Merry Christmas! You killed your step-daughter.

[IndyDave1776]

Can someone answer a simple question: Why is it that a person must either agree with the requirement to know with certainty the thoughts and intents of an intruder as well as his/her capability of causing harm in addition to positively identifying that person ( I guess 'I don't know who the f**k it is' in the event of an complete stranger invading one's home isn't good enough)or else is presumed to be advocating doing magazine dumps on shadows, sounds, imaginary apparitions, or one's own children?

After that, why is it not reasonable to start with the belief that an unauthorized person who has entered one's home through means which generally fall under the umbrella of 'breaking and entering' is most likely there for nefarious purposes?

Seriously, why are some of you assuming that anyone who doesn't conduct a full interview and acquire a signed affidavit of intent to engage in illegal/harmful activities in lieu of clairvoyant powers indicating the same have to be a trigger-happy moron?

 

[danielson]

So, she had a key fob to disarm the alarm, but didnt have the key to get in the door????

 

[IndyDave1776]

I am passing no judgment here, I want to say this up front. I do hope that the people who are standing strong on the notion that there is not enough info available yet to make a solid judgment and giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt will extend the same courtesy to us LEO's involved in split second use of force decisions instead of the dogpile that generally ensues here. The shoot MIGHT be "right", but at the end of the day he will be wrong as he will have to live with the fact that he killed is step-daughter. Being right does not always mean you DID the right thing. There is a lot of internet bravado going on here. I would guess by the responses that there are quite a few who will have no problem firing in the dark and then hope for the best. Again, I have no idea if hat is what happened in the original incident and I am not saying that it did. But let us use this for training purposes. As a guy who had pulled his gun out on people 100's of times and been involved in at least 1 police action shooting death, be sure of your target, you cannot take your bullets back if you are wrong and living with the mistake can easily be worse than the hesitation in firing. If you enter my house, you will get a gun pointed at you. Based on the response of the suspect, I will either be detaining them OR shooting at them, their choice. My sole purpose will be to stop the action of entering my house, that does not always mean shooting.

1. Good point. I, for one, find it much easier to be forgiving in a split-second decision which may not have proven out to be the best choice than incidents like beating unresponsive individuals to death or split-second decisions predicated upon bad non-split-second decisions, like kicking in the wrong door or flagrant violations of someone's rights followed up with a faulty interpretation of the situation which follows.

2. May well be so, but once again I have a problem with the notion that one must take either one extreme or the other.

3. No argument here with the caveat that detention would be easier for you than most others of us for professional reasons.

 

[Shay]

Can someone answer a simple question: Why is it that a person must either agree with the requirement to know with certainty the thoughts and intents of an intruder as well as his/her capability of causing harm in addition to positively identifying that person ( I guess 'I don't know who the f**k it is' in the event of an complete stranger invading one's home isn't good enough)or else is presumed to be advocating doing magazine dumps on shadows, sounds, imaginary apparitions, or one's own children?

Well, for starters, I'm not just making up ideas to throw out there. Intent, opportunity and ability are three elements that must be met in most locations for the legal use of lethal force.

Your straw man that I'm telling everyone that they have to conduct some sort of lengthy interview to determine the mental state of an attacker is absolute junk.

Intent is shown through actions. Intent is demonstrable.

So, beyond the legal justification for the use of lethal force, there are moral and tactical issues.

Shooting at shapes, shadows, sounds, smells, silhouettes is simply not a good idea. You risk killing someone who doesn't need to be killed. This might not bother you, but it should. Regardless if they are in your house.

It's very clear that you have very, very little understanding of the legal issues involved in personal defense. I would advocate that you take the Indiana Gun Law class offered by Guy at Tactical Firearms Training here in Indy. It's one day and low cost. It might change some of your positions.

 

[EdC]

Can someone answer a simple question: Why is it that a person must either agree with the requirement to know with certainty the thoughts and intents of an intruder as well as his/her capability of causing harm in addition to positively identifying that person ( I guess 'I don't know who the f**k it is' in the event of an complete stranger invading one's home isn't good enough)or else is presumed to be advocating doing magazine dumps on shadows, sounds, imaginary apparitions, or one's own children?

After that, why is it not reasonable to start with the belief that an unauthorized person who has entered one's home through means which generally fall under the umbrella of 'breaking and entering' is most likely there for nefarious purposes?

Seriously, why are some of you assuming that anyone who doesn't conduct a full interview and acquire a signed affidavit of intent to engage in illegal/harmful activities in lieu of clairvoyant powers indicating the same have to be a trigger-happy moron?

Because it is impossible to know with certainty the mind of another, the law usually permits us to draw reasonable inferences as to intent from all the circumstances, including behavior and the setting in which that behavior is taking place. It's often difficult to draw the line where "reasonable" becomes "unreasonable". When it gets too difficult, it often will go to a jury.

The law does not require a defender to do an interview of and obtain an affidavit from the suspected wrongdoer so as to be certain as to intent. The law does require a little more than doing magazine dumps on shadows, though. I did not read any posts here advocating either extreme, because both extremes are equally unreasonable so as to be ludicrous. I'm going to assume that you know that, and your post is hyperbole born of frustration - this incident is a hard case to discuss, and very disturbing to all people of conscience.

I'm angry about what this stranger/stepfather did because he didn't identify his target. I have sympathy for him as well, because I can imagine the horror of being in his position.

Most of us, I believe, do not find it so difficult to put ourselves in the shoes of the stepfather and it's scary to think about that. To me, thinking about these things, discussing them and trying to learn from it is part of responsible gun ownership.

In my mind, the minute I drift away from the belief that there may be extenuating circumstances that have excused me from the 4th rule of positively identifying my target, and the notion that I am 100% responsible for every bullet that leaves the barrel of my gun, I've started to head down the wrong path.

 

[avboiler11]

the minute I drift away from the belief that there may be extenuating circumstances that have excused me from the 4th rule of positively identifying my target, and the notion that I am 100% responsible for every bullet that leaves the barrel of my gun, I've started to head down the wrong path.

Also, this.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Everyone keeps saying he did not identify his target, I think he did. He hit the target with 2 of 3 shots if I read the multiple stories correctly. Just because you do not recognize who the target is does not mean you did not identify the target.

 

[Snapdragon]

Just because you do not recognize who the target is does not mean you did not identify the target.

Wait, what?

 

[findingZzero]

If hed have been CC, he wouldnt have been able to draw fast enough, and she would have had time to identify herself. Then again, if he would have been OC, she would have dropped to the ground, put her hands above her head, and this all would have ended better.

I have a cheap holster and don't have one in the chamber. My whole family and the James gang could have survived. Oh, yeah, I don't carry at all....throw in grandma and granddad.

 

[findingZzero]

Wait, what?

He hit what he was aiming at.

 

[avboiler11]

Everyone keeps saying he did not identify his target, I think he did. He hit the target with 2 of 3 shots if I read the multiple stories correctly. Just because you do not recognize who the target is does not mean you did not identify the target.

So what you're saying is he didn't recognize the target climbing through his basement window, but identified that target as a threat?

If the guy had used a flashlight, or even a lightswitch, he might have properly identified the target not as a threat but as his stepdaughter, and recognized she wasn't a threat worthy of lethal force.

THAT is what "everyone" is saying.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I don't understand why everyone is blaming the shooter and not the gun? Guns are evil

 

[danielson]

Dianne, you have been asked multiple times not to post here.

 

[Bunnykid68]

He hit what he was aiming at.

Yessir.

 

[danielson]

I STILL want to know how the alarm didnt go off, if she went in through a basement window. If she had a key fob, then she had her keys.

So either there was no sensor/contact in the basement window. Or she disarmed the alarm, and then broke in through the basement window?

Possible she had been caught before coming in through the door, and tried a new way to not get caught.

Sounds like this was along time coming(the confrontation). I wonder if she had been warned about being confused as a burglar.

I just hope some of my possible alternatives dont end up being true.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I STILL want to know how the alarm didnt go off, if she went in through a basement window. If she had a key fob, then she had her keys.

So either there was no sensor/contact in the basement window. Or she disarmed the alarm, and then broke in through the basement window?

Possible she had been caught before coming in through the door, and tried a new way to not get caught.

Sounds like this was along time coming(the confrontation). I wonder if she had been warned about being confused as a burglar.

I just hope some of my possible alternatives dont end up being true.

Maybe they did not have an alarm system. You can buy signs like that for $10.

 

[avboiler11]

Or the alarm wasn't armed...

 

[Bunnykid68]

Or the alarm wasn't armed...

This too. I would say a majority of folks with alarms do not arm them all the time, they get complacent.

 

[bmbutch]

Did a quick google looking for updates, nothing except similar back & forth arguing on forums/comment sections.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, for starters, I'm not just making up ideas to throw out there. Intent, opportunity and ability are three elements that must be met in most locations for the legal use of lethal force.

Yes, and you have presented a requirement for absolute answers to these questions. If I see a silhouette of a person who is as big as I am (I am the largest individual in the history of my family) following sounds indicative of forced entry, I am presented with a number of questions in the event I am afforded time to consider them. I have no way in the universe of knowing if such a person is armed (unless he is brandishing a weapon), or with what. He could be a martial arts expert. If I wait to find out, it is too late. Opportunity is a non-issue. He is already there. The opportunity exists. You have already ruled out breaking in as being indicative of intent in spite of the fact that he has already completed at least one illegal act in the process of doing so. So, please tell me how I am supposed to know what he is thinking (i.e., intent) or what his abilities are, given that he probably didn't mail me his biography a few days ahead of the invasion.

Your straw man that I'm telling everyone that they have to conduct some sort of lengthy interview to determine the mental state of an attacker is absolute junk.

No, this is not a straw man. It is unrestrained sarcasm aimed at a patently stupid position (as presented which may or may not have accurately communicated the point you intended to make--here we go again with that business of definitively knowing someone else's thoughts).

Intent is shown through actions. Intent is demonstrable.

This is a most excellent point. Most of us consider breaking into our houses in the dead of night to be a pretty solid indicator which you apparently do not accept. While I am on this topic, please enlighten us as to what you consider to demonstrate hostile intent, preferably short of opening fire on us or otherwise engaging in an attack (by that time it is generally too late for effective defense).

So, beyond the legal justification for the use of lethal force, there are moral and tactical issues.

Please elaborate. In the specific incident one would hope that a person would consider that teenagers sometimes do things like this, but your posts seem to reflect much higher expectations even when under no circumstances should there be another human being in your home in addition to the breaking and entering at an unlikely time of the night for authorized persons to present themselves (and presumably not break in).

Shooting at shapes, shadows, sounds, smells, silhouettes is simply not a good idea. You risk killing someone who doesn't need to be killed. This might not bother you, but it should. Regardless if they are in your house.

Here we go again. I never advocated shooting at any of the above non-targets. I have repetitively asked why some of you seem to think this is the only position other than knowing the thoughts, precise identity, and mother's maiden name of the intruder.

It's very clear that you have very, very little understanding of the legal issues involved in personal defense. I would advocate that you take the Indiana Gun Law class offered by Guy at Tactical Firearms Training here in Indy. It's one day and low cost. It might change some of your positions.

I accept this as an excellent idea. Hopefully I will find the opportunity. I still am unlikely to accept positions which are counterproductive to my personal survival.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, I am not advocating indiscriminately opening fire on shadows, sounds, or other non-targets. I consider it a good idea to acquire as much information as possible regarding the situation before acting. I do not, however, agree with setting a minimum standard so high that you are unlikely to survive the encounter unless, fortuitously, it is a family member breaking in as opposed to knocking on the door or moving into at least the 20th century and calling on the telephone. Again, I may have misunderstood some of the things you previously posted, but you appear to expect me to know with certainty the thoughts and intentions of an intruder. It would appear that being an intruder post-breaking and entering would adequately communicate nefarious intent. It would be helpful, however, if you could elaborate on your standards for establishing such intent.

Because it is impossible to know with certainty the mind of another, the law usually permits us to draw reasonable inferences as to intent from all the circumstances, including behavior and the setting in which that behavior is taking place. It's often difficult to draw the line where "reasonable" becomes "unreasonable". When it gets too difficult, it often will go to a jury.

This is exactly the point I have been trying to address. There is in fact a middle ground between knowing the intruder's thoughts and precise identity (not to be confused with establishing that it is not your child) and indiscriminately blasting away at shadows and sounds, real or imaginary.

The law does not require a defender to do an interview of and obtain an affidavit from the suspected wrongdoer so as to be certain as to intent. The law does require a little more than doing magazine dumps on shadows, though. I did not read any posts here advocating either extreme, because both extremes are equally unreasonable so as to be ludicrous. I'm going to assume that you know that, and your post is hyperbole born of frustration - this incident is a hard case to discuss, and very disturbing to all people of conscience.

You are absolutely correct. My references to interviews and signed statements are sarcastic attempts to address the fact that I have no way to know with certainty the thoughts of another human being, in this case at least not until after the point it is too late to defend myself. As for those who seem to think anything less is indiscriminately spraying lead and anything/everything, I am honestly not sure if they are serious or not. They don't seem to be affording much space for middle ground.

I'm angry about what this stranger/stepfather did because he didn't identify his target. I have sympathy for him as well, because I can imagine the horror of being in his position.

Agreed. One one hand, I can see the reaction of waking up to the evidence of, well, entry by nonstandard methods but would also like to think that he would have paid more attention than that before firing three times, perhaps noticing that a 14 year old girl is probably a little small for a burglar, or considered that something of this nature could happen (or that the girl could also have been awakened by an invasion and be moving about the house). In any event, this will be a lot for the man to live with.

Most of us, I believe, do not find it so difficult to put ourselves in the shoes of the stepfather and it's scary to think about that. To me, thinking about these things, discussing them and trying to learn from it is part of responsible gun ownership.

Absolutely!

In my mind, the minute I drift away from the belief that there may be extenuating circumstances that have excused me from the 4th rule of positively identifying my target, and the notion that I am 100% responsible for every bullet that leaves the barrel of my gun, I've started to head down the wrong path.

Aside from an open combat zone, I would agree (although I consider ascertaining that the [potential] target is a stranger or known threat and not an authorized person in an unlikely location acceptable).