Unusual intruder shooting case

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Chances are, the homeowner will take a plea deal before the court case comes to a conclusion.



An insanity plea seems to fit the bill nicely here. He should seriously consider that.


He can't. First of all, no one with a working brain is going to accept that a guy who deliberately set a trap and waited for days to spring it is insane.

And, Montana abolished the use of the insanity defense, and in 1994 the US Supreme Court upheld it.

Idaho, Utah, and Kansas don't allow it either.

 

[datech]

I wouldn't recommend doing what the homeowner did partly because the intruder had an advantage in that he could see the homeowner but not vice versa, except that the homeowner saw the 'perp' on camera.

If the intruder had been armed the homeowner would have been a sitting duck out in the light while the intruder was in the dark garage with the benefit of available shelter from the car(s).

I am getting to see Antiqueshell's point in that he is from Chicago, the homicide capital of the US. Still the homeowner didn't really handle things in his best interest and that's why he is now behind bars. The police said they wouldn't have arrested him unless they thought he committed a crime, and it doesn't look good for him at this point.

If it turns out he didn't call the police because he was in possession of canibus then this essentially makes it a drug related shooting, and they will not be easy on him for that.

 

[Astro14]

A great book, for those interested in the subject of lethal force, is "In the Gravest Extreme, the role of the firearm in personal protection" by Massad Ayoob.

As relevant and clear as it was 30 years ago, when I first read it.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
I love to be on juries for just this reason, no lawyer or prosecutor can [censored] me into thinking something other than the actual reality and facts with their nonsensical perceptions during a trial.


The homeowner is... "Not Guilty" on all charges.

I almost spit out my beer! You speaking on reality and facts is like Charles Manson teaching a psychology course!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
It's clear to me that the homeowner didn't expect ANYONE to be on his property at the time, the only logical conclusion he could come to was that the same perps were back for yet another criminal act of trespassing but this time he was there and he didn't know if the criminals were possibly armed and drug fueled which would make them unpredictable. I certainly would not have just "hoped" they were harmless punks as that could be the death of me as well.

I would have done the SAME thing the homeowner did, shoot to kill.


And hopefully you'd end up in jail for first degree murder. You are obviously a deranged lunatic with paranoid tendencies focusing on conspiracy and that "everybody is out to get you". You are the last person in this world that should own a firearm. In Canada, it is quite likely that you would not get a firearms license based on this.

Anybody who is willing to, without determining a threat, without determining whether the person that they feel they are "confronting" is armed or what their intent is, is willing to dispatch of that person's life with extreme prejudice and feel completely justified in doing so should not be allowed to own a firearm. Because they are obviously mentally unstable and need some serious psychiatric treatment.

You need to see a doctor.

 

[antiqueshell]

As the facts stand....



1) Two perps trespassed and entered his garage on his property
NOBODY FORCED THEM TO ENTER, THEY ENTERED BY CHOICE.
There is a reason they call it "private property".

2) Many previous trespassing and break ins occurred at
the homeowners residence previous to this specific
incident, making the homeowner feel threatened and insecure
on his own property making him feel the need to a be on a
heightened state of alertness for fear that they might
eventually return while he was present and be armed.
How could the homeowner know what the potential threat would
be. If these invaders continued to return I too would think
that they would be unpredictable do serious harm to him.

The jury is going to likely be hung on this case with a possiblity he will be found not guilty.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
As the facts stand....



1) Two perps trespassed and entered his garage on his property
NOBODY FORCED THEM TO ENTER, THEY ENTERED BY CHOICE.
There is a reason they call it "private property".

2) Many previous trespassing and break ins occurred at
the homeowners residence previous to this specific
incident, making the homeowner feel threatened and insecure
on his own property making him feel the need to a be on a
heightened state of alertness for fear that they might
eventually return while he was present and be armed.
How could the homeowner know what the potential threat would
be. If these invaders continued to return I too would think
that they would be unpredictable do serious harm to him.

The jury is going to likely be hung on this case with a possiblity he will be found not guilty.



You referencing "facts" and then speaking as to if you know how the case is going to progress is about as ridiculous as everything else you post. Seriously, you need to see a psychologist, ASAP.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
It's clear to me that the homeowner didn't expect ANYONE to be on his property at the time, the only logical conclusion he could come to was that the same perps were back for yet another criminal act of trespassing but this time he was there and he didn't know if the criminals were possibly armed and drug fueled which would make them unpredictable. I certainly would not have just "hoped" they were harmless punks as that could be the death of me as well.

I would have done the SAME thing the homeowner did, shoot to kill.


And hopefully you'd end up in jail for first degree murder. You are obviously a deranged lunatic with paranoid tendencies focusing on conspiracy and that "everybody is out to get you". You are the last person in this world that should own a firearm. In Canada, it is quite likely that you would not get a firearms license based on this.

Anybody who is willing to, without determining a threat, without determining whether the person that they feel they are "confronting" is armed or what their intent is, is willing to dispatch of that person's life with extreme prejudice and feel completely justified in doing so should not be allowed to own a firearm. Because they are obviously mentally unstable and need some serious psychiatric treatment.

You need to see a doctor.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Chances are, the homeowner will take a plea deal before the court case comes to a conclusion.



An insanity plea seems to fit the bill nicely here. He should seriously consider that.


He can't. First of all, no one with a working brain is going to accept that a guy who deliberately set a trap and waited for days to spring it is insane.

And, Montana abolished the use of the insanity defense, and in 1994 the US Supreme Court upheld it.

Idaho, Utah, and Kansas don't allow it either.


Just a little of my twisted humor that's all. Although it wouldn't surprise me if an attorney would actually try and pull it off. Anyone setting a trap like the nut job mentioned in this post did with the intention of shooting someone who took the bait is a little crazy wouldn't you say? Oh yea you did in the post above. We seem to agree.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Chances are, the homeowner will take a plea deal before the court case comes to a conclusion.



An insanity plea seems to fit the bill nicely here. He should seriously consider that.


He can't. First of all, no one with a working brain is going to accept that a guy who deliberately set a trap and waited for days to spring it is insane.

And, Montana abolished the use of the insanity defense, and in 1994 the US Supreme Court upheld it.

Idaho, Utah, and Kansas don't allow it either.


Just a little of my twisted humor that's all. Although it wouldn't surprise me if an attorney would actually try and pull it off. Anyone setting a trap with the intention of shooting someone who took the bait is a little crazy wouldn't you say?


Ahhhhh. I like twisted humor.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Trajan


Ahhhhh. I like twisted humor.

You where posting while I was editing. LOL

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
As the facts stand....



1) Two perps trespassed and entered his garage on his property
NOBODY FORCED THEM TO ENTER, THEY ENTERED BY CHOICE.
There is a reason they call it "private property".

2) Many previous trespassing and break ins occurred at
the homeowners residence previous to this specific
incident, making the homeowner feel threatened and insecure
on his own property making him feel the need to a be on a
heightened state of alertness for fear that they might
eventually return while he was present and be armed.
How could the homeowner know what the potential threat would
be. If these invaders continued to return I too would think
that they would be unpredictable do serious harm to him.

The jury is going to likely be hung on this case with a possiblity he will be found not guilty.



The facts, as you point out: a trespass occurred. No theft occurred this time.

The owner planned for the trespass, invited the trespass.

The owner shot and killed the trespasser.

No hung jury. Plea bargain down to homicide or go to jail big time.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


You referencing "facts" and then speaking as to if you know how the case is going to progress is about as ridiculous as everything else you post. Seriously, you need to see a psychologist, ASAP.


In the end the only thing that matters is whether or not he is found guilty or not.

The homeowner did the right thing, he preventing himself from becoming a victim in the future to these same perps if they were to return again perhaps armed themselves, and provided a service to the community, by eliminating future criminal invasions and sending a message to other thieves that criminal trespass and breaking and entering will not be tolerated. Period.

If I was on that jury (and you know people like me WILL be on that jury) he would be found innocent on all counts.

Most folks that want to be on that jury (to find him innocent) will in a measured and careful way answer the jury selection questions to make sure they are picked.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

In the end the only thing that matters is whether or not he is found guilty or not.

The homeowner did the right thing, he preventing himself from becoming a victim in the future to these same perps if they were to return again perhaps armed themselves, and provided a service to the community, by eliminating future criminal invasions and sending a message to other thieves that criminal trespass and breaking and entering will not be tolerated. Period.

If I was on that jury (and you know people like me WILL be on that jury) he would be found innocent on all counts.

Most folks that want to be on that jury (to find him innocent) will in a measured and careful way answer the jury selection questions to make sure they are picked.


Prevented himself from becoming a victim of theft again by killing?

Completely indefensible.

"Maybe return" and "perhaps armed " are conjecture on your part. No evidence (not that you can be fooled by evidence) exists to suggest that the shooting victim was the one who carried out the previous theft.

You're advocating killing to prevent trespass and to prevent potential future B&E.

Similarly, you should go kill your neighbors before their dog bites you. Don't let those perps get away with it!

 

[antiqueshell]

You and others here keep "forgetting" that it is a fact that the homeowner experienced repeated trespass and break and enter crimes. These criminals CONTINUED to return to his property on repeated ocassions. Which indicates a mindset of belligerance, and recklessness which makes them extremely dangerous.

The homeowner was reacting in a way that ANY logical person would, they would be under the impression that at any time those perps could arrive perhaps when he was at home, and injure or kill him. It is perfectly rational and logical to have a heightened state of altertness to protect his self and property from unpredicable and irrational invaders.

I'm not advocating killing to prevent trespass and B&E, but the situation he was in made it reasonable to kill the subjects.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

In the end the only thing that matters is whether or not he is found guilty or not.

The homeowner did the right thing, he preventing himself from becoming a victim in the future to these same perps if they were to return again perhaps armed themselves, and provided a service to the community, by eliminating future criminal invasions and sending a message to other thieves that criminal trespass and breaking and entering will not be tolerated. Period.

If I was on that jury (and you know people like me WILL be on that jury) he would be found innocent on all counts.

Most folks that want to be on that jury (to find him innocent) will in a measured and careful way answer the jury selection questions to make sure they are picked.


Prevented himself from becoming a victim of theft again by killing?

Completely indefensible.

"Maybe return" and "perhaps armed " are conjecture on your part. No evidence (not that you can be fooled by evidence) exists to suggest that the shooting victim was the one who carried out the previous theft.

You're advocating killing to prevent trespass and to prevent potential future B&E.

Similarly, you should go kill your neighbors before their dog bites you. Don't let those perps get away with it!


He, and a few others, are just giving the gun control lobby more ammo.

And I really doubt he could get on a jury. Either lawyer gets wind of his conspiracy rants, he'll get bounced off.

 

[OVERKILL]

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. These criminals CONTINUED to return to his property on repeated ocassions. Which indicates a mindset of belligerance, and recklessness which makes them extremely dangerous.


No dude, there are only two people here that we know are extremely dangerous and that's you and the homeowner. Because both of you are apparently willing to kill somebody will-nilly over trespassing and without even determining if they present a danger to you. And then you'll say it is OK because somebody stole your lawn gnome last week and you figured it must be the same guy

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
The homeowner was reacting in a way that ANY logical person would, they would be under the impression that at any time those perps could arrive perhaps when he was at home, and injure or kill him. It is perfectly rational and logical to have a heightened state of altertness to protect his self and property from unpredicable and irrational invaders.


Really? Then why is it you have like ONE person in this thread that agrees with you here? It seems like there are plenty of logical people posting in this thread and the one guy who we (those of us that are in fact logical) probably all agree is the least logical in here is the same guy saying that this was a logical course of action.

You can't be the odd man out and then say "anybody would do the same" when you are the only person in a group advocating it, because it is quite obviously not the case no matter how much you want it to be.

 

[Sam2000]

Using antiqueshell's own logic, the authorities should take HIM out with a drone strike.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Trajan

And I really doubt he could get on a jury. Either lawyer gets wind of his conspiracy rants, he'll get bounced off.


Yup. Same reason he couldn't get a firearms license up here. The RCMP would have him flagged as a nutter in their database and he'd fail the police check.

 

[Sam2000]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
If I was on that jury (and you know people like me WILL be on that jury) he would be found innocent on all counts.

Most folks that want to be on that jury (to find him innocent) will in a measured and careful way answer the jury selection questions to make sure they are picked.


I can believe this and it's why the police get away literally with murder.

The inability of our citizens to think rationally is becoming a bigger and bigger problem.

Meanwhile vested interest groups ratchet up the fear of crime. Politicians implementing these laws, the police themselves to get more power and leniency and the media portrayal. We are manipulated by people toying with our emotions.