golfballshootr
New member
But if he is invited over, why kick in the door?
Homeowner Shoots Would-Be Robber in Broad Daylight...No Charges Filed?
- Thread starter B18C5-EH2
- Start date
- Status
But if he is invited over, why kick in the door?
The Tourist
Moderator
OuTcAsT, I prefaced my original comment with the phrase "in general."
Just because the example cited was a clean shooting, it should not mean that all homeowners should or will get a free pass.
Just because the example cited was a clean shooting, it should not mean that all homeowners should or will get a free pass.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Now we are down the citing unrealistic examples from The Odyssey and The Aeneid and movies as justification for quesitoning the homeowner's defense against an intruder?
I think the level of questioning the shooter should be relative to the other evidence in existence. For instance, homeowner calls police and reports I just shot a guy who broke into my home and the police show up and there is a body on the floor in a pool of blood and nothing else - no broken door or window, the "intruder's" car is parked in the driveway - then I can't say I would begrudge the police for asking a few questions!
We don't have that in this case. And I also don't think there is anything wrong with the cops showing up, finding a broken door, a blood trail heading back out that door, a stolen car a couple blocks away with a couple of thugs in it, one of which happens to have one of the homeowner's bullets in his leg, from saying to the homeowner, "You know, you really should work on your aim more!" and leaving it at that.
We don't have that in this case. And I also don't think there is anything wrong with the cops showing up, finding a broken door, a blood trail heading back out that door, a stolen car a couple blocks away with a couple of thugs in it, one of which happens to have one of the homeowner's bullets in his leg, from saying to the homeowner, "You know, you really should work on your aim more!" and leaving it at that.
KingEdward
New member
stranger kicks in door on property where he does not live or own
the owner defends himself against stranger who has committed
forced entry.
the violater was shot 3 times.
next.
the owner defends himself against stranger who has committed
forced entry.
the violater was shot 3 times.
next.
B18C5-EH2,
I do believe, by the title of your OP, you assumed right off the bat that the homeowner was at fault based on the "No Charges Filed?" part of the title. I for one do not agree. The homeowner was at home minding his own business and a BG forcibly broke in, braking the law. It seems cut and dried to me.
We had a break-in a couple years ago. It happened about 10 minutes after my wife left the house at around 10:00 AM to go to the school to participate in an activity with our son. ADT was monitoring the house, I got a call on my cell, cops were on the way, everything worked as it should have. Fortunately, we think the alarm scared off the BG because nothing was taken. But the BG was never found. Two doors, one from the outside leading to the garage and the other from the garage leading into the kitchen, were destroyed. The outside door was wood covered by metal on both sides, and the BG went through it quite easily, dead bolt and all. My opinion is that he must have been fairly strong (or high) to have been able to do that.
What bothered me the most about this was that it happened so soon after my wife left. Either the BG saw her leave, or he intended to break in whether someone was at home or not. Either way, had I been home, there would have been one less BG running around.
What you need to understand is this. Anyone physically capable of breaking in a locked door to a home meets the requirement for "having the abiility to do physical harm" whether "armed" or not. That combined with "acting in an irrational manner" and causing his intended victim to "fear for his life" is all the justification necessary for the homeowner to act the way he did. And some states may not even require all three conditions.
The homeowner did right. BGs beware...
I do believe, by the title of your OP, you assumed right off the bat that the homeowner was at fault based on the "No Charges Filed?" part of the title. I for one do not agree. The homeowner was at home minding his own business and a BG forcibly broke in, braking the law. It seems cut and dried to me.
We had a break-in a couple years ago. It happened about 10 minutes after my wife left the house at around 10:00 AM to go to the school to participate in an activity with our son. ADT was monitoring the house, I got a call on my cell, cops were on the way, everything worked as it should have. Fortunately, we think the alarm scared off the BG because nothing was taken. But the BG was never found. Two doors, one from the outside leading to the garage and the other from the garage leading into the kitchen, were destroyed. The outside door was wood covered by metal on both sides, and the BG went through it quite easily, dead bolt and all. My opinion is that he must have been fairly strong (or high) to have been able to do that.
What bothered me the most about this was that it happened so soon after my wife left. Either the BG saw her leave, or he intended to break in whether someone was at home or not. Either way, had I been home, there would have been one less BG running around.
What you need to understand is this. Anyone physically capable of breaking in a locked door to a home meets the requirement for "having the abiility to do physical harm" whether "armed" or not. That combined with "acting in an irrational manner" and causing his intended victim to "fear for his life" is all the justification necessary for the homeowner to act the way he did. And some states may not even require all three conditions.
The homeowner did right. BGs beware...
The laws of course differ from state to state, but in North Carolina, by statute: "A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence."
In Florida, a person "is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred."
So at least in NC and FL, this homeowner would have been justified.
DogoDon
In Florida, a person "is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred."
So at least in NC and FL, this homeowner would have been justified.
DogoDon
What I think is that the doors were locked and the burglar was not trying to kick in the door of his own house because he forgot his key. The home owner let the burglar know he wasn't welcome by locking the doors, no dialogue was called for. Burglars can't get life insurance and disability insurance for their chosen profession for a reason. It is a high risk occupation. So sad, to bad, hope it hurt like the dickens.
My entire point is that the act of someone allowing a would-be burglar to continuously knock, then beat, then run around to the back door and kick it 3-4 times on a door without at any time announcing "someone's here!!! go away!!!" seems to almost be bait-like in nature. The whole "I was ready for him! along with his hand turned sideways straight gangsta style when walking through the scenario again just kind of made me picture a home owner who was more angry about a break-in rather than being in fear for his life.
17years of age is a kid IMO. Sorry you don't agree. If I called him a "child" then you might have a point.
I don't have to try to point out that the burglar was trying to make sure nobody was home by beating on the front door before deciding to break into the home from the rear where neighbors would not see him kicking the door in.
I'm merely questioning if the homeowner's actions contributed to the ultimate action of having to shoot the kid, that's all. Ultimately the dumb kid deciding to even break into a home assumes the associated risks with it, but by choosing to do it in the middle of the day, trying to make sure nobody was home, etc. I think it's safe to assume he wasn't trying to encounter the home owner.
Without using any hindsight whatsoever, let's assume something a little different and see how it plays out, shall we?
Let's assume the kid knocked on the front door and let's assume he did have a weapon. Let's assume the kid's intention was, if the door was opened by the occupant of the house, to immediately force the door open, threaten the occupant of the house with the weapon, and complete the robbery, possibly by signaling others in waiting to help him rob the place.
Now, thinking nobody was at home, he goes to the back door to enter the house with less likelihood of being noticed. Mr. Homeowner calls out to the kid to go away, and now the kid switches back to his original plan in the paragraph above and produces a weapon and decides to enter the house with the weapon.
Keep in mind that the homeowner had no hindsight when the invasion was occurring. Since the homeowner can only go on assumptions during the time when the incident is occurring, which do you think was a safer course of action for the homeowner to take?
You know, it was by ASSuming that the kid got himself shot.
And, btw, I am only using the word kid out of consideration, I still think he was a criminal, nothing more, nothing less.
The only think Mr. Homeowner did was to not ASSume anything, and to take the steps needed to ensure his greatest chances of not being harmed by a criminal.
Technosavant
New member
Just because somebody knocks on my door does not mean I owe them a response. It certainly does not follow that a lack of response means it is OK for them to kick in my door.
Legally, the perp is a minor. A 17 year old should know full well that breaking and entering is illegal and wrong. A 17 year old who knocks first and then goes around back to kick in the door is a full blown criminal no matter the age. Whether you consider the person a kid or not is immaterial; 17 year olds are certainly capable of knowing right from wrong and causing great harm anyway.
The homeowner was minding his own business. It is not his duty to ensure that everybody who knocks on his door knows he is home and therefore it is unwise to try burgling the premises. As for "shooting the kid" as you put it, as I said, we're not dealing with regular childhood mischief. We're talking an actual criminal, and I'm betting this is not the first time he's committed burglary.
However you view the homeowner's actions, legally he is in the right and he was not the one responsible for this chain of events. 17 years old or 34 years old, I have a hard time finding any reason to feel badly about a criminal being wounded by his chosen victim.
Read up on home defense - most experts will tell you that issuing a warning like that could get you in deeper water. In this case, if the home owner said anything, the guy could have pulled a gun and opened fire.
Look, we don't know all the details in this case, and if you're in a situation like this, it's going to go much faster than you think, so we can beat this dead with over-analysis. But, in THIS country (and GA specifically) if by 17 you don't know that breaking into a house, weather you think it's occupied or not, is a great way to get a few bullets through you, then you have bigger problems. Honestly, he's lucky he is alive.
Also, I personally don't answer the door all the time. Also, what does it matter what time of day someone is breaking in? The only thing that matters is that if they get in they could easily beat your brains out - especially if they themselves get scared and carried away. And, even though you can't see a weapon on them doesn't mean that A) they don't have one and B) they can't just do it with their hands.
The bottom line is that someone broke into a home (forcefully, with intent and premeditation as part of a group) and the home owner had enough sense to stop the situation before he got hurt. Unfortunately, these things happen every day. Take a read through this and let us know if you have changed your mind:
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/
golfballshootr
New member
B18C5-EH2, it appears, now I am the one assuming here, that you want to somehow, someway, find the homeowner at fault. We keep talking about how he could of/should of, called out or handled it differently. I prefer to address this the NavyLt has done, lets start with a clean slate and go from there.
Lets even assume a different scenario altogether...what happens if the "kid", breaks into the home, the homeowner is one of those poor misdirected souls that does not believe in guns, and I can safely assume, the "kid" is not going to simply say sorry I broke your door in after he encounters the homeowner, and then proceeds to rob and victimize the homeowner?
Ultimately, I think, and that is the great part of a discussion, we will just have to agree to disagree, that the homeowner acted fine. The police called it a clean shoot, and along with other replies, he just needs to work on his aim.
The "kid", he chose to do a criminal act and at 17 years of age, he should be very cognitive of what's right and what's wrong. (I assume)We were all disciplined on this principle growing up. So I do not intend to antagonize by the "kid" usage, I just do not see him as a kid choosing the path he did.
Lets even assume a different scenario altogether...what happens if the "kid", breaks into the home, the homeowner is one of those poor misdirected souls that does not believe in guns, and I can safely assume, the "kid" is not going to simply say sorry I broke your door in after he encounters the homeowner, and then proceeds to rob and victimize the homeowner?
Ultimately, I think, and that is the great part of a discussion, we will just have to agree to disagree, that the homeowner acted fine. The police called it a clean shoot, and along with other replies, he just needs to work on his aim.
The "kid", he chose to do a criminal act and at 17 years of age, he should be very cognitive of what's right and what's wrong. (I assume)We were all disciplined on this principle growing up. So I do not intend to antagonize by the "kid" usage, I just do not see him as a kid choosing the path he did.
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
He wasn't a would-be burglar when he was knocking on the front door, was he? He was just a stranger. He didn't become a would-be burglar until he acted furtively and went to the back yard and started kicking in the door.
So what all this really boils down to is the fact that in your opinion, the homeowner did not behave properly and you think he is responsible for having shot the intruder. You don't like the fact that the homeowner did not give warning. You don't like the fact that the homeowner was prepared. You don't like the aspect that the homeowner is proud that his preparation and action helped lead to the capture of what is an apparent crime ring. You don't like how the homeonwer held his gun.
In your opinion, it was bait-like, only in reality, it was not. What you consider being bait-like is just the homeowner outsmarting the bad guy and making use of what little advantage he had. You seem perfectly okay with the fact that the intruder was determined to gain entry into the home, but not okay with the fact that he was outsmarted.
Stupid should hurt and in this case, it did.
Heck, I am having trouble believing that you haven't blamed the homeowner yet for not having sturdier doors.
Right, such "safe" assumptions get people into a lot of trouble.
Why would you assume that the intruder wasn't trying to encounter somebody? For all you know, the purpose of the intrusion was to lay in wait for the wife to return hope for the purpose of raping and killing her. That is why he went around to break in at the back door is so that the wife would not see the damage to the home when entering through the front door or garage.
Your assumption is that the homeowner shot the intruder because he was angry at being awakened and then formulated a plan to lure him into the house and shoot him. You are certain that the homeowner was motivated by anger rather than fear. By what power of perception do you have knowledge of the workings of this man's mind?
In any event, the amount of fear one feels is seldom at issue legally. A real risk of imminent harm was present, and clearly evidenced by the ability and intent to break through a locked door, and which justifies the use of defensive force. There is no longer a duty to retreat from your own home in many states, and I am not aware of any laws that require a verbal warning or any other measure to warn off an intruder. Similarly, I am not aware of any jurisdiction in which a property owner is legally required to answer a door. Neither am I aware of any law that requires one to check the age of an assailant before defending oneself.
There is nothing to condemn in the actions of the homeowner, legally or morally. The only condemnation that can be conceived is the invention of the OP that this was a deliberate plan of the homeowner to lure someone into a burglary in order to satisfy his blood lust. Such an assertion is utterly baseless. People with benign intent do not kick in the back door if the front door is not answered. The fact that the burglar assumed no one was home is immaterial and does not affect the inherent risk of the homeowner's situation, as created by the would-be house breaker.
B18C5-EH2 - by the way, I do feel bad for the intruder as I do the home invader. I, for one, think there is no winner for these events. The intruder did something really stupid and is paying for it, but could be a lot worse for him. He also forced the home owner into having to use lethal force - something none of us on this forum EVER want to do. It will most likely take years of his life to get over this and feel safe again.
So, there is no winner here and the only cheering going on is that it ended as well as it did.
So, there is no winner here and the only cheering going on is that it ended as well as it did.
- Status