spin off: non-lethal options for home defense

Posted by: Mark_F

spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/12/09 01:58 PM

A spin off of another spin off (boy am I getting dizzy). Seriously, though, the original topic was Sue's "Don't take a gun to a bat fight" linked here:
http://forums.equipped.org/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=187485&page=1
This led to a spin-off by Nighthiker, "Home defense shooting aftermath" linked here:
http://forums.equipped.org/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=187891&page=1
So why the spin off you ask? Several posts mentioned tazers and other non-lethal means of home defense. Susan added this quote:
"Since 2000, more than 1,200 people have been killed with guns; 70 were children."
and that got me really thinking. If there is even a remote chance that one of those 70 kids was a family member shot by accident I believe we should consider the non-lethal methods of home defense. What are the best methods and is anyone aware of any legal ramifications in the event they are used for defense in a home invasion scenario?
Posted by: JohnN

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/12/09 02:05 PM

Sorry to quote myself, but wanted to make sure people consider "what next" when employing less-lethal options:
Originally Posted By: Johnn

While I respect everyone's right to approach their responsibility for self defense as they see fit, Just be sure you think through what happens after employing a Tazer or OC spray. A civilian Tazer gives a 30 second window, where you either need to capitalize on the situation or get away. After that you have a fully functional, probably pretty annoyed bad guy. If you haven't restrained the person, or run away, your situation likely is worse. The reason I mentioned this is I think these are really inappropriate tools for people who are not capable of outrunning their attacker (older or disabled people for example).


-john
Posted by: Dagny

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/12/09 02:19 PM

Great idea -- This is a cut-and-paste of what I just wrote in the aftermath thread:

In the early 1990s -- amidst congressional battles over the assault rifle ban and the Brady Bill -- the National Rifle Association launched a program initially geared for women called "Refuse To Be A Victim." It's less about non-lethal defense (though there is some of that) than avoiding being targeted and situational awareness.

Refuse To Be A Victim is a multi-layered approach for individuals to enhance their security in their home, car, workplace, "personal" security and technological security. I arranged for my entire office building to have two instruction sessions during the annual Crime Prevention Awareness month.

http://www.nrahq.org/RTBAV/

Refuse To Be A Victim has nothing to do with guns.
I credit two strategies I gained from attending a Refuse To Be A Victim session in 1993 with saving me from severe harm during a street attack in 1998. 1) don't scream, instead yell "Fire!" over-and-over if being attacked outside your home and; 2) if carrying a purse, do so on the fence-side or wall-side of the sidewalk. Do not let the perp get you into a car or other place where you will be hidden from public view -- if they are trying to force you, fall to the ground and fake a seizure. It's not easy to pick up someone from the ground who doesn't want to be picked up and is squirming around.

I can't recite everything here. I'll never know what else the program has saved me from since you'll likely never know that some criminal considered targeting you or your home but because of some precaution you took they moved on to another target.

There are several people on this forum, and in this thread, who would probably make excellent RTBAV instructors. The above link includes information on how to become a certified instructor.

Among the home security strategies: put on your back porch the biggest dog bowl you can find and other indications (such as a "Beware of [silhouette of German Shepherd, etc]" sign) that inside your home is some big beast who would be delighted to have an intruder constitute their next meal.

You don't actually have to have a dog for fear of dogs to work in your favor.

Landscaping, lighting are among the many home protection strategies. RTBAV would be a great annual tradition, to stay fresh on security strategies and as a reminder of what steps we've not yet taken but should.
Posted by: 7point82

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/12/09 02:30 PM

Unfortunately there just aren't many easy answers for these types of questions. The law concerning the application of force are highly variable from location to location. Some locations require your response adhere to a force continuum under all circumstances, some locations make provisions for using a level of force higher than that of your attacker under specific circumstances. Even if you respond with a level of force lower than that of your attacker you could still be in trouble in many places. A short visit with legal council in your area is the best way to sort out the legal angle.

Something else to consider; weapons that used to be referred to as "non lethal" are now referred to as "less lethal". An item that is less lethal to an adult male is going to have a much more dramatic effect on children or older adults. This means that options are going to be highly variable based upon your own living arrangements and concerns.

You're own personally level of fitness and the amount of time that you are willing and able to devote to training with any defensive tool or technique are going to have a tremendous influence on your list of options.

I sincerely hope this post doesn't sound like a dodge.
Posted by: Arney

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/12/09 04:15 PM

Originally Posted By: JohnN
Sorry to quote myself, but wanted to make sure people consider "what next" when employing non-lethal options:

I agree and John makes an important point. Before worrying about the legal aftermath of using some less-lethal (it may sound PC but it really is a more accurate description than "non-lethal") weapon, using it is not the end of the situation. A Taser only incapacitates for a set number of seconds and chemical sprays don't prevent an intruder from shooting blindly, stabbing, or grabbing someone.

I think it's out of print now, but I regularly re-read Sanford Strong's Strong on Defense to refresh my memory. I'm not someone with military, law enforcement, or extensive martial arts or street fighting experience, so I agree with his philosophy that the first, best strategy is to just get away and put distance between you and some threat as quickly as possible. When you're surprised by someone wanting to do something to you (i.e. rob, rape, torture, kidnap, etc.), you have the most control and the most ability to influence the outcome in those initial seconds, particularly if you're unarmed. (Of course, the same principal applies if you're armed, too)

So, if you're going to use a Taser or chemical spray, I think it's just as critical to think about how to either get everyone into a "safe room" or just get out of the house, perhaps using your family fire safety evacuation routes. Physically restraining or beating the crap out of the guy after spraying or tasering is another option, but I wouldn't recommend it. Just stay away.

Actually, in reality, deploying a less-lethal could be something done while trying to escape, too. The sequence doesn't have to be wait, spray, and then run. You just don't have the combination of range and immediate stopping power of a firearm to give you that luxury of waiting around. Try to bail first and if the bad guy tries to stop you, you zap or spray him to keep him occupied. Even if you have to run by the guy in your small apartment to get away. If possible, I wouldn't just hunker down in the bedroom with a less-lethal waiting for some intruder to find you in the bedroom (unless it really is a hardened "safe room") but just bail at the first chance, like out the bedroom window.

Well, everyone's situation is different so you need to think about what is best for your arrangement. For example, if it's not easy to escape from your bedroom (maybe it's too high or my physical condition doesn't allow it) and say you have a big can of bear spray, you could give the hallway a good dose of bear spray, close the bedroom door, and hope that this lingering cloud of stinging gas discourages anyone from coming that way. Hopefully that buys you time for the police to arrive. That's another potential use of a chemical spray that I have thought about.

Anyway, these are not necessarily ideas that will just magically come to mind in the heat of the moment. You should really think about them and mentally rehearse them before they're needed so that under stress, hopefully they do come to mind when needed.

And for anyone that hasn't read Strong on Defense and is wondering, Strong does realize that you can't always get away first. In which case, he tells you that you need mentally prepare yourself right now to do whatever it takes to fight and get away. Someone may choose a less-lethal option because they don't want to kill anyone, especially their own children, but Strong says that they need to face up to the reality that it may come down to you or him at some point. You could miss with your one Taser shot and he's on you, or you could hit someone with pepper spray but they're close enough to still grab onto you.

Be prepared to be shot or stabbed, and to bleed and be in pain. Be prepared to gouge out an eye or do a Mike Tyson (in trouble with the law again yesterday!) and bite off an ear. Some people react to a threat with rage and action, but many of us just shut down and that makes us a sitting duck. Which is why we need to mentally rehearse before something happens to be ready to react and act, in case we're one of the types that naturally wants to shut down in response to danger or pain.
Posted by: Tjin

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/12/09 05:33 PM

Weapons regardless of being lethal or less lethal("non-lethal" can be lethal too) should considered as a last resort.

Weapons are reactive and it requires somebody to operate it. Thus meaning you have to be at home, be awake or awoken by the intruder and know that a intruder has entered you home. Besides using a weapon second after waking is in not a safe practice either. Being still half dream and half awoke is a good way to shoot the wrong person.

Preparing for the worse and hope for the best is good, but don’t forget all the other means you have to prevent something from happening first. We cannot to measures to stop a hurricane, but we can take measures to stop intruders from coming in our house at the first place. Prevention is better than repression.

So put some proper hardware on your doors and windows and get proper glass in your windows. Alarms are nice too. They will even work when you are not home, dreaming, etc. It can also safe you from legal actions, the bloody mess at home or shooting the wrong person.

A weapon is a nice backup, but don’t use it as your primary home defense mean.
Posted by: haertig

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/12/09 06:16 PM

By all means, do your best to keep intruders out. I have good door locks (always used), motion triggered outside lights, and several big dogs who live inside. However, once an intruder manages to get inside (and there's no guarrantee that ANY precautions will 100% prevent that), I consider things at the "last resort" stage. I want strong protection at that time. Hitting the intruder, yourself, your wife, your kids and dogs with pepper spray collateral fog is not my idea of a good plan at this point. You will all be disoriented to some extent and stumbling around in the same small confined space (a room your house).

Your primary goal should of course be to keep intruders out. But once they're inside, you also need a decisive "last resort" defense. "Inside my home" = "last resort" for me.
Posted by: TeacherRO

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/12/09 06:16 PM

Layered is good: good neighborhood, lights ( timers, motion dectors)
Strong doors/ locks, dogs, Lockable INTERIOR doors, non-land line phone, BIG flash light, noise makers, non-lethal methods...
Posted by: Dagny

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/12/09 06:33 PM


For some of us, anti-gun laws make self-defense with guns all but impossible unless we're willing to break gun laws.

Some of us don't have spouses and children to worry about.

Other than a gun, what is a "decisive" defense?


Posted by: Mark_F

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/12/09 07:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Dagny

Other than a gun, what is a "decisive" defense?

Decisive meaning lethal? Or are we talking about a positive resolution to the situation that is not lethal? The former is a deviation from the thread but the topic is so thought provoking we should explore it further. Other lethal defense could include but are not limited to blunt objects (ball bat, staff, etc), edged weapons (sword, knife, axe, etc), bow and arrow (or crossbow), spear, electrocution ... the list could go on. I fear I am missing the point of your question though. The latter is nearly as complex. Nearly everyone has touched on some successful resolution options in all the threads. From locking a door to keep the intruder at bay until police arrive, to using pepper spray to incapacitate the intruder until police arrive or you can escape (didn't you suggest bear spray in the other thread?), or escaping the situation altogether. As Nighthiker commented, anything that keeps you and yours safe. Perhaps combinations of the tactics here, maybe something like using the pepper sparay to incapacitate and keeping a blunt object handy in case he blindly grabs you. Many of the larger tactically oriented flashlights have a blunt force option built in. A friend of mine who is with our local fire department uses a 5 D-cell maglite for this very reason.
Posted by: Dagny

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/12/09 09:24 PM


Decisive wasn't my term so that's why I was asking.

I have a large axe. Deployed well, it could be decisive. But I don't want to get that close.









Posted by: haertig

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/13/09 02:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Dagny
Other than a gun, what is a "decisive" defense?

"Decisive" means something that you can win with (nothing is absolutely guarranteed of course). Many times "decisive" will indeed be a firearm.

If you are at your bedroom doorway and your assailant is down the hall pointing HIS gun at you, "decisive" means you better have a gun too, and know how to use it. Pepper spray or a taser or a bright flashlight or a baseball bat is just not going to cut it under those circumstances.

In a different scenario "decisive" may mean something else. If the assailant is in your home, and you and your family are all locked away safe and secure in your panic room, then "decisive" might mean a phone that works when your power and phone lines have been cut (a cellphone perhaps). Call the police and let them deal with the assailant.

If you are blind, then "decisive" might mean a couple of well trained guard dogs.

But for my living situation and my family and my homes location, yes, "decisive" means firearm.

For you, in Washington, DC with the anti-firearm laws, you have to decide if your life is more important than obeying their gun laws. Sure you might end up in jail, but at least you're alive when that happens. Or you might go the guard dog route (I'm talking professionally trained guard dogs, not just buying a German Shepard and expecting it to be your savior).

Much better to keep the bad guys out of your house in the first place, but once they get inside, I want something that is as close to a "sure win" as I can get. "Might win if you're really lucky" is not good enough for me.
Posted by: JohnN

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/13/09 03:58 AM

Another little "running away" tidbit. Sometimes people forget that while they may be able bodied and able to run away, you lose this advantage if you have a child with you.

Just a thought.

Other random things.

The effectiveness of OC spray varies highly from person to person. Some will be incapacitated, some will not be effected.

It should be noted there are different styles of OC spray patterns -- "cone", "foam" and "stream" being most common. The "cone" is sort of the middle ground -- it is easier to hit someone with it, but on the other hand they must be closer. The "stream" allows you to reach out farther, but you must be more accurate to hit someone. The "foam" is meant to be used indoors to prevent getting into the ventilation systems and contaminating everyone in the building.

You likely will get yourself when using OC spray potentially due to wind or the person coming in contact with you.

Some manufacturers (like Fox Labs) sell inert training cans.

Having a lot of video cameras up in your neighborhood probably will act as a deterrent. It might also be one of the few ways to increase probability of criminals being caught since you can determine what cars and people were in and out of the area around the time of the crime.

-john
Posted by: JohnN

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/13/09 04:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Dagny

Other than a gun, what is a "decisive" defense?


big bear trap.

http://www.bugspray.com/professional/bear.html

:-D

-john
Posted by: Mark_F

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/13/09 04:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Dagny

For some of us, anti-gun laws make self-defense with guns all but impossible unless we're willing to break gun laws.

Some of us don't have spouses and children to worry about.

Other than a gun, what is a "decisive" defense?

After re-reading I think I get your point now (which was also the purpose of this thread). What I had hoped for was a discussion of options other than guns that would allow a decisive defense without killing the attacker/invader, avoid accidentally killing a family member (I would be very interested on statistics along this line if anyone has any - I would much rather have a family member incapacitated for 30 minutes from a blast of pepper spray as opposed to lying dead on the floor), and lessen or eliminate any legal ramifications after the fact. At least a part of my goal has been achieved I think. Everyone has made some great points so far. It is very appreciated (and yes I am taking notes).
Being non-lethal (as opposed to less lethal as the point is to avoid killing) you obviously still have an annoyed bad guy to deal with, as others have already pointed out. Thus the non-lethal option probably needs to be coupled with an "exit and escape" strategy or something similar as Arney pointed out on page 1. On the other hand, if you would keep the bad guy in your sights when using a gun wouldn't you also keep your pepper spray or whatever aimed at the bad guy as well? If you are aware of a time frame for the effectiveness and no help has arrived why not just give the attacker/invader another blast? Food for thought; let the discussion continue.

P.S. For the record I do think pepper spray or similar is the next best option for a decisive outcome. Any opinions on which is best? Will a canister from Wally World do or is there a better alternative? Also more thoughts on any legal ramifications, even those specific to your area. If I am beating the dead horse, so to speak, let me know.
Posted by: Dagny

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/13/09 05:01 PM



I think the instinct of any woman -- certainly this one -- will be to get as far away from the intruder as possible, as quickly as possible.

Were I fortunate to disable them for any period of time, no way I'd stay inside, near the perp and isolated from rescuers.

Staying near the perp would just give him the opportunity to harm me or take me hostage.






Posted by: Mark_F

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/13/09 05:18 PM

Originally Posted By: JohnN
Another little "running away" tidbit. Sometimes people forget that while they may be able bodied and able to run away, you lose this advantage if you have a child with you.

A thought just occurred to me (brain hurts, steam pouring out of ears). Assuming the child is old enough, should you have an emergency plan that includes them climbing out the window and running to the neighbors house if they hear gunshots inside the house? This is of course assuming you were unable to get to them before confronting the home invader.
Posted by: Arney

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/13/09 05:42 PM

Originally Posted By: haertig
But once they're inside, you also need a decisive "last resort" defense. "Inside my home" = "last resort" for me.

This is an idea that I have mulled over for many years. First, let me just say that I live in a pretty safe area. The worst situations I generally ever hear about in homes are burglaries (whether planned or just "crimes of opportunity"), some sort of sexual assault (the female saying that she woke up to someone fondling their toes is more common than outright rape), and maybe vandalism. Of course, not to say that we're immune to more violent crime. But I don't live somewhere with a lot of gang activity, violence, open drug dealing, and lot's of drug addicts or ex-cons. So, masked gang bangers with AK-47's storming into my house is not particularly likely. Unfortunately, for some of us, it might be, but that's not my situation.

To me "decisive" brings up images of something that is going to stop someone from doing what they're doing--right now. Short of a firearm, I would personally only put a Taser in that same category. Like any firearm, a Taser will only work if you successfully hit the target, but if you do, it seem highly successful in stopping someone instantly.

Pepper spray can certainly incapacitate someone strong or even high on drugs, but it's going to take a bit of time to stop them once they're hit. In the meantime, they can still get in a knife stab or fire a shot.

But, to continue, one huge responsibility with a firearm is making sure that you are using it in an appropriate situation. We probably have lot's of scenarios in our brains (the majority probably from TV and movies) but real world situations tend not to follow Hollywood scripts. A big advantage with less-lethal weapons is that you have a far wider latitude in using them, with less chance of permanent physical harm and legal troubles for yourself.

In my own situation with a home intruder, the young guy was mentally ill, although it wasn't obvious at the time. He did at one point pick up a kitchen knife but not in a menacing way. Was I afraid during all this? You betcha! Was I in fear for my life? Well...I have struggled with that because I don't think I could articulate such a fear. If I had shot and perhaps killed this guy, I honestly don't know if I would have avoided prison, let alone getting my pants sued off me.

At least with something like pepper spray or a Taser, you can hit the guy when you first encounter them, escape, call the cops, and then let them sort things out. If all I had was a firearm, the burden of decision-making is far higher (of course, in some jurisdictions, just being in your house could be a safe defense--legally or just practically--for you regardless of the other details). But it's a very heavy burden and very few of us have any experience or training to do that. I mean, it's easy when you first see someone and they have that gun raised or knife raised, but what if you don't see a weapon? What if the guy smiles and starts telling you some story about mistakenly being in the wrong house? The guy could have bloody murder on his mind, but at least outwardly, you can't claim that you knew that in court if you shoot him at that point.

Or another point, mostly applicable to the females. Statistically, you're far more likely to be assaulted by someone you know--a date, abusive spouse, obsessed coworker--than a total stranger busting in your door. That familiarity makes it difficult to pull the trigger with a firearm when the guy isn't imminently threatening your life. Maybe he's yelling and throwing things all over the room, but hasn't yet assulted you directly. Again, with the less lethal, you have a much wider window of opportunity to appropriately use that weapon get out of the dangerous situation than with a lethal weapon, like a gun. If you try and walk away and he grabs your wrist, do you shoot him with a gun? Now, ask the same question if you have a can of pepper spray in your hand.

Anyway, a bit rambling but my thoughts for this morning.
Posted by: Arney

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/13/09 05:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_Frantom
Assuming the child is old enough, should you have an emergency plan that includes them climbing out the window and running to the neighbors house if they hear gunshots inside the house?

If we can expect to educate our children to escape on their own when the smoke detector goes off, it's not a stretch to expand that to a home invasion.

And you don't have to wait for gunshots. Maybe set up some emergency keyword. Regardless of where they are in the house, if you say it, they immediately try to exit and run to the neighbor's house or whatever plan you already have set up.

Especially with these take-hostages-type home invasions, the last thing you want is a hostage-taker having leverage over you with one of your kids or a spouse.

Actually, as Strong points out, it's conceivable that you may be put in the position of having to choose--the bad guy has your kid but you still have the chance to escape. He orders you to come to him or else he'll hurt your child. Do you obey, in an attempt to keep the child safe, or do you flee and call police? Instinctually, you probably want to stay, which is exactly how the bad guy exerts control over you. This tactic has been used many times. Remember that incredibly rare but brutally shocking home invasion in Conneticut ? One guy can psychologically control a whole family even though he couldn't physically control everyone if they all decided to bolt or fight back at once. (As a side note: I'm not even sure the two guys who did that crime even had guns.)
Posted by: Lono

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/13/09 07:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Dagny
Other than a gun, what is a "decisive" defense?


Most often, sound and light are your friends - audible alarm and turning on the lights in the living space. An intruder with any smarts or experience will turn tail immediately at the sound of an audible alarm, the clock just started ticking on his possible escape. And light will benefit you in many ways - you can see and describe the intruder or intruders, you can more easily fight someone in the light than in the dark if it comes to that, and (I realize this is the wrong thread) you can more easily acquire the target in the event the situation escalates and you need to fire upon them. No way would I put a round out into a darkened room, flashlight or no flashlight.

An audible alarm is fairly inexpensive mitigation - a siren mounted in your attic space, wired to your electricity (and I recommend a battery backup), with a wire running to a convenient panic button or switch that takes a few seconds to operate (I don't recommend an open button to on/off activate; a key panel that requires a code to activate (Command-7) and stop the alarm is good). Then take a few minutes to chat with your nearby neighbors, and tell them you have installed an audible alarm that should be activated in the event of an emergency only, to please call 911 should they be home and hear the alarm for more than 30 seconds. Also tell them that every month or so on a saturday afternoon you may test the alarm's operation and battery backup with a short, 10 second burst. You can of course install more home alarm with tamper switches on doors and windows, but this option is inexpensive, and requires activation to work - far fewer false alarms, in my case none since I installed this 8 years ago. It took my brother and me an afternoon to install this, albeit he has work experience in the home security business and still had the equipment to pull wires etc.

Light - the light switch to the living area is right now just outside our bedroom, but I flip that switch and the living area is illuminated. I'd prefer it was inside the bedroom such that I could turn on lights without opening the door, but my son also sleeps in the bedroom next door,and I will be opening the door to establish that he is safe too. I don't know, but I imagine any responding officers would rather have a lighted space to operate in than one that is dark. A wired phone and cell phones are always in our bedroom to make the oh so important 911 call.

So it goes like this: intruder alert, hit the audible alarm, siren begins to wail. Wife dials 911 and reports the intruder, I access my Mossberg (sorry again for polluting the non-lethal thread, this is part of my response scenario, you can substitute whatever non-lethal personal protection you want). I open the door, hit the lights, make sure the immediate area is clear of threats and check on my son. then I stand still, and wait for the police, making sure to put down the Mossberg as soon as I see their lights in the front yard.

And did I mention our big dog with a loud ferocious bark? He's a coward, but you wouldn't know that by his bark.
Posted by: haertig

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/13/09 08:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Arney
In my own situation with a home intruder, the young guy was mentally ill, although it wasn't obvious at the time.

It sounds like you did not have your doors locked. That simple step would have been better than pepper spray, a taser, or a firearm.

In my case, if I found someone inside my house, that means they would have kicked down a locked door or broken through a window, and then fought off 250 lbs of dogs (I have three, two that are very very big). Those are my "less lethal" layers of defense. I highly doubt that an intruder could successfully claim "I accidently entered the wrong house unknowingly". Just by being inside my home, and intruder has already breached several layers of less lethal defense. That doesn't mean I'd start shooting at him, but I would not be trying to hold him at bay with a can of pepper spray either. He would be held at bay with something "more decisive". His next move, and the results, would be his decision.

I can imagine how people who don't lock their doors or set up layers of security could find themselves in a tight spot with an intruder though. I also see that some people may decide to set up only less lethal defenses and leave it at that. While I personally may not agree with the choice to lay down and die as a last resort, that's not my choice to make for others. I have several layers of less lethal defenses against intruders. In my case these are all passive, requiring no action from me other than setting them up initially. Once I am forced by an intruder from passive to active defense, I want all chances for winning the confrontation in MY hands, not HIS.

I feel strongly about being responsible for your own safety, but my intent is not to demean others with different opinions. I apologize in advance if that's the way my comments have come off.
Posted by: Arney

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/13/09 09:15 PM

Originally Posted By: haertig
It sounds like you did not have your doors locked. That simple step would have been better than pepper spray, a taser, or a firearm.

It's not clear where this guy came inside since everything was locked by the time the police arrived and we checked them together, but it's not like I routinely just go to bed with windows open and doors unlocked. But yes, it's logical to assume that something in my one-level house wasn't properly secured that night and by an incredible stroke of bad luck, he just happened to pick MY house that night. I have since gotten a security system that will sound an alarm if any door or window is opened.

However the same thing could've happened in the middle of the day. How often do we have a window open to get some air? Or leave a door open from the garage while we're mowing the grass? (Actually, now I routinely lock the door when I may be occupied with yard work, which still seems rather paranoid to me.) Or the door is unlocked while your child is playing the backyard or in front of the house? And do we all have bump-proof locks on all the doors? Or maybe this guy could've approached me in my garage while the garage door is up?

As I mentioned earlier, life has a inconvenient way of not playing out exactly like we imagine in our minds.
Posted by: TeacherRO

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/13/09 10:30 PM

( get the stream. It works)
Posted by: JohnN

Re: spin off: non-lethal options for home defense - 11/13/09 10:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Arney

And you don't have to wait for gunshots. Maybe set up some emergency keyword. Regardless of where they are in the house, if you say it, they immediately try to exit and run to the neighbor's house or whatever plan you already have set up.


In fact, this is probably a better approach on a number of levels, although I'd suggest it be a phrase, rather than word.

One of the good things is you can practice it.

It doesn't get activated by accident -- activated only at the direction of family members.

Also, you might want to activate it for a couple of big guys with bats or knives -- no guns.

The other good thing, esp. as they get older, you could have more than one phrase -- with different instructions/meanings.

One could simply be "hide behind the hot water heater", the other could be "run to Mr. Smith's house and tell him to call the police" for example.

Oh, and you might want one "it is safe now" (aka drill over).

-john