Homeowner and potential intruder trade shots through front door

[P89DCSS]

I drive a 2006 Volvo. It doesn't spy on me.

Hmmm, if you're truly worried about putting your life at risk using a surveillance system you might want to learn something about all the electronic devices in your 2006 OBDII vehicle. I suppose you make sure your doctors don't use any electronic devices?

 

[Rexster]

Just a few thoughts:

I really do like my neighbors, who live across the street. I will not “exchange gunfire,” or “trade shots,” with an attacker, who is on the front porch, or on the front walk, if I am inside the house. The safe back-stop IS the attacker’s body, so, I will only shoot at an attacker’s body, and that only if justifiable/excusable, legally, AND, according to my personal moral code. (Just because I can, does not mean that I should.)

I am capable of armoring-up, to include level III plates, over IIIA Kevlar, and a IIIA helmet, from my LEO-ing days, when I bought better armor than I was issued. I realize that not all of us can justify buying such armor, but I have it, and it gives me options that I would not otherwise have, whether I decide to hunker-down, or go mobile*.

Those of use living in thin-walled bungalows, and stick-frame houses with fake stucco, should keep in keep that the exterior walls are NOT cover, either, unless we have modified them. Modifications that add substantial weight should be done with attention to the engineering details, lest the modification fall off the house, when the foundation gives way.

A home invader may well decide to cut power to the house. The ARE solutions for that scenario, that would enable the homeowner to continue to monitor the exterior of the home.

Again, just because I CAN, does not mean that I SHOULD.

*I am not recommending that anyone go mobile, in an area with decent realistic police response time, because one may be jumping from a frying pan, into a fire. Know how to dance, in the fire, if going mobile.

 

[aaronu]

Apparently the neighbor had some trouble before and was a felon. He was apprehended that evening and now has some pretty serious charges.

https://sbcountyda.org/2021/01/22/erick-javier-contreras-charged-with-shooting-in-hesperia/

https://www.vvdailypress.com/story/...pect-pleads-not-guilty-5-felonies/6663407002/

I could find no mention of charges against the homeowner.

From reading the news it seems like Hesperia has more than its fair share of bad stuff. Perhaps that is the new normal. Lordy I hope not.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

Those of use living in thin-walled bungalows, and stick-frame houses with fake stucco, should keep in keep that the exterior walls are NOT cover, either, unless we have modified them. Modifications that add substantial weight should be done with attention to the engineering details, lest the modification fall off the house, when the foundation gives way.

This is a good thing to keep in mind. And if nothing else this thread is a good reminder that, in most cases, doors are concealment and not cover as well! That might sound simplistic but it's an easy thing to forget. My front door is steel but not solid steel like a bank vault and I'm sure a standard duty-type 9mm load would penetrate it.

As you mentioned I also have two sets of armor, a Level IV ceramic/PE set and a Level III ceramic/PE, as well as defensive firearms. A camera is the next thing I want to get but I'm not sure what to do yet. I live in an apartment, ground floor of a two level building with just one row. I'm not sure if a Ring camera stuck to the door is a good option? Maybe. I can't do much that would permanently alter it (apt, natch). I watched some video reviews of a camera that's designed to mount to the glass of the interior of a window with construction designed to minimize reflections from the double paned glass but that particular one is out of stock right now. I'm not worried at all about the cyber security of the setup as I would set it up to view the exterior that would be visible to anyone outside anyway. Ideally I'd be able to monitor the camera(s) from my phone or PC.

 

[Armednfree]

My guess would be meth.

 

[Onward Allusion]

So much depends on so many different factors. State; age/race/sex of homeowner; rural/suburb/city

There's what's legal and then there's what may be generally acceptable. For example, an older lady homeowner who empties her 33 round Glock mag through the door in the middle of the night at the intruder in rural Kansas where the County Sheriff is 20 minutes away would be free and clear.

 

[Jeff White]

For example, an older lady homeowner who empties her 33 round Glock mag through the door in the middle of the night at the intruder in rural Kansas where the County Sheriff is 20 minutes away would be free and clear.

What provision of Kansas law states that? One should never make a definitive statement regarding something as subjective as the circumstances that would justify shooting through a door.

 

[Onward Allusion]

What provision of Kansas law states that? One should never make a definitive statement regarding something as subjective as the circumstances that would justify shooting through a door.

Not a definitive statement at all. Trade Kansas for some State in a rural area. Huge difference in what LEOs will do in rural -vs-city. Justify shooting through a door, heck yes there are times that one should.

It would be stupid for a 70YO lady in a rural area where cops are 20 minutes away to wait for the bad guy to break in before shooting. This isn't advice. It's reality.

 

[Jeff White]

Well that completely contradicts my 20 years experience in rural law enforcement. I’ve seen a lot, a property owner who wasn’t charged after he shot three people fleeing his property after he caught them stealing anhydrous ammonia. No one was killed, the perps were from out of state, the property owner was a prominate businessman and the states attorney wanted to send a message. That shooting didn’t come close to meeting the definition in the Illinois Compiled Stautes of a justifiable use of force. But I wouldn’t take that as carte blanche permission to shot someone stealing anhydrous. There is no way that would have happened had someone been killed or the perps had been local with families who would raise hell at election time.

I wouldn’t say that an elderly victim would get a free pass just because the sheriff was 25 minutes away. There would be a thorough investigation and a charging decision would be based on the facts and the totality of the circumstances.

The elderly person who shot through the door at a local tweaker will probably be looked at a little differently then the elderly person who shot through the door at an accident victim who made it to the house seeking aid after he rolled his car trying to miss a deer in the road.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Yes, it all depends. Most of the time, shooting thru the door is a no-no. Sometimes, it is necessary and prudent, especially if you're a 70 YO grandma (or even a 40-something YO single mom) living alone in bumble.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

It probably goes without saying but planning based on what you might be able to get away with is not the best way to go. Can and should are two different things.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

I's reality.

This is an important point. Not everyone lives in the same "reality."

Time and time again I read advice given to someone with such and such experience, or someone who took a class, or whatever else that's meant to be absolute and final.

We don't all live under the same laws and everyone who carries a firearm should be familiar with the applicable laws for their state, not what someone on the Internet says about what you can and can't do based on their own experience and research.

 

[Onward Allusion]

This is an important point. Not everyone lives in the same "reality."

Time and time again I read advice given to someone with such and such experience, or someone who took a class, or whatever else that's meant to be absolute and final.

We don't all live under the same laws and everyone who carries a firearm should be familiar with the applicable laws for their state, not what someone on the Internet says about what you can and can't do based on their own experience and research.

While it is reality, it is not my personal reality. If I shoot through the door and kill that someone trying to kick it down to do what I assume would be no-good to me or my loved ones, the local DA would probably try to earn a few points with their electorate base. However, if I were to magically transform into a 70 YO white lady, I'd probably get away with it, as long as it was really a bad guy on the other side of the door.

The law is gray. It ain't black or white (well, it is but that's an entirely different conversation). The law is not applied equally to all and it also isn't justice for all.

 

[Kleanbore]

There's what's legal and then there's what may be generally acceptable.

What on Earth is that supposed to mean?

Trade Kansas for some State in a rural area. Huge difference in what LEOs will do in rural -vs-city. Justify shooting through a door, heck yes there are times that one should.

Are you aware that in some states, forcible entry must have been achieved to support lawful justification? That's true in Kanas' western neighbor, with its "make my day" law.

Yes, it all depends. Most of the time, shooting thru the door is a no-no. Sometimes, it is necessary and prudent, especially if you're a 70 YO grandma (or even a 40-something YO single mom) living alone in bumble.

How would one establish that shooting though a door had been reasonable and immediately necessary tp defend against an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm?

....particularly if the assumed attackre was still outside?

Why do you think thst one who is living alone would be treated differently?

Why do you think that the distances between homes would matter?

If I.... kill that someone trying to kick it down to do what I assume would be no-good to me or my loved ones,

Do you have any appreciation at all of the important differences between having an objective reason to believe that a deadly attack is imminent and that deadly force is immediately necessary to defend against it, on the one hand, and assuming that something bad might happen, on the other?

I'd probably get away with it, as long as it was really a bad guy on the other side of the door.

What, pray, has given you the idea that one may lawfully use deadly force because someone is a "bad goy"?

Where do you come up wit this stuff?

 

[P89DCSS]

Well that completely contradicts my 20 years experience in rural law enforcement. I’ve seen a lot, a property owner who wasn’t charged after he shot three people fleeing his property after he caught them stealing anhydrous ammonia. No one was killed, the perps were from out of state, the property owner was a prominate businessman and the states attorney wanted to send a message. That shooting didn’t come close to meeting the definition in the Illinois Compiled Stautes of a justifiable use of force. But I wouldn’t take that as carte blanche permission to shot someone stealing anhydrous. There is no way that would have happened had someone been killed or the perps had been local with families who would raise hell at election time.

This is an important data point. The expectation that you'll be treated fairly and lawfully by the local authorities isn't always available. Not mentioned in this factual account of actual corrupt behavior by the LEO and DA is that the Judge condoneded/allowed this corruption of the law to stand. People that haven't lived in a corrupt state like Illinois can't imagine how pervasive the corruption is. From Governor all the way down to SoS clerks its everywhere. Google "CPD Lt Burge" and read a stunning account of decades of torture false confessions and illegal imprisonment. All actively ignored by all the local DAs, Judges, Aldermen et al.

Lesson here is always have video surveillance so you can counter the authorities when they choose to violate your Constitutional Rights......

 

[Onward Allusion]

Interesting that things around here are still based in absolutes. I guess I just pull my random thoughts out of thin air.

 

[Kleanbore]

Interesting that things around here are still based in absolutes.

What?

There are some basic truths. The defender must have a basis for reasonably believing that death or serious injury is imminent and that deadly force is immediately necessary to defend against it. The force used must be reasonable. The defender must have been innocent. Failing on any one of those points makes the use of deadly force a serious crime.

It might be quite difficult to convince others after the fact that someone outside had posed such an immediate threat, or that deadly force had been immediately necessary, while the door remained intact. It might be suite difficult to convince others that shooting through a door had been reasonable.

"Necessary" means that there is no safe alternative.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

While it is reality, it is not my personal reality. If I shoot through the door and kill that someone trying to kick it down to do what I assume would be no-good to me or my loved ones, the local DA would probably try to earn a few points with their electorate base. However, if I were to magically transform into a 70 YO white lady, I'd probably get away with it, as long as it was really a bad guy on the other side of the door.

The law is gray. It ain't black or white (well, it is but that's an entirely different conversation). The law is not applied equally to all and it also isn't justice for all.

I think you misread my post, and/or misunderstood my point.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

What?

I believe his point and one I'd agree with is that too often, a one-size-fits-all approach becomes the standard in these discussions.

 

[Jeff White]

Not mentioned in this factual account of actual corrupt behavior by the LEO and DA is that the Judge condoneded/allowed this corruption of the law to stand. People that haven't lived in a corrupt state like Illinois can't imagine how pervasive the corruption is. From Governor all the way down to SoS clerks its everywhere. Google "CPD Lt Burge" and read a stunning account of decades of torture false confessions and illegal imprisonment. All actively ignored by all the local DAs, Judges, Aldermen et al.

I can assure you that there was no corruption involved. No payoff was made to anyone. The county (the whole region for that matter) was facing a real danger from the theft of anhydrous ammonia that was used in one of the most popular home brew recipes for methamphetamine. Anhydrous ammonia is a very dangerous substance it doesn't take much to do severe damage to the lungs or be fatal. We were dealing with homes downwind from tanks where the thieves broke the valves stealing the anhydrous, we shut down roads when a vehicle carrying stolen anhydrous in an unsafe container was involved in an accident. The states attorney wanted to send a message to the meth cooks that besides the hazards of handling anhydrous, you just might be shot.

There is a lot of discretion built into every level of law enforcement and you really wouldn't want to live in a world where the law was enforced exactly as written every time. The lawmakers are unable to write laws that can apply in every possible circumstance. I can assure you that these kinds of decisions regarding charging people are made in every jurisdiction.

That said, it is foolhardy to depend on discretion to keep you out of legal trouble. There is a high probability that the people making the charging decision will not see it the same way you do.

 

[Onward Allusion]

I think you misread my post, and/or misunderstood my point.

In re-reading, yeah - I think mis-read the first time.

Reading comprehension is so dang important. I blame my reading glasses!

 

[Kleanbore]

We don't all live under the same laws and everyone who carries a firearm should be familiar with the applicable laws for their state,

One area in which there is notable variation is in that of defense of habitation.

I don't know of any jurisdictions in which shooting through a door is included in things provided for, unless there is reason to believe that it is immediately necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. The existence of the door would likely weaken such reaon.

I do not think I would ever shoot anone through a door that he had not breached. Justification would be tenuous, the act could be tactically questionable from the standpoint of effectiveness, and there is risk of recklessly injuring others.

The prudent defender will engage legal counsel immediately, and that will entail running up a very large bill.

Even if the facts would make the action justified, there is still a greater than zero chance of a long prison term.

When we use the words last resort, we have reasons.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

One area in which there is notable variation is in that of defense of habitation.

I don't know of any jurisdictions in which shooting through a door is included in things provided for, unless there is reason to believe that it is immediately necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. The existence of the door would likely weaken such reaon.

I do not think I would ever shoot anone through a door that he had not breached. Justification would be tenuous, the act could be tactically questionable from the standpoint of effectiveness, and there is risk of recklessly injuring others.

The prudent defender will engage legal counsel immediately, and that will entail running up a very large bill.

Even if the facts would make the action justified, there is still a greater than zero chance of a long prison term.

When we use the words last resort, we have reasons.

I wouldn't live in a state that specifies any extra duties because a door with glass separates you from an armed intruder, so I won't comment on those states specifically, except to reiterate that everyone should be familiar with them.

And I don't know that I'd wait around and hope that our armed intruder doesn't make it through the door or, potentially worse, open fire on someone else in my home through our doors or windows. That's based on my experience, my home, my state's laws, and my research, and applies to me and me alone.

I also can't always say for sure how I'd react to unknown hypotheticals. And as you and others have said, of course the best outcome would be an arrest of the attacker rather than a self-defense trial.

 

[Kleanbore]

I wouldn't live in a state that specifies any extra duties because a door with glass separates you from an armed intruder,

No state "specifies any extra duties" RE: doors.

States do differ in terms of that the codes say about the unlawful entry of intruders. Most, but not all, speak of intrusions that have occurred; some address only forcible entry; some add other conditions relative to belief of the necessity to prevent harm; most do not say that a defender may shoot an intruder--they say that he may not, unless........

And I don't know that I'd wait around and hope that our armed intruder doesn't make it through the door

For reasons relating to physical risk, legal risk, and the risk of endangerment of innocents, I would be extremely reluctant to shoot anyone who is outside, door or no door.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

No state "specifies any extra duties" RE: doors.

States do differ in terms of that the codes say about the unlawful entry of intruders. Most, but not all, speak of intrusions that have occurred; some address only forcible entry; some add other conditions relative to belief of the necessity to prevent harm; most do not say that a defender may shoot an intruder--they say that he may not, unless........

I thought my point was obvious. I don't live in a state where "the existence of the door would likely weaken such reaon."

States don't agree on the definition of an intruder or an intrusion. No reason they'd agree on unlawful entry.

For reasons relating to physical risk, legal risk, and the risk of endangerment of innocents, I would be extremely reluctant to shoot anyone who is outside, door or no door.

I wouldn't. Hopeful, sure, as I clearly stated.