Another SC Home Defense Shooting

[kelcarry]

A 19 year old was "rummaging" around a pickup truck in someone's yard in the middle of the night with the apparent iintention to find some treasure, if not the truck itself. The older gentleman in the home heard noises, grabbed his gun and before calling 911, went outside to confront the 19 year old. He ordered him to turn around and face him and told him to take his hands out of his pockets as he stood there. The 19 year old hesitated and then took one hand out and started to take the other hand out, at which point the old man fired and hit the 19 year old twice--serious injuries but not life threatening; the old man THEN called 911. The solicitor refused to indict and no further legal action has or was taken concerning the old man's actions. In my heart I immensely enjoy everything the old man did. In my mind, however, I find this case a bit troubling. I understand "castle doctrine" etc, but no 911, the seemingly cavalier attitude of priority of property over life, and a confrontation first by the old man who truly initiated his apparent "imminent dange". Any comments?

[HootmonSccy]

You mention that the 19 YO starts to take his hands out of his pockets, then gets shot.. Did he have anything in his hands???

This is not how I would have handled it..
I would have at least called 911 1st..
Rummaging through the truck doesn't seem life threatening, and I'm not even sure it would be considered a felony.. As the story describes, I'm not sure there is any "forced entry" even to the truck.. So, I'm not sure why there were no charges, unless the 19 YO was pretty close and was pulling out a knife, or had another weapon.

Hummm. This doesn't sound like a clean and clear situation to me, based on what is presented...

[MI .45]

In my opinion the older gentleman should have called 911 and probably left it at that. Shooting people outside the home over property isn't worth it to anyone. It's just "stuff" that can be fixed or replaced, legally it's "thin ice", and there may be more than one person to deal with if one confronts the perp(s). Obviously, if the kid had tried to enter the house that would be another story. We all want to protect our property and feel helpless and violated if we don't, but if there is no imminent danger to us or our loved one's lives I'd say let the cops deal with it.

We had an incident last year here in west Michigan where a homeowner shot up some kids as they were attempting to flee in a car... turned out the homeowners son had arranged for some of his buddy's to T-P the house as a prank. Fortunately,no one got seriously hurt but the homeowner was charged with all sorts of violations.

One question I have pertaining to the incident at hand... is it best to have someone remove their hands from their pockets while facing you or when their back is turned? If the perp is turned he could surreptitiously pull a gun, spin and shoot... or, if facing you they could simply pull a gun before you can react... what is the best way to deal with this situation?

[Wolfling68]

While I agree with the above sentiments on a personal and individual level, the group mentality part of me says, if more people shot theives, there would be fewer theives (and not just the dead ones). Criminals thrive in our society because the risk/reward ratio is great for them. When the risk becomes too great, the majority of criminals will find another way of making a living.

[Bullitt]

I agree that 911 should have been dialed, first.

I can only speak for TX, but the laws here allow the use of deadly force to protect one's property, and even someone else's property. I guess it goes back to the horse theif mentality. Dunno.

I have to agree that it seems excessive, but on the other hand, thieves must be punished. If you don't stop them on the spot, you'll probably never catch them. And if they are caught, they'll probably get a slap on the wrist.

I believe that thieves know there's a risk of getting caught, hurt, shot, killed, imprisoned, or something when they move in that direction, so I don't have much sympathy for them.

If the shooter truly felt like a gun was being drawn, then his actions are hard to argue with. But, it would seem that he could simply hold the theif there until the cops show up (had he called them, first).

This brings up a question in my mind - what if you're trying to just hold him at gunpoint and he bolts? I think you can legally shoot him, but it's probably never cool to shoot anyone in the back...

[Red Hat]

I wouldn't have called 911. If I hear something outside I'm going to investigate it first. If I have to wait on a deputy to come out the BG will load up half of my property and leave. In SC there is no requirement to call 911 and our Castle Doctrine allows for protection of property. If I don't know who they are and they are going through my stuff and they fail to comply with my demands they probably will get shot. I'm not going to wait around to see what they are going to do. If someone wants to steal from me they will suffer legal consequences. There are too many cases since SC passing the Castle Doctrine to support his actions. That's why no charges were filed. All I can say is; BG's if you are going to rob and steal in SC be warned...the person you accost may be armed and has the legal right to blow you away!

[bigspurr]

If they continue to handle cases like that in SC check back and see the crime rate drop.Chalk one up for the good guys.

[kelcarry]

Interesting replies; what I like is that each of you added a slightly different take or comment that makes the mental exercise of what each of us could or should do a bit more thought-provoking. As I said in my original post, my heart was with the old man but my mind tells me that killing someone over property that can easily be replaced and is probably insured is kind of draconian particularly since the old guy didn't even bother calling 911; on the other hand, as mentioned in some posts, let the word go out to perps in SC--touch someone elses property and you can die--legally. Stay away from other peoples' houses and properties. PS: The kid did not have a gun and, I believe, did not have anything in his hand--just did not listen to the old guy.

[charliej47]

Everyone says "you can replace property"! The only way you can do this is by paying for or working for it unless you are a BG.

If I have to replace it then that means that I had to spend part of my life. That means that the BG has taken part of my life tht I can not get back!

Those who say property is not important fails to understand that you are giving up that which can not be gotten again.

[AZSATT]

I'm just glad it worked out for the homeowner.

While I'm not generally a fan of the "shoot first" perspective, I've been on the receiving end of many thefts and it is never fun.

It's easy to arm-chair-quarterback after the fact, but if I'd been in that homeowner's shoes, the only thing I MAY have done differently is dial 911 and lay the phone down before house & property clearing.

Had the BG fled upon being discovered, things may have played out differently. But his noncompliance coupled with his felonious presence got him shot. I'm ok with that.