It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man Shot Trying to Force Way into Home, Shooter Arrested for Murder

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Clairify for yourselves. You conduct a search for what constitues "self defense" in this case, and what murder means.

ie: Threats (wih gun, knife, hammer in hand)...to defend yourself and family...or...
MURDER by shooting someone holding your stereo diving out a window...you'll find it murder as a defense against theft...

Killl someone in your hallway at midnight...and HOPE to gosh theres a gun, knife or hammer in his/her hand...or at the very least PUT one in it...that will prove your right to excerise "self-defense" against great bodily harm...otherwise? Its murder and youre in for it.

I didnt make these laws...they are on the books everywhere.
edit on 06-10-2010 by mysterioustranger because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Until more details become clear, all I have to say is to those who perpetuate the "make sure to drag them inside" myth.

Do that and you're toast. It will take a crappy investigator about 10 seconds to figure out what you did, and brother you're going to have some serious explaining to do.

The whole "drag 'em inside" advice is pure bravado, and utter bullscat.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


Depends entirely where you live. If you live in a State without "castle" laws, it is going to cost you a pretty penny and a favorable jury to get out of it. And do yourself a favor do not speak to the police at all until after you have talked to your lawyer. In Ohio the way the law is structured if you are on your property you are presumed to be defending yourself.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


This case is a classic example of nonsense and makes me all the more happy I chose to live where I do.


2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

www.moga.mo.gov...


So in Missouri if someone is in attempting to enter your home unlawfully one can shoot right through the door and have no worries at all about all that dragging them in nonsense. I appreciate that.

Further in Missouri if a person who has just commited a felony is fleeing one can use deadly force to stop them. I love this place…


(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

www.moga.mo.gov...


So if you witness armed robbery or any other felony then you can fire up the fleeing perpetrator.

Finally, the best part is that the State has to prove that you did not have the right to use deadly force – you do not have the burden of proof. The State does.


5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.

www.moga.mo.gov...


IMO People should move out of the States that limit one’s right to self defense to passive measures in all but the most extreme cases.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by littled16
 



9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


"(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; " seems some what vague as far as "any other means".


According to local police if you yell at them to stop and they keep going you have the right to shoot. Court cases have been found in favor of the shooter, even when death has occurred.

Now most people I know would not shoot to kill. You only have to wing somebody to stop them in their tracks. But if somebody is hauling butt with your or even your neighbor's property you have the right to stop them by whatever means are necessary.

I don't think it was right for the guy in Arkansas to chase the guy down and shoot him, as the would be robber never made it inside and I'm assuming did not get a chance to steal the guy's property. When the first shot through the door caused the robber to haul out of there that should have been the end of it. I do think he had the right to use whatever force he deemed necessary to keep the guy out of his house, but my opinion doesn't necessarily jibe with the laws in that state.

I personally wouldn't shoot through a door though. I would need to make sure it was someone trying to break in with bad intent first. I've had my grown kids who don't live here come in unexpectedly in the middle of the night, and sometimes my husband's job has him coming and going unexpectedly at strange hours. I still grab my gun, but the safety doesn't click off until I know for sure that it is an intruder.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
It sounds a bit like many people believe a person has the right to destroy property or steal it if they can physically over power the victim. Once the criminal is gone. he most likely will not be caught.

If you have ever come home to your house trashed and property gone, you know the bad feeling. Even worse you know you are most likely one in a long line.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


Seems like a reasonable stance. One thing though, the police saying some thing and the DA acting are two different things. They can hold different ideas of what should / can happen with charges.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


In my case the D.A. is on the same page.

I understand how you feel about getting burglarized. My mother and my sister were both robbed last year. Some of my mom's property was recovered, none of my sister's property was. Both of them were told by the sherriff's department (they don't live in city limits like us) to shoot first and ask questions later if they ever catch somebody trying to break into their houses. Basically the same thing the city police told us. They however are like me in that they would prefer to aim a gun at the would be robber and give them the chance to run away, or to hold them at gunpoint until the authorities arrive.

Taking a human life is nothing to be taken lightly, and whether in self defense or in defense of one's property you still have to live with it for the rest of your life. But if any of our lives were in imminent danger we would not hesitate, and the laws back us up.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Those were leveled at her. He was charged with her robbery and the rape of a 93 yo woman from the day before. it was his going to hospital from being run over that got the sick @$$ caught



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrmcleod

Originally posted by MidnightTide
I support the home owner completely. Break into my house at your own peril.

Criminals these days have more rights then their victims.. A perp tried to break into my home once, I just watched him and waited for him to get inside. He was lucky he looked up before completely getting into my home. Once his foot hit my floor he would have kissed his ass goodbye.


Maybe its me NOT BEING AMERICAN but i just cannot for the life of me see how anyone can kill another human without any form of remorse for putting "a foot on someone elses floor".

Your assuming he would have stolen some possessions etc but is it really worth taking a life for? You have NO IDEA of the circumstances.

I know most of you will flame me but...

Its precisely why Americans are viewed as paranoid by the rest of the world. You all live in so much fear that few of you can live a normal life without some form of weapon to kill another human.



Not American either.....and I personally like weapons, not to "kill" people, just something I enjoy.

Perhaps I have a screw loose, but when it comes to me and my home.....if your not invited I recommend not trying to force your way in.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I would also think if the agressor has left the home already that you can't chase them down then claim self defense.

If you're chasing someone, it's not your life that's being threatened any more.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


Depends entirely where you live. If you live in a State without "castle" laws, it is going to cost you a pretty penny and a favorable jury to get out of it. And do yourself a favor do not speak to the police at all until after you have talked to your lawyer. In Ohio the way the law is structured if you are on your property you are presumed to be defending yourself.


How can it be self defense if you're chasing the other person?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


Depends entirely where you live. If you live in a State without "castle" laws, it is going to cost you a pretty penny and a favorable jury to get out of it. And do yourself a favor do not speak to the police at all until after you have talked to your lawyer. In Ohio the way the law is structured if you are on your property you are presumed to be defending yourself.


How can it be self defense if you're chasing the other person?


One's "property" is not limited to the dwelling itself. If you are driving an intruder to the limit of your property it’s not really a chase its removal by force which is authorized under the law depending on the State.

Also, if the individual was in the commission of a felony (which he is attempting to break into a house and he is armed with any weapon - a crowbar or screwdriver is a weapon in that context) then at least where I live you can use deadly force to stop him from fleeing the scene.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I agree that anytime someone tries breaking into someone's home, or is in the process of committing a criminal act, they do it their own risk.

Was there a witness to this other than the shooter? How do we know if the shooter's story is true? I would need more information before finding guilt here. If it turns out to be true, the charges should be dropped.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 

And in Ohio? You STILL have no right to KILL someone for just standing on your "castle".



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 

And in Ohio? You STILL have no right to KILL someone for just standing on your "castle"


A fine reason to never live in Ohio - here anyone unlawfully in your home (or even attempting to get inside) is presumed under the law to be a threat no overt actions or weapon required.

That is so one doesn't have to make absurd determinations while awakened in the middle of the night by someone breaking into your domicile. One should not have to go through a checklist of "I wonder if he is here to steal our stuff, kill us, rape my daughter etc. We (the law abiding homeowner) get the benefit of the doubt - not the criminal. I like it that way.

Don't want to die - don't break into houses even just to steal stuff... It’s quite simple.

edit on 28/8/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28/8/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I’m all for the gun laws and every like that but does breaking and entering or robbery truly warrant the death penalty without trial? Sure, if the intruder has a weapon and is threatening you/your family then it’s genuinely self defence, but when he breaks in in the middle of the night without a weapon to steal a few possessions, does he really deserve to die? I don’t think so. I think it’s a very harsh price to pay. If this intruder was unarmed and fleeing then the home owner certainly deserves to be charged and convicted of murder. After all he murdered a 24 year old man who no longer posed any risk. He did not kill him in self defence. Lock him up for 35 years for taking a life in cold blood, because that is what he did if he followed a retreating man outside.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlindBastards
I’m all for the gun laws and every like that but does breaking and entering or robbery truly warrant the death penalty without trial?


I think the reasoning is quite clear – it gives the law abiding homeowner the authority to act in the absence of delay in dealing with an intruder when they are likely disoriented, afraid, and nervous and in the dark (literally).

No longer does one have to try and ascertain if the perpetrator is armed or unarmed, if they’d like to murder, kidnap or rape someone or just steal some stuff. The homeowner is given the benefit of the doubt and protection under the law to take action as (at least in Missouri) anyone unlawfully on the premises at night is presumed to be a threat. No weapon required.

One should not have to feel hesitant in dealing with an intruder using deadly force weighing action versus possible litigation if the person is just stealing. It empowers the victim rather than the criminal. I think more laws should be written with this in mind.


Originally posted by BlindBastards
Sure, if the intruder has a weapon and is threatening you/your family then it’s genuinely self defense, but when he breaks in the middle of the night without a weapon to steal a few possessions, does he really deserve to die? I don’t think so. I think it’s a very harsh price to pay.


Yeah, I think he does – again, should I stop and ask him in the dark “Hey are you here for our stuff or our lives?” Oh, fine then drive on we'll be in the back...

Then quickly looking (in the dark), weapon or not weapon – anything in his hand is a weapon BTW, whatever he used to break in the candlesticks he took from the mantle etc.

By the time the homeowner tries to reason all this legal crap out – the criminal who really has already demonstrated he has little regard for the law will likely have acted and you (the homeowner) have lost any advantage you had previously. It’s too late if he is there to kill you...

All one has to do to remain alive is not to unlawfully enter a person’s home regardless of your intent. I mean the fear and terror this event causes is a threat in and of itself. Do you think - hey I just wanted to take their stuff not hurt them is a valid defense for the terror and fear they caused?

Even if they are a 14 year old honor student running with the wrong crowd, a man trying to feed his family, a strung out junkie, or the al mighty minority using the race card or whatever sob story their lawyers (or their surviving families lawyers most likely in my State) will gin up to gain sympathy from the public.

I think there is zero justification for terrorizing people in their homes in the night regardless of the person’s age, or race or even their social status.


Originally posted by BlindBastards
If this intruder was unarmed and fleeing then the home owner certainly deserves to be charged and convicted of murder. After all he murdered a 24 year old man who no longer posed any risk. He did not kill him in self defense. Lock him up for 35 years for taking a life in cold blood, because that is what he did if he followed a retreating man outside.


Again, this depends on where you live – in Missouri if he committed a felony (armed robbery say or communicating a threat with a weapon, realizing anything can be a weapon in close quarters) we are free to use deadly force to stop him from fleeing the scene.

This goes for in your home or on the street. If I see a bank robbery and the guys come out of the bank with their bags and guns I can shoot them in the back with no warning and not only get away with it – probably get a citizenship award.

Some States realize the criminals have had the advantage for far too long and by enabling the citizenry the right to fight back and to remain free from frivolous litigation for any injuries caused in a legitimate use of force perhaps criminals will get the idea crime indeed doesn’t pay.

Where I live all folks have guns and being hunters, farmers and woodsmen are proficient in their use.

Know how many home invasions there were in my county last year? Zero…

Might be a reason for that. No jury out here is going to side with the criminal even if he was 15 and wanted to take your things – sorry. This is not Chicago, NYC or LA. The law abiding citizen here has benefit of a doubt regarding protection under the law - not the criminal.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
It sounds a bit like many people believe a person has the right to destroy property or steal it if they can physically over power the victim. Once the criminal is gone. he most likely will not be caught.

If you have ever come home to your house trashed and property gone, you know the bad feeling. Even worse you know you are most likely one in a long line.


Have you ever killed anybody? Do u think you will be running round bragging to your friends about how you chased an unarmed man down & what? shot him 7 times in the back.
Yeah man he came at me & boy didn't I teach him, I'm all for defending yourself but chasing a man down & killing him over what a few $.
Reminds me of American history X, try & steal my truck will ya.

To the people saying drag the body a few feet, I'm not sure on American law but I would think if you move the body of a person you just killed to do anything except check vitals, you are screwed 7 ways from Sunday even if you were in the right to begin with.

Here in Oz we are told to shoot the guy first then yell stop stop as loud as u can & put a couple of extra rounds in the roof. Guy must of been homicidal he didn't even stop after I fired 2 warning shots he was almost on me & I had no time for a second warning.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


The sad truth.







 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join