Long Island man arreested for defending home with firearm

[Darwin333]

Most people think it doesn't have any real penetration power so they keep it loaded with birdshot which will easily shoot through both one and two drywalls and kill people.

What you'd want is something that doesn't penetrate a body but leaves all the energy inside... like some sort of a ... i dunno... say a 7.62x51 round that is high powered enough to reach a target far away and stop once it hits a target without so much as leaving an exit wound...

I have zero faith in birdshot stopping someone if I actually hit them with it. No reasonable way it can penetrate multiple walls (even just drywall) and still kill someone. I am sure its "possible" just like its "possible" that you can take your rifle outside shoot it up in the air and have the angle perfect enough for the bullet to come back down in the same spot you shot it from. Neither are very damned likely though.

Birdshot is a real good way to piss off a bad guy while leaving him with the ability to return fire. Buckshot is what you want loaded in a shotgun meant for home defense. Slugs are effective at teaching bad guys the difference between cover and concealment but I wouldn't have them loaded in my home defense gun because of collateral damage issues.

 

[Darwin333]

I understand that, but if you had to defend against 20 foes would you rather allow them the advantage of attack from many different angles or do so by limiting their access to you?

One of the truths of urban combat is he who is inside a building he knows well has the advantage. If he waits in the dark and you come through a door or window, who has the better odds? Entry limits the opportunity of an assailant, and likewise the positions needed to defend.

In other words if you are surrounded in the open you are screwed, but not if in the home.

Indoors this guy has a tactical advantage and a legal one. If they pile through a door to get at him that will be seen as an entirely different circumstance where he goes to meet them.

The problem is, what if 5 come through the front, 5 through the back, and a few at each window? You be fucked is what happens.

While I admit that the outcome was relatively good (no one was shot/died), I have never thought that "warning" shots where/are a good idea at all. Zebo has done a good job at explaining why but my main reason is, if I am indeed scared for my life putting holes in the ground gives the bad guys more time to put holes in me and thats just not a good idea in my book.

 

[Nebor]

And I'm telling you, as a 6 year veteran, an infantry officer, and a guy who just got back, that yes, they do teach warning shots. Escalation of force.

Shout, show, shove, shoot to warn, shoot to disable, shoot to kill.

That's what they teach in the Army. Where were you?



It's Army policy now. Has been for a while.



And maybe you noticed all the dead civilians resulting from that attitude... that's why we fire warning shots now.

While it has been Army policy for a while, it is no longer in Afghanistan. My theater in-brief in February from JAG held that the new position is that warning shots are unlawful. The risk of collateral damage from that stray bullet is too high weighed against the deterrent effect.

 

[pcgeek11]

And I'm telling you, as a 6 year veteran, an infantry officer, and a guy who just got back, that yes, they do teach warning shots. Escalation of force.

Shout, show, shove, shoot to warn, shoot to disable, shoot to kill.

It's Army policy now. Has been for a while.

And maybe you noticed all the dead civilians resulting from that attitude... that's why we fire warning shots now.

Well that is just stupid if they teach warning shots when you feel threatened. Its a wonder we don't have many more dead in Iraq and Afganistan than we do. Politics.

Vietnam and the Kuwait.

 

[PeshakJang]

While it has been Army policy for a while, it is no longer in Afghanistan. My theater in-brief in February from JAG held that the new position is that warning shots are unlawful. The risk of collateral damage from that stray bullet is too high weighed against the deterrent effect.

They got rid of vehicle warning shots due to the driver not being able to see/hear them, but dismounted warning shots were still policy when I left. Never heard of any casualties due to stray warning shots, but they came as a result of unnecessary engagement with idiot drivers who ignored all other EOF, even though they were not hostiles.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I was out all day today and while I was out I was thinking more about the hunting deer with a shotgun.
We have what are called 2 WMZ's (Wildlife Management Zones) here in Saskatchewan. They are surrounding our 2 major cities and you can't hunt with a rifle (same as in Illinois, musket or shotgun or bow).
The one surrounding my city actually stretches quite far along a nice valley with plenty of deer.
It's mostly open area with bush scattered around, and I can see someone using a shotgun.
Even with a scope.

edit- and in a state like Illinois where its practically one long stretch of towns/cities I can see it

So ya, I'm concede.

 

[Kirby]

So ya, I'm concede.

That's a first for P&N.

 

[Nebor]

They got rid of vehicle warning shots due to the driver not being able to see/hear them, but dismounted warning shots were still policy when I left. Never heard of any casualties due to stray warning shots, but they came as a result of unnecessary engagement with idiot drivers who ignored all other EOF, even though they were not hostiles.

No warning shots at all are authorized, with vehicles or otherwise.

 

[shortylickens]

In a perfect world, this guy is allowed to protect his home and his family and awarded a medal when he drives away scum.

He should be given a fucking parade for standing up to them.

Instead, the bleeding heart fucking liberals throw him in jail. What a fucking world we live in.

In a perfect world there is no scum and no need for police.
Private gun ownership acknowledges the lack of perfection in this world and facilitates peoples right to live, by allowing them to save their own lives.

 

[PeshakJang]

No warning shots at all are authorized, with vehicles or otherwise.

If that's the policy now, it's changed since I left. Warning shots were the norm for at least the last several years, though.

 

[nobodyknows]

Warning shots demonstrate that the weapon is loaded and working. If some of the attackers were trying to convince their friends that they should rush him by saying "it isn't loaded," or "it is a toy." Then the warning shot would prove them wrong.

I know you shouldn't fire warning shots because of the legal reasons, but these 20 attackers didn't retreat when he brought out the gun, and they did when he fired the warning shot without shooting any of them. It seems he accomplished his goal, protecting his family without shooting any of them.

^This.

Obviously it worked and nobody was killed. I personally can't fathom why he sould be arrested for taking non-lethal action to defend himdelf, his family, and his property while being threatened by people that were on his property?? If anything he should be commended for standing up to them, especially since it involved a gang.

Everyone has an opinion but not everyone is right. In this case I for one think the guy did the right thing.

 

[Zargon]

I was out all day today and while I was out I was thinking more about the hunting deer with a shotgun.
We have what are called 2 WMZ's (Wildlife Management Zones) here in Saskatchewan. They are surrounding our 2 major cities and you can't hunt with a rifle (same as in Illinois, musket or shotgun or bow).
The one surrounding my city actually stretches quite far along a nice valley with plenty of deer.
It's mostly open area with bush scattered around, and I can see someone using a shotgun.
Even with a scope.

edit- and in a state like Illinois where its practically one long stretch of towns/cities I can see it

So ya, I'm concede.

:biggrin:

I'd rather use a bow, but 12 gauges can be fun.

IL is moslty rural though and empty

 

[xj0hnx]

If that's the policy now, it's changed since I left. Warning shots were the norm for at least the last several years, though.

What unit are/were you in, warning shots were definitely not the "norm".

 

[Zargon]

I have zero faith in birdshot stopping someone if I actually hit them with it. No reasonable way it can penetrate multiple walls (even just drywall) and still kill someone. I am sure its "possible" just like its "possible" that you can take your rifle outside shoot it up in the air and have the angle perfect enough for the bullet to come back down in the same spot you shot it from. Neither are very damned likely though.

Birdshot is a real good way to piss off a bad guy while leaving him with the ability to return fire. Buckshot is what you want loaded in a shotgun meant for home defense. Slugs are effective at teaching bad guys the difference between cover and concealment but I wouldn't have them loaded in my home defense gun because of collateral damage issues.

have you ever seen a picture of someone who ate birdshot at close range?

it's nasty.....

but its certainly not intended for a wall penetration kill shot

 

[ichy]

He spends most of his days on here trying to convince people that he's an elite SAS commander. He's basically been involved in every battle ever fought in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and has a SIPR terminal in his living room.

Has he actually claimed to be in the SAS? If that's the case then he's definitely a Walt. You can be sure that no actual member of the British special forces would go around posting on the internet with a winged dagger avatar!

 

[Darwin333]

have you ever seen a picture of someone who ate birdshot at close range?

it's nasty.....

but its certainly not intended for a wall penetration kill shot

Sure it can be nasty and yes I have seen it, the point is its not "nasty" enough to prevent them from returning fire in most reasonable real life scenarios.

Ever see a picture of someone who ate 12ga. 00Buckshot at close range (hell, any range that is realistic in a home defense scenario)? They ain't shooting back and that is the entire, and only, point of using the weapon in the first place.

Birdshot is meant for killing little bitty birds. Buckshot is meant for killing much larger animals. If you have only one shot to protect your child's or your wife's life, which would you really prefer to have in your chamber?

Edit: I would NEVER EVER consider a "wall penetration kill shot" as that implies that you can't actually see your target. You don't shoot what you can't see. I did make a point about slugs showing thugs the difference between "cover and concealment" such as someone firing from behind a car door as you see in movies but that still assumes that you can see your target (and whats directly behind). I personally don't like slugs for home defense at all but I do have a few buddies that keep a few slugs in their side saddles "just in case".

 

[nick1985]

have you ever seen a picture of someone who ate birdshot at close range?

it's nasty.....

but its certainly not intended for a wall penetration kill shot

Its not intended to be a kill shot against a human with no wall. It lacks the penetration to reach vital organs. I wont volunteer to get shot with it, I'm saying there are MUCH better options.

 

[Zargon]

oh no argument there!!

but its up there with the argument of some that claim a 32 380 or 22 cant kill

 

[Nebor]

Has he actually claimed to be in the SAS? If that's the case then he's definitely a Walt. You can be sure that no actual member of the British special forces would go around posting on the internet with a winged dagger avatar!

Uh, yes. He constantly claims to be a Captain in the SAS. He also once claimed that he could easily fire a quarter size 5 round group from his 30-06 at 700m. When it was pointed out that no rifle in the world is technically capable of doing that, he laughed at us yanks and our ideas of marksmanship. He also claims that as a British SAS member, he is allowed to take his military firearms home in the UK (HAH!) But he doesn't keep them assembled or loaded, because guns are for pussies. Real men settle their differences with fist fights!

He's just some British blowhard sitting in his basement in Essex, afraid to venture outside for fear of being picked on by yobs.

 

[nick1985]

He also, in this thread, claimed to disperse a crowd with a Remington 870 and only had to kill 1 person.

He is so full of shit its coming out his ears.

 

[ichy]

He's just some British blowhard sitting in his basement in Essex, afraid to venture outside for fear of being picked on by yobs.

Wow, you know you're a jackass when even someone like me with no military background can tell almost instantly that you're a complete phony.

 

[PeshakJang]

What unit are/were you in, warning shots were definitely not the "norm".

I was in a PCAT/PMT (police mentor) company in RC-East. We were under the 4-25, then the 101st for a few months before we left. Warning shots were policy, and we had to conduct mandatory training every month coming from division on ROE, including the use of warning shots prior to disabling/kill shots. The policy was modified about a month before we left to exclude warning shots against vehicles, because higher thought that the drivers wouldn't/couldn't see/hear them well enough to be effective, but it was almost more of a "use your best judgement" implementation. The reason it was stressed so much is because something like 90% of the engagements for the last 3 years in that area resulted in bad-shoots where civilians were killed, and higher was putting more and more pressure on doing every single thing possible prior to firing kill shots, unless you were actively being engaged.

So yes, in our area, it was the norm, and you'd lose your ass if you didn't.

 

[nick1985]

Wow, you know you're a jackass when even someone like me with no military background can tell almost instantly that you're a complete phony.

Who is the phony, Nebor or JoS?

 

[OutHouse]

Dude, really you know nothing. As a 20+ year veteran The Military doesn't teach warning shots... Never has.

bullshit.

were you a cook or something? i assure you warning shots were SOP.

 

[OutHouse]

What unit are/were you in, warning shots were definitely not the "norm".

Give it up dude.