Unusual intruder shooting case

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Regardless of the legality of shooting in defense of property, I find it morally repugnant. To take a life in exchange for defense of a thing is simply wrong, even if the law might allow that in your jurisdiction.

To me, shooting in defense of property violates both necessity and proportionality principles of lethal force that I previously discussed.


I for one believe that theft is a reason to use lethal force.

Property is obtained through the fruits of one's labor, and that labor consumes time out one's life. Time is a limited commodity of life that cannot be replaced. So when someone immorally removes your property, they are really stealing irreplaceable time from your life.

I recently had several hundred dollars worth of tools removed from vehicle by a thief, so I can understand the feelings this homeowner was experiencing. However, firing (apparently) blindly into a dark garage is not a responsible use of a firearm, IMHO.

You are nuts... Think a little about what you typed... How is that going to work practically? You see an guy carrying your skil saw out of your garage and you will just shoot him in the back?
Or see a shoplifter run out of a store with a t-shirt and gun them down?
Jeez, I hope you never get free cable by accident, Time Warner will add you to their hit list for their death squad...
You are shining example of gun ownership should be a licensed privilege.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Regardless of the legality of shooting in defense of property, I find it morally repugnant. To take a life in exchange for defense of a thing is simply wrong, even if the law might allow that in your jurisdiction.

To me, shooting in defense of property violates both necessity and proportionality principles of lethal force that I previously discussed.


I for one believe that theft is a reason to use lethal force.

Property is obtained through the fruits of one's labor, and that labor consumes time out one's life. Time is a limited commodity of life that cannot be replaced. So when someone immorally removes your property, they are really stealing irreplaceable time from your life.

I recently had several hundred dollars worth of tools removed from vehicle by a thief, so I can understand the feelings this homeowner was experiencing. However, firing (apparently) blindly into a dark garage is not a responsible use of a firearm, IMHO.

You are nuts... Think a little about what you typed... How is that going to work practically? You see an guy carrying your skil saw out of your garage and you will just shoot him in the back?
Or see a shoplifter run out of a store with a t-shirt and gun them down?
Jeez, I hope you never get free cable by accident, Time Warner will add you to their hit list for their death squad...
You are shining example of gun ownership should be a licensed privilege.


The people who want even more firearm restrictions love this guy,

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan

You are nuts... Think a little about what you typed... How is that going to work practically? You see an guy carrying your skil saw out of your garage and you will just shoot him in the back?
Or see a shoplifter run out of a store with a t-shirt and gun them down?
Jeez, I hope you never get free cable by accident, Time Warner will add you to their hit list for their death squad...
You are shining example of gun ownership should be a licensed privilege.

I'm nuts after clearly stating that I think what this guy did was wrong? Got it.

This is my opinion, it is not what the law in question says.

Should someone be forced to stand by and watch while his livelihood and life's work is removed in front of his eyes because the police don't arrive in time? There are times when rule of law breaks down and there are no police around to protect your property. What then?

The military exists to use force so as to protect the property of a nation's people, not just lives.

Police exist for the same reason. They use force to protect people's property all the time. Their duty is to bring third party offenders to the court system so as to adjudicate guilt or innocence as a matter of law. They should only use lethal force to protect life because it is not their property they defending.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Astro14


Regardless of the legality of shooting in defense of property, I find it morally repugnant. To take a life in exchange for defense of a thing is simply wrong, even if the law might allow that in your jurisdiction.

To me, shooting in defense of property violates both necessity and proportionality principles of lethal force that I previously discussed.


A person should be allowed a route to citizen's arrest (at gunpoint, if needed) in defense of property... though in practicality, he'd make a statement that "the guy tried to run" or "he rushed me" depending on if he was shot in the front or the back. One shouldn't have to get close enough to the perp to muscle them. The law should include a duty to yell "Stop."

I'm thinking of a rancher protecting his cattle, or a disabled mechanic defending a garage full of tools he hopes to use again someday. One's livelihood.


In other arguments, the claim has been that if youre robbed, the perps will try to kill you regardless in order to stay anonymous. Not sure if there is/isnt basis for this to be the case, but it creates justification for escallation. I generally agree with Astro's comments here, but the situations make the risk very difficult to assess.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Regardless of the legality of shooting in defense of property, I find it morally repugnant. To take a life in exchange for defense of a thing is simply wrong, even if the law might allow that in your jurisdiction.

To me, shooting in defense of property violates both necessity and proportionality principles of lethal force that I previously discussed.


I for one believe that theft is a reason to use lethal force.

Property is obtained through the fruits of one's labor, and that labor consumes time out one's life. Time is a limited commodity of life that cannot be replaced. So when someone immorally removes your property, they are really stealing irreplaceable time from your life.

I recently had several hundred dollars worth of tools removed from vehicle by a thief, so I can understand the feelings this homeowner was experiencing. However, firing (apparently) blindly into a dark garage is not a responsible use of a firearm, IMHO.

You are nuts... Think a little about what you typed... How is that going to work practically? You see an guy carrying your skil saw out of your garage and you will just shoot him in the back?
Or see a shoplifter run out of a store with a t-shirt and gun them down?
Jeez, I hope you never get free cable by accident, Time Warner will add you to their hit list for their death squad...
You are shining example of gun ownership should be a licensed privilege.



The theft of property is not worth loss of life.
I've been ripped off more times than I can count being in construction its very common for tools to be stolen.
So should I sit there, leaving tools out in the open,switch my scope sight set and shoot the first idiot that sees a score and tries to steal them.
You can't be serious.
If an intruder is coming into my home and I fear for my families safety then I promise you dental records won't ID the poor schmuck however if an intruder is breaking into my detached garage to steal I'll get on the phone,call the cops,then stand out there with a bead on him til the popo arrive.
But killing a guy for stealing property is truly absurd.
Life,human life whether dirtbag or not is put here by a power larger than myself,and I don't gave the right to take it unless I feel as though its them or me.
To kill a man for stealing is truly stupid. I don't see any laws anywhere saying that theft is a Capitol crime,and justice to be dealt by the victim.
Smarten up.



Well put IndyIan.
Guys like that are the reason gun ownership laws are getting tougher.

 

[antiqueshell]

This is a fairly recent pattern among theives (past couple of decades or so) when robberies are commited the perps will make sure to murder the property/homeowners because they are in fact witnesses and can identify the subjects during a criminal investigation. These thieves are ruthless, and have NO conscience about the death of a victim. Because this is a increasing trend I believe that ANY time a person trespasses (especially during hours of darkness) a potential victim should be ready to terminate the potential threat of these criminals, shoot first and ask questions later applies in many states where you can defend both person and private property.

I can't wait to see this homeowner have all charges dismissed against him.

 

[Sam2000]

Wow if the standard for shooting someone is theft then car dealers, repair chains, realtors, politicians, Wall St better watch out as they are committing far larger theft every day compared to 17 year old exchange students.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Regardless of the legality of shooting in defense of property, I find it morally repugnant. To take a life in exchange for defense of a thing is simply wrong, even if the law might allow that in your jurisdiction.

To me, shooting in defense of property violates both necessity and proportionality principles of lethal force that I previously discussed.


I for one believe that theft is a reason to use lethal force.

Property is obtained through the fruits of one's labor, and that labor consumes time out one's life. Time is a limited commodity of life that cannot be replaced. So when someone immorally removes your property, they are really stealing irreplaceable time from your life.

I recently had several hundred dollars worth of tools removed from vehicle by a thief, so I can understand the feelings this homeowner was experiencing. However, firing (apparently) blindly into a dark garage is not a responsible use of a firearm, IMHO.


I cannot imagine any case in which lethal force to prevent a theft would be justified. Sure, you worked hard for your things, but they're just things and they can be replaced. You're saying that my plasma TV is worth a person's life? Is my car? If so, which one? The one that I value? The one that is worth the most?

If your argument is that, in Montana many years ago, someone rustling your cattle, or stealing your horse, meant that your children would starve this winter, then, OK, I accept the use of lethal force to prevent their privation and possible death. You would be defending an innocent life against severe bodily harm or death. That satisfies my condition of proportionality.

But simple property, in modern times (meaning, it's insured, readily replaceable, and your life doesn't immediately depend on it) is not worth a person's life. Even if that person is a [censored] thief. To use lethal force to defend property fails to meet the test of proportionality.

To examine the "fruits of one's labor" aspect of your argument, let's look at other ways in which you might lose some of those fruits: a recent traffic accident deprived me of the use of my car for Christmas vacation. Her insurance paid for the repair, but there was a cost to me in $$, in time lost, in vacation cut short...I worked hard for those things and I cannot replace lost time, or lost $$.

So, I would be justified, then, in the use of lethal force to prevent this careless driver from hitting me and depriving me of some of the fruits of my labor? I should shoot her to prevent the accident?

It's defense of my property after all. She chose to ignore the traffic laws, chose to endanger me...so, I am justified in shooting, her, right?

Please, the only legitimate use of lethal force is to prevent serious bodily (not minor, serious) harm or death to another. That's it.

 

[Astro14]

Let's clear up one other point as well: killing.

You never have a right to kill someone. Period. The right to end a life belongs solely with the state.

You have a right to self-defense. That means that you may use force, up to and including lethal force, to prevent serious bodily harm or death to another person, including you.

Your use of force, however, is to stop the threat. Remove ability, opportunity or intent, and the threat is over, and lethal force is no longer justified.

So, intruder breaks in to your house. Castle doctrine says that you may consider him a threat. You shoot to end the threat. Intruder falls, drops his weapon and is now on the ground. Can you shoot him again? How about one good headshot to end this [censored]'s future predation? Well...it depends...does he still present a threat to your? Does he still have the intent? The ability? If the threat is over, then your right to use lethal force no longer exists.

As a responsible, ethical person, I think that the threat determination is key. That's where I fault this homeowner. He didn't see who he was shooting at. He just fired. Castle doctrine may allow him to consider anyone making an illegal entry to be a threat, but he made no effort to determine threat.

You don't get to kill scumbags in your garage just because you're angry, or there's a baby in the house, or you've been ripped off, or you're waiting up hoping to kill them.

You can use lethal force against them if they present a threat. NOT kill, use lethal force. The difference is in your objective. One seeks to stop the threat, regardless of how. One seeks to end a human life. Deliberately seeking to end a life is manslaughter, regardless of justification.

You have a right to defend against a threat, not a right to kill. You're not James Bond. Ever.

 

[Astro14]

One other point I would like to discuss: clear determination.

This is where I like Clevy's advice above. If you find yourself in a situation in which lethal force is required, you must make certain that the intent of your adversary is unambiguously clear. If they're interested only in Clevy's tools, they're thieves. Their intent will be clear if they stay in Clevy's garage.

If they come into Clevy's house, then they are more than thieves and present a clear threat. The use of lethal force is justified: it's necessary and it's proportional.

Personally, should I find myself with an intruder in the house, I will remain upstairs, arm myself, have my wife call 911 and tell the intruder (in no uncertain terms, perhaps with a hint of profanity) of my intent to defend myself.

If they subsequently leave, they have saved their own life, and a bunch of legal hassle for me. If they come upstairs, they have so clearly demonstrated their intent that I will shoot, and be able to live with the aftermath of that shooting, both legally and morally, for the rest of my life.

If the intruder turns out to be my stepson, who dropped by, didn't tell me he was coming and let himself in the house using his key...then I will have avoided a horrible mistake, and he will have learned a lesson about calling ahead and letting people know your plans.

That determination of clear threat, of unambiguous intent, is where this case goes so wrong. Sure, Castle Doctrine allows you to consider anyone inside your "occupiable space" to be a threat, but that doesn't mean that every intruder is actually a threat...this shooter didn't take any reasonable steps to ensure the threat, ensure the ID of who he was shooting...hiding behind a legal definition is no substitute for sound action or reasonable judgement. I don't think that this homeowner displayed either.

 

[OVERKILL]

Great posts Astro

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Great posts Astro

Agreed.



I cannot imagine killing someone for taking stuff. It's just stuff.
Desperate people will do some pretty crazy stuff however most theives don't make the jump to murder.
Let's remember a third wants money,that's it. Very few make the jump to murder unless they've got nothing to lose.
If this guy gets off after baiting and basically asking for a situation I'll eat my shirt.

That's like inviting a crackhead into your house,putting some crack on the table in front of him,and shooting him when he takes it.
When did shooting theives become sport.

 

[Astro14]

Thanks for your kind words Overkill. I think that there are misconceptions on use of lethal force. I was hoping to clarify some of the more important points. The understanding of those points is critical to anyone who intends to use a firearm as well as anyone discussing this case.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Great posts Astro

Very much so. Well thought out.

 

[Gokhan]

Since when the punishment for burglary has been execution on sight?

This guy's obvious goal was hunting people.

No foreign student goes around neighborhoods and commits burglaries. He was probably making a shortcut at night by the property. It's not even clear if he was shot inside the garage or outside the garage.

Give this guy the correct sentence -- first-degree murder -- and lock him up for life. This is a real clear case. Murder is murder and self-defense is self-defense and this is certainly murder -- in the first degree.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
You and others here keep "forgetting" that it is a fact that the homeowner experienced repeated trespass and break and enter crimes.


You, and some others, keep "forgetting", scratch that, ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter how many times he was trespassed against.

You keep ignoring the fact that he left the garage door five and a half feet off the ground. (How is going through an open door "breaking and entering"?)

You keep ignoring the fact that he left bait. That he waited over several days, for some one to take it. And to shoot them.

You claim the dead kid had choices. You keep ignoring the fact that the killer also had choices. Did he close and lock the garage door? Put in an alarm system?

No. he *chose* to put in motion detectors. he chose to put in a video system. he *chose* to entice someone into the garage by putting attractive bait.

He *chose* to start shooting. He didn't have to. Why did he?

Because he got robbed a couple of times and wanted to make someone, anyone, pay for it.

He was too stupid to take any reasonable steps to keep someone out of the garage. He is too stupid to own firearms. It's people like that who add fuel to the gun control fire.

People like him make it easy to paint those of us who are responsible firearms owners as gun crazed who would rather shoot first and ask questions later, if ever.

And people like you help them do that. Well done.




Trajan

I rarely agree with you however I will call a spade a spade here and mention that you've made some excellent points,and I can't help but agree.
So I'm sending you one of those cheers beers thingies,I just don't know how to

 

[Clevy]

I just can't get over stuff being worth killing for.
A few hundred or thousands of dollars,chump change really,is worth the snuffing out of some idiot.

As a kid I did B&E's. We stole booze,however stealing is stealing. I was caught,pled guilty and never did it again.
Now I'm a tax payer,employer and a father now. Should I have been shot down in my youth for being stupid.

 

[Win]

I was right there with you, until the word unambiguous came up.

A home intrusion is an inherently ambiguous situation - there is simply no way to divine the intentions of an intruder, whose intentions can also change on a whim, from mere thief, to something more sinister.

One could say, reasonably, I think, that the mere act of entering an occupiable structure is making a statement about the concern, or lack thereof, the intruder has for the well being of the occupants.

Why should a homeowner have to be the one to make all these finely honed calculations regarding the intentions of an intruder? Intruders are the persons who create the ambiguity over their intentions. There is nothing immoral, or unjust, in making the intruder bear the risk of a bad outcome. It's immoral, and unjust, to put that burden off on anyone other than the intruder.

Personally, although I'm perfectly OK with castle doctrines and stand your ground laws, if I'm given any opportunity to retreat with safety, that's what I personally would do. It's legally and morally sound. I have no desire to be a hero - or a test case. DF would be a last resort for me.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Let's clear up one other point as well: killing.

You never have a right to kill someone. Period. The right to end a life belongs solely with the state.

You have a right to self-defense. That means that you may use force, up to and including lethal force, to prevent serious bodily harm or death to another person, including you.

Your use of force, however, is to stop the threat. Remove ability, opportunity or intent, and the threat is over, and lethal force is no longer justified.

So, intruder breaks in to your house. Castle doctrine says that you may consider him a threat. You shoot to end the threat. Intruder falls, drops his weapon and is now on the ground. Can you shoot him again? How about one good headshot to end this [censored]'s future predation? Well...it depends...does he still present a threat to your? Does he still have the intent? The ability? If the threat is over, then your right to use lethal force no longer exists.

As a responsible, ethical person, I think that the threat determination is key. That's where I fault this homeowner. He didn't see who he was shooting at. He just fired. Castle doctrine may allow him to consider anyone making an illegal entry to be a threat, but he made no effort to determine threat.

You don't get to kill scumbags in your garage just because you're angry, or there's a baby in the house, or you've been ripped off, or you're waiting up hoping to kill them.

You can use lethal force against them if they present a threat. NOT kill, use lethal force. The difference is in your objective. One seeks to stop the threat, regardless of how. One seeks to end a human life. Deliberately seeking to end a life is manslaughter, regardless of justification.

You have a right to defend against a threat, not a right to kill. You're not James Bond. Ever.


Very well discussed, the whole bunch of consecutive posts...

My issue with this one, is that if perps have the "right" to sue you for bodily harm, lost future wages, etc when you defended yourself in your home to their threat... Then we have an issue.

And I think this has been made precedent, at least in some places. If so, then the tried by twelve vs carried by six (or however it goes) concept of operations starts to prevail in many peoples' minds, even if a more sane approach truly exists in their brain. Unfortunate.

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Great posts Astro

Agreed.



I cannot imagine killing someone for taking stuff. It's just stuff.

Not just stuff, but insured, replaceable stuff. Once again my faith in the human race has taken a hit knowing there are people that think killing to protect a TV is ok.

Astro, Great points. I'm a little nervous to see the counter points from the other side.