Rochester, NY man charged with murder, claims self defense

[curt.45]

maybe instead of debating this we should take up a collection for the home owners defense?

I suspect in the end he will wish he had just yelled out the door he was calling the cops and stayed inside.

[Shorts]

I think we can say with near 100% certainty that if the homeowner would have stayed inside and called the police he would not have been in danger. Once again we have an example of the GG turning what was a simple robbery into a gunfight, when there was no need.

Or we can say if the thief had actually been acting like a good kid and not committed a provocative and illegal act that with 100% certainty he wouldn't have put himself in the position that night to be confronted with any authority let alone the homeowner of the place he attempts to burglarize.


There was no "gun fight".

The homeowner confronted the thief (still no mention of gun). Thief moved towards homeowner. THEN there was discharge of the firearm.

If you want to skew the story and continue to imply the guy went out guns a'blazing, you're only doing all homeowners with firearms a disservice.

Since it is NY, no doubt there are plenty of 'sit and wait' subscribers. Obviously this homeowner didn't drink that tainted koolaid. He went out to stop the thieves. From the info provided, it sounded like he did.

Then a thief made a move towards him.


I'm saying, I want to see the facts and events that took place. Because I can very easily put myself in that homeowners shoes. In fact I have chased people out from our property, from inside our trucks. I have called the Constables while tailing these criminals and we have filed reports. We don't sit and wait to be victims multiple times a year. All this time I've had a weapon and there hasn't seemed to be problem since the bad guys are running the other way.

I don't buy in to the "because a weapon was present that person was wrong" bologna. We don't buy into 'wait to be a victim'. We are the good guys. And good guys stop bad guys from doing bad guy things.

Demonizing homeowners...simply pathetic.

[Brian Pfleuger]

The thing is, the SMART and PRUDENT move would have been to stay inside and call the police with a good description of the perps.


Legal or illegal, there was no good reason to go outside.

Why on earth would you EVER insert yourself into a lethal force situation unless you are defending an innocent person? It's just plain stupid.


This is VERY similar to the recent case in Texas, the man whose name escapes me.

[Shorts]

Joe Horn. And I made reference to it earlier.

He was no billed by the jury.

Homeowners can insert themselves in any dang place they want in regards to their property. Its too bad the rest of the nation has seen fit to mentally cripple anyone who stands up for right.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I always thought the 21 foot rule was a good one to follow.

FYI - there have been recent cases against police where the Tueller rule hasn't been convincing to juries if the dead guy isn't waving a clear weapon and also some DA came up with expert testimony against the Tueller rule and then not allowing presentations of video explanations like Surviving Edge Weapons.

Someone can google the debate but I think you can't count on a jury necessarily buying a Tueller defense if you aren't being charged by the Headless Horseman.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Joe Horn. And I made reference to it earlier.

He was no billed by the jury.

Ah yes, Joe Horn.

He was exonerated because he became some sort of cult-like hero.

He was guilty of murder. He told the 911 operator "You wanna bet? I'm gonna kill them."


Now, I can't say this guy was of that mind set, I hope he wasn't, but I can say that he had no more business going outside than did Joe Horn.

Like I said, legal or illegal it was CERTAINLY stupid.

[Shorts]

Ah yes, Joe Horn.

He was exonerated because he became some sort of cult-like hero.

He was guilty of murder. He told the 911 operator "You wanna bet? I'm gonna kill them."


Now, I can't say this guy was of that mind set, I hope he wasn't, but I can say that he had no more business going outside than did Joe Horn.

Like I said, legal or illegal it was CERTAINLY stupid.

There is no law against 'stupid'.



I still would like to know the motivation for "no business going outside" comes from. Why do you say that?

[Brian Pfleuger]

There is no law against 'stupid'

That is true.

This guy may end up wishing that there was, I'll bet the sentence would be shorter.

[Shorts]

That's what trial is for. Joe Horn did what many frustrated, burglarized, vandalized, victimized homeowners have probably in the deep down recesses of their minds have felt at some point or another. I'm not saying Joe Horn was right, cause I think he was flat out wrong for shooting the guys in the back. I have no problem however, with confronting the criminals when he saw it happening.

Geography matters in regards to local attitudes and the general public opinion at large. What one segment of the country finds acceptable is not necessarily well received in another area.

My husband is from Rochester NY. There is some sense of familiarity.

[2edgesword]

In Texas he might a chance. In NY his goose is cooked and the only question will be how well done the goose is cooked.

[mikejonestkd]

Joe Horn did what many frustrated, burglarized, vandalized, victimized homeowners have probably in the deep down recesses of their minds have felt at some point or another.

So did Bernard Goetz, and Charles Bronson in " Death Wish "

regardless of the state of residence...death is not a just punishment for stealing an ipod or pocket change out of someone else's car...

Latest reports state that the youth did not advance before being shot, that may play our poorly for the homeowner.

[Shorts]

FYI - there have been recent cases against police where the Tueller rule hasn't been convincing to juries if the dead guy isn't waving a clear weapon and also some DA came up with expert testimony against the Tueller rule and then not allowing presentations of video explanations like Surviving Edge Weapons.

Someone can google the debate but I think you can't count on a jury necessarily buying a Tueller defense if you aren't being charged by the Headless Horseman.

Which is basically to say all elements of the confrontation matter when drafting the defense. From the setting to the weather to the people to even the tiniest detail.

In this day where there is a massive mindset that 'gun = bad' it's already an uphill battle. You know the media isn't doing the gun owner any favors.

[OldMarksman]

He went out to stop the thieves. From the info provided, it sounded like he did.

Actually, according to the report, he went out to detain persons who had "been going through cars". Not something a civilian can employ a gun for in most jurisdictions or under most circumstances. He evidently didn't know that.

Then a thief made a move towards him.

"Made a move"? At that point he had a duty to retreat. If he could not retreat, he could not use deadly force unless the other person was about to use deadly force. He evidently didn't know that, either.

We are the good guys. And good guys stop bad guys from doing bad guy things.

It's likely that just about every defendant believes that! However, it remains to be established who the "good guy" is. The court will not assume that because a man was outside with a gun and has seen a lot of westerns he is "the good guy."

Going way back before the common use of firearms, learned judges faced the problem of determining when an otherwise felonious act of homicide might not constitute a crime. Self defense is such a circumstance, but how does one determine who was defending and who was attacking, determine whether the "bad guy" happened to win, etc. How would one determine who is the "good guy?"

The law that peetzakilla posted evolved over time from The English Common Law that was developed to address those questions in a just manner. There have been changes--in some cases the old duty to retreat has been removed, and in others the castle doctrine has been lost and sometimes reinstated, but in general, a man with a weapon is not going to be remembered as a "good guy" if he kills someone without a weapon out doors.

Joe Horn. And I made reference to it earlier. He was no billed by the jury.

No, by a grand jury. I'd be interested in knowing that, since he has not been tried and found innocent in a trial court, whether a future grand jury could still indict him. I understand that there is no statute of limitations.

Joe's actions were seen as morally lacking by a lot of people, and I think he may someday be remembered as the man who gave the antis the ammunition they needed to limit our rights.

[OldShooter]

Somehow this all fits under "Tactics and Training"

[flippycat]

Though I do not agree with the home owners route he took but who knows how many kids are saved now though right????????????????????????? He can play that card also ??

The fact that this underage school age kid had the gun and was committing a felony by having it and that said gun is no longer on the streets is a good thing. I mean if you think about it in terms of , who knows if this kid would of brought it to school and shot other kids with it. This guy may have a chance swinging a jury.

[David Armstrong]

Or we can say if the thief had actually been acting like a good kid and not committed a provocative and illegal act that with 100% certainty he wouldn't have put himself in the position that night to be confronted with any authority let alone the homeowner of the place he attempts to burglarize.

OK, not sure if anyone disagrees with that idea. Also not sure what that has to do with a GG escalating a situation and making it worse when there is no need.

There was no "gun fight".

Let's see now...GG claims he is being attacked, shoots BG with gun. Sure sounds like there was a gunfight to me.

If you want to skew the story and continue to imply the guy went out guns a'blazing, you're only doing all homeowners with firearms a disservice.

As I often say, it generally works better if one responds to what is actually said instaed of trying to make thigns up. There are no implications in the statement, there is no skew. It is simple and direct. If the homeowner has sayed inside the situation could have been resolved a lot better than it was.

I don't buy in to the "because a weapon was present that person was wrong" bologna. We don't buy into 'wait to be a victim'.

I'm not aware of anyone suggesting any such thing, so the strawman you are attacking is of your own design. Some of us are saying there are better ways to not be a victim than making things worse.

We are the good guys.

And we should act like good guys. Getting into shootings when there is no need is not a good thing, IMO. Getting into shootings where the law specifically prohibits it is a bad thing, IMO.

[Shorts]

Well if the thief is a "good kid", I'm certainly a good guy...err girl.

[David Armstrong]

The fact that this underage school age kid had the gun and was committing a felony by having it and that said gun is no longer on the streets is a good thing.

As I understood it, the homeowner had the gun, not the kid.

[pax]

Originally Posted by Old Shooter

Somehow this all fits under "Tactics and Training"

OS,

The moderators are listed at the top of the forum, and that's a great type of question to PM us about. We don't bite ... usually.

To answer the remark, I was just debating whether to move this one down to General or over to Law & Civil Rights. Neither seems quite appropriate, as so far the discussion has centered on whether the homeowner used the appropriate tactic in choosing to go outside and confront the thief, and whether he used the appropriate tactic in firing when he did. Keeping in mind that the goal is to choose tactics that will help you survive the immediate encounter and also survive the legal aftermath, there's always going to be some overlap between a discussion of physical tactics and the legal situation those physical tactics will land you in. Any good trainer knows that both aspects are important, and will discuss both aspects with their students. (Free advice: BEWARE!! of any trainer who downplays either half of this equation, especially those who actively make fun of concerns about legal entanglements...)

So for now, I think this discussion belongs here in Tactics and Training.

pax

[mikejonestkd]

Well said Pax,

My intent was to discuss the tactics that the homeowner used in this situation, and hopefully we can keep it on that track.

Just a heads up...The homeowner's car had not been broken into, he witnessed kids around other neighbor's cars and went outside to confront/ detain them. He was NOT defending his own property. The youth was not armed and did not claim to have a weapon.

Deadly force in defense of another person's property in NYS is a big NO NO..

Back to tactics everyone...

[doh_312]

It really says something about our society when all we do to help a neighbor is call 911. Sure that is what 911 is for, to summon additional help.

I certainly hope that my neighbors would confront someone stealing from me with the bussiness of a gun. Hopefully a large gun. I know I am willing to help my neighbor. If I peek out my window and see someone other than my neighbor going through my car, the wife calls 911, then the neighbor. While I head out with the shotgun to find out what is going on.

The fact that most of you would stay inside speaks loudly to the kind of person you are. However if that is what you would do then fine, I just hope your not my neighbor.

The fact that many of you are raining fire and brimstone on this good man speaks loudly to our society. Never lift more than a finger unless it is to help yourself. If this is the way American thinks then I am truly ashamed. When did we loose touch with our neighbors to the point we wont rally to protect their hard earned propert?

[Brian Pfleuger]

I certainly hope that my neighbors would confront someone stealing from me with the bussiness of a gun. Hopefully a large gun. I know I am willing to help my neighbor. If I peek out my window and see someone other than my neighbor going through my car, the wife calls 911, then the neighbor. While I head out with the shotgun to find out what is going on.

I hope my neighbors DO NOT confront someone stealing from my car with a gun. Why do people feel that calling 911 is doing little or nothing? Why do neighbors have to take the risk upon themselves to protect property in a car? It's not as if the guy walked up on a kidnapping or rape. It was crap in a car. UNLOCKED cars no less. They weren't even breaking in.

PLEASE, if you are my neighbor DO NOT SHOOT PEOPLE who rummage around in my car!

[flippycat]

A neighbor, Roderick Scott, says he called 911, grabbed his gun and went outside. Scott told police he confronted the teens and when he did, Cervini came at him and he fired three shots.

Ahh my bad, I totally read that wrong lol....Cervini (the kid) came at him and he fired three shots.

I thought he implied the kid came at him and fired 3 shots.

I did not agree with his route when i thought the opposite happened. I now think he was wrong all together besides calling 911.

[doh_312]

SO be cause a car is unlocked personal property becomes puplic? I do not lock my car and I still don't want people to steal stuff from it. Besides a locked door just means a window needs to be broken. Or a lock picked.

I never said I want my neighbors to shoot. Just confront. Walk up, gun in hand, ask what the person is up to, ask if I know they are going through my stuff, and inform them police are on their way. Is that really to much to ask of a neighbor?

[doh_312]

Evil only triumps when good men stand by and do nothing.