Another NOT GUILTY!

[baldguy637]

Have been on jury duty this whole week. Long story short..... Homeowner had an intruder came into his house two seperate times, unanounced, and began arguing with a female acquaintance of the homeowner. Both times, the homeowner managed to get the intruder to leave. The third time the intruder came back, he again started arguing with the female to the point where the homeowner feared for her saftey. The homeowner, went into his bedroom to retrieve his .357 and heard glass break. Upon returning, he found the intruder was arguing with the female outside with his front door glass broken. The homeowner went outside and told the intruder to leave his property, the intruder proceded to double his fists and start charging the homeowner stating "F*** THIS, YOU GONNA SHOOT ME WITH THAT FU***** GUN!" Homeowner shot the intruder once in the Right knee and once in the left hip stopping him. The State tried charging the homeowner with 2- Felony battery, 2 misdomeaner battery, and 2 Felony Criminal Wreckless charges???? 7 hours of deliberations later.....Not Guilty on all charges, Classic self defence IMHO!

 

[RogerB]

firing on an unarmed man is a bit out there IMO, but to each their own. I guess everyone has their own definition of need and use of deadly force, that's not mine but...

Good win though I suppose

 

[Bill of Rights]

Have been on jury duty this whole week. Long story short..... Homeowner had an intruder came into his house two seperate times, unanounced, and began arguing with a female acquaintance of the homeowner. Both times, the homeowner managed to get the intruder to leave. The third time the intruder came back, he again started arguing with the female to the point where the homeowner feared for her saftey. The homeowner, went into his bedroom to retrieve his .357 and heard glass break. Upon returning, he found the intruder was arguing with the female outside with his front door glass broken. The homeowner went outside and told the intruder to leave his property, the intruder proceded to double his fists and start charging the homeowner stating "F*** THIS, YOU GONNA SHOOT ME WITH THAT FU***** GUN!" Homeowner shot the intruder once in the Right knee and once in the left hip stopping him. The State tried charging the homeowner with 2- Felony battery, 2 misdomeaner battery, and 2 Felony Criminal Wreckless charges???? 7 hours of deliberations later.....Not Guilty on all charges, Classic self defence IMHO!

Sounds like it to me. The law is clear. Glad to see justice prevailed.
Thanks for your service!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[shibumiseeker]

firing on an unarmed man is a bit out there IMO, but to each their own. I guess everyone has their own definition of need and use of deadly force, that's not mine but...

Good win though I suppose

Umm. The bg charged into the homeowner's house towards the homeowner while the homeowner had a gun. That by definition means the use of deadly force is not only allowed, but prudent as the bg has clearly demonstrated that he intended the homeowner harm, and now that a gun is in play the homeowner can NOT allow someone who intended him harm control of it.

 

[Archbishop]

awesome. Just out of curiosity, Did the homeowner call the police before shooting, or wasn't there time, or how did that play out?
Also, how long ago did this happen? I'm wondering how long a legal thing like this drags on.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Umm. The bg charged into the homeowner's house towards the homeowner while the homeowner had a gun. That by definition means the use of deadly force is not only allowed, but prudent as the bg has clearly demonstrated that he intended the homeowner harm, and now that a gun is in play the homeowner can NOT allow someone who intended him harm control of it.

It's probably gonna get pointed out to you several times but let me be the first .

Umm , the homeowner was outside when he shot the BG .

 

[Joe Williams]

It's probably gonna get pointed out to you several times but let me be the first .

Umm , the homeowner was outside when he shot the BG .

Our right to self defense is not limited to being in the house. It may have been a factor, though, in the state's decision to charge the shooter and let a jury decide the issue.

 

[RogerB]

Umm. The bg charged into the homeowner's house towards the homeowner while the homeowner had a gun. That by definition means the use of deadly force is not only allowed, but prudent as the bg has clearly demonstrated that he intended the homeowner harm, and now that a gun is in play the homeowner can NOT allow someone who intended him harm control of it.

I'll take second on this...

It's probably gonna get pointed out to you several times but let me be the first .

Umm , the homeowner was outside when he shot the BG .

It's just my IMHO that if a homeowner is rushed by an unarmed man, only after the fact that he (homeowner) brandishes a firearm. That that's not a scenario requiring deadly force. Maybe an @ss whooping, but not deadly force.

 

[XMil]

Too bad the guy had to go to trial.

 

[JustOneMore]

I'll take second on this...



It's just my IMHO that if a homeowner is rushed by an unarmed man, only after the fact that he (homeowner) brandishes a firearm. That that's not a scenario requiring deadly force. Maybe an @ss whooping, but not deadly force.

So let me get this straight, you think the homeowner, who now has a firearm in his hands weather that is right or wrong, should now resort to just a physical fight with the bg and risk having the firearm taken away and possibly used on him and his wife??

 

[wtfd661]

Glad he was found not guilty

 

[00BlasterResto]

firing on an unarmed man is a bit out there IMO, but to each their own. I guess everyone has their own definition of need and use of deadly force, that's not mine but...

I disagree, the homeowner should have dropped the gun and went to fists??
If I ask you to leave my property and you rush me, I'd have shot him too.

 

[pudly]

It's just my IMHO that if a homeowner is rushed by an unarmed man, only after the fact that he (homeowner) brandishes a firearm. That that's not a scenario requiring deadly force. Maybe an @ss whooping, but not deadly force.

And if he didn't feel confident he could put the attacker down without absorbing serious bodily harm?

 

[smiley69_300]

It's just my IMHO that if a homeowner is rushed by an unarmed man, only after the fact that he (homeowner) brandishes a firearm. That that's not a scenario requiring deadly force. Maybe an @ss whooping, but not deadly force.

I know everyone has their own opinion but this one made me laugh. So if the homeowner was 5foot nothing and BG was 6'5 and charging at him he should resort to a fist fight?? umm I dont think so. The BG should be lucky they he just took one to the knee and the hip. Cause if that was me I aint aiming for the knee or hip. That just my .

 

[RogerB]

I disagree, the homeowner should have dropped the gun and went to fists??
If I ask you to leave my property and you rush me, I'd have shot him too.

no the way I read it, the guy got rushed AFTER he brandished a weapon. Had he not done that he might not have been rushed.

I guess this is more of a factor of when to draw down and when not to.

 

[BUCK HINKLE]

So let me get this straight, you think the homeowner, who now has a firearm in his hands weather that is right or wrong, should now resort to just a physical fight with the bg and risk having the firearm taken away and possibly used on him and his wife??

I am not sure but I think the called her a "female friend" I don't want to split hairs but does his wife know about his "female friend"????

 

[RogerB]

I know everyone has their own opinion but this one made me laugh. So if the homeowner was 5foot nothing and BG was 6'5 and charging at him he should resort to a fist fight?? umm I dont think so. The BG should be lucky they he just took one to the knee and the hip. Cause if that was me I aint aiming for the knee or hip. That just my .

agreed....but that info wasn't included in the scenario.

 

[JR50]

RogerB,
You seem to be reverting to the schoolyard 'fair fight'. Under attack, the homeowner must use his available resources to stop the threat. Slugging it out with the other guy seems that the homeowner puts himself and innocent others in increased jeopardy. That's irresponsible.

 

[smiley69_300]

agreed....but that info wasn't included in the scenario.

Yeah I know. But I was just using it as an example. Some people cant fight. I hve only been in one fight my entire life. If I had to fight someone who ws strong and knew what they were doing. I would be screwed.

 

[RogerB]

RogerB,
You seem to be reverting to the schoolyard 'fair fight'. Under attack, the homeowner must use his available resources to stop the threat. Slugging it out with the other guy seems that the homeowner puts himself and innocent others in increased jeopardy. That's irresponsible.

perhaps so, but as I said its just IMHO. Seems like a weapon was brought into a situation before it was really necessary, and that it may have escalated the situation.

Not saying the homeowner shouldn't have been armed and used the weapon.