“A man shot dead during a home invasion was set to testify against someone who broke into the same house,” cfnews13.comreports. “The victims were the targets of another armed home invasion at the same home on May 9. Two gunman entered, tied them up victims, held them at gunpoint and police say inquired about drugs before taking off with electronics . . . Nolan Bernard and Bessman Okafor were arrested for the May home invasion. Okafor was out of jail and his trial was scheduled to start soon . . .

Police said the victims shot were going to testify against Okafor. Detectives are trying to determine if the two home invasions are related. ‘At this time, we don’t know but it’s a definite place to start.’

Yes, well, it’s a bit late for the dead guy. But not for you. Lesson learned: make sure you have more than one gun. Which could well be easier said than done.

If you’re involved in a defensive gun use (DGU) the cops will confiscate the firearm you used to save your life and/or the life of your loved ones. Which is somewhat understandable; your gun is evidence in a crime. But it does leave you without your gun.

Which is not a good thing—given that you just used it against/on someone who posed an imminent, credible threat to life and/or limb. You know: someone extremely dangerous. Someone who will probably not stay in jail for very long, if at all, before their trial date. If, indeed, they’re caught and the prosecutor has enough evidence and the bad guy has a record.

So you’ve won the battle. You’ve survived a lethal threat. But as far as the bad guy—and his friends-–are concerned, the war is just beginning. Whether the bad guy goes down or not, but especially if he knows he’s gonna, you are private enemy number one. Well, you and your children. How great is that?

Oh did I mention that you may have injured the perp in the course of defending yourself or your loved ones? That will piss him (or them) off and/or his peer and relatives. None of which are bound to be the kind of citizens overly concerned with the rule of law.

I also forgot to mention the fact that the cops may want ALL your guns. Every damn one of them. You being a danger to the community and all. In fact, they may well prohibit you from buying or even being near a gun; preventing a family members from sharing their weapon should the need arise.

It’s entirely possible that you and your family may be ballistically defenseless after a DGU. Hell, you may not even be there to protect your family, if the D.A. decides it’s a good idea for the “killer citizen” to cool his heels in jail for a while.

Granted, that is the worst case scenario, more common in anti-gun blue states than reality-recognizing red. Some gunnies recommend keeping an extremely well hidden gun for just such a circumstance (and the odd chance of government confiscation), but I couldn’t possibly comment.

I will say this: buy two identical versions of your favorite gun. Because that’s the one you’re good with. And it’s really important to be good with your gun when it’s really important to be good with your gun.

Of course, it’s a good idea to have two iterations of your number one gatt anyway, in case you need to send the first one away for an upgrade or repair. And you’re more likely to get a deal from your local gun store if you buy two of the same gun than one.

In any case, remember that it ain’t over until the fat lady goes to jail, and maybe not even then. And let’s update that old adage. Beware of the man with two identical guns. He may not be as gunless as you think.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

120 COMMENTS

  2. “If you’re involved in a defensive gun use (DGU) the cops will confiscate the firearm you used to save your life and/or the life of your loved ones. Which is somewhat understandable; your gun is evidence in a crime.”

    It is not a crime to defend your life from a home invasion. You are not a criminal until proven so in a court of law. This is a poor statement. Please amend text.

    • Dude. The “crime” is the people breaking in. In a “DGU”, you use said firearm to STOP said “crime”. Hence, it is evidence involved in a “crime”. Nobody said the shooter was the criminal in this case.

      • Dude. Yes, but the Home invasion and the DGU are separate issues. One is a crime one is not. The text is vague.

        • You seem to have a rather unfortunately idealistic viewpoint on how the law works. Yes, technically and ideally you are innocent until proven guilty and defending yourself is not a crime. This is how people believe the law _should_ work.

          But that is not how it really works. In reality, you will be treated as if you are a criminal. You will likely be arrested and charged with a crime. They will take your guns away from you and in many states it will be illegal and you really will be a criminal if you try to obtain another firearm before you are cleared in court.

          IF it is very obvious it’s purely defensive shooting then more then likely you will not have to learn what it is like to be on the wrong side of the law. The likelihood of this happening is going to be surprisingly small, unfortunately. Once a policemen decides that they do not like you or that you are a criminal then can and will find something to arrest you with. It is very easy to end up on the wrong side of the law in this manner.

          In our modern world you need to know how to defend yourself against the law almost as much as you need to know how to defend yourself from criminals.

        • There’s no “may” (or “might”) about it. They *will* take the firearm used.

          And this *does* make people like Mike very happy.

        • Actually in a recent DGU by a 92 year old man against burglars coming up his basement stairs, he killed one and the others got away. The police took his .22 rifle; and he specifically complaintied that he now had no way to defend himself if they came back. Not onlyt was this the third break-in at his house, there is always reson to fear that the dead man’s friends will return to seek revenge. And in my opinion, his defensive rifle was NOT evidence of a crime and there was no probable cause to seize it. But what do I know–I’m sure the cops will disagree, since it seems to be a procedure to disarm the victims.

      • We always prepare for “might happen” . Robert is no more alarmist that someone buying car insurance because they “might ” be involved in an accident. or someone who gets a physical because there “might ” be something wrong with them even though hey feel ok.
        death and taxes are the only things that are’nt “might”.

        • @Mark N – This proves that the police don’t give a rat’s ass about the well being of citizens. They are perfectly fine with, and fully aware that their disarming of this man may lead to his death.

    • Legally, it is correct. If the DGU was unjustified [i.e., the D was not really] then the shooter committed a crime. If it was justified, then the recipient of the lead present was committing a crime.

        • Guywithagun, I don’t understand your point. If there’s no crime until after a jury says there’s a crime, does that mean that the police cannot arrest anyone or take any evidence? Or are you pointing out the difference between a “crime” and a “possible crime?”

        • And courts of law usually like to have evidence. Which is why they confiscate your gun as part of the investigation and possible subsequent trial.

        • The latter, Ralph. Like the difference between “criminal” and “suspect”.

          Let’s say I robbed a bank and the police arrest me. I am not a criminal. I am a suspect. I am “accused” of committing a crime until proven guilty. Makes all the difference in the world. I know it’s semantics but rights are rights. Let’s support them all and not some.

          If my point has fallen on deaf ears, forget it. I share my opinions here even if they’re not popular.

        • Thats why after all those incidents where the bad guys had more rights, sued their intended victim, DA presses charges because they can, etc, etc, etc, it is actually better to kill the intruder, leaving only one side of the story to tell.

          No jury trial, no court of law, just a review by the DA. Hence the intruder is guilty, otherwise, their intended victim would be in jail for murdering someone who did nothing wrong.

          Such are the unintended consequences of the progressives prior actions.

    • A point of clarification on that: the gun has been involved in a homicide, and an investigation must either prove or disprove if the homicide was justified. The gun itself may have been lawfully used, but it is an element of the investigation in that was a tool which was used ro stop a burglary / robbery / assault, etc. I agree that the guns should be returned much faster, but government doesn’t often operate with convenient speed or efficiency.

      The two – gun tip is very solid advice.

      • Proof of whether the homicide was justified or not has nothing to do with the firearm. And many states now have a presumption that a dgu in your home is lawful; so unless the homeowner is being arrested and accused of a crime, there is no reason at all to seize the gun. Especially where, as in many cases, the homeowner freely admits that he shot the SOB who broke down his door. At that point, there is no reason at all to introduce the gun into evidence at any point in a criminal prosecution for an unlawful shooting.

        • Tell that to the police detective. Better yet, let your lawyer do the talking and STFU.

          Bottom line: don’t expect to keep your gun or get it back any time soon after a DGU. You might be able to keep your gun or have it returned pronto but I wouldn’t plan on it. The cost of being wrong could be phenomenal.

      • Mark, you may or may not be aware of this, but even law enforcement officers who are involved in an on duty shooting have their weapon taken as evidence. Evidence. A homicide has taken place. The weapon is evidence in a homicide investigation. The homicide may eventually be ruled justified, or it may not. If for some reason it is not, and is instead ruled a murder, negligent homicide, etc., then you have no chain of custody of the weapon involved and it has little evidentiary value.
        In my state (Alabama) this is the normal procedure for an officer involved shooting:
        1) The Alabama Bureau of Investigation is notified, and responds to the scene. The entirety of the investigation is turned over to them. Any weapons discharged during the incident and seized as evidence. Other related evidence is collected from the scene.
        2) A statement is obtained from the involved shooter, because unlike non-LEO’s we are required by policy to provide a statement and do not have the option of invoking our constitutional right against self-incrimination. Failure to provide a statement would be interpreted (in my department) as Failure to Comply with an Official Investigation, and would result in termination, and possibly being charged with the criminal offense of Obstructing a Governmental Operation. Not cooperating/talking is not a realistic option.
        3) A drug screen/Urinalysis is obtained from the Officer(s)
        4) The Officer is required to undergo a psychological evaluation. (Which is the most asinine process I have ever been involved in?)
        5) The Officer(s) involved are placed on administrative leave, pending the results of a preliminary investigation. If a preliminary investigation determines that all departmental policies have been followed, the Officer(s) will be issued a replacement weapon and returned to duty, however this varies by department. Some do not allow a return to full duty status until the completion of the entire investigatory process.
        4) The weapon(s) involved are sent to the ABI laboratory to be ballistically matched to the projectiles recovered at the scene.
        5) After obtaining statements of the Officer(s) involved, witnesses, examining evidence obtained at the scene (e.g.: ballistic trajectory that may corroborate of refute the officers and witnesses statements, toxicology reports of both the involved Officers and the suspects (who technically is the “Victim”, as ridiculous as that may seem) all material is presented to a Grand Jury who based upon a hearing of the facts determines whether or not the homicide is justifiable or if criminal charges will be pursued against the involved Officer(s).
        That’s right, the department, state, whoever… has no say in whether an Officer is charged criminally for using his weapon in the course of duty. It’s up to 12 randomly selected citizens. Who may or may not understand anything about the appropriate use of force, may hate guns, may hate the police, may be from the same housing project as the guy you shot, or may be sensible, hardworking, honest people who hate criminals. If you think being involved in a shooting is stressful, imagine having to wait months to find out whether or not you will be charged with murder for shooting an armed robbery suspect. Keep in mind that as a sworn Law Enforcement Officer you are (at least in my state) REQUIRED to act to ensure the public safety and can be held civilly and criminally liable for failure to do so. You don’t have the option of retreating or observing & reporting, nor should you as your responsibility is the protection of life even at the expense of your own.

        I’ve participated in this wonderful process a couple times over the past 15 years, so the above is my personal experience and may or may not reflect the experience others have had. Just my observations based on both existing policy and personal recollection.

        Things are even more interesting if you are shot or otherwise injured during all this. Workers comp will pay for 70% of your salary while you are in the hospital, so you had better have plenty of sick time saved up or not have many bills that need paying. Oh, and prior to workers comp paying ANYTHING, you have to use 72 hours of your own time. Don’t have any time, or are on probation and prohibited by city policy from accruing sick or vacation time? You just got three days off without pay for getting shot.
        While lying in the ER awaiting emergency surgery, I had not only my duty weapon, but my uniform, badge, duty gear, wallet, cell phone, house keys, etc. all collected as evidence and the PITA involved in recovering all those items is why I carry only a duplicate debit card it my uniform shirt pocket instead of my wallet nowadays, and a leave my personal keys and phone in my duty bag in the car.
        So yeah, is having a firearm seized that was used in the commission of a homicide and held as evidence pending the determination of the homicide being justified or not some crazy gun grabber scheme to screw the innocent? Not so much. And just for the record, before the cop bashing begins, I’m one of the most 2nd Amendment supportive people out there as well as a former FFL holder. Sorry, no evil conspiracy against the gun toting public there either. Sorry for the long post, but it’s a complicated subject worthy of a detailed explanation.

        • Thanks for the explanation of how the process works. It was a worthwhile read. But are you really complaining that the police are being judged by the same people (i.e. a grand jury) that would judge the rest of society?

          Why would you want anyone else? If the police or the state were to be the arbiter, would they not act in their own self-interests? It would not be realistic to expect the police to judge their colleagues objectively.

  3. So let’s say you’re involved in an in-home DGU. Let’s say that your primary gun (and maybe others) is confiscated. Let’s say you are instructed to not carry/be in possession of a firearm until the investigation is concluded (I don’t think this point would happen in Florida following a justified in-home DGU, but this is a hypothetical). Let’s say you keep one gun in reserve, hidden or unmentioned. Let’s say that injured perp/accomplice/family member decides to exact revenge, and you’re involved in another in-home DGU. How much trouble would you potentially be in for having a previously unmentioned/unconfiscated firearm and being in possession of same for use the second DGU?

    Let’s leave out the “at least you’re alive” and “judged by 12” comments. What could they get you for, for ignoring the previous instructions?

    • It depends on the state, but many gun laws have a “mitigating circumstances” clause or a lawyer would argue “mitigating circumstances” — it would not excuse the crime but it would be less severe punishment if any. In this case, if a link is found between the two cases, it would probably be thrown out.

    • Being “instructed” to not be in possession without the due process of law (e.g. your being charged, tried and convicted of a crime) would be an illegal order, and you’d be free to ignore it.

      The cops would be on pretty shaky legal ground taking any firearm that were not involved in a presumed justified shooting as it is.

      • The cops were on pretty shaky (more like completely non-existent) legal ground when they confiscated weapons from citezens in and around New Orleans after hurricane Katrina for no reason whatsoever. It can and does and will happen.

        They SHOULD be legally obligated to provide you a loaner weapon if they confiscate one without charging you with a crime.

      • Mr. Lion and others: Thanks for the answers, the subscription system got messed up somehow and I didn’t get any emails on this post.

        When I said “instructed” to not be in possession, I was thinking more along the lines of someone like George Zimmerman. I realize his DGU wasn’t in his home, so let’s ignore that, and please, let’s not get into all the BS surrounding his case. My question is, he was instructed (I think) to not be in possession of any weapons during his release. But this is a guy who has a very reasonable fear for his safety and security. So he keeps a gun squirreled away, for if the absolute worst should happen. Let’s say it does, that the NBP party or someone else should decide to come after him, with mayhem on their minds. He defends himself, ballistically, this time in his (temporary) home. He was the kinda guy I was thinking of when I asked that question. What is his potential outcome?

    • I would also take the case all the way to jury trial. There isn’t a jury in the world that would convict a homeowner in that situation. It is a perfect application of the fact that a jury of our peers delivers true justice — when the legal system does not.

      • This would be where nullification could come in to play. I’ve been meaning to read up on this but correct me if wrong Ralph. A juror does not have to rule on an unjust law?

        • A juror should rule — NOT GUILTY — on an unjust law. And yes, that is jury nullification.

          That is the beauty of a jury. Law enforcement, legislatures, and judges can be corrupt. Finding 12 peers that are equally corrupt is very difficult.

          The real problem is making jurors aware of jury nullification. Judges have barred defense attorneys from educating juries to this fact. And now that practice is making its way through the courts.

  4. leo count number of dead by including home owner who
    may survive the home invasion. Any one ever wonder
    why all your guns confiscated or found are taken by leo?
    Simple , nu gaggs are added to leo cache. Why buy when
    black booted taker has yours .
    if bad guy is shot, bad guy on street again before you will
    see day light after visit to local pd office.

    • I know in some backwoods towns in Ga, having heard from family members of the police department( cough cough sandersville) They do make claims to rifles and firearms they confiscate in crimes. Most crimes out there though, like an armed robbery or something of the sorts, the criminal will not be getting that back anyways so whatever. However, if there was a dgu in that area, I have also been told if you are forced into a dgu put a weapon in the criminals hands and make sure the body is in the house….. and in the backwoods area they are less likely to take your protection because they can have more sense than larger areas where there are strict protocol procedures. sometimes haha

  5. “Detectives are trying to determine if the two home invasions are related. ‘At this time, we don’t know but it’s a definite place to start.”

    Do you think? Really?
    And detectives thing they are worldly and street smart.

    • This afternoon, the detectives came to realize that one of the two men who were supposed to stand trial today, for the previous home invasion, was not where he was supposed to be (ankle monitor), and unaccountable for the time of this second shooting….. hmmmm….

  6. First of all, I don’t believe the cops ALWAYS confiscate the gun used in a DGU. That probably depends on the state and the circumstances. Secondly, the chances of having to defend your life with a gun are rare, a double hit is beyond considering. We’re in the meteorite strike territory now.

    So, in one post, Robert, you’ve given your readers two faulty reasons to be afraid, to be very afraid. And the sad truth about guns is they go for it. They’re predisposed to believe the unbelievable.

    • “the chances of having to defend your life with a gun are rare, a double hit is beyond considering. We’re in the meteorite strike territory now.”

      Right. Because it was a meteor strike that killed this guy. Exactly.

        • We I guess I got hit by that meteorite then Mikey. I personally have been involved in not 1 but 2 DGU’s in the last 30 yrs.
          In 1982 in Junction City Ks, was a home invasion by a drunk soldier looking for more party cash!
          In 1994 in Ft. Hood Tx, wasa crackhead looking to score a few bucks for his next hit. The 1st perp died on the spot and the second survived only because of some serious medical work by the local ER dept.
          In both cases my weapon was taken and kept way past the investigation being over.
          So yes it can happen and it does happen. Not as rare as you seem to think it is. Especially with society in general the way it is these days. People would rather steal what you have instead of working and getting it on their own.
          In both cases I was found not guilty, the Ks one by a Special Courts Martial and the second by a jury of 12!!!

        • Rare, but it happens. Considering the population of the US, it’s a virtual certainty that these things happen. Are you likely to get struck by lightning? It’s rare, but there are many people out there that have been struck twice or even multiple times.

          There are an estimated 270 million guns in the US. Clearly, there are not 270 million gun owners, so there are many people out there that own multiple guns anyway.

    • Who’s afraid of what? Why do anti-gunners often assume fear and paranoia motivate gun owners?

      It’s extremely unlikely that my house will ever be burglarized. I lock the doors at night and when I’m not at home. It’s unlikely that I or my dwelling will ever be struck by lightning. I have a lightning rod anyway. I’ll probably never have a house or kitchen fire. I still have a fire extinguisher. Odds are I won’t ever be in a catastrophic car accident, but I still wear my seatbelt.

      I doubt my home will ever be invaded. But if it is and I live to tell about it, the invaders don’t, and the cops take my gun like they took that 92-year old veteran’s .22 recently, there’s no harm in having a second one.

      It’s perfectly reasonable to prepare for the plausible.

    • cause nobody ever gets killed by a criminal seeking payback or to silence a witness. except just today there was a 16 yo girl in texas murdered by the guy she was going to testify against. bad things happen to good people in good neighberhoods. to ignore this fact is foolish.

      • Hey, not all of Europe is this fscked up…

        Sure, the gun laws where I live are worse than in many places in the USA and we do have to register all modern (past 1890) firearms but at least we do have “shall issue” concealed carry law here.

        Heck, a CCL holder is allowed to carry in a school here, and no school is allowed to ban legal guns on premises.

        • Replying to myself is kind of strange but I see no reply link under your post, Ben.

          And yes, I do live in the Czech republic.

          • Martin, don’t know how old you are but was wondering how much had changed since the Berlin Wall was torn down and then the USSR dissolving and all!
            Have walked many a foot patrol for many an hour around Camp Hof and other places on the Czech Republic border along the West German side of course!! 🙂
            From what I have seen when I actually got to go to St.Petersburg and Moscow looked like a rough life for many but some beautiful architecture and stuff.
            Just curious, left Germany in 1988 and headed back to the States so missed the Berlin Wall thing and other good stuff to see!!!

        • Well, I’m nearing forty, so I was a teenager when the revolution came. But they don’t call it the Velvet Revolution for nothing; it was almost hundred pecent peaceful.
          As for the life here, well, I’d sure say it got a lot better but you’d still hear many people complain – especially now with the economy being where it is. It is something like the Ostalgia some East Germans feel nowadays. The folks who complain today were much younger back then (or are too young to actually remember the days) and unemployment was nearly non-existent so I can understand how they feel. Would the majority of the folks here wish for the old times to actually come back? Hell no.

          By the way, we were much better off than the Russians even back in 1988. And we still are. I’m sorry if I seem preaching but I’d like to say that the former eastern block does not equal Russia. I’ve been to Moscow and I do have to agree about it being worth a visit – but I would not want to live there.

          Oh, I almost forgot to insert a loooong paragraph here, one where I’m raving about our politicians. But then I guess you have enough of your own.

          • Martin, yea sounds pretty good actually. I know a lot of Europeans who believe they are better off now than they were in the 1980’s.
            Some few who don’t but mostly those too young to really remember it how it was.
            One of the most heartbreaking things I saw while in Russia was elderly people standing in loooong lines for 2 or 3 days trying to get bread and other scarce items.
            I do remember while on patrols we were told not to wave at, smile at or make any other gestures at the guards in the towers on the Orher Side of te 1K Zone.
            But many times while out doing our patrol we would stop, look around for Senior Officers or NCO’s and they would too and all of the sudden most everyone would be waving at each other like crazy and grinning so big it felt like the top of your head would fall off!!! LOL!!!
            We were for the most part really young( late teens to early 20’s at the time) but I guess both sides realized we weren’t that different all in all!!!
            Well we have our fair share of undesirable politicians too so…..insert long rambling statement here!!!!
            By the way I am 50 yrs old!! Only thing I regretted was turning 21 in a country with no drinking age per say!!! LOL!!

    • I would Believe there could be a STRONG chance the firearm would be collected By the LEO,s….. after any kind of shooting incident at a home
      or anywhere (seemingly) justified. Simply to have it in their control, regardless of whether the shoot seemed reasonable or not at the time. Especially depending on the state/ locality this occurred.
      As I understand it, District attorney’s are usually the deciding force as to whether to bring charges or decree something was justified.

      The reality probably is not “innocent until proven guilty” , It is simply free while under suspicion, until cleared ( or until not charged)!

  7. BEWARE!!! Criminals can READ! They check the blotter, they check the news, they check Facebook. They track information in order to make breakins more successful. If you have a relative who dies their house will be targeted during the funeral. If there’s a wedding the home of the couple is targeted. If you have your gun confiscated, you will be targeted! It’s Intel and criminals are smart enough to use it!

  8. i keep a spare and ammo stashed. i don’t think it’s paranoid if some one is actually out to getr your guns. may increase my stash to 2. after all 1 is none.

  9. Sad, but this is how our justice system works. Pookie can’t have her man in jail, so she goes down to the bail bondsman and puts some money down to get him out. But he is scolded not to see or talk to the victims. Obviously this stern scolding doesn’t work very well. So yes, i agree with this article you need to get a backup for those long several months of waiting for the trial.

  10. Well that just sucks!
    I would say keep two extra stashed away. Unless you are being charged with a crime, you still have the right to armed self defense. If it looks to be justifiable they shouldn’t confiscate anything, but then again depending on where you live they might.

  11. Or you can Live in a state where the shear horrible act of possession of a handgun is illegal unless you have a permit. That Can be revoked at the stroke of a Judge’s pen, without cause…. so even your backup piece must be surrendered if they yank your permit.
    Oh and did I mention being the subject of a restraining order is instant grounds for revocation. Pookie and some friends fill out some forms stating you threatened them and walla.. no more permit, no more guns.

  12. Now why would any sane person think RF was being paranoid with his statement. It is a fact(known from prior experience) that the LEO’s are going to take the firearm actually used as evidence.
    So therefore a second firearm in the home, hidden or not just makes sense!!! If the perp lives then your chances of being hit again have just jumped up into the highly likely category.
    And not just at home either. As criminals can and do track data about potential victims and locations for an easy buck they can also track you and try a quick drive by on your ass while you are driving, walking to or from your vehicle, etc.
    A backup gun just makes sense!!

  13. Those second guns should be bought from private parties, otherwise law enforcement will be aware of them if they search the ATF’s eTrace database.

    • And in California, perhaps other states as well, even private party transfers of handguns have to go through a FFL. Your backup should be a rifle or a shotgun.

    • This eTrace thing is very interesting. Never heard of it before. So every time a gun is put into an FFL’s bound book it automatically gets added to this eTrace system, or does the ATF have to request more info about a specific gun? Essentially, are my guns in eTrace just because I bought them from an FFL?

      • Yes, all guns when they are manufacturered are entered in to eTrace. It is updated again when a form 4473 (new gun purchase) goes thru. And the ATF peroidically copies FFLs bound books and enters them in to eTrace. So even if you bought it from a private party, and had a gunsmith work on it, your information will be in eTrace. The only exception is that a FFL doesnt have to record it in his bound book if he doesnt keep the gun over night, although some still will just to play it safe. Another interesting issue is that over 120 foriegn nations have access to eTrace as well.

  14. I already have more than two guns myself, but it sounds like I need more. This was only 30 minutes away from where I live. I’m thinking 5 per person in the house should be enough?

  15. Actually I think Robert is absolutely right on this one. Unless your local law enforcement agency and statutes are really supportive of DGU, you’ll be giving up your weapon as evidence in your attacker’s crime (or because they consider you a homicide/ADW suspect until justified), and in some places it can be almost impossible to get it back (like CA) or even get cleared to buy a replacement. (It’s not only a good reason to have a backup, but not to use a really expensive/hard-to-replace piece as your carry/home defense gun.)

    I was actually worried about the vet who found himself without his rifle after the home invasion. The dead guy’s two buddies got away and remained at large. If you happen to DGU against a gang member, his buddies will likely take offense. It’s not alarmist at all: actions have consequences, and humans have always had a thing for revenge. (How many DGUs result in lawsuits by the attacker or their family?) How many people have been victims of crimes and simply fear a repeat (and could use the psychological comfort of a little security)?

    The biggest thing for me about having weapons at my disposal (and I have more than guns in that area) is a sense of confidence that allows me to deal with otherwise scary stuff. Losing that security, especially after a traumatic event, would be horrible, no matter what the statistical reality of a repeat attack is.

  16. I think people seriously underestimate their vulnerability in general much less after being a victim who at minimum sends a criminal to prison and at maximum kills the criminal during the attack.

    If I were the victim and survived an attack, I would immediately leave the home to stay with relatives, friends, or a hotel. Next, I would legally change my name. Then I would sell my home to move across town … and if even remotely practical to move to a different state.

    For anyone who thinks this is over reacting, think about it. If you survived the first attack, it was because the criminal’s objective was to get something (e.g. your money), not to kill you. And maybe you had the element of surprise which helped your survival. Well if a criminal or the criminal’s violent relative/friend returns and their only objective is to kill you, they will most likely succeed. You will no longer have the advantage of surprise because now they KNOW you are armed. And they are no longer constrained to visiting you inside your home where there are lots of valuable items because they are not after valuable items any more: they are after your life! All they have to do is follow you to a grocery store or your office and simply wait for you to come out. As you walk back to your car, they can slip in behind you without raising any suspicion whatsoever and then you’re done.

    Determined people have managed to shoot heads of state with massive security teams. If a determined person can pull that off, it will be much easier going after Joe Citizen. This is nothing to mess with.

    • Let’s not get carried away with “what if” scenarios. If you are a DGU survivor, just use your common sense and keep a level head. Educate yourself on the person you were involved with in the DGU — ask the police for their background to see if they have a criminal record or gang-ties.

      If you really feel uncomfortable about staying at your residence, then it seems perfectly reasonable to stay with family or friends, at least till your home is cleaned up and everything is accounted for. But there’s no need to go overboard and change your name — unless you find out the person you may have landed in jail is part of the mob or some other organized crime outfit (and really, why would they be invading homes anyway, the odds are extremely low). And if this was the case, I’d hope the authorities could lend a hand (I’m sure this sort of thing happens to cops in shootings as well).

      Do your research before you go off and try to go incognito though. Just be vigilant in your situational awareness and carry a backup weapon. Stay in close contact with friends and family and let they know what’s going on. No need to be super paranoid. Just be alert and vigilant.

  17. Even though their weapon is taken as evidence, they do get another. And all their personal weapons are not taken.

    2 – LEOs can stay silent, the just can be fired.
    3 – Boohoo, LEOs can force civilians to do that if they are driving a car
    4 – Can happen to a civilian with a court order
    5 – AKA paid vacation

    Keep in mind that as a sworn Law Enforcement Officer you are (at least in my state) REQUIRED to act to ensure the public safety and can be held civilly and criminally liable for failure to do so.
    No, the SCOTUS has ruled you do not. See Castlerock v Gonzales.

    Workers comp will pay for 70% of your salary while you are in the hospital
    At least you get workmans comp, a civilian involved in a DGU does not

    • Boohoo? I don’t remember crying or whining about anything. Just stating facts based on experience. Please feel free to share details of the shootings you’ve been involved in and how the process was handled. I would be interested in hearing if your experience differed from mine. Sure I could refuse to provide a statement. And I would lose my job. And possibly be charged myself. Over something that I was justified doing? That makes no sense. Do I like the fact that realistically I have no choice in the matter? Of course not, but those are the real world facts. My department policy states that I have a duty to act. It is the policy of my employer and while you may be so financially independent that you can afford to loose your job, I am a the single father of a three year old and I cannot. Whether SCOTUS concurs with this does not change this fact. Nor does it change the fact that I took an oath to act. There are things worth questioning and loosing your job over, carrying out the duties you have sworn and in my opinion have an obligation to carry out is not one of them. I cannot and will not speak for every LEO out there, but when I was asked to raise my right hand and swear an oath to God, it meant something to me.

      I certainly expect no sympathy for the injuries I have sustained in course of my duties or appreciation for what I do. It’s the job I applied for and the duties I swore to carry out. I am willing to place myself in harms way if necessary to protect you and your family from those who wish to harm you or take the things you have worked for. Whether you appreciate it or lump all cops together in some negative category is irrelevant. I have a job to do and I take pride in doing it in a fair and responsible manner. You are entitled to your attitude and opinion. Again, I was stating facts based on my experiences and the policies of my department. The point of my post was to show that the citizen who lawfully defends himself isn’t alone in being made to feel as if HE is being placed under more scrutiny than the person he was defending himself from. I was attempting to relate to the situation, having experienced it myself. I felt that some might be interested in hearing how a few actual justified shootings were dealt with as opposed to hypothetical’s. I am genuinely interested to hear the experiences of others, especially those of non LEO’s because it is sometimes hard to remember that while I may respond to shootings, death investigations, robberies, etc on a fairly routine basis, for the average person being involved in such a situation is a life changing and sometimes traumatic event. Hearing the experiences of others and their perceptions of how they were treated interests me. I sincerely believe being able to empathize with people in these terrible situations is important. As I said, I expected the cop bashing. I deal with it daily in real life, so I’m hardly going to cry about it being done on the Internet. I do however fail to see how alienating a police officer who shares your views on the importance of the second amendment and has a lifelong love of guns and shooting is productive or furthers the public perception of gun owners. I’m honestly confused by the whole us vs them attitude as it relates to some of the posters and law enforcement. Maybe it is based on your experiences, which again, I am interested in hearing. Not anecdotal statements, case law, or hypothetical’s based on a biased point of view or personal opinion. Actual experiences. I’m genuinely interested in this topic and welcome any discussion or questions, and will speak as openly as I possibly can without endangering my employment or the privacy of others. If you interpret anything in this post to be whining you are again mistaken.

      • Sure I could refuse to provide a statement. And I would lose my job. And possibly be charged myself.

        Just like a civilian.

        Do I like the fact that realistically I have no choice in the matter?

        You have a choice, stop saying that you dont.

        My department policy states that I have a duty to act.

        I’m willing to bet that SCOTUS rulings override department policy otherwise you could be sued (possibly personally) under 18 USC 1983 for failing to prevent certain crimes.

        It is the policy of my employer and while you may be so financially independent that you can afford to loose your job, I am a the single father of a three year old and I cannot.

        Welcome to life.

        The point of my post was to show that the citizen who lawfully defends himself isn’t alone in being made to feel as if HE is being placed under more scrutiny than the person he was defending himself from.

        So, does your department policy state that civilians who are involved in a DGU get at least 24 hours and a good nights sleep at home before police can start asking them questions? Or does that only apply to LEOs?

        I am genuinely interested to hear the experiences of others, especially those of non LEO’s

        Your not going to hear of any negative experiences, because all those people would be in jail.

        I do however fail to see how alienating a police officer who shares your views on the importance of the second amendment and has a lifelong love of guns and shooting is productive or furthers the public perception of gun owners.

        I could care less of the public perception of gun owners. My opinions arent going to change their minds on 2A issues. Because if you were a LEO where I live (Chicago), you would be a gun grabber, perhaps not by choice, but certainly because you are more than willing to enforce any law a politician tells you to.

        I do however fail to see how alienating a police officer who shares your views on the importance of the second amendment and has a lifelong love of guns and shooting is productive or furthers the public perception of gun owners.

        Spend some time in jail for a crime you didnt commit. Spend 15 minutes pressed face down on the hot hood of a car that has been running and sitting in the sun, because police thought you might be stealing your friends car you were pushing down the street, even though the owner of the car is there pushing it with you. Have police blanatly lie and say they have arrested you previously. Have police violate your 4A rights. Be a victim of civil asset forfeiture laws.

        How about when your friends and family members have similar experiences. My little brother was at a critical mass bike ride in St Louis. He heard police were indiscriminatly pepper spraying people, so he thought he would help and bought two gallons of water from a local super market. As soon as he walked out, cops noticed a guy with a bike and a bunch of water, cuffed him, and then pepper sprayed him. Another one of my friends was beaten for simply running from the police.

      • Ron, thank you for your service. You seem to be the type of cop who takes his duty seriously and with an intent to help.

        Unfortunately, you’re probably not going to get much sympathy here. I would argue that most of the readers here are highly dismayed with the difference in treatment police officers get versus regular Joes. In particular, the police always get the presumption of innocence and of always telling the truth, even when circumstances dictate otherwise. They have a department full of colleagues and a union to protect their interests, whereas the rest of us do not. Many of us see this as intolerable.

        We don’t all think the police are jack-booted thugs, but I’m pretty sure most of us resent the disparity in treatment. Add to that the fact that most people know someone who has been mistreated by the police or have heard countless stories to that end and you’re going to end up with an environment that may not be the friendliest towards you.

        In essence, you have all the advantages we don’t, so people are not going to be sympathetic to perceived hardship on your part.

  18. So Matt explain to me again how exactly this means that every police officer is somehow your enemy. Do I seem like I’m on some mission to trample people’s rights?
    A couple of things: No, I don’t get 24 hours before I provide a statement. The interviews were conducted within about 10 minutes of ABI arriving. And again, you can quote all the case law you want. It still dosent change the reality of my departmental policy. I get it Matt, you hate the police. But I see absolutely no reason to demean me personally. I have done nothing to you and despite what you might think, I would be the first one to come running if you needed help. Fortunately you’ll never need it because you live in a fantasy world where knowing case law and insulting strangers on the Internet protects you from any possible harm that could possibly happen to you. I notice you still haven’t shared the details of YOUR self defense shooting. But you read a lot so that makes you an expert. Congratulations Matt, you’re getting what I assume you wanted: I no longer have any desire to visit this website. It’s obvious that anything I post is going to generate insults from you, so bravo sir! I give up. There is obviously nothing I can add to this discussion that an expert like you dosent already know. I wish you the best of luck and pray that you never have to actually experience these things you know so much about. Real life is a little more complicated than the Internet.

    • RF: Before you get antsy with your red pen, I want to point out that nothing I will say here is a flame, nor is it incorrect. I’m simply stating facts.

      YES, WELL, FLAME DELETED

        • You should really subscribe to email followups. Then you’d get to see it before he deletes it. It really wasn’t that obnoxious, and you’ve been called FAR worse, but RF was having a bad day, I suppose. The bar of what’s flaming and what’s not seems to be variable depending on his mood. Some days you have to use really vile language to be flaming, other days simply calling someone a troll meets the bar.

        • The bar of what’s flaming and what’s not seems to be variable depending on his mood

          I agree, i’ve been amazed that some of my comments have stayed up, and other relatively innocent ones were taken down.

    • FLAME DELETED it would be a loss to this sight and our cause if you left simply because of matt.
      i for one am interested in your take on gun control and the aftermath of civilian and police dgu’s.

      • Matt in FL: Yes, very new. Stumbled upon it lastnight somehow. It’s nice to know the other Matt dosent represent everyone here. I have enough of these ridiculous arguments in real life with jailhouse lawyers who have an answer for everything but cannot understand the concept of personal accountability. Based on Matt’s manifesto I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that his side of the LEO/Citizen interactions he described was less than pleasant and that he went out of his way to be as uncooperative as possible. I’m honestly surprised that he hasn’t told me he’s glad I got shot. He seems like that kind of guy.

        JWN: I will be more than happy to discuss those issues. Be forewarned that unlike Matt I am not a constitutional law professor. I’m just a cop. It will however have to wait until I’ve had a few hours of sleep since I work nights and it’s waaaay past my bedtime.

        Anyways, thanks guys for renewing my confidence in the common sense of humanity. I was actually pretty confused there for a minute and was beginning to think there might be something wrong with ME. Later!

      • And I guess me being a black republican cop who is pro second amendment, extremely anti Obama, and actually respects the rights of others must be mind boggling to Matt.

    • So Matt explain to me again how exactly this means that every police officer is somehow your enemy.

      Because they are all willing to blindly uphold the law, not matter what it is, for no reason other than a pay check.

      No, I don’t get 24 hours before I provide a statement.

      I know in Chicago they do, and a nights rest. Just wondering but what department are you with.

      I have done nothing to you and despite what you might think,

      You havent been provided the opportunity to do so. If you were a LEO in Chicago and saw me carrying, would you arrest me, grab my gun, and petition the states attorney to file felony charges against me?

      I would be the first one to come running if you needed help. Fortunately you’ll never need it because you live in a fantasy world

      You would be the person to arrest me if I was involved in a DGU. The police simply let the courts sort out who is telling the truth.

      I notice you still haven’t shared the details of YOUR self defense shooting.

      I never claimed to have one. Please provide a quote where I said so.

      • Because they are all willing to blindly uphold the law, not matter what it is, for no reason other than a pay check.

        Well, that’s kind of a broad generalization, dontcha think?

        I notice you still haven’t shared the details of YOUR self defense shooting.

        I never claimed to have one. Please provide a quote where I said so.

        I think that was his point. He was commenting that he was “interested in hearing [about actual experiences people have had]. Not anecdotal statements, case law, or hypothetical’s based on a biased point of view or personal opinion. Actual experiences. “

        • Well, that’s kind of a broad generalization, dontcha think?

          How is it a broad generalization? When did the police stop enforcing laws they didnt agree with?

          • A few quick answers to some questions;
            Guns are generally held as evidence until a determination is made as to whether charges will be filed.
            Sometimes they are held until the statute of limitations for the offense has passed. Thighs best advice I can give is keep asking when you’ll get your gun back. The squeaky wheel gets the grease as they say. Guns that nobody ever attempts to collect are, in my department, destroyed. Nothing will make a grown man want to cry like seeing a Wilson Combat 1911 or a mint browning hi power being thrown in the crusher. They aren’t sold, divided up as loot, or traded for tokens at the arcade. At least not here.

            Time held also depends on the Department of Forensic Sciences, which in my state has a backlog of several years due to underfunding. DFS/ABI still has a shotgun taken from me in 2007. I’d forgotten about it until writing this post.

            I have never seen any weapons other than the one involved in the shooting seized as evidence. But that’s just here. Can’t speak for everywhere else.

            Never heard of anyone being restricted as far as obtaining/ possessing another firearm pending the outcome of the trial. You arent guilty of anything and unless you have been charged with a crime there should be no court conditions regarding your release. If you have been charged, there very well could be a condition of release on your bond prohibiting the possession of a firearm. Up to the judge/ magistrate. I have never seen anyone do a check to see what other weapons a crime victim owns via eTrace, nor did the ATF ever come and make copies of my bound book when I had my FFL.

            Guns seized by ABI used to come back engraved with evidence numbers, destroying the value of many guns. I think either enough people complained or they were rightfully sued, because this no longer seems to be the case.

            I don’t carry a personally owned gun on duty even though I can, because if I use it ABI will have it for years.

            My concerns with a Grand Jury are telhe same as I would have for any innocent person going before one: personal opinion and bias can be introduced, despite clear instructions against doing so. With a jury you never know what’s going to happen because based on my years of experience they tend to look at more than facts. Look at the outcomes of some cases in the news lately. OJ Simpson? Casey Anthony? It goes on and on. If I had to face a trial I would insist on a bench trial. In my experience Judges are far more likely to make decisions based on fact VS personal opinion. Perhaps I’m biased based on seeing people who were clearly guilty set free.

            It has been my experience that LE is generally supportive of bad guys getting shot by good guys. There are few things as satisfying as responding to the scene of an attempted robbery and finding the robber shot. Went to one two weeks ago. All the officers I observed on the scene offered the robbery victim encouragement and advice. Maybe it’s different everywhere else, but here… Cops don’t like criminals.

            I live in a state that is pretty gun friendly and where innocent people defending themselves from turds is viewed as a good thing.

            No police union here.

            I oppose the requirement for a “sporting use” to be met for the importation of firearms. I oppose individual states restricting ownership of legal NFA weapons. The mere mention of the 1994 AWB causes my blood pressure to rise to dangerous levels.

            I feel like I’m forgetting something, but I think you get the point.

            RF: sorry for the long posts. The exwife complains I ramble on. Looking at the comment section, I realize she’s correct.

        • . You arent guilty of anything and unless you have been charged with a crime

          Wow, I hope you misspoke. Other wise why should the cops (or states attorney) unilateraly be able to declare you guilty?

          Maybe it’s different everywhere else, but here… Cops don’t like criminals.

          Everyone is a criminal.

          The mere mention of the 1994 AWB causes my blood pressure to rise to dangerous levels.

          Would you enforce it, if it were still on the books?

          No police union here.

          So youre not a member of the FOP?

          • No Matt, I am not a member of the FOP, the Alabama Peace Officers Association, or anything else. Your other questions are just different versions of the ridiculous questions and statements you have already made. Here’s a newsflash Matt, there was a nationwide AWB, and during that one I seized exactly zero weapons from people. If anyone let someone in Chicago slide in reference to a city or state AWB it would be me. Again, great job in assuming that someone who would be one of your biggest allies and supporters is an enemy. You’re suceeding magnificently in making me rethink that position though. It may seem odd and confising to you but I actually am a police officer who would argue the obsurdity of such a law. If you recall I said it was my duty to act to protect people, not blindly follow any order I’m given. I think I
            mentioned before that I’m not a jack booted robot. Everyone was right about you. You make my head hurt. But it’s good to know that you are a steely eyed killer prepared to tackle any danger. Good luck with all that.

          • And oh yes, you’re “quite sure”. You’ve seen all the MagPul videos, so you completely understand what being in an armed violent encounter is like. If anyone is wondering shy I have so much patience with Matt, its because I’m an FTO and I have a constant rotation of rookies in my car fresh out of the academy who like Matt have all the answers and know all the case law but have exactly zero experience or understanding of how the real world functions.

        • Again, great job in assuming that someone who would be one of your biggest allies and supporters is an enemy.

          You have been very reluctant to state what police department you are with. Would this be because what you have said could get you in trouble, violate department policy, or damage your credibility in the eyes of your coworkers? If so, then are my assumptions really unreasonable, if so many of your fellow officers and police departments do not share your viewpoint?

      • Correction: should read “pending the outcome of the investigation” not “trial”. My error typing too fast and hard to proof read on my phone.

  19. @Ron Welcome to the club!!! Glad to have you here!!! Yea you have to get used to the Trolls here. FLAME DELETED
    We all know there are good and bad people in every walk of life. I have friends on the local PD who are good people and then I know some o the local pd who I wouldn’t piss on to put them out if they’re on fire, so to speak.
    LEO’s, Soldiers, EMT’s all have hard job’s to do and on the average it takes special people willing to make a sacrifice to do those job’s and do them well!!!
    Hope you will stay around and help enlighten us all!!!!

      • @RF- But it’s ok to say “I’m saddened your assailant wasn’t a better shot”??? Really? What kind of person say’s that to a complete stranger? The person who the other posters were “flaming” are doing far less harm to the reputation of this site than the seemingly factual statements they made about him. I’m all for people having opinions and all that, but there is no telling how many intelligent posters have been scared away by this one individual in particular. I would love to participate in discussions here, but I’m having to weigh whether or not it’s worse the aggravation.

        @Matt – against my better judgement I’ll give you one minor oxample of how I am not a mindless robot enforcing whatever law is passed. I don’t write seatbelt tickets. Why? Because I think grown ass people should be able to make that decision on their own. That dosent mean the cop down the street won’t write you. But I won’t. That’s just me. I’m also pretty sure moving to Chicago wouldn’t suddenly turn me into a gun grabbing oppressor. It also struck me as odd that someone who is such a legal expert has so many negative legal experiences. Surely your mastery of United States Code and encyclopedia like knowledge of all things court related resulted in you being cleared of all charges and recovering massive damages against those who wronged you.
        Also, no police unions here. It’s a right to work state. Maybe before you make broad generalizations you should pay attention to the parts where I say “in my state”, “my department policy”, and “these are only my personal experiences”.

        Sorry he wasn’t a better shot. Unfortunately, after being shot twice in the back while on an undercover assignment (cant wait to hear how evil and corrupt that makes me) I was able to address the threat and ensure that nobody else was ever injured by him again. Case law, policy, and Internet trivia were the last thing on my mind at the moment. But I’m sure you would have done it ten times better. Again, I pray that you or anyone you hold dear are never placed in a situation that requires the taking of a human life. It’s obvious that you could not possibly understand.

        • But it’s ok to say “I’m saddened your assailant wasn’t a better shot”??? Really? What kind of person say’s that to a complete stranger?

          The same type of person who would say “It has been my experience that LE is generally supportive of bad guys getting shot by good guys.” It all depends on how you define good and bad.

          I would love to participate in discussions here, but I’m having to weigh whether or not it’s worse the aggravation.

          You can always ignore my posts.

          I don’t write seatbelt tickets.

          Is this something in which the law states the officer can exercise discrection? If it was not, would you still do that? How about for a more serious offense such as a felon with a firearm?

          I’m also pretty sure moving to Chicago wouldn’t suddenly turn me into a gun grabbing oppressor.

          So you wouldn’t enforce the Chicago or Cook County assault weapon bans, if you were a Chicago LEO, and it was your duty to do so?

          Also, no police unions here. It’s a right to work state.

          Illinois is a right to work state too, but we still have the FOP here. The Chicago Teachers Union is currently on strike as well.

          Again, I pray that you or anyone you hold dear are never placed in a situation that requires the taking of a human life. It’s obvious that you could not possibly understand.

          I took my fathers life when I signed his Do Not Resuscitate and Removal Of Life Support forms, and then watched him slowly die over 6 days. I’m quite sure taking a strangers life would be far easier, especially if they were a threat.

  20. As to the second part of the post, re: second gun of the same kind…
    The Glock series of handguns allows you to possess different guns that work the same and in the same caliber they have a one-way magazine interchangability.
    Just a thought…

    (Not a Gk salesman)

  21. Still, the most likely result of you having a firearm in your home is injury to yourself or one of your family. All the braggadocio, and wild west bragging will not change that fact. For each time that someone defends themselves or their family, there are 43 instances of family members being injured or killed. It is just a question of odds and how silly and fearful you are.

    • Ahh, the smell of psychotic liberal propaganda in the mornings.

      There are around 500-1,000 accidental gun deaths per year in the US, but only 100,000 (the lowest estimate I could find) crimes are stopped each year by a private citizen with a gun.

      Clearly 1,000/100,000 is 43. Your infallible liberal logic wins again.

  22. Step one : BUY A CHEAP 9MM LIKE THE CANIK TP9V2 FOR $340. BUY A COUPLE MORE.

    Step two: see step one

Comments are closed.