Burglar Shot Dead

[G-O-A-T]

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.

Common sense, dude. There's a difference between walking into someones yard and walking into their home.

The football example was bad for the self defense thing... but the point I was trying to make was that jumping the fence to get your football - in your neighbors yard - is not "home invasion"

 

[Archie Moses]

Common sense, dude. There's a difference between walking into someones yard and walking into their home.

The football example was bad for the self defense thing... but the point I was trying to make was that jumping the fence to get your football - in your neighbors yard - is not "home invasion"

Clearly. No one is refuting that. There's a huge difference between getting a ball and trespassing with the intent to commit a felony/burglary. Most people should be able to discern this.

 

[G-O-A-T]

Clearly. No one is refuting that. There's a huge difference between getting a ball and trespassing with the intent to commit a felony/burglary. Most people should be able to discern this.

As I just posted, there is a difference on how you can defend yourself against a person committing a property felony in your house vs. in your yard. That's why I made the point that extending the home to include the yard is a mistake. And yes... I already explained that my football example was bad... would you like to point it out a 3rd time?

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

Common sense, dude. There's a difference between walking into someones yard and walking into their home"

I completely disagree with this. Let's say it's the middle of the summer and my two kids are playing in the backyard. If a dangerous man was to enter my back yard through a gate, does he pose less of a threat to my children than he would had he used the front door and encountered them in my living room?

The above example is probably the greatest reasoning as to why police consider the back yard an extension of the house when it comes to a home invasion. Bike thefts, rogue footballs, and your other examples obviously wouldn't fall into that category.

 

[Hopper]

I aint read alla this here thread, but I agree that some kinda non-lethal weapon is best. Mebbe like a heavy-duty stun-gun or sumthin, ya know? That way, ya can dragz they sorry *** down in yo basement, tie they *** up, and torture them for a good long spell before ya cap they ***. Learns a more better lesson, that way, I figure.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Legit question I've thought about recently.

Can you get two alarm systems on a home, ya know, to really make sure you're protected? Guns are great, don't get me wrong, but I don't think they're for me and would probably just be scared to use it or clam up if someone came in my home if I'm being honest. Maybe it's just because I'm out of shape and haven't lifted in a while so a bit of my swagger's gone but either way, this KEK right now would probably piss his pants at the idea of going down a dark hall with a gun.

 

[G-O-A-T]

I completely disagree with this. Let's say it's the middle of the summer and my two kids are playing in the backyard. If a dangerous man was to enter my back yard through a gate, does he pose less of a threat to my children than he would had he used the front door and encountered them in my living room?

Point taken. And FYI, if you read the laws that I linked, you would know that if the dangerous man posed a danger to your kids in your yard, you could use the same level of force against them as you could if he encountered them in your living room (deadly force).

But now, let's say this man (we don't know if he's dangerous) is there to steal a bike? Do you think he poses any less threat if he steals it while it is lying on the ground in your fenced in yard vs. taking it from your sleeping child's bedroom?

Do you think that the same level of force should be warranted to defend yourself/property in each situation? Hopefully not.

I'm not trying to say you are clueless in your reasoning, I'm trying to say that making the definition of the "home" so broad would cause a lot of problems. In fact, I wouldn't have even bothered responding to your original post if you hadn't mentioned that a cop was your authority for calling the yard part of the home... someone might rely on that information and overreact to a harmless trespasser (or bike thief) one day... and then wonder why they had to spend 10 years in jail for manslaughter.

The above example is probably the greatest reasoning as to why police consider the back yard an extension of the house when it comes to a home invasion. Bike thefts, rogue footballs, and your other examples obviously wouldn't fall into that category.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. My interpretation of this statement is that you assume every trespasser is dangerous to humans and that yards are always occupied by humans. If those assumptions were true, then I could see making the extension... but since they are not, it would be a serious mistake to make that connection.

Edit*
Maybe the disconnect is that you are saying that home invasions should be defined on a case by case basis, where I am saying that there should be a bright line rule... not sure

 

[G-O-A-T]

Legit question I've thought about recently.

Can you get two alarm systems on a home, ya know, to really make sure you're protected? Guns are great, don't get me wrong, but I don't think they're for me and would probably just be scared to use it or clam up if someone came in my home if I'm being honest. Maybe it's just because I'm out of shape and haven't lifted in a while so a bit of my swagger's gone but either way, this KEK right now would probably piss his pants at the idea of going down a dark hall with a gun.

Get a guard dog. They are fun to have and good protectors. Otherwise, get a good paying job and spend all that money paying for alarm systems and reinforced doors and windows... But seriously, if one alarm system doesn't protect you, I don't see why the second one would... unless of course, you spent an insane amount of money protecting yourself from the remote chance of being harmed in a home invasion

 

[C l u t c H 385]

I aint read alla this here thread, but I agree that some kinda non-lethal weapon is best. Mebbe like a heavy-duty stun-gun or sumthin, ya know? That way, ya can dragz they sorry *** down in yo basement, tie they *** up, and torture them for a good long spell before ya cap they ***. Learns a more better lesson, that way, I figure.

My mind has been changed.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Get a guard dog. They are fun to have and good protectors. Otherwise, get a good paying job and spend all that money paying for alarm systems and reinforced doors and windows... But seriously, if one alarm system doesn't protect you, I don't see why the second one would... unless of course, you spent an insane amount of money protecting yourself from the remote chance of being harmed in a home invasion

Well, in case one system doesn't work when the time comes or is disabled in time by the intruder, I figure the second one would save my ***.

 

[One Brow]

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.

I was responding to the post about what was obviously an outside dog (it was killed *before* the break-in).

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.

According to jazzman12 (below), the homeowner did *not* shoot first, he tried to discourage them. Then he was still able to shoot afterwards.

The longer you hesitate, the more advantage you are giving to the criminal.

Hesitating does not necessarily confer any advantage to the criminal at all.

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.

Burglary is not a violent crime.

Those that disagree with the homeowner are just asking to be victims themselves.

Been there, done that.

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.

If true, that would be all the warning he could be reasonably expected to give. If the burglars don't leave after hearing that, the homeowner has good reason to think they won't behave rationally. It will be interesting to hear if the accomplice confirms that warning was given.

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.

Under those circumstances, I agree.

And then what? Do you think the "victim/criminal" is going to remain on the ground crying about his oowies and ask for Motrin?

If he doesn't run, shoot him again. And again, if needed. And again, if needed. A typical clip holds 10-15 bullets, even when they are rubber, right? How many burglars are going to stick around after the first five?

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?

Why do you give him the chance? Are guns with rubber bullets limited to one shot?

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

I'm sure Boondocksaints27 will confirm police are trained not to shoot first without making sure its necessary.

 

[Boondocksaint27]

I'm sure Boondocksaints27 will confirm police are trained not to shoot first without making sure its necessary.

Indeed. Not that it even needs to be said, and not that I will convince anyone otherwise who already has this mindset.

 

[Boondocksaint27]

My "edit" feature is not working so sorry for the dual post. I should say that just like in any deadly force encounter we have now taken page upon page and hour upon hour Monday Morning Quarterbacking a situation that someone had mere seconds to make a decision in. The bottom line, as Viny and Pearl have stated, I would like to reiterate. It is not enough to simply own a firearm. You need to take classes and train repeatedly with your firearm so that you are competent and confident in your ability to use it. It also doesn't hurt to play the "what if" game so that you're not confronted with an unimaginable circumstance in the middle of the night, or if you are you at least know a direction to go from there.

 

[franklin]

I'm sure Boondocksaints27 will confirm police are trained not to shoot first without making sure its necessary.

Indeed. Not that it even needs to be said, and not that I will convince anyone otherwise who already has this mindset.

Except when they shoot at innocent hero's, with their back to them, gun pointed safely toward the ground, and without warning, right?

https://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/49323788-76/allgier-fullerton-gun-lake.html.csp?page=1

Who's gonna defend this cop? You know it was "code blue" here. Cop dies, buddy cops go for blood, first cop on scene pops a shot at innocent hero, luckily he missed.

 

[Boondocksaint27]

This is a Jazz forum where I come for casual discussion. Not something I intend to turn into a heated emotional back-and-forth. You have your opinion. I have mine. You brought up one instance and I'm sure if you search the web you can find more. Cops are human and through human nature mistakes get made.

However, sensationalism sells. I can say with great confidence that 99% of the Police I know are trying to do the absolute best job that they can and I have seen far more good from them.

 

[One Brow]

However, sensationalism sells. I can say with great confidence that 99% of the Police I know are trying to do the absolute best job that they can and I have seen far more good from them.

I concur completely. However, when the police do make a mistake, they tend to get a wider latitude than Joe Citizen. Considering the nature of the job, some would say it's deserved.

 

[franklin]

This is a Jazz forum where I come for casual discussion.

But this isn't the Jazz Forum, and it isn't casual, so pretend away.

Not something I intend to turn into a heated emotional back-and-forth. You have your opinion. I have mine. You brought up one instance and I'm sure if you search the web you can find more. Cops are human and through human nature mistakes get made.

However, sensationalism sells. I can say with great confidence that 99% of the Police I know are trying to do the absolute best job that they can and I have seen far more good from them.

A cop shot at a hero and received ZERO disciplinary action in a high profile event, and you play it off as human mistake? Excuse me for holding highly trained, empowered professional officers, who take it upon themselves to choose between life and death, as above the average. Apparently your definition of sensationalism is a cop busting caps at an innocent man. If I was apologizing for police encroachment then I'd want to marginalize that as an outlier too. Personally, outlier or not, I think shooting at innocent civilians is pretty much out of line, and shows symptoms of the brown shirt nature that our police force has become. You're protecting officers busting off at innocent citizens and I'm the sensationalist. Yeah. I'd come for "casual discussion" too.