Man shoots armed intruders

[Tgace]

Appears to be a lot of burglaries and shootings in Shelby Co.

I wonder if that has an impact on how interested the DA is in pursuing a "homeowner shooter".....

 

[Flatlander]

Can you find and post yours? Just for educational purposes.

This is more difficult than it sounds. The Canadian Criminal Code does not specifically cover "location" when dealing with assault. Essentially, protection of property can not be done using force. The only time a civilain is able to use force is in defence of people, and usual use of force laws apply. Anything beyond necessary is assault. There must be a perception of threat of physical harm.

Of course, using firearms for personal defence is not intrinsically unlawful, provided it is an appropriate use of force, however, you will be dealing with whatever weapons charges can be laid, as the only people able to carry are LEOs.

I had at one time posted the relevant bit of our Criminal Code somewhere on this board in another discussion, but I don't recall where.

Sorry guys!

 

[michaeledward]

Appears to be a lot of burglaries and shootings in Shelby Co.
I wonder if that has an impact on how interested the DA is in pursuing a "homeowner shooter".....

I doubt it. These were escaped convicts, after all. Give the guy a medal (even though he didn't know what he was doing).

 

[Tgace]

I doubt it. These were escaped convicts, after all. Give the guy a medal (even though he didn't know what he was doing).

Im just speaking in the vein of DA:"Hmmm..homeowner has a questionable shoot during a burgulary involving 4 escaped convicts.....theres been a bunch of burglaries and shootings around here lately, the populace is getting angry....it may be political suicide to go after this guy."

The public is probably ready to give this guy the key to the city, if things are as rough as they seem based on some of the events that have been going on in Shelby.

 

[michaeledward]

And, as I think you pointed out earlier, this took place in Alabama, where attitudes about firearms are quite a bit different than my home state of Massachusetts.

I once spent a week training some software in Mobile, Alabama; on the third day of training, I noticed that each of the five cash registers had a weapon strapped beneath the counter. I damn near fell out of my chair when a 9mm dropped in my lap (still in a holster).

Things sure are different there.

 

[Tgace]

Yep....spent some time in uniform down south.

Its definitely a "two edged sword". While the BG's probably realize they are taking their lives in their hands (at least more so than up north), the majority of LEO's killed in the line of duty come from "Southern States" too.....

 

[KenpoTex]

Using the terms 'roll over' and 'surrender' give a pretty clear connotation as to your beliefs: that your possessions are more important than a human life. Or maybe that your right to fire a weapon (the 2nd Amendment) is more important than a human life.

Did I say that I think my possessions were/are more important than someone's life? I don't think so. What I said was that "I think there are greater issues involved than a simple transfer of property" which is what I stated in an earlier post on this thread (#31). To reiterate, no, my wallet or tv isn't worth killing someone over but the fact that he is threatening me with physical violence if I do not comply means that I am going to go on the offensive and neutralize the threat that he is presenting. This serves to eliminate the all too real possibility of him deciding to shoot/stab/beat me after I gave him my wallet or whatever whether to eliminate a witness or just because he's a dope-head that woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

At any rate, as Bammx2 so eloquently stated "this has become a dead-horse kicking contest" and I don't feel the need to spend any more time on this topic since nobody is going to sway anybody else's opinion.

 

[michaeledward]

Did I say that I think my possessions were/are more important than someone's life? I don't think so. What I said was that "I think there are greater issues involved than a simple transfer of property" which is what I stated in an earlier post on this thread (#31). To reiterate, no, my wallet or tv isn't worth killing someone over but the fact that he is threatening me with physical violence if I do not comply means that I am going to go on the offensive and neutralize the threat that he is presenting. This serves to eliminate the all too real possibility of him deciding to shoot/stab/beat me after I gave him my wallet or whatever whether to eliminate a witness or just because he's a dope-head that woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

At any rate, as Bammx2 so eloquently stated "this has become a dead-horse kicking contest" and I don't feel the need to spend any more time on this topic since nobody is going to sway anybody else's opinion.

Objection, Your Honor!

The prosecution is arguing facts not in evidence.

 

[KenpoTex]

I was not referring to the incident with the homeowner specifically, but to muggings/robberies in general. I refer you once again to one of my previous posts where I said

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.

 

[michaeledward]

Matt, you are free to argue from the specific to the general. But you are also alone in this.

In this thread, I do not believe I have made any statements about "muggings/robberies in general". I did pose a couple of hypothetical questions: i.e. how far can you chase a fleeing intruder and still be acting in self-defense, what if the intruder was in your home sleeping, is a shooting justified. These questions were attempting to understand the justification of this incident.

If you read my posts, you will see that I have made no claims against people owning guns (although I am against them), or carrying weapons concealed (although I am against that too), or using those weapons in self-defense (when there is an actual threat to the self).

I started posting in this thread because of the apparent enthusiams for a shooting, with little apparent regard for ethics:

• I'm lovin' it.
• finally, a person protects himself and his property and dosent get in trouble.
• That's the great thing about escaped fugitives..they are always "in season"
• This is also a good case for advocating concealed carry--

Some may feel that it is perfectly acceptable to chase an invader down the road, continuing to use deadly force all the way. I do not. My argument is that it is hard to justify the use of 'self-defense' when there is no threat, and there was no threat because the people were running away.

For further evidence, it appears the deputies could respond to the call from the convienence store before the homeowner called in that there was an attempted robbery. Incidently, the homeowners street address is approximately 1.5 miles from the intersection of CR47 & CR71.

I guess, to further my question, to argue from the specific to the general, is there ever an incident when a person using a gun is wrong?

 

[psi_radar]

Matt, you are free to argue from the specific to the general. But you are also alone in this.

In this thread, I do not believe I have made any statements about "muggings/robberies in general". I did pose a couple of hypothetical questions: i.e. how far can you chase a fleeing intruder and still be acting in self-defense, what if the intruder was in your home sleeping, is a shooting justified. These questions were attempting to understand the justification of this incident.

If you read my posts, you will see that I have made no claims against people owning guns (although I am against them), or carrying weapons concealed (although I am against that too), or using those weapons in self-defense (when there is an actual threat to the self).

I started posting in this thread because of the apparent enthusiams for a shooting, with little apparent regard for ethics:

• I'm lovin' it.
• finally, a person protects himself and his property and dosent get in trouble.
• That's the great thing about escaped fugitives..they are always "in season"
• This is also a good case for advocating concealed carry--

Some may feel that it is perfectly acceptable to chase an invader down the road, continuing to use deadly force all the way. I do not. My argument is that it is hard to justify the use of 'self-defense' when there is no threat, and there was no threat because the people were running away.

For further evidence, it appears the deputies could respond to the call from the convienence store before the homeowner called in that there was an attempted robbery. Incidently, the homeowners street address is approximately 1.5 miles from the intersection of CR47 & CR71.

Michael,
Matt's not alone in this, it's just the filibustering on this issue is getting a little thick to reply to constantly.

Ok, granted, people here initially got a little overexuberant about the incident mentioned. As expressed in numerous posts, most of these folks posted that they were over-the-top, but that it was just nice to see a victim who wasn't being treated as a criminal for protecting themselves with a firearm. You didn't agree, and you've now been self-rightously indignant about our lack of respect for human life for quite some time now. Point taken, over and over again like some bad fondue your boss's wife made. Nobody here, with perhaps one exception, wants to see anyone die, even criminals, without just cause. We see this particular incident differently than you, ok? Case in point, I do think this incident still presents a good argument for lawful concealed or vehicular carry. I'm sure others would agree with me. You don't. You don't like guns. You don't see a need for them. WE KNOW!

I guess, to further my question, to argue from the specific to the general, is there ever an incident when a person using a gun is wrong?

Wow, is that ever a vaguely disguised insult pawned off as a condescending question. It's also off topic and should have a new thread if you want to pursue it.

 

[michaeledward]

Michael,
Matt's not alone in this, it's just the filibustering on this issue is getting a little thick to reply to constantly.

Ok, granted, people here initially got a little overexuberant about the incident mentioned. As expressed in numerous posts, most of these folks posted that they were over-the-top, but that it was just nice to see a victim who wasn't being treated as a criminal for protecting themselves with a firearm. You didn't agree, and you've now been self-rightously indignant about our lack of respect for human life for quite some time now. Point taken, over and over again like some bad fondue your boss's wife made. Nobody here, with perhaps one exception, wants to see anyone die, even criminals, without just cause. We see this particular incident differently than you, ok? Case in point, I do think this incident still presents a good argument for lawful concealed or vehicular carry. I'm sure others would agree with me. You don't. You don't like guns. You don't see a need for them. WE KNOW!

Thank you.
Whether the thread is kicking a dead horse or not, I did not see many stating that expressions were 'over-the-top'. What I read in the responses was 'yeah, but ... '

Wow, is that ever a vaguely disguised insult pawned off as a condescending question. It's also off topic and should have a new thread if you want to pursue it.

It was not meant as an insult, or as condescention. In the post prior to mine, the argument was made from the 'specific to the general'. This statement takes my position (ethics of shoot-don't shoot) and changes the argument from 'specific to the general'.

If you are reading the comment as an insult, the please try and understand how every counter argument in this thread has been read by me. I am talking a specific issue and people are responding in general, which to me is 'insulting and condescending'.

I am glad that you see it as condescending, because it is. But it is condescending when used on the other side of the argument as well.

Thank you. Michael

 

[Van Kuen]

so umm....how 'bout those red sox?.....artyon:

 

[KenpoTex]

Matt, you are free to argue from the specific to the general. But you are also alone in this.

In this thread, I do not believe I have made any statements about "muggings/robberies in general".

what about this one (#72):

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'.

This is the comment that my "muggings/robberies in general" stuff was directed at.

Just to clear the air (I think I said most of this at least once before), If the men were already fleeing then the homeowner was NOT justified in opening fire. However, if they did not immediately try to leave it is my opinion that he was justified in firing at them. If I walked into my house to find four intruders in my living room they would have however much time it takes to draw whatever I was carrying or could access, to start running or to hit the floor with their hands on their heads if they ran or surrendered I would just call the police. If they acted in any way that I could interpret as threatening I would shoot rather than take a chance on being injured or killed myself.

 

[ipscshooter]

You know, I always thought the english language was a pretty powerful way of describing things, able to represent accurately a vast quantity of ideas, actions and things. Seems to me that we can gain a pretty clear understanding of what happened by using our language. For instance, the conjunction 'and' not only brings together two phrases and clauses, it also indicates a sequence for those phrases and clauses. So, when a sentence says:

"Four people exited the residence rapidly and shots were fired."​

it is clear that the four people exited the residence rapidly before the shots were fired.

The original article quoted in this thread said "Four men left the home quickly as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun." The difference between "and" and "as" is pretty huge. I'm a bit curious as to which is correct. All of the quotations are a bit ambiguous, even the one from the sheriff's report saying he fired "to stop them"... stop them from what? You assume "stop them from fleeing". It could also be "stop them from robbing his home". Not everyone is sufficiently precise in their manner of writing, and that leads to discussions such as this. As the matter has been reviewed by a district attorney, who has decided not to press charges, my conclusion is that the shooting commenced prior to the fleeing...

 

[GAB]

Hi all,
As to firing shots to stop them I would have to say he was trying to stop them from burglarizing, stealing, robbing. They had already broken in to steal and ????. That is a felony right up front.

First thing that comes to my mind is in days gone by, the warning shot, across the bow or to the ground or the tree they are next to..

That lets them know that you are not just bluffing, you are telling them the next one will be on target...

Most police Departments don't condone the warning shots.:mp5:

But I think if in this position, that was acceptable, (persons mind set no immidiate self defense), and you are in a position where they cannot return fire and hit you that is the best way to go, for a situation like this...

But if the man was truely in fear of his life, he yells, stop or I will shoot! They don't, well he warned them... good enough for me. Like I said, this is a no brainer...

Regards, Gary%:}

 

[michaeledward]

The original article quoted in this thread said "Four men left the home quickly as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun." The difference between "and" and "as" is pretty huge. I'm a bit curious as to which is correct. All of the quotations are a bit ambiguous, even the one from the sheriff's report saying he fired "to stop them"... stop them from what? You assume "stop them from fleeing". It could also be "stop them from robbing his home". Not everyone is sufficiently precise in their manner of writing, and that leads to discussions such as this. As the matter has been reviewed by a district attorney, who has decided not to press charges, my conclusion is that the shooting commenced prior to the fleeing...

Your curiousity suits you well, young padawan. Use that curiousity to read the other articles referenced throughout the thread. See if these additional sources of information begin to paint a clearer picture in your mind.

• Note the time line in the articles.
• Are there changes in the reports between the first reports, and later reports?
• What do you think changes in the reports over time indicate (if they exist)?
• Is there any reason to believe the 'precise' nature of one report over another report (i.e. police report versus NRA news report)?

And be careful not to draw conclusions that betray your prejudices, young padawan.

Compare these two conclusions for greater relevance:

• Shooting commmenced prior to fleeing - therefore - District attorney decides not to press charges
• Home invader/gun shot victim is an escaped convict - therefore - District attorney decides not to press charges

Which is more likely do you think? Of course, these are not the only possible reasons for the District Attorney's choice.

As to firing shots to stop them I would have to say he was trying to stop them from burglarizing, stealing, robbing. They had already broken in to steal and ????. That is a felony right up front. First thing that comes to my mind is in days gone by, the warning shot, across the bow or to the ground or the tree they are next to..

That lets them know that you are not just bluffing, you are telling them the next one will be on target... Most police Departments don't condone the warning shots.

But I think if in this position, that was acceptable, (persons mind set no immidiate self defense), and you are in a position where they cannot return fire and hit you that is the best way to go, for a situation like this...

But if the man was truely in fear of his life, he yells, stop or I will shoot! They don't, well he warned them... good enough for me. Like I said, this is a no brainer...

The force is not great with this one ... review the sequence of events; to stop means to prevent, but you can not prevent after something has occurred. The homeowner returned home to find the invaders in his house ... he can not prevent that from happening. However, if the invaders turn to run away, the homeowner can attempt to prevent that by shooting, because they have not yet run away.

Concerning 'warning shots' ... remember the Master ... who for 900 years told the young to 'Do, or Do Not. There is no Try.' When an apprentice fires a warning shot, a bullet goes up, and therefore must come down. Unless you are certain where that bullet is going to land, 'warning shots' pose a great risk. If you are going to draw your light-saber, you must vanquish your enemy.

Mind your thoughts in situations like this; jealousy leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the Dark Side.

 

[GAB]

Hi Michael,

I actually stated where the shots should be placed, in the air was not one of them. Across the Bow is another place and lots of free space and water.

I have come to the thought that this is one of those times the thread should just stop.

Regards, Gary

 

[Van Kuen]

This gets ridiculous when people quote from star wars. This thread needs to stop. Now. People on both sides are taking things out of context, twisting words and just plain misunderstanding each other on purpose or by accident.

I think the whole point of this thread was just to spread word that a person who owns a gun and uses it isn't always going to be branded a criminal himself. It wasnt for a anti gun activist to badger a bunch of guys who do like guns to the point were we all get nausiated and vomit.

 

[raedyn]

I would agree that the thread has gotten heated and that perhaps it has lost its usefulness. However, I think it would be unfair to blame the entire thing on one individual that contributed to it. This was a joint effort.