Another NOT GUILTY!

[EdC]

I'm curious about the jury selection process in this case. Did the attorneys ask if prospective members owned a gun for SD, for example? Just curious, that's all.

 

[revance]

I would also like to hear what other jurors thought and how the selection process went down.

Personally I think it was a good shoot. I think if they really wanted to nail him for something they could have tried using the laws regarding brandishing and pointing a firearm as I think you might be able to show he did not fear death/serious injury at the time he brandished (pointed?) the firearm. He might have had other options than threatening with his gun (or maybe not). Either way, I think questioning if he was right to shoot when he did is silly... he was definitely in a situation where it was required, regardless of how he got into that situation.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Too bad the guy had to go to trial.

Yep. Now he has to pay for lawyer fees. Because he defended himself. Utterly ridiculous.

 

[UltraRick]

Sounds like a good shoot to me. Thanks for your service on the jury.

 

[ghitch75]

if some body is comin' at me and i have a gun in my hand i'm not goin' to fight with them and them get my gun....your goni' to get a rd in the boiler room!!!.....good shoot in my book...

 

[baldguy637]

I'll try to answer all of the questions that were asked, but since i do not have enough posts to pm, here we go.

The homeowner called police after the intruder went down in the yard and rendered first aid to the bg untill paramedics arrived.

This took place in montgomery county in Feb. of last year.

In the jury selection, there were 2 (me and one other) with PP permits. and all but 3 had guns in the home. All of this was asked before the selection.

Seven of the twelve felt self defence, the other five felt the state did not provide enough evidence that the homeowner wasn't in fear of serious injury or death from the convicted fellon charging him.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Well, as far as "Deadly Force" goes..........he did only disable the BG.

Just firing in the direction of a person is deadly force. Doesn't matter where you hit or even if you hit, it is still considered deadly force.

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.

If I'm being rushed by someone when they know I'm armed, I'm going to have to assume that they are so bad :moon: that they feel that they can do me serious harm when I'm armed, that I wouldn't stand a chance unarmed.

It could also be argued that the homeowner did that very thing by upping the force continuum by drawing a weapon and engaging the BG instead of closing his door and calling the cops .

So he should of left an (assumed) unarmed female in the hands of someone he believes is violent and is a threat to her health? And wait for the police?
How is that any different from the antis that say you shouldn't carry and just call 911? I'm not bashing you, just curious on your reasoning.

I'll try to answer all of the questions that were asked, but since i do not have enough posts to pm, here we go.

Thanks for the OP and the follow up, I was curious about those things as well.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

the other five felt the state did not provide enough evidence that the homeowner wasn't in fear of serious injury or death from the convicted fellon charging him.

This tells me that the home owner got lucky , this time .

If the state argued this case a little different , the "other five" or maybe all of them would have felt different about it .

It doesn't say the five were for the home owner , it says the state couldn't prove their case .

So he should of left an (assumed) unarmed female in the hands of someone he believes is violent and is a threat to her health? And wait for the police?

I don't know what the BG said that made the home owner feel that way but the OP didn't say the BG was using anything but words .

The home owner got the BG to leave twice already , maybe if the woman wasn't outside arguing with the BG the home owner could've got the BG to leave a third time .

How is that any different from the antis that say you shouldn't carry and just call 911? I'm not bashing you, just curious on your reasoning.
.

It's different because in as much as it depends on me , I will choose peace .

Even if it means listening to some Ahole BG run his mouth or getting a broken window .

I'm not against killing BG's , however I realize that bullets sometimes offer permanent solutions to temporary problems and should be used as an absolute last resort .

He could have called the police the second time the BG left , he could have hit the BG with OC or depending on his relationship to the woman , he could have told her and the BG to leave .
.
The home owner had other options until he pulled a weapon .

 

[indoorsoccerfrea]

The homeowner told the man to leave. The man did leave but then returned. 3 times, in fact. If a man trespasses repeatedly on my property, verbally assaults my female acquaintances, refuses to leave when I ask/demand him to, breaks my front glass door, and then charges me when I confront him, he is going to get shot. Unfortunate? definitely, but well within the scope of the law, which is what was decided.

 

[tk6968]

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

As one who spent most of my adult life in EMS and 10 years as LEO, I can tell you that your thoughts in this type of situation will get you hurt or dead. A person who is psycho or on drugs can have superhuman strength and may feel no pain.

 

[jboritzki]

I agree. If the homeowner felt threatened or thought the girl's life was being threatened then he can pull his firearm. Note that he did not just draw and shoot the guy, he drew and told him again to leave his property. The intruder then cussed, clenched his fists and charged a guy that was pointing a gun at him. The homeowner had to fire at the intruder at that point, or else take the chance that this obviously crazy guy would get his gun away from him and use it on him and/or the girl. Even if the guy didn't have a gun permit, you are allowed to have your gun on your property. It doesn't have to stay in the house.

This is why they say that if you pull a gun, you better be prepared to use it. Because if you aren't, the ba guy just might take it away from you and use it on you.

 

[Rookie]

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.

Another neat tip from Masaad Ayoob was from his Judicious Use of Lethal Force video. It was during a talk about home invasions, but it applies here. If an altercation is imminent, and you draw your weapon to a low ready or whatever your training describes as a ready defensive position, and the BG continues to attack...You can make some assumptions.

1) He knows that I have a deadly weapon in my hand because he can see it.
2) He can reasonably assume that I know how to use it and that it is not an empty threat.
3) I don't know anything about this person. He may be a thug, a retired Navy Seal, SAS, KGB, Honor roll student, etc.
4) In that situation I know nothing about what training he has, but he knows something about the training I have.
5) No one would continue to attack if they thought they had a major chance of losing.
6) Because the bad guy is pushing the attack he must be confident enough in his skills that he can still win the altercation even with me holding a gun.
7) He has enough training to win the attack unarmed against an armed gunman
8) The only way to stop him is to kill him.

 

[dhnorris]

Did anyone blame the "female acquaintance" for letting the BG know where she was at and who she was with? This sounds like the woman wanting her ex-boyfriends butt kicked by her knight of the day...or evening or whatever

 

[clt46910]

Did anyone blame the "female acquaintance" for letting the BG know where she was at and who she was with? This sounds like the woman wanting her ex-boyfriends butt kicked by her knight of the day...or evening or whatever

That did cross my mind. Seen it before.

 

[Bada Boom]

Others have explained better than I could. He is NOT GUILTY. IMHO

 

[paintball_addiction]

Just remember these words. "I was in fear of my life." And the homeowner was a better shot than me. I'd be aiming at center of mass, not knees and hips. Once he went down, it'd be hard to stop myself from putting a couple more in him. That's the part that would get me in trouble. Idiots like this BG just make me mad. Survival of the fittest and he shouldn't have survived.

 

[alfahornet]

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"????

Best line in entire thread .

It's a borderline situation in my opinion. I want to hear more facts before I make a decisive yes or no. I am undecided. I know unless I feel it is life or death I wouldn't draw a weapon but he really was afraid for his or her well being I can see why he have felt it necessary BUT I hope we see more facts.

 

[JBob77]

The homeowner told the man to leave. The man did leave but then returned. 3 times, in fact. If a man trespasses repeatedly on my property, verbally assaults my female acquaintances, refuses to leave when I ask/demand him to, breaks my front glass door, and then charges me when I confront him, he is going to get shot. Unfortunate? definitely, but well within the scope of the law, which is what was decided.

I Couldn't have said it better, or more simply !

 

[Joe Williams]

Just remember these words. "I was in fear of my life." And the homeowner was a better shot than me. I'd be aiming at center of mass, not knees and hips. Once he went down, it'd be hard to stop myself from putting a couple more in him. That's the part that would get me in trouble. Idiots like this BG just make me mad. Survival of the fittest and he shouldn't have survived.

What makes you think the shooter wasn't aiming COM?

 

[paintball_addiction]

What makes you think the shooter wasn't aiming COM?

I thought about that. Maybe he was. Maybe the BG rushed him quickly enough that he couldn't aim COM.