NE - Property Owner Shoots Copper Thief

Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
4,718
Likes
542
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Wes Hall was checking on one his rental properties at 2:30 Tuesday morning. As he's moving from room to room he yells "I'm the homeowner. I have a gun. Come out, come out, where ever you are. I'm looking for you."

As he looking around the basement, Hall spots a man. "I walked around and there he was standing behind a door hiding. I said 'Freeze. Don't move. I'm the homeowner. I have a gun. Do not move' and then he lurched in at me."

Hall says that's when his instincts just kicked in.

>snip<

Hall says he was just doing what he's been trained to do. He's a taekwando instructor, a former Marine, and a former police officer.

"I thought 'I'll just detain him for the police,'" says Hall. "But in that split second where he decided to lurch forward, he changed all that."

Hall was cited for an unregistered firearm.

http://www.action3news.com/story/14477628/homeowner-catches-copper-thief-in-the-act-and-shoots



Hall, 52, was ticketed on suspicion of having an unregistered handgun and was released from police custody after about three hours of questioning.

>snip<

Omaha City Prosecutor Marty Conboy, who had not yet seen the reports relating to the shooting, said typically a homeowner must establish that there is a legitimate fear for a person's safety to justify a shooting.

“There is an old misconception that you can shoot someone once they are in your house,” Conboy said.

“If they've broken in, you have the right to protect your property, but to use deadly force you have to establish you are in fear for your life or the life of others. . . you can't legally shoot a thief just for being a thief.”

>snip<

Hall said he was not aware that he had to register his gun in Omaha. He said he registered it in California when he bought it 20 years ago while working security for Hughes Aircraft, and he thought that was sufficient.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110419/NEWS97/704199885/1013
 
And the homeowner was a dipshit and the prosecutor is absolutely correct.

You do NOT , repeat NOT have the right to use deadly force in defense of property. Not in almost any state in the country and never have had. This is a case of a dipshit homeowner who shot a guy for stealing PROPERTY and was stupid enough to admit to the cops that there was no serious threat present. He's fu**ed and if the only penalties he faces are civil, he's lucky.

Folks, lets get this straight. Unless you are in reasonable ARTICULABLE fear of grave injury or death you ARE NOT covered under most state's self-defense statutes. That means you can't just shoot someone for prowling your car etc. If you FU** up and cross this line, you are liable for legit prosecution. If you don't like that, change the law. But don't blame the prosecutor for going after a felony attempted murder, which this case certainly is.

DON'T f***ing shoot someone over copper. It won't end well for you.
/end rant after stupid person provocation.
 
So it was an empty rental property at 2:30 AM with an intruder somewhere in the house... In hindsight, that's perfect for walking back out the door and calling the cops. At worst, insurance would probably cover the pipes right?

As he is a Taekwondo instructor, i'm not impressed with those skills.
 
How many times have police shot someone "lurching" toward them, when they have issued the command "Don't Move!"?
Hear me out...
Hall is absolutely justified to do what he did, so long as the story happened as it was told. I don't know martial arts, MMA, Krav, or any other SD techniques. I DON'T EVEN OWN A WHISTLE! In my eyes, someone who is willing to come at a guy my size (6'2" 240) prolly knows a little more about this hand-to-hand stuff than I do. I would perceive such movement as a direct-threat: NOT because I have an urge to use my sidearm, but and urge to stay alive!
 
And the homeowner was a dipshit and the prosecutor is absolutely correct.

You do NOT , repeat NOT have the right to use deadly force in defense of property. Not in almost any state in the country and never have had. This is a case of a dipshit homeowner who shot a guy for stealing PROPERTY and was stupid enough to admit to the cops that there was no serious threat present. He's fu**ed and if the only penalties he faces are civil, he's lucky.

Folks, lets get this straight. Unless you are in reasonable ARTICULABLE fear of grave injury or death you ARE NOT covered under most state's self-defense statutes. That means you can't just shoot someone for prowling your car etc. If you FU** up and cross this line, you are liable for legit prosecution. If you don't like that, change the law. But don't blame the prosecutor for going after a felony attempted murder, which this case certainly is.

DON'T f***ing shoot someone over copper. It won't end well for you.
/end rant after stupid person provocation.

In Texas you have the right to defend life and property.
 
Once again, Do not talk to the cops! Maybe after a consultation with a qualified attorney the homeowner would have remembered that he was surprised by the intruder, ordered him to stop advancing and had to shoot because he was in fear for his life.
 
And the homeowner was a dipshit and the prosecutor is absolutely correct.

You do NOT , repeat NOT have the right to use deadly force in defense of property. Not in almost any state in the country and never have had. This is a case of a dipshit homeowner who shot a guy for stealing PROPERTY and was stupid enough to admit to the cops that there was no serious threat present. He's fu**ed and if the only penalties he faces are civil, he's lucky.

Folks, lets get this straight. Unless you are in reasonable ARTICULABLE fear of grave injury or death you ARE NOT covered under most state's self-defense statutes. That means you can't just shoot someone for prowling your car etc. If you FU** up and cross this line, you are liable for legit prosecution. If you don't like that, change the law. But don't blame the prosecutor for going after a felony attempted murder, which this case certainly is.

DON'T f***ing shoot someone over copper. It won't end well for you.
/end rant after stupid person provocation.

Are you serious? He wasn't defending his property, he was defending himself. If someone is in a home stealing copper, wouldn't you assume he is armed with either the tools he's using to extract the pipe or the pipe itself?
 
And the homeowner was a dipshit and the prosecutor is absolutely correct.

You do NOT , repeat NOT have the right to use deadly force in defense of property. Not in almost any state in the country and never have had. This is a case of a dipshit homeowner who shot a guy for stealing PROPERTY and was stupid enough to admit to the cops that there was no serious threat present. He's fu**ed and if the only penalties he faces are civil, he's lucky.

Folks, lets get this straight. Unless you are in reasonable ARTICULABLE fear of grave injury or death you ARE NOT covered under most state's self-defense statutes. That means you can't just shoot someone for prowling your car etc. If you FU** up and cross this line, you are liable for legit prosecution. If you don't like that, change the law. But don't blame the prosecutor for going after a felony attempted murder, which this case certainly is.

DON'T f***ing shoot someone over copper. It won't end well for you.
/end rant after stupid person provocation.

Regardless of what some piece of paper says, more thieves need to get shot.
 
If you have a gun on someone, and they come towards you, they are going for your gun. (I think this was Ayoob's argument)
If he had shot the guy under no danger, that would be different, but the guy was going for the home owner's gun. I agree with him drawing his gun, because he has no idea who the person is, or what they are armed with, the tides turned when he charged. The key will be if the courts see it that way.
 
And the homeowner was a dipshit and the prosecutor is absolutely correct.

You do NOT , repeat NOT have the right to use deadly force in defense of property. Not in almost any state in the country and never have had. This is a case of a dipshit homeowner who shot a guy for stealing PROPERTY and was stupid enough to admit to the cops that there was no serious threat present. He's fu**ed and if the only penalties he faces are civil, he's lucky.

Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Delaware Constitution Article I, Section 20

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

Mississippi Constitution Article III, Section 12

The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

Missouri Constitution Article I, Section 23

That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

Montana Constitution Article II, Section 12

The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

Nebraska Constitution Article I, Section 1

All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

New Hampshire Constitution Part First, Article 2-a

All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

North Dakota Constitution Article I, Section 1

All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

Oklahoma Constitution Article II, Section 26

The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

Utah Constitution Article I, Section 6

The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

West Virginia Constitution Article III, Section 22

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.
.
 
Delaware Constitution Article I, Section 20

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.
If you think that the laws in Delaware allow you to use deadly force to protect your property, you are sadly mistaken. The use of deadly force to protect property in Delaware is quite limited, as is undoubtedly true of the other states you quoted.

Use of deadly force to protect property is justifiable only if the defendant believes that (i) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess the defendant of his or her dwelling otherwise then under a claim of right, or (ii) the person against whom the deadly force is used is attempting to commit arson, burglary, robbery or felonious theft or property destruction and either (a) had employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the defendant, or (b) under the circumstances existing at the time, the defendant believed that the use of non-deadly force would expose the defendant or another person present to the reasonable likelihood of serious physical injury

http://www.delawgroup.com/dth/?page_id=155
 
Based upon the quote you posted, if it is justifiable based on what the defendant believes, how could you possibly convict someone for using deadly force to protect property?
 
I can't believe anyone that says the homeowner wasn't in the right. If someone breaks into my house, it is reasonable to assume he intends to do me harm. If he does anything except comply completely, particularly if he makes a movement towards me or into his pockets, I would not be able to guarantee his safety.
 
Based upon the quote you posted, if it is justifiable based on what the defendant believes, how could you possibly convict someone for using deadly force to protect property?
Please take LFI-1 from Mas Ayoob. Seriously.

In general, deadly force is only legally justified when you, or another innocent, are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. The court will use the "reasonable man" construct -- would a reasonable man, knowing what you knew at the time, believe himself to be in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury? Can you articulate why you felt yourself in such grave danger that you had to shoot now, and does the evidence support your story? "He lurched at me" is rather thin.

The forensic evidence will provide a great deal of information, including your relative position with respect to the perpetrator.

If an unarmed perpetrator is found face down, near the front door, with a TV set on the ground next to him and bullet wounds in the back, you're going to have a real hard time successfully claiming self defense.
 
Last edited:
Please take LFI-1 from Mas Ayoob. Seriously.

In general, deadly force is only legally justified when you, or another innocent, are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. The court will use the "reasonable man" construct -- would a reasonable man, knowing what you knew at the time, believe himself to be in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury? Can you articulate why you felt yourself in such grave danger that you had to shoot now, and does the evidence support your story? "He lurched at me" is rather thin.

The forensic evidence will provide a great deal of information, including your relative position with respect to the perpetrator.

If an unarmed perpetrator is found face down, near the front door, with a TV set on the ground next to him and bullet wounds in the back, you're going to have a real hard time successfully claiming self defense.

If someone breaks into my house and I tell them to freeze, that I am the homeowner and that I have a gun, and they STILL come after me... you're going to tell me that I'm not justified in shooting?
 
If someone breaks into my house and I tell them to freeze, that I am the homeowner and that I have a gun, and they STILL come after me... you're going to tell me that I'm not justified in shooting?

Pointing a gun at someone is deadly force by itself, in legal terms. Have fun articulating the threat at that point.

The biggest mistake this guy made here was likely running his mouth to the cops without counsel present. If he had limited his statements, or not said anything, he probably would be a lot better off right now.

-Mike
 
Chief, read what I wrote. Read it again.

[tribal chant]hey-howareya-hey-howareya [/tribal chant.]

What exactly am I missing here? I understand that your TV burglar scenario would not hold up well in court, but with regards to the OP, I think that after telling the man in his house that he was the homeowner and had a gun, the 'lurching' would be justifiable enough to shoot. IMO
 
What exactly am I missing here? I understand that your TV burglar scenario would not hold up well in court, but with regards to the OP, I think that after telling the man in his house that he was the homeowner and had a gun, the 'lurching' would be justifiable enough to shoot. IMO
"He lurched at me."

How close was he? Was he still on his knees? Was he armed? Did he move towards you or to his left, directly towards the front door? Was he within arms length of you and had his hands out reaching for your gun, or was he just trying to run away? Why were you pointing your gun at him in the first place? There are a million questions that the authorities will ask, at their leisure, about a confrontation that occurred in just seconds.

Several years ago, a woman in Waltham shot an unarmed man who broke into her home, and moved towards her after she pointed her gun at him and told him to stop. She did not get charged, but her LTC was suspended, and it took over a year and countless thousands of dollars in legal fees before her case was resolved. And she had the benefit of force disparity -- a large man versus a much smaller woman.

A good lawyer may keep you from trial. Or maybe not. And if it goes to trial, expect to spend $100,000 defending yourself. Maybe you'll win. Maybe you won't. The outcome will be dependent upon the specifics of the situation (and a good bit of luck).
 
"He lurched at me."

How close was he? Was he still on his knees? Was he armed? Did he move towards you or to his left, directly towards the front door? Was he within arms length of you and had his hands out reaching for your gun, or was he just trying to run away? Why were you pointing your gun at him in the first place? There are a million questions that the authorities will ask, at their leisure, about a confrontation that occurred in just seconds.

Several years ago, a woman in Waltham shot an unarmed man who broke into her home, and moved towards her after she pointed her gun at him and told him to stop. She did not get charged, but her LTC was suspended, and it took over a year and countless thousands of dollars in legal fees before her case was resolved. And she had the benefit of force disparity -- a large man versus a much smaller woman.

A good lawyer may keep you from trial. Or maybe not. And if it goes to trial, expect to spend $100,000 defending yourself. Maybe you'll win. Maybe you won't. The outcome will be dependent upon the specifics of the situation (and a good bit of luck).

Seems like a frustrating process, having to defend your use of self-defense.
 
Seems like a frustrating process, having to defend your use of self-defense.

Expect to be arrested. Expect your criminal defense attorney to require a ten thousand dollar retainer just to get started. If it goes to trial, expect to spend $100,000 defending yourself (and to have lost your job and home in the process). If you are convicted of murder here in MA, you get life without parole.

A lot of words come to my mind, but frustrating isn't one of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom