Best Defense in attempted mugging/assault?

[SpyderScout]

I’ll admit to finding it a little uncomfortable, though, not least because it’s so hard for me to imagine those sorts of circumstances occurring here. YMMV, as they say.

Hard to imagine?
You yourself referred to Osborn-Brooks.
Plenty of burglaries in the UK.

Plenty of outright home robberies* in some countries in Europe as well. How one can be against 'castle doctrine' in that case is beyond me.

Must be nice to be able to live in a blue sky world imagining such could not befall one self.

Burglaries rise, charges fall.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44859899

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -uk-solved

Violent crime in England up 19%. Government in denial.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46984559

* Break in, clobber the wife or husband, force wife or husband to cough up cash, valuables etc, leave both bleeding on the floor.

I meant it’s hard to imagine shooting someone for just walking into your property, and doing it within the law, here.

That sort of aggravated burglary happens, of course, but very rarely and big news when it does. And when it does, fatalities are almost unheard of.

The violent crime we have is largely inner city youth-on-youth knife crime.

And yes, it is nice to live without fear, somewhere where you can open your door to strangers when it’s dark, or knock on someone else’s door if you need to! There is a price to pay in what you would perceive as lack of freedoms, however, and so I wouldn’t try and tell you it’s better.

We clearly live in very different worlds, and I am fascinated by those differences and try to understand them. I am sorry if they offend you.

You didnt offend me and I on the other hand meant no disrespect.
Let me rephrase my previous post; In general terms, those who believe crime cant happen to them are highly optimistic - especially if they live in a city.

it must be nice to live in a place with no fear of the above mentioned criminal acts. Seems like you do. I assume a rural area ... unless you are posh and live in a gated community :D

A tranquil world with little violent crime/burglaries is envious and something to strive for. Sadly, in many countries those spots with little real fear of burglaries and violent crime are few and far between these days.

[MichaelScott]

Back to mugging, bear spray would be excellent. But, hard to conceal and you have to be upwind.

[SpyderScout]

I meant it’s hard to imagine shooting someone for just walking into your property.....

Indeed.
Not something anybody should strive for nor wish to have to do, no.
Several factors come into play; a castle doctrine for when somebody breaks into your house and tries to jump you in the middle of the night is not a bad thing. You should of course be able to defend yourself against an intruder, if you wake up and find yourself being attacked.
Does that mean, you should just blast away willy-nilly, when someone sets foot on your property - no of course not.

Tragic mistakes happen.
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/24/us/a ... udent.html

Then there is this one. A citizen was understandably angry, when he witnessed burglars ransacking the neighbors house. He called the cops, then racked his pump and actively sought out the thieves gunning them both down. A grey zone or not?
https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5278638&page=1

Pretty sure, this young single mom was happy, that she was able to defend herself.
https://youtu.be/vby4CgLOR44

[The Deacon]

I guess those areas where Castle Doctrine applies don’t keep it a secret... Is there any difference in crime rates or type in those places, do you know?

Too many variables for a "one size fits all" answer, Chris. I could tell you that Washington DC and CA, both with strict gun laws, have high crime rates, but some states with them are below the national average, and some states with few gun laws are above it. What can be said with some certainty is that making laws stricter in a given state has rarely, if ever, been shown to reduce crime there. It's also true that the two retail businesses with the lowest rate of robbery are gun shops and pawn shops (many of which deal in guns).

I meant it’s hard to imagine shooting someone for just walking into your property, and doing it within the law, here.

Hard to imagine them doing it here, either. Now, if they "just walk onto your property" with a weapon in hand, start coming toward you, and do not stop when instructed to do so, then, in a castle doctrine state, you have the right to stop the threat with lethal force without first giving ground. In a stand your ground state, you have that right anywhere. Inside your home is another matter. In a castle doctrine state, if they were not invited, you are allowed to assume they mean you harm and use lethal force.

That sort of aggravated burglary happens, of course, but very rarely and big news when it does. And when it does, fatalities are almost unheard of.

But how badly injured does one have to allow oneself to be?

The violent crime we have is largely inner city youth-on-youth knife crime.

Most of it here is gang member against rival gang member or drug deals gone bad. Cops call them "public service murders".

And yes, it is nice to live without fear, somewhere where you can open your door to strangers when it’s dark, or knock on someone else’s door if you need to! There is a price to pay in what you would perceive as lack of freedoms, however, and so I wouldn’t try and tell you it’s better.

We clearly live in very different worlds, and I am fascinated by those differences and try to understand them. I am sorry if they offend you.

Lots of places in the USA use to be like that, if it's still that way in your part of the UK, I hope it lasts.

[SpyderScout]

In a stand your ground state, you have that right anywhere.

Im reminded of that jealous idiot of an ex-boyfriend (and ex-con) who thought an Uber driver had his ex-girlfriend as a passenger. He forced the Uber off the road at night, jumped out screaming that he had a gun and promptly got popped by the uber driver who saw a glint of somehting in the enraged persons hand. He shot him 'graveyard dead,' as Sheriff Grady Judd of Polk County said. Turned out the road rager had a phone in his hand. Uber dude was aquitted.

[MichaelScott]

The legalities and requirements for using a firearm in self defense vary from state to state (which is both good and bad depending on your stance on the Second Amendment). Being a licensed concealed carry citizen here I am very familiar with my legal responsibilities. If I reasonably believe I, or an innocent person, is being threatened with imminent serious bodily harm or death, I may use my weapon to nullify that threat. But, aside from being threatened in any matter inside my home, when the threat stops my right to use deadly force also stops. For example, if I were threatened in a parking lot by a person with a knife and I drew my weapon and the perpetrator immediately fled, my legal right to shoot said perp would have immediately ended as the threat ended.

[ChrisinHove]

In a castle doctrine state, if they were not invited, you are allowed to assume they mean you harm and use lethal force.
....
But how badly injured does one have to allow oneself to be?

Does the castle doctrine apply to the dwelling-house, any building, or anywhere within the boundaries, or is that jurisdiction specific?

The assumption of intent to harm could vary in plausibility depending upon this (unless the trespasser is armed ... but I suppose how do you know they’re not?)

As for the injury thing, isn’t it simply a society decision as to what is acceptable? - accepting the occasional householder will get beaten up is no more or no less a decision than accepting the occasional unjustifiable or accidental homicide by an over zealous castle dweller. It might be a reflection of a different emphasis, however.

This thread is certainly making me think.

P.S. Yes, we have crime. Generally petty theft, but there is drug related violence, aggressive drunkenness, etc like many places, and this is the drugs-death capital of England, apparently. I get the feeling that you live in a much more pervading “sense of threat”, though.

[ChrisinHove]

I meant it’s hard to imagine shooting someone for just walking into your property.....

Indeed.
Not something anybody should strive for nor wish to have to do, no.
Several factors come into play; a castle doctrine for when somebody breaks into your house and tries to jump you in the middle of the night is not a bad thing. You should of course be able to defend yourself against an intruder, if you wake up and find yourself being attacked.
Does that mean, you should just blast away willy-nilly, when someone sets foot on your property - no of course not.

Tragic mistakes happen.
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/24/us/a ... udent.html

Then there is this one. A citizen was understandably angry, when he witnessed burglars ransacking the neighbors house. He called the cops, then racked his pump and actively sought out the thieves gunning them both down. A grey zone or not?
https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5278638&page=1

Pretty sure, this young single mom was happy, that she was able to defend herself.
https://youtu.be/vby4CgLOR44

I wouldn’t criticise the householders protecting their families, not at all.

Your Texan shotgunslinger? Probably deterred a fair number of burglaries, but that was simply a double execution.

[The Mastiff]

Your Texan shotgunslinger? Probably deterred a fair number of burglaries, but that was simply a double execution.

Not necessarily. Even if though so what? Determined criminal illegal aliens who wouldn't surrender when ordered? Kind of looks like a suicide on their part to me. I'd bet money if they were truly starving or in need of water the guy would have given it to them for asking. To be caught stealing after being illegally in the country and then refusing to stop means they asked or even demanded for their own and well deserved death. I'd guess they were going to go after the guy with the shotgun at first opportunity or were doing so. I wouldn't have done it that way to be sure but I'm extremely glad the guy isn't to be prosecuted. Perhaps others will learn to not act that way in Texas. :D

Joe

[The Mastiff]

Back to mugging, bear spray would be excellent. But, hard to conceal and you have to be upwind.

We had fire extinguisher sized projectors of that stuff. Some people it makes very, very angry but that is about it.It depends on their mental state and past experiences with it. Once used to it it's much less effective. The only way chemical weapons of that sort are always going to work will be to wait until they are breathing hard from fighting and getting it into their mouth and lungs to the point they can't get anything else. You have in fact just drowned them and could have used water as easily. :) Water clears out easier though and gives you less time to get away. At my age someone doing that to me would likely kill me so one has to be careful. Honestly though not everyone encounters such monsters but they are out there. For spraying in the eyes and hauling *** it might work for some people but only some of the time.

In some locations possession of pepper spray is like having a pistol or knucks. It's not for everybody but often is better than nothing where permissible.

Joe

[James Y]

The worst thing about pepper spray is that sometimes the firing mechanism jams. Especially if you've had it for awhile. You never know when that might happen, even if you test fire it periodically. I had that happen once when approached by a mean, aggressive mid-sized dog once while out on a walk. I pulled my pepper spray and when the dog appeared ready to attack me, I pressed the trigger twice (or tried to), but the trigger was frozen. I tried firing it three times. Luckily, its aggression was more bluster than anything, and the owner finally came around the corner and took the dog away. But I was P.O.'d that the pepper spray failed me when I needed it. Continuing on, I tried pressing the mechanism a few more times, and after a few tries, a stream finally shot out uselessly into the gutter. In practice, it always fired. If it takes six tries to get it to fire when needed, it's useless. It didn't fail because of nerves or stress. I was calm throughout the incident. The damned firing mechanism had jammed, plain and simple.

That incident made me very wary of pepper spray as an option at all. It showed me that, as a defense option, the very delivery system is prone to failure.

Jim

[The Deacon]

In a castle doctrine state, if they were not invited, you are allowed to assume they mean you harm and use lethal force.
....
But how badly injured does one have to allow oneself to be?

Does the castle doctrine apply to the dwelling-house, any building, or anywhere within the boundaries, or is that jurisdiction specific?

It always applies to your dwelling, beyond that, it's going to vary by state and possibly within a state. In South Carolina it includes any out buildings on your residence's property and your vehicle. It can also include part or all of the residence's property if that part of the property is fenced. It also applies to your place of business, if you are the owner. I should also point out that, in all cases, it applies only when force has been used to enter or is being used in an attempt to enter. I can't just shoot every door-to-door salesman that walks up and knocks and a shopkeeper can't just shoot an obnoxious customer.

The assumption of intent to harm could vary in plausibility depending upon this (unless the trespasser is armed ... but I suppose how do you know they’re not?)

True. It's easy for me since I live alone and keep my doors locked at all times so it would be safe for me to assume anyone who broke in or was attempting to break in, did not just forget their keys. If they're still facing me after being told to leave, I'm not going to ponder whether that's because they're deaf, retarded, don't understand English, or are a genuine threat, I'm going to end them.

As for the injury thing, isn’t it simply a society decision as to what is acceptable? - accepting the occasional householder will get beaten up is no more or no less a decision than accepting the occasional unjustifiable or accidental homicide by an over zealous castle dweller. It might be a reflection of a different emphasis, however.

This thread is certainly making me think.

Yes, there does seem to be a difference in our thinking as to how much (or how little) suffering we're willing to endure before taking a human life. At 73, I don't intend to let anyone as much as lay a hand on me if I can help it. If that seems harsh, so be it.

P.S. Yes, we have crime. Generally petty theft, but there is drug related violence, aggressive drunkenness, etc like many places, and this is the drugs-death capital of England, apparently. I get the feeling that you live in a much more pervading “sense of threat”, though.

In the seven years I've lived here, the worst things that have happened in my neighborhood have been some cars broken into and petty vandalism. I've avoid the first by keeping my cars it my garage, but I did have a troll statue stolen from my garden. We had one actual car theft, but the victim left it running in the driveway to warm up, so it didn't take a pro to drive off with it. Most serious crime in my county is in other parts of the county and falls into about the same categories as yours. The only "sense of threat" I've ever felt here is the fear of dog attack while walking mine. I carry a handgun for the same reason I carry a first aid kit in my car and use my seat belt, never needed any of them, and hope that's always the case.

[ChrisinHove]

Your Texan shotgunslinger? Probably deterred a fair number of burglaries, but that was simply a double execution.

Not necessarily. Even if though so what? Determined criminal illegal aliens who wouldn't surrender when ordered? Kind of looks like a suicide on their part to me. I'd bet money if they were truly starving or in need of water the guy would have given it to them for asking. To be caught stealing after being illegally in the country and then refusing to stop means they asked or even demanded for their own and well deserved death. I'd guess they were going to go after the guy with the shotgun at first opportunity or were doing so. I wouldn't have done it that way to be sure but I'm extremely glad the guy isn't to be prosecuted. Perhaps others will learn to not act that way in Texas. :D

Joe

You’re a hard man, Joe. :o

In my job as a Surveyor, for banks and buyers (not repo’s) I’ve had countless times when people have simply forgotten I have their keys and have made an appointment to come into their home. They’ve been in bed, in the shower, or have left an alarm on, making me scuttle back out with my hands over my ears. I suspect in America I would have been shot by now! I would have to employ an assistant to go in first, perhaps ..... :D

[tvenuto]

Whoops I already answered this.

[The Mastiff]

You’re a hard man, Joe

I'd say more realistic or pragmatic. I have a lifetime of dealing with murderers and other criminals. Many were simple burglars who didn't want to get caught and things got worse quickly. If you are going to confront someone who is in the middle of a crime you should be prepared for the event to go bad. I would have also counseled him to not confront but if he did I'd suggest he not let the guys get him and whatever weapon he had. In the act of a burglary the two were confronted by a concerned citizen and shot fatally when they refused to surrender. That is about the best outcome that could have happened from that messed up incident so time to let it rest.

In any event some of those areas are so remote it might take more than an hour for police response so a certain amount of self sufficiency is to be expected. Last year here in NC my son had a 4 hour wait for police response with a call about a burglar present. That sort of thing makes a person think about the future and how they should respond to things.

Joe

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Here, in your own home, probably not, on the basis of a fairly recent pensioner vs burglar (deceased) case. On the streets, if you used a knife that the law considers that you shouldn’t have been carrying, most definitely. I think many legal systems want to reduce the space for private summary executions!

You say "private summary execution", I say "doing one's bit to reduce prison overcrowding and saving the taxpayers a ton of money".

I had to google “castle doctrine”: there is nothing really comparable here. I think it’s validity must depend entirely upon where you are and the circumstances, but there are cases where it has been misused, are there not? No doubt it has saved the bacon of a few householders as well.

I’ll admit to finding it a little uncomfortable, though, not least because it’s so hard for me to imagine those sorts of circumstances occurring here. YMMV, as they say.

Just as in the UK, every homicide here gets investigated, Chris. In a castle doctrine state, If they find you invited the person into your home in order to kill them, or are gaming the system in some other way, then you'll get charged. There will also be cases where the perp's family will make them out to be a good boy despite them having a record. And yes, castle doctrine and stand your ground laws have saved the lives of more than a few law abiding citizens.

Deacon, friend, I agree 100 percent with your above posts. I am glad we have rational thinking people like you. Thank you, sincerely.

Here is also what upsets me about the above stated case: When there are situations like this and the violent criminal/thugs family make them out to be a "good boy" and then proceed to harass and intimidate or even attack the law-abiding citizen that was rightfully defending his or her life and property. That really gets under my skin because in my eyes, fair is fair. They should acknowledge that their family member did WRONG and was in the wrong and received the justice that he or she deserved for assaulting or attempting to assault another. Tell me, is my thinking correct here on this?

An example is the famous old school yard: One kid starts a fight with another kid and the kid who is protecting himself or herself punches the kid who started it, and attacked first. The rational line of thought is that everyone including the family of the kid who started the fight and threw the first punch, to attack the other, is guilty, and the one defending themself is to be respected for doing the right thing, as they did not engage the problem in the first place. But like you pointed out, not everyone thinks along those lines.

I read a horror story about a man who stopped a violent armed burglar who was attacking people at some store and he drove the attacker off and the person came back for revenge later. I don't know how realistic it was because it was in some write-in testimonial in a magazine, but, I am sure incidents like that have happened.

In my eyes the family of the original situation posted (the pensioner who defended himself) should have said "Our son did wrong. He got what he deserved."

Here is one for you all: "Proverbs 17:15: "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord." There is a good principle. The problem is when moral relativism as others have pointed out on this forum creep into society and peoples' thinking.

A self-professed student of Karl Marx once told me he believes it is okay for "certain people" who (in his eyes) are "victims of oppression" from "certain other people" have a right to "lash out" against those people who he claims oppressed them, even assaulting their person and property. I told this student that is a disgusting outlook and he is being a hypocrite: I asked him "What if those "certain people" who he was defending were to assault him and his property, would he still consider that to be "equality" and okay? He said no because he considers himself an exception because he is a "defender of the oppressed group". See how these people think? I told him my belief is that NOONE has any right to attack the person or property of another and if they do they have transgressed the law and the Constitution and all common sense, and the person who is assaulted has a legal right to protect their person and property from the thief/mugger/violent criminal , regardless of any characteristics or past histories of anyone.

[James Y]

A couple (few?) years ago, two local teens broke into a home occupied by a 48 year-old man and his 24 year-old son. IIRC, when confronted in the house, one of the teens beat and shot the man's son (who survived), and during the struggle, the man wrestled the gun away from the teen and shot one of the teens. The teen who was shot managed to stumble out to the front yard, where he died.

When the story came out on the news, the dead teen's family said how he was such a good boy (IIRC, he was around 18 or so), and shared postings on his Facebook from friends who said he was taken too soon. They also released video of him skateboarding at a skating park, as if that somehow made what happened to him even more unjust. No mention was made of the homeowner, who was forced to take a life in SD, nor of his son, who was still in the hospital. The dead Guy's mother said he was a great young man who was going places, and "just fell in with the wrong crowd."

Pretty quickly after that, the story fell out of the news. I'm not sure why, but I'm hoping it was due to outrage from viewers who were appalled at the outpouring of sympathy for the kid who broke into a home (an occupied one at that), committing a home invasion and a shooting/attempted murder. Also, the 'kid' was not some little kid; he was man-sized. And, IMO, he got exactly what he deserved.

SEF, there are ALWAYS going to be people who support their family member and friend who commits a crime(s). It doesn't matter how we think they 'should' see things or act. By human nature, a high percentage of people are biased, whether towards family members, friends, ethnic/racial groups, etc. No amount of logic or reason is going to change that. I give a TON of credit to those rare few who are willing to turn in a family member and make them take responsibility/face the consequences for committing a crime. But we must acknowledge the fact that not everyone thinks the way we do.

Jim

[SpyderScout]

A couple (few?) years ago, two local teens broke into a home occupied by a 48 year-old man and his 24 year-old son. IIRC, when confronted in the house, one of the teens beat and shot the man's son (who survived), and during the struggle, the man wrestled the gun away from the teen and shot one of the teens. The teen who was shot managed to stumble out to the front yard, where he died.

When the story came out on the news, the dead teen's family said how he was such a good boy (IIRC, he was around 18 or so), and shared postings on his Facebook from friends who said he was taken too soon. They also released video of him skateboarding at a skating park, as if that somehow made what happened to him even more unjust. No mention was made of the homeowner, who was forced to take a life in SD, nor of his son, who was still in the hospital. The dead Guy's mother said he was a great young man who was going places, and "just fell in with the wrong crowd."

Pretty quickly after that, the story fell out of the news. I'm not sure why, but I'm hoping it was due to outrage from viewers who were appalled at the outpouring of sympathy for the kid who broke into a home (an occupied one at that), committing a home invasion and a shooting/attempted murder. Also, the 'kid' was not some little kid; he was man-sized. And, IMO, he got exactly what he deserved.

SEF, there are ALWAYS going to be people who support their family member and friend who commits a crime(s). It doesn't matter how we think they 'should' see things or act. By human nature, a high percentage of people are biased, whether towards family members, friends, ethnic/racial groups, etc. No amount of logic or reason is going to change that. I give a TON of credit to those rare few who are willing to turn in a family member and make them take responsibility/face the consequences for committing a crime. But we must acknowledge the fact that not everyone thinks the way we do.

Jim

I agree with some of your points, James.
But too hard to admit that the fault lies with a family member for these people related to scumbags, as that would be to admit family failure instead of being able to blame the system, guns, other people or what ever.

A very level headed post from someone in the 'Granola State' (JOKE) :D

[ChrisinHove]

My favourite, often heard, is “He was just a loveable rogue!”. Hmmm. Only loveable tool you, Mrs, not his victims.

I would not challenge the right of the oppressed to lash out, however. You lot might still be subjects of a monarchy, otherwise!

[SpyderScout]

For no reason at all Im going to throw some tea in the harbour now!