Burglar Shot Dead

[mellow]

I'm lucky enough that we have room for indoor dogs.

So did this guy, a big one. Didn't change things much, except that he had to call a neighbor at 5 am to watch his dog when the police took him downtown for questioning.

 

[Scat]

Here's a new twist. The dead 19 year old had an 18 year old accomplice with him that got away at the time but is now in custody. Let's see... 2 men trying to enter the house illegally. Shooting first is starting to sound better and better.

 

[default]

After skimming this thread I am losing respect for anyone who thinks the homeowner was in the wrong. The longer you hesitate, the more advantage you are giving to the criminal. The homeowner's family's safety should be more important in that situation than giving the criminal a warning to 2nd guess his inexcusable decision to commit a violent crime. Those that disagree with the homeowner are just asking to be victims themselves.

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

I work with a guy who is a part-time Weber County Sherrif. We were discussing this story today, and he had a few interesting points that I don't think are public knowledge at this point. Last night he and his coworkers were briefed on the Kearns shooting and the basic details involved. Obviously, not because they are involved in the case, but I guess all local law enforcement uses situations like this as teaching tools as what was/was not done correctly.

First of all, Pearl's take on what actually is a break in seems to be incorrect:

Attempting to break in is not breaking in. I would guess the homeowner who shoots while somebody is in process of "trying" to break in vs. somebody that shoots at an intruder that had already entered the premises are two different situations.

According my coworker, once somebody has entered your fenced back yard, it's a home invasion (I believe the Kearns home in question was fenced). He said anything such as a fence, barn, deck, etc. are considered extensions of the home. If you tresspass onto one of these areas, legally it can be considered a home invasion.

He also said that the info they were given was that the home owner actually yelled to the would-be burgler telling him to stop and brandished his gun before firing. I don't know if this is the info that is making it's way to the news, so keep in mind I am just relaying what I've been told by a law enforcement official.

He said from the eyes of law enforcement (at least Weber County's take on it) is that the homeowner acted 100% within the realm of law. He said if this was their case, not only would they not seek to prosicute the home owner, he should be given a pat on the back for how he acted under duress.

 

[Qman]

Here's a new twist. The dead 19 year old had an 18 year old accomplice with him that got away at the time but is now in custody. Let's see... 2 men trying to enter the house illegally. Shooting first is starting to sound better and better.

This would be something to be very, very concerned about. If someone is breaking into your house there is a very good chance there is more than one.

 

[VINYLONE]

After skimming this thread I am losing respect for anyone who thinks the homeowner was in the wrong. The longer you hesitate, the more advantage you are giving to the criminal. The homeowner's family's safety should be more important in that situation than giving the criminal a warning to 2nd guess his inexcusable decision to commit a violent crime. Those that disagree with the homeowner are just asking to be victims themselves.

The owner was not wrong, per se, but legally he can be. There is a huge responsibility that comes with being a gun owner. It's not just buy a gun and shoot if you have to. It's knowing the laws of your state, it's knowing the particulars of self defense and knowing the your rights. Hence, my initial post of not talking to cops when they get there. Protecting your family is one thing, but the litigiousness of our society is another. No one wants to go to jail for any amount of time for protecting your family.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Um, you know rubber bullets don't feel like paintballs, right? Do you know anything, or do you just act like a jackass for the sake of entertainment? If you get shot with a rubber slug from a shotgun or even a pistol, it's gonna hurt, bruise and swell like a mother ****er.

And then what? Do you think the "victim/criminal" is going to remain on the ground crying about his oowies and ask for Motrin? Or do you think he's gonna be mad as hell, get up, pound the crap out of you and then go into the kitchen for a butcher knife to finish the job if he hasn't brought a knife or gun of his own along? So how long do you think the home owner would need to go get real bullets and load them into his gun IF/WHEN the rubber bullets failed to stop an initial attck?

Look, I think it's a real tragedy that this 19-yr old will not have a chance to maybe turn his life around. Perhaps he's that 1 in a hundred or million, or whatever the percentage is that would have stopped at this break in, or never have hurt a person during his crimes. But his boldness in attempting to enter an occupied residence is disturbing. From what we read the "victim" may have tried to gain entry earlier (the doorbell that was rung 1 1/2 hours before). In any case, the homeowner was up investigating noises. I'll bet he had turned on some lights. I doubt the house would have looked deserted. So the burglar was trying to enter a house that he, in all likelihood, should have reasonably concluded was occupied.

A tragedy that a life was lost? Yes. And perhaps the homeowner should have waited until the intruder had broken the glass to fire. If it were me, as the father of a young child in that position, I know I would have been scared. And I'm not sure at what point I would have pulled the trigger. Yell and give the "victim" warning and he has a chance to pull a weapon. So that means your first shot better be lethal. If you just wing him, he just might have pulled out his gun and be able to fire back.

 

[G-O-A-T]

I hope one of you gun toting, trigger happy, good ole boy hicks will be willing to explain to my kids why Santa wasn't able to visit our house - after he runs into one of you during one of his annual Christmas eve "home invasions"

... sure hope he wears a bullet proof vest under his red suit.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I hope one of you gun toting, trigger happy, good ole boy hicks will be willing to explain to my kids why Santa wasn't able to visit our house - after he runs into one of you during one of his annual Christmas eve "home invasions"

... sure hope he wears a bullet proof vest under his red suit.

How many news stories have there been of Santa getting blown away?

 

[G-O-A-T]

According my coworker, once somebody has entered your fenced back yard, it's a home invasion (I believe the Kearns home in question was fenced). He said anything such as a fence, barn, deck, etc. are considered extensions of the home. If you tresspass onto one of these areas, legally it can be considered a home invasion.

. . .

He said from the eyes of law enforcement (at least Weber County's take on it) is that the homeowner acted 100% within the realm of law. He said if this was their case, not only would they not seek to prosicute the home owner, he should be given a pat on the back for how he acted under duress.

So... when the annoying neighbor kid hops the fence in my backyard to grab his football, I can legally shoot him down in the name of "self defense" because he was committing a "home invasion"?

For some reason I question the logic of extending a fenced-in yard to the actual home. On the other hand, actually trying to break into someones home likely does give the homeowner the privilege to shoot the would be thief in self defense.

 

[Qman]

The owner was not wrong, per se, but legally he can be. There is a huge responsibility that comes with being a gun owner. It's not just buy a gun and shoot if you have to. It's knowing the laws of your state, it's knowing the particulars of self defense and knowing the your rights. Hence, my initial post of not talking to cops when they get there. Protecting your family is one thing, but the litigiousness of our society is another. No one wants to go to jail for any amount of time for protecting your family.

This is a very good thing to look into. Texas thankfully is a very good place for a self-defense trial.

 

[G-O-A-T]

How many news stories have there been of Santa getting blown away?

So... I guess he already does wear a bullet proof vest???

Lucky he hasn't been shot in the head yet!

 

[franklin]

Clearly shoot first, ask questions later is the best plan *sarcasm

any dumbass who's first instinct is shoot first belongs in prison. Those are the people who are a threat to society, not home burglars.

You mean the entire police force? ******* with guns.

 

[Scat]

So... I guess he already does wear a bullet proof vest???

Lucky he hasn't been shot in the head yet!

 

[franklin]

I'm only on page 4, but you're so completely retarded that I'm not reading to the end before responding.

Those look small enough to be inflicted by small arms. And yes, if you are buying a weapon for your protection, you should buy something designed to harm somebody rather than designed to kill somebody. I don't think I need to bring up the statistics on weapons in the home discharged on people living within the home versus actually dangerous people, do I?

No I don't. I would want to cease the threat immediately and permanently. Take your rubber bullets to the naive channel. There are these easily acquirable things known as force dispersing vests, and burglars are wearing them.

I mean, it's your right to do whatever you want to an intruder. But, it'd be easier living knowing you shot the **** out of somebody with a stun gun and got them arrested versus killing them and dealing with knowing you took a life of a civilian. I don't need to kill somebody to appreciate that every life is important to somebody, and that ending it unnecessarily is going to cause ripples that you are, in more than one way, responsible for.

Why would I feel bad about *killing* a personal/family threat? Na. I'll sleep good after the adrenaline wears off. I'm an animal. If it's me or you then it's gonna be you. Why would that bother my conscience? I wouldn't worry for the rest of my life over a split second decision. That's moronic. I had to make a quick, necessary, life saving choice. What good is second guessing a split second decision? If it happens fast then I'm allowed error. I don't really care if I made a less than perfect decision. It's game theory and that dude forced me into it. Emphasis on that dude forced me.

Now back to page 4.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

I accord your judgement with all the seriousness your posting history has earned.

We can't all be a beacon of ****in awesome.

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

So... when the annoying neighbor kid hops the fence in my backyard to grab his football, I can legally shoot him down in the name of "self defense" because he was committing a "home invasion"?

For some reason I question the logic of extending a fenced-in yard to the actual home. On the other hand, actually trying to break into someones home likely does give the homeowner the privilege to shoot the would be thief in self defense.

I'm simply passing along what was told to me by an actual police officer.

If you want to insert common sense into your argument, it obviously boils down to intent. A neighbor kid getting his football from your backyard at 4pm is obviously not a home invasion. I'm pretty sure the 19 year old kid trying to jimmy open the sliding glass door at 3am had not lost a football.

I would guess the police logic in extending the fence as part the home stems from the fact that a home intruder would basically have to breach an area that had obviously been secured by the home owner. Even if your gate does not have a lock, whats the difference in a stranger simply opening your gate and walking into your backyard and opening your front door in the middle of the day and walking into your living room? To me, including a fenced off area as part of the home seems like pretty sound logic.

And again, let's try to remember that it sounds like the homeowner actually did yell at the intruder and brandish his gun before firing. If that's the case, it obviously didn't deter the kid. It doesn't seem like this was a case of the homeowner shooting at the first shadow he saw.

 

[franklin]

You've obviously haven't read the thread. I've already explained how that would effect me, and I've said I understand why people shoot home intruders. It has nothing to do with me acting like I'm a tough ***.

But he wanted to define your Christian values as his values as applicable to your religion.

 

[Archie Moses]

So... when the annoying neighbor kid hops the fence in my backyard to grab his football, I can legally shoot him down in the name of "self defense" because he was committing a "home invasion"?

For some reason I question the logic of extending a fenced-in yard to the actual home. On the other hand, actually trying to break into someones home likely does give the homeowner the privilege to shoot the would be thief in self defense.

Common sense, dude. There's a difference between some kid getting a ball and some kid trying to break in your back patio door with a screw driver.

 

[G-O-A-T]

I would guess the police logic in extending the fence as part the home stems from the fact that a home intruder would basically have to breach an area that had obviously been secured by the home owner. Even if your gate does not have a lock, whats the difference in a stranger simply opening your gate and walking into your backyard and opening your front door in the middle of the day and walking into your living room? To me, including a fenced off area as part of the home seems like pretty sound logic.

I used to live in a house where kids would cut through our back yard all the time (jumping the fence and walking through our yard was much faster than taking the sidewalks from school to their own houses). Yet, none of these kids - ever - tried to break into our house. I was never that bothered with the kids cutting through our yard, but if one of them had ever tried coming in our house... well he would have been in a world of hurt. So, what I'm saying is that breaking into someones yard and breaking into someones home are completely different scenarios.

Further, there are some serious differences with regards to your self defense rights when it comes to home invasions vs. yard invasions (trespass). For instance, in a home invasion case, you can use deadly force if you reasonably believe the person broke into commit a felony and the force was necessary to prevent the felony. (In many cases, theft/burglary is a felony). On the other hand, if the person is in your yard you can only use deadly force if you are doing it to protect human life. You can look at sections 405-407 here to read the details.

Thus, if you extended the confines of your home to include your yard it would allow you to shoot and kill otherwise harmless lawnmower and bike thieves. *Yeah, OK, my football example wasn't very good* This is why I don't think it's good logic to include a fenced off yard to being part of the home.

And again, let's try to remember that it sounds like the homeowner actually did yell at the intruder and brandish his gun before firing. If that's the case, it obviously didn't deter the kid. It doesn't seem like this was a case of the homeowner shooting at the first shadow he saw.

No argument that the homeowner in this case was in the right. In fact, I think there is about a 0% chance of him being prosecuted... and the only reason the news people even bring it up is because they know it will help them with ratings.