Gunners Den

Straight Shooters

dgu

Homeowner Shoots Man After Warning Shots Failed

By Leave a Comment

This time, in Alabama. A homeowner fired warning shots at two men trying to steal gasoline from his shed.

Sources say that two men broke into the homeowner’s shed out on Jackson County Road, Route 83 in Pisgah. The homeowner fired an undisclosed number of warning shots and ordered the two alleged robbers to get on the ground.

At some point during this time, one of the men decided to get up and run toward the homeowner with a knife. The homeowner shot the robber-turned-attacker in the knee.

The wounded attacker was flown to Chattanooga Hospital, leaving the other suspect to be charged with burglary, theft, and false identification.

Analysis:

There is a lot going on here that is wrong and should never be done by anyone who is serious about self-defense. But remember, in these stories all we can do is discuss the information as presented. We were not there and don’t have all the details. Still, we can learn from these.

We don’t know much about this story and I did look for another source for more information on this but was unable to find one. Details are thin but there is a lot we can learn from this situation.

First, in many states it is illegal to deploy deadly force, to include even showing someone your firearm as a deterrent, for theft of property. And, in many states, just showing the firearm IS considered to be deadly force.

The crime usually has to warrant the use of deadly force. Many times, things like preventing murder, rape, serious bodily harm, etc., are things that warrant the use of deadly force. The number of areas where you can deploy your weapon to preserve property are few.

There are a few exceptions to this rule, but more often than not in this anti-gun age, shooting someone for stealing gasoline will get you locked up. Period. Don’t do it.

Second, firing warning shots is never a good idea for a multitude of reasons, with the most obvious being, it doesn’t take a burglar out of the fight. In fact, as it happened here, it can do quite the opposite.

I believe that after the homeowner ordered the men to the ground, he must have turned away or was otherwise distracted long enough for the guy with the knife to feel confident enough to run at him. But again, I was not there.

However, we HAVE to assume that if this person (or an attacker in your own incident) is desperate enough to steal gasoline, that they’re willing and able to avoid getting caught at any cost–to include rushing a homeowner with a knife.

I can’t be positive, but I highly doubt the knife guy wanted to give the homeowner a hug. I’d bet money on the fact that he was trying to end the homeowner’s life, take his gun, and then go get some more gasoline with it.

Thankfully he didn’t have his own gun. I’m also thankful that his accomplice didn’t have a gun because things may have turned out differently.

If you need another reason why warning shots are bad, there are several. Here’s one, you have no clue where the bullets land. They can ricochet off the ground and hit an innocent, or travel really far if shot into the air, also hitting an innocent. Don’t do it.

Finally, he shot the bad guy in the leg. While I don’t know if it’s because he’s a bad shot or if he meant to, I’m leaning towards he meant to. After all, he did fire warning shots at the bad guys to begin with. This is compounded idiocy.

Thankfully it turned out well, so far. But we have to assume, again, that the bad guy doesn’t want to go to jail. While a shot to the knee sucks, if a dude is hopped up on methamphetamine, some other drug, or even his own adrenaline–he may not even feel it.

We also have no idea what shape the second bad guy was in. What was his frame of mind? Did he also have a knife? A gun? Was he willing to charge to stay out of jail?

And, if he did charge, guess what? The homeowner still has two bad guys to deal with because he was unwilling to defend himself properly from the get go. Frankly, he did a lot of things wrong even if he came out on top.

If you carry a gun for self-defense, you must be willing to use it properly once the time comes. This doesn’t mean you have to be willing to kill someone, just that you have to be willing to protect yourself appropriately.

If that person dies because he did something so stupid that you felt you had to protect yourself, then so be it.

Here is the source article for more information. Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Food Delivery Driver Shoots Teen Who Robbed Him

By Leave a Comment

This time in Houston, Texas a 17 year old teen was shot after he tried to rob a food delivery driver at gun point.

This is an interesting one.

According to police, the gun wielding teenager gave the driver the wrong address when he ordered his food, and told him to not knock on the door when he arrived.

And, while the driver was waiting for the customer to come out, pay, and get his food, the teen showed up and attempted to rob the driver with a gun.

The teen suspect took the driver’s wallet, the food he apparently ordered, and a piece of lead in the leg.

The source story has strange wording. It says this:

… but did not get far before the driver shot him in the leg.

(We’ll cover this in the analysis)

After he was shot in the leg, the alleged robber called police and told them he was shot during a drive-by shooting. This, of course, was a lie and once police officers realized the truth, they arrested him.

He is being charged with aggravated robbery.

The driver has a license to carry a gun for his protection, and it was clearly needed.

Analysis:

This is an interesting story, and has a few things I’d like to point out. First, kudos to the delivery driver for understanding the need to be armed in day to day life, work, and apparently in such a bad neighborhood that the teen thought it’d be believable to say he was targeted in a drive by shooting.

Now on to the meat of this analysis.

We clearly don’t know all the details. If we did, there would be no speculation. All we can do is point out what could have gone wrong, what could have happened better, and what I may have done differently.

The source I quoted above made it sound like the teen began to retreat before the driver shot him. We don’t know if he still had his gun fixed on the driver or if the threat was over at that point. But, if we were going off the source alone, it makes it sound like the teen was retreating.

It’s rarely ever a good idea to shoot at a bad guy once the threat is over. In Texas, things are a little different than in the rest of the country because you can protect property as well as life.

But, for the most part it isn’t a good idea. Some prosecutors will have a field day with a situation like this.

Second, we don’t know if the delivery driver meant to shoot the alleged robber in the leg or if he is just a terrible shot. I cannot think of a time when it’d be good to purposefully shoot a bad guy in the leg.

Deadly force is just that, deadly force. If it meets the criteria to use deadly force, using less than deadly force is dangerous. How does the delivery driver know if he is on a substance that could cause rage? Or if there is something else going on? He wouldn’t know.

I understand the whole not wanting to kill someone idea, but it is impossible to know the frame of mind of another. A shot to the chest is more likely to stop a threat than a shot to the leg is. A shot to the leg may not stop someone from shooting back.

Shooting to wound is not a good idea under any circumstances.

As a side note, please know that it should never be our goal to end life, but to preserve our own lives by stopping a threat. If the bad guy dies because he attacked a person willing to defend his or herself with a gun, then so be it.

Some argue that this is just semantics, but I do believe it matters.

Finally, it says that the perp called the police and said that he’d been shot. What the source story does not say is whether or not the delivery driver also called police. We have to assume here that he did call the police, but I plan to treat this as if he did not because I don’t know for certain.

And, it is beneficial to understand this.

If you are ever involved in a self-defense shooting, it is always the best possible idea to call it in yourself. I’ve heard first-hand from police officers that the first one to call something in is usually seen as the good guy. At least at first because bad guys don’t usually call the cops.

Thankfully, this kid blamed his being shot on a drive by shooting, but what if he told police that some crazy food delivery driver pulled a gun on him and shot him? Do you think that’d cause a lot of drama for that guy–especially when police roll up and he does have a gun?

Yeah, I think so.

In conclusion, always carry your gun. Everywhere. You never know. It’s rarely a good idea to shoot a retreating suspect. Police officers get jammed up for that crap, and you would too, if you did it. Again, Texas is a little different because they can technically protect property there.

But, as far as I know, Texas is the only state in the union like that.

If you feel as though it’s important enough to display your gun, don’t go for the leg. Some judges/lawyers would have a field day with that. You must shoot to stop the threat. And, finally, always call the cops yourself. If you don’t you’re just creating problems for yourself.

Defensive Gun Use At A Party In Texas

By Leave a Comment

This time in Humble, Texas a man was shot and killed by someone, though we don’t know who at this point, after attacking a woman.

A. B. C. Always Be Carrying. That’s what I live my life by. I don’t care where I’m going. I don’t care what I’m doing. I’m always carrying my gun. If I cannot carry because there is a no gun sign on a building, that business does NOT deserve my business.

People look at me like I’m NUTS when I say this. Some criticize me. Some slander my very name because, they say, “you must be afraid of everything.”

None of this is true, of course, because disaster can strike at any time. And, idiots who’re hell bent on hurting others are always present. It’s human nature for people to be colossal ass-hats. Because I understand human nature and spend most of my time with my family, I carry a gun even in my home.

Or in your home.

The Story:

Details are conflicting on this one and I’m not sure which source is correct.

One source says that a 13 year old child shot and killed a man who was attacking an adult at a party. Another report says that the woman being attacked by her ex boyfriend pulled her gun out and shot her attacker as he was choking her.

I’m not sure which is right, and it may be some time before we find out as this story is still being investigated.

What we can focus on is that someone is dead for doing something stupid, and someone shot him (hopefully out of self-defense). Here is the video, though I’d fast forward through the first 47 or so seconds because up until that point it’s just police cars:


Analysis:

This is simple. Always carry your gun even to a party. If you respect the law as I do, then you don’t go to places where you cannot carry. It’s that simple. Self-defense is a lifestyle change.

Because, as this story points out, a psycho can be anywhere at any time … even at a party.

I carry in other people’s homes. I carry in places of business, worship, walking around town. Heck, just recently people invited us to a pool party. I didn’t swim, but guess who was ready to protect his wife and kids from a psycho (or a black bear) should one appear?

Yeah, this guy right here.

Some of you are going to think I’m nuts. But, as this story shows us, a nutjob can go on a rampage anywhere — even in someone else’s house. That is why I’m always carrying.

And that, my friends, is the tip here.

Carry responsibly, train often, and have a proper mindset. Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

DGU: Man Shot a Tuxedo Wearing Nutjob After Getting Stabbed

By Leave a Comment

Photo Credit: Huntsman Knife

Also known as: Bringing a knife to a gunfight.

This time in Florida, a man seen wearing a tuxedo stabbed a man who was apparently his former employer. The victim of this story, 65 year old Louis Rivera, shot his attacker causing him to run off where he later died of his injuries.

This confrontation took place at a Florida apartment complex on Independence Day at about 12:10 in the morning.

Jupiter police department responded to possible shots fired in the area, which actually took place at the Abacoa Apartment Complex, where Louis Rivera, 65, the man who was stabbed, lived with his fiancee.

Rivera is a maintenance manager for the building where he lives, and the deceased, a 32 year old knife wielding male (who dressed for the occasion) worked for Rivera at some point, clearly knowing where his victim lived.

Rivera reportedly told police that after he was stabbed, he fired his gun in self-defense. His attacker fled on foot, but police found the body still in the apartment complex after searching the area.

Rivera was taken to St. Mary’s hospital and is listed in stable condition. Police say that the investigation is ongoing, and one source said police were investigating this as a homicide.

Rivera’s fiancee, told WPTV-TV that her man pulled out his revolver and shot the alleged assailant in self-defense.

He ran up on us. We were outside checking our car because he was around, and he just came running up on us. He lost it, and it’s just a huge shock to the community. It’s devastated our family. Nobody wants to take someone’s life, but he had to protect our family.

The fiancee told reporters that Rivera was at the local hospital and that his arm would likely need surgery.

Analysis:

This is an interesting story for a couple of reasons. The first one being, that Rivera could potentially have avoided getting stabbed to begin with. If you read her above quote, she says they were outside checking on their car because they knew he was around.

Could this be taken as: They went looking for trouble?

It was clearly not a good idea and if they had stayed put in their home, this would likely not have occurred. Of course, there is the possibility that the attacker was hell-bent on attacking and would have broken into the apartment, anyway. We don’t know.

What we do know, is if the attacker had broken into his victim’s home, they would have a better case presented in court since the way things turned out could be presented in court that they were going out to look for a fight. It probably won’t stick if they do go this route, but it is a headache that is not needed, nonetheless.

This is a good reminder to keep our mouths shut after the use of deadly force. While it was said that he was defending his life, a ballsy prosecutor could counter that with nothing more than the fiancee’s above quote. You can watch the interview, here:

The case could be made that because he went out to the car with his gun, that he was looking for a fight. It’s a stretch but that case could be made if local authorities want to make an example of him.

Always keep your mouth shut after a DGU until you have spoken to your lawyer. The last thing you need is to be jammed up for saving your own life. And, of course, we recommend getting concealed carry insurance of some sort, like USCCA or one of their competitors to make sure you’re covered in such an event.

You can read my USCCA Review, here.

And please let us know your thoughts on this in the comments below.

DGU: Don’t Trust Your Contractor

By Leave a Comment

This Defensive Gun Use story comes out of Michigan and took place about one month ago. I am just hearing about it and feel it is important to discuss. Why? Because a 63 year old man had to defend himself against a 24 year old who worked as his contractor.

In a true “you can’t trust anybody” type of story, a 63 year old man with a gun defended himself against someone he must have trusted enough to enter his home and do work as some sort of contractor during the daylight hours.

While it is unclear at this point what kind of work the contractor did for the older man, what is clear is that two shots were fired after the contractor forced his way into the home during what is described only as “early morning hours.”

It seems at this point as if the contractor canvassed the home and new that the 63 year old would be a weak, easy target. It seems at this point as if the suspect had seen something of value in the home and wanted to take it for himself.

This happened in the early morning and the 63 year old shot the suspect twice with his handgun shortly after he found the suspect had forced his way inside. The suspect was then taken to the Ann Arbor area hospital for non-life-threatening injuries and, for some reason, he was released.

Police are said to believe that the suspect chose this house because the men knew each other from the contracting work.

You can read more on this story, here.

Analysis:

There are things we don’t know here. We don’t know what the suspect wanted, but can assume that it was to either hurt the man or take his stuff. Being that people don’t generally break-in to houses to drop off cheesecake, I believe he acted appropriately when he responded with deadly force.

More importantly, we don’t know how many shots were fired, nor what kind/caliber of gun was used. We can therefore not make any assumptions on what we’d do differently, in this regard.

What we can say, however, is that we can never trust anyone. We can never assume that someone is our friend after just meeting him or her. And, we can never assume that people have our best interests at heart because most of the time, they do not.

We don’t know what type of contracting work he did, but we can assume that he may have had free roam of the house, which is obviously not the best case scenario.

It’s always best to see the worker in and stay with him/her until they leave when you show them back out.

What are your thoughts on this Michigan defensive gun use story? What would you have done differently? Let us know in the comments below.

New Thread: Defensive Gun Use News

By 2 Comments

We’ve added a new category to the list called Defensive Gun Use. This is something that not enough people talk about. Because nobody really talks about it, those anti-gunners who oppose our right to keep and bear arms don’t believe it happens. Not only do people defend themselves with their guns, it happens more than most people realize.

The important thing to remember is that you don’t need to pull the trigger in order for it to count as a DGU. And, sadly, those are usually the only stories being reported.

In order to help combat misinformation, we’ll be posting regular DGU stories on this website. It is our hope and desire that you’ll share these stories with your friends and family, so they’re can arm themselves with knowledge, as well.

Not all of these stories will have a good outcome, but they will all meet the following criteria to be listed on our website:

  • A gun must be used to defend life (whether the trigger is pulled or not)
  • The aggressive attacker should be stopped (though this won’t always be the case)
  • The defender should, by our best guess, be acting in self-defense (of course we won’t always know this)

In so doing, it is our hope to spread the word about the positives of gun ownership to those who would rather take our rights away. I’ve spoken to many on the other side of the aisle who don’t believe guns save lives.

I think it’s time to prove them wrong.

The other goal here is to learn from example what works and what doesn’t. Tactics that may work well vs those that do not. And, at the end of each story I recommend that we all reflect on how we’d react if presented with a similar situation. Stay tuned, stories will start to roll in shortly.

How The Reasonable Person Standard Applies To Self-Defense

By Leave a Comment

When it comes to self-defense, just knowing what the law states is never enough.

The main reason why, is because whatever language is used in the specific law that you are reviewing is never enough to give you the entire meaning of that law. This is amplified when you are dealing with laws that define what justifies certain conduct regarding the use of force against another human being.

Before we move on, however, let me tell you why I feel as though I’m qualified to talk about this subject. I’m a retired PA State Police Corporal, an Army Veteran, and active instructor with decades of experience.

I do want to point out, however, that I’m not a practicing lawyer, and nothing I’m about to say to you should be taken as legal advice. Always seek out a professional attorney, should any questions arise.

And that, my friends, brings us to the definition and context of this installation on understanding deadly force, the “reasonable person standard.”

This principle exists to try and qualify actions by determining whether what was done by an individual could be deemed as comparative to what any reasonable person would do in similar circumstances.

For example, if you walked into your kitchen and the stove was on fire, would you grab a fire extinguisher and try to put it out like most other reasonable persons?

What if you grabbed a can of gasoline and threw it on the fire, instead? Does that sound like something a reasonable person would do? Probably not, and that is a simple way of explaining what the reasonable person standard is.

Furthermore, what may be deemed as reasonable can be different from person to person. For instance, it could also be deemed reasonable if you were to immediately exit the room and call the fire department rather than take steps to put it out, especially if you don’t have a fire extinguisher. This could also be deemed reasonable, given the circumstances.

As you can see, it is a very subjective standard based almost exclusively on perception. Now, how does this factor into how the law describes criminal behavior, or more importantly, a justification defense?

When evaluating whether your actions were justifiable in a self-defense scenario, the court will basically decide the following: Would your actions be commensurate with the actions of any other reasonable person in that same situation?

Here is an example: If you are trying to unlock your vehicle in a dark parking lot and you turn to see a masked subject approaching you wielding a weapon (of any type), would it be reasonable to assume that anyone with the capacity to defend themselves in that situation would do so? The short answer is obviously yes (I would hope).

Now, let’s say you were sitting down to Sunday dinner, and the roast chicken was not done to your exact specifications. You decide to render a short (but scathing) remark to your significant other about how bad it tastes and your significant other responds with, “Maybe I am trying to poison you!”

So, in a fit of rage you determine that those remarks constitute a threat and you draw your trusty pistol and drill your significant other between the running lights.

I’m pretty sure that any legal standard in the country would definitely not consider those actions as being reasonable, even if you felt it was, at the time.

Naturally, this is an oversimplification of the matter, but I want you to see how the basic concept works. It is only fair to say that, in many ways, there can be more difficulty than you think in applying the reasonable person standard, especially if the circumstances surrounding the incident become a bit more complicated.

And, as we have discussed previously, the reasonable person standard is only part of the recipe.

It is only a small step in the overall process in which the courts evaluate a person’s conduct under the law when trying to determine in what manner the law applies.

Definitions are very important and this one is no less important than any other. So, I just wanted to shed some light on the definition of the reasonable person standard before moving on, because we will be using this term frequently in the coming weeks as we delve deeper into the mysteries of the law and the use of deadly force in self-defense.

Was this a new topic for you? Are you enjoying these installments?