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

[Double Naught Spy]

I think the OP here is mostly trying to play Devil's Advocate, but I feel it's not working out the way he'd hoped.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

No, I think it is clear that the OP was fairly ignorant about GA criminal and civil law and has started to see some of the error of his grandstanding against the homeowner and is just covering his tracks to save face.

Sorry I know I'm arguing points, but I am playing devil's advocate. My initial, knew jerk reaction to the story was sort of shock and disbelief that the home owner matter-of-factly stated he stood with gun aimed at the intruder as he watched him kick the door down, then shot him.

So the bottom line is that you are trying any which way you can to find fault with the homeowner because you didn't like what he did and you didn't like the way he talked about it?

 

[B18C5-EH2]

No, I think it is clear that the OP was fairly ignorant about GA criminal and civil law and has started to see some of the error of his grandstanding against the homeowner and is just covering his tracks to save face.

I don't need to "save face" to a bunch of anonymous people on an internet message board. Don't give yourself that much credit to think that I actually give a crap about what YOU think of me.

I love the "grandstanding" remark too. Are you butt hurt that someone posted an opinion that differs from yours?

I do play devil's advocate on all of the message boards I post on. My title on one forum is actually "Devil's Advocate" so again at least one person here could see that this was a possibility.

I'll admit that there was some shock value to the newscast, and the home owner holding his hand sideways as he recounted/reenacted the events for the news crew as he said "I couldn't believe he was kicking in my door and it took him like four kicks to get in so by the time he got in I was ready for him..." after watching the guy beat on the front door first. If he felt so threatened up front why did he not even call 911 beforehand?

I'm glad most of you posted some really good information, and for that I say thanks.

 

[NavyLT]

I see the pitfalls of this topic though - no matter what we all say here ultimately it's hard to have a concrete, "right or wrong" answer and in the end the guy is alive, a criminal is second guessing his life of crime, and thus far the home owner has not been charged with a crime.

I disagree. I think there is a concrete "right". The homeowner defended himself within the bounds set forth in the law, and, as a result, escaped harm at the hands of a criminal. To me that is about as concrete "right" as it gets.

Unless you think that telling him to go away would make him quit burgling altogether?

But, but, but.... isn't that what the Brady Campaign says will happen if we make the entire US a no-gun zone?!? Now I am confused.... :barf:
And that is directed at the Brady bunch, not the OP... just to be clear.

 

[Mike Irwin]

OK, folks, ONLY warning.

This thread is getting a little too personal for the good health and continued active member standing of more than a few people.

I'll say this once.

BACK OFF THE "PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS."

Argue the points made in an individual's message.

Do NOT argue about the individual himself.

Are we clear?

 

[Mike Irwin]

My take.

AFIK, Georgia recently (within the last couple of years) updated its Castle Law to remove any duty of a homeowner or legal resident to retreat when confronted by an intruder in the home.

If you believe everything you see in this news article, the homeowner appears to be fully protected by the tenets of Georgia's Castle Law(s).

1. He had no duty under law to retreat from an intruder in his home.

2. He is permitted, by law, to make the prima facie (sp?) assumption that someone kicking down his door to gain unlawful entry into his home is more than willing to use violence.

3. He is permitted, by law, to use lethal force to counter a violent invasion of his home even if the intruder does not display, or have, a weapon.

AFIK, that is ALL black letter law in Georgia.

As such, the homeowner acted lawfully, and no charges should be filed against him because, by Georgia law, he committed no offenses.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Homeowner 1
Thief 0
Thats pretty much the only way I look at it.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The courts both civil and criminal will decide if the shooting is justified. We can only hypothesize at this time. It probably will cost a buck.

However, I wish to comment on several things:

1. Could it go differently, even if it was legal? Perhaps, from a position of cover - could the homeowner challenge the intruder? I've been through that in training exercises where we got the 'drop' so to speak on an invader and practiced getting him to flee or deal with him. Well thought out FOF helps you to have the mental routines to deal with such.

2. Psychological consequences. The gentleman may suffer later from classic anxiety disorders from the actual act of shooting a kid. Spare me that such only happen to cowards, etc. I'm a psychologist. It happens to 'tough' guys. The homeowner should be aware of such.

3. Social consequences - shooting a kid may not be appreciated by those outside of the choir and some within (as in this debate). This can be very powerful and unpleasant - it can lead to losing friendships, harassment, having to move. Even those who are most righteous and heroic have commented on the social consequences. The Air Force MP who took down a rampage shooter with his M9 with a great long range shot (totally righteous) has commented on how this made his life hell. Spcial shunning is one term for such.

Things to think about. Would you not shoot because of these and try to challenge? Who knows? I wasn't there. I trained and done both.

However, if you contemplate self-defense shootings, you should be aware of the risks. That's why LEO and civilian training schools mention the stress problems. You can get a posturer who scoffs but that's their problem.

 

[MTT TL]

A quick google search reveals several dozen cases of criminals being shot (mostly shot dead) in just the last couple of months all over the country. The number of civil suits being reported seems to be 1%. Some states don't even allow suits if the person is in the commission of a felony. I can only find one case in the last ten years where the criminal won the case. The homeowner can always counter sue if he likes to.

There might be more that are not reported, but I think the danger of a law suit is overstated. Is it possible? Maybe, if your state allows it. I would say your odds of bad things happening are a lot worse if you allow a group of thugs to kick in your door unopposed.

 

[Al Norris]

The legality of this case has pretty well been established, and early on at that.

My gut instinct is to close this thread because it's been off topic for the L&CR section for a while now. Mike has jumped in to admonish everyone to not get so flaming personal.

I understand how that has happened, since the OP has instigated the majority of negative comments, and intentionally at that. It still does not excuse the behavior I've just read.

Folks, the Tactics and Training forum is that-a-way

Closed.