How would you handle this forced entry?

Status
Not open for further replies.

heavyshooter

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2008
Messages
599
Location
Denver Metro Area
My wife and I are about to celebrate our 5th wedding anniversary. During a conversation about our first year of marriage she reminded me of the less than lovely apartment that we lived in. The management was horrible and they did not give proper attention to the drug dealers and vandals that were tearing the complex apart.

There was an occasion when an intoxicated man mistakenly made his way to our door. My wife was asleep and I listened for about 2-3 minutes as he attempted to use his key to open our front door. At first I did not give it much concern because I assumed that he would eventually notice the number on the door and move along. But after several minutes he became frustrated and started yelling. He concluded that there was something wrong with his key and he was upset that his roommates would not let him in. He was so upset that he attempted to kick the door open. At this point my wife was awake and she had called the police. I retrieved my shotgun and I sent my wife to the bedroom. I stood in my living room waiting for the door to give way or for the police to come. The next thing I heard was the Aurora Police officers subduing him. They then knocked on the door and announced themselves.

This brings me to my question. The police arrived about 4 or 5 minutes after my wife hung up the phone (it seemed like forever). I celebrate the right to keep and bear arms, not because I am a vigilante, but because of the 5 minutes. It was a timely arrival and they acted swiftly. I was very impressed with them. But what if he had managed to breech the door before they arrived? It was a flimsy apartment door and I can sincerely say that if he had another minute or 2, the door would have given way (I had to repair the door the next day). What do I do? I was holding a Mossberg 500 with 7 rounds of 00 Buckshot. I told him, through the door that he had the wrong apartment, but he still did not leave. He heard me rack the slide and he still did not leave. But he was unarmed! Colorado’s “Make My Day” Law will allow me to defend my home if we are under threat, but does that include an unarmed drunk who has just kicked the door open? What do I do?

I know this goes without saying, but please keep all Rambo Commando advice to a minimum. This is not just a “what if” scenario; it really happened. And I want to know what to do if it happens again.
 
Last edited:
As someone who has drunkenly mistaken his hotel room number in the wee hours, I thank you for not blasting thru the door...(Las Vegas, bachelor party...)

I think you handled it well. Not all drunks are out to kill & maim. My guess is that if this person had gotten inside, he would have tried to go to sleep -not that you or your missus would have appreciated him in your bed, but having LEOs drag him from the bed is still better than shooting him. Unless you felt fearful for your life, guns are not always the solution.
 
I would think that an intoxicated individual who has been kicking and punching a door for multiple minutes even when warned that he's in the wrong location could safely be considered a threat.

However - If it were me, I would have certainly waited until he breached the door to open fire - and even then, I would try my best to wait as long as possible before opening fire even then. While he's thrashing away outside, I'd make sure myself and any other occupants of the home were able to make their way to a safe area either away from the disturbance, or behind sufficient cover. That way, if Bozo manages to break through, you're able to warn him away one last time from behind cover - if he realizes he's screwed up and leaves, great. If not, the cover will allow you some distance between you if he's got a weapon.

In short, I wouldn't blast away the instant he got inside, if he in fact managed to.

A
 
You did the right thing.

That having been said, somebody else's alcoholism is NOT my problem. If alcohol makes you kick in other people's doors, get help before you get shot, because if you kick in my door after being told you're in the wrong place and that if you kick in my door you're going to get shot, you're going to get shot. I ABSOLUTELY refuse ANY duty to allow you to impose risk upon ME because of your own selfishness and stupidity.
 
If he is breaking down my door, after being told repeatedly that he is at the wrong place, he is not only a drunk, but a violent drunk.

If he gets through my door, I now have a violent drunk in my house. A clear and immediate threat to myself and my family.

BANG
 
You did right - until he breached the door, there was no *immediate* threat. Had he gained entry, he'd have gone on the ground, one way or another. That ain't Rambo-speak, it's just what has to be. In most instances, the sight of a shotgun will sober a feller right on up.
 
The OP didn't state that he repeatedly told the guy he was in the wrong place.

I think calling the police was absolutely the correct thing to do and good job keeping yourself under control. I would have also verbally ordered the guy to go away without opening the door perhaps telling him you just called the police but not tip your hand that you have a gun.

If the guy still breaks your door in after you warned him, you have every reason to believe he is violent and intends to harm you.

Correction:
After re-reading the OP it did state that the guy was warned. With that said, I think you handled it well.
 
Last edited:
Given the guy had identified himself by his actions as a drunken idiot, I think I'd be inclined to initially handle it the same way as Kingpin008. Its almost one of those 'Have to be there to pick up the vibe' situations. Doesn't sound like he was a particularly violent drunk to me just an idiot. However, once he got in (if it came to that) I'd have gone real noisy and threatening on him from as much distance as possible for a last final assessment and absolutely ready - failure to follow commands, or continued advance, or any hint of real violence potential - Id put him down.

I think you pretty much did it right and glad it the last bit of decision making was not needed.
 
I think the way you handled the situation was fine.
In Colorado with the law the way it is, shooting through the door would probably get you a conviction. If the person brakes through the door you would be legal to fire on him to stop the threat. If I recognized the person as a fall down drunk I would probably give him a buttstroke.
But remember drunks are unreasonable and can become violent. It is a judgement call. One has to be there.

Semper Fi
 
In your home you're justified in using deadly force if someone is in your home uninvited & your lawyer can articulate that that person was using any level of force once there. If he/she can do that you're immune from criminal & civil action. Go Colorado!

You did the right thing & shooting him once he was in your home would have been legal. The flip side is would you be able to live with yourself; would your wife be able to live with you; friends & family?

There's a lot more to the aftermath than just the legal issues. If you end up sucking on the barrel of your shotgun 6 months down the road did you really win?

Still live in Saudi Aurora?
 
i'd tell him he had the wrong door. communication is key.

He did!

Op you did the right thing and one can only guess as to what would have transpired if he had gotten in. An obstinate drunk with no weapons would have gotten plenty of warning from me even if in my home prior to any deadly force being used but no doubt the threat of using deadly force would have been there from the get go.
 
Still live in Saudi Aurora?

I moved to Englewood about 3 months after this happened. My wife felt very unsafe after this event and a few others. We moved to a neighborhood that is considered "better/safer." But I have been alive long enough to know better than that. :rolleyes: There are Million Dollar homes literally across the street. In the past four years my car has been broken into three times and it has been stolen once and our home has also been burglarized. So much for a “better neighborhood!" :D
 
yea that article is what I read as well. Yes, it would have been ok to shoot the guy if he broke in. From what you said, he was already mad cause his "roommates" wouldn't let him in.
I would have also waited for the door to break at a distance of course. Altered state of mind is a dangerous thing imo.
dude get a dog
 
in the five minutes after the call, a couch would have been in front of the door. I would rather the door not break.

Shotgun in hand as backup. Well played.

But something heavy in front of a door, even if the lock goes, is hard to push away from the outside.
 
This is how my CCH teacher put it...if the BG knows that you have a gun--and does not care--then you can only assume that he has his own weapon and is planning on harming you.

If he is trying to break down my door then I can only assume he is violent. I am not going to wait until he comes inside my home and frisk him to make sure he is unarmed before I stop him in his tracks.

~Norinco
 
You do your best not to make assumptions, when time permits. It's too easy to make wrong assumptions if you're scared and rushed. And wrong assumptions can lead to wrong actions.

You really do want NOT to shoot someone, if you can avoid it. For a lot of reasons. Even if 'the law allows,' if you can, you want to avoid it. Even if you have a "make my day" or "castle doctrine" law in your state. Even if you have a "kill 'em all let God sort 'em out" law in your state. You really don't want to shoot someone if you can reasonably avoid it.

Yeah, you can do it legally under some circumstances. That isn't the point. I'm getting pretty tired of hearing the 'just shoot 'em all' approach here. It isn't a ho-hum sort of thing, using deadly force. I hate to sound preachy, but you have to remember where you are. This is THR, remember? We're supposed to be the good guys here. We're supposed to be paying at least lip service to 'reality' here. We're not supposed to be bloodthirsty here. Seems to me we've been slipping in those regards of late. So please, tighten up a little...

Thanks,

lpl
 
You really do want NOT to shoot someone, if you can avoid it. For a lot of reasons. Even if 'the law allows,' if you can, you want to avoid it. Even if you have a "make my day" or "castle doctrine" law in your state. Even if you have a "kill 'em all let God sort 'em out" law in your state. You really don't want to shoot someone if you can reasonably avoid it.
I want even less to be maimed or murdered. What do I win if I allow somebody to harm me rather than doing what I need to do to protect myself? NOTHING... save lip service from people I despise, and whose opinions I despise in the first place.

When you FORCIBLY enter my home, ESPECIALLY after being told that successful ingress will result in my shooting you, you have NOBODY to blame for the consequences but yourself. Unless I got you drunk, your intoxication is utterly irrelevant. If drinking makes you stupid, stop drinking. It's going to get you killed, whether it's crushed and broken in a wrecked automobile, or shot dead in my living room.

You have NO right to forcibly impose yourself on me. I have NO duty to accept unreasonable risk to protect you from your irresponsibility. I'm VERY adamant about these things because time and time again, I've heard idiots assert that your life and safety are not your own, but instead rest in the hands of any drunk or drug abuser motivated enough to kick your door in. I've had multiple debates with Brits who claim that people shouldn't have guns because drunken home invaders might get shot. It gets really old, really fast, all the moreso when you realize how inextricably bound up criminal violence is with abuse of alcohol and drugs. I drink. I like to drink. I've NEVER gotten so drunk that I felt compelled to force my way into somebody else's home, nevermind in defiance of a warning that I'd be shot if I did. Your desire to get stupid drunk does NOT trump my right to be secure in my home and person. Assertions that it does, fall on totally deaf ears.
 
If you won't read it at the sticky, please read it here:

==========================
**Bloodlust**READ THIS THREAD BEFORE POSTING IN THIS SUBFORUM!

THR and our sister board TFL are unlike any other firearms forum on the World Wide Web. The ownership and staff of both forums work hard to keep the standards high.

The Strategies and Tactics Forum is a bit different then any other forum on THR. Here we talk about shooting techniques, legal subjects, how to take care of yourself and others in an emergency, first aid and emergency medical subjects...anything that is related to living safely can be on topic here.

These are serious subjects and they deserve serious, thoughtful posts. Think twice and post once really applies here.

We will not, under any circumstances advocate any illegal conduct. Members who do, will lose their membership without any further warning.

We will not advocate the use of deadly force under any circumstance when deadly force would not be called for. Flip comments about no retreat and castle laws making it legal will not be tolerated. Any member who posts a comment like that will lose their membership without further warning.

The use of deadly force is not a subject that should be taken lightly. There are many legal and moral factors to consider before any force is used. We will no longer take the use of deadly force lightly here. If you have the need to say those things there are other places where those comments are welcome and even the norm. They are no longer welcome here.

These are the Strategies and Tactics forum's rules for employment of deadly force:

Deadly force will only be used to prevent the immediate use of force that could cause death or great bodily harm to yourself or another.

This is how the rule will be enforced:

We can discuss what's legal and what's not in in various jurisdictions. What isn't allowed is the smug posts like; "You should move to Texas we just shoot em for that down here." Posts like that are counterproductive, a waste of bandwidth and potentially damaging to our side in the ongoing culture war.

If you are going to suggest that someone actually use deadly force to resolve a situation, then that situation has to meet the rules of engagement in the first post in the thread. No more; "We just shoot em for that here." posts.

A comment like; "Even though (insert state here) law would permit me to shoot in that situation, I would only shoot if I could articulate a threat of death or great bodily harm against myself or another." is acceptable. "(Insert state here) law says that I can shoot anyone no matter what they are doing if I find them in my dwelling, car, camper, yard after dark...so I'm shooting to slide lock as soon as I see him." is not acceptable.

Here in the Strategies and Tactics Forum we may have a somewhat higher standard for the use of deadly force then some laws may permit.

The standard I picked for our use not only promotes responsible use of firearms but is legal virtually everywhere in the US.

Violation of the deadly force policy here will have repercussions just like in the real world.

Jeff
=======================

That's the policy here. If you don't like "here," there are lots of other places on the web with no such policy.

lpl
 
it's so nice to live in a small town............... if some drunk came to try and get into my door by accident i'd probably know his name.... (or his parents) i'd hate to live in a complex like you described...... i'm old enough and slow enough that need more laid back suroundings..... as for your situation sounds you handled it just right......


LIFE IS SHORT.....
 
it's so nice to live in a small town............... if some drunk came to try and get into my door by accident i'd probably know his name.... (or his parents) i'd hate to live in a complex like you described...... i'm old enough and slow enough that need more laid back suroundings..... as for your situation sounds you handled it just right......
Lots of people don't have that option. They live where they can afford to, or where relatives that need care live. Lots of people have been murdered by "friendly" drunks whom they knew. Alcohol removes inhibitions, including inhibitions against violence.
 
Since it's kinda drifted this way I gotta back up Lee a little here. Absolutely nothing good comes in the aftermath of having to shoot somebody. I've had the misfortune of seeing three men die from gunshots, none from me. Folks, they don't die like they do on TV. The screaming, moaning, thrashing around and finally the gurgling and gasping will stay with you forever.

Having said that and notwithstanding the old LE axiom of "You can't argue with a drunk." I think the OP did just fine. Without a weapon visable on the actor, I think any shot would be nearly point blank. At that point one could reasonably presume that the actor was intending to take your weapon from you.
 
I agree with superflanker. You probably should have said something, but then again having dealt with drunks in the past he may well have just thought it was his roommates playing around. That is just opinion though... I really think you did right.
Had he broken the door before the cops showed up, I would say give him the choice. Tell him to leave and if he refuses and continues to enter the apartment then perhaps it is time to let the hammer fall. If he stands outside yelling at you that is something else entirely. I myself would probably not shoot unless he actually entered, and I would be doing everything up and to that moment to point out the fact that I was the man with the big *#&$ing gun. I would think that this might just be incentive enough for him to stay out, but then again he may have been too drunk for even that. However having spent a few evenings three sheets to the wind I can tell you that I was never so drunk as to not notice a man with a firearm talking extremely forcefully. (then again perhaps it was just the red and blue flashy lights..) :D
 
The use of any deadly force has to be weighed at the time of its use. What is articulated, and the circumstaces that would lead a reasonable person to have to use deadly force in order to protect themselves or others from immediate great bodily harm or death, is measured in each case. There is no one answer or situation where deadly force is used that is the same as another. Each case is measured on its merits, not a general circumstance or scenerio. A lot of problems from the use of deadly force results not from what did happen, but in the articulation from the shooter as to his/her action, instead of what they were reacting to.
Most all states define deadly force as force necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself/herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forceable felony.
Most "Castle doctrine" indentifies a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a persons dwelling, residence is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
As in all laws there are exceptions and defined circumstances in which deadly force should not be used.
One certain thing is once deadly force is used it cannot be taken back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top