Homeowner blows off fingers of home invader.

[atlantis]

Now, these are some gutsy tactics.

http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=13259597

A suspect ends up losing some fingers during a home invasion in east Tulsa.

.....

(Moderator note: The bulk of the article posted here has been removed due to copyright infringement. Please use the link to read the rest of the article.)

[sliponby]

While I applaud the homeowner's moxie and bravado, I condemn his recklessly sending rounds across the street into a house where innocents could have been hurt or killed.

I know it's easy for me to critcize in the safety of my home but one must be aware of what's beyond or behind a target and take other evasive action that may be more prudent. Again, easy for me to say but something that must be addressed before pulling the trigger.

[threecharley]

yep thats what ya get when ya try out the make my day law in oklahoma. we don't mess around in these parts! lol oh and slipon you'd have done the same thing in the heat of the moment, don't even go there! the old timer just got beat on the head with the gun he took away from the punk.

[Sefner]

"Make My Day" law? People are still calling it that? Even in a case when it protected a homeowner?

If anyone should be charged with the rounds going into the house across the street it's the burglars. Their illegal actions resulted in those missed shots.

I wonder if the homeowner was the one that was able to provide the police with the description of the car. If so, that's impressive. Normally we see people in situations like this forgetting details, not remembering them.

[sliponby]

Didn't mean to come off sounding like a pompous ass, and I guess I did. Glad no one was hurt (besides the BG) and the homeowner came out OK.

[OldMarksman]

If anyone should be charged with the rounds going into the house across the street it's the burglars. Their illegal actions resulted in those missed shots.

Do not confuse criminal culpability with civil liability. Shoot at something for whatever reason without being sure of your backstop and you may learn that the hard way.

Now, if you were by necessity shooting at someone who was in fact shooting at you and exercising the most care possible while doing so, it might be difficult for a plaintiff to persuade anyone that you failed to exercise due caution. So, did he really "recklessly send rounds across the street"? If so, he put everything he owns at risk, but the mere fact that the shots hit the other house does not necessarily indicate negligence. Did he have no other choice but to fire in the direction in which he fired? Was the number of shots fired appropriate? None of us were there to judge.

[threecharley]

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/artic...1_ATulsa740212

[therealdeal]

OLDMARKSMAN,

I am pretty sure if one of the stray rounds fired by the homeowner accidentally killed someone in the neighbor's home past the get-away vehicle, Lewis would have also have been charged with murder. Most states adhere to this since their was a robbery(armed robbery at that) in progress which subsequently resulted in the death of another person. This would also make lewis liable in a civil suit. This charge happens a lot when two robbers rob a convenience store(only one example of many), and the convenience store owner shoots and kills one of the robbers while the other gets away. The surviving robber is charged with murder of his friend even though he didn't pull the trigger(among other things). The "make my day" law protects the homeowner from a civil suit from the neighbor. This would mean he could not be charged no matter what the outcome was or could've been(worse or better than the actual events of this story). The 'make my day law'(named after the 1983 dirty harry line, "Go ahead, make my day." from the movie "Sudden Impact") in the 1985 Colorado decision led to the laws of today called the castle law. ps-you probably already knew much of this, but the laws do help to protect the innocent law-abiding citizens such as this homeowner. If he is defending his family from a home invasion or burglary at his residence, he is protected(depending on the state- OK is one of them).

Hear are some examples of the law. This isn't federal, its designated by your state. Be safe

Quote:
a castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is an american legal doctrine claimed by advocates to arise from english common law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the castle doctrine.

Castle doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the us have a castle doctrine. The term "make my day law" comes from the landmark 1985 colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[2] the law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by clint eastwood's character harry callahan in the 1983 film sudden impact, "go ahead, make my day."

Quote:
conditions of use


in general, one of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the castle doctrine:

-an intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
-the intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. The castle doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
-the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
-the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
-the occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force

in all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the castle doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

Quote:
duty-to-retreat
"castle laws" remove the duty to retreat from an illegal intruder when one is lawfully in one's home.

Quote:
stand-your-ground
other states expressly relieve the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called "stand your ground", "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" clauses, and state exactly that the defender has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which they have a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant.

[Skans]

"I condemn his recklessly sending rounds across the street into a house where innocents could have been hurt or killed...."


I don't. The homeowner did nothing wrong. He was attacked and defended himself. The gangster is 100% responsible for any stray rounds or resulting casualties.

I refuse to blame the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. Nor, do I believe in "apportioning" fault when one man is clearly an aggressive criminal and the other is merely defending himself. The criminal is 100% responsible. We really should not forget that.

[OldMarksman]

I am pretty sure if one of the stray rounds fired by the homeowner accidentally killed someone in the neighbor's home past the get-away vehicle, Lewis would have also have been charged with murder. Most states adhere to this since their was a robbery(armed robbery at that) in progress which subsequently resulted in the death of another person.

Correct.

This would also make lewis liable in a civil suit.

Yes, but it does not absolve the shooter of any liability that he may have. And which one do you think has more money?

The "make my day" law protects the homeowner from a civil suit from the neighbor.

Think again! If it is authoritatively decided that the homeowner's actions were in fact justified underthe law, he is given protection against civil liability from any claims filed by the person against whom deadly force was lawfully used.

Nothing in the law prevents you or me from suing someone whose bullets hit us when we are not attacking him--nor should it.

[OldMarksman]

The gangster is 100% responsible for any stray rounds or resulting casualties.

For criminal liability, 100%, in every state, unless the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter's actions were criminally negligent (say, perhaps in shooting a fusilade of bullets from two unaimed guns in the general direction of the attacker).

From the civil stanspoint, a plaintiff can try to pursue the recovery of damages from anyone whose actions led to his loss. Both the threshold of negligence to be proven and the burden of proof are much lower than in criminal court.

The way the scenario was described it does not appear that the shooter failed to exercise reasonable caution, but we don't have the evidence.

It is not worth arguing whether he should be potentially liable; things are the way they are and they will not change. It is not worth arguing about he would have been liable had he hit someone; others would have decided that based on a preponderance of the evidence..

What is worth remembering is that when you fire your gun, you may put everything you own on the table, unless you are a sworn officer who is indemnified by the community. That isn't going to change. Fortunately, what has changed in many states is that the ability of the criminal attacker to collect in civil court has been reduced significantly.

[1776 Patriat]

Good for the homeowner. Granted, some shots hit the house across the street and could have hurt or killed an innocent, BUT they didn't and thank god for that. You can't fault him for wanting to protect his family. I'm wondering if it opens him up to some other legal consequents though.

Steve

["JJ"]

It didn't sound to me like anyone was cursing the home owner. There are many factors the come into play that we don't have. I don't feel the home owner did anything wrong or anything I wouldn't have done. That being said, I might be singing a different tune if I was his neighbor & something worse happened! I know it would eat me up if some bystander got hurt or worse while I was defending myself. Reguardless of the legal issues. Tough situation! Glad it came out the way it did!

[therealdeal]

oldmarksman-

Fortunately, what has changed in many states is that the ability of the criminal attacker to collect in civil court has been reduced significantly.

+1

[Sefner]

OldMarksman is making a good, albiet nuanced point about Castle Doctrine.

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

]If it is authoritatively decided that the homeowner's actions were in fact justified underthe law, he is given protection against civil liability from any claims filed by the person against whom deadly force was lawfully used.

Nothing in the law prevents you or me from suing someone whose bullets hit us when we are not attacking him--nor should it.

This is true in many states and there are more than a few cases to prove this. I think the point that me and some others are making is that this shouldn't be the case. Theoretically, any round fired has the chance to find its way to the harm of a third party. Bullets ricochet off bones, the street, and can fly for quite some time. Does that mean we charge every defense shooter with reckless negligence or sue them for putting me at harm when the shooting happened (one of those bullets could have hit me!). Not saying it's right, just saying that people have won cases on less. The point is that a person acting in defense of the selves should, if they indeed acted within the confines of self-defense law, not be responsible for any non-sequitor events arising from their use of self-defense. As Skans said, the innocent was forced to act by the guilty.

Now if they discharged their handgun recklessly (at a fleeing criminal, or as "warning shots", or even to dissolve a situation in which they are not party to) and hit a third party then I totally agree with OldMarksman, sue their pants off. But when it comes down to clear cut cases of defense, I want the innocent people to worry about surviving, not trying to do trigonometry in their had to make sure that the round they may only have a fraction of a second the fire doesn't accidentally penetrate a neighbor's home.

[Skans]

For criminal liability......., From the civil stanspoint....

This is from MY standpoint. Not the lawyers, not the government bureaucrats, not some judge's, not politicians, and certainly not "politically-correct" folks. I believe that we, as gunowners and supporters of the 2nd Amendment, owe it to ourselves and to all gun owners to make sure that AT HE VERY LEAST we place the blame squarely on the bad guy. It burns me up when I see gun owners chastising a guy who is doing nothing more than defendinging himself from being killed on his own property.

I place all blame on the bad guy - and none on the defender for any stray bullets.

[aarondhgraham]

It burns me up when I see gun owners chastising a guy who is doing nothing more than defendinging himself from being killed on his own property.

I can't completely agree with this,,,

If a guy is in his house/apartment and empties a 30 round magazine at a bad guy,,,
And 28 of those rounds end up in my or my kids bedroom,,,
I am going to take very strong issue with his decision,,,
His life is not inherently more valuable than my kid.

Prudent use of a firearm for defense is a right I will grant anyone,,,
Haphazard use of that firearm is something I can't abide by,,,
Collateral damage is something that must be considered.

I'm not talking about legal consequences of the act,,,
I'm talking about the morality of the act.

If I successfully defend my life but later found out I took someone else's life with a stray bullet, I'm not sure what I would do,,,
Yes my life has extreme value to me and anyone who tries to take it will be met with extreme violence,,,
But I do not believe I (or anyone else) has the right to blindly wreak havoc with impunity,,,
I would place the blame on the bad guy for starting the thing in the first place,,,
But the fact would remain that I traded an innocent's life for mine.

I do not have the wisdom to dissect this argument down to it's core,,,
But I must state that we as humans must be responsible for every bullet that leaves our gun.

We can not abrogate (arrogate?) ourselves from the responsibility of collateral damage.

"Hey man, I'm so very sorry your wife/kid/parent was killed in the gunfight,,,
I was defending my life!"

Would you accept that apology from someone?

Can you imagine standing in front of a parent and delivering that apology over the grave of their child?

To heck with the legality of your actions,,,
Could you live with yourself after that?

.

[Skans]

If I successfully defend my life but later found out I took someone else's life with a stray bullet, I'm not sure what I would do,,,

Likewise. I do understand what you are saying, and I would probably feel the same way if my bullet hit an innocent. But, that's me wrestling with my own morality and my own choices.

But, here's what I'm not willing to do. As a third person, I'm not willing to criticize someone else who had to defend himself, legally on his own property, where a shot went astray. I'm going to stand behind this person and give him/her 100% of my support. That means placing the blame where it belongs - on the bad guy. No "shoulda, coulda, woulda" good guy messed up too. No, good guy did what he had to do because of the horrific acctions of a bad guy - bad guy is 100% responsible, in my mind.

[Unclenick]

Atlantis and Therealdeal,

FYI, if you missed it, you may want to check this out. It came out new in August.

[therealdeal]

Not the lawyers, not the government bureaucrats, not some judge's, not politicians, and certainly not "politically-correct" folks. I believe that we, as gunowners and supporters of the 2nd Amendment, owe it to ourselves and to all gun owners to make sure that AT HE VERY LEAST we place the blame squarely on the bad guy. It burns me up when I see gun owners chastising a guy who is doing nothing more than defendinging himself from being killed on his own property.

+2

[therealdeal]

But, here's what I'm not willing to do. As a third person, I'm not willing to criticize someone else who had to defend himself, legally on his own property, where a shot went astray. I'm going to stand behind this person and give him/her 100% of my support. That means placing the blame where it belongs - on the bad guy. No "shoulda, coulda, woulda" good guy messed up too. No, good guy did what he had to do because of the horrific acctions of a bad guy - bad guy is 100% responsible, in my mind.

+2

[OldMarksman]

As a third person, I'm not willing to criticize someone else who had to defend himself, legally on his own property, where a shot went astray. I'm going to stand behind this person and give him/her 100% of my support. That means placing the blame where it belongs - on the bad guy.

Well, yeah, if all of the blame is in fact attributable to the "bad guy."

And it would most probably be, unless the shooter's actions demonstrated reckless disregard of obvious or known risks. For example, if he fired numerous unaimed shots when a reasonable person could have and would have fired aimed shots at the assailant, or if he fired knowing that an innocent person was directly behind the assailant when and if a reasonable person could have and would have engaged in a different manner, his action might well be judged reckless or negligent.

In such a situation, the "bad guy" will bear the responsibility of having started the situation, and the actions of the reckless and negligent defender will have contributed to the injuries of innocent third parties.

I presume that when you say "as a third person", you are refering to yourself as someone other than an innocent third person who was injured by the shooter.

And that's the point--people who are injured by others also have rights under the law.

There are two aspects here. On the criminal side, any murder charges traditionally accrue to the criminal assailant, but depending upon the degree of negligence, charges of reckless endangerment or such, depending upon the jurisdiction, could be filed against the defender. On the civil side, the threshold of negligence may be a lot lower, and the burden of proof surely is a lot lower.

The fact that an assailant has attempted to harm another person does not absolve anyone of the consequences of negligent or reckless behavior, though it certainly can alter a judgement of what a reasonable person would be expected to do to mitigate the substantial risks inherent in shooting a weapon.

Is that wrong? Should thing be different? I certainly don't think so. Consider that the injured person may be your child. Not everyone who defends himself with a gun is a hero of the community. Would I see things differently myself, morally or otherwise? No! Personally, I would have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who killed or injured someone while engaging an attacker in a populated area with a high powered rifle with FMJ bullets without being sure of his backstop, unless he had absolutely no alternative at the time, and even then I would probably blame him anyway for having let himself be put in that position by choosing to rely on such a weapon. What would the law say? I do not know.

By the way, on whose property the action occurs has nothing to do with either justification or liability. If a shooting is justified on one's property, it would be justified in the town square, and if an act constitutes voluntary or involuntary manslaughter or reckless endangerment on the court house lawn, it would constitute the same thing if it were to occur in one's yard or driveway.

[STEINER]

Honestly... to prevent collateral problems like your defensive round striking the neighbor's house and possibly the occupants, why don't we own high quality and powerfull tasers for HD?
Someone makes them where you can multiple fire. You are in your home and don't need long distance.
I know ('cause I own one) handguns are the best way to protect but they also can get you in hot water.
I wouldn't mind taking down an intruder with the taser and then, if you got to do it, cap 'em in the head.
That might be the best way to defend your family. Just MHO.

[therealdeal]

marksman, you said you dont want to argue w/skansyet keeping making points on your side.part of his post was just his opinion, not legal. I will reitterate, if its not negligent the neighbor isn't getting a dime from the guy who shot the stray. obviously if he is reckless that changes things but w/regards to this story he is covered in my mind even if two bullets hit the neighbors house. and you know what, if someone gets something from him, a good lawyer plays tick for tack and files more on the BG because his client is being tacked for something in the crossfire. the make my day and castle law is a very good thing, so states without it are at a loss. the BG is fully cupable in this situation.period. the officers basically said they're not even gonna look into it because he is covered. is that a definate no, but this is one situation the good guy did what he had to do. I am not arguing w/you, so I hope it doesn't seem that way. this has been a fun thread. I am a big fan of 'umbrellas' too. I pay $160 per year for it. this makes the farm and the vehicles have a ton of extra insurance per incident
ps- the lawyer aint gettin nothin either- I'm fighting him to the bitter end

[therealdeal]

steiner not a bad idea but lets remember the gun that fired the shots was the felon's gun. homeowner grabbed it, shot off BG's fingers and then had to defend himself from getaway driver and/or 3rd suspect who hadnt gotten the hint yet. I think its safe to say the homeowner was caught up in the heat of the moment & was worried about the threat of immediate danger to himself+his family members