owner has every right to expell anyone on their property without permision.

Please cite one state where it is legal to use deadly force to stop a trespasser. Please cite a law where you can even threaten deadly force to stop simple trespassing. I'll help you, you can't. It's not legal. You can tell people to leave, you can kick and scream if you want, but if you threaten them with a gun you are toast. And, just by having the gun with you it may come into question whether or not you threatened them. Happens all the time.

Some of you guys make no sense. If the shotgun was a bad idea to bring along to throw off people not legaly on his property, then what the heck is he supposed to take? Pie?

And that is exactly the point. He shouldn't take anything because he shouldn't be confronting this type of criminal with a firearm unless prepared to use the firearm if needed. And, trying to convince a jury later that it was pure self defense at that point is going to be very expensive. That's just reality.

Don't get me wrong, I think one should be able to do that without question on one's own property, but the law simply doesn't work that way.

You have to consider the possibility that if you take a gun to confront someone on your property you might have to shoot them and if you do you will have to defend yourself in court.

Some of you guys are borderline comical......

No, we understand the real world ramifications of firearm use.

 

[Sam1911]

There are a few crime against property laws that allow the use of deadly force such as arson or someone trying to "take over" one of your building structures.

So now its known I know my limits within the laws..... please continue.

O.k. So it isn't arson, and your property isn't being "taken over." So you're outside with your gun. You confront them. They DON'T flee. Now what?

You've escalated the situation from a property theft to a possible homicide. And at this point, you're aware of them and they see you and it is entirely unclear WHO's homicide this is going to be. You don't have legal standing to kill them for taking your stuff. You probably don't want to loose the many tens of thousands of dollars that you'll pay to a lawyer if you DO shoot and injure or kill them -- even in affirmative self-defense.

You were in a frustrating place before. Now things are orders of magnitude WORSE.

 

[Boris bush]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris Bush
property owner has every right to expell anyone on their property without permision.


Please cite one state where it is legal to use deadly force to stop a trespasser. Please cite a law where you can even threaten deadly force to stop simple trespassing.

I answered that question in the very quote you quoted me on. Slow down and read the words. I, thats me, have the right to throw anyone on my property I do not want there. Its called criminal tresspass. Never said anything about a threat of lethal force. It is even right there in your quote of me and what I said. Here it is again. Now slow down and read every word. I have the right to throw anyone off my land I do not want on it. What they do from there is their choice. Never said I was gonna murder anyone, never said I was going to threaten anyone bodily harm. I said I have the right (here it comes again if you didn't get it yet) to throw anyone off my land I want to. It becomes illegal for them to be there after I inform them. Now read it again. I never said I was going to murder anyone for being on my land in an unlawfull manner.

Where are you getting this fable from?

All you are doing is telling me to do something I never said I will do. All I said was I have the right to throw anyone off my land I do want on it. Is that clear enough?

 

[Sam1911]

A property owner has every right to expell anyone on their property without permision.

Yup. As long as he does not break the law in doing so. (We've covered that...different rules apply in different states.)

But his RIGHTS won't protect him from being stuck, shot, beaned, run over, or any number of other things. As he gave up the advantage of cover and concealment by going out to confront these guys, his options are now limited and the risks are quite high. These guys might run away. If not, the situation is grave. Sure, he might prevail in a gun fight, but -- if he lives -- his life just took a HUGE turn for the worse. Instead of the loss of property, he now has massive legal fees, the likelihood of legal charges (and property confiscation), and the possibility of jail time and a felony record. And, in the end, he ended up killing someone over "stuff." This isn't a WIN.

The shotgun is insurance

The shotgun is a tool. It can't guarantee any outcome. Even if used well, the situation that results is something no sane man wants to live through.

His intent was not to murder a steero thief.

No, but depending on how the events unfold -- and how they are perceived by the responding LEOs and District Attorney -- this could be precisely the charge he is facing. That is real. There is no hiding from it.

Even I understand that and the OP never said he was going to shoot anyone.

If he confronts a criminal with a firearm, he MUST have prepared himself to KILL someone with it. If not, tag, HE'S IT.

So... is it worth it? That's the real question. "Stand up like a man" if you must, but contemplate all you are risking to save a stereo... or to save face.

 

[Joe Demko]

"Throw down?" What does that even mean in this context? Are you talking about pointing a gun at somebody? You'd be easier to understand without the B-movie dialogue.

ETA: My mistake. You said "throw off." I'd still like to know what that means. You point your gun at a trespasser. He calls your bluff. Now what?

 

[Sam1911]

You must live alone then.

NOPE! If I did, I'd probably not be too worried about taking care of myself. When all you've got on the line is your own hide, you can flout danger and stand on your principles a lot more.

I've got four reasons to live and I'm NOT going to leave them alone just 'cause someone offended my honor or took my 'tunes.

The first thing I will do is retrieve the kids and put them in the safe room while the wife mans the street howitzer. No one comes in the room without knowing the challenge word. ... the wife is telling 911 who is where and what they are wearing and where in the house they are.

That's a GREAT idea, and remarkably like what I said.

I never plan on leaving the house, but a thief is in my yard or getting in one of my cars or trucks will know (s)he is not welcome and needs to leave. Wether or not they want to come in is up to them. At that point it is game on.

Good grief! Eureka! This is WONDERFUL! Bravo! If this is where your head is at, why are you arguing so hard?

There will not be a murder wrap either.

Yes! In the majority of states once someone invades your house, your legal justification is established. Now, shooting them is still a HORRIBLE thing -- you still don't WANT to face that -- but your time is short, your options are fewer, and you have an immediate threat against your life and those of your loved ones.

Pat on the back and a highfive to the OP!!!

Sheesh! Now you're just TEASING us!

 

[beeenbag]

SO... what level of danger do you imagine is just too great to risk your life over the possessions you can't carry inside?

That is a tough call, it really is. I would like to think that if I observed that it was a single common street thug looking to turn something into some dope, (and I have every intention of observing and doing alot of the things you guys have mentioned) I would hope that I could handle myself enough to where I wouldn't even need a gun. Of course I would have my CCW on me, but if he chose not to leave I could handle it.... I think.

This is a very "assuming statement I know. To be honest with you, I don't know what I would do if I encountered multiple people lurking outside. You have to remember, where I live there is zero chance of pedestrians and what not. You have to make an attempt to come anywhere near my property. With that being said, any kind of encounter with anybody thats not suppose to be here would probably throw me into a kind of panic. I hope im coming across clear, sometimes the way I want to describe things doesn't make it to the keyboard.

To somewhat answer your question there is a "limit". There is a point where I wouldn't go outside, I would have to make that call on the fly.

Please don't thrash me for thinking I could handle a common street thug. My area has a very small population count and it is a "war" so to speak between the pill heads and the common folk. Everybody knows just about everybody and the dope heads look like walking death. I don't think a single walking junkie could hold his own well.

You've escalated the situation from a property theft to a possible homicide. And at this point, you're aware of them and they see you and it is entirely unclear WHO's homicide this is going to be. You don't have legal standing to kill them for taking your stuff.

You are very correct.

I think that you are painting a picture in your head of me kickin the door open and running outside screaming and yelling and so forth.

I have no intention of doing that. That is why I asked my previous question of how to do it correctly. I want the advantage on my side at all times, that is why I would take a gun with me.

I had a ex-state police officer turned lawyer tell me, if you go out to physically remove someone from your property (which is within the realm of the law, and something I would do if it was a single dopey and the situation was in my favor) and they convert the situation into a self defense situation, only let there be one side of the story.

I do not want to take a life. I hope I never have to feel what its like to live with that. If I thought I was walking outside into a gun battle I would probably stay inside.

If someone that I think is just trying to steal something escalates it into that when I try to run them off, then it is out of my control.

Please don't think that I am trying to argue your tactics, I am not. Everything you say I am taking into consideration.

 

[hso]

One "trick" where you can't lay control lines to an outbuilding that has power to it is to install a "garage door" remote controller that turns on an external flood to fill in shadows. It makes for a great way to fill in a dark path to the shed or barn and is a handy bit of sleight of hand when you suspect someone of lurking in shadows thrown by the house lights.

If you're lucky you can even pick them up for free when someone's electric garage door motor has died and you just want to scavenge the switch.

beenbag,

I live in rural east TN so we may not be too different in setting except that you may be further out of town than I am since "the burbs" start just beyond my neighbor's place. I'm on a dead end road and we see very little traffic. If you're not visiting one of the dozen or so folks on the road then you're either lost or looking for somewhere private or up to no good. I have 5 buildings on my property. One is a small barn without power in the pasture by the lake, two are detached garages/shops with office/apt. above them and the other is "the old home place" (yes, I live on the property that I grew up on). I have motion sensor lights on all buildings and I can trigger the garage doors on both garage buildings with remotes and the lights inside come on lighting the area in front of them, but I have no active control of the lights at the old house (gotta remedy that soon).

If I suspected someone was stealing anything from the 3 more distant buildings I'd have the same challenges you do. If I go out to investigate how do I know how many or where they all are? I don't and can't without having x-ray vision or cameras (they're not that expensive, but I don't have them on the other buildings) that would allow me to look around corners and through walls. So how do I approach safely if there is one or two or three guys (without being detected)? I really can't. I can let the dogs out and they'll investigate and bark their heads off and growl at anything out of the ordinary, but I'd still have to go look. That means I can't check these other buildings out safely (well I don't have to worry about the barn because a 140 lb billy goat wouldn't take kindly to anyone but me being in the barn).

I might assume that I can approach by swinging wide of each building and observing from outside the lighted area around the building or even trigger the garage doors and interior lights, but we get down to the problem of what to do if I actually find someone? I still don't know how many there are and I don't know where they all might be. I also don't know if they'll run off or if they'll be startled into a fight in an attempt to escape. I sure don't want to try to hold them for the sheriff since that only increases my exposure to danger every minute they think about jail. I also don't want them to attack me since I don't want to be in the situation of risking injury or death and leaving my family without a husband and father. So what's the "end game" if I don't actually want to put myself at risk over "stuff"? Why have I gone out at all if I don't need to take on that remote risk of attack? How can I go out without that remote risk of attack if I think someone actually is on the property? Why would I decide to put myself in a wildly remote situation that might put me at risk of being injured or killed OR having to shoot someone (let's not even mention that many shooting victims survive and I'm not capable of administering the coup-de-grase to someone I've shot and disabled to leave only my story to be told)? We really do have to take this out to the conclusion and examine what we actually think is worthwhile.

From my perspective my best course of action is to let the dogs out and turn on the building exterior lights and observe from safety if I suspect that someone is messing around on my property and let my insurance pay for anything taken. If I do see anything I can call the neighbors closer to the main road and have him observe any traffic going past to get a description to relay to the deputies. BTW, his lights reach all the way to the road in front of his house as mine do.

As an option for anyone that can't "just do nothing" (being a good witness isn't "doing nothing"), hop in the car and drive out of the property like you're on a late night errand and make your observation from the minimal safety of the vehicle.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I have the right to throw anyone off my land I do not want on it. What they do from there is their choice. Never said I was gonna murder anyone, never said I was going to threaten anyone bodily harm. I said I have the right (here it comes again if you didn't get it yet) to throw anyone off my land I want to. It becomes illegal for them to be there after I inform them. Now read it again. I never said I was going to murder anyone for being on my land in an unlawfull manner.

So what are you going to do if they refuse to leave? You are armed, they are not, and they refuse to leave.

What now? This is where it gets nasty. Very few states (in fact Texas is the only one I know of) allow for the threat of deadly force to be used against a trespasser. And even Texas only allows the THREAT of deadly force, you still can't actually shoot a trespasser who refuses to leave.

So, what do you do then? If they resist your use of force does it then become self defense? Maybe, but can you convince a jury of that? Do you want to bet your freedom on it?

None of these things are simple black and white issues, all I'm saying is you better take all the possibilities into account before approaching someone while armed.

Like Sam posts above, if you do have to shoot someone and you do happen to prevail in court after months of legal problems and untold dollars, did you really "win"?