-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Drunk Man Shot Breaking Into House He Thinks Is His
- Thread starter BenDover
- Start date
Actions have consequences! This is a typical example why one should stop drinking when the buzz starts. The homeowner should not be charged with any crime.
When we Americans wake up and realize that we cannot blame everything on others is the day we start the recoverey of this once great nation.
When we Americans wake up and realize that we cannot blame everything on others is the day we start the recoverey of this once great nation.
Big Daddy 45acp
Instructor
Similar situation happened to my parents in WV a few years back. Dad scared the guy off at gun point. The guy came back and tried to kick in another door. It took the Deputy a while to get to the house (Rural Route with no E-911, Mom had to give directions over the phone).
End result one drunk/meth addict in custody and a recommendation by the cop to shoot the bastard if it happens again. The cop even went as far to tell my Dad just to shoot, shovel and shut up!
They were tired of locking this guy up for the same thing over and over.
End result one drunk/meth addict in custody and a recommendation by the cop to shoot the bastard if it happens again. The cop even went as far to tell my Dad just to shoot, shovel and shut up!
They were tired of locking this guy up for the same thing over and over.
Thats it im moving to WV.....
In MA they would have told him that they should have invited him in and try to do an intervention. Because after all he had a trouble childhood which drove him to drug addiction. Furthermore, shame on you homeowner for having a "weapon of mass destruction" in which you could perpetrate such harm upon a misunderstood human of society. I'm writing you a ticket for a false alarm and Ill need to see your tax returns from the last 10 yrs to make sure your current. Have a nice evening minion!
More info here:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11333142
and here:
http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/36820989.html
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11333142
and here:
http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/36820989.html
Of course they would. Here in Mass we pride ourselves on treating criminals better than we treat our working class law abiding citizens.
J
Jose
If the account on yahoo news is correct in that the shots were fired subsequent to the deceased breaking a window (or door window pane) in order to gain entry, I predict that the DA will not file, or that if he does the Grand Jury will no bill. Particularly in light of the fact that the homeowners called the police to report what looked to them like a break in in progress.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
This one's not going to make me terribly popular but here goes. BTW: This is based solely on the three articles above so if more info comes out, then so be it but I am using what I have now.
The guy should not have pulled the trigger. I am not suggesting that he should have known the kid was drunk, etc, nor that he should have not deemed the kid a credible threat, but there are two things here that bother me. One, based on the articles posted above, the law clearly states the intruder had to cross the threshold into the home. He had not. So he may have legal issues there. But beyond the legal issues, because he did not enter the house, he was not an imminent threat.
It looks like here the homeowner either went outside, opened the door or he shot through a window to fire on the kid. None of those are smart things to do DEFENSIVELY. Those are offensive in nature or just stupid in the case of shooting through a window (when no shots are coming the other direction of course). All he had to do is wait there for the kid to actually gain some level of entry into the house. Gaining entry into a locked house is not easy (relative to walking through an open door) assuming these were more modern suburban tract homes. Tactically waiting served no disadvantage since the homeowner had the upper hand the whole way. The kid was clearly not picking the lock so he was going to be forced to climb through a window or have to bust down a deadbolt secured door, or in some other way breach the house violently. In either case, there is no stealth to his entry and the homeowner only had to lay in wait for the guy to come through and the credible threat would then become an imminent threat.
In fact, opening the door in a situation like this is probably the dumbest thing one can do. If there are two BGs out there, one may be creating a diversion to get you to open the door for BG #2 to take you out. News Shooter posted a story recently where something similar happened where one guy tried to create a diversion on one side of the house and then came around to the other claiming he was there to protect the woman from the first guy. She was smart enough not to fall for it.
Anyway, flame me all you want, I laid out my case. The threat was credible but not yet imminent. The four walls of ones home provide some level of protection and a tactical advantage that the homeowner should have taken better advantage of here. The fact that this guy had enough time to hear the kid downstairs/outside in winter with all of the windows shut, call the cops, grab a gun, go downstairs and then open up the door to go outside and shoot the kid backs up my point that the kid was having a bear of a time entering the house.
If something comes out after this, then so be it, but from what we have here, this is my opinion.
The guy should not have pulled the trigger. I am not suggesting that he should have known the kid was drunk, etc, nor that he should have not deemed the kid a credible threat, but there are two things here that bother me. One, based on the articles posted above, the law clearly states the intruder had to cross the threshold into the home. He had not. So he may have legal issues there. But beyond the legal issues, because he did not enter the house, he was not an imminent threat.
It looks like here the homeowner either went outside, opened the door or he shot through a window to fire on the kid. None of those are smart things to do DEFENSIVELY. Those are offensive in nature or just stupid in the case of shooting through a window (when no shots are coming the other direction of course). All he had to do is wait there for the kid to actually gain some level of entry into the house. Gaining entry into a locked house is not easy (relative to walking through an open door) assuming these were more modern suburban tract homes. Tactically waiting served no disadvantage since the homeowner had the upper hand the whole way. The kid was clearly not picking the lock so he was going to be forced to climb through a window or have to bust down a deadbolt secured door, or in some other way breach the house violently. In either case, there is no stealth to his entry and the homeowner only had to lay in wait for the guy to come through and the credible threat would then become an imminent threat.
In fact, opening the door in a situation like this is probably the dumbest thing one can do. If there are two BGs out there, one may be creating a diversion to get you to open the door for BG #2 to take you out. News Shooter posted a story recently where something similar happened where one guy tried to create a diversion on one side of the house and then came around to the other claiming he was there to protect the woman from the first guy. She was smart enough not to fall for it.
Anyway, flame me all you want, I laid out my case. The threat was credible but not yet imminent. The four walls of ones home provide some level of protection and a tactical advantage that the homeowner should have taken better advantage of here. The fact that this guy had enough time to hear the kid downstairs/outside in winter with all of the windows shut, call the cops, grab a gun, go downstairs and then open up the door to go outside and shoot the kid backs up my point that the kid was having a bear of a time entering the house.
If something comes out after this, then so be it, but from what we have here, this is my opinion.
J
Jose
terraformer, can you point out to me the specific part of any news account that leads you to the conclusion that the homeowner either opened the door to shoot or shot through a window? I can't see that anywhere.
In my book, breaking a window IS gaining entry. The barrier has been breached and it's go time.
In my book, breaking a window IS gaining entry. The barrier has been breached and it's go time.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Well can you tell me the physics of how a bullet ended up in the deceased by not passing through either an open door (the news article said the drunk kid hadn't gained entry to the house), a window or a wall. Are you suggesting shooting through a wall is better than shooting through a window?
I read all three stories.
In NONE of them did I find sufficient information to make an opinion in either direction. One states that the deceased was "pounding" on the door. I didn't see anything to indicate that any glass was broken.
One article claims that the deceased had driven to the house, which indicates (to me at least) that either he wasn't as drunk as claimed, or he was OUI - hardly the choirboy he's made out to be.
Also, it's telling that the only people "interviewed" are the friends and family of the deceased.
Still not enough information - there are simply too many variables.
Sure, the deceased may not have actually entered the dwelling, but if he's pounding on the back door screaming "Let me in or I'm going to kill you", how can you blame the homeowner? If someone's pounding on my door, trying like hell to get in my house, all the while screaming that they're going to kill me, my only question is going to be which caliber to use...
In NONE of them did I find sufficient information to make an opinion in either direction. One states that the deceased was "pounding" on the door. I didn't see anything to indicate that any glass was broken.
One article claims that the deceased had driven to the house, which indicates (to me at least) that either he wasn't as drunk as claimed, or he was OUI - hardly the choirboy he's made out to be.
Also, it's telling that the only people "interviewed" are the friends and family of the deceased.
Still not enough information - there are simply too many variables.
Sure, the deceased may not have actually entered the dwelling, but if he's pounding on the back door screaming "Let me in or I'm going to kill you", how can you blame the homeowner? If someone's pounding on my door, trying like hell to get in my house, all the while screaming that they're going to kill me, my only question is going to be which caliber to use...
J
Jose
How about the bullet passing through where window glass USED to be after being broken by the deceased?
From the Yahoo news article:
J
Jose
Look again. The statement is there, and to me it is a critical part of the puzzle.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
One could easily surmise that the window breaking was what woke them up as well, it is not clear. But by window, I did not mean shooting through glass was inadvisable (although it tends to be, especially if it is angled >|< 90 deg from the bullet's trajectory), only that shooting through a window (meaning the opening) was inadvisable. From what the PD said, he did not try and gain entry through the window (as far as anyone knew), otherwise the crossed threshold requirement would have been met and folks involved clearly think that it wasn't met here. So it is a stretch to think he was shot crawling through the window.
Well there goes my "reading for comprehension" gold star...
Thanks Jose.
IMHO, this pushes it further into the "stupid'll get you killed" camp.
(As opposed to the "Dirty Harry looking to blow some punk away" camp the media would like it to be in...)
J
Jose
So what? What's the difference between busting a window to crawl in through it and busting it to reach the inside lock on the doorknob/deadbolt?
He breached the barrier to a home to enter illegally. Depending on the rest of the circumstances this will very well be what lets the homeowner walk scot free with both criminal and civil liability immunity. As it should be.
ETA: I've said this before and I will say this again. The Massachussetts filter must be removed when examining or predicting the outcome of shootings like this in other states.
When comparing Colorado and Massachussetts, you have to remember that the firearm and self-defense laws are substantially different. The culture is DRAMATICALLY different, even comparing liberal Denver to liberal Boston. There's not the same kind of liberal going on. Add to all that the fact that this happened in Colorado Springs, one of the most socially and politically conservative cities on the Front Range, and I can guarantee you that any analysis using MA standards and expectations about what will happen will probably fail.
Last edited by a moderator:
gaaa
JOSE: you hit it on the head when comparing states.my state SC has a castle law,you may defend yourself including leathal any where you are legaly entiteled to be. 1,800,000 gun owners and they cant get it right.how many voted for Obama??.my state did not but the 63% black in my county did.god help them if he screws up.![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
JOSE: you hit it on the head when comparing states.my state SC has a castle law,you may defend yourself including leathal any where you are legaly entiteled to be. 1,800,000 gun owners and they cant get it right.how many voted for Obama??.my state did not but the 63% black in my county did.god help them if he screws up.
Update, charges will NOT be filed. This is the way it should be.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,484267,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,484267,00.html
Bill Nance
Banned
I feel very sorry for the homeowners. They have to live the rest of their lives knowing they killed someone who probably wasn't any threat, legal or not.
They clearly had the right to do what they did, and since we don't know the exact details, they may very well have been scared out of their wits and felt they had no other reasonable option. But that would be small comfort to me. I hope someone talks to them about post-incident counseling. It's mandatory for a lot of first responders and cops and with good reason.
They clearly had the right to do what they did, and since we don't know the exact details, they may very well have been scared out of their wits and felt they had no other reasonable option. But that would be small comfort to me. I hope someone talks to them about post-incident counseling. It's mandatory for a lot of first responders and cops and with good reason.
I was speaking with someone last fall and the story he told was very similar...
Late at night, family in bed and he hears a loud noise down stairs and then someone other than his wife/kids yelling. Arms himself with a shotgun and proceeds to the hallway where he finds a very intoxicated neighbor, climbing the stairs, who thinks he is in his own house. Luckily, he recognized the neighbor in the dark hallway and wasn't quick on the trigger.
I guess what we learned here is that if your drunk and your key doesn't turn the lock, you should step back and verify it is YOUR house before you break in...
Late at night, family in bed and he hears a loud noise down stairs and then someone other than his wife/kids yelling. Arms himself with a shotgun and proceeds to the hallway where he finds a very intoxicated neighbor, climbing the stairs, who thinks he is in his own house. Luckily, he recognized the neighbor in the dark hallway and wasn't quick on the trigger.
I guess what we learned here is that if your drunk and your key doesn't turn the lock, you should step back and verify it is YOUR house before you break in...
+1 I am glad they don't have to deal with any charges.
Similar threads
