Had to "Clear" my Backyard Last Night....now a Question

[therealnickb]

I'm not sure. If you're saying what the OP did was blatantly stupid then, no. If you're saying that everything is situational aside from the blatantly stupid then yes.

I'm not sure where this mindset of "you have to let the professionals handle it" or " you cant possibly know what your doing unless you've taken this course where we were doing mag changes with our pinky toes while doing barrel rolls in the dirt". The right kind of training undoubtedly helps (however not all training is the right kind) but the idea that everyone is useless and incapable of defending themselves competently without it is ridiculous.

Tactical training for regular joes(and even law enforcement) is a relatively new concept in the grand scheme of things. Likely for most of us, grandad never watched a magpul dvd, had no idea what a tactical reload was, but was terribly proficient with his firearm and wasn't one to be effed with in that area.

Get a good gun, use it, exercise a modicum of common sense, and ignore what the rest of the internet experts have to say. It worked for granddad and hasn't let me down yet.

How often did gramps "clear" his back yard?

OP needs to install some outdoor lights so he can see what's out there before he goes running out with a gun in his hand.

Running outside with a gun in your hand is blatantly stupid unless you know why you are doing so and know you will need the gun.

[goodlookin1]

Wow, just checked back in this thread. Wow.

First off, the reason for my first post was not to get accolades in how I handled the situation. Never looking for pats on the back, no "right on!"'s, or even "Cool story bro". If you recall, I mentioned:

All legal questions aside regarding confronting a potential trespasser in your fenced off backyard at 10:45 at night, I am so surprised at how bright 260 lumens is

I wasnt looking to talk about the story, only about tac lights and the best amount of lumens for such a situation. I gave the story only for informational purposes as to how I arrived at the conclusion that there might be a level of brightness that actually can hinder the one that is supposed to be benefiting from it. I was looking for suggestions on optimal lumen brightness.

In my title, I should not have mentioned "clear".....I put that word in quotes partially in jest, hence the quotes....guess that point wasnt clearly made on my part. In any case, I didnt truly clear anything: That would entail me looking and checking every nook and cranny, hiding spot, trees, bushes, etc. I didnt do that. Sure, I checked it out briefly, but at the point I had entered the backyard, I already had a high assurance the noise was something other than a perp and proceeded. And yes, I thank God my intuition was right. Had I had even medium or high suspicion that someone was truly back there, I would have gone back into the garage and locked the side door, called the cops and prepared for a potential break-in. But what am I supposed to do....stay up for a few hours (while i'm sick, mind you, and getting up at 4:45AM), and "wait and see" if someone breaks in? No, I'm gonna turn off the lights, slowly peek through the windows and check. If no one's there, I'm gonna go look and find the source of the noise just to make sure, because I dont like leaving things open-ended.....apparently, there aren't many people that feel the same way as I do. Oh well.

Honestly, I dont know whether to find it comical or sad that nearly everyone here feels the need to rely so heavily on Uncle Sam to keep them safe. It's definitely the smart thing to do if you have confirmed someone is breaking in or is attempting to, but honestly....for every suspicious noise? Be a little more self-reliant for God's sake! Once you've checked and verified via looking through the windows (like I did), chances are it's not going to be an intruder....and if it IS an intruder, chances are they are not skilled ninja operators with many a tactics class under their belt. I really think the majority opinion here is swayed too heavily by California Mentality. People from other states are probably laughing at some of the absurdity going on in this thread. I find it hypocritical that in one thread, people say they avoid LEO like the plague because "they're out to get me" and demand their constitutional rights (privacy, etc), then in the next thread convey they're entitled to LEO safe-keeping and would call LEO if a mouse farted in the middle of the night. I may not have it all right, but at least I'm being consistent regarding my desire to limit LEO encounters...

Again though, I want to make clear: I am not above reproach. I have listened to the critical advise and am considering it. Though it's not what this thread was intended to be about, I am open to suggestion for improving my actions/tactics. I still largely disagree with much of the "hunker down and hide" / "let the LEO sort it out" type of mentality for every bump in the night, but I do agree that in verified serious situations this might be the best method of proceeding, in conjunction with preparing for a break in.

No hard feelings for anyone who disagrees.

[goodlookin1]

OP needs to install some outdoor lights so he can see what's out there before he goes running out with a gun in his hand.

Running outside with a gun in your hand is blatantly stupid unless you know why you are doing so and know you will need the gun.

Please re-read my post before making naive responses. There was no "running outside with a gun" whatsoever. But I agree: That would have been stupid.

[therealnickb]

I

So I rush to get basic clothes on and quickly grab my surefire tac light and my loaded Kimber.

So I quickly move back to the garage and out the side door to the side yard.

I pulled the basics from your post. Sorry if I misunderstood, but at least we agree on a key point.

Now. Don't mean to beat up on you but you dramatized a nothing that could/should have been handled differently. (Or with all the words you typed did you forget to add the part where you holstered your Kimber?)

Have you NO outside lights at your house?

Could you have seen the playhouse by looking out your daughters window?

Did you lock the garage door when you went out? Who's watching that while you clear the yard?

I can't answer the critical how bright is too bright so I left it.

My main point is pretty simple.

A gun in your hand means you believe you'll need it.

If you believe you are about to go outside and shoot someone, you are doing it wrong! Especially in CA.

[goodlookin1]

I pulled the basics from your post. Sorry if I misunderstood, but at least we agree on a key point.

Now. Don't mean to beat up on you but you dramatized a nothing that could/should have been handled differently. (Or with all the words you typed did you forget to add the part where you holstered your Kimber?)

Have you NO outside lights at your house?

Could you have seen the playhouse by looking out your daughters window?

Did you lock the garage door when you went out? Who's watching that while you clear the yard?

I can't answer the critical how bright is too bright so I left it.

My main point is pretty simple.

A gun in your hand means you believe you'll need it.

If you believe you are about to go outside and shoot someone, you are doing it wrong! Especially in CA.

I can see how that is misunderstood....my fault. I certainly didnt dilly-dally my way to the garage, but at least a good 5 minutes had passed from the point of looking through the windows into the backyard to heading towards the garage.....I didnt type that in my first post (guess that's pretty important information). I already had my pistol at that point and just kept holding onto it. I didnt have my holster on me because my sweat pants had no belt. I wasnt pointing it all around when I was searching the backyard....but I holding it at my side, pointing it down to the ground.

More to your point though: I carry a CCW every day....having a gun on you doesnt mean you think you'll be needing it, it means you're prepared to use it SHOULD you need it. Big difference.

Luck favors the prepared.

[paul0660]

a good 5 minutes

I carry a CCW every day

Realllllly.

Doesn't pass my smell test, but I was not there. Anyway, lights are cheap. Get some.

[goodlookin1]

Realllllly.

Doesn't pass my smell test, but I was not there. Anyway, lights are cheap. Get some.

What doesn't smell right? The fact that 5 minutes passed or that I have an LTC? Both?

- Confused and curious.

[calif 15-22]

I would not have gone outside. It would be better to keep the tactical advantage inside than to step outside into the trap of an assailant.

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Once you head outside you loose the advantage of cover and suprise especially with that BIG OLE headlight telling the bad guy just where you are.

1. Hear noise . . listen for more noise.
2. Hear more noise call police.
3. Get Kimber (leave light off) and get family behind closed doors and all together.
4. Let police clear backyard. They love that stuff anyway. Gives them a chance to get those Glocks out of the holsters.
5. Once the police knock on your door, clear your Kimber, put it away and answer the door.
6. Say "Thank You" and "Sorry for the false alarm but with a wife and small kids you can never be to careful"
7. Watch the 11:00 news and go to bed.

Think of it like this. If there really was a bad guy or two or more, maybe they made "the noise" to get you come outside. That way they'd have the upper hand as you are alone, its dark and they lay in wait.

Just my opinion of course, lights on the house not on the gun.

[therealnickb]

I can see how that is misunderstood....my fault. I certainly didnt dilly-dally my way to the garage, but at least a good 5 minutes had passed from the point of looking through the windows into the backyard to heading towards the garage.....I didnt type that in my first post (guess that's pretty important information). I already had my pistol at that point and just kept holding onto it. I didnt have my holster on me because my sweat pants had no belt. I wasnt pointing it all around when I was searching the backyard....but I holding it at my side, pointing it down to the ground.

More to your point though: I carry a CCW every day....having a gun on you doesnt mean you think you'll be needing it, it means you're prepared to use it SHOULD you need it. Big difference.

Luck favors the prepared.

A loaded pistol in your hand or "on you" in a holster is the "big difference" you are missing.

And again, no outside lights at your house?

[fiddletown]

...I really think the majority opinion here is swayed too heavily by California Mentality. People from other states are probably laughing at some of the absurdity going on in this thread. ...

There's nothing "California" about it. The bulk of my training has been in Arizona, with instructors from various places around the country. The "stay put" recommendation is also in the NRA Personal Protection Inside the Home course.

I've noticed that the split, rather than being by State, seems more divided along the lines of training and experience. Folks with more training and more experience seem far less inclined to be overconfident and far less inclined to want to go for a look, unless absolutely necessary, than those with less training or experience. That was addressed in this post on another (national) forum:

...each year there are lots of ordinary citizens around the USA and literally dozens each year around metro Detroit who do survive these house clearing scenarios....

Really? I'm aware that ordinary citizens have managed to successfully handle intruders. However, I have not seen any reports of ordinary folks successfully undertaking a true, solo house clearing, i. e., a situation in which the householder suspects that there is an intruder in the house, the householder goes looking for the intruder, and there is in fact an intruder in the house willing to engage the householder. And I challenge you to provide reliable, published report of such actually having taken place.

This post describes a time in which it didn't work out too well for the householder.

...I think those who do this successfully know that they have an advantage in their particular case. Otherwise, I doubt that they would take unnecessary risks. I wouldn't do it unless I knew that I had an advantage and I won't always have it but sometimes I will.

Actually, those that do this sort of thing do it only because the situation requires them to. The person who goes looking will never have the advantage. For example, see --

• This post:

  ...I am technically one of the trained professionals that would deal with a bump in the night or a silent alarm. I have done force on force training where a BG is in a warehouse and you are tasked with investigating it. It was a 50/50 split on the number of times I had a chalk cartridge make contact with my body. I was told that I was better than most at doing it...

  
  
• This post:

  To those advocating clearing your house on your own, I strongly suggest getting some FOF experience at a reputable training center. Nothing drives home the point of how dangerous it is better than getting repeatedly shot with Simunitions for 8 hours.
  
  I have also been trained in building clearing, and I absolutely will not do it unless I have no other choice. "No other choice" in this context is defined as either my wife or child is on the opposite end of the house from me with a BG between us.

  
  
• This post:

  Okay, off the top. I have been trained to clear houses. Will I do it without at least three buddies who are good at it? Oh heck no. Will I do it solo if I can get away with not doing it? Absolutely not.
  
  When you go room-room in a clearing exercise you are entering into an aggressor/defender situation. Sure its your home, but when you are going room to room you are the one who is aggressing. You are moving and making noise all the while the person you are trying to clear out will most likely stay static and listen and watch. When he sees you in the poor light, he will be better able to engage you before you will see and engage him. Ask any LEO how they feel about house clearing....

  
  
• This post:

  I've been through house clearing training (Tactical Defense Institute) and night-time use of flashlight. Two points.
  
  First, I would not attempt clearing my own house, let alone one I was visiting, unless there were visitors at risk (normally only my wife and I are present). Going through a live-fire house shooting at bad-guy targets is one thing. Going through my own house risking getting shot by a bad guy is something else entirely. Assuming it's a night-time invasion, I'd stay in the bedroom, call 911, and shoot anyone who tries to get in. If it's during the day, I have guns located around the house. I'd get one, call 911, then let the bad guy come to me....

  
  
• This post:

  I took a class that taught room, hallway, and stairway clearing in low light conditions. I am NOT a professional, but here's what I took from the experience:
  
  * The homeowner is at a disadvantage the moment he begins clearing.
  
  * Get off a staircase, or die. You break too many planes at once and it really requires a partner to do properly.
  
  * The intruder generally knows you're there when you begin to clear.
  
  ...
  
  Despite having instruction, I would NEVER voluntarially clear my house....

  
  
• This post:

  ...Despite being well trained in building clearing in a prior career/life, it's high on my list of things not to do unless absolutely necessary, and the only reason I would consider it necessary is if I have to do it to get to my daughter. Clearing a building by yourself is a great way to get yourself killed,...

And here's a link to a thread in that forum in which the subject was discussed extensively. And again the opinions tend to split along training and experience lines rather than geographical lines.

And here's a link to a news story on the homeowner who lost an arm confronting a burglar.

[STAGE 2]

Of course not. But then again, one can't say with 100% certainty that he's "a high school drop out who's looking for some drug money" or that "confronting a perp will scare them off. If not, odds are confronting them with a weapon will do the same" or that he won't be savvy enough and desperate enough to successfully ambush you.

But you illustrate my point. You advocate one course of action based on the odds and condemn another for the same reason. That doesn't work.

[STAGE 2]

How often did gramps "clear" his back yard?

Often enough.

[johnny1290]

Just for the record, I'm from Texas and seen tons of incidents like this. Woman hears a noise and shoots a peeping tom to death in the yard, guy kills a kid smashing a pumpkin, guy shoots a kid stealing his car stereo.

they all beat the rap but lost everything fighting or in the civil case.

I'll bet none of them went outside intending to shoot someone for a trivial thing, it 'just happened'.

just fwiw

[fiddletown]

But you illustrate my point. You advocate one course of action based on the odds and condemn another for the same reason. That doesn't work.

It does when one considers the consequences. Say you go out looking anticipating that, consistent with the odds, if anyone's there he's incompetent. But if the odds don't hold that one time, the potential consequences for you and your family are catastrophic, because you have given him a significant tactical advantage.

The whole idea behind the "stay put" advice is to help you preserve your own advantages and not give an advantage up to the other guy. If you find yourself in a fair fight, you messed up.

[STAGE 2]

I've noticed that the split, rather than being by State, seems more divided along the lines of training and experience. Folks with more training and more experience seem far less inclined to be overconfident and far less inclined to want to go for a look, unless absolutely necessary, than those with less training or experience.

Experience is relative. Most with "experience" actually don't have any. Training is not experience. Training is training. Experience is experience and there's no amount of practice that substitutes for the game. Furthermore, extrapolating results from simulations designed to fail aren't illustrative either.

Most importantly, you are ignoring one huge elephant in the room of which you should be intimately familiar, namely legal liability. Instructors aren't going to advocate going out to investigate, even if its prudent, because of the potential for liability. So we aren't playing with an even deck here.