How would you handle this forced entry?

[Kleanbore]

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

I don't know how it is in Kansas, Norinco, but the incident cited by the OP occurred in Colorado.

The law in Colorado permits the use of deadly force if and only if the "person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll/cocode/2c8c9/2c8f0/2d005/2d0c0?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0

Now, if you "stop him in tracks" without waiting until he comes inside your home, the first of those three conditions will not have been met.

Guess what happens after that.

 

[mljdeckard]

This varies between states. The UTAH statue allows the use of deadly force, if someone enters your home either by violence or by stealth with the intent to commit a felony. 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.

If it would have been me, he would have entered to see me at the low ready with a shotgun. He would have heard the words; "Face down on the floor, hands behind your head!" To STILL think he was in the right apartment at that point would mean he was not capable of making good decisions, and I would continue to escalate necessary force to keep him away from me. (I think a raised muzzle and repeated warning would have roughly the same effect as a pot of black coffee.) At this point he would probably stumble all over himself trying to run away, and I would let him go. I would report the entire incident to the police.

 

[Th3_M4d_1r1shm4n]

Overall, I think the OP did alright. Only two things I would've done differently:
1. Leave the line to 911 open, keep them talking to you so they can hear everything. It might come in handy, should the worst happen and you wind up in court
2. Getting behind some kind of cover would've been ideal, instead of just standing in the open.

What's not ideal is simply waiting and blasting the guy as soon as he comes in the door. Buckshot makes a mess of everything - the intruder, the drywall, household items, not to mentioning scaring the heck outta the cat and the neighbors.

Has anyone considered bear spray or a tazer? My CCW instructor, way back when, repeatedly told us to get something to go in between "don't come any closer" and "BANG!". Having been hit with both bear spray (note: not keychain mace, actual made-to-stop-large-angry-ursines bear spray) and a tazer, I can vouch for both. The bear spray felt like my face, eyes, sinuses, and lungs had all been napalmed, and for a half-hour afterward my only priority in life was water. The tazer was worse - I went from standing, laughing, still blowing my nose after dealing with the effects of the bear spray, to feeling like someone had just dropped a bulldozer on me from altitude. It was at least 15 minutes before I even wanted to contemplate getting up. Now, I'm a big guy, and no stranger at all to pain - but both the bear spray and the tazer absolutely rocked me. Both weapons are stand-off (my bear spray shoots a decent-sized stream about 30 feet, tazers have range as well) and really, if this is in the front entryway of your house, you don't need to be shooting sub-MOA groups

Now, a fair number of posters have pointed out how they would legally be justified in shooting the large, angry, stupid drunk. But really, people? This is The High Road, not Call of Duty. I forget who said it, but the quote is along the lines of "Violence is the first choice, and the last resort, of the intelligent man". Yes, you would be justified in shooting the guy, if he's out there screaming how he's going to kill you and your family with a shovel as soon as he gets in. But if you had as long as OP did to realize that it's some stupid drunk who has the wrong apartment, pulling the trigger once he gets in seems like a poor choice. Get the bear spray, or get the tazer. Some people claim they aren't as "effective" as a bullet - and to those people, I say: try it. Have someone hit you with the spray or the tazer, and then see if you still feel capable of doing anything besides laying on the ground.

That's my two cents. Give yourself another option besides the gun. Just because you can shoot the guy, doesn't mean you should. Not when there's another option.

Go well.

 

[Deanimator]

Now, a fair number of posters have pointed out how they would legally be justified in shooting the large, angry, stupid drunk. But really, people? This is The High Road, not Call of Duty. I forget who said it, but the quote is along the lines of "Violence is the first choice, and the last resort, of the intelligent man". Yes, you would be justified in shooting the guy, if he's out there screaming how he's going to kill you and your family with a shovel as soon as he gets in. But if you had as long as OP did to realize that it's some stupid drunk who has the wrong apartment, pulling the trigger once he gets in seems like a poor choice. Get the bear spray, or get the tazer. Some people claim they aren't as "effective" as a bullet - and to those people, I say: try it. Have someone hit you with the spray or the tazer, and then see if you still feel capable of doing anything besides laying on the ground.

And if the "drunk" has a gun, which you of course cannot see through the door?

Or how about the "drunk" isn't really drunk at all and has a gun?

The only thing I'd ever bring to a gunfight instead of a gun is a PRC-77, and I don't currently have a 4.2" section, DIVARTY or TAC air at my disposal.

As long as the guy is outside (and not trying to set your house on fire or something similar), you have no reason to shoot. Once he gets in the house, he's made his choice, and I couldn't care less what chemical recreation he's indulged in. If I tell you, "I've got a gun. I'll shoot if you enter." and you kick down my door AFTER hearing that, I'm not risking myself, much less a family member to protect you from your own stupidity. I live in a small cramped apartment. Once you're inside, you're right on top of me and I've got NOWHERE to go. If I tell you, "Stay out, I've got a gun and will shoot if you enter.", you should take that very seriously.

 

[Kleanbore]

If I tell you, "Stay out, I've got a gun and will shoot if you enter.", you should take that very seriously.

Suppose "I" am hearing impaired?

 

[heavyshooter]

Overall, I think the OP did alright. Only two things I would've done differently:
1. Leave the line to 911 open, keep them talking to you so they can hear everything. It might come in handy, should the worst happen and you wind up in court
2. Getting behind some kind of cover would've been ideal, instead of just standing in the open. ---Th3_M4d_1r1shm4n

These are two very good points that came to mind after the fact. As a matter of fact, I recall wondering why the 911 operator did not offer to stay on the line. It made me wonder of he was not aware of the urgency of the situation. If ever in this situation again (God forbid) I will definetly do these two things. I will also put something heavy in front of the door as Aka Zero advised.

 

[Deanimator]

Suppose "I" am hearing impaired?

If you either don't see my gun, or see it and don't take off, the same thing could happen to you that sometimes happens when deaf people don't immediately obey the verbal commands of cops. The cops usually walk. I probably will too.

1. Kicking in a stranger's door is a bad idea. I recommend against it.

2. Being drunk isn't an excuse for kicking in a stranger's door.

3. Being deaf isn't an excuse for kicking in a stranger's door. Deafness is a physical condition, not a moral judgement. Being deaf doesn't make one a criminal. Neither does it make one not a criminal. Neither Ohio law nor common sense require me to have an audiologist on call to determine if people kicking in my door are deaf. See 1 above.

 

[mljdeckard]

I have found drunk people to be difficult to reason with. But that's just me.

If I had faith that 'less lethal' devices were reliable man stoppers, PARTICULARLY AGAINST DRUNK PEOPLE, I wouldn't carry a gun at all. I have MUCH more faith in 8 rds of #4 than I do in a tazer or spray, which might just as easily get in MY eyes. The driving force behind the increased use of 'less lethal' devices is political pressure on police departments to show watchdog groups that they tried something BEFORE they shot the bad guy. These devices are far to unpredictable. People get killed by them every year, and people are frequently not sufficiently affected by them. The ONLY people I recommend sprays to are people who are not even close to being emotionally prepared to use a gun.

When we are using deadly force, the LAST thing I'm concerned about is what the neighbors think, particularly in the case of a place which is already filled with undesireables. With any luck at all, maybe some of them will move.

 

[Rellian]

Honestly, having lived for a time in Saudi Aurora myself I think it safe to say that the neighbors most likely would not be bothered by the random gunshot at most any hour of the day. I wish I could say it was strictly a joke that in some areas it is background noise.... like a cow lowing or a horse neighing or the rooster at various intervals of the day are to the rural crowd....

 

[Erik]

Folks drink and kick in doors in small towns, too.

I know a fellow who mistook one home for another, forced entry and suffered a shotgun blast to the leg for his error.

 

[Kleanbore]

If you either don't see my gun, or see it and don't take off, the same thing could happen to you that sometimes happens when deaf people don't immediately obey the verbal commands of cops. The cops usually walk. I probably will too.

You apparently believe that the "cops" usually shoot. Basis?

 

[iiibdsiil]

I get someone trying to come into my place at least once a month. I'm 3 blocks from the main strip here in Tampa where all the bars/clubs are, Friday/Saturday night it's loud in the hallways until 330 or so.

I get a quick reality check every time it happens, grab a gun, make my way towards the door. Usually by the time I make my way up there, they have realized their fault. But I've always wondered the same thing.

 

[Th3_M4d_1r1shm4n]

In the context of this situation, I have trouble convincing myself that shooting the stupid drunk who's kicking on my door thinking it's his own (as stated by OP, who had time to determine all of this), is the best course of action.

Not to take a detour into the "legal" realm too much, but does anyone have numbers on what the average manslaughter/murder 2 case costs? Because not only is the stupid drunk who's trying to get into the wrong apartment going to run you the cost of a new door, but if you drop him as soon as he crosses the threshold like some people seem to be advocating, you'll have to deal with legal fees. And my strategy for life does not include stupid people costing me steep legal fees. Not over a door and a drunken mistake. To me, that falls right into the same category of those people who shot that 7-year-old because the boy's family was "tearing up the levee".

Also, deckard - try getting hit with bear spray (which I also chose because it doesn't "spray", but instead shoots a stream, and getting it blown back in your face is far less likely, especially inside with no wind) or a tazer, and then tell me if you're "not sufficiently affected". Maybe I'm just a wimp

Like I said before - just because you can shoot the person under your state's Castle Doctrine/Make-My-Day/Stand-Your-Ground/etc. law, doesn't mean you should.

My .02

Go well.

 

[Deanimator]

You apparently believe that the "cops" usually shoot. Basis?

Basis? The periodic news stories about cops who shoot and kill deaf people who don't respond to their commands. I recall it happening in Canada several times.

Of course if you kick down my door and enter my home, it doesn't matter if you're deaf or not. I'm unaware of any state or municipality which authorizes deaf people to commit forceable home invasions by virtue of their disability.

Also, I'm unaware of any aspect of deafness which prevents the sufferer from committing a violent crime, of which home invasion is one example.

If you don't kick in the doors of unwilling victims, your likelihood of being shot is greatly reduced. Use that information as you see fit.

 

[Deanimator]

Not to take a detour into the "legal" realm too much, but does anyone have numbers on what the average manslaughter/murder 2 case costs?

How much does it cost to be severely injured by a home invader? I'm unemployed and don't have insurance. What do you suggest rather than defend myself? Sue an indigent drunk?

Of course if you let the wrong person kick your door in and kill you, it's all a moot point. What do I win then?

I refuse to assume the risk entailed by somebody else's voluntary criminal act.

You can commit violent home invasions or you can maximize your personal safety. You can't do both.

 

[Kleanbore]

The periodic news stories about cops who shoot and kill deaf people who don't respond to their commands. I recall it happening in Canada several times.

There are countries in which police officers do shoot people simply because they do not "obey their commands", but I don't think the U. S. and Canada are among them.

LEOs can use deadly force when necessary to protect themselves, to protect members of the public, to effect arrests under certain circumstances, and when the stars and the moon line up properly, to stop fleeing felons.

Of course, they do so only as a last resort. They'll do anything possible to avoid it. And when they do shoot, they are put under a great deal of scrutiny before they are allowed back on duty. And that's just the beginning.

It's not something any policeman ever wants to do, if the ones I know are at all typical in that regard.

The original post was about an impaired person trying to gain entry into the wrong house. In the incident described, things ended well. You offered the thought that if someone entered your abode, drunk or not, you would command him to leave and shoot if that didn't work--and that if he turned out to not have been able to hear you, you would be like others who "usually walk."

You might be right. You might well "walk". And if you do you might well walk very alone after that. I recommend that you read The Ayoob Files: the Book by Massad F. Ayoob and learn about what happened after various FBI agents, policemen, state patrolmen, taxi drivers, and others used their weapons necessarily in completely justified and unavoidable circumstances. It will give you cause for concern, and make you realize just how serious the aftermath can be.

Don't get me wrong. There's nothing I know that's more terrifying than someone trying to enter your home or hotel room at night. You may have no choice but to shoot. But if you do have an alternative, I suggest that you take it.

Using a weapon other than to deter is the second to last thing I ever want to do.

 

[dacavasi]

Best to practice the approprkiate response level to the threat at hand. It is difficult to armchair-quarterback a situation like this, but I keep OC and stun guns handy as possible lower-level SD responses for situations just like this. Again it is a judgement call and your perceived level of threat but seems like in this case the perp could have been subdued without being blown apart. In fact, he was subdued by the police. The OP didn't say what level of force the LEOs used, but it's clear the guy probably slept if off later that night in the drunk tank.

 

[expvideo]

It was a pass/fail situation and you passed. Good job.

 

[Cpt. America]

You did the right thing. I once stayed in a less than upstanding Hotel when I was going to a shooting compititon and had a simular experience. It was around 0400 in the morning and this A-hole didn't try and use a key he just started kicking the door and yelling at the top of his lungs. I looked out the window and told him he was at the wrong room, he gave me the fingure and then continued kicking the door. I contacted the front office who said they would come deal with it. 5 Min go buy and this continues. Finally I went to the door and looked through the peep hole and waited for him to kick again. The door opened in-ward so when he was mid kick I opened the door and charged him. Nocked him on his Arse. Long story short he ended up appaulogizing and his freinds came and helped him to his feet. They had apparently been gouding him on to mess with people in an attempt to scare them. I was armed with a .357 mag but didn't feel the need to show or bring it into play.

 

[Mad Chemist]

A little food for thought....
Saps and blackjacks are pretty heavily regulated for concealed carry just about everywhere.
However, they hide in plain sight easily and are pretty useful.

It's important to remember that these weapons can be lethal.
If you are going to brain somebody with a blackjack it better be under the same circumstances that you would be justified in shooting them.

But if you stay away from the melon you can provide a less lethal deterrent.
There are only a few tools that have that kind of versatility.

Keep in mind the effectiveness of impact weapons increases dramatically if you have had some combatives training.

 

[gallo]

You can always try to delay the entry by leaning a chair under the door knob or pushing a couch against it.

 

[RollerCam]

"I keep OC and stun guns handy as possible lower-level SD responses for situations just like this."

Bingo.

Police officers have a "use of force continuum;" you should, too.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum

 

[Mad Chemist]

Don't confuse stun guns with Tasers. Most models of stun guns are largely ineffective.

 

[Gamera]

Police officers have a "use of force continuum;" you should, too.

Isn't there a thread around here somewhere about why non-cops should not have a force continuum?

 

[Deanimator]

There are countries in which police officers do shoot people simply because they do not "obey their commands", but I don't think the U. S. and Canada are among them.

It depends upon what the command is, DOESN'T it? If a cop thinks you're a threat to him, gives you specific commands, and you DON'T obey them, you've got a pretty fair chance of getting shot, and of course it HAS happened, and in particular to deaf people who COULDN'T understand what was being said to them.

One more time:

Kicking my door in is a CHOICE, just like subway surfing like kids in Rio do. It's also easily as dangerous.

Taking intoxicating substances is a CHOICE. Substance abuse neither justifies nor excuses bad behavior. If it did, probably half of the murderers in this country would skate. A stupid choice is still a choice.

You have precisely zero right to transfer the dangers of your stupid choices onto innocent third parties. If drinking (or doing drugs) makes you stupid(er), stop drinking. If you can't do it on your own, get help.

Home invasion, for whatever reason, is dangerous, for the victims AND [in civilized places] the perpetrators. Expecting the people whom YOU endanger by your stupid choices to further endanger themselves by protecting YOU from YOURSELF at their peril is arrogance of simply collossal proportions.

Unless you're a cop with a valid warrant or exigent circumstances, or a fireman who reasonably believes there's a fire, there's NO reason for you to kick in my door. NONE. If you CHOOSE to kick my door in anyway, you're probably going to get shot. You don't have to like that. It's just what's going to happen. Complaining about that is as foolish as intentionally sticking your hand in a deep fryer and blaming the Wesson Oil people for your third degree burns.