Quoted: Shooting through a door is irresponsible. It may be legal but it is still irresponsible. This officer needs lots of additional training before he is allowed to handle firearms again.

He was protecting himself and possibly his family.  Sounds like the "responsible" thing to do to me!

Quoted: Quoted: Shooting through a door is irresponsible. It may be legal but it is still irresponsible. This officer needs lots of additional training before he is allowed to handle firearms again. He was protecting himself and possibly his family.  Sounds like the "responsible" thing to do to me!

Was this legally justifiable? Maybe/probably.

We don't have enough information to make a definitive call on the legality of the shoot. What we do know is this: at the moment of action he was firing at a door that may or may not have had someone behind it. No imminent threat existed for anything but the door. It was under attack. You shouldn't shoot to protect a door and you most definitely should not shoot at what you can not see.

Was it ethically responsible? No.

I have no problem with citizens putting down predators. I have a big problem with folks who go through training, learn the right way to do it, then throw it all out the window either through panic, irresponsibility, or an "I know better" attitude.

Check out military basic training, law enforcement academies, CPL courses, hunter safety courses, any school that teaches the employment of firearms for any purpose. They all teach shooters to identify the target before firing. We don't teach shooters to identify the target only when convenient or expedient.

In this case the shooter had no way of knowing if his target was still behind the door at the instant he touched off the first round. The intruder could have moved away from the door before the rounds came flying through it. Bad news for the neighbors across the street.

This can put defenders at a disadvantage but the good guys usually are. That's why we get to wear the white hats. Trying to rationalize behavior like this makes all of us look bad. Incidents like this are what the anti's live for. They parade it around as an example of why "civilians" shouldn't have guns. Anyone who calls this a good shoot needs to consider that they may be supplying grist for VPC's mill.

Should the officer be locked up/fired? No.

At the end of the day what he did turned out OK. The good guy won. This case bears out the old saw about it being better to be lucky than good.

Was the shoot "In policy"? Probably not.

I'd love to meet the training officer who tells his cops to shoot through closed doors. That's a lawsuit I could win and I'm not a lawyer.

Do I want him around me with his hand on a loaded firearm? Hell no!

This guy violated one of the golden rules. Whether this is the result of poor training, not enough training, or insufficient mental discipline to put that training to use is immaterial. He did it. The bystander who gets shot doesn't care why.

edited for readability, I tend to run on...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Shooting through a door is irresponsible. It may be legal but it is still irresponsible. This officer needs lots of additional training before he is allowed to handle firearms again. He was protecting himself and possibly his family.  Sounds like the "responsible" thing to do to me! Was this legally justifiable? Maybe/probably. We don't have enough information to make a definitive call on the legality of the shoot. What we do know is this: at the moment of action he was firing at a door that may or may not have had someone behind it. No imminent threat existed for anything but the door. It was under attack. You shouldn't shoot to protect a door and you most definitely should not shoot at what you can not see. Was it ethically responsible? No. I have no problem with citizens putting down predators. I have a big problem with folks who go through training, learn the right way to do it, then throw it all out the window either through panic, irresponsibility, or an "I know better" attitude. Check out military basic training, law enforcement academies, CPL courses, hunter safety courses, any school that teaches the employment of firearms for any purpose. They all teach shooters to identify the target before firing. We don't teach shooters to identify the target only when convenient or expedient. In this case the shooter had no way of knowing if his target was still behind the door at the instant he touched of the first round. The intruder could have moved away from the door before the rounds came flying through it. Bad news for the neighbors across the street. This can put defenders at a disadvantage but the good guys usually are. That's why we get to wear the white hats. Trying to rationalize behavior like this makes all of us look bad. Incidents like this are what the anti's live for. They parade it around as an example of why "civilians" shouldn't have guns. Anyone who calls this a good shoot needs to consider that they may be supplying grist for VPC's mill. Should the officer be locked up/fired? No. At the end of the day what he did turned out OK. The good guy won. This case bears out the old saw about it being better to be lucky than good. Was the shoot "In policy"? Probably not. I'd love to meet the training officer who tells his cops to shoot through closed doors. That's a lawsuit I could win and I'm not a lawyer. Do I want him around me with his hand on a loaded firearm? Hell no! This guy violated one of the golden rules. Whether this is the result of poor training, not enough training, or insufficient mental discipline to put that training to use is immaterial. He did it. The bystander who gets shot doesn't care why. edited for readability, I tend to run on...

You could Monday-morning-quarterback it with all the "what ifs" you want, but it's not going to change the fact that he did the right thing.  He, as the victim, is safe while the bad guy was put down.  That means everything went off without a hitch, it was in fact ethically responsible.

this the typical response on here.  Change the state trooper to a computer progranmer (or crackhead for certain people on here) and everyone would be cheering the shoot.

Clipped for brevity.

Quoted: You could Monday-morning-quarterback it with all the "what ifs" you want, but it's not going to change the fact that he did the right thing.  He, as the victim, is safe while the bad guy was put down.  That means everything went off without a hitch, it was in fact ethically responsible.

The fact that no one except the bad guy was hurt was luck. It was not training. It was not skill.

He placed his personal safety above the safety of any and all potential bystanders. That is not ethical.

My land and rock driveway slop up from the house.  I can poor volumes of fire through the door with out risk to the neighboring properties...  

I'd say good shot by the officer.  

Quoted: this the typical response on here.  Change the state trooper to a computer progranmer (or crackhead for certain people on here) and everyone would be cheering the shoot.

The opposite charge could be made. Prosecutors give wide latitude to LEOs not afforded to "civilians". Change the state trooper to a computer programmer (or any other "civilian") and the prosecutor would most definitely be filing charges. The "civilian" would be in for jail time and crippling legal fees win, lose, or draw.

Personally, I make no distinction between LEO and "civilian" in this case. Shooting through a door, a wall, or any other visual barrier is unsafe, and irresponsible. The fact that he is an employee of the State of Indiana doesn't enter into it.

Quoted: Clipped for brevity. Quoted: You could Monday-morning-quarterback it with all the "what ifs" you want, but it's not going to change the fact that he did the right thing.  He, as the victim, is safe while the bad guy was put down.  That means everything went off without a hitch, it was in fact ethically responsible. The fact that no one except the bad guy was hurt was luck. It was not training. It was not skill. He placed his personal safety above the safety of any and all potential bystanders. That is not ethical.

That could be said for ANY shooting.   You never know where the round is going to hit or bounce.

Quoted: My land and rock driveway slop up from the house.  I can poor volumes of fire through the door with out risk to the neighboring properties...   I'd say good shot by the officer.

That may be true of your driveway and it may be true of the Indiana trooper's driveway but that doesn't change the fact that he shot into an invisible target. He had no way of knowing who, if anyone, was standing behind the door.

He'll beat it.
M

Quoted: Quoted: Clipped for brevity. Quoted: You could Monday-morning-quarterback it with all the "what ifs" you want, but it's not going to change the fact that he did the right thing.  He, as the victim, is safe while the bad guy was put down.  That means everything went off without a hitch, it was in fact ethically responsible. The fact that no one except the bad guy was hurt was luck. It was not training. It was not skill. He placed his personal safety above the safety of any and all potential bystanders. That is not ethical. That could be said for ANY shooting. You never know where the round is going to hit or bounce.

If you aim at a visible target and perform the firing sequence correctly you know exactly where your rounds will impact. The possibility that a round may pass through, or deflect does not release you from the responsibility to see the target before shooting at it.

Quoted: That may be true of your driveway and it may be true of the Indiana trooper's driveway but that doesn't change the fact that he shot into an invisible target. He had no way of knowing who, if anyone, was standing behind the door.

And he had no reason to care.  It could have been a bear, or a monster, or a girl scout that really wanted the sale.  Either way, the threat on the other side of the door was eliminated, everything went perfectly.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Clipped for brevity. Quoted: You could Monday-morning-quarterback it with all the "what ifs" you want, but it's not going to change the fact that he did the right thing.  He, as the victim, is safe while the bad guy was put down.  That means everything went off without a hitch, it was in fact ethically responsible. The fact that no one except the bad guy was hurt was luck. It was not training. It was not skill. He placed his personal safety above the safety of any and all potential bystanders. That is not ethical. That could be said for ANY shooting. You never know where the round is going to hit or bounce. If you aim at a visible target and perform the firing sequence correctly you know exactly where your rounds will impact. The possibility that a round may pass through, or deflect does not release you from the responsibility to see the target before shooting at it.

It went right over your head...

You said: "He placed his personal safety above the safety of any and all potential bystanders. That is not ethical."

And I explain to you how that could be said for ANY defensive shooting since you never know where your rounds are going to hit or bounce.

Understand?

Quoted: He'll beat it. M

You're right and he should.

This was not a case of criminal negligence (IMHO). It was poor judgment. The corrective action is additional training, not prosecution or litigation.

I feel sorry for the trooper because he is probably going to lose everything in the inevitable lawsuit. That's a topic for another day but we really need to get the 'Castle Doctrine' enacted at the federal level.

The thread title should be shooting through a locked close door.

the officer got lucky, thats the bottom line. The bad guy could have had a hostage that the bullet could have hit ,there are so many senarios that could have been. He  was scared and shot at the door. If this was me or you that did this you would be in jail right now, and you would have a civil law suit and would lose you're house

Quoted: It went right over your head... You said: "He placed his personal safety above the safety of any and all potential bystanders. That is not ethical." And I explain to you how that could be said for ANY defensive shooting since you never know where your rounds are going to hit or bounce. Understand?

Read my post again. You always know where your rounds are going. That's why you aim. To make sure they go where you want them to.

He could not see the target and had nothing to aim at. He was shooting blind.

I'll allow that he may have panicked. It might not be a case of consciously deciding to put bystanders at risk. Odds are he didn't take time to debate the relative merits of waiting for the intruder to expose himself. He probably did what his training led him to do. In any case, he should not have fired at something he couldn't see.

Quoted: GREAT SHOOT, why wait for the badguy to breech the door, kill him dead before he can get in. My Families safety is number one, I would have sent a 3" magnum buck load through my door if someone comes kicking.

I'm sure the trooper knew what his field of fire and background was before he discharged his weapon.

The round that got away was probably traveling at less than five hundred feet per second after traveling throgh the door.

It might have traveled thirty yards in a expanded state in that condition, flying down range in a most unaerodynamic form.

At any rate if you have dealt with career criminal types you know without a doubt your best chance for survival is to employ every dirty tactic in the book against them without any regard to their well being or life if nessesary, period.

The best case senario against violent offenders is a total element of surprise and fight to win even to the point of denying any opportunity for a crimminal attacking you, such as firing through a door like the trooper did.

A large portion of theives who break in homes these days are doing so to support thier drug addiction.

They count on you to be the good citizen and do everything in your power to help them succede and get away uninjured.

Many of these will break in again within a short period of days or weeks to victimize you a second time.

Do you ever wonder why that is?

Well I'll tell you son.

They were not impressed with your security set-up the first go around.

Remember they do this for a living and you would be shocked if you knew just how gifted and talented some of these sociopaths really are.

Nowadays prison is merely a finishing school for the career offender.

Some of these crimminal types will be under the influence of certain drugs and may not go down immediatly even if mortally wounded being hit multiple times in vital areas.

Take a little time out and think about that.

Would rather pay out the ass for a good lawyer if some liberal district attorney  was trying to procecute me for not wanting to play fair with hoodulums,who show no respect for human life or someone elses property.

Besides most people who set on jurys these days in rural areas like where I live will in most cases hand down a not guilty verdict [if it ever went that far] to a law abiding citizen who was defending his life as well as his familly especially when  felony offenses were commited on your property at night.

No sir, I think I would take a chance with a jury of my peers when it comes to a gray legal area and finer points of the law than give a crimminal any chance at getting the upper hand in a potentally deadly encounter.

By the way I give the trooper who shot and killed the would-be intruder through  his front door a vote of confidence because he knows like I do how to live to fight another day if need be.

There is no honor among theives.

Quoted: The opposite charge could be made. Prosecutors give wide latitude to LEOs not afforded to "civilians". Change the state trooper to a computer programmer (or any other "civilian") and the prosecutor would most definitely be filing charges. The "civilian" would be in for jail time and crippling legal fees win, lose, or draw.

- countless cases throughout various states would probably show that you stand a good chance of not being charged. Of course, most around here refuse to acknowledge this.

Quoted: Quoted: It went right over your head... You said: "He placed his personal safety above the safety of any and all potential bystanders. That is not ethical." And I explain to you how that could be said for ANY defensive shooting since you never know where your rounds are going to hit or bounce. Understand? Read my post again. You always know where your rounds are going. That's why you aim. To make sure they go where you want them to. He could not see the target and had nothing to aim at. He was shooting blind. I'll allow that he may have panicked. It might not be a case of consciously deciding to put bystanders at risk. Odds are he didn't take time to debate the relative merits of waiting for the intruder to expose himself. He probably did what his training led him to do. In any case, he should not have fired at something he couldn't see.

And if by some odd chance, that person beating on the door had been a UNARMED drunk, who lost his keys, and thought it was HIS house? Officer would be screwed bigtime, as would any of us non-LEOs. If the door gave way and the guy was in the house, totally different story; normal fear for safety rule then applies.

You ALWAYS know what you're shooting at, or you are simply being reckless. No different than some hunter shooting at a moving bush, without seeing his target. Many a fellow hunter has been killed that way.

Quoted: Quoted: Let a civilian shoot someone dead through a door and see what happens to them.  . Yep. There'd be high-fiving in the prosecutors office when the grand jury was convened to indict a civilian shooter.

Thanx, for adding to the debate in a reasonable adult manner, and NOT coming off as the two "littlest men" on the internet.

Them vs Us................................... perpetrated by who?

Good shoot in Indiana, no questions about it.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property

(b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person 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 or curtilage.

c) With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a).


Not sure if this covers civil suits, but it sounds like it.

Sec. 2. (a).....No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself the person or his family a third person by reasonable means necessary.

Quoted: Quoted: The opposite charge could be made. Prosecutors give wide latitude to LEOs not afforded to "civilians". Change the state trooper to a computer programmer (or any other "civilian") and the prosecutor would most definitely be filing charges. The "civilian" would be in for jail time and crippling legal fees win, lose, or draw. - countless cases throughout various states would probably show that you stand a good chance of not being charged. Of course, most around here refuse to acknowledge this.

You may be right. I would like to think so. My (very limited) research indicates otherwise. That may have a lot to do with regional/jursidictional differences.

Quoted: Good shoot in Indiana, no questions about it. IC 35-41-3-2 Use of force to protect person or property (b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person 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 or curtilage. c) With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a). Not sure if this covers civil suits, but it sounds like it. Sec. 2. (a).....No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself the person or his family a third person by reasonable means necessary.

We need that in MI.

Quoted: Good shoot in Indiana, no questions about it. IC 35-41-3-2 Use of force to protect person or property (b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person 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 or curtilage. Not sure if this covers civil suits, but it sounds like it. Sec. 2. (a).....No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself the person or his family a third person by reasonable means necessary.

The key is going to be what the Grand Jury's definition of "reasonable" is.

I think it was reasonable, YMMV.

What if, what if, what if.

If if's and but's were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas. All this what if shit means nothing. It was not the unarmed, friendly neighborhood drunk. Otis was not coming home to lock himself up.

It was a shitbag with a criminal record, attempting to kick a door down. Did the officer know this from within his dwelling?  No.  But there is no what if in this story. The officer did not kill a kindly old man, needing help. He killed a shitbag that was trying to kick his door in.

What if he was just knocking hard?  No one here is that fucking stupid. I know quite well the difference between an excited person banging on my door, and someone attempting to break it down. And so does everyone else here. It does not take the door coming off the hinges, and the threat entering my home, for me to realize that someone intends to force entry.

Some of the emotional apologists need to get their priorities straight, before they are given the opportunity to freeze up in a shit situation, while they work out all the 'what if' bullshit in their head.

I cannot believe people would wait till he breached the door.  That is the most PC bullshit I have ever heard.

ETA, I actually remember a case here in Central Florida where a man was home armed with a AK47 and shot the man trying to bust down his door.  He was not charged with anything and there was not even a question of his justification.

Quoted: I cannot believe people would wait till he breached the door.  That is the most PC bullshit I have ever heard.

You know the funny part is half the guys who are screaming about shooting through the door would have wet themselves and fired through the door too LOL

Quoted: Quoted: I cannot believe people would wait till he breached the door.  That is the most PC bullshit I have ever heard. You know the funny part is half the guys who are screaming about shooting through the door would have wet themselves and fired through the door too LOL

Naw, bullshit.  Don't you know that everyone here is a highly trained super soldier that can do no wrong?

A friend of mine was at a family fight, husband runs into another room and starts shooting through the wall. Friend fires back through the wall several times...bad guy gives up. Nobody hit. Two small kids in the other room!  Nobody knew they were there until it was all over. Not making a judgement...there just are not any "take backs" when you start popping off rounds. He was suspended for a short time.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: GREAT SHOOT, why wait for the badguy to breech the door... Is attempted burglary a capital offense in your state? AR15fan, you are from CA so I hope you know this would be a good shoot even in CA.  You may use that degree of force up to and including deadly force.  "Bare fear is not enough.  The fear must be reasonable" In other words if a guy is sitting on the sidewalk in front of your house doing nothing unusual and you are afraid for your life thinking he is going to kill you you MAY NOT shoot him.  You have no reason to be afraid.  If someone is trying to breakdown your door and you are afraid he will rape or kill you if he enters, your fear is reasonable and you may use deadly force to protect yourself.  (Even if he has not yet broken down your door) Once he is inside the house, or even steps over the threashold, then Cali law presumes you had a reasonable fear. However standing outside kicking the door, no presumption is made.  You will have to explain your actions to the grand jury including what information you had that would lead a reasonable person to believe they were at risk of death or GBI. "I thought he was going to kills me"  or "I thought he was going to rape me" is not enought, there must be specific information that would make a reasonable person have that same fear. Personally, I dont think simply kicking the door, which has not opened, creates a reasonable fear of anything except burglary or tresspass. It would be a different story if he is hoding a weapon, have greater numbers, disparity of force, masks, threatening statements, ect.

I'm more-or-less with ya up until here.  Now I'm sure with world class lawyer word bending you might be able to argue about this, but what possible reasonable explanation is there to kicking in the door of someone's home?  I know people bring up the warrent service, my house is on fire, there's a bomb on a bus headed my way, examples but since I'm not a criminal I don't worry about warrent service.  If there is no fire or smoke they aren't rescuing me from my burning home, and since it's not Keanue Reeves outside it's probably not a bomb.  So what then would be the MOST reasonable assumption about what is taking place when a man is kicking down your door in the night?

Now on a personal level, I'm going to wait .  My cross-the-street nieghbors house has it's front door facing mine.  I have a responcibility to know that I am aiming at my target and trying my best to find an angle that means the least oppertunity for bystanders being hurt when I fire.  I can't do that through a door.  Unless they are clarvoient they are not going to know where I am setup and waiting so I have the edge.  

Quoted: I cannot believe people would wait till he breached the door.  That is the most PC bullshit I have ever heard.

I wouldn't stand there waiting for him to bust in either. Two reasons why that's a bad idea:

1- It can be construed as "lying in wait". Lying in wait is evidence of premeditation. Premeditation changes a defensive shoot into felony murder.

2- It puts you in his line of fire.

Here's what I suggest:
If you're alone in the house move to a defensive position where you can better control the situation. If your family is in the house move them to a safe place then stay with them. Don't go hunting.

It's not PC, it's smart. You eliminate the risk of shooting an innocent and put yourself, and your family, in a more secure position. You also demonstrate a desire to avoid the confrontation. That removes any question of premeditation.

This is something you should plan out and practice. Just like smoke alarm drills.

Quoted: I cannot believe people would wait till he breached the door.  That is the most PC bullshit I have ever heard. ETA, I actually remember a case here in Central Florida where a man was home armed with a AK47 and shot the man trying to bust down his door.  He was not charged with anything and there was not even a question of his justification.

I don't really think it's a question of justification at all.  I'm a wait to see the target guy and I have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with the justification of the officer.  He was right aboout what was going on.  He came out the winner.  Nobody else was hurt.  So the what ifs are really nothing than second guessing.

I'm still saying that shooting through a door, while understandable from a defense point of view, is not the prefered method of dealing with a threat.  Do you know if he is crouching?  Is he kicking or is he shouldering the door?  Is he on the left or right side?  Is he squared up or bladed on his left or right side?  Do you just blast away at the center and hope you hit something?  Do you spray down the door to cover the most possible positions?

You can not possibly know what you are aiming at through the door unless it's made of glass and you can see him.   Where I live it would be absolutely irresponcible to do that.   No doubt in my mind about it.  In other situations maybe less so.  It's still never the ideal nor do any self defense training instructors I have ever heard recommend it.  Why is that?

Quoted: A friend of mine was at a family fight, husband runs into another room and starts shooting through the wall. Friend fires back through the wall several times...bad guy gives up. Nobody hit. Two small kids in the other room!  Nobody knew they were there until it was all over. Not making a judgement...there just are not any "take backs" when you start popping off rounds. He was suspended for a short time.

That's a nightmare scenario. No visible target and no time to retreat. You can duck and hope he doesn't get lucky or open up and hope you do. I don't know of any way to prepare for something like that.

Quoted: Quoted: I cannot believe people would wait till he breached the door.  That is the most PC bullshit I have ever heard. I wouldn't stand there waiting for him to bust in either. Two reasons why that's a bad idea: 1- It can be construed as "lying in wait". Lying in wait is evidence of premeditation. Premeditation changes a defensive shoot into felony murder. 2- It puts you in his line of fire. Here's what I suggest: If you're alone in the house move to a defensive position where you can better control the situation. If your family is in the house move them to a safe place then stay with them. Don't go hunting. It's not PC, it's smart. You eliminate the risk of shooting an innocent and put yourself, and your family, in a more secure position. You also demonstrate a desire to avoid the confrontation. That removes any question of premeditation. This is something you should plan out and practice. Just like smoke alarm drills.

Where could I better control the situation than from a place where I'm inside and they are outside?  Why would I want to allow them to gain entry and wander about the house?  Now I have to worry about every closet, doorway and piece of funiture that has not been in my sight the whole time.

Hmmmm Ummmm, if they are in the house already that is one thing.  If they haven't made it in yet there is no way I'm leaving the door undefended.

Quoted: I cannot believe people would wait till he breached the door.  That is the most PC bullshit I have ever heard.

PC bullshit?

For a starter how about not wanting to kill an innocent person across the street who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Blindly firing through a closed door at an unknown threat would really be something you should try to avoid doing. It has absolutely nothing to do with being PC.

As a general rule in order to legally use deadly physical force you must:

1. Be authorized by the applicable DPF law in the state you are in

2. It must be necessary

3. Your actions may never be reckless


The Trooper was lucky this time. He might not be so lucky the next time.

With that logic you can just as easily send bullets through dry wall and into family members and neighbors while discharging when he enters the house.


and to point out your Blindly in bold

Wilson saw Hixenbaugh from a place Hixenbaugh couldn't see, and Wilson didn't know who Hixenbaugh was, police said.  

Hixenbaugh began to kick the door in an apparent attempt to break in, and Wilson fired two shots through the door, hitting Hixenbaugh at least once, police said.

Quoted: Quoted: Let a civilian shoot someone dead through a door and see what happens to them.  I think it would be almost impossible to make a jury believe that any reasonable person would consider their life in immiment danger when the door hasn't even been breached. Agreed, if a citizen executed this form of self defense, they probably would get manslaughter at the least. But of course, citizens don't get to hide behind a shield or a door as an excuse. And for every LEO that says it was ok, I bet you would be taking a citizen to jail for the exact situation.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY YOU FUCKING BOZO'S!!!

He was justified, and so would anyone else, civilian or LE.

And to reply to your ASSumption, NO, I would not lock a civilian up for this exact situation.

Quoted: With that logic you can just as easily send bullets through dry wall and into family members and neighbors while discharging when he enters the house. and to point out your Blindly in bold Wilson saw Hixenbaugh from a place Hixenbaugh couldn't see, and Wilson didn't know who Hixenbaugh was, police said.   Hixenbaugh began to kick the door in an apparent attempt to break in, and Wilson fired two shots through the door, hitting Hixenbaugh at least once, police said.

At the moment he fired unless he had x-ray eyes he could not see his target behind a closed door. He fired at the door hoping he would hit the subject.  

The risk of sending bullets through a drywall and into family members is something you would need to evaluate in the split second shoot/don't shoot decision. The only way to do that is through realistic shoot/don't shoot training scenarios. If you make the wrong decision  while training the worst that happens is your instructor yells at you. If you kill a family member or an innocent bystander you'll have to live with that the rest of your life.

Quoted: Quoted: With that logic you can just as easily send bullets through dry wall and into family members and neighbors while discharging when he enters the house. and to point out your Blindly in bold Wilson saw Hixenbaugh from a place Hixenbaugh couldn't see, and Wilson didn't know who Hixenbaugh was, police said.   Hixenbaugh began to kick the door in an apparent attempt to break in, and Wilson fired two shots through the door, hitting Hixenbaugh at least once, police said. At the moment he fired unless he had x-ray eyes he could not see his target behind a closed door. He fired at the door hoping he would hit the subject.   The risk of sending bullets through a drywall and into family members is something you would need to evaluate in the split second shoot/don't shoot decision. The only way to do that is through realistic shoot/don't shoot training scenarios. If you make the wrong decision  while training the worst that happens is your instructor yells at you. If you kill a family member or an innocent bystander you'll have to live with that the rest of your life.

so whats your point?  To make a blanket statement that "I would never shoot through a door" is just stupid.  Your body and your mind make very quick decisions when your life is facing a threat. One will do what is necessary to ensure survival and if that means shooting through a door than by all means DO IT!  You take a risk by discharging a firearm anywhere in your home and I think most people will take the risk if their lives depend on it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: GREAT SHOOT, why wait for the badguy to breech the door... Is attempted burglary a capital offense in your state? AR15fan, you are from CA so I hope you know this would be a good shoot even in CA.  You may use that degree of force up to and including deadly force.  "Bare fear is not enough.  The fear must be reasonable" In other words if a guy is sitting on the sidewalk in front of your house doing nothing unusual and you are afraid for your life thinking he is going to kill you you MAY NOT shoot him.  You have no reason to be afraid.  If someone is trying to breakdown your door and you are afraid he will rape or kill you if he enters, your fear is reasonable and you may use deadly force to protect yourself.  (Even if he has not yet broken down your door) Once he is inside the house, or even steps over the threashold, then Cali law presumes you had a reasonable fear. However standing outside kicking the door, no presumption is made.  You will have to explain your actions to the grand jury including what information you had that would lead a reasonable person to believe they were at risk of death or GBI. "I thought he was going to kills me"  or "I thought he was going to rape me" is not enought, there must be specific information that would make a reasonable person have that same fear. Personally, I dont think simply kicking the door, which has not opened, creates a reasonable fear of anything except burglary or tresspass. It would be a different story if he is hoding a weapon, have greater numbers, disparity of force, masks, threatening statements, ect. I'm more-or-less with ya up until here.  Now I'm sure with world class lawyer word bending you might be able to argue about this, but what possible reasonable explanation is there to kicking in the door of someone's home?

I have seen many drunks break into houses they thought were their own after losing their keys.  Its a very common LE call. More common than home invasions or burglaries of occupied residences in my area. His intent may have been to commit theft, Vandalism, or he may have been there to commit a physical assault on the officer.  But if that were the case he likely would have brought help, a weapon, and used a more strealthy approach.  So its safe to assume he was there to commit theft.

I think its reckless to shoot at a potential theif who you cannot even see and have no idea who or what is behind him.  Most homes have a street in front of them. Cars drive by on those streets and those cars contain people inside.  That's where every stray bullet is going to end up.

The more responsible approach is to take cover, train your weapon on the threashold, and once the door is breached take a fraction of a second to be sure of your target and the background before killing him.

Quoted: Quoted: A friend of mine was at a family fight, husband runs into another room and starts shooting through the wall. Friend fires back through the wall several times...bad guy gives up. Nobody hit. Two small kids in the other room!  Nobody knew they were there until it was all over. Not making a judgement...there just are not any "take backs" when you start popping off rounds. He was suspended for a short time. That's a nightmare scenario. No visible target and no time to retreat. You can duck and hope he doesn't get lucky or open up and hope you do. I don't know of any way to prepare for something like that.

LAPD SWAT killed a hostage that way this year. Shot at the bad guy through a wall and killed his infant daughter.

1- It can be construed as "lying in wait". Lying in wait is evidence of premeditation. Premeditation changes a defensive shoot into felony murder.

- Going by this logic, waiting at any location within the structure would equal premeditation.

Quoted: 1- It can be construed as "lying in wait". Lying in wait is evidence of premeditation. Premeditation changes a defensive shoot into felony murder. - Going by this logic, waiting at any location within the structure would equal premeditation.

In that case, what are you supposed to do, actively confront the intruder ?  Doing so will quite obviously get you killed.  I can't believe the law forbids people from employing good tactics.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: GREAT SHOOT, why wait for the badguy to breech the door... Is attempted burglary a capital offense in your state? AR15fan, you are from CA so I hope you know this would be a good shoot even in CA.  You may use that degree of force up to and including deadly force.  "Bare fear is not enough.  The fear must be reasonable" In other words if a guy is sitting on the sidewalk in front of your house doing nothing unusual and you are afraid for your life thinking he is going to kill you you MAY NOT shoot him.  You have no reason to be afraid.  If someone is trying to breakdown your door and you are afraid he will rape or kill you if he enters, your fear is reasonable and you may use deadly force to protect yourself.  (Even if he has not yet broken down your door) Once he is inside the house, or even steps over the threashold, then Cali law presumes you had a reasonable fear. However standing outside kicking the door, no presumption is made.  You will have to explain your actions to the grand jury including what information you had that would lead a reasonable person to believe they were at risk of death or GBI. "I thought he was going to kills me"  or "I thought he was going to rape me" is not enought, there must be specific information that would make a reasonable person have that same fear. Personally, I dont think simply kicking the door, which has not opened, creates a reasonable fear of anything except burglary or tresspass. It would be a different story if he is hoding a weapon, have greater numbers, disparity of force, masks, threatening statements, ect. I'm more-or-less with ya up until here.  Now I'm sure with world class lawyer word bending you might be able to argue about this, but what possible reasonable explanation is there to kicking in the door of someone's home?   I have seen many drunks break into houses they thought were their own after losing their keys.  Its a very common LE call. More common than home invasions or burglaries of occupied residences in my area. His intent may have been to commit theft, Vandalism, or he may have been there to commit a physical assault on the officer.  But if that were the case he likely would have brought help, a weapon, and used a more strealthy approach.  So its safe to assume he was there to commit theft. I think its reckless to shoot at a potential theif who you cannot even see and have no idea who or what is behind him.  Most homes have a street in front of them. Cars drive by on those streets and those cars contain people inside.  That's where every stray bullet is going to end up. The more responsible approach is to take cover, train your weapon on the threashold, and once the door is breached take a fraction of a second to be sure of your target and the background before killing him.

But that would qualify as "lying in wait" and would make you guilty of premeditated murder.  

Quoted: Quoted: 1- It can be construed as "lying in wait". Lying in wait is evidence of premeditation. Premeditation changes a defensive shoot into felony murder. - Going by this logic, waiting at any location within the structure would equal premeditation. In that case, what are you supposed to do, actively confront the intruder ?  Doing so will quite obviously get you killed.  I can't believe the law forbids people from employing good tactics.

That's maybe because it doesnt.

Quoted: Quoted: Personally, i think he should have waited until the suspect breached the door.  He wasnt taking fire, and with the door closed it was impossible to know what was in the background behind the suspect. Agreed.

Personally, I don't think either one of you have ever actually shot people and had the "holy crap he's not going down" shutters go through your bones.   NEWSFLASH......no bullet from a handgun "drops" anyone that's  charging.  What if the guy was armed?  Do you want to give him a chance to get a round off, possibly hitting you in the head or maybe a family member.

Bad guy kicking down door =  Shoot away.


And if you hit someone else, you can charge the bad guy with "felony murder" because HIS felonious action were the result to the rounds being fired which caused the other person to get killed.  Most all states have a law like this.


\
Of course I'm not advocating "spray and pray".   But you don't always have to "see" your target to "know" where your target is.  We have other senses you know.

Quoted: And if you hit someone else, you can charge the bad guy with "felony murder" because HIS felonies action were the result to the rounds being fired which caused the other person to get killed.  Most all states have a law like this.

Ah, that makes it all better then.  You can be happy knowing that you shot or killed someone else, and it was not your fault.  Must make it easy for you,  just blaze away without worries.  This cop had enough time to arm himself and scope out the bad guy.  Shooting through the door is inexcusable.

 

Quoted: Quoted: And if you hit someone else, you can charge the bad guy with "felony murder" because HIS felonies action were the result to the rounds being fired which caused the other person to get killed.  Most all states have a law like this. Ah, that makes it all better then.  You can be happy knowing that you shot or killed someone else, and it was not your fault.  This cop had enough time to arm himself and scope out the bad guy.  Shooting through the door is inexcusable.

In your opinion, someone who wasn't there.

Quoted: In your opinion, someone who wasn't there.

Yep, just like 99.999% of the folks who post abiut such stuff.  All I've got is the article.  Given what was written, there was no excuse to shoot through the door.

Quoted: Quoted: In your opinion, someone who wasn't there. Yep, just like 99.999% of the folks who post abiut such stuff.  All I've got is the article.  Given what was written, there was no excuse to shoot through the door.

Home invasion robbery is not a reason?

Funny how so many people here bitch about this and that but then gang up on someone who used legit self defense.

Rest assured though, it's no differant with cops when another cop shoots someone.  They all want to second guess the guy.  Most guys that have been in that situtation know better than to second guess someone else's shoot.