Homeowner charged with attempted murder.


dad45acp

New member
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?

Nope not a troll. People seem to hate it when I bring to light the idiocy that rolls off their tongues.

Sent from my NSA screened Smartphone
 

The_Outlaw

~The Dude Abides~
The interesting thing is that no one, on here or in the paper, seemed outraged by

1. 14 year old - professional thief, then "sure" like that's the norm.

2. How do you know? Why would the specific comment about him being to scared to aim at the grass come up?

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.

^^^^^What he said.^^^^^
 

whodat2710

New member
This may have something to do with why the homeowner reacted the way he did. Not sayin' it couldn't or shouldn't have been handled better.

I am from New Orleans, and we moved away in the late 70's because of crime. That was before widespread gang violence, crack, etc. Everyone thinks of New Orleans as the few blocks of Bourbon St. They don't know that N.O. is frequently in the running for murder capitol of the US, right up there with Chicago, DC and Detroit. There's also the fact that there has been rampant corruption within law enforcement and the government. I don't know if this is still the case, but it has been widely publ;icized in the not to distant past.
 

BC1

,
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.
So either shoot or sell my firearm? The civil liability is federal, for which SC law cannot interfere. Show me any book or curriculum that says shoot a trespasser and I'll accept it. That's the person who needs to surrender their firearm. There are people in this world, myself included, who would destroy your life, your family, your assets and your kids financial futures for shooting my family member over trespass. You gotta believe I'm only limited by my own imagination. And everything would be legal. I never go away. My sole purpose to financially destroy such a person.
.
In the end you shot a trespasser. Not a dangerous person. Not a person who posed imminent harm or a deadly threat. A trespasser. You lose.
.
"This man wanted to shoot me down... over NOTHIN. He lost"... Kevin Costner; Wyatt Earp.
 

kelcarry

New member
So either shoot or sell my firearm? The civil liability is federal, for which SC law cannot interfere. Show me any book or curriculum that says shoot a trespasser and I'll accept it. That's the person who needs to surrender their firearm. There are people in this world, myself included, who would destroy your life, your family, your assets and your kids financial futures for shooting my family member over trespass. You gotta believe I'm only limited by my own imagination. And everything would be legal. I never go away. My sole purpose to financially destroy such a person.
.
In the end you shot a trespasser. Not a dangerous person. Not a person who posed imminent harm or a deadly threat. A trespasser. You lose.
.
"This man wanted to shoot me down... over NOTHIN. He lost"... Kevin Costner; Wyatt Earp.

Federal law? Do you mean the Obama/Holden manifesto that they decide on what and when they will interfere. Castle Doctrine in SC is literally absolute. You force your way into my home and you will not do it again--it is imminent danger to my family and I guarantee you that you will not do it again. As far as trespass--I assume we are talking about a bump in the night out on my driveway or parked car or on my lawn. As I have said, try it in SC and you will be surely sorry you tried it---I hear or see you on my property at 2 in the morning I can PRESUME your felonious actions (at night-this is only at night) and effect a citizens arrest and you try to run away you will be very sorry. Let me make it perfectly clear that I am stating what you can and cannot do in SC under the law; I am not saying, short of you coming into my home, which is automatic imminent danger under the laws of SC, that I am interested in using my firearm to protect say my car out in the driveway---SC law says I can if I effect citizens arrest but my firearm is meant to protect my family and myself and not "stuff". There is plenty of case law (BTW without your supposed Federal civil liability) where BGs have been shot when they decide that someone's truck parked in the driveway is theirs for the taking and guess what---prosecutors decline to bring charges. Even in my home, if there should be a bump in the night, I am not leaving my locked bedroom to protect my stuff, which is insured and replaceable--I am also insured but not replaceable and I am not going to find out if the BG is better at gunstuff than me. He defeats my bedroom door, it will be the worst mistake he ever made.
 

whodat2710

New member
So either shoot or sell my firearm? The civil liability is federal, for which SC law cannot interfere.

BC, check your math on this one. A civil law suit is just a non-criminal proceeding that can be local, state federal etc. I think you are referring to a "civil rights" suit.
 
Should we use deadly force on a trespasser? If the trespasser make a threating move (home owner said he did), you might have to. If you use deadly force expect the worse, but maybe we should send a message, that if you trespass, and threaten the home owner, you should expect the worse also. The trespasser made a decision, and IMHO, it was a bad one, like the many bad decisions he had been making for much of his life. Seem like so many people want to punish the home owner for minding his business.
 

cluznar

New member
I still believe the home owner is in trouble. He should have stayed inside and called police then continued watching the thief. If you run outside after someone you better be sure he has a gun before you shoot. But to be honest if you can avoid a confrontation then you should. Let police handle it. The thief was no threat to him as long as he stayed in the house. I believe he will lose his CCW permit and do some jail time. He had the chance to avoid confrontation by staying inside but chose to go outside and shoot the guy. Not a good choice. He could have let the dog out after the thief also. Your weapon is to protect your life or lives of others, not property.
 

whodat2710

New member
I still believe the home owner is in trouble. He should have stayed inside and called police then continued watching the thief. If you run outside after someone you better be sure he has a gun before you shoot. But to be honest if you can avoid a confrontation then you should. Let police handle it. The thief was no threat to him as long as he stayed in the house. I believe he will lose his CCW permit and do some jail time. He had the chance to avoid confrontation by staying inside but chose to go outside and shoot the guy. Not a good choice. He could have let the dog out after the thief also. Your weapon is to protect your life or lives of others, not property.

You are overlooking something very simple. It never said he went outside to confront anyone. Are you going to call 911 just because your dog is barking? I thought not. Would you go out and see what the problem was if you tried to get the dog to shut up and come back inside and it wouldn't? I would. If you lived in a neighborhood where a 14 year old "professional" criminal was normal would you arm yourself before going out to check? I would.
-
My only issue is that it doesn't "report" that he gave the criminal any verbal commands prior to shooting. That doesn't mean that he didn't tell the BG to put his hands up and the reporter just decided not to include it.
-
That said, a 14yr old wandering the neighborhood at 2am is a problem. A 14yr old being considered by his family to be a "professional thief" by his family and that being normal is a problem. Being in someone elses fenced in yard at 2am is a problem. Staying in that yard with ther dog barking and waking the owner is a problem.
-
How about we stop turning perpetrators (whatever their age is) into victims.
 
I do not understand why the homeowner should be in trouble. Did the homeowner invite this guy on HIS property and then shoot him? All this talk on what the homeowner could have done to prevent this does not make sense to me. The trespasser could have and should have avoided all this by staying on his side of the fence.
 

The_Outlaw

~The Dude Abides~
I do not understand why the homeowner should be in trouble. Did the homeowner invite this guy on HIS property and then shoot him? All this talk on what the homeowner could have done to prevent this does not make sense to me. The trespasser could have and should have avoided all this by staying on his side of the fence.

^^^Yep! What He Said!^^^
 

Obwana1

New member
I think this kid is a problem and you never know what his true intentions were - most likely no good. However, here is the 'real' legal aspect of this. In order to shoot to kill, the shooter may only use deadly force if he "reasonably" believes he is in danger and will suffer "severe" bodily injury or life threatening injury. Or you can use deadly force in the instances of rape, arson, or robbery. Protection of an inanimate object does not afford the shooter any protection under 'self defense' or 'make my day' laws. Now, everyone has their own personal belief of what is reasonable, but it comes down to what is reasonable to the "normal" majority of the population. Since this kid was outside the house and unarmed (irrelevant here), I'm guessing this guy will not get away with a self defense plea because he had the option of returning to his home and locking his door. If this kid broke into through the locked door, then this story would be different. Hey, I'm all for self defense, but just because you own a gun, doesn't give you the right to shoot to kill. Sorry but any idiot can own a gun, but gun ownership comes with a lot of responsibility and you must always be able to think clearly and act justifiably.
 

whodat2710

New member
I think this kid is a problem and you never know what his true intentions were - most likely no good. However, here is the 'real' legal aspect of this. In order to shoot to kill, the shooter may only use deadly force if he "reasonably" believes he is in danger and will suffer "severe" bodily injury or life threatening injury. Or you can use deadly force in the instances of rape, arson, or robbery. Protection of an inanimate object does not afford the shooter any protection under 'self defense' or 'make my day' laws. Now, everyone has their own personal belief of what is reasonable, but it comes down to what is reasonable to the "normal" majority of the population. Since this kid was outside the house and unarmed (irrelevant here), I'm guessing this guy will not get away with a self defense plea because he had the option of returning to his home and locking his door. If this kid broke into through the locked door, then this story would be different. Hey, I'm all for self defense, but just because you own a gun, doesn't give you the right to shoot to kill. Sorry but any idiot can own a gun, but gun ownership comes with a lot of responsibility and you must always be able to think clearly and act justifiably.

I do agree with your last sentence. As such it is your responsibility to be familiar with the laws in your state, as they are very different. For you to make a blanket statement that "that's illegal" or "you can't do that" is also irresponsible. For example, here is the SC law:
PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT

The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.

H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.

When the kid reached for something in his pants, game over. You don't have to wait until he shoots at you. Good form would be to issue a verbal command such as "show me your hands" or something just so you can more easily articulate why you were forced to shoot. The phrase in this law "to prevent...a violent crime" could be simple battery. The fact that he was on the guys property inside a fence changes the whole ball game.
 

gmforsythe

New member
I do agree with your last sentence. As such it is your responsibility to be familiar with the laws in your state, as they are very different. For you to make a blanket statement that "that's illegal" or "you can't do that" is also irresponsible. For example, here is the SC law:


When the kid reached for something in his pants, game over. You don't have to wait until he shoots at you. Good form would be to issue a verbal command such as "show me your hands" or something just so you can more easily articulate why you were forced to shoot. The phrase in this law "to prevent...a violent crime" could be simple battery. The fact that he was on the guys property inside a fence changes the whole ball game.

I am a real "newbie" to guns in general. I have come to own a couple of guns due to the policies of the current occupant of the White House, Andrew Cuomo, and Mayor Bloomberg. I live in upstate NY, but have a new home in Georgia. I am hoping to take courses with Front Sight, and will be driving there. In order to avoid offending any LE along the way, I have applied for CCW permits in NY, SC, and TX in that order. TX was quickest to issue and I have been told by NY that I have been approved there. I expect SC to approve soon, maybe before NY.

With that intro, let me state that in my SC class we were told "You never use deadly force to protect property." Element (3) of the above quote of SC's law specifies "a violent crime. This was not a violent crime, until Coulter made the "thwarted move as if to reach for something," and Landry misinterpreted that move. This all points to the fact that gun owners need to exercise more careful judgment than others. We are under the microscope of the liberal media and gun-hating politicians, all of whom are seeking every single excuse to curb the rights of law-abiding gun owners. We need to deprive them of excuses to destroy the 2nd Amendment. The "heat of battle" argument is a valid one, but unfortunately, I believe that I would have waited to see what the move of Coulter produced rather than shooting first and asking questions later. I am reminded of the Amadou Diallo shooting in NYC where the cops thought that he had a wallet gun. Look at what happened to the cops there. And they were "professionals." None of them are allowed to carry guns even now.

Bottom Line: We, as law-abiding gun owners, need to exercise even more caution and judgment than normal citizens because we are targets of gun-grabbers. We serve as examples either for cries for more restrictive legislation or for less restrictive legislation. I vote for the latter.
 

whodat2710

New member
With that intro, let me state that in my SC class we were told "You never use deadly force to protect property." Element (3) of the above quote of SC's law specifies "a violent crime. This was not a violent crime...

I will preface this with the fact that I am not a nut looking to "off" someone and then be able to justify it. I hope to never have to draw my gun except at the range.
-
You missed the part of the law that I also highlighted, and that was "to prevent" a violent crime. It does not state "to stop a violent crime after it has been perpetrated on you, and the homeowner never argued that he was defending property.
-
facts:
-dog is barking at 2-3am, (and I assume did not obey command to come inside or stop barking)
-homeowner investigates (doesn't call 911 because he has no info other than his dog is barking)
-homeowner sees intruder within his fenced yard (I am from N.O., and these places don't have a front yard. That means the perp was in his back yard out of sight of the street. The picture in the article will show you what I mean)
-perp sees homeowner and does not run, but reaches for something (I believe the "thwarted" part was the fact that he didn't get whatever he was reaching for because he was shot in the head for his attempt)
-
The fact that the homeowner "misinterpreted" the perps move is irrelevant. Life is not like gunfight at the OK Corral where you both draw and whoever is first wins. If I see someone in my fenced yard, the did not feel the need to run either because of the dog barking or me showing up, my weapon will be drawn. If they make any movement to grab for something (I don't care if it's a bag of skittles) they will be in a world of hurt.
 

gmforsythe

New member
Yes, you are correct that I did overlook the part about "prevent" a violent crime. However, how do we KNOW that an individual in our back yard is committing a violent crime if we see no knife or gun or other weapon? We cannot assume that a weapon is present.

I have to disagree that the interpretation of the kid's movement is irrelevant. It is his justification for using deadly force. If the intruder pulled a small hammer out and hit the windshield, does that justify a head shot? Just for the sake of argument, how do we know that what he was reaching for was not a badge so that he could identify himself as law enforcement investigating a prowler? At 2AM, it is just possible that the homeowner was not able to see that it was a 14-year old kid. We don't have that information, do we?

Again, I'm not trying to be a smartass; I'm just trying to learn here. I have absolutely zero experience (and hope never to have any), but I'm just trying to apply what I learned in the class about justification for use of deadly force, and I simply would have hesitated before taking the shot. Your suggestion of verbal clarification by the homeowner is an excellent point. Verbal communication by the intruder might also have prevented this result. Silence here by both was NOT golden.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,509
Messages
624,427
Members
74,351
Latest member
steverex201
Top