Chalk one up for the good guys

Lazy D · January 22, 2005, 12:04 AM

Tulsa Homeowner Shoots And Kills Intruder

TULSA, Okla. (AP) -- A 51-year-old Tulsa homeowner shot and killed a 16-year-old burglar who entered his home.

Sergeant Tim Bracken says Tulsa Police received a call about 11:20 Saturday evening from a home in the 6700 block of East 26th Place.

The homeowner -- Robert Spencer -- was asleep in bed when he was awakened by the sound of glass breaking. Bracken says Spencer then saw a shadow come into his bedroom, so he fired one shot which struck the juvenile in the cheek.

The boy then ran outside the home and collapsed in the back yard where he was later pronounced dead.

The juvenile was identified as 16-year-old Billy Joe Hardridge of Tulsa.

The homeowner wasn't arrested.

Bracken says the case will be presented to the district attorney for review.

However, he says it is unlikely any charges would be filed against Spencer.

Dusty Miller · January 22, 2005, 03:33 AM

Maybe this one could even get an honorable mention in the Darwin Awards (assuming this young criminal did not knock-up his girl friend before getting his ticket cancelled).

chris in va · January 22, 2005, 04:52 AM

Can't do that in my state. They'd arrest me with a charge of manslaughter, etc.

John_StLmo · January 22, 2005, 10:30 AM

He should be arrested and tried for manslaughter.

He effectively ambushed the kid - no warnings - no nothing - just waited and then shot him with intent to kill (head shot).

Not reading anything into the story but going on the info that was posted - he should go to jail and then prison.

Plus, I hope he's got a pot full of money saved up to pay attorneys and then give to the kids family after they win a civil suit against him for wrongful death.

One of the good guys? Hardly.

abelew · January 22, 2005, 10:39 AM

However the police are not REQUIRED to arrest in this situation. They can leave the subject free while they ask the DA what is to be done with the case. Being that the homeowner does not pose a flight risk, and was not out to commit a crime, I would review the SCENE and what happened, and the make the decision on if I would make an arrest. The homeowner is already in enough emotional stress, and if the DA was to prosecute the case (doubt it), all that would have to be done, would be to go and arrest him at that time. The head shot was probably not intentional, as it seemed that it was a reaction, and happened quickly. I am young, a good shot, and I couldnt make that shot in the heat of the moment, by choice. A firearm is deadly force, no matter if he shot him in the finger, or the face. A burgler got shot, I think the state should have to pay hiim for the money that the state was saved from prosecuting this 16 year old ____ head. Just because of his age, does not mean he was not violating the law. And, most who violate the law in this way, will continue to untill they are caught or killed.

U.F.O. · January 22, 2005, 10:43 AM

What am I missing here? "This kid" breaks into a guy's house and is shot in the homeowner's BEDROOM, for God's sake. When, in some of you guy's backwards azzed states, does a person actually have a right to defend himself and his home? This kid deserved exactly what he got.....a one way ticket outta here. For the guy defending himself.....no foul-no penalty.....period!

U.F.O.

DAVID NANCARROW · January 22, 2005, 11:10 AM

Code:

He effectively ambushed the kid - no warnings - no nothing - just waited and then shot him with intent to kill (head shot).

Who ambushed whom???

The homeowner was in BED! The homeowner was ambushed. The kid intentionally broke into a locked home. As to the headshot, well, how good is your accuracy in the dark?

Break into my house at night when I am in bed, and my 12 gauge is gonna make the bad guy so ugly his momma won't recognise him.

As a homeowner, I have no training nor requirement to hold said scumbag for the police. Nor am I going to accept the danger of finding out that I have an armed meth head who has no fear or common sense.

Also understand that the laws here in Texas have a slight dribble of common sense in them still. In the blue states, I guess you're required to sign over the deed to the house, car and all possessions

MCIWS · January 22, 2005, 11:12 AM

Well put UFO!

FlyfishTom · January 22, 2005, 11:37 AM

I think not. Anyone breaks into someone else's home is asking to be killed and this particular homeowner should be receiving awards for cleaning up garbage. Are we supposed to interview these people? Find out if they come from an unhappy home, are mentally deficient or otherwise compromised?

Wynterbourne · January 22, 2005, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Also understand that the laws here in Texas have a slight dribble of common sense in them still.

Preach it, my brother Texan.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. In Texas, the 'warning' is the sound of the safety being clicked off. Someone breaking into your bedroom in the middle of the night is considered MORE than enough of a cause for fear for your safety.

FrankDrebin · January 22, 2005, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Can't do that in my state. They'd arrest me with a charge of manslaughter, etc.

Can you post a link to a newspaper article from your state where a homeowner was prosecuted for shooting a stranger who surprised him in his bedroom after breaking in during the night? Just one will be fine.

eka · January 22, 2005, 03:43 PM

First off, it is very sad that a kid or anyone, for that matter was killed. However, in Virginia, all that is needed to employ deadly force is a reasonable fear that your life is threatened. Now if you are lying in bed asleep and this guy enters your home in the night and then enters your bedroom, he definately has bad intentions. It is dark, you would not be able to tell he had a weapon, if he had one. Remember, your home has a thousand things in it that could be used as a weapon. He doesn't have to bring a weapon with him, he could just whack you with a nice heavy lamp while you were snoring away. Or maybe he snatched a butcher knife from the kitchen before finding you sleeping in your bedroom. I don't know about you guys, but I feel confident that I could articulate a reasonable fear for my life, given these circumstances. There are a million other places that a burglar could break into in the middle of the night that does not contain people. But, this guy chose to break into an occupied dwelling during the cover of darkness. The homeowner acted in self defense, plain and simple. Just because he was right, doesn't make it any less of a tragedy. In Virginia, you have to determine that the suspect had the motive, opportunity, and ability to carry out a lethal assault on you. If you determine that the assailant had these three elements, you, if you are remotely normal, should be in fear for your life. Virginia law also mandates you retreat if possible from an altercation in public places. The law does not mandate this in your own home. Get your hands on some current code books and do some research.

chris in va · January 22, 2005, 03:53 PM

Here's the deal. I've been reading 'The Virginia Gun Owner's Guide', and many times it mentions juries/lawyers calling the intruder a 'victim' and you the perp of the 'crime'.

For example, under 'Situational Analysis'...

9-You're in your home at night when a man with a ski mask on comes through an open window in the hallway. May you shoot?

A-Probably, though a well-trained expert might instead confront the intruder from a secure position and succeed in holding the person for arrest, which is no easy task." "Armed and from good cover, you might just convince the intruder to leave the way he came."

And on other pages...

"The person who is shot often gets a different, more sympathetic name--the victim--and gets the benefit of a prosecutor even if, perhaps, you learn later it's a hardened criminal with a long record."

"If you ever have to raise a gun to a criminal, you'll find out quickly how good they can be at portraying you as the bad guy and themselves as the helpless innocents, at the mercy of a crazed wacko---you."

"You may only respond with the same level of force that is being used against you. Until a threat reaches truly lethal proportions, responding with a firearm may well be seen as over reaction. Mere physical force, if not likely to cause serious bodily injury, may only be met with physical force, not with deadly force."

And they give a court case example...

"A person who reasonably apprehends bodily harm by another is privileged to exercise reasonable force to repel the assault. However, the amount of force used to defend oneself must not be excessive and must be reasonable in relation to the perceived threat. (Diffendal v. Commonwealth, 1989)"

I could go on, but my fingers are cramping.

cyf7tkwl · January 22, 2005, 04:02 PM

The law in my state is explicit. An intruder, armed or not, can be assumed to be a lethal threat, lethal force can be legally applied in defense. There have been several such cases here with no charges filed.

Wynterbourne wrote that the safety being released would be his only warning. With my Glock 21, the safeties are silently released by pulling the trigger, so my warning in such a case would be the muzzle flash.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
Statute text
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

John_StLmo · January 22, 2005, 04:45 PM

Some good posts – and as expected - differences of opinion...

I still feel (whether 'legal' in the state or not) to shoot someone for simply breaking into your home is paramount to manslaughter - or worse.

Apparently the kid was unarmed – there was nothing said that he had threatened the homeowner or that the homeowner was in any way protecting himself from bodily injury / imminent danger / physical harm / whatever… He just shot him.

He heard the glass break, knew someone was in the house, and 'laid in wait' (granted, my terminology). No warning shot, no attempt to avoid the shooting, scare the kid off or anything. Ambush.

As I said, he may well get away with it legally depending on the state laws, but the civil suit is going to tear him a new one…

FrankDrebin · January 22, 2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Here's the deal. I've been reading 'The Virginia Gun Owner's Guide', and many times it mentions juries/lawyers calling the intruder a 'victim' and you the perp of the 'crime'.

So does that mean you can't find even ONE newspaper article from your state with the power of Google where a guy who was surprised in his bedroom at night by a stranger/burglar was prosecuted for shooting him?

FrankDrebin · January 22, 2005, 04:57 PM

Quote:

As I said, he may well get away with it legally depending on the state laws, but the civil suit is going to tear him a new one…

I doubt it. And he isn't "getting away" with anything. "Getting away" implies he committed some crime.

eka · January 22, 2005, 05:36 PM

John,

What do you think this intruder was intending to do when he entered the bedroom of this poor homeowner. Kiss him goodnight? Maybe, steal his bedroom slippers? This guy wasn't laying in wait for this criminal. He was sleeping for God's sake. It wasn't the homeowner that decided to put this whole ordeal in motion. It was the intruder. Let me tell you something. There are two kinds of burglars. There are burglars that go to great lengths to not encounter humans. These guys break into businesses at night and maybe houses during the daytime after they satisfy themselves that nobody is around. Then, you have burglars like this guy. If they break into a dwelling at night, there is a huge chance they are going to encounter another human being. If they go ahead and break in, they are usually prepared to deal with the confrontation. This type of crime takes balls and is usually committed by dangerous, mean, and hardened individuals. Now this poor homeowner has to live with the fact that he shot a sixteen year old to death. Make no mistake about it, this homeowner is the victim here and is lucky to be alive. Must he wait to have a knife thrust into him in the darkness before he takes steps to defend himself inside his own home? I don't think so!!!!

U.F.O. · January 22, 2005, 05:40 PM

Guys.....I'm somewhat shocked by the "whatever" attitude I'm reading here.

Quote:

"I still feel (whether 'legal' in the state or not) to shoot someone for simply breaking into your home is paramount to manslaughter - or worse."

"Simply breaking into your home". John, what does it take to make you fear for your life and piss you off enough to fight? What if it was "simply raping your sister" or "simply beating your father to death with a baseball bat"? What justification does it take in your mind before lethal force could (and should) be employed? Why do you think so many states view a home invasion as legal grounds to fight back with lethal force? Are you going to interview the invader to determine if he's armed and what his intentions are? Do you actually own a home and do you have the primary responsibility to protect a family or others who reside in that home?

U.F.O.

Rojoe67 · January 22, 2005, 06:05 PM

With the small amount of information we started with we sure have a few folks ready to hang the home owner.???? And I am wondering why? If I was in my security of my home, my bedroom, and my bed what am I going to do other than shoot the bad guy.... sorta hard to retreat any place from here... am I wrong here? I think I would be in fear of my life what about you? The person whom I don't think the resident knows or has a way to determine his age or his intensions has broken glass to enter. Yep he forgot to ring the bell and wait to be let in.... come on - the little info I read this guy has 100% legal right to stop an intruder whom he thinks will put his life in great danger. I got a feeling the cheek shot wasn't the owners exact point he was aiming for??? most of us will take center mass stop shot right? That tells me owner was damn scared and was at a disadvantage if laying in his bed.... If any DA spends much time on this case....(unless we have missed something) is out to make a name in politics for himself. From the info I read this resident was defending his castle and his life...... What do you folks whom want this resident to go to jail think he should have done?
Yes, your having a problem answering that question - let's wait and see what all the details are- If the final details show no changes I would say this guy did well.... He was in fear and was defending himself... Sorry that this teen made the choice to break the law and get himself killed.

Rojoe67 · January 22, 2005, 06:15 PM

John are you for real?

Do you own a home? Have a family? Love life? own a gun? ever shot a firearm?

If the suspect was not armed when he first broke in don't you think on his way to the residents room he sure could pick up a dozen house found items to kill or injure the owner with.?.... and no I won't tell you the first 12 that come to mind - figure it out on your own.

I think you just wrote your response to stir up a hornet nest......well, it worked and I think your getting stung real good......

as far as a civil suit.......... you must either be pond scum or one of them lawyers who feed the pond scum......... sorry just seems like I might know your kind......and your sad if that is how you feel....... Yea - I had someone like that try to take my money once....... well, they got nothing

Denny Hansen · January 22, 2005, 06:26 PM

Quote:

He heard the glass break, knew someone was in the house, and 'laid in wait' (granted, my terminology). No warning shot, no attempt to avoid the shooting, scare the kid off or anything. Ambush.

Seems to me that the home owner used common sense (my terminology) and stayed put vice "laid in wait." Attempting to clear a house even (if not especially) your own is a bad idea.

Warning shots, contrary to the big and small screens, are not only a bad idea, but in many jursidictions may very well be against the law.

The home owner had no idea that the intruder was a teenager, but I don't believe that really makes a difference. Ya reckon the murderers at Colombine High School were capable of inflicting serious bodily harm and death?

Denny

Phil306 · January 22, 2005, 06:29 PM

I'm actually kinda shocked at the law in Virginia. After all, all I ever hear is how "screwed up" California is, etc. Here, even in the Peoples Republik of California, this is a justified shooting.

You can shoot someone who forcibly breaks into your home. The law presumes the person breaking into your house is going to cause you, your family, etc death and/or great bodily injury. For all of you non believers:

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

infrared35 · January 22, 2005, 06:45 PM

I am so annoyed that Michigan is a "retreat" state. You can't use any force against someone in your home unless you are clearly in imminent danger for your life. Someone comes into your house with a baseball bat but doesn't threaten you with it? Figure the best way to get over to your neighbor's house and call the cops from there. You have an "obligation to leave" unless you are obviously not permitted to do so by the perp. One of my instructors used the hypothetical of someone coming into your house with a baseball bat, coming into your bedroom, and ignoring you while they rummage through your stuff. If they're blocking the doorway and preventing an easy exit, you have to open a window and leave that way. If there are no windows, you might be able to make a case for saying that you felt you were in danger.

This attitude is amazing considering how generally level-headed this state is otherwise.

I don't have any cases to reference, but all my law and firearms training here has said the same thing.

Bullrock · January 22, 2005, 07:33 PM

Back in the old (as in olden) days a man's home was considered his castle. Even back when I was a leo home invasion was called breaking & entering with intent (a felony). A man had the right to protect himself, his family and his home. Words mean things and when the USA invaded Normandy we took along some guns and some bullets because the intent of our invasion was to kill a few people. Somewhere along the way morals slipped and the laws of many states, were taken over or mis-interpreted by lefty law makers, judges & the ACLU.

A man no longer has the right to protect his home because too many times this present day society seems to think the BG's are the victims. It makes me shake my head and be glad I'm 69, and hopefully won't be here when the [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] really hits the fan.

Break into my house and I'm shootin. We can talk about it later!

January 22, 2005, 12:04 AM	#1
Lazy D Senior Member Join Date: December 11, 2004 Location: Indian Territory Posts: 192	Chalk one up for the good guys Tulsa Homeowner Shoots And Kills Intruder TULSA, Okla. (AP) -- A 51-year-old Tulsa homeowner shot and killed a 16-year-old burglar who entered his home. Sergeant Tim Bracken says Tulsa Police received a call about 11:20 Saturday evening from a home in the 6700 block of East 26th Place. The homeowner -- Robert Spencer -- was asleep in bed when he was awakened by the sound of glass breaking. Bracken says Spencer then saw a shadow come into his bedroom, so he fired one shot which struck the juvenile in the cheek. The boy then ran outside the home and collapsed in the back yard where he was later pronounced dead. The juvenile was identified as 16-year-old Billy Joe Hardridge of Tulsa. The homeowner wasn't arrested. Bracken says the case will be presented to the district attorney for review. However, he says it is unlikely any charges would be filed against Spencer. __________________ "Fast is Fine but accuracy is final.".....Wyatt Earp.

January 22, 2005, 03:33 AM	#2
Dusty Miller Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2004 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 262	Maybe this one could even get an honorable mention in the Darwin Awards (assuming this young criminal did not knock-up his girl friend before getting his ticket cancelled). __________________ The difference between a stumbling block and a stepping stone is the height to which one raises one's foot.

January 22, 2005, 10:39 AM	#5
abelew Senior Member Join Date: November 29, 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 778	Depends on the jurisdiction..... However the police are not REQUIRED to arrest in this situation. They can leave the subject free while they ask the DA what is to be done with the case. Being that the homeowner does not pose a flight risk, and was not out to commit a crime, I would review the SCENE and what happened, and the make the decision on if I would make an arrest. The homeowner is already in enough emotional stress, and if the DA was to prosecute the case (doubt it), all that would have to be done, would be to go and arrest him at that time. The head shot was probably not intentional, as it seemed that it was a reaction, and happened quickly. I am young, a good shot, and I couldnt make that shot in the heat of the moment, by choice. A firearm is deadly force, no matter if he shot him in the finger, or the face. A burgler got shot, I think the state should have to pay hiim for the money that the state was saved from prosecuting this 16 year old ____ head. Just because of his age, does not mean he was not violating the law. And, most who violate the law in this way, will continue to untill they are caught or killed. __________________ "Where the choice is between only violence and cowardice, I would advise violence." ~ Mohatma Gandhi

January 22, 2005, 10:43 AM	#6
U.F.O. Senior Member Join Date: October 22, 2004 Location: TN Posts: 513	What am I missing here? "This kid" breaks into a guy's house and is shot in the homeowner's BEDROOM, for God's sake. When, in some of you guy's backwards azzed states, does a person actually have a right to defend himself and his home? This kid deserved exactly what he got.....a one way ticket outta here. For the guy defending himself.....no foul-no penalty.....period! U.F.O. __________________ "But today you just read that the man was shot dead By a gun that didn’t make any noise But it wasn’t the bullet that laid him to rest was The low spark of high-heeled boys" ~Traffic - Stevie Winwood~

January 22, 2005, 11:10 AM	#7
DAVID NANCARROW Senior Member Join Date: November 5, 2000 Location: Wyoming Posts: 1,761	Code: He effectively ambushed the kid - no warnings - no nothing - just waited and then shot him with intent to kill (head shot). Who ambushed whom??? The homeowner was in BED! The homeowner was ambushed. The kid intentionally broke into a locked home. As to the headshot, well, how good is your accuracy in the dark? Break into my house at night when I am in bed, and my 12 gauge is gonna make the bad guy so ugly his momma won't recognise him. As a homeowner, I have no training nor requirement to hold said scumbag for the police. Nor am I going to accept the danger of finding out that I have an armed meth head who has no fear or common sense. Also understand that the laws here in Texas have a slight dribble of common sense in them still. In the blue states, I guess you're required to sign over the deed to the house, car and all possessions

January 22, 2005, 04:52 AM	#3
chris in va Senior Member Join Date: December 26, 2004 Location: Louisville KY Posts: 13,806	Can't do that in my state. They'd arrest me with a charge of manslaughter, etc.

January 22, 2005, 10:30 AM	#4
John_StLmo Junior Member Join Date: June 19, 2004 Posts: 14	He should be arrested and tried for manslaughter. He effectively ambushed the kid - no warnings - no nothing - just waited and then shot him with intent to kill (head shot). Not reading anything into the story but going on the info that was posted - he should go to jail and then prison. Plus, I hope he's got a pot full of money saved up to pay attorneys and then give to the kids family after they win a civil suit against him for wrongful death. One of the good guys? Hardly.

January 22, 2005, 11:12 AM	#8
MCIWS Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 2004 Location: Colorado Posts: 145	Well put UFO!

January 22, 2005, 11:37 AM	#9
FlyfishTom Member Join Date: December 3, 2004 Location: East Central Florida Posts: 23	Ambush? I think not. Anyone breaks into someone else's home is asking to be killed and this particular homeowner should be receiving awards for cleaning up garbage. Are we supposed to interview these people? Find out if they come from an unhappy home, are mentally deficient or otherwise compromised?

January 22, 2005, 03:43 PM	#12
eka Senior Member Join Date: July 3, 2004 Posts: 235	First off, it is very sad that a kid or anyone, for that matter was killed. However, in Virginia, all that is needed to employ deadly force is a reasonable fear that your life is threatened. Now if you are lying in bed asleep and this guy enters your home in the night and then enters your bedroom, he definately has bad intentions. It is dark, you would not be able to tell he had a weapon, if he had one. Remember, your home has a thousand things in it that could be used as a weapon. He doesn't have to bring a weapon with him, he could just whack you with a nice heavy lamp while you were snoring away. Or maybe he snatched a butcher knife from the kitchen before finding you sleeping in your bedroom. I don't know about you guys, but I feel confident that I could articulate a reasonable fear for my life, given these circumstances. There are a million other places that a burglar could break into in the middle of the night that does not contain people. But, this guy chose to break into an occupied dwelling during the cover of darkness. The homeowner acted in self defense, plain and simple. Just because he was right, doesn't make it any less of a tragedy. In Virginia, you have to determine that the suspect had the motive, opportunity, and ability to carry out a lethal assault on you. If you determine that the assailant had these three elements, you, if you are remotely normal, should be in fear for your life. Virginia law also mandates you retreat if possible from an altercation in public places. The law does not mandate this in your own home. Get your hands on some current code books and do some research. __________________ EKA Sic Semper Tyrannis

January 22, 2005, 03:53 PM	#13
chris in va Senior Member Join Date: December 26, 2004 Location: Louisville KY Posts: 13,806	Here's the deal. I've been reading 'The Virginia Gun Owner's Guide', and many times it mentions juries/lawyers calling the intruder a 'victim' and you the perp of the 'crime'. For example, under 'Situational Analysis'... 9-You're in your home at night when a man with a ski mask on comes through an open window in the hallway. May you shoot? A-Probably, though a well-trained expert might instead confront the intruder from a secure position and succeed in holding the person for arrest, which is no easy task." "Armed and from good cover, you might just convince the intruder to leave the way he came." And on other pages... "The person who is shot often gets a different, more sympathetic name--the victim--and gets the benefit of a prosecutor even if, perhaps, you learn later it's a hardened criminal with a long record." "If you ever have to raise a gun to a criminal, you'll find out quickly how good they can be at portraying you as the bad guy and themselves as the helpless innocents, at the mercy of a crazed wacko---you." "You may only respond with the same level of force that is being used against you. Until a threat reaches truly lethal proportions, responding with a firearm may well be seen as over reaction. Mere physical force, if not likely to cause serious bodily injury, may only be met with physical force, not with deadly force." And they give a court case example... "A person who reasonably apprehends bodily harm by another is privileged to exercise reasonable force to repel the assault. However, the amount of force used to defend oneself must not be excessive and must be reasonable in relation to the perceived threat. (Diffendal v. Commonwealth, 1989)" I could go on, but my fingers are cramping.

January 22, 2005, 04:02 PM	#14
cyf7tkwl Member Join Date: January 15, 2005 Posts: 56	The law in my state is explicit. An intruder, armed or not, can be assumed to be a lethal threat, lethal force can be legally applied in defense. There have been several such cases here with no charges filed. Wynterbourne wrote that the safety being released would be his only warning. With my Glock 21, the safeties are silently released by pulling the trigger, so my warning in such a case would be the muzzle flash. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. Statute text (1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant. (3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force. (4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

January 22, 2005, 04:45 PM	#15
John_StLmo Junior Member Join Date: June 19, 2004 Posts: 14	Some good posts – and as expected - differences of opinion... I still feel (whether 'legal' in the state or not) to shoot someone for simply breaking into your home is paramount to manslaughter - or worse. Apparently the kid was unarmed – there was nothing said that he had threatened the homeowner or that the homeowner was in any way protecting himself from bodily injury / imminent danger / physical harm / whatever… He just shot him. He heard the glass break, knew someone was in the house, and 'laid in wait' (granted, my terminology). No warning shot, no attempt to avoid the shooting, scare the kid off or anything. Ambush. As I said, he may well get away with it legally depending on the state laws, but the civil suit is going to tear him a new one…

January 22, 2005, 05:36 PM	#18
eka Senior Member Join Date: July 3, 2004 Posts: 235	John, What do you think this intruder was intending to do when he entered the bedroom of this poor homeowner. Kiss him goodnight? Maybe, steal his bedroom slippers? This guy wasn't laying in wait for this criminal. He was sleeping for God's sake. It wasn't the homeowner that decided to put this whole ordeal in motion. It was the intruder. Let me tell you something. There are two kinds of burglars. There are burglars that go to great lengths to not encounter humans. These guys break into businesses at night and maybe houses during the daytime after they satisfy themselves that nobody is around. Then, you have burglars like this guy. If they break into a dwelling at night, there is a huge chance they are going to encounter another human being. If they go ahead and break in, they are usually prepared to deal with the confrontation. This type of crime takes balls and is usually committed by dangerous, mean, and hardened individuals. Now this poor homeowner has to live with the fact that he shot a sixteen year old to death. Make no mistake about it, this homeowner is the victim here and is lucky to be alive. Must he wait to have a knife thrust into him in the darkness before he takes steps to defend himself inside his own home? I don't think so!!!! __________________ EKA Sic Semper Tyrannis Last edited by eka; January 22, 2005 at 08:02 PM.

January 22, 2005, 06:05 PM	#20
Rojoe67 Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2005 Location: Wolverine State Posts: 767	wait one minute...... With the small amount of information we started with we sure have a few folks ready to hang the home owner.???? And I am wondering why? If I was in my security of my home, my bedroom, and my bed what am I going to do other than shoot the bad guy.... sorta hard to retreat any place from here... am I wrong here? I think I would be in fear of my life what about you? The person whom I don't think the resident knows or has a way to determine his age or his intensions has broken glass to enter. Yep he forgot to ring the bell and wait to be let in.... come on - the little info I read this guy has 100% legal right to stop an intruder whom he thinks will put his life in great danger. I got a feeling the cheek shot wasn't the owners exact point he was aiming for??? most of us will take center mass stop shot right? That tells me owner was damn scared and was at a disadvantage if laying in his bed.... If any DA spends much time on this case....(unless we have missed something) is out to make a name in politics for himself. From the info I read this resident was defending his castle and his life...... What do you folks whom want this resident to go to jail think he should have done? Yes, your having a problem answering that question - let's wait and see what all the details are- If the final details show no changes I would say this guy did well.... He was in fear and was defending himself... Sorry that this teen made the choice to break the law and get himself killed.

January 22, 2005, 06:15 PM	#21
Rojoe67 Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2005 Location: Wolverine State Posts: 767	One last thing..... John are you for real? Do you own a home? Have a family? Love life? own a gun? ever shot a firearm? If the suspect was not armed when he first broke in don't you think on his way to the residents room he sure could pick up a dozen house found items to kill or injure the owner with.?.... and no I won't tell you the first 12 that come to mind - figure it out on your own. I think you just wrote your response to stir up a hornet nest......well, it worked and I think your getting stung real good...... as far as a civil suit.......... you must either be pond scum or one of them lawyers who feed the pond scum......... sorry just seems like I might know your kind......and your sad if that is how you feel....... Yea - I had someone like that try to take my money once....... well, they got nothing

January 22, 2005, 06:29 PM	#23
Phil306 Member Join Date: May 24, 2004 Location: Dublin, California Posts: 76	I'm actually kinda shocked at the law in Virginia. After all, all I ever hear is how "screwed up" California is, etc. Here, even in the Peoples Republik of California, this is a justified shooting. You can shoot someone who forcibly breaks into your home. The law presumes the person breaking into your house is going to cause you, your family, etc death and/or great bodily injury. For all of you non believers: 198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. __________________ "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Sir Winston Churchill

January 22, 2005, 06:45 PM	#24
infrared35 Member Join Date: January 3, 2005 Posts: 17	I am so annoyed that Michigan is a "retreat" state. You can't use any force against someone in your home unless you are clearly in imminent danger for your life. Someone comes into your house with a baseball bat but doesn't threaten you with it? Figure the best way to get over to your neighbor's house and call the cops from there. You have an "obligation to leave" unless you are obviously not permitted to do so by the perp. One of my instructors used the hypothetical of someone coming into your house with a baseball bat, coming into your bedroom, and ignoring you while they rummage through your stuff. If they're blocking the doorway and preventing an easy exit, you have to open a window and leave that way. If there are no windows, you might be able to make a case for saying that you felt you were in danger. This attitude is amazing considering how generally level-headed this state is otherwise. I don't have any cases to reference, but all my law and firearms training here has said the same thing.

January 22, 2005, 07:33 PM	#25
Bullrock Senior Member Join Date: November 25, 2004 Posts: 2,686	Back in the old (as in olden) days a man's home was considered his castle. Even back when I was a leo home invasion was called breaking & entering with intent (a felony). A man had the right to protect himself, his family and his home. Words mean things and when the USA invaded Normandy we took along some guns and some bullets because the intent of our invasion was to kill a few people. Somewhere along the way morals slipped and the laws of many states, were taken over or mis-interpreted by lefty law makers, judges & the ACLU. A man no longer has the right to protect his home because too many times this present day society seems to think the BG's are the victims. It makes me shake my head and be glad I'm 69, and hopefully won't be here when the [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] really hits the fan. Break into my house and I'm shootin. We can talk about it later!