Violate Rule #4? A Scenario - Page 2

Erik · January 15, 2000, 05:01 PM

When I drive around and see LEO, which is all the contact most people have with them, I typically see uniforms which well identify them as patrol officers/deputies. The badges are bright and prominently displayed. Thier cars are well marked, shiny and reflective with chrome accesories and bright lights.

SWAT/ commando types are never to be seen, unless it is because they have little shiny SWAT pins on their patrol uniforms. But you would have to be within a few feet to read them. Granted, their tactical outfits are somewhat subdued- but exept when called out, them don't wear them.

So it will be a patrol officer, the line grunt, who will respond in this instance- because he or she saw something and took a risk to save you, instead of waiting for backup.

The neighbor will be wearing whatever he or she has on, or throws on, of course.

The kids, ditto.

I know everyone is aware of the effects of an adrenaline dump on the senses. It has been talked about often in the forums. The point is, do not assume that the good guys havent yelled, "Police!" or "It's me! Erik! Are you alright!" Maybe they have, but you did not hear it. It is easy to declair, tuff, he should have yelled louder. It is harder to live down accidental shootings.

Erik

Hey, we all believe in the right to defend ourselves. Just remember that shooting through doors is usually illegal, often tragic, and never good for the 2nd Amendment.

ChuteTheMall · January 15, 2000, 09:13 PM

He who hesitates is lost. They get to survive kicking in my outer door. I do not intend to wait and be shot in my own bed. Before someone shoots thru my bedroom door, they should make an appointment. If LEO, I want the search warrent thru the mail slot.
If wrong address, hopefully future recruits will be given a literacy test. I know what the backstop is in my home. I also know where I have drawn the line. I won't shoot persons unknown thru the outer door, but if anyone forces it open without my permission, and if they are holding guns, there is nothing left to consider. Fastest accurate powerful shots determines who survives to face the legal system instead of the coroner.

Erik · January 15, 2000, 11:51 PM

The scenario has nothing to do with LEOs "coming to get you." I introduced them as one example of why not to reclessly blast away through the door.

I find it disturbing that some would kill their neighbors, LEOs, even their kids- that was my addition to the scenario- and simply shrug it off as if it is their fault for attempting to help.

Erik

Once more, don't violate the rule.

Matt VDW · January 18, 2000, 02:50 PM

Erik: I would like to hear the story of the Denver police officer who shot another police officer through a wall.

I think that where my view differs from yours is that I don't see tactical decision making as a process of sorting out black and white choices. There are, if you'll pardon the hackneyed phrase, many shades of gray.

For instance, you state that "nobody can guarantee hits on someone they cannot see", which is true. It's misleading, though, because it ignores the fact that under the conditions of a gun fight, no one can guarantee hits on someone he can see, either. Real life hit percentages are under fifty percent.

There is always an element of risk. There's the risk of over-reacting to a situation and using deadly force when it's not needed, as well as the risk of denying the immediacy of a threat until it's too late. There's the risk of shooting an innocent by mistake and the risk of being killed by someone we don't recognize.

My philosophy is that while we should have rules (such as "Identify your target and what lies beyond it") to guide our actions, the ultimate test of "reasonableness" must depend upon circumstances.

Consider, for instance, the problem a police officer faces when confronted by a suspect brandishing what could be either a real pistol or a BB gun, blank pistol, or toy. Should the officer wait until the suspect shoots to find out if the weapon is real? Should he get closer to take a better look? Or should he shoot first to defend himself and then sort out the facts afterwards? I don't think that any given course of action would be prudent 100% of the time; the best response in one case could result in tragedy in another. If I were a juror in the trial of a police officer charged with manslaughter for shooting a kid with a toy gun, I'd want to hear all the evidence before reaching a verdict.

In real life, even though I think the odds of an extremely bold and stupid cop or neighbor trying to break down my bedroom door immediately after a burglary are negligible, I probably wouldn't shoot through the door anyway, for the reasons ctdonath has given.

pluspinc · January 18, 2000, 05:34 PM

If you shoot through a door you have NO clue if it is a threat or not. You can't shoot in a random fashion. One of the foremost cases on cops getting shot in a raid is Minnesota vs. Housely.
The police broke in to serve a search warrant and he woke up and thought it was burglars and shot and hit two cops, killing one who died later after a LONG coma. He was cleared.
A real tear jerker for all involved.
But through a door? Star wearing your underwear on backwards. You'll be doing that in prison. Tough enough when you are face to face with the jerks.

jnix · January 19, 2000, 05:55 PM

Well this is a tricky one. I would probably shoot low with my 12ga OO buck or maybe something lighter, at about knee or shin level. This way it will give the police enough time to get there and if it was the police or BATF they would certainly announce their presence.
Now I live in Washington state and I have read some interesting stories about our laws and defending property.
1. A guy I used to work with at the grocery store got his car broken into alot, so he goes out and buys an alarm for his car, it wasn't a normal alarm that makes noises no his is completely silent it has no warning or anything that there is an alarm, all it does is call his pager.
Well one late night his pager goes off and he looks outside and sees someone breaking into his car. This is when it gets good, he grabs a baseball bat and goes out the back of his house to sneak up on the guy. When he gets to the car he sees the guys legs sticking out of the car.( you know like he was looking under the seat ). He takes that bat and breaks both the guys knees. You know what the verdict was, he gets 365 days in jail and a masive fine for assault & battery. Apparently the judge considered it deadly force and you cannot us deadly force in defense of property in Washington. Tell me is that screwed up or what?
2. A good friend of my dads had a puppy, to keep the puppy out of the kitchen he had a 3 foot piece of plywood in the doorway. One night he hears some thing in his kitchen and he gets up thinking it was the puppy. Well it was a burglar out there. My dads friend walks out there and apparently scares the burglar, the burglar runs and trips over the plywood divider and breaks his leg. Later my dads friend is sued and looses a lawsuit. The plywood divider was a "safety hazard". Again do we have a screwed up judicial system or what?
I conclusion I would pray that I have a good layer before I shoot. Or call an attorney along with 911.

------------------
"Guns don't kill people the government does", Rusty Shackleford.

jnix · January 19, 2000, 05:56 PM

Well this is a tricky one. I would probably shoot low with my 12ga OO buck or maybe something lighter, at about knee or shin level. This way it will give the police enough time to get there and if it was the police or BATF they would certainly announce their presence.
Now I live in Washington state and I have read some interesting stories about our laws and defending property.
1. A guy I used to work with at the grocery store got his car broken into alot, so he goes out and buys an alarm for his car, it wasn't a normal alarm that makes noises no his is completely silent it has no warning or anything that there is an alarm, all it does is call his pager.
Well one late night his pager goes off and he looks outside and sees someone breaking into his car. This is when it gets good, he grabs a baseball bat and goes out the back of his house to sneak up on the guy. When he gets to the car he sees the guys legs sticking out of the car.( you know like he was looking under the seat ). He takes that bat and breaks both the guys knees. You know what the verdict was, he gets 365 days in jail and a masive fine for assault & battery. Apparently the judge considered it deadly force and you cannot us deadly force in defense of property in Washington. Tell me is that screwed up or what?
2. A good friend of my dads had a puppy, to keep the puppy out of the kitchen he had a 3 foot piece of plywood in the doorway. One night he hears some thing in his kitchen and he gets up thinking it was the puppy. Well it was a burglar out there. My dads friend walks out there and apparently scares the burglar, the burglar runs and trips over the plywood divider and breaks his leg. Later my dads friend is sued and looses a lawsuit. The plywood divider was a "safety hazard". Again do we have a screwed up judicial system or what?
I conclusion I would pray that I have a good layer before I shoot. Or call an attorney along with 911.

------------------
"Guns don't kill people the government does", Rusty Shackleford.

January 15, 2000, 05:01 PM	#26
Erik Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 1999 Location: America Posts: 3,479	When I drive around and see LEO, which is all the contact most people have with them, I typically see uniforms which well identify them as patrol officers/deputies. The badges are bright and prominently displayed. Thier cars are well marked, shiny and reflective with chrome accesories and bright lights. SWAT/ commando types are never to be seen, unless it is because they have little shiny SWAT pins on their patrol uniforms. But you would have to be within a few feet to read them. Granted, their tactical outfits are somewhat subdued- but exept when called out, them don't wear them. So it will be a patrol officer, the line grunt, who will respond in this instance- because he or she saw something and took a risk to save you, instead of waiting for backup. The neighbor will be wearing whatever he or she has on, or throws on, of course. The kids, ditto. I know everyone is aware of the effects of an adrenaline dump on the senses. It has been talked about often in the forums. The point is, do not assume that the good guys havent yelled, "Police!" or "It's me! Erik! Are you alright!" Maybe they have, but you did not hear it. It is easy to declair, tuff, he should have yelled louder. It is harder to live down accidental shootings. Erik Hey, we all believe in the right to defend ourselves. Just remember that shooting through doors is usually illegal, often tragic, and never good for the 2nd Amendment.

January 15, 2000, 09:13 PM	#27
ChuteTheMall Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 1999 Location: Sinkholeville Swamp Posts: 228	He who hesitates is lost. They get to survive kicking in my outer door. I do not intend to wait and be shot in my own bed. Before someone shoots thru my bedroom door, they should make an appointment. If LEO, I want the search warrent thru the mail slot. If wrong address, hopefully future recruits will be given a literacy test. I know what the backstop is in my home. I also know where I have drawn the line. I won't shoot persons unknown thru the outer door, but if anyone forces it open without my permission, and if they are holding guns, there is nothing left to consider. Fastest accurate powerful shots determines who survives to face the legal system instead of the coroner.

January 15, 2000, 11:51 PM	#28
Erik Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 1999 Location: America Posts: 3,479	The scenario has nothing to do with LEOs "coming to get you." I introduced them as one example of why not to reclessly blast away through the door. I find it disturbing that some would kill their neighbors, LEOs, even their kids- that was my addition to the scenario- and simply shrug it off as if it is their fault for attempting to help. Erik Once more, don't violate the rule.

January 18, 2000, 02:50 PM	#29
Matt VDW Senior Member Join Date: July 27, 1999 Posts: 1,315	Erik: I would like to hear the story of the Denver police officer who shot another police officer through a wall. I think that where my view differs from yours is that I don't see tactical decision making as a process of sorting out black and white choices. There are, if you'll pardon the hackneyed phrase, many shades of gray. For instance, you state that "nobody can guarantee hits on someone they cannot see", which is true. It's misleading, though, because it ignores the fact that under the conditions of a gun fight, no one can guarantee hits on someone he can see, either. Real life hit percentages are under fifty percent. There is always an element of risk. There's the risk of over-reacting to a situation and using deadly force when it's not needed, as well as the risk of denying the immediacy of a threat until it's too late. There's the risk of shooting an innocent by mistake and the risk of being killed by someone we don't recognize. My philosophy is that while we should have rules (such as "Identify your target and what lies beyond it") to guide our actions, the ultimate test of "reasonableness" must depend upon circumstances. Consider, for instance, the problem a police officer faces when confronted by a suspect brandishing what could be either a real pistol or a BB gun, blank pistol, or toy. Should the officer wait until the suspect shoots to find out if the weapon is real? Should he get closer to take a better look? Or should he shoot first to defend himself and then sort out the facts afterwards? I don't think that any given course of action would be prudent 100% of the time; the best response in one case could result in tragedy in another. If I were a juror in the trial of a police officer charged with manslaughter for shooting a kid with a toy gun, I'd want to hear all the evidence before reaching a verdict. In real life, even though I think the odds of an extremely bold and stupid cop or neighbor trying to break down my bedroom door immediately after a burglary are negligible, I probably wouldn't shoot through the door anyway, for the reasons ctdonath has given.

January 18, 2000, 05:34 PM	#30
pluspinc Junior member Join Date: December 30, 1999 Location: Mpls, MN. US Posts: 497	If you shoot through a door you have NO clue if it is a threat or not. You can't shoot in a random fashion. One of the foremost cases on cops getting shot in a raid is Minnesota vs. Housely. The police broke in to serve a search warrant and he woke up and thought it was burglars and shot and hit two cops, killing one who died later after a LONG coma. He was cleared. A real tear jerker for all involved. But through a door? Star wearing your underwear on backwards. You'll be doing that in prison. Tough enough when you are face to face with the jerks.

January 19, 2000, 05:55 PM	#31
jnix Senior Member Join Date: January 17, 2000 Location: Tacoma, Wa Posts: 130	Well this is a tricky one. I would probably shoot low with my 12ga OO buck or maybe something lighter, at about knee or shin level. This way it will give the police enough time to get there and if it was the police or BATF they would certainly announce their presence. Now I live in Washington state and I have read some interesting stories about our laws and defending property. 1. A guy I used to work with at the grocery store got his car broken into alot, so he goes out and buys an alarm for his car, it wasn't a normal alarm that makes noises no his is completely silent it has no warning or anything that there is an alarm, all it does is call his pager. Well one late night his pager goes off and he looks outside and sees someone breaking into his car. This is when it gets good, he grabs a baseball bat and goes out the back of his house to sneak up on the guy. When he gets to the car he sees the guys legs sticking out of the car.( you know like he was looking under the seat ). He takes that bat and breaks both the guys knees. You know what the verdict was, he gets 365 days in jail and a masive fine for assault & battery. Apparently the judge considered it deadly force and you cannot us deadly force in defense of property in Washington. Tell me is that screwed up or what? 2. A good friend of my dads had a puppy, to keep the puppy out of the kitchen he had a 3 foot piece of plywood in the doorway. One night he hears some thing in his kitchen and he gets up thinking it was the puppy. Well it was a burglar out there. My dads friend walks out there and apparently scares the burglar, the burglar runs and trips over the plywood divider and breaks his leg. Later my dads friend is sued and looses a lawsuit. The plywood divider was a "safety hazard". Again do we have a screwed up judicial system or what? I conclusion I would pray that I have a good layer before I shoot. Or call an attorney along with 911. ------------------ "Guns don't kill people the government does", Rusty Shackleford.

January 19, 2000, 05:56 PM	#32
jnix Senior Member Join Date: January 17, 2000 Location: Tacoma, Wa Posts: 130	Well this is a tricky one. I would probably shoot low with my 12ga OO buck or maybe something lighter, at about knee or shin level. This way it will give the police enough time to get there and if it was the police or BATF they would certainly announce their presence. Now I live in Washington state and I have read some interesting stories about our laws and defending property. 1. A guy I used to work with at the grocery store got his car broken into alot, so he goes out and buys an alarm for his car, it wasn't a normal alarm that makes noises no his is completely silent it has no warning or anything that there is an alarm, all it does is call his pager. Well one late night his pager goes off and he looks outside and sees someone breaking into his car. This is when it gets good, he grabs a baseball bat and goes out the back of his house to sneak up on the guy. When he gets to the car he sees the guys legs sticking out of the car.( you know like he was looking under the seat ). He takes that bat and breaks both the guys knees. You know what the verdict was, he gets 365 days in jail and a masive fine for assault & battery. Apparently the judge considered it deadly force and you cannot us deadly force in defense of property in Washington. Tell me is that screwed up or what? 2. A good friend of my dads had a puppy, to keep the puppy out of the kitchen he had a 3 foot piece of plywood in the doorway. One night he hears some thing in his kitchen and he gets up thinking it was the puppy. Well it was a burglar out there. My dads friend walks out there and apparently scares the burglar, the burglar runs and trips over the plywood divider and breaks his leg. Later my dads friend is sued and looses a lawsuit. The plywood divider was a "safety hazard". Again do we have a screwed up judicial system or what? I conclusion I would pray that I have a good layer before I shoot. Or call an attorney along with 911. ------------------ "Guns don't kill people the government does", Rusty Shackleford.