-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
TX - Homeowner Shoots Intruder
- Thread starter Kevlar
- Start date
stoneypete
NES Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,860
- Likes
- 413
Nice shootin'.
While it is problematic reaching hard judgments based on flimsy news reports, it sounds like this guy took a snap shot, in the dark, at an unidentified target, which had not displayed any weapon.
Kicker96FS
NES Member
I say he did the right thing. If he knew the house was locked and where the GF was, obviously that person entered illegally and did not belong there. The fact that it was an ex-boyfriend definitely raises the level of concern. God knows what he was there to do.
my friend was killed by a jealous ex bf that went into his house and stabbed him in the neck.
shoot first. dont wait to be stabbed and or shot. if someone is in your house that isnt supposed to be there, theyre obviously up to no good.
shoot first. dont wait to be stabbed and or shot. if someone is in your house that isnt supposed to be there, theyre obviously up to no good.
If he displays a weapon...it's probably already too late...
J
Jose
Good thing Ohio law presumes an unlawful intruder is in your home to inflict death or severe injury to the lawful occupants.
As they say in the Navy......"weapons free".
As they say in the Navy......"weapons free".
+1 one to you.
That is the correct use for that term. Most people get it wrong. "a status where weapons may be fired at any target not positively recognized as friendly." Which is exactly what this guy did.
Based on the news story (admittedly a weak source), the shooter did not know that the person he had shot was the former boyfriend until after he had shot him.
As they say sometimes on "Best Defense," let's see how this scenario might have played out differently:
Residence has a good alarm system.
There is a power outage.
Central station calls the subscriber, but the number they have is a cell phone, and the battery in that phone has died, so Central Station notifies the PTN/KH, who is male resident's best friend from high school.
PTN figures (appropriately enough) that, since he got call from CS, his friends aren't home and there is a problem in their house, so he gets his key and goes over.
He doesn't bother the knock, as (a) the house is dark (car is in the garage) and (b) if they were home, CS wouldn't have called him.
He tries to turn on the light by the door, but, since the power is out, that doesn't do any good.
He considers going back for his flashlight, but he's been in the house many times and there is enough light coming in the windows for him to get to the breaker panel.
Which is is halfway to when his best friend from high school shoots him.
I tell my people that one of the best things one can do for home defense is wire enough lights that they can be remotely turned on from the bedroom as to light up most of the downstairs (or kitchen, dining, etc areas in a one-story).
Generally speaking, one wants to get through this life shooting as few people as one has to shoot.
J
Jose
I hope I would remember my days as a Surface Warfare Officer.......
if a person is in my house at like 1am, they are NOT there to sell me Amway. By the time you read the last sentence you would have had to made the decision if the person in your house, at night, is there to harm you. If you make the wrong decision someone can die anyways. My goal in life is not to be involved in few shootings, but actually live my life to its completion than ended prematurely because some thug wants to break into my house to steal stuff to get high.
This is a good shoot imho. And with this being Texas, it is known you are allowed to use deadly force to protect your property. So to even hint that it could be a simple burglary, the homeowner still has the legal right to use deadly force.
This is a good shoot imho. And with this being Texas, it is known you are allowed to use deadly force to protect your property. So to even hint that it could be a simple burglary, the homeowner still has the legal right to use deadly force.
Last edited:
J
Jose
That is a non-issue. This was the stopping of a home invasion. It had nothing to do with protection of property. It had everything to do with protection of life inside one's own castle.
Do not mix up the two.
I know this, but some people will just say its a simple burglary and that you can't kill a person for stealing your property.
J
Jose
Yeah, like RKG
RKG, if you ever come over my house when the power is out, I hope you knock first. Who the f*** walks into ANYONE'S house, even a relative's, without knocking at 1AM and without identifying themselves, aka yelling "Hello it's me John" very loudly? If you have a friend that close, who you obviously would know owns a gun, do yourself a favor and never sneak around their house in the middle of the night. If you have friends that stupid, it may be time to find some new ones. If you're that stupid, well there's really no stopping Darwin from finding you.
That's a good shoot. Too bad it wasn't a head shot and they'll have to waste all that money prosecuting/imprisoning him...
That's a good shoot. Too bad it wasn't a head shot and they'll have to waste all that money prosecuting/imprisoning him...
I distinguish between the right to use any degree of force necessary to protect myself and my family, on the one hand, and "a free pass to waste" someone, on the other.
It would seem that you and I differ.
Last edited:
The homeowner knew there was supposed to be him, and his girlfriend in the house. And nobody else. I know who's supposed to be in my house. If there's somebody that's not supposed to be there, the issue will summarily be addressed as such.
Somebody that's not supposed to be in your house is probably up to no good.
True.
I really don't have time to be certain, but I think it comes down to (or at least includes) the difference between desiring authority to shoot as many people as possible and the authority to shoot as few people as necessary. If that's at all on the mark, it reflects a value judgment. It is neither surprising nor disheartening that folks differ on value judgments.
Last edited:
This...
I understand what RKG is trying to say. Whether or not the law says a shooting is justified should not really determine whether you shoot. That should be determined by whether you have a reasonable assumption that your life or the life of those who are supposed to be in the house are in danger.
What RKG seems to miss in his attempts to construct a scenario in which the shooter was not justified is:
a. As we are told so often by the media, most murders are commited by someone known to the victim.
b. Sure turning on all the lights in the house _might_ scare them away, but... (as with racking shotguns as so many seem to want to do), it also gives up your advantage of surprise over the invader.
As above, that the law gives a wide berth in justifying homicide should have no bearing in whether you fire your gun. That said, I don't see anything in this story that is unreasonable. I am sure it is possible that more details could concoct a problematic situation which is why homicide, justified or not is investigated, but I have to say RKG is reaching a bit in his attempt to defend his stance...
While I accept that there is both a legal constituent and a moral constituent to employing deadly force against a person, totally ignoring the legal implications strikes me as a tad excessive (not to say also dangerous).
Actually, what I was trying to say is quite simple:
I accept the necessity of shooting someone when it is necessary to do so, but:
I have no desire to "waste" anyone I think I can get away with shooting, absent such necessity.
There seems to be a difference of value judgment on the last point.
I think you took that in the wrong direction...
I was agreeing with your sentiment that the law allowing this in TX does not mean you should not consider whether or not you need to fire based on the threat. In other words, I was saying there is no such thing ethically or morally as a "free pass to blow the guy away"...
That said, I find it reasonable that if you know who is supposed to be in your house and you find yourself +1 without inviting them, you are justified in assuming the worst.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Similar threads
