Guard is poor shot

[John Bennett]

Check this out. This security guard is standing in his kitchen in Mississippi. He shoots three times at the front door, but misses the burglar, in daylight.

Granted, it was a headshot, but it was only across the room. I think I would be able to shoot better than that.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pb...406230348/1002

[edited for brevity]

Homeowner thwarts break-in try with 3 shots

A man who attempted to break into a south Jackson home on Tuesday left the car he was driving running in the homeowner's driveway as he fled.

"His eyes got mighty big when he saw what was waiting on him," said homeowner Edward Blair, a security guard with Wright's Security Service, who grabbed his .38-caliber revolver and stood patiently in the kitchen near the front door after hearing a racket about 1 p.m.

The door cracked, from the impact of the kicks, and the man stuck his head through to peer at what he could loot.

Blair fired three shots at the skinny man wearing a blue shirt, but didn't wound him. Blair tried to open the door and chase the man — who bolted toward Raymond Road and left the still-running older-model blue Cadillac Deville in the carport — but the door was jammed.

"I wanted to see if I could catch him and take him down," Blair said. "But he was running for his life."

It was the fourth time in the past year gunfire has turned back home burglars in Jackson.

In October, Tommy Christian, a homeowner on Floral Drive, fatally shot Christopher Stiff, 31, while Stiff was trying to break into his home. Christian was to go before a Hinds County grand jury, but he has not heard from authorities.

In September, Sinartha Bradfield shot and killed Anthony Mayers, 31, while Mayers was trying to break into his home. A Hinds County grand jury cleared Bradfield earlier this year.

In April, two Jackson police officers fatally shot Kenyatta Bronson, 24, while Bronson was burglarizing a home on Dunbar Street. A JPD Internal Affairs investigation cleared the officers, who were allowed to return to work after policy dictated they be placed on paid leave.

[Ron Rompen]

Hard to say how well any of us would do, considering the circumstances. Adrenalin flooding the system, probably hyperventilating, etc.

But I have to question the decision (not clearly stated in the article) to shoot at all. Is it common practice in Mississippi to shoot an unidentified person?

Granted, the circumstances were a LITTLE bit dubious, but from what the article said, Blair shot without provocation or forethought.

I have always agreed with the concept of home defense, but it also has to be tempered with rational thought, reasonable escalation of force, and accountability.

Just my $0.02 (Cdn, so that's worth about $0.0148 USD)

[John Bennett]

> "Adrenalin flooding the system, probably hyperventilating, etc."

Well. Yes. I forgot about the fact that the guy was probably scared. I guess I'm a bit different. I have a mild case of attention deficit disorder. When things get scary I achieve the most beautiful moments of clarity and focus. Time slows down. I can breath better.


> "But I have to question the decision (not clearly stated in the article) to shoot at all. Is it common practice in Mississippi to shoot an unidentified person?"

I think the perpetrator was pretty well identified. He was kicking in the door.

> Blair shot without provocation or forethought.

I didn't see that. The guy was breaking into his house. That's provocation.

> reasonable escalation of force, and accountability.

Reasonable escalation?! In the southern US breaking into someone's house entitles the owner to shoot you, just as God intended. It's a fundamental tenet of our culture.

Two wonderful benefits of this paradigm are that "hot" home break-ins are usually avoided by criminals, and, criminals stupid or desperate enough to engage in such activity usually don't trouble society for very long.

[Sgathak]

Under duress, if you havent mastered the skills of combat shooting, its easy to miss... thats why kids, you should ALWAYS make sure you go out and bust some caps if you EVER plan to use that thing in self defense.

I know that if someone starts kicking my door in without first yelling "POLICE" they are gonna get a few rounds popped in their direction as well. Attempting to destroy my property, and trying to forcibly obtain access to my home is a mighty big no-no.

Colorado is a "make my day" state... if I find you on my property, and I didnt invite you, I have every legal right to drop you where you stand. Granted, I would have some tough questions to answer if I gave the meter man an acute case of lead poisoning.... but if I were to walk out into my living room and find some guy trying to take my stuff, he better have a badge, a warrent, and a few very bristly buddies because if he doesnt.... Well... I *do* practice my combat shooting.

Good for Blair, and good for the newspaper reporting on the realities of the effects armed home owners have on their safety (and I highly doubt the "Brave Sir Robber" will be back in that neighborhood anytime soon, so the neighborhood is now a little safer too)

[The Nephilim]

What gets me is that the numbnut that is doing the break in, keeps kicking the door to get it open. After 3 kicks you may as well give up. guranteed someone will be home he pokes his head through the doorway and gets shot at.

It is 1PM. Someone will hear the bangs from the door kicking and look out. But then the guy was stupid enough to do the thng in the first place is bad enough.

[Crusader Rabbit]

Granted, it was a headshot, but it was only across the room. I think I would be able to shoot better than that.

One might think so until actually confronted with the situation. In Vietnam, I heard stories of soldiers shooting at each other at full automatic within feet of each other, both missing their targets. Adrenlin is a very potent drug and can cause some really strange side-effects.

When we lived in Florida, a man came into our backyard pool/patio at around 2 a.m. and tried to enter the sliding glass door to our den. I grabbed my Walther PPK and chambered a round, something I had done thousands of times in practice. With the adrenlin pumping, though, I wasn't able to get the round properly in the chamber and the mechanism jammed.

Fortunately, the man saw the weapon in my hands and ran. The police caught up with us a few blocks down the street, me chasing the guy, desparately trying to dig the jammed round out of the chamber of the Walther PPK and screaming at the man to stop so I could shoot him.

In hindsight, it was a good thing that I couldn't get the jammed round out to fire. Florida law allows one to protect their home, but if I had shot the man while running away, I would have been guilty of illegally using deadly force. If I had shot him and injured him, he could have sued me for damages. If he died, I could have been charged with manslaughter as well.

With all that adrenlin, though, I was definitely not thinking straight or considering the potential consequences of my actions. Lucky for me, the man was so frightened by me in my underwear, coming at him with my thumb stuck in the chamber of the pistol, that he decided to flee. Of course, I guess that image alone might frighten anyone.

Automatic pistols are great for target shooting and for rapid fire, but I have a lot more respect now for the basic S&W .38 revolver. At least it won't jam.

[Musubi Dojo]

Did this guy live in a residential neighbourhood? Those bullets are gonna end up somewhere, I hope it's not in the neighbour.

[John Bennett]

> "With the adrenlin pumping, though, I wasn't able to get the round properly in the chamber and the mechanism jammed."

In my Ruger 9mm KP95 I always keep one in the chamber. It's double-action/SA, so I only need just pull the trigger on the first shot and it reloads itself. It has a cool decocker mechanism too.

I keep my AR-15 next to the bed with a full magazine, but I can't bring my self to keep one in the tube. It doesn't have all the interal safety mechanisms the Ruger does. Mentally, I just can't have one chambered in the AR.


> "In hindsight, it was a good thing that I couldn't get the jammed round out to fire."

True that. Generally speaking, you are pretty safe in front of the Grand Jury if you shoot someone in your house. Plugging the guy in the back as he runs down the street is another matter!

[John Bennett]

> "Those bullets are gonna end up somewhere"

That is a very serious consideration every gun owner must take into account.

The 5.56mm rounds I use in my AR tend to splatter and fragment into a thousand peices upon first contact with building materials. My 9mm hollow-points will drill through wallboard and lumber, but not bricks. Many people who live in apartments and dense neighborhoods prefer shotguns for this reason.

[Musubi Dojo]

So do you thing the guard should face some sort of penalty for firing out his front door?

Did he have other opitions?

I definatley believe in the right to defend yourself, but to what level? If those three rounds ended up in the paperboy would the guard be charged with murder?

Where does your right to defend yourself end and the passerby's right to not get hit by a stray begin?

Cheers
c

[The Nephilim]

So do you thing the guard should face some sort of penalty for firing out his front door?

Did he have other opitions?

I definatley believe in the right to defend yourself, but to what level? If those three rounds ended up in the paperboy would the guard be charged with murder?

Where does your right to defend yourself end and the passerby's right to not get hit by a stray begin?

Cheers
c

I guess this is where the arguement starts on other types of projectile weaponary. Mace, gas, stun guns ETC could minimise the risk of hurting others. But mace and gas goes everywhere and the stench will take you out as well. Tazers would be ideal, but in this case the head was only round the door and the body mass was hidden.

So pro and cons all round. Either gas yourself and others, or get a stunner and wait to see if they will get zapped.

[Posiview]

Reminds me of that part in Pulp Fiction where the guy runs into the room and blasts about 10 shots at Travolta and Jackson; they look down at their chests and turn around and look at the bullet-ridden wall. I believe they claim devine intervention!

Classic!

[John Bennett]

So do you thing the guard should face some sort of penalty for firing out his front door? Did he have other opitions? ...If those three rounds ended up in the paperboy would the guard be charged with murder? Where does your right to defend yourself end and the passerby's right to not get hit by a stray begin?

The guard fired inside his house, across his kitchen, as the robber was coming through the door.

Firing out one's front door is a whole other ball of wax. (see below)

The most sacred human right is the right to be secure in one's property. A person's physical body is their most valuable possession. The homeowner's right to protect his property ends when it begins to infringe on the paperboy's right to protect his property (his person).

If the homeowner's actions injured an innocent person, he would have been charged with a crime.

This is as it should be, maximum liberty and respect for human rights.

--------------------------

Re: Firing out one's front door; I don't know about Mississippi, but in Texas you can only use deadly force to prevent theft of your property at nighttime, and if you feel no reasonable likelihood of getting the property back. That's my understanding of the law, and it may be wrong.

In Houston a few years ago a man shot and killed a reposession agent who was in the process of reposessing the man's truck. He shot the agent through the cab of his tow-truck as the agent was driving away with the man's truck attached. He claimed he thought his truck was being stolen.

Bullshyte, and everyone knew it. He knew darn good and well it was a repo agent. Yet, the man was within his rights, so he was not charged with a crime.

The repo agent could have knocked on the man's door and explained the situation and taken the truck. He chose not to do so. He chose the way of convenience. Getting shot was a gamble he was willing to take. That time he lost the gamble.

This is as it should be, maximum liberty and respect for human rights.

[Musubi Dojo]

Thanks for the respones guys, for minute there I thought I'd killed the thread!

I'm torn on the issue myself. I feel a strong need to to prevent people from from blasting away whenever they feel threatened, especially in a residential neighbourhood.

On the otherhand if some SOB is kicking in my front door I'd probably shoot first and worry about the neighbours later.

I'm looking for a middle ground, and there probably isn't one.

John;

That's pretty scary about the repo guy getting shot while sitting in his tow truck.

Do you think the shooter was "within" his rights morally to kill someone over a truck? That seems barbaric to me. If the guy thought his truck was being stolen couldn't he have called the police and written down the license plate #? Letting the shooter go encourages every deadbeat to just shoot the repo guy.

Cheers
c

[John Bennett]

> I feel a strong need to to prevent people from from blasting away whenever they feel threatened, especially in a residential neighbourhood.

Two things prevent this, fear of punishment and a desire to do the right thing. If a moron lacks both of those, there's really nothing that can be done to "prevent" it other than banning guns from society. Most reasonable people understand that the huge benefit of an armed society far outweighs the small cost of the occasional accidental shooting.


> I'm looking for a middle ground, and there probably isn't one.

There is. I believe we have it here in Texas.

> Do you think the shooter was "within" his rights morally to kill someone over a truck?

Absolutely not. Morally, it was a horrible thing to do. Legally, he was well within his rights. As you know, what is moral and what is legal are often not the same.

> That seems barbaric to me. If the guy thought his truck was being stolen couldn't he have called the police and written down the license plate.

Ideally yes. And ideally the police would responded within 60 seconds and pull over the thief and return the truck to its owner. In reality, the police would have never find the guy and two days later the truck would have a new owner in Mexico.

Criminals respond rationally to increased costs of doing business. If a criminal knows the cost of stealing a car (likelihood of getting shot, likelihood of imprisonment) is very high, they will find another way to get money.

Lower the likelihood of those costs occuring, and criminality will increase.


> Letting the shooter go encourages every deadbeat to just shoot the repo guy.

Perhaps. But changing the law to prevent such relatively rare incidents would have the far more negative effect of making car theft safer and easier.

Remember, the repo agent knew the man had the legal right to shoot him. He could have knocked on the door, during the day, and told the man he was taking the truck. The repo agent chose to assume the risk of getting shot for the sake of convenience (ie. not having to argue with the man and listen to the man gripe).