We cant really know that without digging into case law.
The man will likely be ruined by legal fees win or lose so no one really wins.
Challenging read- Special ops soldier won’t face charges after fatally shooting civilian on his property
- Thread starter GON
- Start date
- Status
We cant really know that without digging into case law.
The man will likely be ruined by legal fees win or lose so no one really wins.
This is 100% true.
Yes exactly that.
The apparently had a civil enough discussion to determine the worker was Chechen, was involved in the Russian-Ukraine conflict etc. A hostile exchange would not contain such details.
Then, home owner goes back to the house not only to retrieve the gun, but has time to tell the story to his wife. Because it is she that mentions this information to the 911 dispatcher and she was home during the first call too.
During all that time their children were outside. He never got them inside, so it’s quite obvious he or his wife didn’t feel they were in danger, otherwise they would get them inside the houses.
So it is rather clear that it was the home owner that escalated the situation. And it looks like the sheriff and the prosecutors office want to protect him by closing this case so quickly.
I hope the family of the diseased fights this and more information comes to light. As this doesn’t appear as cut and dry as most make it up to be.
His initial interaction was with an unarmed man. The home owner went back to the house to get the gun. We don’t know if he concealed or not.
If the gunshot wounds to the back are true, he might’ve realized it at some point and tried to retreat.
Again, your presuming the dead guy, which can’t tell his side of the story, is the aggressor and the homeowner a victim trying to protect himself and his family. It doesn’t appear to be that way.
I disagree, he could easily have communicated that as a threat.
He didn’t speak English and was using a translator app. How is that a threat?
The mental gymnastics are sure in full swing here. We should make it an Olympic sport.
Also:
The 2 911 calls are 10 minutes apart, how could he not have pictures of the utility equipment and be out of there in 10 minutes, but instead was "advancing" on the property?
The 2 911 calls are 10 minutes apart, how could he not have pictures of the utility equipment and be out of there in 10 minutes, but instead was "advancing" on the property?
Actually, all three were present.
Ability - a person of reasonable size and strength can do severe bodily harm. A person with military training, as this person claimed, knows enough to be able to hurt you badly.
Opportunity - He was physically close enough to be able to act.
Intent - Speech is enough, threatening someone is actually assault, but this person lunged - made a physical move.
All three were present.
Further, and this is really important, you must base your assessment only on what was known to the person in the moment. Not on what you know now. So, we all know that this trespasser was working for a cable company. The homeowner did not know that.
So, to your specific assessments, here is where each one of them is wrong.
Ability - does not require a weapon. It never requires a weapon. It only requires physical ability. Someone stating that they have served in the military serves to reinforce this ability to inflict server bodily harm or death.
Opportunity - Some states have a “duty to retreat” - meaning that if there is a conflict, as there was here, that the party that feels threatened must retreat from the situation. In that case, going back inside the house would be required. But this state doesn’t have a duty to retreat. So, by going out to ask the cable guy what he was doing, the homeowner was acting in a reasonable and legal manner. There is no law or principle in this case that requires him to hide in his house when someone is on his property.
The decision to hide in your house, call the cops, and wait (for an indeterminate amount of time in this case, as the Sheriff said they couldn’t come) is a personal one. I support you if you choose to do that. I support this homeowners decision to leave his house and ask the cable guy what he was doing.
Intent - a physical move, or statement that places you in fear of your life. Well, lunging is enough. More than enough. Stating that they are going to hurt somebody is enough. That was absolutely present.
So, all three - clearly present.
And, as I pointed out above, clearly present in the mind of a reasonable person, not you, per se, but a reasonable person in the same situation, knowing only what the person knew at the time.
What’s really interesting, to me, about this case was the declaration of the cable guy that he was Chechen and served in their military. What was the point of that? The only explanation appears to be intimidation. The cable guy wanted to intimidate the homeowner. Instead of explaining, or proving, what he was doing, he chose intimidation. An odd choice.
That might work in Chechnya. Does’t really fly in North Carolina.
Last edited:
You must have read a different account - there was no mention of the children’s location in the accounts I read. Got a link? If in a similar situation, I would absolutely move the children inside before the first confrontation. Simple threat management.
I can see why some would think that the homeowner escalated.
But when asked to leave, the cable guy becomes a trespasser.
At that point - he is committing a crime (trespass) and that really undermines any claim of self defense on his part.
If you’re asked to leave someone’s property - you leave.
Full stop. That’s it.
If you stay to continue your trespass, that is a criminal act, and an aggressive act, so the homeowner escalation could easily be explained as response to the cable guy’s escalation.
Please show me in the article where the worker used the translator with the homeowner.
I would to if a Chechen national with no equipment and no identification was taking pictures of my rural house with my kids.
Again, show that in the article. I've read 4 different ones and none of them say where the kids where once the conflict started.
No it's not clear, you're making things up again.
Anyways, the homeowner has already been pardoned anyways.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2022
- Messages
- 339
Probably should've just stayed inside and kept the door shut. Why give up that vantage point?
Listen to the two 911 calls the wife makes, it has more details than the articles, which try to paint the homeowner in the positive light.
She says in both calls they are on the property line, there are more than one, then when questioned she says she doesn't know, she says the kids are outside. She never claims the worker was taking pictures of the kids only the property.
So far I've seen no proof the worker was actually trespassing. There is a big chance he was on the easement.
Last edited:
Yup, especially since he is a military men and should know more than an average civilian. Yet, I bet the story would've been different if the owner was a civilian.
The 911 calls posted, the wife says "the children our outside with my husband". I think that is as good as were going to get. That was as specific as she got in the heat of the moment. She mentions no threat to the children, just the guy taking pictures and the children are outside. The calls are worth a listen.
Legally that is a incorrect argument. Look at the Rittenhouse case. The prosecutor tried to say that since a 17 year old kid had a gun in public which was a crime, and hence self defense was not a defense. Jury disagreed.
Clearly he should have left. But he didn't think he was trespassing. Smart person would have left anyway - but none of us were there. Being dumb is not illegal.
Can't shoot someone for trespass. Self defense has to be imminent threat. We only know one side, so this could definitely go either way, but from a legal standpoint that is what Jury's do.
Last edited:
Your are right. I thought that information only came up during the investigation.
Establishing country of origin still doesn't mean anything. Worker still had zero equipment, identification, and clearly didn't leave the property when told to.
She ALSO says property.
Well yes, but every one with the exception of @SC Maintenance and me assumes the guy was trespassing. As far as I can tell we are the only ones in this thread to say that it's not that clear as everyone is making it out to be.
How do we know the home owner didn’t declare it first and the worker responded that he’s also a military men? Maybe hoping to get some comradely going to diffuse the situation?
Again, dead men don't talk, so we’ll likely never know .
- Status
