TX - Burglar shot through the door, don't leave it up to the parents.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

mmdkyoung123 wrote:

Several members have criticized the son for his attempts to protect his family which amazes me. There argument seems to be that "he Should have fired a warning shot" Based on the story, I would say that he did, or atleast fired a shot with the direct intention of NOT killing anyone. Otherwise why would he shoot the bottom of the door and hit the Perp in the foot??? Personally, if multiple people are trying to force their way into your home, with verbal threats of killing you when they get in, and the door is in the process of coming down, I am firing. Why would I wait for multiple, possibly armed, attackers to be inside my house? I would probably get a good shot on the first one, and maybe even the second, but what happens when the third and fourth guy shoot me? Who is there to protect my family then???. I think the son did a great job in a truly stressful and frightening time.

Click to expand...

Only one person on this thread so far has advocated firing a "warning shot". "Warning shots" are generally taboo for self-defense, as they tend to make people both legally and tactically disadvantaged. The primary argument here is that he was wrong for shooting at something he couldn't see. If someone is try to break down my front door and I shoot through the door and miss, that round is going through a small park across the street and, beyond that, a row of single family homes. I imagine very few of us live in concrete-walled apartment buildings or at least 5 miles from any other people... therefore, it's a bad idea to shoot through a door when you can't see through it.

Take a re-read of the thread

Click to expand...

You are so right on this one.



On another note, I have had my own personal experience with bad guys and multiple attackers. In my experience all the situations were un-armed, but I think that the same principles apply.

In general bullies are cowards and they attack people they perceive as weak and non-combative. In at least three instances whereI have been forced to defend myself from multiple attackers, I have done the same thing.... I laid into the biggest guy of the group, the one logic would dictate, I should have the most to fear. In every instance the guys wanted to hurt me, but they were not willing to get hurt themselves to do it. They retreated, cut their losses and looked for an easier target.

I am of the opinion that armed bad guys, meeting armed resistance would act the same. The door falls and you and your 12 gauge, or your .45, or your .38, or even your .22put holes in the first couple of guys you see, and the rest turn tail and head for greener pastures.

The logic is this; They operate on immediate. They want immediate gratification with out working for it, and that is why they want to take what they want from you.

Immediate has a flip side; They understand immediate punishment too. If you have a gun, even a .22, and you start shooting they could die immediately. They don't want that, even if they have a bigger gun. They run because running changes immediate to maybe. Maybe they are caught, maybe they go to trial, maybe they go to jail, and so on. When it comes to punishment they don't want immediate.

Just my thoughts.

imported post

Well, folks, there are a few things being overlooked here.

1. These were elderly people and there were multiple young perps -- disparity of force.

2. The weapon was a shotgun -- not much if any danger at allof damage from a stray bullet. That is the beauty of a shotgun for self defense.

3. This is in Texas. In Texas, you can employ deadly force to defend your property. That door is their property.

4. The vocal threat of death causes fear.

5. Texas has not only the castle doctrine but the stand your ground law.

Sounds like a good shoot to me. I find no fault whatsoever in the shooter's actions.

imported post

Colt 45 wrote:

Well, folks, there are a few things being overlooked here.

1. These were elderly people and there were multiple young perps -- disparity of force.

2. The weapon was a shotgun -- not much if any danger at allof damage from a stray bullet. That is the beauty of a shotgun for self defense.

3. This is in Texas. In Texas, you can employ deadly force to defend your property. That door is their property.

4. The vocal threat of death causes fear.

5. Texas has not only the castle doctrine but the stand your ground law.

Sounds like a good shoot to me. I find no fault whatsoever in the shooter's actions.

Click to expand...

Take a look at http://theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm. Not quite so accurate...

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Colt 45 wrote:

Well, folks, there are a few things being overlooked here.

1. These were elderly people and there were multiple young perps -- disparity of force.

2. The weapon was a shotgun -- not much if any danger at allof damage from a stray bullet. That is the beauty of a shotgun for self defense.

3. This is in Texas. In Texas, you can employ deadly force to defend your property. That door is their property.

4. The vocal threat of death causes fear.

5. Texas has not only the castle doctrine but the stand your ground law.

Sounds like a good shoot to me. I find no fault whatsoever in the shooter's actions.

Click to expand...

Take a look at http://theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm. Not quite so accurate...

Click to expand...

Huh??? (BTW -- the boxotruth address does not work)

imported post

good shoot

imported post

Colt 45 wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

Colt 45 wrote:

Well, folks, there are a few things being overlooked here.

1. These were elderly people and there were multiple young perps -- disparity of force.

2. The weapon was a shotgun -- not much if any danger at allof damage from a stray bullet. That is the beauty of a shotgun for self defense.

3. This is in Texas. In Texas, you can employ deadly force to defend your property. That door is their property.

4. The vocal threat of death causes fear.

5. Texas has not only the castle doctrine but the stand your ground law.

Sounds like a good shoot to me. I find no fault whatsoever in the shooter's actions.

Click to expand...

Take a look at http://theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm. Not quite so accurate...

Click to expand...

Huh??? (BTW -- the boxotruth address does not work)

Click to expand...

Try this.



http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm

Here are thelessons learned from The Box O Thuth;



Lessons learned:
1. Notice that the #4 and #1 Buck penetrated 6 boards. In previous tests, 9mm, .45 ACP, and M-193 out of an AR all penetrated all 12 boards.

So, it seems that these loads do not "over-penetrate" as much as some have led us to believe.

The 00 Buck penetrated 8 boards, but was stopped by the 9th. Still not as much penetration as the pistol or rifle loads.

The slug penetrated all 12 boards.

2. Once again, please notice the size of the entrance spreads....2 1/2" to 3 1/2". Therefore, anyone that says, "With a shotgun, you don't even have to aim. Just point it in the general area of the bad guy, and you can't miss", does not know what they are talking about.

You can very easily miss with a shotgun. You must aim to hit your target.

3. The slugs were "bad" penetrators. By that, I mean that they will penetrate several interior walls. If you have loved ones in your home, consider this as you select your home defense weapon.

4. I "racked" the shotgun several times during the tests, and no bystanders lost control of their bowels.
Conclusion: Racking a shotgun will not make the bad guy faint.

Frankly, I was surprised that the shotgun did not penetrate more than it did. I had been led to believe that they penetrated more than a .223 rifle or a 9mm or .45 ACP. Such was not the case.

Amazing what you can learn by doing a little testing.

Birdshot as a Defense Load
I have had a lot of questions, summed up as follows: How effective is birdshot (#4, #6, #8, etc.) as a defense load?

We have done tests with various birdshot loads. Birdshot penetrated through two pieces of drywall (representing one wall) and was stopped in the paper on the front of the second wall. The problem with birdshot is that it does not penetrate enough to be effective as a defense round. Birdshot is designed to bring down little birds.

A policeman told of seeing a guy shot at close range with a load of 12 gauge birdshot, and was not even knocked down. He was still walking around when the EMTs got there. It was an ugly, shallow wound, but did not STOP the guy. And that is what we want... to STOP the bad guy from whatever he is doing. To do this, you must have a load that will reach the vitals of the bad guy. Birdshot will not do this.

In fact, tests have shown that even #4 Buckshot lacks the necessary penetration to reach the vital organs. Only 0 Buck, 00 Buck, and 000 Buck penetrate enough to reach the vital organs.

Unless you expect to be attacked by little birds, do not use birdshot. Use 00 Buck. It will do the job.

But doesn't 00 Buck penetrate too much in interior walls to be a "safe" load in a home?
Yes, it does penetrate a lot. But any load that is going to be effective will need to penetrate walls to have enough power to penetrate bad guys. If our only concern was to be sure we didn't penetrate walls, we would use BB guns. However, BB guns will not stop bad guys.

Therefore, we must use loads that will STOP bad guys, and this means that they will also penetrate walls. So, be sure you hit the bad guy and do not shoot into walls where loved ones are on the other side.

When To Use Birdshot
A friend of AR15.com sends this:

"I saw a gunshot victim, about 5' 10" and 200 lbs, taken to the operating room with a shotgun wound to the chest. He was shot at a range of six feet at a distance of just over the pectoralis muscle. He was sitting on his front porch and walked to the ambulance. We explored the chest after x-rays were taken. The ER doc had said 'buckshot' wound, but this was obviously not accurate.

It was # 6 shot. There was a crater in the skin over an inch in diameter. When the shot hit the level of the ribs, it spread out about five inches. There was ONE pellet that had passed between the ribs and entered the pericardium, but not damaged the heart at all. As you say, 'use birdshot for little birds.'"



Good points.

imported post

I spent a lot of time in the local children's hospital when I was a kid, and the kid who got my bed when I finally got out had been shot by his dad -accidentally, I trust -while hunting. He pretty much had a lung blown out with shot, with chunks of rib bone embedded in what was left. I don't know at what range this happened, but it was a mutilating injury, not superficial, and he would have certainly died if it had been on the other (heart) side. So, unless there's some gross difference in the shot loads now vs. then, I wouldn't be too confident of anyone walking away from a birdshot hit at close range. I met the kid - this is not a 3rd-hand anecdote. Bad scene.

-ljp

imported post

The key word in that story is close range. I suggest that people look at their house and really examine what it the maximum distance that you would be shooting anyone and what is the probable distance. In my house the absolute maximum distance I could be away from a target would be about 40' and my house is 3500 SF. I would expect any shot that I would ever make would be in the 10' or less range. At 10' any bullet is going to do damage whether it is birdshot or .45. When you get to 3' which is the more likely range birdshot is going to do a lot of damage. You can do all the tests you want to about penetration and stopping power but at 3' (which is just a little longer than a shotgun barrel) I don't want to be on the receiving end of anything.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

The key word in that story is close range. I suggest that people look at their house and really examine what it the maximum distance that you would be shooting anyone and what is the probable distance. In my house the absolute maximum distance I could be away from a target would be about 40' and my house is 3500 SF. I would expect any shot that I would ever make would be in the 10' or less range. At 10' any bullet is going to do damage whether it is birdshot or .45. When you get to 3' which is the more likely range birdshot is going to do a lot of damage. You can do all the tests you want to about penetration and stopping power but at 3' (which is just a little longer than a shotgun barrel) I don't want to be on the receiving end of anything.

Click to expand...

The key word is child and not close range.

There is a big difference between the damage done to a child and to a full grown bad guy.



Check out the following links, especially about doors;

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot17.htm Link to the door test.

Lessons learned:
1. Metal front doors provide concealment, not cover. (For those that might not understand the difference, "concealment" means it will hide you and "cover" means that it will stop bullets)

2. Don't think a metal door will slow down any common round. It only stopped birdshot, which is a very poor penetrator.

3. If it's easy for you to shoot through, it's easy for the bad guy to send them through the other way.
There it is boys. Everything you ever wondered about metal doors.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot14.htm Link to rifles, shotguns and walls

Lessons learned:
1. Contrary to what we have been told, XM-193 does not seem to "fragment" when shot into drywall walls. After we were through for the day, we even shot several more rounds of XM-193 into the walls to see if we could get one to fragment. They did not.

It is clear that they were tumbling and deviating from the flight path, but they were still penetrating the walls.

Now, before anyone says it, No, I do not know how much damage they would do to someone after the 4th wall. But they would do some damage as they were still penetrating.

2. Remington 55 grain JSP and Frangible 5.56 also penetrated all 4 walls. So did the .30 Carbine.

When shooting rifles, walls are concealment, not cover.

3. 00 Buck penetrates 4 walls with ease. It is a great "Stopping" round, but there is a price to pay.

Until someone invents a "Phaser" like on Star Trek, anything that will stop a bad guy, will also penetrate several walls.

4. Birdshot does not excessively penetrate drywall walls. But it does not penetrate deeply enough to reach a bad guy's vital organs. Birdshot makes a nasty but shallow wound. It is not a good Stopper.

Use Birdshot for little birds. Use 00 Buckshot for bad guys.

5. The sun was shining, it was a lovely day, and it was fun shooting stuff.

Thanks to my friends for the ammo to test. Thanks to Tman and our friend Richard who was visiting from out of town, for the pics.







Go to the site, and spend some time. You will learn a lot.

imported post

Legba wrote:

I spent a lot of time in the local children's hospital when I was a kid, and the kid who got my bed when I finally got out had been shot by his dad -accidentally, I trust -while hunting. He pretty much had a lung blown out with shot, with chunks of rib bone embedded in what was left. I don't know at what range this happened, but it was a mutilating injury, not superficial, and he would have certainly died if it had been on the other (heart) side. So, unless there's some gross difference in the shot loads now vs. then, I wouldn't be too confident of anyone walking away from a birdshot hit at close range. I met the kid - this is not a 3rd-hand anecdote. Bad scene.

-ljp

Click to expand...

Definitely a horrible scene. Still, I don't think it generalizes to most defense situations. Childrens' skin is thinner than adults' and children typically don't have the muscularity that most adult males have. The skin and muscle absorbs part of the projectile's energy before it can penetrate into internal organ structures and the thicker the skin and muscle layers, the less penetration as any hunter knows. And lastly, as you said, you don't know what size shot from what range with what kind of power load in what type of choke caused the unfortunate injuries to the child. Obviously any round at close range can be fatal, traumatizing or disabling so I don't think we are confident of anyone walking away from a birdshot hit at close range, but for self defense confidence in someone walking away is not important. Confidence in stopping the threat immediately is very important which birdshot does not typically do.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Legba wrote:

I spent a lot of time in the local children's hospital when I was a kid, and the kid who got my bed when I finally got out had been shot by his dad -accidentally, I trust -while hunting. He pretty much had a lung blown out with shot, with chunks of rib bone embedded in what was left. I don't know at what range this happened, but it was a mutilating injury, not superficial, and he would have certainly died if it had been on the other (heart) side. So, unless there's some gross difference in the shot loads now vs. then, I wouldn't be too confident of anyone walking away from a birdshot hit at close range. I met the kid - this is not a 3rd-hand anecdote. Bad scene.

-ljp

Click to expand...

Definitely a horrible scene. Still, I don't think it generalizes to most defense situations. Childrens' skin is thinner than adults' and children typically don't have the muscularity that most adult males have. The skin and muscle absorbs part of the projectile's energy before it can penetrate into internal organ structures and the thicker the skin and muscle layers, the less penetration as any hunter knows. And lastly, as you said, you don't know what size shot from what range with what kind of power load in what type of choke caused the unfortunate injuries to the child. Obviously any round at close range can be fatal, traumatizing or disabling so I don't think we are confident of anyone walking away for a birdshot hit at close range, but for self defense confidence in someone walking away is not important. Confidence in stopping the threat immediately is very important which birdshot does typically do.

Click to expand...

I was pretty much agreeing with you until the last. Should it not read, "Confidence in stopping the threat immediately is very important which birdshot does not typically do." ?

imported post

Sa45auto wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

Legba wrote:

I spent a lot of time in the local children's hospital when I was a kid, and the kid who got my bed when I finally got out had been shot by his dad -accidentally, I trust -while hunting. He pretty much had a lung blown out with shot, with chunks of rib bone embedded in what was left. I don't know at what range this happened, but it was a mutilating injury, not superficial, and he would have certainly died if it had been on the other (heart) side. So, unless there's some gross difference in the shot loads now vs. then, I wouldn't be too confident of anyone walking away from a birdshot hit at close range. I met the kid - this is not a 3rd-hand anecdote. Bad scene.

-ljp

Click to expand...

Definitely a horrible scene. Still, I don't think it generalizes to most defense situations. Childrens' skin is thinner than adults' and children typically don't have the muscularity that most adult males have. The skin and muscle absorbs part of the projectile's energy before it can penetrate into internal organ structures and the thicker the skin and muscle layers, the less penetration as any hunter knows. And lastly, as you said, you don't know what size shot from what range with what kind of power load in what type of choke caused the unfortunate injuries to the child. Obviously any round at close range can be fatal, traumatizing or disabling so I don't think we are confident of anyone walking away for a birdshot hit at close range, but for self defense confidence in someone walking away is not important. Confidence in stopping the threat immediately is very important which birdshot does typically do.

Click to expand...

I was pretty much agreeing with you until the last. Should it not read, "Confidence in stopping the threat immediately is very important which birdshot does not typically do." ?

Click to expand...

DOH!! You are correct. I'll fix it!

imported post

Take home message from the BoxOTruth... Shotguns penetrate walls, even using loads that won't penetrate bad guys. They kind of aren't "not much if any danger at all" as far as injuring/maiming/killing bystanders.

imported post

I know or should say knew two different people that were killed with birdshot. One was a 17 year old boy who propped his gun on a fencewhile climbing over. The gun fell over and the shots went into his side. The other was a 62 year olf man that took his gun down from over the fireplace. We never determined if it was suicide or negligence. Either way both were kiiled with bird shot.

imported post

Sounds like both cases were at near or in contact range. Further out I'd say not so effective, just my opinion.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Anyone else concerned that the son shot through a door? Or are we too busy patting ourselves on the back about how macho it is to shoot people?

There are few instances where shooting through a door is justified. From the facts we have, this isn't one of them. "Warning shots" are best left to the movies. If the door was breached, by all means the son had a right to use deadly force to stop an immediate threat. But using deadly force to defend against pounding on a door is little better than shooting someone who yells "I'm gonna kill you". Unfortunately, with overly-permissive "castle doctrine" laws, we end up emboldening people to use any opportunity to use a gun to settle a dispute, regardless of whether or not there was a real threat to the homeowner's life.

Click to expand...

To get this thread back on track. . .

I'm a bit lost here imperial on what your issue is as pertains to the incident presented. If I comprehend your post correctly, you condemn the sons actions as the door was being breached from its hinges (not merely "pounded on" as you state) yet you state you would support the attackers being shot if the door was bypassed and they were inside the home.

This seems contradictory and (respectfuly) hypocritical. From the attackers actions and words, we can surmise they wanted to do grievous bodily harm to the lawful occupants while tearing the door from the frame. They stated they wanted to kill the homeowners and their actions towards the door would be evidence of their intent to carry out their threats. There is nothing to indicate their minds would change after they made entry, which regardless of such intent, you advocate their death at such point.

So if intent, willingness and ability to carry through with their statement to kill has not changed from outside to inside, please explain what your objection is?

imported post

ChinChin wrote:

So if intent, willingness and ability to carry through with their statement to kill has not changed from outside to inside, please explain what your objection is?

Click to expand...

To clarify a misunderstanding, I took "coming off the hinges" as journalistic creativity, not as a description that the door was breeched.

Also, my primary objection to it is the safety aspect. This has been discussed so I won't repeat it.

But to address the part of your post that I quoted, you do bring up an interesting point. The intent does in fact not change from outside to inside. But the proximity necessary to complete the act (attempted murder, etc) is not sufficient, in my mind, until the door is breeched and the attacker(s) enter the house. You can say you're going to kill someone all you want, but unless you can imminantly follow through with that, it's not generally a criminal attempt. But I guess that's the sticking point, whether attempting to break down the barrier gives the attacker sufficiently close proximity to complete a violent act. I'd generally say no, but I can understand those who say "yes".

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

ChinChin wrote:

So if intent, willingness and ability to carry through with their statement to kill has not changed from outside to inside, please explain what your objection is?

Click to expand...

To clarify a misunderstanding, I took "coming off the hinges" as journalistic creativity, not as a description that the door was breeched.

Also, my primary objection to it is the safety aspect. This has been discussed so I won't repeat it.

But to address the part of your post that I quoted, you do bring up an interesting point. The intent does in fact not change from outside to inside. But the proximity necessary to complete the act (attempted murder, etc) is not sufficient, in my mind, until the door is breeched and the attacker(s) enter the house. You can say you're going to kill someone all you want, but unless you can imminantly follow through with that, it's not generally a criminal attempt. But I guess that's the sticking point, whether attempting to break down the barrier gives the attacker sufficiently close proximity to complete a violent act. I'd generally say no, but I can understand those who say "yes".

Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining.

imported post

I keep telling myself to remember that just because something is legal it doesn't make it right and just because some thing is right it doesn't make it legal.

Ultimately we each have to decide what we will do in a given situation and then be willing to live or die with it.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

ChinChin wrote:

So if intent, willingness and ability to carry through with their statement to kill has not changed from outside to inside, please explain what your objection is?

Click to expand...

To clarify a misunderstanding, I took "coming off the hinges" as journalistic creativity, not as a description that the door was breeched.

Also, my primary objection to it is the safety aspect. This has been discussed so I won't repeat it.

But to address the part of your post that I quoted, you do bring up an interesting point. The intent does in fact not change from outside to inside. But the proximity necessary to complete the act (attempted murder, etc) is not sufficient, in my mind, until the door is breeched and the attacker(s) enter the house. You can say you're going to kill someone all you want, but unless you can imminantly follow through with that, it's not generally a criminal attempt. But I guess that's the sticking point, whether attempting to break down the barrier gives the attacker sufficiently close proximity to complete a violent act. I'd generally say no, but I can understand those who say "yes".

Click to expand...

Again I agree with you completely.



I personally look at shooting through a door, as being similar to shooting at a sound in the bushes when you are hunting. Is it a bear or is it some old guy growling like a bear because he barked his shin on a stump.:what:

I like to see what I am shooting at.