NV: Shooting through the Door is a bad idea

Gun Watch ^ | 5 February, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Shooting through a door is usually a bad idea.  Your ability to see the target is often obscured or nonexistent, and it may be difficult to show that you believed that you were confronting a deadly threat.   Shooting through an inside door may be less problematic than one that is an entrance to a building that you are defending.

Interior doors  are usually of flimsy construction.  A person who has retreated to a bedroom or bathroom and who has locked the door may have less options than someone who is defending an entrance door.   If someone has already broken into a residence, they have shown themselves to be a threat.  This is the essence of the Castle doctrine in most states.

Shooting through a door violates one of the cardinal safely rules: Know your target and what is beyond it.

In a recent case in Las Vegas, the home owner, a fire department captain, was not prosecuted for firing through his door and severely wounding an innocent bystander.  Prosecutors ruled that his actions were reasonable, given the circumstances.   The "reasonable person" standard applies to what the person making the decision knew at the time, not what the reality was.  From reviewjournal.com:

"There need not be actual danger when somebody defends himself or herself,” the prosecutor said.

Whenever evidence of self-defense exists, Daskas explained, the burden shifts to prosecutors to disprove the claim. In this case, prosecutors determined they likely could not.

“We put ourselves in the shoes of the homeowner, and we ask ourselves, ‘Would a reasonable person in that situation have the right to defend himself and his family members from that apparent danger?’ ” Daskas said.

The shooting occurred at 2 a.m. in the morning.   The homeowner was awakened by the banging on the door.  The person banging on the door was from a nearby party, was intoxicated, and  and had left his car keys at the party.  He thought someone was playing a joke on him.   The shooting took place in a neighborhood where the houses were quite similar to each other.

The victim, who had also attended the party, was approaching the door to tell the other party attendee that he was at the wrong house, when the homeowner shot through the door, a few inches from the peephole.  In this case, the homeowner was sued by the victim.  A settlement was reached for the limit of the homeowner's insurance.  

While shooting through the door was found to be justified in the above case, I do not recommend it.   You may not have a great deal of time once the integrity of the door is breached, but you will have some.   A damaged door, locks, or a broken window will go a long way to show that you were reasonable in your actions.  The use of deadly force is more easily justified when the intruder has partly penetrated your defenses.   A good example is this video from Washington state, where the intruder with a machete destroyed the entrance door as he forced entry.

If the attacker has fired through the door at you or others, it becomes clear that you face a deadly threat and are justified in firing back, as happened in another Las Vegas case from September of 2014.

If you are thinking defensively, a stout security door or a stand off barrier of some kind is a good solution.  They will give you more time, and an intruder who has breached them has shown a serious intent to violate the sanctity of your castle.

 ©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

Most pistol and shotgun rounds will easily penetrate exterior doors at close range.

[samtheman]

Justified by job title.

[Yo-Yo]

Most pistol and shotgun rounds will easily penetrate exterior doors at close range.

And if they don't then they're not going to penetrate bad guys.

[556x45]

Whether to shoot or not depends...there’s no correct answer apart from the situation.

[Chuckster]

Another 8th grade level essay. I give it a C-.

Having said that, NEVER shoot at something you cannot see.

[Scrambler Bob]

“There need not be actual danger when somebody defends himself or herself,” the prosecutor said.

OK.

Consider hallucinations, from whatever source.

Consider watching Ferguson on TV.

Consider ‘non-existent’ invasion over our border.

Consider Jeb Bush.

Just close your eyes; ‘see’ your greatest danger.

Then let loose with a full magazine (or clip, whichever you have), through your door.

I’ve been listening to the news. I think I’ll order a dozen doors (discount contractors pack) from Home Depot.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

As an aside, I knew the story of one man who purchased a home not knowing it had previously been a suburban brothel for many years. So soon after he moved in, he started getting late night and early morning drunken and obnoxious door bangers.

Efforts to explain to the drunks that the former owners had moved were fruitless, so he hit on the idea of a loud electrical air horn and strobe light. So, when he would get a late night or early morning door knocking, he just flicked a switch next to his bed for a few seconds.

[William Tell]

marktwain said: "Most pistol and shotgun rounds will easily penetrate exterior doors at close range."

A bullet dropped from a four foot height will hit the floor in about one-half second.

The same bullet fired horizontally at 1000 feet per second will hit the ground about 500 feet from where the gun is fired (ignoring air resistance).

If you fire a bullet through a door and assume that the bullet loses half its energy, then its velocity will be reduced to 70% of its original velocity, which means the bullet will hit the ground at 350 feet.

A slight upward angle of the gun could increase this distance considerably.

If you decide to fire through a door, you risk hitting any person within several hundred feet of the door. Its quite a risk.

It's been years since I've looked, but I've seen boxes of .22 caliber rounds marked with a warning that the maximum ranges is 1.5 MILES.

Perhaps the world needs a new type of frangible bullet which self-destructs when it reaches 30 or 40 feet from where it is fired. I believe that birdshot in a shotgun behaves this way at least to some extend. It is extremely deadly while the pellets are clustered and much less lethal after the pellets have formed a wider pattern.

[TexasGator]

“Having said that, NEVER shoot at something you cannot see.”

If I see my locked door coming toward me, I am going to shoot it.

[BuffaloJack]

> ... it may be difficult to show that you believed that you were confronting a deadly threat.

That’s what shovels are for.

[SkyDancer]

But Joe Biden said ....

[TexasGator]

“It’s been years since I’ve looked, but I’ve seen boxes of .22 caliber rounds marked with a warning that the maximum ranges is 1.5 MILES. “

It could put an eye out, but that is about all.

[William Tell]

TexasGator said: "It could put an eye out, but that is about all."

What part of my posting are you referring to? The birdshot?

[TexasGator]

“What part of my posting are you referring to? The birdshot? “

The part I quoted in my post.

[William Tell]

I re-read your post and see that you are referring to the maximum distance of a .22 caliber bullet.

Perhaps at the maximum distance little damage would be done, but I'd still hate to be hit by one at only a mile, for example. I wonder what the terminal velocity of a .22 caliber bullet would be if dropped vertically.

[Kommodor]

If you are interested in such a device, perhaps you should investigate a .410 pistol, such as the Taurus Judge.

I’ve occasionally considered buying one myself.

[Johnny_cash]

Not that it matters but I have seen my father and his friend when I was younger down a 600 lb cow with one shot to the head at about 25 yards or so.

Not sure it would work through a door but I respect the 22LR, also made a wonderful gun when jacklighting a deer at night when you wanted to be discreet.

For the record in the early 70’s times were tough for my family and others around us and nothing was ever wasted.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... Perhaps the world needs a new type of frangible bullet which self-destructs when it reaches 30 or 40 feet from where it is fired. I believe that birdshot in a shotgun behaves this way at least to some extent"

You propose a physics challenge that cannot be met by a suitably efficient self-defense firearm. There are certain solutions that have long existed in archery that meet your requirements but they're intended for bird hunting.

Closest thing I can imagine in a gas-propelled (gunpowder or compressed air) projectile that meets your conditions would be a large bore black powder cannon (perhaps a British Navy 12-pounder mounted on a wheeled carriage) using maybe less than one hundred grains of black powder as propellant.

The few other ideas I can think meeting your requirements would probably be regarded as NFA-controlled 'destructive devices' or Title II weapons.

There is some goofball who is marketing a new less-lethal muzzle attached projectile weapon to law enforcement, but his invention is absurd.

[CodeJockey]

Confused? Plugs Biden said it was copacetic.

[gundog]

My brother shoots at hallucinations.