Home Invasion of Non-Criminal Households and Marginalized Populations

[Clusterfrack]

I was driving and to work yesterday and passed a car with a bumper sticker that said “UNARMED AND UNAFRAID”. I looked in the car and expected to see a tough looking dude. Maybe one of the Gracie clan? Nope. It was a small woman in her 60’s.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A few years ago, there was a set of gun safe delivery guys who would come back to the home. Since lots of folks didn't change their combos from the pre-set, it was an easy hit when the homeowners weren't in. Since you got a safe, they knew that you were someone with lots of loot.

The Petit family is the classic nice family home invasion.

[Jeep]

Home invasions happen in the strangest places for the strangest reasons. I know a woman who faced two human invasions in two years. She was living in a rental house and the cops assumed (but had no proof) that the home invaders either (1) had the wrong address; or (2) were trying to target whoever rented the house before her. Both home invasions were very scary with multiple masked invaders who tore the place up--and luckily then left. The woman was a receptionist who had a young daughter and both were pretty traumatized, but not physically hurt.

[Jeep]

Laughs. And for all your talk of e pluribus unum you dare to tell someone who’s been attacked because she’s different that her difference is irrelevant. We agree on this. I’ll protect me and mine, as you protect you and yours. That might involve the legal system, a vote, or in certain conditions and if certain legal requisites obtain, lethal force. Let’s leave it at that.

The notion that there are no victims, only volunteers is fascinating. Every rape victim was a volunteer, just to pick one example? Your late wife volunteered to be slurred in a restaurant ?

Rapid: I'm a lawyer too. One of the things that people don't like about lawyers is our tendency to evade tough arguments by creating strawmen. With respect, I think that is what you are doing here. What he was arguing is not that there aren't victims, but that the reason for victimhood is irrelevant. Victims are victims. Whether someone victimizes you because he/she doesn't like you personally, doesn't like some group you belong to/status you have, or merely because you are a random victim doesn't matter (except, perhaps, to prove motive). I think that is correct. Hold people responsible for what they do--not what they think because in America people are allowed to think what they want to think.

Now personally, I probably disagree with you on almost everything politically, except this. I think as an American you enjoy the Constitutional rights to your opinion as I do, and we both enjoy the rights enshrined in the second amendment.

So here is the question: What is your constitutionally protected opinion, revolver or semi-auto for defensive carry?

[Darth_Uno]

I was driving and to work yesterday and passed a car with a bumper sticker that said “UNARMED AND UNAFRAID”. I looked in the car and expected to see a tough looking dude. Maybe one of the Gracie clan? Nope. It was a small woman in her 60’s.

Game warden’s gonna get her for hunting over bait.

[Medusa]

Rapid: I'm a lawyer too. One of the things that people don't like about lawyers is our tendency to evade tough arguments by creating strawmen. With respect, I think that is what you are doing here. What he was arguing is not that there aren't victims, but that the reason for victimhood is irrelevant. Victims are victims. Whether someone victimizes you because he/she doesn't like you personally, doesn't like some group you belong to/status you have, or merely because you are a random victim doesn't matter (except, perhaps, to prove motive). I think that is correct. Hold people responsible for what they do--not what they think because in America people are allowed to think what they want to think.

Now personally, I probably disagree with you on almost everything politically, except this. I think as an American you enjoy the Constitutional rights to your opinion as I do, and we both enjoy the rights enshrined in the second amendment.

So here is the question: What is your constitutionally protected opinion, revolver or semi-auto for defensive carry?

I hear you. I prefer semi autos. I’ve had the same beretta 92 for 19 years, and just added a Px4CC and a sig 365 to the mix. I’m gonna try the px4 at idpa matches. I’ll be slow, but gotta start somewhere. First match March 2, will use the px4 if I get my holster in time, else my old faithful 92.

But I disagree that motive is irrelevant. When one is targeted, one must be aware of it, and why, so that one can try to evade, defend, etc for the future. That is why we as women have to be careful in some situations many men can shrug off. And it’s why I as an lgbt woman in a SSM have to be careful. People not in these demographics can tell me it doesn’t matter, but that lands like telling a person who has been the subject of antisemitism that her religion is irrelevant, or telling the person attacked because he is black hat his skin color is irrelevant, or telling a woman who was raped her sex is irrelevant.

It just straight up isn’t. To say otherwise is arrogant and mistaken. To then say I’ve set up a straw man in insisting on the point is perplexing to me. What have I missed ? I mean of course in the moment of an attack I have to solve the problems, work to de escalate, escape, avoid, or if all else fails defend, regardless of why. But the why is a big part of governing my conduct going forward. Isn’t it ?

[Rex G]

Serious question: How many people not involved in/with illicit or nefarious activities/associates stand more than a 1 in a 100-million chance of having their front door kicked-in in the middle of the night by a violent assailant who races immediately to the bedroom to wreak havoc upon them as they sleep?

Business owners. While it stereotypically happens to Asians, it happens to all racial/ethnic groups, who own businesses.

I cannot cite stats, but did respond to quite a few crime scenes during 33+ years of night shift big-city LEO-ing.

[fwrun]

I was driving and to work yesterday and passed a car with a bumper sticker that said “UNARMED AND UNAFRAID”. I looked in the car and expected to see a tough looking dude. Maybe one of the Gracie clan? Nope. It was a small woman in her 60’s.

In my AO, Asian homes are being target for burglaries. It isn't because they are involved in criminal activity, and it isn't because of their genetic make-up. It is due to the cultural preference by Asian business owners for keeping large amounts of cash and jewelry in the home instead of safety deposit boxes or bank accounts.

There was also a very high-profile incident involving an elderly white couple that own a chain of gas stations, involved a true kidnapping, burglary, and gunfire. Didn't go well for the business owners.

[blues]

In my AO, Asian homes are being target for burglaries. It isn't because they are involved in criminal activity, and it isn't because of their genetic make-up. It is due to the cultural preference by Asian business owners for keeping large amounts of cash and jewelry in the home instead of safety deposit boxes or bank accounts.

I can remember that being the case going back to the early 80's and cases worked in NYC.

Funny, what I remember the most was lots of cash on hand, lots of smoking, gambling and a reluctance to use banks.

[Jeep]

I hear you. I prefer semi autos. I’ve had the same beretta 92 for 19 years, and just added a Px4CC and a sig 365 to the mix. I’m gonna try the px4 at idpa matches. I’ll be slow, but gotta start somewhere. First match March 2, will use the px4 if I get my holster in time, else my old faithful 92.

But I disagree that motive is irrelevant. When one is targeted, one must be aware of it, and why, so that one can try to evade, defend, etc for the future. That is why we as women have to be careful in some situations many men can shrug off. And it’s why I as an lgbt woman in a SSM have to be careful. People not in these demographics can tell me it doesn’t matter, but that lands like telling a person who has been the subject of antisemitism that her religion is irrelevant, or telling the person attacked because he is black hat his skin color is irrelevant, or telling a woman who was raped her sex is irrelevant.

It just straight up isn’t. To say otherwise is arrogant and mistaken. To then say I’ve set up a straw man in insisting on the point is perplexing to me. What have I missed ? I mean of course in the moment of an attack I have to solve the problems, work to de escalate, escape, avoid, or if all else fails defend, regardless of why. But the why is a big part of governing my conduct going forward. Isn’t it ?

Good choice on the 92. I have a number of Berettas and love the platform (though not so much for carry--too heavy and I'm too old). Have you tried the Langdon Tactical trigger job in a bag for it? It turns the 92 into a different gun.

Let me answer your last question and then explain why it isn't relevant to what he was arguing. Of course there are reasons why people get targeted, and of course it only makes sense for you to take that into account in dealing with it. In my case, I'm near retirement age with aging eyes. I make a fair target for someone interested in mugging for money and so I take that into account.

But what would make an attack on me wrong is that I'm a human with rights and it is wrong to attack fellow humans. And one of those rights is that we are allowed to defend ourselves--in my case not because I'm old with a bad back and fading eyes, but because I'm a human being.

So no one here is arguing that it is ok to victimize anyone. Nor are they arguing that some people aren't more subject to attack than others, much less that those people shouldn't take that into account in their individual tactical planning. What I think they are arguing (in the end) is that our rights stem from our status as humans--not from being members of groups.

I'm not sure that you'd disagree with that.