Homeowner Shoots Burglar-911 Tape Link

In California, the "castle doctrine" includes just about any place you establish a presence as a "habitation" (usually to sleep for the night, though that isn't necessary). Thus, an RV is covered and so is a tent.

Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle as defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft as defined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or any
underground portion thereof, with intent to ...

A house, trailer, vessel designed for habitation, or portion of a building is currently being used for dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not occupied solely because a natural or other disaster caused the occupants to leave the premises.


The term "good shoot" or "good shooting" implies a legal & justifiable basis for the shooting. This is as opposed to a "bad shooting" which would be a criminal shooting. This was originally, I believe, police lexicon that crept into more or less common usage.
 
Good Shoot ... Bad Shoot is a slang term for a Justifiable shoot or Non- Justfiable shoot. As callous as it might seem. Every person that has had to use a weapon of any kind to take anothers life ends up having to think about it. I hope and pray I never am in Mr Mcquires predicament. All that aside when are we gonna stop coddling the people that are willing to do harm to us. We all are gonna die.. that young man just made a decision that ended his prematurely. Young people have no idea of concequences of their actions, have not learned respect of others and think that rules don't apply to them. Without respect they can do and will do anything including harm you. So Mr Mcguire was justified in doing what he did. The kid made a choice... it cost him big but it also cost Mr Mcguire...
 
Everyone remember - at 15 years old - crossing the line by breaking into someone's house at night is a very serious thing for someone of that age to do. I hate to say this because it sounds cold-hearted - but the kid was probably well on his way to a life of even more serious crime.

The shooter may have save a few lives down the line or rape victims, etc.
 
I don't have any problem with "Good Shoot" as a term.

"Good" have various meanings and I associate it with the ones appropriate to its use in this case.
 
Keltyke,

I love your sig but based on what you're advocating in your post you don't agree with its sentiment...you might want to find something more fitting. ;)

I don't want to be surfing the forums in the future and see a post where a BG has forced his way into your (read this as anybody not just YOU) home and shot you while you were assessing the level of violence he meant to visit upon you and yours. That is you, your family members AND your possessions.

One's home is a sacred space and should be respected as such by all others. If each and every moron that failed to keep that little gem in mind came up against a homeowner that refused to be the victim, the world would be a better place on average. It won't prevent everybody from attempting to invade another person's home but at least they'll only do it once!

Byte

EDIT Oh yeah I forgot to address Relayer's last remark! Yeah the term 'good shoot' does have plenty of semantic baggage connected with it. I prefer 'justified shoot' myself! Those that can't readily come out on top of any debate using their version of logic will generally fall back on **** poor semantic angles to 'shift' their position. Blech...have a spine!
 
Many states cover the "home invasion/burglary" under common law, which generally presumes that any person brazen enough to enter your home while you are in it is armed and willing to use violence or deadly force if discovered. That is the justification for use of deadly force against a burglar or home invader.

Jim
 
Many states cover the "home invasion/burglary" under common law, which generally presumes that any person brazen enough to enter your home while you are in it is armed and willing to use violence or deadly force if discovered. That is the justification for use of deadly force against a burglar or home invader.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! This homeowners state, along with many others (Including my own) Recognize that if I am in my home, and ANYONE, be he 15, 0r 105 years old, has the cajones to forcibly try and enter my home, the "presupmtion" that that person is a deadly threat is pretty much automatic. I need not retreat to a "safer" room, call 911, and hope he doesn't try to break into "that" room before defending myself and family. I can stop the threat immediately.

One's home is a sacred space and should be respected as such by all others. If each and every moron that failed to keep that little gem in mind came up against a homeowner that refused to be the victim, the world would be a better place on average.
Click to expand...

+1 Provided that your state law allows you to do so.


Keltyke,

I love your sig but based on what you're advocating in your post you don't agree with its sentiment...you might want to find something more fitting.
Click to expand...


After reading a number of your posts, I am inclined to agree.
 
By giving a verbal challenge you are giving up a very important advantage

The element of surprise. This is a great tactical advantage.

My other comment is this, people seem to be fixating on the fact that he is 15

Would they feel better if he shot a 35 yr old (insert your color ,minority status or ethnic backround here).
 
In my wilder days I was not such a law abiding person.
And I can tell you from experience that if a person just wants to steal stuff from your home, and nothing more, they will make sure that nobody is home before they break in.
They will knock on the door or ring the bell, look to see if there is a car in the garage, throw a brick through a window and wait to see if anyone comes to investigate, etc...
You see, a petty thief does not want confrontation.
He just wants your valuables.
He's probably not dangerous.

But a person who breaks in to an occupied home....that's a dangerous person!
 
If someone breaks into my house they already had two chances to change their mind. My dog and my locked door. Not thinking that they are there for the worst is not safe. I'm not saying that I won't give someone a chance but it's going to take just the right circumstance. Namely all the lights are on, I know he's alone, my familys not there, etc.
 
The mindset that the homeowner shot the criminal in an effort to protect his property rather than his person is a mindset very similar to that which sustains the anti crowd. None of us can know exactly what the homeowner’s thoughts, impressions and fears were as he investigated the commotion, so claiming he could have as easily retreated to cover while calling 911 is ludicrous.

It would be real nice if the home invader indicated to his victims up front that he really just wants the VCR, notebook and iPod. But since they are rarely so forthcoming and have already demonstrated the fact that they are brazen, violent criminals, I think shooting them is the most prudent course of action and criticizing someone else for doing so is naive at best.

It is unfortunate that someone lost their life and the fact it was a kid makes it no easier to stomach, but the kid felt little risk in doing what he did because society tolerates all sorts of abuse of law-abiding citizens while often protecting the abusers. And society behaves in this manner due in part to the mindset referenced above.

This shooting, as far as can be determined by the available evidence, was not only legally justified; it was morally justified.
 
Killing a buglar:

About killing a burglar:
Quit saying he is a 15 year old kid....How the hell is the home owner supposed to know he is only 15?
Is he required to say, "Excuse me sir, can you tell me how old you are before I shoot you?" A lot of kids are way bigger than me, (6 ft.+) and at night it is sort of hard to distinguish a young man or adult (especially when you are in fear of your life or bodily harm). Lets quite making excuses for the criminals. Most of them already have a prior record and just keep getting off.
Who knows down the road if the bad guy didn't kill or rape another victim (because he got away with this one).
Bottom line: Sure he might have handled it better,if he had a lot of time to reflect on it, but at the time he was just reacting to the situation. Does that make him right or wrong? Who really knows all the answers to each situation like this, NOBODY does...........Its easy to read about this days later and make a judgement but its a lot different being there and actually experiencing it firsthand. Belive me, I know because I was robbed at knifepoint by 5 dudes in Macon, GA (Hilton hotel) some time back and had no weapon myself to fend them off and had to just take it. Scared the hell out of me for a long time afterwards. I since got a weapons permit and carry a .45 auto in certain places. Hope to God I never have to use it but it is there if need be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top