Man shoots armed intruders

[GAB]

Mark,

I think your last post is very good and an honest evaluation.

I have felt that way for 30 years, we have a small percentage of people in the prison system, part of them are habitual and the others are there because they want to be, plus your recidivest (different than habitual).

Throw in conjugal visits, family taken care of by government agencies, and you have a perfect situation for some in our socity or on the skirts of it.
Regards, Gary

 

[GAB]

Of
Again, I am not discussing the actions of the police. Although, I think the police would not be very diligent in getting the 'whole story', once the identity of the gunshot victim was known; an escaped convict, who was intruding in a house, with prior weapons convictions, got shot; don't we all think that is poetic justice?

How much 'digging' do you think anyone is going to do concerning the shooting, honestly?

Hi Michael,

I believe we need to add in the factor that the DA is the one who makes the decision to prosecute, the police,investigators, media and public all have a voice, then the DA (political person generally) makes the decision based on the information and prejudice in the community to prosecute or not.

Something people have a tendency to forget.

Regards, Gary

 

[psi_radar]

Of course, the hypothetical I posed about the wound to the face and neck is a stretch. But, with the evidence we have from the reports (which is no evidence at all concerning the shooting), it is every bit as likely as any other scenario put forth.

No, some scenarios are more likely than others, especially when you're talking about handguns, which are only accurate for marksmen up to about 25 yards on a stationary target, depending on the variety of weapon. Under high levels of stress, this range decreases due to adrenal dump, and drops much more if the target is moving. To hit him in the face, the homeowner most likely was a) very close to target b) facing him c) stationary, as was the target (i.e. not chasing him) d) or just "lucky".

Why is it that you read the article that 'He Shot - They Ran'?

Here's some excerpts from the press release:

"Four men left the home quickly as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun..."

The men left AS he fired the shots. Wise move. It doesn't say the intruders were fleeing and he shot at them. It seems to me that the fleeing is a reaction to the shooting. You may choose to interpret it differently, but we both know what the word "as" means--it indicates simultaneous or causal action.

"He (local LEO) described the situation at the Shelby home as a home-invasion and robbery attempt. The homeowner found several men inside of his home and some outside. He said the white Jeep Cherokee was parked around the back of the home.

..."He became suspicious and decided he better protect himself," Owens said.

Curry defended the homeowner's actions.

"The owner of the property found himself in a dangerous and difficult situation, outnumbered four-to-one while trying to protect himself and his property from this group whose intentions were unknown. He fired several shots from a handgun in an attempt to stop the suspects," Curry said."--

Please allow me to emphasize. "The owner of the property found himself in a dangerous and difficult situation, outnumbered four-to-one while trying to protect himself and his property."

There is no evidence in the articles to show that the intruders posed any harm to the homewner. You are correct that that is the disconnect. In the three articles available (two hyperlinks in my post, and the original article in Post#1) there is no reference to the homeowner being threatened. There are references to the intruders 'Fleeing'. All three stories state that the homeowner came home, which means he was not there when the intrusions began. And while I can offer no evidence to prove my point, I posit it is much more likely that four fugitives would run away when discovered, rather than stick around and pick a fight.

These statements show to me that we are on different spectrums of acceptance toward criminal behavior. I believe that home invasion even if you are not there when it is initiated IS a threat. So you come home, find these guys rooting through your house. I would want them out immediately and would kick them out with whatever force necessary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you would prefer to let them leave at their own convenience or wait for law enforcement to arrive. To me, personally, this smacks of the woeful advice formerly given to potential rape victims, "Don't fight back, just let them finish, it will be over quickly, and we can catch them later." You obviously see it differently, but when people steal from me, I feel very violated and am inclined to take action.

Again, I am not discussing the actions of the police. Although, I think the police would not be very diligent in getting the 'whole story', once the identity of the gunshot victim was known; an escaped convict, who was intruding in a house, with prior weapons convictions, got shot; don't we all think that is poetic justice?

How much 'digging' do you think anyone is going to do concerning the shooting, honestly?

Probably not much. Does it deserve much digging? Sorry, but these guys don't give me a real warm and fuzzy feeling. Poor widdle career criminals getting shot at after breaking out of prison and burglarizing a home. Awww.

C'mon, they knew the risks.

 

[michaeledward]

psi_radar,

Please review the article at the bottom of post #60 in this thread. It was an addendum to the original post, and may not have been there when you created your most recent post.

The Sherriff clearly states the weapon was fired in order 'TO STOP THE SUSPECTS'. The did not say the weapon was fired in self-defense or to prevent any action.

Drawing conclusions about where I stand on criminal behavior is kind of strange thing to do because I am not posting in this thread about the behavior of the escaped convicts. I am posting in this thread to discuss the use of a firearm.

 

[Mark Weiser]

Here is a real kick in the pants for everyone. When I was going thur the Academy my Instructor told us something that shocked me.

"The only difference between you and a citzen in making an arrest is that the City has better Insurace policies."

Here in Kansas a Private Citzen a Non-LEO has as much authority in stopping fleeing felons after they have committed a felony in that citzen's persence. The only problem is due to the court systems we have most citzens are not aware of the legal aspects of use of force and apprehension or taking someone into custody.

The Residents of Kansas need to use only ENOUGH force to detain or arrest(stop) a felon.

 

[michaeledward]

Here is a real kick in the pants for everyone. When I was going thur the Academy my Instructor told us something that shocked me.

"The only difference between you and a citzen in making an arrest is that the City has better Insurace policies."

Here in Kansas a Private Citzen a Non-LEO has as much authority in stopping fleeing felons after they have committed a felony in that citzen's persence. The only problem is due to the court systems we have most citzens are not aware of the legal aspects of use of force and apprehension or taking someone into custody.

The Residents of Kansas need to use only ENOUGH force to detain or arrest(stop) a felon.

And ... While this activity took place in Alabama, not Kansas, (and not Georgia as I have said once or twice in other posts) ... what do you think about this incident?

The homeowner was not successful at detaining or arresting the alledged felon. Did he not use enough force? Are there not enough bodies in this story for your satisfaction?

If you were in this exact situation:
* you come in the front of your house,
* intruders running out the back of your house,
* no danger to you,
* a weapon in your belt,
* not even knowing if anything was taken from your home,
* and you are faced with a 'Shoot - Don't Shoot' decision
Let's even suppose you have a very clean, text book shot.

Do you let intruders flee go, pickup the phone and call the police?
Do you shoot out the tires of the jeep?
Do you shoot to kill?

 

[Sharp702]

This is perhaps a topic for a different thread. But I disagree with the premise you put forth, as do conservative commentators, such as George Will.

Society can inflict 'punishment' on criminals in one of two ways: Loss of Property. Loss of Freedom. By restraining the activities of a convicted person, i.e. placing them in jail, society is punishing the offender with Loss of Freedom. In combination with this punishment, society has decided that it might be a good idea to transfer some skills to the convicted, so that when they are no longer subject to restricted freedom, they have the opportunity to participate in society.

Also, punishment as 'Loss of Property' ... have you ever paid a fine for a traffic violation? The society takes some of your money. That is not rehabilitation.

Mike

Loss of property dosn't really have an impact on a large amount of criminals because they barely own anything.

Paying a traffic violation fine is not prison, and prison was what I was referring to.

The fact that some people can enjoy prison life is another sure sign that it is a failure.

 

[michaeledward]

Loss of property dosn't really have an impact on a large amount of criminals because they barely own anything.

Paying a traffic violation fine is not prison, and prison was what I was referring to.

The fact that some people can enjoy prison life is another sure sign that it is a failure.

So, the Death Penalty for every violation, Ayatollah?

 

[Mark Weiser]

Honestly Mike here is the way I was trained to respond from the Civilian and Military LEO courses I have taken.

1.) Never entry a home you know or suspect a criminal is inside. Never! Never! go in alone good way to get ambushed and killed. John Wayne is a fictional Character and you can not be brought back to life for another movie.

2.) Secure the Outside of the house and wait for assistance.

3.) If the Suspects flee in the Jeep be a good observer and get the License Plate Number.

4.) Always Call Law Enforcement while securing the outside of the home. When calling 911 give description of yourself as ID yourself as Homeowner and tell them you are armed and what type of weapon. When LEO arrive disarm yourself and lay the weapon in plain site.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I found the following wierd

The name of the homeowner who shot the fugitive will not be released as long as the others remain at-large.

It is not like they do not know where he lives. Right? They were in his house correct?


As to using a gun against four people, well in my state you have to leave in this situation. You do not have the right to fire like that unless they have physically threatented you, and or your family. In this case a lone male coming home to a house wiht four males. The police and court system would expect you to leave and call 911 for help and let the police handle it.

Not that I agree with this. just stating how it is to my understanding.

 

[psi_radar]

psi_radar,

Please review the article at the bottom of post #60 in this thread. It was an addendum to the original post, and may not have been there when you created your most recent post.

The Sherriff clearly states the weapon was fired in order 'TO STOP THE SUSPECTS'. The did not say the weapon was fired in self-defense or to prevent any action.

No, but it certainly did accelerate their exit and eliminate any possible threat.




Michael, I checked out those sources.
Here are a couple excerpts:

--"On Higgins Road, the owner of the residence encountered several people inside when he came up on the porch. Four people exited the residence rapidly and shots were fired." --

This supports your "shot while fleeing" theory.

---"He was prepared when a group of four fugitives invaded his home. He shot one fugitive in the face and the three others quickly fled."--

This supports my "he shot and they left" theory.

It's not worth battling semantics over what's written in the papers--stories will differ, journalists will use partial quotes, take them out of context, etc. What we do know is that there were people in his home. We don't know if they threatened him, wouldn't leave, were sh****ng on his rug or what, it's all conjecture. He shot one and scared the others away. The law saw his actions as justified. In my state, I would be justified as well for the same actions, escaped convicts or not. That deadly force carries with it a grave responsibility of course applies. If I come home and find Robert Downey jr. asleep on my couch, I'm not going to shoot him. Four guys going through my wife's jewelry box, maybe.

Drawing conclusions about where I stand on criminal behavior is kind of strange thing to do because I am not posting in this thread about the behavior of the escaped convicts. I am posting in this thread to discuss the use of a firearm.

So what is this discussion about if it's not about where our moral compass stands on stopping criminal behavior or self protection? Key to my opinion in this matter is that I consider my home a sanctuary and an extension of myself, much like a citizen might consider his nation. If it's invaded, I'm not going to just hang out and watch it happen. You apparently feel differently, by not considering home invasion a "threat."

We're just at opposite ends of the force continuum on this issue morally. From what you've said, you would prefer, and correct me if I'm wrong--wait and call authorities, which is a passive thing to do. I am more aggressive, and would advocate the use of force, up to and including firearms if I deemed necessary. Both are viable solutions under the auspices of the law.

Thanks for the discussion, I think we just don't see eye to eye on this one.

 

[michaeledward]

Mark Weiser ...
from what I am reading then, you would agree that the home owner behaved in a way that is not consistent with the training you have received.

But what about the actual firing of the weapon? 4 'gainst 1, you don't know if they are armed? And they are apparently leaving?

Analytically, is this a good shooting? I understand that in real time, adrenaline may assist in the decision.

psi-radar ... It's OK that we disagree. And yes, with the reports available to us, we are making educated guesses at best. Of course, the police are also just able to determine what happened based on the interviews with the four involved. But that is always the case, ain't it?

So what is this discussion about if it's not about where our moral compass stands on stopping criminal behavior or self protection? Key to my opinion in this matter is that I consider my home a sanctuary and an extension of myself, much like a citizen might consider his nation. If it's invaded, I'm not going to just hang out and watch it happen. You apparently feel differently, by not considering home invasion a "threat."

My house is really just a building. I would like my neighbors to respect it, as I respect theirs, but in the end. There is nothing in that building that is irreplacable. If someone were to enter my home and take some of my possessions, it certainly would be a violation, I would be upset and angry, but, it really is just 'stuff'.

I hope that if I was ever forced between protecting my stuff and killing another person, I would give my stuff away. I can always get more 'stuff'.

Mike

 

[Tgace]

And ... While this activity took place in Alabama, not Kansas, (and not Georgia as I have said once or twice in other posts) ... what do you think about this incident?

I think hes lucky he wasnt skinned and eaten...

 

[Sharp702]

So, the Death Penalty for every violation, Ayatollah?

So, let criminals have free run of the place, Ghandi?

Prison should serve as a strong deterent and punishment. We shouldn't need a death penalty(one that is a slap on the wrist compared to what the offenders did to earn it) because prison should be bad enough that people should absolutely not want to go there.

 

[michaeledward]

So, let criminals have free run of the place, Ghandi?

You honor me with such insults, may I always deserve them. :asian:

 

[Sharp702]

You honor me with such insults, may I always deserve them. :asian:

Was not an insult, but a reply in similar fashion as the one you bestowed on me.

We obviously have a difference of opinion on the subject. You have not yet removed the rose colored glasses and seen the real world yet. You should consider yourself lucky that the world has let you maintain that positive outlook.

 

[psi_radar]

My house is really just a building. I would like my neighbors to respect it, as I respect theirs, but in the end. There is nothing in that building that is irreplacable. If someone were to enter my home and take some of my possessions, it certainly would be a violation, I would be upset and angry, but, it really is just 'stuff'.

I hope that if I was ever forced between protecting my stuff and killing another person, I would give my stuff away. I can always get more 'stuff'.

Mike

Yup, there's a big difference in beliefs between you and I here. It's not about "stuff" for me, it's the sanctity of the home. Breaching that sanctity is, to me, one of the most egregious crimes someone can commit. I would hope not to ever kill anyone or ever have a cause just enough to do so with that intent. As for killing someone over "stuff," well that's an interesting question. If someone attempts to rob you, that's a potential breach to safety as well as a gentle transfer of ownership of "stuff"--a threat, even? So, say you see an opening and whip out a Kenpo technique, there's a chance you'll kill them. So would you? I would, you maybe not. That's just people and their differences. The moral as I see it:

Don't screw around with people, they're unpredictable.

 

[michaeledward]

Yup, there's a big difference in beliefs between you and I here. It's not about "stuff" for me, it's the sanctity of the home. Breaching that sanctity is, to me, one of the most egregious crimes someone can commit. I would hope not to ever kill anyone or ever have a cause just enough to do so. As for killing someone over "stuff," well that's an interesting question. If someone attempts to rob you, that's a potential breach to safety as well as a gentle transfer of ownership of "stuff"--a threat, even? So, say you see an opening and whip out a Kenpo technique, there's a chance you'll kill them. So would you? I would, you maybe not. That's just people and their differences.

If there was threat to my person, and the opportunity available, of course, I would use that which I have learned in my study of Kenpo to defend myself.

I would use the skills I have learned to as effectivly as possible stop the threat; inflict pain before wound, wound before break, break before kill. I hope I would stop the escalation of violence when it has removed the threat. If the threat is not removed before the aggressor is killed, so be it.

In this instance, there was no apparent threat to the homeowner's person.

 

[psi_radar]

If there was threat to my person, and the opportunity available, of course, I would use that which I have learned in my study of Kenpo to defend myself.

I would use the skills I have learned to as effectivly as possible stop the threat; inflict pain before wound, wound before break, break before kill. I hope I would stop the escalation of violence when it has removed the threat. If the threat is not removed before the aggressor is killed, so be it.

In this instance, there was no apparent threat to the homeowner's person.

As I've stated before I believe that home invasion is a threat, and many governments and people feel as I do. Personally, without added cause, with the facts as we know them, I would not have pulled a trigger if I was in that man's shoes. But I do believe he was justified in using the level of force he chose, and his choice should be supported and upheld by the law. If someone breaks into your home, they should know they're just rolling the dice and the consequences could be grave.

I've said my piece and then some on this. Over and out.

 

[raedyn]

You do realize that some human life is completely worthless, and in some cases hazardous to prosperous human life?

Who gets to judge which human lives those are?

I know for a fact that criminals are unproductive, and have no place in society.

Every criminal? Convicted of every crime? In every circumstance? You would what... eliminate every pot-smoker, jay-walker, killed-him-cuz-he-beat-me-relentlessly, stole-bread-to-feed-my-children, was-begging-on-the-corner-so-I-didn't-have-to-steal ?

The ... the law cannot do anything until a crime is commited.

And instead of this system you would propose what? Thought police? I wouldn't claim our system is perfect - far from it. But what would be better?


This is another situation where I don't think a black vs white, us vs them mentality can apply. I think we are all only a few steps away from criminal activity ourselves. We only need to be deserate enough.