rantingredneck
New member
miss this part??
Homeowner Shoots, Kills 3 am Tresspasser; No Charges Filed
- Thread starter mpage
- Start date
- Status
miss this part??
Sensibility calling brentfoto......
Brentfoto,
How is the homeowner to know he was 23, unarmed and drunk? You keep falling back on that one as the foundation of your argument. Please explain to me how the homeowner could know this. If I look at it from your perspective, maybe I will change my mind.
I disagree with your opinion that the homeowner escalated the situation. We as citizens don't have the right to protect our property? Mind you, I didn't say use deadly force to protect property, though I feel the law should include using it to protect property also. Munoz escalated this situation twice. Once by trespassing, then again by advancing on the property owner while being warned not to. I can't grasp your view of the property owner escalating this. He acted just as I would. I, for one, am not going to wait around for someone else to protect me and my property. I've never relied on the gov't to take care of me and I ain't starting now.
In one of your posts you mentioned pepper spray. That is not a viable option for home defense for me. My son is a policeman. He has witnessed/administered oc spray numerous times. Most of the time, yes, it is effective. If the perp is strung out on drugs or drunk, it can be very ineffective. You can use it if you want to, I won't!
I don't know about anyone else, but if anyone is pointing a gun at me, the last thing I'll do is advance on that person in a threatening way to disarm him for fear of my life. If I were a juror, and you a prosecutor, sorry, you wouldn't make that sale.
Brentfoto,
How is the homeowner to know he was 23, unarmed and drunk? You keep falling back on that one as the foundation of your argument. Please explain to me how the homeowner could know this. If I look at it from your perspective, maybe I will change my mind.
I disagree with your opinion that the homeowner escalated the situation. We as citizens don't have the right to protect our property? Mind you, I didn't say use deadly force to protect property, though I feel the law should include using it to protect property also. Munoz escalated this situation twice. Once by trespassing, then again by advancing on the property owner while being warned not to. I can't grasp your view of the property owner escalating this. He acted just as I would. I, for one, am not going to wait around for someone else to protect me and my property. I've never relied on the gov't to take care of me and I ain't starting now.
In one of your posts you mentioned pepper spray. That is not a viable option for home defense for me. My son is a policeman. He has witnessed/administered oc spray numerous times. Most of the time, yes, it is effective. If the perp is strung out on drugs or drunk, it can be very ineffective. You can use it if you want to, I won't!
I don't know about anyone else, but if anyone is pointing a gun at me, the last thing I'll do is advance on that person in a threatening way to disarm him for fear of my life. If I were a juror, and you a prosecutor, sorry, you wouldn't make that sale.
Last edited:
Dain Bramage
New member
Wow. The drunk should not only have been given free rein, but now he has the right to disarm the property owner? Someone needs to take a Midol.
kennybs plbg
New member
You keep mentioning a civil suit, that would not be the case here in Arizona.
"13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct
No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. "
kenny b
"13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct
No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. "
kenny b
Slugthrower
New member
23 yrs. old is a legal adult, not a child.
Drunk is no excuse for any illegal behavior. Quite a few come to mind in the case of Mr. Munoz, some apparent and some that can be deduced. None of which warranted his death.
Mr Munoz wasn't a particularly intelligent man as is evidenced by his behavior and the subsequent events that led to his early demise.
It is of little importance that Mr Munoz was intoxicated. This individual willing made the choice intoxicate himself and allowed his brain the swell his gonads to a magnificently massive proportion in relation to his posterior. A posterior that was incapable of cashing the cheques his testicular fortitude was writing. This adult male then proceeds to employ his infinitely gigantic, drug fueled, loins by advancing upon the property owner. The property owner then promptly perforates his unimaginably vast and ballistically impenetrable dirigibles, from a reasonable fear of potential physical harm, possibly involving his personal firearm, and we are supposed to have sympathy for Mr Munoz?
If a person tells you to leave, wether or not they are wrong or right and have a gun, it is well advised that you should CYA.
Put yourself in Mr Munoz's shoes under the same circumstances and ask yourself if you would do the same thing. This 23 yr old man decided to kill himself by his actions. Heck, he may have wanted the property owner to shoot him for all we know. He did have a choice to leave the area after all is said and done. That final choice was his and he came up with the wrong answer. He was drunk is an excuse and attempts to make him the victim. If anything Munoz was a victim of his own stupidity.
As far as civil suits go, I am sure the property owner will end up in court.
Civil suits shouldn't be allowed if the person in question hasn't committed a crime IMO. Sounds like tort reform is in order.
Drunk is no excuse for any illegal behavior. Quite a few come to mind in the case of Mr. Munoz, some apparent and some that can be deduced. None of which warranted his death.
Mr Munoz wasn't a particularly intelligent man as is evidenced by his behavior and the subsequent events that led to his early demise.
It is of little importance that Mr Munoz was intoxicated. This individual willing made the choice intoxicate himself and allowed his brain the swell his gonads to a magnificently massive proportion in relation to his posterior. A posterior that was incapable of cashing the cheques his testicular fortitude was writing. This adult male then proceeds to employ his infinitely gigantic, drug fueled, loins by advancing upon the property owner. The property owner then promptly perforates his unimaginably vast and ballistically impenetrable dirigibles, from a reasonable fear of potential physical harm, possibly involving his personal firearm, and we are supposed to have sympathy for Mr Munoz?
If a person tells you to leave, wether or not they are wrong or right and have a gun, it is well advised that you should CYA.
Put yourself in Mr Munoz's shoes under the same circumstances and ask yourself if you would do the same thing. This 23 yr old man decided to kill himself by his actions. Heck, he may have wanted the property owner to shoot him for all we know. He did have a choice to leave the area after all is said and done. That final choice was his and he came up with the wrong answer. He was drunk is an excuse and attempts to make him the victim. If anything Munoz was a victim of his own stupidity.
As far as civil suits go, I am sure the property owner will end up in court.
Civil suits shouldn't be allowed if the person in question hasn't committed a crime IMO. Sounds like tort reform is in order.
That is probably because you are not seriously reading the explanations of why some homeowners would not choose to cower in their homes at any disturbance and plead for 911 to send the police quickly.
Most disturbances around houses have mundane causes that do not warrant police involvement. gc70 #44 "Do you call 911 whenever a branch bumps the house or a critter makes a racket?" Indeed, my son is a policeman and one of his frequent complaints is the waste of police resources on frivolous calls.
Some people do not feel the need to rely on the police for everything. R.Childs #63 "I've never relied on the gov't to take care of me and I ain't starting now."
Police are not always readily available to quickly respond to a call. R.Childs #50 "My county has two deputies on duty at that time and I'm out in the country."
The simple answer is the correct one. The homeowner did not escalate the situation.
Investigating a disturbance or trespasser on your own property is not escalating the situation.
Confronting a trespasser on your own property is not escalating the situation.
Being legally armed on your own property is not escalating the situation.
The situation was escalated by the 23yo when he advanced on the homeowner and continued to advance after the homeowner "told him several times to stop".
It's CRAZY. The whole situation might have been avoided by calling the cops and 'battening down the hatches'. I grieve for the kid's loss, his family...now we're shooting 'drunk trespassers' who get confused or agitated.
Perhaps my reasoning is wrong. Kid is drunk on the sidewalk, perhaps making a ruckus. Maybe he could be considered 'dangerous', I don't know. Either do you.
Instead of calling the cops a homeowner GOES OUTSIDE with a loaded gun, points it at the kid. If that isn't escalating the situation I don't know what is...the homeowner was a dastardly COWARD and BULLY with a drunk...absolutely PATHETIC. Makes me sick...should make you sick too...most drunks would be angered by a gun pointed at them...I would be (if I were drunk)...
VIGILANTISM leads to the destruction of civilized society, or at least what we have left of it.
Perhaps my reasoning is wrong. Kid is drunk on the sidewalk, perhaps making a ruckus. Maybe he could be considered 'dangerous', I don't know. Either do you.
Instead of calling the cops a homeowner GOES OUTSIDE with a loaded gun, points it at the kid. If that isn't escalating the situation I don't know what is...the homeowner was a dastardly COWARD and BULLY with a drunk...absolutely PATHETIC. Makes me sick...should make you sick too...most drunks would be angered by a gun pointed at them...I would be (if I were drunk)...
VIGILANTISM leads to the destruction of civilized society, or at least what we have left of it.
Last edited:
The call on the part of the D.A. is discretionary. That may change, as it often does.
People get prosecuted all the time for crimes that have not been committed. IOW, they may be guilty of 'something', but not what they're charged with doing. Or they may truly be 'not guilty'.
People commit crimes all the time for which they may not be charged, too, due to lack of evidence at the time.
IOW, the D.A. is not infallible, not a 'god', can cave into political or community pressure, etc. And they may not get it right upon first impression.
As a corollary, the D.A. may choose not to prosecute an unjustified killing that is popular and may charge one that is justifiable...I'm speaking in generalities here..because there is prosecutorial discretion and, after all, a prosecutor is a political figure, subject to reelection.
My opinion is that even if this drunk were beating the door, unless he appears to be 'beating it down', that deadly force may not be imperative. So, why bother? It AIN'T WORTH IT unless you are really in fear of deadly force upon you or grave bodily injury. That depends upon the true facts. All I'm saying is this could possibly have been avoided by 'battening down', and have firearm in hand, INSIDE THE DWELLING. I'd never go outside-what the heck for? To be MACHO and at the same time-STUPID?
The point is this homeowner is going to PAY A PRICE in spades for what he has done. Watch, and wait... (as an aside) 'ole Joe Horn has already stated he never should've left his home-he'll regret that for the rest of his life, all for some cash 'loot' that resulted from a non-violent felony, a mere theft, a 'larceny'....STUPID! 'Really' STUPID!!!
IT JUST AIN'T WORTH IT, IMHO. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE IS A CHOICE. Just because you may exercise a right, you, too, may have a choice - STAY INSIDE!!!
Don't be a VIGILANTE! Join the police force if you are so inclined.
And don't EVER underestimate the power of a good pepper spray to defuse a situation. And don't be a coward and shoot an unarmed drunken boy when you can avoid such a situation, even if justified. Anyone who is naive enough to believe there's no psychological price to pay for killing another human being is just that...
People get prosecuted all the time for crimes that have not been committed. IOW, they may be guilty of 'something', but not what they're charged with doing. Or they may truly be 'not guilty'.
People commit crimes all the time for which they may not be charged, too, due to lack of evidence at the time.
IOW, the D.A. is not infallible, not a 'god', can cave into political or community pressure, etc. And they may not get it right upon first impression.
As a corollary, the D.A. may choose not to prosecute an unjustified killing that is popular and may charge one that is justifiable...I'm speaking in generalities here..because there is prosecutorial discretion and, after all, a prosecutor is a political figure, subject to reelection.
My opinion is that even if this drunk were beating the door, unless he appears to be 'beating it down', that deadly force may not be imperative. So, why bother? It AIN'T WORTH IT unless you are really in fear of deadly force upon you or grave bodily injury. That depends upon the true facts. All I'm saying is this could possibly have been avoided by 'battening down', and have firearm in hand, INSIDE THE DWELLING. I'd never go outside-what the heck for? To be MACHO and at the same time-STUPID?
The point is this homeowner is going to PAY A PRICE in spades for what he has done. Watch, and wait... (as an aside) 'ole Joe Horn has already stated he never should've left his home-he'll regret that for the rest of his life, all for some cash 'loot' that resulted from a non-violent felony, a mere theft, a 'larceny'....STUPID! 'Really' STUPID!!!
IT JUST AIN'T WORTH IT, IMHO. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE IS A CHOICE. Just because you may exercise a right, you, too, may have a choice - STAY INSIDE!!!
Don't be a VIGILANTE! Join the police force if you are so inclined.
And don't EVER underestimate the power of a good pepper spray to defuse a situation. And don't be a coward and shoot an unarmed drunken boy when you can avoid such a situation, even if justified. Anyone who is naive enough to believe there's no psychological price to pay for killing another human being is just that...
Last edited:
The wisdom of going outside to investigate a disturbance on one's property may be questioned but the legality may not.
HOWEVER, once a person decides to go out at night to investigate a disturbance/trespasser, it would be foolhardy to go unarmed.
Likewise, if the trespasser advances in a threatening manner, it would be foolish to allow him to continue to advance to the point of physical contact if one has the means to prevent it since allowing the advance ultimately provides the attacker with access to the defender's weapon.
A person who continues to advance on an armed defender is a deadly threat. Being drunk doesn't mean he's less of a threat--quite the contrary.
The penalty for not reacting properly (shooting) when someone continues to advance after they know you're armed is that you get to fight them for your gun. That's not a good situation.
In short, while the advisability (not the legality) of decision to go outside may be legitimately questioned, but other than that the homeowner acted in a very rational and completely justifiable manner.
Sure, it's easy to say that a person should always stay inside and call the police. That's probably safest for everyone involved. But it's simply not practical for either the homeowner or for the police. Everyone can't always take the path of least risk--it's simply not practical, it's not reasonable, it's not even possible.
Your comments about the DA are all correct. However, they're all purely hypothetical. Maybe this, could be that, perhaps this happened, sometimes that happens, he may choose this, he may want that. Why speculate? The DA says it was justified based on the evidence that he's seen and you haven't and based on the law that he knows and you apparently don't. Furthermore, nothing in the circumstances of the situation that have been made public contradict his assessment. Occam's Razor says that it's not usually productive to look for a complicated solution when there's a simple one available. The alternative is called "grasping at straws".
This is clearly a highly emotional issue with you, unfortunately that's clouded your ability to make an objective evaluation of the scenario.
HOWEVER, once a person decides to go out at night to investigate a disturbance/trespasser, it would be foolhardy to go unarmed.
Likewise, if the trespasser advances in a threatening manner, it would be foolish to allow him to continue to advance to the point of physical contact if one has the means to prevent it since allowing the advance ultimately provides the attacker with access to the defender's weapon.
A person who continues to advance on an armed defender is a deadly threat. Being drunk doesn't mean he's less of a threat--quite the contrary.
The penalty for not reacting properly (shooting) when someone continues to advance after they know you're armed is that you get to fight them for your gun. That's not a good situation.
In short, while the advisability (not the legality) of decision to go outside may be legitimately questioned, but other than that the homeowner acted in a very rational and completely justifiable manner.
Hardly. No one's advocating shooting someone simply because their drunk, trespassing, confused and/or agitated. However, it is perfectly justifiable--and very smart to shoot a person who continues to advance on you after you've made it clear you're armed and have ordered them to stop. Big difference. You want to focus on all the circumstances but the important one. He was ordered by an armed defender not to advance, he failed to comply. THAT'S why he got shot.
No, that's where you're wrong. A person who continues to advance on an armed person is very dangerous. At the least, if the advance is allowed to continue, it will turn into a wrestling match. Allowing the situation to devolve into a wrestling match with a gun involved is NOT an improvement over simply shooting the advancing attacker. Now not only the advancing person but also the defender have a good chance of being injured or killed.
Yes, that's correct. However it's an irrelevant statement. This was not vigilantism, it was a case of justifiable self-defense. The two are not at all the same.
Going outside to see what's going on on one's property is not being a vigilante. One must make a call as to what they should handle and what the police should handle, but the police will NOT be happy about a person calling them every time there's a noise outside. Furthermore, the police have limited resources. If they are summoned for every bump in the night, they will not be available for the more serious cases. Unfortunately it's not possible for a person to know with 100% accuracy when it's a non-issue and when things are going to turn bad.
Sure, it's easy to say that a person should always stay inside and call the police. That's probably safest for everyone involved. But it's simply not practical for either the homeowner or for the police. Everyone can't always take the path of least risk--it's simply not practical, it's not reasonable, it's not even possible.
Can you honestly tell me that if you had a gun trained on a person, told that person to stop and yet he continued to advance that you wouldn't be in fear of grave bodily injury? What do you think that person is going to do when they reach you?
Your comments about the DA are all correct. However, they're all purely hypothetical. Maybe this, could be that, perhaps this happened, sometimes that happens, he may choose this, he may want that. Why speculate? The DA says it was justified based on the evidence that he's seen and you haven't and based on the law that he knows and you apparently don't. Furthermore, nothing in the circumstances of the situation that have been made public contradict his assessment. Occam's Razor says that it's not usually productive to look for a complicated solution when there's a simple one available. The alternative is called "grasping at straws".
This is clearly a highly emotional issue with you, unfortunately that's clouded your ability to make an objective evaluation of the scenario.
Brentfoto your logic is why we have gun control laws and the department of homeland security. You would happily cower in your home and wait for the men in black or blue to show up and protect you. Wait I thought we had guns to protect our families and property. So you should just go ahead and send your firearms to my FFL, and I'll just go ahead and make sure to send you a nice cordless phone for you to call the police with in exchange. Maybe even a Panasonic, but your firearms would have to be in 98-100%. In reality lets look at what happened here. A non responsive I assume latino male is trespassing on your property, and it is most likely dark outside since it is 3am. You have been awaken in the middle of night and uner protection of the law you take your handgun and investigate the situation. When you exit your home you find a male who is combative and non compliant. You take a firing position and order him to leave, he then turns on you and proceeds to mae his way toward your. At this point you have to analyze the current situation. A typical night burgalar once discovered especially at gunpoint is going to haul tail in order to avoid being caught or shot. I doubt he was able to see the mans clothing very well, and once the man turned on him he had brought the situation to a condition red. After the 2nd command to stop he had given the man every oppurtunity to leave or stop, and was fully right under the law to shoot to kill. The intruder had changed the rules when he presented a threat to homeowner and not just the homeowners property when he began to approach him. At this point I see no reason under the laws of the land or of common sense not to shoot him. Not to mention this whole situation most likely occured within a matter of 5 minutes.
I can hatch all kinds of bad ideas what the noise was outside that can't wait for the PD to show; Arsonist, Murderer - hold up from another crime, looking for a safe haven, Robber - see last, shall I go on.....
I can damn well go outside my house on my property anytime I want with anything I want.
Things that may help such a situation:
1) Security lights, I have 1200watts of flood lights that blanket the outside of my house with a central switch (not at a door) so you can respond to any side that needs attention.
2) A gate, locked best case, anyone who crosses the first line should be there. (Won't work where I live, but maybe in this case ???)
3) ~~MAYBE~~ mace, but inside a certain range you have to go right to the firearm.
4) Outdoor alarm siren, I have one that will wake the dead. Hit the panic alarm and see who runs like a scalded cat. You don't need an alarm for this btw, a simple 120vac>12vdc wall transformer and a Radio Shack (or online) siren and a switch.
If I make the decision to go investigate, confront someone, order them to stop or leave they continue to advance,...yes I'd shoot.......Although I would be very happy if all I ever had to do was put holes in paper......
I can damn well go outside my house on my property anytime I want with anything I want.
Things that may help such a situation:
1) Security lights, I have 1200watts of flood lights that blanket the outside of my house with a central switch (not at a door) so you can respond to any side that needs attention.
2) A gate, locked best case, anyone who crosses the first line should be there. (Won't work where I live, but maybe in this case ???)
3) ~~MAYBE~~ mace, but inside a certain range you have to go right to the firearm.
4) Outdoor alarm siren, I have one that will wake the dead. Hit the panic alarm and see who runs like a scalded cat. You don't need an alarm for this btw, a simple 120vac>12vdc wall transformer and a Radio Shack (or online) siren and a switch.
If I make the decision to go investigate, confront someone, order them to stop or leave they continue to advance,...yes I'd shoot.......Although I would be very happy if all I ever had to do was put holes in paper......
Too bad there's LOTS of gunowners who are just waiting to shoot or kill someone...like that racist, homicidal maniac JOE HORN vigilante. You listen to that tape and you tell me about someone abusing a purported right. I'm certain in that neighborhood, in that part of the country, anyone can get away with murder. And do you honestly think that if the perps were white teenaged boys he would have executed them as he executed those poor thieves? Oh, that JOE HORN is going to live in hell here on earth and I hope that he redeems himself by turning over all worldly possessions to the families of the departed. That would be a starter...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc
For a different take on what background there may be, you might want to look at this thread on the concealed carry forum dealing with this local case here in California. The cousin of the homicide victim has a few things to say, and there's some interesting background info on the shooter.
Don't be surprised if this case we're talking about in this thread blows wide open...
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbull...shoots-drunk-man-front-yard-6.html#post771568
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc
For a different take on what background there may be, you might want to look at this thread on the concealed carry forum dealing with this local case here in California. The cousin of the homicide victim has a few things to say, and there's some interesting background info on the shooter.
Don't be surprised if this case we're talking about in this thread blows wide open...
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbull...shoots-drunk-man-front-yard-6.html#post771568
- Status