Challenging read- Special ops soldier won’t face charges after fatally shooting civilian on his property

[SC Maintenance]

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.

Even if he was - you can't shoot someone for trespassing. In fact - my post in #138 outlines my position even if the guy was 100% trespassing.

I don't think we know. It matters only because the local sheriff sighted "castle doctrine". If he wasn't trespassing there 100% is no castle doctrine. Even if he was trespassing - he has to actually attack the castle for it to apply. (in NC at least)

 

[alarmguy]

I am sure the situation was examined closely, much more than this forum. Picked apart piece by piece and ruled justified.
Case closed

One thing is true even though it's justified, the homeowners hell is just starting. Lots of people with time on their hands in the USA looking to make a name for themselves and this family will have to endure the next decade of civil actions on "behalf" of the dead mans family.

 

[andrew_j]

The homeowner who shot the guy was an officer. Tragic error on the part of the employer for not requiring their employees to wear clothing which would identify who they were OR for allowing employees to perform this type of work at night.

The homeowner made a tragic error in judgment also.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

I am sure the situation was examined closely, much more than this forum. Picked apart piece by piece and ruled justified.
Case closed

One thing is true even though it's justified, the homeowners hell is just starting. Lots of people with time on their hands in the USA looking to make a name for themselves and this family will have to endure the next decade of civil actions on "behalf" of the dead mans family.

It has all the trappings of a good conspiracy. Yellow journalists will run with this to see if it has legs.

 

[DuckRyder]

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.

There is a lot we don't know. I submit that if a mainstream newspaper published that he was acting aggressively and lunged the truth is probably much worse, but i don't know that. I don't have the lot lines and a diagram of where he was, he may or may not have been trespassing. One would think the Sheriff would have sussed this out though.

It's clear to me at least that the homeowners perceived he was trespassing and asked him to leave. I believe any reasonable person would leave at that point.

I've deal with a goodly number of people who "don't speak english" and my experience is most of them speak and understand more than they let on, its just not their preference.

Though i think speaking english would have eased the situation, i don't fault the guy for using an app if it wasn't expected he would be dealing with people. The decision to do this at dusk certainly increased the chances he would encounter homeowners though.

 

[Astro14]

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 .

We don’t know. That may have been what happened. It may not.

As you say, it’s likely that we will never know.

There is only one side of the story that will be heard.

 

[Astro14]

The homeowner made a tragic error in judgment also.

That’s not clear. If he did make a tragic error, then they would have had grounds to indict him.

If his story is true, then it was a self defense situation.

As has been correctly, pointed out, we only got one side of the story.

That is the side on which the Sheriff’s department made their determination not to press charges.

 

[Pablo]

It has all the trappings of a good conspiracy. Yellow journalists will run with this to see if it has legs.

Yes and no.

I am waiting to see who the actual contractor is. There are so many details left out. There could be a heck of a lot more to this, or it could be two bone heads.

I don't call such things "yellow" unless things are purposely left out of reports to make a (political) point.

 

[Astro14]

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.

I never said, anywhere in this thread, or any other, that you can shoot for trespass.

Self defense must be a necessary, proportional, response to a threat. That threat requires ability, opportunity and intent.

So, let’s remain clear on that, and let’s not take the quote out of context. You don’t shoot somebody to stop a crime, you shoot somebody to stop a threat, a threat of severe bodily harm or death.

In NO other case is lethal force justified.

 

[alarmguy]

Self defense must be a necessary, proportional, response to a threat. That threat requires ability, opportunity and intent.

So, let’s remain clear on that, and let’s not take the quote out of context. You don’t shoot somebody to stop a crime, you shoot somebody to stop a threat, a threat of severe bodily harm or death.

In NO other case is lethal force justified.

Or in that state law, "believe" there is a treat of severe bodily harm or death. It does not have to be proven. Case closed.

“The homeowner’s actions were deemed justifiable under the North Carolina Castle Doctrine, which allows for the use of defensive force in situations where there is a perceived imminent threat to personal and family safety within one’s home or property,”

 

[chainblu]

Like I said earlier, if I was to shoot someone, you better believe I'm going to tell the deputies that he "became aggressive and lunged". Yes sir, that man was absolutely deranged! *wink*

And again, standing on a utility easement (if that was the case) is not "trespassing."

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Like I said earlier, if I was to shoot someone, you better believe I'm going to tell the deputies that he "became aggressive and lunged". Yes sir, that man was absolutely deranged! *wink*

And again, standing on a utility easement (if that was the case) is not "trespassing."

You can make up any scenario in your mind that you want. The on the scene sheriff, aware of all the facts in evidence, decided it was a good shoot.
Personally, I'd like to nominate the deceased individual for the Darwin Award.

 

[chainblu]

Personally, I'd like to nominate the deceased individual for the Darwin Award.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

I will accept your posting of a meme as acknowledgment that you lost the argument

 

[Pew]

One thing is for sure, the company is going to lose their contract and not ever going to get a contract with a major utility company. Safety briefs for everyone for the coming months.

 

[chainblu]

I will accept your posting of a meme as acknowledgment that you lost the argument

I was being funny. I'm sorry you think this is an argument. I'm just sharing different points of view. I agree, the man thought he was in danger. But I don't think he ever was.

 

[SC Maintenance]

There are lots of things that really, really bother me about this entire thing. Maybe one of the biggest is how on earth is a dude walking down a powerline right of way in flip flops and shorts. His bottom half would be cut to shreds.

This whole story is just strange.

 

[loneryder]

The homeowner who shot the guy was an officer. Tragic error on the part of the employer for not requiring their employees to wear clothing which would identify who they were OR for allowing employees to perform this type of work at night.

I just had fiber installed and there were two independent contractors. They were identified. The guy who finally installed it was from Ukraine, been here 20 yrs but still had a strong accent. Nobody took pics. Subs came out, looked at where the 1000' of cable had to go and laid and buried it. No scouting.

 

[johnnydc]

My oldest son is a utility contractor for RGE. It's mandatory he wears bright green shirt with company name. Work pants, boots, hard hat. Also badge with picture and ident card.

 

[loneryder]

Did you read the article?

The homeowner went out, ask the guy what he was doing, asked him to leave, the guy didn’t speak English and refused to leave.

the homeowner called 911

The sheriffs office said that they were on another important call and couldn’t get there

The guy continued taking pictures of the homeowners property, where there was a family.

Since the guy was continuing to take pictures of his property, and the sheriff was not able to come, the homeowner armed himself and went back out to confront the guy again.

The wife was on the phone with the sheriffs office via 911 when the homeowner went back out. That was their second call to 911.

Again, the guy refused to leave, then he turned violent toward the homeowner.

Since the police weren’t coming, what would you do?

Would you let a guy who didn’t speak English, couldn’t tell you why he was there, and refused to leave your property continue to take pictures of your house?

Would you view that as not a threat?

Sorry, but some guy in a nondescript car, wearing nondescript clothes, who can’t explain the reason why he’s on my property, and cannot tell me why he’s taking pictures of my house, looks a lot like a threat.

If I call 911 about a threat and they refuse to come, then yes, I might go out and confront them again.

When the police tell you that they can’t come, what options do you have?

And we don't know the soldiers background, where he served, etc. Some of those guys have prices on their heads.