Racking a Shotgun as a deterrent..

[randy]

If you are comfortable working the action of a pump or semi auto in your house then by all means do that. If you believe that the sound of your chambering a round is a deterent then do that. Do what works for you, and hope you never have to find out if you are right.

That's not how I do it but that doesn't mean I'm right either.

[CSACANNONEER]

As the guy on top of me mentioned I would just shoot a warning shot. Not birdshot but a blank then after that I would load up with OO buck or something else.

I wouldn't care about some holes in my walls as opposed to losing my life.

Warning shots are for the movies. Why would you give up your position and give up one round worth of magazine space?

[Knight]

There's a lot of over-analyzing of this concept of racking a shotgun as a threat deterrent. I think the main thing you have to remember is that most of the time you hear about someone racking a shotgun as a warning, it's an LEO doing it. That's because, as Rod mentioned, they have to go through several stages before they are allowed to use lethal force. For civilians, it's different. Doesn't mean it's not effective, but it is a different situation.

Now to the main question at hand. I have little doubt that for the majority of criminals, the racking of a shotgun is enough to make them think twice, if not stop what they're doing altogether. Why? Because my old man used to do it as a Sheriff's Deputy, and he told me he did it because it worked. 1911su16b's uncle, as well, seems to have done this, and it sounds like it works for him.

I want to hear the other side, though. Does anyone here have any knowledge of an incident where someone racked a shotgun, and the intruder/attacker/whatever ignored the sound, or kept coming at them? In other words, actual evidence to the contrary? Or better yet, how about someone who has ever had a loaded shotgun pointed at them by someone who's willing to kill you?

C'mon, I know you guys are out there; so many of you seem to know all about how criminals react to shotguns being racked/pointed at them . . .

Edit: Also, consider this. The vast majority of instances where a firearm is used in self-defense, the firearm isn't even discharged. How could this be if not for the fact that criminals are hesitant to aggravate someone who is armed? Of course, this doesn't mean that all non-shooting-related defensive gun uses involve a shotgun being racked, but it does point out that intimidation is a big factor when it comes to armed self-defense.

[Wyatt]

As the guy on top of me mentioned I would just shoot a warning shot. Not birdshot but a blank then after that I would load up with OO buck or something else.

I wouldn't care about some holes in my walls as opposed to losing my life.

I was always taught to never brandish a weapon I wasn't going to use and to never use a weapon to scare or intimidate.

[Knight]

I was always taught to never brandish a weapon I wasn't going to use and to never use a weapon to scare or intimidate.

The "Draw to Shoot" mentality isn't really as applicable when it comes to home defense, at least from a legal standpoint. If you are confronted with someone who is in your house that you think shouldn't be there, you do not have the legal right to just shoot him on sight. You first have to ask him to leave. If he refuses to leave, or if he comes towards you, then you have the right to shoot him. However, you do have the right to brandish your loaded firearm on your own property, a right you don't have out in public.

Now, you can keep the weapon you have hidden from the intruder, but obviously there are problems with this, the main ones being (a) if he does decide to attack or confront you or someone else, your reaction time will be delayed, and (b) the intruder will initially perceive you as an unarmed threat. Therefore, for me at least, it makes more sense for me to confront the intruder with a weapon trained on him.

But if you just want to kill someone, by all means, surprise him with your shotgun and blow him away without warning. Do what you feel is right.

Just my .02.

[Wyatt]

Understand. What I was trying to say was that in a situation where deadly force was or might be required and it reached the point where the trigger had to be pulled I certainly wouldn't be aiming at the ceiling.


btw I have no intentions or hopes of being in any such situation.

[five.five-six]

when I was in my younger years, I was no saint. let me just say that most intruders are scarred, real scarred if you hear that rack, you are going to run lik your ars is on fire. and you will not be coming back.. thieves are cowards, they will go somewhere else.

[Knight]

Understand. What I was trying to say was that in a situation where deadly force was or might be required and it reached the point where the trigger had to be pulled I certainly wouldn't be aiming at the ceiling.


btw I have no intentions or hopes of being in any such situation.

Fair enough.

[M. Sage]

You first have to ask him to leave.

There is no such requirement.

ETA: Before I forget to, I'll clarify. If someone is in your frigging living room at 3 AM uninvited, they've already committed a felony. Someone in your front yard, yes you must ask them to leave before anything else, but when facing someone in your own home at whatever time (time actually doesn't matter - it's the fact that they've already invaded your home), you don't have to "ask them to leave." Nor do I feel you should.

[Baron]

While this is not a Shotgun Story... here is a story about an Intruder who was not scared by the sight of a firearm....

My brother runs a water damage repair service and actually got a call to come clean upa crime scene. I think it was in Richmond... Anyways, a Home owner was asleep at night when a party a couple of houses down was going on. I guess someone at the party had a bit too much to drink and decided to break into this guys house. He was able to find an opened window and crawled in. The home owner woke up to find a man in his home. He confronted the intruder and told him to leave. At the same time the homeowner had a pistol pointed at the intruder. But the guy wouldn't leave. The homowner seeing that the man was apperently drunk decided not to shoot the guy, but instead was able to push the intruder out the front door.
Thinking everything was all right the Homeowner locked up his house and went to bed.... Only to be woken up by the sound of his Window Breaking and the intruder was back inside his home... only this time the guy had a brocken bottle with him. the homeowner once again confronted the Intruder with his pistol. But this time when the Intruder decided toapproach the homeowner with the busted bottle in hand with the sharp pointy end out front... the homeowner put 2 rounds in his chest... Killing the Intruder...


So just remember... Not all home intruders are of sound mind....

[Knight]

There is no such requirement.

Actually, there is. But only in certain circumstances.

Sure, you can shoot someone without warning if they are threatening the life of you or someone else, but that's not necessarily what we're talking about. We're talking about someone who you find in your house that you think shouldn't be there. You cannot simply shoot someone just because they are on your property and you don't like it. You have to hold a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury. There's actually a lot more to it than this, but you get the idea.

But what if the threat isn't as clear? As mentioned previously in this thread, it could be a drunk neighbor who stumbled into your house, or a similar misunderstanding. In other words, what if the person you are confronting isn't engaging in any act that could be construed as life-threatening?

That's where the trespassing thing comes in. In the California Firearms Laws 2007 Booklet (distributed by our good friends at the CA DOJ), on page 28, it says this about defense of property:

The lawful occupant of real property has the right to request a trespasser to leave the premises. If the trespasser does not do so within a reasonable time, the occupant may use force to eject the trespasser.

The amount of force that may be used to eject a trespasser is limited to that which a reasonable person would believe to be necessary under the same or similar circumstances.

Beyond what the DOJ says, it just makes common sense. Attacking someone in your own home without warning is asking for trouble, especially if the intruder survives. What do you think his defense is going to be? "Your honor, I was coming home late from a party, and I accidentally went into the wrong house. Next thing I know, this guy is shooting at me!"

What you should have pointed out was the fact that I said that you have a right to shoot an intruder who refuses to leave. I was caught in the moment and exaggerating; it's trickier than that, unfortunately. You would have to prove to a jury that you were justified in using lethal force to remove a trespasser from your property.

Luckily, most of the time the said intruder is in your house for a reason. If he's trying to commit robbery or some other violent act, obviously you don't have to politely ask him to leave. Also, most of the time just pointing a gun at someone and telling them to get out is enough to resolve the situation. Or not; and that's partially why this thread exists, I suppose . . .

[M. Sage]

You quoted text about a trespass. Burglary is not trespass.

No, you shouldn't and can't really shoot on sight, but I'm not going to go handing a warning out. If I feel safe and secure, I'll "fort up" and wait for the cops. If not, I'll shoot. Simple and plain.

You would be well within your rights to face an intruder armed with a fully loaded weapon. You would be well within your rights to, instead of asking them to leave, ordering them to do just that, or ordering them to the floor (IE: Make a citizen's arrest.)

Failing that, and with the fact that CA law gives you a presumed fear in the circumstance that somebody (not a member of your household) has illegally broken into your home, I'd feel pretty confident shooting said person.

Move away, or move to the floor. Anything else is easily interpreted as an aggressive move, and will be dealt with severely.

Personally, I'd prefer to "greet" the intruder with a very bright flashlight. They'll be disoriented, and you'll likely know their intentions the moment that beam burns their retinas.

[Knight]

You quoted text about a trespass. Burglary is not trespass.

No, you shouldn't and can't really shoot on sight, but I'm not going to go handing a warning out. If I feel safe and secure, I'll "fort up" and wait for the cops. If not, I'll shoot. Simple and plain.

You would be well within your rights to face an intruder armed with a fully loaded weapon. You would be well within your rights to, instead of asking them to leave, ordering them to do just that, or ordering them to the floor (IE: Make a citizen's arrest.)

Failing that, and with the fact that CA law gives you a presumed fear in the circumstance that somebody (not a member of your household) has illegally broken into your home, I'd feel pretty confident shooting said person.

Move away, or move to the floor. Anything else is easily interpreted as an aggressive move, and will be dealt with severely.

Personally, I'd prefer to "greet" the intruder with a very bright flashlight. They'll be disoriented, and you'll likely know their intentions the moment that beam burns their retinas.

My point only concerns trespass, not burglary. Remember "defense of property" also pertains to residences, not just valuables.

I said ask, I meant order. Slip on my part.

Anyway, my point summed up is this: you legally can't, and practically shouldn't, simply shoot someone just because they're on your property. Some kind of confrontation or observation needs to happen that tells you why this person's on your property and what he's doing. On the practical side, at least, it seems like you agree with me on this.

[N6ATF]

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

My point only concerns trespass, not burglary. Remember "defense of property" also pertains to residences, not just valuables.

I said ask, I meant order. Slip on my part.

Anyway, my point summed up is this: you legally can't, and practically shouldn't, simply shoot someone just because they're on your property. Some kind of confrontation or observation needs to happen that tells you why this person's on your property and what he's doing. On the practical side, at least, it seems like you agree with me on this.

Here's a true story that took place when I was a samll child. It was summer and the weather was warm. In our bathroom there was a small window about 18"x18" high up the wall close to the ceiling. You couldn't just peer in and out, the glass was frosted. At about 2:00 am my mother awoke to use the restroom. When she opened the door she saw a man's arm inside the window and could hear his feet scuffing against the side of the house trying to climb inside. Without hesitation she grabbed a shoe and whacked his hand as hard as she could and he fell to the ground and ran off. The window was facing the backyard, so whoever it was walked up the driveway and around the back of the house.

Be aware that this was a single mother with two young children (me and my sister) living alone, no guns, no dogs, no husband or boyfriend. My guess is that whoever was climbing in knew all of this. What would have happened if my mother didn't wake up when she did? Rape, murder, or just a thief who would have left us sleeping and took a pillow case full of silverware?

We will never know what this individual had in mind but I am sure that none of it was good! If you happen to be awake and find an intruder/trespasser in your home maybe you should conduct an interview as to what their intentions are.