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

[B18C5-EH2]

If this is in the wrong forum I apologize. It was either here of the general discussion forum, but since this has some potential legal ramifications (or not) I thought it'd be appropriate here.

Strange story IMO. A local man shoots a teen would-be robber in broad daylight at his home.

Click Here to Read the Story and Watch the Video

Originally Posted by Fox 5 News

Decatur Man Shoots Burglary Suspect

Reported By: George Franco | Edited By: Leigha Baugham

DECATUR, Ga. (MyFOX ATLANTA) - A Decatur homeowner will not be charged for shooting an intruder Wednesday morning. DeKalb County police said 40-year-old Dexter Tucker was justified in shooting a 17-year-old who broke into his home.

Tucker said he had run the scenario of an intruder in his mind many times before, but he never thought it would actually happen.

Tucker said he was asleep when he heard knocking at the front door. The Decatur man said he peered through the shades but didn't answer the door.

"Then he started beating on the door," Tucker recalled.

Tucker said he saw a young man run to the back door and that's when he grabbed his gun.

"I couldn't believe he was kicking in my door and it took him like four kicks to get in so by the time he got in I was ready for him," Tucker said.

Tucker said he shot the intruder three times, striking him once in the thigh. The homeowner said he then saw another young man running away.

Neighbor Vermail Harris said she saw someone running away and getting into a car down the road.

"He ended up hopping in a car so I gave [the police] a description of the vehicle he got in and they found him later.

Tucker said the teens left their car when they fled. Police later arrested a 17-year-old male and a 16-year-old girl in a stolen car not far away.

Police said they suspect the teens who were arrested might be responsible for other crimes in the area.

The three teens involved face burglary and other charges.

Police said Tucker rightfully defended his home.

Am I the only person who feels as though the homeowner could have done more to avoid having to shoot the kid?

Look don't get me wrong. I'm not an advocate for thug kids that break into homes, but let's look at a few things here, especially the text that I bolded.

First of all it's in the middle of the day when most people are not home.

Secondly the kid is beating on the door. Why? TO MAKE SURE NOBODY'S HOME!!! This seems pretty obvious that the kid wasn't looking for an armed confrontation. It's not like he chose a time in the middle of the night (when people are home) and simply went to kicking the door in.

Thirdly the home owner had time to grab his gun, rest against a wall in a defensive position, and watch through a GLASS door as the kid finally kicks it open, at which time he shoots the kid.

I know, I know the dumb kid shouldn't be breaking into houses. I'm not saying that the kid is not in the wrong at all. I know he assumes risk by simply being a burglar, but (this will sound like a criminals' rights activist statement) by him knocking on the door to make sure nobody's home one can assume he wasn't trying to confront a home owner while robbing the home.

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?

I'd be worried if I was the home owner because the way the news story was presented, and because of the way he described the events it screams for a civil lawsuit from the family.

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?

[hogdogs]

Am I the only person who feels as though the homeowner could have done more to avoid having to shoot the kid?

I doubt you will be the only one to think this but IMHO the fella did all he needed to avoid being part of escalating the situation. He kept quiet, didn't open the door and the criminal deviant youth decided to escalate the situation to full fledged VIOLENT HOME INVASION...
Brent

[brickeyee]

Am I the only person who feels as though the homeowner could have done more to avoid having to shoot the kid?

He does not owe a criminal breaking and entering anything.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Good thing the leg wound missed the femoral artery.
He will likely have lots of time to consider what he tried to do.

[AirForceShooter]

Finally, somebody pulled a trigger.
Has anyone else noticed the string of threads of "I pulled my gun but didn't fire..yippee for me?"

The guy kicked his door in. that's pretty much proof of intent to do harm.
What's the home owner supposed to do? Ask the guy to stop and leave?

He shot a guy attempting to unlawfully enter his house and do God knows what.
Good for him.

AFS

[jazzmanDK]

First, let me state my position on hearing about someone's 'feelings'. My first wife was an emotional blackmailer who, when we got into a discussion of anything, started with 'I feel'. and so on.....now, you own your feelings, I don't, and when you tell us how you feel you effectively cut off discussion, because there's no arguing with your emotional state.

That said, the kid was lucky he wasn't more seriously injured. It was an attack. The victim (the homeowner) used a measured force to stop the attack. This is what the Castle Doctrine is all about. Bravo, homeowner. Screw you, thugs.

Zip

[rattletrap1970]

Sorry, no pity for this POS because he was a "considerate" criminal. God, what an awesome guy to bang on the door to see if someone was home, before he robbed them of their possessions.
If someone breaks into someone's home the owner should have the right to whistle one through the burglar. They don't belong there, they weren't invited, they aren't wanted and they are breaking the law invading your home.

[Tuzo]

Most nomal humans do not wish to shoot anyone. But there are situations that may require such a dreadful action. Several points leap to mind concerning this shooting.

1. The shooter did not escalate action - it was the robber who first determined that no one was home then ran to the back door and began violently breaking into the home.
2. After action second thoughts are fine but the moment of action is the most important. Could the home owner have warned off the intruder? Of course, and the intruder may have run off or he may have tried more violent methods to invade the home.
3. I try not to enter the mind of either the home owner or intruder in order to determine alternate actions. The home owner's and intuder's state of mind can only be guessed. What were they thinking? We do not know exactly but based on actions the homeowner was protecting his person and his home and was in the moment. The intruder was likewise in the moment and determined to invade and do harm to property not his own.

[Double Naught Spy]

I think the homeowner did fine.

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

So what if it is broad daylight? Why should that change whether or not charges would be filed? Was the homeowner any less in fear for his life from the intruder because it was daylight?

First of all it's in the middle of the day when most people are not home.

So what? This home was occupied. That isn't the fault of the homeowner, is it?

Secondly the kid is beating on the door. Why? TO MAKE SURE NOBODY'S HOME!!! This seems pretty obvious that the kid wasn't looking for an armed confrontation. It's not like he chose a time in the middle of the night (when people are home) and simply went to kicking the door in.

So you are saying the intruder was after an easy target. Nothing you have suggested would indicate that the intruder did not pose a serious risk to anyone he encountered after violently breaking into the home.

Thirdly the home owner had time to grab his gun, rest against a wall in a defensive position, and watch through a GLASS door as the kid finally kicks it open, at which time he shoots the kid.

The homeowner gets high marks for clear-headed thinking and preparation, but low marks for marksmanship.

I know, I know the dumb kid shouldn't be breaking into houses. I'm not saying that the kid is not in the wrong at all. I know he assumes risk by simply being a burglar, but (this will sound like a criminals' rights activist statement) by him knocking on the door to make sure nobody's home one can assume he wasn't trying to confront a home owner while robbing the home.

First of all, the kid wasn't robbing the home. You rob people, but burgle homes. Second, you are ASSUMING the kid wasn't trying to confront anybody. Based on what happened, I could just as well argue that the intruder knocked and beat on the front door in order to draw the homeowner to the front of the house whilst he ran to the back to kick in the back door and hence be able to take the homeowner by surprise. Knocking and beating on the front door were obvious attempts at misdirection by the intruder, only he encountered an occupant who quite fortunately did not fall for the ploy.

Maybe the kid thought the home was occupied by an invalid and he was there to kill the occupant? His knocking was only to verify that no caretakers were present. What then? How is it that you know so much about the intruder?

In my opinion I feel that the home owner/shooter could have done more to prevent the shooting.

He doesn't have to do more to prevent the shooting. The one who could have done the most to prevent the shooting was the intruder. If he would not have violently broken into the home, he would not have gotten shot. If you want to put the burden of the shooting on anybody, it is on the intruder.

I feel like it's our duty as gun owners to try to avoid having to shoot someone.

If that is how you get through your day, then good for you.

I think had the home owner simply called out to the would-be robber the entire event would have been avoided.

Maybe, maybe not. You have no idea what would have otherwise happened.

It's like he actually baited the kid by allowing him to think he was breaking into an unoccupied home.

Okay, that is crazy. You are blaming the victim now? Why not just go ahead and claim that the homeowner entrapped the intruder. The homeowner did not bait the intruder.

A simple "get out of here" probably would have sufficed before it even escalated to the kid kicking the back door.

Maybe so, but the home owner is under no obligation to speak to the intruder.

The intruder knew he was doing wrong. He apparently had a premeditated plan and was acting it out. Heck, the intruder was part of a criminal team. The homeowner was lucky that the team sent in a sacrificial individual as opposed to invading en masse.

[B18C5-EH2]

Interesting answers.

I don't mean to say "I feel" to cut off discussions. Feelings are like opinions - they can change.

In this sue happy world I'd be most concerned with the family suing and arguing some of the same points I've argued.

I'm not a one-sided arguer either. I can see some obvious reasons why the homeowner did the right thing too:

1. Had he answered the door he could have himself been shot or injured

2. Had he answered the door the thug could have made up an excuse like "wrong house" and then came back to rob the house when the owner really wasn't home

One would think that a lack of charges being filed should be evidence enough that the shoot was justified, but don't tell that to the now "victim's" family who will undoubtedly be suing for damages.

[Double Naught Spy]

One would think that a lack of charges being filed should be evidence enough that the shoot was justified, but don't tell that to the now "victim's" family who will undoubtedly be suing for damages.

Apparently, you don't understand who the victim is.

[Technosavant]

Could he have yelled something? Yes. I probably would have, but I wasn't there.

Hitting homes during the day is more a mark of someone doing this professionally; from what I understand, the ones into burglary more as a lifestyle choice know the reduced chances of homeowner involvement is worth the added visibility during the day (which itself is balanced by fewer neighbors home to witness the event). Does that mean the perp did not want to harm someone? Not enough info to draw a conclusion there; he would prefer to not be found out; that says nothing of his willingness to cause harm to another. Certainly he has a low opinion of the property rights of others.

But to me, it all boils down to the burglar was committing a felony. Had he been out panhandling or working at McDonald's he would not have been shot. Instead, he willfully violated the law by committing a threatening act. In my state (MO), the homeowner would have immunity to criminal and civil liability for the shoot.

You commit crimes, especially home invasion/burglary, you risk exactly what happened. The thug ought to thank his lucky stars he's still on this side of the grass.

[NavyLT]

Am I the only person who feels as though the homeowner could have done more to avoid having to shoot the kid?

No, you won't be the only one who feels that way. But I don't feel that way.

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.

The homeowner did everything he had to do in that situation to prevent having to shoot someone. He locked the doors to his house.

[musher]

I think the burglar knocked to minimize risk to himself, not out of concern for the homeowner.

[NavyLT]

Originally Posted by musher

I think the burglar knocked to minimize risk to himself, not out of concern for the homeowner.

Easy way to determine if the house was unoccupied or not. He knocked on the door to determine if the homeowner was home, or at work. When he thought the homeowner was at work, he went to the back to kick the door in to be less obvious.

If the homeowner did answer the door, I'll bet the criminal would have asked for "Bob Smith". "Bob doesn't live here." "Oh, sorry, wrong house." And moved on until he found an unoccupied house.

[OuTcAsT]

Am I the only person who feels as though the homeowner could have done more to avoid having to shoot the kid?

Like Brent said...You're probably not the only person who "feels" this way, but likely the only person here who feels this way.

What do you guys think?

I think the homeowner needs to work on his marksmanship a bit...other than that, he did fine.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by NavyLT

The homeowner did everything he had to do in that situation to prevent having to shoot someone. He locked the doors to his house.

Exactly. I have no sympathy for the guy who got shot. I feel bad for the homeowner. His sense of security and well being has been breached and I bet he will lose some sleep for awhile. The intruder is lucky. He could be dead, and it would be every bit as justified.



By the way, the intruder is *not* a "kid". He's 17. Making him a "kid" implies an excuse for his behavior, at least to me.

[NavyLT]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

By the way, the intruder is *not* a "kid". He's 17. Making him a "kid" implies an excuse for his behavior, at least to me.

Hell, anybody born from 1980 on is a kid to me

I did edit my post to more reflect a more accurate description of the individual in question, though

[B18C5-EH2]

Well I'm glad I posted this because it's made me do some research to see how many cases there have been where a burglar/burglar's family sued the homeowner for either simply being injured (think slip and fall,or falls through skylight lol) or being shot and injured or killed.

So far I've not found a single case where a burglar has successfully sued (and won) against a home owner for injuries caused (by gunshot or otherwise) during a burglary.

I've seen so many freaking urban legend versions from the "burglar wins 25million settlement for falling through skylight" to "burglar's family sues homeowner that killed the burglar" that I've been conditioned to feel like I do about warning the intruder.

I appreciate the replies even though some of them border on personal attacks such as "sounds like you don't know who the victim is" etc. I enjoy the opposing opinions. I think I'm learning something here, seriously.

[geetarman]

The homeowner is under no obligation to justify his actions to someone IN HIS HOME.

The perp got a Winchester laxative. Too bad for him.

We had a case just in the last five years or so of someone breaking into someones truck. After the fourth time, the victim was watching because the perp did not clean everything out of his truck the fourth time and came back a fifth time.

The victim shot the burglar and the shooting was ruled justifiable.

Bad guys run the risk of bad things happening to them. . .

[B18C5-EH2]

BTW:

I do not feel sorry at all for the kid who got shot. Don't misinterpret my thinking the shoot was avoidable for blaming the homeowner while excusing the burglar.

It just looked (from the video I linked) that the homeowner went out of his way to show how "ready" he was. I don't think that was smart for him to give such an interview. Also at no point did he mention being in fear for his life.

Oh and the "broad daylight" part was to entice views and responses. I do think being that it was broad daylight, and the back door that was being kicked in was glass, that the owner had ample opportunity to see if the kid was armed or not. If it were dark, or night time, when it's reasonable to assume someone's home and you cannot see if the intruder is armed I think it changes the entire scenario, and I'd not have even bothered posting such a topic to discuss it.

[B18C5-EH2]

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.

[NavyLT]

Also may I point out the Georgia statute:

§ 16-3-23. Use of force in defense of habitation

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;

(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or

(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

I believe the homeowner completely and fully complied with condition (2) above.

[ScottRiqui]

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.

It varies from state to state. Some states have clearly-defined "Castle Doctrine"-type laws, while in other states, you actually have a "duty to retreat" if able. Other states don't have clear written laws either way and instead rely on case law from previous incidents when determining justification.

[NavyLT]

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

A person who is justified in threatening or using force against another under the provisions of Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat from the use of such force and shall not be held liable to the person against whom the use of force was justified or to any person acting as an accomplice or assistant to such person in any civil action brought as a result of the threat or use of such force.

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

[OuTcAsT]

Oh and the "broad daylight" part was to entice views and responses. I do think being that it was broad daylight, and the back door that was being kicked in was glass, that the owner had ample opportunity to see if the kid was armed or not.

First, Why would you assume that ? If I were kicking-in your back door, carrying my firearm, knife, or anything else, in any way other than in my hand do you think you would "see" it ?

Second, what does the presence, or absence of a readily-seen weapon have to do with it?

The way you word this makes me think that you must somehow "see" a weapon to be able to defend yourself from a home invasion.

Wow.