What should you do if there is an intruder in your home?

[DMNTD:Me]

screw intimidation..he's threatening your family

Totally agree man...batter up I say. Done it before and wouldn't hessitate again.

lock and load before confronting .. yell FREEZE!!! FREEZE!!! FREEZE!!! and light him up without waiting for a response

Just don't forget...shoot one in the roof too

[Swoop]

is this a sick joke?????????????

It is a very relevant post on the state of New Zealand and the political correctness overtaking the country.

[cowpoos]

So different to back in Zim... Just kill them... no problems. But in NZ the crims have more rights than the victim.

fuck yes they do....I was mugged but two guys a while ago and defended my self well....with a "its them or me" mentality....I was charged and convicted of assault...causing injury or some shit...and was punished with comunity service...my lawyer just said...its just the way things are!

which is fuckin bullshit...its just not good enough!

[Bend-it]

You sure it wasn't YOU who was trying to mug the 2 guys?

[SARGE]

You sure it wasn't YOU who was trying to mug the 2 guys?

the funny thing about it was when the cops got there .. they were both wearing sheepskins and their assholes hurt

[cowpoos]

You sure it wasn't YOU who was trying to mug the 2 guys?

the funny thing about it was when the cops got there .. they were both wearing sheepskins and their assholes hurt

well acctually no....I didn't and still don't find the whole thing very amusing

[Hoon]

A few good answers and a few stupid ones too.

It really depends on what the intruders are after. If its property then they can have it - thats what I pay insurance for. Its not worth risking myself or family for something that can be easily replaced.

However if they are there to cause me or my family harm then its a different story. In such a situation you have to make sure you act within the law otherwise you could end up being locked away or at best face a lengthy and expensive legal battle. There are ways to acheive the desired effect without stepping over the line.

OK I would pick up my rifle which I just so happened to be cleaning at the time when I heard a disturbance and did not want to leave unattended.
Upon confronting the intruder I would warn them to leave or I will call the police.
If they desist, I would warn them again bringing the rifle into the shoulder (assuming they are armed).
If they still desist, I would fire a warning shot and warn them again.
If they still desist, I would retreat until my back was against the wall and then let them have it.
Once they go down I would restrain them (if nesc), apply immediate medical aid and dial 111.

You can't shoot them in the back or while running away, you'll get locked up for that. Also you can chase them off your property but you can't go running down the street after them with an axe - you'll get locked away for that too.

[SARGE]

well acctually no....I didn't and still don't find the whole thing very amusing

hell Poos.. im actually quite shocked they let you off so light ..

you violated the poor dear's civil rights, you were culturally insensitive and you interfered with their ability to earn a living..


good boy..

[SwanTiger]

Firstly I'd offer them a cup of coffee and a biscut.

I'd piss in the coffee and not tell them until after they'd had a few sips, then I would mention it as they are eating a piece of the biscut. At which time they will begin to choke on the biscut and try to spit the coffee out of their mouth.

While they are choking I would call an ambulance and say "I have a friend over, we were having tea and biscuts and he choked on a biscut, help". The ambulance would come and find the burglar passed out and pronouce him dead.

Then the Police come and its hunky dory.

[Macktheknife]

First let me say I have been burgled 4 times, 2 times I was nowhere near when it happened
I had the experience a few years ago of coming home to find a couple of drugged out losers in my place, one was very fast in leaving, the other was almost quick enough. Gotcha.
I called the cops and advised them 1 in custody, while talking he broke free and I had to drop the phone to get him again, police arrived in 4 mins. He was in poor shape when they arrived, having fallen over during the struggle several times. They were very understanding, and spoke righteously with the individual, while assisting him into the wallway and down some stairs to the vehicle.
They apparently got his friend later on as well.
I heard nothing more about the condition of the individual on arrest.
On a second occasion I was too late to catch the buggers, but I did hit one of them in the back with a convenient rock from the garden. He would have felt that one for a few days.
If they came into my house while I am home now, then I would do everything in my ability to ensure I removed the threat they pose to me and my family, then give whatever is left to the police. Read the law on self defence people, know your rights and live up to them.

[ManDownUnder]

Totally agree man...batter up I say. Done it before and wouldn't hessitate again.

Yup - I'm there too.

My first requirement if my family to be safe. end of story - no questions entertained. If I can do that by non confrtontational means I see that as the way to go, but if they're in my face I'll esclate it as much as I'm capable of.

And yes - I am reasonably good shot.

Just don't forget...shoot one in the roof too

Bugger that. I'm happy to have no pretences about what I did. Just because the law does the wrong thing doesn't mean I have to. Possibly a little too idealistic but hey... who am I kidding?

[SARGE]

very interesting article....

DEFENSE, SELF-DEFENSE - A defense to certain criminal charges involving force (e.g. murder).

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

The Right To Protect One's Person And Property From Injury.

It will be proper to consider: 1. The extent of the right of self-defence. 2. By whom it may be exercised. 3. Against whom. 4. For what causes.

As to the extent of the right: First, when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack; for example, if by closing a door which was usually left open, one could prevent an attack, it would be prudent, and perhaps the law might require, that it should be closed in order to preserve the peace, and the aggressor might in such case be held to bail for his good behaviour. Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger; such as if a person unarmed enters a house to commit a larceny, while there he does not threaten any one, nor does any act which manifests an intention to hurt any one, and there are a number of persons present who may easily secure him, no one will be justifiable to do him any injury, much less to kill him; he ought to be secured and delivered to the public authorities. But when an attack is made by a thief under such circumstances, and it is impossible to ascertain to what extent he may push it, the law does not requite the party assailed to weigh with great nicety the probable extent of the attack, and he may use the most violent means against his assailant, even to the taking of his life. For homicide may be excused where a man has no other probable means of preserving his life from one who attacks him while in the commission of a felony, or even on a sudden quarrel he beats him, so that he is reduced to this inevitable necessity. And the reason is that when so reduced, he cannot call to his aid the power of society or of the commonwealth, and being unprotected by law, he reassumes his natural rights which the law sanctions, of killing his adversary to protect himself.

The party attacked may undoubtedly defend himself, and the law further sanctions the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the near relations of hushand and wife, patent and child, and master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in their person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force, for the law in these cases respects the passions of the human mind, and makes it lawful in him, when external violence is offered to himself, or to those to whom he bears so near a connexion, to do that immediate justice to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain.

The party making the attack may be resisted, and if several persons join in such attack they may all be resisted, and one may be killed although he may not himself have given the immediate cause for such killing, if by his presence and his acts he has aided the assailant.

The cases for which a man may defend himself are of two kinds; first, when a felony is attempted, and secondly, when no felony is attempted or apprehended.

1st. A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.

2d. A man may defend himself when no felony has been threatened or attempted: 1. When the assailant attempts to beat another and there is no mutual combat, such as where one meets another and attempts to commit or does commit an assault and battery on him, the person attacked may defend himself, and; 2. An attempt to strike another, when sufficiently near so that that there is danger, the person assailed may strike first, and is not required to wait until he has been struck.

When there is a mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel both parties are the aggressors, and if in the fight one is killed it will be manslaughter at least, unless the survivor can prove two things: 1st. That before the mortal stroke was given be had refused any further combat, and had retreated as far as he could with safety; and 2d. That he killed his adversary from necessity, to avoid his own destruction.

A man may defend himself against animals, and he may during the attack kill them, but not afterwards.

As a general rule no man is allowed to defend himself with force if he can apply to the law for redress, and the law gives him a complete remedy.
--b--

[Drunken Monkey]

My understanding is warning shots should be avoided where possible. For example, the Police shooting guidelines (UK) states:

Officers should not fire warning shots except in "most serious and exceptional" circumstances

I don't know what the psycology is behind it though, typically people perceive it as a demonstration of power before hostilities increase. I would guess warning shots are not recommended on the basis of "don't threaten to shoot unless you fully intend to go ahead and do so" - theoretically pointing a firearm at someone and exclaiming that you will shoot should be enough.

Anyone know more on the subject?

[Bend-it]

Well, for a weapon that needs to be cocked after firing, that time in between the warning shot and being ready for the actual shot could prove critical.

Also, rifle bullets easily penetrate walls, and could hit anyone behind it. An unfortunately placed warning shot could result in more problems, especially in a residential area or apartments!

[SARGE]

there seems to be alot of discussion about actually putting bullets in a human being ..

now i am not saying that it is necessarily a bad thing, dependant on the circumstances of course... BUT ..

how many of you have actually done it?.. i mean up close and personal..

fact is that 99% of people who point a gun in your direction will not have the fortitude to actually pull the trigger.. and 99% of the ones that DO pull the trigger will completely miss due to combat stress.. and 99% of those who miss will have the weapon taken away and used against them. Combat shooting is alot different than plinking cans off the back fence

i HAVE fired a weapon at a human being .. i did not miss.. BUT i was highly trained and conditioned to do just that ..


its not something you will ever forget having to do..unless you are prepared for the aftermath its just bravado