# Homeowner 2, Scumbags 0



## Cryozombie (Dec 29, 2009)

> A homeowner shot two masked men who pushed their way into a far north suburban Wauconda house early Saturday night, sending both suspects to the hospital, police said.
> 
> ......
> 
> ...



Good for the Homeowner I say. Wauconda is usually a fairly quiet suburb.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-home-invaders-shot-wauconda-dec28,0,7388717.story


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 29, 2009)

A glass raised to a critical error in the victim selection process.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 29, 2009)

Need to teach that homeowner how to shoot better. These two might come back.

Deaf


----------



## Ken Morgan (Dec 29, 2009)

How anyone can dispute Darwin after that is beyond me.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 30, 2009)

Perhaps natural selection is making a come back?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 30, 2009)

Pardon me for saying so, but there's something odd about this story.  I suspect more information will be forthcoming.  A robbery attempt?  It doesn't say that.  The statement _"repeated demands and physical altercations," _just sounds weird.

I'm all for homeowners defending their homes against intrusion, and use of deadly force in such situations doesn't bother me either.  But something about this limited account does not ring true.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 30, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Pardon me for saying so, but there's something odd about this story.



Some additional information that I cannot confirm or deny as true says the Home Invaders are claiming they broke in to recover their son from the home, but mistakenly got the wrong address.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 30, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Some additional information that I cannot confirm or deny as true says the Home Invaders are claiming they broke in to recover their son from the home, but mistakenly got the wrong address.


 
A while back in Houston, during Halloween, an Asian college student, being drunk, went to the wrong house in his costume. He banged on the door, shouted to them to let him in, and then, even when they tried to push him out he just became more forceful. They ended up shooting him.

Moral of the story, don't pick the wrong house, especially in Texas.

You can get shot that way real quick.

Deaf


----------



## Carol (Dec 30, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Some additional information that I cannot confirm or deny as true says the Home Invaders are claiming they broke in to recover their son from the home, but mistakenly got the wrong address.



Confirmed:



> They were looking to pick up a family member and for an unknown reason, they went to the wrong house, Wauconda Police Cmdr. John Thibault said.
> 
> 
> They knocked on the door and when someone opened the door, they didnt know who they were, Thibault said.  They didnt belive that was the case, thought something was wrong and forced entry into the residence.



http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1961803,wauconda-shooting-mistaken-address-122809.article


----------



## Carol (Dec 30, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> A while back in Houston, during Halloween, an Asian college student, being drunk, went to the wrong house in his costume. He banged on the door, shouted to them to let him in, and then, even when they tried to push him out he just became more forceful. They ended up shooting him.
> 
> Moral of the story, don't pick the wrong house, especially in Texas.
> 
> ...



The Yoshihiro Hattori case?  That was a Japanese high school student visiting the U.S. on an exchange program that was shot to death in Baton Rouge.  

Big difference between that case and this one.  In the Wauconda story, the perps not only tried, but also succeeded in breaking in to the homeowners home.

Yoshihiro Hattori never tried (let alone succeed) to break in to the homeowner's home on Halloween night when he was in his John Travolta costume.  The homeowner shot Yattori for trespassing.

The homeowner was acquitted of homicide charges, but a civil judgment ordered the homeowner to pay $650,000 in damages, part of which was used by the family to lobby for stricter gun control.  Hattori's parents also got an apology from President Clinton.

http://www.lsulegacymag.com/2009/06/30/lost-in-translation/

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/16/u...s-in-japanese-youth-s-death.html?pagewanted=1


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 30, 2009)

Carol,

You cannot shoot someone for trespassing in Texas or Louisiana. And I mean anywhere. And at the time of Yoshihiro Hattori's case, there was no Castle Doctrine in Louisiana (or anywhere else.)

And since the homeowner was acquitted, then the jury decided the defendant was in fear of their life when they shot, and thus they were justified.

Sue? Oh yea, back then with no Castle Doctrine, you could sue for wrongful death even inside your house (still can outside the house in Texas, dunno about Louisiana.) 

The wrongful death suit is not about being guilty of a crime, but having caused the death of a loved one when there is a possible option to not use such force. In this case the jury felt, with a preponderance of evidence, that the homeowners could have retreated. Note I said preponderance of evidence. That's 51 percent. Not the same as resonable doubt.

Deaf


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 30, 2009)

Carol said:


> Confirmed:
> 
> http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1961803,wauconda-shooting-mistaken-address-122809.article





> &#8220;They were looking to pick up a family member and for an unknown reason, they went to the wrong house,&#8221; Wauconda Police Cmdr. John Thibault said.
> 
> 
> &#8220;They knocked on the door and when someone opened the door, they didn&#8217;t know who they were,&#8221; Thibault said. &#8220; They didn&#8217;t belive that was the case, thought something was wrong and forced entry into the residence.&#8221;


The thing I have to wonder is...

Why were they doing it in ski masks.  I mean, sure, its been cold, but do you force your way into someones home wearing them because you were just trying to keep warm?


----------



## Carol (Dec 31, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Carol,
> 
> You cannot shoot someone for trespassing in Texas or Louisiana. And I mean anywhere. And at the time of Yoshihiro Hattori's case, there was no Castle Doctrine in Louisiana (or anywhere else.)
> 
> And since the homeowner was acquitted, then the jury decided the defendant was in fear of their life when they shot, and thus they were justified.



The homeowner himself, and/or his defense team testified that he and his wife were safe and secure in their own home, that Hattori never tried to break in to the house, and that the homeowner was largely reacting to his wife's panic, and that his wife said she really wasn't thinking.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

The homeowners were acquitted, but this circumstance is very different form Wauconda where the door was clearly broken in by the perps and the the perps got in to an altercation in their own home (and it appears the homeowners will not be charged with a crime).




> Sue? Oh yea, back then with no Castle Doctrine, you could sue for wrongful death even inside your house (still can outside the house in Texas, dunno about Louisiana.)


Hattori was outside of the house when he was killed.

Louisiana didn't have a castle doctrine per se in place at the time, but they did have a very similar "kill the burglar" statute which permits the use of deadly force without any duty to retreat. 



> The wrongful death suit is not about being guilty of a crime, but having caused the death of a loved one when there is a possible option to not use such force. In this case the jury felt, with a preponderance of evidence, that the homeowners could have retreated. Note I said preponderance of evidence. That's 51 percent. Not the same as resonable doubt.
> 
> Deaf


The homeowners weren't absolutely found guilty of a crime.  They were acquitted.  But the acquittal had its costs to the homeowners.  

- They had to go through a murder trial, and pay the associated bills to retain an attorney

- They apparently have a ton of regret on their souls from the death of a teenager that really wasn't trying to hurt them

- They sparked international controversy and publicly announced he would never own a gun again

- They are $650,000 poorer 

And for firearms rights supporters, the acquittal had a cost.  The incident was/is used to fuel anti-gun legislation, both by example by funding.

I don't think the moral Hattori story is "don't mess with the wrong house."  

I think the moral of the Hattori case, especially when contrasted to the Wauconda case, is that panicking while defending oneself against a potential threat may get oneself exonerated in court.  And it may mean there are additional unpleasant costs.  However, keeping a rational head while shooting a potential threat means one may avoid with court to begin with, let alone the supplemental human/monetary costs.


----------



## Carol (Dec 31, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> The thing I have to wonder is...
> 
> Why were they doing it in ski masks.  I mean, sure, its been cold, but do you force your way into someones home wearing them because you were just trying to keep warm?



Wow...I missed the part about the masks.

That is...very...odd.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 31, 2009)

Carol said:


> Confirmed:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1961803,wauconda-shooting-mistaken-address-122809.article



Yeah, that would be my story too.........two men with ski masks......we were just looking for 'our' son........we thought something was wrong so we forced our way in.......yeah, that's the ticket.....yep.....riiiiigggghhhhttt.


----------



## Stac3y (Dec 31, 2009)

I grew up in Baton Rouge, and I remember the Hattori case. I also remember a rumor surrounding it, that the shooter was a Vietnam vet who panicked because the kid was Asian. A lot of people thought the shooting was a result of the guy flipping out due to latent PTSD. <sigh>

As for Castle Doctrine, and shooting trespassers in Louisiana: Louisiana law is unusual in that it is based on Napoleonic Code, rather than Common Law. The "shoot the burglar" provision Carol mentions did exist at the time of the Hattori case; I _think_ it has since been changed to be somewhat more in line with other states, but I haven't lived there in a while. The strength of the provision is such that homeowners would not be prosecuted for shooting a burglar even if they chased him down, or shot him as he was leaving. Also, in Louisiana, a car was (maybe still is) considered a "rolling domicile," an extension of one's home, so it was also permissible to shoot someone burgling one's car. 

This section of the LSU Legacy article struck me as odd:

"However, since he was not well trained with firearms, instead of shooting the gun in the air or shooting the perceived attacker in the leg, he shot Hattori in the chest."​In my limited training with firearms, I was told to always shoot to *stop* an attacker (or in this case, an innocent kid), which means mid-chest. No one would ever advise shooting in the air or leg, would they? Do people generally think that gun self defense should involve warning shots, or shooting at extremities? If so, no wonder people get their guns taken away from them and used on them. Sheesh.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 31, 2009)

Just for Stacey:

http://ellegon.com/features/data/something/


----------



## Carol (Dec 31, 2009)

Stac3y said:


> I grew up in Baton Rouge, and I remember the Hattori case. I also remember a rumor surrounding it, that the shooter was a Vietnam vet who panicked because the kid was Asian. A lot of people thought the shooting was a result of the guy flipping out due to latent PTSD. <sigh>



Nah.  The homeowner was only 30 when he shot Hattori.  Too young for Vietnam.  He was a guy that worked in the butcher department of a Winn Dixie.  Some say his defense partly won by showing the jury he was just a regular guy.  By the accounts I read....he was.   There may have been cultural misunderstandings on both sides.



> As for Castle Doctrine, and shooting trespassers in Louisiana: Louisiana law is unusual in that it is based on Napoleonic Code, rather than Common Law. The "shoot the burglar" provision Carol mentions did exist at the time of the Hattori case; I _think_ it has since been changed to be somewhat more in line with other states, but I haven't lived there in a while. The strength of the provision is such that homeowners would not be prosecuted for shooting a burglar even if they chased him down, or shot him as he was leaving. Also, in Louisiana, a car was (maybe still is) considered a "rolling domicile," an extension of one's home, so it was also permissible to shoot someone burgling one's car.
> 
> This section of the LSU Legacy article struck me as odd:
> "However, since he was not well trained with firearms, instead of shooting the gun in the air or shooting the perceived attacker in the leg, he shot Hattori in the chest."​In my limited training with firearms, I was told to always shoot to *stop* an attacker (or in this case, an innocent kid), which means mid-chest. No one would ever advise shooting in the air or leg, would they? Do people generally think that gun self defense should involve warning shots, or shooting at extremities? If so, no wonder people get their guns taken away from them and used on them. Sheesh.



Exactly.  You don't shoot to warn, or to wound, or to slow down.  You shoot to STOP.   If you don't need that level of force, you don't need a gun.  If you do need that level of force, then it is a threat severe enough that you need to stop immediately.

The LSU was a sociology article IIRC. It has a bias, and I don't necessarily agree with the some of the points they are making, but it had some factoids for the case.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 31, 2009)

Carol said:


> Exactly. You don't shoot to warn, or to wound, or to slow down. You shoot to STOP. If you don't need that level of force, you don't need a gun. If you do need that level of force, then it is a threat severe enough that you need to stop immediately.


 

You have been well trained, my young appLEN-tice.......


----------



## Carol (Dec 31, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> You have been well trained, my young appLEN-tice.......



At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi!  

At last we will have our revenge!


:jediduel:


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 31, 2009)

Never say never (as for warning shots) but the biggest problems with warning shots are:

1. Where does the bullet go? This can be considered a form of reckless endangerment.

2. Did the 'warnee' know it was a warning or will they fire back at the 'warneer'?

3. You just lost 1/5th or more of your ammo supply.

As Massad Ayoob points out in his writings, the warning shot as to land somewhere! If you shoot into the ground it can ricochet (and it has happened and struck innocent people.) If you fire into the air... well what goes up, must come down. 

Mas is of the opinion that IF you must for some reason fire a warning shot, do so into something that will stop the bullet safely. This will a) keep from endangering the community, and b) PROVE it was a warning shot.

Also, he feels that firing a warning shot may be repaid by a shot from the attacker, who will tell the police you shot at them (and hence the safe place to fire the shot.)

And I agree with Mas! Let's just say warning shots are very rare and risky uses of your defensive weapon.

Deaf


----------



## Carol (Dec 31, 2009)

And the good Colonel too.

Rule #4...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 1, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Never say never (as for warning shots) but the biggest problems with warning shots are:
> 
> 1. Where does the bullet go? This can be considered a form of reckless endangerment.
> 
> ...



If me standing there with the gun isn't warning enough, he's too stupid to live.


----------



## Carol (Jan 1, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> If me standing there with the gun isn't warning enough, he's too stupid to live.


 
Or he was a Japanese high school student quite literally lost  in a foreign land, experiencing Halloween Night for the first time...and not understanding what to expect.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 1, 2010)

Carol said:


> Or he was a Japanese high school student quite literally lost  in a foreign land, experiencing Halloween Night for the first time...and not understanding what to expect.



If he's just standing there in the yard, he's not going to get shot........what's going to get someone shot, is something they damn well know they shouldn't be doing in any language or land.

The worst someone is going to get for trespassing is a swift kick in the seat of the pants toward the roadway.........physical 'sign language' is, likewise, multi-lingual.......a kick in the seat of the pants is the universal language. 

And my statement was directed toward 'warning shots'.......which are dangerous and redundant.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 1, 2010)

I can understand what Ayoob is saying, but I personally am gonna stick with the thinking that if you are not justified in shooting to stop the threat you are not justified in shooting *AT ALL*.

There's another thing:

It ties into what Mac was saying in that a person drawing and aiming a firearm at you is *universal sign language* for "You are screwing up badly enough to put me in fear of my life, stop it now".

But think about this too for a second:

When a police officer draws his/her sidearm, people around the officer are not afraid of the OFFICER--they are afraid of whatever made the officer draw in the first place and they get the hell outta Dodge.

When a private citizen draws his/her sidearm, those around him/her, unless they have personally WITNESSED whatever made the citizen draw, are more likely to misunderstand the citizen's actions as a threat against them and may even dogpile the citizen.

As a direct result, it will oftentimes behoove armed citizens to wait until the last possible moment before drawing, which, consequently will most likely not allow time for "warning shots".


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 1, 2010)

Ayoob, in his books, says 'never say never'. Now he does not like warning shots, he discourages warning shots, feels if you have to shoot, shoot to stop, but....

He feels that if you HAVE to do it, shoot into a safe backstop. And remember that the shot can be construted as deadly force and the other side might fire back thinking you are shooting at them.

Deaf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 2, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I can understand what Ayoob is saying, but I personally am gonna stick with the thinking that if you are not justified in shooting to stop the threat you are not justified in shooting *AT ALL*.
> 
> There's another thing:
> 
> ...



It's a very good point that needs to be addressed........even more important than the citizens, are the responding officers creeping up that you don't see........a list of several off-duty officers killed and wounded by uniformed officers during these type of incidents is unfortunately easily assembled to make this point.

One should do whatever one is going to do with as little idle time spent standing around with the gun in their hand as possible.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 2, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Ayoob, in his books, says 'never say never'. Now he does not like warning shots, he discourages warning shots, feels if you have to shoot, shoot to stop, but....
> 
> He feels that if you HAVE to do it, shoot into a safe backstop. And remember that the shot can be construted as deadly force and the other side might fire back thinking you are shooting at them.
> 
> Deaf



It's really an example of saying that there are very few things we can say to 'NEVER EVER' do........but this is one you should probably never do, without a damn good and specific logical reason.

Guard towers in prisons using warning shots to break up disturbances, firing rounds in to the ground between groups of combatants to warn them to stay apart before lethal force is used.......again, a rare exception, but an exception none-the-less.


----------

