Gun owner kills intruder, faces prison

[Beerina]

If one of the multiple thieves and potentially murderous invaders turned away just before being shot then the shooter...

Fixed it for you.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Interesting. I had thought that there would be little disagreement as to whether or not shooting an unarmed, retreating teenager, who poses no threat to you, would be wrong.

The problem is whether or not you really know he poses no threat. He could be turning to pull a pistol out of his jacket. He could be running to another room to grab a weapon. He could even be climbing out a window to grab a weapon and come back in. Certainly, in normal every day life, things would not function well if we assumed everyone who turned their back to us deserved to die. But I really don't see any reason why we shouldn't allow people to shoot fleeing home invaders.

 

[fuelair]

Only you could turn a thread about the brutal murder of a minor into a fun-fest. You think this kind of smarmy, smiley-ridden post is appropriate?

I worry about your sanity sometimes, Drudge.

No offense, but in this case Drudge is just the last in a string - the first was the C.Bronson post addressing me and potentially the others who believe in self-preservation and do not like criminals - especially potentially violent ones. My response was purely about the color/reflectivity of my choices of armament and Drudges was a continuation of that. If you did not like that, that's fine, but it is kind of unfair to lay on Drudge simply because he was responding. You also ,and there is no reason you should(but), do not understand that those of us who use and have no problem with weapons in proper hands enjoy talking about them. Not smarmy. Smarmy would be saying "aaah, he should shot all of'em in the back" - which no one here - unless I have missed something - has said or implied. A smiley on that I would call smarmy.

Best

 

[sinclairmcevoy]

Why didn't he just call the cops while holding them? I can understand his anger at being burgled again, but killing a kid? Teenagers do stupid things sometimes. Did he deserve to die for what seems like a really stupid thing? I think that if he made it known to them that if they ever showed up again there'd be one less thief in the world, he might have scared some sense into them. Being charged might have scared some more sense into them.
On another note, was there any indication as to what race, color or ethnicity these kids were? Just wondering if it had anything to do with his decision to shoot one.

 

[Ranb]

Yeah, better safe than sorry. I recommend you shoot anybody who is running away. Just in case.

Better safe than sorry and not break into people's homes, especially those who live in a state with a "make my day" law. How stupid do these criminals have to be anyway? Darwin award anyone?

That said, I would not shoot those that I have kneeling on the floor in front of me.

Ranb

 

[Mister Earl]

Teenagers do stupid things sometimes. Did he deserve to die for what seems like a really stupid thing?

Stupid things can cause innocent people to die, too. In my home area, there was a case where some kids were throwing pieces of cinder blocks off of a highway overpass because they were bored. One of those pieces went through a windshield and killed a three month old baby.

The age of these kids is not, and should not be a factor. Only their actions, and that of the homeowner should matter. I'm not concerned with what they thought they were doing, or what they said they were doing, but rather what they WERE doing that day. Let's see what evidence is brought out, then make judgement call when we have more details to work from.

*EDIT: Small correction. The only time age should be a factor is when the perp is a minor, in which case I feel the parents should shoulder their share of the blame and punishment.

 

[volatile]

Yeah, better safe than sorry. I recommend you shoot anybody who is running away. Just in case.

I also recommend taking FuelAir's approach and actually putting yourself in a position where you can make out like you were in mortal danger even when you aren't, just to take the scum off the streets. That legal system's a joke, y'know, and due process is just a scam to let those rascals get away with anything they want. Who needs laws? We want justice.

 

[volatile]

No offense, but in this case Drudge is just the last in a string - the first was the C.Bronson post addressing me and potentially the others who believe in self-preservation and do not like criminals - especially potentially violent ones. My response was purely about the color/reflectivity of my choices of armament and Drudges was a continuation of that. If you did not like that, that's fine, but it is kind of unfair to lay on Drudge simply because he was responding. You also ,and there is no reason you should(but), do not understand that those of us who use and have no problem with weapons in proper hands enjoy talking about them. Not smarmy. Smarmy would be saying "aaah, he should shot all of'em in the back" - which no one here - unless I have missed something - has said or implied. A smiley on that I would call smarmy.

Best

Well, I think you're all equally guilty of insensitivity and sociopathy, frankly. But we've had this discussion numerous times before. Drudge seems to be particularly worthy of ire, though, given that freakin' whistlin' smilie he busted out up-thread.

I just find it pretty horrific that a) y'all don't seem to really mind much that this guy killed a kid, b) that you can make jokes and brag and wave and posture and smirk like schoolkids just cause you think guns are so damn cool even though they resulted in the deliberate, brutal murder of a child and c) in your case, specifically, that you admit that you will engineer a deadly situation where one need not exist because you consider your own brand of hot-headed vigilante justice to be superior to the legal system of a democratic, civilised nation.

It makes me sick to my stomach.

You're a nice guy, FA. And I'm sure Drudge would be a laugh to grab a beer with. But step back and look at yourselves. Look at what you're advocating. Look at what you're laughing at. You're revelling in death. That's not healthy, personally or communally.

 

[volatile]

That said, I would not shoot those that I have kneeling on the floor in front of me.

Why not? Better safe than sorry, eh?

Or are you not quite as comfortable with the murder of your fellow citizens as you might otherwise claim to be?

 

[Crazycowbob]

I have no problem with the use of force in order to defend oneself in a situation whereby someone has illegally entered your home. However, I do not agree that deadly force should be used in any case if it is intended as being so (although this can be tricky to prove, anyone who shoots/stabs someone multiple times is unlikely to be aiming to wound) and that in this specific case, as far as I can tell by reading what's been presented this guy deliberately waited for and then proceeded to murder the intruder. Yes, the intruder should not have been in the house, but at the same time, noone should have the right to commit premeditated murder and get off on the grouds thatthe other person was committing a lesser crime.

Agreed. If someone broke into my home, I'd have no problem using whatever means necessary to get them out. Preferably on their own two feet and without any of my stuff, but if not, so be it. But there's a huge difference between protecting yourself and property, versus laying in wait or setting a trap. Especially in this case, where they'd robbed him before, and he apearantly had a good idea that they'd be back.

Ever been a teenager?

I know that when I was a teenager, I did some dumb *** things. None of them on the level of breaking and entering, but I certainly trespassed frequently on others property and was involved in a few instances of vandalism.

It would have been a damn shame if I were to have been shot and killed, my son never born, ect. Just because I was an idiot teenager like 75% (unscientific *duh*) of us all were.

Yes, it would have been a shame had you been killed in a criminal act.

However, the whole "I was a stupid teenager", "Kids will be kids", "Everyone did stupid stuff like that" is nothing more than trying to rationalize the fact that you were a criminal. If the police had caught you and sent you to jail, it wouldn't be because you were "an idiot teenager", it'd have been because you broke the law. You had a choice in your actions, and you'd be hard pressed to convince me you didn't know what you did was wrong. Being a teenager didn't make you, or anyone else for that matter, do stupid crap, it was a concious decision to do what you knew was wrong, be it for lack of empathy, or just a thrill that was greater than the fear of consequences, or whatever other reason you may have had, that made you a criminal.

Sorry to derail there, but using that "everyone was young once" excuse gets me into rant mode...

 

[bigred]

there's a huge difference between protecting yourself and property, versus laying in wait or setting a trap. Especially in this case, where they'd robbed him before, and he apearantly had a good idea that they'd be back.

I don't care if he had $50 bills taped to the windows. It doesn't excuse the crime in the least.

the whole "I was a stupid teenager", "Kids will be kids", "Everyone did stupid stuff like that" is nothing more than trying to rationalize the fact that you were a criminal. If the police had caught you and sent you to jail, it wouldn't be because you were "an idiot teenager", it'd have been because you broke the law. You had a choice in your actions, and you'd be hard pressed to convince me you didn't know what you did was wrong. Being a teenager didn't make you, or anyone else for that matter, do stupid crap, it was a concious decision to do what you knew was wrong, be it for lack of empathy, or just a thrill that was greater than the fear of consequences, or whatever other reason you may have had, that made you a criminal.

Sorry to derail there, but using that "everyone was young once" excuse gets me into rant mode...

Don't apologize; it was well said and more than merited. I'm pretty tired of that too.

 

[fuelair]

Well, I think you're all equally guilty of insensitivity and sociopathy, frankly. But we've had this discussion numerous times before. Drudge seems to be particularly worthy of ire, though, given that freakin' whistlin' smilie he busted out up-thread.

I just find it pretty horrific that a) y'all don't seem to really mind much that this guy killed a kid, b) that you can make jokes and brag and wave and posture and smirk like schoolkids just cause you think guns are so damn cool even though they resulted in the deliberate, brutal murder of a child and c) in your case, specifically, that you admit that you will engineer a deadly situation where one need not exist because you consider your own brand of hot-headed vigilante justice to be superior to the legal system of a democratic, civilised nation.

It makes me sick to my stomach.

You're a nice guy, FA. And I'm sure Drudge would be a laugh to grab a beer with. But step back and look at yourselves. Look at what you're advocating. Look at what you're laughing at. You're revelling in death. That's not healthy, personally or communally.

First, the general, even the hotheadedest of us (unless I have missed a comment) agrees that IF the kids were all on their knees and on the ground
AND none of them had a weapon, AND none of them got up and moved toward the owner, then the owner is in the spot he should be in and we do not sympathize. Let me know if that is wrong.

Second, given that innocent persons have been killed, raped, beaten to the point where they were hospitalized/permanently crippled, etc. on large number of occasions in their homes, dorms, apartments, trailers, shelters by people who invaded same, we plan to take NO chances. Which means exposing ourselves as little as possible, observing what we can, and firing fast if necessary - that being determined only as clear, non belonging target. In Texas and Florida(at least) we fortunately have that right. When it can be guaranteed that I won't need that chance to live because the police will make an arrest/control the invader before I need to worry about it any and every time it happens (100% protection) I plan to continue that way. My life, my wife's life, your life (as best I can tell) are each worth more to me individually than those of all the violent criminal"s lives put together.

 

[volatile]

First, the general, even the hotheadedest of us (unless I have missed a comment) agrees that IF the kids were all on their knees and on the ground
AND none of them had a weapon, AND none of them got up and moved toward the owner, then the owner is in the spot he should be in and we do not sympathize. Let me know if that is wrong.

Well, to be fair on you and Drudge, you have erred on the side of caution here, but it's all these qualifications. All these ifs and buts and maybes. As far as I'm concerned, no-one deserves to die a brutal and horrible death, even if they are a heinous criminal and especially if they are a child. In this case in particular, I think those ANDs and IFs are misplaced. The kid's a KID. Let him steal your stuff. Property crime should not be a capital crime. Where do you want to live? Iran?

Second, given that innocent persons have been killed, raped, beaten to the point where they were hospitalized/permanently crippled, etc. on large number of occasions in their homes, dorms, apartments, trailers, shelters by people who invaded same, we plan to take NO chances.

And given the number of burglaries (even hot ones) which have gone down with no injuries or deaths, the statistics are on my side. The kind of situation you talk about is beyond rare. People don't break into homes to rape and murder and torture the occupants (99.9% of the time). They break into homes to steal stuff. Burglars steal to get goods to sell. They're not interested in murder.

Look at the stats for burglaries. Look at the stats for 'hot' burglaries. Then look at the stats for compliant homeowners who got killed or raped, and tell me that it's legitimate to fear a housebreaker is going to kill you even if you happen to live in a house that gets burgled.

It's irrational.

Which means exposing ourselves as little as possible, observing what we can, and firing fast if necessary

And it's that speed that's the problem. Can't you see that? Heat of the moment is no time to be making rational decisions.

- that being determined only as clear, non belonging target. In Texas and Florida(at least) we fortunately have that right. When it can be guaranteed that I won't need that chance to live because the police will make an arrest/control the invader before I need to worry about it any and every time it happens (100% protection) I plan to continue that way. My life, my wife's life, your life (as best I can tell) are each worth more to me individually than those of all the violent criminal"s lives put together.

Then you are a worse human being than I had hoped. Why are the lives of criminals not worth anything to you? Do you really support the death penalty (and, if I follow your logic, the immediate, extra-judicial death penalty) for all crimes? All property crimes? All violent crimes?

The kind of world you want to inhabit, and the kind of world you and Drudge seem so content to flippantly giggle about, is terrifying. It's a world that celebrates violence; glorifies death; salutes impulsiveness; praises cowardice; demeans human life to beneath that of material goods and fosters paranoia, aggression, fear, suspicion and hate. It's a world that wants to unpick every civil, civilising and humane action of the past 200 years. It wants to undermine the rule of law. It wants to do away with due process. It wants to take society back to the Wild West. It believes might is right, and it believes that the wants of the individual should over-ride the good of the collective.

It is base and backwards. It is juvenile and animalistic. It's not funny. It's not sexy. It's not exciting. It doesn't warrant smilies, or glib remarks, or t-shirts. It doesn't warrant sound-bites, slogans, ifs, buts or maybes. Think about the kind of world you're advocating - one in which each individual's sovereign right is to murder those who wrong him, and in which each individual's property is now quantifiable by the amount of blood he is willing to spill to defend it.

If that thought doesn't turn your stomach one little bit, then maybe you need to keep on thinking.

 

[skeptical]

Just as another interjection, note that prior to the early 70s, it was quite legal for police officers generally to shoot at "fleeing felons". The nature of the felony was not important; a fellow running from the scene could (and often were) be fired at by police officers arriving at the scene.
The SCOTUS ruled somewhere in there (I don't recall the specific case law) that arbitrary imposition of the death penalty, without due process, and without any specific danger being shown to the community, was not justified.

The case was Tennessee v. Garner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

Police departments all over the country changed their shooting policies. I recall the great deal of moaning and wailing among my colleagues at the time. "How will we be able to do our job?" "All the suspects will just run!"
Well, we coped.

Similar gnashing of teeth occurred after Miranda. People thought that would be the end of confessions, but that has hardly been the case. Police are much more flexible than a lot of people give them credit for.

A number of states have recently adopted the so-called "castle" defense doctrine, which essentially removes the responsibility of the homeowner to flee rather than confront criminals. This was never a very practical idea to begin with; many people are entirely incapable of fleeing.

I agree, the retreat rule is both impractical and misleading. Even in those jurisdictions that had it, it only applied if the person felt they could retreat in safety, which left a lot of room for discretion, even assuming that it was physically possible to retreat, which as you say was often not the case.

 

[Ranb]

Why not? Better safe than sorry, eh?

Or are you not quite as comfortable with the murder of your fellow citizens as you might otherwise claim to be?

How do you come up with this reply when I say that a person should not break into a house, and that I would not shoot a helpless person? You are freakin nuts.

Ranb

 

[fuelair]

Well, to be fair on you and Drudge, you have erred on the side of caution here, but it's all these qualifications. All these ifs and buts and maybes. As far as I'm concerned, no-one deserves to die a brutal and horrible death, even if they are a heinous criminal and especially if they are a child. In this case in particular, I think those ANDs and IFs are misplaced. The kid's a KID. Let him steal your stuff. Property crime should not be a capital crime. Where do you want to live? Iran?

And given the number of burglaries (even hot ones) which have gone down with no injuries or deaths, the statistics are on my side. The kind of situation you talk about is beyond rare. People don't break into homes to rape and murder and torture the occupants (99.9% of the time). They break into homes to steal stuff. Burglars steal to get goods to sell. They're not interested in murder.

Look at the stats for burglaries. Look at the stats for 'hot' burglaries. Then look at the stats for compliant homeowners who got killed or raped, and tell me that it's legitimate to fear a housebreaker is going to kill you even if you happen to live in a house that gets burgled.

It's irrational.

And it's that speed that's the problem. Can't you see that? Heat of the moment is no time to be making rational decisions.

Then you are a worse human being than I had hoped. Why are the lives of criminals not worth anything to you? Do you really support the death penalty (and, if I follow your logic, the immediate, extra-judicial death penalty) for all crimes? All property crimes? All violent crimes?

The kind of world you want to inhabit, and the kind of world you and Drudge seem so content to flippantly giggle about, is terrifying. It's a world that celebrates violence; glorifies death; salutes impulsiveness; praises cowardice; demeans human life to beneath that of material goods and fosters paranoia, aggression, fear, suspicion and hate. It's a world that wants to unpick every civil, civilising and humane action of the past 200 years. It wants to undermine the rule of law. It wants to do away with due process. It wants to take society back to the Wild West. It believes might is right, and it believes that the wants of the individual should over-ride the good of the collective.

It is base and backwards. It is juvenile and animalistic. It's not funny. It's not sexy. It's not exciting. It doesn't warrant smilies, or glib remarks, or t-shirts. It doesn't warrant sound-bites, slogans, ifs, buts or maybes. Think about the kind of world you're advocating - one in which each individual's sovereign right is to murder those who wrong him, and in which each individual's property is now quantifiable by the amount of blood he is willing to spill to defend it.

If that thought doesn't turn your stomach one little bit, then maybe you need to keep on thinking.

You have interpreted the world I want to live in very badly indeed. I want to live in a world where everyone respects and values everyone else, where people want to help their neighbors, where no one goes hungry, is homeless, is harrassed over religion or politics or other opinions, where everyone is free to learn and wants to. If I lived in that world, I would be a very happy camper. That is not the world I live in, but I will do what I can to come as close to it as I can in this one. Which requires something totally unnecessary in the world I would prefer: a willingness to fight against those who do not want a world like that - or at least act as if they don't.

 

[volatile]

How do you come up with this reply when I say that a person should not break into a house, and that I would not shoot a helpless person? You are freakin nuts.

Ranb

I was just struck by the disconnect between "Better safe than sorry" and your sudden distaste for bloody murder.

In other words, when is it not better to be safe than sorry? This is kinda my whole point...

 

[volatile]

You have interpreted the world I want to live in very badly indeed. I want to live in a world where everyone respects and values everyone else, where people want to help their neighbors, where no one goes hungry, is homeless, is harrassed over religion or politics or other opinions, where everyone is free to learn and wants to. If I lived in that world, I would be a very happy camper. That is not the world I live in, but I will do what I can to come as close to it as I can in this one. Which requires something totally unnecessary in the world I would prefer: a willingness to fight against those who do not want a world like that - or at least act as if they don't.

Well, it certainly comes across that way, particularly when you talk about subverting the rule of law and of deliberately engendering violent situations where none need exist.

Doesn't it behoove those of us who would strive toward a more civilised society to act in a more civilised manner than those who would act in ways contrary to social order? How does sinking to their level (and in doing so undermining much of what civilised society means in the first place) help make things better? That's what I don't get.

If everyone acted in the way you advocated, or if society was set up to facilitate the type of behaviour you seem to be so enamoured of, then the world would be as I described above. It would be nervous, paranoid and violent. It would be suspicious, anarchic and brutal.

If everyone shot everyone who committed a (violent) crime against them, if everyone deliberately manipulated tense situations such that they resulted in death, if everyone shot first and asked questions later, then the world would be horrible. It would be backward. It would be uncivilised.

Do you not agree?

 

[JoeEllison]

Did you read the law? It says in part "A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force."

It does not say the homeowner is forbidden enter his home to protect it. The law places limits on what the state can do to a person protecting his life or property under certain conditions. If the law does not prohibit an action, then it is legal.

Ranb

Maybe you should take your dime-store legal eagle badge and get a refund? I got my law degree from Law & Order, which is admissible in court.

Note, for the sake of argument, the phrases "who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used" and "not required to retreat before using deadly force." If you are outside of the home and KNOW someone is inside, entering the home could be seen as "provocation" on account of the fact that it isn't self-defense to willfully force a confrontation. Further, while you are not required to retreat, nothing in the law says that you can go chasing after someone in order to deliver deadly force. If you have to go looking for the person in order to shoot them, it isn't self defense.

 

[bigred]

Well, to be fair on you and Drudge, you have erred on the side of caution here, but it's all these qualifications. All these ifs and buts and maybes.

Yeah I hate all this "depends on the circumstances" and "shades of gray" stuff. We all know that everyone at heart is either a rampaging cold-blooded murderer or a bleeding-heart wimp.

As far as I'm concerned, no-one deserves to die a brutal and horrible death, even if they are a heinous criminal

Fine, no problem. But it's a highly subjective thing. Some of us disagree. That doesn't make us psychopaths or nazis FYI.

and especially if they are a child. In this case in particular, I think those ANDs and IFs are misplaced. The kid's a KID. Let him steal your stuff. Property crime should not be a capital crime.

sigh

Disregarding the "he's only a kid" silliness, the stealing thing has been addressed at great length, ie again the circumstances kinda matter. For starters, it is typically difficult to tell whether someone who breaks into your home intends you and/or your family serious hurt or not. If you want to be some noble enlightened pacifist and take a chance by just letting them decide, go for it. Some people would rather not. That hardly makes them a bad person or wrong in defending themselves.

Where do you want to live? Thunderdome?

And given the number of burglaries (even hot ones) which have gone down with no injuries or deaths, the statistics are on my side. The kind of situation you talk about is beyond rare. People don't break into homes to rape and murder and torture the occupants (99.9% of the time). They break into homes to steal stuff. Burglars steal to get goods to sell. They're not interested in murder.

1 - Even if we assume that number is accurate, it can largely be attributed to people casing a home to make sure nobody is home when they steal, which is what most burglars' aim is (for obvious reasons). Small wonder the # of injuries/deaths are low.
2 - You can make statistics say pretty much anything you want.
3 - Even if that stat was true, I have a hunch you would change your tune if someone you loved was in that "mere" .1%
4 - PS and oh btw, people DO on occasion break into homes and do harm to people, either pre-meditated or because they got caught stealing and don't wish to go to jail (ie better to kill the witnesses). Again, why take the chance when your/your family's lives we're talking about? If you want to take your chances, fine; but damning others for refusing to do so makes no sense.

Look at the stats for burglaries. Look at the stats for 'hot' burglaries. Then look at the stats for compliant homeowners who got killed or raped, and tell me that it's legitimate to fear a housebreaker is going to kill you even if you happen to live in a house that gets burgled.

It's irrational.

More twisting of stats/circumstances, ie "if you happen to live in a house that gets burgled" doesn't mean much if you're not home, which is likely.

And it's that speed that's the problem. Can't you see that? Heat of the moment is no time to be making rational decisions.

Good point. If you catch a burglar in your house, you should loudly shout "TIME OUT! TIME OUT! Let's discuss this!"