Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
I would tend to agree... but it was/is legal. Now HE has to live with taking a life and WE get a chance to think what we would have done.
Homeowner Shoots Burglar-911 Tape Link
- Thread starter FLA2760
- Start date
I would tend to agree... but it was/is legal. Now HE has to live with taking a life and WE get a chance to think what we would have done.
That's the beauty of the law of the land...I don't have to prove that he would have run if verbally challenged, now do I? All that matters is that the intruder is trying to invade my home with me in it.
I personally am prepared and willing to defend my life against someone who is intent on invading my home and doing me harm. Are you?
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Yes
You still have to live with it.
I'd say that by the apparent discussion of KY law, this was a good shooting. It probably would be a good shoot here in California (of all places) too.
Well, it would be classified as a first degree burglary here in California.
It's easily argued that a person who has broken a window and reached inside the outer perimeter of the building has actually "entered" the building - i.e. entered it with part of his body. A person "banging" (kicking?) on the door and then using a rock to smash a window then reaching in can easily be presumed by a reasonable man to be trying to gain access to the inside of the building. That same reasonable man would conclude that the person doing this was there to commit some form of theft (larceny).
As to justification for shooting the guy breaking in...
He's justified under 197.1 to resist any felony. First degree burglary is a felony.
As noted by other posters, someone who breaks into your home by stealth can be reasonably construed to be in your home to commit larceny or to commit a crime against the person of anyone found inside.
A person who breaks down a door or enters your residence in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner (such as kicking the door in or throwing a rock through the window) may be presumed to be intent on not only burglary, but felonious assault on persons inside.
Note that the armament(s) of the burglar are not an issue here. He could be bare handed. Nor do I think a round striking the back of the head is beyond reason. If you're reaching through a door's glass window to unlock the door and someone fires one or two shots thru the glass or door, a natural reaction would be turning one's head away from potentially blinding glass or flying wood splinters.
I thought this was an interesting statement...
Well, it would be classified as a first degree burglary here in California.
It's easily argued that a person who has broken a window and reached inside the outer perimeter of the building has actually "entered" the building - i.e. entered it with part of his body. A person "banging" (kicking?) on the door and then using a rock to smash a window then reaching in can easily be presumed by a reasonable man to be trying to gain access to the inside of the building. That same reasonable man would conclude that the person doing this was there to commit some form of theft (larceny).
As to justification for shooting the guy breaking in...
He's justified under 197.1 to resist any felony. First degree burglary is a felony.
As noted by other posters, someone who breaks into your home by stealth can be reasonably construed to be in your home to commit larceny or to commit a crime against the person of anyone found inside.
A person who breaks down a door or enters your residence in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner (such as kicking the door in or throwing a rock through the window) may be presumed to be intent on not only burglary, but felonious assault on persons inside.
Note that the armament(s) of the burglar are not an issue here. He could be bare handed. Nor do I think a round striking the back of the head is beyond reason. If you're reaching through a door's glass window to unlock the door and someone fires one or two shots thru the glass or door, a natural reaction would be turning one's head away from potentially blinding glass or flying wood splinters.
I thought this was an interesting statement...
It does make sense when the person in question shoots in defense of his life or of his home. I'm sure he would not expect a prison sentence if he kills a man with a knife who breaks into his home.
Sorry, not much choice here. An autopsy was performed because the case involved a homicide. Relatives and religious desires take a back seat in most cases to investigating the homicide.
Break in, break heart
Any life ended is a tragedy. It rests on our ability not to put ourselves at risk. It also place us in protection of our lives and property.
My sons have never been been in a situation they had to violate another property with the intent to steal articles for their next "fix" at school. My sons do not find someone's elses property their own picking. If it were my son I had to identify in the morgue, I might feel differently. An univited intruder into my home breaking through the door or window will find me defending my life, my family (if present) and my property. I have little knowlege if the intruder is armed (he/she is already a criminal). Criminals have a tendency to protect thier own life, but have an uncany bravery (next "fix", etc.) or greed to do the crime. Some may be armed, some not. I am not inclined to blow away the intruder in the outside darkness. But if he/she comes into my house uninvited, I will assume I am in danger of attack with knife, gun, or other force. My force will be greater.
Any life ended is a tragedy. It rests on our ability not to put ourselves at risk. It also place us in protection of our lives and property.
My sons have never been been in a situation they had to violate another property with the intent to steal articles for their next "fix" at school. My sons do not find someone's elses property their own picking. If it were my son I had to identify in the morgue, I might feel differently. An univited intruder into my home breaking through the door or window will find me defending my life, my family (if present) and my property. I have little knowlege if the intruder is armed (he/she is already a criminal). Criminals have a tendency to protect thier own life, but have an uncany bravery (next "fix", etc.) or greed to do the crime. Some may be armed, some not. I am not inclined to blow away the intruder in the outside darkness. But if he/she comes into my house uninvited, I will assume I am in danger of attack with knife, gun, or other force. My force will be greater.
dabigguns357
New member
I would think this is pretty cut and dry,a burglar watches a house to see if your there and will enter when they know you the homeowner are not.You break in to someones house while they sleep and you are asking to be killed.Justified i say yes.
Then obviously the next question would be what is classified as a home invasion in CA?
_____
It is not reasonable to assume that a person who resorts to breaking a window to gain entry into a occupied home, which is in itself is not a quiet operation, in the middle of the night (a domicile which in most cases has a higher chance of actually being inhabited by a person because of the time of day) has already planned on and decided to deal with any person they encounter once they get inside?
Is that not the only presumption that should be made in a situation like this?
To me, it is.
Based on that presumption, I will have no problem living with having shot and possibly killed someone who enters my home unannounced and uninvited through force, unless they are the police and have a warrant. Even then, the police are generally required to announce themselves prior to entering with a warrant
"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."
Taking this at face value, I don't see how anyone can say this man should be facing charges.
Personally, I THINK I would have shouted at the person breaking in and tried to scare him away. Still, JMHO, (regardless of the law) if you are breaking into a man's home, you are just asking to be shot and you (or surviving family members) don't really have much room to complain.
When you attempt such the people who happen to be inside cannot know what you plan to do once you get inside, nor should they have to try and guess or wait to see if you are going to for sure do harm to them before they take you out.
Taking this at face value, I don't see how anyone can say this man should be facing charges.
Personally, I THINK I would have shouted at the person breaking in and tried to scare him away. Still, JMHO, (regardless of the law) if you are breaking into a man's home, you are just asking to be shot and you (or surviving family members) don't really have much room to complain.
When you attempt such the people who happen to be inside cannot know what you plan to do once you get inside, nor should they have to try and guess or wait to see if you are going to for sure do harm to them before they take you out.
davlandrum
New member
Tough call for me -
My 13-year-old son has ADHD, anxiety, and other stuff rolling around in his head.
He was staying with my mom this summer for a few days. He went out to ride his bike for a while. Not long enough after his meds for them to be working.
He ended up walking into the neighbors motorhome, where the neighbor was asleep. Why did he go in? If I could tell you that, I would be the smartest man alive.
Neighbor wakes up and comes out of bed with a .357 and yells at him. My son turned and ran and the guy chased him to my mom's house.
Grandpa chewed him out for awhile. Let things cool down and then marched my son back there to apologize. Guy chewed him out good. Son comes home, I chewed him out good and tanned his hide, my wife almost killed him.
If he had been shot, it would have been a "good shoot". I know it would have been a good shoot, and given that exact scenario with me waking up to an intruder, I might have shot.
That split second to yell at him before pulling the trigger was the difference between a lesson learned for the rest of his life (hopefully) and planning a funeral for my kid.
My 13-year-old son has ADHD, anxiety, and other stuff rolling around in his head.
He was staying with my mom this summer for a few days. He went out to ride his bike for a while. Not long enough after his meds for them to be working.
He ended up walking into the neighbors motorhome, where the neighbor was asleep. Why did he go in? If I could tell you that, I would be the smartest man alive.
Neighbor wakes up and comes out of bed with a .357 and yells at him. My son turned and ran and the guy chased him to my mom's house.
Grandpa chewed him out for awhile. Let things cool down and then marched my son back there to apologize. Guy chewed him out good. Son comes home, I chewed him out good and tanned his hide, my wife almost killed him.
If he had been shot, it would have been a "good shoot". I know it would have been a good shoot, and given that exact scenario with me waking up to an intruder, I might have shot.
That split second to yell at him before pulling the trigger was the difference between a lesson learned for the rest of his life (hopefully) and planning a funeral for my kid.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
davlandrum,
Depends on how your son got in, it would have to be violent, tumultuous entry to justify shooting in most areas. If he just walked in an unlocked door it would be a "bad" shooting. I'm also not sure if a motor home ALWAYS qualifies under things like the castle doctrine: might, might not, I don't know
johnsonmd1
Inactive
It would probably depend on the state whether the RV counts under a Castle doctrine. Looking at the quote regarding the CA law ("or other...vessel"), it would be considered a good shoot. I'm unsure whether other states have similar caveats. In most cases a state's Castle doctrine should extend to an RV. Would such law also extend to a car/truck/boat as well (my good common sense but poor legal reasoning would be that I do have to pay property taxes on such items)?
davlandrum
New member
He walked through an unlocked door.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Anybody else hate the term "good shot" when applied to shooting a fellow human being?
Shouldn't we say "right"/"wrong" or "legal"/"illegal"
I'm as pro-gun, anti-pc as they come but that term just FEELS wrong to me.
Seems to me like it's never good to have to shoot someone, no matter how much they deserve it. (and YES I would shoot someone if needed to defend me and mine)
Shouldn't we say "right"/"wrong" or "legal"/"illegal"
I'm as pro-gun, anti-pc as they come but that term just FEELS wrong to me.
Seems to me like it's never good to have to shoot someone, no matter how much they deserve it. (and YES I would shoot someone if needed to defend me and mine)
johnsonmd1
Inactive
Good point; one could also use justifiable v. criminal homicide.
Someone was on my train of thought
Someone was on my train of thought
Last edited:
Shooting anyone for any reason can be an extremely traumatic experience. It is rather sad that this young man lost his life. I am sure Mr. McGuire was shook up about shooting a teen,
The fact remains that he felt threatened and acted in line with what is acceptable under Kentucky law. One cannot really retreat in their own home.
I am glad that I have a dog that barks in a loud and aggressive fashion when someone approaches the house. Maybe a dog barking would have discouraged this teen.
It is so easy to calmly sit at our computers and second guess the actions of the shooter but we really don't know what we would have done unless we were in that situation. I pray none of us has to find out.
Good shoot under Kentucky law. Bad shoot in that he has to live with it.
The fact remains that he felt threatened and acted in line with what is acceptable under Kentucky law. One cannot really retreat in their own home.
I am glad that I have a dog that barks in a loud and aggressive fashion when someone approaches the house. Maybe a dog barking would have discouraged this teen.
It is so easy to calmly sit at our computers and second guess the actions of the shooter but we really don't know what we would have done unless we were in that situation. I pray none of us has to find out.
Good shoot under Kentucky law. Bad shoot in that he has to live with it.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
That does sound allot less callouss, I'm going with "justifiable/unjustifiable" from now on.