NE - Property Owner Shoots Copper Thief

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
15,853
Likes
2,559
Location
Here and There
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.

You're pathetically uninformed. Know the law.

Property=money=time=life
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
261
Likes
41
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.

All the yahoo talk aside, given that THIS ^^^ is reality, how much simpler would this guys life be if he just called the cops. I know, I know, the homeowner has rights, blah blah blah, I agree with all of that. But common, in this particular situation just call the cops when you arrive at the rental and notice something isn't right, then sleep well in your own bed that night with your firearm and LTC nearby for when you really need it.
 

Boston_Shooter

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
8,738
Likes
3,170
Location
North of Boston
If I pulled up to my investment property at 2:30am and saw something was fishy I'd call the the cops. I wouldn't think "HEY! I'M AN AMERICAN! I HAVE A GUN! I HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO IN THERE AND PUT MYSELF IN A POSITION TO DEFEND MY LIFE AND PROPERTY!!!" ... That's just me. Perhaps I'm a chump. If he pulled up, didn't notice anything and realized what was going on AFTER he was in there, that's a little different. If someone breaks into my home while I'm there, that's also a little different. Regardless of how it went down...as EddieCoyle said "Keep you're mouth shut".
 

Bill Nance

Banned
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
4,091
Likes
846
Location
God's Country, WA
You're pathetically uninformed. Know the law.

Property=money=time=life

I'm very well acquainted with it. AFAIK TX is the only state that allows you to use deadly force to protect property. There may be a couple more but not many. The guy shot an unarmed assailant and then making an already very bad situation even worse he talked to the cops afterward. This was not an invasion of an occupied dwelling. The owner sought out the BG when he saw something amiss with the vacant rental property.

WA has very, very good laws on self-defense it's not Mass. And you can use force to protect property, just not deadly force. And NE's laws are actually less favorable to self-defense than Washington's.

"2006 Nebraska Code - § 28-1409 — Use of force in self-protection.

...(4) The use of deadly force shall not be justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, nor is it justifiable if:

(a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(i) The actor shall not be obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be..."

And he left a live witness who you can be certain, will contradict any testimony the shooter gives. This was very bad judgment, the shooting very questionable. That this clown is talking to the press is even more stupid.
 
J

Jose

The basics of deadly force law are similar in most states. And this didn't happen in Texas.

That is correct.

What is also correct, and where you fail by applying MA logic, is that in more and more states your are automatically presumed to be justified in applying deadly force to remove an intruder from your home.

No longer is the "reasonable belief" that the intruder is about to cause death or severe injury to an occupant necessary to trigger lawful deadly force.

To wit:

Ohio Revised Code Sec 2925.05 (B)(1) Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, a person is presumed to have acted in self defense or defense of another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force.
 

Bill Nance

Banned
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
4,091
Likes
846
Location
God's Country, WA
Which is the entire point Jose, this wasn't a residential burglary. It was a burglary of an UNOCCUPIED vacant rental property.

The property owner went in and shot the guy. I'm not, and I don't think M1911 is, saying that if you're in your home and a BG comes in at 3am you have the same standard of proof of danger as in this case. Hell, in WA if the guy comes in and you're home, you're almost automatically golden to shoot him.

He went into his rental property at 2:30am because he saw something suspicious (rather than calling the cops and waiting) and then shoots an unarmed guy twice, once after he'd shot him in the leg and he was on his knees (which this clown was stupid enough to admit to) and is now shooting his mouth off to the press.

The guy was in the process of stealing copper. That is not AT ALL the same as waking up to a BG in your home. Like I said, this guy will be very lucky if he's not charged with a crime. And even luckier if he doesn't face a civil suit, which he will probably lose.

And FWIW in NE you have a duty to retreat unless it's your residence or business.
 

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,935
Likes
8,500
Location
Near Framingham
What is also correct, and where you fail by applying MA logic, is that in more and more states your are automatically presumed to be justified in applying deadly force to remove an intruder from your home.

No longer is the "reasonable belief" that the intruder is about to cause death or severe injury to an occupant necessary to trigger lawful deadly force.

Some states have a enacted such a "make my day" law. Most have not.
 
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
7,311
Likes
561
Location
Ma.
A little OT and nothing to do with Texas but given the conversation ...

I'm in MA - so I'll put a "threat checklist" under my .45 and ask the BG to fill it out and hand it back, just in case while my family sleeps nearby.

1) are you a murderer?
2) are you a rapist?
3) why are you in my house at 3AM?
4) what are your intentions and can I trust you to not try and take advantage of the situation before the police arrive?

I mean, I'm not a psychic or anything so...?
 
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
7,311
Likes
561
Location
Ma.
You're not required to be a mind reader but you are required to properly assess the situation using your eyes, ears and brain. No one disputes that a home invasion is almost always made by a BG posessing or willing to use deadly force including your weapon or some object in your house. However, if you confront your daughter's ex-boyfriend who comes into your house drunk and crying and he slumps to the floor in great anxiety when you tell him to stop in his tracks and you perceive that he is not confronting you with deadly force you do not get to shoot him. You keep him at bay and dial 911.

I think some do dispute the home invasion thing, was my point. The line in other states is gong one way and the line seems like it's going the opposite way in MA, at least by some posts. I'm not suggesting you shut off your brain or shoot crying teenagers, don't worry.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
206
Likes
56
Location
Maine
I thought that the Castle Law that was passed an many states allowed you to shoot anyone found in your home. In my home state if you find them in your home and fear for your safety you can shoot and not be charged after the police check your story. Sure there will be an investigation but if all seems as noted that the perp was there for the purpose of stealing and lunged at you, so be it, waste them. Good riddance!
 
J

Jose

Please note that merely creates a presumption which is rebuttable depending on the circumstances. It's a very valuable presumption but is not a blanket justification for the use of deadly force. There certainly could be situations where someone breaks into your home and you would not be justified in shooting them ... how about a neighborhood girl running for safety from a zombie and out of desperation she burts through your unlocked front door. You see her, she's scared and crying, your confused ... do you think the Ohio law is going to automatically justify you shooting her. People on here need to use their brains more and rachet back the macho crap.
Please don't try to use ridiculous examples to try to find holes in a good law......

To answer your valid question, the same law requires the prosecution to rebutt the presumption using the perponderance of evidence standard.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
4,718
Likes
536
I'm in MA - so I'll put a "threat checklist" under my .45 and ask the BG to fill it out and hand it back, just in case while my family sleeps nearby...

Make sure you use the State approved form...

MASSASS.jpg
 
Last edited:

EddieCoyle

Consigliere
Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
154   0   0
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
21,260
Likes
9,185
Location
Northern, MA
Let me ask all of you this....

If you were on your property, and someone that broke in came at you in a dark basement, would you clean him out?
 

Bill Nance

Banned
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
4,091
Likes
846
Location
God's Country, WA
Let me ask all of you this....

If you were on your property, and someone that broke in came at you in a dark basement, would you clean him out?

If I'm inspecting a vacant rental property at 2:30am and see an open door I'm not going in. I'm calling the cops and trying to make sure the BG is still there when the cops come. That's exactly what this guy should have done. Absent that he sure as hell should have kept his mouth shut.
 

EddieCoyle

Consigliere
Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
154   0   0
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
21,260
Likes
9,185
Location
Northern, MA
If I'm inspecting a vacant rental property at 2:30am and see an open door I'm not going in. I'm calling the cops and trying to make sure the BG is still there when the cops come. That's exactly what this guy should have done. Absent that he sure as hell should have kept his mouth shut.

Maybe so, but he's not going to be tried for what he should've done leading up to the situation, just on the exact moment of the shooting.

You really think a jury is going to say, "Well sir, your assumption that your life was threatened is reasonable, but you shouldn't have gone in there"? He had every right to be there any time he wanted.
 

jar

Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
6,370
Likes
699
Location
Needham, MA
Maybe so, but he's not going to be tried for what he should've done leading up to the situation, just on the exact moment of the shooting.

You really think a jury is going to say, "Well sir, your assumption that your life was threatened is reasonable, but you shouldn't have gone in there"? He had every right to be there any time he wanted.

The problem with these situations is there are so many perspectives to answer from, mainly: legality, morality, and prudence. Was it moral to go in and shoot this guy, I think so for the same reasons Martlet so concisely stated. (Property=money=time=life). Was it legal, maybe, maybe not. Was it prudent, hell no.
 

Bill Nance

Banned
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
4,091
Likes
846
Location
God's Country, WA
1. He has a duty to retreat in NE.
2. ALL the facts that lead up to a shooting are fair game. If you don't believe that ask any criminal attorney on this board. It's all material to the case.

The prosecutor can establish that he went in after the BG rather than calling the cops, that AFTER he established there was someone in there he continued to search the guy out and then he shot the unarmed guy while he was on his knees after he'd already shot him once.

The duty to retreat thing alone can hang him. The second shot and the "come out come out wherever you are," statement can easily establish the intent to "punish" the BG in a jury's mind. the fact that he shot him in the leg rather than what his police training was (center of mass) could make it even worse, not necessarily better.

In Mass. the guy would hang for certain. In Yakima County WA he'd be golden simply because he has no duty to retreat and any half-way feasible story about defense form a felon means no jury will convict you. (Law or no law and the DA knows it).

We'll see what happens to this guy. Maybe he'll get lucky and Omaha is a jurisdiction like this one where a jury won't convict regardless of the law. He'd better hope so.
 
Top Bottom