With a shotgun. Sounds brutal, but it got the job done.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/201 ... -the-face/

The resident of the home called 911 as he heard someone trying to break in on either the back or side of his house, Fulghum said. He then grabbed a shotgun and upon seeing the man climb through a window, fired birdshot pellets that sprayed the man’s face.

I'd imagine this intruder is now blind in both eyes and in considerable pain otherwise. I bet he is wishing buckshot was used instead of birdshot.

that's gonna leave a mark

Oh well.

Sounds like a good shoot. Called 911 and had the forethought to load his scattergun with birdshot to prevent over-penetration into a neighbor's house.

I live in an apartment complex therefore, I'm my Mossberg has birdshot in it as well. Hope for the best, prepared for the worst.

WOrking the action only goes so far.

I'm considering hand loading lower velocity slugs when I get my shotty.

ErikO wrote:I'm considering hand loading lower velocity slugs when I get my shotty.

Lots and lots and lots of people suggest using ONLY factory ammo for self defense loads.

The main reason being that ballistic reports are problematic with hand loads. There is no way to ensure that the hand loads they test are the same as the ones used in the shooting.

Factory loads are easy. They can get the lot number off the box and be sure what the load was.

Ultravox wrote:

ErikO wrote:I'm considering hand loading lower velocity slugs when I get my shotty.

Lots and lots and lots of people suggest using ONLY factory ammo for self defense loads.

The main reason being that ballistic reports are problematic with hand loads. There is no way to ensure that the hand loads they test are the same as the ones used in the shooting.

Factory loads are easy. They can get the lot number off the box and be sure what the load was.

True, but handloads for shotgun are kind of hard to mess up. Even using the Lee 1 oz keyed slug wouldn't be that hard. One of the blessings of living in a Castle Doctrine state is that as long as I follow the proper method for defending my property I am held harmless from civil trial. SLightly over minimum loadout for a 1 oz slug in a 2 3/4" shell would be manageable for my wife even with her bad shoulder. It also doesn't hurt that the most likely shot angle would be going twards the abandoned house next door so over penetration is not as big a concern.

This all being said, for the forseeable future, the round that would be defending my abode would be a .223 45 grain varmint Xpress frangeable factory round.

Hell, all this is theory at this point anyway.

The ophthalmic surgeon is going to be busy.

anyone ever hear stories like this, where afterward the intruder sues the homeowner and wins? is that really a problem or is it an urban myth?

gendoikari87 wrote:anyone ever hear stories like this, where afterward the intruder sues the homeowner and wins? is that really a problem or is it an urban myth?

http://www.wisn.com/Accused-Burglar-Sue ... index.html

ErikO wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:anyone ever hear stories like this, where afterward the intruder sues the homeowner and wins? is that really a problem or is it an urban myth?

http://www.wisn.com/Accused-Burglar-Sue ... index.html

yeah... someone breaks into my house, i'm unloading the entire clip.

gendoikari87 wrote:

ErikO wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:anyone ever hear stories like this, where afterward the intruder sues the homeowner and wins? is that really a problem or is it an urban myth?

http://www.wisn.com/Accused-Burglar-Sue ... index.html

yeah... someone breaks into my house, i'm unloading the entire clip.

The victim is the one that calls 911 first.

ErikO wrote:

Ultravox wrote:

ErikO wrote:I'm considering hand loading lower velocity slugs when I get my shotty.

Lots and lots and lots of people suggest using ONLY factory ammo for self defense loads.

The main reason being that ballistic reports are problematic with hand loads. There is no way to ensure that the hand loads they test are the same as the ones used in the shooting.

Factory loads are easy. They can get the lot number off the box and be sure what the load was.

True, but handloads for shotgun are kind of hard to mess up. Even using the Lee 1 oz keyed slug wouldn't be that hard. One of the blessings of living in a Castle Doctrine state is that as long as I follow the proper method for defending my property I am held harmless from civil trial. SLightly over minimum loadout for a 1 oz slug in a 2 3/4" shell would be manageable for my wife even with her bad shoulder. It also doesn't hurt that the most likely shot angle would be going twards the abandoned house next door so over penetration is not as big a concern.

This all being said, for the forseeable future, the round that would be defending my abode would be a .223 45 grain varmint Xpress frangeable factory round.

Hell, all this is theory at this point anyway.

What about the tweakers living in that abandoned house?

Poor tweakers....

gendoikari87 wrote:

ErikO wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:anyone ever hear stories like this, where afterward the intruder sues the homeowner and wins? is that really a problem or is it an urban myth?

http://www.wisn.com/Accused-Burglar-Sue ... index.html

yeah... someone breaks into my house, i'm unloading the entire clip.

Just stemming from my own curiosity, the case was dismissed:
http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/mar/06 ... s-lawsuit/

Xela

Cabrito wrote:

ErikO wrote:True, but handloads for shotgun are kind of hard to mess up. Even using the Lee 1 oz keyed slug wouldn't be that hard. One of the blessings of living in a Castle Doctrine state is that as long as I follow the proper method for defending my property I am held harmless from civil trial. SLightly over minimum loadout for a 1 oz slug in a 2 3/4" shell would be manageable for my wife even with her bad shoulder. It also doesn't hurt that the most likely shot angle would be going twards the abandoned house next door so over penetration is not as big a concern.

This all being said, for the forseeable future, the round that would be defending my abode would be a .223 45 grain varmint Xpress frangeable factory round.

Hell, all this is theory at this point anyway.

What about the tweakers living in that abandoned house?

Poor tweakers....

Nah, the whole neighborhood is keeping an eye on the abandoned houses on our block. No squatters here, that's a bit further south in the City Limits.

ErikO wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:anyone ever hear stories like this, where afterward the intruder sues the homeowner and wins? is that really a problem or is it an urban myth?

http://www.wisn.com/Accused-Burglar-Sue ... index.html

The plaintiff, the intruder that is, has nothing to lose.

He's locked up presumably with little or no exposure himself (meaning assets to lose in a counter claim) and a lawyer willing to work on a contingency, I would assume banking on a cut of a nuisance value settlement...something less than what the shooter's insurance company thinks it will cost to bring the case to trial.

First gut reaction would be to take it to trial...but...

I am reminded of the tale of a fellow who brought a product liability claim against Toro lawnmowers because he picked his up and attempted to use it as a hedge trimmer, losing a few fingers in the process...I am told by my former spouse's father that Toro lost at trial...

Said ex father-in-law having just successfully defended a motorist who was being sued by a utility company for having taken out a utility pole with their car...the defense was based upon "well, if you hadn't put your utility pole next to the roadway it wouldn't have been in a position to be damaged by a car would it?" The jury agreed and my ex-mother-in-law didn't have to pay for the phone pole.

moral of the story: trust your lawyer not your gut; your gut has no malpractice insurance.

rolandson wrote:

ErikO wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:anyone ever hear stories like this, where afterward the intruder sues the homeowner and wins? is that really a problem or is it an urban myth?

http://www.wisn.com/Accused-Burglar-Sue ... index.html

The plaintiff, the intruder that is, has nothing to lose.

He's locked up presumably with little or no exposure himself (meaning assets to lose in a counter claim) and a lawyer willing to work on a contingency, I would assume banking on a cut of a nuisance value settlement...something less than what the shooter's insurance company thinks it will cost to bring the case to trial.

First gut reaction would be to take it to trial...but...

I am reminded of the tale of a fellow who brought a product liability claim against Toro lawnmowers because he picked his up and attempted to use it as a hedge trimmer, losing a few fingers in the process...I am told by my former spouse's father that Toro lost at trial...

Said ex father-in-law having just successfully defended a motorist who was being sued by a utility company for having taken out a utility pole with their car...the defense was based upon "well, if you hadn't put your utility pole next to the roadway it wouldn't have been in a position to be damaged by a car would it?" The jury agreed and my ex-mother-in-law didn't have to pay for the phone pole.

moral of the story: trust your lawyer not your gut; your gut has no malpractice insurance.

Xela wrote: Just stemming from my own curiosity, the case was dismissed:
http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/mar/06 ... s-lawsuit/

Xela

The dismissal was appealed, and the appeals court supported the dismissal in 2009:
http://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/c ... 36554.html

JayFromPA wrote:

Xela wrote: Just stemming from my own curiosity, the case was dismissed:
http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/mar/06 ... s-lawsuit/

Xela

The dismissal was appealed, and the appeals court supported the dismissal in 2009:
http://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/c ... 36554.html

Good for the Dr.

LIke it was mentioned earlier, what does an a-hole in prison have to lose anyway, right?

Xela