3 teens killed in home invasion

[gardenmom5]

 

 

Where I live, it would take the police a minimum of 20 minutes to get to my house if I called 911.  I don't think any burglar or person intending to do me or my family harm is going to sit around and wait for the police to arrive.  We are armed.  We train.  I hope to high heaven I never have to pull a weapon on someone; it would devastate me.  However, I'm prepared to do so if I or a member of my family cannot escape without notice and it's absolutely necessary.

 

there is home cc video of two thugs robbing a house (they're in the woman's bedroom), breaking down the door to the bathroom to get to her (she's screaming in terror) demanding to know if she called the cops - and they figured they had a couple minutes BEFORE they had to get out.  they're still searching her room for valuables - even though they expect the police have been notified.

 

http://q13fox.com/2017/03/29/violent-home-invasion-caught-on-camera-in-south-everett-video/

 

They broke into someone's house and started showering???

 

yep.  he shot him through the shower curtain.  I'm all for homeowners defending themselves - but all he had to do was call 911.  the guy wasn't going anywhere.

 

http://komonews.com/news/local/deputies-homeowner-shoots-kills-intruder-in-mason-county

 

eta: added links.

Edited April 3, 2017 by gardenmom5

[TravelingChris]

That home invasion video is very frightening.

[Anne in CA]

I have to think that someone who broke into someone else's house for a shower was mentally ill and not a criminal... It does seem wacko to shoot someone in the shower. How much threat is a wet naked person to your physical well being??? But I would be super freaked out to find someone in my shower. I don't think I would shoot them, but that does make me think... what would I do if I found someone who is obviously not mentally healthy already in my house? Again, law enforcement is a long way from me. We had an issue with a woman strung out on drugs who lay in the parking lot when we were closed and we were afraid she would get run over. I don't know what would have happened if she wandered into my home in her drug induced state. Clearly I wouldn't shoot someone who wasn't a threat to me or my family, but you don't know where the situation is going, either...

[Saddlemomma]

I have to think that someone who broke into someone else's house for a shower was mentally ill and not a criminal... It does seem wacko to shoot someone in the shower. How much threat is a wet naked person to your physical well being??? But I would be super freaked out to find someone in my shower. I don't think I would shoot them, but that does make me think... what would I do if I found someone who is obviously not mentally healthy already in my house? Again, law enforcement is a long way from me. We had an issue with a woman strung out on drugs who lay in the parking lot when we were closed and we were afraid she would get run over. I don't know what would have happened if she wandered into my home in her drug induced state. Clearly I wouldn't shoot someone who wasn't a threat to me or my family, but you don't know where the situation is going, either...

 

According to the story, the homeowner left that house, went to the house next door, which he also owned, got a gun and shot the intruder.  In that scenario, the homeowner should be prosecuted.  He had ample time while in the other house to call the police and just wait for them.  He was in no danger whatsoever.  

 

I most likely would have freaked out if I found someone showering in my house, but I don't believe I would have subsequently shot him. When my DH and I are out on a walk, or at the store and DD is home alone, she has been taught how to deal with a potential break in. She would quickly grab her cell phone, my gun (she knows where it's kept and how to use it), and hide in the attic behind boxes.  If she gets really scared, there is a window in the attic she can open, climb out onto the roof, and get down to the ground. Then she can run and hide on our property.  The gun is only if none of this can occur, and she is trapped. Escape from harm without doing harm is the first line of defense, not the gun.  That's only for the last line of defense when there is no other option for any of us.

[gardenmom5]

I have to think that someone who broke into someone else's house for a shower was mentally ill and not a criminal... It does seem wacko to shoot someone in the shower. How much threat is a wet naked person to your physical well being??? But I would be super freaked out to find someone in my shower. I don't think I would shoot them, but that does make me think... what would I do if I found someone who is obviously not mentally healthy already in my house? Again, law enforcement is a long way from me. We had an issue with a woman strung out on drugs who lay in the parking lot when we were closed and we were afraid she would get run over. I don't know what would have happened if she wandered into my home in her drug induced state. Clearly I wouldn't shoot someone who wasn't a threat to me or my family, but you don't know where the situation is going, either...

 

 

mentally ill, or high ,etc.  who knows.  the homeowner has been charged with murder - because someone naked in the shower isn't an imminent threat and he could easily have called 911  - but didn't.

 

the owner used this particular home for an internet based business - he lived in the house next door.  makes me wonder if there was something illegal going on with his internet based business.   it's not unusual here for grow-houses to be robbed. 

[Carol in Cal.]

I have to think that someone who broke into someone else's house for a shower was mentally ill and not a criminal... It does seem wacko to shoot someone in the shower. How much threat is a wet naked person to your physical well being??? But I would be super freaked out to find someone in my shower. I don't think I would shoot them, but that does make me think... what would I do if I found someone who is obviously not mentally healthy already in my house? Again, law enforcement is a long way from me. We had an issue with a woman strung out on drugs who lay in the parking lot when we were closed and we were afraid she would get run over. I don't know what would have happened if she wandered into my home in her drug induced state. Clearly I wouldn't shoot someone who wasn't a threat to me or my family, but you don't know where the situation is going, either...

Having been around people who are not in their right minds, I will say that it can be terrifying--the idea that this is someone who sees and/or hears things that no one else does, and could suddenly decide that the voices told him to kill you. 

[SKL]

mentally ill, or high ,etc.  who knows.  the homeowner has been charged with murder - because someone naked in the shower isn't an imminent threat and he could easily have called 911  - but didn't.

 

the owner used this particular home for an internet based business - he lived in the house next door.  makes me wonder if there was something illegal going on with his internet based business.   it's not unusual here for grow-houses to be robbed. 

 

Yeah, seems to me there might be more to the story.  My first thought was, maybe the guy wasn't an "intruder" but was invited for some extracurricular activities by the owner's wife.

 

Reminds me of the time, maybe a year ago, a dad shot a young man in his daughter's bedroom.  In the moment, she said the young man had broken in and was trying to rape her.  Turns out they were boyfriend/girlfriend, things were consensual, and she was afraid to admit this to her dad at that moment.  What a tragedy.  I don't recall how that case came out (if it's been tried yet).

 

Edited April 3, 2017 by SKL

[gardenmom5]

Having been around people who are not in their right minds, I will say that it can be terrifying--the idea that this is someone who sees and/or hears things that no one else does, and could suddenly decide that the voices told him to kill you. 

 

he entered the house and found him in the shower - then left the house to go next door, where he actually lives, and got his gun.  he then returned to the first house where they guy was still in the shower - and shot him through the shower curtain.

 

he was certainly able to call the police.  don't know what their response times are.  but he wasn't in danger.

 

my bil was the 'scary' kind of schizophrenic (refused all attempts at mental health care) - and there were times . . . .

[shawthorne44]

I don't even like the phrasing of the title.  "3 teens killed in home invasion" makes me think that the teens killed were innocent residents in the home.   The title is technically true, but when you participate in an home invasion you lose the right to the sympathetic label of "teens". 

[Word Nerd]

Update. No charges will be filed against the man who shot the intruders, and the assistant DA says he "acted justifiably." 

[Carol in Cal.]

he entered the house and found him in the shower - then left the house to go next door, where he actually lives, and got his gun.  he then returned to the first house where they guy was still in the shower - and shot him through the shower curtain.

 

he was certainly able to call the police.  don't know what their response times are.  but he wasn't in danger.

 

my bil was the 'scary' kind of schizophrenic (refused all attempts at mental health care) - and there were times . . . .

Right, I wasn't saying he was right to shoot him, but just that it was still a scary invasion to find him there, especially if he was mentally ill.

 

I have a nephew who is way off--I don't believe he has been diagnosed, but he hears voices, slashed all four of his dad's tires for saying no to giving him a 5 hour lift to another city (as an adult in his thirties), lectures people incessantly, and does a lot of drugs.  He is one scary dude.  If I came home and found him having broken into a home that he had never lived in, no question I'd be very alarmed.  I'd want to call the cops, but I'd also be afraid of what he would do in revenge.  I am super glad that he lives in another state far far away. 

 

And there is a psychotic woman fixated on a house near ours where she grew up, even though she doesn't live there.  Crazy stuff.  Somehow she got ahold of a machete once and took it to all the bushes and trees on the block, I think she thought she was doing us all a favor by trimming them, but it was alarming seeing her swing that thing so hard, especially knowing that it was entirely possible that she thought each bush was a monster trying to kill her, like all the invisible ones she has yelled at in the gutter.

 

There are no social services for each of these folks that keep them and us safe.  They are both intermittently homeless, intermittently violent, have both attacked people bodily, and yet both cannot be confined under current law.  The so-called system has utterly failed them and everyone around them.  It's shameful.

[TravelingChris]

I agree that what has happened to mentally ill people is shameful.  It is totally pathetic that Scientologists have been so dominant in causing there not to be good treatment for people like you are describing Carol.  Outrageous.

[Carol in Cal.]

I agree that what has happened to mentally ill people is shameful.  It is totally pathetic that Scientologists have been so dominant in causing there not to be good treatment for people like you are describing Carol.  Outrageous.

Scientologists?  What do you mean?

[Slartibartfast]

I agree that what has happened to mentally ill people is shameful.  It is totally pathetic that Scientologists have been so dominant in causing there not to be good treatment for people like you are describing Carol.  Outrageous.

What?

 

Scientologists might have strange ideas about mental health but I don't think anyone is allowing them to legislate that are they?

[fairfarmhand]

 

 

.

 

 

So. I reacted to a guy having a huge loaded rifle by his bed with a "what the heck?"  If you live in a world where everyone has a huge loaded rifle by his bed, I guess my reaction was weird.  But I honest to goodness do not think my reaction was so out there and bizarre.

 

I do have friend in other parts of the country who own handguns.   So, I guess I thought handguns were standard self home defense.  AR-14 is a new one for me, as something you keep by your bed.  

 

I'm glad this kid is OK. I understand his not knowing that he'd killed 3 people was probably shock.  

 

There really isn't an argument to be had here.  Just explaining a bit where I came from,, because you asked.

 

 

I'm not offended.

 

But we have that gun.

 

It's our coyote gun. Because those dudes are fast and have decimated my sheep in the last few months. So if we see one, that's the gun we need.

Edited April 4, 2017 by fairfarmhand

[TravelingChris]

There was last fall or spring a law being discussed in Texas  a bill that would allow physicians to temporarily detain people with mental health disorders like I know that Florida does (Baker act).  The Scientologists lobbied against it and the Governor then vetoed it.

[Scarlett]

I don't even like the phrasing of the title. "3 teens killed in home invasion" makes me think that the teens killed were innocent residents in the home. The title is technically true, but when you participate in an home invasion you lose the right to the sympathetic label of "teens".

I tried to think of a way to phrase it. It was more difficult than you think! Homeowner kills three teen intruders....oh yea that might have been better.

[BooksandBoys]

I now know several people who keep AR-14s in their homes. It's so strange (and terrifying) to me, but it's common here for people to have guns, and some do have these larger rifles.

 

We talk to our kids at least weekly about gun safety; namely, if you see your friend with a gun when you are playing, you get the H out of there and find an adult to call your parents. You never, ever try to convince your friend to stop playing with it or try it out yourself. By this point, our kids start rolling they'd eyes immediately. :-)

[Janeway]

I don't see how anyone can argue the homeowner didn't let these people retreat. He didn't get arrested, which means instead of turning and running away when they saw the homeowner, or when they saw the homeowner with the GUN POINTED AT THEM, they didn't turn and run. Which means they were not retreating.

 

I get that in some places it's statistically safer to never defend yourself, to rely on police to do it for you, or to just risk getting murdered like that elderly man in the same town who got beaten to death by intruders in his home last year. But to act like there's some moral superiority in letting evil persist, in not defending yourself or your children? This is like arguing it would have been morally superior to roll over for the Germans during WWII. Utterly ridiculous.

I completely agree with you!!

[kiwik]

Yes I read about that. The woman who was the getaway car driver apparently planned it. She knew the family and the layout of the home. She has been charged with 3 counts of murder and 3 counts of burglary or something like that.  One of the invaders had a knife and one of them had Brass Knuckles. They went into the bedroom of the  23 year old resident and threatened him. They knew his name because the driver told them his name. The son shot them, in self-defense. The woman had taken them by that particular house, 2 or 3 times, before that day.

 

Surely the person who shot them should be charged with murder.  There is no way shooting three people dead is a reasonable response to brass knuckles and a knife.  Here the shooter would be charged.  

[kiwik]

Is there any concept of 'reasonable force' in Oklahoma law, or is being threatened in your house enough to allow you to shoot the intruders?

 

Con't multiquote but this is what I meant.  This would simply not constitute reasonable force here.  If he barricaded himself in his room, told them he was armed and called the police and then they broke down the door and attacked him that would may be reasonable force but he would probably still be charged even if the charges were later dropped.  

[Lanny]

I don't remember the details but I think he was asleep in. Bed. They were dressed in Black and threatened him. I think there was a scuffle but don't remember. If there was only one invader possibly one could hold them at gunpoint and call the police. To hold 2 people for a civilian would probably be impossible. In this case there were 3 people threatening him. 3 bad people.

 

Sent from my SM-G355M using Tapatalk

[Lanny]

Not sure of the details but they specifically selected that home. It was​ not a random entry. The woman knew them and knew they had valuables​. They had stolen things from the garage several days before. If people enter a home or apartment without permission one should assume they are prepared to commit Rape and Murder.

 

Sent from my SM-G355M using Tapatalk

[kiwik]

I think it comes down to something I can't really understand due to massive cultural differences around guns.

[Lanny]

Kiwik when I was young I lived in an apartment in Dallas. A neighbor I knew was Raped and Murdered in her apartment. She was heard saying "please don't kill me". Those were her last words. I know of someone also in OK. They lived on a highway and one could walk right up to their house. He was asleep on the sofa and 2 men entered the living room he was in. He shot one of them and somehow was able to hold the other one and call the police. He was not charged with Murder. When someone who is not a Police Officer is faced with a life threatening situation they react.

 

Sent from my SM-G355M using Tapatalk

[Laura Corin]

I think it comes down to something I can't really understand due to massive cultural differences around guns.

 

I've been thinking about this, and I think it's not only cultural but also practical difference.  In the UK (and maybe in NZ) very few residents have guns.  Therefore very few burglars carry guns.  Most burglars work when they think the house is unoccupied, but if they are disturbed, they run away.  They are very unlikely to be shot, so it's not worth their while to attack first.  The punishment is also much more severe if they are arrested for robbery and found to be carrying arms. 

 

In that situation, a resident does not have the fear that any robber is likely to be armed, and therefore immediately shooting three people might be unreasonable unless the resident is specifically threatened.

 

If, on the contrary, a country has an arms race between occupiers and burglars, then the norms and laws are going to be different.

 

[eternalsummer]

It does sound like a massive cultural difference. The position that what this man did was in any way wrong, much less *murder*, is just beyond comprehension to me.  I respect that the reverse (the idea that using lethal force against a group of armed robbers is morally acceptable) is incomprehensible to you, though.

 

[shawthorne44]

But, how is a person supposed to figure out the intent of a home invader?   For the safety of my family, I have to assume the worse of a home invasion which is violence, and act accordingly.  I remember reading when places starting doing DNA testing on people in prison that they resisted doing burglars.  The logic was 'Meh, It is only Burglary'.  When they started, they solved a bunch of horrible violent crimes.   Being criminal, if the opportunity presented itself to do more than burglary, they would.  

[Word Nerd]

I think it comes down to something I can't really understand due to massive cultural differences around guns.

I definitely can't understand the belief that a person has no right to defend himself from intruders until after they have already attacked him.

[Scarlett]

Yesterday I came home alone and found my house unlocked. The other two doors were also unlocked. My spacey 17 year old had left for work and not locked any door. I knew the chances were slim that someone was in my house, but I was rattled. I went all through the house looking under beds etc.

 

It is a crazy world we live in.

 

After discussing with my son the importance of locking doors he came in last night and didn't lock it before he went to bed.

 

But I guess the scary people of the world just bust down doors anyway.

[Scarlett]

I definitely can't understand the belief that a person has no right to defend himself from intruders until after they have already attacked him.

The sheriff gave a statement yesterday that said all 3 intruders were shot in the house. They had busted through a glass door. I can only imagine the noise that made. What I don't know is whether they knew the homeowner was home. Maybe that stupid get away driver will tell. Very disturbing.

[shawthorne44]

Yesterday I came home alone and found my house unlocked. The other two doors were also unlocked. My spacey 17 year old had left for work and not locked any door. I knew the chances were slim that someone was in my house, but I was rattled. I went all through the house looking under beds etc.

 

It is a crazy world we live in.

 

After discussing with my son the importance of locking doors he came in last night and didn't lock it before he went to bed.

 

But I guess the scary people of the world just bust down doors anyway.

 

Next time you might call the police to help check it out.  You don't want to interrupt bad people.  

[EmseB]

 

In that situation, a resident does not have the fear that any robber is likely to be armed, and therefore immediately shooting three people might be unreasonable unless the resident is specifically threatened.

 

I don't understand how is a resident not specifically threatened by three people breaking into their house?  Even if they don't have a gun, how is that not a specific threat?

Edited April 4, 2017 by EmseB

[gardenmom5]

Surely the person who shot them should be charged with murder.  There is no way shooting three people dead is a reasonable response to brass knuckles and a knife.  Here the shooter would be charged.  

 

it was a reasonable response. it was 3 - to - 1.   didn't matter what weapons they had.  the homeowner's son was in legitimate fear for his life.  circumstances were they meant business, the getaway driver knew it - and approved of it.  (so, her being charged with murder is also a correct response). 

 

lanny mentioned something that made me think of the petit family rapes/murders.   those two thugs didn't have guns. (they did egg each other on to more and more heinous behavior)  but neither did dr. petit.  (he was beaten with a baseball bat)  he did manage to escape - but it was too late.  his wife was raped, think his older daughter was as well.  his wife and both of his daughters were murdered by two home invaders in an attack that went on for hours.  then they torched the house.  if he'd had a gun . . . they would probably still be alive.

[Scarlett]

Next time you might call the police to help check it out. You don't want to interrupt bad people.

It is also the first time I had a situation like that since my dog died. It really made me sad.

 

The neighbor was across the street mowing his lawn so I felt it was doubtful someone walked past him to come into my house. Our back yard is really not easily to get into. Very woodsy and overgrown.

 

I wouldn't have gone inside if there was any evidence of a break in.

[Laura Corin]

I don't understand how is a resident not specifically threatened by three people breaking into their house?  Even if they don't have a gun, how is that not a specific threat?

 

Threat to person is not the same as threat to property.  I haven't been following this incident, so I don't know if there was a specific threat made to the occupiers.  If that is the case, then they of course could defend themselves.  If not, then their simply being in the house would not give the occupier the right in the UK to shoot them.

 

 

 

 

[SKL]

Surely the person who shot them should be charged with murder.  There is no way shooting three people dead is a reasonable response to brass knuckles and a knife.  Here the shooter would be charged.  

 

More likely, there the homeowner would be dead or nearly so because he wasn't allowed to have a gun to defend himself with.  I guess that is a better result in some people's opinion.

 

[Valley Girl]

Threat to person is not the same as threat to property.  I haven't been following this incident, so I don't know if there was a specific threat made to the occupiers.  If that is the case, then they of course could defend themselves.  If not, then their simply being in the house would not give the occupier the right in the UK to shoot them.

 

I realize laws vary by country and I understand that people disagree and have strong feelings about private gun ownership. But to me, it's mind-boggling to think this situation would be considered just a threat to property. The perps didn't stay outside making noise or rifling through a backyard shed. They broke into an occupied home. That's threatening in and of itself to an unsuspecting homeowner. Again, I get there's disagreement. It just stuns me to think how far people may be expected to go to protect criminals from harm. That just seems so backward to me. (I don't mean any disrespect to you, Laura.)

[marbel]

Threat to person is not the same as threat to property.  I haven't been following this incident, so I don't know if there was a specific threat made to the occupiers.  If that is the case, then they of course could defend themselves.  If not, then their simply being in the house would not give the occupier the right in the UK to shoot them.

 

When a person is awakened by someone in their house, and sees 3 armed people, how are they supposed to determine if the threat is just to their property, or to their person?  This is what I (and I think others?) are having a hard time understanding.  It's not like the person can talk it over with them.  "Are you here for my laptop, or are you here to harm us?  Oh, just the laptop?  Carry on, then, and shut the door on the way out."   (Yes, I'm being a bit facetious on purpose.)

 

I would imagine - not claiming to know, just speculating - that if the homeowner/resident called police while the intruders were there, their intentions could change, and what began as a property crime might become murder.  

[Innisfree]

I've been thinking about this, and I think it's not only cultural but also practical difference. In the UK (and maybe in NZ) very few residents have guns. Therefore very few burglars carry guns. Most burglars work when they think the house is unoccupied, but if they are disturbed, they run away. They are very unlikely to be shot, so it's not worth their while to attack first. The punishment is also much more severe if they are arrested for robbery and found to be carrying arms.

 

In that situation, a resident does not have the fear that any robber is likely to be armed, and therefore immediately shooting three people might be unreasonable unless the resident is specifically threatened.

 

If, on the contrary, a country has an arms race between occupiers and burglars, then the norms and laws are going to be different.

 

 

I think this sums the situation up fairly well.

 

One thing people even in this country often don't fully grasp, I think, is how very many guns are in private ownership here. Even if we declared them illegal this afternoon, there are many millions in circulation. They are and would continue to be easily available, legally or illegally.

 

In my dreams, I would prefer a society like you all have in the UK and New Zealand. But in reality, here in the US, a homeowner would be very foolish to risk his life on the assumption that intruders are not armed with guns.

[poppy]

it was a reasonable response. it was 3 - to - 1.   didn't matter what weapons they had.  the homeowner's son was in legitimate fear for his life.  circumstances were they meant business, the getaway driver knew it - and approved of it.  (so, her being charged with murder is also a correct response). 

 

lanny mentioned something that made me think of the petit family rapes/murders.   those two thugs didn't have guns. (they did egg each other on to more and more heinous behavior)  but neither did dr. petit.  (he was beaten with a baseball bat)  he did manage to escape - but it was too late.  his wife was raped, think his older daughter was as well.  his wife and both of his daughters were murdered by two home invaders in an attack that went on for hours.  then they torched the house.  if he'd had a gun . . . they would probably still be alive.

 

So the Petit murders. That was supposed to be a robbery, until they found the dad sleeping on a couch  on the porch. Would he have his gun there?  Actually that wouldn't have mattered, they woke him up by hitting him in the head with a baseball bat.  The rest of the family was tied up after they had a gun to the head of the father.  When would they shoot?  I think that HORRIBLE story shouldn't be dragged out as "the dad failed to have a firearm".  

[EmseB]

Threat to person is not the same as threat to property.  I haven't been following this incident, so I don't know if there was a specific threat made to the occupiers.  If that is the case, then they of course could defend themselves.  If not, then their simply being in the house would not give the occupier the right in the UK to shoot them.

 

Unless someone runs away when they discover the house is occupied, how else could they be perceived as anything but a threat? Do they have to assault the residents before the resident is allowed to legally claim they were a threat to person?  If I see three someone's in my house with weapons conducive to beating me sensless and/or stabbing me dead and they don't run away when they find me in the home, what more of a threat to my person do I need?

 

Someone breaking into my house is not just a threat to property if I'm at home.  They are a threat to me personally simply because I am in the home and they are entering illegally.  How about all criminals that don't want to encounter an occupied home just assume every home is occupied and, I don't know, not break in illegally?

[SKL]

It's not like the UK or NZ has no violent robberies.  Less per million, yes, but it's not a purely US phenomenon.  It's not like allowing law-abiding people to legally own guns causes robbery and murder.

[SKL]

nm

Edited April 4, 2017 by SKL

[EmseB]

In my dreams, I would prefer a society like you all have in the UK and New Zealand. But in reality, here in the US, a homeowner would be very foolish to risk his life on the assumption that intruders are not armed with guns.

 

I don't think it's as much cultural as people are saying.

As a small-ish woman I would be very foolish to assume that three men, or even one man, wouldn't be able to overpower me in a confrontation, whether they had guns or not. 

 

Again, if a burglar is not running away when they find a residence occupied, then I don't know how else to interpret their actions, other than threatening.

[Laura Corin]

the intruders had weapons. That alone says to me that there is a threat to person. Brass knuckles are specifically intended to hurt people, and I am pretty sure they didn't bring a knife to open boxes.

 

I am curious, for those that live in places with much more strict gun control, what if the guy had used something else to kill these guys, like maybe throwing knives or a bow and arrow or spear or something? Is he still in the wrong for defending his home or using deadly force in that sort of scenario?

 

If he is specifically threatened then he can use anything to hand to defend himself.  And if he is a farmer, for example, who owns a gun and someone threatens him, he can use the gun to defend himself.  But just being inside the house is not enough reason for killing under UK law, I believe.

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Laura Corin

[Garga]

Surely the person who shot them should be charged with murder.  There is no way shooting three people dead is a reasonable response to brass knuckles and a knife.  Here the shooter would be charged.  

 

 

Con't multiquote but this is what I meant.  This would simply not constitute reasonable force here.  If he barricaded himself in his room, told them he was armed and called the police and then they broke down the door and attacked him that would may be reasonable force but he would probably still be charged even if the charges were later dropped.  

 

 

This is a massive cultural difference.  I don't own a gun and have never shot a gun, yet if someone is in my house, no, if THREE people are in my house with weapons meant to maim me, and I have a gun...I'm going to defend myself.  

 

Wasn't James Bond written by an Englishman? Surely Europeans understand that there are bad guys out there? Surely people who've studied biology know that living organisms will defend themselves with deadly force when their lives are threatened?  

 

Someone coming at me with brass knuckles and knives can kill me, in a horrible, tortuous way.  If I have any chance at defense, I will take it, gun, baseball bat, whatever.  I won't just roll over and die.  To me this is a biological imperative--to react to deadly force with deadly force.  Coming into my home dressed in black, in greater numbers, carrying weapons...that is deadly force coming at me. The intentions to harm are crystal clear.  And I'd use anything at hand to defend myself or go on the attack in order to defend myself.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Garga

[gardenmom5]

When a person is awakened by someone in their house, and sees 3 armed people, how are they supposed to determine if the threat is just to their property, or to their person?  This is what I (and I think others?) are having a hard time understanding.  It's not like the person can talk it over with them.  "Are you here for my laptop, or are you here to harm us?  Oh, just the laptop?  Carry on, then, and shut the door on the way out."   (Yes, I'm being a bit facetious on purpose.)

 

I would imagine - not claiming to know, just speculating - that if the homeowner/resident called police while the intruders were there, their intentions could change, and what began as a property crime might become murder. 

 

I posted the link up thread about a current case here.  the homeowner locked herself in the bathroom.  they kicked in the door to go after her.

 

 

So the Petit murders. That was supposed to be a robbery, until they found the dad sleeping on a couch  on the porch. Would he have his gun there?  Actually that wouldn't have mattered, they woke him up by hitting him in the head with a baseball bat.  The rest of the family was tied up after they had a gun to the head of the father.  When would they shoot?  I think that HORRIBLE story shouldn't be dragged out as "the dad failed to have a firearm".  

 

it was a horrid case.  it was something that was said that made me think of it.  I'm not condemning dr. petit for not having a gun.  he was beaten with a baseball bat and tied up - but he did manage to get away while those monsters were terrorizing and brutalizing his wife and daughters.  maybe if he'd had a gun in the house he could have accessed it. maybe not, maybe the outcome would have been different.  he's remarried with a baby. I wish him all happiness in this life.  he deserves it.

 

I've had a someone break into my home WHILE I was home. (it was dinner time.) just a 'burglar' (an intruder in an unoccupied home.  robber is someone is home).  - until he saw me. then his motives changed to something darker.   I was assaulted.  I can think about how things would have been different had i had easy access to a gun.  

[Garga]

If he is specifically threatened then he can use anything to hand to defend himself.  And if he is a farmer, for example, who owns a gun and someone threatens him, he can use the gun to defend himself.  But just being inside the house is not enough reason for killing under UK law, I believe.

 

 

 

So until they rush at the homeowner, they're considered harmless, even dressed in black, smashing windows, in multiple numbers, and carrying weapons?  But if they rush at him, THEN under UK law, the person can defend themselves?  

 

Do you really believe the homeowner was wrong to shoot them?  Really?  

[Laura Corin]

So until they rush at the homeowner, they're considered harmless, even dressed in black, smashing windows, in multiple numbers, and carrying weapons?  But if they rush at him, THEN under UK law, the person can defend themselves?  

 

Do you really believe the homeowner was wrong to shoot them?  Really?  

 

Honestly, I don't know where the legal line lies.  If they were waving weapons then I would guess that that was a specific threat to safety.  But just being in the house with a knife in your pocket might not be.