Homeowner Shoots Burglar-911 Tape Link - Page 2

dabigguns357 · July 22, 2008, 09:20 PM

I would think this is pretty cut and dry,a burglar watches a house to see if your there and will enter when they know you the homeowner are not.You break in to someones house while they sleep and you are asking to be killed.Justified i say yes.

Creature · July 23, 2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Well, it would be classified as a first degree burglary here in California.

Then obviously the next question would be what is classified as a home invasion in CA?

_____

It is not reasonable to assume that a person who resorts to breaking a window to gain entry into a occupied home, which is in itself is not a quiet operation, in the middle of the night (a domicile which in most cases has a higher chance of actually being inhabited by a person because of the time of day) has already planned on and decided to deal with any person they encounter once they get inside?

Is that not the only presumption that should be made in a situation like this?
To me, it is.

Based on that presumption, I will have no problem living with having shot and possibly killed someone who enters my home unannounced and uninvited through force, unless they are the police and have a warrant. Even then, the police are generally required to announce themselves prior to entering with a warrant

Relayer · July 23, 2008, 05:11 PM

"Kentucky law allows a homeowner to use lethal force to stop someone from committing a burglary, robbery or any other felony utilizing force at his or her home."

Taking this at face value, I don't see how anyone can say this man should be facing charges.

Personally, I THINK I would have shouted at the person breaking in and tried to scare him away. Still, JMHO, (regardless of the law) if you are breaking into a man's home, you are just asking to be shot and you (or surviving family members) don't really have much room to complain.

When you attempt such the people who happen to be inside cannot know what you plan to do once you get inside, nor should they have to try and guess or wait to see if you are going to for sure do harm to them before they take you out.

davlandrum · July 23, 2008, 06:56 PM

Tough call for me -

My 13-year-old son has ADHD, anxiety, and other stuff rolling around in his head.

He was staying with my mom this summer for a few days. He went out to ride his bike for a while. Not long enough after his meds for them to be working.

He ended up walking into the neighbors motorhome, where the neighbor was asleep. Why did he go in? If I could tell you that, I would be the smartest man alive.

Neighbor wakes up and comes out of bed with a .357 and yells at him. My son turned and ran and the guy chased him to my mom's house.

Grandpa chewed him out for awhile. Let things cool down and then marched my son back there to apologize. Guy chewed him out good. Son comes home, I chewed him out good and tanned his hide, my wife almost killed him.

If he had been shot, it would have been a "good shoot". I know it would have been a good shoot, and given that exact scenario with me waking up to an intruder, I might have shot.

That split second to yell at him before pulling the trigger was the difference between a lesson learned for the rest of his life (hopefully) and planning a funeral for my kid.

Creature · July 23, 2008, 07:23 PM

Yes. Tough call. But sorry, but I am not going to yell. I am not going to compromise my position in the hopes of the 1 in 13 million chances that the invader smashing through my window is your kid learning a life lesson.

Brian Pfleuger · July 23, 2008, 07:58 PM

Quote:

If he had been shot, it would have been a "good shoot".

davlandrum,

Depends on how your son got in, it would have to be violent, tumultuous entry to justify shooting in most areas. If he just walked in an unlocked door it would be a "bad" shooting. I'm also not sure if a motor home ALWAYS qualifies under things like the castle doctrine: might, might not, I don't know

johnsonmd1 · July 24, 2008, 11:28 AM

It would probably depend on the state whether the RV counts under a Castle doctrine. Looking at the quote regarding the CA law ("or other...vessel"), it would be considered a good shoot. I'm unsure whether other states have similar caveats. In most cases a state's Castle doctrine should extend to an RV. Would such law also extend to a car/truck/boat as well (my good common sense but poor legal reasoning would be that I do have to pay property taxes on such items)?

davlandrum · July 24, 2008, 01:12 PM

He walked through an unlocked door.

Brian Pfleuger · July 24, 2008, 01:18 PM

Anybody else hate the term "good shot" when applied to shooting a fellow human being?

Shouldn't we say "right"/"wrong" or "legal"/"illegal"

I'm as pro-gun, anti-pc as they come but that term just FEELS wrong to me.

Seems to me like it's never good to have to shoot someone, no matter how much they deserve it. (and YES I would shoot someone if needed to defend me and mine)

Creature · July 24, 2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Anybody else hate the term "good shot" when applied to shooting a fellow human being?

Not really...but then again, maybe I am just not as in touch with my feelings as I should be.

OuTcAsT · July 24, 2008, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Quote:
Anybody else hate the term "good shot" when applied to shooting a fellow human being?

Not really...but then again, maybe I am just not as in touch with my feelings as I should be.

+1 on that, Guess I'm not either....That just may be the difference in who survives this kind of situation.

Good to have company on the deeper end of the gene pool

Slopemeno · July 24, 2008, 02:23 PM

How about "justifiable shooing".

johnsonmd1 · July 24, 2008, 02:26 PM

Good point; one could also use justifiable v. criminal homicide.

Someone was on my train of thought

PATH · July 24, 2008, 02:29 PM

Shooting anyone for any reason can be an extremely traumatic experience. It is rather sad that this young man lost his life. I am sure Mr. McGuire was shook up about shooting a teen,

The fact remains that he felt threatened and acted in line with what is acceptable under Kentucky law. One cannot really retreat in their own home.

I am glad that I have a dog that barks in a loud and aggressive fashion when someone approaches the house. Maybe a dog barking would have discouraged this teen.

It is so easy to calmly sit at our computers and second guess the actions of the shooter but we really don't know what we would have done unless we were in that situation. I pray none of us has to find out.

Good shoot under Kentucky law. Bad shoot in that he has to live with it.

Brian Pfleuger · July 24, 2008, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Good point; one could also use justifiable v. criminal homicide.

That does sound allot less callouss, I'm going with "justifiable/unjustifiable" from now on.

BillCA · July 25, 2008, 01:00 AM

In California, the "castle doctrine" includes just about any place you establish a presence as a "habitation" (usually to sleep for the night, though that isn't necessary). Thus, an RV is covered and so is a tent.

Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle as defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft as defined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or any
underground portion thereof, with intent to ...

A house, trailer, vessel designed for habitation, or portion of a building is currently being used for dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not occupied solely because a natural or other disaster caused the occupants to leave the premises.

The term "good shoot" or "good shooting" implies a legal & justifiable basis for the shooting. This is as opposed to a "bad shooting" which would be a criminal shooting. This was originally, I believe, police lexicon that crept into more or less common usage.

Striker071 · July 25, 2008, 01:39 AM

Good Shoot ... Bad Shoot is a slang term for a Justifiable shoot or Non- Justfiable shoot. As callous as it might seem. Every person that has had to use a weapon of any kind to take anothers life ends up having to think about it. I hope and pray I never am in Mr Mcquires predicament. All that aside when are we gonna stop coddling the people that are willing to do harm to us. We all are gonna die.. that young man just made a decision that ended his prematurely. Young people have no idea of concequences of their actions, have not learned respect of others and think that rules don't apply to them. Without respect they can do and will do anything including harm you. So Mr Mcguire was justified in doing what he did. The kid made a choice... it cost him big but it also cost Mr Mcguire...

Apprentice_941 · July 26, 2008, 11:05 PM

Everyone remember - at 15 years old - crossing the line by breaking into someone's house at night is a very serious thing for someone of that age to do. I hate to say this because it sounds cold-hearted - but the kid was probably well on his way to a life of even more serious crime.

The shooter may have save a few lives down the line or rape victims, etc.

Relayer · August 6, 2008, 06:11 PM

I don't have any problem with "Good Shoot" as a term.

"Good" have various meanings and I associate it with the ones appropriate to its use in this case.

Byte · August 6, 2008, 07:10 PM

Keltyke,

I love your sig but based on what you're advocating in your post you don't agree with its sentiment...you might want to find something more fitting.

I don't want to be surfing the forums in the future and see a post where a BG has forced his way into your (read this as anybody not just YOU) home and shot you while you were assessing the level of violence he meant to visit upon you and yours. That is you, your family members AND your possessions.

One's home is a sacred space and should be respected as such by all others. If each and every moron that failed to keep that little gem in mind came up against a homeowner that refused to be the victim, the world would be a better place on average. It won't prevent everybody from attempting to invade another person's home but at least they'll only do it once!

Byte

EDIT Oh yeah I forgot to address Relayer's last remark! Yeah the term 'good shoot' does have plenty of semantic baggage connected with it. I prefer 'justified shoot' myself! Those that can't readily come out on top of any debate using their version of logic will generally fall back on **** poor semantic angles to 'shift' their position. Blech...have a spine!

James K · August 6, 2008, 07:31 PM

Many states cover the "home invasion/burglary" under common law, which generally presumes that any person brazen enough to enter your home while you are in it is armed and willing to use violence or deadly force if discovered. That is the justification for use of deadly force against a burglar or home invader.

Jim

OuTcAsT · August 7, 2008, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Many states cover the "home invasion/burglary" under common law, which generally presumes that any person brazen enough to enter your home while you are in it is armed and willing to use violence or deadly force if discovered. That is the justification for use of deadly force against a burglar or home invader.

EXACTLY! This homeowners state, along with many others (Including my own) Recognize that if I am in my home, and ANYONE, be he 15, 0r 105 years old, has the cajones to forcibly try and enter my home, the "presupmtion" that that person is a deadly threat is pretty much automatic. I need not retreat to a "safer" room, call 911, and hope he doesn't try to break into "that" room before defending myself and family. I can stop the threat immediately.

Quote:

One's home is a sacred space and should be respected as such by all others. If each and every moron that failed to keep that little gem in mind came up against a homeowner that refused to be the victim, the world would be a better place on average.

+1 Provided that your state law allows you to do so.

Quote:

Keltyke,

I love your sig but based on what you're advocating in your post you don't agree with its sentiment...you might want to find something more fitting.

After reading a number of your posts, I am inclined to agree.

devildogdad · August 7, 2008, 08:48 AM

By giving a verbal challenge you are giving up a very important advantage

The element of surprise. This is a great tactical advantage.

My other comment is this, people seem to be fixating on the fact that he is 15

Would they feel better if he shot a 35 yr old (insert your color ,minority status or ethnic backround here).

easyG · August 7, 2008, 10:27 AM

In my wilder days I was not such a law abiding person.
And I can tell you from experience that if a person just wants to steal stuff from your home, and nothing more, they will make sure that nobody is home before they break in.
They will knock on the door or ring the bell, look to see if there is a car in the garage, throw a brick through a window and wait to see if anyone comes to investigate, etc...
You see, a petty thief does not want confrontation.
He just wants your valuables.
He's probably not dangerous.

But a person who breaks in to an occupied home....that's a dangerous person!

rickdavis81 · August 7, 2008, 10:54 AM

If someone breaks into my house they already had two chances to change their mind. My dog and my locked door. Not thinking that they are there for the worst is not safe. I'm not saying that I won't give someone a chance but it's going to take just the right circumstance. Namely all the lights are on, I know he's alone, my familys not there, etc.

July 23, 2008, 06:56 PM	#29
davlandrum Senior Member Join Date: February 27, 2006 Location: Lane County Oregon Posts: 2,547	Tough call for me - My 13-year-old son has ADHD, anxiety, and other stuff rolling around in his head. He was staying with my mom this summer for a few days. He went out to ride his bike for a while. Not long enough after his meds for them to be working. He ended up walking into the neighbors motorhome, where the neighbor was asleep. Why did he go in? If I could tell you that, I would be the smartest man alive. Neighbor wakes up and comes out of bed with a .357 and yells at him. My son turned and ran and the guy chased him to my mom's house. Grandpa chewed him out for awhile. Let things cool down and then marched my son back there to apologize. Guy chewed him out good. Son comes home, I chewed him out good and tanned his hide, my wife almost killed him. If he had been shot, it would have been a "good shoot". I know it would have been a good shoot, and given that exact scenario with me waking up to an intruder, I might have shot. That split second to yell at him before pulling the trigger was the difference between a lesson learned for the rest of his life (hopefully) and planning a funeral for my kid. __________________ U.S Army, Retired Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do. -Potter Stewart

July 24, 2008, 01:12 PM	#33
davlandrum Senior Member Join Date: February 27, 2006 Location: Lane County Oregon Posts: 2,547	He walked through an unlocked door. __________________ U.S Army, Retired Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do. -Potter Stewart

July 24, 2008, 01:18 PM	#34
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	Anybody else hate the term "good shot" when applied to shooting a fellow human being? Shouldn't we say "right"/"wrong" or "legal"/"illegal" I'm as pro-gun, anti-pc as they come but that term just FEELS wrong to me. Seems to me like it's never good to have to shoot someone, no matter how much they deserve it. (and YES I would shoot someone if needed to defend me and mine) __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

July 24, 2008, 02:26 PM	#38
johnsonmd1 Member Join Date: December 9, 2007 Posts: 21	Good point; one could also use justifiable v. criminal homicide. Someone was on my train of thought Last edited by johnsonmd1; July 24, 2008 at 02:28 PM. Reason: Duplicated

July 24, 2008, 02:29 PM	#39
PATH Senior Member Join Date: September 10, 1999 Location: Rockland, NY Posts: 1,489	Shooting anyone for any reason can be an extremely traumatic experience. It is rather sad that this young man lost his life. I am sure Mr. McGuire was shook up about shooting a teen, The fact remains that he felt threatened and acted in line with what is acceptable under Kentucky law. One cannot really retreat in their own home. I am glad that I have a dog that barks in a loud and aggressive fashion when someone approaches the house. Maybe a dog barking would have discouraged this teen. It is so easy to calmly sit at our computers and second guess the actions of the shooter but we really don't know what we would have done unless we were in that situation. I pray none of us has to find out. Good shoot under Kentucky law. Bad shoot in that he has to live with it. __________________ For sure it is an evil spite, and breaking to the heart, For Irishmen to watch a fight and not be taking part. -Robert Service 'How MacPherson Held The Floor'

July 22, 2008, 09:20 PM	#26
dabigguns357 Senior Member Join Date: May 3, 2008 Location: Ona,West Virginia Posts: 1,215	I would think this is pretty cut and dry,a burglar watches a house to see if your there and will enter when they know you the homeowner are not.You break in to someones house while they sleep and you are asking to be killed.Justified i say yes.

July 23, 2008, 05:11 PM	#28
Relayer Senior Member Join Date: January 21, 2005 Posts: 101	"Kentucky law allows a homeowner to use lethal force to stop someone from committing a burglary, robbery or any other felony utilizing force at his or her home." Taking this at face value, I don't see how anyone can say this man should be facing charges. Personally, I THINK I would have shouted at the person breaking in and tried to scare him away. Still, JMHO, (regardless of the law) if you are breaking into a man's home, you are just asking to be shot and you (or surviving family members) don't really have much room to complain. When you attempt such the people who happen to be inside cannot know what you plan to do once you get inside, nor should they have to try and guess or wait to see if you are going to for sure do harm to them before they take you out.

July 23, 2008, 07:23 PM	#30
Creature Junior member Join Date: April 8, 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,769	Yes. Tough call. But sorry, but I am not going to yell. I am not going to compromise my position in the hopes of the 1 in 13 million chances that the invader smashing through my window is your kid learning a life lesson.

July 24, 2008, 11:28 AM	#32
johnsonmd1 Member Join Date: December 9, 2007 Posts: 21	It would probably depend on the state whether the RV counts under a Castle doctrine. Looking at the quote regarding the CA law ("or other...vessel"), it would be considered a good shoot. I'm unsure whether other states have similar caveats. In most cases a state's Castle doctrine should extend to an RV. Would such law also extend to a car/truck/boat as well (my good common sense but poor legal reasoning would be that I do have to pay property taxes on such items)?

July 24, 2008, 02:23 PM	#37
Slopemeno Senior Member Join Date: January 19, 2007 Posts: 2,663	How about "justifiable shooing".

July 25, 2008, 01:00 AM	#41
BillCA Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2004 Location: Silicon Valley, Ca Posts: 7,117	In California, the "castle doctrine" includes just about any place you establish a presence as a "habitation" (usually to sleep for the night, though that isn't necessary). Thus, an RV is covered and so is a tent. Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle as defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft as defined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or any underground portion thereof, with intent to ... A house, trailer, vessel designed for habitation, or portion of a building is currently being used for dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not occupied solely because a natural or other disaster caused the occupants to leave the premises. The term "good shoot" or "good shooting" implies a legal & justifiable basis for the shooting. This is as opposed to a "bad shooting" which would be a criminal shooting. This was originally, I believe, police lexicon that crept into more or less common usage. __________________ BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)

July 25, 2008, 01:39 AM	#42
Striker071 Member Join Date: July 9, 2008 Posts: 87	Good Shoot ... Bad Shoot is a slang term for a Justifiable shoot or Non- Justfiable shoot. As callous as it might seem. Every person that has had to use a weapon of any kind to take anothers life ends up having to think about it. I hope and pray I never am in Mr Mcquires predicament. All that aside when are we gonna stop coddling the people that are willing to do harm to us. We all are gonna die.. that young man just made a decision that ended his prematurely. Young people have no idea of concequences of their actions, have not learned respect of others and think that rules don't apply to them. Without respect they can do and will do anything including harm you. So Mr Mcguire was justified in doing what he did. The kid made a choice... it cost him big but it also cost Mr Mcguire...

July 26, 2008, 11:05 PM	#43
Apprentice_941 Member Join Date: January 18, 2007 Posts: 19	Everyone remember - at 15 years old - crossing the line by breaking into someone's house at night is a very serious thing for someone of that age to do. I hate to say this because it sounds cold-hearted - but the kid was probably well on his way to a life of even more serious crime. The shooter may have save a few lives down the line or rape victims, etc.

August 6, 2008, 06:11 PM	#44
Relayer Senior Member Join Date: January 21, 2005 Posts: 101	I don't have any problem with "Good Shoot" as a term. "Good" have various meanings and I associate it with the ones appropriate to its use in this case.

August 6, 2008, 07:10 PM	#45
Byte Junior Member Join Date: June 28, 2008 Posts: 12	Keltyke, I love your sig but based on what you're advocating in your post you don't agree with its sentiment...you might want to find something more fitting. I don't want to be surfing the forums in the future and see a post where a BG has forced his way into your (read this as anybody not just YOU) home and shot you while you were assessing the level of violence he meant to visit upon you and yours. That is you, your family members AND your possessions. One's home is a sacred space and should be respected as such by all others. If each and every moron that failed to keep that little gem in mind came up against a homeowner that refused to be the victim, the world would be a better place on average. It won't prevent everybody from attempting to invade another person's home but at least they'll only do it once! Byte EDIT Oh yeah I forgot to address Relayer's last remark! Yeah the term 'good shoot' does have plenty of semantic baggage connected with it. I prefer 'justified shoot' myself! Those that can't readily come out on top of any debate using their version of logic will generally fall back on **** poor semantic angles to 'shift' their position. Blech...have a spine!

August 6, 2008, 07:31 PM	#46
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	Many states cover the "home invasion/burglary" under common law, which generally presumes that any person brazen enough to enter your home while you are in it is armed and willing to use violence or deadly force if discovered. That is the justification for use of deadly force against a burglar or home invader. Jim

August 7, 2008, 08:48 AM	#48
devildogdad Junior Member Join Date: September 18, 2006 Posts: 4	By giving a verbal challenge you are giving up a very important advantage The element of surprise. This is a great tactical advantage. My other comment is this, people seem to be fixating on the fact that he is 15 Would they feel better if he shot a 35 yr old (insert your color ,minority status or ethnic backround here).

August 7, 2008, 10:27 AM	#49
easyG Junior member Join Date: August 30, 2004 Location: Right here! Posts: 972	In my wilder days I was not such a law abiding person. And I can tell you from experience that if a person just wants to steal stuff from your home, and nothing more, they will make sure that nobody is home before they break in. They will knock on the door or ring the bell, look to see if there is a car in the garage, throw a brick through a window and wait to see if anyone comes to investigate, etc... You see, a petty thief does not want confrontation. He just wants your valuables. He's probably not dangerous. But a person who breaks in to an occupied home....that's a dangerous person!

August 7, 2008, 10:54 AM	#50
rickdavis81 Senior Member Join Date: April 3, 2006 Location: Missouri Posts: 398	If someone breaks into my house they already had two chances to change their mind. My dog and my locked door. Not thinking that they are there for the worst is not safe. I'm not saying that I won't give someone a chance but it's going to take just the right circumstance. Namely all the lights are on, I know he's alone, my familys not there, etc.