Nevada "Stand Your Ground " Case

T

thallub

New member
A property owner killed a unarmed squatter in a vacant rental unit. He wounded a second person. Both people were under a comforter on the floor. The shooter is claiming he had a right to shoot under the NV "stand your ground" law.

IMO: The guy should have backed off and called the police. i see jail time in this mans future.

In Reno, Wayne Burgarello, 74, insists he was justified in fatally shooting one unarmed trespasser and seriously wounding another after confronting them in a rundown duplex in February 2014.

Washoe County prosecutor Bruce Hahn said the former schoolteacher angry about past burglaries acted out of revenge — not self-defense — when he entered the darkened duplex and unleashed a barrage of gunfire on a man and woman beneath a comforter on the floor.

Burgarello said he thought the man pointed a gun at him. No weapon was found, but his lawyer said he might have mistaken a black flashlight police found beneath the victim's body for a firearm.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/nevada-case-latest-test-stand-ground-laws-160917693.html
 
Unless he was physically threatened in some fashion, it is not a stand your ground case. All stand your ground stands for is that you are not required to retreat in the face of aggression you did not instigate. With two victims on the ground, I don't see it. Imperfect self defense based on the flashlight is a more likely defense.
 
I would have to read Nevada's law in detail to arrive at a fully reasoned conclusion, and I'm not going to take the time to do that. My on-the-spot reaction is that the shooting was not justified and that the "stand your ground" defense probably will not hold up in court.
 
The 74-year had a legal right to be there, it was a darkened room, and it looks like both of the people had their hands concealed and it appeared both of them were manipulating what could have been a firearm. I'm betting he walks, regardless of the prosecutor's claims.

For all we know he was backing out the door to summon police when the pair moved their concealed hands and caused him to think he was in danger.
 
article said:
RENO, Nev. (AP) — The idea that a person's home is their castle and they have the right to kill trespassers has been widely accepted in the U.S. for more than a century.
Click to expand...

Well, didn't that start out well. A "right to kill"? :eek:

Not to go all socialist, but if you own property that is inhabited or monitored so infrequently that squatters are able to take up residence, maybe squatters are not your real problem. In one sense, you own habitable structures that nobody is inhabiting, and the squatters are simply putting the structures to their intended use. They are helping to make more efficient use of a limited resource (housing).

The earlier article in the local Reno news provides much better context:

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/crime...t-sparks-man-alleged-murder-squatter/9637983/

There was another nearby property owner, Lilla, who informed Burgarello, the property owner and shooter, that someone was on his property. Lilla followed Burgarello as he entered his property with a handgun in each hand.

As Burgarello approached the rental, he told Lilla to be quiet and not make any noise. Then he continued with some nonsense about how he's the property owner and how nobody should be there, despite Lilla having told him someone was probably inside.

Sorry, folks. If Lilla's statements are true, that's murder.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rtpzwms said:
Here is another reporter talking about what was captured in video a short time after the shooting.

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/crime/...room/27782879/
Click to expand...
Gotta love what passes for journalism these days:

When Burgarello arrived, he carried two guns in each hand, leaving a third inside his Toyota Tacoma.
Click to expand...
From that, what I get is that Mr. Burgarello walked into the building with four (4) guns, leaving a fifth (not a third) in his vehicle.
 
The Sparks, Nevada jury has just found the man not guilty of murder or any other charge, due to self-defense circumstances.
Click to expand...

Great news

Not to go all socialist, but if you own property that is inhabited or monitored so infrequently that squatters are able to take up residence, maybe squatters are not your real problem.
Click to expand...

Why?

Is there some unknown LAW that states the property owner needs to inhabit his/her property "X" amount of time or else it becomes the property of anyone who illegally breaks in?

Not to go all socialist, In one sense, you own habitable structures that nobody is inhabiting, and the squatters are simply putting the structures to their intended use. They are helping to make more efficient use of a limited resource (housing).
Click to expand...

If they truly want to make better use of habitable structures maybe they should get jobs, earn money and start renting or buying property to live in, you know, LIKE THE REST OF US DO, well, most of us anyway :cool:
 
A couple of months ago I read a story about a couple (I think ... maybe just a woman) who had built a vacation log home that was on a flatbed trailer. Came out to the vacation home one day to find ... no home. Some deadbeat had just hooked up and moved it a few miles away, and was living in it.

Squatters are scum of the earth, but absent a direct and immediate threat that's not grounds for killing them. (At least, not according to the law.)
 
Last edited:
Might be the prosecutor in this case set the stage for the acquittal by opposing lesser included charges be considered by the jury. If he decided to shoot the moon and only allow the jury to consider a murder charge, it's very possible the jury felt some sympathy for the defendent and felt it was more just to acquit him than convict him of murder, which might put him in prison for the rest of his life. I, too, like AB, have no patience/sympathy for squatters, and it's quite possible 12 Nevada men and women felt the same way.
 
I don't believe this sounds like a stand your ground case and quite frankly, I'm disgusted that is what he's claiming because it just ruins it for everybody else in others states that are trying to get stand your ground laws.

This guy just seems angry about previous encounters and took the law into his own hands. If the two were asleep under the blanket, they weren't threatening him, they didn't have a weapon, etc., etc., This is just too bad. I feel like sometimes it's gun owners like these that tend to make it harder for the rest of us with even just a tad of common sense.

I'll be curious to see what happens.
 
It would be interesting to know what was presented to the jury by the defense to not only beat the Murder 1 charge but all of the lesser varients on the table. Most stories in the press that I had read put him in a bad light going in.

Most failed to mention that the survivor had made a statement that she was trying to establish squatters rights for a period of time...i.e. theft of property by adverse possession. Now this begs a question... does she (her crime(s)) meet the standard for her to be charged with the death of the other person according to that states laws?
 
SHR970 said:
....Most failed to mention that the survivor had made a statement that she was trying to establish squatters rights for a period of time...i.e. theft of property by adverse possession. Now this begs a question... does she (her crime(s)) meet the standard for her to be charged with the death of the other person according to that states laws?
Click to expand...
Acquiring title to real property by adverse possession is not theft, nor is it illegal. But it's ludicrous for her to claim an intent to acquire the property by adverse possession.

Among other things, to acquire property by adverse possession in Nevada one must occupy the property openly, under a claim of right, and pay the taxes on the property for five years. That wasn't going to happen with these penurious squatters.

For background on adverse possession in Nevada see here and here.
 
Last edited:
Wiggin, this was not a Stand Your Ground case, the defense made no such claim.

The media injected the term SYG to engender public antipathy to the laws.

Bloomberg will fund an Initiative to do so when the time is ripe.
 
Frank,

Thank you for that clarification.

Now as to the Breaking and Entering.. that would be a different matter as well as the trespass. Considering this was a reoccuring issue and / or potential set of crimes. By the supposed statement(s) of the survivor of the incident, you may have a confession to a crime or crimes
 
Like most things - the "news" (especially left-wing anti-gun outlets) is usually quite slanted and wrong.

Knowing nothing about the case, I would have thought that a property owner inspecting his property (a legal right to be there) to find vagrants/squatters (trespassers, possibly committing crimes therein like drug use, prostitution, thefts, other criminal acts), might very well be in fear of his life.

Appears this guy was 74 (elderly) and a schoolteacher (not really known for the aggressive, murderous, fight-picking type).

I would be very suspect of a story that said he just walked in guns blazing. More likely, there was a confrontation of some sort that caused him to react defensively.

According to the acquittal argument, there was a confrontation. It's not as though they were peacefully asleep under a blanket. The first is the defendant's statement during his interrogation.

"I was trying to protect my own life," he said. "Since they were there in a threatening manner, I reacted."

Devine was shot five times, including once in the head. Wilson was shot in her leg, arm and stomach.
Click to expand...
Hahn is the prosecutor. Look how stupid his quote is.
"It wasn't one or two (shots), then we'll talk. It was eight rounds," Hahn said. "It was open season."
Click to expand...

With such ineptitude as Hahn demonstrates in this quote, it's likely he hasn't the first clue about the law or justice in prosecuting cases.

According to the article:
Nevada's stand-your-ground law allows property owners to use deadly force against attackers who pose an imminent threat, regardless of whether they are armed. But it specifies the shooter cannot be the initial aggressor.
Click to expand...

Slam dunk Not Guilty in my view. The owner had a right to be there, and there was a confrontation 2 against 1. If you walked into your home and found two homeless vagrants squatting, and they confront you rather than immediately apologizing and leaving you have no idea if they are on meth, have guns, knives, or HIV infected needles to stab you. You may not know if there's only 2 or more in hiding.

No way I'd convict on the likely scenario of how it played out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top