Home Defense (Philosophy)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I believe in New York there's some sort of "retreat law" that applies to home owners. In other words, if you have a loaded gun in hand while a bad guy intrudes upon your private property, the first step should be to yell, "I have a gun! Leave!!!" If he's still approaching, you must retreat to the safety of any room other than the one you're in. If he follows, you must chew a hole in the wall big enough for your body to fit through and again yell, "I have a gun! Leave!!!". If he follows you through the opening, you may re-enter your home and start over. :rolleyes:

Stupid New York Laws!
 
Well I believe in New York there's some sort of "retreat law"
Click to expand...

Does not apply to a burglary of your home. If you have cause to believe that you or others are in danger of serious physical injury or death, you can use DPF. You do not have to retreat from your home.
 
Fighting for our rights, country, or other innocents is one thing. Fighting to preserve your property is another.
Click to expand...

That's my point. If you see a "country" for what it is*, a large piece of land/real estate, how is a homeowner doing anything different than a soldier? It's just a question of scale.

Fighting for one's rights?
Soldier-check.
Homeowner-check.

Fighting to keep invaders out of one's territory?
Soldier-check.
Homeowner-check.

Fighting to protect other innocents?
Soldier-check.
Homeowner-check (if you have family).


*Note that I am not speaking strictly of the USA, but any country.
 
If someone breaks into my home while I'm here they have sufficiently demonstrated their violent capability and intent. If I can I will shoot them forthwith.

I won't ask them if they broke down my door to get to my wife's Osterizer and I won't warn them before firing. Those would only risk my losing the advantage I may have.
 
Can someone please elaborate on how this "duty to retreat" horse manure came about?
I would be extremely interested in a politician who believes in "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your ground" laws.
Now I consider myself a patient man. And I don't believe inanimate objects are worth killing over. But if I catch someone in the act and then they have the gall to try and assault me and I am armed, well, let the chips fall where they may.
 
This may prove helpful. It may be dated and it may not tell the whole story, in that legal precedent may have the effect of law in Oregon (do not rely on that as legal advice).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#States_with_a_Castle_Law

I personally would not want to presume that, upon reading any of the statutes linked herein, I would understand the ramifications sufficiently to make a written public posting on my conclusions.

To emphasize what I posted yesterday, I'll repeat it: whatever the law may be, in my opinion one is much better off not ever having to deal with the fact that he or she has had to shoot someone.

The only thing worse would be the death or serious injury of a family member or me.
 
In our history firearms were to be kept by all able bodied male citizens (sorry, ladies, that is just the history though the women do just as well with firearms) for the purpose of defense of their communities. This included defense against lawless elements. The philosophy was that the law abiding had the duty to fight against the lawless element.

It is too bad that over time we have been brainwashed away from that attitude as I think that attitude would have a chilling effect upon those inclined to victimize others (e.g., burglaries and home invasions).
 
Many years ago I returned home to find that someone had broken in while I was away. If I had found the fellow in the house, I would almost certainly have killed him there. That experience gave me some insight into myself and that kind of situation, I think.

The visceral & violent reaction that I had to that event really made me think. I decided that it was rooted in the fact that in the whole world, only the interior space of that house was really "mine" ... and the violation of that space resulted in an extreme response.

If I ever encounter a burglar in my home while I am armed (that is half of the reason for my alarm system, to give me time to awaken & arm myself and locate the "problem"), his only chance of survival is if he is not armed ... and even then his odds of incurring injury are probably very good.
 
My house, my family, my stuff, I am being violated. I wore a uniform and fought overseas to protect my country, I sure as hell will not stand by in my house and not fight for what's mine as long as I am able.
 
good said ....
no matter if country or home , someone threatens my family , property , way of life and i will fight and defend it at all cost.
 
Quote:
What do you think? Is it foolish to stay and fight an intruder in your house even when you have a means of escape?

What I think is,
I was never very good at running away or hiding in the bedroom and I'm not about to start now.

Quote:
Is preserving your life more important than protecting a bunch of "stuff"?

The "stuff" doesn't matter, I give "stuff" away all the time.
The fact that someone thinks that they can take it from me is what matters and why they will get shot.
Click to expand...

There's a lot here I agree with...

Would I run into my (no family there) home if I knew there was an intruder in there? NO

Would I run into my home (family there) if I knew there was an intruder there? DARN RIGHT

Would I carefully check out my home if I came home and suspected someone *might* be there? YES

Would I carefully check out my home if I heard a noise at night and suspected it *might* be an intruder? YES

Would I hole up in the bedroom and call 911 if I heard voices or had other evidence that an intruder was already in my home? YES

Stuff is replaceable. Lives are not. But part of the "life" that you are defending is the ability to take care of yourself and not be completely dependant on others. A life that you spend every occasion of a twig brushing up against the window at night, or the neighbor's cat bumping into your trash can in the dark, hanging on the phone to 911 cowering in your bedroom - that's not much of a life, is it? Anyway it's not a life I want, nor have any interest in defending. I won't knowingly rush into harms way (except perhaps to resuce a loved one) but I won't cower in a corner everytime I hear a *bump* in the night, either.
 
The military has an image to polish and uphold. The truth about what US soldiers are fighting for wouldn't do much to attract new recruits, or bolster public opinion of a many failed military operations.

Its about marketing, haven't you noticed the glamour portrayed on the Marines recuiting commercials? Yeah, come be a hero (we are running low on warm bodies)

I will vehemently defend my family.

But risk my life and my family's well being for unjustness disguised as being for "freedom" like H$%L!!!
 
Many years ago I swore an Oath to " Protect and Defend The Constitution and The People of The United States of America against ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN and DOMESTIC", I still take it very seriously. 6 years U.S. Navy, 25 years LEO.
 
Originally posted by JohnL2: Can someone please elaborate on how this "duty to retreat" horse manure came about?
Click to expand...

In Popular Law Library by Putnam, an old text, it is described as an "ancient doctrine requiring one to retreat and in good faith decline the combat, if he can, before he will be permitted to invoke the law of self-defense in justification for killing his assailant."

Many of our state laws trace their origins to English Common Law. According to my lay understanding, that doctrine is specifically called out in the criminal codes of many of our states.

As discussed in the Wiki article I provided earlier, a number of Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws have been enacted to specify that the duty to retreat construct does not apply when a person's dwelling is invaded. In some places, such a MO and FL, it extends to the automobile, and in a few states, to other places in which a person has a legal right to be.

Careful: again according to my lay understanding, the Castle Doctrine does not permit the use of deadly force to protect an auto in most states unless you are in it and in some states that may apply to your house.

Know the laws of your state.

Any comments from attorneys on this?
 
You gotta know when to hold them and when to fold them, so to speak. I would not want to die for any of my possessions. I can always buy more.

A soldier doesn't fight for material possessions. He fights for ideas and ideals. You could take my home away but if you threaten the rights and freedoms that I exercise, expect to be met with resistance.
 
The (US) soldier fights for the ideals of the citizen who wishes to have a basic right to life and it's liberties. Anyone trying to abrogate these basic human rights should be met with resistance. No consequenses equals the deterioration of those rights.
I personally don't place much value in "stuff" but refuse to be anything less than an absolute deterrent to such actions and behaviors.
 
In my honest opinion, defending your home has absolutely nothing to do with defending your "stuff". If I am in my home and someone breaks in, that is viewed by me as a direct threat on my life and a direct threat on the lives of my loved ones.

I will not be protecting my stuff. I will be protecting my life and the lives of my loved ones.

A criminal has one chance to leave. Once I issue a verbal command to leave my home and that I am armed and ready to defend my home that is it.

A fleeing criminal will not be stopped or fired upon. It is a LEO's job to catch criminals. It is my job to protect myself and my loved ones.
 
Is your life more important than a bunch of "stuff"?
Click to expand...
Yes.

But if you are armed, sitting behind locked doors with the police on their way is probably far safer than running outside, when there could be more criminals outside, possibly armed.
If you have a family, you need to protect them. Sometimes it might be best to run,(taking them with you, of course) and sometimes not.

I will not kill someone because he's trying to take my stuff, however.

Fighting for our rights, country, or other innocents is one thing. Fighting to preserve your property is another.
Click to expand...
+1
Fighting to protect innocent lives is good. Killing someone for trying to take your TV is not.
 
I will not kill someone because he's trying to take my stuff, however.
Click to expand...

Assuming that the criminal is there for your VCR is a good way to get yourself killed when you could have defended yourself.

Never assume that the criminal just wants stuff and then will leave you alone. These are the scum of the land. The bottom feeders. ALWAYS assume the worst and hope for the best... but be ready to defend yourself.
 
I'm here to tell you, neither myself, nor any soldier under my charge is going to stand and face bad guys on equal terms if there is ANY other option. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck. Back off, surround, or call in a mortar strike, ANYTHING but charge them. I will never tell a widow why I had to charge them if we had another option. I would rather report a full headcount and admit the BGs got away, than report one enemy dead, two of mine wounded, one dead. IF THEY'RE REALLY THAT BAD, THEY WILL GET ZAPPED SOONER OR LATER ANYWAY.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
(CA) Girl kidnapped from home
Replies
11
Views
836
StLGlocker
S
B
  • Locked
Animals - natural self defense mechanism
2 3
Replies
53
Views
4K
Spinner
S
Mp7
  • Locked
PTSD - Chris Kyle shooting.
2
Replies
29
Views
777
Robert
Robert
U
  • Locked
Homeowner shot with own gun defending home
Replies
6
Views
858
Robert
Robert
A
  • Locked
Taliban fighters given asylum in the U.K.
Replies
4
Views
871
jmbg29
J
Back
Top