What are you gonna do, shoot me?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Right let him go so he can potentially come back for revenge. You put him down.

There are options besides the two extremes, a couple of which I list above. Welcome to a gray world, Jeff. It's not all black and white.

[molson]

Originally Posted by miked

My alarm system costs $30/month, surely a sound investment if you are losing property at the rate this guy apparently felt he was. You weren't really talking about a human level (well, you may have). You were saying as a prosecutor, you'd be loathe to even bring this to a trial. I guess we see it differently. I don't see an unarmed home invader (who didn't even get into the home) with his hands up and a 20 year disadvantage as a dangerous criminal at the wrong end of a weapon in the hands of a trained person. But I guess my point (and everyone else's) is what constitutes a dangerous person. Is a guy with his second DUI equally, if not more dangerous? Is a guy who steals the radio out of your car for the 3rd time dangerous?

I'd say the home invader is far more dangerous that the DUI guy or the guy that steals radios.

When you start breaking into people's homes, you're playing with fire. That's a big line to cross. People have all kinds of legal and moral leeway when it comes to their homes.

It's pretty reasonable to believe that this criminal was involved in the prior burglaries, and it's pretty reasonable to believe that the next time, he'll come back armed. Neither is guaranteed, but when it comes to self-defense, you're not required to play the odds.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I don't care what a Detroit jury would do. I care what's right and wrong.

I'll buy that part.

The man shot this guy in cold blood. He deserves to spend his life in prison

I think we have dramatically different definitions on what constitutes right or wrong here.

[Subby]

The scariest part of this thread is that it sounds like there is a state bar somewhere that molson was able to pass.

[RainMaker]

Like I said, I don't know the details of the situation enough. Nonetheless, the lesson here is that if you don't want to be shot, don't go breaking into people's homes. Once you do so, you are now considered someone who is dangerous and if you get shot by the homeowner, I'm going to consider it self-defense.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If it was a cop who shot him in the same situation, would he be acquitted?

Acquittal isn't related to what I am talking about. As JIMG shows, acquittal brings in a whole lot of complication.

If you're sticking to my right/wrong point of view, it would be wrong for the cop to shoot someone with his hands up in surrender, no matter what the guy was saying.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

There are options besides the two extremes, a couple of which I list above. Welcome to a gray world, Jeff. It's not all black and white.

Please. This specific situation is black and white, from a non legal standpoint. Does the guy breaking into my home pose a threat? Yes. Only options are to control him or kill him. If you can't control, whether because of the situation or lack of ability, you have to ensure the threat is gone.

The shades of gray you reference only exist to help a potentially dangerous criminal, while exposing the victim to a unnecessary degree of risk.

Edit: Well not necessarily kill him, but at least wound. And as has been stated, you don't shoot to wound.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think we have dramatically different definitions on what constitutes right or wrong here.

That's probably explained by the fact you're from Georgia and I am from California.

We're more apt to let law enforcement take a crack at things out here.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Subby

The scariest part of this thread is that it sounds like there is a state bar somewhere that molson was able to pass.

Well asshole, I'm not making any any legal arguments, except earlier regarding the vagueness of self-defense statutes and the power and liklihood of jury nullification (and even those aren't legal arguments)

But what the fuck is your problem, seriously? You don't have to insult me and be a prick because you disagree with me. Everyone else disagreeing with me (and I definitely respect their opinions and it's been an interesting discussion) has managed to do so without being a dick.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Please. This specific situation is black and white, from a non legal standpoint. Does the guy breaking into my home pose a threat? Yes. Only options are to control him or kill him. If you can't control, whether because of the situation or lack of ability, you have to ensure the threat is gone.

The shades of gray you reference only exist to help a potentially dangerous criminal, while exposing the victim to a unnecessary degree of risk.

The only black and white thing about this is killing an unarmed man who is not posing an immediate threat is wrong. You are defining options based on your own opinion, but thsoe are not the only options. You may find other options unpalatable, but they do exist and can be used.

Shades of gray is everywhere, in everything. People who see things only in black and white (Hitler, OBL) are the most dangerous people in the world.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Godwin'd!

/thread

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Please. This specific situation is black and white, from a non legal standpoint. Does the guy breaking into my home pose a threat? Yes. Only options are to control him or kill him. If you can't control, whether because of the situation or lack of ability, you have to ensure the threat is gone.

The shades of gray you reference only exist to help a potentially dangerous criminal, while exposing the victim to a unnecessary degree of risk.

Edit: Well not necessarily kill him, but at least wound. And as has been stated, you don't shoot to wound.

It's not black and white though. Everyonoe has a different view on the potential crime the guy was going to commit. While someone in this thread said it was just an old guy looking to steal some food to eat, others would view it as someone who is potentially violent and putting lives of others in danger.

There is a major difference in how you view the potential crime of robbery. For instance, if that guy was caught raping the homeowner's daughter, would he have been charged with murder?

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Right let him go so he can potentially come back for revenge. If you don't have the ability to control him, you put him down.

But many people in life have the potential to come back looking for revenge. A guy you hit on the freeway, your GF's ex, a guy you had to let go at work. Are you justified in "putting them down" as well?

[molson]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

But many people in life have the potential to come back looking for revenge. A guy you hit on the freeway, your GF's ex, a guy you had to let go at work. Are you justified in "putting them down" as well?

Not all of them, it's a question of reasonableness, it's a case-to-case thing.

And what may be lawful self-defense for one person might not be for another in the same situation.

If tomorrow, someone breaks into Chief Rum's house and he kills them under facts simliar to this case - it would be tough for him to argue self-defense, because we know he doesn't perceive that person as a threat. But if someone else does perceive such actions as a threat, then it's a different argument.

[Doug5984]

How did the guy chasing know the burglar didn't have a pistol in his pocket, was waiting for him to lower his gun...just to say, the other person doesn't have to be armed to be a threat (to me at least)

[DanGarion]

Funny thing, if this guy had shot him in the back as he was running away people would be bitching about him shooting the guy in the back...

So how is one supposed to detain someone that refuses to cooperate even when you have a gun pointed at him? What was he supposed to do, just let the guy go?

He'll get off with a lesser offense, something like accidental homicide or whatever they call it, be thrown in for 3 years, left off in one with probation.

[bhlloy]

If you read the story it's pretty clear to me that the guy was just frustrated and didn't perceive the other guy as a threat. Even his families statements seem to back that up, they aren't even playing it like he was threatened, just that he was fed up.

If the other guy made a move toward to him or went for his pocket etc... then I think the shooting is justified. I guess we'll never know (or it will come out at the trial). But honestly, reading the story that is not what it sounds like to me.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Like I said, I don't know the details of the situation enough. Nonetheless, the lesson here is that if you don't want to be shot, don't go breaking into people's homes. Once you do so, you are now considered someone who is dangerous and if you get shot by the homeowner, I'm going to consider it self-defense.

Wonderful logic. We can apply it to so many crimes. If you don't want to get purposely run over, don't jaywalk. If you don't want to get your dick cut off, don't urinate in public. If you don't want to lose your hand, don't shoplift. If you don't want to get gang raped, don't flash your titties during Mardi Gras!

Gosh, I'm going to have a field day if they change the laws. It'll be like real-life Carmegeddon and that was a blast! I love this thread!!!!

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

What was he supposed to do, just let the guy go?

Seems to me that's more logical than killing him.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Wonderful logic. We can apply it to so many crimes. If you don't want to get purposely run over, don't jaywalk. If you don't want to get your dick cut off, don't urinate in public. If you don't want to lose your hand, don't shoplift. If you don't want to get gang raped, don't flash your titties during Mardi Gras!

Gosh, I'm going to have a field day if they change the laws. It'll be like real-life Carmegeddon and that was a blast! I love this thread!!!!

Those are not serious crimes that can be misconstrued as something more serious. If you break into someone's house to steal their TV, the homeowner has no idea of your intentions. He doesn't know if you're there to steal his TV, kill his family, rape his wife, or whatever. For his safety, he has to assume you are there to do the worst. If you don't want someone to assume that in that situation, don't commit the crime that would cause others to believe you are their for something more serious.

[Mustang]

All of you missed the bigger point. The guy that was shot proves that nothing good comes out of being cocky and funny.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

The only black and white thing about this is killing an unarmed man who is not posing an immediate threat is wrong. You are defining options based on your own opinion, but thsoe are not the only options. You may find other options unpalatable, but they do exist and can be used.

Shades of gray is everywhere, in everything. People who see things only in black and white (Hitler, OBL) are the most dangerous people in the world.

If you knew he was unarmed. How exactly can you be sure short of frisking the guy. An assumption?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by jeff061

If you knew he was unarmed. How exactly can you be sure short of frisking the guy. An assumption?

Well, considering you chased him out of your house onto public property, where you were no longer threatened, I would think that you would not feel that he was an active threat to your life. I mean, why would you chase him if you felt he was?

No one has responded to QuikSand's interesting question yet. Could you shoot him the day after? Is that still justifiable?

[jeff061]

The second he stopped, turned and mocked him the situation changed.

If the guy stopped, didn't turn around and lay spread eagle on the ground I'd say you can't shoot him. There, that's my grey area .

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

No one has responded to QuikSand's interesting question yet. Could you shoot him the day after? Is that still justifiable?

I think it depends on whether you reasonably perceive his comments/demeanor as a threat. Which can depend on all kinds of factors.

But in a crowded grocery store, you have more options than you do on the street, seconds after a felony was committed against you.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

Axxon is saying the guy was justified in killing the perp because he was still a threat based on the fact he showed no regard towards the fact he had a gun pointed at him.

My point is that police then should be able to kill in the same instance, since the guy is obviously a threat. In Axxons world.

I get that the police and a citizen are on a different level, but a threat is a threat, no?

Really? A child with chicken pox poses no threat to an adult that already had the disease but could be deadly to an adult that has never had chicken pox. Ditto a simple bag of peanuts to a peanut allergic person.

Saying all threats are equal is bogus.

I'll guarantee you one thing though. The police officer isn't going to just put his weapon away until the criminal is secured in custody and if the criminal moves towards him he's likely to get shot. The civilian doesn't have the luxury of knowing backup is on the way nor the luxury of training and practicing this type of scenario over and over. He's winging it on his own and faced with someone who has just committed a crime against him and has called the person out.

The person who can't conceive someone being aggressive while mockingly holding their hands up is either being very naive or obtuse.

I saw someone do this to a cop. Hands up, moving towards him at all times, mouthing off. Cop didn't shoot him though, his partner tackled him from behind after rounding the corner, the criminal never saw him. It honestly didn't look to me like either cop assumed this guy was meek and passive just because he had his hands up but hey, you guys obviously know it all and there's no way possible someone could put their hands up without being all meek and passive and all and think I live in my own world. Right.

There's an reason we don't encourage vigilante justice and it's not because we want to make victims be more afraid. Had this guy waited like mentioned above then shot him it would clearly have been murder. As it was, maybe it should be something but murder it isn't and there's no way I could convict on any form of murder.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Wonderful logic. We can apply it to so many crimes. If you don't want to get purposely run over, don't jaywalk. If you don't want to get your dick cut off, don't urinate in public. If you don't want to lose your hand, don't shoplift. If you don't want to get gang raped, don't flash your titties during Mardi Gras!

Gosh, I'm going to have a field day if they change the laws. It'll be like real-life Carmegeddon and that was a blast! I love this thread!!!!

Well, it already kinda is. I hit a guy who was jaywalking and he got ticketed. It's against the law. Now, if they could prove that I did it on purpose they could arrest me but a careful sociopath could easily make it look like an accident. I can definitely state that if you don't want to get run over in AZ, don't jaywalk because the law isn't on your side.

[jeff061]

And you can't really hold an average guy to the same standard you hold police in this situation. Despite what I've said here, no I don't think a cop should do this and they should go to jail if they do what this guy did.

A cop is both trained and paid to excel in these situations. They can better judge a threat, gain control of a suspect(in numerous ways) and radio for backup. This is what they do for a living. To expect the same out of some random guy protecting his house is silly.

[Noop]

I think some of you are batshit crazy. He killed a defenseless person and had no reason to kill him other then he was tired of getting his house robbed. I think this guy needs to be in jail for a long time because the act of running away is non-aggressive at that point the shooter should have let the police handle it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Is he protecting his house after the robbers flee and he is chasing them down the street?

[jeff061]

He's protecting himself when the guy turns around, mocks him while questioning whether he would actually defend himself.

He didn't shoot a fleeing guy in the back guys. He certainly didn't know he was defenseless.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Noop

I think some of you are batshit crazy.

Well we can agree on that isolated statement.

How any sane person could have the slightest problem with someone eliminating the perp in this case completely eludes me. I feel a lot like Chris Tucker at this point

[Noop]

No he his manhood was questioned and being the idiot he was he decided to shoot the guy for making that comment. He should be in jail where is manhood will be taken from him.

[Vince, Pt. II]

I think the homeowner gave up all claim to "self-defense" once he continued to chase the criminals on public property. At that point (in my opinion, not sure how the law sees it) he went from 'victim' to 'aggresor.'

[SportsDino]

What is the standard for shooting in self defense OUTSIDE YOUR HOME, cause presumably if you can carry a gun around there must be some fathomable case history on it.

If you apply that to this case, I'm pretty sure this dude is going to get murder. We don't want people running around chasing 'crooks' and shooting them, because before you know it things spiral out of control and its mostly the 'crooks' doing the shooting.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well we can agree on that isolated statement.

How any sane person could have the slightest problem with someone eliminating the perp in this case completely eludes me. I feel a lot like Chris Tucker at this point

Because we believe that "thou shall not murder" is generally a good idea for a civilized society.

However, I'm not all that civilized, so I'm willing to listen to alternative ideas.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by Noop

I think some of you are batshit crazy. He killed a defenseless person and had no reason to kill him other then he was tired of getting his house robbed. I think this guy needs to be in jail for a long time because the act of running away is non-aggressive at that point the shooter should have let the police handle it.

Noop ftw!

The shooter clearly has no legs to stand on. "I was afraid he would come back another day and rob me again" is no defense to murder. Potential future threat of someone coming back and stealing your pogs and laserdisk collection are not justification to chase a guy down the street and open fire.

I understand the alleged thief stopped and taunted the shooter a little. It isn't like he threatened to come back another day and do him harm.

You can't chase a guy down the street and murder him because you are pretty sure he is coming back tomorrow for your NFL plate collection.

[Calis]

Yeah I side with going to jail group. I don't feel the least bit sorry for the "victim" that was shot, but in the end that's not the point. I don't want a precedent of people chasing criminals around the street firing on them. Where do you draw the line? Can a good samaritan that sees the perp fleeing open fire in a public place? Do you have to be the victim for this to be ok?

It is a terrible situation, and not knowing the guy I could definitely understand panicing and shooting because you were scared of a potential threat, but when you've chased them off your property you're obviously not feeling your life is threatened.

So yeah I can understand the feeling and have no sympathy for the burglar, but however poor they are we have a police force for a reason. I sure don't feel any safer with CCW people defending our streets.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Because we believe that "thou shall not murder" is generally a good idea for a civilized society.

Killing the piece of shit described here isn't "murder", it's a public service, he ought to be reimbursed for the cost of his rounds.

Alternately, justifiable homicide, he most surely defended himself with a great deal of efficiency and permanence.

[Young Drachma]

This is clearly a difficult case to judge, but I think everyone is trying to make a case under the whole "we don't want to set a precedent" notion, rather than judging this particular case on its very merits. Legal arguments aside, I think it'd be hard to know if those guys had weapons, if they'd come back with backup, if they'd wait a few days and hit the house again and do a better job.

I dunno, clearly this guy was acting in the heat of the moment and while I don't think he ought to just walk away from court and call it good, I do not think we ought to throw the book at him as if he's a criminal. After all, he was just coming home from work and I really don't know what I do in that instance, except to know that I'd be mortified to return home if they managed to get in or to think what they might do...

That said, this thread is really interesting the jokes aside with some interesting perspectives all around.

[Raiders Army]

Did my part for voting for Justifiable Homicide.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I should have included an option where the proper thing to do would have been to spray him with Raid instead of shooting. I hate roaches.

[Axxon]

So far, not murder is winning the poll so it'll be interesting if this makes a jury trial. It isn't cut and dried how it'd turn out.

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by Axxon

So far, not murder is winning the poll so it'll be interesting if this makes a jury trial. It isn't cut and dried how it'd turn out.

it is cut and dried, there are just a lot of loons on FOFC

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

I think the homeowner gave up all claim to "self-defense" once he continued to chase the criminals on public property. At that point (in my opinion, not sure how the law sees it) he went from 'victim' to 'aggresor.'

I think the criminal gave up his claim of being an innocent bystander the minute he chose to burglurize the home of an innocent person.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the criminal gave up his claim of being an innocent bystander the minute he chose to burglurize the home of an innocent person.

Just as the homeowner gives up his rights to self-defense once the criminals are "chased away," the criminals gave up their rights of innocent bystander once they became criminals. Just because the homeowner became the aggressor doesn't mean that the criminal became innocent again.

I think that the fact that the altercation moved from the homeowner's property to public property turns this into two separate (albeit connected) cases. Part one is the attempted burglary and the subsequent chase off the property. Part two is the continued chase on public property culminating in the altercation. The two are definitely linked, but I really feel that leaving the property makes this a much more complex case.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Killing the piece of shit described here isn't "murder", it's a public service, he ought to be reimbursed for the cost of his rounds.

Finally! I can't believe I had to scroll through 3 pages to read what I had hoped would have been the first reply.

My only wish was that the robber have been an illegal. I think your method of eliminating would have been quite creative

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

I would say it's certainly OK to kill anyone who has invaded into your house and won't even retreat when you show up.

Wait, what? Do you have a different, updated account of what happened? Because what I've read is that the alleged burglars weren't found inside his house, and they fled when confronted - both of these things run counter to how you're describing the incident.

[molson]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Wait, what? Do you have a different, updated account of what happened? Because what I've read is that the alleged burglars weren't found inside his house, and they fled when confronted - both of these things run counter to how you're describing the incident.

His "retreat" quickly turned into a taunt/challenge, which could reasonably be perceived as a threat, depending on lots of factors we don't know about.

And yes, at the time of that post, I was wrong about the in the house thing, I misread that part.

If he shot them while they were trying to break into the house, it would have been 100% justified. He should have killed both of them then. By waiting, he did create a tougher case for himself.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by molson

If he shot them while they were trying to break into the house, it would have been 100% justified. He should have killed both of them then. By waiting, he did create a tougher case for himself.

"He should have killed both of them then"? Jeezus.