Homeowner charged with attempted murder. - Page 7
Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 130

Thread: Homeowner charged with attempted murder.

  1. I don't know what laws are for homeowners. But from story I see he still in a safe area. I have all ways been told " Do not go search for trouble. You've no no backup with you.
    Everybody in the house was in not in any inanimate threat.
    Should have stayed put in the safe area call and wait for PD to arrive then if perp did get in to house the threatening danger orlife then defensive. Shooting I mightbe justified.
    Sent from my LG-VM696 using USA Carry mobile app

  2.   
  3. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    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.
    It doesn't take a weapon to commit a violent crime.

    Imo, if the criminal tries to pull anything out, small hammer included, and makes the home owner believe his life is in danger, then yes the home owner can shoot. For future reference, there is no shooting to wound, head shots are just like any other shot.
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Yarbow View Post
    Should have stayed put in the safe area call and wait for PD to arrive then if perp did get in to house the threatening danger orlife then defensive. Shooting I mightbe justified...
    OK, I'll reiterate 2 points.
    -
    1. While in his house he did not know there was anything to call the cops about except that his dog was barking. If your dog is barking do you call the cops? What if it was a cat or a squirrel?
    -
    2. He may indeed have told the kid "hands up" we don't know from the story. At 2 am in your fenced yard a cop reaching for a badge would have said so, knowing that the homeowner had every right to draw his weapon. A cop wouldn't have just reached for ANYTHING while at gunpoint. As for waiting to find out what someone is reaching for, be my guest and wait. It might be your last mistake.
    Chief

  5. I go alog with DA-PD. This Shooting Was not justified cause he was still within the Safety of his house had perp got into the house then could be past the fine line of justification.

  6. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    If you trigger my alarm, my cameras or my dogs at 2AM, dog food, dogs slow, 45 or shotgun fast.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    It doesn't take a weapon to commit a violent crime.

    Imo, if the criminal tries to pull anything out, small hammer included, and makes the home owner believe his life is in danger, then yes the home owner can shoot. For future reference, there is no shooting to wound, head shots are just like any other shot.
    Of course it doesn't take a weapon to commit a violent crime, but absent a weapon it takes an act. Fiddling in a pocket is not a violent act until and unless a weapon is produced or a specific violent act is committed. You can't even punch or kick someone if you're a distance away from them with your hand in your pocket.

    Your statement about "no shooting to wound" is in conflict with what the Texas CCW course teaches. They teach that you are shooting to STOP the violence being done to you, NOT to kill. In fact one of the questions on the exam dealt with this and one of the incorrect choices was "keep shooting until there is no more movement." The instructor stated that if you keep shooting to kill you WILL be charged and probably convicted.

  8. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,418
    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    Of course it doesn't take a weapon to commit a violent crime, but absent a weapon it takes an act. Fiddling in a pocket is not a violent act until and unless a weapon is produced or a specific violent act is committed. You can't even punch or kick someone if you're a distance away from them with your hand in your pocket.
    This is not necessarily true. If some fool purposely reaches in an empty pocket or towards his waistband as a way to fake you into believing he has a gun, you don't have to wait until a gun is produced to stop that perceived threat. You definitely do have to be able to articulate what he did to make you perceive the threat, and his actions definitely do have to be sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe a threat is imminent, but you're just wrong that a weapon has to be produced as a blanket statement such as you made above. If the guy is completely unarmed, chances are that convincing law enforcement that he made movement sufficient to establish reasonable belief of imminent severe harm or death, without objective witnesses, is going to be difficult at best, which may well be exactly the problem in this case. Without witnesses, it's going to be impossible to prove what kind of movement the now-brain-damaged kid made.

    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    Your statement about "no shooting to wound" is in conflict with what the Texas CCW course teaches. They teach that you are shooting to STOP the violence being done to you, NOT to kill.
    Firefighterchen didn't say a word about shooting to kill. I'll guarantee you that he knows the difference between willfully trying to kill a threatening subject and stopping the threat. All he said is that you never shoot to wound, and he's right. Both premises are too specific to be either prudent or legal. You shoot to stop the threat, just like your instructor said. If the threatening subject gets wounded, that's fine. If he gets killed, that's fine too according to the law, as long as the perceived threat and use of deadly force was justified. Shoot center-mass and/or central nervous system with your intent being to stop the threat. Don't shoot the leg or arm thinking that you'll wound him and that will be sufficient to stop the threat. Without trying to speak for Firefighterchen, I'm pretty sure that's all he was saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    In fact one of the questions on the exam dealt with this and one of the incorrect choices was "keep shooting until there is no more movement." The instructor stated that if you keep shooting to kill you WILL be charged and probably convicted.
    But "keep shooting until the threat stops advancing and/or threatening" would not be a wrong answer. You're reading much more into what FFC said than is fair.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  9. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    Of course it doesn't take a weapon to commit a violent crime, but absent a weapon it takes an act. Fiddling in a pocket is not a violent act until and unless a weapon is produced or a specific violent act is committed. You can't even punch or kick someone if you're a distance away from them with your hand in your pocket.

    Your statement about "no shooting to wound" is in conflict with what the Texas CCW course teaches. They teach that you are shooting to STOP the violence being done to you, NOT to kill. In fact one of the questions on the exam dealt with this and one of the incorrect choices was "keep shooting until there is no more movement." The instructor stated that if you keep shooting to kill you WILL be charged and probably convicted.
    Refer to bluestringers post above.

    Are you saying a criminal, in your gated property at 2am, reaching into his pockets after he sees you, wouldn't be grounds to say the criminal made a specific act?

    Let me clarify beyond what blues just went over. It read as if you were just trying to make your argument sound better by using the term "head shot," as if it were far worse than any other COM/CNS shot. What does a criminal breaking into your property at 2am and reaching into his pockets deserve?
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  10. [QUOTE=BluesStringer;456674]

    Firefighterchen didn't say a word about shooting to kill. I'll guarantee you that he knows the difference between willfully trying to kill a threatening subject and stopping the threat. All he said is that you never shoot to wound, and he's right. Both premises are too specific to be either prudent or legal. You shoot to stop the threat, just like your instructor said. If the threatening subject gets wounded, that's fine. If he gets killed, that's fine too according to the law, as long as the perceived threat and use of deadly force was justified. Shoot center-mass and/or central nervous system with your intent being to stop the threat. Don't shoot the leg or arm thinking that you'll wound him and that will be sufficient to stop the threat. Without trying to speak for Firefighterchen, I'm pretty sure that's all he was saying.[QUOTE]

    The news said that the invader was shot in the head. I'm guessing that that's what the home-owner was aiming at rather than that his aim was off. Isn't shooting someone in the head much more likely to kill than a COM shot?


    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    But "keep shooting until the threat stops advancing and/or threatening" would not be a wrong answer. You're reading much more into what FFC said than is fair.

    Blues
    I beg to differ with you on reading too much into what the instructor said. He was quite unequivocal in saying that once the perp is on the ground and not threatening us with further bodily harm, we were to stop shooting. Perhaps keep the BG covered until LE arrives, but not to continue shooting until all movement stops. It is possible to writhe in pain or try to reposition your body to get off a particularly painful open wound without threatening anyone.

    (I hope I did all this editing and commenting correctly...it's the first time I have done anything like this.)

    I do appreciate everyone's thoughtful comments. Frequently when I get into discussions (about politics or history mostly) folks get all bent out of shape when they can't discourse dispassionately about a topic.

    George
    */:-{)=

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    Refer to bluestringers post above.

    Are you saying a criminal, in your gated property at 2am, reaching into his pockets after he sees you, wouldn't be grounds to say the criminal made a specific act?

    Let me clarify beyond what blues just went over. It read as if you were just trying to make your argument sound better by using the term "head shot," as if it were far worse than any other COM/CNS shot. What does a criminal breaking into your property at 2am and reaching into his pockets deserve?
    I guess I'm trying to agree with bluestringers that shooting an unarmed person for a movement into his pocket does present difficulties in front of a jury, absent corroborating witnesses, even if the guy is on my gated property.

    It's a little difficult to imagine living in a gated community though...One of my homes is on 20 acres of woods with nothing more than about 1-1/2 feet of stone "wall" around it and the other is at the end of a 500-ft driveway and pretty much surrounded pretty densely by trees, vines, shrubs and other impediments to approach. Fortunately, my poverty is great protection. I don't have any stuff that any self-respecting thief would want. It's tough to make a getaway dragging a DR Field and Brush Mower.

    George
    */:-{)=

Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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