NC Homeowner shoots, kills burglar - Page 2
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 50

Thread: NC Homeowner shoots, kills burglar

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Well Capo, I hope you're wrong.
    Believe me, I would seriously love to be wrong here. My personal views, I dont think he did a thing wrong, but the legal system will probably say other wise. I hope an update will follow to this. I am very curious to find out what happened.
    "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum"

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc and his Glock View Post
    I just took the class and got my NC CCL. Hate to say this but this is what they teach.. if you are in your house and forced entry is occuring you can defend to include use of deadly force.. if you are outside like he was and you know someone has broken in to your house you call 911 you do not go in and shoot.. he most likly will be charged and do some time.. sad but true..
    ...
    They taught us the same thing in Nevada, not to go in. Scary times ahead for the home owner in any case.

  4. This is a very interesting site with alot of great information. I had time today to get on a computer and relax. First let me say yes the intruder got what he deserved. What concerns me is the actions of the home owner, yes he was armed but was what he did a wise choice? We carry our firearms for "personnel, self" protection/defense. Law makers have started giving us the rights in more and more states to carry for protection and many have instituted the "Castle" doctrine. Is what the H/O did viewed as self defense? We'll leave that up to the courts. My issue constitutes the abilities of the "bad guys" I would say a majority of them are untrained, undisiplined kids or young adults. I want each of you to ask yourselves this what if that H/O would have encountered a BG who had firearm training and abilities? Here is where you must decide between self preservation and "heroics". There is a reason trained "good guys" never clear houses, buildings, structures alone. There is the chance you will find a trained and capable BG lurking inside with nothing to lose. In my experiences with different public firearms courses, general conversation, along with fellow soldiers opibnions about self defense and home security it has always sided on the typical home owner is not trained in clearing techniques or has any idea as to how to properly clear a house or structure. Thus leading into an unsafe act that is not a necessity of "self-defense". Bottom line you pay your tax's which pays your local enforcement agency although usually underpaid your safety is what they get paid to provide, let them earn their pay by performing their duties. I am trained and have numerous hours, days, weeks of practical exercise, both as clearing team and opposing force the odds are with the guys already inside. Just a couple more of my pennies to stimulate your thoughts.

    SFC Carnes
    US ARMY
    Deployed

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by BoKat96 View Post
    This is a very interesting site with alot of great information. I had time today to get on a computer and relax. First let me say yes the intruder got what he deserved. What concerns me is the actions of the home owner, yes he was armed but was what he did a wise choice? We carry our firearms for "personnel, self" protection/defense. Law makers have started giving us the rights in more and more states to carry for protection and many have instituted the "Castle" doctrine. Is what the H/O did viewed as self defense? We'll leave that up to the courts. My issue constitutes the abilities of the "bad guys" I would say a majority of them are untrained, undisiplined kids or young adults. I want each of you to ask yourselves this what if that H/O would have encountered a BG who had firearm training and abilities? Here is where you must decide between self preservation and "heroics". There is a reason trained "good guys" never clear houses, buildings, structures alone. There is the chance you will find a trained and capable BG lurking inside with nothing to lose. In my experiences with different public firearms courses, general conversation, along with fellow soldiers opibnions about self defense and home security it has always sided on the typical home owner is not trained in clearing techniques or has any idea as to how to properly clear a house or structure. Thus leading into an unsafe act that is not a necessity of "self-defense". Bottom line you pay your tax's which pays your local enforcement agency although usually underpaid your safety is what they get paid to provide, let them earn their pay by performing their duties. I am trained and have numerous hours, days, weeks of practical exercise, both as clearing team and opposing force the odds are with the guys already inside. Just a couple more of my pennies to stimulate your thoughts.

    SFC Carnes
    US ARMY
    Deployed
    Point well taken, however, I think that the argument about well trained good guys clearing buildings only applies when the place is somewhere they don't live and aren't familiar with. Homeowners are familiar with their homes and, BG training notwithstanding, I think that this homeowner and any homeowner who confronts the bad guy knowing that he may have to pull the trigger is doing the right thing.

  6. #15
    I think he should be charged with excessive force.

    1. The homeowner arrived at this house.
    2. He notices an unfamiliar vehicle in his driveway and a door that is kicked in.
    3. He should have assessed the situation before taking any course of action.

    *You can willingly put yourself in unnecessary risk or play it safe and call the police, but keep your distance ensuring that you are capable of protecting yourself if the situation escalates where the BG has identified you while leaving the house.*

    IMO, set yourself up for success. Establish an ROE with some contingency plans for the future.


    HOWEVER, if the homeowner was already inside the home. I would resort to the traditional double-tap.

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by linuxpatch View Post
    I think he should be charged with excessive force.

    1. The homeowner arrived at this house.
    2. He notices an unfamiliar vehicle in his driveway and a door that is kicked in.
    3. He should have assessed the situation before taking any course of action.

    *You can willingly put yourself in unnecessary risk or play it safe and call the police, but keep your distance ensuring that you are capable of protecting yourself if the situation escalates where the BG has identified you while leaving the house.*

    IMO, set yourself up for success. Establish an ROE with some contingency plans for the future.


    HOWEVER, if the homeowner was already inside the home. I would resort to the traditional double-tap.
    It's been over three months now. Does anyone know if he ever got charged?

    As for your contention that excessive force was used, what you're basically saying is that at the moment he discovered someone else was in HIS house, he had not right to be there, even though it's HIS house. That line of reasoning suggests that the BG has more of a right to be there than the person residing there does.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  8. #17
    No no. What I'm trying to say is that the purpose of a CCW is for personal protection of "self." The right to bear arms was not intended to protect a house, but the individuals within it. Therefore, if I were to suspect a BG is burglarizing my home, the goal is to ensure my own safety (in the scenario where I am the only resident of the home). In order to do this, I would not go barging in to investigate - putting myself in harms way when I do not have to.

    The homeowner had the right to walk into his home even while being burglarized. I agree with you. However, just because you have the means, doesn't mean you should. The homeowner made the decision to go into his home while it appeared that it was being burglarized - knowing that he might have to use lethal force. At this understanding, the homeowner is no longer protecting himself, but rather, his house. IF the homeowner had the intentions of protecting himself, he would not have went in the house. With that being said, the purpose of a CCW is for personal protection of "self." The homeowner went above and beyond what was necessary to protect himself, therefore, he might be charged with excessive force.

    I have experience and training in clearing facilities and I would have never taken the course of action the homeowner took (which would be "being a lone ranger"). He could not be certain how many intruders were actually in the home, if they were armed or better armed than himself, or well seasoned. Too many unknowns..

  9. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by linuxpatch View Post
    No no. What I'm trying to say is that the purpose of a CCW is for personal protection of "self." The right to bear arms was not intended to protect a house, but the individuals within it. Therefore, if I were to suspect a BG is burglarizing my home, the goal is to ensure my own safety (in the scenario where I am the only resident of the home). In order to do this, I would not go barging in to investigate - putting myself in harms way when I do not have to.

    The homeowner had the right to walk into his home even while being burglarized. I agree with you. However, just because you have the means, doesn't mean you should. The homeowner made the decision to go into his home while it appeared that it was being burglarized - knowing that he might have to use lethal force. At this understanding, the homeowner is no longer protecting himself, but rather, his house. IF the homeowner had the intentions of protecting himself, he would not have went in the house. With that being said, the purpose of a CCW is for personal protection of "self." The homeowner went above and beyond what was necessary to protect himself, therefore, he might be charged with excessive force.

    I have experience and training in clearing facilities and I would have never taken the course of action the homeowner took (which would be "being a lone ranger"). He could not be certain how many intruders were actually in the home, if they were armed or better armed than himself, or well seasoned. Too many unknowns..



    The homeowner went above and beyond what was necessary to protect himself, therefore, he might be charged with excessive force.

    Not in Texas. Can't say about other states but I can tell you he would not be charged in Texas. God bless Texas.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  10. #19
    I wish my state would handle business like they do in Texas. I'm hoping the powers-that-be [in my state] let their balls drop and let the citizens distribute their own form of justice to intruders. There are lots of folks where I live that don't own weapons or don't believe they're necessary.
    Last edited by linuxpatch; 12-16-2008 at 11:37 PM.

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by linuxpatch View Post
    I wish my state would handle business like they do in Texas. I'm hoping the powers-that-be [in my state] let their balls drop and let the citizens distribute their own form of justice to intruders. There are lots of folks where I live that don't own weapons or don't believe they're necessary.
    I would be very carful using the term "distribute their own form of justice". This would make them appear to be
    "vigilantes". I like to look at the laws of TX as being "pro citizen" in that they allow a citizen to reasonably defend themselves and property against the criminal element.

    As law abiding citizens who happen to own guns, we need to be very careful how we exercise our rights. There are already enough folks who want to further restrict our rights. We don't need to give them any more reason to do so.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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