Homeowner Shoots Burglar-911 Tape Link

The investigation indicates that Berisaj might have been working with someone older who would identify a house to break into, and then Berisaj would actually steal items such as laptop computers and other electronics, according to the investigation.

The witnesses stated that Berisaj would brag about the burglaries in school, according to the report. Most of the witnesses were students at Moss Middle School and were not named in the report because they are juveniles.

The older individual would provide marijuana and money to Berisaj in return for the stolen items, witnesses told police, according to the investigative report.
Click to expand...

15 years old. Wow. And the kids talking about him are in MIDDLE school. Shouldn't he have been in HS by that age?

I'm not sure I would have fired right away to be honest. It was absolutely a scary situation but probably a verbal warning might have been prudent. If the perp kept on coming, all bets would be off.
 
Reaching through the window, "trying" to get the door open, and he shot the burglar "point blank" in the back of the head. I'd say he's lucky not to get charged.
 
Sure you could say he's lucky to not get charged. But he's also lucky to not be dead. In a situation like that, you might be able to say it's a 50/50 chance that the person reaching their arm through the window in the door is holding a gun in the other hand. He reacted in the safest way he could, as far as his own life goes. And the law was on his side. I'm not saying I would have done the same, I probably would have used a verbal warning first, but by doing so, I'd be putting myself at greater risk. But I am saying that we should all be happy that we have the option to defend our selves, our family, and property in such a manner if we feel it's necessary.

All the same though, that was a very unfortunate situation for everyone involved. Especially for the kid and his family.

I bet this incident has helped to change the lives of the kids friends though, atleast I hope so.
 
It is sad that a 15 year old kid lost his life BUT he pulled a forcible felony. That kid lost his life and it will impress upon the other kids who knew him to not commit any crimes. If it is not yours, leave it alone. From time-to-time a person who commits a crime will die for their lack of honesty. In this case it was a kid. Too bad the older person who lured the 15 year old kid to commit the crime and die will not also forfeit his life. The older person should be held accountable for the crimes that the 15 year old did and for the death of the 15 year old kid. And the penalty that the older person should face should be the same one that the 15 year old suffered. If you cause a death as a result of a felony crime, you should also be executed in very short order.
 
mellow_c said:
In a situation like that, you might be able to say it's a 50/50 chance that the person reaching their arm through the window in the door is holding a gun in the other hand. He reacted in the safest way he could, as far as his own life goes.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion retreating to the bedroom or another area of the house where he could barricade himself while calling 911 would have been a safer response. McGuire had no friends or family in the house to defend, and based on the article and 911 recording I don't see how his life was in immediate danger. He essentially shot and killed someone in order to defend his VCR.

Rifleman 173 said:
The older person should be held accountable for the crimes that the 15 year old did and for the death of the 15 year old kid.
Click to expand...

The older accomplice isn't named. I would guess that's because he's being charged in any burglaries they can tie to Berisaj.
 
This was a good shooting. There is no way in hell that you know who is breaking in and when it happens you'd better have a survival instinct or the possibility of your family going to a funeral is a real possibility.
 
He shot an UNARMED burglar in the BACK of the head. He's VERY lucky to not be on trial for murder 2. Yes, the guy was breaking into his house, but he saw NO weapon and evidently the boy was at least sideways to him. To me, there's NO presumption of "in fear of life or grave bodily injury" here. Bad shooting. Now he's gotta live with killing an unarmed person, AND the possible civil litigation from the boys family.

Motive - none
Intent - none shown
Opportunity - admittedly, yes

True, he didn't know the guy was unarmed, but that's why we're taught to examine the three criteria listed above before pulling the trigger. Maybe the boy was a bad actor, but that was unknown to the homeowner.

Interestingly enough, many years ago, our county got a new Sheriff. One of the first things he did when he took office was announce that, "If someone is breaking into your home, you may presume they are there to hurt you, not just rob you. Act accordingly" He and the DA went 'round and 'round for a while on that one, but I think it was upheld. In SC, a person who makes a LEGAL shooting is immune to criminal AND civil litigation.

I understand why he did what he did, but it's still a bad shooting.
 
here we go again.

THIS WAS NOT A BURGLARY! Which, incidentally, is why the homeowner is not being charged. Imagine that. Why is that? Because it was a home invasion. Go look up the definition. And then go look up burglary. There is a difference.

Which goes back to: are you willing to bet your life on whether this burglar...nay, HOME INVADER is armed or not? Not me. As soon as any part of his body crossed univited into the INTERIOR of my home, I am not required to give verbal warning and I certainly wont be waiting until I know for sure if the invader is armed.

Why is it that many can not understand that retreat is not required in the case of a home invasion? Or that retreat during a home invasion is rarely the safest alternative?
 
Ah, yes, someone was home... that makes it a home invasion!

It's hard to say "good shooting" or "bad shooting" without all the facts. I have seen some humongous 15 year-old kids, and knowing whether or not he was armed is impossible under the circumstances. Florida law says if they're in your home, and shouldn't be there, the presumption is they are there to cause you harm. That makes the decision all that much easier, especially since the law also protects against any civil lawsuits. Somehow - we MUST get the message out that crime is bad, and it can (and should) get you killed. I've had enough of this pandering to criminals...

Two days ago, a LEO got shot in the face, right here in Fort Myers. The guy who killed him was supposed to have been deported back to Cuba over 10 years ago. He had a rap sheet a mile long! Cuba refused to take him back, so we simply turned him loose on our streets. Why, do we keep people like that on the streets? Why?
 
He essentially shot and killed someone in order to defend his VCR.
Click to expand...

That is such a stupid and ridiculous statement, I am almost at a loss for words. Prove to me and everyone here beyond a reasonable doubt that the invader was there simply to steal a VCR.
 
we MUST get the message out that crime is bad, and it can (and should) get you killed.
Click to expand...

That is a fact. I'm truly sorry for this kids family but I'm not sorry for the kid. He was old enough to know better and if he didn't know better it's his and his parents fault and no one elses. Home Invasion is, in my book, a violent crime in and of itself and I think the law in most areas supports that idea. During the commission of a violent felony, shooting is allowed.
 
Also from the article...

Kentucky law allows a homeowner to use lethal force to stop someone from committing a burglary, robbery or any other felony utilizing force at his or her home. McGuire also had a permit to carry a concealed weapon in Kentucky.
Click to expand...


No argument on this one. In Kentucky it's a "good" shooting. Though there's nothing good to be said about having to kill someone.
 
I agree with both Creature's posts. If someone breaks into your home you SHOULD consider they are there for the worst. It probably isn't very smart to think they just want the TV and then they will leave without hurting someone.
 
We had a situation in my area probably 15 years ago where the homeowners, apparently, assumed the guy was "just there for the VCR" and decided to cooperate with the guy.

His entire family ended up dead with his daughter raped and then the guy poured gas on them and lit the entire house on fire.

Ended of while later with some LE bullets in the guy (actually, last I knew they weren't sure if it was suicide or police bullets)

I think about that situation when I think about whether or not I'd shoot someone entering my home.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE6DC1F3DF93BA35751C0A966958260
 
He shot an UNARMED burglar
Click to expand...

No, he shot SOMEONE COMMITTING A FELONY HOME INVASION.

To me, there's NO presumption of "in fear of life or grave bodily injury" here.
Click to expand...

Then you have obviously never been in this man's circumstances, and your "presumption" has no merit.

True, he didn't know the guy was unarmed
Click to expand...

Um, there goes your "presumption" at least to any reasonable person.


I respectfully disagree. In my opinion retreating to the bedroom or another area of the house where he could barricade himself while calling 911 would have been a safer response.
Click to expand...


Really? How so...If this person would break in one door to get into the house, why would a second door be more of a deterrant? Especially in a state where there is NO DUTY TO RETREAT.

This was an unfortunate situation for the homeowner, but I WILL NOT feel sorry for the CRIMINAL:mad:
 
I respectfully disagree. In my opinion retreating to the bedroom or another area of the house where he could barricade himself while calling 911 would have been a safer response.
Click to expand...

Most interior doors in modern construction homes are not much of a barricade. Nine out of ten interior doors are cheaply constructed and are hollow...any 10 year old kid can kick down those kinds of doors in about a second flat.
 
To me, there's NO presumption of "in fear of life or grave bodily injury" here.
Click to expand...

Maybe I don't qualify as "reasonable" but, to me, someone kicking or smashing in my back door IS fear of life or bodily harm.


However, I can agree that a verbal warning may have been prudent, depending perhaps on the layout of the house and if I felt I could be in a protected position if the BG started shooting.
 
Hopefully all his high school and middle school friends will think twice before breaking into someones house again. The homeowner doesn't deserve any time. You could say he should have done this, he should have done that, but chances are none of us have been in that same situation and I commend him for protecting himself. If the kid was 15 doing this stuff then the world has one less career criminal. +1
 
Creature said:
Prove to me and everyone here beyond a reasonable doubt that the invader was there simply to steal a VCR.
Click to expand...

I can't. Neither can you prove that the invader wouldn't have run once he was challenged verbally.

Creature said:
Most interior doors in modern construction homes are not much of a barricade. Nine out of ten interior doors are cheaply constructed and are hollow...any 10 year old kid can kick down those kinds of doors in about a second flat.
Click to expand...

However, the rear door was braced to the extent that the homeowner said *he* couldn't open it for police. I see very little risk associated with getting to a position of concealment and cover, ordering the invader to leave, and calling 911.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating allowing him into the house, or giving up the rhetorical VCR, or cooperating in any way. All I'm saying is that unless I'm certain my life or someone else's is in danger I'm going to give him a chance to surrender or retreat before I risk shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top