Homeowner Shoots Burglar-911 Tape Link

[FLA2760]

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/...news/news2.txt

[chris in va]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mellow_c

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.

Originally Posted by Rifleman 173

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/fullpag...51C0A966958260

[OuTcAsT]

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

[Creature]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Creature

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.

Originally Posted by Creature

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.