What would you do in this situation?

[Eow]

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/82749

I would probably go for the tires.

[7idl]

dial 911 and hide in the corner?

[Irving]

If it is in Texas, he should familarize himself with the Castle Doctrine and should have shot at the windshield instead. In my monday-morning-quarter-backing opinion, shooting over the truck was stupid. Is this guy's house the only one on the street? Not with neighbors coming out the thank him. Also, if you are firing your gun, but you are NOT trying to end a threat, then you shouldn't be firing at all. At least in my opinion.

[Dr_Fwd]

I'd shoot the mo'f@ckers period.

[Mtn.man]

shot em,, gone in and made a pot of coffee, turned on the news called the sherriff and the news and tell him to also bring the coroner. If they want donuts they will need to buy them on the way as I don't eat them.

[Irving]

I just happened to be looking this up for that video of the assult on the house in Arizona. But this is related and I feel gun owners need to know this stuff.


http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot2.htm

[BadShot]

If only I had a gun

[Marlin]

Claymores,, It's the only way to be sure....

[libertyordeath]

Claymores,, It's the only way to be sure....

wait a sec, i thought SOP was: "take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. it's the only way to be sure." [ROFL2]

[Marlin]

That's the only way to be Really, Really sure...

[refryguy]

He MISSED? On purpose even? Dip shit! Obviously he is not trained for that situation. Next time hit the target!

[M2]

[antixss]

I would have shown them the business end of a baseball bat. But with a concealed sidearm. In case they wanted to and or were able to escalate the confrontation.


IR-regardless an ass whooping would have been handed out that morning.

I would not have shot into the air.

[ldmaster]

Guys, you have only to remember ONE thing...

You are NEVER "defending your property", you are ALWAYS confronting someone who then chooses to threaten your safety - you are simply responding to the perception that the guy doing the bad thing is threatening your safety.

So it runs like this. I pop up, go outside with my gun to investigate something suspicious. When I approach someone in a car. If I'm SMART, I'm not standing in front of it - I mean, gun vs car, the car always wins - even if you hit the guy dead center mass while he is driving at you, he can still guide it into you. But here's the part that forces me to defend myself - he used a deadly weapon to place me in fear of my safety, he drove his car at me.

YOU DONT SHOOT THE CAR
YOU DONT EVER FIRE WARNING SHOTS
YOU DONT SHOOT THE TIRES

YOU SHOOT THE DRIVER OF THE DEADLY WEAPON - as much as is needed to stop him from completing the act of killing you.

If you do your job right, he's not driving away - and you're safe.

Right after you defend your life (not your property) you call 911 and tell them that a burglar tried to run you over in his car, and you shot the burglar. YOU DIDNT SHOOT THE CAR. If you're stupid enough to ANSWER questions from a minimum wage dispatcher, remember anything you say WILL be used against you. Tell them where you live, then do something appropriate for your safety - get out of the street - bad guys come BACK. Get inside and wait for the police to come. Forget all that stupid television drama about you dropping your weapon in the street and waiting to be arrested.

You are a VICTIM of a violent crime, period frickin' DOT. YOU need EMS as much as the guy who tried to kill you. You should also know that you are IMMEDIATELY the suspect in a shooting. The circumstances should support your VERY SHORT description of the action. "The burglar drove at me, and I shot him." PERIOD.

You CANNOT "clear up a few questions" for the detective or the cop.
You CANNOT do anything to justify your actions aside from what you have already done. The odds are you will make some stupid statement, like this guy did "I shot above the cab"

Huh?

If someone is driving at you to kill you, you shoot HIM - cops and juries will interpret your actions of shooting essentially into the air as something done by somebody who was not afraid for their safety.

You ARE going to be a "chatty Kathy" and you will probably babble like a brook.

Just remember, you CANNOT CLEAR YOURSELF BY MAKING A STATEMENT.

Nothing in the law requires you do a DAMN thing. In fact your fifth amendment rights are important for this very reason.

This guy was arrestable in nearly any state in the union, simply by making the statement that he "shot into the air" they exercised discretion by not arresting him.

The only thing that ever makes it OK to shoot your gun, is an immediate threat to your safety wherein you perceive the other person is trying to deprive you of life, or commit a serious injury to you.

You are NEVER "defending your property". Yes, you have the right to defend your property from theives, what you DONT have the right to do is kill someone for it. What you DO have the right to do is exercise reasonable force in either stopping or arresting the person, when they resort to actions that create a threat to your life - then they get shot. But until they do, no shots.

I have actually had suspects turn their back on me WHEN they had a gun in their hand, so that if I shot them they would have an entry wound in their back. Fortunately for him/it, he also dropped the weapon about two seconds later - else he'd have been shot to prevent him hurting me.

So, in short...

I would have investigated something suspicious (alarm)
Confronted the thieves.
When the theives tried to escape I'd pursue.
When they drive their car at me, I would shoot them.
I would then call 911 and get the heck out of the immediate area (assuming the bad guys also left).
If the bad guys are still there, and if they still posed a threat, they'd get shot again.
If the bad guys are bleeding out, I'd holster it up, disarm them or search them for weapons and give them first aid. Not necessarily in that order.

But when the cops asked what happened, this is EXACTLY what I'd say..

"My car alarm went off and I went to see what was wrong. When I got to my car, the door was open and a guy was running away with something in his hand (or not). When I yelled at him to stop and ran after him, he jumped into a car and it drove at me. I shot at the driver."

End of story. Simple.

They're going to have a million questions for you, REALLY STUPID ones like, (I kid you not) "How did you know he intended to run you over?" or "Did they have a weapon?" You should not answer these questions.

If the bad guy did steal something from your car, he'll have it. If he wore gloves, they'll find them. If he didn't wear gloves, then his fingerprints will be inside your formerly locked car.

Remember that your actions will be judged by the "reasonable man" theory. Would a reasonable man have believed his car was being broken into if the alarm went off? Would a reasonable man believe that they guy driving at you intended to hit you?

And that's IT.

So, tell the cop you're dizzy and short of breath (an automatic response from EMS for the SOB condition) remember that you're a VICTIM and need medical attention (you might be injured and not know it in the glow of the adrenaline) and you absolutely need a lawyer. Say so, this should stop the cops from questioning you. If it DOESN'T, demand the cop bring his supervisor into the conversation - or if it's a detective badgering you for a statement, ask to speak to HIS supervisor and explain that you do not have an obligation to give a statement, and that you want them to appoint you a lawyer before you'll subject yourself to any questioning.

Never go down to the station to "talk to the chief".

Heck no - NO good can come from it that wasn't already going to happen.

[sniper_tim]

That guy is the reason why we have to defend our right to defend ourselves.

- Chasing a non-violent dirt bag into the street
- shooting over the truck HE's LUCKY HE DIDN"T KILL A NEIGHBOR KID

I also have a hard time believing that any police officer wouldn't charge this guy after he admitted to shooting multiple rounds into the air in a residential community. The story is probably BS, not to mention lets say they caught the BG, all he had to do was say he was protecting himself cause some guy was chasing him down the street with a gun! There are so many things wrong with this story. I suspect most LEO's can chime in that you don't chase a BG down the street, shooting him on your property is a totally different situation.

[sniper_tim]

Oh yeah, I'm not sure about the conclusions of that article on shooting through a windshield either. The author is obviously biased towards the 45. Most studies conclude that when shooting through a windshield; fragmentation and penetration are correlated to the type or quality of the bullet and velocity, NOT BULLET WEIGHT. He didnt mention either.

Food for thought: a 223 bullet weighs a lot less than a 45 and will penetrate through the trunk and beyond. Of course if you are shooting crappy bullets regardless of the caliber & bullet weight, they will vaporize on a windshield.

Somebody posted a link to tests from a local LE office (FC, Loveland, or something). They were shooting at glass with gel behind it, several different calibers and ammunition. Some bullets didn't have measurable fragments in the gel!