NBC’s 3 Steps for Home Invasion Defense: Use Wasp Spray Illegally, Treat Invader ‘Like Royalty'

This was not an attempt to actually help anyone. It was an attempt to make people "feel better". Follow these directions and even though they will do little or nothing to make you safer, perhaps they will make you "feel" safer. After all, you really don't want to do anything to harm violent Obama supporters now do you?a reply to: Metallicus

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Good point, but most criminals likely have assets in some form or another, ones that can be liquidated/sold to pay for any legal fee's you might incur, and or compensate for any damages to property of you or prior victims.

For the record, I'm neither against home defense, or private firearm ownership in general. I think the assault weapons ban is barking up the wrong tree, and that while rifles and crap might frighten some, handguns should be a bigger concern.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
Good point, but most criminals likely have assets in some form or another, ones that can be liquidated/sold to pay for any legal fee's you might incur, and or compensate for any damages to property of you or prior victims.

I completely disagree. If home invaders had liquid assets why would they be robbing other people's property?

I'll give them 3 options 45, 9 or 12 gauge.

in most states you get in more trouble firing warning shots tan if you killed the perp always aim for the heada reply to: SLAYER69

a reply to: Metallicus

Nothing less valuable than Red Neck domestic advise. Especially from those who talk a very big game. I'd be willing to bet that if the SHTF, 99% of you very big talkers would be doing so from under your beds, hiding. Simply owning a gun doesn't mean anything. Knowing how to use it is the key. Most of you very big talkers are the type who start screaming and yelling before a fight, to try and scare off the aggressor. When your show doesn't work, you fold. The only place you try-hards will ever pull out your weapons is on internet forums, like this. So rave on digital Rambos, rave on....

a reply to: Metallicus
Shoot the invader with a gun. I like having a gun, I like knowing how to use and shoot one. I abhor the idea of having my gun ,which I own responsibly, taken away by decree because lib-tards thinks all crime will end if nobody has guns.

Lots of pro-gun shooting of testosterone on this thread with little critical thinking, and it's motivated by hatred and fear, which is more often not a good thing. What I find amazing about some of the posts above is the degree some people are confounding protecting oneself with protecting one's possessions.

All these scenarios are being considered one in the same:

1. Person breaks into the home to steal something without the intention of physically harming the owner.

2. Person breaks into the home to steal something with the intention of harming the owner if discovered.

3. Person breaks into the home for the purpose of harming or killing the owner or family inside.

4. Person breaks into the home to steal something but upon discovery would run away.

Guess which ones above have the only real legal basis for murdering the person who breaks into your home?

I'm not saying the owner would never get away with murdering the intruder, particularly because the intruder can't legally defend himself saying he never intended to harm anyone if he's dead. I'm also not suggesting the absurd: to ask the intruder which one of the above is the intention. I'm talking about the concept of justice represented by the attitude I see posted about THE WILL to kill someone based on the person entering your home to steal from you. Understandably, this attitude labels the intruder as "the enemy," but it's not in all civilian circumstances that you can legally get away with this. Combat is a different story, and if you carry the combat mentality into the civilian circumstance you might have a better chance of killing the enemy, but you don't always get justice. This might sound like BS to someone with combat experience, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but you don't have a better handle on justice because of your experience in the military. You may have better skills to kill someone, but that says nothing about who deserves to die.

I am not trying to instruct someone what to do if encountering an intruder, nor am I revealing what I would do, and I pray none of us ever have to decide either.

a reply to: Petros312

In all of your scenarios, the person breaking into your home can be shot dead legally in the state in which I reside... Pennsylvania.
It is not murder. Your argument is not valid.

In your theft scenarios my valuables are in my bedroom and there is only one door. In my state, New Jersey, I do not have to retreat and I can shoot the invader.

a reply to: butcherguy
Did they now. Well what a lucky bunch of guys if they went on such sprees without somehow slipping and falling on a bullet, even if by accident. And here I thought in those smaller towns everybody and there grandma was packing heat. Sad stories non the less.

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: Metallicus

Nothing less valuable than Red Neck domestic advise. Especially from those who talk a very big game. I'd be willing to bet that if the SHTF, 99% of you very big talkers would be doing so from under your beds, hiding. Simply owning a gun doesn't mean anything. Knowing how to use it is the key. Most of you very big talkers are the type who start screaming and yelling before a fight, to try and scare off the aggressor. When your show doesn't work, you fold. The only place you try-hards will ever pull out your weapons is on internet forums, like this. So rave on digital Rambos, rave on....

Nope, not at all. I've faced a crackhead with a chain saw coming at me in my own front yard. I didn't yell and scream. I retreated into my home and fetched my shotgun. Seeing me racking a shell into the chamber was all that was required for the nutter to run away in his truck very fast. I promise you that if he had continued to advance on me and my husband I would have tried my very best to take his life. I did call the sheriff's office and they did show up but in the 20 minutes it took them to arrive we would have both been victims had I not brought forth something more deadly than his weapon.
A female friend who lives just down the road was faced with a home invasion when she didn't answer the door because she was alone and didn't know the male knocking on her door. When he began shaking the door and trying to get in, she got her gun. When he broke the window and reached in to open it she yelled, "You'd better get the hell out of here or I'm going to shoot your ass." and racked a shell into the chamber. He retreated quickly and moved on down the road a mile or so and proceeded to break into a house with an alarm system (and signs in the yard proclaiming that there was an alarm) and was apprehended there because they were just down the road taking my friend's report.
It is not us armed homeowners who are the cowards---it's the criminals.
I'm not going to stop and ask what intentions a criminal has when he/she enters my house unlawfully. The statutes in our Commonwealth are clear---I have the right and obligation to protect my home.

I believe this is a public service video brought to you by those who think self-defense is silly.

a reply to: beezzer
I have to get a holy hand grenade.
One, two... five!

a reply to: Metallicus

This is just a guess, but remember back when the Ferguson situation hit the fan and 'Asymetric Solutions' was called in and everything appeared to simmer down there? Well, it was suggested that they are essentially mercenaries that operate "surgically" and have possibly been deployed throughout America alongside networks of other groups. Home invasions, mysterious deaths and disappearances are popping up in news stories all across North America, in fact, and perhaps around the world. Countless murder shows and movies such as No Good Deeds, How to Get Away with Murder, Stalker and A Walk Among the Tombstones are also being released concomitant to this phenomenon. The NBC story about home invasions hasn't made mention of any disappearances that I know of. For example, is Sandra Bollock missing? Or anybody else famous... like Alex Jones?

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName
Lol, good luck getting my guns out of the locked safe, that is bolted to the concrete and several wall studs. Try harder friend. Most gun owners don't just leave their guns unsecured, at least the ones I know. Maybe the criminals and drug users do though.

a reply to: butcherguy

You confidently say, "In all of your scenarios,the person breaking into your home can be shot dead legally in the state in which I reside... Pennsylvania. It is not murder."

That's fine, but to make this statement, logically, you must know the state law. So then you should have no trouble posting the statute and the subsection numbers for reference. I'm sure others would like to read about this law that excuses someone from murder simply because an intruder entered the house. We can wait.

But I'm reminding you that what is "legal" is not my whole argument. There are plenty of things that are legal but still unethical.

originally posted by: Petros312
a reply to: butcherguy

You confidently say, "In all of your scenarios,the person breaking into your home can be shot dead legally in the state in which I reside... Pennsylvania. It is not murder."

That's fine, but to make this statement, logically, you must know the state law. So then you should have no trouble posting the statute and the subsection numbers for reference. I'm sure others would like to read about this law that excuses someone from murder simply because an intruder entered the house. We can wait.

But I'm reminding you that what is "legal" is not my whole argument. There are plenty of things that are legal but still unethical.

Remind me... Fine. But you used the word MURDER, that is a legal definition... and right now, you are asking me to cite the law... which I will do. So if you are not going to go by legal definitions, don't ask me to cite law... or just put your 'escape clause' away. Or at least quit saying things like this, if the law isn't going to be included in your argument:

Guess which ones above have the only real legal basis for murdering the person who breaks into your home?

First, I will give you a blurb from Wikipedia about Pennsylvania's Castle Doctrine legislation:

The most recent version of Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine legislation was signed into law in June 2011. The law extends the right to self-defense up to and including deadly force in a victim’s dwelling (now including any attached porch, deck or patio), occupied vehicle, or any other dwelling or vehicle that the victim legally occupies. A place of work is included in the "castle" provision under certain circumstances. Use of deadly force is justifiable if the "castle" area in the event that an assailant is "unlawfully and forcefully entering" or has entered the "castle" area.

Link
Note that the law even covers attached porches, decks and patios. Also note that a place of work is covered under certain circumstances..... and vehicles.

Here is a link to 18 PA CS Chapter 5, the law that you want to go read.

Before you discuss the law's limitations, be sure to read Section 2.5, Thank you.

Unless one of the exceptions under paragraph (2.2) applies, a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter an actor's dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle or removes or attempts to remove another against that other's will from the actor's dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit: (i) an act resulting in death or serious bodily injury; or (ii) kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat.

We can wait.

Did that take too long?

a reply to: butcherguy
I think that Pennsylvania has a good Castle Doctrine Law.
If someone breaks into your home, you don't have to quiz them on what their intentions are before you meet them with deadly force.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
eh; by assets I mean like a car... how many burglars take the bus?
a reply to: Lawndartchief
eh; my point was more or less;to from the perspective of a criminal. I think it's quite wise to keep guns in a safe, but it seems that such a thing is discouraged by some for "not having it at a moment's notice".