Shooting through closed doors

I have to admit that my two doors have large windows and as soon as I see someone trying to force their way in I would be able to see them... but on the case of not being able to see... I wouldnt shoot... however the OP says that this was at a CHL class so if say... I were out and I was chased into an area where I could hide behind a door would I do it before I shot the threat or would I do it from behind a door... personally I would shoot the threat before I would hide... if I were female I may have a different idea... especially if there was a better chance of getting away... but if someone showed up to help there is a chance of hitting them as was said before... so just dont hide behind a door... that is ofcourse if the door in question isnt you house door...
 
Back in the mid '70s I knew a woman who shot through her bedroom door and killed a BG. Turned out he was a serial rapist/murderer.

When the BG started breaking down the front door of her double-wide, she retreated to the bedroom, locked the door (good lock plus a piece of 3/4" rebar in brackets inside the door), got her Ruger .22 auto, and called the cops. While she was on the phone, the BG started breaking down the bedroom door and she fired, IIRC, 8 shots through the door.

The bedroom door was pretty flimsy, so the high-speed HP bullets penetrated with enough power left to kill the BG.

She was hysterical. The cops were delighted.

That's a rare case.
Still, shooting through an interior door would be a lot easier to justify than shooting through an exterior door. In Florida, the fact that the guy broke in at all is justification for use of deadly force.
 
In my State, Nevada, bare fear is not justification for use of deadly force.

Has to be a reasonable basis for the fear, and shooting someone banging on your door, because they need help, likely wouldn't constitute a REASONABLE fear--even if you're terrified. Without re: to criminal charges, a civil suit would certainly be successful.

Doesn't mean that shooting thru the door if you know someone is trying to invade your home wouldn't be legal in my state. But you'd better know who you're shooting.:cool:
 
Last edited:
I was taking a LE class and at one point we asked our instructor the same question. He was retired Coast Guard (Warrant Officer) LE, was chief of police in a small town in Virginia (Cant' remember the name Ill ask when I see him), and had over 40 years under his belt. His answer surprised all of us. It was something along the lines of "Only an idiot would wait for his door to be broken down and his family to be in danger to react. You start at the headboard at the top of the door, fire one shot there, wait ten seconds to see if the intruder decides to stop, next 2 shots center mass."

I know this is probably going to be an unpopular opinion, and in all honesty probably not what I would do (though I don't live with my family) Just stating what I was told.
 
When the BG started breaking down the front door of her double-wide, she retreated to the bedroom, locked the door (good lock plus a piece of 3/4" rebar in brackets inside the door), got her Ruger .22 auto, and called the cops. While she was on the phone, the BG started breaking down the bedroom door and she fired, IIRC, 8 shots through the door.
Click to expand...

Sounds like she did everything right. This is a perfect example of why it's only "almost" always a bad idea.
 
Just last year, an elderly guy and his wife had a guy beating on his door and trying to break it in. He was drunk and taking chantix for smoking addiction at the time. It turns out he was at the wrong door. The elderly guy saw the guy on his porch through the peep hole and saw that he was a pretty big guy. He was about 6'5". The elderly guy underestimated his height and tried to shoot a warning shot above his head through the door. It turns out the dead guy was a musician with Edie Briquell and the New Bohemians. The elderly guy was not charged with anything. He was on the phone with 911 when he fired the shot.
 
No shoot.

If you cannot see your target, do NOT shoot.

If you do not KNOW that you are in mortal danger, and you cannot see your target and IDENTIFY it as hostile, do not shoot.

Don't be in such a rush to kill. Hold your fire and identify your target.
 
Come on folks, let's not be overly simplistic. I think EVERYONE here can easily distinguish between someone "banging on the door" and someone breaking down the door/trying to illegally gain entrance.

First of all, I think this is one situation that definitely calls for a verbal warning.

Letting someone (or several someones) illegally gain entrance to your home while you (and your family) are in it severely degrades your tactical situation. A door is often a much better "stopper" than a handgun; if someone is obviously trying to defeat it after you've made it known to them in no uncertain terms that they should stop trying to break into your home, then what happens next is up to them.

As pointed out, there's a difference between being afraid and reasonably being in fear of serious injury or death. Someone banging on the door might scare a person, but someone breaking down the door is not just scary. A person trying to break into an occupied residence is a genuine threat to the life & safety of everyone in the house. That is ESPECIALLY true if they continue trying to get in after being warned away.

That is precisely why laws exist that exonerate people who shoot through doors to prevent criminals from illegally gaining entrance to an occupied residence.

This is no different from any other deadly force situation in the home. If you reasonably believe that your life is in immediate danger then you are justified in using deadly force to defend it. The fact that you can't see the person trying to illegally enter your home doesn't change that. It's no more illegal than shooting a threatening intruder in the dark. Saying it's not advisable or legal because you can't see your target through the door makes about as much sense as saying you shouldn't shoot a threatening intruder in your bedroom if it's dark and you can't see him.

The key is the highlighted portion of the previous paragraph with an emphasis on the word "reasonably".

I'm not familiar with the deadly force laws of EVERY state, but I feel pretty safe in saying that any state with a Castle Doctrine (and even many that don't) will have deadly force laws that allow shooting a person for trying to illegally gain entry to an occupied residence.
 
A person trying to break into an occupied residence is a genuine threat to the life & safety of everyone in the house. That is ESPECIALLY true if they continue trying to get in after being warned away.
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable to me.

That is precisely why laws exist that exonerate people who shoot through doors to prevent criminals from illegally gaining entrance to an occupied residence....If you reasonably believe that your life is in immediate danger then you are justified in using deadly force to defend it.
Click to expand...

Be aware that state laws vary. Many states that establish a presumption that syuch belief is reasonable if a person was "attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation...". However, the last time I checked, attempts to enter were not covered in Colorado, and unlawful entry has to have been made.

Personally, I would not shoot at anyone or any animal that I cannot see unless for some reason I had no alternative.
 
I took my CHL class this weekend and one of the participants in the class asked about a situation where someone is beating down your door - are you justified in shooting through the door. To my surprise, the instructor said "yes"! He said if you are reasonably fearful of serious bodily injury, you may employ deadly force (true). While I don't necessarily object to his legal reasoning (in fact I do believe here in TX you would be no-billed shooting through a door at an intruder), I do take issue with his recommendation from a tactics and from a safety standpoint.

Rule # 4 says know your target and what is behind it before firing. In this case you know neither

In any case, I wanted to see if I was on track here. I also decided not to speak up in class, and I kind of regret it.
Click to expand...

Well, there are multiple issues at work here. It was asked if a person would be justified shooting through a door and the CHL instructor gave reasons why there would be justification, but you were shocked because of safety and tactics. Safety and tactics are NOT the same thing as legal justification. The four safety rules, including rule #4 are not legal rules. In fact, they weren't even around when most laws went in effect.

As I pointed out to my wife later, even if you are quite positive it is just the BG at the door, what if I was sneaking up behind him to bash him in the head with a chair (WWF style)? If she were to shoot through the door, she could hit me too!
Click to expand...

You assume this would not be intentional.;) Even so, it could be said you were using poor tactics. Do you really think WWF style is proper tactics, especially when on the blind side of a door from your apparently scared wife. Do you not think it is important for your wife to know where you are during this event. Yes, friendly fire incidents happen just like that, especially when you put yourself in the place of the bad guy.
 
John and OM...Please re-read OP...I agree that one would likely be justified in shooting through a closed door at a reasonably perceived threat. Is it advisable (both tactically and safety-wise) is the question!

Saying it's not advisable or legal because you can't see your target through the door makes about as much sense as saying you shouldn't shoot a threatening intruder in your bedroom if it's dark and you can't see him.
Click to expand...

Why can we throw rule #4 out the door in this situation? I wouldn't advise shooting a silouhette in the dark either (even though you may be justified in doing so). That's why carrying a weapon-mounted light or handheld tactical light is thought of as a "must" for home defense!!

We've read of several situations on these boards alone of innocent family members raising the alarm and nearly being shot BUT FOR the positive identification by the gun-owner prior to pulling the trigger. Such positive identification is impossible when shooting through a door.

I'd prefer to let the door do its job. If it fails, I'll have ample opportunity to fire on the intruder. Besides, If I plan to pop him through the door anyway, why bother going behind the closed door in the first place?

To be clear I am not advocating any absolutes here. Just that, in general, shooting through a closed door is not safe and provides no real tactical advantage. IMHO.
 
Safety and tactics are NOT the same thing as legal justification
Click to expand...

DNS - I guess I should have been more clear - I was shocked that he said yes without any qualifications regarding the safety or tactical efficacy of such an action (as he had generally done with other scenarios). I happen to agree that legally one would likely be justified in shooting through a door (especially here in TX). Would a prosecutor have a bit of fun with that, perhaps?

RE: WWF-style home-defense ;)...My point was simply to illustrate that with the door closed, you cannot be sure of your target or what is behind it. Yes, optimally my wife and I willexecute our safety plan perfectly andthe BG will have fled or be dropped on the stairway coming upstairs.............Let me know when you hear of a home invasion that happens according to plan! :rolleyes:

While I would be unlikely to take the WWF route, I may be lining up a shot from a different angle and, since my wife is shooting blind, she could hit me....Or hit one of the police officers we called to help us...or nothing at all!

Again...I understand that there are no absolutes for these hypothetical scenarios, I am simply advocating that it is generally a bad idea to shoot through objects at BGs.....
 
I don't recall CHL classes in Texas covering tactics as a general rule, so I don't know why you think they would necessarily cover tactics in this situation. Besides, the question was fairly straight forward and the instructor gave a straight forward answer. The person making the query wasn't asking about safety or tactics, but the legal aspect. Whether or not it is unsafe or bad tactics is a matter of opinion and that is going to vary with situation.

Would a prosecutor have a bit of fun with that, perhaps?
Click to expand...

I don't know what this "perhaps" garbage is. The DA's office is going to review such shootings as a matter of SOP. Will they have fun with it? Gee, I don't know, but I know there are several cases on the books where there certainly has been no issue with the shooting such as here... http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=260488&highlight=bohemian

And for those people who claim that if you state it was a warning shot and you end up killing the person that you will go to jail for murder, that is exactly what happened in the case above and the shooter did NOT go to jail.

Again...I understand that there are no absolutes for these hypothetical scenarios, I am simply advocating that it is generally a bad idea to shoot through objects at BGs.....
Click to expand...

Okay got it. The CHL instructor was asked a simple legal question to which he gave the simple legal answer, only that answer did not include caveats that YOU think are important and so should have been covered by the instructor and so you are complaining about it? YOU think shooting through the door is a bad idea. Fine. Don't shoot through the door. Don't be mad at the CHL instructor for answering the question asked, however.

Do you have any idea how much longer CHL classes would last if CHL instructors answer all possible ramifications of simple legal questions?

Of course, if you think that is how it should be handled, then become a CHL instructor. I believe you are too late for 2009, but you can enroll for 2010.
 
And for those people who claim that if you state it was a warning shot and you end up killing the person that you will go to jail for murder, that is exactly what happened in the case above and the shooter did NOT go to jail.
Click to expand...

That depends, of course, on the person choosing to fire a warning shot when lethal force would be justified. A "warning shot" that kills a person when deadly force is not justified will likely end in prison.
 
Why would you tell the police that the shot that killed the person was only intended to be a warning shot?:confused: Either way I very much agree with JohnSKA, There is a difference between someone even pounding on your door and someone trying to force their way through it. I think anyone who questions their doors integrity needs to go spend a few bucks and reinforce it.
 
The elderly guy was not charged with anything.
Click to expand...

Just for the benefit of those who do not understand it, it would be more accurate to say that the guy has not been charged with anything.

Since there's no statute of limitations, he is not immune from charges until he has been tried and acquitted or until he dies.

Back to the topic, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would ever fire a warning shot. Had an innocent person been injured, that "elderly guy" could have lost everything.
 
Assuming that the threat outside the home's exterior door was not shooting through the door and that the door was not damaged by the threat:

A competent prosecutor could make a persuasive argument to the jury at trial that the defendant who shot through a door was not shooting in self-defense. The prosecutor could argue that the threat was not imminent as the door was a solid barrier that was never breached and the shooter shot before the threat was imminent. He could argue that the shooter should have held fire until the door was breached and the shooter could identify the threat.

This argument might be greatly weakened if you add to the facts by saying the threat broke down the front/back door, broke down the bedroom door and was breaking down the closet down where the shooter had retreated.

So many what ifs . . . . . .
 
So many what ifs . . . . . .
Click to expand...
Indeed.

And if you decide to shoot through any door, what, exactly, are you aiming at? You're just going to blaze away and hope you hit the potential intruder?

You're responsible for every bullet you fire. If you fire through a door, especially an exterior door, whatever the legalities are if you actually hit the (presumptive) BG, you don't know "what's behind your target." In the event that you miss (not unlikely), you're now pretty much spraying the neighborhood and anyone in it.

I'd prefer to avoid the potential legal (and moral) consequences of doing that.
 
I think it would be exceedingly dangerous and a nearly unimaginable set of circumstances to justify shooting at a completely unidentified target on the other side of an OUTER door.

Shooting through an inner door is a whole different animal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top