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

[Old Grump]

In my opinion I feel that the home owner/shooter could have done more to prevent the shooting. I feel like it's our duty as gun owners to try to avoid having to shoot someone. I think had the home owner simply called out to the would-be robber the entire event would have been avoided. It's like he actually baited the kid by allowing him to think he was breaking into an unoccupied home. A simple "get out of here" probably would have sufficed before it even escalated to the kid kicking the back door.

What do you guys think?

What I think is that the doors were locked and the burglar was not trying to kick in the door of his own house because he forgot his key. The home owner let the burglar know he wasn't welcome by locking the doors, no dialogue was called for. Burglars can't get life insurance and disability insurance for their chosen profession for a reason. It is a high risk occupation. So sad, to bad, hope it hurt like the dickens.

[B18C5-EH2]

No personal attack. You certainly did not appear to know who the victim was. A homeowner had an intruder violently and brazenly break into his home in the middle of the day

My entire point is that the act of someone allowing a would-be burglar to continuously knock, then beat, then run around to the back door and kick it 3-4 times on a door without at any time announcing "someone's here!!! go away!!!" seems to almost be bait-like in nature. The whole "I was ready for him! along with his hand turned sideways straight gangsta style when walking through the scenario again just kind of made me picture a home owner who was more angry about a break-in rather than being in fear for his life.

and you were finding whatever fault you could to create an argument that the homeowner was in the wrong, including but not limited to characterizing the intruder as both a victim and a kid,

17years of age is a kid IMO. Sorry you don't agree. If I called him a "child" then you might have a point.

You tried very hard to build the argument that the intruder was totally non-violent and non-confrontational despite the violent entry and blamed the homeowner for the shooting because he baited the intruder through inaction.

I don't have to try to point out that the burglar was trying to make sure nobody was home by beating on the front door before deciding to break into the home from the rear where neighbors would not see him kicking the door in.

So yes, you did not seem to understand who was the victim in the situation and you seemed to be blaming the homeowner because the homeowner did not do as you would do, ergo the homeowner was at fault.

I'm merely questioning if the homeowner's actions contributed to the ultimate action of having to shoot the kid, that's all. Ultimately the dumb kid deciding to even break into a home assumes the associated risks with it, but by choosing to do it in the middle of the day, trying to make sure nobody was home, etc. I think it's safe to assume he wasn't trying to encounter the home owner.

[NavyLT]

I think it's safe to assume he wasn't trying to encounter the home owner.

When you are dealing with a criminal, I don't think it is SAFE to assume anything.

[NavyLT]

I think it's safe to assume he wasn't trying to encounter the home owner.

Without using any hindsight whatsoever, let's assume something a little different and see how it plays out, shall we?

Let's assume the kid knocked on the front door and let's assume he did have a weapon. Let's assume the kid's intention was, if the door was opened by the occupant of the house, to immediately force the door open, threaten the occupant of the house with the weapon, and complete the robbery, possibly by signaling others in waiting to help him rob the place.

Now, thinking nobody was at home, he goes to the back door to enter the house with less likelihood of being noticed. Mr. Homeowner calls out to the kid to go away, and now the kid switches back to his original plan in the paragraph above and produces a weapon and decides to enter the house with the weapon.

Keep in mind that the homeowner had no hindsight when the invasion was occurring. Since the homeowner can only go on assumptions during the time when the incident is occurring, which do you think was a safer course of action for the homeowner to take?

You know, it was by ASSuming that the kid got himself shot.

And, btw, I am only using the word kid out of consideration, I still think he was a criminal, nothing more, nothing less.

The only think Mr. Homeowner did was to not ASSume anything, and to take the steps needed to ensure his greatest chances of not being harmed by a criminal.

[Technosavant]

My entire point is that the act of someone allowing a would-be burglar to continuously knock, then beat, then run around to the back door and kick it 3-4 times on a door without at any time announcing "someone's here!!! go away!!!" seems to almost be bait-like in nature.

Just because somebody knocks on my door does not mean I owe them a response. It certainly does not follow that a lack of response means it is OK for them to kick in my door.

17years of age is a kid IMO. Sorry you don't agree.

Legally, the perp is a minor. A 17 year old should know full well that breaking and entering is illegal and wrong. A 17 year old who knocks first and then goes around back to kick in the door is a full blown criminal no matter the age. Whether you consider the person a kid or not is immaterial; 17 year olds are certainly capable of knowing right from wrong and causing great harm anyway.

I'm merely questioning if the homeowner's actions contributed to the ultimate action of having to shoot the kid, that's all.

The homeowner was minding his own business. It is not his duty to ensure that everybody who knocks on his door knows he is home and therefore it is unwise to try burgling the premises. As for "shooting the kid" as you put it, as I said, we're not dealing with regular childhood mischief. We're talking an actual criminal, and I'm betting this is not the first time he's committed burglary.

However you view the homeowner's actions, legally he is in the right and he was not the one responsible for this chain of events. 17 years old or 34 years old, I have a hard time finding any reason to feel badly about a criminal being wounded by his chosen victim.

[tet4]

My entire point is that the act of someone allowing a would-be burglar to continuously knock, then beat, then run around to the back door and kick it 3-4 times on a door without at any time announcing "someone's here!!! go away!!!" seems to almost be bait-like in nature. The whole "I was ready for him! along with his hand turned sideways straight gangsta style when walking through the scenario again just kind of made me picture a home owner who was more angry about a break-in rather than being in fear for his life.

Read up on home defense - most experts will tell you that issuing a warning like that could get you in deeper water. In this case, if the home owner said anything, the guy could have pulled a gun and opened fire.

Look, we don't know all the details in this case, and if you're in a situation like this, it's going to go much faster than you think, so we can beat this dead with over-analysis. But, in THIS country (and GA specifically) if by 17 you don't know that breaking into a house, weather you think it's occupied or not, is a great way to get a few bullets through you, then you have bigger problems. Honestly, he's lucky he is alive.

Also, I personally don't answer the door all the time. Also, what does it matter what time of day someone is breaking in? The only thing that matters is that if they get in they could easily beat your brains out - especially if they themselves get scared and carried away. And, even though you can't see a weapon on them doesn't mean that A) they don't have one and B) they can't just do it with their hands.

The bottom line is that someone broke into a home (forcefully, with intent and premeditation as part of a group) and the home owner had enough sense to stop the situation before he got hurt. Unfortunately, these things happen every day. Take a read through this and let us know if you have changed your mind:

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

[golfballshootr]

B18C5-EH2, it appears, now I am the one assuming here, that you want to somehow, someway, find the homeowner at fault. We keep talking about how he could of/should of, called out or handled it differently. I prefer to address this the NavyLt has done, lets start with a clean slate and go from there.

Lets even assume a different scenario altogether...what happens if the "kid", breaks into the home, the homeowner is one of those poor misdirected souls that does not believe in guns, and I can safely assume, the "kid" is not going to simply say sorry I broke your door in after he encounters the homeowner, and then proceeds to rob and victimize the homeowner?

Ultimately, I think, and that is the great part of a discussion, we will just have to agree to disagree, that the homeowner acted fine. The police called it a clean shoot, and along with other replies, he just needs to work on his aim.

The "kid", he chose to do a criminal act and at 17 years of age, he should be very cognitive of what's right and what's wrong. (I assume)We were all disciplined on this principle growing up. So I do not intend to antagonize by the "kid" usage, I just do not see him as a kid choosing the path he did.

[Double Naught Spy]

My entire point is that the act of someone allowing a would-be burglar to continuously knock, then beat, then run around to the back door and kick it 3-4 times on a door without at any time announcing "someone's here!!! go away!!!" seems to almost be bait-like in nature. The whole "I was ready for him! along with his hand turned sideways straight gangsta style when walking through the scenario again just kind of made me picture a home owner who was more angry about a break-in rather than being in fear for his life.

He wasn't a would-be burglar when he was knocking on the front door, was he? He was just a stranger. He didn't become a would-be burglar until he acted furtively and went to the back yard and started kicking in the door.

So what all this really boils down to is the fact that in your opinion, the homeowner did not behave properly and you think he is responsible for having shot the intruder. You don't like the fact that the homeowner did not give warning. You don't like the fact that the homeowner was prepared. You don't like the aspect that the homeowner is proud that his preparation and action helped lead to the capture of what is an apparent crime ring. You don't like how the homeonwer held his gun.

In your opinion, it was bait-like, only in reality, it was not. What you consider being bait-like is just the homeowner outsmarting the bad guy and making use of what little advantage he had. You seem perfectly okay with the fact that the intruder was determined to gain entry into the home, but not okay with the fact that he was outsmarted.

Stupid should hurt and in this case, it did.

Heck, I am having trouble believing that you haven't blamed the homeowner yet for not having sturdier doors.

I think it's safe to assume he wasn't trying to encounter the home owner.

When you are dealing with a criminal, I don't think it is SAFE to assume anything.

Right, such "safe" assumptions get people into a lot of trouble.

Why would you assume that the intruder wasn't trying to encounter somebody? For all you know, the purpose of the intrusion was to lay in wait for the wife to return hope for the purpose of raping and killing her. That is why he went around to break in at the back door is so that the wife would not see the damage to the home when entering through the front door or garage.

[TailGator]

It just looked overall like a shooting of opportunity for the homeowner. He probably got really angry from being woken up, and then super angrier when he realized some punk was trying to rob his house. He waited for the kid to kick the door in so he could shoot him. In his position I doubt very seriously he felt that his life was in danger, but who knows?

Your assumption is that the homeowner shot the intruder because he was angry at being awakened and then formulated a plan to lure him into the house and shoot him. You are certain that the homeowner was motivated by anger rather than fear. By what power of perception do you have knowledge of the workings of this man's mind?

In any event, the amount of fear one feels is seldom at issue legally. A real risk of imminent harm was present, and clearly evidenced by the ability and intent to break through a locked door, and which justifies the use of defensive force. There is no longer a duty to retreat from your own home in many states, and I am not aware of any laws that require a verbal warning or any other measure to warn off an intruder. Similarly, I am not aware of any jurisdiction in which a property owner is legally required to answer a door. Neither am I aware of any law that requires one to check the age of an assailant before defending oneself.

There is nothing to condemn in the actions of the homeowner, legally or morally. The only condemnation that can be conceived is the invention of the OP that this was a deliberate plan of the homeowner to lure someone into a burglary in order to satisfy his blood lust. Such an assertion is utterly baseless. People with benign intent do not kick in the back door if the front door is not answered. The fact that the burglar assumed no one was home is immaterial and does not affect the inherent risk of the homeowner's situation, as created by the would-be house breaker.

[tet4]

B18C5-EH2 - by the way, I do feel bad for the intruder as I do the home invader. I, for one, think there is no winner for these events. The intruder did something really stupid and is paying for it, but could be a lot worse for him. He also forced the home owner into having to use lethal force - something none of us on this forum EVER want to do. It will most likely take years of his life to get over this and feel safe again.

So, there is no winner here and the only cheering going on is that it ended as well as it did.

[OuTcAsT]

My entire point is that the act of someone allowing a would-be burglar to continuously knock, then beat, then run around to the back door and kick it 3-4 times on a door without at any time announcing "someone's here!!! go away!!!" seems to almost be bait-like in nature.

Um, that's usually referred to as a "tactical advantage"
having the criminal NOT know where you are, or that you are armed.

The whole "I was ready for him! along with his hand turned sideways straight gangsta style when walking through the scenario again just kind of made me picture a home owner who was more angry about a break-in rather than being in fear for his life.

If you are ever confronted by someone meaning to do you harm, anger, fear, are both triggers of the "fight or flight" mechanism.

BTW, please regale us with how you would have handled this situation?

[KingEdward]

One way to avoid being shot is to not kick in someone's door
and break into their home.

Some people find that offensive and threatening.

[NavyLT]

Originally Posted by golfballshootr

The "kid", he chose to do a criminal act and at 17 years of age, he should be very cognitive of what's right and what's wrong. We were all disciplined on this principle growing up.

Actually, golfballshootr, I am afraid I must call you out for assuming now. I really don't think the bolded part above is anything we can assume in today's society.

[golfballshootr]

BTW, please regale us with how you would have handled this situation?

Ditto.

[golfballshootr]

NavyLT, you have me there!! It just goes to prove that we cannot ASSume! I guess the more correct way would have been to say that, law abiding decent citizens, were taught that. My mistake there.

[rburch]

I think if the "Kid" really wanted to ensure the house was empty, he wouldn't just knock and if nobody answers break in. He'd take the time to learn when the owners weren't at home.

But that's the difference in a Burglar and a Thief, and not entirely relevant to the topic at hand.

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

His main issue seems to be shooting without warning the burglar. Saying a verbal warning could have sent the "Kid" on his way and nobody would have been injured.

I agree that Could be the result of such a warning.

However such actions could also result in:

The "Kid" pulling his own gun and firing at the homeowner.

The "Kid" going two blocks down the street and trying the same thing on an 86 year old lady unable to defend herself.

The "Kid" coming back a week later with a dozen friends all armed to get revenge.

The problem with speculation is there is no way to know what would/could/should have happened. The homeowner wasn't charged, nobody died, he's not being sued. I think issue is pretty much settled.

[B18C5-EH2]

Man this topic's going so much better than on my local discussion board from GA. Lots of great info to digest.

The more I read, and the more I lean towards shooting an intruder much in the same manner as this home owner did. I just like to think things through, and analyze things after the fact which is a luxury that the home owner did not have.

[OuTcAsT]

I just like to think things through, and analyze things after the fact which is a luxury that the home owner did not have.

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

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

[KingEdward]

more than likely, they knew he was home.

it was probably "you go to the side door and knock"

"he'll come to that door and by that time, I'll be going
through the back door."

This is used all the time to distract and invade.

It happened to a friend of mine at work. His wife
goes to the side door to answer, the other perp
starts smashing in a low large window in the back.

[hunter1]

If the home owner waited he could be dead. The kid hopfully learned a lesson

[Yankee Traveler]

Since this is the law section I'll ask this:

Is it justifiable to shoot someone simply for the fear of losing possessions, or does the threat of imminent danger to one self have to also be present?

I guess there's no way to prove/disprove if the home owner truly feared for his life, but even if he didn't and said so, would it still be a justifiable shoot?

The last line of the story leads me to believe that simply defending one's property is cause enough to shoot.

Did you listen to the video...? The homeowner said it all, "I was scared" He was in fear for his life. He needs more range time though.

He went back to bed, then the felon started BEATING on the door and then ran to the back. Thats when the victim WENT AND GOT HIS GUN. He wasn't sitting there waiting for him, he had to go and retrieve it.

I just hope that the young man is scarred or scared enough from his wound(s) to instigate a career change.

[B18C5-EH2]

Originally Posted by rburch

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

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Man you guys are pretty steadfast about not giving the criminal any slack. That's a good thing as in the end the home owner has his life and health. I do get that, really I do.

Here comes more devil's advocate for you:

The "Kid" coming back a week later with a dozen friends all armed to get revenge.

...or the kid coming back because he has even more motivation to murder the home owner who shot him. Criminals' minds are hard to crack. This kid might be so scared now that he won't even think about committing crimes, or he might be even more motivated to retaliate against the home owner that shot him rather than deter him or even point a gun at him and give him verbal commands to vacate the premises.

If I'm the home owner I'm probably freaked out about the endless possibilities of retaliation from either the kid or his associates. Next time the homeowner might not have the security of being able to post up and watch through the glass as someone kicks his door down.

The problem with speculation is there is no way to know what would/could/should have happened. The homeowner wasn't charged, nobody died, he's not being sued. I think issue is pretty much settled.

Operative word here is "YET."

If an ambulance chaser lawyer saw that footage he just might contact the "victim" and see what he can do for him. Like someone said earlier the lawsuit doesn't even have to be a "success" nor does a jury have to side with the plaintiff to make the home owner suffer through hiring a lawyer, going to court which jeopardizes his job, etc. etc.

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

Reading your replies, and most importantly reading the GA laws/statutes that were posted, has changed how I'd handle such a scenario. I'd probably do what the home owner did, but I sure would feel guilty and be freaked out about the prospect of revenge from the affected parties.

[KingEdward]

While the homeowner will need to be extra vigilant and alert,

I wonder if the three bullet wounds won't be enough of a
reminder for them to move on to somewhere else.

Some other house will be empty or if not, this punk and punkette
will prevail against an older less prepared victim who is at home.

[OuTcAsT]

If an ambulance chaser lawyer saw that footage he just might contact the "victim" and see what he can do for him. Like someone said earlier the lawsuit doesn't even have to be a "success" nor does a jury have to side with the plaintiff to make the home owner suffer through hiring a lawyer, going to court which jeopardizes his job, etc. etc

NavyLT covered that earlier...

May I also point out the following Georgia statute:


§ 51-11-9. Immunity from civil liability for threat or use of force in defense of habitation

That is why you will not find a case of a burglar winning any civil lawsuits against a homeowner.

Not gonna happen in GA.

[miboso]

And if the homeowner merely shouts "Hey, go away!" and the poor befuddled child does so, then the problem has simply moved on down the road, literally.

Theorizing now, then the ne'er-do-well goes down the block, breaks into my wheel-chair bound granny's house and does unspeakable things to her.

Better that he is taken off of the streets by the homeowner for the sake of the entire neighborhood. Unless you think that telling him to go away would make him quit burgling altogether?