Reasonable Suspicion

[Der Übermensch]

Ok, so someone breaks into your house.
Is it REASONABLE to suspect that he/she intends to commit a further crime (Burglary, Arson, Vandalism, Rape, Murder.... whatever)?


Further more, is it REASONABLE to suspect the intruder has a chance of being armed?

[spitfirejunky]

I wouldn't know any situation in which I should ask that question. The fact is that they're in my house without my consent and I'll do whatever it takes to get them out.

[cobert]

It is completely reasonable to think they are doing more than just breaking and entering, as they would need a motivation to enter. It is also completely reasonable to believe that they would be armed with tools to coerce anyone they might encounter that would impede them in their task.

[PerpetualBurn]

I suspect if someone breaks into my house that they have a reason for it. I'm struggling to think of a reason that's no illegal.

[Reductio]

^ Possible reason: insanity?

All of those things are possibilities. It's more likely that the intruder intends to commit a crime and is carrying a weapon but it would be by definition unreasonable to completely rule out the alternative(s).

[Smokey D]

Cross referencing the thread where this originated, generally where you see the word reasonable in law it creates an objective test potentially above and beyond what an average person would consider reasonable. The law speaks of a reasonable person, not of the average person.

[mph4ever]

further crime and carrying a weapon.

if confronted, your lampstand or kitchen knife can become their weapon. take him out, ask the questions later

[jogerto]

i think it is reasonable to be suspicious but it's not unreasonable to not be suspicious but it's better to be reasonable and suspicious then not

[Knifeboy]

Some girl around here had an insane guy sneak into her apartment and then live under her bed for two weeks before she noticed him being there..

i don't know why I'm posting this here, thread just reminded me of it

[Jaymz Hetfield]

If some jackass has already shown that he doesn't mind entering your house without your permission, by force or otherwise....then it's definitely reasonable to think he may intend to steal your crap or you or your wife or kids and be armed. You don't even take a chance with stuff like this.

[Shell]

The only situations I would think it would be acceptable for someone to come into my house without knocking would be if there is a tornado in the immediate vicinity or perhaps they are being chased by a vicious dog or something. In both cases I would expect that it would be obvious that the person was scared or otherwise in distress.

I just looked up the Kansas law on the topic:

21-3212. Use of force in defense of dwelling; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon such person's dwelling or occupied vehicle. (b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate unlawful entry into or attack upon any dwelling or occupied vehicle if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or another.
(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person's dwelling or occupied vehicle.

[JohnXDoesn't]

i selected the first and third option. if someone breaks into my apartment i will attack them with great vigor and without warning. seriously

this is assuming it is night and i know they broke in and they are rummaging about or trying to locate me / somebody. or something

i would like to say "well if they broke in during the day it would be different." but it wouldn't. unless they are setting up a table for tea :)

this is where i draw the line. do not come into my house. and yes it is different then when that a hole shot that kid in texas who was down on his knees. they broke into his house, yes. but he was armed and they were on their knees. no reason to shoot

i'm assuming i hear something, open my bedroom door, and see someone dressed in a ski mask wandering around. i don't have a gun but if i did they might get shot. i have a bat and some knives, though. and they might get beat or stabbed if they come near me. and yeah with absolutely deadly force

i did not invite you in. if i'm home and the cops can't take care of it in time and i am located that sounds a little scary to me. so yeah i would assume they are there to cause me harm and harm them first

next time they might knock

[mph4ever]

please remember when you invite us around for dinner and don't nobody stage a surprise party in this guys apartment

[Sunshine]

I think it's more than reasonable to assume someone who breaks into your house intends something further. Regardless of what that next thing is.

However, while reasonable doubt might say that the intruder is armed, I don't necessarily think that it MUST be assumed.
So I chose those three options in the poll.

[Der Übermensch]

Cross referencing the thread where this originated, generally where you see the word reasonable in law it creates an objective test potentially above and beyond what an average person would consider reasonable. The law speaks of a reasonable person, not of the average person.

Which is the same thing, as a reasonable person effectively means 'the jury' and a jury is supposed to be a selection of random individuals who should represent the overall average outlook of the community.
I realize that the words carry slightly different connotations, but I consider them close enough in a practical context to be interchangeable.

So I chose those three options in the poll.
Huh? Thats a bit weird since I posed the questions as mutually exclusive pairs...

[jaredong]

i think that yes, its true that someone in your house might commit some other crime and might be armed. However, to say that automatically gives you the right to kill them is quite the jump.

think about a counter factual. When in the news, police end up harming or even killing innocent people, we call it police brutality.

For example:
When a innocent man was shot and killed when the police thought he was reaching for a gun.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/304340.stm

Would the police be warranted going around killing a person if the police thought
"
1)This person looks like the suspect we are looking for
2)He hasnt committed a violent crime with a gun but he's committed a crime before there we cannot know what he's thinking therefore we should assume he is armed
Therefore: If we think hes reaching for a gun we should immediately shoot him
"

I would say the police/homeowners cases are similar. Both have possibly "reasonable" logic in shooting someone. But its a different case whether the person shot is actually innocent or actually has the intent to harm someone.

I know of a friend of mine who stole a neighbor's tv. He wasnt actually going to harm anyone, didnt have any weapons or anything, he was just a dumb teenager. It'd be kinda sad if he was shot dead there.

Or think about all the people with alzheimer's. It could be conceived, especially if you forgot to lock your door at night, that someone suffering from alzheimers might just walk in your house or even look through the cupboards looking for something.

I understand that people feel that a man's home is his castle and that if an intruder is in it, you would feel threatened and want to defend yourself. But its also very dangerous to have a "shoot first ask later" mentality when the after you pull the trigger, there might not be a chance to ask anything after.

I think its hard issue and that if I was faced with the situation it'd be difficult for me to predict what I would do. However, I think the idea that "they have a possibility of kill me therefore I must kill them immediately" should have more nuanced thinking.

----
plus Batman never uses a gun nor kills anyone and hes my hero

[Der Übermensch]

However, to say that automatically gives you the right to kill them is quite the jump.
Well, it depends on where you live, but in states such with solid "Castle Laws" that literally all you need to have the legal backing for justifiable homicide.

[Sunshine]

Huh? Thats a bit weird since I posed the questions as mutually exclusive pairs...

Well yeah, but I think that both the assumptions in the second pair are reasonable. Not at the same time, of course, but I don't really think that it'd be unreasonable to think that perhaps the intruder would be UNarmed [or to get rid of the double negative: I think that it'd be reasonable to think that perhaps the intruder would be unarmed].

That said, assuming the intruder is ARMED is also a very reasonable thing.

To only pick one and completely exclude the other...eh. Couldn't.

[Rams]

Someone broke into my apartment on Thursday, stole some of my stuff and left my door completely ****ed. The next day some guy came in unannounced while I was there, I got up grabbed a knife and told him to get the **** out. He started talking about how he's the cable guy (didn't look like it) and couldn't find the place he was going to. I told him I didn't care and for him to leave. If he didn't go right then I'd probably have a death on my hands right about now.

I don't care the reason, never come into my house unannounced.

[Mr. Ron]

Ok, so someone breaks into your house.
Is it REASONABLE to suspect that he/she intends to commit a further crime (Burglary, Arson, Vandalism, Rape, Murder.... whatever)?


Further more, is it REASONABLE to suspect the intruder has a chance of being armed?

Yes.

[The Stig]

It is completely reasonable to think they are doing more than just breaking and entering, as they would need a motivation to enter. It is also completely reasonable to believe that they would be armed with tools to coerce anyone they might encounter that would impede them in their task.

This pretty much.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

If someone's in my house and I get a chance, I'm jumping him from behind and gouging his eyes out.

I guess the only question for me is if the guy gets on his knees and begs. I'm not sure what I'd do.

[Detective Dan]

absolutely it is reasonable

I guess the only question for me is if the guy gets on his knees and begs. I'm not sure what I'd do.

detain him until the police arrives

as shell pointed out, here in the US at least, you are only able to match them with a step greater of force. Obviously that is up for interpretation, but if a guy surrenders and is on his knees and you shoot him (referencing John's post) then you have crossed the line.

[The Stig]

I'd detain him probably by brandishing a gun. If he made a threatening move towards me during the detention, I'd shoot to injure if at all possible. Wouldn't harm the guy if I could get away with just detaining him until police came. I may have him zip tie his hands if I had the opportunity so there wouldn't be a chance for him to make a move and lead to a bad situation for both of us.

[Reaganista]

you have a reason to suspect them of breaking into your house that's it

I'd detain him probably by brandishing a gun. If he made a threatening move towards me during the detention, I'd shoot to injure if at all possible.
you have no right to detain or to threaten deadly force in response to a suspected misdemeanor you people have no sense of proportionality

[Smokey D]

Which is the same thing, as a reasonable person effectively means 'the jury' and a jury is supposed to be a selection of random individuals who should represent the overall average outlook of the community.

Nah they're not. What is reasonable may be a question of fact but its threshold is set by law. It's not just what the community feels is right. I don't have the citation but there's a case in the States (in tort, admittedly, but it highlights my point) where a judge imposed liability for failure to take reasonable care in optometry even though the optometrist could show that what he did was the industry standard.

For an example in crime, the NZ Crimes Act gives a defence of provocation in which it explicitly refers to the average (not reasonable) person.

I realize that the words carry slightly different connotations, but I consider them close enough in a practical context to be interchangeable.

In many circumstances but not always.

"The reasonable person standard is often used legal term that originated in the development of the common law. The "reasonable person" is a legal fiction which represents a reasoned outlook on a legal question. The perspective of the reasonable man is intentionally distinct from that of an "average" person; contrary to popular misconception, the reasonable man is not necessarily average"

[Reaganista]

also even though juries nullify for racist reasons all the time the reasonable man isnt allowed to be racist even though the average person probably is

[JohnXDoesn't]

Someone broke into my apartment on Thursday, stole some of my stuff and left my door completely ****ed. The next day some guy came in unannounced while I was there, I got up grabbed a knife and told him to get the **** out. He started talking about how he's the cable guy (didn't look like it) and couldn't find the place he was going to. I told him I didn't care and for him to leave. If he didn't go right then I'd probably have a death on my hands right about now.

I don't care the reason, never come into my house unannounced.
this is pretty much how i feel. i should also point out i live alone and no one belongs in my place of residence unless invited inside by me. i do not have an "open door" policy with anyone, you are not free to just "drop by"

my home, as they say, is my castle. its where i live and breathe. i must be secure there and i must know i have the right to defend not my property, but myself if need be. in my own house / apartment

if i were to come upon an intruder of course i wouldn't "shoot first and ask questions later." maybe someone is homeless and mentally ill and walked in? maybe they got the wrong house? any number of far fetched things. however those chances are slim

if I were the sort to break into someones home and were caught my first instinct would be to run away. simple as that. just run out the nearest door or jump through the nearest window. i would expect that of anyone who breaks in to some place. however if i came upon someone and they did the opposite, and they took even one threatening step toward me, then i would use whatever force i felt necessary to defend myself in that situation. if a guy gets hit in the head with a bat and he dies, tough shi.t for him. now if i hit the guy and he goes down and then i continue to pummel him until he dies, i am guilty of murder. or at least manslaughter i would think. but if i hit a guy a couple times over the head or stab him trying to stop him from hurting me and he dies, tough luck. better you then me. IN MY OWN HOUSE.

in all honesty though, if i heard someone in the outer apartment if i were in my room asleep....i don't knoiw what i would do. call the cops, yeah. and probably just stay put behind my locked bedroom door. i mean why risk confrontation when i can just wait until the intruder comes to me. IOW why would i want to "find" this person when i can simply let them "find' me? but if they came through my bedroom door, thats it. i wouldn't think twice about imposing a good amount of bodily harm on them. i think its just natural to defend yourself vigorously and if you have a family, those you love, in that situation.

[Sk0rpi0n]

Flawed poll.

[hismajestythepope]

der ubermensch is really slow, bear with him

[GreyHam]

i would certainly expect a burglar to be armed (would you enter someone elses house with nothing but your wits?)

id crack them round the head before asking any questions, and become yet another innocent homeowner with a record for ABH

i think a burglars first impulse would be to do one as soon as they're discovered, but tbh i dont think id want them to get away with it. they could come back another time, theyd know the layout etc, or theyd just do it to someone else.

the episode of peep show where mark gets burgled is prime example of how it works in this country, but its hard for them to scream 'human rights' after youve knocked them out with a bat

[hismajestythepope]

idk you can hit a burglar and knock them out just dont kill them

[Reaganista]

stop assuming he's a burglar there's nothing in evidence that suggests that

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

stop assuming he's a burglar there's nothing in evidence that suggests that

i'd say the fact that he's in your house and not taking a nap or watching tv is pretty good evidence he isn't there to hang out

[Shell]

tway what is your deal with taking the side of the criminal?


in all honesty though, if i heard someone in the outer apartment if i were in my room asleep....i don't knoiw what i would do. call the cops, yeah. and probably just stay put behind my locked bedroom door. i mean why risk confrontation when i can just wait until the intruder comes to me. IOW why would i want to "find" this person when i can simply let them "find' me? but if they came through my bedroom door, thats it. i wouldn't think twice about imposing a good amount of bodily harm on them. i think its just natural to defend yourself vigorously and if you have a family, those you love, in that situation.


I think about this scenario often, since I'm home alone a lot, live outside city limits, and my neighbors are too far away to hear me scream. If someone came into my house (or was hiding in the basement closet) I'd really probably be screwed. I'd only be safe if I happened to be in my bedroom and heard them rummaging around and then I could get my gun.

And I guess (here anyway) as soon as they leave your house, you no longer have the right to attack them in any way. Even if they leave with your stuff, or have already caused you harm. Guess if I kill someone in the yard, I'll just have to drag them back into the house.

[Reaganista]

you dont even know that he's a criminal he's a suspect

[Shell]

it's not illegal to break into someone's house?

I better put up a NO TRESPASSING sign so I'll be covered.

[Reaganista]

yes presence in someone else's house it not necessarily criminal
also no trespassing signs have no effect

[Shell]

it is if my doors are locked

and why not?

[Reaganista]

locking your doors doesnt negate every possible justification/excuse

[Shell]

they would have to commit a crime in order to get into the house if it were locked

[Reaganista]

no locking your doors doesnt negate every possible justification/excuse

[Shell]

so if I have a good excuse, I can break into someone's house and it's not a crime?

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=98&bold=
breaking and entering
n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/breaking-and-entering/
Breaking and entering is the crime of entering a residence or other enclosed property without authorization and some element of force. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. Without an intent to commit a crime, breaking and entering by itself usually carries a charge of the crime of trespass.
There are cases of minors committing breaking and entering in recreational pursuits, unaware of the legal consequences of their offense. In many states, a minor can be charged and subject to serious penalties, including institutionalization, under a state's juvenile offender laws covering offenses such as breaking and entering. This charge may also have a lasting affect on employment and other opportunities in adulthood.

[The Stig]

He's saying there may be mitigating circumstances that make it not a criminal act and that he isn't a criminal until the person is proven in court to have committed the crime of breaking and entering.

[Shell]

They're in my house and I didn't invite them in. What more proof is needed? As I said in my first post I'd consider if there seemed to be a circumstance at hand but even if so they still committed the crime.

[UmphreysHead]

Me likes Colorado's Make My Day law.

[Iscariot]

Ok, so someone breaks into your house.
Is it REASONABLE to suspect that he/she intends to commit a further crime (Burglary, Arson, Vandalism, Rape, Murder.... whatever)?

yes


Further more, is it REASONABLE to suspect the intruder has a chance of being armed?

yes

this is why i keep a shotgun and ammunition nearby where i sleep at night

if someone breaks into my home while my family is sleeping i fully intend to shoot first and ask questions later

[Smokey D]

They're in my house and I didn't invite them in. What more proof is needed? As I said in my first post I'd consider if there seemed to be a circumstance at hand but even if so they still committed the crime.

You can't use res ipsa loquitur for true crimes.

But I agree that in some circumstances being in someone else's house creates a reasonable presumption that another crime is going to be commission and that in further circumstances it might be reasonable to use force to prevent them from committing the crime or otherwise making the person. The law doesn't require you to weigh to a nicety the various possibilities when the response is time sensitive or one which requires immediate action.

[Shell]

I looked up that term, but I don't exactly understand what you mean.

[hismajestythepope]

nm no i fail hard :(

Res ipsa loquitur is a legal term from the Latin meaning, "the thing itself speaks" but is more often translated "the thing speaks for itself." It signifies that further details are unnecessary; the proof of the case is self-evident. The doctrine is applied to tort claims which, as a matter of law, do not have to be explained beyond the point where liability is established. It is most useful to plaintiffs in certain negligence cases. It was first formulated in the case Byrne v. Boadle (1863), in England.

[Iscariot]

he's saying that you can't always use literal views of a crime to interpret the law, though i personally disagree

[Shell]

well that's how I'd interpret it in my house

[hismajestythepope]

well its not really a literal view in the case of assuming that if somebody broke into your home they must be trying to harm you, some people are just out of their gord, others are unthinking little kids who try to steal snacks etc.

[Smokey D]

Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine of evidence that means when something happens you assign fault based on the likelihood of it not happening unless the defendant did something wrong. But it doesn't work for true crimes, which places the evidentiary burden on the prosecution. It means the fact that he's in your house doesn't in itself establish liability for trespass or burglary or whatever. At the most it's only half the story.

But it's not necessary to prove a crime or know what a person's doing to justify the use of force against them.

[Reaganista]

so if I have a good excuse, I can break into someone's house and it's not a crime?
yes that's exactly what it means
just like you're arguing that you have a good excuse/justification to intentionally kill a person and have it not be a crime

[GreyHam]

He's saying there may be mitigating circumstances that make it not a criminal act and that he isn't a criminal until the person is proven in court to have committed the crime of breaking and entering.

peep show ftw

but anyway - isnt crime prevention more important than punishment? ie someone enters your house without permission (tresspass) potentially damaging property in the process (vandalism, and together breaking and entering) they have already commited one crime (three really, but keeping it simple)

they have no reason to be there, and they have no right to be there, nor do they have permission to be there

you can sit back until they nick something or try and attack you or your family, or you can nip it in the bud and sort it out first. why give them the privaledge of making the first move? theyve already PROVED to you that they are up to no good

regardless of circumstances, they ARE NOT PERMITTED TO BE THERE. mental retardation, immaturity, or desperate druggy, none of these are excuses, none of these give them just cause. when it comes down to it, your actions in dealing with them will depend on what happens when you flick that light on and see them unplugging your TV - balaclava clad adult? wide eyed frightened child? as far as im concerned however, in that moment, with someone else in YOUR house, you should be able to defend person and property with reasonable force, which at least involves twatting them round the head with something harder than a fist

[Iscariot]

i keep a baseball bat and a golf club on either side of my front door so if someone does break in and sees me grab my gun they can pick up a weapon before i shoot them so it looks like i was defending my life

[Smokey D]

mental retardation, immaturity, or desperate druggy, none of these are excuses, none of these give them just cause

That's debatable.

But Tway's wrong when he says a home owner needs to prove to the same burden as the prosecution a crime against a person who's entered his home. That's never the case.

[siva_chair]

If you don't see a weapon on the person, tell them to put their hands in the air and freeze. If they keep moving and don't stop, shoot them in the knees.

If they have a deadly ranged weapon, shoot them in the head/chest.

[Iscariot]

lol shoot them in the knees

if someone has invaded my home and i have no knowledge of what they're armed with i will shoot to kill

[Shell]

I'd be shooting to hit, because my aim isn't accurate enough to shoot for the knees/head/whatever.

[Iscariot]

i've heard that i could get in real trouble if i shoot/kill someone that has broken into my home because i have military training

is this true because that seems retarded

[Shell]

idk I would think you would be only if you were still in the military

it might be easier for someone to convince a jury that you could have/should have only shot the person to disable them rather than to kill them, because considering your background, you should be able to choose which you were wanting to do

[Iscariot]

well the thing is, i don't want to disable someone

shooting them in the legs causes a chemical reaction in which adrenaline shoots into their bloodstream and they can still turn around and shoot me

i don't want that

if i shoot someone i'm using what i learned in the army

"one shot one kill"

[siva_chair]

lol shoot them in the knees

if someone has invaded my home and i have no knowledge of what they're armed with i will shoot to kill

I'd rather watch them cry on the ground though.

Plus, if I shoot them in the head, I'd have to clean up a bigger mess, and I don't have a housekeeper.

I'd be shooting to hit, because my aim isn't accurate enough to shoot for the knees/head/whatever.

You should practice more. :thumb:

well the thing is, i don't want to disable someone

shooting them in the legs causes a chemical reaction in which adrenaline shoots into their bloodstream and they can still turn around and shoot me

i don't want that

if i shoot someone i'm using what i learned in the army

"one shot one kill"

That is why I have a magazine that holds more than a single round. My follow up shot is going to be quicker than their initial shot after I shot them in the knees (in theory anyway, their adrenaline/shock reflex doesn't act faster than my trigger finger :p). If I know they have a gun I'm shooting them in the head to begin with.

[Shell]

ammo is expensive :(

[siva_chair]

ammo is expensive :(

This is very true.

Practice mostly with a .22 pistol. Much cheaper ammo.

[Iscariot]

That is why I have a magazine that holds more than a single round. My follow up shot is going to be quicker than their initial shot after I shot them in the knees (in theory anyway, their adrenaline/shock reflex doesn't act faster than my trigger finger :p). If I know they have a gun I'm shooting them in the head to begin with.

why expend two shots when you can completely eliminate the threat with one and then have the cops clean up the mess

[Iscariot]

This is very true.

Practice mostly with a .22 pistol. Much cheaper ammo.

this

you can get like 200 rounds for a .22 for about $12

[Shell]

then I'd have to buy a .22 pistol!

[siva_chair]

why expend two shots when you can completely eliminate the threat with one and then have the cops clean up the mess

The cops aren't going to clean up my mess the cops are usually useless.

Plus, I will only use one bullet if I percieve the threat to be great enough.

And if they don't have a weapon and I shoot them in the knee, they get to live with the shame that they were retarded and broke into someone's house unarmed and got shot because of it. That and they will probably cry, which would definitely be worth getting on film.

[siva_chair]

then I'd have to buy a .22 pistol!

You can get a decent one for about $200-$300.

Probably even less if you buy used.

Plus, everyone should own a .22 pistol anyway. They are really useful.

[Iscariot]

well shaming them aside, when my adrenaline kicks in and i get that super clear vision and slow motion view of the world, i aim to kill

no thought involved, no hesitation, i aim and shoot

so i guess the moral of the story is - don't break into my house

[Shell]

You can get a decent one for about $200-$300.

Probably even less if you buy used.

Plus, everyone should own a .22 pistol anyway. They are really useful.

thats how much i spent on the gun i already have

and I don't really see one would be really useful to me (other than improving my aim) I don't really have a pest problem

[Iscariot]

you can kill someone with a .22 if you shoot them in the eyeball 5 or 6 times

[siva_chair]

well shaming them aside, when my adrenaline kicks in and i get that super clear vision and slow motion view of the world, i aim to kill

no thought involved, no hesitation, i aim and shoot

so i guess the moral of the story is - don't break into my house

Hey I have no problem with that.

I'm just saying I'd personally try to use a little bit of discretion.

Of course that can be hard to do with a shotgun, but since I have 12 gauge loaded with either #1 or 00 buckshot. Thinking about buying some flechette rounds or maybe some Rhodesian Jungle Rounds.....:smash:

[siva_chair]

thats how much i spent on the gun i already have

and I don't really see one would be really useful to me (other than improving my aim) I don't really have a pest problem

If you like to eat rabbits and squirrels they are awesome.

you can kill someone with a .22 if you shoot them in the eyeball 5 or 6 times

Or once. Hitmen use the .22 all the time. It can be silenced more than any other pistol.

[Iscariot]

i have a 20 gauge with #8 shot

it won't kill someone at more than 10 yards but if i'm up close and personal and unload two or three shells into someone they won't get back up

[siva_chair]

i have a 20 gauge with #8 shot

it won't kill someone at more than 10 yards but if i'm up close and personal and unload two or three shells into someone they won't get back up

I thought you were all about "one shot one kill" though?

Seriously, Rhodesian Jungle Rounds.

[Iscariot]

i am about one shot one kill, but i had $250 to spend after my tax return one year and wanted to get a shotgun and a 20 gauge was all i could afford

besides, if i'm close enough it will turn someone's face into oatmeal in one shot so it still works

[siva_chair]

i am about one shot one kill, but i had $250 to spend after my tax return one year and wanted to get a shotgun and a 20 gauge was all i could afford

besides, if i'm close enough it will turn someone's face into oatmeal in one shot so it still works

Sure.

I think I'm going to get a 12 gauge Rem. 870 pump and chop it down. There is nothing that makes a burgler piss themselves faster than hearing the "click click" of a pump in the dark, and my 12 gauge coach gun would be less effective in a zombie attack as it is slower to reload than the pump.

Or, I guess I could just buy the 870 with an 18 inch barrel and not have to worry about chopping it.

http://www.impactguns.com/store/047700250779.html

[Iscariot]

my 20 is a pump

i love that sound tbh

[siva_chair]

I used to have a youth Rem. 870 Express in 20 gauge. Nice gun. Wish I still had it.

[Iscariot]

that is a nice gun

and in response to your edit, my current 20 gauge is a mossberg bantham 500 so it came standard with an 18" accu-choke barrel but for $50 i can by a 22" natural slug barrel which i realllly want to do

[siva_chair]

that is a nice gun

and in response to your edit, my current 20 gauge is a mossberg bantham 500 so it came standard with an 18" accu-choke barrel but for $50 i can by a 22" natural slug barrel which i realllly want to do

My friend has the 12 gauge version of your gun (pistol grip, but he put a folding stock on it). Not too bad.

I was never a huge fan of slugs. They are cool, but I would rather have buckshot or other pellets, tbh.

If you are a fan of slugs, check out Pitbull rounds or Terminator-x rounds.

Pitbull rounds are 6, 00 buckshot pellets topped off with a 1.3 oz slug.

Or, upon impact with the Terminator-X rounds, the slug mushrooms and expands to something like 2 inches (stopping the slug from totally penetrating your target). Then, this rapid expansion forces dozens of tiny pellets to spread through your target like a cancerous disease, opening an area at the impact point equal to about a softball. I think it has a shock effect of about 95%.

[Iscariot]

goddamn i've gotta get my hands on some of those the next time i go buy ammunition

[sLarkin20]

Some girl around here had an insane guy sneak into her apartment and then live under her bed for two weeks before she noticed him being there..

i don't know why I'm posting this here, thread just reminded me of it

That would be some ridiculously creep ****.

*checks under bed*

[sLarkin20]

Sure.

I think I'm going to get a 12 gauge Rem. 870 pump and chop it down. There is nothing that makes a burgler piss themselves faster than hearing the "click click" of a pump in the dark, and my 12 gauge coach gun would be less effective in a zombie attack as it is slower to reload than the pump.

Or, I guess I could just buy the 870 with an 18 inch barrel and not have to worry about chopping it.

http://www.impactguns.com/store/047700250779.html

I bought a 12ga 870 with 18" barrel and got an aftermarket pistol grip off of Midway all for under $300 a couple of months back. Its a pretty badass looking weapon.

I love it, so far. I believe its cheaper than the Mossberg 500s, too.

[Iscariot]

how much did you pay for it?

my mossberg was $200

[sLarkin20]

It was like $250 + tax, and the pistol grip was around $20.

When I said I think its cheaper than the 500s, I meant their "tactical" line of 12ga's. Those were all over $300, at least the last time I checked.

[beso negro]

tway what is your deal with taking the side of the criminal?

he's a lawlyer

[siva_chair]

I bought a 12ga 870 with 18" barrel and got an aftermarket pistol grip off of Midway all for under $300 a couple of months back. Its a pretty badass looking weapon.

I love it, so far. I believe its cheaper than the Mossberg 500s, too.

Cool.

I probably wouldn't go with the pistol grip because I'm not huge on them with shotguns, but to each their own. :thumb:

goddamn i've gotta get my hands on some of those the next time i go buy ammunition

They are nasty badasses, but so very expensive....