Unusual intruder shooting case

[Stregone]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: dlundblad

What was the kid doing in the garage to begin with?



Exactly.

This nonsense about baiting is just that nonsense.

Nobody forced those little punks into his home or garage, they
CHOSE to enter the property. That is trespassing, and the property owner should be able to defend his property with deadly force.

You know those punks were the same ones that repeatedly broke into his home, they got what they deserved and better yet, he save the community from future criminal actions by them.


Do you think he should be executed if he survived and was found guilty of trespassing? Because thats what you are advocating, except without the courts involved. Justifying this kind of paranoid extreme reaction just leads to an incredibly and fundamentally dysfunctional society.

Its one thing to defend yourself from harm. I am not saying you shouldn't be able to do that. But, as others have said, he could not see his target so he had no idea if it was threatening him. If he was scared he should have locked the door and called the police, with the gun ready in case a threat of harm actually materialized. Instead he thought himself judge, jury, and executioner and saw it fit to go above the law and execute a common criminal.

 

[AdRock]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
We have the Castle Doctrine here in Texas too. Deadly force can be used on someone trespassing on your property between sundown and sunup. Gotta love Texas!!

I'm sure 99% of gun owners haven't even read the law on what trespassing actually is in their state...
Have you even read what the law is on gunning down trespassers? Or is that what you think the law is after listening to the 10 second sound bite off the TV?


Nope he's right about the law. And I agree with him, gotta love Texas.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
We have the Castle Doctrine here in Texas too. Deadly force can be used on someone trespassing on your property between sundown and sunup. Gotta love Texas!!

I'm sure 99% of gun owners haven't even read the law on what trespassing actually is in their state...
Have you even read what the law is on gunning down trespassers? Or is that what you think the law is after listening to the 10 second sound bite off the TV?


It`s the law. Like they say,*Don`t Mess With Texas*

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: AdRock
Nope he's right about the law. And I agree with him, gotta love Texas.


Right on my Texan brother!

 

[fdcg27]

The facts of this case make it first degree murder.
The homeowner planned the event and had already decided to employ deadly force when neither he nor his family were directly threatened.
A very sad event and one that nobody advocating the use of weapons in self defense should applaud.

 

[Astro14]

The basic principle for the use of lethal force is that it must be both necessary and proportional.

The necessity means that you've got no choice (I'll avoid the stand your ground discussion here, but the point is that you are forced to act).

The proportionality means that the threat you face must be of death or serious bodily harm. The use of lethal force is then proportional to the threat you face.

Now, in order to have a reasonable/legitimate threat, three factors must be present: ability (is the person capable of harming/killing?), opportunity (present, proximate, etc.) and intent.

In determining the presence of those factors, you have to use the "reasonable man" standard: what information was available to the person at the time? NOT what information came to light later, but what did the person making the decision have reason to believe at the time.

So, in looking at what we know about this case: the person/intruder in the garage was not seen. So, intent could not be determined. Ability could not be determined (the size/strength/weapon could not be determined). So, without clear ability and intent, it's a real stretch to state that there was a reasonable/prudent determination of threat. A person that feels threatened in their house is allowed to shoot, that's what the castle doctrine states. But that castle doctrine is simply supporting the threat determination. If someone breaks into your house, under castle doctrine, that constitutes a threat.

However, this house was not broken into. It was deliberately left open to attract a thief. Further, that the homeowner "felt" threatened is not true. The homeowner sought the confrontation in response to previous burglaries and the homeowner was armed in preparation for the confrontation. Frankly, the homeowner could have stayed inside, locked the door and removed the opportunity of the intruder to threaten. No shooting required. But it's clear that the homeowner had intended to shoot, they were waiting up to see if someone "took" the "bait".

With no reasonable determination of threat, either under general conditions, or under the castle doctrine, the use of lethal force in this case was not necessary, and not proportional. This shooting, then, becomes a homicide. Further, with the "bait" being placed in advance, and the stated intent of the shooter to "lure" the thief into the garage, this becomes a pre-meditated act of homicide.

I understand the homeowner's frustration with being a crime victim. But that does not give him the right to lure a person into his garage to kill him. The shooter had no way of knowing if this was the same criminal that had struck before, or an innocent pedestrian that simply chose to trespass. Trespass is not a lethal threat, and does not justify killing in defense. Theft is not a lethal threat either, and killing solely in defense of property is killing, not defense.

This is a case of killing in defense of a purse at best (homicide), and at worst, pre-meditated, first degree murder. It will be interesting to see what the jury decides.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Very well said, Astro. Spot-on no matter what state you are from.

 

[spasm3]

I agree, you did an excellent job explaining this!! If he takes the witness stand, the prosecuter will eat him alive.

 

[mormit]

As Astro and others have pointed out very clearly, this is undeniably a case of homicide or worse. A few points that have not been touched upon:

Since the homeowner did not properly sight his target and what was behind it by firing blindly into his own garage, any shot not stopped by the 17 year old's body was stopped by his own property. It is very likely he caused more costly damage than if the 17 year old had stolen the purse which in that photo shortly before the shooting, he appears to be walking past the car with no scrutiny of its contents.

Which brings me to the 17 year old. That's the most neutral description I can use. I do not know if he is a perp or a victim. Unfortunately, he cannot account for himself at this time and some folks in the thread are happy to take a leap on little evidence and call him a perp or a punk. Do realize that if he had a significant record back in Germany, it's unlikely he would have had the opportunity to study abroad. Not being from the area, possible he could have ducked in thinking he was returning to his host family or meeting up with a girl? I had German exchange student friends back in high school. While they did a lot of the typical things kids that age like to do, they were also aware they were seen as representatives of their home country.

 

[antiqueshell]

Excuses for criminal, reckless, and irresponsible behavior must have consequences, SERIOUS consequences. By the time you are a teenager you should have some understanding of that. These punks KNOWINGLY trespassed on private property, which was likely posted as such as well.

I'd bet good money on it that these two punks (because that is what they are) have been repeatedly breaking and entering into his home, and others as well.

He did the community a service by preventing them from the life long criminal habits they were creating for themselves, and the damage they were doing to other innocent victims.

But perhaps the very best thing to come of this is that when other criminal elements get wind of these events it makes them think twice before they commit crimes.

ZERO TOLERANCE for criminals.

 

[datech]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Excuses for criminal, reckless, and irresponsible behavior must have consequences, SERIOUS consequences. By the time you are a teenager you should have some understanding of that. These punks KNOWINGLY trespassed on private property, which was likely posted as such as well.

I'd bet good money on it that these two punks (because that is what they are) have been repeatedly breaking and entering into his home, and others as well.

He did the community a service by preventing them from the life long criminal habits they were creating for themselves, and the damage they were doing to other innocent victims.

But perhaps the very best thing to come of this is that when other criminal elements get wind of these events it makes them think twice before they commit crimes.

ZERO TOLERANCE for criminals.


The bible says
" an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."

Teeth are relatively easy to replace. A fully functional implant can be had for a few hundred dollars.

There is no way to replace a lost eye, or a lost life.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Excuses for criminal, reckless, and irresponsible behavior must have consequences, SERIOUS consequences. By the time you are a teenager you should have some understanding of that. These punks KNOWINGLY trespassed on private property, which was likely posted as such as well.

I'd bet good money on it that these two punks (because that is what they are) have been repeatedly breaking and entering into his home, and others as well.

He did the community a service by preventing them from the life long criminal habits they were creating for themselves, and the damage they were doing to other innocent victims.

But perhaps the very best thing to come of this is that when other criminal elements get wind of these events it makes them think twice before they commit crimes.

ZERO TOLERANCE for criminals.


I do not condone criminal action.

But there was no way to know that the people in this case who were shot and killed had, in fact, previously burglarized the house.

So, you're advocating death for trespass?

And if those two had simply stopped by to tell the homeowner that his garage door had been left open (as my thoughtful neighbor, also a German, might do)? They deserve to die for that?

I agree with strong consequences for criminal acts. But the only act of which the two in the garage are provably guilty is trespass, and without intent (they merely entered, they did not take or threaten), so it's not provably criminal trespass.

Since the German student had no criminal record, there was no "community service" of preventing future crime.

There is only the fact that the homeowner shot and killed without being threatened. He acted as judge, jury and executioner without even ascertaining who was in his garage.

And that's murder.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

ZERO TOLERANCE for criminals.


I agree. Hopefully, the shooter gets the maximum sentence allowed by law.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
The basic principle for the use of lethal force is that it must be both necessary and proportional.

The necessity means that you've got no choice (I'll avoid the stand your ground discussion here, but the point is that you are forced to act).

The proportionality means that the threat you face must be of death or serious bodily harm. The use of lethal force is then proportional to the threat you face.

Now, in order to have a reasonable/legitimate threat, three factors must be present: ability (is the person capable of harming/killing?), opportunity (present, proximate, etc.) and intent.

In determining the presence of those factors, you have to use the "reasonable man" standard: what information was available to the person at the time? NOT what information came to light later, but what did the person making the decision have reason to believe at the time.

So, in looking at what we know about this case: the person/intruder in the garage was not seen. So, intent could not be determined. Ability could not be determined (the size/strength/weapon could not be determined). So, without clear ability and intent, it's a real stretch to state that there was a reasonable/prudent determination of threat. A person that feels threatened in their house is allowed to shoot, that's what the castle doctrine states. But that castle doctrine is simply supporting the threat determination. If someone breaks into your house, under castle doctrine, that constitutes a threat.

However, this house was not broken into. It was deliberately left open to attract a thief. Further, that the homeowner "felt" threatened is not true. The homeowner sought the confrontation in response to previous burglaries and the homeowner was armed in preparation for the confrontation. Frankly, the homeowner could have stayed inside, locked the door and removed the opportunity of the intruder to threaten. No shooting required. But it's clear that the homeowner had intended to shoot, they were waiting up to see if someone "took" the "bait".

With no reasonable determination of threat, either under general conditions, or under the castle doctrine, the use of lethal force in this case was not necessary, and not proportional. This shooting, then, becomes a homicide. Further, with the "bait" being placed in advance, and the stated intent of the shooter to "lure" the thief into the garage, this becomes a pre-meditated act of homicide.

I understand the homeowner's frustration with being a crime victim. But that does not give him the right to lure a person into his garage to kill him. The shooter had no way of knowing if this was the same criminal that had struck before, or an innocent pedestrian that simply chose to trespass. Trespass is not a lethal threat, and does not justify killing in defense. Theft is not a lethal threat either, and killing solely in defense of property is killing, not defense.

This is a case of killing in defense of a purse at best (homicide), and at worst, pre-meditated, first degree murder. It will be interesting to see what the jury decides.


Nicely stated. Sounds like the homeowner is going to be spending some time in jail.

 

[Shannow]

Well posted Astro.

Off topic a little, but he wilfully shot up his own gear as well...is that insurance fraud to go along with (presuming he claimed) ?

 

[refaller]

Astro- thanks for making me believe at least some gun owners are responsible, many others are scaring me.

datech- Eye for an eye is not a Biblical principle, but an Old Testament one (the New Testament eliminates this principle). Plus, it was put in place to limit people's response to actions, not make it necessary. Without a legal system, if I decide killing you for knocking out my tooth is reasonable and I have the capabilities, then I would do it. By saying that you could only go eye for an eye places a limit on your retribution. Therefore, it would actually be a statement against shooting someone for trespassing on your property. Just a little FYI from a nerd.

ref

 

[datech]

Originally Posted By: refaller
Astro- thanks for making me believe at least some gun owners are responsible, many others are scaring me.

datech- Eye for an eye is not a Biblical principle, but an Old Testament one (the New Testament eliminates this principle). Plus, it was put in place to limit people's response to actions, not make it necessary. Without a legal system, if I decide killing you for knocking out my tooth is reasonable and I have the capabilities, then I would do it. By saying that you could only go eye for an eye places a limit on your retribution. Therefore, it would actually be a statement against shooting someone for trespassing on your property. Just a little FYI from a nerd.

ref


That was exactly my point. A tooth can easily be replaced, but not an eye, or a life. As I stated in my original post. Did you read that also?

 

[datech]

The news has more on the Pistorius trial today. He unloaded four rounds into his bathroom killing his girlfriend, who he claimed he thought was an intruder.

No matter who he thought he was shooting it was willful murder. Why are they debating on who he thought he shot?

 

[Tom NJ]

Perfect summary Astro!

Bottom line, you are not allowed to shoot people unless you truly and reasonably believe you must shoot in order to protect yourself or another innocent from being killed or seriously harmed. Such belief may be presumed if you encounter a person who illegally broke into the living quarters of your house, especially at night, but mere trespassing into an open garage does not rise to that level. This shooter should have stayed in his house, called the police, and used his firearm only to defend his living quarters if the intruder entered.

Responsible firearm ownership involves thinking through various defense scenarios and practicing your response. Otherwise you may wind up in jail, as I'm sure this shooter will.

Tom NJ

 

[refaller]

I did. My protest was the Bible says. It is more appropriate to say Old Testament, Tanakh, Pentateuch or Torah. I was nerding out. Other than that, I appreciated your post.

ref