Shooting through closed doors

[Texasborn]

Just last year, an elderly guy and his wife had a guy beating on his door and trying to break it in. He was drunk and taking chantix for smoking addiction at the time. It turns out he was at the wrong door. The elderly guy saw the guy on his porch through the peep hole and saw that he was a pretty big guy. He was about 6'5". The elderly guy underestimated his height and tried to shoot a warning shot above his head through the door. It turns out the dead guy was a musician with Edie Briquell and the New Bohemians. The elderly guy was not charged with anything. He was on the phone with 911 when he fired the shot.

[Powderman]

No shoot.

If you cannot see your target, do NOT shoot.

If you do not KNOW that you are in mortal danger, and you cannot see your target and IDENTIFY it as hostile, do not shoot.

Don't be in such a rush to kill. Hold your fire and identify your target.

[JohnKSa]

Come on folks, let's not be overly simplistic. I think EVERYONE here can easily distinguish between someone "banging on the door" and someone breaking down the door/trying to illegally gain entrance.

First of all, I think this is one situation that definitely calls for a verbal warning.

Letting someone (or several someones) illegally gain entrance to your home while you (and your family) are in it severely degrades your tactical situation. A door is often a much better "stopper" than a handgun; if someone is obviously trying to defeat it after you've made it known to them in no uncertain terms that they should stop trying to break into your home, then what happens next is up to them.

As pointed out, there's a difference between being afraid and reasonably being in fear of serious injury or death. Someone banging on the door might scare a person, but someone breaking down the door is not just scary. A person trying to break into an occupied residence is a genuine threat to the life & safety of everyone in the house. That is ESPECIALLY true if they continue trying to get in after being warned away.

That is precisely why laws exist that exonerate people who shoot through doors to prevent criminals from illegally gaining entrance to an occupied residence.

This is no different from any other deadly force situation in the home. If you reasonably believe that your life is in immediate danger then you are justified in using deadly force to defend it. The fact that you can't see the person trying to illegally enter your home doesn't change that. It's no more illegal than shooting a threatening intruder in the dark. Saying it's not advisable or legal because you can't see your target through the door makes about as much sense as saying you shouldn't shoot a threatening intruder in your bedroom if it's dark and you can't see him.

The key is the highlighted portion of the previous paragraph with an emphasis on the word "reasonably".

I'm not familiar with the deadly force laws of EVERY state, but I feel pretty safe in saying that any state with a Castle Doctrine (and even many that don't) will have deadly force laws that allow shooting a person for trying to illegally gain entry to an occupied residence.

[OldMarksman]

A person trying to break into an occupied residence is a genuine threat to the life & safety of everyone in the house. That is ESPECIALLY true if they continue trying to get in after being warned away.

Sounds reasonable to me.

That is precisely why laws exist that exonerate people who shoot through doors to prevent criminals from illegally gaining entrance to an occupied residence....If you reasonably believe that your life is in immediate danger then you are justified in using deadly force to defend it.

Be aware that state laws vary. Many states that establish a presumption that syuch belief is reasonable if a person was "attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation...". However, the last time I checked, attempts to enter were not covered in Colorado, and unlawful entry has to have been made.

Personally, I would not shoot at anyone or any animal that I cannot see unless for some reason I had no alternative.

[Double Naught Spy]

I took my CHL class this weekend and one of the participants in the class asked about a situation where someone is beating down your door - are you justified in shooting through the door. To my surprise, the instructor said "yes"! He said if you are reasonably fearful of serious bodily injury, you may employ deadly force (true). While I don't necessarily object to his legal reasoning (in fact I do believe here in TX you would be no-billed shooting through a door at an intruder), I do take issue with his recommendation from a tactics and from a safety standpoint.

Rule # 4 says know your target and what is behind it before firing. In this case you know neither

In any case, I wanted to see if I was on track here. I also decided not to speak up in class, and I kind of regret it.

Well, there are multiple issues at work here. It was asked if a person would be justified shooting through a door and the CHL instructor gave reasons why there would be justification, but you were shocked because of safety and tactics. Safety and tactics are NOT the same thing as legal justification. The four safety rules, including rule #4 are not legal rules. In fact, they weren't even around when most laws went in effect.

As I pointed out to my wife later, even if you are quite positive it is just the BG at the door, what if I was sneaking up behind him to bash him in the head with a chair (WWF style)? If she were to shoot through the door, she could hit me too!

You assume this would not be intentional. Even so, it could be said you were using poor tactics. Do you really think WWF style is proper tactics, especially when on the blind side of a door from your apparently scared wife. Do you not think it is important for your wife to know where you are during this event. Yes, friendly fire incidents happen just like that, especially when you put yourself in the place of the bad guy.

[bababooey32]

John and OM...Please re-read OP...I agree that one would likely be justified in shooting through a closed door at a reasonably perceived threat. Is it advisable (both tactically and safety-wise) is the question!

Saying it's not advisable or legal because you can't see your target through the door makes about as much sense as saying you shouldn't shoot a threatening intruder in your bedroom if it's dark and you can't see him.

Why can we throw rule #4 out the door in this situation? I wouldn't advise shooting a silouhette in the dark either (even though you may be justified in doing so). That's why carrying a weapon-mounted light or handheld tactical light is thought of as a "must" for home defense!!

We've read of several situations on these boards alone of innocent family members raising the alarm and nearly being shot BUT FOR the positive identification by the gun-owner prior to pulling the trigger. Such positive identification is impossible when shooting through a door.

I'd prefer to let the door do its job. If it fails, I'll have ample opportunity to fire on the intruder. Besides, If I plan to pop him through the door anyway, why bother going behind the closed door in the first place?

To be clear I am not advocating any absolutes here. Just that, in general, shooting through a closed door is not safe and provides no real tactical advantage. IMHO.

[bababooey32]

Safety and tactics are NOT the same thing as legal justification

DNS - I guess I should have been more clear - I was shocked that he said yes without any qualifications regarding the safety or tactical efficacy of such an action (as he had generally done with other scenarios). I happen to agree that legally one would likely be justified in shooting through a door (especially here in TX). Would a prosecutor have a bit of fun with that, perhaps?

RE: WWF-style home-defense ...My point was simply to illustrate that with the door closed, you cannot be sure of your target or what is behind it. Yes, optimally my wife and I willexecute our safety plan perfectly andthe BG will have fled or be dropped on the stairway coming upstairs.............Let me know when you hear of a home invasion that happens according to plan!

While I would be unlikely to take the WWF route, I may be lining up a shot from a different angle and, since my wife is shooting blind, she could hit me....Or hit one of the police officers we called to help us...or nothing at all!

Again...I understand that there are no absolutes for these hypothetical scenarios, I am simply advocating that it is generally a bad idea to shoot through objects at BGs.....

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't recall CHL classes in Texas covering tactics as a general rule, so I don't know why you think they would necessarily cover tactics in this situation. Besides, the question was fairly straight forward and the instructor gave a straight forward answer. The person making the query wasn't asking about safety or tactics, but the legal aspect. Whether or not it is unsafe or bad tactics is a matter of opinion and that is going to vary with situation.

Would a prosecutor have a bit of fun with that, perhaps?

I don't know what this "perhaps" garbage is. The DA's office is going to review such shootings as a matter of SOP. Will they have fun with it? Gee, I don't know, but I know there are several cases on the books where there certainly has been no issue with the shooting such as here... http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...light=bohemian

And for those people who claim that if you state it was a warning shot and you end up killing the person that you will go to jail for murder, that is exactly what happened in the case above and the shooter did NOT go to jail.

Again...I understand that there are no absolutes for these hypothetical scenarios, I am simply advocating that it is generally a bad idea to shoot through objects at BGs.....

Okay got it. The CHL instructor was asked a simple legal question to which he gave the simple legal answer, only that answer did not include caveats that YOU think are important and so should have been covered by the instructor and so you are complaining about it? YOU think shooting through the door is a bad idea. Fine. Don't shoot through the door. Don't be mad at the CHL instructor for answering the question asked, however.

Do you have any idea how much longer CHL classes would last if CHL instructors answer all possible ramifications of simple legal questions?

Of course, if you think that is how it should be handled, then become a CHL instructor. I believe you are too late for 2009, but you can enroll for 2010.

[Brian Pfleuger]

And for those people who claim that if you state it was a warning shot and you end up killing the person that you will go to jail for murder, that is exactly what happened in the case above and the shooter did NOT go to jail.

That depends, of course, on the person choosing to fire a warning shot when lethal force would be justified. A "warning shot" that kills a person when deadly force is not justified will likely end in prison.

[cracked91]

Why would you tell the police that the shot that killed the person was only intended to be a warning shot? Either way I very much agree with JohnSKA, There is a difference between someone even pounding on your door and someone trying to force their way through it. I think anyone who questions their doors integrity needs to go spend a few bucks and reinforce it.

[OldMarksman]

The elderly guy was not charged with anything.

Just for the benefit of those who do not understand it, it would be more accurate to say that the guy has not been charged with anything.

Since there's no statute of limitations, he is not immune from charges until he has been tried and acquitted or until he dies.

Back to the topic, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would ever fire a warning shot. Had an innocent person been injured, that "elderly guy" could have lost everything.

[Mello2u]

Assuming that the threat outside the home's exterior door was not shooting through the door and that the door was not damaged by the threat:

A competent prosecutor could make a persuasive argument to the jury at trial that the defendant who shot through a door was not shooting in self-defense. The prosecutor could argue that the threat was not imminent as the door was a solid barrier that was never breached and the shooter shot before the threat was imminent. He could argue that the shooter should have held fire until the door was breached and the shooter could identify the threat.

This argument might be greatly weakened if you add to the facts by saying the threat broke down the front/back door, broke down the bedroom door and was breaking down the closet down where the shooter had retreated.

So many what ifs . . . . . .

[Evan Thomas]

So many what ifs . . . . . .

Indeed.

And if you decide to shoot through any door, what, exactly, are you aiming at? You're just going to blaze away and hope you hit the potential intruder?

You're responsible for every bullet you fire. If you fire through a door, especially an exterior door, whatever the legalities are if you actually hit the (presumptive) BG, you don't know "what's behind your target." In the event that you miss (not unlikely), you're now pretty much spraying the neighborhood and anyone in it.

I'd prefer to avoid the potential legal (and moral) consequences of doing that.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I think it would be exceedingly dangerous and a nearly unimaginable set of circumstances to justify shooting at a completely unidentified target on the other side of an OUTER door.

Shooting through an inner door is a whole different animal.

[GeauxTide]

LE friends have always told me that BG should fall inside the house if you have to shoot.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

Shooting through an inner door is a whole different animal.

It's a somewhat different animal. It's easier to justify shooting someone who's already broken in.

But it has many of the same problems regarding missing what you're (not) aiming at, and where rounds go after that... As Hogdogs likes to point out (credit where it's due, here ), the best way to avoid overpenetration and the risks that go with it is to hit your target, and shooting blind isn't the best way to do that.

[Charles S]

LE friends have always told me that BG should fall inside the house if you have to shoot.

Your law enforcement friends are either ignorant of the law or are oversimplifying the law to the point of error.

In Texas, Louisiana, or Arkansas it does not matter where they fall as long as you feared for your life and therefore you responded in an effort to stop the threat with lethal force.

[Brian Pfleuger]

But it has many of the same problems regarding missing what you're (not) aiming at, and where rounds go after that... As Hogdogs likes to point out (credit where it's due, here ), the best way to avoid overpenetration and the risks that go with it is to hit your target, and shooting blind isn't the best way to do that.

That's true, but take my house as an example. The only inner door that I'd be shooting through is my bedroom door. The only thing on the other side of that door is 75 feet of building, at least 4 walls made of tongue-in-groove 3/4 inch boards (on BOTH sides) and likely (angle dependent) at least one layer of steel roofing. No bullet (that I'd be shooting) will make it out of that building. On top of that, if you are in the bedroom looking at the door, the BG can not be to the right side because there is a closet/end of hallway there. That means that they are either directly in front of the door or off to the left. If they're beating/kicking on the door then it's pretty fair to believe that they're more or less in front of the door, probably slightly off-center to the left.

I would have no qualms about shooting through the door if I had already met all the prerequisites and had reason to believe that my safety would be significantly imperiled if I waited for the door to give way.

[Evan Thomas]

I would have no qualms about shooting through the door if I had already met all the prerequisites and had reason to believe that my safety would be significantly imperiled if I waited for the door to give way.

Neither would I, if I lived in that house.

[armsmaster270]

If he is outside he is no threat. After he gains entry he becomes a threat.

[OldMarksman]

On top of that, if you are in the bedroom looking at the door, the BG can not be to the right side because there is a closet/end of hallway there. That means that they are either directly in front of the door or off to the left. If they're beating/kicking on the door then it's pretty fair to believe that they're more or less in front of the door, probably slightly off-center to the left.

So, the questions become, where at the door do you shoot, from what location (defined in 3D space), and what part of the perp's body, if any, may happen to be in line with each shot at the time of firing....

That would be a good one for someone with some good CAD software to simulate.

Just trying to visualize it, it seems to me it would really be a hit-or-miss situation. Pardon the pun.

Oops, one more question: after shooting, how would one know whether the threat had been hit and wounded or neutralized, or had retreated to wait for your egress?

[Brian Pfleuger]

So, the questions become, where at the door do you shoot, from what location (defined in 3D space), and what part of the perp's body, if any, may happen to be in line with each shot at the time of firing....

That would be a good one for someone with some good CAD software to simulate.

Just trying to visualize it, it seems to me it would really be a hit-or-miss situation. Pardon the pun.

Oops, one more question: after shooting, how would one know whether the threat had been hit and wounded or neutralized, or had retreated to wait for your egress?

If I have come to the point that I am shooting through a door then I don't care where the guy gets hit.
After the shooting, I don't care what he does. I'm waiting for the police. My wife would be on the phone with 911 at the time of the shooting and they would be apprised as to the current situation.

[bababooey32]

DNS...

don't know why you think they would necessarily cover tactics in this situation.

Never said that or even alluded to such a sentiment.

Wow...chill out dude. I really suggest you back off your high horse and enter a civil discussion with the rest of us.

Besides, the question was fairly straight forward and the instructor gave a straight forward answer. The person making the query wasn't asking about safety or tactics, but the legal aspect.

Sorry, didn't see you in the room there on Saturday. Can you tell me whatthe question was then? I forgot...what? What's that? You WEREN'T there?? Strange, sure sounded like it from your factual statement about what the question was. As I've stated TWICE now, the question was a hypothetical scenario (of which we evaluated several that day) about shooting through a closed door. As I have also stated TWICE (at least), the instructor said it was justifiable if reasonably fearful of life or limb. I have stated TWICE that I agree with that assesment, but thought it strange that the instructor did not go on to say "but it's proabably a bad idea". The instructor HAD infact engaged in brief discussions of tactics as asides to the class (e.g. "You may be justified, but it's not a great idea").

SO, my friend, you have become worked up over a disagreement which barely exists! Relax!

Whether or not it is unsafe or bad tactics is a matter of opinion and that is going to vary with situation.

Ahhh! There! You've caught up to the rest of us. My question was precisely that: What is your opinion?

I don't know what this "perhaps" garbage is.

Again...relax, turbo! The argument is made often that even in a justified shoot, certain things might be used against you and "painted" a certain way by a zealous DA: Handloads, suppressors, ARs, etc. Shooting through objects at people "MIGHT" be seen as reckless and could be used to further paint a picture of you that is unsympathetic. I said "perhaps" because a) I'm not sure I buy it and b) "perhaps" there won't be an overzealous DA!

Okay got it. The CHL instructor was asked a simple legal question to which he gave the simple legal answer, only that answer did not include caveats that YOU think are important and so should have been covered by the instructor and so you are complaining about it?

Yup. Did you just copy and paste my OP?

Do you have any idea how much longer CHL classes would last if CHL instructors answer all possible ramifications of simple legal questions?

I don't know. You sure seem to know alot, why don't you fill us in?

Of course, if you think that is how it should be handled, then become a CHL instructor.

I doubt I qualilfy...That's why I come here and ask questions and solicit opinions.

[OldMarksman]

If he is outside he is no threat. After he gains entry he becomes a threat.

The castle laws in some states permit the use of deadly force to stop an attempt at unlawful entry, but in some others, deadly force may not be used unless the invader has actually entered the occupied domicile.

Notwithstanding the wording, consider the case of a perp outside an occupied domicile trying to set it on fire. Would you shoot? I would.

That's specifically called out in the law in some states and not in others. Does anyone have reason to believe it would be unlawful to do so in any state not requiring retreat from the domicile?

Pardon the slight veer, but this is relevant to the above comment, I think.

Would it be lawful to shoot through the door? Through the screen, maybe!

[Tim R]

Last week in eastern Washington my son's collage professor had returned to his unfamiliar hotel late from a school conference. Got on the wrong floor and was trying to figure out why his key did not work on "his" door when the occupant fired a .45 through door, hitting him in the chest, killing him.

No clear target, no legal threat in view, NO SHOOT

He was not on the wrong floor, just the wrong door trying the key. It wasn't a 45, it was a 40. He attended a birthday party not a school conference. BG is in a world of hurt.