The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 17, 2005, 10:06 PM   #1
chris in va
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 12,596
DC area home invasion

WashingtonPost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051600745.html

Silver Spring Man Shoots Intruder
D.C. Resident Suspected in 2 Burglaries

By David Snyder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 17, 2005; Page B03

A Silver Spring homeowner shot a man who broke into his house in the Norwood area yesterday, wounding the alleged invader in the hand and side, police said.

The wounded man -- who is also a suspect in a burglary 20 minutes earlier in the same area -- was being treated at Suburban Hospital late yesterday and was expected to survive, police said.



A Montgomery County police cruiser and crime scene tape block a driveway in the Norwood area of Silver Spring, where a homeowner shot a man who entered his house while the resident was sleeping. (By Robert A. Reeder -- The Washington Post)

Police said they expect to charge the injured Southeast Washington man, 43, upon his release from the hospital. They did not release his name.

The homeowner, Teion A. Kirkland of the 16200 block of Whitehaven Road, dialed 911 at 10:37 a.m. to report that a man had kicked in his door. One minute later, another person called to report a shooting in the area, said Lt. Eric Burnett, a police spokesman.

Kirkland later told police that the man knocked down the door of his house, a two-story red-brick rambler with immaculate landscaping, and that he shot the suspect inside the house after a brief verbal confrontation, police said.

Kirkland "was awakened by the crash of the door," said David Felsen, Kirkland's attorney.

Under some circumstances, police will charge burglary victims with shooting someone who invades their home. Police were interviewing Kirkland to determine the sequence of events yesterday, and Felsen said Kirkland was "fully cooperating."

For a shooting to be considered legal, "an individual must first be in fear of loss of life or serious personal injury," police spokeswoman Lucille Baur said.

Kirkland "is clearly a victim who acted well within the bounds of the law," Felsen said. He said Kirkland, who is married and has children, is "devastated" by yesterday's events.

His gun is legal and properly registered, Baur said.

After being shot, the burglary suspect made his way to his red Tracker and drove away, Baur said.

Police took him into custody minutes later, after he drove the SUV off Layhill Road about a half mile from the shooting scene. He was flown by helicopter to Suburban Hospital, Burnett said.
chris in va is offline  
Old May 17, 2005, 10:07 PM   #2
chris in va
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 12,596
A number of police cruisers were in the area at the time of the shooting because they were responding to the report of a burglary -- allegedly by the same man -- about three miles away, in the 14900 block of Eastway Drive in the Cloverly area of Silver Spring.

Baur said police have confirmed that the same man is the suspect in both burglaries. In the earlier burglary, the homeowner came home to find the man outside his house.


A Montgomery County police cruiser and crime scene tape block a driveway in the Norwood area of Silver Spring, where a homeowner shot a man who entered his house while the resident was sleeping. (By Robert A. Reeder -- The Washington Post)

The man told the homeowner that he was "looking for someone," Baur said. The homeowner entered, realized someone had been inside his house and called police, Baur said.

Neighborhood resident Dustin Owens, 27, was making breakfast about a mile away from the shooting scene when he heard four shots. Owens rushed outside because, as a former Marine, he said he knew the sound was gunfire and not a backfiring car or something else.

"I didn't know what was going on, because this isn't the type of area where you hear gunshots," said Owens, who lives about 20 yards from where the burglary suspect was taken into custody.

Owens said he walked up a slight hill between his house and Layhill Road and watched as several police officers drew their guns and shouted at the suspect to show his hands and lie down. A medevac helicopter soon arrived to take the man to the hospital.

The neighborhood, filled with two-story suburban ranches and some larger homes, is adjacent to the Northwest Park Golf Course, a 27-hole public golf course. It is generally "a quiet area" in terms of crime, Burnett said.

Staff researcher Bobbye Pratt contributed to this report
chris in va is offline  
Old May 18, 2005, 10:33 AM   #3
Duxman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2005
Location: VA
Posts: 1,294
Wondering what kind of firearm the homeowner used....?


Did not know that the Republik of Maryland required guns to be registered.

Typical Washington Post noting that "Under some circumstances, police will charge burglary victims with shooting someone who invades their home."

Only a liberal newspaper would issue such a comment that would prove to discourage armed homeowners from defending themselves.

We should all push for the Florida law to be enacted here.
Duxman is offline  
Old May 18, 2005, 11:29 AM   #4
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2005
Location: Richmond VA - home of a street full of second-place trophies.
Posts: 151
castle doctrine

Both VA & MD recognize the "castle doctrine" of common law. VA has some interesting case law on "standing your ground" outside the home. (have it bookmarked, but not on the 'puter in the office). Basically, if you did not in any way provoke or escalate the incident you can claim an affirmative defense of justified killing. If you were involved, but withdrew and tried to disengage, but the other side continued to press the attack, you can claim an affirmative defense of excusable killing.

It sounds like the houseowner had a "rightious shoot" for the first shot, but there were a total of 4 and we may need to see what MD says about the last 3.

Does "wounding the alleged invader in the hand and side, police said. The wounded man -- who is also a suspect in a burglary 20 minutes earlier in the same area -- was being treated at Suburban Hospital late yesterday and was expected to survive, police said." bother anybody besides me? Seems like they are describing less-than-COM shot placement, and not too serious wounds in spite of the MedFlight ride to the hospital.

Also, wonder how the Post would have reported it if the guy did not live in "a two-story red-brick rambler with immaculate landscaping"?

stay safe.

skidmark
skidmark is offline  
Old May 18, 2005, 11:36 AM   #5
BatmanX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 266
Quote:
It sounds like the houseowner had a "rightious shoot" for the first shot, but there were a total of 4 and we may need to see what MD says about the last 3.
Adrenaline pumping and sudden lack of hearing from the first shot may have disoriented the shooter. The first shot hit the mark, but the recoil, or lack of training may have put 1 round above the guys head and the next 2 in the ceiling?

Not sure. To me, the validity of the 4 shots would be the succession. If there were 4 shots, 3 of which while the guy was half across the yard, obviously would not be valid. But if all 4 are found in the house in the same area (remeber, getting shot, the robber may have done some fancy diving and jumping combined with running and falling) and in succession, then I wouldn't see a problem with it.

/edit: Which brings us back to training....NEVER SHOOT JUST ONCE!!!!!!
__________________
NRA Life Member

Current shopping list:
Bersa Thunder 9mm
CZ SP01

Current Ownage:
CZ-P01
Bersa .380 (Duo tone)
Kel Tec P3AT (SG)
Stoeger 2000 (black syn.) 26"
Winchester Model 97 12 gauge FULL
Marlin Firearms Model 60 22LR
BatmanX is offline  
Old May 18, 2005, 11:54 AM   #6
ATW525
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,684
Given the limited facts in the story, I don't see any cause to speculate at this point whether he needed one round or four. I'll assume he fired what he felt he needed to fire inorder to cease the hostile actions of the bg, unless facts surface to cast doubt on that.
ATW525 is offline  
Old May 18, 2005, 03:53 PM   #7
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2005
Location: Richmond VA - home of a street full of second-place trophies.
Posts: 151
"Given the limited facts in the story, I don't see any cause to speculate at this point whether he needed one round or four. I'll assume he fired what he felt he needed to fire inorder to cease the hostile actions of the bg, unless facts surface to cast doubt on that."

I agree completely, but that was not the point of my post.

Maryland is not known to be friendly towards gun-owners, and even less so to those who have used their gun(s). I anticipate that the DA will look at each round shot as being seperate and distinct from all others. As such, shots #2 - #4 could be cause for charges against the homeowner.

This is probably "not right" but it is most likely the way things are. That being so, I want to follow the story & see if MD puts the screws to the homeowner for what may have been (agree - not enough info yet to know) good training & tactics of shooting the bg to the ground as the way to determine that the threat has been stopped.

Unfortunately, it will not be "what he felt he needed to fire inorder to cease the hostile actions of the bg" but what the DA thinks the homeowner should have been allowed to do.

stay safe.

skidmark
skidmark is offline  
Old May 18, 2005, 05:15 PM   #8
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2005
Location: Richmond VA - home of a street full of second-place trophies.
Posts: 151
OK, I'm home now & found the link to VA case law on self defense.

www.virginia1774.org

Does anybody know of other sites that do the same for other states? We could use a collection of info like this.

stay safe.

skidmark
skidmark is offline  
Old May 18, 2005, 06:36 PM   #9
coloradochuck
Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2005
Posts: 28
For a shooting to be considered legal, "an individual must first be in fear of loss of life or serious personal injury", police spokewoman Lucille Baur said.

What a joke!!! The guy smashes down the front door of your home! Are you supposed to say "excuse me Sir, Do you have any intentions of taking my life or doing serious personal injury to me or my family?" " Please let me know so I can either serve you some refreshments or shoot your butt DEAD!!!" DUH!
coloradochuck is offline  
Old May 18, 2005, 06:41 PM   #10
USP45usp
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2000
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 3,428
Anyone notice that they print the persons name and address in the article and then basically points at exactly where he lives?

Most to all criminals know that this mans weapon is going to be taken for along time (until the trail and then maybe get it back afterwards) and that he must be rich (due to the description of the home) and now defenseless.

Why do they do that?

Wayne
USP45usp is offline  
Old May 18, 2005, 06:52 PM   #11
novus collectus
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 940
Quote:
Did not know that the Republik of Maryland required guns to be registered.
They don't, it's voluntary. Although they keep records of purchases, they do not require registration of handguns brought in from out of state by residents who moved here. There are a couple of other ways that they do not have state records as well like building your own and buying a gun as an FFL. I have three that the state has no idea about; one conversion and two bought with an 03 FFL .

Washington Post is notoriously ignorant of the RKBA and the need to defend oneself. The DA's here are also notorius about indicting homeowners for protecting themselves. But the good news is that out of the last three incidents I heard about a homeowner defending themselves in the last 10 months in the D.C. area of Md, none went to trial (well, I am nearly sure about two of them).
novus collectus is offline  
Old May 18, 2005, 09:47 PM   #12
chris in va
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 12,596
Quote:
Most to all criminals know that this mans weapon is going to be taken for along time
I seriously, seriously doubt that most common criminals would know that. This guy wasn't too bright.

The interesting thing about this, I saw the local TV news report (all 30 seconds of it). As a finishing remark, they stated "...and the gun was legal."

Friggin liberal media.
chris in va is offline  
Old May 18, 2005, 11:02 PM   #13
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
California (of all places!) does have some fairly good laws regarding defense
of one's home and person. To wit. (emphasis added below)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Penal Code
197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors
, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein
; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished
; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.
Here, someone kicking in your front door is not quite enough. He could kick
in your door and calmly walk off with your DVD player and you can't shoot
him. However any comments the BG makes before, during or after entry can
be used as evidence of his intent, as could any item that could be considered
a weapon (crow bar, knife, hammer, etc.) The biggest sticking point here is the grilling by the DA on how you "knew" the BG "intended" to offer violence to people inside.

Does anyone here know how to lawfully suppress a riot?

But bare fear is NOT generally enough...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Penal Code
198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.
Got that?

The State has to presume you were acting with "reasonable fear"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Penal Code
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.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.
If the State lawyers can say "knowingly" doesn't mean you know the act
was illegal when you did it, then I say "forcibly" can mean enough force to
turn an unlocked door knob or push/pull open a window to enter my home,
right?

Perhaps best of all....
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Penal Code
199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.
Though I'm a bit confused as to why you would hold a trial for someone if
the DA believes it to be justifiable. In any case, if a jury deems it to be justifiable or excusable, they can't retry you for the "offense".
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old May 18, 2005, 11:30 PM   #14
IDriveB5
Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2005
Location: Ā§ilverĀ§pring, MD
Posts: 56
i live a couple miles down the road from where this happened, and my dad and i were just talking about how we are proud to exercise our second amendment rights. im just disappointed the guy didnt drop the BG dead.
IDriveB5 is offline  
Old May 19, 2005, 07:44 AM   #15
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2005
Location: Richmond VA - home of a street full of second-place trophies.
Posts: 151
"CA Penal Code 199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and discharged.

Though I'm a bit confused as to why you would hold a trial for someone if
the DA believes it to be justifiable. In any case, if a jury deems it to be justifiable or excusable, they can't retry you for the "offense".



Ding! Ding! Ding! we have a winner!!

They indicte you, try you, find you not guilty, and you are aquitted. 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy kicks in. Justice has been served, the DA shows they are not soft on crime of any kind, no matter how justifiable or excusable, and Court TV has another episode to air.

All you are out is time waiting in a cell for the process to run it's course, and a defense attorney. Of course, the 5th does nothing to "protect" you from civil suits.

stay safe.

skidmark
skidmark is offline  
Old May 19, 2005, 09:49 AM   #16
oneeyeross
Member
 
Join Date: March 19, 2005
Location: Wet Washington
Posts: 88
Washington, the State

I find the use of force rules here in the State of Washington nice and simple....

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force -- When lawful.

The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;

(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.
oneeyeross is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11415 seconds with 9 queries