Thugs in Uniform: A Home Invasion

Thug in UPS Uniform

December 2016 Houston, Texas. A thug dressed as a UPS driver forced his way into a home followed by three other thugs. In the video you can see the robber dressed in a UPS uniform at the door. As soon as the homeowner opens it, the man rushes inside despite the homeowner’s attempts to close the door. Once inside the home, the men assaulted the victim and fired at least one shot which didn't hit anyone. Two women inside of the home grabbed children and hid. The bad guys stole jewelry and some collectible firearms. The home owner had a fractured skull, concussion, lost 6 teeth, needed stitches in his lip, and required 28 staples in his head after the brutal beating.

You can see a video of this home invasion as well as a scenario from our Short Range Match based on the incident here. 

So how do you prevent this?

If you are not expecting a package and don't recognize your regular delivery man or woman, don't open your door. Look for the delivery truck in the street if possible. If you don't see a properly labelled delivery vehicle, don't open the door. Tell the delivery person to leave the package on your doorstep and retrieve it later. If they insist on a signature, simply tell the person to leave a proper notice of attempted delivery and that you will pick the package up at the local company office.

What if the thugs decide to kick the door open? Take a quick look at this video of a thug kicking open an exterior door. That is how easy it is to kick in a normally constructed residential exterior door. You can prevent this with heavy metal doors similar to the picture below or by reinforcing your exterior door. 

Metal Exterior Door

No human could kick in the door in picture. To reinforce exterior wooden doors, I personally installed the Strikemaster II Pro on the door jam and hinges. I did this as the house was being built and asked the builder to install them so it was relatively painless. Similar products are the Door Armor Max (formerly EZ Armor) that Armor Concepts produces and Door Security Pro. There are probably others on the market that perform a similar function. As I look at product reviews however, it is clear that some people find the simple install is not quite so simple so your results may vary. You can purchase these products from a variety of vendors.

You can also use these products to reinforce your interior doors as well. In this home invasion, the two women in the home managed to grab children and hide. Wouldn’t it have been better if all concerned could have retreated to a safe room as the would-be home invaders were busy trying to kick down the exterior door?

Everyone should think through scenarios such as this now and develop a plan based on your particular circumstances. In my house, someone yelling “SAFE ROOM!” is giving the command for everyone to instantly stop what they are doing and go to a secure bedroom. A reinforced bedroom door with a dead bolt (see below) provides a safe room you can retreat to if you are in another part of the house when someone attempts to break and enter. From there you can call 911 and prepare to take other necessary action.

Reinforced Interior Door

If someone does manage to defeat your exterior door and enters your home, they now have another barrier to deal with. It is unlikely that they will stick around and try to defeat a second door. If they do, having retreated into a safe room increases your chances of survival and builds the foundation of “reasonableness” for your follow-on actions.

But I live in a good neighborhood you say? Well so do I—many of us live in neighborhoods we would characterize as safe. I live in a gated community; however, that did not stop someone that looked and acted like a home invader from showing up in my driveway once (it actually turned out not to be a home invasion). Plan now so you will be prepared if the time comes to act.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

Thugs Shoplifting: Crossing the Line

June 2017: A judge sentenced Min Sik Kim, owner of the Pacific Quick Stop in Spanaway, Washington state to eight years in prison for second-degree murder after Kim fatally shot a would-be shoplifter in the back as he attempted to flee. Kim claimed the shooting was self defense; however, a surveillance video of the shooting did not corroborate Kim’s claim.

Prosecutors charged Kim with second-degree murder in the death of Jakeel Mason. Kim was outside the store when Mason attempted to steal several packs of cigarettes from behind the counter. The video showed Kim re-enter the store with a pistol in his right hand. Kim points the pistol at Mason, grabs Mason, and forces him further into the store. Mason puts both hands up and is not resisting. Kim then holsters the pistol and begins punching Mason in the face and the two men begin to fight. Mason takes Kim to the floor and both continue to fight for several seconds.

The video shows Mason was able to free himself and attempted to flee the store. Kim stood up after clearing himself from a shelf containing merchandise, then drew his pistol and shot Mason twice in the back as Mason neared the door. Mason collapsed in the doorway and died before medical aid arrived.

Kim told investigators that he pulled his gun out and shot Mason during the struggle. But prosecutors say the store's footage shows that Mason was no longer a threat to Kim and was running away when Kim fired.

A Pierce County Sheriff’s spokesman said "This is a tough one because we can understand why the store clerk was on guard. His wife has just been shot there a month before during a robbery attempt and the whole family was upset about it.” Prosecutor Mark Lindquist said in a statement that "The defendant's frustrations are understandable, but his actions were not lawful, shop owners cannot legally shoot unarmed shoplifters attempting to flee."

Min Sik Kim confused mutual combat or fighting with self defense. Fighting is NOT self defense! Many people like Kim not realizing this, think they are “defending” themselves when in fact they are fighting. Self defense is about protecting your physical body, not your emotional well-being, nor as an excuse to vent your frustrations.

Defensive use of justifiable deadly force or "self defense" is a legal construct that requires three elements inclusively:

– Danger: Clear and present exposure

– Potential for great bodily harm – to the innocent, not the guilty; the potential for bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ

– Immediate or otherwise unavoidable: It is happening now and you cannot avoid the danger

Using deadly force in self-defense is justified only when a person reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. You must stay within these parameters. If you do not, then you are no longer legally using force to defend yourself. Why you stepped outside these parameters is not relevant—you are no longer legally using force. Mason’s actions did not represent a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm at the moment Kim fired. This is where Kim stepped over the line and killed Mason without justification.

If you carry a firearm for personal protection, it is critical that you understand where your actions stop being self defense and instead make you the aggressor. If a post incident investigation finds that you crossed the line from self defense into assault or worse, you will probably be prosecuted.

There are several reputable, time-proven courses available to teach you the difference and to help you understand self defense law including those from Massad Ayoob and Andrew Branca and graduates from their instructor courses among others. In addition to teaching the law and justifiable use of deadly force, many reputable self defense instructors will also teach you how to avoid bad situations in the first place.

I suspect that were we able to ask Mr Kim if he could turn back the clock and spend the $500.00 or so for a comprehensive use of force course, we could easily guess his answer. If you carry a firearm for personal protection, it is incumbent upon you to understand the law and difference between self defense and fighting. If you ever find yourself in a use of force situation and cross the line from self defense into something else, you will likely be prosecuted, convicted, and go to jail. Perhaps for a long time.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

Quality Control -- Examine Your Ammunition

Each and every component is made to meet and exceed the most demanding quality control and performance standards in the industry!  

This is a quote concerning quality control from a major ammunition manufacturer. A friend of mine who was attending a shooting course that only permits factory ammunition was using some factory ammo that is supplied in a white box. He had a failure to extract during a mandatory qualification that was the result of a round that clearly did not have a proper powder charge. That round at least did not meet the most demanding quality control standards.

This was not an isolated incident. A competitor in one of our recent matches opened a factory-sealed green and white box of new factory 9mm ammunition only to discover that over 3/4 of the rounds in the box had the bullet seated at different depths. The range owner speculated that the case containing the box may have been dropped during shipment causing some of the bullets to seat deeper into their case.

Always examine your ammunition and never fire ammunition that is obviously defective. In training, competition, or practice, if you have a round that sounds significantly under-powered, always stop, unload the pistol, and check to ensure the bullet exited the bore. Firing a round in a pistol with an obstructed bore can potentially cause serious injury and destroy the pistol.  The ammunition mentioned above with the rounds seated too deeply could have caused serious over pressures when fired.

Always use factory ammunition for personal protection carry. When you purchase your chosen personal-protection ammo from a reputable company try to purchase 3 boxes of the same lot. I know ammo is expensive; however, isn’t your personal protection ammunition more important than a few high-priced cups of coffee? 

Examine every round for proper primer seating, case integrity, and bullet defects. Fire a few rounds from one box to confirm your pistol’s zero and point of impact with that lot of ammunition. After you load your magazines for carry, save at least five rounds in the box. On the box's end flap write down the date you put that particular carry round into service.  

If you ever find yourself in a short range defensive situation, the forensics examiner can use the ammunition sample from the lot that you have saved to verify distances with powder testing. Large ammunition makers keep samples for each lot for exemplar testing for 10 years as well. The forensic examiner cannot verify distances with handloads because there is no un-biased sample to measure it against.

Every maker claims that they want to manufacture perfect firearms and ammunition; however, quality control costs money and there is no question that every manufacturer has an acceptable “failure” rate for their products. Often it is cheaper in the grand scheme of things to repair or replace a few defective products rather than strive for 100% perfection. Do your part by examining and testing your practice and personal protection ammunition. 

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

Thugs on a Crime Spree--Walking the Dog

Nationally known firearms trainer John Farnam is noted for a saying: “When its least expected, you are elected.” Garrett and Caroline Scharton were certainly not expecting to be elected when they were walking their dog just after midnight on 22 July 2018. Video shows a black Chevrolet Malibu drive past them and quickly park. Three thugs, two of them armed, jumped out of the Malibu and accosted the Schartons—threatening them with a shotgun and pistol while demanding their valuables. Discovering that the couple only had a cell phone, one thug kicked Garrett Scharton and then the thugs departed.

The thugs in question, aged 13-16 years had carjacked the owner of the Chevrolet Malibu at gunpoint earlier that evening and then embarked on a crime spree that included robbing another man while he was out walking in Oak Cliff, a modest suburb of Dallas, Texas. After the thugs robbed the Schartons, they encountered, robbed, and beat a Domino’s Pizza delivery driver. Mesquite Police caught up with the teens and arrested them following a short chase and found the Scharton’s stolen phone and the thug’s firearms inside the stolen vehicle.

As I began analyzing the video from a self-defense perspective, the shooting problem did not appear to be that challenging for a well-trained defender. I diagrammed and used this incident as a stage in our local Short Range Match (click here for the video) and most competitors had no difficulty with the stage as I had set it up.

Although many pretend that this is not the case, a match environment is very different from the problem that presented itself to Garrett Scharton, even if he had been armed and willing to act. 

Let’s look at this incident using Boyd’s Observe, Orient, Decide, Act (OODA)* decision cycle from the Scharton’s and the thug’s perspectives. The thugs have already passed through a full OODA cycle. They have Observed the Schartons, Oriented when they parked the car, Decided to rob them, and are putting that decision into Action. As we analyze the video, it’s clear that Garrett and Caroline are looking at the car as it comes to a stop in the parking space (both Observe). The area is well lit as you can see by the shadows Garrett and Caroline cast.

The thug’s OODA cycle is reset as they exit the car. Thug 1 Observes Garrett’s position, Orients as he removes the shotgun, and then begins the Decide and Act stages as he prepares to use the shotgun. From the first moment that the thug in the back seat behind the driver steps out of the vehicle to Garrett’s initial recognition that the thug is removing a firearm is approximately 0.20 seconds (Garrett Orient). The thug then chambers a round in the shotgun approximately 0.68 seconds later (Thug Act). Garrett clearly reacts to the sound of the thug chambering the shotgun round (Decide); however, Caroline has not reacted even though she is also looking toward the vehicle. It’s possible that due to the angle, Garrett is obscuring her view of the thug with the shotgun and/or she does not hear or does not recognize what she is hearing.

The thug (Decide) aims the shotgun at Garrett approximately 0.46 seconds later and Garrett reacts by beginning to raise his hands (Garrett Acts); Caroline reacts as well by ducking away. Approximately 0.94 seconds later the thug with the shotgun begins advancing toward Garrett and Caroline (thug Act) followed by the thug with the pistol who has probably exited the driver’s door (you cannot see this in the video). 

From the moment that Garrett recognizes the threat until the thug begins to walk toward him is approximately 2.08 seconds. Caroline begins screaming (Act) an instant later as the thugs continue to come toward them at what amounts to a quick walk. Garrett backs into Caroline and essentially takes her to the ground. As the thugs approach, Garrett leans over Caroline to protect her, as ineffectual as that might have been. The entire incident takes approximately one minute as the thugs have grabbed Caroline’s phone, returned to the stolen car, and begin to back out of the parking space.

At the instant when Garrett reacts to the sound of the shotgun round being chambered, he is approximately nine feet in a straight line from the thug and 4 feet to the thug’s left (see pic #1). Recognition-Reaction. A well-trained defender in Garrett’s place had approximately 2.08 seconds to recognize and react to the imminent threat of unlawful deadly force before the thug starts to advance.

Steve and I replicated the distances and scenario to determine if the hypothetical well-trained defender could have recognized the threat and then reacted with an effective tactic inside the thug’s Observe, Orient, Decide, Act cycle. We recorded each run with a video at 60 frames per second and the observer started a timer to record the time necessary for an observer to detect the shooter’s motion.

For my first run (and this was my first shot fired of the day), I was dressed exactly as I normally dress when going for a walk with my pistol fully concealed under a loose athletic shirt. When I moved off the “X” and began my draw (I started at the Act point in my OODA), Steve started the timer (Observe) approximately 0.25 seconds later. At that instant, I was beginning my draw and finished the draw with the first shot hitting thug 1 (T1) 1.28 seconds after I began. I fired a total of five shots in 0.98 seconds with two good hits on T1 and three hits on T2.

Steve then completed his first run (his first shot fired of the day) drawing from open carry without his hand on his pistol. Steve drew and fired his first shot on thug 1 (T1) in 1.46 seconds; I reacted and started the timer (Observe) approximately 0.33 seconds. He fired a total of six shots in 1.04 seconds with three good hits on T1 and two hits on T2. My next run was with a concealment vest. I drew and fired my first shot on thug 1 (T1) in 1.18 seconds; Steve reacted and started the timer (Observe) approximately 0.24 seconds. I fired a total of five shots in 0.94 seconds with two good hits on T1 and three hits on T2.

Steve then completed his second run drawing from a concealment vest. Steve drew and fired his first shot on thug 1 (T1) in 1.10 seconds; I reacted and started the timer (Observe) approximately 0.43 seconds. He fired a total of six shots in 1.04 seconds with three good hits on T1 and three hits on T2. I started my third run with open carry, hand on the pistol. I drew and fired my first shot on thug 1 (T1) in 0.72 seconds; Steve reacted and started the timer (Observe) approximately 0.33 seconds. I fired a total of five shots in 1.03 seconds with two good hits on T1 and three hits on T2. (I consistently moved past T1 before I could fire a third shot. This was not a problem on T2)

Steve then completed his third run drawing from open carry, hand on the pistol. Steve drew and fired his first shot on thug 1 (T1) in 0.71 seconds; I reacted and started the timer (Observe) approximately 0.24 seconds. Steve fired a total of six shots in 1.09 seconds with three good hits on T1 and three hits on T2. For all three runs, my average split times between shots was 0.20 seconds and Steve’s splits were 0.18. You can see the results of our runs in picture #2 below.

So what does this tell us? Our limited experiment demonstrated that the shooting problem was not that challenging for a well-trained defender. The results of our runs showed that we were able to act and place hits on T1 and T2 likely well before thug 1 would have been able to restart his OODA cycle and react to our defensive engagement. Thug 1’s position would likely have blocked thug 2’s ability to see our initial movement so by the time thug 2 caught on to what was happening, he likely would have been receiving the impacts of our defensive rounds.

This incident unfolded so quickly that I think the greater challenge for most would have been cycling through the OODA loop fast enough.

I suspect that the Schartons were fortunate. Although the incident was clearly traumatic for them, I cannot help but wonder what might have happened if the thugs had been older, perhaps more experienced and had decided that Caroline was the perfect companion for some additional fun at another location.

Garrett Scharton later said about the video of the robbery that “When I listened to what I was saying and how I was saying it, I never heard me be that afraid before.” 

You must plan in advance with your spouse or other companions what to do in similar circumstances. Training with decision-based scenarios will help us to overcome that initial fear reaction and hesitation to act. Go through “what-if” scenarios that account for your companion being armed or unarmed as your circumstances dictate. In this incident, the thugs parked the car. Consider possible angles of defensive movement and the thug’s reactions including how the thug could use the car as a weapon. If a car stops behind us do the following, if the car stops beside us, in front of us, etc.

The Schartons conducted several post-incident interviews at the links below that are worth watching. 

Update:  I recently spoke to Garrett Scharton concerning the incident and aftermath.  Although the Schartons were the victims of a violent robbery, they did not then allow the "system" to victimize them further through failing to hold the criminals accountable.  The Schartons continued to press for justice until the State of Texas finally sentenced the thug with the shotgun to 25 years and the thug with the pistol accepted a 18 year sentence.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

Interview #1

Interview #2

Practice 2018 - The Original IDPA Classifier

The original IDPA Classifier consisted of three stages for 90 rounds total and incorporated some of the classic drills like the Mozambique and the El Presidente. The 90-round classifier tests many skills that a shooter should be able to demonstrate from short range, 5-yard rapid shots, out to 20-yard longer shots. The team that put the 90-round classifier courses of fire together captured the 10 major tasks you must perform in the course of shooting a match and that you might find yourself using in a self-defense encounter on the street.

These are:

In Stage One: 

    -- Safely draw the pistol

    -- Extend to fire

    -- Transition between targets

    -- Turning then drawing the pistol

    -- Reloading the pistol

    -- Executing precise shots

    -- Shooting the pistol unsupported with either hand

Stage Two adds the following to the Stage One tasks:

    -- Moving while shooting

Stage Three adds:

    -- Shooting from cover

    -- Moving from one shooting position to another

In this practice session, a friend of mine and I did some experimentation on reaction time and then shot the 90-round IDPA Classifier. I used my SIG P320 Carry (an IDPA CCP division pistol with RMR) in a Blade-Tech - Total Eclipse Holster. The Total Eclipse and similar holsters keep the pistol snug to the body which reduces printing under a concealment garment.

The temperature on the range this fine Texas day was 102 degrees with high humidity. Even so, my times and points on Stage #1 and #2 were decent. On Stage #3, I slowed down a bit and dropped 12 points—reflective of my lack of practice at these distances. Overall, I was satisfied with the 89.76 total score which is Master for every IDPA Division except ESP (there were 11 shots on Stage 2, T2 so a pasty must have fallen off).

The original IDPA Classifier is a very good test of your shooting skills and is far more difficult than the shooting problem that average self-defense distances present. If you can shoot high Sharpshooter or better on demand, you can likely solve most problems you might encounter on the street. 

For the original 90-round IDPA classifier course of fire, click here.


If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

Thugs Buggin' – The Last Word

Nicole DuFresne

The Texas License to Carry classroom portion requires a discussion of effective communication.  I've used the incident surrounding Nicole DuFresne's murder for a number of years as an example of how not to communicate.  This article looks at the incident from the perspective of both groups that were involved.

In the early morning hours of January 27, 2005, a group of friends that included Nicole DuFresne, Jeffrey Sparks, Mary Jane Gibson, Scott Nath sometime were returning home from a night of celebratory drinking. As they were walking down a Lower East Side of Manhattan street a group of five young men and two girls approached them. The group that included Rudy Fleming had already mugged a man for his leather jacket and menaced a girl at a subway station that same night.

Fleming demanded money of Nicole’s group. Sparks pushed his way past, at which point Fleming struck him across his left temple with a Taurus .357 magnum that he had been pointing at the ground. Sparks later said that neither he nor anyone else in the group had realized that Fleming was armed. Another robber with Fleming reportedly said, "It doesn't have to be like this. My friend's buggin'. We just want the money."

Fleming took Gibson's purse and cell phone and gave them to the girls with him. Nicole DuFresne turned to Sparks who was dazed and bleeding profusely from his left eye, asking if he was OK. He indicated that he was and said "Let's just go." At that point, Nath took Sparks by the arm and they ran down the street. Gibson turned to follow.

Witnesses said that DuFresne challenged Fleming, when she walked up to Fleming and looked him in the eye while demanding “Why are you still here, you got what you wanted? What are you going to do, you going to shoot us? Is that what you wanted?” Fleming reacted by pushing DuFresne in the chest with his left hand. A witness said that DuFresne stumbled backward, then bounced back and shouted her question again: “What are you going to do, shoot us?” A witness said that Fleming pushed DuFresne a second time, and when she came at him once again, he lifted his right arm and fired one shot, the bullet striking her in the chest and exiting through her back.

Sparks and Nath ran back to DuFresne finding her on her back in the street. She died a few minutes later in Sparks's arms, as Gibson and Nath knelt beside them.

According to the testimony of fellow mugger Ashley Evans at Fleming’s trial, the muggers chose DuFresne’s group because they looked like they were enjoying themselves. According to Evans, “They were extremely happy, so that made me even angrier.” Evans said that she tried to hit one of them, but that the group turned away. Fleming then followed and yelled at them to stop, hitting Sparks in the face with his pistol as he tried to push past.

Let’s look at what we can learn from this incident from the perspective of Peyton Quinn's 'Five Rules' concerning how to avoid violence with Marc MacYoung’s addition of a 6th rule.*

Peyton’s Five Rules:

1) Do not insult him

2) Do not challenge him

3) Do not threaten him

4) Do not deny it's happening

5) Give him a face-saving exit.

Marc’s additional rule:

6) Do not command

At the outset of this incident, Jeffrey Sparks was clearly denying that Fleming and his group were committing an armed robbery. Him attempting to push past was an act that Fleming likely saw as a challenge and precipitated the first of Fleming’s violent acts when he struck Sparks with the pistol. Sparks’s comment that no one in his group realized Fleming had a revolver leads one to believe that everyone in Sparks’s group was probably denying that the incident was happening. When another robber said, "It doesn't have to be like this. My friend's buggin'. We just want the money," he was likely trying to calm the situation and effectively giving Sparks’s group instructions on how to avoid further violence.

When Nath began to guide Sparks down the street and Gibson turned to follow, the robbery was essentially winding down and likely would have been over except for DuFresne’s actions. DuFresne violated the rest of Peyton’s rules and likely MacYoung’s 6th rule as well.

Tatiana McDonald, one of the muggers who testified at Fleming’s trail outlined street rules that resulted in DuFresne’s murder while other mugging victims that night were not harmed. McDonald describing Fleming’s reaction to DuFresne confronting him said “He was so mad, he just lift up the gun and shot at her. After I saw her grab her chest, I just ran.” When asked how close Fleming was to DuFresne when he shot her, McDonald replied “About two feet away. It was pretty close, because he couldn’t even hold up his hand. He did not have room to stretch out his arm. She was blocking the gun.”

Whether Fleming saw DuFresne walking up to him as a threat is unclear; however, he certainly saw her confrontation as insulting challenge. Her demanding “why are you still here” was essentially a command for him to leave. Once he pushed her away, DuFresne continuing to challenge him did not give him a face-saving exit in front of his peers.

Per MacYoung, a threat display is an insult that a violent person will have to react to because you've just crossed the line from being assertive to being aggressive ... what's more is now you've invaded his space. A violation, against which he is going to have to retaliate.** A final point, some people just have to get in the “last word.” Nicole DuFresne got in the last word “What are you going to do, shoot us?”

Although, it is impossible to tell anyone precisely what to do in a given circumstance when facing unlawful deadly force; Peyton and MacYoung’s rules provide an outline that may save your life.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.


* http://macyoungsmusings.blogspot.com/2015/01/addition-to-five-rules-of-violence.html

** http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/get_attacked.htm