Homeowner Fired Warning Shot Before Fatally Shooting Teen Intruder, Sheriff Says.

[gunnerbob]

Homeowner fired warning before fatally shooting teen intruder, sheriff says | Fox News

Whatcha think?

 

[GB-Boater]

I'd have thrown the little $hit out on his a$$. Then again, I'm 6'4", 235, without a sense of humor.
Need to know more facts. How drunk, how big was the home owner, how well did they know the people "two doors down", etc.
Let him have the bedroom till the police got there.

 

[carracer]

He walked past the homeowner who then shot him in the back. Bad shoot in my opinion! He was on stairs and could have been stopped by other means including pushing him backwards before he go to the hallway. Too many wrong things happened here.

 

[NavyLCDR]

He walked past the homeowner who then shot him in the back. Bad shoot in my opinion! He was on stairs and could have been stopped by other means including pushing him backwards before he go to the hallway. Too many wrong things happened here.

From the article: "Caleb was shot in the back after passing the homeowner in a hallway and walking toward a bedroom where others were located." Sounds to me like a case of someone who cares more about their family than they do about themselves...."You can mess with me, but better not go after my family." Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.

 

[kelcarry]

From the article: "Caleb was shot in the back after passing the homeowner in a hallway and walking toward a bedroom where others were located." Sounds to me like a case of someone who cares more about their family than they do about themselves...."You can mess with me, but better not go after my family." Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.

In his house? All bets are off, regardless of where he was, where he was walking and whether anyone else was anywhere. Castle Doctrine, IMHO, is as sacred a reason for defending yourself as any--at least in SC--- it presumes imminent danger of death or great bodily injury and I am not about to start thinking about where this guy is going and whether he has just turned his back on me or not. In the moment, after I have just pissed in my pants because someone has forcibly entered my home, I will use my firearm without any discussion or second thoughts other than stopping this presumed threat. I am not going to jeopardize my safety to "interview" anyone. As far as a previous reply about "throwing him down the stairs"--keep thinking that way and you may very well die that way.

 

[Andrew49417]

Why does the media "promote" warning shots?

 

[BC1]

Book him. And hope I'm not on his jury. What a jerkoff. Another rocket scientist who uses a gun as his first line of defense. If he had half-a-brain his house would be secured better. First and foremost... you ain't gettin' in.

 

[kerb]

Darwinism at work.

I can't say that I'd have shot the kid. I'd like to think that I wouldn't, but I wasn't there. Were the lights on or off? Could the homeowner tell whether the intruder was a kid or not, or whether he was drunk?

Bottom line is, it was a home invasion. That kid was someplace he had no right to be, and ignored warnings.

I wonder where the "warning shot" landed, and what it perforated on it's way there?

 

[JCliff]

I will never fire a warning shot. If I pull the trigger it's because I intend to send a bullet into the precise spot (as precise as my training and the situation will allow) that will stop the threat NOW.
.

Book him. And hope I'm not on his jury. What a jerkoff. Another rocket scientist who uses a gun as his first line of defense. If he had half-a-brain his house would be secured better. First and foremost... you ain't gettin' in.

.
.
Gonna disagree with you here, BC. Not enough info in the news article for me to determine that the homeowner clearly had other safe options to fall back on. This kid did not come in through an unlocked door either. Sober enough to be on his feet, jimmy open and come through a window, totally ignore (!!!) a warning shot (was he shot at regularly coming home?), etc. We have no idea from the article what verbal commands were issued by the homeowner, and ignored by this drunken teen. Maybe the homeowner knew this kid was trouble too, if he recognized him in the dark. Mike Tyson beat up grown men in a boxing club at age 14.
.
I applaud anyone who takes the basic steps of securing their home by locking windows/doors. You can do more, and spend more, generally increasing the difficulty of illegal entry as you wish (nothing wrong with that, and some places certainly call for it), but unless you live in a bank vault your home can be breached, and that right quickly. One good answer...a large dog. Gives good warning and tends to dissuade unauthorized folks from coming in through unusual ports of entry.

 

[Nightmare45]

Do not fire warning shot and give the criminal the advantage.

 

[Gallstones]

I think:

One never fires a warning shot.
One doesn't shoot people in the back.

 

[Gallstones]

I have a large dog.
He only protects the back yard and the back door, not the front door.
Nice people who pet him come in the front, they don't come in the back.

Dog logic?

 

[mojoman]

It will be interesting on how this will play out, if you hear anymore about it.

 

[cwm1611]

Our state AG advises NO WARNING SHOTS: reason? If you felt you could attempt a warning shot then you did not "perceive an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm" (emphasis mine) as stated as justification of lethal defense by Ks law.

 

[BC1]

I will never fire a warning shot. If I pull the trigger it's because I intend to send a bullet into the precise spot (as precise as my training and the situation will allow) that will stop the threat NOW.
.
.
.
Gonna disagree with you here, BC. Not enough info in the news article for me to determine that the homeowner clearly had other safe options to fall back on. This kid did not come in through an unlocked door either. Sober enough to be on his feet, jimmy open and come through a window, totally ignore (!!!) a warning shot (was he shot at regularly coming home?), etc. We have no idea from the article what verbal commands were issued by the homeowner, and ignored by this drunken teen. Maybe the homeowner knew this kid was trouble too, if he recognized him in the dark. Mike Tyson beat up grown men in a boxing club at age 14.
.
I applaud anyone who takes the basic steps of securing their home by locking windows/doors. You can do more, and spend more, generally increasing the difficulty of illegal entry as you wish (nothing wrong with that, and some places certainly call for it), but unless you live in a bank vault your home can be breached, and that right quickly. One good answer...a large dog. Gives good warning and tends to dissuade unauthorized folks from coming in through unusual ports of entry.

I agree there's little info. But if that's the entire story this guy failed PPITH 101. Depending on what one wants to spend a home can be hardened to require enormous effort to break-in. A drunk looking for a place to sleep isn't generally prepared to breach a well-hardened home. But I would disagree that breaching a well hardened home can be done "right quickly." I use steel doors in steel frames with double locks, bars on lower windows, video cameras, motion lights, an alarm with power and cellular backup. A trained GSD awaits inside. The standad curriculum required for the NRA course PPITH would also recommend moving to a safe room, locking-in and getting 911 on the phone. Yes... the NRA recommends retreating in your own home. It's in the instructors course syllabus and is covered by several lengthy chapters in the PPITH guide. While this is frowned upon by many people, and depending on the layout and occupancy of the home can make it very hard, it's much cheaper than an attorney. Remember, whether you are right or wrong a defensive shooting will likely ruin your life. Just so many factors. But... to each his own.

 

[Itstjs]

I'd have thrown the little $hit out on his a$$. Then again, I'm 6'4", 235, without a sense of humor.
Need to know more facts. How drunk, how big was the home owner, how well did they know the people "two doors down", etc.
Let him have the bedroom till the police got there.

He was said to be approaching a bedroom where others were at. I think theres justified fear in him doing some sort of harm to others.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I agree there's little info. But if that's the entire story this guy failed PPITH 101. Depending on what one wants to spend a home can be hardened to require enormous effort to break-in. A drunk looking for a place to sleep isn't generally prepared to breach a well-hardened home. But I would disagree that breaching a well hardened home can be done "right quickly." I use steel doors in steel frames with double locks, bars on lower windows, video cameras, motion lights, an alarm with power and cellular backup. A trained GSD awaits inside. The standad curriculum required for the NRA course PPITH would also recommend moving to a safe room, locking-in and getting 911 on the phone. Yes... the NRA recommends retreating in your own home. It's in the instructors course syllabus and is covered by several lengthy chapters in the PPITH guide. While this is frowned upon by many people, and depending on the layout and occupancy of the home can make it very hard, it's much cheaper than an attorney. Remember, whether you are right or wrong a defensive shooting will likely ruin your life. Just so many factors. But... to each his own.

Why should I have to make my home Fort Knox just to keep miscreants out? If I leave a window open in the summertime at night and they want to crawl in unlawfully then let them. My biggest concern will be cleaning their blood out of my carpet.

 

[JCliff]

I think:

One never fires a warning shot.
One doesn't shoot people in the back.

.
If you are a threat that somehow manages to get between me and my loved ones, I will definitely shoot you in the back or anywhere else, as many times as is required to stop you.

 

[JCliff]

I agree there's little info. But if that's the entire story this guy failed PPITH 101. Depending on what one wants to spend a home can be hardened to require enormous effort to break-in. A drunk looking for a place to sleep isn't generally prepared to breach a well-hardened home. But I would disagree that breaching a well hardened home can be done "right quickly." I use steel doors in steel frames with double locks, bars on lower windows, video cameras, motion lights, an alarm with power and cellular backup. A trained GSD awaits inside. The standad curriculum required for the NRA course PPITH would also recommend moving to a safe room, locking-in and getting 911 on the phone. Yes... the NRA recommends retreating in your own home. It's in the instructors course syllabus and is covered by several lengthy chapters in the PPITH guide. While this is frowned upon by many people, and depending on the layout and occupancy of the home can make it very hard, it's much cheaper than an attorney. Remember, whether you are right or wrong a defensive shooting will likely ruin your life. Just so many factors. But... to each his own.

.
I too am an NRA certified PPITH instructor. I have no quarrel with any of the material or training in that course. It has lots of very good advice, including how you can “harden” your home, the legalities of the use of lethal force and its consequences, developing a plan for your home and family, etc. All good stuff, I would highly recommend it to anyone who hasn’t had it or its equivalent.
.
I also advocate retreating (even if legally you don’t have to), if you and your loved ones can safely do so, in virtually any scenario I can conceive of. The problem is that in reality safe retreat is not always possible. Another problem is that we are going to be surprised, to some degree, when an attack occurs. If we all could perfectly work out in advance a safe retreat from all possible threats you would not need a firearm for protection ever. That’s the rub, isn’t it? That’s why we own, train with, and carry firearms; because you can’t always get away safely, no matter how well trained, alert, and proactive you are.
.
Under Virginia common law and going only by the information presented in the article, this homeowner does not appear to have committed any crime. It’s a certainty his life will be turned upside down for awhile, and he will probably be in for a world of poop. But he’s alive and so are his family members. I would prefer that a drunk/doped up teen making a big mistake of this kind not get shot, but this homeowner did not instigate this, his home was invaded by an intruder who would not stop, and so my sympathies lie (for now at least) entirely with the homeowner.
.
BC, you have an extensive array of firearms training credentials. Rather than sneering at this unfortunate man, implying without sufficient evidence he’s guilty of a crime, and referring to him as a half-brain for apparently not meeting your standards of home security, why not use this scenario as a teaching point, even on this forum? What did this guy do wrong? A little more attention to the security of ground level windows might (we don’t know for sure based on this article) have prevented this scenario. How about an alarm system or dog or both? Either buys you a little more time. What about a plan that reduces the likelihood of an intruder getting between you and your loved ones, or quickly gets you all barricaded safely in one room? What about the dangers of having to shoot at an intruder who IS between you and your loved ones? What about that warning shot? How dangerous was that, and who knows where that round ended up in the dark? Good questions for people to think about, providing good reasons for them to seek good training.
.
The security set-up you describe at your home is impressive. It will (if used with great discipline) keep out the errant doper or drunkard, and will certainly deter any local gang-bangers or addict-thieves. Professional thieves & thugs will most likely bypass you because they are (at least sometimes) smart enough to look for a softer target. You may even foil a brace of sheriff’s deputies for awhile. Regardless, please believe that 2 or 3 men with a little training or experience, some commercially available and easily transportable tools, using no explosives, can breach even your home in less than 60 seconds. I call that right quick. What are the odds of that happening to you? Vanishingly small.

 

[dad45acp]

Th part I can't get past is when the intruder walks past and subsequently in between the homeowner and family. Playing Monday AM QB here but that doesn't make sense to me. If I didn't perceive an immediate threat then my boot would be in his chest. Or if a 'get out or I'm going to shoot' doesn't sober him up then I guess fate is fate for the young drunk kid. Shame either way but at the end of the day, if I drew a line in the carpet...a point of no return, then I sure as hell wouldn't let anyone cross it to get behind me thus leading me to shoot someone in the back.