Keeping your cool

[Kleanbore]

Those who have not taken the NRA course on personal protection inside the home should do so. I also recommend this book:


https://www.amazon.com/Defend-Yours.../ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

 

[bearcreek]

From Frank Ettin in 2010:

"Massad Ayoob tells a story about the National Tactical Invitational, an annual competition in which some 130 of the top shooters and firearm trainers participate by invitation only. One of the events is a force-on-force exercise using simunitions in which the competitor must clear a house against a single "BG." According to Mas during the first six years of the NTI, one, and only one, competitor got through one of those six NTIs without being judged killed, and he was head of NASA security firearms training at the time. And one, and only one, made it through the seventh year. The tactical advantage of the ensconced adversary is just too great. And remember, these competitors were highly skilled, highly trained fighters."​

You said, "The hunter invariably loses" and then gave an an example of an exception to what you just said. Invariably means always, every time or without exception. The hunter does not "invariably lose". The hunter usually or sometimes loses, not invariably.

I got the impression from this post:

Regarding incidents similar to these, trainers have emphasized for a long time the inadvisability of going to investigate a noise in the house or outside.

that you were saying that a person should never go investigate to see what made any sound.

This post, however,

Or remain wherever you happen to be sitting or standing, or listen while you continue to go about your business in a safe place. But yes, that's a whole lot wiser than going to look before you have a reasonable level of confidence that you won't be stumbling into an ambush.

All of the chickens would not come close to a miniscule fraction of the cost of being victimized by violent criminal actors, even if you are unscathed.

I should think that one could distinguish between the sound of a disturbance caused by raccoons in the chicken house and sounds indicating the presence of potentially dangerous prowlers.

You don't think that you would quickly conclude from the sound that it did not indicate a danger of violence?

Why would anyone with a grain of sense "cower" anywhere after hearing such a sound?

One of our trashcans blew over in the wind the other night. We listened. The sound did not recur. We saw no need to go out and see what had happened before morning. We did not "cower" anywhere.

seem to be saying that you shouldn't go investigate a sound if you're pretty sure it's an intruder but if it sounds like it was something else that made the sound then it's ok to go look. Is that an accurate interpretation of your statement?

 

[Kleanbore]

You said, "The hunter invariably loses" and then gave an an example of an exception to what you just said. Invariably means always, every time or without exception. The hunter does not "invariably lose".

Alrighty then. I should have said "almost invariably" But in common usage, "invariably" is often used to mean "almost always".

In practice, that is a distinction without meaning.

The hunter usually or sometimes loses, not invariably.

"Sometimes" would be the understatement of the year. "Sometimes" would not begin to communicate the odds.

Two exceptions in seven years, with all incidents involving highly trained and experienced people? Come now!

If you are unwilling to accept the findings of experts, test your own chances. Get some air-soft guns or for outside, paintball. Hire some pretty capable people and pay them only when they take you out.

....you shouldn't go investigate a sound if you're pretty sure it's an intruder but if it sounds like it was something else that made the sound then it's ok to go look. Is that an accurate interpretation of your statement?

Well, the second part is pretty much right on point.

One would certainly be okay in setting forth to investigate after deciding that the noise most likely represented something other than the presence of someone else in the house, or someone prowling outside.

Whether there is any need to do so becomes the next question. My blown-over trash cans could wait for morning. A blowing unlatched screen door or gate or a burst pipe would best be attended to r

ight away, and so would a burst pipe.

The first part missed the mark. One need not be "pretty sure" that a noise had been made by an intruder to put oneself into a situation of unacceptable risk. On the contrary, one should satisfy oneself that the noise had most likely not been caused by a person or persons who (1) represented a serious danger or (2) were innocent but who could create the risk of someone being seriously injured.

And of course there is still the question of needing to get someone else to safety.

Have you considered obtaining the raining literature suggested above?

 

[bearcreek]

Have you considered obtaining the raining literature suggested above?

Raining literature?

 

[Mn Fats]

Why is frank ettin or ___ being mentioned? Or any "pro". Ive investigated bumps in the night many times. Many have saved my livestock. Once had a rabid opossum that made as much noise as any armed intruder, ended up in my 4 year old boys room. Detoured a man loading up my tools into his van. It saved my way of making a living. If I decide to risk my life doing so, that's on me. I understand there could be an intruder with an advantage. Raccoon or dumbass, Ive seen it. They all sounded like bumps in the night, but had I not "hunted" I would have lost in every scenario. Worse is, what if you were armed and didn't "hunt" and lost a family member. Were your tactically safe? Sure. Can anyone tell when a "bump in the night" is the one that's life threatening? Absolutely not. Investigate them all.

 

[bearcreek]

Alrighty then. I should have said "almost invariably" But in common usage, "invariably" is often used to mean "almost always".

In practice, that is a distinction without meaning.

I'm old school I guess. I've always heard that word used to mean exactly what it means. "Without variation, always, every time". If you're defining it differently then that would change things.

"Sometimes" would be the understatement of the year. "Sometimes" would not begin to communicate the odds.

That's why I said "usually or sometimes". I was suggesting a couple of words that mean "not every single time".

Two exceptions in seven years, with all incidents involving highly trained and experienced people? Come now!

Two exceptions in the example that you gave that did not contain a link or more info on how to read the actual study. That's hardly conclusive. Read the armed citizen section in the NRA magazines some time. How often does an intruder actually "wait in ambush"? How often are they well trained professionals?

If you are unwilling to accept the findings of experts, test your own chances. Get some air-soft guns or for outside, paintball. Hire some pretty capable people and pay them only when they take you out.

Oh, I have (except for the not paying them part ). I have a good deal more professional training in such things than the average police officer.

This is really kind of a misunderstanding to some degree I think. I had the impression that you were saying that you should never, at any time, other than to help another person, investigate any noise. I don't think that's what you meant.

 

[Kleanbore]

Two exceptions in the example that you gave that did not contain a link or more info on how to read the actual study. That's hardly conclusive.

"Actual study"? The results mentioned involved formally conducted FoF training exercises conducted at the National Tactical Invitational, which are are no longer conducted. Frank Ettin, who has taught with Ayoob,has told us about the results . Massad Ayoob has direct knowledge.

That's hardly conclusive.

Really? Perhaps not "conclusive" enough for you, but it is surely indicative enough for any reasonable person who understands the basic concepts of risk management.

Read the armed citizen section in the NRA magazines some time. How often does an intruder actually "wait in ambush"?

Perhaps you have noticed that the snippets related in that column almost always describe events in which the defender came out on top. Might one not think that that would result in the exclusion some of the relevant data?

This has been disced at great length many times over the past several years. Some of our members have related first hand experiences from their professional training, and the general consensus is that looking for someone who may be up to no good is something that they would avoid unless they had a sworn duty and an immediate, pressing need to do otherwise, and that it is not something that should e done alone.

Spend seem time looking at related threads here and on The Firing Line.

I had the impression that you were saying that you should never, at any time, other than to help another person, investigate any noise. I don't think that's what you meant.

No, it is not what I meant.

One would usually choose to investigate every noise.

In most cases, that will simply involve listening. Does the noise recur? If so, is it rhythmical, like a blowing door or gate? Does it sound like water running, or something burning? Does it sound like a rodent scratching? Each of those would indicate a different course of action, ranging from going back to sleep to looking outside from a place of safety to getting up and attending to it now.

Or--does it should like someone walking , or trying to open a door or window? Different situation. Very unwise to go looking for it.

Now, if staying in a safe place without knowing just who or what might making the noise reallly bothers you, might I suggest that you get some wireless security cameras. If you see a neighbor to bring to get his dog from thee dog in the yard, your uncertainty will be eliminated. If you recognize an unexpected relate in the house, you will know to not head out and risk causing a tragedy.

But if you see a couple of bad guys in the house, you know they are there, and most of us know enough to not expose ourselves to danger by going to confront them.

 

[herrwalther]

"Actual study"? The results mentioned involved formally conducted FoF training exercises conducted at the National Tactical Invitational, which are are no longer conducted. Frank Ettin, who has taught with Ayoob,has told us about the results . Massad Ayoob has direct knowledge.

We will disagree on this. An invitational match FoF at a completely unknown facility is borderline useless. If I were in a building I had no floor plan knowledge of, I would not leave to go investigate anything. Home court advantage makes a huge difference in tactical scenarios. So does training. I have done house raids overseas on homes with multiple armed occupants. We take every possible advantage to overcome that home court advantage to win the objective, whatever it is. Raiding a house with 15 people supporting, that helps. Inserting via helicopter to the roof in the middle of the night really helps too.

My home, my advantage. I know where the squeaky floor boards are. I know where I can hide behind a wall to listen for noise that can't be seen from any window or doorway to the main room.

It is incredibly unrealistic to call the police everytime I am awoken by a sound I cannot identify. They would be at my place at least once a week if I did that. Then it is the "boy who cried wolf" come to life.

 

[Kleanbore]

Home court advantage makes a huge difference in tactical scenarios. So does training.....My home, my advantage. I know where the squeaky floor boards are. I know where I can hide behind a wall to listen for noise that can't be seen from any window or doorway to the main room.

If you take the time to read the many discussions that have taken place here and on TFL, you will find numerous instances in which the "defender" had familiarized himself completely with every sure inch of the facility and with everything in it in it. T eh "intruders" had no such advantage. But when the defenders chose to hunt, the lost.

It is incredibly unrealistic to call the police everytime I am awoken by a sound I cannot identify.

Why would anyone do that?

 

[scaatylobo]

Yes indeed. The issue has been discussed at length here in the past.

The hunter invariably loses.

Of course. BUT: when it is, you do not want to encounter him, or them.

We all do.

Whey?

It is more prudent to try to determine what might have made them--gate blowing in the wind, ice maker, screen door blown open, raccoon on the roof--and eliminating more serous possibilities than it is to take a chance on walking into a trap.

Why would it be counterproductive to stay where you are and not go looking?

It certainly is.

I think you have missed the point. You listen, you assess, you decide. If there is a reason--a good reason--to go looking, just understand the risk.

Now, if there are loved ones in the house, and there seems to be something really amiss, you have no choice but to see to their safety.






.

UNLESS YOU, yes YOU -- have done a few hundred 'house clearing' excersizes.

YOU are not prepared to even clear your own house.

Need proof ?,please do get a friend who likes to win, hide in your house with an air soft or paintball gun.

I will bet anything you like = you get shot BEFORE you can stop him.

That is why you don't play cop and do an armed search of a premise IF there is a real chance of a perp being found.

 

[entropy]

When I walked home from my first job jamming Metallica on my Walkman, I opened the door, and about three seconds later I saw a very bright light and the outline of a Python barrel at the top of the stairs. (It was a split level) My Dad had called my name, and I didn't answer. I made sure the headphones came off before i went in from then on, and the pair of underwear I was wearing were properly disposed of.

 

[pezo]

Ok. Hire a home owner armed with air soft to allow you to break into his house on a given night. Maybe add a noisy dog or alarm. Maybe not. Even better a house you have never been in. Don't know where the light switches are or sure of the floor plan. If the home owner wins, he gets paid. Around the Detroit area we get lots of news on home owners "shooting away" home invaders. The homeowners who choose to be un-armed fare very badly. They tend to get beaten,shot, killed and burned. The armed home owners seem to prevail often. I'm calling bull on those "guaranteeing" a defeat of the home owner. This is based on the news I see daily from Detroit. Many Criminals maybe violent and dedicated but most arnt the evil twin of Massad Ayoob.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm calling bull on those "guaranteeing" a defeat of the home owner.

No one has so done.

The issue is about the wisdom of having one person--homeowner, first responder, helpful next door neighbor--try to go and find and engage whomever has entered unlawfully, without getting shot.

A homeowner who elects to let the threat come to him should have excellent chance of prevailing.

 

[shafter]

The homeowner who stays put also has an excellent chance of prevailing in court too.

 

[grampajack]

I want to post a couple of examples of intense situations that actually have happened to my immediate family. I just wanted to share these experiences to impress that one must maintain responsible gun safety even when under a great deal of stress.

When my father was in his mid forties he awoke in our home to the smell of cigarettes and footsteps in the kitchen. He grabbed his bedside S&W mod 36 and investigated. When he rounded the corner of the hallway, the sights on his revolver settled on the chest of his best friend's daughter. She was on drugs and had let herself into our Rural home. All turned out fine, but we cringe at the thought of what could have happened.

Another instance was when my father-in-law heard voices in his home based business. He grabbed a shotgun and investigated the voices. As he searched his showroom, a naked young woman broke through the ceiling. He admitted that it was a miracle that he didn't fire the gun when the ceiling came down. The young woman had been drugged and raped in an attic storage room with outside access. The young men that were responsible went to prison for a long time.

I read much about training to shoot an intruder, but little about training to keep your cool.

Can anyone relate?

When I was a kid our neighbor's daughter burst through our front door high on something. She was followed immediately by her father, and they proceeded to have a domestic dispute right there in our living room, as if we weren't even there. My mom encouraged them to leave while my dad was waiting right around the corner with a gun in case they decided they had other plans. Luckily they left without incident.

With that said, it's situations like that that tend to turn into more serious ones. I would venture to guess that damn near all violent crimes start with someone getting high or drunk. I can't remember if it was before or after that, but that same girl once tried to kill her father with a 12'' chef's knife. You can't ever let your guard down around people like that, no matter how docile you think they are. There's a reason why most societies discourage getting messed up. Relatively docile, harmless people tend to start doing some real batcrap crazy stuff when they get into drugs, and you just never know when or why they might fly off the handle.

 

[Choctaw]

Nothing will keep a man from investigating a situation when kids or grandkids are present in another room.

...and when police show up and find a half-dressed man walking around carrying a gun, you hope they keep their cool as well.

When we show up you no longer need the gun so please put it away. Upon arrival, our job is to take the risks for you.

Target identification is essential, whether encountering a bad guy in your house or sitting in a tree stand waiting for the monster deer. In the police academy I attended long ago there was a sign on the wall that read, "An officer must be capable of cool reflection under the most stressful of conditions." This holds true today not only for law enforcement but for anyone who wishes to defend himself/herself or another person.

 

[bearcreek]

The homeowner who stays put also has an excellent chance of prevailing in court too.

Do you have any examples to back up this statement?

 

[Armored farmer]

When we show up you no longer need the gun so please put it away. Upon arrival, our job is to take the risks for you.

Target identification is essential, whether encountering a bad guy in your house or sitting in a tree stand waiting for the monster deer. In the police academy I attended long ago there was a sign on the wall that read, "An officer must be capable of cool reflection under the most stressful of conditions." This holds true today not only for law enforcement but for anyone who wishes to defend himself/herself or another person.

Well said

 

[9MMare]

To the OP...in any situation where you even consider you might need to use deadly force, you will be under alot of physical/mental stresses. IMO, the examples in your post were fine: you should always identify your target. And they did so. LOL, no one says you'll be doing it with a heart rate of 35.