Store Owner shoots Burglar
- Thread starter wickedrider
- Start date
- Status
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
It greatly disappoints me that my fellow countrymen are willing to kill over property crimes...
EasyG.......
Which Countrymen do you speak of? Because, I read all these comments, including my own, as we will stop or assist in the stopping of crime, including defening my families lives, your and your families lives and my own if it includes taking anothers life to do it. But shooting thru a window when the bad guy wasnt armed.... thats a bit on the extreme side. I spent 26+ years defending this country and its beliefs and even though I am no longer on active duty I continue to do so everyday. I am proud that I can defend myself, my and your family the way I wish too. Confrontations especially when armed should be de-escalated not escalated. Be a good witness does not mean backdown. It means... be a good witness.
Which Countrymen do you speak of? Because, I read all these comments, including my own, as we will stop or assist in the stopping of crime, including defening my families lives, your and your families lives and my own if it includes taking anothers life to do it. But shooting thru a window when the bad guy wasnt armed.... thats a bit on the extreme side. I spent 26+ years defending this country and its beliefs and even though I am no longer on active duty I continue to do so everyday. I am proud that I can defend myself, my and your family the way I wish too. Confrontations especially when armed should be de-escalated not escalated. Be a good witness does not mean backdown. It means... be a good witness.
skydiver3346
New member
Hello easyG:
I myself, tend to agree with your thoughts on this. A lot of folks want to jump on folks like us whenever we bring up the subject of stopping the crime and not lettting the bad guys rule our lives. They have done so to me many times when I commented on events like this. No problem as everyone has their own particular view on how to handle these things. However, no one has made me change my personal beliefs on what I should (or should not do) in these situations.
Of course it always depends on each and every scenario on how you will react. Certainly not everyone of us is going to "Cower, cover and cell phone" as a response to these crimes. Some others may take a more aggressive approach in stopping crime, (especially to our own home and/or business). I'm not saying that is always the best solution, but it will be a solution for some of us out here in the "Real World".
Note: With that said, the owner was outside his place of business and shooting through a window at the suspect inside (whom he thought had a gun). This probably a knee jerk reaction at that moment. Upon retrospect, he probably should have moved away from the window and phoned police. At the same time keeping his weapon on the ready, (in case the bad guy escalated the confrontation and approached him outside the bldg).
I personally don't believe you should let him just walk away scot free (when he tries to leave the buisness after commiting this felony). No way am I personally going to allow this to happen. It's up to others to make their own decisions on how they will react to crimes. I would never tell anyone how THEY should respond to these situations, (to each his own). However, I think I know how I will handle myself if this happens to me, (prior experience of me being robbed).
I myself, tend to agree with your thoughts on this. A lot of folks want to jump on folks like us whenever we bring up the subject of stopping the crime and not lettting the bad guys rule our lives. They have done so to me many times when I commented on events like this. No problem as everyone has their own particular view on how to handle these things. However, no one has made me change my personal beliefs on what I should (or should not do) in these situations.
Of course it always depends on each and every scenario on how you will react. Certainly not everyone of us is going to "Cower, cover and cell phone" as a response to these crimes. Some others may take a more aggressive approach in stopping crime, (especially to our own home and/or business). I'm not saying that is always the best solution, but it will be a solution for some of us out here in the "Real World".
Note: With that said, the owner was outside his place of business and shooting through a window at the suspect inside (whom he thought had a gun). This probably a knee jerk reaction at that moment. Upon retrospect, he probably should have moved away from the window and phoned police. At the same time keeping his weapon on the ready, (in case the bad guy escalated the confrontation and approached him outside the bldg).
I personally don't believe you should let him just walk away scot free (when he tries to leave the buisness after commiting this felony). No way am I personally going to allow this to happen. It's up to others to make their own decisions on how they will react to crimes. I would never tell anyone how THEY should respond to these situations, (to each his own). However, I think I know how I will handle myself if this happens to me, (prior experience of me being robbed).
Last edited:
USE OF FORCE AGAINST TRESPASSER
The common law in this state (VA) has long recognized the right of a
landowner to order a trespasser to leave, and if the trespasser refuses
to go, to employ proper force to expel him, provided no breach of the
peace is committed in the outset. . . . Absent extreme circumstances,
however, such force may not endanger human life or cause great bodily
harm.
The most basic breakdown for lethal force in Virginia would be as follows:
Allowed to protect yourself if you reasonably fear for your life.
Allowed to protect family members if you reasonably fear for their life.
Allowed to protect a third party if you reasonably fear for their life.
Women are allowed to use lethal force if they reasonably fear that they are going to be raped.
If your inside your building and a badguy enters..... defending yourself is one thing. BUT being outside a building.... looking inside thru a window claiming self defense........... uggggggggg thats a stretch.
The common law in this state (VA) has long recognized the right of a
landowner to order a trespasser to leave, and if the trespasser refuses
to go, to employ proper force to expel him, provided no breach of the
peace is committed in the outset. . . . Absent extreme circumstances,
however, such force may not endanger human life or cause great bodily
harm.
The most basic breakdown for lethal force in Virginia would be as follows:
Allowed to protect yourself if you reasonably fear for your life.
Allowed to protect family members if you reasonably fear for their life.
Allowed to protect a third party if you reasonably fear for their life.
Women are allowed to use lethal force if they reasonably fear that they are going to be raped.
If your inside your building and a badguy enters..... defending yourself is one thing. BUT being outside a building.... looking inside thru a window claiming self defense........... uggggggggg thats a stretch.
OldMarksman
Staff
It does bother me greatly that there are those who will not report a crime in progress or provide information afterwards.
However, the citizen is rarely trained, not equipped, and not chartered to "stop" most crimes; he has no legally sanctioned departmental policies to follow; he cannot call for backup or receive information or instructions from a dispatcher; and he is never indemnified against civil charges should problems develop.
Law enforcement officers never go in alone except in cases of emergencies, and if a single officer does come upon a crime in progress, he will call for backup.
That's war. In law enforcement, the duty of the sworn officer is to stop and detain the perp; he can use deadly force only when absolutely necessary to protect himself or others. Nor does the citizen have that right unless he is in imminent danger.
The civilian may or may not have a legal duty to retreat. And while he may have a weapon, he may only use deadly force to "engage and stop" (effect a citizen's arrest of) a suspect in a couple of places in the country, and there, only under most extreme circumstances not at all like the burglary situation at hand.
There's a big, big difference between law enforcement and military combat, and big difference between the role of the sworn officer and that of a citizen.
It's interesting to muse about the possibility of an armed citizen acting to "stop" crime. It's also quite possible that in so doing, he may well end up committing a crime, perhaps far more serious than the one he endeavored to stop.
I once heard an address by the Chief Counsel for a major corporation. He talked about the travails of a couple of former luminaries who were then serving time for what they had thought to be reasonable acts. He started by rattling off a couple of long numbers, saying that they were not telephone numbers but prisoner numbers. It was chilling.
If any of that happens, our citizen will be regarded as the farthest thing from a hero.
Of course, it's possible that he might prevail in court--maybe broke and perhaps unemployed.
And then, on top of that, there are the issues of the citizen getting killed or maimed, costly civil suits and judgments involving the perp, and the repercussions of a bullet hitting a third party.
And if he does not end up in legal difficulty or get stabbed or shot by a criminal, he stands a reasonably high chance of being taken out by arriving policemen who see him with a gun.
I'll confine my shooting to the range and to lawful self defense.
Last edited:
From my post# 25
The above is a good guess as to what quite possibly happened! No real need to get involved with long complected killing for a property, quite possibly insured, or being a "Coward" and calling 911, and waiting for the Police.
Long time ago, a person was arguing with me, reference him coming in to a place of business, late at night.
We were employed to monitor the individuals coming in, simple, I let you in, or not!
Very quickly he pulled his hand out of his pocket, a right cross, left him sitting dazed on the street! He was just pulling his handkerchief out of his pocket!
UK in the 60s, apologize, done. Everything is not a conscious thought process, some actions are predicated on instinct.
If he had a pistol in a holster, quite different than pistol picked up from next to bed, placed in vehicle, drive a couple of minutes, jump out of vehicle, see broken window/door.
Blood pressure 160 over 95! not really wide awake yet, pistol is in hand, See's movement, a glint of metal? maybe, up gun, bang/bang etc.
Is not the above, quite possibly what happened, based on the information we all had?
The above is a good guess as to what quite possibly happened! No real need to get involved with long complected killing for a property, quite possibly insured, or being a "Coward" and calling 911, and waiting for the Police.
Long time ago, a person was arguing with me, reference him coming in to a place of business, late at night.
We were employed to monitor the individuals coming in, simple, I let you in, or not!
Very quickly he pulled his hand out of his pocket, a right cross, left him sitting dazed on the street! He was just pulling his handkerchief out of his pocket!
UK in the 60s, apologize, done. Everything is not a conscious thought process, some actions are predicated on instinct.
If he had a pistol in a holster, quite different than pistol picked up from next to bed, placed in vehicle, drive a couple of minutes, jump out of vehicle, see broken window/door.
Blood pressure 160 over 95! not really wide awake yet, pistol is in hand, See's movement, a glint of metal? maybe, up gun, bang/bang etc.
Is not the above, quite possibly what happened, based on the information we all had?
#18indycolts
Moderator
and they should charge the threat at all costs...possibly dying and leaving their family alone with a DEAD father for what? To be called a hero?
yeah right, I'll take being called a coward to provide for my family. Only if the person(s) being threatened are NOT my family.False argument.
Nobody ever said anything about charging the threat at all cost.
You don't have to charge in like you don't have a brain when confronting the criminal element.
You can still use cover and concealment and the element of surprise, and yes, less than lethal force to subdue a criminal.
But I hate it when folks here actually advise others to "cower" before the criminal element.
It's pathetic.
Just my two cents that being robbed/ mugged by armed men/man (whether byGun/Knife/Club etc) is not a property crime. OP is a different case though. However, if the owner truly believed that the burglar had a weapon then I have no hesitation to claim it as a self defense and a good shot.
If everything in the news story is the truth, what choice did he have? He thought the BG was aiming a shotgun at him. He could have waited a moment to see for sure or he could have fired.
I am saying this based on the idea that all parties involved are telling the full truth.
I have seen footage of two police officers opening fire on a guy with a cell phone aimed at them. I have also seen footage of police officers not firing on a female aiming a wallet at them.
If you choose to pretend you have a gun to someone who really does, you might wind up getting shot. Sorry but stupid never came with a guarantee of not getting hurt. Nor did it come with guaranteed sympathy if you did.
I am saying this based on the idea that all parties involved are telling the full truth.
I have seen footage of two police officers opening fire on a guy with a cell phone aimed at them. I have also seen footage of police officers not firing on a female aiming a wallet at them.
If you choose to pretend you have a gun to someone who really does, you might wind up getting shot. Sorry but stupid never came with a guarantee of not getting hurt. Nor did it come with guaranteed sympathy if you did.
Last edited:
COWERING is not something in my state you are required to do. When it comes to the Castle Doctrines, personally I would not shoot someone who is, say for instance, burglarizing my car.
But the suggestion of cowering when someone is burglarizing you and then points what you believe to be a shotgun in your direction means you might be putting your life in the hands of the bad guy.
Tell the victims at the Luby's in Killeen Texas they should have Cowered (the reason Texans have CCW law today), Tell the victims at Virginia Tech they should have Cowered, Tell the victims of Columbine they should have cowered, tell a million people in a million different situations that they should have cowered. You know what they will tell you? That they did and now they are dead.
Sometimes the realities of life and nature require that you must FIGHT to survive. that is why CCW laws and Castle Doctrines are law. To help us legally when we choose to fight and not COWER.
But the suggestion of cowering when someone is burglarizing you and then points what you believe to be a shotgun in your direction means you might be putting your life in the hands of the bad guy.
Tell the victims at the Luby's in Killeen Texas they should have Cowered (the reason Texans have CCW law today), Tell the victims at Virginia Tech they should have Cowered, Tell the victims of Columbine they should have cowered, tell a million people in a million different situations that they should have cowered. You know what they will tell you? That they did and now they are dead.
Sometimes the realities of life and nature require that you must FIGHT to survive. that is why CCW laws and Castle Doctrines are law. To help us legally when we choose to fight and not COWER.
Last edited:
Getting shot by someone = suck city x 100000!
I pray I never have to use deadly force on another person... BUT if the situation should occur where my life, or the lives of loved ones were in danger... well I guess I'd be in "suck city" for a bit. It's better than the alternative.
In my state you can no longer be taken to court by the BG's family. I could live with my actions if they were justified. I could NOT, however, live with doing nothing and have it result in others being harmed or killed.
OldMarksman
Staff
Missouri? Think again.
If you have been tried in criminal court and it has been found that your use of deadly force was justified, you are protected against civil liability for any damages to the perpetrator. If there is a civil suit that for some reason goes to trial, and that would be extremely unlikely in the event of an acquittal in criminal court, the criminal court finding will serve as your defense in civil court, and according to the law, you will pay no legal expenses or court costs. Lay opinion.
If you are taken to court by the plaintiff and there has been no criminal court trial, a finding in that court that you were justified under the criminal law would serve as your defense against a civil judgment, and your legal fees would be reimbursed. Lay opinion. That's how it reads to this layman. I don't know of any actual cases.
I think you would find that the burden of proof would differ---reasonable doubt in the criminal court, vs. preponderance of the evidence in a civil case.
As I understand it, these provisions were enacted into law to correct a bad situation. People who had lawfully defended themselves had reportedly ended up with huge civil liabilities.
By the way, had this Virginia shooting occurred in MO, it would remain to be seen just who would end up wearing the "BG" hat. Maybe the shooter would not be charged, maybe he would be charged but not indicted, and maybe he would end up on trial--and then what?
OldMarksman - As I can understand it you are exactly correct. You can still be sued no matter what but the likelyhood in a case where you were not charged or found not-guilty by a jury is extremely low. It would have to be an unusual case for any lawyer to take it knowing that if they lost they would have to pay your legal fees. But all that may not keep someome from trying it and you could lose with some sympathetic, pathetic jury.
OldMarksman
Staff
I think the likelihood would be less than remote in the case of a criminal trial and acquittal.
On the other hand, in the event of a decision to not charge (which can be reversed at any time during the rest of your life, for any or for no reason), I think it's reasonably possible that, depending on the facts of the case, a plaintiff's attorney may believe that the decision was a bad one and choose to proceed, and once the evidence is placed before a civil jury, that jury may not have to be excessively "sympathetic, much less "pathetic,"to find that a preponderance of the evidence indicated that your use of force was excessive.
That eventuality is something that concerns me, not so much in the event of a forced entry into my home, but if something happens in a parking lot or sidewalk.
Excellent point. I was just trying to emphasize that even in states where there is both Castle Doctrine and Stand-your-ground laws if the DA says it was a good shoot it does not mean it is necessarily over. I hear too many people say that if you are not charged due to the Castle Doctrine that you can't be sued which is not the case at all.
I heard a talk by a policeman once that said that in a shooting you want it to go to a jury and be found not-guilty. That way it cannot come back on you later in a criminal court and gives additional leverage in any civil trial.
One also has to remember that a jury finds a person either guilty or not-guilty. A jury never finds a person innocent. There is a big difference between not-guilty and innocent. OJ was found not-guilty, the civil jury said different. In the Duke LAX case the State DA made a bing statement when he said that the players were not just not-guilty but also innocent.
I heard a talk by a policeman once that said that in a shooting you want it to go to a jury and be found not-guilty. That way it cannot come back on you later in a criminal court and gives additional leverage in any civil trial.
One also has to remember that a jury finds a person either guilty or not-guilty. A jury never finds a person innocent. There is a big difference between not-guilty and innocent. OJ was found not-guilty, the civil jury said different. In the Duke LAX case the State DA made a bing statement when he said that the players were not just not-guilty but also innocent.
- Status