Gun owner kills intruder, faces prison

[Drudgewire]

But if someone comes at us with fists raised, you're not allowed to blow him away on the infinitesimal off-chance he might be a drug-crazed nutter out to do a Manson.

Here the basic rule is one of equal or greater force. If an unarmed child comes into your house and you're an able-bodied adult, the shooting is very unlikely to be considered justified.

Conversely if an unarmed able-bodied male breaks into an elderly couple's home and is approaching them, it can be argued without the gun they were at a distinct enough disadvantage to make a shooting justified.

Again, my first response is to give a warning. If someone approaches me after that, weapon or not, I've been trained with the understanding a person can travel 21 feet in less than two seconds AFTER they've been mortally wounded... and will fire and keep firing until he's no longer a threat.

 

[leonAzul]

proportionality

WTF?

Violate my home, then suffer the consequences.

No truer law was ever written!

 

[Ranb]

.....And no, there is no "right" to protect your property at all costs and against all comers here....

As far as I know, there is no such right in the USA either. A private citizen can only protect a person (or themselves) from threats of violence. If an intruder is trespassing or steeling, then the victim can only use deadly force if the intruder turns upon them and threatens or actually assaults the victim.

Ranb

 

[Drudgewire]

Violate my home, then suffer the consequences.

No truer law was ever written!

Um... I'm pretty sure that law hasn't been written.

You might be able to convince a jury in your case it had to be that way, but you'll certainly at least be going before a jury.

 

[leonAzul]

Um... I'm pretty sure that law hasn't been written.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

(Emphasis added)

Link

 

[Drudgewire]

(Emphasis added)

Link

Am I the only one who can't recite that without singing it in Schoolhouse Rock fashion?

 

[Gurdur]

(Emphasis added)

Link

Helllloooooo, Planet Earth to leonAzul, you can't interpret the Constitution as you yourself see fit, you have to abide by the actual laws instead. And Drudgewire was completely correct.

Try actually putting actions behind your words, and you will very likely be quite, quite surprised how many years in prison you get.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Those who support the concept of firearm defence of a home in a burglary seem to work on the assumption that deadly force is justified on the basis that there is such a threat against the occupants. There seems to be little consideration as to the legal principal of proportionality, for example, or whether inter alia the risk posted to the occupants was sufficient to merit deadly force.

Of course there is consideration of it. No one is saying that you should shoot someone if they slap you in the face on a public sidewalk. There's simply disagreement about what constitutes a significant enough risk. I'm of the opinion that by the time someone breaks into your house, there's a significant enough of a risk to warrent deadly force. No one has yet provided any good reasons why there should not be.

The difference in the other mature Western democracies, which one might suggest are broadly comparable, seems simply to be that the law (and society in general) does expect the occupant to make such a decision. Our laws do allow us to defend ourselves, but not at any cost. If he comes at you with a knife or a gun, then the police aren't going to get unduly upset if you clobber him with a golf club. But if someone comes at us with fists raised, you're not allowed to blow him away on the infinitesimal off-chance he might be a drug-crazed nutter out to do a Manson.

It's not hard to kill someone accidently in a fist fight or to imagine they might kill you with something else once you are incapacitated from losing a fist fight. And that entire logic as a whole seems bizzare and irrational to me. Though I see how this logic refects in many of Europes general opinions in international politics. If Israel is hit with 12 rockets, and they respond with 13, then Israel is the one who should be condemed.

And no, there is no "right" to protect your property at all costs and against all comers here. A home is not your castle.

Why shouldn't I be able to shoot someone who breaks into my house? That question still has not been answered.

In Scotland we don't even have a law of tresspass, there is a de facto right to roam, and Scandanavia isn't hugely different. If a landowner tries to escort you off his property under threates of force or threaten you for ambling across his garden/field/whatever then he will get a rapid visit from the boys in blue together with some time in a special kind of hotel.

Maybe it's partially a practical issue of numbers. If we did that we'd have no gardens or fields.

 

[Drudgewire]

And Drudgewire was completely correct.

Oh, what else is new?

 

[RandFan]

The first is one MobySeven has suggested, and that's that criminals aren't actually any different from you or I.

Nonsense. I'm NOT the same as BTK. I'm not a sociopath. I'm capable of empathy. I care about other people. I care more about people who are also capable of caring about other people than those who couldn't care less. I do so because of my sense of morality (evolution) and the fact that there is utility in doing so.

I believe in the rule of law. I'm against cruel and unusual punishment. I'm against the death penalty. I don't think that just because a person commits a crime that he is forever beyond redemption and I think it is in societies best interest to reform to the extent that reform is possible. I'm not advocating "castle..." whatever it is.

That said, the notion that all people are all the same is pure and simple BS.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Much as I hate to derail the topic back to well the original topic....

The Grand Jury was obviously convinced that there was serious wrong doing on the part of the home owner.

If the facts as given are correct, then he's in the gun (so to speak.)

While the teens were guilty of a crime, their crime ended at the point in time of them being apprehended. He effectively made a citizen's arrest by having them at gunpoint and kneeling. His next legal move was to call the police and wait. He didn't, he commissioned his own crime and started to assault them with the gun. The Law states that self defence does not apply if the killing occurs during the commision of a crime. His assulting them was a crime and so even if the gun went off accidently rather then as an execution, he is still guilty.

It really doesn't matter what your personal belief on shooting criminals is, the facts (as given and if assumed true) stand out.

1) He was outside the trailer home and entered it.
2) He had them subdued and under citizen's arrest
3) They were kneeling
4) Likely facing away from him (the shot was in the back indicating he was behind them)
5) He began assaulting them
6) He shot one
7) He continued the beating dispite the shooting
8) He still showed no remorse at the shooting even as the injured party was removed.

(1) would indicate that he was lying in wait, he appears to have been deliberately outside with a gun waiting for them to return.

(2) through (4) shows they were no longer a threat to him, and were no longer engaged in a criminal activity.

(5) shows him acting in an illegal manner and commiting a crime himself.

(6) is undisputed

(7) - (8) would show that the shooting was either not accidental or if it was that he didn't care about it. He still failed to stop beating the teens, call for help, and render assistance to the injuried party.

If these facts are correct, and the Grand Jury appears to have accepted them, then he only has himself to blame and he better start praying the Jury doesn't come back with a short stay on Death Row for him (which they might if they decide it was an execution style killing rather than an accidental shooting during the commision of a crime.)

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

In the state of Indiana:

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2.
(a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;​

if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:

(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;​

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, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, 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:

(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;​

only if that force is justified under subsection (a).

So, yes: Lots and LOTS of, "reasonable force," and, "reasonably believes that the force is necessary." All the, "does not have a duty to retreat," does is make it so I'm not REQUIRED to attempt to run away.

As an example worst-case scenario: I come up to visit a friend, and discover a guy in his house threatening him with with a baseball bat. If things were to degenerate to the point that I had that, "reasonable expectation of death or serious injury," to either myself or my friend, if I had a, "DUTY to retreat," the only way I could do that is to abandon my friend to the mook with the bat.

There's also a kicker in the Indiana laws:

(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:

(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.​

As such, I think that being on one's knees CLEARLY shows that the, "person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so," thing was going on.

I also think that the shooter, if the stories are straight, is a classic demonstration of that, "nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action," bit.

If the kid was on his knees, and the shooter was beating him, in Indiana, the shooter would be committing a crime, probably, and due all the legal weight he can bear...

maybe a BIT more. (See: Felony Murder)

 

[Architect]

Why shouldn't I be able to shoot someone who breaks into my house? That question still has not been answered.

Are you seriously suggesting that there should be a right for you to fire a gun - with the presumable intent of death or at least severe bodily injury - at a domestic intruder regardless of the extent of threat actually posed by said intruder to the occupant?

 

[Architect]

If Israel is hit with 12 rockets, and they respond with 13, then Israel is the one who should be condemed.

You will observe that we did not drop bombs on West Belfast after the IRA blew up the Cabinet at Brighton or took out central Manchester. The last time I looked, the Spanish air force was not bombing Vitoria after yet another an ETA outrage.

So really, not more than a glib soundbite, eh? Interesting too that you chose the Israelis, given the British government's traditional diplomatic support for said state.

Maybe it's partially a practical issue of numbers. If we did that we'd have no gardens or fields.

More than half of our population of 5 million is crammed into the central belt, an area some 90 miles wide by 30-40 miles north-south. The Glasgow conurbation (sp?) has well over 1.25m inhabitants on its own. The last time I noticed, there was a surfeit of fields and I haven't noticed too many people camping in my back garden. But the point is that in Scotland and Scandanavia, and probably other countries, there is no cultural perception of absolutely superiority and control over property owned such as to exclude others or, indeed, exercise force to remove them.

Doubless some clown will now accuse us of being rampant communists or somesuch.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

... clip ...

Why shouldn't I be able to shoot someone who breaks into my house? That question still has not been answered.

In what state do you live?

Maybe it's partially a practical issue of numbers. If we did that we'd have no gardens or fields.

...or maybe the Scots and Scandinavians are just less nuts than us 'Mericans and wouldn't wreck the place up.

I worked on a farm for years. There was a nice little fishing pond on a piece of land my boss rented, and the owner of the pond and field had a crossing stile over the fence for the fishermen to get to the pond without breaking down the wire fence.

I STILL had to mend that entire stretch of fence line about once a week because people would rather bust down the fence climbing over it than walk about 50 feet to the stile.

 

[Architect]

Hi

...or maybe the Scots and Scandinavians are just less nuts than us 'Mericans and wouldn't wreck the place up.

Clearly you've never encountered the Tartan Army in full swing.

I worked on a farm for years. There was a nice little fishing pond on a piece of land my boss rented, and the owner of the pond and field had a crossing stile over the fence for the fishermen to get to the pond without breaking down the wire fence.

Interestingly, the fish would belong to the landowner so whilst you might be able to walk up to the pond here, you're not allowed to go fishing without a permit. And you'll get into trouble with the police if you're caught poaching.

I STILL had to mend that entire stretch of fence line about once a week because people would rather bust down the fence climbing over it than walk about 50 feet to the stile.

There's lazy sods everywhere, mate.

 

[Gravy]

(Emphasis added)

Link

That's a preamble, not a law, and anyway it doesn't address the issue at hand.

 

[Gravy]

Clearly you've never encountered the Tartan Army in full swing.

Ach! Not the Tartan Army again!

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

... clip ...

Interestingly, the fish would belong to the landowner so whilst you might be able to walk up to the pond here, you're not allowed to go fishing without a permit. And you'll get into trouble with the police if you're caught poaching.

There's lazy sods everywhere, mate.

The owner had a, "Fishermen Welcome - Please Cross at Stile," sign on the fence. Fishermen still needed to have fishing licenses, I believe, but I was too busy to fish.

The were murder on the fence line, but in all fairness, they kept the pond and the surroundings tidy.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Are you seriously suggesting that there should be a right for you to fire a gun - with the presumable intent of death or at least severe bodily injury - at a domestic intruder regardless of the extent of threat actually posed by said intruder to the occupant?

Yes.

So if I pulled a machine gun out, and said I was about to lay waste to as many people as I could, do you think you would be wrong in shooting me? The gun could be fake. What if there was no real threat posed by me to anyone? At some point a reasonable perception of an intentional threat has to enter the picture.