Pro's and con's of announcing to an intruder that you're armed

[The Night Rider]

I thought maybe you were being purposefully ironic.

Who me?

 

[The Night Rider]

Somebody already alluded to this but (God Forbid) if you're ever in a shooting incident they will subpoena your hard drive and all your social media accounts. They will go through them and the last thing you want is for them to find something incriminating that you posted on social media just like Daniel Perry did.

I have posted this multiple times here but I put a lot more effort into making sure the home Invader or burglar never gets into my house than I do about worrying whether or not I'm going to Ambush them.

 

[old lady new shooter]

put I lot more effort into making sure the home Invader or burglar never gets into my house than I do about worrying whether or not I'm going to Ambush them.

Me too.

 

[Old Dog]

They will go through them and the last thing you want is for them to find something incriminating that you posted on social media just like Daniel Perry did.

Well, Perry's posts were quite extreme and very explicit, with pretty clear racial undertones.

I will say that on this forum, at least, most members make an effort to explain why they'd do what they say they might do without sounding overly bloodthirsty, and in light of the current era of PC and wokeness, no racist implications.

I was involved in a handful of internal investigations in the course of my final job, and unfortunately, had to get involved on what some of our personnel were saying on Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, et al. It was like wrestling with a pig. I felt dirty. Granted, most of it was minor misconduct, such as calling out sick repeatedly, in violation of a CBA, and then posting photos with all the girls at the beach, but in a couple/few of (what later proved to be unjustified) use of force cases, what the officers (and in one case, a sergeant) posted on social media proved enough for disciplinary action. Hopefully, everyone who is savvy enough to enjoy perusing and posting upon internet forums understands just how pitifully easy it is for law enforcement to obtain warrants to get your entire internet history from your ISP.

So (hopefully with my final post in this thread), I'd just say, if you're talking about silently lying in wait for your home invaders to visit doom upon them or implying that anyone who crosses the sacred threshold of your abode is gonna die, because, you know, castle doctrine, good luck with that if you ever experience the misfortune of having someone actually get inside your home uninvited.

 

[Ironicaintit]

Who me?

Yes sir

 

[starnbar]

Well, Perry's posts were quite extreme and very explicit, with pretty clear racial undertones.

I will say that on this forum, at least, most members make an effort to explain why they'd do what they say they might do without sounding overly bloodthirsty, and in light of the current era of PC and wokeness, no racist implications.

I was involved in a handful of internal investigations in the course of my final job, and unfortunately, had to get involved on what some of our personnel were saying on Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, et al. It was like wrestling with a pig. I felt dirty. Granted, most of it was minor misconduct, such as calling out sick repeatedly, in violation of a CBA, and then posting photos with all the girls at the beach, but in a couple/few of (what later proved to be unjustified) use of force cases, what the officers (and in one case, a sergeant) posted on social media proved enough for disciplinary action. Hopefully, everyone who is savvy enough to enjoy perusing and posting upon internet forums understands just how pitifully easy it is for law enforcement to obtain warrants to get your entire internet history from your ISP.

So (hopefully with my final post in this thread), I'd just say, if you're talking about silently lying in wait for your home invaders to visit doom upon them or implying that anyone who crosses the sacred threshold of your abode is gonna die, because, you know, castle doctrine, good luck with that if you ever experience the misfortune of having someone actually get inside your home uninvited.

Pure propaganda that is all I got to say for that 25 years on the job and this is propaganda

 

[jmorris]

One exception Grieve gives, however: don't leave your place of safety to try to find and counter-ambush the invader.

I suppose this is the angle I was coming from when I questioned what we would have children do in dangerous situations.

If we tell them to run and hide from vs yell out to invaders, I don’t see that the same as telling them to set up and ambush, rather not giving said bad guy any information they might use to cause one harm.

Exact location being a big one but one could also infer age, state of fear (sound of voice), sex (boys and girls can sound different).

If someone is trying to conceal themselves in their home, as well as they can and are unfortunately unsuccessful in their efforts and their location becomes compromised by a home invader and they are then forced to change course from hide and avoid detection to flight/fight, I don’t see that as an ambush (a trap in which one or more concealed attackers lie in wait to attack by surprise) as that was not the intent of hiding from the bad guy.

 

[Kleanbore]

There have in fact been murder convictions resulting from deliberate ambushes of intruders.

One involved leaving open the door to a garage from which things had been taken the past, and waiting to shoot when the next person walked into it. Some stuff was left visible to attract wrong-doers. The resident shot a student and was convicted of murder. Montana, IIRC.

A man waited in his basement and shot an intruder who came in and down the stairs. IIRC, the set-up was made because residence had been burglarized before.. Murder conviction in Texas.

Neither victim was invited, but the juries decided that they had been lured in. Neither entry was forcible.

Both were discussed on THR.

Some years ago, a young man listening to something on his computer felt a cool breeze on his neck and turned to see two teens coming out of the kitchen. They had entered the wrong apartment. The man was frightened because there were knives in the kitchen. That's when Is topped leaving the door unlocked until bed-time, and that's when I started carrying at home.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Somebody already alluded to this but (God Forbid) if you're ever in a shooting incident they will subpoena your hard drive and all your social media accounts.

They MAY subpoena your hard drive and all your social media accounts. It doesn't mean that they will. I have known 2 folks involved in self defense shootings. Neither was arrested and neither had their hard drives, phones, or social media subpoenaed. Both lost the the firearms used for self defense. Both got them back (one quickly, one after a prolonged fight).

 

[jmorris]

There have in fact been murder convictions resulting from deliberate ambushes of intruders.

If that’s in response to what I wrote, you didn’t read what I wrote.

911 as an emergency number, has been around for decades. In that time how many dispatchers, receiving intruder calls have suggested the callers yell out at the intruder, that they have a firearm?

 

[Kleanbore]

If that’s in response to what I wrote,

It was not.

you didn’t read what I wrote.

I did.

911 as an emergency number, has been around for decades. In that time how many dispatchers, receiving intruder calls have suggested the callers yell out at the intruder, that they have a firearm?

That does not imply that announcing to an intruder that one is armed may not be the best course of action. Now, if the intruder has a gun, such an announcement would obviously be a bad idea.

 

[jmorris]

That does not imply that announcing to an intruder that one is armed may not be the best course of action. Now, if the intruder has a gun, such an announcement would obviously be a bad idea.

So now we have to confront them first to see if they are armed and then tell them we are or are not?

That seems to be an even greater risk, than just yelling.

I am sure there have been people that have actually ambushed others and have faced punishment. Just as sure as I am about people who have been killed by their own firearms, taken from their own hands.

Pros/cons, from a risk vs reward perspective if it were a good idea, why would 911 dispatchers not tell people to utilize the technique?

They would tell you to NOT go outside for instance, because it increases risk with little reward towards your safety.

 

[Kleanbore]

So now we have to confront them first to see if they are armed and then tell them we are or are not?

That's ridiculous.

I am sure there have been people that have actually ambushed others and have faced punishment.

there have.

Just as sure as I am about people who have been killed by their own firearms, taken from their own hands.

That's irrelevant.

Pros/cons, from a risk vs reward perspective if it were a good idea, why would 911 dispatchers not tell people to utilize the technique?

How could they judge whether that would be prudent or effective?

They would tell you to NOT go outside for instance,

Off topic.

because it increases risk with little reward towards your safety.

That might be one reason.

 

[luzyfuerza]

Grieve was ambivalent about verbally announcing "I'm home! I'm armed! The police are coming!" Or similar.

He suggested that an experienced, intelligent crook (there are a few of these around I suppose) could parry this announcement by saying something denying mens rea/criminal intent (e.g. "my friend is hurt and needs help"). The idea being that denying criminal intent could be used later to cast doubt on the reasonableness of a defender's actions, like his use of deadly force.

This was something that I had never before considered. I can see a prosecutor thinking about using this argument. But probably not a home invader in the moment.

Regardless, this line of reasoning fails when an invader breaks into a reasonably well-hardened home. The invader's actions (breaking a window, breaking down a locked door, defeating a deadbolt that is always checked before bed) clearly demonstrate the invader's criminal intent, regardless of anything he might say to the contrary.

Perhaps this is why my state's Castle Doctrine law says that deadly force is justified in defense of a habitation when "...entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth...". (https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter2/76-2-S405.html)

And why deadly force is NOT justified when entry is made by a confused drunk who wanders in through an unlocked door. Or when someone who is sick of being burgled admits that he intentionally left the garage door open to invite a repeat offense.

 

[The Night Rider]

Yes sir

Now what gives you the idea that I would be ironic

 

[Kleanbore]

He suggested that an experienced, intelligent crook (there are a few of these around I suppose) could parry this announcement by saying something denying mens rea/criminal intent (e.g. "my friend is hurt and needs help").

Yes, and he characterized that as having to do with a "tactical" disadvantage of warning.

I think that muddies the water. Anyone entering could try something like that regardless of what the homeowner may have said. Does Grieve suggest that shooting the intruder on sight would be preferable?

He goes on to talk about detaining the invader if one has not shot him. No. Best to tell him to get going.

I am not favorably impressed by the video or by Mr. Grieve.

 

[luzyfuerza]

Another way to think about the question posed in this thread: independent of tactical considerations, does the homeowner/defender have a legal DUTY to inform an invader that he is home, aware of invader's presence, armed, and/or has called the police?

 

[Kleanbore]

Another way to think about the question posed in this thread: independent of tactical considerations, does the homeowner/defender have a legal DUTY to inform an invader that he is home, aware of invader's presence, armed, and/or has called the police?

Ans: No.

 

[luzyfuerza]

Exactly right.

But communicating these ideas might help a potential legal defense. A habitation with locked deadbolts, substantial exterior lighting, barking dogs, exterior cameras, a ring doorbell, a shrieking security system alarm, trimmed bushes up against the house, etc., makes these points viscerally and unmistakably. They say "Bad guy, you're not welcome here. If my house is hardened, then maybe I'm prepared in other ways. Go away."

All without the defender having to say a word. And without creating any legal or tactical downside.

 

[jmorris]

That's ridiculous.
there have.
That's irrelevant.
How could they judge whether that would be prudent or effective?
Off topic.
That might be one reason.

Glad we agree on that.

Now, if the intruder has a gun, such an announcement would obviously be a bad idea.

How do we 100% avoid this and make an announcement to unknown(s) in our home at the same time?

 

[Kleanbore]

How do we 100% avoid this ^ and make an announcement to unknown(s) in our home at the same time?

Let me rephrase my comment. If you find yourself facing an intruder who has gun in hand, asking him to drop it, or pointing out that you have one too, would not be prudent. Shoot while you can.

Not sure how having ones firearm used against them could possibly be irrelevant in a thread asking about the pros and cons of announcing to intruders you have said firearm.

How might the announcement affect that possibility?

How could anyone, from just knowing someone (or more) is inside your residence, that it would be prudent to let them know where you are?

That's not a complete sentence, but while I may have gone to a safe place, I am not hiding from him, and I do not care if he gets some idea of my location from hearing a voice or from coming upon me. He'll find out if he sees me.

I have had to use guns in several home invasions. On each occasion, the intruder was very close to me when I knew they were in the house. They had not announced their entry in advance.

Those were not shortcomings in "hardening". One shoved in past someone else. One crashed the door vey quickly. Going to a "safe room" was not in the equation.

The sight of may gun and some industrial strength coaching did the trick.

Would I have been justified in firing? The law says so, but that would have been decided by others after the fact, while I was without my gun, and I would still be living with the consequences.

I was ready to shoot, but it turned out to not be necessary. Great outcome.

 

[Old Dog]

Pure propaganda that is all I got to say for that 25 years on the job and this is propaganda

Which particular statement (or all) are you terming "propaganda?"

Been retired a while, eh?

If you take issue with any of my comments, it would be courteous to disagree with an explanation, rather than simply dismissing my entire post as propaganda.

 

[wayneinFL]

There are situations in which someone is dangerous despite being unarmed.

Besides, I would think it would be rare that a burglar would be unarmed in the first place.

How did he get in? A hammer? A knife? A screwdriver? A brick? Unless you left a window or door unlocked, there's about a 90% chance he has some kind of tool that can be used as a weapon.

 

[jmorris]

How might the announcement affect that possibility?

In one situation you are the only one that knows you have a gun, in the other, the bad guy knows too.

He'll find out if he sees me.

I believe that could be the case either way.

 

[Ironicaintit]

Now what gives you the idea that I would be ironic

Well...

All absolute statements are wrong

You said that^^^, which is in itself an absolute statement. Struck me funny.