"Should" versus "Could"

[Rob Pincus]

For years, my staff and I have run scenarios in Concealed Carry and Home Defense Tactics classes which involve situations that may be "scary" but in which the role-players do not make any overtly threatening moves or statements to test the students in a dynamic shoot-no-shoot situation.

A fair number of students, especially in the Home Defense scenarios, end up shooting and then rationalizing their decision by citing laws that say they could shoot the person (castle doctrine, "make my day law" in today's news, etc).  My standard remark is "I don't care about what the law says, I am teaching you to defend yourself and your family." Generally, when we say that we teach for "Street, not Court" people take that to mean that we are going to be assertive... the fact is that in the case all over Fox News today, the street required more restraint than the law allows for.

I had a number of students say that our "drunk guy comes to the wrong house and is upset when he finds the door locked" scenario was borderline realistic. Admittedly, it is an exception, which is why it is getting so much airtime, but it was a plausible situation for us to show the difference  between "should" and "could" when it comes to the use of lethal force. Unfortunately, it played out for real.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,484267,00.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090101/ap_on_re_us/home_shooting

My position has always been that I like Vermont Style CCW Laws and the premise of Castle Doctrine, but if someone is paying me to prepare them to be responsibly armed, I'm not going to do a $50 4 hour "CCW Class" and I'm not going to support the idea that you can shoot anyone you want in your home as long as you articulate the circumstances properly. Two or Three days certainly don't cover everything, but at least the signature on the certificate means something. Running No Shoot and judgement based scenarios are an important part of development in terms of tactics and appropriate responses.

I think everyone with a gun in the house that intends it to be used for defensive purposes should seriously think about this case. It is not important to "monday morning" the scenario, but it is important to scrimmage the scenario in your head.

Please post your thoughts on this topic..... 

-RJP

(fair warning: "I'll kill anyone I want to in my home!" posts without explanation and thought will be deleted.....)

[johncasey4]

So I think that this fits nicely with another thread that speaks to "Post Shoot stress."  We talk about what happens to the soldier or LEO that are often required by the nature of their jobs to take another human life.  Rob, correct me if I am wrong, but in Blauer's "Three Fights" (not sure if it was Tony) he speaks about the aftermath of a shooting and the price that we can pay on several levels.  Now, this person that was "defending" his family may not have to pay legal fees (although I am not sure that this will hold up, there may end up being some civil ramifications when they hear what a funeral costs), but he will have to live forever with the guilt of shooting someone that shouldn't have been shot.  We can spout all of the false bravado about "what I woulda done" but in the end, are we going to be able to return to normal function while seeing this person's face in our dreams? 

This is a sad story, and I hope one that affects (to whatever degree is reasonable) the training industries take on how to deal with these situations...

[Rob Pincus]

Yes, "Three Fights Theory" is out of BTS..... here is what I posted about Fight 3 in another thread:

Fight 3: Aftermath.
The aftermath is You Vs. Everything.  This is all of the ramifications of the conflict. Medical, Personal, Financial, Social, etc., etc.. In fact, I define the existance of "conflict" by the existance of an aftermath. If someone else's actions affected you in a negative way (including having to spend extra energy to walk around the block...etc), then you were in a conflict. The aftermath starts immediately and lasts forever and is the most complex fight. It is also the hardest to prepare for. The most important part of the aftermath for our discussions should probably be the way it affects our Fight 1 in relation to future conflict. Learning from previous conflict (yours or others') is vitally important to efficiency in Fight 1.

[tt11758]

but he will have to live forever with the guilt of shooting someone that shouldn't have been shot.

Even if someone SHOULD have been shot there is still an emotional price to pay for the taking of another human life.

[Robin]

My standard remark is "I don't care about what the law says, I am teaching you to defend yourself and your family." Generally, when we say that we teach for "Street, not Court" people take that to mean that we are going to be assertive... the fact is that in the case all over Fox News today, the street required more restraint than the law allows for. I'm not going to support the idea that you can shoot anyone you want in your home as long as you articulate the circumstances properly.

I can see teaching "for street, not court" as a double-edged sword. On one hand it may cause you to hold off firing even when legally justified. On the other you may shoot to defend yourself when it isn't legally justified. (Ex: states that have a duty to retreat) That would be a bad thing.

It may be better to take a wider picture of self-defense situations and say the ultimate goal is to get through the entire event as unscathed as possible. That includes physical, emotional, legal and civil aspects. Yes I want to protect myself and my family from immediate physical harm. Yes I want to recognize and effectively deal with post-shoot stress. Yes I want to avoid going to jail. Yes I want to have liability insurance that will pay for legal costs when the suspect's family sues. Getting through the immediate self-defense situation is just one battle in a much bigger war and you may have to make some compromises in that "battle" to help win the overall "war".

[Sponsor]

[ericire12]

+1 Robin


If I have to sit in a jail for the rest of my life, that still would leave my kids to be raised without a father

[2HOW]

Even with the Castle doctrine you should still rely on the rules of engagement that are in place out on the street. Those most importantly being "ability" and "intent"by the aggressor. I want no doubt that my actions are justified. From what Ive read this was not a good shooting.

[ericire12]

Even with the Castle doctrine you should still rely on the rules of engagement that are in place out on the street. Those most importantly being "ability" and "intent"by the aggressor. I want no doubt that my actions are justified. From what Ive read this was not a good shooting.

Hind sight is always 20/20, but when someone is breaking into your home in the middle of the night it should be assumed that they are there to do harm to you and/or your family...... NOT that they are just confused or lost.

I am not saying that you should run into the room with guns a blazin, but I personally would have gun in hand, and if they had a weapon or not, if they get too close or did anything that I perceived to be aggressive then they will be shot.

These are exactly why these castle doctrines were put into place. It is unknowable to the home owner at the time of the incident that the guy was confused and thought it was his house. The homeowner should have a legal right to defend himself against the perceived home invasion...... Its just like a police officer who may shoot someone who has a toy gun. If there is no reasonable way to discern the difference, then how can you expect someone to respond a different way? The perception in either case is that lethal force is required to preserve ones own life.   

[Michael Bane]

There is no easy way through this maze.

I faced a similar situation years ago in Florida on New Year's Eve. Somewhere around 1AM a clearly inebriated young man decided that he had to visit his ex no matter what. Unfortunately — or fortunately for her — he came to my house instead of her house. He went from knocking on the door and yelling obscenities, at which point I called 911, to attempting to kick down my door.

I was armed with an old Remington 11-48 12-gauge alternately loaded with #00 and slugs and an S&W M27 .357 with 125gr JHP screamers and had taken a position of cover diagonally across the room from the door. I kept the line open with 911, informed the police I had a gun and shouted the same to the miscreant on the porch. I shouted that if the door failed, I would shoot. My chow dogs, never the friendliest of animals, were in a frenzy and barricaded behind me; I had turned on the porch lights and shut off all the lights in the house, guaranteeing me a clear shot. The miscreant was shouting that he was not afraid of the dogs or the gun and that he was going to kill everyone in the house as soon as he kicked the door open. The police informed me to expect a 20 minute response time and to "do what you have to do to protect yourself and your family"...in short, I was in the strongest position possible for a homeowner both for the shooting and the subsequent legal issues.

However, the young guy was obviously falling down drunk, I could see both his hands and his belt and saw no weapons and it was New Year's Eve and I profoundly didn't want to kill that kid. I made a risky decision to give the shotgun to my girlfriend with the instructions that if I failed, shoot first, then turn the chows loose. I took the S&W revolver, inched toward the door (which was very close to splintering open) and from the best, most shielded position I unlocked and opened the door and stepped back into the shadows. All the miscreant could see was the muzzle of the revolver.

It stopped him cold. he raised his hands. Is that a gun, he asked me? I said yes. Am I going to die, he asked? I said that if he lowered his hands or made a fast move, I would shoot him. He started crying. I went through the usual drill to spread-eagle him on the ground facing away from me, feet crossed, hands palms up, yada yada, and got to hear his whole drunken life story, wrong house, sorry sorry...I waited 30 minutes for the cops, and when they didn't show I told him to get the hell out off my front porch, go home and sober up. The cops showed up about an hour later and said they'd have done the same thing.

Short story...I was well within my legal rights to shoot the kid if and when he succeeded in breeching the door, and I would not have hesitated to do so had he succeeded. But I decided to take the risk I took because I wasn't sure being drunk and stupid on New Year's Eve was grounds enough for me spending the rest of my life dealing with what my 12-gauge would deliver on command. I also never doubted my ability to make the shot if the miscreant made the wrong moves. It was a risk, but in my opinion an acceptable risk.

The reason I train is to allow me to go as far as possible, to know what risks I can take, before taking a human life!

One situation; one outcome. Food for thought.

Michael B

[ericire12]

Michael-

Your encounter is exactly why there is no right or wrong answer to this.......

Yes, you made the right decision for you in that situation. BUT you took a calculated risk and it is one that is not recommendable for every person in that situation........ A woman home alone, an elderly person, someone with out very much shooting experience, or just someone scared to death because someone is trying to kick in their door. There are countless reasons not to take the calculated risk of opening the door - even the fact that the guy on the other side may just be trying to use that lost drunk excuse to get you to open the door. 

I personally would have remained barricaded. I would have been continuing to yell at the guy to reminding him that I was waiting with a gun until the door failed and I had to deliver decisive action. My situation is different in that I have a wife and small kids who I dont want to end up raped and/or murdered. I am their first and realistically only line of defense in a situation like a possible home invasion. I will not increase the percentages of their lives being in danger in such a situation by taking a calculated risk like that. I will reiterate, you DID do the right thing in your situation..... and all is well that ends well, but there must be a mind set that once your home has been breached ANYTHING can happen.

I will not say that  "I'll kill anyone I want to in my home!", but I will be damned if I will take any chances with the well being of my loved ones.