Interesting video. Happened a couple days ago:
Homeowner has a 9mm intruder has a .22. No one hurt....,
Homeowner has a 9mm intruder has a .22. No one hurt....,
Homeowner and potential intruder trade shots through front door
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
Golf-21-Bravo
Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2016
- Messages
- 34
Just goes to show what a decent camera set up and a firearm can do. The homeowner seemed very level headed as well thankfully.
I wonder what possessed the intruder though, obviously booze or drugs of some sort but he seemed very keen on that property.
I wonder what possessed the intruder though, obviously booze or drugs of some sort but he seemed very keen on that property.
Speedo66
Member
A reason I don't like entrance doors with glass and side glass panels. Your shape can be seen through the glass, it's easily broken, and the side panels, if close to the door and broken out, may allow an intruder's hand to slip in and open the door from the inside.
ColtPythonElite
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,477
I believe you are correct
The camera footage provided seems to indicate that the door was never opened by the homeowner.
The intruder and the homeowner traded shots through the door itself separated by a few feet.
Absolutely concur having big glass panels (even frosted) and glass side panels are disadvantageous.
The intruder and the homeowner traded shots through the door itself separated by a few feet.
Absolutely concur having big glass panels (even frosted) and glass side panels are disadvantageous.
No, I do not believe you are correct, nor is the unstated implication that to fire first would be wrong.
1. The full narrative by the homeowner makes it clear he does not recall who fired the first shot.
2. It really does not matter who shot first. The intruder first tried to break down the door several times, then drew and aimed a gun at the door. At that point the homeowner was clearly facing a deadly force threat and had full justification for responding with deadly force.
You do not have to wait for the bad guy to pull the trigger and then return fire in order to have a justified self defense shot. Once the bad guy pulls a gun like that, you are fully justified.
Craig
The homeowner heard someone kicking his front door down in the middle of the night and he goes to his glass door and looks out to see what's going on. Hmmmm, what could go wrong? We see exactly what could go wrong....
Don't answer your door to unexpected visitors any time of day but esp in the middle of the night.
Don't answer your door to unexpected visitors any time of day but esp in the middle of the night.
buddyd157
Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2020
- Messages
- 455
he may have tried several times to kick in the door, but he still was not INSIDE the house. the home owner could have called 911, and held back.
i wonder if the home owner gets charged with anything?
i was always told, you are in your home, you are safe, the intruder has to actually GO INSIDE, before you start shooting at him.
cuz in the end, 'what if" you hit an innocent by stander cuz you cannot see thru a door???
Last edited:
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
Depends on the state, Im sure.
Looked like the perp had a Beretta Neos? Interesting that it jammed so many times, people who own them seem to report that they are fairly reliable.
I agree. I didn't see how the threat rose to the level of deadly force if the homeowner fired first. And he admits he doesn't know who fired first.
Then the homeowner spoke freely to the press about his experience. A lot of stupid in this video (by the intruder and the homeowner).
aaronu
Member
Later in the video the homeowner mentions he fired while attempting to load his firearm. From the video that might be the first shot fired... and accidental discharge while trying to get an unloaded gun into play in the heat of a bad situation.
Did the firearm malfunction causing it to fire? Unless it was a mechanical failure it was a NEGLIGENT discharge. And even if it was a negligent discharge that in no way, shape or form excuse it.
aaronu
Member
Sure, negligent. From what I heard in the video, the homeowner verbally admitted to mishandling the firearm whilst loading it, and there was no mention of mechanical issues with said firearm.
Not only that, but he was doing so only after realizing a violent, armed person was on his doorstep.
If nothing else, it is clear that even a small amount of forethought could have mattered. Training, maybe a lethal force book, some thought to firearm storage etc.
Then again this was in California and I believe that state has laws about firearm storage. Maybe that was the best he could do?
Not only that, but he was doing so only after realizing a violent, armed person was on his doorstep.
If nothing else, it is clear that even a small amount of forethought could have mattered. Training, maybe a lethal force book, some thought to firearm storage etc.
Then again this was in California and I believe that state has laws about firearm storage. Maybe that was the best he could do?
Such as checking the surveillance camera to see what's outside. What's the point of having a surveillance system and not using it?
NuShootr
member
I am currently reading "Deadly Force" by Masad Ayoob, and he makes it pretty clear that deadly danger can be defined in a variety of ways. If someone is trying to knock down your door, and then pulls a gun, even if he retreats, he has put you and your family in a potentially mortally dangerous situation. How is one to know that the perp isn't going to his car to get a shotgun to blow your lock off and enter your home? Legally, it seems it's a matter of what a reasonable person would do in that situation. In my eyes, a reasonable person would be in fear of their and their family's life in that situation. Shooting is therefore justified. Not a lawyer, though. Also, even if the homeowner called 911, the response time is atrocious. Isn't that why we have firearms in our homes?
My biggest issue with this is that the homeowner had no idea what was beyond his front door. He could have hit a pedestrian or vehicle passing his home. And he would have been liable for damage, injury or death caused by that. Yes, this is an emergency type situation, but Rule #4 of gun safety is know what is beyond your target. Glad no one was hurt.
My biggest issue with this is that the homeowner had no idea what was beyond his front door. He could have hit a pedestrian or vehicle passing his home. And he would have been liable for damage, injury or death caused by that. Yes, this is an emergency type situation, but Rule #4 of gun safety is know what is beyond your target. Glad no one was hurt.
Last edited:
One may NOT employ force because of what someone has done.
One may NOT employ force because of not knowing what someone will not do.
That, by itself, would not be sufficient.
NO!
No.
Go back over it again, slowly
NuShootr
member
I am actually reading it very slowly and taking notes throughout. Did you read his book? How long ago? Are you an attorney?
Can you expand on your thoughts about this? I have a family. If someone were trying to knock down my door and had a gun in hand while doing it, I would certainly consider that reason enough to brandish a firearm.
Yes, and many otters.
No, but i have studied under Ayoob, and I have taken several times as much in the way of classes on use of force law than is taught in law school.
In your example, a threat of death or serous injury would not be imminent.
No, but i have studied under Ayoob, and I have taken several times as much in the way of classes on use of force law than is taught in law school.
In your example, a threat of death or serous injury would not be imminent.
NuShootr
member
There is a case in the book about someone in a vehicle. An assailant punches through the window, but doesn't harm the individual in the vehicle. The individual then shoots the assailant, killing him. It was ruled a justified shooting. Based on what you just said, it would not be justified. It is a matter of being in fear for your safety and the potential for imminent harm. Are you suggesting you wait until you or someone you love is injured before you can act? If that is the case, the book disagrees with you.
NuShootr
member
You don't consider someone trying to beat down your door, on your private property, while holding a drawn firearm, "imminent danger"?
- Status
Similar threads
