Store Owner shoots Burglar

[OldMarksman]

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]

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-Punishme...6388883&sr=1-1) as a starting point

[easyG]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Brian Pfleuger]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

" 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Wildalaska]

Did you get that one from Tyra banks or Oprah?

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

WildwhennotshootingpeopleandchestthumpinonthenetAlaska ™

[TailGator]

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]

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]

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]

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.