Wait till they get in?

[DDTSGM]

[video=youtube;iYbV_GTY5k4]Does homeowner have to wait until they get in such case? Does the fact that the door so far in still up mean that a condition of opportunity is not met? As I think of this, things get conflated in my head although the logical conclusion is that the guy shouldn't have shot until they got in.

That's what I think. It could be argued that you're not in danger as long as the door holds. I've got houses 360 degrees around mine, I wouldn't want to launch a round unless I had to and had a specific backstop (the bad guy) to stop it.

Some of this may depend on the disparity of force.

I would not want to make a blanket statement saying that "in all cases that you......

IMO you should never make blanket statements regarding application of force. They will always be...that when.....which serves as an exception.

The opinion of a couple Texans who probably know is that this fails within Texas law as a justified use of force.

Let's break it down into the commonly used triad - 1) ability 2) opportunity 3) jeopardy.

Generally, the first element is that the person must have the capability/ability to harm you. These guys did, the homeowner watching on the doorbell cam probably saw the same thing we did - at least one of the two assailants had a firearm.

The next element is does the person have the opportunity to harm you. Yes, they do, they are armed, so they could also shoot through the door. What would a reasonable think was happening as the first guy reveals his pistol and approached the door? Opportunity often deals with distance an positioning. In this case the person is creating the opportunity to harm by kicking down the door.

The final element is an overt move to use the capability to harm which places you in jeopardy. Attempting to kick in the door with a firearm in hand is an overt move which puts you in jeopardy of death or great bodily harm.

The talk of letting the guy breach the door before using force I would compare to confronting a man holding a firearm as he searches your house. You have been awakened by a noise and slip out into the hall behind the man. You tell him to stop, he doesn't and begins to turn toward you with the pistol in hand. Are you going to wait to make sure he really intends to shoot? What would a reasonable man having the same knowledge of the situation as you do?

I do agree that mag dumping into the neighbors wall was not a good tactic, ultimately your going to be responsible for those rounds.

A fourth consideration that is often discussed when talking about use of force is preclusion - what could I have done to prevent this use of force becoming necessary. In this case not too much which would not expose you to a greater risk of death or great bodily harm.

I don't think the guy knew what he was doing in terms of thinking his actions through, but he did okay, except for the mag dump thing into the neighbors apartment.

[Utm]

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[HCM]

Saw this on another site. I imagine that everyone would agree that putting a dozen holes in neighbor's wall is not a great idea. At the same time there is a clear break-in in evolution. Does homeowner have to wait until they get in such case? Does the fact that the door so far in still up mean that a condition of opportunity is not met? As I think of this, things get conflated in my head although the logical conclusion is that the guy shouldn't have shot until they got in.

As addressed in the other thread, in Texas where this occurred, the suspect attempting to kick in the door justifies use of deadly force under Texas law. Specifically: unlawfully and with force attempting to enter an occupied habitation.

The suspects can be seen both through the peep hole and on the ring camera, so it is not firing blind through a door. You can also clearly see on the ring video that both suspects appear to be armed with handguns.

From the Texas Penal Code:

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

This is one of those “the constitution is not a suicide pact” situations. Requiring someone in this situation to wait until the door was breached and the suspects enter the residence is impractical and foolish.

Your state’s laws may vary.

[HCM]

That's what I think. It could be argued that you're not in danger as long as the door holds. I've got houses 360 degrees around mine, I wouldn't want to launch a round unless I had to and had a specific backstop (the bad guy) to stop it.

It was clear on the ring camera that both suspects were armed with handguns - bullets go through doors and walls both ways so the argument of “no danger as long as the door holds” is invalid.

[BehindBlueI's]

You don't have to wait until the door's down in my state, as you can use deadly force to protect your residence (and occupied motor vehicle) as a distinct law outside of self-defense:

(d) A person:

(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person;  and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

With the standard admonishments about reasonableness. If it's Granny Offhernut from down the street hitting the door with her purse, that's probably not reasonable whereas two dudes with firearms mule kicking the door is reasonable AF.

My understanding of TX law is it's similar enough the homeowner in this or similar scenario is GtG.

[revchuck38]

Learning has occurred! From Louisiana Revised Statutes Tit. 14, § 20. Justifiable homicide:

A. A homicide is justifiable:

<snip>

(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40) when the conflict began, against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

This clarifies the legality. There's still the issue of whether it's a good idea in a given circumstance. "Can" vs. "should".

[Hambo]

At around 1 minute into the video, the owner says no one is home. I'd say that a better way to go would be to say, "GTFO, I'm calling the cops." However, my suspicious nature makes me wonder what the back story is to this incident.

As far as the shooting goes, it's good here as well. It's reasonable to believe you're in danger of death with two guys with guns trying to kick in the door.

776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

It is not reasonable to shoot a neighbor through the door over an argument about kids.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida...-through-door/

[Caballoflaco]

One thing that stands out here, is that this wasn’t an attempted burglary into a home that the bad guys didn’t know was occupied. The dude living there actually answered the door, like folks here recommend, and said “No thanks, Go Away” at which point the bad guys produced firearms and attempted to do a home invasion. While it sucks dude either didn’t know his angles or just didn’t have a good one and got no hits, I don’t blame him for not waiting until the badguys kicked down the concealment he was hiding behind before he started shooting.


This would be a justifiable shoot in Alabama too.

A person may use deadly physical force and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or in the defense of another person pursuant to section (5), if the person reasonably believes that another person is: [Read appropriate part]
(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force;
(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling;
(3) Committing or about to commit: [Read appropriate part]
(a) Kidnapping in any degree;
(b) Assault in the first or second degree;
(c) Burglary in any degree;
(d) Robbery in any degree;
(e) Forcible rape; (OR)
(f) Forcible sodomy;
(4) Using or about to use physical force against an owner, employee, or other person authorized to be on business property when the business is closed to the public, while committing or attempting to commit a crime involving death, serious physical injury, robbery, kidnapping, rape, sodomy, or a crime of a sexual nature involving a child under the age of 12; (OR)
(5) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, business property, or occupied vehicle,or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his/her will from any dwelling, residence, business property, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring;

[Oldherkpilot]

Me, waiting on the other side with an 8 shot Browning A5 full of 1 ounce slugs probably looks different than grandma with her late husband's .38 revolver that she has never actually fired. I can say though with multiple attackers, the threshold (bad pun) in which I decide to go weapons free is a lot shorter.

I've never seen an 8-shot A5. Can we get a pic? Also, you're loaded with slugs for HD? I've always defaulted to buck in the house, now you've got me curious. Thanks

[Jim Watson]

Not mine, but a factory 8 shot Browning may be seen here.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImag...wm_6656384.jpg

Briley makes magazine extensions, there was a 3 gunner who maintained that the Browning cycled faster than then available gas and spring actions.