Excessive Force? This guy needs a lawyer

[45calibre]

or was she dieing because she broke into someones house?

i think they only lacked the opportunity. being so young they had the ability and could have easily beat him to death or choked him out, there was obvious intent due to the break in.

i would never reason with an intruder in home, if someone chooses to do thats on them but i dont think someone should try to reason with someone putting them in immediate danger when invading they're home.

 

[AD Marc]

i think they only lacked the opportunity

That alone is enough to put you in prison for the rest of your life.

They also lacked ability. Someone who doesn't even know you are there until you shoot them multiple times with a rifle has no ability to cause you harm.

They also lacked manifest intent. They were likely attempting to burglarize what they thought was an unoccupied structure and were ambushed by the homeowner. It was not indicated that there were any words or aggressive actions directed at or taken against the homeowner.

Read and learn: http://www.gutterfighting.org/LethalForce.html

May keep you out of prison some day.

 

[FortWayneGunfighter]

Look not saying he was right by any means but while im home if someone breaks in and i happen upon him while in my room(its in the basement) Im going to do a failure drill two to the chest one to the head. Burn me if you must but when im home on leave at my familys house there are little kids living there im talking i have a little sister whos 6 years old this year my dad is in his late 60's and not really able to defend himself it will most likely be dark and i am not chancing him surviving and A-calling friends or B-shooting me. There is too much at stake there; now this guy was seriously messed up for his 2nd finishing shot taking so long after his initial stoppage and gave him enough time to realize that she was unarmed and had no more friends. If he would have shot her had her laugh at him and he would have fired one more shot to make sure i would understand because there were alot of unknowns but moving her after she was no longer a threat and finishing her too much. Some would call me wrong for doing a failure drill probably but i dont care I wont have myself or anyone else in that house hurt because i wanted to be stingy with my carry ammo or didnt want to look like a bad guy. Bullets are cheap lives are expensive...some of us know that all too well....

 

[45calibre]

castle doctrine

 

[AD Marc]

castle doctrine

Yes, you clearly don't understand it.

Castle doctrine only applies to preclusion and the need to retreat. It has nothing to do with ability, opportunity and intent. Read the link i posted above.

 

[techres]

62 Year Old Kills two intruders and is charged.

This is an ugly case. Not sure the old man is quite right in the head.

Little Falls shooting: Smith charged with two counts of second-degree murder

Summary:

Man had many previous break ins.
Two teens break in while he is in basement.
He shoots the first one as soon as burglar comes down stairs.
Second one comes down and Mini-14 jams.
Second burglar laughs.
He pulls out .22 revolver and shoots second one repeatedly.
Second burglar not dead, so guy shoots her in the face as a "clean kill" to "put her out of her pain".
Guy piles up bodies in basement.
Guy does not call police but goes asking neighbors for a lawyer.
Guy asks neighbors to call police saying he did not want to bother sheriff on Thanksgiving.
Guy talks to police fully.

Read the article.

Wow.

 

[deviljunkie]

i dont think a person should wait to to see if the burglers are armed or not,or kids or not,
they werent breaking in for milk and cookies. the guy obviously made several bad judgement calls from not calling police to the "good finishing shot" . his attitude about it what is getting him in trouble.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Ugly is right. Hard to say how this might turn out. The information provided is, as usual in a news article, pretty sketchy. What is clear is that the state has a "stand your ground" law. How the law is written will certainly make a difference. The sheriff in the story is quoted saying that "once a felony can no longer be committed" the "stand your ground" statute doesn't apply. That may be fact, or opinion. Yet, it seems pretty clear that that both thieves could certainly be considered threats to life and limb at the time he encountered them - so the initial shooting of each would seem justified. Whether he was justified in shooting them again at the foot of the stairs is the question, I suppose. If you knew there were two thieves, is it safe to leave one of them conscious next to you while you wait for what the other thief is going to do? And after his gun jammed and the second thief reportedly "laughed" at him, is it unreasonable to think a trespasser that is laughing after being shot would still pose a threat? His coup de grace seems egregious, so I can see the 2nd degree murder charge for the second intruder, but the same charge doesn't seem applicable for the shooting of the first thief. But if course we only can speculate based off a news story, and news stories are usually poor representations of the facts.

 

[AD Marc]

i dont think a person should wait to to see if the burglers are armed or not,or kids or not

That would be a rule 4 violation. You must always identify the target before firing and whether or not that target is an imminent threat to your life.

 

[HoughMade]

As soon as they were down and not a threat, they turned into the victim and the shooter into the aggressor.

Would the kids be alive if they didn't break in? Of course. Would they be alive to be punished, to possibly learn from and make better choices if the shooter had not killed them when defenseless? Probably.

Life is not so simple as this guy is always the victim and that guy is always the bad guy. Situations are fluid. Also, there is no one cause for most things that happen. There are usually numerous "but for" causes and if any of them don't happen, the result is different.

The castle doctrine does not give you the right to kill people in your home when they do not present a reasonable threat to you. As I said, the first shots on each, I believe were ill advised, but probably legally defensible. All shots when they are down (laugh, likely gasp, notwithstanding) are not defensible and turned the original "victim" into the perpetrator of the greater wrong.

 

[griffin]

they were ambushed by the homeowner.

 

[griffin]

there is no one cause for most things that happen.

There was one root cause here. They broke into someone else's house.

When you break into a house, there may be someone on the other side who makes sure you don't leave alive.

Actions have consequences. I hope those two learned that.

 

[deviljunkie]

That would be a rule 4 violation. You must always identify the target before firing and whether or not that target is an imminent threat to your life.

how do you determine that? if they are breaking into my house they ARE a threat until stopped. im not going to pat them down for weapons or ask for identification. i get what you are saying, BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET, that said i would be sure my target is the burgler in my house until the threat is eliminated weather that means killing them or incapacitating them.

my opinion is that the man made a mistake after incapacitating the burglers. the threat was over and he took it a step further.

thank you for honest debate.

 

[printcraft]

There was one root cause here. They broke into someone else's house.

When you break into a house, there may be someone on the other side who makes sure you don't leave alive.

Actions have consequences. I hope those two learned that.

This /\


Man, if we just had a phaser set to stun we could shoot first and ask their intentions later for breaking into our homes while we are there.

I think we have all learned something today....
Typically criminals break into homes while people are there just to chat.
Being a criminal is a lonely life and likely they don't have any friends.
I can't tell you the number of times that has happened and after
we set down to dinner together we came to an understanding and each
went their own separate way. No harm no foul.

 

[remauto1187]

Look not saying he was right by any means but while im home if someone breaks in and i happen upon him while in my room(its in the basement) Im going to do a failure drill two to the chest one to the head. Burn me if you must but when im home on leave at my familys house there are little kids living there im talking i have a little sister whos 6 years old this year my dad is in his late 60's and not really able to defend himself it will most likely be dark and i am not chancing him surviving and A-calling friends or B-shooting me. There is too much at stake there; now this guy was seriously messed up for his 2nd finishing shot taking so long after his initial stoppage and gave him enough time to realize that she was unarmed and had no more friends. If he would have shot her had her laugh at him and he would have fired one more shot to make sure i would understand because there were alot of unknowns but moving her after she was no longer a threat and finishing her too much. Some would call me wrong for doing a failure drill probably but i dont care I wont have myself or anyone else in that house hurt because i wanted to be stingy with my carry ammo or didnt want to look like a bad guy. Bullets are cheap lives are expensive...some of us know that all too well....

Read the story again....He was alone so he had nobody to protect but himself. But from what? 2 unarmed kids. He could have easily held them at gun point. Im not going to knock him for shooting them initially although that would NOT have been my choice. Again the assassanitation style kill shots were ILLEGAL and he has already been charged with murder - 2 counts. I hope they put him in prison for the rest of his life at a min.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So to end someone's "suffering," it's better to shoot them in the head rather than, say, call an ambulance? Lol, crazy man, craaaaazy.

 

[Kutnupe14]

He certainly should pay...........were's Boobzilla? He would like this.

 

[remauto1187]

how do you determine that? if they are breaking into my house they ARE a threat until stopped. im not going to pat them down for weapons or ask for identification. i get what you are saying, BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET, that said i would be sure my target is the burgler in my house until the threat is eliminated weather that means killing them or incapacitating them.

my opinion is that the man made a mistake after incapacitating the burglers. the threat was over and he took it a step further.

thank you for honest debate.

How do you NOT see that they are unarmed as they walk down the stairs while you are in basement? If no weapon in hand then they are unarmed. Hold them at gunpoint. Bloodshed not neccessary.
Trigger happy fools deserve to goto prison along with the other fools. This mentality is what causes people to shoot their relatives in the wee hours of the night thinking they are burglars.
If you have the nads to shoot a unarmed person, sign up for the military and they will put you somewhere where the other side shoots back. Evens the odds up.

 

[45calibre]

Yes, you clearly don't understand it.

Castle doctrine only applies to preclusion and the need to retreat. It has nothing to do with ability, opportunity and intent. Read the link i posted above.

i understand what you are saying about morality and stuff and you should not want to kill just because you can, but waiting to make sure an intruder has the opportunity could cost you or someone your life, im sure it has for someone in the past.

 

[jgreiner]

His mistakes are not using a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with double 00 buckshot, having to fire more than once with each perp, and then not immediately calling the police.