Robber fatally shot - Salem, IN

[Bisley Man]

good lessons

+1 for the homeonwner defending himself and property.
-1 for the other BG on the run. Hope the homeonwer keeps himself armed until the second guy is caught.

Lessons to learn:
1. Always keep the doors locked, even during the day. (my other half gives me a hard time about this because "we live out in the sticks" )
2. Never open the door for an unknown.
3. Keep the HD gun handy

I used to live just outside downtown Indy, seemed like everyday there was a knock at the door. Oddly enough, I was not expecting visitors for most of those knocks. I would always speak to them through the door and look through the blinds in an obvious manner, the end result was the knocker slinking off my porch, holding up their pants with one hand.

If someone insists on making a phone call, I ask for the number and make the call for them. For some reason, it always ends in me being called an a-hole and them slinking off my porch with no phone call being made. Guess they didn't need to make that phone call after all!

That said, I hope I never have to be put in the position to pull the trigger.

It's so easy to get complacent.Most think this happens mainly in the big city.Rep'd for the lessons.

 

[Scarnucci]

Sounds like it might be time for a Salem INGO get together???

I'm in!

 

[Ter]

One of my co-workers heard it on the radio yesterday and came up to tell me that there had been a home invasion in my neck of the woods. My response was " I bet the homeowner won". Glad I was right.

 

[finity]

You shoot to incapacitate the threat. If he's still alive he can still shoot you.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong (& if so disregard) but the concept of "shooting to end the threat" does not have to mean definitely killing the BG. It really does mean until the threat is no longer a threat. It could mean that, in fact, the BG dies but it could also mean that the BG is fully alive on the floor with no weapon in hand or it could mean him running away unscathed. It could mean any number of things but the one consistent feature of all is that he is no longer a threat.

Anything more than that could be grounds for manslaughter/murder charges.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong (& if so disregard) but the concept of "shooting to end the threat" does not have to mean definitely killing the BG. It really does mean until the threat is no longer a threat. It could mean that, in fact, the BG dies but it could also mean that the BG is fully alive on the floor with no weapon in hand or it could mean him running away unscathed. It could mean any number of things but the one consistent feature of all is that he is no longer a threat.

Anything more than that could be grounds for manslaughter/murder charges.

Agreed - that said, I think the other important point is this - If it's important enough to for me to make the fight/flight decision in favor of using my weapon, it is important enough for me to aim at the most vital areas that will end the situation in the quickest possible manner. The fallacy of "shooting to disarm" is exactly that, a fallacy. Once I make the decision to fight, it is "all in" with overwhelming force, until, as you correctly point out, there is no threat - whatever that situation may be.

In this case, the second bad guy got away, but the threat was neutralized. Granted, there are some of us that may consider that unfortunate in a Darwinian sort of way. That said, it's not the right thing to do, and you make a fair point...


I heard a great commentary on situations like this....

"Shoot, I've never killed anybody, but I've read a lot of obituaries with a great degree of satisfaction!"

And please don't mistake my lame attempts at humor for missing your point.

 

[gearjmmer56]

It goes without saying that the bad guys still havent got the message.So if they need some reeducating so be it.It is time for all the the crap that goes down so dont call the cops put these a--holes in the ground where they belong

 

[Mog]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong (& if so disregard) but the concept of "shooting to end the threat" does not have to mean definitely killing the BG. It really does mean until the threat is no longer a threat. It could mean that, in fact, the BG dies but it could also mean that the BG is fully alive on the floor with no weapon in hand or it could mean him running away unscathed. It could mean any number of things but the one consistent feature of all is that he is no longer a threat.

Anything more than that could be grounds for manslaughter/murder charges.

Shoot to end the threat. Period. When the threat is ended, stop shooting. In all likelyhood that will entail serious injury, if not death, of the perpetrator. The main point is that you stop shooting only when you determine that the perp is no longer a viable threat. Perpetrator in any crime assumes all risks!!

 

[finity]

Agreed - that said, I think the other important point is this - If it's important enough to for me to make the fight/flight decision in favor of using my weapon, it is important enough for me to aim at the most vital areas that will end the situation in the quickest possible manner. The fallacy of "shooting to disarm" is exactly that, a fallacy. Once I make the decision to fight, it is "all in" with overwhelming force, until, as you correctly point out, there is no threat - whatever that situation may be.

In this case, the second bad guy got away, but the threat was neutralized. Granted, there are some of us that may consider that unfortunate in a Darwinian sort of way. That said, it's not the right thing to do, and you make a fair point...


I heard a great commentary on situations like this....

"Shoot, I've never killed anybody, but I've read a lot of obituaries with a great degree of satisfaction!"

And please don't mistake my lame attempts at humor for missing your point.

+1

 

[Streakyzero]

for the homeowner!

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[Trujillo107]

to bad the homeowner didn't get the second burglar.

 

[Iceandfire]

I'm in!

Me, Too!

 

[Iceandfire]

The second suspect has been named. He has the same last name as the homeowner. I heard through the local Salem grapevine that he is the GRANDSON of the homeowner, but the news media hasn't mentioned any relation, nor named the homwowner. They did, however give the address of the event, and a phone book search showed the name of the owner. Any one want to bet that drugs are not the reason for the robbery?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Awww.... come on Iceandfire....

He has the same last name as the homeowner...

But there's only 10 distinct last names in the Washington County Phone Book! (evil grin)

I'm just sayin'...

<Larry the Cable Guy>
That's not right. Lord, I apologize....
</Larry the Cable Guy>

All joking aside - that makes sense, as do the drugs...

And yeah, I can crack jokes about the nature of Washington County - I live there...

 

[Sasquatchhunter]

I live in Salem as well. I can add that the first man was unarmed, but threatened the victim with a pair of scissors he got from inside the home. The second BG came in and demanded more money, so the homeowner went to get the "money" which he opened fire on them with. I also heard that they were pretty sure BG #2 was hit as well. I also heard that it was a nephew or grandson one. He was wearing a skull mask and is still at large.

Now, I would love to get in on a Salem meet! especially for SHTF or something. And yes, Salem is a well armed little town. If Red Dawn happened in Salem the film would only be about 10 minutes long....

 

[joshennis84]

Ok, I've got one thing to say, in Indiana it is legal to shoot somebody who breaks into your house, he may have let them in, but the situation turned, so those of you who don't like the fact that he shot and killed the one guy need to understand that it is perfectly legal to do so, and if he hadn't died there have been cases where the intruder has sued for not being "armed" and won so I was told by a police officer about a year ago. With this said, are you going to wait to find out if an intruder is armed or not, I doubt he would pull a gun unless he had to, and if and when he did it might be too late. Just a thought for pondering.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

They have BG#2 in custody.... Somebody named Skyler Knaugle.

If indeed it's the Grandson of the owner (and that point has NOT been covered by the press, that I've seen), how bad would that be? First what kind of IDIOT would do that to their own grandfather? And second what if he had got him? Talked about being an emotional wreck. Crappy situation all the way around.

Maybe one down, the other in the Pokey for a long time was the best possible outcome here.... for the sake of the person defending their home. Or maybe not. Hard for me to say.

 

[rich8483]

correct me if im wrong, but couldnt the second guy get charged with the murder of the deceased if he ever gets caught?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Theoretically, yes, I think so - some of the lawyer boys and girls out here can answer for sure... not sure if it's straight up murder or some sort of "accessory to" kind of charge. And he's in the Washington County pokey according to news reports.

 

[hbarnett1]

Apparent robber fatally shot by Indiana homeowner - WTHR

I live in Salem,In.and I heard from a reliable source the robber who got away was the home owners Grandson,there to steal or rob for drug money,nice family huh?