Defending against a home invasion.

[Teej]

After watching the homeowner defend his home in the video.

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=55839
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=17e_1234261495

If this happened in the PRM am I correct in thinking the homeowner would be brought up on charges of assault with a deadly weapon given that it appears that the perps are fleeing yet the homeowner is still shooting?

 

[drumenigma]

After watching the homeowner defend his home in the video.

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=55839
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=17e_1234261495

If this happened in the PRM am I correct in thinking the homeowner would be brought up on charges of assault with a deadly weapon given that it appears that the perps are fleeing yet the homeowner is still shooting?

That's a tough call though as it looks like even though they were fleeing at certain points their guns were facing the victims home at which point they are still a threat and I would think he is justified in protecting himself. What is he going to do? Run away and while in the process face his back towards them with their weapons pointing at him? I don't think any of us would be willing to do that. Even in Mass I think the homeowner would be ok but you never know.

 

[Eta-Carinae]

The video itself does not show any of the defensive fire from the interior garage entryway where the intruders are reported to have dealt with a barricade.

For the two shots on the windshield, if this is fire from the resident into the car (and not fire from the driver out into the garage), the resident has these mitigating factors:
-the driver of the vehicle had just shot at him a few seconds before while circling around the rear passenger quarter of the car on his way to the drivers seat
-at this point he's in his garage, possibly with limited egress (maybe even a doorway obstructed by a collapsed barricade) and is facing an attacker in a running motor vehicle
-the attacker had had a chance to flee when he reached the end of the vehicle at the end of the driveway, but chose to return to a more threatening position - behind the wheel of the running vehicle

Even though the attacker had fled at one point, at that moment there's a reasonable fear of continuing threat.

 

[Teej]

The video itself does not show any of the defensive fire from the interior garage entryway where the intruders are reported to have dealt with a barricade.

For the two shots on the windshield, if this is fire from the resident into the car (and not fire from the driver out into the garage), the resident has these mitigating factors:
-the driver of the vehicle had just shot at him a few seconds before while circling around the rear passenger quarter of the car on his way to the drivers seat
-at this point he's in his garage, possibly with limited egress (maybe even a doorway obstructed by a collapsed barricade) and is facing an attacker in a running motor vehicle
-the attacker had had a chance to flee when he reached the end of the vehicle at the end of the driveway, but chose to return to a more threatening position - behind the wheel of the running vehicle

Even though the attacker had fled at one point, at that moment there's a reasonable fear of continuing threat.

That's how I would see it too. Unfortunately there's no audio so we don't know how many shots were actually fired except for the 2 into the windshield. I'm just not sure how the fantastic laws we have here would be applied or interpreted. Is it cut and dried or is it a matter of interpretation by the DA.

 

[GSG]

In any self defense shooting, you have to be able to justify the force that you used. You need to behave as any reasonable person would in the circumstances.

With that homeowner, when the thugs rushed his house with guns, covering their faces, that's a very serious threat, clearly a reasonable person would believe their life was in danger.

When they're running away, who's to say they're running away to stop fighting? I didn't see anyone drop their guns, throw their hands up over their heads and say "I quit, I surrender, I'm sorry!" Common, sense, if you're getting shot at and you have a gun, you'll run to get behind something and return fire from cover. Were they running behind the car to shoot back? Were the running to the car to escape?

Despite the anti-gun nature in Mass., I honestly think that if this happened in your neighborhood in Mass., and you had it on video that they rushed you like that, and you defended yourself with guns that you legally owned, it would be ruled self defense.

Just my .02

 

[doobie]

IANAL.... but if you got cameras to help prove you were in a gun fight with them, you might be ok....but if you don't and the shooting had any way at all to indicate your life wasn't in an immediate danger, you'd probably be fvcked.

 

[rcinma]

IANAL either, but...

The fact that he was outnumbered should work is his favor.

You could argue that a single assailant (the driver) was trying to flee but proving that all the passagers had suddenly dropped their weapons and not causing the homeowner to feel threatened is not apparent.

 

[Doc Holiday]

IMHO, First and foremost all four men got out of the vehicle with firearms, one had an AK, another looked to have some small tech 9 or uzi style weapon, and the other two had hand guns at a minimum, that is an awful lot of firepower for a mere disagreement. They rushed the house, so the owner layed down supresive fire, the guys then ran for cover, at that point the one with the AK turned and pointed the gun towards the house, as well as the guy with the sub gun, the other two with the small arms ran down the street. The driver then grabbed a hand gun, while trying to retrieve his car, and pointed it towards the house again, looks as if he got a defencive shot or two off, with that in mind, he was still the aggressor, and the home owner returned fire. Seems pretty open and shut from a self defence point of veiw. The wild card would be, the rounds that made it to his neighbors homes and hit the other houses, they are not saying who's gun they came from. Was he justified with the actions he took? No contest YES, in MA he may have a problem with the rounds hitting his neighbors houses, if they are from his gun. If it was from the trespassers than I think he would be fine. But then again this is MA and the guys who were breaking the law, they had rights too, and should not of had to endure the emotional stress the victim caused to them. He would be found guilty by some left leaning liberal judge/jury, of causing undue stress and attempted murder, serve 2 years, on probation for life , would need to attend anger managment classes for the next decade ,have his firearms taken, and would have to sell everything to settle the civil lawsuit. If I have missed anything, please chime in.

 

[Doc Holiday]

ok your screen is better than mine, my bad.........

 

[Jigganuts]

While watching the second part of the video, I noticed that there already was a hole in the middle of the windshield. Looks like a bullet hole to me but I wasn't there so who knows????

 

[SteelShooter]

While watching the second part of the video, I noticed that there already was a hole in the middle of the windshield. Looks like a bullet hole to me but I wasn't there so who knows????

This brings up another point, if there was no video, and no witnesses, did this even happen. In PRM it would be the homeowner was just taking potshots at his neighbors house when these poor kids drove by on their way to church, and he shot their car up. Homeowner goes to jail, loses everything.

 

[vellnueve]

That's why you call the police first.

 

[SteelShooter]

That's why you call the police first.

At what point in the video would you call police first? Or do you mean after the event be the first one to call the police before the BG's?

 

[Raoul Duke]

Of course the most important aspect of whether or not the home owner comes out of this ok is whether or not he/she was doing anything untoward out of the house. In other words, given the details of the situation, it's highly likely that this guy was not a "civilian".
1. Cameras trained on the entrance
2. Imeadiate fire-response. (this guy was ready to shoot, and had his firearm ready instantly)

Now, I am not at all saying that this has to be criminal. I am completely willing to believe that there is a lawful and reasonable answer for everything and I wouldn't ever say that this person is guilty of, say, being a drug dealer or arms dealer or whatever. I'm just saying that it's quite possible that the reason he's so prepared is because he expects violence and that may well be because he's dealing in criminal activities.

That's all.

So, I think that the key really, is what the cops found when they showed up. Which we don't know.

RD

 

[Skysoldier]

Of course the most important aspect of whether or not the home owner comes out of this ok is whether or not he/she was doing anything untoward out of the house. In other words, given the details of the situation, it's highly likely that this guy was a "civilian".
1. Cameras trained on the entrance
2. Imeadiate fire-response. (this guy was ready to shoot, and had his firearm ready instantly)

Now, I am not at all saying that this has to be criminal. I am completely willing to believe that there is a lawful and reasonable answer for everything and I wouldn't ever say that this person is guilty of, say, being a drug dealer or arms dealer or whatever. I'm just saying that it's quite possible that the reason he's so prepared is because he expects violence and that may well be because he's dealing in criminal activities.

That's all.

So, I think that the key really, is what the cops found when they showed up. Which we don't know.

RD

That is exactly what I was thinking.......this wasn't a jewelry store.

I honestly think most home invasions are on drug dealers houses.....this isn't a burglary.....those guy's were looking for something!

But I guess we will never know.........

 

[mikem317]

If this happened in the PRM am I correct in thinking the homeowner would be brought up on charges of assault with a deadly weapon given that it appears that the perps are fleeing yet the homeowner is still shooting?

I'd rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6.

 

[GSG]

Of course the most important aspect of whether or not the home owner comes out of this ok is whether or not he/she was doing anything untoward out of the house. In other words, given the details of the situation, it's highly likely that this guy was a "civilian".
1. Cameras trained on the entrance
2. Imeadiate fire-response. (this guy was ready to shoot, and had his firearm ready instantly)

Now, I am not at all saying that this has to be criminal. I am completely willing to believe that there is a lawful and reasonable answer for everything and I wouldn't ever say that this person is guilty of, say, being a drug dealer or arms dealer or whatever. I'm just saying that it's quite possible that the reason he's so prepared is because he expects violence and that may well be because he's dealing in criminal activities.

That's all.

So, I think that the key really, is what the cops found when they showed up. Which we don't know.

RD

I agree, it's possible that everything's on the up and up, but for the average home I think it's a little far fetched.

 

[Tim111]

IMHO, First and foremost all four men got out of the vehicle with firearms, one had an AK, another looked to have some small tech 9 or uzi style weapon, and the other two had hand guns at a minimum, that is an awful lot of firepower for a mere disagreement. They rushed the house, so the owner layed down supresive fire, the guys then ran for cover, at that point the one with the AK turned and pointed the gun towards the house, as well as the guy with the sub gun, the other two with the small arms ran down the street. The driver then grabbed a hand gun, while trying to retrieve his car, and pointed it towards the house again, looks as if he got a defencive shot or two off, with that in mind, he was still the aggressor, and the home owner returned fire. Seems pretty open and shut from a self defence point of veiw. The wild card would be, the rounds that made it to his neighbors homes and hit the other houses, they are not saying who's gun they came from. Was he justified with the actions he took? No contest YES, in MA he may have a problem with the rounds hitting his neighbors houses, if they are from his gun. If it was from the trespassers than I think he would be fine. But then again this is MA and the guys who were breaking the law, they had rights too, and should not of had to endure the emotional stress the victim caused to them. He would be found guilty by some left leaning liberal judge/jury, of causing undue stress and attempted murder, serve 2 years, on probation for life , would need to attend anger managment classes for the next decade ,have his firearms taken, and would have to sell everything to settle the civil lawsuit. If I have missed anything, please chime in.

No, I don't think you missed anything. That pretty well sums up our socalist state.

 

[jhblaze1]

I agree, it's possible that everything's on the up and up, but for the average home I think it's a little far fetched.

I don't know. From what I read on this forum, it seems a lot of our members are just that prepared. That in mind, I don't think the homeowner's preparedness is far fetched for the average NES'er.

Maybe the guy was in his garage working and heard the car pull in and he had his side arm on his belt like the rest of us would. maybe that's why he's so well prepared.

I'm sure there are members here with a camera on the door. I know I will have one on my front door when I buy a house.

Could the homeowner be into some shady business? Sure who knows. But, maybe these boneheads were driving around looking for someone to rob and saw some cracker in his garage and thought to themselves "we got mad guns yo, let's go twist that mothaf***a's cap back, nukka" to which the rest of the young men in the car replied "word". Could be that simple.

Could be that the home owner who, mind you, lives in a bad area had been robbed before and is now super prepared in general. Maybe he's got 200 Kilos of Columbian under his floorboards and that's what the youths were after.

There's no possible way to determine from that video alone if he was justified. If we assume he was a good upstanding citizen, then ya it looks like he was justified. If we don't make that assumption there's no telling.

 

[Climbnsink]

I'm with the 'homeowner was a little too prepared to be honest camp' maybe, maybe not it's not possible to get a conclusive answer from the video. It would certainly take me longer than that to get up from northeastshooters.com and start firing my M2 out of the garage. Maybe I'm just slow.

 

[Raoul Duke]

I don't know. From what I read on this forum, it seems a lot of our members are just that prepared. That in mind, I don't think the homeowner's preparedness is far fetched for the average NES'er.

Maybe the guy was in his garage working and heard the car pull in and he had his side arm on his belt like the rest of us would. maybe that's why he's so well prepared.

I'm sure there are members here with a camera on the door. I know I will have one on my front door when I buy a house.

Could the homeowner be into some shady business? Sure who knows. But, maybe these boneheads were driving around looking for someone to rob and saw some cracker in his garage and thought to themselves "we got mad guns yo, let's go twist that mothaf***a's cap back, nukka" to which the rest of the young men in the car replied "word". Could be that simple.

Could be that the home owner who, mind you, lives in a bad area had been robbed before and is now super prepared in general. Maybe he's got 200 Kilos of Columbian under his floorboards and that's what the youths were after.

There's no possible way to determine from that video alone if he was justified. If we assume he was a good upstanding citizen, then ya it looks like he was justified. If we don't make that assumption there's no telling.

Are you SURE he said "word?" He mighta said, "yo" and that would change everything.

 

[jhblaze1]

Are you SURE he said "word?" He mighta said, "yo" and that would change everything.

it was either "word", "yo", or "holla". That I am sure of.

Definately wasn't "fo-shizzle my nizzle"

 

[45collector]

it was either "word", "yo", or "holla". That I am sure of.

Definately wasn't "fo-shizzle my nizzle"

 

[ryan81986]

I have cameras on my house, and I'm not doing anything shady.

 

[dnthmn2004]

I believe since the "youts" would pose an immediate threat to the public, the guy should be justified in shooting to stop. I know its works like that for LEOs, not so sure about citizens.

My Cousin Vinny is on BTW. TNT

 

[Roastie]

Should of used a shotgun.

Shady dealings or not, they aren't running onto his property to say hello, and with four of them with those weapons I'd say they weren't looking to just rob him.

They get back into the car, which might I add doesn't strike me as a car someone that would need or want to rob someone drives, and still have the firearms and he doesn't know if they are backing up or going forward. Note the fact the two shots are lined up with the driver, hence, attempting to disable the vehicle from possibly driving into the man who is pinned in his garage.

Self defense and reasonable.