"She pulled in too slow."

"He should have had a round already chambered."

"He should have held him at gunpoint and called the police."

...and so forth.

I don't necessarily disagree with those comments you see on this clip. However, he was there, he remained calm and he diffused matters- for the time being, that is.

I don't know what state this was in, but where I live, shooting this worthless bastard would have been justified when he took a step towards the homeowner. This nutcase could have been armed with a gun or a knife and attacked very quickly. We can all agree that he does not display rational behavior, and fearing for one's life or the life of loved ones is reasonable, given the circumstances. There's no guarantee that he would have complied with a command to lay on the ground and not move.

I just thought you guys might like to see this one.

https://x.com/SusieM414141/status/2035058396588908872

Glad I don't live in the city/suburbs/neighborhood, or whatever you call that environment. People in my neck of the woods don't take too kindly to unannounced visits as this.

Win for the good guys in my book. He stopped the threat with a clear conscience, didn't have to visit a loved on in hospital or funeral home, didn't have to spend a dime on an attorney, didn't have to spend a dime on therapy, didn't have to waste hours of his life with detectives, etc.

If he has a continuous improvement mindset, sure there are things he could improve upon.

Correct. No sleepless night worrying about indictments or civil suits.

IMO the home owner exhibited good judgement and it's good example how just showing you are armed can often stop the threat. Needless to say the "wanderer" used good judgement turning and walking away.

However, there is a moment there when the intruder walks towards the homeowner.

Who knows what was on the intruder's mind, but his slow, "sauntering" and shambling gait isn't what I would expect from someone who's bent on robbery or kidnapping. If he were, he should have "bum-rushed" the lady. That would have justified shooting whether or not he was armed.

I don’t think there was justification to shoot. But not by much. I think it was on the edge and if he had taken the shot I don’t think I could say it was wrong.

Dude was where he shouldn’t have been and under the "spirit" of FL law, it would have been an arguably good shoot.

Of course, cameras are not always your friend.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
However, there is a moment there when the intruder walks towards the homeowner.

Indeed there was. But just to play the devil's advocate, he did but in a slow and unthreatening way, and approaching where the closed distance could be argued to be threatening, he turned away.

I’m going to go with the “should have had a round chambered” for $1000, Alex.

Yeah, we who have been here long enough know the “Chack-chack” speech. It is actually quite beautiful.

But in reality- seconds, hell, fractions of seconds count. Chambering a round doesn’t make you tough, it’s not intimidating. Frankly, it’s fuckin stupid.

It goes without saying that he should have had a round in the chamber. No one is going to dispute that.

The only real question here is shoot / don't shoot.

Detached reflection here, but I think I would not have fired . The steps forward were arguably to follow the walk to the driveway out. The homeowner did also move to keep distance which I also would have done. Had the creep moved even one step toward my new position, I would have begun firing.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It goes without saying that he should have had a round in the chamber. No one is going to dispute that.

The only real question here is shoot / don't shoot.

I think he did good not shooting.
Maybe a little “let me see those hands”
Dude might have been carrying something in his left pocket.

Dude gets down the street, call the cops, give them a description and direction.
Less lawsuits that way.

It appears to me the intruder was high or drunk based on the casual, strolling approach.I would have introduced him to my Shockwave but would not have fired.

I didn’t see a reason to shoot, no visible weapon seen from the miscreant. This is one for the German Shepherd to handle, that would get him moving faster.

I have to ask, what kind of neighborhood & where? That type of interaction wouldn’t be likely here.

The zombie had enough grey matter to recognize the threat of the homeowner.

A calm man has already assessed the situation and will just act as the processing is already done. It's just time for the yes/no decision at that point.

The perp knows this and chose to find weaker prey. It looks like he was going to just intimidate the woman to give up the car so he could go do a smash and grab with the rest of the crew. Ain't his first rodeo.

Getting caught with the stolen car is less time than an armed robbery.

I think the homeowner handled the situation well. While we can all agree that he needed to have a round in the chamber the sound of the slide being racked is a universally known sound telling the miscreant that the homeowner meant business.

Regarding a round chambered...absent prior knowledge of a trespasser, the pistol is likely stored in a "safe" manner. Unless wife informed husband verbally of a person of interest, he might have only been responding to the horn. So, it could have been "help me with the groceries."

In this day, having more cameras and lower sight angles to allow facial recognition seem important. I would want to issue a "no trespass" order and not having the ID of the perp is a problem for that.

quote:

Originally posted by SpinZone:
I don’t think there was justification to shoot. But not by much. I think it was on the edge and if he had taken the shot I don’t think I could say it was wrong.

Dude was where he shouldn’t have been and under the "spirit" of FL law, it would have been an arguably good shoot.

Of course, cameras are not always your friend.

Did this happen in Florida?

I don't know what "forcefully, forcibly, or forcible" really mean in a legal sense, but the creep following the woman's car doesn't seem to get there. We also don't know what the woman pulled her car into, but since the creep comes out walking around from the side, it doesn't seem to be a garage. Maybe a carport?

Even though I think gun guy controlled the encounter well, I don't think his encounter met the requirements for automatic protection under Florida Statutes, so it's good he didn't shoot the creep.


Florida Statutes:
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Escaped the situation unharmed which is the ultimate goal. There’s the legal and the moral questions regarding shoot or not shooting in this particular situation. He made his choice and came out a winner. In my state he likely would have legal cover as the turning toward and coming directly at him is a sign of aggression and we no longer have an obligation to retreat. If I was in his situation I believe I know how I would have acted knowing that my priority is getting out of the situation with me and my loved ones unharmed.