How would you handle this forced entry?

[Kleanbore]

Substance abuse neither justifies nor excuses bad behavior.

True fact. But it can lead to tragedy. You may well be legally justified in shooting an intoxicated man trying to get into the wrong house, but you are not going to like the aftermath one bit.

If you CHOOSE to kick my door in anyway, you're probably going to get shot.

Could well happen if it occurs at my place, too. I really, really hope not. The aftermath would be terrible. Particularly if the "kicker" turned out to be a person liked in the community and portrayed sympathetically in the media, even if I had been dead to rights and had seen no other realistic alternative at the time.

I'm retired and do not have to look for a job, as did the Miami cab driver whose story was related by Mas Ayoob, and I don't have kids in school, but I wouldn't want to be known as a killer for many, many other reasons.

It's just what's going to happen.

Nothing like creating discoverable evidence that could be used to establish state of mind in a less than clear circumstance not currently foreseen...

We have a castle law where I live. Shooting a man kicking in the door would be justifiable--legally speaking. And it might turn out to be unavoidable. But I've had three experiences in which intruders, attempting or having made unlawful entry, were dissuaded by the mere sight of a gun and I very fortunately didn't have to fire. And if the person really appeared beyond reason and if I happened to be home alone, I guarantee you I would at least consider getting out before shooting and letting the police handle the drunk, even absent a legal obligation to do so. My circumstances would be a whole lot better for a long time afterwards.

I cannot and would not tell anyone in advance "just what's going to happen."

 

[Southern Rebel]

In this case, the fact that he was drunk, and you KNEW that he was drunk sets the stage for everything. THERE IS NO INTENT. He THOUGHT he was trying to get into his own place. He was not entering by violence OR by stealth. He was using the force necessary for a guy who is locked out of his house to get inside.

There are drunks and then there are drunks - don't ever believe that you know how they are gonna react to being given orders to do something. I lost a friend many years ago because a roadside bar owner told him to quieten down or leave. If he had been sober, my friend would have opologized and done what he was told. Drunk, he tried to jump across the bar and "teach that bar guy a lesson". He ended up with a shotgun blast to his midsection.

I don't think any of us are specifically saying just shoot the drunk 'cause he shouldn't be drunk and beating my door down. I believe the message is that you are dealing with an individual who doesn't have all of his faculties working. If a true bad guy doesn't have a gun in hand and is facing a shotgun, his reaction is fairly predictible - not so easy to predict a drunk. In the confined space of a small house or apartment, you only have a small amount of time to decide and even smaller amount to react.

I would never want to shoot someone just because it is legal, but if I must take a chance on error, I will take the action that most protects my family.
I could live with "you just shot our friendly, peaceful drinking buddy who wouldn't harm a flea", as opposed to "Southern Rebel and his wife were seriously injured by an intoxicated good guy who thought they had broken into HIS apartment and were trying to ambush him."

My attitude IS NOT comparable to the bloodlust or "shoot em and let God sort em out. Nor is it comparable to "we gotta a right to shoot em here in my state". I call it "what a reasonable person would choose to do under the given circumstances".

 

[Deanimator]

True fact. But it can lead to tragedy. You may well be legally justified in shooting an intoxicated man trying to get into the wrong house, but you are not going to like the aftermath one bit.

I guarantee you that I'm going to like it a lot better than getting beaten, stabbed or shot to death, or worse rendered unable to care for myself by a drunken stranger, or by a stranger pretending to be drunk to lull me into a momentary state of vulnerability.

It's one thing to not WANT to shoot people. If I WANTED to shoot people, I'd go out into the street and shoot people. Being in my own home, reading a book when some jackass kicks in my door proves state of mind on both our parts. Even in the street, I only have a duty to retreat if I can do so IN PERFECT SAFETY. I am NOT, I say again NOT going to assume ANY additional risk to protect somebody from HIMSELF who's putting me in reasonable fear of life and limb IN MY OWN HOME. 100 times out of 100 times, I'm going to worry more about being maimed or murdered by somebody than ANY legal consequences of defending myself from a home invader.

And again, if I'm crippled, blinded or rendered brain damaged by a home invader whom I didn't deal with appropriately because I was more afraid of the law than a violent offender, WHO is going to care for me? YOU??? What do you think I'm going to get out of the average drunk or druggy in a civil suit? If my assailant is "popular" AND has assets, do you think I'm going to have an easier time taking food out of his children's mouths in a civil suit than I would defending myself from his unprovoked attack? I'm not "taking one for the team", especially a "team" to which I don't belong, and which I'd rather shoot MYSELF than belong to.

I'm not going to impose more risk on myself in my own home, than the State of Ohio would impose upon me in the worst crack den in Cleveland.

 

[Deanimator]

I would never want to shoot someone just because it is legal, but if I must take a chance on error, I will take the action that most protects my family.

Some people think that you should assume the risks from somebody ELSE'S criminal acts, instead of that person himself.

Of course those people are never around when you can no longer care for yourself because you LET somebody harm you who CHOSE to commit a series of criminal acts against you. They'll tell you to give the benefit of the doubt to a home invader, but they sure won't volunteer to change your diaper when you're a quadriplegic or are profoundly brain damaged.

 

[EHL]

I think it's absolute lunacy for people here to be brow beating those who would choose to use deadly force on somebody forcibly and violently attempting entry into their home. If you wanna invite the violent drunk/rapist/murderer in for crumpets and tea, that's you're choice. Maybe you can calmly ask him to express his "feelings" about why he "feels" he needs to break down your door? Maybe you can go to group therepy together? When did the Brady campaign invade the forum?
Don't try and convince me that this drunk is "just going to go to sleep" or that I need to use bear spray or a taser on him first. Funny thing is, I've heard this argument for less-lethel self defense protection from anti's, the Brady Campaign, Stop Handgun Violence, etc... Those of you advocating the use of these devices are parroting what these anti's say about CCW; "we shouldn't carry guns, and that if we are so worried about our safety, that we should carry tasers or pepper spray". Sorry, I buy self defense weapons that actually work. If wanting to defend my family is now considered "bloodlust" than I guess I'm gonna get banned.

 

[mljdeckard]

Rollercam, the police and civilians do things differently for very good reasons.

The reason police step up through varying levels of force, is that there is political pressure being applied to their departments which forces them to prove that every time there is a shooting, even a JUSTIFIED shooting, they used other means of force before they used (the most) deadly force. Claims od police brutality and racial inequality have created an environment where the police must show that they were redundant even to the point of risking the life of the officer before they fired. No, it's not safer for them either.

All 'less lethal' devices have BAD disadvantages. Tasers only give you one shot. In combat, even good shooters frequently miss the mark. If someone is coming through that door and you miss, you have just wasted time you could have used to deploy your real weapon. Stun guns are contact weapons. If you have allowed an attacker to get close enough to you to use a contact weapon, you have failed. The whole point of a firearm is to keep them far enough away that they can't touch you. Any electrical weapon has a chance of hitting you with the juice as well.

Sprays vary WIDELY in effectiveness depending on the kind of spray and the target. They work by giving a sensory shock to the system. This reaction can be conditioned by experience or dulled by drugs or alcohol. Someone can even have an allergic reaction to them. PEOPLE ARE KILLED WITH 'LESS LETHAL' DEVICES EVERY YEAR.

Every step you add to the process is time off of what you can use to defend yourself. You are working with the three-step rule, which says you should not let the bad guy get within three steps of you. If you DO, you probably won't have time to react if he charges you. (If you don't believe it, try it sometime with your friends and some airsoft guns. Most people, even when their weapon is already drawn, can't react if they are charged within that space.) If they are much further away than this, it's difficult to say your life was in danger at all. Most apartments aren't much bigger than that. So, when a bad guy is coming for you, you have a VERY short space of time. I wouldn't waste any of it reaching for mace or a taser.

 

[Deanimator]

Don't try and convince me that this drunk is "just going to go to sleep" or that I need to use bear spray or a taser on him first. Funny thing is, I've heard this argument for less-lethel self defense protection from anti's, the Brady Campaign, Stop Handgun Violence, etc... Those of you advocating the use of these devices are parroting what these anti's say about CCW; "we shouldn't carry guns, and that if we are so worried about our safety, that we should carry tasers or pepper spray".

What's even more ironic is that these "arguments" are almost always coupled with assertions that you can just "avoid" places where you'll need to defend yourself. Apparently NOW, you should avoid your own home. What's left, the International Space Station?

Some people are simply incapable of holding people accountable for the consequences of their own actions. Apparently if I get stupid drunk and kick in your door, ALL of the risk attendant therefrom should accrue to YOU. If I turn out to be Richard "The Nightstalker" Ramirez instead of "Otis the drunk", and you end up unable to walk, talk or control your own bowels and bladder, their only response is, "Oh well..."

 

[Deanimator]

Most apartments aren't much bigger than that.

And some much smaller.

I'm tickled by the suggestions to "put the couch in front of the door". Somebody could literally cut another door in the wall before I could get my couch to the door.

When somebody's kicking in my door, the LAST thing on my to-do list would be to spend an hour rearranging my furniture.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Never underestimate a drunk.

A lot of people on this board drink, and some often. And we would like to think that since we would never do something violent or harmful while drunk, that others who are drunk are just hilarious at best or obnoxious at worst. Don't make that assumption.

I'm only 25 and have spent my fair share of time at dorms or at houses near local colleges, namely U of M, EMU and MSU. Drunk people are very unpredictable. Of course there are the ones who just laugh a lot of fall asleep (only to wake up with sharpie drawings on their faces). But then there are the ones who fight, or pull down light poles, or break things just for the fun of it. I've seen drunk college kids attack strangers just because they thought it would be hilarious. I've seen drunk kids fight in the front yard only to have 1 or more end up being rushed to the hospital with broken glass sunken a few inches into their faces. And I've seen drunks proceed to basically gang beat another for some perceived insult or slight. And then there's the fights in and around the clubs I used to bounce at in Ann Arbor. Drunks can be very, very, very destructive.

What would have happened if the drunk in the OP had gotten through? Maybe he would have gone to sleep as another poster suggested. But then maybe he would have tried to fight or seriously injure the OP out of anger for not letting him in.

If you've got someone intoxicated acting in any way violent, or even speaking about violence towards you, you had better go to condition red right now. Don't assume they will be non-violent while drunk just because you are.

 

[Route2]

gun ownership carries a heavy responsibility

This is the first time I have posted to this site. I have read and enjoyed various threads in the past but never felt the urge to post until now.

I was brought up in a household where gun ownership carried a heavy responsibility. I was taught, and still believe, that human life is sacred and that each of us is responsible for the safety of others. Their lives are in our hands. That is why we follow gun safety rules. It is the person with the gun in his hand who has control of the situation.

I would never second guess someone who found themselves in Heavyshooter’s position. However, I believe that his course of action reflected the proper sense of responsibility that gun ownership requires and that the positive outcome confirmed the wisdom of doing so.

Sadly, some posts sound like people who are itching for an opportunity to get someone in their sights and that any provocation would justify repeatedly pulling the trigger.

Many of us have done stupid things in the past and have appreciated it when someone in a position of responsibility “cut us some slack”. When we pick up a firearm, we are the one in the position of responsibility. We shoulder the responsibility for what that weapon can do. And just because we have purchased a weapon that can take a life does not mean that we are morally or ethically authorized to do so.

The fact that some dismiss the notion of having the option of non-lethal force (Pepper spray, etc) available before resorting to lethal force is irresponsible. We should WANT to have options available before we are forced to pull that trigger. We want them for ourselves, so that the next day, when we look into a mirror, we will know in our hearts that we did all we could to avoid the unnecessary taking of a life.

Final thought, Deanimator is clearly passionate about his position. What he says concerns me. But, I respect him for speaking his mind. I also want to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I didn’t see where he said that when he would shoot an intruder that it necessarily followed that he would shoot to kill.

 

[Kleanbore]

I am NOT, I say again NOT going to assume ANY additional risk to protect somebody from HIMSELF who's putting me in reasonable fear of life and limb IN MY OWN HOME.

Nor will I.

100 times out of 100 times, I'm going to worry more about being maimed or murdered by somebody than ANY legal consequences of defending myself from a home invader.

Where you live and where I live and in many other places, there really shouldn't be any significant legal risk (lay opinion), provided that you are in your home at the time and not coming home to find someone inside.

Others need to be concerned about legal consequences should they shoot someone who has not yet entered, and others may need to be able to present evidence supporting a reasonable belief that the perp intended to inflict harm. However, in Missouri, it would seem that evidence of an attempt at unlawful entry of an occupied dwelling would justify the use of deadly force; in Ohio, the law says something about the perp being "in the process" of unlawfully entering. If there is evidence that integrity of the door has effectively been compromised, that should do it. Lay opinion.

We are both fortunate in that our state laws should greatly reduce the legal risk. A lot of people really do not like that fact.

And I have been fortunate in that on three occasions I have stopped criminal offenders with a weapon and that I have never had to shoot.

These incidents predated the enactment of the castle laws in Colorado and Missouri where they happened.

No, I don't think there's likely that much legal risk for you or for me in the case of a home invasion while we are at home, but I doubt that you or I would want to be asking ourself for years afterwards if the shots were really necessary or wondering whether there had been missed job opportunities, promotions, sales contracts, social invitations, shooting club memberships, etc. as a result.

Mas Ayoob wrote of a taxi driver who was forced to use his legally carried weapon to stop a well known criminal from executing him. Completely legal, no question about it. Lost his job and at the time of writing was still unemployed. He wrote of a state patrolman who shot a man who had been trying to kill him with a shotgun. Exonerated and back on the force, but very much alone for a while.

Those seem to me to be pretty clear cut cases. Armed violent criminal actors shooting or attempting to do so and fully intent on mayhem.

Recently an intoxicated assistant golf pro was killed trying to get into what he thought was his house in Colorado in a legally justified shooting. I wonder how the shooter feels? Worse than I do, I'll wager, because while my home invaders were true bad guys--also impaired, by the way--I managed to avoid shooting without assuming any additional risk. I was fully prepared to fire at center body mass on each occasion.

No, I don't think you or I really want to shoot anyone. As you say, it might beat the alternative, but that won't make us all that happy. And that's assuming that there are no adverse legal consequences.

And if something comes up outside of the home? Just make sure it won't end up with only your word for your defense, and if that's the case try to get away fast if at all possible before resorting to the use of deadly force.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm only 25 and have spent my fair share of time at dorms or at houses near local colleges, namely U of M, EMU and MSU. Drunk people are very unpredictable. Of course there are the ones who just laugh a lot of fall asleep (only to wake up with sharpie drawings on their faces). But then there are the ones who fight, or pull down light poles, or break things just for the fun of it. I've seen drunk college kids attack strangers just because they thought it would be hilarious. I've seen drunk kids fight in the front yard only to have 1 or more end up being rushed to the hospital with broken glass sunken a few inches into their faces. And I've seen drunks proceed to basically gang beat another for some perceived insult or slight. And then there's the fights in and around the clubs I used to bounce at in Ann Arbor. Drunks can be very, very, very destructive.

I'm glad you brought this up, since it reminds me of the night before my college graduation.

One of the thugs (and thieves) in the dorm next to mine got liquored up the night before graduation. He proceeded to find the vehicle of somebody's visiting grandmother and destroy it. He pulled the driver's side mirror off, and holding it by the remote control cable, proceeded to do in the vicinity of $3,000 damage to the car. Hearing something in the parking lot, my best friend went downstairs to find the drunk and fighting mad idiot destroying that elderly woman's car. Declining an invitation to join in, he told the drunk that was going to call the Dean of Student Life. At that point, he was physically assaulted by somebody who probably had 75lb.s on him. Fortunately, he was a brown belt in judo and slammed him to the pavement so hard he bounced. The drunk just sat back up and started for my friend, who punched him in the face. The drunk just kept coming, despite my friend wailing on him for all he was worth. My friend finally slipped behind him and choked him out. I wonder what would have happened if the elderly woman had confronted the drunk, especially if he hadn't dropped his improvised flail. No doubt, her brains would have joined the broken glass on the surface of the parking lot.

THAT is the kind of person we're being counseled not just to let break into our homes, but to get within arm's length of.

No thanks.

 

[Deanimator]

Final thought, Deanimator is clearly passionate about his position. What he says concerns me. But, I respect him for speaking his mind. I also want to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I didn’t see where he said that when he would shoot an intruder that it necessarily followed that he would shoot to kill.

You should only be concerned if you commit home invasions. If you don't, I don't know what it is you need to be concerned about. I have not stated an intention to:

Walk the streets looking for criminals to shoot.
Shoot people committing non-violent burglaries or car thefts.
Shoot people in the street without a REASONABLE attempt to disengage.

If you plan to kick in my door, drunk, high or sober, you NEED to be concerned. I advise you not to, or at least to do it somewhere else. Of course kicking in somebody else's door in Ohio is basically playing Russian roulette with an unknown number of chambers and an unknown number of rounds.

As far as shooting "to kill" goes, you demonstrate here a profound lack of understanding of the legal and moral implications of the use of deadly force. Shooting anybody ANYWHERE is "deadly force". It doesn't matter if you shoot them in the head or the little toe. It's DEADLY FORCE.

The ONLY reason to EVER shoot somebody outside of a military or para-military context is that they present you with an immediate and reasonable fear of life and limb, or of those of another person who would have the right to use deadly force to defend themselves.

If you put me in an immediate and reasonable fear of life and limb, I'm going to shoot to stop that threat. And the only reliable ways to accomplish that involve substantial risk of death. If you put me in immediate and reasonable fear of life and limb, I'm going to shoot you in the head and or center of mass until your threat to me is neutralized. That's probably going to kill you. That's why I've repeatedly said that you should NOT put me in immediate and reasonable fear of life and limb. If liquor or drugs cause you to do things which would put a reasonable person in immediate fear of life and limb, you need to stop using alcohol or drugs, and to get help to do so if necessary. I am not a psychologist. I am not a drug and alcohol rehab specialist. It is not my job to help you with those sorts of problems and I am not interested in any such problems you might have. I'm just a guy sitting in his house reading Lin Yu Tang. If I shoot you, it's because you CHOSE to engage in TOTALLY avoidable acts, completely unprovoked by me. Indeed the odds are overwhelming that I won't even know you.

Keep those things in mind and you have nothing to fear from me. Don't and the person you should REALLY fear is yourself, because you will be the source of all of your own misfortunes. After all, you'll be in MY house, not the other way round.

 

[Route2]

Like I said

I was only trying to give you the benefit of a doubt.

 

[Deanimator]

I was only trying to give you the benefit of a doubt.

What "doubt"?

Don't put me in reasonable, immediate fear of life and limb and I won't have any need to defend myself from you with deadly force. Put me in reasonable, immediate fear of life and limb and I will.

There couldn't be any less doubt or ambiguity than that.

 

[Route2]

One thing I have learned

What goes around, comes around.

 

[EHL]

Many of us have done stupid things in the past and have appreciated it when someone in a position of responsibility “cut us some slack”.

Speak for yourself. I've never kicked somebody's door down to go and rape/rob/ or murder them. I wouldn't expect ANY "slack" either should I one day decide to commit such crimes.

When we pick up a firearm, we are the one in the position of responsibility. We shoulder the responsibility for what that weapon can do.

Agreed, but I am only responsible for me, mine, and any possible innocents. A drunken robber/rapist/murderer/brawler/home invader's safety are at the ABSOLUTE BOTTOM of my list of responsibilities/priorities.

And just because we have purchased a weapon that can take a life does not mean that we are morally or ethically authorized to do so.

It ABSOLUTELY DOES IF our own life/limb or that of our families' is in jeaporday due to the willful felonious acts committed by another.
That's the entire reason why I even have aquired firearms, for defending my family should the need arise, not just to go plinking on the weekends or display them over the mantel.

Nobody here is advocating dispensing "Punisher" type vigilante justice, stalking the streets looking for perps. Heck, I wouldn't mind going my whole life never having to be placed in the situation of having to actually defend my family by taking another life. I indeed hope that my family escapes such a nasty encounter such as a potential rapist/armed robber/home invader. But as far as me willing to pull the trigger on somebody who is intent on committing these acts on my family or myself, I wouldn't hesitate. Indeed, I feel I would be obligated to do so since I am charged with the protection of my family. And although I don't relish the thought of seeing anybody in their death throws because of mortal injury that I caused; I would much prefer to see that than witness my wife or children being raped and murdered before my very eyes. I'd much prefer to be charged and sent to trial than have to live with the guilt and shame of having stood by while my family is defiled and taken from me.

 

[EHL]

One thing I have learned

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What goes around, comes around.

Agreed. Hense why it's not a good idea "going around" kicking in people's doors in a drunken rage. You just might get what's "coming around."

 

[Deanimator]

And although I don't relish the thought of seeing anybody in their death throws because of mortal injury that I caused; I would much prefer to see that than witness my wife or children being raped and murdered before my very eyes. I'd much prefer to be charged and sent to trial than have to live with the guilt and shame of having stood by while my family is defiled and taken from me.

Some people clearly disagree. As George Carlin put it, "Do whatever want to the girl, just leave ME alone!"

 

[mljdeckard]

There is no such thing as shoot to wound. EVER. Under ANY circumstances.

 

[Southern Rebel]

Many of us have done stupid things in the past and have appreciated it when someone in a position of responsibility “cut us some slack”.

Stupid is when you pull out in front of me when I have the right-of-way. I would then try to cut you some slack, and i wouldn't try to shoot you for being stupid. Stupid is trying to steal my lawnmower from my garage. I doubt that I would want to kill someone for being that stupid. However, kicking my door down when you are too drunk to know what you are doing goes beyond being stupid - that poses a very serious potential threat to me and my family. If I had time and knew what your forthcoming behavior would be, I could cut you some slack, even in the breaking-in situation. Unfortunately, neither of those are likely.

I would compare it to your jumping from a 12 story building and me being on the sidewalk underneath. I COULD stand there and try to break your fall because you were too drunk to know what you were doing. BUT, it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Kleanbore]

However, kicking my door down when you are too drunk to know what you are doing goes beyond being stupid - that poses a very serious potential threat to me and my family. If I had time and knew what your forthcoming behavior would be, I could cut you some slack, even in the breaking-in situation.

And I have fortunately been able to do that, three times.

None involved a drunk at the wrong house.

In one case, a man who apparently did not know the house was occupied tried to destroy the back door, very violently and with great force, while I was inside. The point of a gun caused him to reset his short term goals before gaining entry.

In the second, an intoxicated man gained entry to the house, and he then stated his intention to commit murder. The point of a gun and some industrial strength coaching led him him to reconsider.

In the third, a hippie higher than the Front Range got into my cabin by working with the door lock. The point of a gun, and a firmly worded "request" that I thought to be quite reasonable, persuaded him to leave.

The first intruder posed a very serious threat to me, the second posed a very serious threat to me and my family, and whether the third, who was naked except for a headband and a peace medallion, posed a serious threat is subject to conjecture. I believe that each was at least somewhat impaired. All were engaged in criminal activity. These were not wrong address scenarios. But I did not have to shoot.

I wouldn't say that I "cut them any slack". I simply was able to handle the situations without firing.

And that's by far the best possible outcome.

My point is that it may not be necessary to shoot if it is clear that you are prepared to do so. Of course, any of these situations may have taken a different turn--and not at my expense, I think.

For those who care: in the first instance, I had a Smith and Wesson .32 Regulation Police revolver; in the second, a Model 39 9MM pistol; and in the third, a Colt .45 Single Action Army revolver.

 

[Deanimator]

I wouldn't say that I "cut them any slack". I simply was able to handle the situations without firing.

In all of those situations, the aggressors saved their OWN lives by desisting when a firearm was seen.

I presume that in each one of those situations, after they made it through the door, if they had not been deterred by your firearm, you would have shot.

 

[Kleanbore]

In all of those situations, the aggressors saved their OWN lives by desisting when a firearm was seen.

That's a good way to look at it.

I presume that in each one of those situations, after they made it through the door, if they had not been deterred by your firearm, you would have shot.

Yep.

 

[Route2]

This is what I am talking about

Thank god, a man with a brain and who knows how to use it. My hat is off to you, sir.