Why do people think it's okay to keep trying to rob me?

[Pyrian]

Renegade Paladin, I completely fail to see how you construed laws to be unrelated to governance. I would posit, instead, that laws (and their relative merits!) are the very meat thereof. Anyway, I merely meant to explain why I was not going to follow that particular avenue of discussion, regardless of my own opinion on the merit of the laws involved.

[Faulty]

Does posting the rules count as vigilante modding?

[Keld Denar]

Read them. It says you are allowed to link them, which I did. "At most, you may courteously link to this thread."

Anyway, I'm done here. See y'all in another thread! <3

[KilltheToy]

BELIEVE IT!

Kudos, sir.

I think you may deserve an internet for that.

[Anuan]

Let me give you some actual, usable advice.

First, get yourself a camera with a flash. Rig the camera with a remote, wait for the bad guys, whatever, but make sure you can pop a flash bulb in their face and that they can CLEARLY see that they have been photographed/filmed (even if you didn't get a photo, although you really should). If they are as dumb as they sound, they will want the evidence back, even though it is actually almost useless in court.

Once they decide they need those pictures at all costs, they will be more determined to get in. Once they get in, you meet them with your shotgun, featuring the shortest barrel legally allowed in your state, no choke whatsoever and an ample supply of rock salt rounds.

If you can get photos, post them all over your area with a note that clearly states their crime. If the whole neighborhood knows they are thieves, they will very likely ''get what they deserve'' in short order.

Up to this point, that's fricking terrific and I support it wholoeheartedly. I can't really support blowing through'em with a shotgun (maybe a 9 mil. in the kneecaps...) but this? This is gold.

[Zeful]

Unless they try to kill you (pull a gun, charge you, whatever), I'd still at the most shoot them in the legs.

Which in some states, can land you in far more trouble than killing them. Killing an stranger in your own house after he broke in is Justifiable Homocide (aka manslaughter). Crippling the same home invader is Assault with a Deadly Weapon and could mean you paying his medical bills for the 20+ because of the "great physical distress" you put him through.

[Mystic Muse]

Which in some states, can land you in far more trouble than killing them. Killing an stranger in your own house after he broke in is Justifiable Homocide (aka manslaughter). Crippling the same home invader is Assault with a Deadly Weapon and could mean you paying his medical bills for the 20+ because of the "great physical distress" you put him through.

he's right about this.

[Fawkes]

Up to this point, that's fricking terrific and I support it wholoeheartedly. I can't really support blowing through'em with a shotgun (maybe a 9 mil. in the kneecaps...) but this? This is gold.

I don't think it's a good idea to encourage them to enter your house. That plan will get you killed faster than you can say "cheese".

[Mystic Muse]

I don't think it's a good idea to encourage them to enter your house. That plan will get you killed faster than you can say "cheese".

cheese...................

nope not dead yet.

[Mr.Moron]

I think If I heard someone breaking into my home I'd just exit the nearest window, get away from the building and call the police from an outside phone. My stuff isn't worth putting a life om danger not mine or theirs.

[Keld Denar]

Eh, most of those charges get dropped when they actually go to trial, but that isn't very well reflected by the media.

When I lived in West Virginia, a girl in a school outside of Charleston cut class, went to a place she wasn't supposed to go, forcefully removed a paddle lock from a door CLEARLY marked as dangerous, and was playing around in the attic of the school when she fell through the drop ceiling about 12 feet before hitting her head and suffering some pretty substantial brain injuries.

Her parents sued the school for medical expenses she would be expected to accumulate over the course of her vegatative life.

Guess what? They were thrown out. The school was not shown to be negligent, the danger was well marked and the area was locked off. The fact that she had to break the paddle lock is evidence that she wasn't supposed to be there.

So yea...GL winning that case. GL even getting to trial. I'm not saying it has NEVER happened, but a goodly number of those sensational cases that are soooooo outlandish that you think "wtf?", die a quiet death that the media almost never covers.

[Yrcrazypa]

Up to this point, that's fricking terrific and I support it wholoeheartedly. I can't really support blowing through'em with a shotgun (maybe a 9 mil. in the kneecaps...) but this? This is gold.

One rule about firearms is this. NEVER shoot to wound, only shoot to kill. Wounding someone will just cause far more trouble than killing them will. Pretty much everything else has been covered. Though I will repeat that if you own a firearm, be prepared to use it to kill someone, if someone calls your bluff when you don't intend to kill, he will likely kill you.

[SDF]

With a gun in a home invasion situation you are going to get one shot off before the assailant reaches you. In a high stress, high adrenaline scenario you probably won't have the presence of mind to aim low at a leg. A shotguns spread is minimal at close range (despite how inaccurately just about every video game ever portrays it as) so you might miss the legs if you do go for that. Also, buckshot might not even stop a man if you shoot him in the legs when his adrenaline is high, too. If he reaches you after that you are in a fight to the death, no doubt. You don't screw around with guns like that, period, end of story. You aim center of mass, and you aim to kill. It isn't supposed to be a deterrent, it is supposed to kill. So your best bet is to avoid the entire situation entirely. Do whatever you can to deter the criminal and make your house safe. A gun, if employed at all, should be the extreme last resort. If it, for whatever unlikely reason, comes down to that you give him a verbal warning and if he does anything but book it out your front door then you use the gun. But, from the sound of it you don't really need to be considering this much at this point.

[Zeful]

Eh, most of those charges get dropped when they actually go to trial, but that isn't very well reflected by the media.

When I lived in West Virginia, a girl in a school outside of Charleston cut class, went to a place she wasn't supposed to go, forcefully removed a paddle lock from a door CLEARLY marked as dangerous, and was playing around in the attic of the school when she fell through the drop ceiling about 12 feet before hitting her head and suffering some pretty substantial brain injuries.

Her parents sued the school for medical expenses she would be expected to accumulate over the course of her vegatative life.

Guess what? They were thrown out. The school was not shown to be negligent, the danger was well marked and the area was locked off. The fact that she had to break the paddle lock is evidence that she wasn't supposed to be there.

So yea...GL winning that case. GL even getting to trial. I'm not saying it has NEVER happened, but a goodly number of those sensational cases that are soooooo outlandish that you think "wtf?", die a quiet death that the media almost never covers.

Winning cases like this happen about as often as they don't. I remember hearing about a criminal trying to get into a house, he fell through the kitchen skylight on to a butcher knife. He sued the homeowner for damages caused by his fall and the knife and won.
So if your going to shoot a home invader, make sure they die after the first shot (as a second shot could be labeled as murder if the person in question was no longer a credible threat).

[Trixie]

Am I the only one who finds these warning signs (on the first page) somewhat... disgusting?

I mean, people who made them joke about killing, seem to have "me"-point-of-view, and (if it is not the case of armchair Rambos) seem to have no qualms about killing other humans.

Yeah, that was meant as a "joke", but I doubt I'd feel comfortable around such men, even if the topic never came up in discussions.

[Mystic Muse]

if somebody intends to kill you you should have no qualms about doing the same to them. one of you is going to die either way so it might as well be them since it can end right there or they can keep on killing people.

[SDF]

It becomes a problem because not everyone willing to burgle is willing to murder.

[Mystic Muse]

that's true. I'm not saying shoot anybody that enters your house even illegally but if it's clear they have the intention to harm you or your family it's better to shoot them first.

[Kallisti]

I make no pretense of being an expert on this, but I think your best bet is to post a sign warning them you will use lethal force, then if they come back anyway, aim the gun at them and tell them they'd better get down on the floor, face down, with their hands on the back of their head, and not do anything stupid. If they cooperate, disarm them if they have a weapon then call the police. If not, shoot them. Don't own a gun if you won't use it, or you'll just end up in worse danger. I, personally, would not own a gun because I would not be willing to shoot someone, but if you threaten them with lethal force, you better not be bluffing.

[Erloas]

It becomes a problem because not everyone willing to burgle is willing to murder.

Not to get too political about it, but my belief is that if someone is willing to rob others then it is in everyones best interest if they just died. They are not a productive member of society and likely never will be. They might not be willing to murder, but its not like you are removing a great potential from the world.


I've always heard shoot to kill. A lot of the law suits that come up after someone breaks into someplace is always the burglar's word vs the owner's. Its easy enough to claim excessive force if the home owner was more prepared the the burglar expected, however a dead burglar can make no claims at all.

[Trixie]

Self-defense? Sure, I'd probably shoot myself. Major economic damage/large theft done to someone who can't easily cope with it? Well, disputable, but still reasonable.

But these "joking" people seem to be able to kill another human not just over trivial thing (like, say, 10$) - they try to produce aura of killing without any good reason at all, which I personally find disgusting. Frankly, to me a normal burglar (that is, one doing it solely for personal gain) is probably a better human being than someone willing to kill over trivial or no reason at all, as these guys.

Hell, I sort understand reasoning behind it, not to mention the fact it might be for the better in some cases, but still, even the light talk about emptying entire magazines into others, luring bandits into the house, or shooting already defenseless people is... well, disturbing. Am I the only one who thinks it is an excellent way to commit a huge mistake, one that will haunt the shooter for the rest of his/her life, even if they are "technically" right?

[Supagoof]

If you are going to use it. USE it. If not - then you will be better off to take other preventative steps.

A motion light does well to detract would be thieves.

As do alarms - even those cheap little window alarms that are available in packs at wall-mart will do the trick nicely. Door gets kicked open - alarm sensor is moved away from magnet, small loud beep goes off. Thieves are interested in getting in and out without being caught - making it more difficult for them to do that will mean less hassle from them in the future.

Obviously right now the only thing they are waiting for is for you to not be home and mistakenly leave your door unlocked. Putting up other means of deterrent which don't involve any action on your part (such as waiting up late into the night) will make them consider twice before trying again.

Perhaps a sign warning them gunplay is involved.

Tresspassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.

And if they keep at it - well keep the shotgun close and loaded. Hopefully you won't have to use it, but if you do. USE it. Your life or theirs - and we like having you here on the forums.

[RS14]

Self-defense? Sure, I'd probably shoot myself. Major economic damage/large theft done to someone who can't easily cope with it? Well, disputable, but still reasonable.

But these "joking" people seem to be able to kill another human not just over trivial thing (like, say, 10$) - they try to produce aura of killing without any good reason at all, which I personally find disgusting. Frankly, to me a normal burglar (that is, one doing it solely for personal gain) is probably a better human being than someone willing to kill over trivial or no reason at all, as these guys.

Hell, I sort understand reasoning behind it, not to mention the fact it might be for the better in some cases, but still, even the light talk about emptying entire magazines into others, luring bandits into the house, or shooting already defenseless people is... well, disturbing. Am I the only one who thinks it is an excellent way to commit a huge mistake, one that will haunt the shooter for the rest of his/her life, even if they are "technically" right?

No, you're not the only one. I generally find it distasteful when people are too eager for a violent solution. Explain what is wrong with their bad suggestions and keep a level head yourself and people generally respond well.

[lvl 1 fighter]

No, you're not the only one. I generally find it distasteful when people are too eager for a violent solution. Explain what is wrong with their bad suggestions and keep a level head yourself and people generally respond well.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. Violence is a tool to be used, if necessary, not something to rush towards.

Given that, I feel that if someone is breaking into my house then it's probable that violence will be necessary. Probably stay away from the signs though. I'd rather just be left alone then draw attention.

[Mystic Muse]

Self-defense? Sure, I'd probably shoot myself. Major economic damage/large theft done to someone who can't easily cope with it? Well, disputable, but still reasonable.

But these "joking" people seem to be able to kill another human not just over trivial thing (like, say, 10$) - they try to produce aura of killing without any good reason at all, which I personally find disgusting. Frankly, to me a normal burglar (that is, one doing it solely for personal gain) is probably a better human being than someone willing to kill over trivial or no reason at all, as these guys.

Hell, I sort understand reasoning behind it, not to mention the fact it might be for the better in some cases, but still, even the light talk about emptying entire magazines into others, luring bandits into the house, or shooting already defenseless people is... well, disturbing. Am I the only one who thinks it is an excellent way to commit a huge mistake, one that will haunt the shooter for the rest of his/her life, even if they are "technically" right?

oh okay. then I agree with you. taking a life should never be necessary and even though
sometimes it is it should never be taken lightly.

[Trixie]

If you are going to use it. USE it. If not - then you will be better off to take other preventative steps.

A motion light does well to detract would be thieves.

As do alarms - even those cheap little window alarms that are available in packs at wall-mart will do the trick nicely. Door gets kicked open - alarm sensor is moved away from magnet, small loud beep goes off. Thieves are interested in getting in and out without being caught - making it more difficult for them to do that will mean less hassle from them in the future.

Obviously right now the only thing they are waiting for is for you to not be home and mistakenly leave your door unlocked. Putting up other means of deterrent which don't involve any action on your part (such as waiting up late into the night) will make them consider twice before trying again.

Perhaps a sign warning them gunplay is involved.

Until the last sentence, I agree fully.

Tresspassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.

Sorry, Supagoof, but while this sounds funny now, I sort of doubt it will look like this in the court. The Judge will probably not laugh. Police can easily tell if the second (or later) shot hit someone still capable of fight.

Really, an advice that amounts to (this part is not aimed at you, but I feel some posts in this thread were like this) "kill, and if he survives (humans are durable, after all) simply put a gun to his head so he won't" reads like an instruction manual from Sachsenhausen

And if they keep at it - well keep the shotgun close and loaded. Hopefully you won't have to use it, but if you do. USE it. Your life or theirs - and we like having you here on the forums.

Yeah, but we also like him not serving behind the bars or too traumatized to post any more.

[Keld Denar]

but if you threaten them with lethal force, you better not be bluffing.

This. This is the most apt description of the average home protection gun owner. Don't buy one for intimidation, because when you escalate to that level, you better not hesitate. Otherwise its better to be unarmed, make it clear you are unarmed and don't interfere. Cooperate, don't be aggressive, and hope your insurance is good.

Hell, I sort understand reasoning behind it, not to mention the fact it might be for the better in some cases, but still, even the light talk about emptying entire magazines into others, luring bandits into the house, or shooting already defenseless people is... well, disturbing. Am I the only one who thinks it is an excellent way to commit a huge mistake, one that will haunt the shooter for the rest of his/her life, even if they are "technically" right?

The empty magazine part was about something I had read. It was a case study on women who were involved in high-stress firearm incidents. Most of them emptied the weapon. When asked afterwards, they though they had only fired once, and were horrified to learn that they had completely emptied 12 bullets or whatever the magazine was. Its not a consious decision...just an instinctual reaction. The gun was empty before she even realized, in most cases.

And like I said, you'd have a hard time convincing a judge or jury of self defense if there was evidence you did something quite as extreme as "finishing" a fallen intruder, but if you hit them multiple times in a burst, that just adrenaline and all those other mind chemicals.

[THAC0]

The empty magazine part was about something I had read. It was a case study on women who were involved in high-stress firearm incidents. Most of them emptied the weapon. When asked afterwards, they though they had only fired once, and were horrified to learn that they had completely emptied 12 bullets or whatever the magazine was. Its not a consious decision...just an instinctual reaction. The gun was empty before she even realized, in most cases.

And like I said, you'd have a hard time convincing a judge or jury of self defense if there was evidence you did something quite as extreme as "finishing" a fallen intruder, but if you hit them multiple times in a burst, that just adrenaline and all those other mind chemicals.

Indeed.

My self defense class taught us to fire in bursts of at least two. Despite what some people think, a bullet is not necessarily incapacitating. Or, more to the point, immediately incapacitating or fatal.

I can shoot someone, and they might die in two minutes, but in that two minutes they can also kill me.

[Erts]

If this becomes to much of a problem, I suggest you get a dog. And put up a "Beware of Dog" sign. Generally seen as the best form of intimidation is a huge, barking dog.

[RandomNPC]

first of all I'm on board with the only kill if you've got to band-wagon.

Second, let's say you do have to. heres a scenario: someone kicks down my door while I'm down the hallway or otherwise towards the back of the house, Get a crossbow. Everyone's so fond of the shootgun loading sound, unless you're a crossbow hunter you probably don't know any of the sounds they make, and if it's not an instant kill shot it's going to be a lot more confusing than "ow, pain, im shot!" because of the whole bolt sticking out of you thing.

on the other hand, there is no good way to reload a crossbow if you miss. That's what target practice is for.

My advice: stay up late if you can, and move out soon.

Another note for the castle laws: Ohio says if they are inside and are not actively surrendering open fire. A man was shot in a fenced in backyard recently, I beleive the judge is still trying to decide if thats "in home" because of the being fenced in part of it.