Excessive Force? This guy needs a lawyer

[shadohman]

IT IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC LICENSE TO KILL JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE BREAKS INTO YOUR HOME. The law may say it is legal to shoot but morality and compassion should steer you towards other options IF POSSIBLE.

Interesting, you think the perpetrators of this crime deserve a "moral and compassionate response" but are unwilling to apply any compassion or understanding towards the victim, who in hind sight admits he went to far.

 

[remauto1187]

Interesting, you think the perpetrators of this crime deserve a "moral and compassionate response" but are unwilling to apply any compassion or understanding towards the victim, who in hind sight admits he went to far.

Big difference between "Oh Im sorry I broke into your house and scared the bejesus out of you"

Vs.

"Oh Im sorry I shot you 2+ times even though you were unarmed and obviously a kid then finished you off (AKA Murdered) you and now you are dead.

If you arent smart enough to know the first can be taken back and the second is forever....then well.....maybe you need to some training...and it aint weapons training either!

You may be willing to accept an apology for murder...but I am not.

 

[remauto1187]

Why not just sit down with them over a cup of coffee and convince them of the error of their ways, and to turn away from their Criminal behavior?

What is "programming in your brain"? One word... TRAINING... You will not rise to the occasion, but rather fall back to the level of preparation and training... so yes, training is effectively preprograming your brain... not to shoot and kill... but to shoot and STOP the threat. (which has already been discussed)
You actually believe the decision/reaction to pull that trigger on another human being is a LOGICAL, THOUGHTFUL, and FULLY Considered decision??? To say that someone who has this mindset is UNFIT to carry a firearm -- is naive' at best on your part, and a deadly trap at worst...


This "decision making process" of which you speak is the additional fault in the thought process (delay) which will allow the intruder the additional seconds of indecisiveness (on your part), which may be necessary to end the scenario NOT in your favor... Is it a teenager?, a woman?, are they armed?, do they want to just rob you or are they going to eliminate all witnesses, are they on drugs? what is their mental state? will they be as kind and merciful to us as we are to them by not shooting them because everything is not known and we don't know their conditions when they broke into YOUR house and threatened YOUR family? Maybe you will act later, when they have you tied up and helpless? Then you will act...? I dont think so... What is the limit before you are willing to take that grave responsibility of pulling the trigger on another person?

Contrary to your position, if you are NOT willing to act decisively and with extreme violence in response for their first felony act (the entry) you do not have the mindset to be able to make this kind of life and death situation in the first place, and will therefore end up dead... If you are not willing to make that "line" in the sand which is not to be crossed, of entering your own home, you will NOT be able to do it, regardless of the situation and will end up just providing them with another weapon for their next stop somewhere else.

It is not bluster, or tough talk, postering, or Monkey Dancing (ref. Col. Grossman and others ), and this is not meant to start a personal confrontation.... it is deadly Reality!...

The Castle Doctrine is a codification of this exact line that is not to be crossed... You do not know all the details of a situation or the person threatening you, nor can you be expected to... the standard is how would the "reasonable person" in the same situation react?

AIAAL, IANYL, YMMV

Of course there will be scenarios where the homeowner will be unable determine the extent of the threat (IE: dark home at night) but as I said before. There is no reason to be have the mindset that everyone that breaks into a house needs to be shot. The homeowner of course will be the one tasked when or if the event ever happens to them.
Yes, sure its legal to shoot an intruder. But hopefully the trigger happy mindset type homeowners out there dont end up shooting a relative, lost grandpa/ma (alzheimers sucks), etc. A little logic, responsibility and wisdom goes a long way to prevent those scenarios from happening.
Would it be OK with you if I shot your son/daughter in the chest with a .45acp just because they broke into my house and decided to make one very dumb mistake one night with the bad crowd? Would you not prefer that I decide that they were unarmed or just hold them hands in the air up high just in case they did have a weapon tucked away at gun point until the police arrived and let them live to learn from their mistake?

 

[wild willy]

If you talk to my son....he might choose the bullet over having to deal with me when I find out he broke into someones house

 

[hopper68]

My mind is having a hard time grasping the "sorry I broke into your house and scared you" thoughts of some. These young people did not accidentally enter through a basement window. They knew they did not belong there. It was a chance they took when they chose to break and enter. The gun can go boom when you play Russian Roulette.
Please teach your children that there are consequences for their action. I would prefer not to be put in the position to have to shoot them.

 

[lipster]

Again, the issue here is NOT that he shot them. He had every right to do that.

If you take the time to read the article, or the charges against him, he shot each twice as they came down the stairs.
Then he shot each several times in the chest at point blank range as they lay there.
He then walked over from his chair and shot the male in the face, as he "wanted him dead".
He shot the girl in the cranium from under her chin, "a clean finishing shot to the cranium".
The point blank chest shots, and the shots to the heads as they lay there are why he is in jail, and likely to remain there.
By the way, he says she laughed at him as she lay there. EMT's tell us that hypoxia causes gasping, which, espcially if you have a grimace on your face, can easily be mistaken for a laugh.

 

[Movealongmovealong]

Same thing as that dumb nuts pharmacist who dropped an extra round in the kid dying on his floor after an attempted robbery and getting shot.

This guy almost certainly doesn't have the financial resources that the pharmacist had, and certainly his confession and waiting to contact authorities pretty much sealed the deal.

He should have just left them where they were when he shot them... they probably would have died anyway.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

Of course there will be scenarios where the homeowner will be unable determine the extent of the threat (IE: dark home at night) but as I said before. There is no reason to be have the mindset that everyone that breaks into a house needs to be shot. The homeowner of course will be the one tasked when or if the event ever happens to them.
Yes, sure its legal to shoot an intruder. But hopefully the trigger happy mindset type homeowners out there dont end up shooting a relative, lost grandpa/ma (alzheimers sucks), etc. A little logic, responsibility and wisdom goes a long way to prevent those scenarios from happening.
Would it be OK with you if I shot your son/daughter in the chest with a .45acp just because they broke into my house and decided to make one very dumb mistake one night with the bad crowd? Would you not prefer that I decide that they were unarmed or just hold them hands in the air up high just in case they did have a weapon tucked away at gun point until the police arrived and let them live to learn from their mistake?

It is not a matter of Needing/not needing to be shot... trying to personalize it by implying my own as being the perpetrator doesn't change the facts. ON the question of shooting my son/daughter, consider this, If one of them was stupid enough to break into another's house, you better, because THEY would likely be armed and know how to use it as well... HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?...In this case, YOU would be the one with the .45 ACP bullet holes! You can not determine by simple appearance whether an intruder is a threat to you or not... Kids, including Teenagers and young adults, have done some of the most horrific violent crimes in history... read the bios for example on the Manson Family...
Everyone likes to imagine it is the unshaven, drug addicted dirty Thug that they are going to have to shoot... That is rarely the case, and the violent or unknown violent criminal does NOT fit a profile that says, "OH that is a BG, I need to shoot..."

I went through an training exercise with the FBI Citizens Academy with full videodisc scenarios of possible violent circumstances presented. One was serving an Arrest warrant on a father and taking him into custody. As we, my video partner and I are "cuffing" the adult... A 14-15 yr old kid comes out of the back room and starts screaming "you cant take my Dad away...." ... the kid would not show his hands and kept advancing, and even after "making the draw" he did not stop... I took a lot of grief from the other participants when as the End, the result was I shot him. (It was bad enough just having it as a video simulator exercise, I can NOT imagine a real scenario,) I felt awful, nauseous, sick to my stomach, heart was racing... hands temblings, etc. lots of the physiological changes... OVER a Simulator!!!
The end of the story is that the agent was able to "rewind" the scenario again and play it if I had not acted at that point... The kid continues to advance, and then less than two seconds later, without warning pulls out a large caliber revolver from his hidden side, and shoots my video "partner" almost point blank and then turns toward me....
SO, is THAT the time to react?... nope already too late, before it could be REacted to, he had already Fired TWICE at Me... and I too was "dead".

This is why I would not second guess a police officer or most reasonable people caught in a violent situation... in most circumstances because it is always easy to judge sitting in the easy chair with a keyboard on your lap... Its a lot different in the actual situation...

 

[remauto1187]

It is not a matter of Needing/not needing to be shot... trying to personalize it by implying my own as being the perpetrator doesn't change the facts. ON the question of shooting my son/daughter, consider this, If one of them was stupid enough to break into another's house, you better, because THEY would likely be armed and know how to use it as well... HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?...In this case, YOU would be the one with the .45 ACP bullet holes! You can not determine by simple appearance whether an intruder is a threat to you or not... Kids, including Teenagers and young adults, have done some of the most horrific violent crimes in history... read the bios for example on the Manson Family...
Everyone likes to imagine it is the unshaven, drug addicted dirty Thug that they are going to have to shoot... That is rarely the case, and the violent or unknown violent criminal does NOT fit a profile that says, "OH that is a BG, I need to shoot..."

I went through an training exercise with the FBI Citizens Academy with full videodisc scenarios of possible violent circumstances presented. One was serving an Arrest warrant on a father and taking him into custody. As we, my video partner and I are "cuffing" the adult... A 14-15 yr old kid comes out of the back room and starts screaming "you cant take my Dad away...." ... the kid would not show his hands and kept advancing, and even after "making the draw" he did not stop... I took a lot of grief from the other participants when as the End, the result was I shot him. (It was bad enough just having it as a video simulator exercise, I can NOT imagine a real scenario,) I felt awful, nauseous, sick to my stomach, heart was racing... hands temblings, etc. lots of the physiological changes... OVER a Simulator!!!
The end of the story is that the agent was able to "rewind" the scenario again and play it if I had not acted at that point... The kid continues to advance, and then less than two seconds later, without warning pulls out a large caliber revolver from his hidden side, and shoots my video "partner" almost point blank and then turns toward me....
SO, is THAT the time to react?... nope already too late, before it could be REacted to, he had already Fired TWICE at Me... and I too was "dead".

This is why I would not second guess a police officer or most reasonable people caught in a violent situation... in most circumstances because it is always easy to judge sitting in the easy chair with a keyboard on your lap... Its a lot different in the actual situation...

Thank you for posting a very logical response. My point is by no means meant to say NOBODY should ever fire upon an intruder. My point is think first. I fully realize it could be a matter of life and death in a split second. Some scenarios the only true logical response would be to fire and ask questions later. Then on the other hand alot of logical responses could easily not involve someone on the receiving end getting shot or killed. Only the homeowner is going to be able to determine what works for them.
I myself will not jump up ready to dump a magazine of .45 into someone just because they broke into my house. I should have some time to react, probably more than others since I have a German Shepherd outside and one in the house that the intruder must get past which will certainly add precious seconds to my reaction and decision time.

 

[shadohman]

Big difference between "Oh Im sorry I broke into your house and scared the bejesus out of you"

Vs.

"Oh Im sorry I shot you 2+ times even though you were unarmed and obviously a kid then finished you off (AKA Murdered) you and now you are dead.

The two to the chest could have been justified depending on which definition of bejesus you choose to use. The finishing shots turn a defensive shoot into murder.

If you arent smart enough to know the first can be taken back and the second is forever....then well.....maybe you need to some training...and it aint weapons training either!

How can you undo scaring the bejesus out of some one, you can make restitution for breaking and entering but that does not undo it.

You may be willing to accept an apology for murder...but I am not.

What happened to the moral compassion for those who commit crimes?
His admission of going to far does not mitigate the crime, he will see jail time.

 

[beararms1776]

Why not just sit down with them over a cup of coffee and convince them of the error of their ways, and to turn away from their Criminal behavior?

What is "programming in your brain"? One word... TRAINING... You will not rise to the occasion, but rather fall back to the level of preparation and training... so yes, training is effectively preprograming your brain... not to shoot and kill... but to shoot and STOP the threat. (which has already been discussed)
You actually believe the decision/reaction to pull that trigger on another human being is a LOGICAL, THOUGHTFUL, and FULLY Considered decision??? To say that someone who has this mindset is UNFIT to carry a firearm -- is naive' at best on your part, and a deadly trap at worst...


This "decision making process" of which you speak is the additional fault in the thought process (delay) which will allow the intruder the additional seconds of indecisiveness (on your part), which may be necessary to end the scenario NOT in your favor... Is it a teenager?, a woman?, are they armed?, do they want to just rob you or are they going to eliminate all witnesses, are they on drugs? what is their mental state? will they be as kind and merciful to us as we are to them by not shooting them because everything is not known and we don't know their conditions when they broke into YOUR house and threatened YOUR family? Maybe you will act later, when they have you tied up and helpless? Then you will act...? I dont think so... What is the limit before you are willing to take that grave responsibility of pulling the trigger on another person?

Contrary to your position, if you are NOT willing to act decisively and with extreme violence in response for their first felony act (the entry) you do not have the mindset to be able to make this kind of life and death situation in the first place, and will therefore end up dead... If you are not willing to make that "line" in the sand which is not to be crossed, of entering your own home, you will NOT be able to do it, regardless of the situation and will end up just providing them with another weapon for their next stop somewhere else.

It is not bluster, or tough talk, postering, or Monkey Dancing (ref. Col. Grossman and others ), and this is not meant to start a personal confrontation.... it is deadly Reality!...

The Castle Doctrine is a codification of this exact line that is not to be crossed... You do not know all the details of a situation or the person threatening you, nor can you be expected to...the standard is how would the "reasonable person" in the same situation react?

AIAAL, IANYL, YMMV

Good post and some very good points.
My answer to the bold text:
Neutralize

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Wow, some serious spinning going on here. Yes, you can use deadly force to stop a risk to your own life and I think 99% of us agree that a home invasion is pretty reasonable to assume you are at risk. However once they are down and you switch weapons and execute them, you've now become the aggressor and lose ANY legal or moral claims to self-defense. We aren't talking about still pulling the trigger while they are falling, when you aren't sure the stop has been made, we are talking a deliberate execution. No gray area there.

There is no reasonable explanation outside mental illness to explain waiting to report it the following day so as not to disturb the police on a holiday. I mean, thanks for thinking of us, but really we'll come out even on holidays. What did he do with the bodies in the mean time? Just leave them laying there? Because that's what normal people do, go to sleep with a couple burglar corpses in the house. Right? RIGHT???

 

[IndyDave1776]

Wow, some serious spinning going on here. Yes, you can use deadly force to stop a risk to your own life and I think 99% of us agree that a home invasion is pretty reasonable to assume you are at risk. However once they are down and you switch weapons and execute them, you've now become the aggressor and lose ANY legal or moral claims to self-defense. We aren't talking about still pulling the trigger while they are falling, when you aren't sure the stop has been made, we are talking a deliberate execution. No gray area there.

There is no reasonable explanation outside mental illness to explain waiting to report it the following day so as not to disturb the police on a holiday. I mean, thanks for thinking of us, but really we'll come out even on holidays. What did he do with the bodies in the mean time? Just leave them laying there? Because that's what normal people do, go to sleep with a couple burglar corpses in the house. Right? RIGHT???

It sounds like we are pretty much on the same page. No sympathy for the burglars here, but the post-engagement execution is way out of bounds. In fact, I have been entertaining the question of whether the man was just not so mentally sound or if he had intended to go the route of S.S.S. and chickened out before he got to the shoveling.

 

[jon5212]

Of course there will be scenarios where the homeowner will be unable determine the extent of the threat (IE: dark home at night) but as I said before. There is no reason to be have the mindset that everyone that breaks into a house needs to be shot. The homeowner of course will be the one tasked when or if the event ever happens to them.
Yes, sure its legal to shoot an intruder. But hopefully the trigger happy mindset type homeowners out there dont end up shooting a relative, lost grandpa/ma (alzheimers sucks), etc. A little logic, responsibility and wisdom goes a long way to prevent those scenarios from happening.
Would it be OK with you if I shot your son/daughter in the chest with a .45acp just because they broke into my house and decided to make one very dumb mistake one night with the bad crowd? Would you not prefer that I decide that they were unarmed or just hold them hands in the air up high just in case they did have a weapon tucked away at gun point until the police arrived and let them live to learn from their mistake?

I understand you're view point here. But right now I've got a wife and a newborn.
The only person attempting to enter my house at night would be an intruder.
As far as I'm concerned they have invited themselves to the end. My wife and daughter are infinitely more important than some piece of that violates my property and the safety of my family. And I'll do everything in my power to ensure it is stopped.

 

[JettaKnight]

I just found this thread today, and wow. I only believe about half of the story from the shooter .

A lot of us think this guy flipped his lid and went way to far. But what scares me is I can see a lot of our INGO denizens do very similar thing in this situation. There's some comments here and elsewhere that bring to this conclusion.


Oh, and TL/DR, so this guy kept a couple of stiffs in his basement overnight?

 

[lipster]

Oh, and TL/DR, so this guy kept a couple of stiffs in his basement overnight?

Some would say that once they broke into his home, they (or their bodies) are his to do with however he wants to.

 

[JettaKnight]

I just found this thread today, and wow. I only believe about half of the story from the shooter .

A lot of us think this guy flipped his lid and went way to far. But what scares me is I can see a lot of our INGO denizens do very similar thing in this situation. There's some comments here and elsewhere that bring to this conclusion.


Oh, and TL/DR, so this guy kept a couple of stiffs in his basement overnight?

Some would say that once they broke into his home, they (or their bodies) are his to do with however he wants to.

And this is a fine example of what was talking about. Now where's that lotion and bucket?

 

[beararms1776]

I understand you're view point here. But right now I've got a wife and a newborn.
The only person attempting to enter my house at night would be an intruder.
As far as I'm concerned they have invited themselves to the end. My wife and daughter are infinitely more important than some piece of that violates my property and the safety of my family. And I'll do everything in my power to ensure it is stopped.

No one is saying you couldn't defend yourself. Just that your morals don't end when you neutralize the threat.

 

[GlockPaperScissors]

Some would say that once they broke into his home, they (or their bodies) are his to do with however he wants to.

Are you being facetious or do you actually believe that?

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Are you being facetious or do you actually believe that?

Why would one have to be facetious to make the statement?

"Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos..."

I agree that the guy should have lawyered up, and probably not have 'finished them off.'

I would also find him 'not guilty' unless the State could provide some seriously compelling evidence as to his guilt. Ah, the powers of nullification.