3 teens killed in home invasion

[gardenmom5]

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.

 

they were in the same room with him.  they were facing him - they were not shot in the back, they could have left when the discovered he was home - they didn't.  rewatch the video someone posted about just how quickly someone can reach you - and why you don't wait. 

 

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.

 

 he didn't know what other weapons they might have had, and there were three of them, and one of him.  but they'd made clear by their own actions that the young man could see at that point - they were up to no good and meant him harm.

 

yes - there are cases where unarmed people successfully defended themselves against an armed intruder - but they are the exception.  usually they end up injured.  or dead.

[Laura Corin]

they were in the same room with him.  they were facing him - they were not shot in the back, they could have left when the discovered he was home - they didn't.  rewatch the video someone posted about just how quickly someone can reach you - and why you don't wait. 

 

 

 he didn't know what other weapons they might have had, and there were three of them, and one of him.  but they'd made clear by their own actions that the young man could see at that point - they were up to no good and meant him harm.

 

yes - there are cases where unarmed people successfully defended themselves against an armed intruder - but they are the exception.  usually they end up injured.  or dead.

 

It's interesting in this discussion how determined some seem to be to prove me wrong, when all I am describing is a different cultural mindset and legal framework.  I've not said that my country is right and yours is wrong.  So there's no point in trying to persuade me: perhaps contact the UK legal authorities and suggest they change the law.

 

[OneStepAtATime]

Three people breaking into a house armed with a knife and brass knuckles and wearing masks is an indication to me that they are very prepared for violence, know there might be an occupant (otherwise why masks and weapons?), are still willing to break in, and are potentially not just there to rob the place.  It is exceedingly easy for 3 adult size males to overcome a single occupant.  

 

If the young man heard the glass breaking he probably grabbed the gun and went to investigate.  Should he have just climbed out the window and run to a neighbor's house to call 911(if there was a window and it could be climbed out of and the intruders were not actually already confronting him in his bedroom)?  Maybe.  That would have been a much better option, IMHO, if it were open to him.  He had been waked up.  He probably wasn't even sure there was an intruder.  I doubt he was thinking super clearly.  He probably thought if there was an intruder it was one person and he could scare them off with the gun.  If he hadn't had a gun might he have worked harder to find a way to retreat?  Maybe.  If there was a way to retreat.  It is unclear exactly how events unfolded.  

 

Now, though, he is faced with 3 masked armed intruders in a house, so an enclosed space where they could easily close the distance and disarm him.  I doubt he had much time to assess whether they had multiple weapons or only the brass knuckles and the knife but even with only the brass knuckles and the knife if he had no good place to retreat to his next best option is to shoot.  Why?  Because there were THREE ARMED MEN.  Yes, men.  They were adult size.  It would be quite easy to rush him and get the gun away if he did not act quickly.  Once he was disarmed they would have plenty of weapons for doing whatever they liked.  Considering they WERE armed and WERE breaking in, and WERE wearing masks, I seriously doubt they were there to invite him to tea or would have let him leave unharmed.  He had maybe a second to react, to think through what to do.  If you take defense training you realize that it is easy for someone to cover several feet in just a couple of seconds.  With three intruders it would be exceedingly easy to rush the young man and disarm him.  He had a second or two at the very outside to react.  The report says that words were exchanged.  He apparently used up those two seconds with words and the intruders apparently did not retreat.  He was in imminent danger.  Not his property.  Himself. 

 

Do I wish that no one had been harmed?  Yes.  Do I find it tragic that these people lost their lives and this young man will have to live with that for the rest of his?  Yes.  It is horrible.  I wish it had never happened, for all of their sakes.  

 

Years ago I had a male friend that failed to show up for work.  When someone finally went to his apartment to check on him, they found him bound to a chair, gagged, and very dead.  He was in his early 20's.  People broke in to steal his belongings.  And killed him.  Why tie him up first?  Who knows?  He was no longer a threat but they killed him afterwards anyway.  If he had had a gun would the outcome have been the same?  I don't know that either.  But it does make me wonder...

 

If I had been in similar circumstances I feel I probably would have done the same (and been haunted by it for the rest of my life).  Once they entered my property, carrying weapons, they have indicated to me they are very prepared to be violent towards me...and anyone else in my home, including my children.  I don't care about the property.  Take it.  If I can retreat and my children are not there or can retreat with me then yes, retreat would be my first line of defense.  Retreat is not always possible and if you only have a second or two to decide, I pick me over them.  I am airing on the side of assuming they will not let me go unharmed since they are armed and breaking in illegally.  They have already proven they are not law abiding citizens.  Selfish maybe but seriously, I would pick me.  Not because my life is any more valuable than theirs but because I have no idea what their intentions are.  If I had a 100% guarantee they would let me and my family walk out the door I would absolutely do that and let them take whatever they want.  My property is not worth a life.  But there is no 100% guarantee of anything of the kind in that scenario.  I would rather they were dead and I was alive than that I was raped and tortured and left broken or dead and unable to care for my family or my kids harmed in any way.  I pick me.

 

[marbel]

It's interesting in this discussion how determined some seem to be to prove me wrong, when all I am describing is a different cultural mindset and legal framework.  I've not said that my country is right and yours is wrong.  So there's no point in trying to persuade me: perhaps contact the UK legal authorities and suggest they change the law.

 

 

I don't read it that way.  (And I apologize if I've contributed to that.)

 

Speaking only for myself, I'm having a hard time understanding it.  I don't understand why the person peacefully occupying their home seems to carry the burden of ensuring that they don't take excessive force against intruders.   I don't understand how someone who has been surprised, perhaps out of sleep, is supposed to be able to think quickly and clearly enough to assess the threat when one or more persons has entered their home unlawfully.

 

It's not a matter of disagreeing or trying to prove you wrong.  I just don't get it.  So my questions are an attempt to gain understanding, not to confront or argue.  Maybe I will never understand, so should stop asking.   :-)

[OneStepAtATime]

It's interesting in this discussion how determined some seem to be to prove me wrong, when all I am describing is a different cultural mindset and legal framework.  I've not said that my country is right and yours is wrong.  So there's no point in trying to persuade me: perhaps contact the UK legal authorities and suggest they change the law.

 

Actually I have deeply appreciated you weighing in and I think all opinions and observations should be welcome.  Otherwise we are kind of talking in a vacuum.  :)   And I am glad you have been willing to try and continue the discussion.  I'm sorry that this is kind of going off kilter a bit but I very much appreciate your feedback.  

 

And my response right after yours was not in response to you but just my own feelings.  I had not yet read your latest response when I posted mine.  I thought I should clarify.  Best wishes.

[maize]

The son of a friend was murdered (shot) in a home invasion incident locally just a few months ago. He, his visiting neighbor, and his roommate were all shot by the intruders.

 

I don't see a way for one man faced with three intruders to not feel like his life was in danger.

[Guest]

It's interesting in this discussion how determined some seem to be to prove me wrong, when all I am describing is a different cultural mindset and legal framework. I've not said that my country is right and yours is wrong. So there's no point in trying to persuade me: perhaps contact the UK legal authorities and suggest they change the law.

 

People don't seem to be trying to prove you wrong, more they are asking how you assign intent..the fact of the matter is that a group here who has decided to dress in black for a daylight trespass and conceal their faces as well arm themselves are not likely burglars. Daytime burglars usually have a moving van, wear working men type of clothing, gloves,and carry a ladder. They don't break in with noise, they use the ladder to access a bathroom window that's likely unlocked and not on the house alarm system, and take the goods out quickly and silently. They don't kill or rape residents and they don't torch the home, but they may knock out someone discovered or they may just exit if they realize someone is home. Its not plausible that armed people without burglary tools are there for the goods.

[gardenmom5]

It's interesting in this discussion how determined some seem to be to prove me wrong, when all I am describing is a different cultural mindset and legal framework.  I've not said that my country is right and yours is wrong.  So there's no point in trying to persuade me: perhaps contact the UK legal authorities and suggest they change the law.

 

 

no more than comments from you, and other's, that can't understand why the homeowner isn't being charged with murder.  you've repeatedly come across as that's what you think  should have happened.

 

Three people breaking into a house armed with a knife and brass knuckles and wearing masks is an indication to me that they are very prepared for violence, know there might be an occupant (otherwise why masks and weapons?), are still willing to break in, and are potentially not just there to rob the place.  It is exceedingly easy for 3 adult size males to overcome a single occupant.  

 

If the young man heard the glass breaking he probably grabbed the gun and went to investigate.  Should he have just climbed out the window and run to a neighbor's house to call 911(if there was a window and it could be climbed out of and the intruders were not actually already confronting him in his bedroom)?  Maybe.  That would have been a much better option, IMHO, if it were open to him.  He had been waked up.  He probably wasn't even sure there was an intruder.  I doubt he was thinking super clearly.  He probably thought if there was an intruder it was one person and he could scare them off with the gun.  If he hadn't had a gun might he have worked harder to find a way to retreat?  Maybe.  If there was a way to retreat.  It is unclear exactly how events unfolded.  

 

 

when you hear a noise - you don't know what it is.  dd and dsil were awoken in the middle of the night while they were living in a higher crime area.  dsil grabbed his gun, and went to investigate.  he makes jokes about nearly shooting the printer - which is what was making the atypical printer sounds.  (and it was the middle of the night after they'd gone to bed. . . not like they were expecting the printer to be up and doing its thing.)

 

retreating is no guarantee either.   the woman in the local home invasion locked herself in her bathroom.  they kicked in the door.

[Mary in VA]

It appears the law in the UK was amended in 2013 to give a little more leeway to self-defense claims for "householders."  While in ordinary self-defense cases there needs to be a determination that action was "reasonable in the circumstances," in cases involving a break-in to a residence the defense is generally presumed to be reasonable unless it is "grossly disproportionate in those circumstances." The introduction to the document I read gave this reason for the changes. 

1. It is rare for householders to be confronted by intruders in their homes and even rarer for them to be arrested, prosecuted and convicted as a result of any force they used to protect themselves. When such cases do occur, the Government believes they can give rise to a public perception that the law is balanced in favour of the intruder. In response to these concerns the Coalition Agreement committed ‘to ensure that people have the protection that they need when they defend themselves against intruders’. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/192945/self-defence-circular.pdf

 

[gardenmom5]

People don't seem to be trying to prove you wrong, more they are asking how you assign intent..the fact of the matter is that a group here who has decided to dress in black for a daylight trespass and conceal their faces as well arm themselves are not likely burglars. Daytime burglars usually have a moving van, wear working men type of clothing, gloves,and carry a ladder. They don't break in with noise, they use the ladder to access a bathroom window that's likely unlocked and not on the house alarm system, and take the goods out quickly and silently. They don't kill or rape residents and they don't torch the home, but they may knock out someone discovered or they may just exit if they realize someone is home. Its not plausible that armed people without burglary tools are there for the goods.

 

this.

they look like they "belong", so if the neighbors see them, they will ignore them . . . .

[Guest]

 

.

 

 

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.

 

 

When I grew up it was a shotgun. One usually used it to part the curtains and that was enough to persuade the robbers to move on from the house. The dogs protected the livestock and garden.

[maize]

Nm accidental post

Edited April 4, 2017 by maize

[poppy]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Do you even know whether or not he had a gun? I'm wondering if this is a case the NRA uses to scare people.

 

I still say smartguns are the way to go. It would offer protection for homeowners and would also help prevent some of the 140 or so annual accidental child deaths by firearms. And would keep burglars from using your own weapon against you. It's not perfect, but, the more time we spend investing in improving the technology, the better. And if it's slightly inconvenient for some people , well, that seems like a small price to pay.

[Garga]

It's interesting in this discussion how determined some seem to be to prove me wrong, when all I am describing is a different cultural mindset and legal framework.  I've not said that my country is right and yours is wrong.  So there's no point in trying to persuade me: perhaps contact the UK legal authorities and suggest they change the law.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I was thinking you'd feel picked on pretty soon.  I posted because you wrote that it's a "massive cultural difference", not because of it being a legal difference.   I was responding to your words about "massive cultural differences."

 

I honestly wanted to know if you really, really thought he should be charged with murder as a cultural difference, and not a legal one.  It was startling to me to read you say that you thought he should be charged with murder.  The thought never crossed my mind at all and I was surprised and actually gasped when I read your post, because it was so far out to me.

 

But now I'm thinking you were talking about the law and not just culture.  If the mindset is that the person in the homeowners situation honestly should be charged with murder from a cultural mindset and not from a legal mindset, then I just can't wrap my head around that and was hoping to gain some new insight.   But if you were just talking about law, then I can see how your country would have different laws. 

 

I didn't mean to pick on you, but I was startled by what you wrote and wanted to understand how a person could come to the conclusion that the homeowner had committed murder, out of genuine curiosity and not as a means to prove you wrong.  Maybe there was some point of view that I was missing that you were seeing.  I do like to have things shaken up and would have welcomed seeing things from a different perspective.

 

Sorry for making it sound like I was trying to prove you wrong.

[SKL]

 

It appears the law in the UK was amended in 2013 to give a little more leeway to self-defense claims for "householders."  While in ordinary self-defense cases there needs to be a determination that action was "reasonable in the circumstances," in cases involving a break-in to a residence the defense is generally presumed to be reasonable unless it is "grossly disproportionate in those circumstances." The introduction to the document I read gave this reason for the changes. 

1. It is rare for householders to be confronted by intruders in their homes and even rarer for them to be arrested, prosecuted and convicted as a result of any force they used to protect themselves. When such cases do occur, the Government believes they can give rise to a public perception that the law is balanced in favour of the intruder. In response to these concerns the Coalition Agreement committed ‘to ensure that people have the protection that they need when they defend themselves against intruders’. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/192945/self-defence-circular.pdf

 

 

I like that logic.  In other words, people minding their own business in their own home should not be treated as criminals because someone else busted in and forced a decision of how to respond / defend.

 

[Joker]

I don't think the homeowner should be charged with murder and I feel for him but I am one of those questioning if it was truly necessary. I'm in the US and it's not something I understand. I also feel those who keep saying he was asleep so probably startled and unable to think clearly or assess the situation are giving great examples of why people shouldn't have easy access to guns in their homes.

 

FTR, I grew up with guns in my household and know how to shoot them but it's still something today that I don't quite get and so have opted for none in my own home. 

[OneStepAtATime]

when you hear a noise - you don't know what it is.  dd and dsil were awoken in the middle of the night while they were living in a higher crime area.  dsil grabbed his gun, and went to investigate.  he makes jokes about nearly shooting the printer - which is what was making the atypical printer sounds.  (and it was the middle of the night after they'd gone to bed. . . not like they were expecting the printer to be up and doing its thing.)

 

retreating is no guarantee either.   the woman in the local home invasion locked herself in her bathroom.  they kicked in the door.

I agree.  When you hear a noise it isn't always easy to tell what it is.  DH travels a lot and is gone for long periods of time.  I tend to hear more noises at night when he is away than when he is here.  When I hear a noise I don't automatically assume there is definitely an intruder but I do get nervous and concerned.  However, my first response is not to immediately scoop up my kids and abandon my home every time I hear something that seems out of the ordinary.  If I grabbed the kids and leaped out a window every time I heard a funny noise they'd have locked me up by now.  :)

[maize]

I appreciate having perspectives from different people and cultures.

 

I have lived in countries with very tight gun control laws low gun ownership levels as well as countries where gun violence is more common than in the US. I don't have strong opinions on guns--they tie into so many other things that I don't feel competent to sort out cause and effect. I don't own and don't desire to own a gun, but I have trained on and shot a variety of guns (including a military submachine gun when I was a pre-teen...) Gun ownership, for hunting and personal protection purposes, is common locally; I feel neither more nor less safe than I did when living in places where civilian gun ownership was very rare.

Edited April 4, 2017 by maize

[gardenmom5]

When I grew up it was a shotgun. One usually used it to part the curtains and that was enough to persuade the robbers to move on from the house. The dogs protected the livestock and garden.

 

sil's ex got up when he noticed people in the lane leading to the house.  (on a farm.)   he got his gun, and stood outside and cocked the rifle.  the sound carried in the country and the still of the night.  they left.

Do you even know whether or not he had a gun? I'm wondering if this is a case the NRA uses to scare people.

 

I still say smartguns are the way to go. It would offer protection for homeowners and would also help prevent some of the 140 or so annual accidental child deaths by firearms. And would keep burglars from using your own weapon against you. It's not perfect, but, the more time we spend investing in improving the technology, the better. And if it's slightly inconvenient for some people , well, that seems like a small price to pay.

 

 

 

Maybe you missed the part this is NOT an academic discussion for me.   I've HAD a home invasion robber who assaulted! me!  the guy was standing near the door when he saw me - he could *easily* have left. he didn't.  instead - I was assaulted.  If I had a gun within easy access you bet your booty I'd have shot him.  I had a baby to protect!

[gardenmom5]

I agree.  When you hear a noise it isn't always easy to tell what it is.  DH travels a lot and is gone for long periods of time.  I tend to hear more noises at night when he is away than when he is here.  When I hear a noise I don't automatically assume there is definitely an intruder but I do get nervous and concerned.  However, my first response is not to immediately scoop up my kids and abandon my home every time I hear something that seems out of the ordinary.  If I grabbed the kids and leaped out a window every time I heard a funny noise they'd have locked me up by now.   :)

 

last fall, I was sitting downstairs and heard an extremely loud crash and lots of broken glass . . . . . then silence.   I had no idea what it was.   I had no fear that it was someone breaking in, so I didn't go investigate immediately. . . . . it was my dining room chandelier hitting the decorative glass bowl beneath it. great ad for table pads.  the pad has a dent in it, the table is fine.  but, I got a new chandelier . . .

[shawthorne44]

Part of the cultural mindset might be based on population density also.   I remember my first boyfriend lived in the country,   Not country country, they had neighbors and didn't live on a farm.   He said that the police department for a large area consisted of three people.   I asked what if someone was breaking into their house.   He said that the call would probably be answered by the sheriff himself who would say, "Point the shotgun out the window.   I'll be there in a half hour."   A half hour was the quickest he could get there.  

[ScoutTN]

It's interesting that so many property crimes happen during the day. Among my seven closest neighbors, three of the families have someone who works at home at least part of the time and homeschooling/online schooling is becoming more popular. Criminals might need to consider that people may be home during the day again.

 

 

Yes, on my street, more people are home than not during the day and no one has a very predictable schedule.

SAHMs, retired people and many who have shift work or work from home. 

[SKL]

I also lived in a place where there was one pair of cops on each shift.  If they were far away or on a potty break or helping another person, we'd be on our own for some time.  The next nearest town with cops was quite a distance.

[amy g.]

Our city is notoriously short on police officers. I can not count on them to get here quickly or at all.

 

I usually focus on what kind of actions lessen the likelihood of being targeted for a home invasion.

 

Our house has a perimeter fence. You can't get to the front door without getting through the electric gate. At night, I cut the power to the gates so even if someone has a key, they can't get in.

 

We have big dogs, and when we are home during the day, one is outside and one is in the house with us.

 

When I leave and at night, I crate the big dogs so they don't bark and disturb the neighbors and I also set the alarm. I have beware of the dog signs on both the front and back gate. I also leave outside lights on at night.

 

There have recently been some daytime break ins a few blocks away but so far none on our street. I think it is mainly because someone is home during the day in almost every house.

 

My neighbor across the street can't stand to be inside. He is always outside in his yard or taking care of a neighbor's yard. He is outside before I wake up, and long after I go to sleep. When he asks me if his saws or weed eater disturb me I always assure him that I'm happy to have him out there being a visible presence.

 

Another neighbor walks his pug up and down the street 150 times a day. He knows everybody's business.

 

I few nights ago, I was watching TV and the alarm went off. Fortunately, Dh was in town and he went to investigate. It turns out the alarm was reacting to the sound of a breaking window on my TV show.

 

I realized that my shotgun is in the basement behind tubs of wool and I don't even know where the shells got put. It would not help me in a home invasion. I considered moving it, but I'm more afraid of an accidental shooting than I am of a home invasion.

 

I might look into a smart lock cabinet for our bedroom, but in the meantime, I'm just going to concentrate on making my particular house an unappealing target.

[Valley Girl]

I don't read it that way.  (And I apologize if I've contributed to that.)

 

Speaking only for myself, I'm having a hard time understanding it.  I don't understand why the person peacefully occupying their home seems to carry the burden of ensuring that they don't take excessive force against intruders.   I don't understand how someone who has been surprised, perhaps out of sleep, is supposed to be able to think quickly and clearly enough to assess the threat when one or more persons has entered their home unlawfully.

 

It's not a matter of disagreeing or trying to prove you wrong.  I just don't get it.  So my questions are an attempt to gain understanding, not to confront or argue.  Maybe I will never understand, so should stop asking.   :-)

 

This is where I am admittedly stuck. I just can't wrap my mind around the notion that I owe some kind of consideration to people who deliberately and with malice would break into my home especially when I'm there. I guess if that's the case, dogs should always be crated lest they injure a burglar who enters an unoccupied home. I'm probably another one who should just stop pursuing the question. I'm sorry, though, if anyone feels I've been giving them a hard time.

[poppy]

sil's ex got up when he noticed people in the lane leading to the house.  (on a farm.)   he got his gun, and stood outside and cocked the rifle.  the sound carried in the country and the still of the night.  they left.

 

 

 

Maybe you missed the part this is NOT an academic discussion for me.   I've HAD a home invasion robber who assaulted! me!  the guy was standing near the door when he saw me - he could *easily* have left. he didn't.  instead - I was assaulted.  If I had a gun within easy access you bet your booty I'd have shot him.  I had a baby to protect!

 

I did miss that part, entirely.  I'm so sorry that you had such a terrible experience.

[8circles]

...

 I'm more afraid of an accidental shooting than I am of a home invasion.

...

 

Jumping off from here. I think this is the root of my confusion and discomfort.

 

I don't *blame* the homeowner in the OP who shot the 3 intruders. In that position I can't say I would have done differently. & I think, given that scenario & the accessibility to his gun, I can even say it was reasonable. I'm certainly glad that the homeowner was not attacked or killed and the fact that this experience is now part of him is tragic. I think what bugs me is the idea of this being so commonplace & "well-duh, of course he shot the 3 intruders with an AR-##. That's just what people do. Totally normal."

 

That's not normal for me. It's not normal for anyone I know personally & I know lots of gun owners who CC. 

 

I can understand the reasoning that people have guns for defending their homes against home invasion. In theory. In practice - what are the statistics of home invasions compared to the accidental or suicide deaths from guns that are intended for home defense. Something's wrong with this picture. It isn't wrong to be uncomfortable with these three people being shot and it doesn't mean we think the homeowner was in the wrong or shouldn't have shot them.

 

It's awful that home invasions occur. I hope that I'm never the victim in such a crime. But I don't agree with the solution that our society has come up with.

[Carol in Cal.]

I have a friend who is a security specialist, and the technology they have now for home security is quite remarkable.

 

For instance, those cameras at the doors send a photo to your phone, and have a microphone so you sound like you're answering on an intercom from inside, even if you're in the next state, just over your phone. 

 

There are motion detectors for the insides of pipes, so if a pipe starts to leak or an intruder turns something on while you're gone, you get a notification.

 

There are window opening detectors that are compatible with having a window partially open to let in some air, but go off if the window is opened too far.

 

And of course you can have security cameras inside the house as well, and monitor them from wherever you are, over the internet.

 

This all sounds really great, and it is, but he says one of the main ways people get access is by leapfrogging over all that stuff to second floor windows that seemed too safe to alarm, or by having your address in your car--you go to an event, someone raids your car in the parking lot, gets your address and hence knows that you're not home so they haul your stuff away.  He has a lot of common sense advice about things like not hanging your keys on a hook by your door, or even anywhere that is visible.  It's interesting to talk with him.  He's not crazy about guns, but recommends having no less than three fire extinguishers in the house--garage, kitchen, and master bedroom--and shooting an intruder in the face with the foam to buy yourself the time to get the heck out.

 

(Incidentally, there is also a fall detector--so that if, say, someone falls over due to a diabetic low blood sugar event and doesn't have the presence of mind to push that infamous button for help, the detector still knows this, and gets help.)

[Scarlett]

I have a friend who is a security specialist, and the technology they have now for home security is quite remarkable.

 

For instance, those cameras at the doors send a photo to your phone, and have a microphone so you sound like you're answering on an intercom from inside, even if you're in the next state, just over your phone.

 

There are motion detectors for the insides of pipes, so if a pipe starts to leak or an intruder turns something on while you're gone, you get a notification.

 

There are window opening detectors that are compatible with having a window partially open to let in some air, but go off if the window is opened too far.

 

And of course you can have security cameras inside the house as well, and monitor them from wherever you are, over the internet.

 

This all sounds really great, and it is, but he says one of the main ways people get access is by leapfrogging over all that stuff to second floor windows that seemed too safe to alarm, or by having your address in your car--you go to an event, someone raids your car in the parking lot, gets your address and hence knows that you're not home so they haul your stuff away. He has a lot of common sense advice about things like not hanging your keys on a hook by your door, or even anywhere that is visible. It's interesting to talk with him. He's not crazy about guns, but recommends having no less than three fire extinguishers in the house--garage, kitchen, and master bedroom--and shooting an intruder in the face with the foam to buy yourself the time to get the heck out.

 

(Incidentally, there is also a fall detector--so that if, say, someone falls over due to a diabetic low blood sugar event and doesn't have the presence of mind to push that infamous button for help, the detector still knows this, and gets help.)

Love all those ideas.

[amy g.]

This house came with about 20 fire extinguishers. I'm going to go put one next to my bed.

[Laura Corin]

no more than comments from you, and other's, that can't understand why the homeowner isn't being charged with murder.  you've repeatedly come across as that's what you think  should have happened.

 

 

I'm sorry if I've given that impression.  I thought that I had been questioning rather than dogmatic.  I actually honestly don't know what I think.  But I do suspect that different countries may need different laws.  I've copied all my comments on this thread below:

 

- 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?

 

- Interesting discussion of reasonable force here.  I of course have no idea if the force was reasonable in the case we are discussing:

 

http://www.telegraph...idual-case.html

 

- Thanks, that's sweet.  I'll remember that my country's system of common law is gibberish and practically useless.  And maybe I'll end my practice of biting my tongue out of politeness when discussing US issues here.

 

I don't really know what should constitute reasonable force, but I thought we could have a discussion.

 

- This is discussion.  It's fine.  And saying that US laws are clearer is fine too.  

 

But charging into another culture and calling its ways of doing things gibberish is not polite.  The UK common law system is different, with its own strengths and weaknesses.  I have learned a lot from discussion here about how the US thinks and acts; not charging in with insults helps with this.

 

FWIW the author of the article is a lawyer, so he was making a fairly good presentation of the law as it stands.

 

- 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.

 

- 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.

 

- 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.

 

- 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. 

 

- It's interesting in this discussion how determined some seem to be to prove me wrong, when all I am describing is a different cultural mindset and legal framework.  I've not said that my country is right and yours is wrong.  So there's no point in trying to persuade me: perhaps contact the UK legal authorities and suggest they change the law.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Laura Corin

[marbel]

Yes. Cultural differences to many seem on the "fish and chips vs fries" level. Much of the world does not have, or want, the mentality the USA possesses with regards to weapons. And I honestly think that's something many Americans find hard to believe.

God, guns, <accidentally snipped, stupid keyboard!>

 

I didn't think the difference was just about guns, but about excessive force.  At least, that's how I've been thinking of it.

 

I have shot guns at a range for fun; I enjoyed it and would do it again, but I don't have a gun for self-defense or any other reason.  I'm not "into guns" whatever that means.

 

But I have a big maglite under my bed, the one with 2 or 3 (4?) D cell batteries in it. It's heavy.  If I was surprised in the night by an intruder, and swung that flashlight intending the hurt/stun the person, but I killed them, would that be inappropriate use of deadly force?  What if someone came into the house when I was working in the kitchen, and as they approached, I stabbed them and they died? 

 

The difference to me is the expectation of what are reasonable measures to defend myself/my family in my own home, and having to assess whether or not the person intends to harm me/my family.  Nothing to do with guns at all.  That's where I'm getting hung up.  But I think, even though I'm not angry or frustrated but just interested, I should stop posting after this because we seem to be going 'round and 'round, don't we? 

 

[gardenmom5]

Jumping off from here. I think this is the root of my confusion and discomfort.

 

I don't *blame* the homeowner in the OP who shot the 3 intruders. In that position I can't say I would have done differently. & I think, given that scenario & the accessibility to his gun, I can even say it was reasonable. I'm certainly glad that the homeowner was not attacked or killed and the fact that this experience is now part of him is tragic. I think what bugs me is the idea of this being so commonplace & "well-duh, of course he shot the 3 intruders with an AR-##. That's just what people do. Totally normal."

 

That's not normal for me. It's not normal for anyone I know personally & I know lots of gun owners who CC. 

 

I can understand the reasoning that people have guns for defending their homes against home invasion. In theory. In practice - what are the statistics of home invasions compared to the accidental or suicide deaths from guns that are intended for home defense. Something's wrong with this picture. It isn't wrong to be uncomfortable with these three people being shot and it doesn't mean we think the homeowner was in the wrong or shouldn't have shot them.

 

It's awful that home invasions occur. I hope that I'm never the victim in such a crime. But I don't agree with the solution that our society has come up with.

 

I don't think that's the attitude.  to me it's more "we have to do what has to be done.  no matter how much we don't like it."  this young man had a few choices.  they knew he was there - that seriously limited his options.  it's not like he could just hide or sneak outside without them knowing. 

 

he could try to run and hide and hope they left - but they were just as likely to track him down.  they were armed, masked, and ready to attack.  he could have been injured - or killed.

he could go on the offense.  which is what he chose to do.  when he drew his weapon - they could have run.  they didn't.  he chose to defend himself so he would (hopefully) not be injured, let alone killed.

 

he will live with this for the rest of his life.  but he is whole and physically healthy.  I hope he gets all the support he needs.

[Laura Corin]

But again, I wonder what happens if we take the GUN out of this.  What if the deaths of these three guys was due to something else?  What if the homeowner was some machete collector with crazy skills and was able to take them out by throwing machetes or something?  Now, yes, I know that's a crazy off the wall example.  All I am trying to do is remove the GUN from the situation to see if the cultural differences are REALLY all that different?  Does a homeowner in these other countries have the right to use deadly force in defense against a home invader if he perceives a threat?   Someone posted a bit about UK law, and it looks like generally the homeowner does have that right.  And if that's the case in places that have more strict gun laws than the US, then really, there doesn't seem to be that much of a cultural difference to me. 

 

I don't think anyone in the thread, or elsewhere on the board, would argue that it's ok for a homeowner to shoot someone in the back as the person is running off their property.  But, that's not what happened in this case.  Three guys broke into the home, carrying deadly weapons.  The homeowner discovered them, and they didn't turn tail and run.  I am trying to figure out if, once the METHOD of defense is removed, do people think that it's reasonable to use deadly force in that situation?  Is it legal? 

 

Two different answers:

 

- no, it makes no difference whether an occupier in the UK uses a kitchen knife or a gun.  They would - even under the new law quoted above - have to show that the force used was not disproportionate.  ETA: and I don't know where this particular case would fall 

 

- guns are important because of the 'arms race' discussed above.  If the burglar expects the occupier to have a gun and the occupier expects the burglar to have a gun, then the whole situation is heightened within the culture, and laws may be different in the UK and the US as a consequence.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Laura Corin

[gardenmom5]

I didn't think the difference was just about guns, but about excessive force.  At least, that's how I've been thinking of it.

 

I have shot guns at a range for fun; I enjoyed it and would do it again, but I don't have a gun for self-defense or any other reason.  I'm not "into guns" whatever that means.

 

But I have a big maglite under my bed, the one with 2 or 3 (4?) D cell batteries in it. It's heavy.  If I was surprised in the night by an intruder, and swung that flashlight intending the hurt/stun the person, but I killed them, would that be inappropriate use of deadly force?  What if someone came into the house when I was working in the kitchen, and as they approached, I stabbed them and they died? 

 

The difference to me is the expectation of what are reasonable measures to defend myself/my family in my own home, and having to assess whether or not the person intends to harm me/my family.  Nothing to do with guns at all.  That's where I'm getting hung up.  But I think, even though I'm not angry or frustrated but just interested, I should stop posting after this because we seem to be going 'round and 'round, don't we? 

 

 

 

try the heavy duty led strobe.  directly in their eyes.  (their hands aren't enough to block the effects.)

[gardenmom5]

 

 

I don't think anyone in the thread, or elsewhere on the board, would argue that it's ok for a homeowner to shoot someone in the back as the person is running off their property.  But, that's not what happened in this case.  Three guys broke into the home, carrying deadly weapons.  The homeowner discovered them, and they didn't turn tail and run.  I am trying to figure out if, once the METHOD of defense is removed, do people think that it's reasonable to use deadly force in that situation?  Is it legal? 

 

this.

I've been on some sites with gun supporters regarding a current local case - they are supporting the 2nd degree murder charge against the homeowner becasue of the above.  he confronted the intruder (who'd kicked in a door to gain access) in a shower (yeah) - left and went next door to get his gun - then returned where the intruder was still in the shower and shot him four times through the shower curtain.  he could have called 911 -he didn't.  he wasn't in danger.  he left and then came back.  charges are appropriate.

[Laura Corin]

So, the question is, in this situation........3 guys break in, carrying deadly weapons, is use of deadly force in self defense generally considered reasonable?  (would reasonable be an accurate synonym for "not disproportinate" in this case?  US law tends to use the term "reasonable" a lot, which is why I used it. 

 

 

This is a complete guess, so please accept is as such.  If all the guys had knives out pointed at the occupier, then shooting them (or hitting them with a baseball bat) would be not disproportionate force in the UK.  If the situation was less threatening than that, then maybe not.  

[SKL]

No, it is not "normal" for most Americans to think "guns solve our problems."

 

It is also not "normal" for 3 men to bust into one's house with weapons.

 

There is nothing "normal" about this incident at all.

 

There are subcultures that are more ready to use guns for violence than others.  Most do not.  If you break down the statistics you will see it very very clearly.  "American" does not equal violent gun wielder or gun violence apologist.  It gets tiresome to see such talk.

[Garga]

Yes. Cultural differences to many seem on the "fish and chips vs fries" level. Much of the world does not have, or want, the mentality the USA possesses with regards to weapons. And I honestly think that's something many Americans find hard to believe.

God, guns, and country, y'all!

 

 

Well goodness that was a touch insulting and rather smug. :( I do not find it in the least bit hard to believe that people have other cultures and that it goes beyond fish and chips. Goodness. I don't expect the rest of the world to be just like the US and I don't find it difficult to believe that they don't have or want the mentality the US has about weapons. I'm not a caricature of An American and it seems that most of the people on here aren't either.

 

I was asking in good faith because the below quoted post is what I was most confused about, but apparently didn't realize I wasn't articulating it well until I read the below. I wasn't telling anyone they were wrong. I was outlining why I believed he wasn't a murderer and asking why someone would believe he was.

 

It's not about the guns. It's about self-defense. That was all. I was surprised that a person who defends themselves and kills someone would be considered a murderer in a clear case of self defense. The guns happened to be the weapon, but to me it wasn't about guns. It was about defense. He could have killed them with a candlestick or his fists or by throwing darts. It wasn't the weapon. It was the idea that someone with three armed assailants in his home would be considered a murderer for striking at them that I had trouble believing.

 

 

 

 

 

But again, I wonder what happens if we take the GUN out of this.  What if the deaths of these three guys was due to something else?  What if the homeowner was some machete collector with crazy skills and was able to take them out by throwing machetes or something?  Now, yes, I know that's a crazy off the wall example.  All I am trying to do is remove the GUN from the situation to see if the cultural differences are REALLY all that different?  Does a homeowner in these other countries have the right to use deadly force in defense against a home invader if he perceives a threat?   Someone posted a bit about UK law, and it looks like generally the homeowner does have that right.  And if that's the case in places that have more strict gun laws than the US, then really, there doesn't seem to be that much of a cultural difference to me. 

 

I don't think anyone in the thread, or elsewhere on the board, would argue that it's ok for a homeowner to shoot someone in the back as the person is running off their property.  But, that's not what happened in this case.  Three guys broke into the home, carrying deadly weapons.  The homeowner discovered them, and they didn't turn tail and run.  I am trying to figure out if, once the METHOD of defense is removed, do people think that it's reasonable to use deadly force in that situation?  Is it legal?

 

[SKL]

Here's a situation.  My mom, then 8.5 mos pregnant, was attacked by a man (later discovered to be a serial rapist) in the parking lot after work.  He tried to get her to let him into her car.  He said he just wanted her purse.  He was not armed as far as she knew.  She did not trust him.  She beat the crap out of him until she was able to get into her car and drive away.

 

Now let's say she beat him so badly that he ended up with a cracked skull and died.  (Didn't happen, but could have.)  Was my mom a criminal?  Was she morally wrong to care more about herself and her baby than the man who attacked her?  Is there any possible way anyone could consider it my mom's fault if that guy ended up dead?

 

Why is this different?  Because the man had a gun (and is American), and that automatically colors some people's opinion of him?  Because he was young and male and probably physically able to go one-on-one with 1 bad guy?

 

I actually think that some people have decided the guy is morally less than because he is an American gun owner.  Thus anything he does with a gun is wrong, no matter how many thugs attacked him with weapons in his own home.

[Laura Corin]

Yes, the devil is always in the details in a legal case.  But, based on that, it actually doesn't sound like the cultural differences are actually all that different.  I am having a hard time imagining a home intruder with a knife and brass knuckles having them anything BUT out in a threatening manner, but I would say that in the US, if an intruder gets confronted by a homeowner and throws his weapons on the ground, most people would likely say the homeowner was NOT justified in shooting at that point. 

 

That's interesting because I think that laws quoted for the State would seem not agree with that:

 

A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes or places of business.

B. A person or an owner, manager or employee of a business is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or a place of business, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business; and

2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

[SKL]

I don't disagree with you here

I think the bolded though is what I am referring to.  If an intruder enters a home, then upon seeing the homeowner immediately drops his weapons and throws his hands in the air, and starts backing up....most people would say that the intruder isn't really a threat and that point.  Similar to the case that was mentioned earlier where the guy came home, saw a guy in his shower, went to a different building he owned, then came back and shot the guy in the shower.  That case has the home owner being prosecuted and most people would likely agree that the homeowner should be prosecuted. 

 

As I said....the devil is in the details. 

 

If all 3 of them dropped their weapons, backed up and exited, then yes, after their exit, I would agree he should feel less threatened.

 

Until they exited, there was nothing wrong with the guy holding the gun on them to protect himself.

 

As has been demonstrated, even 1 person could have rushed him and taken his gun had he let his guard down.  3 people standing there looking at me (gun or no gun), and I would still feel under threat.

 

The Oklahoma law quoted says there is a presumption that he was under threat in the situation, meaning that the courts are not going to argue about it after the guys broke in and did not leave.  Morally, there are some fact patterns that would have justified the shooting, others that would not.  The law says we are giving the guy the benefit of the doubt.  It's between him and God at that point.

[SKL]

I don't disagree with that either.  There's a difference between holding the gun and firing the gun.  I totally think most people would find it perfectly reasonable to hold the gun on them until they are gone, but not to fire if the weapons are down and the hands are up. 

 

It's exactly these sorts of things and all the varying situations that happen that indicate how even within the US there are cultural differences. 

 

Well the fact is that we do not know which of these fact patterns occurred.  I got the impression the thugs were not in any way retreating though.  Why are people assuming they were?  Who ever said they dropped their weapons?  Why are we trying to find any possible way to insist that this man was in the wrong?  It seems to me people are trying to fit this into their belief that any private citizen who owns a gun is morally less than.

 

As for your comment about cultural differences, no, I don't think any American thinks it's morally right to kill a person when you don't feel threatened.

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by SKL

[Corraleno]

These guys were not retreating, and they did not drop their weapons.  

 

I have not read in ANY news report anywhere that states whether or not they were retreating or where the weapons were at the time they were shot. Neither the police nor the homeowner have said they were brandishing the weapons and were not retreating. In the 911 call I heard, the homeowner does not even mention that he saw any kind of weapon — is there a longer version of the call online somewhere in which he states that he knew they were armed and saw the weapons? I'm seriously asking, because I have not seen or heard one.

 

The weapons could have been in their pockets, they could have been being waved around in their hands, or they could have been dropped to the floor. We don't know.

 

I'm not saying it was necessarily wrong to shoot at them, given that there were three of them and the default assumption (in this country) is that anyone who is committing a crime is likely to have a weapon.  BUT I don't think it's accurate or fair to state as fact that they were brandishing weapons and refusing to retreat, because there is actually NO information on that.

[Liz CA]

If this is about guns, would anyone feel different if a very well trained homeowner disabled the three intruders by martial arts or whatever skills without a gun, however, killed with his bare hands in self defense?

[Corraleno]

What I have seen, and I can't remember where...is that the guy heard them break in.  He grabbed his gun and ended up confronting all three.  Words were exchanged and then shots were fired.  Lemme see if I can find the blub I saw.

 

I agree, that is exactly what I've read in every report. What I *haven't* seen is any information whatsoever about where their weapons were when he confronted them, or what was said, or whether they were backing off or coming at him.

 

Therefore I think it's wrong for many people to keep stating or implying, as if it were fact, that the teens were brandishing weapons and threatening him and refused to retreat or drop the weapons. We don't know if the homeowner ever even saw any weapons — he did not say anything about weapons (other than his own) in the 911 call that I listened to.

[SKL]

If he didn't feel threatened then I don't know why he went into his bedroom and locked the door after he shot them, and refused to unload his gun until he was sure the cops were there.

[Joker]

If he didn't feel threatened then I don't know why he went into his bedroom and locked the door after he shot them, and refused to unload his gun until he was sure the cops were there.

He said in the 911 call that he only shot two and the third ran. He didn't know he had actually shot all three.

 

I don't deny he felt threatened, I simply wonder if actually shooting then was necessary.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Joker

[SKL]

I don't deny he felt threatened, I simply wonder if actually shooting then was necessary.

 

From a scientific after-the-fact analysis, maybe or maybe not.  But as I said before, it's not realistic to expect a person in close quarters with 3 bad guys to accurately, instantly assess the exact amount of force necessary to defend oneself.  It's on the robbers to not get themselves into that situation.

 

If nobody was ever murdered in home invasions, it could perhaps be argued that robbers should never be shot.  But unfortunately robbers sometimes kill.  I don't think they deserve the benefit of the doubt once they've busted into a home.

Edited April 5, 2017 by SKL

[gardenmom5]

I agree, that is exactly what I've read in every report. What I *haven't* seen is any information whatsoever about where their weapons were when he confronted them, or what was said, or whether they were backing off or coming at him.

 

Therefore I think it's wrong for many people to keep stating or implying, as if it were fact, that the teens were brandishing weapons and threatening him and refused to retreat or drop the weapons. We don't know if the homeowner ever even saw any weapons — he did not say anything about weapons (other than his own) in the 911 call that I listened to.

 you don't need to see a weapon to feel threatened.  one big guy with a certain bearing can be intimidating - there were three.

 

If he didn't feel threatened then I don't know why he went into his bedroom and locked the door after he shot them, and refused to unload his gun until he was sure the cops were there.

 

I have been in a similar  situation. (I didnt have a gun, and was afraid of what the perp would do if I took the time to get a kitchen knife.) once he was finally out of my house, I ran around and locked all the doors and windows.  this was before 911, and I didn't know the emergency number off  the top of my head.  I called my sister - who was screaming at me to call the police just as her dh came home from work.  I didn't  know if the guy was going to come back or not.  if I'd had a gun, no way would I have let go of it before the police arrived.  

my mil was living with us - and she actually beat them by a couple minutes and unlocked the door.  I was still screaming my head off with the dispatcher who kept me on the line.

 

I'm convinced the guy did come back about a month later.  I'm positive of what I heard - but at least he ran when he realized someone was home.