Unusual intruder shooting case

[Astro14]

Well said, Win - and you're going back to the "reasonable man" standard that I mentioned a few days ago. I want clarity, I want unambiguity (is that a word?), but I will act/shoot on reasonable certainty....that's all that the law requires and all that I really need...

All that "stand your ground" laws do, is remove the requirement for reasonable withdrawal/retreat. But if you're able to retreat, that might, in fact, be the best course.

You're not able to retreat in your home, in my opinion...for a variety of reasons, some of them tactical (threat axis, line of fire, surprise, etc.), I would not seek out the intruder in my home. I would take a defensive position upstairs, and if they're already upstairs, then tripwire for threat has been met...we're beyond burglary...the intruder is looking for people...not valuables...

That said, I never forget the possibility of an innocent intruder - the relative with a key that shows up unexpectedly. The drunk kid from down the street who picks the wrong house...and somehow gains entry. Illegal? Sure, but...

My personal risk tolerance is, perhaps, higher than others because I want to be so certain of my target, to know that who I am about to engage (with a likelihood, in my case, of killing) with deadly force, is, in fact, a threat. I would rather place myself at slightly higher risk, than risk that mistake...

In the development of Rules Of Engagement (under LOAC), with which I have some experience, those issues are weighed and considered. I think the prudent owner of a firearm would be well-served to consider the full spectrum of possibility surrounding an intruder. To act decisively and correctly in the moment requires both mental and physical preparation. Putting rounds accurately through paper is not enough...

 

[whip]

^ Astro, I agree. Even if I'm justified in killing a person, I don't want to have to live with that for the rest of my life. If an intruder entered my home, and intended to hurt my family, I would have no problem shooting. It would make me sick if I killed him thou. I can't begin to imagine the guilt if I killed a drunken neighbor that accidentally entered my home.

To those that are saying shoot first and ask questions later, I hope your child never comes home unexpectedly.

 

[Win]

Sure, that's what the statute requires:

(1) A person is justified in the use of force .... when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes .... is necessary to .... terminate .... unlawful entry into ..... an occupied structure.

(2) .... is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:

(a) the entry is made ..... and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon ..... another then in the occupied structure; or

(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

(my emphasis added)

And this defendant is pushing the outer limits of it, no question about that.

Being a test case is probably one of the most unenviable positions a person can ever find themselves in.

But yes, in my personal ethos, I want certainty. DF is a last resort for me.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: whip


To those that are saying shoot first and ask questions later, I hope your child never comes home unexpectedly.


More than likely, they're all talk.

I had occasion to pull a firearm. (I posted about it awhile ago.) As it transpired, I didn't have to pull the trigger.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: whip


To those that are saying shoot first and ask questions later, I hope your child never comes home unexpectedly.


More than likely, they're all talk.



We hope!

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: whip


To those that are saying shoot first and ask questions later, I hope your child never comes home unexpectedly.


More than likely, they're all talk.



We hope!


You know the internet. Chock full of tough guys

 

[Sam2000]

If you've listened to the shooters statements, he is going to use the story that he was scared for his safety. He also made a point of saying he heard a metal noise before he shot into the dark and intended to fire high.

All this is an attempt to paint himself as being reasonable. People who always want to defend the homeowner and their right to kill will always play on the emotion of what if it was you, how scared would you feel and what would you do to avoid potential harm to yourself regardless of how unclear the circumstance. Think of that case where some guy shot into a SUV at the gas station because he asked them to turn down their music then thought he saw a weapon.

Funnily enough, this is a "what if" defense. Playing on jurors fears clouds the reality that a reasonable person wouldn't have created the situation that this shooter did in the first place. You most likely wouldn't have put yourself outside the garage holding a shotgun where you can't see in but the supposedly dangerous and lethal person inside has a clear view and would most likely shoot first at you if that was their intent.

Also, consider that past intrusions, while the home was occupied, were theft related, not violence against person related, and the homeowner himself was looking to shoot a kid.

Its clear that this shooter did not have reasonable cause because his clear intention was to shoot the next person he caught on his property. And everything he now claims is an attempt to manipulate the interpretation of reasonable when at the time he had no intention of making a reasonable judgement.

 

[morris]

many years ago the army told me " I.D. your target!!!!! before firing!!!!!"..

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: whip


To those that are saying shoot first and ask questions later, I hope your child never comes home unexpectedly.


More than likely, they're all talk.



We hope!


You know the internet. Chock full of tough guys

Some are tough,

and some are just crazy.

I'll stick to my Mind My Own Business Policy. It works quite well, especially in a case of someone leaving a garage door open and me playing good Samaritan walking onto someone's property to advise them. Risk vs. Reward: There's the risk of a dog attack, getting shot, etc. Reward, someone telling me thanks. It doesn't add up.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint

Some are tough,

and some are just crazy.

I'll stick to my Mind My Own Business Policy. It works quite well, especially in a case of someone leaving a garage door open and me playing good Samaritan walking onto someone's property to advise them. Risk vs. Reward: There's the risk of a dog attack, getting shot, etc. Reward, someone telling me thanks. It doesn't add up.


That really is a good policy. Don't end up getting sued that way.

 

[02SE]

I guess the moral of the story is don't steal. Because justified or not, you might end up dead.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: demarpaint

Some are tough,

and some are just crazy.

I'll stick to my Mind My Own Business Policy. It works quite well, especially in a case of someone leaving a garage door open and me playing good Samaritan walking onto someone's property to advise them. Risk vs. Reward: There's the risk of a dog attack, getting shot, etc. Reward, someone telling me thanks. It doesn't add up.


That really is a good policy. Don't end up getting sued that way.


The whole getting sued part, or even being a witness totally slipped my mind. I guess that's another reward for minding my own business. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: 02SE
I guess the moral of the story is don't steal. Because justified or not, you might end up dead.


Criminals are not all stupid. The criminal's risk assessment is part of why crime tends to rise when the victims are perceived to be helpless and why crime tends to diminish when they perceive a likelihood of forceful resistance...

 

[LazyPrizm]

I kind of stopped reading the news about this case a few days back, so maybe my facts are wrong (please correct me).

But this guy's garage had been broken into twice before, he assumed by the same people. In neither case did they prove to be violent burglars. So I'm not sure how he could be so sure the third time they would be there to do him harm.

And so far as I've read, the only things stolen were the homeowner's weed stash and his paraphernalia. Not his Skil saw, not the means he used to keep his family fed (unless he was dealing...) Now, I've seen and hit some fancy pipes in my day, and I know people get attached to their expensive artisan Illadelphs, ROORs, Zongs, etc. But still, I'd never want to shoot some guy over a [censored] bong.

Although that does mean (1) the purloined goods weren't insured and (maybe in Colorado?

) (2) I kinda get why he wouldn't want to call the cops...

 

[LazyPrizm]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
The whole getting sued part, or even being a witness totally slipped my mind. I guess that's another reward for minding my own business. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

It's unfortunate to feel that way these days, but I understand. All this talk of Texas Justice and antique's nutty overreactions made me think of the time I saw someone's keys + keychain still in their apartment door.

Now our apt is safe, and in a good neighborhood, but losing ALL your keys at once would be pretty awful, and could lead to further unfortunate situations down the road. The right thing to do was alert the lady who lived there, so I knocked and waited. Nothing. I opened the door and started shouting "Hello?" and she finally came out to the living room and I showed her the keys, which she was grateful were found (she left them in the door while carrying groceries, and forgot).

Good thing it wasn't a trap by some psychopath...

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: 02SE
I guess the moral of the story is don't steal. Because justified or not, you might end up dead.


Simple, short, and to the point.

After all the technical blather from some here, who are muddying the waters, (many must be lawyers) it is refreshing to know that good, old fashioned, basic "common sense" still survives and thrives.

Thank you.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: 02SE
I guess the moral of the story is don't steal. Because justified or not, you might end up dead.


Criminals are not all stupid. The criminal's risk assessment is part of why crime tends to rise when the victims are perceived to be helpless and why crime tends to diminish when they perceive a likelihood of forceful resistance...


Yes, I know.

That's exactly why 'Gun Free Zones' are completely ineffective. The maniacs out there know that no law-abiding citizen will be armed in those places, and so the 'Gun Free Zones' are specifically targeted.

 

[Sam2000]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: demarpaint

Some are tough,

and some are just crazy.

I'll stick to my Mind My Own Business Policy. It works quite well, especially in a case of someone leaving a garage door open and me playing good Samaritan walking onto someone's property to advise them. Risk vs. Reward: There's the risk of a dog attack, getting shot, etc. Reward, someone telling me thanks. It doesn't add up.


That really is a good policy. Don't end up getting sued that way.


My neighbor left the garage door open several times. I never even entered the property to get a closer look. We end up calling on the phone now to tell them.

If it isn't someone who you know, how about going to the house next to them and seeing if they can make the phone call? And then call the police?

 

[Sam2000]

Originally Posted By: LazyPrizm
I kind of stopped reading the news about this case a few days back, so maybe my facts are wrong (please correct me).

But this guy's garage had been broken into twice before, he assumed by the same people. In neither case did they prove to be violent burglars. So I'm not sure how he could be so sure the third time they would be there to do him harm.

And so far as I've read, the only things stolen were the homeowner's weed stash and his paraphernalia. Not his Skil saw, not the means he used to keep his family fed (unless he was dealing...) Now, I've seen and hit some fancy pipes in my day, and I know people get attached to their expensive artisan Illadelphs, ROORs, Zongs, etc. But still, I'd never want to shoot some guy over a [censored] bong.

Although that does mean (1) the purloined goods weren't insured and (maybe in Colorado?

) (2) I kinda get why he wouldn't want to call the cops...


Yep I feel the same way. The shooter intended to harm the next person he caught. He had evidence beforehand and at the time that his life or well being was not in danger but had already decided to shoot to kill. His official statements since the incident are attempting to paint a picture that he was fearful for his life to fit the provisions of the law.

It may be that his inherent attitude and mis reading of the law led him to behave like this. Which is why some people are against laws that state whatever the homeowner feels is reasonable is ok. In an ironic twist, this interpretation that whatever I "feel" is ok is actually leading to a lack of personal responsibility.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: Sam2000

It may be that his inherent attitude and mis reading of the law led him to behave like this. Which is why some people are against laws that state whatever the homeowner feels is reasonable is ok. In an ironic twist, this interpretation that whatever I "feel" is ok is actually leading to a lack of personal responsibility.



Where is the personal responsibility on the part of the trespasser, and those that break and enter?