Getaway driver arrested for murder.

I believe he had the gun ready to shoot in his bedroom. The first thing the burglars saw soon after breaking in was him pointing the rifle at them. Words were exchanged and then blammo. It's not known if the knife or knuckles were ever displayed. They weren't expecting anyone to be home. The shooter may have sneaked up on them.
 
It would be "allowed," in the sense that no one can tell you how to what to do in your own home. OTOH, you are liable for all the bad things that could happen because of the way you store it.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

Safe storage of firearms is the law in Canada .. but it does not include firearms that are "in use" of course ... on farms occasionally a loaded firearm is stored on a rack above the front door 24/7 for livestock protection (cows are valuable)

Of course regardless of how the firearm was stored he could simply say he loaded it quickly ... and honest that take what? 3 seconds? with an Ar-15 M-16 style rifle
 
The smashing of the glass door suggests they were confident nobody was home (they had already broken into part of the house earlier in the day). The sound was loud and it would have alerted anyone inside the house. Any occupant could have immediately called police with cellphone and/or go straight to a weapon. If these guys intended a robbery (instead of burglary) they did it very wrong by informing the target in advance. You can't make that kind of noise and not expect police to be on the way. Police are minutes away after you smash the door, if someone is inside.
 
The smashing of the glass door suggests they were confident nobody was home (they had already broken into part of the house earlier in the day). The sound was loud and it would have alerted anyone inside the house. Any occupant could have immediately called police with cellphone and/or go straight to a weapon. If these guys intended a robbery (instead of burglary) they did it very wrong by informing the target in advance. You can't make that kind of noise and not expect police to be on the way. Police are minutes away after you smash the door, if someone is inside.

They did a number of things wrong. The first was then breaking, next, the entering.
 
They did a number of things wrong. The first was then breaking, next, the entering.
There's no reason to continue to repeat that they committed a crime and shouldn't have done it. We can stipulate that and discuss other aspects.
 
There's no reason to continue to repeat that they committed a crime and shouldn't have done it. We can stipulate that and discuss other aspects.

Another aspect is that the three home invaders are dead, and the preliminary determination is that it appears to have been self-defense. Now, there are aspects we have no information about, information that the coppers are perhaps withholding, and it could well turn out that this was a bad shooting. We just don't know. I would speculate that no matter the determination, there's gonna be litigation; we've seen this even in shootings that are 100% clean. I predict this will cost the shooter and probably the dad.
 
Another aspect is that the three home invaders are dead, and the preliminary determination is that it appears to have been self-defense. Now, there are aspects we have no information about, information that the coppers are perhaps withholding, and it could well turn out that this was a bad shooting. We just don't know. I would speculate that no matter the determination, there's gonna be litigation; we've seen this even in shootings that are 100% clean. I predict this will cost the shooter and probably the dad.

Does anyone know if home insurance in the US ... helps in any way .. or do you need a special/separate rider?
 
Does anyone know if home insurance in the US ... helps in any way .. or do you need a special/separate rider?

I am not sure. There was the case of a gun store owner in California who shot a perp who robbed the store of guns and ammo, then attempted to kidnap the owner and employees. His insurer suggested a settlement as it would be cheaper than a trial.
 
I am not sure. There was the case of a gun store owner in California who shot a perp who robbed the store of guns and ammo, then attempted to kidnap the owner and employees. His insurer suggested a settlement as it would be cheaper than a trial.

Wiki suggests maybe not:

"In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal*law, many laws implementing the*castle doctrine, particularly those with a "stand-your-ground clause," also have a clause which provides*immunity*from any civil lawsuits filed on behalf of the assailant (for damages/injuries resulting from the force used to stop them ..."

Oklahoma had a castle doctrine but I don't know if it includes civil immunity.
 
Wiki suggests maybe not:

"In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal*law, many laws implementing the*castle doctrine, particularly those with a "stand-your-ground clause," also have a clause which provides*immunity*from any civil lawsuits filed on behalf of the assailant (for damages/injuries resulting from the force used to stop them ..."

Oklahoma had a castle doctrine but I don't know if it includes civil immunity.

The gun store owner settled.

ETA: Not sure about immunity in OK.
 
Last edited:
You must be joking.

You do know that home invaders will assault you as quickly as they can in order to avoid getting killed, right? Asking them this means you get hurt or killed, and so does your family.

Absolute rubbish. When I worked in the City, we used to get a lot of - shall we say - strange, people walking around the building. I confronted them with, can I help you, got a good look at their face and features, and it was amusing to see how quickly they 'beat it'.

Burglars are extremely nervous when they enter a building (only a small minority are there to rape and kill, and they are they are the ones armed up to the gills anyway) and will flee at the first signs someone is home, or is arriving home.
 
While sleeping at home, without an AK assault rifle that sprays bullets anywhere in sight, she is awoken by the sound of possible intruders breaking into her/his home. She follows the sounds and finds 3 masked strangers armed with a knife and brass knuckles. At this point, she realizes these must be 3 disadvantaged teenagers who entered the wrong house by accident or maybe were going door to door trying to sell their weapons. She then offers the children something cold to drink and if they would like to make themselves more comfortable.

When the kids explain they are there to rape and pillage her, then rob her blind, she asks if they would be so kind as to use condoms, and volunteers the location of her most valuables. When the poor lads finish their business, she promises not to call the authorities, and whips up some sandwiches and cookies to go. She also hands them some Rape/Burglary Anon pamphlets.

Now all is well in pink unicorn land.

What a very silly spurious fantasy.
 
The gun store owner settled.

ETA: Not sure about immunity in OK.

Perhaps I explained poorly: California has no castle doctrine or civil immunity. Oklahoma has a castle doctrine. Things may play out very differently.
 
Absolute rubbish. When I worked in the City, we used to get a lot of - shall we say - strange, people ... I got a good look at their face and features ..

Ahh so now you have X-Ray vision and can see through ski masks? ... I assume you could read their fingerprints though the gloves as well?
 
Ahh so now you have X-Ray vision and can see through ski masks? ... I assume you could read their fingerprints though the gloves as well?

They had brass knuckles, not lead. X-ray vision goes straight through.
 
Absolute rubbish. When I worked in the City, we used to get a lot of - shall we say - strange, people walking around the building. I confronted them with, can I help you, got a good look at their face and features, and it was amusing to see how quickly they 'beat it'.

Burglars are extremely nervous when they enter a building (only a small minority are there to rape and kill, and they are they are the ones armed up to the gills anyway) and will flee at the first signs someone is home, or is arriving home.

They're not burglars; they are home invaders, for all you know. Home invaders specifically enter homes they know are occupied. They know they will confront and hurt the occupants. If you ask them what they want, and they are home invaders, it'd be basically as bad as sitting there waiting to be beated and raped.

The situations you describe are entirely different, and you know it. You've been told often enough in this thread. Stop pretending to not understand what we're telling you.
 
He will not be charged because the DA knows no jury on earth will convict him.
I love the way you seem to want to blame the victim rather then the criminals.

The three burglar teens are the authors of their own mishap. However, we can't have people feeling they are free to shoot dead anyone who happens to trespass on their property. That is a terrible precedent. What on earth do you have there: the old Wild West...?
 
This is just not true ... laws are different in different areas ...

In some areas you can shoot unarmed strangers in broad daylight who came to you door by accident unannounced.

And shoot people who stole from your neighbour as they are running away.

Here in the UK we had this guy who hatched a wicked plan to take revenge on burglars. He built a trap on the stairs , lay in wait, and when expected perp turned up, he sprung the trap and topped them.

Thankfully, he received British justice.
 
The three burglar teens are the authors of their own mishap. However, we can't have people feeling they are free to shoot dead anyone who happens to trespass on their property. That is a terrible precedent. What on earth do you have there: the old Wild West...?

"Trespass"?

They weren't on his front lawn. They broke into his house while armed. That's rather more threatening than mere trespass.
 

Back
Top Bottom