If armed intruders are on your doorstep, do you have to wait for them to enter?

[tepin]

In Minnesota it would be illegal to do that (shoot someone through your front door).

1. They are not in your home so defense of dwelling doesn't yet exist i.e. prevent a felony in your place of abode.
2. There is a locked door between you and them so the threat of great bodily harm is not yet "immediate". A prosecutor could likely argue that the would-be intruders were simply hunters that were at the wrong home and when the attempt to enter failed, they could have turned and left.
3. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the use of force must always be reasonable for the circumstance, even in the home. I myself wouldn't consider shooting through an exterior door reasonable.

Now, once inside the home, you have every right to lay in wait, in darkness, and ambush the invaders, shooting them until the threat no longer exists. Attempting a citizens arrest or giving away your position by calling out to the attackers would be foolish, especially for a female with a baby.

 

[USAF_Vet]

As said, check state law.
My neighbor shot through the wall next to the door when his step son tried breaking in (after previously being thrown out). The bullet went through the wall, striking his other step son in the stomach. Clearly, a violation of rule #4, but apparently not a violation of the law on that day since he was never charged.

This scenario is not one I'd ever want to recreate and expect to keep out of prison.

In any event, the cost of a new door beats the cost of a defense attorney.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Not sure about legality, but what I would do is:

1. Arm myself, which would happen before looking through the window.

2. Grab phone and as I dial 911, yell to intruders that the cops are on their way, and I am armed. Immediately inform 911 operator what is happening and place phone on the counter so 911 can listen.

3. If intruder runs off, fill out police report.

If inturder claims to be police, inform them that the door will not be opened until I see a cop car pull into my driveway and hear from another police officer, and if they attempt to enter I will open fire. If they can't wait for another cop to show up and they are the cops, then I'm dead, or they are and I'm in prison. Either way, I've informed and done my duty to warn someone off before shooting.

 

[lpsharp88]

Call me crazy, but I'd let them physically get into my house before I opened up on them. Once I realized what was going on, I'd go upstairs to my room (dialing 911), grab any one of my firearms and wait at the top of the stairs. It provides a good vantage point (I can see the front door from there, it's the only way in or out), and if they were hell bent on harming me, or anyone else at my place, they'd have to fight up a flight of stairs and through a wall of lead to get to me. The way I see it, by letting them enter, it clears up any potential gray legal area, and still gives them a chance to think better of their actions and leave, all without firing a single shot.

 

[Zoogster]

If I was confident in what I saw to be a team of armed men, particularly armed with firearms, I would use the element of surprise to my advantage before it was lost.

A group of men with firearms is quite likely to prevail, or at least some of them to hit you with gunfire if you wait to shoot it out when they have line of sight. If the opportunity to thin thier numbers presented itself and gave me increased percentage chance of surviving or reducing harm to me or loved ones I would take it. Precautions should be taken to limit risk to others not involved with stray rounds. Different homes and property layouts will present safer angles of fire.



I have actually thought of this in context of defending a third party previously. Having lived next door to family in the past I had decided I would be quite willing to take action if I saw a threat being presented to family in another residence. Which would include obvious armed men knocking or scouting the exterior.
I couldn't forgive myself if I instead waited, they got inside or knocked and took the person answering the door by surprise, and proceeded to injure, kill, rape, or otherwise harm the occupants either outright or in a resulting standoff with responding police or myself. If I could take action before a hostage situation or something else was created then I certainly would. The highest percentage chance of an outcome without a hostage standoff or injured family would be to engage them prior to them even making entry into the residence, and from a direction they would be quite unlikely to expect as thier focus would be on the residence and its exits.
As such I had planned angles to shoot from that would put those within the home in the least risk while shooting towards the bad guys outside.


A single individual is different. But a team of firearm armed bad guys is odds stacked against you, and if you wait for them to dictate when the firefight happens your odds are much lower.
Someone clearly armed with a knife or other contact weapon I would warn and wait it out. The benefit of a ranged weapon means I have an advantage and luxury of reacting at the last possible moment, which would be after they had made entry.

 

[zxcvbob]

Careful Zoog, I received 4 permanent infractions a couple of years ago (not sure how many one gets) for talking about ambushing and shooting armed home invaders because they might be the police.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

In Texas I would let them enter the fatal funnel.

My version of the story might be the only one told but the broken door and such may be enough for the Grand Jury to send me home. And get my rifle back.

In a perfect world that is.

Unless the DA is up for reelection then he may claim I was "laying in wait with my weapon of mass killing", my mini 14 with the gangster mag that holds 20 massive rounds.

 

[tepin]

"laying in wait" with intent to ambush is both strategy and tactic and it seems would be a very prudent course of action. Ayoob mentions this in his book, "In the Gravest Extreme" at the top of page 52 and again on page 58 where he specifically states that he does not favor verbal warnings because it mitigates the homeowners advantage. The second paragraph on page 59 the author makes mention of the staircase leading to the upstairs bedrooms (the "funnel") being a free-fire zone for any intruder that enters. This all seems to make sense.

 

[Camron]

If you have a gun or any other thing for your defense than you must have to wait until he come in to your home.Because you have a right do defend yourself but confirm that the person outside is a real criminal and not coming for selling anything and you doubtfully shoot him.

 

[NavyLCDR]

If you have a gun or any other thing for your defense than you must have to wait until he come in to your home.Because you have a right do defend yourself but confirm that the person outside is a real criminal and not coming for selling anything and you doubtfully shoot him.

Not true in all states. In some states you only have to confirm that they are attempting to enter your home by using force.

 

[gamestalker]

In my state, if you feel your life is in jeopardy , no. Check your state self defense laws.

GS

 

[2A Citizen]

Hypothetical : you peak out the peephole, and you see 2 men in ski masks with no visible LEO identification and armed with firearms with a battering ram or a lock pick kit. They are going to work on your front door.

Do you have to actually wait until they break the door down to open fire? I'm asking this question in response to this video/news story : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp5gAY6aIjA

The 911 operator implied she had to wait until the intruders, one of whom was armed with a 12 inch knife, actually broke her door down.

From a tactical point of view, opening fire sooner increases your chance of survival. They can't easily shoot back if you fire a few dozen rounds through your front door because they don't have a line of sight to your position in the house. The logical thing to do, if you have a weapon that fires bullets with enough penetration, I'm assuming you need an AR of some kind, would be to get in the prone position at an angle to the door and fire 20 rounds or so through it.

I know it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 (unless it's Florida, where you get judged by 6...), but how likely are you to face a murder trial if they find 2 dead men in ski masks at the front door? Do you really have to drag one over the threshold?

Lemme tell you something brother. If you're waiting for someone to tell you over the phone about what to do or what NOT to do, You're dead.

IMO a moral man will know when his life is in danger, and act accordingly. Not withstanding the immense amount of <deleted> up laws in separate jurisdictions. The idea of self defense is a moral question. Do you fear for your life?

Self Defense and the Castle Doctrine are your friend.

2 guys in ski mask's...really? Jiminy!

 

[boom boom]

Have you ever thought about contacting your local law enforcement officers and finding out how they conduct no-knock raids? Most of these warrants are executed for drugs in most locations and have a certain M.O. It is very unlikely that you get a visit from the Feds, let alone in sky masks.

Most laws and most juries look for what a reasonable person would do in such a situation. Calling 911, warning them to leave, moving to a safe room, etc. would all look favorable to a jury and follow most state laws. Firing through a door to preemptively prevent entry might or might not be legal in your state depending on the facts but a prosecutor or jury might not believe that you acted reasonably if you had other options. This might occur even if you are in a Castle Doctrine state.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

My personal thoughts on what I would likely do: Get family to safe room while pushing panic button on alarm. Entrench in safe room with long arms of choice. Bad Guys will hear alarm go off. They have no element of surprise and you are defending on your chosen battlefield.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Hypothetical : you peak out the peephole, and you see 2 men in ski masks with no visible LEO identification and armed with firearms with a battering ram or a lock pick kit. They are going to work on your front door.

Do you have to actually wait until they break the door down to open fire? I'm asking this question in response to this video/news story : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp5gAY6aIjA

The 911 operator implied she had to wait until the intruders, one of whom was armed with a 12 inch knife, actually broke her door down.

From a tactical point of view, opening fire sooner increases your chance of survival. They can't easily shoot back if you fire a few dozen rounds through your front door because they don't have a line of sight to your position in the house. The logical thing to do, if you have a weapon that fires bullets with enough penetration, I'm assuming you need an AR of some kind, would be to get in the prone position at an angle to the door and fire 20 rounds or so through it.

I know it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 (unless it's Florida, where you get judged by 6...), but how likely are you to face a murder trial if they find 2 dead men in ski masks at the front door? Do you really have to drag one over the threshold?

This scenario isn't just about what's "tactical"...it's about what's "legal". And that varies from state to state, an important piece of information you haven't provided for us to do research on.

From a strictly "tactical" perspective, it's even better to identify and open fire on criminals even earlier...like when they first approach your house, or when they first get out of their vehicle, or just before they get out of their vehicle. Heck, it's better yet to just pre-emptively strike against them before they even have a chance to consider committing a criminal act.

And therein lies the problem...what's tactically sound in combat ISN'T necessarily legally sound in real life civilian situations.


That said, it may very well be legal to shoot someone through the door under your state laws for the scenario given.

However, you can bet the rest of your life as a free citizen (because this is what you're doing) that if you DO commit such an act, every conceivable aspect of your act will be very carefully scrutinized in a most painful and invasive manner under the law.

You may win...you may not. Even if you "win", you may still "lose", considering all the stresses you will have suffered as a result, not the least of which will be the financial and psychological costs.


It may, indeed, be tactically sound to engage before the door is actually opened. However, it's also tactically sound to arm yourself, take cover, and call 911 while preparing to defend yourself if that door actually does come down.

Don't get me wrong...NOW is the time to consider what actions to take under various scenarios, BEFORE they actually occur. Thinking such things through beforehand and finding out the answers/best paths is the key to success when the excrement hits the rotating oscillator. You're far more likely to take the correct action under stress this way.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I know it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 ...

People say this all the time, and then when somebody has a questionable shoot, everyone thinks the shooter is a moron for not being absolutely 100% certain of the circumstances and laws.

Lemme tell you something brother. If you're waiting for someone to tell you over the phone about what to do or what NOT to do, You're dead.

Defeatist attitude. Know, you are not dead.

However, you can bet the rest of your life as a free citizen (because this is what you're doing) that if you DO commit such an act, every conceivable aspect of your act will be very carefully scrutinized in a most painful and invasive manner under the law.

I know this is meant to sound like some sort of warning about potentially shooting through the door, as if the scrutiny will be superior somehow to the scrutiny of when you just plain shoot people, but it isn't. If you shoot somebody inside your house, the situation will be scrutinized very thoroughly as well, especially if the person(s) you shoot ends up dead.

 

[627PCFan]

Lets face it, if you look out your peep hole and see men with ski masks/picking your lock with firearms outside your door I think any court is going to say their intent was there and your actions justified. Another concern is where does your bullet go once its throught the door if it doesnt hit he perp.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I know this is meant to sound like some sort of warning about potentially shooting through the door, as if the scrutiny will be superior somehow to the scrutiny of when you just plain shoot people, but it isn't. If you shoot somebody inside your house, the situation will be scrutinized very thoroughly as well, especially if the person(s) you shoot ends up dead.

No, not really what I had intended in all honesty, though looking back on how I wrote it I can see what you mean. I had meant it to be more open ended and not just shooting through the door, but I had focused more exclusively on the OP's scenario than I had intended. You are quite correct.

ANY TIME a person shoots another person, whether justified or not, all aspects of the shooting will be heavily scrutinized. Therefore any time a person shoots another, they're betting the rest of their life as a free citizen that what they've just done is, in fact, fully justified in the eyes of the law.

That is why I closed my last comment with the final paragraph I wrote. The time to consider what you would do for various circumstances is ideally BEFORE any such circumstance actually happens. In this manner you avail yourself to a lot of resources and training which you can draw upon to make the best informed decision should things actually go South on you. I call it being "proactive" instead of "reactive".

In fact, we spend a great deal of time here discussing various scenarios all the time, often in response to real life occurrences. We critique them from many different angles and hopefully many of us come away from them the wiser for it.

I hope this clarifies my intent some.

 

[jrdolall]

In Alabama I have no DUTY to retreat and I am justified with using deadly force if I FEEL that they are a threat.
With that said I just don't think I would ever fire at someone that I thought MIGHT be about to do something illegal. Now if Bubba or Dontravious have already kicked the door a couple of times or heaved a brick through the window then things might be different but I also don't want to shoot my neighbor who was attacked by a rabid coon while walking towards my house.
As suggested I THINK I would retreat with my family to a safer room, call 911 if possible(not expecting them to save the day or anything)and then do what I needed to do. There is nothing in my house, other than my family, that is worth trading gunfire over so they can steal my TVs and computers as long as they don't try to get into the safe room.
All of this is completely hypothetical as I would probably soil my underwear first, step on my phone, and scream like a woman. Fortunately my large dog would be more scared than I would be.

 

[denton]

Here in Utah, if I read the law correctly, if you shoot at someone committing a violent felony, miss, and hit a bystander, you're off the hook. That's no moral excuse for poor marksmanship, or failing to consider what's behind your target, but at least you're probably not in legal trouble.

Also, in this state, you don't have to wait for them to get through the door.

Threads like this are fruitful, because, whatever you decide, it's probably better than trying to wait and figure it out in the heat of the moment when you're still half asleep but full of adrenaline.

It also makes me appreciate our local police. One night, we had an intruder try to get into our house. I called the police to let them know we had a burglar in the neighborhood, and headed for bed, thinking I had done my civic duty. A couple of minutes later, a police cruiser pulled up in front of my house, and an officer wanted details. That was a great thing to do: The cruiser was right where I could see it, so there was no question about whether the guy on my front porch was an officer.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Here in Utah, if I read the law correctly, if you shoot at someone committing a violent felony, miss, and hit a bystander, you're off the hook....

How about some evidence or citation to law?

...in this state, you don't have to wait for them to get through the door....

How about some evidence or citation to law?

I strongly suspect that it's a good deal more complicated than that.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

I'll seek cover and as they come through the door I'll shoot. The advantage they think they have as a result of surprise will shift in my favor as they do not know I'm already aware of them and just waiting for them to enter the house. Doing so only strengthens my case. I've called 911 and I'm just waiting for them to come in. My legal ducks are now lined up.

 

[HankR]

First of all, lock up your dog.

Could somebody elaborate on this? Right now that wouldn't be part of my plan.

 

[tarosean]

Unless the DA is up for reelection then he may claim I was "laying in wait with my weapon of mass killing", my mini 14 with the gangster mag that holds 20 massive rounds.

You must live in Austin....

 

[tepin]

The shooter is responsible for EVERY bullet that leaves his or her barrel. If you hit an innocent while trying to protect yourself... you will be doing time or best case plea down to some felony charge and take probation.