# Home invasion in Atlanta thwarted



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

Police Release Dramatic Surveillance Video of Atlanta Home Invasion | Fox News Insider


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

This video should confirm the fallacy of gun free zones. Six bad guys, with weapons, change their plans because the resident "says" he has a gun.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

TurboHonda said:


> This video should confirm the fallacy of gun free zones. Six bad guys, with weapons, change their plans because the resident "says" he has a gun.


They could as easily have all opened fire in his direction at once, killing him.

There is ALWAYS another side to the story. In this case, I wonder how many actually had ammunition in their guns.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> They could as easily have all opened fire in his direction at once, killing him.
> 
> There is ALWAYS another side to the story. In this case, I wonder how many actually had ammunition in their guns.


If you look closely you'll see that the last two guys are not showing their weapons. One of the last two seems to be directing the others up the stairs to the left of the front door. That stairway would be a very effective killing zone if the homeowner had even a slightly opened door to hide behind while shooting the BGs as they topped the stairs.

I think that the punks saved their worthless a$$e$ by beating a hasty retreat.

GE


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

goldwing said:


> If you look closely you'll see that the last two guys are not showing their weapons. One of the last two seems to be directing the others up the stairs to the left of the front door. That stairway would be a very effective killing zone if the homeowner had even a slightly opened door to hide behind while shooting the BGs as they topped the stairs.
> 
> I think that the punks saved their worthless a$$e$ by beating a hasty retreat.
> 
> GE


I think so too, but if he didn't have a gun and just *said* he did, it could have gone BADLY in the wrong direction.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> I think so too, but if he didn't have a gun and just *said* he did, it could have gone BADLY in the wrong direction.


I suppose he could have just sat quietly until he had a bead on BG#1 and then just start piling them up as they came into view. I think he had a gun and did the right thing by not getting blood all over his wives carpet.:smt070.............................................:target:

GW


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

The home has a surveillance camera. (Not that they knew it) What's the chances that the resident had a gun? I think he had one. Apparently they thought so too. At least they weren't willing to risk their lives on it. 

Therein lies the idiocy of known gun free zones.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

goldwing said:


> I suppose he could have just sat quietly until he had a bead on BG#1 and then just start piling them up as they came into view. I think he had a gun and did the right thing by not getting blood all over his wives carpet.:smt070.............................................:target:
> 
> GW


Beside the point, and doesn't address my statement.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

TurboHonda said:


> The home has a surveillance camera. (Not that they knew it) What's the chances that the resident had a gun? I think he had one. Apparently they thought so too. At least they weren't willing to risk their lives on it.
> 
> Therein lies the idiocy of known gun free zones.


I'm pretty sure he did have one myself. My point is that even if he did, saying "I've got a gun" is a 50/50 chance of getting shot at.

And while I'm bewildered with randomness here, WTF does this have to do with "known gun-free zones"? It was NOT known gun-free - it was some dude's house...

smhawam....


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

Sail, why don't you back up to the beginning of this thread and see who tried to start another pissin' contest?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

TurboHonda said:


> Sail, why don't you back up to the beginning of this thread and see who tried to start another pissin' contest?


Been there, found this:


Me said:


> They could as easily have all opened fire in his direction at once, killing him.
> There is ALWAYS another side to the story. In this case, I wonder how many actually had ammunition in their guns.


No pissing match intended - just pointing out that saying "I have a gun" COULD have got him killed.

If you disagree, just say so and then we can all STFU. So far it has all been innuendo and snide comments.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

> SaiDesign
> They could as easily have all opened fire in his direction at once, killing him.


You absolutely right, they could have killed him. I saw 3 of 6 criminals showing up with a gun. Screaming at them while they aiming with 3 guns to the inside of the house searching for someone inside the home to shot and kill at is very stupid and dangerous. 
But you right, he could get him killed for warning them and giving his hiding placed to that >censured< away. 
I tell you I would never warn them and when 6 guys kicking the door in, regardless if they have guns or not, I shoot them without any warning right between their eyes. Believe me I am very capable to do that. I sure have the right weapons on hand and the right ammo too. They outnumber me that is enough cause for me.


> SaiDesign
> There is ALWAYS another side to the story. In this case, I wonder how many actually had ammunition in their guns


And what would that other side of the story possibly be? Kicking a door in showing a weapon that is not loaded is not even only stupid, that must be a liberal with a social worker behind him. 
Again I don't care, I would shoot them without a warning before they kill me.
They didn't look like they need a jump start cable or knocking for a donation for the voluntary fire department. They also don't look like they would hesitate to implement violence against anyone they found in that home.

Well - Sail, what would you do? Would you go there and ask them what intentions they have and how much violence they planning to apply against you. So a little pow wow in your living room with some wheat to smoke and some alcohol? You could go and ask them: Hey you do you have bullets in your gun and do you want to shoot with that gun?"
So like: "Hey you friend, lets sit down and talk a little about it." 
There is only one thing that is more stupid than a burglar breaking in my home, it is a liberal that believe they can talk someone out of being violent when they have already the gun aiming.

And yes Sail, my Nightstand Clock has definitely more value to me than that burglar. My nightstand clock is not going out and harm or kills people but it helps me get up every morning to work and pay taxes that so that burglars can stay home on disability. But burglars do harm and kill, actually they make a living out of it, now newly protected by liberals and their social workers in the US and called demonstrators. 
My opinion is, if I don't shoot them today, they may kill my neighbor tomorrow when they burglarize her house.

I can only say, that they were lucky not kicking my door in, because I'll think 3 of them would be at least now in a funeral home.

So Sail what on earth could possibly be the other side of the story?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

PT111Pro said:


> You absolutely right, they could have killed him. I saw 3 of 6 criminals showing up with a gun. Screaming at them while they aiming with 3 guns to the inside of the house searching for someone inside the home to shot and kill at is very stupid and dangerous.
> But you right, he could get him killed for warning them and giving his hiding placed to that >censured< away.
> I tell you I would never warn them and when 6 guys kicking the door in, regardless if they have guns or not, I shoot them without any warning right between their eyes. Believe me I am very capable to do that. I sure have the right weapons on hand and the right ammo too. They outnumber me that is enough cause for me.
> 
> ...


The other side is that he said "I have a gun" and got shot. It is really quite simple to understand....


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

You right Sail. That is very stupid. He should shoot without any warning.


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

My reference to gun free zones was related to the mindset of individuals that are up to no good. I know that homes are not normally designated as such, but the psychology still applies.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

TurboHonda said:


> My reference to gun free zones was related to the mindset of individuals that are up to no good. I know that homes are not normally designated as such, but the psychology still applies.


Still not "getting" it, but whatever.


----------



## Popeye77 (Dec 16, 2012)

I agree with sail my wife is very I'll and disabled. There will be no warning. There will be no chance for them to get near her period.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

I think he did right by saying he had a gun - assuming he had one in his hand and some cover when he said it. Makes the Lawyers and the LEOs happier with him if he had to shoot the bastards.

Who, BTW, seemed to be the rankest of amateurs.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hillman said:


> I think he did right by saying he had a gun - assuming he had one in his hand and some cover when he said it. Makes the Lawyers and the LEOs happier with him if he had to shoot the bastards.
> 
> Who, BTW, seemed to be the rankest of amateurs.


Regardless of what I am credited with thinking above, I think he was right, too.

The initial reply:


TurboHonda said:


> Six bad guys, with weapons, change their plans because the resident "says" he has a gun.


 seemed to imply that he only "said" he had a gun, leaving me wondering at the other outcome.

Lots of water under THAT bridge (  ) but he did right.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

PT111Pro said:


> You right Sail. That is very stupid. He should shoot without any warning.


agreed. Don't advertise it, just shoot the bastards...... oh wait, just to make sure they don't shoot me, I better tell them I'm gonna shoot them before I shoot them. Yup, that works every time.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> agreed. Don't advertise it, just shoot the bastards...... oh wait, just to make sure they don't shoot me, I better tell them I'm gonna shoot them before I shoot them. Yup, that works every time.


If he lives in a jurisdiction that - by law - has the Castle Doctrine, the break-in probably covers him. Otherwise, his ass could be in the wind.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

hillman said:


> If he lives in a jurisdiction that - by law - has the Castle Doctrine, the break-in probably covers him. Otherwise, his ass could be in the wind.


Hmmm better a ass in the wind than in the funeral home or more worse Handicapped and afterward made fun by liberal majors or politicians that love to blame victims instead. And people that live in such a jurisdiction that prohibits self defence have voted for it and deserve not better.
Opinion off.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

PT111Pro said:


> <snip>And people that live in such a jurisdiction that prohibits self defence have voted for it and deserve not better.
> Opinion off.


But, but, but... you live in a country that prohibits full-auto weapons and frowns on all sorts of gun-related stuff. So you must have voted for it, and so please stop moaning.

Sorry - your logic was flawed, so I pointed that out.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

hillman said:


> If he lives in a jurisdiction that - by law - has the Castle Doctrine, the break-in probably covers him. Otherwise, his ass could be in the wind.


SC, stand your ground, Castle Doctrine, no duty to retreat, no prosecution if you are in a place you have a right to be and are not involved in an illegal activity. No permit required if you are on your own property or your leased property and have a right to be there. We've had a few cases of home invaders shot and injured and/or killed here in the past few years. Never any prosecution. Even had a case of someone trying to break into a homeowner's vehicle in the driveway of his house, shot at the perp, wounded him and perp was arrested at local hospital when he showed up to get fixed up. No prosecution.

PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT

PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT

The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person's home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person's place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person's place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.

H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> They could as easily have all opened fire in his direction at once, killing him.
> 
> There is ALWAYS another side to the story. In this case, I wonder how many actually had ammunition in their guns.


This makes no difference (in my state). A nighttime break in means burglars, who happen to be armed, which equals felony. You are free to open fire at your whim.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> Been there, found this:
> 
> No pissing match intended - just pointing out *that saying "I have a gun" COULD have got him killed. *
> 
> If you disagree, just say so and then we can all STFU. So far it has all been innuendo and snide comments.


I have to agree with this. There is the possibility that telegraphing the fact that you have a weapon is also going to give away your location in the home. When one develops a plan of action for such a situation, they must take this scenario into consideration.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> SC, stand your ground, Castle Doctrine, no duty to retreat, no prosecution if you are in a place you have a right to be and are not involved in an illegal activity. No permit required if you are on your own property or your leased property and have a right to be there. We've had a few cases of home invaders shot and injured and/or killed here in the past few years. Never any prosecution. Even had a case of someone trying to break into a homeowner's vehicle in the driveway of his house, shot at the perp, wounded him and perp was arrested at local hospital when he showed up to get fixed up. No prosecution.


Ah, that's an arrangement that ought to induce second thought in the 'minds' of would be home invaders. Vermont does not have Castle Doctrine, but I have decided to act as if it does; partly because I don't have much time left anyway.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> I have to agree with this. There is the possibility that telegraphing the fact that you have a weapon is also going to give away your location in the home. When one develops a plan of action for such a situation, they must take this scenario into consideration.


If I were in a protected location and had a clear shot and could be reasonably sure that I would not be hit by return fire, I would yell at an intruder to drop the gun. if there was no compliance, I'm firing without further question.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> I think he did right by saying he had a gun - assuming he had one in his hand and some cover when he said it. *Makes the Lawyers and the LEOs happier with him if he had to shoot the bastards.*
> 
> Who, BTW, seemed to be the rankest of amateurs.


Not necessarily. This is going to depend upon where you live. I am going to go out on a limb and say that I don't think any state has any laws on its books that would cause charges to be brought in a home invasion like this one if the homeowner opened fire without warning. In fact I would probably wager money that there aren't any.



hillman said:


> If he lives in a jurisdiction that - by law - has the Castle Doctrine, the break-in probably covers him. Otherwise, his ass could be in the wind.


Again, I doubt this for this specific invasion. My state has no Castle Law yet I could open fire at my discretion if my home was the subject of such an attack as this one.

Remember, in virtually any place in the nation where you have the legal right to be armed (ain't that a sad statement?), once an assailant presents a weapon, you are free to fire upon him at will, assuming you can get to your firearm and put it into play. No warning, no if's, and's, or but's. Pull the gun and start pulling the trigger.


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

TurboHonda said:


> This video should confirm the fallacy of *gun free zones*. Six bad guys, with weapons, change their plans because the resident* "says"* he has a gun.


It appears the written word has failed me again, or at least wasn't clear.

When I referred to "gun free zones", I wasn't thinking of official gun free zones or offering any opinion about the residence. Unless a home has "Insured By Smith & Wesson" signs on the door, a casual observer won't know the weapons climate of the house, nor should he. Also, we don't know the relationship of the unwelcome visitors to the residents.

My quotation marks on the word "says" was simply to emphasize that saying you have a gun, which you probably do, was enough to change everyone's mood.

I watched the video a couple of times and was amused by how quickly the anticipation of easy pickings turned into the reality of possible/probable armed resistance.

I apologize for my grammatical short comings and will endeavor to do better in the future.

Oh hell. Who am I kidding? I won't do any better.

Sorry Sail.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> Not necessarily. This is going to depend upon where you live. I am going to go out on a limb and say that I don't think any state has any laws on its books that would cause charges to be brought in a home invasion like this one if the homeowner opened fire without warning. In fact I would probably wager money that there aren't any.
> 
> Again, I doubt this for this specific invasion. My state has no Castle Law yet I could open fire at my discretion if my home was the subject of such an attack as this one.
> 
> Remember, in virtually any place in the nation where you have the legal right to be armed (ain't that a sad statement?), once an assailant presents a weapon, you are free to fire upon him at will, assuming you can get to your firearm and put it into play. No warning, no if's, and's, or but's. Pull the gun and start pulling the trigger.


I am 94% sure you are right. I have read about some strange prosecutorial decisions though, by prosecutors who - apparently - thought they were making points with voters. If the case gets to trial, the jury is capable of anything.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> I am 94% sure you are right. I have read about some strange prosecutorial decisions though, by prosecutors who - apparently - thought they were making points with voters. If the case gets to trial, the jury is capable of anything.


While there is some truth to this, do keep in mind that the six invaders were armed [sic], breaking in at night (this wouldn't make any difference with these invaders), and the homeowners were in the home. I would be amazed if charges were brought at all, let alone going to trial. In this instant case, the onus is completely on the perps and the freedom to do what needs to be done unencumbered is in the lap of the owners.

I mentioned that as soon as a weapon is presented to a victim, the victim is totally within his rights to immediately open fire if possible. This would hold in any case where the victim,

held a good faith belief, based upon objective facts, that he was in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or worse.

The weapons don't have to be real, the victim just has to believe they are real. This also includes multiple attackers, physical size, and some other factors (age disparity, physical handicaps, etc.).


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

TurboHonda said:


> <snip!>
> Oh hell. Who am I kidding? I won't do any better.
> 
> Sorry Sail.


Jeez, Turbo - don't apologize, you'll ruin your street cred. 

Edit: And there's no need, anyway.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

Is that the last word?

GW


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

RK3369 said:


> If I were in a protected location and had a clear shot and could be reasonably sure that I would not be hit by return fire, I would yell at an intruder to drop the gun. if there was no compliance, I'm firing without further question.


This is certainly an option, to be sure. And there are other options as well. I would want to weigh these situations on a case by case basis. The OP's posted video would not leave much time or opportunity to shout a warning, in my opinion. The homeowner was lucky this time. There are a lot of variables which keep me from stating a specific course of action that I would take.


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

I wonder if it was a shotgun the homeowner had and rack the slide then the crooks would know he has a gun for sure. A shotgun scared everyone even those with pistols.


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

hillman said:


> If he lives in a jurisdiction that - by law - has the Castle Doctrine, the break-in probably covers him. Otherwise, his ass could be in the wind.


Ga does have Castle Doctrine. The homeowner was well within his right to stop the invasion by deadly force. We have immunity Ga in our Homes and Cars and I think place of employment when it comes to stopping a violent felony.


----------



## shootbrownelk (May 18, 2014)

shaolin said:


> I wonder if it was a shotgun the homeowner had and rack the slide then the crooks would know he has a gun for sure. A shotgun scared everyone even those with pistols.


Ahhh, the Joe Biden home defense system. Closing the action on a double barrel shotgun and perhaps a warning shot.


----------



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

shootbrownelk said:


> Ahhh, the Joe Biden home defense system. Closing the action on a double barrel shotgun and perhaps a warning shot.


warning shot aimed DOWN the stairway. (Oops)


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

shootbrownelk said:


> Ahhh, the Joe Biden home defense system. Closing the action on a double barrel shotgun and perhaps a warning shot.


Yep. This is an old wives tale right up there with, "if you shoot them and they fall outside, just drag them back inside". I would NOT want to place my life on a sound made by a firearm when being made ready. Much better to have a solid and flexible plan and stick with it. Leave the racking-the-slide-of-a-shotgun to the Hollywood set and those who believe that stuff.*

* This is by no means meant to disparage anyone on this site who may have been taught or brought up to believe this as factual information.


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

I was the victim of a home invasion 17 years ago. I had a Glock 19 and still have the same one as it was my first real handgun. Anyways the guy came in with a shotgun and racked the slide. I hid behind an easy chair ready to unload 115 Corbon JHP upon him when he broke the plain of the hallway. I thought that he may be able to return fire and kill me for sure so I retreated to a back bedroom and jumped out the window and hid in the woods till he left. It took the cops 1 1/2 hours to come to my house and they did nothing because the man's mom was influential in that small south GA city. It's no myth a shotgun scared the hell out me and I had him committed to a mental hospital for a while. People know shotguns mean business and those home invaders if they heard and saw a shotgun would do what I did and retreat. I since then always have a 870 ready to go and no I don't have count on the sound of a slide jacking to mean business but even a mute know what that sound is. The man that did this was my cousin and he was angry that a half Asian person moved in next door to him and wanted to kill me.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

shaolin said:


> The man that did this was my cousin and he was angry that a half Asian person moved in next door to him and wanted to kill me.


And I thought SC was a little strange. GA has some pretty inflexible family ties from the sound of it. Never had a cousin come after me for anything.


----------

