Homeowner Shoots, Kills 3 am Tresspasser; No Charges Filed

Status
Not open for further replies.
WINSTON said:
That is what opened him up to a law suit from the thief's family.
Click to expand...
I believe you are confusing two separate issues here.

One is that in the OP, the man will not be charged in a criminal proceeding. The other, the one you mentioned, the man was sued in a civil court. The two are not the same.

The man in the OP may still be sued in civil court. We only know that he will not be criminally charged.
 
However, I am open-minded on this. Can you cite any specific statutes that say you can't confront trespassers or burglars on your own property?
Click to expand...

I didn't say you can't confront or protect your property. You can. But you can't use deadly force to do it. Yes if the thief attacks you. "GAME ON" That is why I said he OP was lucky.

1. He didn't get his gun used on him.
2. He wasn't charged.
3. He wasn't arrested.

But he is now open for a lawsuit and a unarmed drunk guy is dead. If he was smarter, he would have stayed inside and called 911 and aimed his gun at the door with his family and kids behind him. Until police arrived.
 
I believe you are confusing two separate issues here.

One is that in the OP, the man will not be charged in a criminal proceeding. The other, the one you mentioned, the man was sued in a civil court. The two are not the same.

The man in the OP may still be sued in civil court. We only know that he will not be criminally charged.
Click to expand...

I said he was lucky...........he wasn't charged.

The 2 are the same in the fact that both people went outside of their homes. With a gun. I am not saying I wouldn't do the same thing. I have. Someone was trying to break in next door. I chased them down the block and around the corner. But you have to know what you are doing by escalating the situation. By going outside. It is escalating the situation. Armed or unarmed.
 
Also, who knows what other kind of retribution this guy could be in for. The dead drunk could have friends, cousins, etc. who aren't going to be real happy that he got killed. They might not be the types to take one to civil court, especially some night when they might be sitting around drinking and commiserating.

And the girlfriend lives right across the street? Man, if I was that guy I think I'd be wanting to move.
 
Really???

Really, "WINSTON THE WOLF"????? The homeowner "shouldn't have been there", but the criminal should have been??????? Are you sure you're just the "THE WOLF"???

I guess, "Arizona does not have a right to use deadly force for property............" except if it is SENATOR McCAIN'S!!!!!!
 
Useful post, JohnKSa

I think yours is yet another very useful post, JohnKSa. It makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks.

Reading some posts sometimes gives the idea that I should be ready to allow any criminal to violate any person/thing/property, etc. BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO REACT!!!!!!!!! or because one will get into trouble for doing so.
 
But you have to know what you are doing by escalating the situation. By going outside. It is escalating the situation. Armed or unarmed.
Click to expand...

Investigating a disturbance at your residence is perfectly legal. Encountering an intruder is simply one possible result of such investigation. Demanding that an intruder leave the property is legal.

The idea that investigating what is occurring around your residence or demanding that an intruder leave (both of which are perfectly legal actions) is 'escalating the situation' is without legal merit.

Once an encounter with an intruder occurs, escalation may result from the threat or use of force. Threatening or using force to compel the intruder to leave involves escalation and may or may not be legal in a specific jurisdiction. Responding to the actual or perceived threat or use of force by an intruder is not escalation, although a particular response may or may not be legal in a specific jurisdiction.

In this case, the homeowner did not say he escalated the situation by trying to force the intruder to leave at gunpoint. Instead, the homeowner claimed that the intruder escalated the situation by advancing menacingly on the homeowner.
 
I for one, would never go outside from my front door if someone were on the property. Does that make sense? Just call the cops. I haven't read the entire thread but anyone who goes outside when they might be safe inside is nothing more than a murderer. I don't know if the poor defenseless drunk (who had PASSED OUT in his car, earlier) had a weapon; if he did not, I'm quite surprised that charges have not been filed. Of course, we don't have all the facts.

Can't wait to see the outcome of the civil suit. There may not be criminal liability in this case (charges not brought-yet) but the civil matter is something else... I'd recommend the murderer do all he can to protect his interest in his house, because there's a civil case coming-soon! Based only on the facts as in the article, which are not necessarily 'facts', I think the homeowner has done an egregious wrong... f it! The poor drunk was drunk! Did he flash a knife or gun and point it at the guy? Homeowner I hope rots in hell if these are the true facts as reported in the article, which is not likely.
 
I'd recommend the murderer do all he can to protect his interest in his house
Click to expand...


So now the homeowner is a murderer and Munoz is just a poor defenseless drunk?

Maybe you should read the entire thread.
 
Does a mean drunk, who is merely on your driveway or sidewalk, justify a homeowner grabbing his gun, LEAVING his house, confronting the drunk (who is drunk after all and non compos mentis), thus escalating the situation, when a mere call to 911 might have remedied the situation? What about pepper spray if you're going out there? Homeowner was a fool based on the facts given...a damn 'fool'... I believe cops would've used less than lethal force, like pepper spray in such a situation, and, if not, they'd likely be charged with homicide...

Obviously, some of you have no regard for the value and sanctity of human life.

The man was DRUNK. Have you ever been DRUNK, and done things you later regretted? Or are you 'holier than thou'?

I feel terrible for his loved ones.

The killer is going to have a tough time dealing with this on a psychological and financial basis. You'll see...yes, you will see...
 
Last edited:
Finally somebody gets it. Thanks brentfoto.

If someone breaks into my house. Poor guy WILL not be walking out. If he is breaking into my car. So be it. That's what insurance is for. Just because I can use a gun , doesn't mean I always should.

an unarmed 23 year old is dead because he was drunk, Also because a homeowner came out with a gun and was worried that the unarmed drunk guy might fight for the gun. So he killed the drunk guy. If the gun wasn't their or the home owner was inside and called the cops. The drunk guy would still be alive, More than likely in jail but alive.

That's all I have to say on this matter.
 
Right...show me where the drunk has no responsibility here.

Obviously, some of you have no regard for the value and sanctity of human life.
Click to expand...

Obviously neither did the drunk when he turned and continued to advance and threaten the homeowner while trespassing.

You seem unable to see that it wasn't the homeowner who escalated the situation. It was the trespasser who escalated the situation. The homeowner was merely exercising prudence by arming himself. It was the trespasser's responsibility to de-escalate the situation, which he did not. In fact, the trespasser is guilty of escalating the situation in the first place. The homeowner had every right to demand that the trespasser cease from his felonious activities and leave his property. He also had every right to defend himself when the culprit ESCALATED the situation by threatening the homeowner.

Let's put the responsibility where it belongs, shall we?
 
The man was DRUNK. Have you ever been DRUNK, and done things you later regretted? Or are you 'holier than thou'?
Click to expand...

yes I have. And if I had been drunk enough to wander onto someone else's property in the middle of the night AND drunk enough to advance on him despite him being armed and ordering me to stop THEN I would have deserved to be shot......

Just because you are drunk doesn't mean you no longer are responsible for your actions. If you drink beyond the ability to reason the consequences are yours to bear.
 
I'll also add that while tactically not smart to leave your house and investigate, there is absolutely nothing illegal (in most free states anyway) about walking outside your door on your property armed for your protection.

When I go outside at night to my reloading shed or anywhere else, I'm armed. Does this mean I am escalating the situation if I happen upon a tresspasser whilst outside?
 
I think a drunk celebrity or two has wandered on to someone's property, according to news reports. Guess he/she should've been murdered, too...

Somebody needs their head straightened out...this kid was only 23? GGGeessssshh.... what a waste to kill the kid.

That homeowner is now 'toast'. I wouldn't be surprised if criminal charges are eventually brought.

Homeowner is 'toast' civilly, or at the least, in deep, deep crud...
 
Why don't we create a statute that says: If you get drunk, and you become 'mean' on someone's property-DON'T CALL THE POLICE-kill the drunk!

This thread STINKS of 'vigilantism'.
 
Quite correct, brentfoto!!!

I can't agree with you more, brentfoto, that "Somebody needs their head straightened out" - YOU! Do you REALLY believe that the police is there to protect YOU?

And how many a "kid who was only 23" committed GRAVE crimes, including MURDER and then tried to hide their culpability by some such excuse as "I was drunk, insane," etc??? or the devil told him/her to do so????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top