Man Stops Home Invasion With KSG Shotgun - VIDEO

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Please note this is surveilance camera video of an actual shootout/home invasion: https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=9mSB3_1544622453

I’ll call the shooter D1 and the invaders A1 and A2. The backstory is D1’s stepfather (A1), who had a history of violent behavior, forcibly entered the home (which A1 owned). The camera catches the entry. From off camera, D1 opens fire on A1 and A2 as they enter the house. Both A1 and A2 flee. D1 goes to the door to see where they went and A1 returns fire. D1 shoots some
more and A1 is later found dead next to some trash cans. D1 was charged with murder and after a long trial process was acquittted. Additional details on the shooting can be found here: https://www.pnj.com/story/news/2018/...er/2312177002/

I thought this story and video had some training value. First of all, the shooter has some trouble keeping his shotgun in the fight - and despite being loaded with buckshot, he doesn’t get the instant stop. He decides to pursue his targets to the door of his home. So i think we have some good lessons to learn on how he employed his firearm and how things can “gang aft agley” as William Burns might say.

Second, the complicated family relationship takes a lot of what we *know* about self-defense law and throws it right out the window. Here a man uses a shotgun to stop a forcible entry of the home he lives in and gets charged with murder. I think there are some good lessons to be learned on how the specific facts are very important to the legal outcome.

[1stmar]

Should this be D1? (which A1 owned)

[TXAZ]

Ultimately the question on many "Stand your ground" laws is where does a home/business owner have to stop counterattacking / chasing.

Is it somewhere inside the home / business?

Is it at the door that was broken down?

Is it within the property line?

How about the county line?

Does the counteraction have to be immediate or can it be seconds, minutes, days or years later?

Bottom line is the use of deadly force is very serious criminal, civil, financial and ethical matter. Unfortunately, the victim of this invasion is in a tough spot win or lose.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by TXAZ

Ultimately the question on many "Stand your ground" laws is where does a home/business owner have to stop counterattacking / chasing.

Counter attack and chase is NOT self defense, and it is not what "stand your ground" means. You will end up in prison with this mentality.

-TL

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There are important differences between “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine.” See: https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=527171

Here, A1 owned the house he broke into; but D1 had a right to live in the house. here is a more descriptive link to what happened in the case:
https://www.pnj.com/story/news/2018/...er/2312177002/

Because of this, D1 was not entitled to a presumption that A1 intended him serious bodily harm when he forcibly entered. D1 had to make the case that he did reasonably fear immediate, serious, bodily injury.

[briandg]

I haven't taken the time to go through all of the information yet, but I can see a problem as the summary was reported. The home (defender) went to the door after the attackers ran. For an unknown reason, the attackers turned back and fired again, then the defender killed one of them.

Leave everything else aside. He was defending his castle and he did. He used deadly force and ended the confrontation when they ran. It's reasonable to investigate where they went, but did he do something to cause them to attack again? what happened there? why did they turn and fight again, and was he really still covered by the castle law, were they still within grounds, etc? did he go far beyond what was necessary to defend his home? Should he have just stepped back and let them go?

The laws are very simple, very general, only a paragraph or two. The key word of those laws is always 'defense'.

Did he go outside of true 'defense of the home' and kill the guy when he was not a genuine threat? I've got a creeping feeling of doubt.

I'm not going to be able to read it all until tonight. sounds interesting.

[Leaf]

I think there is a rule of law that says if the unlawful intruder is a demented father-in-law, you can hunt him down and shoot him like a dog (kidding).

[tangolima]

Self defense must meet all 5 criteria simultaneously. Innocent, imminent, unavoidable, proportional, and reasonable. "Stand your ground" or "castle doctrines" removes the avoidance criterion, but you still need to meet the other 4.

In most jurisdictions, protecting one's home or property is NOT a reasonable reason to use deadly force.

-TL

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Leaf]

Tango Lima, how does innocent fit into this equation?

[GarandTd]

Is it just me or did it look like the shooter(D1) was wearing a ski mask and bandoliers?

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Tango Lima, how does innocent fit into this equation?

It is applicable to all self defense "equations", although this particular case may have satisfied this requirement.

It means you may not be the instigator of the incident and claim self defense. Say I bullied a guy smaller than me. He happens to be a boxer and kicks my butt pretty bad. I can't shoot him and claim self defense.

The Law of Self Defense: The Indispensable Guide to the Armed Citizen https://www.amazon.com/dp/1943809143..._QkXgCbFB9XJDS

-TL

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Leaf]

Tangolima, you described outright unlawful homocide in your scenario not an example of innocence. You can instigate a lot of bad things that doesn’t justify a response of deadly force by the agrieved party.

[OhioGuy]

I've heard (rightly or wrongly, but it was from *a* lawyer...) that the "innocence" part of the equation is pretty tightly tied to the immediate circumstance that requires force for self defense.

If you provoke someone to attack, then shoot, you're not innocent. If you go involve yourself in someone else's fight, you're probably also not innocent.

If you've had a long-standing feud with someone, who at some point decides to come invade your house and murder you because of something you said/did the day before -- my understanding is that you are "innocent" with regards to the specific incident of that person breaking into your house in that moment, i.e. you did not go threaten or provoke him into that immediate action.

Whether that's correct or not, I don't actually know. It's all gray.

Whenever I hear about home invasion scenarios, it almost always seems to end up involving some aspect of a relationship between the parties. A crazed, drug-smoking murderer kicking in YOUR door randomly at midnight because he just really wants to murder someone does not seem to be a very frequent scenario.

(However, it's frequently the scenario that's advertised in gun magazines to sell tactical equipment and lights).

[dontcatchmany]

And the dog was not much of a "watch" dog.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The stepfather (A1) had announced when he was going to arrive the previous day. Police had also informed D1’s mother that the stepfather could not be locked out of the house - which may explain why instead of calling police, D1 decked himself out with shotgun, plate carrier, and surveillance cameras.

Note that despite a lot more warning than most home invasion recipients get, D1 managed to have a feed issue while standing in the doorway. I’m not sure if he short stroked the pump or it was something else; but there was plenty of opportunity for an aggressive counterattack to make a completely different outcome to this video.

[TunnelRat]

I did an all day shotgun course sometime back. Everyone had pump shotguns. There were quite a few malfunctions. I think people tend to think of shotguns as the "easy" firearm to use, and in my experience they really aren't. It takes a good amount of skill and experience to use a shotgun well, especially to handle certain malfunctions.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[briandg]

It means you may not be the instigator of the incident and claim self defense. Say I bullied a guy smaller than me. He happens to be a boxer and kicks my butt pretty bad. I can't shoot him and claim self defense.

You seem to have this completely wrong.

If you shove a guy for some reason, no matter what the reason, unless you have given him a valid reason to engage in extreme force in defense of his own person, he has no reason or right or justification to beat you senseless. If this guy is beating you senseless, and you are genuinely in fear of your life or safety, he isn't stopping, and you feel that you will have to use force to stop him, you now have full justification to use force to stop the guy from giving you a brain injury or broken bones.

That is clear and it is added into the codes in self defense laws. The instigator of the confrontation can still defend his own life and safety if his life and safety are threatened.

there are infinite variations on this but there is one simple fact. use of force in defending ones life or safety is not dependent on being the originally aggrieved party.

tit for tat use of force is not legal. if i was having the snot beaten out of me and i had justification for use of force, i would draw.

if i draw on a guy who i fear is going to kill me, it does not give him justification to draw his own gun and kill me.

yes your honor, i was whomping on him with a board, and he drew a gun on me! so, heck yes, i thought that he was going to hurt me. of course i killed that scumbag, he tried to shoot me!

what is meant by innocence is that the person has not committed a dangerous act or crime which led to threat of force. defending yourself from someone who is defending himself violates the principle.

[tangolima]

You can draw and fire. But you may still end up in jail afterwards.

Point is self defense is pretty well defined high bar, as it should be. The 5 elements must be satisfied. All those talks of counter attack, chase, "stand your ground" are dangerous. There are numerous cases with good justifications on the surface, and people who drew and fired did hard time in prison, followed by life long nightmares of different forms. Read the book in the link. It has quite a few of past cases in there.

-TL

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[T. O'Heir]

What does the brand of firearm have to do with the guy's inexperience? I keep telling y'all that a shotgun with no stock is the most useless thing on this planet.
Mind you, that video and the write up sure make it look like he planned the attack. Just filming it indicates premeditation.
"...the attackers turned back and fired again..." There's no footage of the step-pop doing anything but breaking in. Highly unlikely the whole story has been told though.
"...buckshot, he doesn’t get the instant stop..." No such thing with any firearm or ammo.

[briandg]

TL:

I'm not talking about what may happen if deadly force is used, there is no accounting for what a jury might do, or what a person may do and delusionally believe that it was the right thing to do.


My statement was pretty clear and simple. Lethal force is legally defensible when the user is genuinely in fear of his life, and the user of lethal force wasn't guilty of provoking the circumstances that brought about the killing. There are many, many stupid people out there, many people who will try to game the system and commit homicide.

The point is that as you said, those legal principles must be met. One of the principles is that the person who actually did the shooting had a legitimate need to draw and shoot, as opposed to an opportunity. Another of the principles is that if the user of lethal force was in fact defending himself from a situation of his own, immediate creation, it violates a clearly stated principle.

You will find in some laws, it also clearly states in detail that no person can use deadly force in defense of himself against any law enforcement officials. shooting a cop who has drawn his gun is in code.

[TunnelRat]

The instigator of the confrontation can still defend his own life and safety if his life and safety are threatened.

Exactly. George Zimmerman came to mind when I read some of the comments above. Many people, including the prosecution, argued that Zimmerman was the instigator by following and then questioning Martin. However, it is my understanding that Martin's subsequent physical assault of Zimmerman was justification to defend himself.

[briandg]

Yes. His attacker brought violence into the situation and zimmerman, regardless of what he did that made his attacker angry, found himself in a situation where he felt that he needed to defend his life. He legally defended his own life against an angry assaillant who appeared willing to beat him into a coma.

My statement was pretty clear and simple. Lethal force is legally defensible when the user is genuinely in fear of his life, and the user of lethal force wasn't guilty of provoking the direct circumstances that brought about the killing. There are many, many stupid people out there, many people who will try to game the system and commit homicide.

Martin and zimmerman are exactly what the issue addresses.

Zimmerman was stupid.
Martin used the non-violent confrontation as an excuse to beat the snot out of zimmerman, a man who provoked him.
Zimmerman used force, killed martin, and was found by a judge and jury to have acted correctly and legally when he killed martin. I believe that the judge clearly stated that his actions were stupid and wrong, but legally defensible.

Zimmerman was a clear, perfect example of the type of person who is taking advantage of the self-defense legal codes. He armed himself, practiced his scary face in the mirror, then turned his hat backwards and went out to clean up dodge city. Those actions had a predictable trajectory. Maybe not that night, not the next, maybe never for him. It happens to other people, other places, all of the time. That's why we have to have juries. We won't know until the trial is over whether the Zimmermans of the world have done something 'bad'.

[briandg]

to further criticize zimmerman, unless I'm mistaken, didn't he call 911 to report that a black guy in a jacket had just walked down a sidewalk, and then go out to confront that black guy in a jacket about being where he didn't belong?

It all started there. Zimmerman was clearly the founder of the feast. Legally, however, he was justified when he shot the guy who was doing nothing more than walking down a sidewalk when it happened.

[Leaf]

Apparently nobody ever taught D1 how to "slice the pie" nor how to properly operate a pump action shotgun.

I do have to admit the video made me squirm in my chair a little bit watching as D1 cranked off more rounds out his front door at the other involved parties as they were apparently fleeing down the street.

[tangolima]

Zimmerman was charged, tried, and found not guilty. He waived the right to pretrial immunity hearing. Basically the defense did not have much confidence on their claim of self defense. Some even said the defense did not really claim self defense, or they should have done that during the pretrial immunity hearing, which would block all charges against him.

He was acquitted because the jury couldn't come to unanimous conclusion that he was guilty as CHARGED. The case wasn't about "stay your ground" as clearly he had met the criterion. Then it must be at least one of the other 4 criteria that wasn't on solid ground.

-TL

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk