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

[Claybone]

and what if it was a LEO investigating a man-with-a-gun call, and sees you with a gun. That would probably not of ended well. Why go outside when you are already safer in your home?

>>>>>> good initiative bad judgement. only likely if there is an alley to the rear of the back yard. Cops know not to snoop and poop through some ones back yard.

[BillCA]

"Backyard" is the issue with most critics here IMO. You live in CA right? Good luck with leaving your home to chase a noise and "getting all defensive".

Just trying to be prudent here.

Actually, the law permits you to arm yourself outdoors to investigate after you call the cops, if a prudent person would do the same. But given the arguments on this board, whether a prudent person would venture outdoors or not might be debatable.

[Mesa Tactical]

I understand that having a dog/dogs would certainly be a deterrent to an intruder, but I wont entertain that idea at this point: A guard dog is nice, but my very young children are far more important, and the increased liability it brings should said guard dog/s get out is more than I care to bring upon my family. If anything, I'd get a dog that would bark for alerting purposes....a nice dog.

Get a dog. The purpose of the dog is to be alert to intruders in your yard (four-legged and two-legged) and bark his head off. That is your deterrent right there. Any unauthorized person who is in your yard will hop back over the fence when the dog starts barking (unless he was sent by SPECTRE specifically to assassinate you, in which case you are better off in the house maintaining your defensive position). You don't need a dog who is trained to rip someone's throat out.

That you have very young children is another reason to get a dog. Your children will learn early to respect dogs but not be afraid of them. And the dirty dog (they are all dirty) will help your young children develop immunities to allergies and other illnesses.

This dog was defending the house from intruders at seven months:



Get a dog.

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 reminds me of Nolo Press books. For those who are not aware of them, Nolo Press publishes a wide range of legal books for ordinary folks so they can deal with legal matters without the assistance of an attorney. I have several Nolo Press books, and they are extremely informative, but mostly what I have learned from them is that I ought to hire an attorney after all.

[STAGE 2]

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.

I could say the same thing in the alternative. You stay put consistent with the odds waiting on the police and the odds dont hold that one time.

As I said above, there is no textbook. Everything is situational. A perceived tactical advantage may be a disadvantage in reality. There isn't a single one size fits all answer to this question. Staying inside can be the prudent decision. However investigating can make the difference between safety and disaster. Its all dependent on who, what and when.

[Claybone]

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.[/QUOTE]

You mentioned a big issue, but it is sad that legal liability is even a thing to consider when a person is on thier own property(back yard) at 10.45 at night when no body else should be there. That is with or with out a gun. But when it comes to court Articulation is everything.

[STAGE 2]

You mentioned a big issue, but it is sad that legal liability is even a thing to consider when a person is on thier own property(back yard) at 10.45 at night when no body else should be there. That is with or with out a gun. But when it comes to court Articulation is everything.

Thats not the type of liability I'm talking about. Instructors who teach courses structure their material as to not open themselves up to liability. So though in some situations where going outside might be beneficial, no one is going to advocate that because they might be sued for it somewhere down the line.

[Claybone]

STAGE 2 , My bad...

[calif 15-22]

A person in your backyard is trespassing at best and the act of trespassing doesn't pose a "danger to you or your family". They may be a drunk, may be a kid, who knows. The act of someone in your backyard by itself (in my opinion) does not constitute arming yourself and heading outside. Someone coming into your home is a whole different matter and even then can get grey as to the whether they are armed, you fear for you life, etc.

But if you GO outside then you are moving towards a threat and if God forbid you shoot someone (armed or not) you will most likely find yourself in a court facing charges or damages or both.

Just get some of those pesky 300watt auto sensing lights outside. Once they go on if someone was there they will probably move along.

Good luck and be safe . . .

[therealnickb]

Are you OP's gramps?

[therealnickb]

That was @ Stage2 btw.

OP has yet to answer if he has outside lights. He didn't say if he locked the garage door or who was watching it.

He also went out and knew immediately that it was windy. What no trees or bushes to see moving? (Assuming his house is pretty sound proof)

The story is "out there" and you seem to be defending what he did. Maybe I missed where you said he made a mistake?

He's either making a little drama or he screwed up and has yet to admit it.

You are dancing around an unknown technicality.

[Supertac916]

Right, and if someone were in your backyard and made a noise, they could stay out there all night waiting for you to go to bed before slaughtering you. Why? Because you never checked on that noise.

It goes both ways. I know what my limits and capabilities are, and I'm comfortable checking on noises in the backyard or other parts of the house. If you aren't, then that's fine too. If I go outside of a noise, there are many other guns inside which my wife can use if there's something I'm unable to handle.

However, I sleep much better knowing that noise was a broken branch and not someone testing a window in the kids room.

I actually have plenty of vantage points to stay in my home and look outside through my upstairs and downstairs windows. I also have motion sensor lights throughout the back and side yard. We also have an alarm system that is activated every night before we go to bed.

I'm also aware of my limits and capabilities and there's a reason why SWAT, LEO's, Fugitive Apprehension, SRT, and those guys work in teams. Home invasion robbers also work in teams of 3-5, so if that bump in the night is 3-5 guys who are armed. I really hope it doesn't surpass your limits and capabilities. For me I'd prefer they use the fatal funnel by coming through a window or doorway. I use a Bushmaster XM15 with 30 rd mags as my primary and either a Glock or Kimber depending on what I carried that day.

[STAGE 2]

Are you OP's gramps?

I'm not the OP's anything. I'm just someone who believes in murphy and thus understands that not every problem can be solved by the same solution.

[therealnickb]

I'm not the OP's anything. I'm just someone who believes in murphy and thus understands that not every problem can be solved by the same solution.

Then how did you know gramps cleared his yard many times?

[therealnickb]

Actually, the law permits you to arm yourself outdoors to investigate after you call the cops, if a prudent person would do the same. But given the arguments on this board, whether a prudent person would venture outdoors or not might be debatable.

Check. Prudent.

The law permits a lot of dumb stuff. (which I'm thankful for) But I'm not putting anyone on trial here. Never said it was illegal to take a gun outside. I said in the OP's scenario, it was a bad idea. And the more I see of his responses, it was a really bad idea. (if it actually happened at all)

I'm giving what I believe is good prudent advice. That's all.

[goodlookin1]

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:

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.

You may be right. But that doesn't mean that I am wrong. In my experience, CA has a different mentality than most the rest of the country regarding self-reliance (and MANY other areas of life as well).

As for the examples, I can pop up a set of examples where it worked out in favor of the homeowner as well. But both our sets of examples are pointless, because they are statistically insignificant. I'd personally much rather see stats for a large number of outcomes. For instance: For all break-ins that happened to armed homeowners, what % worked out in favor of the homeowner where LEO was not involved in the initial confrontation? I havent seen any data, but my hunch is that it works out plenty for the homeowner. In any case, I guarantee that at least 99% of the people involved in that sample are not professionally trained either.

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?

I didnt have any other choice. I didnt have a holster on. And an even bigger difference is the fact I was in my own private, fenced, locked backyard....not out in public.

I have one light for our backyard. It is extremely weak and basically useless, and takes time to warm up. I will be switching this out ASAP.

That was @ Stage2 btw.

OP has yet to answer if he has outside lights. He didn't say if he locked the garage door or who was watching it.

He also went out and knew immediately that it was windy. What no trees or bushes to see moving? (Assuming his house is pretty sound proof)

The story is "out there" and you seem to be defending what he did. Maybe I missed where you said he made a mistake?

He's either making a little drama or he screwed up and has yet to admit it.

You are dancing around an unknown technicality.

As stated above, I have one light and it is weak. In hindsight, I should have at least turned that on to inform any potential threat to my alarmed presence.

I did not lock the garage door behind me. I dont have a key for it as it is latched from the inside. Another easy remedy.

My house is very quiet from the inside and was actually surprised to see how windy it was when I opened the side door. The light would have done me no good at seeing the trees anyway....it's not bright enough. Plus, I have about an 8x8 foot square awning above the window that I was looking out of....I could not see past about 10-12ft high even if it was bright enough from an outside light source.

There's no drama on my end. I told the story, recounted the events: Wind blew over the playhouse. That's all there is. You seem to be locked into a zero sum idea that it could only be an embellished recounting of less dramatic events, or I am unwilling to admit I made a mistake. You are wrong on both counts. I may not have done everything in "textbook" detail, because sure...I could have done a few things better. But I still maintain that I was not wrong for what I did. Was it the smartest play? I dont know because nothing happened. I'd really only know if something happened, right? It could have played out any millions of different ways. I get that most dont think it was tactically sound to go outside. That's fine, they're entitled to their opinion. But nobody can say with any surety whatsoever that my tactics would have ended badly for me (tactically speaking), just as much as I cant say with any surety that it would have ended well for me either. I did what I did, that is all.

The only issue that I see open to a potential mistake is the legal aspect, which I said in the beginning that I didnt want to consider. Now that I have that luxury, in hindsight going outside for that reason ALONE is probably not a good idea. That we live in a state with a legal system that punishes the law abiding and rewards the perpetrators is very sad. But it is what it is. I still believe there are plenty of circumstances in which one can defend themselves in their backyard and have it considered to be a good shoot. But I also believe that it would be a difficult hurdle to overcome in court, and in this state, you dont need any extra hurdles than are already placed on the accused shooter. But I dont feel I was in that position by the time I had entered the backyard. Like I have said before, I was pretty certain something other than a perp had made the noise and I wanted to verify.