Homeowner Shoots, Kills 3 am Tresspasser; No Charges Filed

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you pull out the gun, and the other guy is unarmed, I'd say: Yes.
Click to expand...

So when the guy advances on me with me saying "stop" I have to wait until we're at contact distance and he wrestles my gun away from me. Now he's armed and I can shoot him.............Oh wait..............:rolleyes:

Do your eyes have metal detectors built in?? Can you see that he doesn't have a knife in his pocket or waistband??
 
an unarmed 23 year old is dead because he was drunk
Click to expand...

A poor, unarmed drunk got confused about where he was and kicked in the front door of my father's house. My father didn't shoot the drunk, although Winston apparently would have.

If someone breaks into my house. Poor guy WILL not be walking out.
Click to expand...

Which at least reinforces one point.

Just because I can use a gun , doesn't mean I always should.
Click to expand...
 
While it may not be the smartest thing to go outside and investigate disturbances on your own property, it would be really stupid to do so unarmed. The homeowner in this case did investigate and did so prepared in case he encountered a bad guy, which he did. The bad guy acted against the homeowner and the home owner defended himself.

Nothing that the homeowner did was legally wrong. He did not act in a vigilante manner. He did not murder a drunk celebrity trespassing on his property. He did confront a trespasser he thought might have been a burglar and did so in a prepared manner, armed. The interloper got aggressive and acted against the homeowner who feared for his life and acted accordingly.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Have you never had a disturbance outside your house and you could not determine its cause except by going outside? Do you call 911 whenever a branch bumps the house or a critter makes a racket? Have you never shoo'ed kids away from your house, or is that also cause for a 911 call?

Some people do not feel the need to lock themselves in their house and depend on the police to address every disturbance, whether a clear threat or a scary sound. I do not advocate either self-sufficiency or dependency, nor do I condemn either approach; whichever course is chosen is a purely personal decision.
 
A poor, unarmed drunk got confused about where he was and kicked in the front door of my father's house. My father didn't shoot the drunk, although Winston apparently would have.
Click to expand...

Your father shows more restraint than I would. Especially if an intruder kicked in a steel SECURITY door. Game on.......................
 
How so?

WINSTON THE WOLF, how come the "Game on....................... " SIMPLY because a "poor, unarmed drunk got confused about where he was" and perhaps with a smile on the face "kicked in a steel SECURITY door" of yours???? Come on! It's only a DOOR!!!!!!!!! "steel" one at that!!!! Why all this "act in a vigilante manner" now??? Would it not be then arguable that "you have no regard for the value and sanctity of human life"????
 
Typical!

I have to fully agree that such "convoluted argument isn't worth a migraine over". But this is the kind of "logic" that is common among those who lost their "beloved", criminal ones. How often do you hear the "humane" appeal, "s/he only made an error in judgment and didn't deserve to die!"

A friend of mine from the great state of Texas told me that the cry in relation to the Joe Horn brave deed was that those two dead alien criminals were "only gulity of trying to feed their families and made an error of judgment".
 
How was the property owner supposed to know that Munoz was drunk? Administer a breathalyzer first?

How was the property owner supposed to know that Munoz was unarmed?

How was the property owner supposed to know that Munoz had passed out earlier?

How was the property owner supposed to know that Munoz wasn't spaced out on crack or meth?

I feel the property owner did what he felt he had to do. It is sad but I feel he was in his rights to do so, regardless of what the courts may or may not think.

And to WTW and brentfoto, if y'all come to my house and make a disturbance outside at 3:00am, I WILL be going outside with shotgun in hand and if you make a threatening move against me, you WILL end up like Munoz whether you are armed or not. My county has two deputies on duty at that time and I'm out in the country. I for one will not wait around for LE to protect me. That promise goes out to everyone by the way.
 
"poor 23 year old kid"!!!!

Good questions, R.Childs. Thanks for putting it so well. But how would one plagued by "convoluted argument " understand? Perhaps another question is:
"How was the property owner supposed to know that Munoz was only 23 years old? Ask for proof of date of birth first?"
 
Benzene, I felt the age of the perp was not of importance. A 23 year old can kill you as dead as a 35 or 50 year old. Again, it is sad that the circumstances turned out like they did. All of these things were found out after the fact. If the property owner was privvy to Munoz's condition prior to the shooting, then he may not have shot him. As it is, he had no way of knowing this.

It's easy for us on a forum to read what happened and make a decision on what we would do in that situation. This property owner didn't have the luxury of weighing it all out and making a decision based on fact. At the time the only fact he knew for certain was a trespasser was on his property and advancing toward him even though he had a gun and was warning him to stop. He probably had only seconds to act before Munoz was within arms reach of him.

What would you do in that situation?
 
On the same side!

Hey, R.Childs, we're on the SAME side. Like I said, you put the analysis very well. It is that those on the opposite side try to make out as if the real victim here had all the time in the world to delve into every detail about that "poor, drunk, only 23-yr old kid"!

I doubt that I would have acted any differently confronted with the like of Munoz.;)
 
Benzene,

I know we are!;)

Sorry if you thought I was slamming you, I wasn't.

That was for the benefit of the naysayers. You know----"he's just a 23 year old kid".


Sorry 'bout that, but I know we are seeing eye to eye.:o
 
R.Childs Benzene, I felt the age of the perp was not of importance. A 23 year old can kill you as dead as a 35 or 50 year old. Again, it is sad that the circumstances turned out like they did. All of these things were found out after the fact. If the property owner was privvy to Munoz's condition prior to the shooting, then he may not have shot him. As it is, he had no way of knowing this.

It's easy for us on a forum to read what happened and make a decision on what we would do in that situation. This property owner didn't have the luxury of weighing it all out and making a decision based on fact. At the time the only fact he knew for certain was a trespasser was on his property and advancing toward him even though he had a gun and was warning him to stop. He probably had only seconds to act before Munoz was within arms reach of him.

What would you do in that situation?
Yesterday 11:13 PM
Click to expand...

Perhaps he shouldn't have been so STUPID as to go out there and confront the poor drunken kid with a loaded weapon. He ESCALATED the situation. MURDER MOST FOUL!

Hadn't he ever heard of calling the cops? Hadn't he ever heard of pepper spray? Hadn't he ever heard of 'Staying at Home'? STUPID!

If a perp were definitely known to be in the house, wouldn't most of you stay locked in your bedroom, grab your weapon, and call 911?

If the answer might be 'Yes', why would anyone want to voluntarily open their front door and leave the house and CONFRONT the troublemaker? Looking to shoot/kill someone with that fine handgun of yours? ;)

From the 'facts' as we now know them, this killing might likely have been easily avoided. What does the kid know? He's probably still drunk. So he rapped on the guy's door. Big f and deal. Or maybe he did not. I don't truly know the facts-I know this much-it sounds like a case where a JURY should decide what happened.

Is it WORTH it to take a life with those facts as reported?
 
Perhaps he shouldn't have been so STUPID as to go out there and confront the poor drunken kid with a loaded weapon.
Click to expand...

Someone goes to investigate an unknown situation on their property. (Hey I'm all for caution and such but this is the real world and you can't just "bunker up" for every noise and event and call the cops every time, it just doesn't work that way).

Someone (reasonably I think) takes along their firearm because you never know.

Someone is confronted by a person who then moves towards them (an aggressive action) despite repeated orders to halt.

We now move into the realm of "MMO".
Means - Healthy young male (capable of doing grave harm)
Motive - Reasonable suspicion of a criminal motive due to time of night, trespass, and non-compliant behavior (remember, nobody knows about the alcohol at this point).
Opportunity - suspect was present and advancing on the defendant.

Seems pretty clear cut to me. Short of being psychic there was no way to know in advance about the drunkenness and so forth and age is irrelevant.

A tragedy for certain but let's keep "problem ownership" where it belongs, with a person who initiated the entire sequence of events because he didn't control his alcohol intake and subsequent behavior.
 
GO AHEAD, SHOOT an UNARMED MAN, a kid, at 3 in the morning. Last time I checked one could not use deadly force upon another unless fear of death or grave bodily harm. Since homeowner escalated the situation, I just can't figure why homeowner is not charged.

It could reasonably be argued that the kid, whether drunk or not, was trying to protect his own life by getting the gun away from the homeowner. Is the kid supposed to just stop there and trust that homeowner will not shoot him anyway?

Watch and wait. It's likely he'll be charged with one of the degrees of MURDER or MANSLAUGHTER ONE.

If not, his conscience (if he has one) and the civil suit will likely have an impact...
 
Last time I checked one could not use deadly force upon another unless fear of death or grave bodily harm. Since homeowner escalated the situation, I just can't figure why homeowner is not charged.
Click to expand...

"MMO", as explained step by step above.

The conditions were met therefore it was perfectly reasonable for the homeowner to feel that he was in fear for his life at that moment in time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top