Equipped To Survive Equipped To Survive® Presents
The Survival Forum
Where do you want to go on ETS?

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#115487 - 12/11/07 05:53 PM home defense
Taurus Offline
Addict

Registered: 11/26/07
Posts: 458
Loc: Northern Canada

From Mr. Ritter himself. The use of firearms for survival or preparedness, either for food gathering or self-defense, is a perfectly acceptable topic. Bearing this in mind, I don't want to stray into what would be considered inappropriate discussion on what usually turns into heated topic.
Guns for hunting or shooting aside, I strongly believe in having a firearm for defending my family. After serving in different places around the globe with the Military, I have seen just how cruel and vicious people can actually get. I will never allow this sort of thing to happen to my family so long as I can draw breath. I do not condone violence unless there is no way around it. I have had to fire my weapon with lethal results in the line of duty and no matter how justified, I prey I will never need to do again. The raw fact of life is that it is more likely to have someone break into your home intending you harm than it is to survive a plane crash and have to live in the woods. This happens every other day in a large place. If someone broke into my home and there was any way to avoid taking life then I would, warning shot to scare them off, using non lethal force first etc. As always, the situation will dictate the action you take. Was the person armed or unarmed?? Was it a kid or a 300 pound brute monster intent on assaulting your wife?? Where I live, this sort of situation is worth preparing for as much as any other. I feel that if anyone disagrees then they simply need to NOT break in to my home and threaten my family.

Are there people on this forum familiar with Canadian law?? (police officers etc) If you follow the rules regarding escalation of force what exactly will the legal repercussions be for defending your family with lethal force? I already know what I will do if I find myself faced by this situation. As long as the people I care about are safe I will deal with everything else later, But it does raise a few valid points.

Top
#115492 - 12/11/07 06:52 PM Re: home defense [Re: Taurus]
wildman800 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/09/06
Posts: 2851
Loc: La-USA
I thank God that I live in the US. I too am prepared to use deadly force to defend my family. I am not prepared to go through the various steps of escalation, though.

Louisiana Law states that I have the right to shoot an intruder, in my home, PERIOD.

To the best of my knowledge, Texas State Law is more liberal about defending one's home and property, after darkness has fallen, than Louisiana State Law.

Hey Texans, would y'all care to comment on your state laws, My understanding of Texas State Law may well be in error!!!
_________________________
QMC, USCG (Ret)
The best luck is what you make yourself!

Top
#115494 - 12/11/07 07:12 PM Re: home defense [Re: wildman800]
Blast Offline
INTERCEPTOR
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/15/02
Posts: 3760
Loc: TX
The Castle Doctrine says three things:
1. Presumption of intent to do great bodily harm when someone breaks into your home, occupied vehicle or workplace, or any other place you have a right to be.
2. It removes the duty to retreat.
3. Civil immunity from survivors of the aggressor. Family cannot benefit from crime.

During hours of darkness a Texan can shoot a tresspasser on their land, no questions asked.


Quote:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.



SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.



SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.



SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.



SECTION 5.

(a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.


-Blast
_________________________
Foraging Texas
Medicine Man Plant Co.
DrMerriwether on YouTube
Radio Call Sign: KI5BOG
*As an Amazon Influencer, I may earn a sales commission on Amazon links in my posts.

Top
#115501 - 12/11/07 08:15 PM Re: home defense [Re: Taurus]
LED Offline
Veteran

Registered: 09/01/05
Posts: 1474
While I agree that everyone should be prepared to defend their home in whichever way they choose, a weapon should be only one part of a multi-layered defense and shouldn't be overly relied upon. Things like proper lighting, kick-proof doors, and effective alarm systems can be of equal importance. The point is to do everything possilbe to avoid a home invasion from happening in the first place.

Top
#115502 - 12/11/07 08:21 PM Re: home defense [Re: Taurus]
Tjin Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 04/08/02
Posts: 1821
Originally Posted By: Taurus

If someone broke into my home and there was any way to avoid taking life then I would, warning shot to scare them off, using non lethal force first etc. As always, the situation will dictate the action you take. Was the person armed or unarmed?? Was it a kid or a 300 pound brute monster intent on assaulting your wife?? Where I live, this sort of situation is worth preparing for as much as any other. I feel that if anyone disagrees then they simply need to NOT break in to my home and threaten my family.


Well what usually strikes me, with these guns topics is the fact that people don't see other effective measures being out there. Preventive action is way better than repressive action. Shooting a intruder is effective to defend your self, but not having intruders in your house is a lot better. Shooting also is a repressive action, which requires someone to be there. So shooting should be the last thing ditch measure. (some may agree or disagree about this measure, but that's stuff for heated debates)

So mine first question is very simple, have you though of the preventive measure (target hardening) first? Prevention is usually more effective and is generally considered a better place to start.
_________________________


Top
#115503 - 12/11/07 08:22 PM Re: home defense [Re: Blast]
DesertFox Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/04/07
Posts: 339
Loc: New York, NY
I now live in New York City. We are allowed to use harsh language as long as it is not of a racially or religiously offensive nature. Of course, that's tongue in cheek. You can get a carry permit here. It's just a little more difficult than getting licensed to operate a nuclear power reactor.


Top
#115505 - 12/11/07 08:42 PM Re: home defense [Re: LED]
AROTC Offline
Addict

Registered: 05/06/04
Posts: 604
Loc: Manhattan
That's a really good point. What are the best ways to improve security in your home? Or even more of a challenge, how do you improve security in an apartment where you can't make any major changes to the basic infrastructure? We don't walk down the street oblivious to our surroundings flashing cash and jewelry expecting to shoot anyone who attacks us. Security first, guns as a final response.
_________________________
A gentleman should always be able to break his fast in the manner of a gentleman where so ever he may find himself.--Good Omens

Top
#115508 - 12/11/07 09:03 PM Re: home defense [Re: AROTC]
Microage97 Offline
Pack Rat
Member

Registered: 04/21/07
Posts: 138
Loc: St. Paul MN
Hello All,

I would say that you should have some good locks on your doors to help keep people out and beyond that, a 12ga will take care of most everyone out there and will remove limbs when used in a less than lethal method. I use a 2X4 to bar my back door it is pretty effective at keeping people out IMHO.

Stealing my car is one thing, kicking door the door to my house is another.

My 2 cents.
Dave
_________________________
Even paranoids have enemies.

Top
#115511 - 12/11/07 09:34 PM Re: home defense [Re: Taurus]
MarshAviator Offline
Marsh Aviator
Journeyman

Registered: 11/18/05
Posts: 70
Loc: Baton Rouge, LA, USA
I often watch a TV commercial from a well known alarm monitoring company in which the alarm goes off after an intruder breaks the door down.
It always makes me chuckle as the operator says "I am sending help right now", which would you rather have ;
1) help being sent now (arrival indeterminate maybe 5 min)
2) Loaded shotgun in hand now ?
Also note the intruder always leaves after the alarm goes off, what about the 5% of the time when he doesn't ?
Having worked in my youth as a locksmiths apprentice, I can tell you any kind of lock or even barricade is just a deterrent.
If someone really wants in, they will get in.
It is prudent to make a premise as secure as possible, and to have an alarm with monitoring, but when all else fails, the means to defend oneself and loved ones is essential!
Most of the US except the Northeast ( New York for example only permits cops and criminals to own guns) allow lethal force when an intruder enters;the south and west (except for Peoples republic of Kalifornia) do all cases.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will uphold the 2nd A for all of the U.S.

Canada seems to be coming to it's senses at least with respect to registration, this should be a lesson for the U.S. as well, if it didn't work in Canada it certainly will not here.

In the mean time, a defense in depth consisting of as many layers as possible is best, alarms,lights (motion sensor type), good locks,kick-plates,latch plate reinforcements,pepper spray and last but not least a firearm.

Top
#115512 - 12/11/07 09:42 PM Re: home defense [Re: Tjin]
Taurus Offline
Addict

Registered: 11/26/07
Posts: 458
Loc: Northern Canada
Before anyone gets their panties all in a bunch, I want to make it clear once again that I do not intended to get in heated debate, not politics, nor inappropriate discussion which will offend anyone, But rather a friendly discussion on protecting ones family by means of a firearm or other means. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to survive in the woods. As for this topic, there may be more than one way to protect ones family. I agree that shooting someone should be a absolute last resort. Should someone be in my garage steeling my lawnmower then I will secure my family and call the police to let them do their job, as I really don't need to shoot and possibly put a neighbour at risk unnecessarily for the sake of something I can easily replace. Someone on the inside of my house uninvited is a totally different matter. To answer your question, yes I have considered other means to prevent people from getting in such as window bars, alarm systems and the like. I also know that should someone want in bad enough then they will find a way. A firearm in the hands of a properly trained person can be the last resort between the police arriving too late to a crime scene and me protecting the ones I love. As for fortifying the old homestead to lessen the possibility of intrusion, I would really love to hear some ideas from the forum. I do not wish for the thread to go somewhere unintended, I simply realize that survival is survival, and in being equip to survive the preparations often start with the defending of your own home.

FYI To Answer a question on a previous post. It is perfectly legal for Canadians to own pistols, I have several. It is not legal under any circumstance that I am aware of to carry them on my person. I can only transport them to and from the range under lock and key, and only with express authorization to do so from the RCMP. As well a valid possession and acquisition licence is required. I am answering it here because I did not want to rudely hi-jack MicroAge 97's BOB post. I figured it best to simply start a new thread.


Edited by Taurus (12/11/07 09:46 PM)

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >



Moderator:  Alan_Romania, Blast, chaosmagnet, cliff 
October
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
Who's Online
1 registered (chaosmagnet), 577 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
israfaceVity, Explorer9, GallenR, Jeebo, NicholasMarshall
5369 Registered Users
Newest Posts
Use of mirror, helicopter pilot notices
by Phaedrus
10/03/24 05:15 AM
What did you do today to prepare?
by Jeanette_Isabelle
10/01/24 12:34 AM
The price of gold
by brandtb
09/27/24 07:40 PM
Hurricane/Tropical Depression Francine Cometh
by wildman800
09/11/24 05:58 PM
Newest Images
Tiny knife / wrench
Handmade knives
2"x2" Glass Signal Mirror, Retroreflective Mesh
Trade School Tool Kit
My Pocket Kit
Glossary
Test

WARNING & DISCLAIMER: SELECT AND USE OUTDOORS AND SURVIVAL EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND TECHNIQUES AT YOUR OWN RISK. Information posted on this forum is not reviewed for accuracy and may not be reliable, use at your own risk. Please review the full WARNING & DISCLAIMER about information on this site.