Here they come...

"Yes, you're fucked. Buy our product, or else."

but I love my security system. Had it installed shortly after being robbed. I think the signs alone have deterred more (and there are house in my neighborhood that have been hit multiple times). Makes me feel like another layer of security for my family.

Many alarm companies sell system with three locations being monitored. I choose to have all windows alarmed. Thieves count on the three points being alarmed and go through a window.

There have been several incidents in Las Vegas where homeowners have been followed into their garages or doors by robbers.

Sort of the same thing but real and called something else.

It was not an invasion of an occupied home. It was a case of a home owner walking in on a B&E. That is the point of the article.

You can find data supporting ANY particular opinion.
I'm just curious about the reason for trying to redefine "Home Invasion"

A man was killed nearby a week ago. They just caught the kids who did it. A 16, 17, and 19 year old. The police didn't initially release much info about it. My MiL was certain that there was a criminal element out stalking the people of our town. I said it was unlikely. It happens, but very rare around here. Turns out the man was a drug dealer and the kids were looking for easy cash & drugs. They killed him with a hammer. Nasty stuff.

The Dartmouth College murders were the double homicide of Dartmouth College professors Half Zantop (born April 24, 1938) and his wife Susanne Zantop (née Korsukewitz, born August 12, 1945), who were killed at their home in Etna, New Hampshire (a village near the town of Hanover), on January 27, 2001. Originally from Germany, each of them had been teaching at the Ivy League college since the 1970s. High school classmates James J. Parker, age 16, and 17-year-old Robert W. Tulloch were charged with their murders after investigators traced the sheaths of two SEAL 2000 knives found at the crime scene to Parker.[1] The knives had been purchased online.[2]

<snip>

Tulloch and Parker went to the Zantop residence on the morning of January 27, 2001. Posing as students doing research for a school survey, their modus operandi was to take the occupants by surprise, threaten them into revealing their PINs, rob and kill them. Being one who often welcomed young people into his home, Half allowed them inside while Susanne prepared a dish for a dinner she was going to later in the evening. According to his confession, Parker admitted that Zantop was "an alright guy" and that they didn't need to kill him. Tulloch, on the other hand, was thinking the exact opposite, especially when the professor of earth science told him that he had to come more prepared. Tulloch believed that his comments, however well-intentioned, were a slap in the face. While Half turned away to look for a phone number, Tulloch took his SOG knife and repeatedly stabbed Half in the chest and face, cutting his own leg accidentally in the process. Susanne tried to stop him, but Parker slit her throat at Tulloch's orders. Tulloch then stabbed her in the head and body. Covered in blood, they left with $340 from Half's wallet, but they forgot to take their knife sheaths from the scene. During interviews with investigators, Parker confessed that he was surprised '"that our plan didn't work".

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Dartmouth_College_murders

And since when are planned home invasions any less home invasions?

Of course they are not myth. Rare certainly, but not mythical.

The myth is that "home invasions" are random and can happen to anyone at anytime. The truth is that the majority of "home invasions" are robberies of drug dealers or ongoing feuds. Actual "home invasions" are very rare.

You can't have it both ways. Unless you would only accept a documented case of robbers using a random address generator (and wouldn't even that be a plan?), you must either admit this case was random, or admit that going to the store makes you a target. What did these people do that makes them NOT "anyone at any time"?

Are you suggesting that since home invasions are planned rather than random it is suddenly advisable to disarm innocent people?

It seems the issue hinges on whether the criminals are dangerous because of their capriciousness or whether they are dangerous because of their methodical deliberateness. Either way they are dangerous.

creates unjustified fear in the general public.

Actual "home invasions" are very rare. Most break-ins described as a random home invasion are robberies of drug dealers or ongoing feuds.

The term often suggests there is a deliberateness on the part of the criminals to encounter the home owner but I will grant that most burglars prefer their dwellings unoccupied.

However, that does not negate the fact that many, many people are home when their houses, apartments, etc. are burgled/invaded regardless of the intent of the criminal and that number far outpaces criminal-on-criminal predation.

Therefore it's a good investment to buy lottery tickets.

they were targeted in a supermarket, I would still consider that to be random.

Those two assholes could have chosen anyone.

IMO, the meaning of "targeting" means that the home invaders choose a home to invade because they know (or strongly suspect) that there are drugs or cash.


Just like the Zantop murders were random. Their neighbors had been chosen first, but that plan went awry.

In a targeted invasion, in which drugs or money are the goals, if one house presents a problem, the criminals don't then go next door.

and decides to invade their home, you consider that a "targeted" as opposed to a "random" home invasion? This seems like a worthless distinction to me.

The minute you say nice car, nice house, etc....some people's empathy levels plummet even faster around here.

I doubt if home invasions are virtually ever "random." That's a misleading and pointless qualifier.

And when they shot your loved ones and your dog it is an unforeseeable 'accident'

Asian youth gangs almost always target Asian families for home invasions because these families are less likely to report such crimes to the police. This is because many recent Asian immigrants come from countries where the police were seen either as completely corrupt, woefully ineffective, or even working in conjunction with gangs. Such publicity would also bring "shame" to their community, which goes against the families' social conditioning.

The family may also fear retaliation from the gang if they report the home invasion to the authorities. Victims who are in the U.S. illegally also worry that they may be deported if they report crimes committed against them. In fact, a recent study by the Department of Justice found that among all the major racial/ethnic groups, Asian Americans are the least likely to report violent crimes committed against themselves to the police.

Further, recent Asian immigrants are more likely to keep their valuables and money hidden somewhere inside their house or business instead of keeping them in a bank. Again, they may not be knowledgeable about the concept of banking and trusting one's money to strangers or because of past experiences with corrupt financial institutions in their home country. Either way, Asian gangs exploit these cultural elements to victimize their own community.

http://www.asian-nation.org/gangs.shtml

When I heard a reporter call something a home invasion, I made a bet with myself that the victims would be Asian. The reporters used other terms for home robberies when the victims weren't Asian. Sure enough, the two "home invasions" in my immediate area were perpetrated by young Asian men who targeted well off Asian families.

These days though it's become a common use term for any strong arm robbery in a residence.

is this an attempt to parse the term "Home Invasion"

maintain personal arms in the home. The OP wants people disarmed by whatever means of distortion and chicanery that can be mustered.

how many armed criminals have you taken out?

Do you keep notches on the stock of each successful defense of your home?

if I haven't killed anyone I'm not entitled to defend myself if I ever found myself in a situation where I needed to defend myself? That's a rationale that says a person is not allowed to do something for the first time unless they have done it before. Silliness.

The question itself also relies and the most egregious possible outcome as its base line so as to later accuse the subject of seeking the most egregious outcome possible.

So, in your fantasies, how many bad guys have you stopped with your gun(s)?

Perhaps if you would show more emotional maturity you would find better traction with your arguments. You are essentially equating the wholly natural and decent desire for personal safety with a desire to kill. Don't want to see family harmed? You want to kill. Don't want to be sexually assaulted? You want to kill.

That is a emotional and logical failing on your part, not anyone else's. Grow-up.

No?

It is about the means to defend one's self and family. It is akin to a seat belt. You do not know when you will need it, you never want to need it and merely using one has no preventative value nor is it a guarantee that all potential harm will be mitigated -- but no value comes from fabricating reasons to inhibit their proper use.

But enough of that... I've scared off home invaders for years without a gun.

That's an absolutist statement that has no bearing on reality. To own a weapon is not the absolute equivalent of harming a family member, nor is the absence of a guarantee of the absence of harm. Yes, it is a possibility but it is also possible to properly and safely handle weapons.

Happy to help...

Besides a nosy busy body?

Interwebz 101...

the purpose of a "discussion board" was to have an actual conversation! Silly me, I guess. lol

Oh, you kidder, you!

"a nosy busy body"


Says the poster that seems to agree with disarming everyone.

who needs to have his guns taken away.

Does posting on a message board demonstrate that one is unfit to own a firearm?

You shouldn't have guns either.

Its the "I don't like what you're doing/saying/owning" theory.

Seems to be a lot of people that know what is best for me. I'm so lucky!

I know, I know, another nosy busy body.

Lull you into a false sense of security.

Then BAM! WE'RE TAKING YOUR GUNS

It's clear as day.

Yet, you're the one who assumes all gun owners are racist mass-murderers aching for the first opportunity to loose unbridled mayhem. But criminals are real and in quantities far greater than your strained caricatures. Meanwhile the number of gun owners numbers in the hundreds of millions thus trumpeting the fact that your conjured images reside no place except your fevered imagination.

If bogeymen are truly the issue you would do well to be the first to set aside your own morbid fantasies.

Which is a real menace we should all worry about.

I've been thinking about The Knock Out game a lot lately.
I have a son in High School, and although he say's that it doesn't happen there,
I still worry about it. *shiver*

About a dozen of those happen every day in every state.

I'm sorry this link only goes from 2/1996 to 10/2013, but it looks like someone missed an AWEFUL lot of school shootings...

Timeline of Worldwide School and Mass Shootings
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

Charles Manson's "family" invaded a home and killed everyone way back when. Was it random? No, but not sure why that makes a difference.

Also, there is a famous serial killer, "the Night Stalker", who would randomly break into homes at night, and torture and rape and kill those he found inside. But I guess that wouldn't qualify as a "random home invasion", since it was just one person.

We have at least one a week. It's mostly gangs and/or tweakers. The gangs are looking for cash and firearms, the tweakers are looking for anything they can sell for a crack. They break down the door, they tie up the residents and demand to know where the money/guns are. In some cases they will make the resident drive to their bank and force them to withdraw money.

And if you think gangs and tweakers are unique to this area (Central Valley), you'd be wrong. They're everywhere.

No. People's homes and apartments get broken into all the time.

The baggers we have around here believe there's a home invasion every minute right here in North Idaho, and we're All Doomed unless everyone has five guns in every room.

Reality: there's been exactly one home invasion robbery in the last four years, and in it the bad guys broke into a senior citizen's house and managed to wheel off a gun safe with $250,000 worth of gold and silver coin without waking the guy up.

So the media had to find a new term to keep the general public afraid.

Screaming "HOME INVASION" at least once per newscast is just another tool to help their ratings.

Home invasions are common in the Dallas area. Now the latest is drive-way robbery. You are followed home and when you are in the drive-way, getting out of your car, someone robs you. This is not made up, it happened to my next door neighbor last week. A car followed him home and his drive is in the back of his house and when he pulled, a man in a mask robbed him at knife point and took his car. Someone tried to come in our house several months back, but my beloved pit bull scared them off. She got her favorite breakfast the next day - pancakes.

for guns and home security.

However, it has occurred to me that if the victimized family in Cheshire CT had had and armed a home security system, it is more likely than not that nobody would have been killed.

Because they are rare- the end of the article lists five in the community over six weeks
Or they only happen to bad people- that brings up some interesting insinuations
Or because if your home gets invaded you did something to cause it- victim blaming?

so I could see the lack of burn.

here's another for you to click on http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172138005#post16 where the poster accepts as true my summation of his position.

You guys just fucking swarm out of that place.

Is there a link leading you here?

Actually, we are bright enough to find our way here all by ourselves. Didn't see the "Keep Out" sign posted; maybe it got misplaced?

most places I lurk as I have little to add and I find empty "me too" posts to be a bit narcissistic.

Anybody entering a home without being invited is invading that home.
If that sounds too scary, uncivilized or unfair, learn to knock.

Like bizarro lottery rare.

or friends by an armed homeowner than actual home invasions that were thwarted by an armed homeowner.

The best approach IMO is to have, and use, an alarm system with central station monitoring. If a home invader knows for sure that the police are on their way he will probably get out of there.

....you are "giving in to fear".

Seriously.

I would never keep a gun in the house for self defense, but I sure as hell have some pepper spray and a baseball bat if I need it and yes I have some motion lights and locks on my doors.

yet we all take our shoes off for every flight.

I am very happy that he is in supermax.

I'm sure they'll be more than happy to play semantics with you.

Both totally random and related to property theft. So not a myth in my experience, nor in my neighborhood or City.

Hope no one was hurt, but what would a gun have done? Probably nothing.

It seems it is a discussion of whether or not home invasions occur to people who are not criminals or drug dealers.

Let me ask you, being familiar with bigots, why is it bigotry to note that many shootings are gang/drug/criminal related but it is not bigotry to dismiss home invasions as they happen to drug dealers and criminals?

Since home invasions only happen to, you know, those people

It sure would have helped in this instance to prevent this potential murderer from harming anyone ever again...

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/07/02/suspect-in-millburn-nj-nanny-cam-home-invasion-due-in-court/

My trusty baseball bat and cranky menopausal woman screech is all I need. With that said, I live in a large urban area with PD that can be on-scene in minutes. As much as I despise guns, I might feel differently if I lived in some of the out of the way places I have passed through while traveling. A noisy slide action shotgun would be my only choice. Doubt I'd buy bullets, though.

nor do I think it matters.

From the link...
Custis, who smirked as sheriff’s officers later hauled him back to jail, has 12 prior criminal convictions.

On Tuesday night, CBS 2?s Don Champion confirmed a disturbing attack in Custis’ past. Court records show Custis pleaded guilty in an eerily similar case in 1991 when he was 20 years old. Custis faced robbery and aggravated assault charges in a Burlington County home burglary.

Published reports at the time said Custis broke into a house, beat a woman and then pushed her and her 18-month-old daughter down a stairwell.

In the incident on June 21, authorities said Custis broke into a home in Millburn and beat a mother of two for nearly 10 minutes before taking off with some jewelry, including the woman’s wedding ring.

Due to the incredibly stupid "war on drugs" taking up prison space better used to isolate the truly violent from the rest of society.

Certainly not incorrigible people like Custis that have shown no regard for human life.

See California's "Three Strikes" law for example. I agree; non-violent offenders should be the first priority for release but given that judges and DA's are elected by people who aren't aware of the realities of the system and vote for and support ridiculous sentences the result is that more violent offenders are released instead.

One of them ended up truly random. The other was drug related (home owners involved in drug dealing)

These both involved homeowner and kids lead around the house with guns to heads collecting valuables, then tied up. Police caught the invaders in both cases and the one was completely random from what they said and from everything the police could determine.

Completely meaningless distinctions.

but I don't think they're always (or even necessarily most often) done by people the homeowners know either. I imagine people think that a homeowner might have something worth stealing, and they think that for some reason, which would make it not be random, if I understand how you are defining random.

in the area where I live. The victims are elderly people.

Or perhaps, "Duck, Duck, Shoot" as they pass houses?

There was a terrifying one a couple months ago, not far from where we live.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Terrifying-home-invastion-in-Fort-Worth-225884631.html

No, criminals target houses likely to contain valuables. That doesn't make the homeowners somehow responsible for the criminals' targeting their houses.

I just checked a few and they support my point. The majority of home invasions are not random attacks. Most are robberies of drug dealers or ongoing feuds.

ransacked at one time or the other. But the thieves usually had cased a building to know who was home during the day and who was at work most of the time, so there seldom was a break in when people were there. You think the thieves are stupid? Although a couple who came home unexpectedly in an apartment in a building next to us, walked in on the thieves and were tied up and put in a closet. They finally got free a day later when a relative dropped by wondering why they weren't answering the phone. Some even came with UHauls like they were the tenants and they were moving. Since most people were at work during the day, no one was there to find it suspicious until after the fact. And you got your car stolen at least once in your lifetime. My husband and I were lucky and never got our apartment ransacked, but my husband got his car stolen. My little Ford Escort didn't get stolen and somewhere I read that it was on the bottom of the list of desirable cars to steal. LOL!