Man shoots armed intruders

[michaeledward]

Okay here is the main problem if you and your family are in your house and someone comes into your home while you are there. They hear voices, the car is in the drive, kids are laughing and the TV is on.

Then you have to make the decision that they the criminal has the intent to do you harm due to the facts of you being home at the time. Then you have the right to defend yourself, your family and your property with all means at your disposal. Under Kansas Statues the Home Invasion is consider a felony and the home being occuiped implies intent of doing bodily harm. Therefore lethal force can be used in this kind of situation.

No argument from me.

However, in this case, the facts do not play out as you describe. The intruders were in the home. The homeowner came home. The intruders attempted to flee the scene. From these facts (or statements) can you draw the conclusion there was an "intent of doing bodily harm"?

 

[Mark Weiser]

Well more educated and trained people are in power in that county and we or the homeowner have to rely on those same people to make those judgements.

 

[Sharp702]

Wish to respectfully add my two cents.

I am a gun owner, and largely support gun ownership. I also do not feel that normal citizens owe any explanation or duty to a criminal (and by invading a home you are a criminal).

That said the law does not fully agree with my opinion. On the other hand you have to judge what is a resonable action when you are out numbered in your own home. I don't think you can just ask them to leave, and you cannot be sure they are armed. I think it is resonable to conclude that if someone is breaking into a house that they are armed in some way.

 

[Van Kuen]

Something my stepdad used to tell me when I was a teenager...
was that when someone breaks into your home and has the intent to commit a crime, it's very likely that if he were to be caught in the act, that he would do everything in his power to get away with it and not be caught or identified.

This means at any given moment he can go from being a theif, to a murderer. If you fail to act (IE shoot the guy) you may be the one who was shot and killed and your family as well. He always told me to shoot to kill...not injure, and that the very fact they're in your home is justification . IF you shoot and injure you may be sued by that very indiviual and found liable, and in addition, you run the risk of the same guy coming back in retaliation.

Personally, I don't feel sorry for any criminal that gets killed. You act, and you reap the consequences. Vet or homeless guy or ex con...if he wasnt there he wouldn't have been shot. Bottom line. Screw the liberal attitude.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Personally, I don't feel sorry for any criminal that gets killed. You act, and you reap the consequences. Vet or homeless guy or ex con...if he wasnt there he wouldn't have been shot. Bottom line. Screw the liberal attitude.

Wow. I'm going to have to totally disagree with you on this one. We should try, as a society, to make a punishment/retribution fit the crime. If someone is breaking into my home when I am there and I am cornered, or seem to be threatening me, that is the same to you as entering an empty house to rob, but not to attack someone?

Another instance: a woman I know has been having a problem with her neighbors. They fight, the kids run wild, etc. The kids, who seem to have a very crappy home environment, have surprised her by wandering through her house at odd hours - sometimes to get a drink of water out of her tap (?!?!).

If I'm startled in my home, and I shoot at a perceived intruder, is it OK to wing (or kill) anyone, or do they have to look like criminals? If she heard someone messing around in her house, should she have grabbed her gun and shot?

 

[Mark Weiser]

You have to use reasonable judgement and security measures to ensure your safety.

• Post on the Entrances that you have weapons in the home and you have used the weapon before. You can even make fake newspaper stories about homeowner kills burglar, etc....
• Lights on over the doors and in the area of ground floor windows.
• Lock your doors and if needed place a 2 inch roofing nail into the Window frames of all ground floor windows.
• Place a dowel or broom stick in the Sliding doorframe.
• Get a dog that barks at the slightest outside noise.

She needs to keep her house secure from intruders no matter whom they are. People have been killed just doing the same thing those kids are doing and no criminal charges aganist the home owner or renter.

 

[psi_radar]

I'm a liberal and owner of many, many guns. I think the issue's getting a little blurred here. Let me tell you a story that helps to enlighten my pespective.

I went to high school with a terrific girl whose father was killed on New Year's eve, 1985. Two men had entered their home, probably expecting the family to be out enjoying a party. Instead, they surprised the parents in bed, and probably themselves as well. The father, naturally, tried to defend himself, his home, and his family. While struggling with one of the intruders, he was shot by the other and died on his own bed. He was a brown belt in Kenpo at the time of his death. I dated the daughter after college; she still hadn't recovered from the loss. Last I heard the perps were both on death row. I imagine they're gone now, too.

Those intruders probably didn't go into their house with the intent to kill the occupants, but they were prepared to do so if things went bad. The thing about home invasion is, there probably isn't a whole lot of time for negotiation. If my friend's father had a gun nearby rather than just his Kenpo skills, it could have made all the difference in their lives. If someone comes into my house, I will assume the worst, and act accordingly. That does not mean wanton spraying of lead at strange noises, but the elimination of confirmed threats to my and my family's safety. That doesn't include 10-year olds looking for a glass of water (has that woman ever heard of locks? or how about telling the kids they can't do that), or a kid jumping my fence to retrieve a ball. I mean, c'mon. It's not a contradiction to be a moral person and still be willing to deliver whatever force necessary in the event of a breach to you and yours' safety.

As for the case in question, I don't really see how the intruders could not be seen as a threat. Put yourself in the homeowner's position, Micheal. You don't know how many people are in your home, but there's more than a couple. If I came home and found this crew in my home, I would have reacted in exactly the same way. The way I look at it, the other three were lucky they weren't shot as well.

 

[Mark Weiser]

Good points. I used to have firearms in my home due to my work as a Deputy Sheriff but now I keep non firearm weapons in my home. Kama's, Chinese Broad Sword, Escrima Sticks, Bo Staff keep in locations around my home currently. As well as a few knifes. However the Neighborhood knows I am an Instructor of MA so I am safe unless a idot breaks in.

 

[GAB]

Michael,

I know that you are a fisherman from the Avatar and the various comments you have given. When you mentioned in this post you don't own a gun I was surprised.
When out fishing the back woods no gun, nada???

Just curious, no need in your mind, or you are against firearms in general?

Regards, Gary

 

[dearnis.com]

Proportionality is an issue of punishment vs. retribution; this is a case of neither. The homeowner (presumably) shot out of fear for his safety. Be aware that in Louisiana it is legal to fire through a locked exterior door to prevent an individual from making entry into one's dwelling.

Also note that robbery is not defined in terms of property taken, that is theft. Robbery, by definition, is the use of force, or threatened use of force (including the implication of weapon whether or not one is displayed), to overcome resistance to the taking or attempted taking of property. Critical differences: Robbery is a person to person encounter based on violence by the offender. Note that the men were also committing a burglary (entry into a residence or dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein). Combine the two and you get the beloved home invasion, or the often tragic "homeowner returns and suprises burglar."
All these me had records of violent and weapons offences; it is a shame anyone got shot, but this headline is far preferable to "Homeowner assaulted; 4 escaped cons remain at large....victim remains in ICU following a sustained beating....."
Michael- Thank you for the answers; I dis-agree with you but I do now see where you are coming from.

 

[KenpoTex]

Boy, I forget to check for a couple of days and this thread goes nuts...

I'm not going to address specific comments/posts because I don't have time right now but I will make a couple of points.

1. I apologize for the misleading thread title (armed intruders), I just copied the article and title from another forum without carefully reading the article.

2. To those that think "gun-people" are happy with incidents like this because someone was shot, you are wrong. In my case at least, it is becuase this case represents one of the increasingly rare times that the homeowner/victim was not subjected to more "post-incident" legal hassle than the slime that perpetrated the crime.

3. Does a situation of this nature justify [potentially] deadly force? In my opinion, Yes. Is killing someone over a wallet or a t.v. set "appropriate to the crime?" IMO that shouldn't be an issue. When someone commits a crime of this nature (or any other) they aren't saying "give me your wallet or t.v." they're saying that "my desires supercede your right to your life or your property" I'm not saying that capital punishment should be the penalty burglary or robbery but that the whole "you weren't justified in shooting/stabbing him because your life wasn't threatend" idea is bogus. As some of you have said, how many times to we hear of someone getting killed because they walked in on a burglar, or some dirtbag killing someone after robbing them so there would be no one to identify them. If someone commits a crime against a person I think that there is always implied if not explicit threat of violence. For example, someone walks up to you and demands your wallet. He doesn't have any weapons but it is safe to assume that should you refuse to comply with his demands he will use force to impose his will. He's not just going to say "Oh okay, I'll try someone else, sorry to bother you" when you refuse.
I read an article somewhere that stated that most burglaries occur during the day as there is less chance of the criminal encountering a homeowner. In other words, the criminals that don't want, or are unwilling to use force prefer to avoid the homeowners entirely. On the other hand, when a criminal enters a house he knows to be occupied he is probably prepared and certainly much more willing/likely to resort to violence. Therefore, if someone breaks into your home while you are there it is safe to assume that he is a threat and should be dealt with accordingly. In the situation dicussed in the article, armed or not, 4 men definately pose a threat that justifies the use of deadly force. The article said that "Four men left the home quickly as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun." Did they act in a threatinging manner prior to him opening fire? Who knows. All I know is that I would probably have done the same thing the homeowner did.

 

[michaeledward]

Michael,

I know that you are a fisherman from the Avatar and the various comments you have given. When you mentioned in this post you don't own a gun I was surprised.
When out fishing the back woods no gun, nada???

Just curious, no need in your mind, or you are against firearms in general?

Regards, Gary

No Gun. No Need. And I am against firearms in general. In North America, Homo Sapiens are the top of the food chain. The only two critters we need to be concerned with are Sharks (I don't go in the water) and Grizzly Bears (saw a nasty story recently). In all cases, attacks on humans are very rare from these animals. We probably have more need to be cautious around dogs.

Although, in late August, I was walking through the woods and damned near tripped over a Moose ... having a moose stand up in front of you in the woods at dawn will certainly get your pulse going ... Moose are BIG! But I wasn't in any danger.

The statistics show that guns are dangerous. People get shot, intentionally and otherswise. And I just don't think society is nearly as scary as some describe it.

****

Again, in this thread, it seems people are arguing that the homeowner was justified in the shooting. But the bad guy was running away (according to the news report).

So, let's look at this hypothetical, a group of intruders are in my home, I drive up my driveway and they flee ..... How far can I chase them and still be justified in using a weapon?

 

[Sharp702]

Wow. I'm going to have to totally disagree with you on this one. We should try, as a society, to make a punishment/retribution fit the crime.

Punishment will never fit the crime. Look at lethal injection and compare to how the person killed someone to end up there.

 

[Flatlander]

So, let's look at this hypothetical, a group of intruders are in my home, I drive up my driveway and they flee ..... How far can I chase them and still be justified in using a weapon?

I don't think that you're ever justified in shooting someone who is trying to run away from you.

 

[GAB]

Hi Michael and Flatlander,

I agree. In California we had the fleeing felon stat. I have not checked the penal code in years, probably not in it anymore, or rewritten as I remember it.

Regards, Gary

 

[GAB]

Hi Michael,

I see your side of the story, very common thought pattern.

While on the job years ago, Laws different and all that. I have been close to many many shootings after the fact. One thing I am grateful for while on the job, I was fortunate not to have to take someones life. I was willing but only under the proper code of law and morality/ethics within me...

I knew and worked with a guy if I mentioned who it was everyone would know him for his role in a series years ago. Very good man and a real good person...But, he was in numerous shootings and never returned fire, hit several times(saved by vest and belt buckle). Minor injuries. Partners always got the guy. They pensioned him off the job because he was unable to do the job and I think it finally got to him, being shot at so many times in a very short career.

When asked, he said I will not take someones life or shoot someone...
He may have felt he could have done it when he came on, but after years of seeing the trajedy of death etc. he was not able to make that commitment.

Partners would not work with him, rightfully so I think, but they offered him a pension and he took it.

Now he was a person some admired and others felt very different, especially when the bullets were flying...

Back to the thread, I very much understand your position, I think...therefore I am able, experience has helped. 30 years ago I would have been less inclined to agree.

This one is a no brainer though.

Regards, Gary

 

[psi_radar]

In North America, Homo Sapiens are the top of the food chain. The only two critters we need to be concerned with are Sharks (I don't go in the water) and Grizzly Bears (saw a nasty story recently)

Although, in late August, I was walking through the woods and damned near tripped over a Moose ... having a moose stand up in front of you in the woods at dawn will certainly get your pulse going ... Moose are BIG! But I wasn't in any danger.

Hi Michael,
Top of the food chain, yes we are. But spend some time camping in northern Montana, you might be convinced to pack some heat. And don't go running at dawn or dusk in the mountains near me, you'll look awfully tempting to a mountain lion. You probably don't need a gun against animals where you live. Do you advocate gun ownership for hunting? Btw, be careful around Moose, they can be dangerous if they feel like messing with you. Impressive animals.

The statistics show that guns are dangerous. People get shot, intentionally and otherswise. And I just don't think society is nearly as scary as some describe it.

Perhaps true, but scary things do happen. Read the story from my last post. And accidental shootings can be mitigated by proper safety, care and training.

Y'know, I just don't understand how a martial artist can be anti-gun. In the end it's just another tool in the toolbox for the same means. I'm liberal in every other regard but this one. I just don't get it.

****

Again, in this thread, it seems people are arguing that the homeowner was justified in the shooting. But the bad guy was running away (according to the news report).

We don't know what was happening when the shooting began. We do know one intruder was shot in the face, which means at least his face was turned in the direction of the shooter.

So, let's look at this hypothetical, a group of intruders are in my home, I drive up my driveway and they flee ..... How far can I chase them and still be justified in using a weapon?

I don't know the legal answer to this question, but I would think you could threaten with the use of force to detain the criminals, and then use it if they don't comply, tempered with the severity of their offense, of course. That's what the police do, no? Me, personally, I wouldn't shoot anyone in the back--unless they did something truly horrible back in my home.

I didn't infer this "running away" scenario from the story in question. From the ballistic evidence we can assume the burglar/invader/perp was facing him. If the homeowner was using a pistol, which we don't know for sure, he would have had to been pretty close to a relatively stationary target to make this as an aimed shot.

 

[Mark Weiser]

This thread got me to think and research my States Statues on this topic and here are the Kansas Statues pertaining to this story.

22-2403

Chapter 22.--CRIMINAL PROCEDUREKANSAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDUREArticle 24.--ARREST

22-2403. Arrest by private person. A person who is not a law enforcement officer may arrest another person when:

(1) A felony has been or is being committed and the person making the arrest has probable cause to believe that the arrested person is guilty thereof; or (2) any crime, other than a traffic infraction or a cigarette or tobacco infraction, has been or is being committed by the arrested person in the view of the person making the arrest.

21-3216​

​

Chapter 21.--CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTSPART I.--GENERAL PROVISIONSPart 2.--Prohibited ConductArticle 32.--PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINALLIABILITY

21-3216. Private person's use of force in making arrest. (1) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a law enforcement officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another. (2) A private person who is summoned or directed by a law enforcement officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful.
21-3211

Chapter 21.--CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTSPART I.--GENERAL PROVISIONSPart 1.--GENERAL PROVISIONSArticle 32.--PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINALLIABILITY 21-3211. Use of force in defense of a person. A person is justified in the use of force against an aggressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such aggressor's imminent use of unlawful force.

21-3212

Chapter 21.--CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTSPART I.--GENERAL PROVISIONSPart 1.--GENERAL PROVISIONSArticle 32.--PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINALLIABILITY 21-3212. Use of force in defense of dwelling. A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his dwelling.

 

[michaeledward]

Hi Michael,
Top of the food chain, yes we are. But spend some time camping in northern Montana, you might be convinced to pack some heat. And don't go running at dawn or dusk in the mountains near me, you'll look awfully tempting to a mountain lion. You probably don't need a gun against animals where you live. Do you advocate gun ownership for hunting? Btw, be careful around Moose, they can be dangerous if they feel like messing with you. Impressive animals.

Guns are fine for hunting. Guns are fine for target shooting.
They are not welcome in my home.

Most animals want to be left alone. With just a bit of awareness as to where you are, there is seldom any danger in the wild.

Perhaps true, but scary things do happen. Read the story from my last post. And accidental shootings can be mitigated by proper safety, care and training.

And yet, in this country, accidental shootings are not mitigated. They occur every day, many times over.

Y'know, I just don't understand how a martial artist can be anti-gun. In the end it's just another tool in the toolbox for the same means. I'm liberal in every other regard but this one. I just don't get it.

I doubt that I will ever be called upon to actually use the kenpo tools in the toolbox. I am studying kenpo to learn patience and self-discipline, to keep physically fit and mentally alert. If faced with danger of the human kind, I would run away.

We don't know what was happening when the shooting began. We do know one intruder was shot in the face, which means at least his face was turned in the direction of the shooter.

I don't know the legal answer to this question, but I would think you could threaten with the use of force to detain the criminals, and then use it if they don't comply, tempered with the severity of their offense, of course. That's what the police do, no? Me, personally, I wouldn't shoot anyone in the back--unless they did something truly horrible back in my home.

I didn't infer this "running away" scenario from the story in question. From the ballistic evidence we can assume the burglar/invader/perp was facing him. If the homeowner was using a pistol, which we don't know for sure, he would have had to been pretty close to a relatively stationary target to make this as an aimed shot.

We do know what the report tells us. But we can not infer that the homeowner was threatened because the report doesn't mention it.

And it is not appropriate to compare the actions of a homeowner with those of a law enforcement officer. Law enforcement officers are given rights that citizens are not given in order to carry out their jobs.

Looking quickly are Mark Weisers definitions below, I read it fairly clearly that the homeowner does not have the use of force unless there is a threat against him or another that is likely to cause 'death or great bodily harm'. If the intruders were running away (and you can argue that they were not, but in four articles I read, not one mentioned any threat to the homeowner), they are not likely to cause 'death or great bodily harm'.

I know I am a peace-nik, and out of place in this swimming pool. But I think an honest review of the first 6 or 8 posts in this thread does show enthusiasm for the shooting.

Thanks - Mike

 

[Flatlander]

One of my points went unaddressed, and I'm curious about what you think. I had said that I am prone to accept the police's decision whether or not to press charges on the homeowner. Here, they don't seem to find it necessary. Do you not trust they would apply the law fairly in this circumstance?

I make no secret that I trust the police to do the right thing most of the time - it is in my nature. I'm wondering where you are with that, Mike. Perhaps it is there that we'll find where our philosophies deviate. I believe that for the most part, we're fairly parallel.