Homeowner Shoots Would-Be Robber in Broad Daylight...No Charges Filed? - Page 4

B18C5-EH2 · February 25, 2010, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outkast

And if someone pulls a home invasion on you, you won't have that luxury either, that is exactly why we train and prepare (something you found offensive earlier)

But what sort of "training" does one do to handle such a situation? Do you mean mental preparedness as in determining what you do in a given situation? Evidently the homeowner didn't train if his best shot was in the thigh of the intruder.

I don't think there's a grand way to "train" for this type of scenario as it is a variable, ever-changing set of circumstances. I guess knowing your rights and the law of your state goes farther than trying to train for a break-in.

Quote:

Had this man not done so, he might not have survived this invasion.

Sure I'll agree there.

BUT!

He could have also easily alerted the intruder to his presence, the intruder could have bugged out, and everyone goes unscathed.

I see the pitfalls of this topic though - no matter what we all say here ultimately it's hard to have a concrete, "right or wrong" answer and in the end the guy is alive, a criminal is second guessing his life of crime, and thus far the home owner has not been charged with a crime.

teeroux · February 25, 2010, 04:32 PM

Quote:

He could have also easily alerted the intruder to his presence, the intruder could have bugged out, and everyone goes unscathed.

True he may have, or he may have decided not to leave a witness, or he may have hit the house right next door next, or he may have just pretended to walk away and hideout and try again latter, and yes all of these things do happen.

We don't know what the young man was willing to do or capable of and judging by his actions so far I belive if you asked him he would surely lie. We only know what he did and the home owner was more than justified in his actions against him. He should be and feel only so lucky he kept his life over it.

Quote:

He does not owe a criminal breaking and entering anything.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Absolutly agree.

The Tourist · February 25, 2010, 04:45 PM

Quote:

He does not owe a criminal breaking and entering anything.

Who told you guys that?

There are injury cases filed all of the time by criminals who injure themselves committing crimes.

The easiest example is one where the property owner sets "traps," like trip-wire guns, or sharpened objects.

One criminal fell through a ceiling while trying to gain access through a crawl space.

We have members here who are lawyers. Ask them.

hogdogs · February 25, 2010, 05:34 PM

Quote:

...or the kid coming back because he has even more motivation to murder the home owner who shot him.

As previously was stated... Stupid should hurt! If he gives the above scenario a whirl, he may find that joe homeowner has honed his shooting skills while the punk, home invading criminal was in the hospital on our welfare tab!

As for training, this forum has a training and tactics section. As well as the Lock and Load: Live Fire Exercises section.

Many members here have much cash tied up in there training courses while others choose vicarious training by listening close to those who have... You can go from an hour at the range to several days of multi scenario instruction by highly qualified professionals.

Personally, I lived a quite wild (but fun) younger life and realized very early on that I may one day need to defend the health of my loved ones and myself.

I did the "reflecting" on what I must be prepared for and from there I shot my firearms until they felt like I could hit my mark in the dark every time...

Then making my home secure and myself more familiar than any one else with my surroundings rounds it out.

Tourist, Here in Fla, I am at higher risk of injury or wrongful death suit if I am not home and the BG gets hurt or killed at my home than if I shoot him dead... If I perform a "clean shoot" under CD law than the perp nor his family can even expect one red copper clad pot metal penny.
Brent

OuTcAsT · February 25, 2010, 05:39 PM

Quote:

But what sort of "training" does one do to handle such a situation? Do you mean mental preparedness as in determining what you do in a given situation?

Mental prep, situational awareness, keeping your firearm within quick reach, and thinking out possible scenarios that might occur in your home are all key to being able to react when faced with an instant threat.

For instance, I live in a typical "ranch" style home, 1 front door, 1 back door that must be entered thru an attached garage. My son (19) and I live here. We are both proficient with handguns,EBR's shotguns, and HTH if necessary.

We have "thought out" scenarios for an invasion type event from many angles, how we could react, and even have "code words" for variations on the theme. Certainly this type of situation is going to be "dynamic" and plans may change accordingly. But, having a plan puts you at better odds than simply reading and knowing the law, and will give you at least "some" advantage. Also, practice FOF drills within your home with airsoft...you might be amazed how you will react.

Double Naught Spy · February 25, 2010, 05:45 PM

Quote:

I think the OP here is mostly trying to play Devil's Advocate, but I feel it's not working out the way he'd hoped.

Quote:

Ding! Ding! Ding!

No, I think it is clear that the OP was fairly ignorant about GA criminal and civil law and has started to see some of the error of his grandstanding against the homeowner and is just covering his tracks to save face.

Quote:

Sorry I know I'm arguing points, but I am playing devil's advocate. My initial, knew jerk reaction to the story was sort of shock and disbelief that the home owner matter-of-factly stated he stood with gun aimed at the intruder as he watched him kick the door down, then shot him.

So the bottom line is that you are trying any which way you can to find fault with the homeowner because you didn't like what he did and you didn't like the way he talked about it?

B18C5-EH2 · February 25, 2010, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

No, I think it is clear that the OP was fairly ignorant about GA criminal and civil law and has started to see some of the error of his grandstanding against the homeowner and is just covering his tracks to save face.

I don't need to "save face" to a bunch of anonymous people on an internet message board. Don't give yourself that much credit to think that I actually give a crap about what YOU think of me.

I love the "grandstanding" remark too. Are you butt hurt that someone posted an opinion that differs from yours?

I do play devil's advocate on all of the message boards I post on. My title on one forum is actually "Devil's Advocate" so again at least one person here could see that this was a possibility.

I'll admit that there was some shock value to the newscast, and the home owner holding his hand sideways as he recounted/reenacted the events for the news crew as he said "I couldn't believe he was kicking in my door and it took him like four kicks to get in so by the time he got in I was ready for him..." after watching the guy beat on the front door first. If he felt so threatened up front why did he not even call 911 beforehand?

I'm glad most of you posted some really good information, and for that I say thanks.

NavyLT · February 25, 2010, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B18C5-EH2

I see the pitfalls of this topic though - no matter what we all say here ultimately it's hard to have a concrete, "right or wrong" answer and in the end the guy is alive, a criminal is second guessing his life of crime, and thus far the home owner has not been charged with a crime.

I disagree. I think there is a concrete "right". The homeowner defended himself within the bounds set forth in the law, and, as a result, escaped harm at the hands of a criminal. To me that is about as concrete "right" as it gets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miboso

Unless you think that telling him to go away would make him quit burgling altogether?

But, but, but.... isn't that what the Brady Campaign says will happen if we make the entire US a no-gun zone?!? Now I am confused.... :barf:
And that is directed at the Brady bunch, not the OP... just to be clear.

**Mike Irwin** · February 25, 2010, 06:25 PM

OK, folks, ONLY warning.

This thread is getting a little too personal for the good health and continued active member standing of more than a few people.

I'll say this once.

BACK OFF THE "PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS."

Argue the points made in an individual's message.

Do NOT argue about the individual himself.

Are we clear?

**Mike Irwin** · February 25, 2010, 06:32 PM

My take.

AFIK, Georgia recently (within the last couple of years) updated its Castle Law to remove any duty of a homeowner or legal resident to retreat when confronted by an intruder in the home.

If you believe everything you see in this news article, the homeowner appears to be fully protected by the tenets of Georgia's Castle Law(s).

1. He had no duty under law to retreat from an intruder in his home.

2. He is permitted, by law, to make the prima facie (sp?) assumption that someone kicking down his door to gain unlawful entry into his home is more than willing to use violence.

3. He is permitted, by law, to use lethal force to counter a violent invasion of his home even if the intruder does not display, or have, a weapon.

AFIK, that is ALL black letter law in Georgia.

As such, the homeowner acted lawfully, and no charges should be filed against him because, by Georgia law, he committed no offenses.

CRUE CAB · February 25, 2010, 06:44 PM

Homeowner 1
Thief 0
Thats pretty much the only way I look at it.

Glenn E. Meyer · February 25, 2010, 06:49 PM

The courts both civil and criminal will decide if the shooting is justified. We can only hypothesize at this time. It probably will cost a buck.

However, I wish to comment on several things:

1. Could it go differently, even if it was legal? Perhaps, from a position of cover - could the homeowner challenge the intruder? I've been through that in training exercises where we got the 'drop' so to speak on an invader and practiced getting him to flee or deal with him. Well thought out FOF helps you to have the mental routines to deal with such.

2. Psychological consequences. The gentleman may suffer later from classic anxiety disorders from the actual act of shooting a kid. Spare me that such only happen to cowards, etc. I'm a psychologist. It happens to 'tough' guys. The homeowner should be aware of such.

3. Social consequences - shooting a kid may not be appreciated by those outside of the choir and some within (as in this debate). This can be very powerful and unpleasant - it can lead to losing friendships, harassment, having to move. Even those who are most righteous and heroic have commented on the social consequences. The Air Force MP who took down a rampage shooter with his M9 with a great long range shot (totally righteous) has commented on how this made his life hell. Spcial shunning is one term for such.

Things to think about. Would you not shoot because of these and try to challenge? Who knows? I wasn't there. I trained and done both.

However, if you contemplate self-defense shootings, you should be aware of the risks. That's why LEO and civilian training schools mention the stress problems. You can get a posturer who scoffs but that's their problem.

MTT TL · February 25, 2010, 07:31 PM

A quick google search reveals several dozen cases of criminals being shot (mostly shot dead) in just the last couple of months all over the country. The number of civil suits being reported seems to be 1%. Some states don't even allow suits if the person is in the commission of a felony. I can only find one case in the last ten years where the criminal won the case. The homeowner can always counter sue if he likes to.

There might be more that are not reported, but I think the danger of a law suit is overstated. Is it possible? Maybe, if your state allows it. I would say your odds of bad things happening are a lot worse if you allow a group of thugs to kick in your door unopposed.

Al Norris · February 25, 2010, 07:36 PM

The legality of this case has pretty well been established, and early on at that.

My gut instinct is to close this thread because it's been off topic for the L&CR section for a while now. Mike has jumped in to admonish everyone to not get so flaming personal.

I understand how that has happened, since the OP has instigated the majority of negative comments, and intentionally at that. It still does not excuse the behavior I've just read.

Folks, the Tactics and Training forum is that-a-way

Closed.

February 25, 2010, 06:25 PM	#84
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,382	OK, folks, ONLY warning. This thread is getting a little too personal for the good health and continued active member standing of more than a few people. I'll say this once. BACK OFF THE "PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS." Argue the points made in an individual's message. Do NOT argue about the individual himself. Are we clear? __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

February 25, 2010, 06:32 PM	#85
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,382	My take. AFIK, Georgia recently (within the last couple of years) updated its Castle Law to remove any duty of a homeowner or legal resident to retreat when confronted by an intruder in the home. If you believe everything you see in this news article, the homeowner appears to be fully protected by the tenets of Georgia's Castle Law(s). 1. He had no duty under law to retreat from an intruder in his home. 2. He is permitted, by law, to make the prima facie (sp?) assumption that someone kicking down his door to gain unlawful entry into his home is more than willing to use violence. 3. He is permitted, by law, to use lethal force to counter a violent invasion of his home even if the intruder does not display, or have, a weapon. AFIK, that is ALL black letter law in Georgia. As such, the homeowner acted lawfully, and no charges should be filed against him because, by Georgia law, he committed no offenses. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

February 25, 2010, 06:49 PM	#87
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	The courts both civil and criminal will decide if the shooting is justified. We can only hypothesize at this time. It probably will cost a buck. However, I wish to comment on several things: 1. Could it go differently, even if it was legal? Perhaps, from a position of cover - could the homeowner challenge the intruder? I've been through that in training exercises where we got the 'drop' so to speak on an invader and practiced getting him to flee or deal with him. Well thought out FOF helps you to have the mental routines to deal with such. 2. Psychological consequences. The gentleman may suffer later from classic anxiety disorders from the actual act of shooting a kid. Spare me that such only happen to cowards, etc. I'm a psychologist. It happens to 'tough' guys. The homeowner should be aware of such. 3. Social consequences - shooting a kid may not be appreciated by those outside of the choir and some within (as in this debate). This can be very powerful and unpleasant - it can lead to losing friendships, harassment, having to move. Even those who are most righteous and heroic have commented on the social consequences. The Air Force MP who took down a rampage shooter with his M9 with a great long range shot (totally righteous) has commented on how this made his life hell. Spcial shunning is one term for such. Things to think about. Would you not shoot because of these and try to challenge? Who knows? I wasn't there. I trained and done both. However, if you contemplate self-defense shootings, you should be aware of the risks. That's why LEO and civilian training schools mention the stress problems. You can get a posturer who scoffs but that's their problem. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

February 25, 2010, 07:31 PM	#88
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Quadling Country Posts: 2,780	A quick google search reveals several dozen cases of criminals being shot (mostly shot dead) in just the last couple of months all over the country. The number of civil suits being reported seems to be 1%. Some states don't even allow suits if the person is in the commission of a felony. I can only find one case in the last ten years where the criminal won the case. The homeowner can always counter sue if he likes to. There might be more that are not reported, but I think the danger of a law suit is overstated. Is it possible? Maybe, if your state allows it. I would say your odds of bad things happening are a lot worse if you allow a group of thugs to kick in your door unopposed. __________________ Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.

February 25, 2010, 06:44 PM	#86
CRUE CAB Senior Member Join Date: January 18, 2010 Location: Florida Posts: 200	Homeowner 1 Thief 0 Thats pretty much the only way I look at it.

February 25, 2010, 07:36 PM	#89
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	The legality of this case has pretty well been established, and early on at that. My gut instinct is to close this thread because it's been off topic for the L&CR section for a while now. Mike has jumped in to admonish everyone to not get so flaming personal. I understand how that has happened, since the OP has instigated the majority of negative comments, and intentionally at that. It still does not excuse the behavior I've just read. Folks, the Tactics and Training forum is that-a-way Closed.