Defense Against Home Invasion--And More

[Kleanbore]

This blog post from Andrew Branca has to do with an attempted home invasion in an apartment building in Dallas. Shots were fired, and no one was hurt.

The would-be invaders had not breeched the door when the resident fired through his door. The rounds were stopped by the wall across the hall--none struck the door to that apartment. I was not there; I do not know what, if anything, the defender could see from his camera at the time; I do not know whether I would have fired through the door.

Notwithstanding all of that, this video, which is an hour and forty minutes in length, provides by far the best discussion of the relevant use of force laws that I have ever some across. It addresses defense of habitation and conveyances and differences among jurisdictions in laws pertaining to the use of non-deadly physical force to defend personal property.

This goes into considerable depth, and the issues covered can be very important. I stonly recommend wathing this with full attention--at least once.

 

[Blue Jays]

I intend to watch video in entirety. Like all his content I am sure it will indeed be interesting.

One aspect of defense that I have always considered is that even if I absolutely and 100% know the nature of the threat beyond a securely closed and locked door…shooting holes through it radically reduces the integrity and strength of that door to resist attack.

 

[wayneinFL]

Did you notice that the home invader swung his gun toward the door right before the occupant started shooting? I couldn't tell if he shot before the occupant started shooting or just afterward.

 

[starnbar]

Regardless of your method of defense the shooting is officially a homicide/attempted homicide if the invader expires until investigated and ruled otherwise.

 

[Kleanbore]

Regardless of your method of defense the shooting is officially a homicide/attempted homicide if the invader expires until investigated and ruled otherwise.

The death of a person at the hands of another is a homicide, and it will not be ruled otherwise.

 

[starnbar]

The death of a person at the hands of another is a homicide, and it will not be ruled otherwise.

Justifiable homicide/self defense

 

[P89DCSS]

I watched the original video.
A great example of using modern video surveillance as a first line of defense.
Situational awareness is key for survival.

Too bad the New Mexico guy that was shot outside his front door didn't have a $100 ring doorbell camera.

 

[scaatylobo]

This blog post from Andrew Branca has to do with an attempted home invasion in an apartment building in Dallas. Shots were fired, and no one was hurt.

The would-be invaders had not breeched the door when the resident fired through his door. The rounds were stopped by the wall across the hall--none struck the door to that apartment. I was not there; I do not know what, if anything, the defender could see from his camera at the time; I do not know whether I would have fired through the door.

Notwithstanding all of that, this video, which is an hour and forty minutes in length, provides by far the best discussion of the relevant use of force laws that I have ever some across. It addresses defense of habitation and conveyances and differences among jurisdictions in laws pertaining to the use of non-deadly physical force to defend personal property.

This goes into considerable depth, and the issues covered can be very important. I stonly recommend wathing this with full attention--at least once.

I watched the whole thing and my takeaway was Andrew is VERY long winded.

He talks like the attorney he is.

And he speaks about laws that do NOT apply in my state [ or others ? ].

As to that shooting,I can sum it up easily.

WRONG, no breach of the door and NO INCOMING ROUNDS.

Do not employ deadly force under those circumstances.

It is possible and likely that your rounds will wound or kill an innocent = YOU go to jail.

Even under those scary circumstances,avoidance is THE best solution.

So get behind real cover [ will stop rounds ] and call 9/11 and be armed in case they breach.

 

[wayneinFL]

WRONG, no breach of the door and NO INCOMING ROUNDS.

The intruder's gun was pointed at the door. There were bullets that came in through the door. If there is a gun pointed at you and you can see it, there is an argument that it could be justified.

I can't tell from the video when the incoming shots are fired. So I'm not saying this one is definitely justified, but it's closer than any previous instance I've ever seen.

Getting behind cover is probably a better idea, sure. Is there is cover in the apartment? I don't know.

 

[Kleanbore]

Andrew is VERY long winded.

He talks like the attorney he is.

He covered a lot of ground, and I think he did it clearly and succinctly.

And he speaks about laws that do NOT apply in my state [ or others ? ].

Are you complaining about that? Might you ever travel?

WRONG, no breach of the door and NO INCOMING ROUNDS.

Both of those points were discussed. And surely you do not believe that people should wait to be fired upon before defending themselves.

It is possible and likely that your rounds will wound or kill an innocent = YOU go to jail.

That was discussed at quite some length in the blog post.

So get behind real cover [ will stop rounds ] and call 9/11 and be armed in case they breach.

Judgment call, and I was not there. I would prefer to not fire through the door if I could defend my self otherwise, but I would rather do that than have armed attackers shooting at me inside.

 

[Bill_in_TR]

I haven't watched the video yet because I am busy reading the book which I just recently received. But if the video is that long I expect it must cover all aspects of the case from every perspective. The book also presents many aspects of every consideration for self defense in minute detail. It has been a good read so far and I understand the need to learn about these things.

My problem is that after reading all of this it seems that there is so much to consider about establishing self defense that I would waste a lot of time hesitating to consider should I do this or not. Especially when he discusses how a single confrontation/fight actually breaks down into two or more fights at times and that who was the aggressor and who was the defender can change back and forth. It makes a really strong case for avoidance to the maximum extent possible.

My biggest worry about carrying is the potential aftermath should I ever be forced to use my weapon. But then just because I am old and vulnerable I don't want to crawl into a hole and hide for what is left of my life. Nor do I want SD to ruin it either.

 

[Kleanbore]

My problem is that after reading all of this it seems that there is so much to consider about establishing self defense that I would waste a lot of time hesitating to consider should I do this or not.

If, when the balloon goes up, your concern is about legal justification, it is very likely that you are not justified.

You will be lawfully justified in the use of deadly force if and only if you have reason to believe that, to prevent an imminent threat of death or serious injury, you ave no immediate choice but to defend yourself.

You should be concerned only with how to defend yourself and with what is behind your target.

My biggest worry about carrying is the potential aftermath should I ever be forced to use my weapon.

Not about being killed or injured?

 

[theotherwaldo]

If you wait until armed invaders are already through your door and are shooting at you then you are probably already a statistic.

 

[scaatylobo]

He covered a lot of ground, and I think he did it clearly and succinctly.

Are you complaining about that? Might you ever travel?

Both of those points were discussed. And surely you do not believe that people should wait to be fired upon before defending themselves.

That was discussed at quite some length in the blog post.

Judgment call, and I was not there. I would prefer to not fire through the door if I could defend my self otherwise, but I would rather do that than have armed attackers shooting at me inside.

I obviously want to avoid getting shot = at all costs.

But there is NO EXCUSE for shooting BLINDLY [ yea ,and camera included ] through a door UNLESS the backstop is fully know by you to be 100% safe.

And yes I travel a great deal and do so armed.

But he covers only that jurisdiction and not as a cop/D.A. ---- but as an attorney.

He does not make the law and his explanation of the law is NOT what a judge or jury could/might see VERY differently.

I for one will not risk my life in prison on the word of ANY attorney.

Unless he is MY attorney,and my life depends on him.

Andrew is very good,BUT not perfect and I see shooting through a door WITHOUT incoming fire that actually endangers you [ lets pretend your in your safe room and cannot be hit ] is a really bad idea.

And who among us will explain how to live with ones self after shooting a child [ for example ].

btw = at no time did I see an entry made,so no using the excuse of them getting to kill/shoot you.

 

[Kleanbore]

But there is NO EXCUSE for shooting BLINDLY [ yea ,and camera included ] through a door UNLESS the backstop is fully know by you to be 100% safe.

I, too, would be most reluctant to shoot through a door.

Andrew is very good,BUT not perfect and I see shooting through a door WITHOUT incoming fire that actually endangers you

I would never wait for incoming fire.

[ lets pretend your in your safe room and cannot be hit ]

Best answer, if possible

btw = at no time did I see an entry made,so no using the excuse of them getting to kill/shoot you.

In some jurisdictions, the law on defense of habitation does not require actual entry. There must be a reason for that.Not t that I necessariily disagree with you. But do you really want to take your chances with them inside? That's the real point here.

 

[Bill_in_TR]

If, when the balloon goes up, your concern is about legal justification, it is very likely that you are not justified.

You will be lawfully justified in the use of deadly force if and only if you have reason to believe that, to prevent an imminent threat of death or serious injury, you ave no immediate choice but to defend yourself.

You should be concerned only with how to defend yourself and with what is behind your target.

Not about being killed or injured?

Until I read that book all the statements you just made were pretty much common sense and reflect my attitude towards carrying and self defense. And I will probably continue to feel that way. But he presents many details that make it not always so obvious as to whether a person is in the right or not. It definitely puts thoughts in your head that might make you hesitate. He presents a number of examples where I would have been pretty sure of who was in the right...and I was mistaken.

It is very easy to state the obvious oversimplification. And if I am ever in a position where I have to act I will do so. It is a good book. I intend to go back over it to make sure the information is thoroughly sunk in. It will help me be sure to handle the aftermath much better should I ever have to draw my weapon. But there are a lot more complications than I realized.

 

[Kleanbore]

Until I read that book all the statements you just made were pretty much common sense and reflect my attitude towards carrying and self defense. And I will probably continue to feel that way. But he presents many details that make it not always so obvious as to whether a person is in the right or not

Yes. Attorneys tell us that many of the "god guys" who are charged afer what they believed to have been a justified case of self defense cannot believe it is happening. What did they do wrong?

First, let me correct my earlier statement:

I said "You will be lawfully justified in the use of deadly force if and only if you have reason to believe that, to prevent an imminent threat of death or serious injury, you Have no immediate choice but to defend yourself."

I left out two very important things.

First, if a defender initiated the confrontation, or provoked the other person, self defense is not on the table--though innocence can sometimes be regained, under some circumstances.

Second, the defender must use no more force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances. Firing shots after the threat has been stopped, or as he flees, can destroy a legal defense of self defense.

Now, a few nuances:

Shooting to prevent the departure of a criminal is not lawful. even if the initial threat had been one of death or serious harm.

One may not lawfully pursue a criminal in most jurisdictions.

Those two are really just explanations of the basic concept of self defense.

Does that help?

 

[Bill_in_TR]

Yes. Attorneys tell us that many of the "god guys" who are charged afer what they believed to have been a justified case of self defense cannot believe it is happening. What did they do wrong?

First, let me correct my earlier statement:

I said "You will be lawfully justified in the use of deadly force if and only if you have reason to believe that, to prevent an imminent threat of death or serious injury, you Have no immediate choice but to defend yourself."

I left out two very important things.

First, if a defender initiated the confrontation, or provoked the other person, self defense is not on the table--though innocence can sometimes be regained, under some circumstances.

Second, the defender must use no more force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances. Firing shots after the threat has been stopped, or as he flees, can destroy a legal defense of self defense.

Now, a few nuances:

Shooting to prevent the departure of a criminal is not lawful. even if the initial threat had been one of death or serious harm.

One may not lawfully pursue a criminal in most jurisdictions.

Those two are really just explanations of the basic concept of self defense.

Does that help?

All of what you said touches on what is in the book. Your points as well as the much more detailed points in the book are not difficult to understand. You write well. And the book is clearly written. I get it. And thank you for your responses. My basic point is that the shear volume of nuances in the book makes one wonder if the decision to act will get them in trouble despite the belief that they did the right thing. Very well intentioned people have apparently gotten themselves in big trouble. That book or some equivalent is almost a must read if you keep/carry a firearm for self defense.

 

[Tom Givens]

I recently did a lengthy podcast with the CCW Safe crew discussing home invasions. The topic is so complex that we broke the interview into two sessions. The first deals with the facts about home invasions: who is at risk, what is often involved, and how to harden your home to reduce your risks greatly. Part 2 deals with what to do if your home’s perimeter is breached by intruders. This is important information. Give it a listen.



https://ccwsafe.com/news/home-defense-with-tom-givens/



https://ccwsafe.com/news/in-self-defense-podcast-117-tom-givens-on-home-defense-part-2/

 

[scaatylobo]

I, too, would be most reluctant to shoot through a door.

I would never wait for incoming fire.

Best answer, if possible

In some jurisdictions, the law on defense of habitation does not require actual entry. There must be a reason for that.Not t that I necessariily disagree with you. But do you really want to take your chances with them inside? That's the real point here.

I will reluctantly allow all that you post,I am sure it is true for you.

BUT how anyone could say they would be ok shooting an innocent [ possibly killing ? ] is beyond my ken.

We all state that BACKSTOP is critical in hunting AND S/D shooting !.

How do you fire and not know beyond all of your ability,that your rounds will do no harm to innocents ?.

And of course there is a real world possibility that those across the hall will still sue you for RECKLESS discharge.

Thats gonna cost LOTS !.

 

[Kleanbore]

BUT how anyone could say they would be ok shooting an innocent [ possibly killing ? ] is beyond my ken.

Can't.

We all state that BACKSTOP is critical in hunting AND S/D shooting !.

Yep.

How do you fire and not know beyond all of your ability,that your rounds will do no harm to innocents ?.

?

And of course there is a real world possibility that those across the hall will still sue you for RECKLESS discharge.

That was discussed at length in the blog post.

 

[Kleanbore]

Both of the links in Tom Givens' post are well worth the time.

 

[shafter]

I watched the video and it was a little disturbing to see the rounds impact the wall across the hall. They could have hit an innocent person out there or gone through the wall into another apartment.

If someone is booting my door I'll wait just a bit longer and if necessary shoot as they come through. I'd have to have incoming rounds before I sent outgoing to somewhere I couldn't see. They call it a fatal funnel for a reason. If I know they're coming through the door in the next couple seconds they aren't going to win that fight. Elite operators would be hard pressed to not take casualties in that situation. I'll hold my fire until the last possible moment.

 

[wayneinFL]

They shot at an angle away from the other door, toward a concrete wall. I can't imagine a better backstop short of a berm. Even if it's block, handgun bullets aren't generally going to go through it, and if they do, have probably lost enough velocity to leave a bruise. I didn't see anything in the video showing they did.

What do people in wood houses do? Even if you shoot at someone inside your home, there isn't anything stopping that bullet from going through a layer of OSB board and vinyl and traveling across town.

And besides this- if you're in an apartment, and the neighbor across the hall has someone trying to kick in a door with a gun in his hand (much less at some point firing 2-3 rounds into the apartment!) are you going to stand at the door looking out the peephole? Just going to sit on the other side of the door on your couch and turn the TV up over the noise? Probably going to be doing anything you can to get away from the door and calling 911.

An innocent person outside getting hit? You see someone up the stairwell kicking in a door with a gun in his hand, and you're just going to say excuse me, and step past him on the way to the third floor?

 

[Kleanbore]

They shot at an angle away from the other door, toward a concrete wall. I can't imagine a better backstop short of a berm. Even if it's block, handgun bullets aren't generally going to go through it, and if they do, have probably lost enough velocity to leave a bruise. I didn't see anything in the video showing they did.

You got it!