TexasCHLforum.com

At the risk of being repetitious of my remarks in other threads, this is another specific example of the hazards of leaving the inside of your own home where you have strong tactical and legal advantages to go outside with gun in hand. There are way too many unknowns and gotchas that can ruin (or permanently end) your day.

Anyone who's done lots of house clearing against real bad guys can tell you that a solo house search in a city or suburban area by a civilian, particularly in someone else's house, is a clear sign of either world class tactical ignorance combined with a Rambo syndrome, or a death wish.

I have personally done more initial building searches at felony crime scenes than I could possibly count, and I have seen more surprises and things go wrong than most folks could make up if they tried. I can also tell you with absolute certainty that if I came home and found something not like I left it (like a door ajar or a window broken) I would immediately back off to a safe observation distance, call 911, and let the LEO's do their jobs. If a neighbor presented me with a request to help him with the same situation at his house, I'd invite him to join me at a safe observation position and once again let our very capable local officers handle the nasty parts.

Police work is plenty dangerous enough, and one doesn't make it through thousands of incidents to retirement by doing stupid things that unnecessarily put one's safety at risk.
In my LE agency where we handled around 400 - 600 burglary incidents a year, lone officers were prohibited by policy from doing solo interior searches. The only exception was the extenuating circumstance where we had reason to believe a victim was being actively attacked at the time and immediate intervention could mean the difference between life and death. Then it was the on scene officer's call.

Our procedure was the first two units took up perimeter positions outside at diagonally opposing corners where they could each observe two sides of the house (putting the entire perimeter under observation) to prevent escape. Two additional officers were dispatched to clear the inside while the other two remained outside. Only uniformed officers were allowed inside to prevent mistaken identity issues, and they announced themselves and ordered anyone inside to identify themselves and give their locations before they started the search. Good guys complied. Bad guys did too sometimes, but it gave us a lot of confidence that anyone who had not responded and was found inside was probably not an innocent. If not enough personnel were available to do it the way we wanted, the compromise was on the perimeter. Risking a bad guy's escape was considered acceptable when balanced against an unacceptable risk to the safety of our officers. If we didn't have two officers to go inside right away, one waited outside until another could arrive. We did not allow allow a lone officer to clear a known or suspected crime scene, and we did not allow plainclothes personnel inside until after the scene had been cleared and secured.

When the guys that do it all the time use these types of procedures, there's a lesson to be learned by those folks who might find themselves in a position to make a decision on how to react to a possible crime once or twice in their lives. Those who take foolish and unnecessary risks, like the subject in the original post in this thread, serve not as heroes to be emulated, but rather as examples of the types of folks whose purpose in life may be to serve as a warning to others.