PDA

View Full Version : Homeowner Shoots Burglar-911 Tape Link


FLA2760
July 21, 2008, 12:38 AM
Homeowner awakens to glass breaking and shoots burglar. The 911 link is about halfway down the page. Operator did a great job.


http://www.bgdailynews.com/articles/2008/07/17/news/news2.txt

chris in va
July 21, 2008, 11:46 PM
The investigation indicates that Berisaj might have been working with someone older who would identify a house to break into, and then Berisaj would actually steal items such as laptop computers and other electronics, according to the investigation.

The witnesses stated that Berisaj would brag about the burglaries in school, according to the report. Most of the witnesses were students at Moss Middle School and were not named in the report because they are juveniles.

The older individual would provide marijuana and money to Berisaj in return for the stolen items, witnesses told police, according to the investigative report.


15 years old. Wow. And the kids talking about him are in MIDDLE school. Shouldn't he have been in HS by that age?

I'm not sure I would have fired right away to be honest. It was absolutely a scary situation but probably a verbal warning might have been prudent. If the perp kept on coming, all bets would be off.

a10t2
July 22, 2008, 12:24 AM
Reaching through the window, "trying" to get the door open, and he shot the burglar "point blank" in the back of the head. I'd say he's lucky not to get charged.

mellow_c
July 22, 2008, 03:30 AM
Sure you could say he's lucky to not get charged. But he's also lucky to not be dead. In a situation like that, you might be able to say it's a 50/50 chance that the person reaching their arm through the window in the door is holding a gun in the other hand. He reacted in the safest way he could, as far as his own life goes. And the law was on his side. I'm not saying I would have done the same, I probably would have used a verbal warning first, but by doing so, I'd be putting myself at greater risk. But I am saying that we should all be happy that we have the option to defend our selves, our family, and property in such a manner if we feel it's necessary.

All the same though, that was a very unfortunate situation for everyone involved. Especially for the kid and his family.

I bet this incident has helped to change the lives of the kids friends though, atleast I hope so.

Rifleman 173
July 22, 2008, 04:31 AM
It is sad that a 15 year old kid lost his life BUT he pulled a forcible felony. That kid lost his life and it will impress upon the other kids who knew him to not commit any crimes. If it is not yours, leave it alone. From time-to-time a person who commits a crime will die for their lack of honesty. In this case it was a kid. Too bad the older person who lured the 15 year old kid to commit the crime and die will not also forfeit his life. The older person should be held accountable for the crimes that the 15 year old did and for the death of the 15 year old kid. And the penalty that the older person should face should be the same one that the 15 year old suffered. If you cause a death as a result of a felony crime, you should also be executed in very short order.

a10t2
July 22, 2008, 11:53 AM
In a situation like that, you might be able to say it's a 50/50 chance that the person reaching their arm through the window in the door is holding a gun in the other hand. He reacted in the safest way he could, as far as his own life goes.

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion retreating to the bedroom or another area of the house where he could barricade himself while calling 911 would have been a safer response. McGuire had no friends or family in the house to defend, and based on the article and 911 recording I don't see how his life was in immediate danger. He essentially shot and killed someone in order to defend his VCR.

The older person should be held accountable for the crimes that the 15 year old did and for the death of the 15 year old kid.

The older accomplice isn't named. I would guess that's because he's being charged in any burglaries they can tie to Berisaj.

Threefeathers
July 22, 2008, 12:28 PM
This was a good shooting. There is no way in hell that you know who is breaking in and when it happens you'd better have a survival instinct or the possibility of your family going to a funeral is a real possibility.

Keltyke
July 22, 2008, 01:12 PM
He shot an UNARMED burglar in the BACK of the head. He's VERY lucky to not be on trial for murder 2. Yes, the guy was breaking into his house, but he saw NO weapon and evidently the boy was at least sideways to him. To me, there's NO presumption of "in fear of life or grave bodily injury" here. Bad shooting. Now he's gotta live with killing an unarmed person, AND the possible civil litigation from the boys family.

Motive - none
Intent - none shown
Opportunity - admittedly, yes

True, he didn't know the guy was unarmed, but that's why we're taught to examine the three criteria listed above before pulling the trigger. Maybe the boy was a bad actor, but that was unknown to the homeowner.

Interestingly enough, many years ago, our county got a new Sheriff. One of the first things he did when he took office was announce that, "If someone is breaking into your home, you may presume they are there to hurt you, not just rob you. Act accordingly" He and the DA went 'round and 'round for a while on that one, but I think it was upheld. In SC, a person who makes a LEGAL shooting is immune to criminal AND civil litigation.

I understand why he did what he did, but it's still a bad shooting.

Creature
July 22, 2008, 01:43 PM
here we go again.

THIS WAS NOT A BURGLARY! Which, incidentally, is why the homeowner is not being charged. Imagine that. Why is that? Because it was a home invasion. Go look up the definition. And then go look up burglary. There is a difference.

Which goes back to: are you willing to bet your life on whether this burglar...nay, HOME INVADER is armed or not? Not me. As soon as any part of his body crossed univited into the INTERIOR of my home, I am not required to give verbal warning and I certainly wont be waiting until I know for sure if the invader is armed.

Why is it that many can not understand that retreat is not required in the case of a home invasion? Or that retreat during a home invasion is rarely the safest alternative?

rgoers
July 22, 2008, 02:23 PM
Ah, yes, someone was home... that makes it a home invasion!

It's hard to say "good shooting" or "bad shooting" without all the facts. I have seen some humongous 15 year-old kids, and knowing whether or not he was armed is impossible under the circumstances. Florida law says if they're in your home, and shouldn't be there, the presumption is they are there to cause you harm. That makes the decision all that much easier, especially since the law also protects against any civil lawsuits. Somehow - we MUST get the message out that crime is bad, and it can (and should) get you killed. I've had enough of this pandering to criminals...

Two days ago, a LEO got shot in the face, right here in Fort Myers. The guy who killed him was supposed to have been deported back to Cuba over 10 years ago. He had a rap sheet a mile long! Cuba refused to take him back, so we simply turned him loose on our streets. Why, do we keep people like that on the streets? Why?

Creature
July 22, 2008, 02:30 PM
He essentially shot and killed someone in order to defend his VCR.

That is such a stupid and ridiculous statement, I am almost at a loss for words. Prove to me and everyone here beyond a reasonable doubt that the invader was there simply to steal a VCR.

Brian Pfleuger
July 22, 2008, 02:37 PM
we MUST get the message out that crime is bad, and it can (and should) get you killed.

That is a fact. I'm truly sorry for this kids family but I'm not sorry for the kid. He was old enough to know better and if he didn't know better it's his and his parents fault and no one elses. Home Invasion is, in my book, a violent crime in and of itself and I think the law in most areas supports that idea. During the commission of a violent felony, shooting is allowed.

Brian Pfleuger
July 22, 2008, 02:40 PM
Also from the article...

Kentucky law allows a homeowner to use lethal force to stop someone from committing a burglary, robbery or any other felony utilizing force at his or her home. McGuire also had a permit to carry a concealed weapon in Kentucky.


No argument on this one. In Kentucky it's a "good" shooting. Though there's nothing good to be said about having to kill someone.

bufordtjustice
July 22, 2008, 02:41 PM
I agree with both Creature's posts. If someone breaks into your home you SHOULD consider they are there for the worst. It probably isn't very smart to think they just want the TV and then they will leave without hurting someone.

Brian Pfleuger
July 22, 2008, 02:59 PM
We had a situation in my area probably 15 years ago where the homeowners, apparently, assumed the guy was "just there for the VCR" and decided to cooperate with the guy.

His entire family ended up dead with his daughter raped and then the guy poured gas on them and lit the entire house on fire.

Ended of while later with some LE bullets in the guy (actually, last I knew they weren't sure if it was suicide or police bullets)

I think about that situation when I think about whether or not I'd shoot someone entering my home.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE6DC1F3DF93BA35751C0A966958260

OuTcAsT
July 22, 2008, 03:55 PM
He shot an UNARMED burglar

No, he shot SOMEONE COMMITTING A FELONY HOME INVASION.

To me, there's NO presumption of "in fear of life or grave bodily injury" here.

Then you have obviously never been in this man's circumstances, and your "presumption" has no merit.

True, he didn't know the guy was unarmed

Um, there goes your "presumption" at least to any reasonable person.


I respectfully disagree. In my opinion retreating to the bedroom or another area of the house where he could barricade himself while calling 911 would have been a safer response.


Really? How so...If this person would break in one door to get into the house, why would a second door be more of a deterrant? Especially in a state where there is NO DUTY TO RETREAT.

This was an unfortunate situation for the homeowner, but I WILL NOT feel sorry for the CRIMINAL:mad:

Creature
July 22, 2008, 04:26 PM
I respectfully disagree. In my opinion retreating to the bedroom or another area of the house where he could barricade himself while calling 911 would have been a safer response.

Most interior doors in modern construction homes are not much of a barricade. Nine out of ten interior doors are cheaply constructed and are hollow...any 10 year old kid can kick down those kinds of doors in about a second flat.

Brian Pfleuger
July 22, 2008, 04:43 PM
To me, there's NO presumption of "in fear of life or grave bodily injury" here.

Maybe I don't qualify as "reasonable" but, to me, someone kicking or smashing in my back door IS fear of life or bodily harm.


However, I can agree that a verbal warning may have been prudent, depending perhaps on the layout of the house and if I felt I could be in a protected position if the BG started shooting.

Cerick
July 22, 2008, 05:08 PM
Hopefully all his high school and middle school friends will think twice before breaking into someones house again. The homeowner doesn't deserve any time. You could say he should have done this, he should have done that, but chances are none of us have been in that same situation and I commend him for protecting himself. If the kid was 15 doing this stuff then the world has one less career criminal. +1

a10t2
July 22, 2008, 05:33 PM
Prove to me and everyone here beyond a reasonable doubt that the invader was there simply to steal a VCR.

I can't. Neither can you prove that the invader wouldn't have run once he was challenged verbally.

Most interior doors in modern construction homes are not much of a barricade. Nine out of ten interior doors are cheaply constructed and are hollow...any 10 year old kid can kick down those kinds of doors in about a second flat.

However, the rear door was braced to the extent that the homeowner said *he* couldn't open it for police. I see very little risk associated with getting to a position of concealment and cover, ordering the invader to leave, and calling 911.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating allowing him into the house, or giving up the rhetorical VCR, or cooperating in any way. All I'm saying is that unless I'm certain my life or someone else's is in danger I'm going to give him a chance to surrender or retreat before I risk shooting.

Brian Pfleuger
July 22, 2008, 06:12 PM
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating allowing him into the house, or giving up the rhetorical VCR, or cooperating in any way. All I'm saying is that unless I'm certain my life or someone else's is in danger I'm going to give him a chance to surrender or retreat before I risk shooting.

I would tend to agree... but it was/is legal. Now HE has to live with taking a life and WE get a chance to think what we would have done.

Creature
July 22, 2008, 07:27 PM
Neither can you prove that the invader wouldn't have run once he was challenged verbally.

That's the beauty of the law of the land...I don't have to prove that he would have run if verbally challenged, now do I? All that matters is that the intruder is trying to invade my home with me in it.

Now HE has to live with taking a life and WE get a chance to think what we would have done.


I personally am prepared and willing to defend my life against someone who is intent on invading my home and doing me harm. Are you?

Brian Pfleuger
July 22, 2008, 07:39 PM
I personally am prepared and willing to defend my life against someone who is intent on invading my home and doing me harm. Are you?

Yes

You still have to live with it.

BillCA
July 22, 2008, 07:45 PM
I'd say that by the apparent discussion of KY law, this was a good shooting. It probably would be a good shoot here in California (of all places) too.

THIS WAS NOT A BURGLARY! Which, incidentally, is why the homeowner is not being charged. Imagine that. Why is that? Because it was a home invasion. Go look up the definition. And then go look up burglary. There is a difference.

Well, it would be classified as a first degree burglary here in California.
459. Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, ... or other building, tent, vessel ..., or mine or any underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary. As used in this chapter, "inhabited" means currently being used for dwelling purposes, whether occupied or not. ...

It's easily argued that a person who has broken a window and reached inside the outer perimeter of the building has actually "entered" the building - i.e. entered it with part of his body. A person "banging" (kicking?) on the door and then using a rock to smash a window then reaching in can easily be presumed by a reasonable man to be trying to gain access to the inside of the building. That same reasonable man would conclude that the person doing this was there to commit some form of theft (larceny).

As to justification for shooting the guy breaking in...

Penal Code 197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or, 2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,

He's justified under 197.1 to resist any felony. First degree burglary is a felony.

As noted by other posters, someone who breaks into your home by stealth can be reasonably construed to be in your home to commit larceny or to commit a crime against the person of anyone found inside.

A person who breaks down a door or enters your residence in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner (such as kicking the door in or throwing a rock through the window) may be presumed to be intent on not only burglary, but felonious assault on persons inside.

Note that the armament(s) of the burglar are not an issue here. He could be bare handed. Nor do I think a round striking the back of the head is beyond reason. If you're reaching through a door's glass window to unlock the door and someone fires one or two shots thru the glass or door, a natural reaction would be turning one's head away from potentially blinding glass or flying wood splinters.

I thought this was an interesting statement...
Saban Ferizi, Berisaj’s father, said Wednesday it doesn’t make sense that someone can kill another person and not spend any time in jail.
It does make sense when the person in question shoots in defense of his life or of his home. I'm sure he would not expect a prison sentence if he kills a man with a knife who breaks into his home.

Ferizi said he still has unanswered questions about the case, and why an autopsy was permitted after the family had requested one not be done.
Sorry, not much choice here. An autopsy was performed because the case involved a homicide. Relatives and religious desires take a back seat in most cases to investigating the homicide.

Boncrayon
July 22, 2008, 08:55 PM
Any life ended is a tragedy. It rests on our ability not to put ourselves at risk. It also place us in protection of our lives and property.
My sons have never been been in a situation they had to violate another property with the intent to steal articles for their next "fix" at school. My sons do not find someone's elses property their own picking. If it were my son I had to identify in the morgue, I might feel differently. An univited intruder into my home breaking through the door or window will find me defending my life, my family (if present) and my property. I have little knowlege if the intruder is armed (he/she is already a criminal). Criminals have a tendency to protect thier own life, but have an uncany bravery (next "fix", etc.) or greed to do the crime. Some may be armed, some not. I am not inclined to blow away the intruder in the outside darkness. But if he/she comes into my house uninvited, I will assume I am in danger of attack with knife, gun, or other force. My force will be greater.

dabigguns357
July 22, 2008, 09:20 PM
I would think this is pretty cut and dry,a burglar watches a house to see if your there and will enter when they know you the homeowner are not.You break in to someones house while they sleep and you are asking to be killed.Justified i say yes.

Creature
July 23, 2008, 09:10 AM
Well, it would be classified as a first degree burglary here in California.

Then obviously the next question would be what is classified as a home invasion in CA?

_____


It is not reasonable to assume that a person who resorts to breaking a window to gain entry into a occupied home, which is in itself is not a quiet operation, in the middle of the night (a domicile which in most cases has a higher chance of actually being inhabited by a person because of the time of day) has already planned on and decided to deal with any person they encounter once they get inside?

Is that not the only presumption that should be made in a situation like this?
To me, it is.

Based on that presumption, I will have no problem living with having shot and possibly killed someone who enters my home unannounced and uninvited through force, unless they are the police and have a warrant. Even then, the police are generally required to announce themselves prior to entering with a warrant

Relayer
July 23, 2008, 05:11 PM
"Kentucky law allows a homeowner to use lethal force to stop someone from committing a burglary, robbery or any other felony utilizing force at his or her home."

Taking this at face value, I don't see how anyone can say this man should be facing charges.

Personally, I THINK I would have shouted at the person breaking in and tried to scare him away. Still, JMHO, (regardless of the law) if you are breaking into a man's home, you are just asking to be shot and you (or surviving family members) don't really have much room to complain.

When you attempt such the people who happen to be inside cannot know what you plan to do once you get inside, nor should they have to try and guess or wait to see if you are going to for sure do harm to them before they take you out.

davlandrum
July 23, 2008, 06:56 PM
Tough call for me -

My 13-year-old son has ADHD, anxiety, and other stuff rolling around in his head.

He was staying with my mom this summer for a few days. He went out to ride his bike for a while. Not long enough after his meds for them to be working.

He ended up walking into the neighbors motorhome, where the neighbor was asleep. Why did he go in? If I could tell you that, I would be the smartest man alive.

Neighbor wakes up and comes out of bed with a .357 and yells at him. My son turned and ran and the guy chased him to my mom's house.

Grandpa chewed him out for awhile. Let things cool down and then marched my son back there to apologize. Guy chewed him out good. Son comes home, I chewed him out good and tanned his hide, my wife almost killed him.

If he had been shot, it would have been a "good shoot". I know it would have been a good shoot, and given that exact scenario with me waking up to an intruder, I might have shot.

That split second to yell at him before pulling the trigger was the difference between a lesson learned for the rest of his life (hopefully) and planning a funeral for my kid.

Creature
July 23, 2008, 07:23 PM
Yes. Tough call. But sorry, but I am not going to yell. I am not going to compromise my position in the hopes of the 1 in 13 million chances that the invader smashing through my window is your kid learning a life lesson.

Brian Pfleuger
July 23, 2008, 07:58 PM
If he had been shot, it would have been a "good shoot".

davlandrum,

Depends on how your son got in, it would have to be violent, tumultuous entry to justify shooting in most areas. If he just walked in an unlocked door it would be a "bad" shooting. I'm also not sure if a motor home ALWAYS qualifies under things like the castle doctrine: might, might not, I don't know

johnsonmd1
July 24, 2008, 11:28 AM
It would probably depend on the state whether the RV counts under a Castle doctrine. Looking at the quote regarding the CA law ("or other...vessel"), it would be considered a good shoot. I'm unsure whether other states have similar caveats. In most cases a state's Castle doctrine should extend to an RV. Would such law also extend to a car/truck/boat as well (my good common sense but poor legal reasoning would be that I do have to pay property taxes on such items)?

davlandrum
July 24, 2008, 01:12 PM
He walked through an unlocked door.

Brian Pfleuger
July 24, 2008, 01:18 PM
Anybody else hate the term "good shot" when applied to shooting a fellow human being?

Shouldn't we say "right"/"wrong" or "legal"/"illegal"

I'm as pro-gun, anti-pc as they come but that term just FEELS wrong to me.

Seems to me like it's never good to have to shoot someone, no matter how much they deserve it. (and YES I would shoot someone if needed to defend me and mine)

Creature
July 24, 2008, 01:26 PM
Anybody else hate the term "good shot" when applied to shooting a fellow human being?

Not really...but then again, maybe I am just not as in touch with my feelings as I should be.

OuTcAsT
July 24, 2008, 01:36 PM
Quote:
Anybody else hate the term "good shot" when applied to shooting a fellow human being?

Not really...but then again, maybe I am just not as in touch with my feelings as I should be.

+1 on that, Guess I'm not either....That just may be the difference in who survives this kind of situation.

Good to have company on the deeper end of the gene pool :D

Slopemeno
July 24, 2008, 02:23 PM
How about "justifiable shooing".

johnsonmd1
July 24, 2008, 02:26 PM
Good point; one could also use justifiable v. criminal homicide.

Someone was on my train of thought

PATH
July 24, 2008, 02:29 PM
Shooting anyone for any reason can be an extremely traumatic experience. It is rather sad that this young man lost his life. I am sure Mr. McGuire was shook up about shooting a teen,

The fact remains that he felt threatened and acted in line with what is acceptable under Kentucky law. One cannot really retreat in their own home.

I am glad that I have a dog that barks in a loud and aggressive fashion when someone approaches the house. Maybe a dog barking would have discouraged this teen.

It is so easy to calmly sit at our computers and second guess the actions of the shooter but we really don't know what we would have done unless we were in that situation. I pray none of us has to find out.

Good shoot under Kentucky law. Bad shoot in that he has to live with it.

Brian Pfleuger
July 24, 2008, 04:28 PM
Good point; one could also use justifiable v. criminal homicide.

That does sound allot less callouss, I'm going with "justifiable/unjustifiable" from now on.

BillCA
July 25, 2008, 01:00 AM
In California, the "castle doctrine" includes just about any place you establish a presence as a "habitation" (usually to sleep for the night, though that isn't necessary). Thus, an RV is covered and so is a tent.

Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle as defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft as defined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or any
underground portion thereof, with intent to ...

A house, trailer, vessel designed for habitation, or portion of a building is currently being used for dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not occupied solely because a natural or other disaster caused the occupants to leave the premises.


The term "good shoot" or "good shooting" implies a legal & justifiable basis for the shooting. This is as opposed to a "bad shooting" which would be a criminal shooting. This was originally, I believe, police lexicon that crept into more or less common usage.

Striker071
July 25, 2008, 01:39 AM
Good Shoot ... Bad Shoot is a slang term for a Justifiable shoot or Non- Justfiable shoot. As callous as it might seem. Every person that has had to use a weapon of any kind to take anothers life ends up having to think about it. I hope and pray I never am in Mr Mcquires predicament. All that aside when are we gonna stop coddling the people that are willing to do harm to us. We all are gonna die.. that young man just made a decision that ended his prematurely. Young people have no idea of concequences of their actions, have not learned respect of others and think that rules don't apply to them. Without respect they can do and will do anything including harm you. So Mr Mcguire was justified in doing what he did. The kid made a choice... it cost him big but it also cost Mr Mcguire...

Apprentice_941
July 26, 2008, 11:05 PM
Everyone remember - at 15 years old - crossing the line by breaking into someone's house at night is a very serious thing for someone of that age to do. I hate to say this because it sounds cold-hearted - but the kid was probably well on his way to a life of even more serious crime.

The shooter may have save a few lives down the line or rape victims, etc.

Relayer
August 6, 2008, 06:11 PM
I don't have any problem with "Good Shoot" as a term.

"Good" have various meanings and I associate it with the ones appropriate to its use in this case.

Byte
August 6, 2008, 07:10 PM
Keltyke,

I love your sig but based on what you're advocating in your post you don't agree with its sentiment...you might want to find something more fitting. ;)

I don't want to be surfing the forums in the future and see a post where a BG has forced his way into your (read this as anybody not just YOU) home and shot you while you were assessing the level of violence he meant to visit upon you and yours. That is you, your family members AND your possessions.

One's home is a sacred space and should be respected as such by all others. If each and every moron that failed to keep that little gem in mind came up against a homeowner that refused to be the victim, the world would be a better place on average. It won't prevent everybody from attempting to invade another person's home but at least they'll only do it once!

Byte

EDIT Oh yeah I forgot to address Relayer's last remark! Yeah the term 'good shoot' does have plenty of semantic baggage connected with it. I prefer 'justified shoot' myself! Those that can't readily come out on top of any debate using their version of logic will generally fall back on **** poor semantic angles to 'shift' their position. Blech...have a spine!

James K
August 6, 2008, 07:31 PM
Many states cover the "home invasion/burglary" under common law, which generally presumes that any person brazen enough to enter your home while you are in it is armed and willing to use violence or deadly force if discovered. That is the justification for use of deadly force against a burglar or home invader.

Jim

OuTcAsT
August 7, 2008, 08:06 AM
Many states cover the "home invasion/burglary" under common law, which generally presumes that any person brazen enough to enter your home while you are in it is armed and willing to use violence or deadly force if discovered. That is the justification for use of deadly force against a burglar or home invader.

EXACTLY! This homeowners state, along with many others (Including my own) Recognize that if I am in my home, and ANYONE, be he 15, 0r 105 years old, has the cajones to forcibly try and enter my home, the "presupmtion" that that person is a deadly threat is pretty much automatic. I need not retreat to a "safer" room, call 911, and hope he doesn't try to break into "that" room before defending myself and family. I can stop the threat immediately.

One's home is a sacred space and should be respected as such by all others. If each and every moron that failed to keep that little gem in mind came up against a homeowner that refused to be the victim, the world would be a better place on average.

+1 Provided that your state law allows you to do so.


Keltyke,

I love your sig but based on what you're advocating in your post you don't agree with its sentiment...you might want to find something more fitting.


After reading a number of your posts, I am inclined to agree.

devildogdad
August 7, 2008, 08:48 AM
By giving a verbal challenge you are giving up a very important advantage

The element of surprise. This is a great tactical advantage.

My other comment is this, people seem to be fixating on the fact that he is 15

Would they feel better if he shot a 35 yr old (insert your color ,minority status or ethnic backround here).

easyG
August 7, 2008, 10:27 AM
In my wilder days I was not such a law abiding person.
And I can tell you from experience that if a person just wants to steal stuff from your home, and nothing more, they will make sure that nobody is home before they break in.
They will knock on the door or ring the bell, look to see if there is a car in the garage, throw a brick through a window and wait to see if anyone comes to investigate, etc...
You see, a petty thief does not want confrontation.
He just wants your valuables.
He's probably not dangerous.

But a person who breaks in to an occupied home....that's a dangerous person!

rickdavis81
August 7, 2008, 10:54 AM
If someone breaks into my house they already had two chances to change their mind. My dog and my locked door. Not thinking that they are there for the worst is not safe. I'm not saying that I won't give someone a chance but it's going to take just the right circumstance. Namely all the lights are on, I know he's alone, my familys not there, etc.

grymster2007
August 8, 2008, 09:36 AM
The mindset that the homeowner shot the criminal in an effort to protect his property rather than his person is a mindset very similar to that which sustains the anti crowd. None of us can know exactly what the homeowner’s thoughts, impressions and fears were as he investigated the commotion, so claiming he could have as easily retreated to cover while calling 911 is ludicrous.

It would be real nice if the home invader indicated to his victims up front that he really just wants the VCR, notebook and iPod. But since they are rarely so forthcoming and have already demonstrated the fact that they are brazen, violent criminals, I think shooting them is the most prudent course of action and criticizing someone else for doing so is naive at best.

It is unfortunate that someone lost their life and the fact it was a kid makes it no easier to stomach, but the kid felt little risk in doing what he did because society tolerates all sorts of abuse of law-abiding citizens while often protecting the abusers. And society behaves in this manner due in part to the mindset referenced above.

This shooting, as far as can be determined by the available evidence, was not only legally justified; it was morally justified.

skydiver3346
August 8, 2008, 10:04 AM
About killing a burglar:
Quit saying he is a 15 year old kid....How the hell is the home owner supposed to know he is only 15?
Is he required to say, "Excuse me sir, can you tell me how old you are before I shoot you?" A lot of kids are way bigger than me, (6 ft.+) and at night it is sort of hard to distinguish a young man or adult (especially when you are in fear of your life or bodily harm). Lets quite making excuses for the criminals. Most of them already have a prior record and just keep getting off.
Who knows down the road if the bad guy didn't kill or rape another victim (because he got away with this one).
Bottom line: Sure he might have handled it better,if he had a lot of time to reflect on it, but at the time he was just reacting to the situation. Does that make him right or wrong? Who really knows all the answers to each situation like this, NOBODY does...........Its easy to read about this days later and make a judgement but its a lot different being there and actually experiencing it firsthand. Belive me, I know because I was robbed at knifepoint by 5 dudes in Macon, GA (Hilton hotel) some time back and had no weapon myself to fend them off and had to just take it. Scared the hell out of me for a long time afterwards. I since got a weapons permit and carry a .45 auto in certain places. Hope to God I never have to use it but it is there if need be.