Unusual intruder shooting case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
^^ When I drive around my neighborhood and see an open garage door I mind my own business and continue on my merry way. If I stopped every time I saw an open garage door and no one around I'd waste a lot of time.


Exactly.

These two perps were not "helping" a neighbor who forgot to close his garage door. We ALL know this.

I love to be on juries for just this reason, no lawyer or prosecutor can [censored] me into thinking something other than the actual reality and facts with their nonsensical perceptions during a trial.


The homeowner is... "Not Guilty" on all charges.
01.gif




LOL I should have said: When I drive around my neighborhood and see an open garage door I mind my own business and continue on my merry way. If I stopped every time I saw an open garage door and no one around I'd waste a lot of time. I also run the risk of getting attacked by a dog, or possibly shot by a nut job.

My mother always said when curiosity got the best of me: "Frank mind your own business." It was for a good reason.
 
I know of an elderly couple that died in their garage after they fell asleep and left the car running returning from a wedding. Too bad our society has gotten to the point that it's potentially dangerous to 'get involved' even if it might save a life.

As for this case I have a strong feeling that with the testimony of the hairdresser the shooter will spend significant time behind bars.
 
It really doesn't matter why the intruder was in the garage - what matters is whether the homeowner perceived a serious threat to the occupants of the house. Certainly if you encounter a stranger in your house in the middle of the night, you would have reason to fear a serious threat. The garage complicates matters, as does the baiting. The jury will need to weigh the "bait and wait" actions of the homeowner against a more reasonable option of calling the police and defending the door from the garage to the house.

The question is not does a homeowner have the right to shoot an intruder, or whether an intruder deserves to be shot, the question is did this homeowner reasonably have to shoot this intruder to end a reasonably perceived threat. Each case must be judged on the specific circumstances at the time, and from the perspective of the shooter. Castle Doctrine is not a blank check to shoot anyone in your domain.

Tom NJ
 
Agreed Tom. Had the 17 year old been inside the house, then this would be a simple case and the castle doctrine (reasonable fear of harm by virtue of the presence in the house) would apply.

But this case was in the garage, not the house. The garage was deliberately left open. The homeowner fired four shots without identifying a target or person.

The homeowner's intentional "bait" of the purse is going to have to be considered as well. It clearly shows planning on his part.
 
Fact is that the perp should have called the police if he felt a need to "help" the homeowner out. Bottom line is that those two perps entered private property without authorization instead of calling the police to look into it.

Considering that the homeowner's property had been repeatedly trespassed on and broken into I have no doubt that he was on constant alert for future invaders coming onto his property.
There is no way for a victim of repeated incidents like this to know whether or not the perp will use deadly force against him, the homeowner was correct in shooting to kill.

I would love to know if these two punks had even been involved in trespassing before, I bet they have, and I am sure that these two were the same that had broken into his house on numerous occasions previously.
 
Last edited:
I think it's illustrative to consider an identical set of circumstances, but I'll use me in this hypothetical. I am not a criminal. I have no record. I have not even had a speeding ticket in the last 20 years. All the elements of this shooting are present in my narrative.

I am walking through my neighborhood. I see a garage door left open and the lights left on inside. I don't see a purse, though one is present. I approach the garage to see if my neighbor is still awake at this hour, or if this is unintentional.

I call, "hello?" as I look inside the garage.

The inside door from the house to the garage opens, and a shotgun is visible. The homeowner fires at me four times.

I call out, "Stop!" "Wait!".

Let's pause here for a moment.

Was this response from the homeowner necessary? By being at his garage door, was I a threat to him inside his home? Did he even see me? In the case of this particular homeowner, he fired without looking. It could have been anyone in his garage. There was no breaking and entering on my part. The garage was open and the light was on. It was inviting.

So far, I am guilty of trespass. But not of criminal trespass. I was merely walking up to see if everything is OK.

I had no criminal intent. I had no way of knowing that this neighbor had been previously burglarized. I had no way of knowing that he was intending to shoot the next person that came up to his house. But I am clearly facing a lethal threat: shotgun, fired 4 times. The homeowner has demonstrated his ability, his opportunity is clear and his intent is clear: my death.

Now, here is the interesting part. What if, at that moment, I had drawn my H&K USP compact from it's concealed holster to defend MY life from this homicidal person?

I fire in self-defense. After decades of training and practice, I hit center mass several times and the homeowner drops to the floor of the garage, dead from the Federal .40 S&W 180gr JHPs that I prefer to carry.

Now, what happens?

Referring back to my previous post on necessity and proportionality, I responded to a clear, unambiguous lethal threat to my life in this garage out of necessity and in a proportional manner.

In considering my case, the jury will have to look at my intent: seeing if a neighbor is OK. Further factors to consider include my spotless record, not even a traffic ticket, my 28 years of military service, my well-known gregarious nature and my history of helping other neighbors.

Same case in every respect, up to the point where I shoot back.

But I am likely to be acquitted of any charges. The misdemeanor trespass didn't justify the firing of the shotgun. The confessed intent of the now-dead homeowner to lure someone into his garage managed to attract a law-abiding citizen, not criminal, who was capable of defending himself.

I merely acted in self-defense. In precise accordance with the previously stated principles of self-defense in my earlier post. I had no choice. I could not withdraw from the situation.

The real mistake of the homeowner in this case was not being certain of his target. What if a friend had decided to drop by, as I've been known to do. Think about it, you're driving by a friend's house, it's late, you see the garage open, and with complete innocence, decide to see what your friend is working on.

For that act, you deserve to be shot four times with a shotgun? This homeowner never made sure of his target, he would have shot that friend.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Fact is that the perp should have called the police if he felt a need to "help" the homeowner out. Bottom line is that those two perps entered private property without authorization instead of calling the police to look into it.

Considering that the homeowner's property had been repeatedly trespassed on and broken into I have no doubt that he was on constant alert for future invaders coming onto his property.
There is no way for a victim of repeated incidents like this to know whether or not the perp will use deadly force against him, the homeowner was correct in shooting to kill.

I would love to know if these two punks had even been involved in trespassing before, I bet they have, and I am sure that these two were the same that had broken into his house on numerous occasions previously.


So they're "perps"?

Am I a "perp" in my story? The use of the pejorative means that you've already judged the one who was shot. You're betting that they're criminals, but that isn't yet proven.

In this country, thankfully, you are considered innocent until proven guilty (or shot for trespass, I suppose, at which point, any rights you may have had become somewhat moot).

Let's hope that you never look like a "perp" to someone else. Walk on my lawn? Trespass! I am shooting, invoking my fear of your trespass...

Threaten my dog? I might shoot a "perp" that does that too. Clearly a criminal, clearly deserves to die for threatening my dog...right?
 
It's clear to me that the homeowner didn't expect ANYONE to be on his property at the time, the only logical conclusion he could come to was that the same perps were back for yet another criminal act of trespassing but this time he was there and he didn't know if the criminals were possibly armed and drug fueled which would make them unpredictable. I certainly would not have just "hoped" they were harmless punks as that could be the death of me as well.

I would have done the SAME thing the homeowner did, shoot to kill.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
The real mistake of the homeowner in this case was not being certain of his target. What if a friend had decided to drop by, as I've been known to do. Think about it, you're driving by a friend's house, it's late, you see the garage open, and with complete innocence, decide to see what your friend is working on.

For that act, you deserve to be shot four times with a shotgun? This homeowner never made sure of his target, he would have shot that friend.


I said the same thing a few posts back and the response was people aren't convicted for "what ifs" and some gibberish about "nuns police officers Easter bunnies".

Obviously the point I was making was that the homeowner was reckless with his weapon and had he shown a duty of care rather than mistakenly think that castle laws allow you to shoot without consequences, then none of this would have happened.
 
Antiqueshell - that's the crux of this case: the homeowner DID expect someone on his property. In fact, it will be argued that he wanted someone on his property out of revenge, or murder. Consider:

He set up surveillance, he armed himself, he stayed up late to catch them.

He absolutely expected someone. This homeowner (who we shall call "killer" from now on, since you've judged the ones who were shot as "perps", seems only balanced to call him "killer"), this killer was clearly expecting someone.

Further, by "baiting" his property, garage door left open, purse left out, it's clear that the killer WANTED someone to come onto his property.

A reasonably competent prosecutor will use those two clear facts to demonstrate that this killer was looking to kill someone.

He lured that victim into his house. He waited to make the kill. He planned the whole thing.

Only problem with his plan? He shot someone who had no record of theft. He didn't kill a "perp"...but he did kill...

The jury will consider the merits of this case, including what was reasonably known by the killer at the time of the killing.

Now, to your point: if there are ever "perps" in your garage, I suggest that you rack the shotgun, and stay inside the kitchen while your wife calls 911. If the perps come inside, then you'll know their intent and you'll have a decisive tactical advantage, because you'll know where they're coming from, their number, and they'll know nothing of you.

A win-able gunfight. And a clear demonstration of intent on their part. They left your valuables in the garage to come after you. You would be certain of your target, in clear danger, and justified in using lethal force to defend yourself.

If you shoot without a threat to yourself, you are using lethal force where it isn't justified. That is known as homicide, or attempted homicide (depending on your aim) and that's what this killer was charged with.
 
Again...the bottom line is that the perps CHOSE to:

1) Trespass
2) Enter the premises of his garage


The homeowner did NOT FORCE them to do ANYTHING they didn't want to. End of story. Nobody dragged them onto his property or into his garage, the two perps walked on their own two legs onto HIS private property and into his garage.

The argument about baiting is null and void.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Again...the bottom line is that the perps CHOSE to:

1) Trespass
2) Enter the premises of his garage


The homeowner did NOT FORCE them to do ANYTHING they didn't want to. End of story. Nobody dragged them onto his property or into his garage, the two perps walked on their own two legs onto HIS private property and into his garage.

The argument about baiting is null and void.


No this is a valid argument. That is grounds for charges of premeditated murder now the homeowner will get his day in court.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Again...the bottom line is that the perps CHOSE to:

1) Trespass
2) Enter the premises of his garage


The argument is legal nonsense. The killer had no legal standing to execute a trespasser.

Law enforcement is allowed to bait people into crossing the line. They do it with johns. Hookers. People trying to steal cars. Sell stolen property. Commit bribes. They don't get to execute whoever crosses that line.

The killer planned it. That's called premeditated murder. Or in Montana, capital homicide. http://statelaws.findlaw.com/montana-law/montana-capital-punishment-laws.html

You'll notice the phrase "lying in wait or ambush" Conviction gets a needle in the arm.

The killer set a trap and lay in wait. Ambush if you like.
 
Last edited:
Chances are, the homeowner will take a plea deal before the court case comes to a conclusion.

The homeowner had plenty of choices, of which he decided that killing someone was the best of all the ones he could have chosen.

Chances are, a simple "GET OUT OF MY GARAGE!!" would have caused a hasty exit by the young man who clearly should have known better than to enter the garage of a man who lives in Montana.

Since the young man grew up in a different country, he might have been taught to do things differently when he walks by a neighbor's house that has the garage door left open, in his home country.

Just because some homeowners are blood thirsty lunatics here in the US, doesn't mean that they are bloodthirsty lunatics all over the world.

Regardless of all of that, here's my take on the whole situation:

I never leave my garage open.

If my garage had been broken into, and my property stolen from it, I would have made my garage more secure, not intentionally left it wide open.

If my garage, after being made more secure, and was still being broken into, I would have then moved my property that continues to be stolen, out of the garage. (I find it hilarious that it might be drugs that were the target of the theft)

If I encounter someone in my garage, without my permission, I first yell out "GET OUT OF MY GARAGE!!!", and then process how they react to being challenged by my authority, before deciding how far I need to escalate the situation up the threat/response scale.

But, most importantly, if I'm planning on setting a trap, no matter the severity of the trap, I wouldn't tell anyone on the planet about it. How stupid was this homeowner? The answer is very.

It always amazes me at how stupid people are.
This homeowner is yet another great example.

If you are planning on killing someone, you don't tell anyone about it before or after you do it. And why in the world would you tell a hairdresser, anyway? Of all the people.

But, I don't have to worry.
In another day or three, I will learn of some other person who will have topped this homeowner's stupidity, with an even greater example of idiocy.

That's the great thing about America.
There's always someone dumber about to make the evening news.

BC.
 
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Chances are, the homeowner will take a plea deal before the court case comes to a conclusion.



An insanity plea seems to fit the bill nicely here. He should seriously consider that.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Again...the bottom line is that the perps CHOSE to:

1) Trespass
2) Enter the premises of his garage


No one is denying that. The bottom line is these actions do not justify lethal force.

There are many other options available for a reasonable person to take to defuse the situation. This homeowner chose killing in advance, without evaluating the circumstances, because he was angry and wanted to kill the person he thought robbed him previously. That is not allowed in a civilized nation.

Again, Castle Doctrine does not allow you to just blast anyone you find on your property - there must be a reasonably perceived threat of serious harm from the intruder. In some cases such a threat may be presumed, such as a forceful entry to the living quarters at night, but entering an open garage does not rise to that level.

Tom NJ
 
One of the most critical aspects is that there were repeated
break ins and trespassing, so the homeowner could NOT feel secure on his own property. He was in a heightened state of alertness and again he could not know what the intentions of those perps would be if he was home and was not prepared for them.

I would love to be on this jury, I would definitely find him
NOT GUILTY of any crimes. I'm pretty sure that there will be a significant number of like minded people on that jury too.

I figure a hung jury or not guilty. Best message we can send to criminals that like to trespass, and break and enter into private property.

Bottom line, if you don't want to get shot, do NOT trespass or break and enter.
 
The boy who was shot didn't break and enter.

The boy who was shot, and the one who ran, were enticed to enter this garage.

The homeowner/killer set out those inducements with intent. It's called "entrapment" in other contexts.

The homeowner/killer's prior history justifies nothing. Each decision to shoot has to be made on the presence of a threat at that time.

The fact that the homeowner created this situation, by setting the "trap", will make him mincemeat in court. He deliberately created the situation so that he could shoot. Looks like revenge, perhaps, for burglary. Homicide. As charged.

Burglary was not committed in this case. Even if it were, property theft, even in Montana, doesn't justify lethal force. Trespass doesn't justify lethal force. Only self defense justifies lethal force.

The castle doctrine simply provides a simpler test of when a person may feel threatened. But the threat must be present to justify shooting.

This homeowner had no justification.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GON
Vietnam tycoon Truong My Lan sentenced to death in $12.5bn fraud case
2
Replies
36
Views
858
KrisZ
GON
  • Locked
Sam Bankman Fried 25 year sentence - did parents advise to show no remorse?
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
JGmazda
John105
RIP Robbie Robertson
Replies
18
Views
727
wag123
R
School me on pepper spray, gel, foam, etc. Bonus point points for actual experience on dogs.
2
Replies
26
Views
943
Skippy722
walterjay
What unusual or funny thing does your dog do
2
Replies
33
Views
938
Dave Hess
Back
Top