This Will Make For An Interesting Gun Rights Case

[Kuato]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
I doubt he'll go to prison, but sadly he will lose more to lawyers than to the burglars.

You don't shoot people in they backs when they are running away. Even if they are burglars. Common sense thing. He should have shot then on the spot.


Although I agree in principle, I have to agree with the old guy. He was burglarized 4 times. He was attacked, beaten and suffered broken bones. It was self defense. Maybe not in an immediate sense, but in a broader view - like stopping them from coming back later.

With the character of the two robbers, I bet they would have come back - maybe to finish both the job of robbing him, and the job of killing him.

 

[djb]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek

You don't shoot people in they backs when they are running away. Even if they are burglars. Common sense thing. He should have shot then on the spot.


They left only when they saw a gun.
It appears that the female was covering the male's escape by claiming she was pregnant, believing that the victim wouldn't shoot a pregnant woman. She wasn't pregnant, so it seems likely that it was a pre-planned strategy.

Without that detail, this would be just another home invasion shooting. The exact details would matter, and hopefully the jury would consider carefully. Of course it wouldn't have made the national news.

With the pregnancy claim, they look a lot more like cynical career criminals.

 

[Astro14]

This case isn't about gun rights - it's about the right to self defense. When it exists, when the threat exists, when does it end, when does a threat end...

 

[javacontour]

It's not a gun rights case. It's a case where a man was being deprived the right to live in peace by thugs who don't respect property rights.

The title of this thread is all wrong.

 

[Cutehumor]

defending the home and if your life is in danger one thing. but chasing them outside the home to kill them. I don't know, but I don't get my jollies getting revenge and killing someone.

 

[Cujet]

A fleeing criminal is still in the act of committing a crime.

 

[splinter]

Yeah the DA is going to hear from both sides on this one.

Upside is we needn't waste too many 'public' funds on the late "I'm pregnant!" perpetrator.

 

[Kiwi_ME]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
A fleeing criminal is still in the act of committing a crime.
And is there still a threat to one's life while they are fleeing?

It is the lack of self-control that concerns me about wholesale gun ownership. Despite the beating (which didn't seem to slow him down much) he should have known exactly what he could and could not do under law. Being under duress is not an excuse for poor judgement when you are in charge of a lethal weapon.

 

[Kuato]

Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Originally Posted By: Cujet
A fleeing criminal is still in the act of committing a crime.
And is there still a threat to one's life while they are fleeing?


Yes, since he could not be sure they didn't have a gun to fire while they ran. He took initiative to be sure of his safety.


Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME

It is the lack of self-control that concerns me about wholesale gun ownership. Despite the beating (which didn't seem to slow him down much) he should have known exactly what he could and could not do under law. Being under duress is not an excuse for poor judgement when you are in charge of a lethal weapon.


I would like to hear your position on this after you've had your house broken into and items stolen, 4 times, then another break in where you are beaten and your bones broken. If you still feel the same after that, then and only then will I agree with you. There is NO WAY you can understand what this man went through, prior to or during the robbery. You don't know if the robbers screamed "we'll be back you F**ker, you're dead" which, after all he had been through would make him need to defend himself.

Obviously you've never been in an survival situation where you did not have time to discuss, cogitate, debate, or otherwise make any consideration about exercising judgment, or, in fact do anything except taking action.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Originally Posted By: Cujet
A fleeing criminal is still in the act of committing a crime.
And is there still a threat to one's life while they are fleeing?


Of course there is. Criminals regularly return to vehicles to retrieve weapons. In fact, in the other thread where the gas station attendant "fights" the criminals, they do just that. Get in the car, start to drive off, return, open the door, get out of the car, and head right back to the gas station attendant.

I don't know you, and I don't want to presume you have no experience with criminal behavior. And, I'm not an expert either. However, the position on "fleeing" you seem to take in this thread is EXACTLY what criminals expect. Not only will criminals return, but they will do so violently.

You might want to consider exactly what seasoned criminals often do. They may burglarize a location, without carrying weapons. This eliminates the risk of being charged with armed robbery if caught in the act. Yet, they will often have weapons nearby "if needed". Locally, they use a "get away car" driven by someone else. We see exactly this behavior in my neighborhood. And, I've experienced it first hand, more than once.

Also, criminals will go right next door, if unsuccessful at your location and rob/kill your mother in law. A fleeing felon is still in the commission of a crime.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Originally Posted By: Cujet
A fleeing criminal is still in the act of committing a crime.
And is there still a threat to one's life while they are fleeing?

It is the lack of self-control that concerns me about wholesale gun ownership. Despite the beating (which didn't seem to slow him down much) he should have known exactly what he could and could not do under law. Being under duress is not an excuse for poor judgement when you are in charge of a lethal weapon.


Until you've been in combat, or a life or death situation, it's very easy to be the "armchair quarterback" and judge using a set of unreasonable criteria.

You don't know how you react under that kind of stress, how adrenaline affects motor skills, etc...so it's not fair to judge the actions of someone in a fight for their life, using the relative calm of your living room and the stress of typing on a keyboard.

You've got to look at their actions using the standard of the "reasonable man". What would a reasonable person do, knowing only what this person knew (not what is now known), and under the stress that this person was under (not the relative calm you're experiencing)...

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Originally Posted By: Cujet
A fleeing criminal is still in the act of committing a crime.
And is there still a threat to one's life while they are fleeing?

It is the lack of self-control that concerns me about wholesale gun ownership. Despite the beating (which didn't seem to slow him down much) he should have known exactly what he could and could not do under law. Being under duress is not an excuse for poor judgement when you are in charge of a lethal weapon.

So you know they're fleeing vs finding cover to regroup? You expect a lot out of the homeowner. Why not expect a little out of the the criminals? The easiest answer is don't rob people. If you do decide to rob people they could possibly react poorly or unfairly and send you to the cemetery. I have more concern with who comes in 123rd at the Tour de France than what happens to a mess of tissue running around victimizing people.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: hatt
I have more concern with who comes in 123rd at the Tour de France than what happens to a mess of tissue running around victimizing people.


Exactly right! Thank you.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Way to go homeowner!

Too bad he didn't get the male scum bag too

I'm amazed that so few here get it.

When you illegally enter a person's home you are automatically a threat to that homeowner which gives him the right to eliminate that threat up to and including using deadly force. Even if the criminal is at that moment fleeing, how could you know if they are not looking to return armed to kill you? Once you enter the home the perp is a justified target, even when he is leaving.

 

[ryansride2017]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Way to go homeowner!

Too bad he didn't get the male scum bag too

I'm amazed that so few here get it.

When you illegally enter a person's home you are automatically a threat to that homeowner which gives him the right to eliminate that threat up to and including using deadly force. Even if the criminal is at that moment fleeing, how could you know if they are not looking to return armed to kill you? Once you enter the home the perp is a justified target, even when he is leaving.



Your first sentence is correct....your second one is not. There are strict "rules of engagement" of when you can use a firearm for self defense.....and shooting someone as they are fleeing is not one of them. In order to shoot someone, your safety needs to be in imminent danger. Simply saying "they could be going to get a weapon to return" is not a good defense. I will admit, though, that following my own advice is another story after getting beaten by 2 individuals in my home. As I said earlier, if no charges are posted against the homeowner, this sets a dangerous precedent. Hopefully members located close to this event can keep us all updated.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: ryansride2017


Your first sentence is correct....your second one is not. There are strict "rules of engagement" of when you can use a firearm for self defense.....and shooting someone as they are fleeing is not one of them. In order to shoot someone, your safety needs to be in imminent danger. Simply saying "they could be going to get a weapon to return" is not a good defense. I will admit, though, that following my own advice is another story after getting beaten by 2 individuals in my home. As I said earlier, if no charges are posted against the homeowner, this sets a dangerous precedent. Hopefully members located close to this event can keep us all updated.

Robbing people leads to lead poisoning seems like a pretty good precedent to me.

The guy would have zero worries had he followed common sense and never ever ever answer police questions or make statements without representation. The police don't even talk to the police after a shooting before the union/lawyer is involved.

 

[ryansride2017]

Originally Posted By: hatt

Robbing people leads to lead poisoning seems like a pretty good precedent to me.

The guy would have zero worries had he followed common sense and never ever ever answer police questions or make statements without representation. The police don't even talk to the police after a shooting before the union/lawyer is involved.


Do I believe someone that beats and robs an 80 year old man deserves to be shot....yes. But I also understand that there are consequences to my actions. Anyone that has a firearm has to understand how and when they can use that firearm without legal consequences.

Castle Doctrine

Once again, to shoot and kill someone, you must be in imminent danger. The 80 year old man was not in imminent danger at the time when he discharged his weapon. If he would have shot them inside his house while they were advancing toward him....different story.

 

[hatt]

Nothing to do with deserve. I understand these events are very stressful and people do not act perfectly when forced into it. Knowing this I give victims wide leeway in dealing with criminals. It's very easy to avoid being shot in the living room by on overreacting homeowner in the middle of the night. Out on the streets I'd be more critical.

Quote:
Once again, to shoot and kill someone, you must be in imminent danger.
In most places you have to "believe" you're in danger. Someone in your house qualifies for sure. What he says after the fact probably isn't what he was feeling during. It's why you don't run your mouth.

 

[Kiwi_ME]

Originally Posted By: Kuato
I would like to hear your position on this after you've had your house broken into and items stolen, 4 times, then another break in where you are beaten and your bones broken. ...

Well I did not know that past history of crimes against you can be used to extend the boundaries of the use of lethal force against someone who is fleeing from you. Nor did I know that you can chase someone down and shoot them just in case they might come back.

I can understand everyone's frustration with crime in the places you have to live or choose to live but there have to be legal boundaries unless you have totally given up living in a civilized society.

Originally Posted By: ryansride2017
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Way to go homeowner!

Too bad he didn't get the male scum bag too

I'm amazed that so few here get it.
When you illegally enter a person's home you are automatically a threat to that homeowner which gives him the right to eliminate that threat up to and including using deadly force. Even if the criminal is at that moment fleeing, how could you know if they are not looking to return armed to kill you? Once you enter the home the perp is a justified target, even when he is leaving.


Your first sentence is correct....your second one is not. There are strict "rules of engagement" of when you can use a firearm for self defense.....and shooting someone as they are fleeing is not one of them. In order to shoot someone, your safety needs to be in imminent danger. Simply saying "they could be going to get a weapon to return" is not a good defense. I will admit, though, that following my own advice is another story after getting beaten by 2 individuals in my home. As I said earlier, if no charges are posted against the homeowner, this sets a dangerous precedent. Hopefully members located close to this event can keep us all updated.

So why is your opinion so logical and different from the others? Clearly emotional control is a key attribute if you are going to arm everyone. We all know how good humans are at that - we can't even drive a car without getting angry.

I do appreciate the alternative views however, and yes I have been lucky enough not to be a victim of any serious crime yet, despite living in the US most of my life. But having moved away a decade ago it gives me an appreciation that there are other ways of running a society.

 

[strat81]

I love a good California dogpile, but this guy would be in hot water just about anywhere. Shooting people in the back outside your house is asking for trouble.

That said, I sympathize with the guy and would not find him guilty of a crime if I was on the jury.