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.
Should have stayed put in the safe area call and wait for PD to arrive then if perp did get in to house the threatening danger orlife then defensive. Shooting I mightbe justified...
It doesn't take a weapon to commit a violent crime.
Imo, if the criminal tries to pull anything out, small hammer included, and makes the home owner believe his life is in danger, then yes the home owner can shoot. For future reference, there is no shooting to wound, head shots are just like any other shot.
Of course it doesn't take a weapon to commit a violent crime, but absent a weapon it takes an act. Fiddling in a pocket is not a violent act until and unless a weapon is produced or a specific violent act is committed. You can't even punch or kick someone if you're a distance away from them with your hand in your pocket.
Your statement about "no shooting to wound" is in conflict with what the Texas CCW course teaches. They teach that you are shooting to STOP the violence being done to you, NOT to kill.
In fact one of the questions on the exam dealt with this and one of the incorrect choices was "keep shooting until there is no more movement." The instructor stated that if you keep shooting to kill you WILL be charged and probably convicted.
Of course it doesn't take a weapon to commit a violent crime, but absent a weapon it takes an act. Fiddling in a pocket is not a violent act until and unless a weapon is produced or a specific violent act is committed. You can't even punch or kick someone if you're a distance away from them with your hand in your pocket.
Your statement about "no shooting to wound" is in conflict with what the Texas CCW course teaches. They teach that you are shooting to STOP the violence being done to you, NOT to kill. In fact one of the questions on the exam dealt with this and one of the incorrect choices was "keep shooting until there is no more movement." The instructor stated that if you keep shooting to kill you WILL be charged and probably convicted.
Firefighterchen didn't say a word about shooting to kill. I'll guarantee you that he knows the difference between willfully trying to kill a threatening subject and stopping the threat. All he said is that you never shoot to wound, and he's right. Both premises are too specific to be either prudent or legal. You shoot to stop the threat, just like your instructor said. If the threatening subject gets wounded, that's fine. If he gets killed, that's fine too according to the law, as long as the perceived threat and use of deadly force was justified. Shoot center-mass and/or central nervous system with your intent being to stop the threat. Don't shoot the leg or arm thinking that you'll wound him and that will be sufficient to stop the threat. Without trying to speak for Firefighterchen, I'm pretty sure that's all he was saying.The news said that the invader was shot in the head. I'm guessing that that's what the home-owner was aiming at rather than that his aim was off. Isn't shooting someone in the head much more likely to kill than a COM shot?
But "keep shooting until the threat stops advancing and/or threatening" would not be a wrong answer. You're reading much more into what FFC said than is fair.
Blues
I beg to differ with you on reading too much into what the instructor said. He was quite unequivocal in saying that once the perp is on the ground and not threatening us with further bodily harm, we were to stop shooting. Perhaps keep the BG covered until LE arrives, but not to continue shooting until all movement stops. It is possible to writhe in pain or try to reposition your body to get off a particularly painful open wound without threatening anyone.
(I hope I did all this editing and commenting correctly...it's the first time I have done anything like this.)
I do appreciate everyone's thoughtful comments. Frequently when I get into discussions (about politics or history mostly) folks get all bent out of shape when they can't discourse dispassionately about a topic.
George
*/:-{)=
Refer to bluestringers post above.
Are you saying a criminal, in your gated property at 2am, reaching into his pockets after he sees you, wouldn't be grounds to say the criminal made a specific act?
Let me clarify beyond what blues just went over. It read as if you were just trying to make your argument sound better by using the term "head shot," as if it were far worse than any other COM/CNS shot. What does a criminal breaking into your property at 2am and reaching into his pockets deserve?
This was also 30ft away, at night, with a handgun. Getting a head shot was probably a lucky miss, or maybe the kid was behind the car and that's all he could see. Shooting "to kill" or "to wound" is a misnomer. If I have to shoot, I will shoot to stop the threat. I will then continue to shoot until there is no threat. If the BG is still standing but drops his gun and p[resents no further threat, I'm done. If I shoot the BG and he ends up on the ground and is still presenting a threat (reaching for something or presenting a weapon) I'm still shooting. If at some point the unfortunate bastard passes away, too bad. When these liberals start talking about "shooting to wound" they are spouting TV crap about "you should have just shot him in the leg."The news said that the invader was shot in the head. I'm guessing that that's what the home-owner was aiming at rather than that his aim was off. Isn't shooting someone in the head much more likely to kill than a COM shot?
Yes. Exactly. Stop there. On the ground means nothing. If they have a gun they can shoot you from the ground. NOT THREATENING is the key. The other key is the PERCEIVED threat. Who perceives it? You. What do you consider a threat? That is the question. For me if a kid in the exact same situation, in my fenced yard (not fenced community, MY YARD) doesn't run away when the dog barks, then doesn't run away when I show up and draw a gun, but decides to reach for some unseen object (I don't know or care what it is) I perceive that as a threat. If I don't, and he does pull a gun, we now have an even fight. I don't want that. The law doesn't require that. If you want to wait and make sure, you better hope you're a better shot than he is. Wanna bet your life on that?I beg to differ with you on reading too much into what the instructor said. He was quite unequivocal in saying that once the perp is on the ground and not threatening us with further bodily harm, we were to stop shooting.
I think the DR Mower would be cool, so if I stop by that's what I'm stealing. I think I could probably clear a heck of a getaway path with it!I guess I'm trying to agree with bluestringers that shooting an unarmed person (didn't know he was unarmed until after the fact) for a movement into his pocket (see above) does present difficulties in front of a jury, (it's all about being able to articulate your state of mind at the time of the event) absent corroborating witnesses, even if the guy is on my gated property.
It's a little difficult to imagine living in a gated community though (Trayvon entered a "gated community, this douchebag was in the guys fenced in back yard, look at the pic in the article) ...One of my homes is on 20 acres of woods with nothing more than about 1-1/2 feet of stone "wall" around it and the other is at the end of a 500-ft driveway and pretty much surrounded pretty densely by trees, vines, shrubs and other impediments to approach. Fortunately, my poverty is great protection. I don't have any stuff that any self-respecting thief would want. It's tough to make a getaway dragging a DR Field and Brush Mower.
George
*/:-{)=
OK, for this one ^^^^^ What he said, and twice on Sunday!After the Trayvon incident and now this one and no doubt more to come, wouldn't you think the parents of these kids would tell them to stop running around like thugs, expecting to be treated as gentlemen, when their pants are on the floor and they are wearing hoodies to cover their faces?
The logical thing here is for them to stop doing stupid things so they don't get shot. Because if they are innocent, that is what everyone wants.
IMO, there is NO justifiable excuse to be on someone's property in the middle of the night. Most of the time, not in daylight either. .
For this part, New Orleans yards (in the city) are small, like NYC small. The houses are side by side, so they are skinny too. Picture your tall, skinny house one driveway width away from the neighbor. You park your car in this skinny (yet possibly long) yard because of the crime. You may have some yard behind your house that is the width of both the driveway and the house combined, but it may not be that big. Your dog is barking and you go out the front door to see why. You walk to the driveway gate and see someone back by your car (at 2am). Instead of running when the dog starts barking, or when he hears you come outside, or when he sees you standing there at the gate (inside or outside wasn't mentioned) he decides to reach for something on his body. I am sorry, but I would not hesitate to shoot. As I have said before I would preface that by giving a verbal command like "Lemme see your hands". We don't know that the homeowner did this, but we don't know that he didn't either. Non-compliance could result in lead poisoning.With that said,, I can't think of a reason I would shoot at someone standing in my yard. But I've been reading about all of the black-on-white violence lately so maybe it the owner's fear was great enough, in his mind, to justify.
Depending on which end of the 500 ft. driveway the DR Mower is stored, you MAY not have to clear a getaway path at all! :wink:I think the DR Mower would be cool, so if I stop by that's what I'm stealing. I think I could probably clear a heck of a getaway path with it!
Firefighterchen didn't say a word about shooting to kill. I'll guarantee you that he knows the difference between willfully trying to kill a threatening subject and stopping the threat. All he said is that you never shoot to wound, and he's right. Both premises are too specific to be either prudent or legal. You shoot to stop the threat, just like your instructor said. If the threatening subject gets wounded, that's fine. If he gets killed, that's fine too according to the law, as long as the perceived threat and use of deadly force was justified. Shoot center-mass and/or central nervous system with your intent being to stop the threat. Don't shoot the leg or arm thinking that you'll wound him and that will be sufficient to stop the threat. Without trying to speak for Firefighterchen, I'm pretty sure that's all he was saying.
The news said that the invader was shot in the head. I'm guessing that that's what the home-owner was aiming at rather than that his aim was off.
Isn't shooting someone in the head much more likely to kill than a COM shot?
You're reading much more into what FFC said than is fair.
I beg to differ with you on reading too much into what the instructor said.
He was quite unequivocal in saying that once the perp is on the ground and not threatening us with further bodily harm, we were to stop shooting.
Perhaps keep the BG covered until LE arrives....
....but not to continue shooting until all movement stops.
It is possible to writhe in pain or try to reposition your body to get off a particularly painful open wound without threatening anyone.
I do appreciate everyone's thoughtful comments. Frequently when I get into discussions (about politics or history mostly) folks get all bent out of shape when they can't discourse dispassionately about a topic.
George
*/:-{)=
I guess I'm trying to agree with bluestringers that shooting an unarmed person for a movement into his pocket does present difficulties in front of a jury, absent corroborating witnesses, even if the guy is on my gated property.
It's a little difficult to imagine living in a gated community though...One of my homes is on 20 acres of woods with nothing more than about 1-1/2 feet of stone "wall" around it and the other is at the end of a 500-ft driveway and pretty much surrounded pretty densely by trees, vines, shrubs and other impediments to approach. Fortunately, my poverty is great protection. I don't have any stuff that any self-respecting thief would want. It's tough to make a getaway dragging a DR Field and Brush Mower.
George
*/:-{)=
No, I just said that I agreed with bluestringers that it would present problems when it comes to court time and there are no witnesses to corroborate your explanation of why you shot an unarmed teenager.
No, I just said that I agreed with bluestringers that it would present problems when it comes to court time and there are no witnesses to corroborate your explanation of why you shot an unarmed teenager.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?