NE - Property Owner Shoots Copper Thief

[StevieP]

I'd have shot the intruder, and put a piece of pipe (or other 'weapon') in his hand before the police or EMTs arrived.

Sumbitch was gonna whack me with it! I had to shoot him!

done deal.

 

[M1911]

I'd have shot the intruder, and put a piece of pipe (or other 'weapon') in his hand before the police or EMTs arrived.

Sumbitch was gonna whack me with it! I had to shoot him!

done deal.

And when the forensic examiner finds blood spatter on his hands, but not the pipe, then you're in deep crap.

Tampering with evidence is a felony, and if the police figure out you have tampered with evidence, they will not believe a word you have said.

And do you really think that you'll be able to think and plan clearly in the middle of the largest adrenalin dump you've ever had? I've had adrenalin dumps twice in the past. You don't think clearly with that much adrenalin, and planning a felony in that state is generally ill-advised.

 

[economist]

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.

+1

 

[digitaldon37]

Make sure you use the State approved form...

Am I required to get this notarized? Because that might take longer and make this inconvenient to my safety and well being. Did you leave off the optional 5 page essay which upon review by the State Police, may or may not earn you an additional (1) point so that you can exercise the 3rd option?

 

[drgrant]

1. He has a duty to retreat in NE. .

I don't know NE law but it may have a modifier on it- eg, "retreat if it is safe to do so". An example would be if a thug accosts you unarmed and asks for all your money with nothing more than a few words and a dirty look. You try to walk away from the thug. He then produces a gun/knife. Now it's 100 times easier to argue that it is no longer safe to retreat at that point.

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.

Yes, and as I mentioned before, whether or not the defender runs their mouth plays heavily into this. The less stupid things one says, the less the prosecutor can use them against him to cast the defender in bad light. When a guy comes out and says "Yeah I saw the door open and because I was robbed before I figured it was a thief so I drew my gun, I searched the house, found him stealing my pipes and held him at gunpoint, then called police. Then he made a furtive movement towards me like he was going to hit me, so I shot him" = you just threw all your legal initiative rolls right out the window, rather than having it appear a lot better in court. (Anyone with a working knowledge of english could reformat that statement to make it PC friendly self defense inclinated instead of the prosecution getting away with painting you as "John Rambo, property owner vigilante!" etc.

Once you run your mouth and tell your (adrenaline driven, probably half true due to panic) story to the cops, you can't re-tell or correct it later in court, unless by some miracle the police forgot something procedurally which would make your earlier testimony inadmissible. (very unlikely). Well, you can re tell it, in truth, but not
without a cost... if your statements aren't consistent, this means you will lose serious
points with the jury because they will think you are a flake or that all of your testimony
is untrustworthy, which means it might be, on a good day, ignored.

Saying nothing without counsel present effectively keeps all your cards close to you.... and even if you have a shi**y hand legally, you could still win, but you will make your odds considerably worse if you show the other side you are starting from a weak position.


-Mike

 

[drgrant]

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.

No, the Jury won't say that, but the prosecutor is going to try to cajole the jury into believing that's what the law specifies or "intends" and that they should make a decision based on the law. Obviously the jury is free to ignore the prosecutor, but you can rest assured there will be an overly dramatic dog and pony show on the part of the state to imprison the accused for a so called "crime" of shooting a dirt bag thief.

-Mike

 

[economist]

If he said nothing, the only relevant facts would be: (1) He is in his rental property, (2) A thief is in his rental property, (3) the thief got shot. Now let the government prove that the owner should not have shot the thief. If they try, they will indict him and the charges will reflect their theory of what happened. He then just needs to clarify that their theory, which almost certainly depends on assumptions and circumstantial evidence, is wrong. Then it's his word against a thief -- if it comes to that, and assuming the thief lives. But this idiot shoots the thief in the leg, on purpose, and then tells a rambling story about it. He should have kept quiet.

 

[Monadnock]

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?

To anyone with common sense, that's a rhetorical question. Let Darwin deal with the rest.

PS - Massachusetts Self-Defense Situational Survey

 

[TomH]

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.

There's a difference between a right, and what a state says. More people need to choose to follow the former.

Also, the guy "lurched" (came at him?) after he gave a warning not to move. Isn't that a threat at that point? If you're holding a gun on someone to keep then restrained, and they jump at you, what are you supposed to do, drop it and enter a fistfight?

Edit: based on all the state Constitution text that allows for bearing arms for protecting property, the assumption HAS to be there that if you bear arms to protect, a situation can escalate to where you will have to fire that weapon. At that point, you have very little control as to whether that force is deadly or not, especially in that type of situation. All this talk about other regulations limiting deadly force is BS. If someone charges you while you are holding a gun on them, you have to believe that if you don't fire that weapon your chances of survival just went to a coin toss.

 

[bfm]

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?

I am invoking my right to remain silent. All questions should be directed to my lawyer.

 

[Phlach]

based on all the state Constitution text that allows for bearing arms for protecting property, the assumption HAS to be there that if you bear arms to protect, a situation can escalate to where you will have to fire that weapon.

As I read them, that would be the NH constitution (and I'm sure others), but no mention of personal property when it comes to RKBA in the MA constitution.

 

[timbo]

having read this thread, and having been in almost exactly this predicament a few weeks ago...I thank my instincts that I didn't pull my CCW when I confronted the two dirtbags I caught stealing copper out of my house...

 

[Martlet]

having read this thread, and having been in almost exactly this predicament a few weeks ago...I thank my instincts that I didn't pull my CCW when I confronted the two dirtbags I caught stealing copper out of my house...

I hope that didn't cause you to further hesitate. They could just as easily beat hour head in and left you for dead. If you catch someone in your house stealing, you know at least two things:

1. They're criminals.
2. You have very little time to react before you no longer have time to deploy cleanly.

You were very lucky. Remember that.

 

[M1911]

A lot of people have been prosecuted based of those "regulations" limiting the use of deadly force.

 

[Monadnock]

having read this thread, and having been in almost exactly this predicament a few weeks ago...I thank my instincts that I didn't pull my CCW when I confronted the two dirtbags I caught stealing copper out of my house...

What was the immediate result of that choice?

 

[buffalomesa]

There's one thing that really bothers me about this shoot. Yes, the property owner discovered a burglar in his rental house in the middle of the night. Under those circumstances, I may have called the police, but he chose to enter the house and look for the suspect. I have no issue with that, though I think it was a stupid decision. When the property owner found the burglar, he claims the suspect moved toward him. If that's the case, again, he had a decision to make. I have no problem with that.

What bothers me is that the property owner says that he picked his shot. He claims that he had to decide between chest and leg, and he chose leg.

I don't know about the rest of you, but in that situation I would be leveled at center mass, and that's where my shot would hit should I feel threatened. I think the property owner decided to put a shot through the burglar's leg just to prove a point, without there being an imminent threat.

It's just my opinion. I'm not saying the burglar didn't deserve to be shot, I just have a hard time believing that in the heat of the moment, in a confined space, the property owner had the clarity to pick his shot.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. After all, I'm the guy who decided to beat down a 300lb football player, in my front yard, using a Craftsman 1/2" torque wrench. Turns out the guy really couldn't feel any pain, and now I have a bent torque wrench.