Homeowner charged with attempted murder.


BluesStringer

Les Brers
I somewhat agree with you...but I must ask this question;
Are not LEO's 'inherently reactive' & more than just a 'bit pre-emptive' in their nature"?

Why are law abiding civilians always held to much higher standard's and 'microscopic-scrutiny' whenever it comes to self-defense scenarios but LEO's are seemingly not held to these same standard's? Where's the 'fairness' in all of this?

I would have to lower my standards of conduct considerably to get down to cops' level of SOP when it comes to opening fire in so-called self-defense. I hardly think it appropriate to judge this or any other case from the perspective of why or when cops might shoot. I'm not a gambler, and that is the biggest craps-shoot going on in this country these days.

On another note;
Would you or I have 'preemptively' shot at some shadowy figure standing at a distance behind our fence at night?
Probably not...
But we were not there on that night in question and therefore we cannot 'accurately critique' the homeowner's actions.

However, I do think it appropriate to judge a case based on what us "reasonable" carriers would do in the same or similar situation. While this particular shooter would probably be within his rights in Texas or Alabama, I am fairly certain that Castle Doctrine laws that extend outside of the home to protect property or flight are rare. I like that my state gives me more options than I would exercise in this kind of instance. That means my government trusts gun owners to make the right decisions. However, if they wiped the books clean of all laws concerning the use of deadly force, I would still never shoot someone anywhere, inside or outside, unless I perceived an articulable threat. That threshold is much thinner inside, but having security lighting outside, it would be a very rare case that I couldn't identify an armed threat vs. a prowler or glove-box thief or whatever.

I realize all the facts of this case aren't in, or at least we don't have them, but as far as I can tell, this shooter jumped the gun (no pun intended). And it all depends on NOLA and LA laws concerning shooting to protect property crimes anyway. Doesn't sound on first blush that LA is as trusting of its citizens as your or my state is, Outlaw, and it's incumbent upon citizens who carry to know what conditions they're legally allowed to shoot in.

I most likely would have illuminated the trespasser with my flashlight and yelled out "Who are you!? What the hell are you doing on my property?" Now, if the trespasser simply fled from the scene, I would not give chase and I would immediatly notify the police.

But if the trespasser decided to approach me in a menacing manner in the darkness of night with very limited time & visual's of the trespasser's hand's, then I would most assuredly be prepared to to use deadly force because I would have to assume that the trespasser is a serious threat to me and mine in that moment.

I have no problem with any of this, except that you don't hold this particular shooter to the same restrained standards you hold yourself to. I get giving the benefit of the doubt, but no one gets more than I allow myself, ya know?

Blues
 

BC1

,
And then you're a potential 'Victim'.

And how would you know that the trespasser 'does not' have a criminal record?
How would you know that the trespasser 'is not' armed with some sort of a weapon in the dark?

Self-Defense 'is' an appropriate response to the 'criminal activity' of trespass/burglary... especially at night!

And since the 'offender' does indeed have a history of trespassing/stealing from people in his past, his criminal history 'should indeed' be admissible!

People/Parent's...Get a damn clue on how to properly raise these wanna-be-gangsta children...
It's far less dramatic than burying them or incarcerating them imvho.
Trespass? No defense is needed for simple trespass at all. I merely let the dog out when there's a trespasser. Burglary is an entirely different animal. And no one should be killed unless they make an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm, which includes home invasion.
.
But how do we feel when we find the kid we just "offed" was a mentally retarded teen who thought he was at his aunt's house? Everyone should have a good plan for bad people. But I don't believe shooting first and asking questions later is a good plan. For me? I know someone is out there because dogs are barking, motion lights and cameras are on. If he enters an alarm sounds followed by the first shot. But toher than someone who's intent is to harm you, the lights, signs, dogs and alarms usually send him running. How many of us can afford a $200,000 defense? Gun = tool of LAST resort.
.
I think you did hit it on the head about the parents. They have zero clue how to raise kids. Kids are born into entitlement programs with a single parent in the ghetto. There is no parent around cause mom and dad are drunk, stoned or in jail. Eventually the street gets them. The result is 500 deaths in Chicago last year.
 

Firefighterchen

OC for Tactical Advantage
So what is your advice for people who can't afford dogs, alarms, or security lights, or a new car? Too bad for you, poor people don't deserve anything?

From what I'm reading he didn't come out guns blazing...the first thing he did was put up a gate. Then he locked his car door. Then he came outside to see what was happening where the incident occurred. Shooting was far from being the first thing he did.
 

BC1

,
Said it many times and this case is a perfect example of a gun law on the books in the blessed State of South Carolina. If AT NIGHT AND ONLY AT NIGHT--if you PRESUME someone has committed a felony, you can effect a citizens arrest and if the presumed felon tries to flee and evade your citizens arrest you can USE ANY MEANS POSSIBLE INCLUDING DEATH to thwart the evasion by the presumed felon. How and when this one went into effect I could not tell you but it is the law and it is very very clear with no misunderstandings. In this particular threat all the homeowner had to do was try to effect a citizens arrest and all bets are off after that for literally anything the punk kid decides to do that is anything but obeying the homeowner who is arresting him. FYI: South Carolina Code of Laws--Title 17-Criminal Procedures/Chapter 13-Arrest, Process, Searches and Seizures. Clear as day and backed by case law.
But it's not automatic. It still means lawyers, grand jury's and possibly a trial. A large price to pay for a trespasser. What was the return on the investment you made in shooting him? To avoid someone outside your home on your property you believe it's worth tens of thousands of $$? And if you're wrong? If your jury contains anti-gunners and liberals? Not for a trespasser. Get a dog. You'll likely chase him out and your home insurance covers the bite.
 

BC1

,
So what is your advice for people who can't afford dogs, alarms, or security lights, or a new car? Too bad for you, poor people don't deserve anything?

From what I'm reading he didn't come out guns blazing...the first thing he did was put up a gate. Then he locked his car door. Then he came outside to see what was happening where the incident occurred. Shooting was far from being the first thing he did.
Everything I've ever learned or been taught about self-defense is to not need it. Awareness and avoidance. Arm yourself. Light him up. Let out the dog if you have one. Lock-in the damn house and call police.
.
Regarding those who are ready to fight.. Christ are you guys kidding me? You wonder how anti-gunners are created? How many posters are arguing for the right to shoot trespassers. Just like whitey is afraid of black hoodie, some people are afraid of gun owners being too quick to the trigger. And every time they read about it they're beliefs are enforced and they support the Brady's. Gun rights? Some of these guys are scaring the hell out of people with this stuff. You'll be lucky to keep them for another decade.
 

r1derbike

New member
The homeowner "thought" he was reaching for something? Not good enough. No matter how long this kid's rap sheet is, this shoot stinks. No gun was drawn or pointed at the homeowner. No imminent danger, even if perceived. I don't know any of the details other than the links provided, and there's always more to these reports that show-up at trial, but I agree with many here; this is not justifiable use of deadly force. And now a kid is brain damaged, physically incapacitated, and will need care the rest of his life if he lives.

This makes me sick.
 

dad45acp

New member
Everything I've ever learned or been taught about self-defense is to not need it. Awareness and avoidance. Arm yourself. Light him up. Let out the dog if you have one. Lock-in the damn house and call police.
.
Regarding those who are ready to fight.. Christ are you guys kidding me? You wonder how anti-gunners are created? How many posters are arguing for the right to shoot trespassers. Just like whitey is afraid of black hoodie, some people are afraid of gun owners being too quick to the trigger. And every time they read about it they're beliefs are enforced and they support the Brady's. Gun rights? Some of these guys are scaring the hell out of people with this stuff. You'll be lucky to keep them for another decade.

Truth.

Sent from my NSA screened Smartphone
 

Riverkilt

New member
If the Friday involved was last Friday July 26 (??) then, depending upon cloud cover in NO there was a bright 3/4 moon up that night.

Most burglars prefer to work during the new moon for the darkness. Course men's frontal lobes don't mature until their middle 20s - that's where decisions are processed...so the kid has very poor decision making skills...
 

Firefighterchen

OC for Tactical Advantage
Everything I've ever learned or been taught about self-defense is to not need it. Awareness and avoidance. Arm yourself. Light him up. Let out the dog if you have one. Lock-in the damn house and call police.
.
Regarding those who are ready to fight.. Christ are you guys kidding me? You wonder how anti-gunners are created? How many posters are arguing for the right to shoot trespassers. Just like whitey is afraid of black hoodie, some people are afraid of gun owners being too quick to the trigger. And every time they read about it they're beliefs are enforced and they support the Brady's. Gun rights? Some of these guys are scaring the hell out of people with this stuff. You'll be lucky to keep them for another decade.

It's not those that are fighting for what's theirs that are going to lose our rights, it's those that think the system will fix all the problems that will lose it all for us.

If someone wants to live their life in fear of what anti gun people think, I feel sorry for them, they have all ready lost their Rights.
 

JimTh

Banned
You must be so busy investigating!!!

Sent from my NSA screened Smartphone

Nah...I just read the newspaper and watch the news. Plenty of stuff around the blogosphere too. Many sources of out of control LEO on youtube as well. Got a reaction out of you...didn't I? BTW...I suspect you are LEO...what is it with LEO's going around and killing all the dogs nowadays. What are you guys, just a bunch of reactionary dog killers too? Just admit you got a problem in the ranks buddy. I got a beat down by LEO in 1968...I know what I am talking about. Don't come back at me with something like I must have done something to deserve it. If that is your first reaction turn in your gun and badge because you are part of the problem.
 

dad45acp

New member
What did you do to deserve it? And blogosphere? That's the problem with you folks is that you sit behind a computer, pee in a jug while 'fact finding' on the internet.

Sent from my NSA screened Smartphone
 

kelcarry

New member
But it's not automatic. It still means lawyers, grand jury's and possibly a trial. A large price to pay for a trespasser. What was the return on the investment you made in shooting him? To avoid someone outside your home on your property you believe it's worth tens of thousands of $$? And if you're wrong? If your jury contains anti-gunners and liberals? Not for a trespasser. Get a dog. You'll likely chase him out and your home insurance covers the bite.

Several comments:
1. Yes there are lawyers and $$ and everything else under the sun when it comes to this asylum known as the US. A good shoot has absolution of any civil liability in the State of SC. That does not mean you cannot sue. Then again, if this is your basis for deciding what to do, then I would advise selling your firearm--in this asylum literally anything you will do with your firearm will get you into court one way or another so the argument on a "large price to pay" will come up regardless of anything you do short of letting the BG get his way.
2. Liberals? Antigunners?--SC is a very very red state. Its governor will support any and all bills designed to increase the ability to own and use a firearm for self defense. Heck if it ever got passed she would support OC. BTW during the big hooha over Sandy Hook, SC was debating extension of CC to include restaurants/bars. We also have a tax-free weekend for the purchase of firearms--so much for anti-gunners.
 

JimTh

Banned
What did you do to deserve it? And blogosphere? That's the problem with you folks is that you sit behind a computer, pee in a jug while 'fact finding' on the internet.

Sent from my NSA screened Smartphone

And...to steal a line fom Brad Pitt in the movie "Seven" when he was talking to co star Kevin Spacey "When you are sitting around reading your guns and ammo magazine and masturbating in your own feces, do you ever stop and wonder just how insane you are?" piss in your own jug jackass! Are you a troll?
 

Dasraa

New member
I'd be holding the individual at gunpoint. Shoot only if it is the last option in the world. If he was standing in my home...may be a different story. But case by case...people shouldn't be "letting the puppy out" sort to speak and calmly assess the situation before you find yourself neck deep in a whole lotta $hit by panicking and letting lead fly. That's a dangerous 'law abiding citizen' right there.

Sent from my NSA screened Smartphone

Since you were there, are you going to testify ?
 

cluznar

New member
It is not that expensive to put up outside lights which either stay on or go on when movement is detected. Also putting up surveillance cameras is a great idea. Having an area lit up at night gives you so much better view of what is really going on. Also if you have surveillance cameras you can watch your screen inside the house to discover what they are up to. And everyone can get a dog, every pound has dogs for little money. If you don't want a dog get a recording of a big angry dog barking from within the house. Maybe dial 911 abut an intruder in your yard and simply keep an eye on him till police arrive. Also, shooting someone in center mass is much better unless you are positive he plans on hurting/killing you. I'm afraid this homeowner just may get a manslaughter charge against him. He went outside and shot someone in the head. A bit of overkill possibly. I hope I'm wrong but he could be in trouble. Best not to chase outside after someone if you can help it. Use lights, cameras, dog/dog recording as your first self defense step.
:big_boss:
 

Dasraa

New member
I suppose my last reply did not make it through so if this a repeat please disregard, If you were there are you going to testify at the trial?
 

whodat2710

New member
The interesting thing is that no one, on here or in the paper, seemed outraged by
"He would steal -- he was a professional thief, sure," David Coulter said.
1. 14 year old - professional thief, then "sure" like that's the norm.
"But he would never pick up a gun, not in a million years. He was too scared to aim a gun at the grass, let alone aim it at a person."
2. How do you know? Why would the specific comment about him being to scared to aim at the grass come up?
Coulter's 23-year-old brother, David Coulter, said he had largely raised the children after their father died three years ago
3. Raised by his older brother (one of eight children), not by his mother... A brother who thinks it is normal that the 14 year old is a "professional thief", and proud that he is scared of guns.
-
-Do I think we know the whole story? no.
-Do I think he overreacted? not enough info.
-Did the kid look 14 in the photo? maybe, but he looked like a 14yr old wannabe thug. At 2am this would be amplified.
-Would I be more concerned with his age or his actions a 2am in my fenced yard? hmmm.
-Would I go outside to confront him? probably not, but if my dog was barking his head off I would probably want to know why, which might lead to a confrontation.
-If he saw me and then reached for something (considering he didn't run away when the dog started barking) would I shoot? I would give a verbal command of some sort depending on the situation. "stop!", "hands up!" something. but I would definitely be drawn and on target. His non-compliance while on my property inside my fence at 2am would probably force my hand.
-
There was no way for the homeowner to know that the kid was unarmed, just like there was no way for the homeowner to know that he had a criminal record.
 

gmforsythe

New member
From the point of view of a total newbie to this venue....

When I took my Texas CCW training, I was told to remember that every bullet has a lawyer's name on it. I was also told when I took my SC CCW training, never use deadly force to protect property.

As much as I support gun rights, this is one of those rare situations where a cop on the phone would have been a more prudent action. The thug would not have seen the home-owner and would not made the move that alarmed the home-owner if the home-owner had been indoors on the telephone. Which is more important: scaring the burglar away with a floodlight or immobilizing him until the police can arrive? I'm afraid that I would choose the former. If a thief knows that the home-owner is alert and will expose invasions, he may choose another house or possibly even choose another line of work. Unfortunately, as another posting observed, the law is more often on the side of the perpetrator than on that of the victim.

Just my thoughts.
 

Deenamac

New member
And then you're Zimmerman. And how do you know he has a criminal record before you shoot him? Death is an inappropriate penalty for the crime of trespass. And since he wasn't caught burglarizing the home his past history of burglary is inadmissible.
.
People... get a damn alarm system. It's cheaper than a lawyer.

IMO The article stated he HAS "a damn alarm system."
He has a dog.
The dog began barking when the person jumped the fence.
The person ignored the alarm and remained on the property.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,484
Messages
624,216
Members
74,331
Latest member
P2555016zr
Top