Homeowner charged with attempted murder. - Page 6
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 130

Thread: Homeowner charged with attempted murder.

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    This criminal was just a trespasser, and trayvon was just an unarmed 12 year old.
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  2.   
  3. #52
    I still believe the home owner is in trouble. He should have stayed inside and called police then continued watching the thief. If you run outside after someone you better be sure he has a gun before you shoot. But to be honest if you can avoid a confrontation then you should. Let police handle it. The thief was no threat to him as long as he stayed in the house. I believe he will lose his CCW permit and do some jail time. He had the chance to avoid confrontation by staying inside but chose to go outside and shoot the guy. Not a good choice. He could have let the dog out after the thief also. Your weapon is to protect your life or lives of others, not property.

  4. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by cluznar View Post
    I still believe the home owner is in trouble. He should have stayed inside and called police then continued watching the thief. If you run outside after someone you better be sure he has a gun before you shoot. But to be honest if you can avoid a confrontation then you should. Let police handle it. The thief was no threat to him as long as he stayed in the house. I believe he will lose his CCW permit and do some jail time. He had the chance to avoid confrontation by staying inside but chose to go outside and shoot the guy. Not a good choice. He could have let the dog out after the thief also. Your weapon is to protect your life or lives of others, not property.
    You are overlooking something very simple. It never said he went outside to confront anyone. Are you going to call 911 just because your dog is barking? I thought not. Would you go out and see what the problem was if you tried to get the dog to shut up and come back inside and it wouldn't? I would. If you lived in a neighborhood where a 14 year old "professional" criminal was normal would you arm yourself before going out to check? I would.
    -
    My only issue is that it doesn't "report" that he gave the criminal any verbal commands prior to shooting. That doesn't mean that he didn't tell the BG to put his hands up and the reporter just decided not to include it.
    -
    That said, a 14yr old wandering the neighborhood at 2am is a problem. A 14yr old being considered by his family to be a "professional thief" by his family and that being normal is a problem. Being in someone elses fenced in yard at 2am is a problem. Staying in that yard with ther dog barking and waking the owner is a problem.
    -
    How about we stop turning perpetrators (whatever their age is) into victims.
    Chief

  5. #54
    I do not understand why the homeowner should be in trouble. Did the homeowner invite this guy on HIS property and then shoot him? All this talk on what the homeowner could have done to prevent this does not make sense to me. The trespasser could have and should have avoided all this by staying on his side of the fence.
    Even though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of Death, I will fear no Evil, for YOU are with me; Remington 44 Mag:

  6. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Great State of Texas "Remember the Alamo"
    Posts
    2,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob in Bristol View Post
    I do not understand why the homeowner should be in trouble. Did the homeowner invite this guy on HIS property and then shoot him? All this talk on what the homeowner could have done to prevent this does not make sense to me. The trespasser could have and should have avoided all this by staying on his side of the fence.
    ^^^Yep! What He Said!^^^
    Fascist's are Magicians...They can make our Property, our Freedom's & even our Children 'Disappear'.
    ~Outlaw~

  7. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6
    Blog Entries
    3
    I think this kid is a problem and you never know what his true intentions were - most likely no good. However, here is the 'real' legal aspect of this. In order to shoot to kill, the shooter may only use deadly force if he "reasonably" believes he is in danger and will suffer "severe" bodily injury or life threatening injury. Or you can use deadly force in the instances of rape, arson, or robbery. Protection of an inanimate object does not afford the shooter any protection under 'self defense' or 'make my day' laws. Now, everyone has their own personal belief of what is reasonable, but it comes down to what is reasonable to the "normal" majority of the population. Since this kid was outside the house and unarmed (irrelevant here), I'm guessing this guy will not get away with a self defense plea because he had the option of returning to his home and locking his door. If this kid broke into through the locked door, then this story would be different. Hey, I'm all for self defense, but just because you own a gun, doesn't give you the right to shoot to kill. Sorry but any idiot can own a gun, but gun ownership comes with a lot of responsibility and you must always be able to think clearly and act justifiably.

  8. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Obwana1 View Post
    I think this kid is a problem and you never know what his true intentions were - most likely no good. However, here is the 'real' legal aspect of this. In order to shoot to kill, the shooter may only use deadly force if he "reasonably" believes he is in danger and will suffer "severe" bodily injury or life threatening injury. Or you can use deadly force in the instances of rape, arson, or robbery. Protection of an inanimate object does not afford the shooter any protection under 'self defense' or 'make my day' laws. Now, everyone has their own personal belief of what is reasonable, but it comes down to what is reasonable to the "normal" majority of the population. Since this kid was outside the house and unarmed (irrelevant here), I'm guessing this guy will not get away with a self defense plea because he had the option of returning to his home and locking his door. If this kid broke into through the locked door, then this story would be different. Hey, I'm all for self defense, but just because you own a gun, doesn't give you the right to shoot to kill. Sorry but any idiot can own a gun, but gun ownership comes with a lot of responsibility and you must always be able to think clearly and act justifiably.
    I do agree with your last sentence. As such it is your responsibility to be familiar with the laws in your state, as they are very different. For you to make a blanket statement that "that's illegal" or "you can't do that" is also irresponsible. For example, here is the SC law:
    PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT

    The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.

    H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.
    When the kid reached for something in his pants, game over. You don't have to wait until he shoots at you. Good form would be to issue a verbal command such as "show me your hands" or something just so you can more easily articulate why you were forced to shoot. The phrase in this law "to prevent...a violent crime" could be simple battery. The fact that he was on the guys property inside a fence changes the whole ball game.
    Chief

  9. Quote Originally Posted by whodat2710 View Post
    I do agree with your last sentence. As such it is your responsibility to be familiar with the laws in your state, as they are very different. For you to make a blanket statement that "that's illegal" or "you can't do that" is also irresponsible. For example, here is the SC law:


    When the kid reached for something in his pants, game over. You don't have to wait until he shoots at you. Good form would be to issue a verbal command such as "show me your hands" or something just so you can more easily articulate why you were forced to shoot. The phrase in this law "to prevent...a violent crime" could be simple battery. The fact that he was on the guys property inside a fence changes the whole ball game.
    I am a real "newbie" to guns in general. I have come to own a couple of guns due to the policies of the current occupant of the White House, Andrew Cuomo, and Mayor Bloomberg. I live in upstate NY, but have a new home in Georgia. I am hoping to take courses with Front Sight, and will be driving there. In order to avoid offending any LE along the way, I have applied for CCW permits in NY, SC, and TX in that order. TX was quickest to issue and I have been told by NY that I have been approved there. I expect SC to approve soon, maybe before NY.

    With that intro, let me state that in my SC class we were told "You never use deadly force to protect property." Element (3) of the above quote of SC's law specifies "a violent crime. This was not a violent crime, until Coulter made the "thwarted move as if to reach for something," and Landry misinterpreted that move. This all points to the fact that gun owners need to exercise more careful judgment than others. We are under the microscope of the liberal media and gun-hating politicians, all of whom are seeking every single excuse to curb the rights of law-abiding gun owners. We need to deprive them of excuses to destroy the 2nd Amendment. The "heat of battle" argument is a valid one, but unfortunately, I believe that I would have waited to see what the move of Coulter produced rather than shooting first and asking questions later. I am reminded of the Amadou Diallo shooting in NYC where the cops thought that he had a wallet gun. Look at what happened to the cops there. And they were "professionals." None of them are allowed to carry guns even now.

    Bottom Line: We, as law-abiding gun owners, need to exercise even more caution and judgment than normal citizens because we are targets of gun-grabbers. We serve as examples either for cries for more restrictive legislation or for less restrictive legislation. I vote for the latter.

  10. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    With that intro, let me state that in my SC class we were told "You never use deadly force to protect property." Element (3) of the above quote of SC's law specifies "a violent crime. This was not a violent crime...
    I will preface this with the fact that I am not a nut looking to "off" someone and then be able to justify it. I hope to never have to draw my gun except at the range.
    -
    You missed the part of the law that I also highlighted, and that was "to prevent" a violent crime. It does not state "to stop a violent crime after it has been perpetrated on you, and the homeowner never argued that he was defending property.
    -
    facts:
    -dog is barking at 2-3am, (and I assume did not obey command to come inside or stop barking)
    -homeowner investigates (doesn't call 911 because he has no info other than his dog is barking)
    -homeowner sees intruder within his fenced yard (I am from N.O., and these places don't have a front yard. That means the perp was in his back yard out of sight of the street. The picture in the article will show you what I mean)
    -perp sees homeowner and does not run, but reaches for something (I believe the "thwarted" part was the fact that he didn't get whatever he was reaching for because he was shot in the head for his attempt)
    -
    The fact that the homeowner "misinterpreted" the perps move is irrelevant. Life is not like gunfight at the OK Corral where you both draw and whoever is first wins. If I see someone in my fenced yard, the did not feel the need to run either because of the dog barking or me showing up, my weapon will be drawn. If they make any movement to grab for something (I don't care if it's a bag of skittles) they will be in a world of hurt.
    Chief

  11. Yes, you are correct that I did overlook the part about "prevent" a violent crime. However, how do we KNOW that an individual in our back yard is committing a violent crime if we see no knife or gun or other weapon? We cannot assume that a weapon is present.

    I have to disagree that the interpretation of the kid's movement is irrelevant. It is his justification for using deadly force. If the intruder pulled a small hammer out and hit the windshield, does that justify a head shot? Just for the sake of argument, how do we know that what he was reaching for was not a badge so that he could identify himself as law enforcement investigating a prowler? At 2AM, it is just possible that the homeowner was not able to see that it was a 14-year old kid. We don't have that information, do we?

    Again, I'm not trying to be a smartass; I'm just trying to learn here. I have absolutely zero experience (and hope never to have any), but I'm just trying to apply what I learned in the class about justification for use of deadly force, and I simply would have hesitated before taking the shot. Your suggestion of verbal clarification by the homeowner is an excellent point. Verbal communication by the intruder might also have prevented this result. Silence here by both was NOT golden.

Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast