PDA

View Full Version : Store Owner shoots Burglar


wickedrider
June 21, 2009, 05:05 PM
This one will be very interesting. The store owner was on the outside of the store and the burglar inside. Owner said that the BG pointed a weapon at him. I don't know whether a firearm was found inside the store.

http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/wvec_local_062109_whaleyville_robbery.113589bb.html

doc540
June 22, 2009, 02:46 PM
:mad:Sounds like the store owner will find the media to be a bigger threat to his peace and security than any burglar would've been.:mad:

Mello2u
June 22, 2009, 03:29 PM
As usual so much depends upon what the state law is and the jurisprudence. Perhaps an investigation will reveal that the decedent had an object which reasonably appeared to be a firearm, and this would justify the shooting in self-defense.

Wildalaska
June 22, 2009, 03:55 PM
Tough call. Legally, he MAY skate...morally/ehtically, again, HE put himself in the situation of being forced (or actually wanting) to kill.

His mistake? Not waiting for the cops to arrive...

Cower, cover, cell phone....

WildthatsmytakeAlaska ™

markj
June 22, 2009, 04:48 PM
If he was outside and the BG was inside...... 911, hello there is a guy in my shop after hours and I think he has a gun.

Why would anyone put themselves in a situation that could potentially get them killed? Must not have kids at home...

Tucker 1371
June 22, 2009, 05:04 PM
I agree with WA, it's definitely a tough call and he definitely should have called the police first.

I might have at least had to go sit outside the store and watch to get a description or a license plate.

wickedrider
June 22, 2009, 05:08 PM
The store owner had an alarm system. The alarm co. called the police as well as the store owner. The store owner live probably a city block away. He went to the store after the call and well....He said that the guy pointed a gun at him. Update. The police didn't find a weapon.

http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/wvec_local_062109_whaleyville_robbery.113589bb.html

For those that want to comment, go to http://www.wtkr.com/news/3cents/

Re4mer
June 22, 2009, 10:47 PM
Tough call. Legally, he MAY skate...morally/ehtically, again, HE put himself in the situation of being forced (or actually wanting) to kill.

His mistake? Not waiting for the cops to arrive...

Cower, cover, cell phone....


I strongly disagree with Alaska here even if he did make some initial mistakes people aren't perfect and the bottom line is the SOB should not have been breaking into the gas station anyway. Whatever happened to the bad guy being wrong, he brought his own death on himself by breaking into a store and making a threatening movement towards and armed man! That is the reality of the situation. Also when the owner left to check out what was going on at the store he probably thought the guy was going to be gone by the time he arrived anyway, I'm sure he wasn't looking for some vigilante justice, he probably just wanted to be there to talk to the cops.

Wildalaska
June 22, 2009, 10:56 PM
I strongly disagree with Alaska here even if he did make some initial mistakes people aren't perfect

Yeah well not being perfect with a gun frequently means someone dies...and in some of those cases the shooters life is ruined too

WildthisT&TforumistomakeyouthinknotjustrahrahAlaska TM

Re4mer
June 22, 2009, 11:00 PM
Yeah well not being perfect with a gun frequently means someone dies...and in some of those cases the shooters life is ruined too


First, how do you figure that the shooters life is ruined?

Secondly, the main mistake was a fellow breaking into a store not a store owner driving across town to see what was happening to his property, again this is an issue of misplaced blame everybody wants to blame the good guy for taking action and not the bad guy for committing a crime.

Donn_N
June 22, 2009, 11:36 PM
First, how do you figure that the shooters life is ruined?


In this particular case, we don't know yet. But there have been many cases where a shooter does what he thinks is right and ends up charged with something that, at best, requires a great deal of time and money to defend and a conviction and prison time at worst.

So this guy saved whatever little bit of property the stupid thief would have carried away and now is sitting up at night worrying about being charged with manslaughter or murder and maybe, just maybe, feeling pretty crappy about killing an unarmed man. Do you think he is regretting his decision?

Sigma 40 Blaster
June 23, 2009, 07:12 AM
So it looks like there is a big camp that thinks the use of deadly force is only OK to prevent death/heinous injury to another human. There is another big camp that thinks the use of deadly force is OK to protect property as well.

I guess I ride the fence on that issue, leaning more towards the latter. If I'm a small business owner and get a call from the alarm company I'm going to get up, get dressed (which would include a gun since I CCW), and go to my company to speak to police (I would assume they could beat me there).

If by the time I get there and see no red and blue lights I might feel like I want to go into MY COMPANY to assess any theft/damage. I might not, I don't own a business but I imagine I would, I know for a fact I have received a call re: my home burglar alarm going off and did not wait for police to show up. (when police finally showed up fifteen minutes later they would not come inside to clear my home BTW)

If the burglar still happened to be present I would detain or defend myself, I have no moral or ethical obligation to let someone take my property from my home/business. Their actions from that point would dictate how the situation unfolded from there. I guess it just so happens I live in a state where the laws align with that philosophy and I'd likely be legally covered.

In this particular situation I can't say that I advocate pumping the burglar full of lead on sight but I think it is possible that he might have had something else in his hands that was mistaken for a gun. I can think of several instances in which police mistook a cell phone or some other object for a firearm and used deadly force.

But again I have a problem with someone stating that a good guy has a moral obligation to let a burglar go about their merry way. There's a difference between a judgement call that has to be made after assessing the situation and something you're bound to do. By clinging to the idea that you're morally obligated to not use deadly force in a situation such as that there is a good chance that in the heat of the moment the BG could escalate the scenario while you're still fighting with your morality to make a decision for what to do next.

BTW, I like how this thread has focused on that philosophy rather than damning the actions of actor(s) with very little access to concrete information.

TailGator
June 23, 2009, 07:29 AM
I own a small business myself, and I have a written policy that is part of every employee's orientation that if anyone finds, on arriving for work, any signs of a burglary, that they are to call 911, stay clear of the building, and keep any early-arriving clients clear. We assume that a burglar is present and armed until proven otherwise by sheriff's deputies. They, I would assume, would work in a team, using professional training that I don't have, wearing body armor and probably using long arms that I don't carry around, clear the building and tell us when it is safe to enter.

The situation for this business owner was different, in that he saw the burglar through the glass, and, according to him, the burglar pointed something at him to mimic a weapon. That is a tough situation, but it could have been prevented if he had kept a little more distance while awaiting the arrival of LE.

Think through the possibilities: If the burglar is still there and I show up before the police, I am facing the possibility of a confrontation with injury or death. If the burglar has gone and I go in before the police, I am messing up the crime scene and hindering the investigation. There is just nothing to be gained by going in ahead of LE unless you so value your inventory that you are willing to kill or be killed in trying to protect it.

I am not saying that the burglar is the good guy. I am saying that your brain may be more valuable than your gun in such situations.

Part of that employee training I mentioned in the first paragraph is that I tell employees that I can replace anything that a burglar steals or wrecks, but that they are unique, and loved by someone, and therefore irreplaceable. We would be reading a vastly different story if the burglar in this scenario had really been armed and had fired before the business owner could react. I don't see why a business owner would put himself or herself in that position.

Doc Intrepid
June 23, 2009, 07:41 AM
"In this particular case, we don't know yet. But there have been many cases where a shooter does what he thinks is right and ends up charged with something that, at best, requires a great deal of time and money to defend and a conviction and prison time at worst.

So this guy saved whatever little bit of property the stupid thief would have carried away and now is sitting up at night worrying about being charged with manslaughter or murder and maybe, just maybe, feeling pretty crappy about killing an unarmed man. Do you think he is regretting his decision?"+1

Outcome=>NoShooting = the owner loses property and must deal with their insurance company regarding restitution.

Outcome=>Shooting = the owner spends a small fortune in legal fees; may need to pay a retainer of up to $10K to their lawyer, assuming the case will go to trial; loses the time that will be spent in court; loses time spent preparing for the trial; and possibly loses some freedom - including the right to own firearms - if the trial goes against them.

The burglar is the bad guy, not the owner; and no one is suggesting that the owner 'let the burglar go their merry way'.

The point is that in terms of future hardship to the owner, the outcome from not having taken those shots would likely have been preferable (to the owner) than the outcome from having opened fire.

In relative terms, the death of the burglar brings the owner little benefit, and much distress, cost, and legal grief. In the end, was it worth it? And in particular, was there a better way to handle the issue?

hogdogs
June 23, 2009, 07:57 AM
I am not in either of the "camps"... I am for "legal use of the firearm".

If you are in a place where you can shoot a shop lifter who just jacked a pack of smokes, and you wish to do so... Put 2 in the chest... It is on you not me.

If I were in a place like this I would possibly use my gun to detain a thief but would only shoot if forced to do so.
Brent

pax
June 23, 2009, 09:04 AM
Think through the possibilities: If the burglar is still there and I show up before the police, I am facing the possibility of a confrontation with injury or death. If the burglar has gone and I go in before the police, I am messing up the crime scene and hindering the investigation. There is just nothing to be gained by going in ahead of LE unless you so value your inventory that you are willing to kill or be killed in trying to protect it.

I am not saying that the burglar is the good guy. I am saying that your brain may be more valuable than your gun in such situations.

Part of that employee training I mentioned in the first paragraph is that I tell employees that I can replace anything that a burglar steals or wrecks, but that they are unique, and loved by someone, and therefore irreplaceable.

TailGator,

That was a beautiful post.

Here's something else, written by a friend of mine for Concealed Carry Magazine earlier this year ...



Implicit in the question, "When do I have to shoot?" is the idea that you are going to avoid shooting whenever possible--which is good, because avoidance is almost always the best course of action, both during the encounter and for the legal battle after the encounter. Our hypothetical Tom is about to be in a shootout, and the problem is that a shootout always entails a high level of risk. For the shooting to be justified, Tom's own life must be in danger. To put it bluntly, the aggressor will have the same opportunity to shoot Tom as Tom has to shoot the aggressor. And regrettably, one very likely outcome of a gunfight is that both participants will end up killing each other. If we acknowledge that Tom's primary goal is to stay alive and, even better, uninjured, then we must note that Tom's odds are not good in a shootout. But if Tom was able to contrive such an advantage in this gun fight, if he found a way to give himself such an upperhand that he could shoot the aggressor without any real risk to himself, then Tom would be at risk from the legal system which will have to wonder, "If you were in such a position of safety, if you were not in danger, why did you have to shoot?" Either way, this course of action leaves Tom at great risk.

A solid principle of tactics is to follow the course of action which accomplishes the goal with minimal risk.



pax

Brian Pfleuger
June 23, 2009, 11:27 AM
First, how do you figure that the shooters life is ruined?

If you shoot someone then your life is going to suck, at the very least, for a good long while. Justification or not. The guy could be on video holding a gun to your wife's head and screaming about killing her when you pull the trigger. Makes no difference. The guys family will sue, you may STILL be charged (depending on the "gun friendliness" of the DA), you will absolutely positively need a lawyer.... and on and on.


Shooting someone = suck city.

sakeneko
June 23, 2009, 11:48 AM
I am not saying that the burglar is the good guy. I am saying that your brain may be [delete] is [insert] more valuable than your gun in such situations [delete].

There. Fixed it up a bit. ;)

Seriously, I can't imagine any self defense situation where your brain is not the most important weapon you have. I did fine without a gun for forty-eight years, just by keeping aware of my surroundings, avoiding places and times where danger was likely, and disengaging/not escalating on the (fortunately rare) occasions when my instincts told me that somebody was up to no good. I know these tactics don't *always* work; that's one reason I started carrying. But I hope to go the rest of my life never needing my gun for self defense, and given the record so far, think that's not too unlikely.

I don't go a single day without needing to use my brain to keep me out of trouble.

Wildalaska
June 23, 2009, 12:01 PM
Shooting someone = suck city.

And that boys and girls, should be the sighn over the blackboard in every training class in the nation.

WildpizzamangerewinsAlaska ™

Re4mer
June 24, 2009, 04:22 PM
Its funny that in this case the man was not charged and people here are still making judgment calls about his decision to open fire. Again by way of clarification he did not open fire on a man he thought was unarmed he opened fire on a man he believed to be armed and dangerous. Does anybody feel that the burglar shares some blame too or is it just this guys fault? Ultimately I think we can all agree that it is a horrible thing to have to take a life in self defense, however it is not fair to judge this man when we ourselves were not in his situation.

Aqeous
June 24, 2009, 04:46 PM
Lets be realistic here:

People are afraid when confronted, people are not bound to tell the truth to save their own skin. ...and the law is far from perfect.


You don't really know if the burglar "had a shotgun like object" or not and neither does the law. We also don't know whether or not mister big and bad store owner with the gun suddenly found himself in real life peril, panic and saw something that wasn't really there. Do we?


In the end it will depend on the state laws I gather. But after some careful consideration, experimentation and conversation with people who know much more then I do Wildalaska's "Cower, cover, cell phone...." is the very best defense in every situation.

AJG
June 26, 2009, 08:15 AM
Well, first of all the shooting is still being investigated. And if it goes to trial will be a very interesting case. THe burgular was shot 4 times thru a window and was killed after he pointed something at the property owner. Later found to be a tire iron. Was the property owner threatened? DId he fear for his safety? Probably so, but he was OUTSIDE and could have retreated. Virginia law doesnt have a CASTLE DOCTRINE, it has a RETREAT DOCTRINE (<-- uggggg) Plus Va Law says that you cannot use deadly force to protect property.... Now I am not a lawyer nor am I abdicating any rights the criminal might have.... but waiting on the police to arrive and being a good witness would have been the smart thing here.

bababooey32
June 26, 2009, 08:17 AM
Wildalaska's "Cower, cover, cell phone...." is the very best defense in every situation.

It certainly is the best strategy for the criminals!!!!!

OldMarksman
June 26, 2009, 08:32 AM
Whatever happened to the bad guy being wrong, he brought his own death on himself by breaking into a store and making a threatening movement towards and armed man! That is the reality of the situation.

It is indeed, whether or not he actually made a threatening movement, and it is also completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the shooter's action was lawful.

Brit
June 29, 2009, 05:30 AM
The facts are reasonably clear, fast asleep, phone call "Your alarm is going off" leap out of bed, drag on clothes, and take pistol, a couple of blocks to his garage.

If he had a pistol in a holster, quite different than pistol picked up from next to bed, placed in vehicle, drive a couple of minutes, jump out of vehicle, see broken window/door.

Blood pressure 160 over 95! not really wide awake yet, pistol is in hand, See's movement, a glint of metal? maybe, up gun, bang/bang etc.

Me, wide awake in one minute, my lovely Wife? twenty of those minutes, maybe.

Worse case scenario, an expert witness describes this possible scene to a lawyer in court, his lawyer.
The DA asks questions, aggressive? Jury listens, makes a decision based on the facts, and the fact that the Police did not charge you directly after the fact.

In my State Florida, the Police can not charge you unless a crime had occurred, you shooting a criminal who you do not know, in your place of business, based on a paid alarm company's phone call? after breaking in, at night?

Clean up glass, new window. Time will lesson any bad feelings, but not being dead (you) is good.

PT111
June 29, 2009, 05:54 AM
Shooting someone = suck city.

There is a saying in the military that you never let the enemy show you a picture of their wife/girlfriend/children/family/etc. Once you see that picture you are going to have a hard time fighting them. There are some people that can kill someone, go home and sleep like a baby with no worry. They are called sociopaths. For the rest of us if you kill someone no matter what you it is going to change your life. I really would like some of you who have had to kill in the line of duty, mainly the military, to chime in on this.

It's not going to matter it is still going to be such city. You may think you have to do it to stay alive and it turn out you were wrong. That is going to suck even more. Just remember that.

easyG
June 29, 2009, 08:20 AM
Wildalaska"
"Cower, cover, cell phone...." is the very best defense in every situation.
No, this is certainly not the best defense in every situation.
Every situation is different.
And law abiding citizens of this great nation should not "cower" at the mercy of the criminal element.

The police do a fairly decent job of catching criminals after they have killed, robbed, raped, etc...
But a police force does not necessarily make a society great or safe....
It's the citizens of that society, who rise up and take a stand against the predators, who make the difference.


As for whether this shooting was justified or not....

If the criminal/suspect did in fact break in to the business, then the criminal/suspect chose to place his life in jeopardy.
Sounds to me like he got what he deserved.

easyG
June 29, 2009, 08:25 AM
There are some people that can kill someone, go home and sleep like a baby with no worry. They are called sociopaths. For the rest of us if you kill someone no matter what you it is going to change your life. I really would like some of you who have had to kill in the line of duty, mainly the military, to chime in on this.
You can call be a sociopath if you like, I don't care, but I killed some Iraqi soldiers during the Gulf War and it did not bother me at all.
They were shooting at us, we were shooting at them.
We succeeded and they failed.
It really is that simple.

BTW, I'm not an alcoholic nor a drug addict, I have a stable job and a great family, and I sleep just fine at night.
And I don't take taxpayer's money by claiming PTSD at the VA.

stephen426
June 29, 2009, 09:18 AM
Not putting your life in risk over property (which is probably insured) makes sense. However, I am a business owner and will check out the business if the alarm goes off. If I pulled up and saw a guy pointing something that looks like a weapon, I would most probably open fire. That is self defense and not defense of property. Its not like the store owner went into the business to "clear" it. He arrived and was met with what he believed to be deadly force. Seems like a justified shooting from that angle.

By the way, great posts from TailGator.

Part of that employee training I mentioned in the first paragraph is that I tell employees that I can replace anything that a burglar steals or wrecks, but that they are unique, and loved by someone, and therefore irreplaceable. We would be reading a vastly different story if the burglar in this scenario had really been armed and had fired before the business owner could react. I don't see why a business owner would put himself or herself in that position.

Aqeous
June 29, 2009, 11:15 AM
"Cower, cover, cell phone...." is the very best defense in every situation."



No, this is certainly not the best defense in every situation.
Every situation is different.
And law abiding citizens of this great nation should not "cower" at the mercy of the criminal element.



Well I disagree with you sir. Taking a position that is better suited to your defensive (Cower) holding that position (cover) and calling for backup ASAP (Cellphone) is, in most ever case imaginable (short of all those "SHTF" events we like so much to discuss), your best tactical option if it is at all possible. And those are tactics they taught you in the marines is it not?


Not to mention that first part (cower) creates an opportunity for the bad guy to either lessen aggression or escalate aggression. Which will serve both your conscience and the law should you be forced to shoot.


and law abiding citizens of this great nation should not "cower" at the mercy of the criminal element.


I think people on TFL are harping to strongly on the cower (Coward :D) part, maybe wildalaska needs to rephrase that a bit for the sake of everyones macho bravado :p


Maybe:

Deescalate, cover, cellphone . . . :cool:

easyG
June 29, 2009, 11:41 AM
Taking a position that is better suited to your defensive (Cower) holding that position (cover) and calling for backup ASAP (Cellphone) is, in most ever case imaginable (short of all those "SHTF" events we like so much to discuss), your best tactical option if it is at all possible. And those are tactics they taught you in the marines is it not?
I was a soldier, not a marine, and no, we were never taught to "cower" in the face of the enemy.
And we did not call for backup ASAP unless we were being overwhelmed.

Sure we were taught to use cover and concealment when possible....but we sure as heck didn't sit in a hole waiting for the enemy to get tired and go home.
The object was to engage and destroy the enemy.

Obviously, as a civilian, one does not go on patrol seeking out "the enemy" as does a soldier.
But when confronted by the criminal element, one should not run away when one has the means to engage and stop the criminal.

Brian Pfleuger
June 29, 2009, 11:45 AM
one should not run away when one has the means to engage and stop the criminal.

Why?

easyG
June 29, 2009, 11:49 AM
Why?
It says alot about the state of our society when one even asks such a question.

Because, I feel that it is the duty of every good law abiding citizen to stop crime whenever possible.
Evil triumphs when good men stand by and do nothing....this might sound corny to some folks, but it is true nonetheless.

And when it comes to crime, this is another true statement:

If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem.

Brian Pfleuger
June 29, 2009, 11:52 AM
Because, I feel that it is the duty of every good law abiding citizen to stop crime whenever possible.

I guess I'll be a bad citizen who goes home to his wife and kids rather than engage some thug stealing cigarettes.

I mean, stop a rape? Sure. Get killed because I confront some thug stealing from a grocery store? Not just no, HELL no.

easyG
June 29, 2009, 12:02 PM
I guess I'll be a bad citizen who goes home to his wife and kids rather than engage some thug stealing cigarettes.

Yeah, that's the short-sighted sentiment of alot of folks.

But you have to look further down the road and ask yourself "what type of society am I leaving my children?" and "what am I teaching my children by letting the crime go unchallenged?"

Take a look at the most crime-free areas of your town and I'll bet you'll find an area where the people living there care and take an active role in stopping crime.

Take a look at the most crime ridden areas of your town and I'll bet you'll find an area where the people living there turn a blind-eye to the crimes being committed all around them.


Again, if one is not part of the solution, then one is part of the problem.
And you don't need to wear a badge to do the right thing.

Brian Pfleuger
June 29, 2009, 12:05 PM
Take a look at the most crime-free areas of your town and I'll bet you'll find an area where the people living there care and take an active role in stopping crime.

Yeah.... except my whole town, nah, the whole area within 25 miles of me, is largely "crime free". The reason is because we still embrace the concept of teaching morals to our children, not because we "engage the enemy".

Or because we're watchful and report crime....

or because we actually care about our community....

Do not confuse a refusal to "engage" with doing nothing.

buzz_knox
June 29, 2009, 12:12 PM
I mean, stop a rape? Sure.

That right there puts you ahead of 99% of those who say "be a good witness and don't get involved."

easyG
June 29, 2009, 12:31 PM
Yeah.... except my whole town, nah, the whole area within 25 miles of me, is largely "crime free". The reason is because we still embrace the concept of teaching morals to our children, not because we "engage the enemy".

Or because we're watchful and report crime....

or because we actually care about our community....

So you're telling me that there are no non-law-enforcement citizens in your whole town who would stop a criminal as he was committing a crime?


This is nothing to brag about.

AJG
June 29, 2009, 12:39 PM
Wow...... lots of views on this post.
I much rather would like to go home telling my wife, kids and grandkids that I stopped a crime by calling 911 and waiting and watching the situation until the law got there to ensure there was an accurate accounting, instead of going home and telling them that I shot a guy 4 times thru a window and he wasn't armed.... but he DID point a tire iron at me thru a window while he was inside the building and I was outside! WOW... ya know it's one thing to actively defend yourself, your family or a third party that your in fear for their life/safety. But come on people.... lets be real about this. Like I said a few posts ago, this is still being investigated so all the facts are not out yet, but based on just what was in the papers and on the local news there is no way that this can be deemed self defense.
Everyones life, the 2 involved, and the families involved would have been much better if the storeowner just got 911 on his cell phone and gave a second be second accounting of what was going on while observing. Bad guy would be in alive and in jail and the storeowner wouldnt be sweating the outcome of the investigation.

Brian Pfleuger
June 29, 2009, 12:40 PM
So you're telling me that there are no non-law-enforcement citizens in your whole town who would stop a criminal as he was committing a crime?


This is nothing to brag about.

I have no idea what action most of the people in my town would take to "stop a criminal". I sincerely hope that most of them would not impose the death penalty for property crimes, would not risk getting themselves killed over a burglary and would do something that is rationale, like whip out the ole' cell phone and call the police. Heck, maybe even yell "HEY, WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!" from a safe distance and place.

and, frankly, I consider not being willing to kill a human being over a property crime to be something, not to be bragged about, but something to be expected.

and, I have no desire to stop a crime so that I can "brag about" it.

easyG
June 29, 2009, 01:07 PM
The jails and prisons of our society have become "crime college" with a revolving door, and our society continues to sink in to the toilet.

It greatly disappoints me to hear that some of my fellow countrymen would do so little to actually stop a crime in progress.

Brian Pfleuger
June 29, 2009, 01:17 PM
It greatly disappoints me to hear that some of my fellow countrymen would do so little to actually stop a crime in progress.

It greatly disappoints me that my fellow countrymen are willing to kill over property crimes...

AJG
June 29, 2009, 01:17 PM
EasyG.......

Which Countrymen do you speak of? Because, I read all these comments, including my own, as we will stop or assist in the stopping of crime, including defening my families lives, your and your families lives and my own if it includes taking anothers life to do it. But shooting thru a window when the bad guy wasnt armed.... thats a bit on the extreme side. I spent 26+ years defending this country and its beliefs and even though I am no longer on active duty I continue to do so everyday. I am proud that I can defend myself, my and your family the way I wish too. Confrontations especially when armed should be de-escalated not escalated. Be a good witness does not mean backdown. It means... be a good witness.

skydiver3346
June 29, 2009, 01:52 PM
I myself, tend to agree with your thoughts on this. A lot of folks want to jump on folks like us whenever we bring up the subject of stopping the crime and not lettting the bad guys rule our lives. They have done so to me many times when I commented on events like this. No problem as everyone has their own particular view on how to handle these things. However, no one has made me change my personal beliefs on what I should (or should not do) in these situations.

Of course it always depends on each and every scenario on how you will react. Certainly not everyone of us is going to "Cower, cover and cell phone" as a response to these crimes. Some others may take a more aggressive approach in stopping crime, (especially to our own home and/or business). I'm not saying that is always the best solution, but it will be a solution for some of us out here in the "Real World".

Note: With that said, the owner was outside his place of business and shooting through a window at the suspect inside (whom he thought had a gun). This probably a knee jerk reaction at that moment. Upon retrospect, he probably should have moved away from the window and phoned police. At the same time keeping his weapon on the ready, (in case the bad guy escalated the confrontation and approached him outside the bldg).
I personally don't believe you should let him just walk away scot free (when he tries to leave the buisness after commiting this felony). No way am I personally going to allow this to happen. It's up to others to make their own decisions on how they will react to crimes. I would never tell anyone how THEY should respond to these situations, (to each his own). However, I think I know how I will handle myself if this happens to me, (prior experience of me being robbed).

AJG
June 29, 2009, 01:54 PM
USE OF FORCE AGAINST TRESPASSER
The common law in this state (VA) has long recognized the right of a
landowner to order a trespasser to leave, and if the trespasser refuses
to go, to employ proper force to expel him, provided no breach of the
peace is committed in the outset. . . . Absent extreme circumstances,
however, such force may not endanger human life or cause great bodily
harm.

The most basic breakdown for lethal force in Virginia would be as follows:
Allowed to protect yourself if you reasonably fear for your life.
Allowed to protect family members if you reasonably fear for their life.
Allowed to protect a third party if you reasonably fear for their life.
Women are allowed to use lethal force if they reasonably fear that they are going to be raped.

If your inside your building and a badguy enters..... defending yourself is one thing. BUT being outside a building.... looking inside thru a window claiming self defense........... uggggggggg thats a stretch.

OldMarksman
June 29, 2009, 02:10 PM
It greatly disappoints me to hear that some of my fellow countrymen would do so little to actually stop a crime in progress.

So you're telling me that there are no non-law-enforcement citizens in your whole town who would stop a criminal as he was committing a crime?

It does bother me greatly that there are those who will not report a crime in progress or provide information afterwards.

However, the citizen is rarely trained, not equipped, and not chartered to "stop" most crimes; he has no legally sanctioned departmental policies to follow; he cannot call for backup or receive information or instructions from a dispatcher; and he is never indemnified against civil charges should problems develop.

And we did not call for backup ASAP unless we were being overwhelmed.

Law enforcement officers never go in alone except in cases of emergencies, and if a single officer does come upon a crime in progress, he will call for backup.

The object was to engage and destroy the enemy.

That's war. In law enforcement, the duty of the sworn officer is to stop and detain the perp; he can use deadly force only when absolutely necessary to protect himself or others. Nor does the citizen have that right unless he is in imminent danger.

But when confronted by the criminal element, one should not run away when one has the means to engage and stop the criminal.

The civilian may or may not have a legal duty to retreat. And while he may have a weapon, he may only use deadly force to "engage and stop" (effect a citizen's arrest of) a suspect in a couple of places in the country, and there, only under most extreme circumstances not at all like the burglary situation at hand.

There's a big, big difference between law enforcement and military combat, and big difference between the role of the sworn officer and that of a citizen.

It's interesting to muse about the possibility of an armed citizen acting to "stop" crime. It's also quite possible that in so doing, he may well end up committing a crime, perhaps far more serious than the one he endeavored to stop.

I once heard an address by the Chief Counsel for a major corporation. He talked about the travails of a couple of former luminaries who were then serving time for what they had thought to be reasonable acts. He started by rattling off a couple of long numbers, saying that they were not telephone numbers but prisoner numbers. It was chilling.

If any of that happens, our citizen will be regarded as the farthest thing from a hero.

Of course, it's possible that he might prevail in court--maybe broke and perhaps unemployed.

And then, on top of that, there are the issues of the citizen getting killed or maimed, costly civil suits and judgments involving the perp, and the repercussions of a bullet hitting a third party.

And if he does not end up in legal difficulty or get stabbed or shot by a criminal, he stands a reasonably high chance of being taken out by arriving policemen who see him with a gun.

I'll confine my shooting to the range and to lawful self defense.

AJG
June 29, 2009, 02:23 PM
++1......... very well said OldMarksMan!

Brit
June 29, 2009, 07:47 PM
If he had a pistol in a holster, quite different than pistol picked up from next to bed, placed in vehicle, drive a couple of minutes, jump out of vehicle, see broken window/door.

Blood pressure 160 over 95! not really wide awake yet, pistol is in hand, See's movement, a glint of metal? maybe, up gun, bang/bang etc.

The above is a good guess as to what quite possibly happened! No real need to get involved with long complected killing for a property, quite possibly insured, or being a "Coward" and calling 911, and waiting for the Police.


Long time ago, a person was arguing with me, reference him coming in to a place of business, late at night.

We were employed to monitor the individuals coming in, simple, I let you in, or not!

Very quickly he pulled his hand out of his pocket, a right cross, left him sitting dazed on the street! He was just pulling his handkerchief out of his pocket!

UK in the 60s, apologize, done. Everything is not a conscious thought process, some actions are predicated on instinct.

If he had a pistol in a holster, quite different than pistol picked up from next to bed, placed in vehicle, drive a couple of minutes, jump out of vehicle, see broken window/door.

Blood pressure 160 over 95! not really wide awake yet, pistol is in hand, See's movement, a glint of metal? maybe, up gun, bang/bang etc.

Is not the above, quite possibly what happened, based on the information we all had?

#18indycolts
June 29, 2009, 08:53 PM
And law abiding citizens of this great nation should not "cower" at the mercy of the criminal element.


and they should charge the threat at all costs...possibly dying and leaving their family alone with a DEAD father for what? To be called a hero? :rolleyes: yeah right, I'll take being called a coward to provide for my family. Only if the person(s) being threatened are NOT my family.

easyG
June 29, 2009, 11:22 PM
and they should charge the threat at all costs...
False argument.
Nobody ever said anything about charging the threat at all cost.
You don't have to charge in like you don't have a brain when confronting the criminal element.
You can still use cover and concealment and the element of surprise, and yes, less than lethal force to subdue a criminal.
But I hate it when folks here actually advise others to "cower" before the criminal element.
It's pathetic.

omkhan
June 29, 2009, 11:28 PM
Just my two cents that being robbed/ mugged by armed men/man (whether byGun/Knife/Club etc) is not a property crime. OP is a different case though. However, if the owner truly believed that the burglar had a weapon then I have no hesitation to claim it as a self defense and a good shot.

cloud8a
June 30, 2009, 12:38 AM
If everything in the news story is the truth, what choice did he have? He thought the BG was aiming a shotgun at him. He could have waited a moment to see for sure or he could have fired.

I am saying this based on the idea that all parties involved are telling the full truth.

I have seen footage of two police officers opening fire on a guy with a cell phone aimed at them. I have also seen footage of police officers not firing on a female aiming a wallet at them.

If you choose to pretend you have a gun to someone who really does, you might wind up getting shot. Sorry but stupid never came with a guarantee of not getting hurt. Nor did it come with guaranteed sympathy if you did.

cloud8a
June 30, 2009, 01:01 AM
COWERING is not something in my state you are required to do. When it comes to the Castle Doctrines, personally I would not shoot someone who is, say for instance, burglarizing my car.

But the suggestion of cowering when someone is burglarizing you and then points what you believe to be a shotgun in your direction means you might be putting your life in the hands of the bad guy.

Tell the victims at the Luby's in Killeen Texas they should have Cowered (the reason Texans have CCW law today), Tell the victims at Virginia Tech they should have Cowered, Tell the victims of Columbine they should have cowered, tell a million people in a million different situations that they should have cowered. You know what they will tell you? That they did and now they are dead.

Sometimes the realities of life and nature require that you must FIGHT to survive. that is why CCW laws and Castle Doctrines are law. To help us legally when we choose to fight and not COWER.

Sixer
June 30, 2009, 02:56 AM
Shooting someone = suck city.

Getting shot by someone = suck city x 100000!

I pray I never have to use deadly force on another person... BUT if the situation should occur where my life, or the lives of loved ones were in danger... well I guess I'd be in "suck city" for a bit. It's better than the alternative.

In my state you can no longer be taken to court by the BG's family. I could live with my actions if they were justified. I could NOT, however, live with doing nothing and have it result in others being harmed or killed.

OldMarksman
June 30, 2009, 07:11 AM
In my state you can no longer be taken to court by the BG's family.

Missouri? Think again.

If you have been tried in criminal court and it has been found that your use of deadly force was justified, you are protected against civil liability for any damages to the perpetrator. If there is a civil suit that for some reason goes to trial, and that would be extremely unlikely in the event of an acquittal in criminal court, the criminal court finding will serve as your defense in civil court, and according to the law, you will pay no legal expenses or court costs. Lay opinion.

If you are taken to court by the plaintiff and there has been no criminal court trial, a finding in that court that you were justified under the criminal law would serve as your defense against a civil judgment, and your legal fees would be reimbursed. Lay opinion. That's how it reads to this layman. I don't know of any actual cases.

I think you would find that the burden of proof would differ---reasonable doubt in the criminal court, vs. preponderance of the evidence in a civil case.

As I understand it, these provisions were enacted into law to correct a bad situation. People who had lawfully defended themselves had reportedly ended up with huge civil liabilities.

By the way, had this Virginia shooting occurred in MO, it would remain to be seen just who would end up wearing the "BG" hat. Maybe the shooter would not be charged, maybe he would be charged but not indicted, and maybe he would end up on trial--and then what?

PT111
June 30, 2009, 08:27 AM
OldMarksman - As I can understand it you are exactly correct. You can still be sued no matter what but the likelyhood in a case where you were not charged or found not-guilty by a jury is extremely low. It would have to be an unusual case for any lawyer to take it knowing that if they lost they would have to pay your legal fees. But all that may not keep someome from trying it and you could lose with some sympathetic, pathetic jury.

Aqeous
June 30, 2009, 08:57 AM
But I hate it when folks here actually advise others to "cower" before the criminal element.
It's pathetic.

To help us legally when we choose to fight and not COWER.



I think people on TFL are harping to strongly on the cower (Coward ) part, maybe wildalaska needs to rephrase that a bit for the sake of everyones macho bravado


Maybe:

Deescalate, cover, cellphone . . .


...:D

easyG
June 30, 2009, 09:10 AM
Deescalate, cover, cellphone . . .
Better yet....

Use cellphone if possible without compromising the situation,
Seek cover and concealment when possible while engaging the threat,
STOP THE CRIMINAL if possible,
Use cellphone now if you were unable to use it before stopping the criminal.

OldMarksman
June 30, 2009, 09:14 AM
You can still be sued no matter what but the likelyhood in a case where you were not charged or found not-guilty by a jury is extremely low.

I think the likelihood would be less than remote in the case of a criminal trial and acquittal.

On the other hand, in the event of a decision to not charge (which can be reversed at any time during the rest of your life, for any or for no reason), I think it's reasonably possible that, depending on the facts of the case, a plaintiff's attorney may believe that the decision was a bad one and choose to proceed, and once the evidence is placed before a civil jury, that jury may not have to be excessively "sympathetic, much less "pathetic,"to find that a preponderance of the evidence indicated that your use of force was excessive.

That eventuality is something that concerns me, not so much in the event of a forced entry into my home, but if something happens in a parking lot or sidewalk.

PT111
June 30, 2009, 09:41 AM
Excellent point. I was just trying to emphasize that even in states where there is both Castle Doctrine and Stand-your-ground laws if the DA says it was a good shoot it does not mean it is necessarily over. I hear too many people say that if you are not charged due to the Castle Doctrine that you can't be sued which is not the case at all.

I heard a talk by a policeman once that said that in a shooting you want it to go to a jury and be found not-guilty. That way it cannot come back on you later in a criminal court and gives additional leverage in any civil trial.

One also has to remember that a jury finds a person either guilty or not-guilty. A jury never finds a person innocent. There is a big difference between not-guilty and innocent. OJ was found not-guilty, the civil jury said different. In the Duke LAX case the State DA made a bing statement when he said that the players were not just not-guilty but also innocent.

Wildalaska
June 30, 2009, 10:05 AM
But I hate it when folks here actually advise others to "cower" before the criminal element.
It's pathetic.

But I hate it when folks here actually cheer others to assault the alleged criminal element like a play army video game.

It's pathetic.

I think people on TFL are harping to strongly on the cower (Coward ) part, maybe wildalaska needs to rephrase that a bit for the sake of everyones macho bravado

Not everyones.:D Its a good word to separate them out though:p

WildichosethemcarefullyAlaska TM

Brian Pfleuger
June 30, 2009, 10:06 AM
Of course, if the storeowner in the OP had done what made sense in this situation, which was not go to the store until he was sure the police had already arrived then he wouldn't and COULDN'T have been charged with anything at all. No one would have been in any danger except the people who are paid (and choose) to put themselves in danger. There would be no discussion of why he shot anybody for any reason and I dare say his life would be a hell of a lot better right now.

Isn't that really the point? Does anybody think the storeowner is glad he did what he did? I doubt he's thinking "I taught that SOB a lesson. This will make our society better! We can't let that criminal scum just have their way, we need brave people to act! That's what makes America great!"

No, he's not. He thinking "Oh crap, I could go to jail for a very long time. Why, oh why! I should have just waited for the police. Why am I so stupid! Even if I don't go to jail I'll still be ruined! No more business. The dead guys family is going to take away everything I've worked for all my life."

Ironic, isn't it? He shot a guy who was trying to take a tiny little piece of what he worked for, a guy who wasn't even a threat, regardless of what the storeowner "thought" at the time. So, now, having shot the guy, he will give up most or all of what he was trying to "protect".

sakeneko
June 30, 2009, 10:20 AM
Ironic, isn't it? He shot a guy who was trying to take a tiny little piece of what he worked for, a guy who wasn't even a threat, regardless of what the storeowner "thought" at the time. So, now, having shot the guy, he will give up most or all of what he was trying to "protect".

Bingo.

OldMarksman
June 30, 2009, 12:21 PM
Very well put, Peetzakilla, on all points.

Anyone who has not thought through the potential consequences of shooting someone when it is not absolutely necessary can learn some lessons from this poor guy.

easyG
June 30, 2009, 01:30 PM
But I hate it when folks here actually cheer others to assault the alleged criminal element like a play army video game.

It's pathetic.
I don't know where you're getting the "play army video game" stuff...
Nothing said in this thread, by anyone, would suggest shooting another person is anything like a game.

It might not be your intention, but you really come across as extremely soft on criminals....even to the point where you seem to actually side with them over law abiding citizens.

easyG
June 30, 2009, 01:33 PM
Isn't that really the point? Does anybody think the storeowner is glad he did what he did? I doubt he's thinking "I taught that SOB a lesson. This will make our society better! We can't let that criminal scum just have their way, we need brave people to act! That's what makes America great!"

No, he's not. He thinking "Oh crap, I could go to jail for a very long time. Why, oh why! I should have just waited for the police. Why am I so stupid! Even if I don't go to jail I'll still be ruined! No more business. The dead guys family is going to take away everything I've worked for all my life."
Actually, we have no way of knowing what the storeowner is thinking.
You're just projecting what YOU would be thinking.

One thing is for sure....we have one less criminal on the streets to prey upon law abiding citizens.

And I highly doubt that the dead guy's family is going to get a penny of the storeowner's money.
If they do then it's because the justice system has failed the law abiding citizens of this nation, and certainly not due to the actions of the storeowner.

And I seriously doubt that the storeowner's business will suffer in the least.

Brian Pfleuger
June 30, 2009, 01:39 PM
And I highly doubt that the dead guy's family is going to get a penny of the storeowner's money.

Really? Even if they don't personally, individually, get a single penny, they will certainly "get" many thousands of his dollars and many hundreds of his hours in the form of legal fees, court appearances and sleepless nights wondering if he will lose everything.

One thing is for sure....we have one less criminal on the streets to prey upon law abiding citizens.

Dang straight! Where do I sign the petition to have burglary made a capital offense?:barf::rolleyes:


You're just projecting what YOU would be thinking.

Nope, I'd be thinking "Darn glad I didn't go down there and do something stupid. I'm glad I let the police handle it. That's why I have an alarm and security cameras and insurance."

cloud8a
June 30, 2009, 01:41 PM
WA believes you should only defend your self when the BG has you on the ground and has his knife to your throat, Or has you pinned in a closet where you ran to with the barrel of the BG's gun in your mouth. To Wildalaska it is only then that you should defend your self.

If you defend before that you are a bloodthirsty murderer. Seriously, look at his posts from the past. It does not even matter what the law is in your state. That is how he wants it.

easyG
June 30, 2009, 01:52 PM
Dang straight! Where do I sign the petition to have burglary made a capital offense?
In my opinion, it should be a capital offense.
Then you wouldn't have "repeat offenders".

I would love to see a "three strikes and you're dead" policy when it comes to felonies.

Wildalaska
June 30, 2009, 01:57 PM
It might not be your intention, but you really come across as extremely soft on criminals....even to the point where you seem to actually side with them over law abiding citizens.

Yeah...it's tough to disregard years of studying jurisprudence with concepts suchlike innocent till proven guilty and proportionate punishment and all the other legal stuff that gets tossed away when the alleged criminal is someone other than a gun owner picked on by the Feds:rolleyes:

WA believes you should only defend your self when the BG has you on the ground and has his knife to your throat, Or has you pinned in a closet where you ran to with the barrel of the BG's gun in your mouth. To Wildalaska it is only then that you should defend your self. If you defend before that you are a bloodthirsty murderer. Seriously, look at his posts from the past. It does not even matter what the law is in your state. That is how he wants it.


WAs posts speak for themselves, but thanks for trying.

WildletusknowhenyouwanttodiscusstheissuecriticallyAlaska ™

easyG
June 30, 2009, 02:04 PM
Yeah...it's tough to disregard years of studying jurisprudence with concepts suchlike innocent till proven guilty....
Wait a minute, a guy is in my home uninvited and I should restrain myself because he might be "innocent" of being in my home uninvited???

You can't be serious!:barf:

Perhaps you have "studied" so much that you are hopelessly tangled in the legalese and have forgotten the spirit of the law and the meaning of justice.
Or you're just way too soft on criminals for my taste.

Brian Pfleuger
June 30, 2009, 02:07 PM
I should restrain myself because he might be "innocent" of being in my home uninvited???

No, you should restrain yourself because:

1)Shooting someone is years of headaches, $10s of thousands of dollars of your money and countless hours/days/weeks of your time, no matter how justified.

2)Trespassing is not a capital offense.

3)You want to do what is best for YOU and your family, which is almost never putting a bullet in another human being. (See #1)

smee78
June 30, 2009, 02:09 PM
Looks like a criminal got what he deserved. I'm tired of these revolving criminals getting away with there 4th 5th 12th arrest only to be sent back out to do it again. I feel sorry for the store owner that he was in the position but the thief was stealing his life support. If it was cattle (back in the days of old)he would of been hung. I dont feel sorrow for thiefs or liers. Its just a matter of time before they will hurt someone with there words or weapons.

easyG
June 30, 2009, 02:11 PM
peetzakilla, have you ever actually shot anyone as a civilian while you were not carrying out your duty as a military or law enforcement?

cloud8a
June 30, 2009, 02:13 PM
Wildalaska has not studied anything that gives those cower philosophies real ground.

check my previous post about the customers of Luby's in Killeen Texas COWERING. The reason we have CCW laws in Texas, so we do not have to cower while getting our brains blown out. It gives up the ability to stand up and fight the BG. Check my prev. post.

OldMarksman
June 30, 2009, 02:22 PM
Actually, we have no way of knowing what the storeowner is thinking.

True, but it would be most reasonable to assume that he is deeply concerned about what may lie ahead for him and his family...

One thing is for sure....we have one less criminal on the streets to prey upon law abiding citizens.

Yeah, but as developments unfold it may turn out that another will be going into prison, or perhaps put on probation.

And I highly doubt that the dead guy's family is going to get a penny of the storeowner's money.


I have no idea how to predict that....it would be pure conjecture.

If they do then it's because the justice system has failed the law abiding citizens of this nation, and certainly not due to the actions of the storeowner.

If they do it will be solely due to the actions of the storeowner--to his use of deadly force.

And I seriously doubt that the storeowner's business will suffer in the least.

Pure conjecture. But there's at least a strong possibility that the business will be damaged if not driven into liquidation by the expenditures necessary to mount a legal defense, by the time the storeowner is fully engaged in a defense of justifiability and unable to work, and potentially, by the absence of the storeowner if he is imprisoned.

It has been described as a "complex" case. All we know is that a storeowner went to his place of business after an alarm was triggered, saw someone inside who had entered unlawfully, and fatally shot the man from outside. He says he thought he saw a gun, but he didn't.

The charging authority could decide to accept is story. He would still be exposed to civil claims.

He could be charged criminally and taken to trial court. The trial could result in an acquittal or conviction.

Even in the event of the former, he could be bankrupt or perhaps nearly so. In the event of the latter, he will have lost not only his fortune but also his clean record, his right to ever own a gun, and potentially, his personal freedom for some period of time.

Had he been inside his place of business in a state in which he castle doctrine extends to those premises at the time when the criminal broke in, he would undoubtedly have an easier time of it.

But that's not what happened. He went to his place of business to check out the alarm, saw someone inside, and fired from outside the premises. He had the option of calling the police before approaching. He is apparently basing his case on his statement that he believed that the perp was pointing a gun.

But isn't that just what every last killer in the country would claim?

Who knows how it will turn out? But one can assume with a high degree of confidence that the storeowner hand his family would be better off now and probably in the future had he not fired his weapon, or if his story is true, if he had kept his distance until the perp had been caught and rendered harmless.

Wildalaska
June 30, 2009, 02:30 PM
In my opinion, it should be a capital offense.
Then you wouldn't have "repeat offenders".

Crack a history book, it's already been tried, already failed...for political and social reasons that are even more compelling now than they were then

WilditsaninterestingsubjectAlaska ™

May I suggest "Crime and Punishment in Eighteenth Century England (http://www.amazon.com/Crime-Punishment-Eighteenth-Century-England/dp/0415010144/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246388883&sr=1-1) as a starting point

easyG
June 30, 2009, 02:31 PM
If they do it will be solely due to the actions of the storeowner--to his use of deadly force.
NOT AT ALL!

I refuse to blame the victim.

The one at blame here is the criminal who broke in to the business.
Had he chosen to be a law abiding citizen instead of choosing to be a thief and parasite upon society, he would probably still be alive today.

Wildalaska
June 30, 2009, 02:33 PM
Had he chosen to be a law abiding citizen instead of choosing to be a thief and parasite upon society, he would probably still be alive today.

Jean Valjean

WildbutheythisgoingfarafieldAlaska ™

OldMarksman
June 30, 2009, 02:35 PM
I mentioned the possibilities of a decision to not charge, a trial resulting in acquittal, and conviction.

Of course, as in the Oregon case involving someone who had entered a house uninvited , there could also be a case of plea bargaining, where the storeowner agrees to plead guilty to a lesser offense than that listed in the state's charge.

Could be a year before we know.

Brian Pfleuger
June 30, 2009, 02:37 PM
peetzakilla, have you ever actually shot anyone as a civilian while you were not carrying out your duty as a military or law enforcement?

Why?

easyG
June 30, 2009, 02:38 PM
Quote:
In my opinion, it should be a capital offense.
Then you wouldn't have "repeat offenders".
Crack a history book, it's already been tried, already failed...for political and social reasons that are even more compelling now than they were then
Are you suggesting that executed criminals can come back from the dead to burglarize again?

Seriously, if at first you don't succeed, try again.
Just because it failed once does not mean that it would fail again.
It this was the case we wouldn't have guns, planes, trains, cars, light bulbs, computers, etc....all of these things failed numerous times before they became viable.

The biggest challenge would be overcoming those like yourself, who clearly sympathize with the criminal element.

Wildalaska
June 30, 2009, 02:39 PM
I refuse to blame the victim.

Which one...the dead one or the live one.?

Once that trigger is pulled everyone is a victim.

WildwhichiswhyitshouldbeviewedasthelastresortAlaska ™

easyG
June 30, 2009, 02:43 PM
Quote:
peetzakilla, have you ever actually shot anyone as a civilian while you were not carrying out your duty as a military or law enforcement?
Why?
Because I don't think you have.
Especially when you say things like this....
1)Shooting someone is years of headaches, $10s of thousands of dollars of your money and countless hours/days/weeks of your time, no matter how justified.
I shot someone once, as a civilian, and it did not cost me "years of headaches" and "$10s of thousands of dollars".

It did take up hours/days/weeks of my time however.

easyG
June 30, 2009, 02:47 PM
Which one...the dead one or the live one.?
There's only one victim in this case....the storeowner.
He was preyed upon my a thief and a parasite on our society.

Why do you insist upon blaming those whom the criminals prey upon?

Once that trigger is pulled everyone is a victim.
Golly gee, what a nice sound-bite.
Did you get that one from Tyra banks or Oprah? :rolleyes:

Brian Pfleuger
June 30, 2009, 02:48 PM
Because I don't think you have.
Especially when you say things like this....

You got lucky. In most cases it will, especially if there is ANY doubt as to the shot being justified. If one holds to shooting only when life and limb are at stake then there will be fewer problems and problems are, after all, what we are trying to avoid by arming ourselves to begin with.

I'll bet your case didn't include an unarmed man who with whom you were not even in the same building and who had done nothing more serious than a simple break-in.

easyG
June 30, 2009, 02:50 PM
You got lucky. In most cases it will, especially if there is ANY doubt as to the shot being justified.
And what are you basing this notion on?

easyG
June 30, 2009, 02:55 PM
I'll bet your case didn't include an unarmed man who with whom you were not even in the same building and who had done nothing more serious than a simple break-in.
Nope, it involved me returning fire, and hitting, a man who was shooting in to my house from my front yard.

mikejonestkd
June 30, 2009, 02:56 PM
I shot someone once, as a civilian, and it did not cost me "years of headaches" and "$10s of thousands of dollars".


You are lucky.

An officer that was conducting a SD training here bluntly stated to us,
" once you pull the trigger you can kiss your house, car, job and probably your marriage goodbye. Even if you clear the grand jury, you'll be sued by the family and the legal fees will take everything - even in a good shoot"

His intent was to impress on us the magnitude of the consequences of pulling the trigger, and he was correct.

I am with Wild and Peetza on this one 100%

OldMarksman
June 30, 2009, 03:00 PM
There's only one victim in this case....the storeowner.

There's truth to that.

However, should the Virginia authorities and grand jury conclude that the storeowner's use of deadly force was unlawful under the circumstances, the storeowner will be identified as the defendant, and the burglar (if that's what he was), as the victim. That will be the case in the indictment, in the trial court, in any sentencing hearings or pronouncements, and if it comes to that, in any appeals of a conviction.

Should things go poorly enough for the storeowner, he may also be known as the convict and as the prisoner. But the dead man, properly called by you and me as the crook, the burglar, the perp, etc. will forever be known, for purposes of this case, as the victim. And it's possible that is family will be known as the plaintiffs.

easyG
June 30, 2009, 03:00 PM
" once you pull the trigger you can kiss your house, car, job and probably your marriage goodbye. Even if you clear the grand jury, you'll be sued by the family and the legal fees will take everything - even in a good shoot"
To put it bluntly, your SD training officer was full of crap.

Do a little searching of the news were gun owners made justified shootings and you will discover that what the SD training officer told you is simply not true.

Creature
June 30, 2009, 03:08 PM
I disagree. He wasnt that too far off. There will surely be monetary, as well as "other", costs ... whether it was a "just" shoot or otherwise.

easyG
June 30, 2009, 03:10 PM
I disagree. He wasnt that too far off. There will surely be monetary, as well as "other", costs ... whether it was a "just" shoot or otherwise.
Are you speaking from personal experience?

If so, how much did it cost you?
Did you spend 10's of thousands of dollars in legal defense?
Were you sued for thousands of dollars?
Did it take years and years to resolve the matter?
Did you lose you home and your wife?

Brian Pfleuger
June 30, 2009, 03:11 PM
And what are you basing this notion on?


The entirely accurate assumption that your shooting was completely without legal question...

it involved me returning fire, and hitting, a man who was shooting in to my house from my front yard.

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 03:17 PM
Use cellphone if possible without compromising the situation,

A sensible solution,

Seek cover and concealment when possible while engaging the threat,

Followed by a questionable response, IF you use cover and especially concealment, there is no threat as the BG cannot see you. Then you want to "engage" ? Why ?


STOP THE CRIMINAL if possible,

Most folks with more than a couple of functioning brain cells know this is not how to rationally handle such a situation.

Your vigilante style keyboard commando tactics are not only foolish, but dangerous, and ill advised.

To put it bluntly, your SD training officer was full of crap. :rolleyes:

Wildalaska
June 30, 2009, 03:43 PM
Did you get that one from Tyra banks or Oprah?


LOL...I cant believe a guy like you watches that stuff:rolleyes:

WildwhennotshootingpeopleandchestthumpinonthenetAlaska ™

TailGator
June 30, 2009, 03:46 PM
Nope, it involved me returning fire, and hitting, a man who was shooting in to my house from my front yard.

So, easyG, did you hire a lawyer at all?

Creature
June 30, 2009, 04:12 PM
Are you speaking from personal experience?

No...but your experience, I would counter, is very uncommon. Did your experience not cost you a single cent?

If so, how much did it cost you?
Did you spend 10's of thousands of dollars in legal defense?
Were you sued for thousands of dollars?
Did it take years and years to resolve the matter?
Did you lose you home and your wife?

Surely you aren't suggesting that a completely legal and justified "lethal force" encounter will be free of some kind of cost, monetary or otherwise, ... are you? To say that a 'legal shoot' being costly "is simply not true" ... is, for lack of better words, simply not true!

cloud8a
June 30, 2009, 04:16 PM
If you have a justifiable shoot in a SD situation, the DA does not file charges, here in Texas. You were justified.

No when people defend themselves with a firearm they do not lose their butts in legal fees unless it was a questionable shoot. Don't get in a questionable shoot.

Wildalaska. Do you only sell guns to people that assure you that they will COWER? I mean you work a big ole gun store. I doubt more than 1/4 of the people that come in there believe in incorporating COWERING in their SD. So you sell guns from your store to chest thumping bloodthirsty murdering criminals right?

Cowering is not a tactic that I ever heard of used in training.

Brian Pfleuger
June 30, 2009, 04:24 PM
If you have a justifiable shoot in a SD situation, the DA does not file charges, here in Texas. You were justified.

No when people defend themselves with a firearm they do not lose their butts in legal fees unless it was a questionable shoot. Don't get in a questionable shoot.

That is far from always true. First off, it will depend on the state you're in, second, it will likely depend on the DA, third, there is a very high probability of being sued by either the survivor or the dead guys family, fourth, it would be prudent to avoid shooting someone unless it is absolutely necessary simply because of the possibility of these and so many other nasty possibilities.

Creature
June 30, 2009, 04:26 PM
Cowering is not a tactic that I ever heard of used in training.

"Cowering" behind good cover can be an excellent defense!

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 04:34 PM
I shot someone once, as a civilian, and it did not cost me "years of headaches" and "$10s of thousands of dollars".

It did take up hours/days/weeks of my time however.

OK, I could almost buy that, except...


Nope, it involved me returning fire, and hitting, a man who was shooting in to my house from my front yard.


When I read this, my BS meter pegged out. If your literary description is to be believed, the incident would describe you shooting from inside your home, at someone outside your home. Would you have everyone here believe that there was no police investigation ? No questioning of your motive for shooting at someone from inside your home ? No questioning of who shot first? Couldn't the guy outside have simply been returning fire at someone shooting from inside a house ?

This, along with your "kill em all" bravado, is absolutely priceless. :D With your gift for BS I can see why no charges were ever filed :rolleyes:

You don't happen to be a pharmacist do you ?

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 04:43 PM
Cowering is not a tactic that I ever heard of used in training.


The technical terminology may be what is throwing you off, it is generally referred to as "cover and concealment" and is taught by virtually every type of training that exists. Don't let the semantics cloud the issue.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 30, 2009, 04:46 PM
Attend me - we don't promote chest thumping rants that get personal.

Also, some of you have done this before. You skirt on thin ice!

Thus, this is closed and user notes will be posted.