Homeowner Shoots Would-Be Robber in Broad Daylight...No Charges Filed?

[B18C5-EH2]

Since this is the law section I'll ask this:

Is it justifiable to shoot someone simply for the fear of losing possessions, or does the threat of imminent danger to one self have to also be present?

I guess there's no way to prove/disprove if the home owner truly feared for his life, but even if he didn't and said so, would it still be a justifiable shoot?

The last line of the story leads me to believe that simply defending one's property is cause enough to shoot.

 

[NavyLT]

Also may I point out the Georgia statute:

§ 16-3-23. Use of force in defense of habitation

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;

(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or

(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

I believe the homeowner completely and fully complied with condition (2) above.

 

[ScottRiqui]

Since this is the law section I'll ask this:

Is it justifiable to shoot someone simply for the fear of losing possessions, or does the threat of imminent danger to one self have to also be present?

I guess there's no way to prove/disprove if the home owner truly feared for his life, but even if he didn't and said so, would it still be a justifiable shoot?

The last line of the story leads me to believe that simply defending one's property is cause enough to shoot.

It varies from state to state. Some states have clearly-defined "Castle Doctrine"-type laws, while in other states, you actually have a "duty to retreat" if able. Other states don't have clear written laws either way and instead rely on case law from previous incidents when determining justification.

 

[NavyLT]

May I also point out the following Georgia statute:

§ 51-11-9. Immunity from civil liability for threat or use of force in defense of habitation

A person who is justified in threatening or using force against another under the provisions of Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat from the use of such force and shall not be held liable to the person against whom the use of force was justified or to any person acting as an accomplice or assistant to such person in any civil action brought as a result of the threat or use of such force.

That is why you will not find a case of a burglar winning any civil lawsuits against a homeowner.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Oh and the "broad daylight" part was to entice views and responses. I do think being that it was broad daylight, and the back door that was being kicked in was glass, that the owner had ample opportunity to see if the kid was armed or not.

First, Why would you assume that ? If I were kicking-in your back door, carrying my firearm, knife, or anything else, in any way other than in my hand do you think you would "see" it ?

Second, what does the presence, or absence of a readily-seen weapon have to do with it?

The way you word this makes me think that you must somehow "see" a weapon to be able to defend yourself from a home invasion.

Wow.

 

[hogdogs]

I am only aware of texas having the right to use "up to and including" lethal force for the protection of property... The other state laws I am aware of (including my home state) limit lethal force to protection of life and limb or to stop a violent felon witnessed in the commission of a violent felony crime...
Brent

 

[NavyLT]

Since this is the law section I'll ask this:

Is it justifiable to shoot someone simply for the fear of losing possessions, or does the threat of imminent danger to one self have to also be present?

I guess there's no way to prove/disprove if the home owner truly feared for his life, but even if he didn't and said so, would it still be a justifiable shoot?

The last line of the story leads me to believe that simply defending one's property is cause enough to shoot.

I didn't see your question before I posted the statutes, but the statutes posted do answer your questions, in Georgia. Since this is a homeowner we are talking about, and since the occurence happened in that person's home, the rules are changed significantly over just "protection of property".

 

[OuTcAsT]

The last line of the story leads me to believe that simply defending one's property is cause enough to shoot.

Do you not consider someone ( in this case more than one ) committing a home-invasion, reasonably being an imminent threat?

 

[The Tourist]

I'm not judging the incident, but I'd like to offer an opinion on the action in general.

If a sworn officer discharges his weapon, they usually take the firearm for prima facia evidence and sit the guy down for an investigation, no matter how rudimentary. If it's a good shooting, no harm, no foul.

However, we use tunnel-vision on citizens using the same tactics, and that's where I'm torn on this.

As a strict constructionist I don't think a citizen needs anyone's permission to carry. The 2A says "shall not be infringed." Simple, clear, I get it. In the same application, we are a Republic, an organization of laws. You just can't pop whoever you feel like and apply your own views on the 'castle doctrine.'

In the scenario of kicking in your door, I can see a very clear scenario. Your wife is choking on a hotdog and makes a desperate attempt to signal me, walking on the street. You kill me as I run to her aid.

There were courts, codes of behavior and thugs in our colonial days and in our old west. Scrutiny isn't a new or unconstituional concept. If the shooting is good, no fear, the 2A should protect you.

However if you're some hot-head who wants to try out his new hollowpoints and rains down on the first sucker, we should investigate that action as we would do for a sworn officer.

 

[B18C5-EH2]

Thanks for posting those statutes - really does shed some light on the defense of one's home in the state of Georgia.

First, Why would you assume that ? If I were kicking-in your back door, carrying my firearm, knife, or anything else, in any way other than in my hand do you think you would "see" it ?

If you were kicking a GLASS door in broad daylight I think it's reasonable to assume you could see if the intruder was holding a weapon of some kind.

Is it possible the intruder was armed and simply had the weapon on a holster or pocket?

Absolutely.

BEFORE reading the laws I'd have thought the home owner would have been better served to allow the intruder to break in and rather than opening fire order him to the ground, etc. If the burglar moves, shoot him.

 

[NavyLT]

Do you not consider someone ( in this case more than one ) committing a home-invasion, reasonably being an imminent threat?

I would like to point out that in some states' laws a home invasion is NOT considered an imminent threat in the eyes of the law. I think because of those laws, and the media publicly parading and grandstanding those laws, that many people's thinking has become clouded to, by default, believe that a home invasion is not an imminent threat.

It boils down to your own personal beliefs, your knowledge of the laws of the state you reside in; and if your own personal beliefs are in contradiction to the laws of the state you reside in you must decide, preferrably ahead of time, which one is going to influence your actions more - your personal beliefs or the state laws.

Hopefully your personal beliefs are in agreement with state laws (such as in this specific case) and the only person who has a problem at the end of the day is the criminal (and the homeowner left with a blood stain on his carpet.)

 

[hogdogs]

The presence of a visible object to be used as a weapon is rarely required these days... The attacker being nearly the same size or larger than the victim... the victim can often assume severe bodily harm or death could be imminent at the hands of an attacker...
Brent

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I appreciate the replies even though some of them border on personal attacks such as "sounds like you don't know who the victim is" etc. I enjoy the opposing opinions. I think I'm learning something here, seriously.

No personal attack. You certainly did not appear to know who the victim was. A homeowner had an intruder violently and brazenly break into his home in the middle of the day and you were finding whatever fault you could to create an argument that the homeowner was in the wrong, including but not limited to characterizing the intruder as both a victim and a kid, despite the fact that this so-called kid was big and strong enough to kick in a door in 4 kicks and was operating as part of a burglary team. You tried very hard to build the argument that the intruder was totally non-violent and non-confrontational despite the violent entry and blamed the homeowner for the shooting because he baited the intruder through inaction. So yes, you did not seem to understand who was the victim in the situation and you seemed to be blaming the homeowner because the homeowner did not do as you would do, ergo the homeowner was at fault.

Since this is the law section I'll ask this:

Is it justifiable to shoot someone simply for the fear of losing possessions, or does the threat of imminent danger to one self have to also be present?

I guess there's no way to prove/disprove if the home owner truly feared for his life, but even if he didn't and said so, would it still be a justifiable shoot?

The last line of the story leads me to believe that simply defending one's property is cause enough to shoot.

You still seem to be working very hard at finding a reason why this is not a justifiable shoot and to make the homeowner the bad guy.

As OuTcAst said,

Do you not consider someone ( in this case more than one ) committing a home-invasion, reasonably being an imminent threat?

Not only was this a home invasion, but a violent entry home invasion. It is okay if the homeowner defends his property while he is defending his life. In the video, he plainly states that he was scared.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So far I've not found a single case where a burglar has successfully sued (and won) against a home owner for injuries caused (by gunshot or otherwise) during a burglary.

Lawsuits can be troubling and expensive even when you win them. While it is rare for an intruder (or their estate) to sue the homeowner of the home they invaded, it does happen on occasion. The two incidents I am aware had the following in common:

1. Home invaders were unarmed (and in one case mentally ill)
2. Homeowners were both off-duty police officers (meaning department was named as an additional set of deep pockets)
3. Decedents had angry family members willing to bankroll pointless suit
4. Both cases were dismissed at summary judgement, appealed and dismissed again by the Court of Appeals.

Here in Texas, any use of lethal force is going to go to a grand jury - and while Texas grand juries are notoriously pro-property rights, I don't think too many people want to go through that without a lawyer - and a lawyer can cost several thousand dollars.

On that basis alone, I would have given a verbal warning if I thought I could safely do so.

 

[golfballshootr]

It just looked (from the video I linked) that the homeowner went out of his way to show how "ready" he was.

IMHO, the homeowner being wakened, condition white, not answering the door, obviously he did not know who the perp was, and then seeking his firearm in this case or other means of defensive action and taking the action he took is and was justified. I don't believe there is a single one of us here on TFL that look forward to discharging our weapon on another human being, but the fact that the perp did as others pointed out, knocked on the front door and then went to the back door looked like a good misdirection to me, and he was not alone. His cohorts were waiting in the area. IMHO, I don't think we would even be having any of this discussion if the victim was a woman who had just off work from working a night shift, and then responded in the same manner. Of course what each and every one of us do in that same situation is pure speculation unless we have been in the same scenario. But to suffice in my rant, I believe the homeowner was justified.

 

[The Tourist]

You still seem to be working very hard at finding a reason why this is not a justifiable shoot and to make the homeowner the bad guy.

I can think of a bunch of reasons for questioning the guy. The most prevalent is the idea of a simple, garden variety "bushwacking."

For example, you have a former friend, maybe an old drinking buddy. The guy made a pass at your wife. Over the years it has really stuck in your craw.

You invite the guy over one night to "bury the hatchet." You pour him a shot of tequila and then blow his brains out.

"Officer, his murderous action was the most horrid thing I ever saw!"

 

[NavyLT]

You invite the guy over one night to "bury the hatchet." You pour him a shot of tequila and then blow his brains out.

"Officer, his murderous action was the most horrid thing I ever saw!"

Wow. Kind of sounds like what my soon-to-be-ex wife just did to me (figuratively of course) in divorce court.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I can think of a bunch of reasons for questioning the guy. The most prevalent is the idea of a simple, garden variety "bushwacking."

For example, you have a former friend, maybe an old drinking buddy. The guy made a pass at your wife. Over the years it has really stuck in your craw.

You invite the guy over one night to "bury the hatchet." You pour him a shot of tequila and then blow his brains out.

"Officer, his murderous action was the most horrid thing I ever saw!"

Yeah, that isn't what happened here, is it? The intruder wasn't invited over for a drink. He kicked in the fricking door and made entry into the home!

Being prepared for an intruder isn't against the law, is it?

 

[The Tourist]

Wow. Kind of sounds like what my soon-to-be-ex wife just did to me (figuratively of course) in divorce court.

Why do you think the story of "The Trojan Horse" has lasted for thousands of years? Entrapping your prey, easing his reflexes, and lying to him is about the best way to kill him.

Ever watch a mafia movie?

 

[OuTcAsT]

I can think of a bunch of reasons for questioning the guy. The most prevalent is the idea of a simple, garden variety "bushwacking."

It would appear that LE did investigate this incident, and found it to be a "good" shoot.

How much more straightforward does this have to be?