Opening the door to unexpected visitors can go very wrong.....

[gnappi]

What?

Look it up.

 

[gnappi]

OK...

http://acronymsandslang.com/definition/196787/SFAQL-meaning.html

 

[P89DCSS]

Shoot first ask questions later = SFAQL

What could go wrong? Lol, read the thread, gnappi....

 

[Blue Jays]

I simply cannot understand the obsession with answering the door at all.
Anybody worth anything has your mobile number and/or already expected.

 

[Kleanbore]

I cannot imagine going to the door at all if I thought I should do so with gun in hand.

Your "strategy", such as it is, is demonstrated quite well in a video by Massad Ayoob in which he feigns surprise and horror as he is overcome by his visitor.

Massad then goes on to demonstrate more prudent ways to go about it without becoming a victim.

What evidence would you have to support a legal defense of self defense?

Also--I cannot imagine much of anything posted public media that a prosecutor or plaintiff could use more effectively to demonstrate a likely predisposition toward violence than "shoot first ask questions later".

 

[JTHunter]

I simply cannot understand the obsession with answering the door at all.
Anybody worth anything has your mobile number and/or already expected.

Many years ago, about a year after I had bought this house, there was an unexpected and very loud knock on my front door. It wasn't very late but it was starting to get dark. As my front door has a window in it (covered by a miniblind), I could see the officer's shadow on the blind (the hat was a clue), I glanced out the front window before opening the door and verified it was a cop. It turned out he had a court order to seize the property but it was addressed to the previous owner. Fortunately, the tax bills had come and I showed him the bills to prove I was the owner and not the person they were seeking.
This is a quiet neighborhood and, with few exceptions (twice), there haven't been any late night calls at my door that would suggest answering the door with a gun. That may be because of my "late hours" that keep the lights on past 10 or 11 p.m.

 

[Blue Jays]

Interesting account, JTHunter. There is certainly the opportunity that people will knock for whatever reason.
My anticipation is if you were not at home he would have left a letter or a business card with message to call.
One would not expect a solo officer to smash their way into a home for non-violent administrative situation.

 

[JTHunter]

BJ - as the officer was there to seize the property, who knows what might have happened. That is probably why he came by near dusk when most people are at home.

 

[gnappi]

I cannot imagine going to the door at all if I thought I should do so with gun in hand.

Your "strategy", such as it is, is demonstrated quite well in a video by Massad Ayoob in which he feigns surprise and horror as he is overcome by his visitor.

Massad then goes on to demonstrate more prudent ways to go about it without becoming a victim.

What evidence would you have to support a legal defense of self defense?

Also--I cannot imagine much of anything posted public media that a prosecutor or plaintiff could use more effectively to demonstrate a likely predisposition toward violence than "shoot first ask questions later".

Let's see... I have two cameras on my front door. Evidence? Anyone who rips the door out of my hands there WILL be evidence enough they were trying to gain access to the house, case closed. Anyone who wishes to let someone in that way is welcome to do so.

As far as answering the door with a gun goes...

NOT answering a door gives the impression the house is empty, and ripe for burglary, not MY house.

There are several instances yearly in south Florida where an opened door leads to a rush in and dead occupants.

SFAQL on MY property is easily defended with my video. So, that's my reason, AND "strategy" not your house, none of your concern is it?

 

[Kleanbore]

Evidence? Anyone who rips the door out of my hands there WILL be evidence enough they were trying to gain access to the house, case closed.

I wouldn't want to bet that a video will show clearly that the person was in fact in the process of entering forcibly and unlawfully.

If it does, the issue remains about whether and that the resident will be judged to have acted reasonably in using deadly force.

Possible, but questionable.

Remember that in a cil suit, the plaintiff needs only a preponderance of the evidence and a majority of the jurors.

The legal expenses would likely be staggering even if the resident wins.

We do not look for when we may lawfully shoot, but for when we must and should shoot.

Now, none of that was touched upon in the Ayoob video. That was all about the risk of injury or death.

Your handgun is most unlikely to effect an instant stop.

Suppose the "guest" shoots you?

 

[GEM]

NOT answering a door gives the impression the house is empty, and ripe for burglary, not MY house.

Flip the outside lights.

 

[aaronu]

Two women acquaintances were awakened one night. One of them gets up and grabs her .45. Goes to the door and announces to whomever was there, that she was armed and they better leave. She got shot through the door.

Turns out it was the county sheriff executing a drug warrant. She took a bullet to the shoulder. Deputies busted the door and detained her. She sat in her living room, bare aZZ nekkid for 45 minutes until paramedics arrived, while LEO's "secured the scene".

Turns out the two ladies had a friend living in his camper on the far corner of their country property. He repaid their kindness by cooking meth on their property.

I am not sure if it was considered a good shoot by the deputy, although I suspect it wasn't since only one deputy fired only one round.

All of this could have been avoided if she just looked out a window. Not to mention standing there with her ear plastered to the door with "unknowns" on the other side of it. Gun or no gun.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I distinguish between being prepared and being paranoid. I realize we live in somewhat rougher times and the criminal element is much bolder and less inhibited, but the shoot first then ask questions approach might have worked years ago when the population was much smaller, people lived farther apart, communications much slower-and a dead assailant could always be fed to the hogs.
One of my youthful memories from high school is hearing a knock on our door one cold wintry night-it was after 2100. And seeing 2 rather elegant looking Chilean ladies asking for directions.

 

[Kleanbore]

I distinguish between being prepared and being paranoid. I realize we live in somewhat rougher times and the criminal element is much bolder and less inhibited, but the shoot first then ask questions approach might have worked years ago when the population was much smaller, people lived farther apart, communications much slower-and a dead assailant could always be fed to the hogs.

Do you contend that getting away with murder "worked" years ago?

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I read lots of true crime books, in one a Philadelphia PD detective said:
"If you do it by yourself and keep quiet about it, you have a much better chance of getting away with it."
In a town north of me here in Central NJ a couple bought an old farmhouse, discovered human remains on the property, the police determined they were over 100 years old.
People got away with a lot when they didn't feel the need to record everything and post it on social media.
And forensic science has improved by leaps and bounds, the cops can often recognize tampering with evidence and "staging" ASAP.

 

[Gary H]

I have cameras surrounding the house, including cameras mounted at chest level. We had our car broken into with cameras mounted high and the officer told me that he can't ID someone by seeing the top of their head. All gates are locked and the dog barks. Without being able to video the person at the door, I'm not answering the door. I live in California where strong gun control insures that bad guys aren't armed.