Homeowner arrested after shooting intruder dead in the shower

[Tyrianth]

I'm not defending him at all. In fact, I said that he is absolutely going to be charged with something. But the people who are screaming "SLAM DUNK FIRST DEGREE MURDER!!!" are being total idiots. I'm merely stating how DETAILS OF A CASE can drastically affect what the defendant gets charged with.

Only a complete and total dumbass would read the article and immediately declare the guy guilty of first degree murder without a shred of doubt. I laid out some filler details not to defend the shooter, but to show how details NOT in the article could dramatically reduce his culpability in the eyes of the law.

- - - Updated - - -



And how do you know this was premeditated murder? Are you a psychic? Do you know exactly what happened on that day between these two men? No? Then STFU and wait for the details of the case to come out.

You know, assuming you're even interested in the case, and not just another poster who gets triggered at the mere idea of a gun being used and just want to throw your voice in with a lynch mob demanding the evil gun owner be hung immediately.

TIL being able to read makes you psychic.

He left the scene, went home, got a gun, came back, shot the man. That is no way a heat-of-the-moment. That is premeditation.

[jimboa24]

TIL being able to read makes you psychic.

He left the scene, went home, got a gun, came back, shot the man. That is no way a heat-of-the-moment. That is premeditation.

First off, not necessarily. It SUGGESTS premeditation, it is not in and of itself premeditation. It depends on a lot of things, like how close the houses are together, what kind of threat of harm he felt under, and if that threat was reasonable. When did he call the police, and would the police be able to respond in a timely manner. Lots of details are important to know before casting judgment.

Even if it was definitive proof of premeditation, that is not the only element needed to make a case for first degree murder. Only ONE of the elements. And again, mitigating factors make a huge difference in whether or not you get charged with murder or manslaughter. Details fucking matter. That's why murder trials take days, sometimes weeks. You can't read what is basically a vague summary of what happened and immediately determine a suspect's guilt or innocence. And when the cops themselves are telling the public not to rush to judgment until the facts come out, then you know it's more complicated than it seems. If it was as simple as the article suggested, he'd already be arraigned.

[Torgent]

And how do you know this was premeditated murder? Are you a psychic? Do you know exactly what happened on that day between these two men? No? Then STFU and wait for the details of the case to come out.

You know, assuming you're even interested in the case, and not just another poster who gets triggered at the mere idea of a gun being used and just want to throw your voice in with a lynch mob demanding the evil gun owner be hung immediately.

We know it's premeditated because he had time to leave the scene, obtain a weapon, and go back. That shows intent to kill in which the intruder was not an immediate threat to the homeowner. It's murder plain and simple.

[Tyrianth]

That is not the only element needed to prove a case for first degree murder. Only ONE of the elements. And again, mitigating factors make a huge difference in whether or not you get charged with murder or manslaughter. Details fucking matter. That's why murder trials take days, sometimes weeks. You can't read what is basically a vague summary of what happened and immediately determine a suspect's guilt or innocence. And when the cops themselves are telling the public not to rush to judgment until the facts come out, then you know it's more complicated than it seems. If it was as simple as the article suggested, he'd already be arraigned.

You said we had no way of knowing if it was premeditated. When it was in fact, by definition, premeditated. Any sane country would have this man charged with first degree murder.

[jimboa24]

We know it's premeditated because he had time to leave the scene, obtain a weapon, and go back. That shows intent to kill in which the intruder was not an immediate threat to the homeowner. It's murder plain and simple.

No, simply having a weapon does not mean intent to kill. You would make a shitty prosecuting attorney.

You said we had no way of knowing if it was premeditated. When it was in fact, by definition, premeditated. Any sane country would have this man charged with first degree murder.

Then by your definition, any gun owner who has time to retrieve his gun from a gun safe is guilty of premeditation. Which is simply untrue. One thing that you have to prove in premeditation is that the owner intended to kill from the get-go. Getting a gun is NOT enough to prove intent to kill.

[Auxora]

It sounds like the police did the right thing in this case. Doesn't mean he'll be found guilty. But it was bad enough that they opted to and let the court decide. But it's iffy enough that a unanimous jury conviction will be pretty tough I'm guessing, unless there's more to it than was in the article (like if he knew the guy he shot and had reason beyond intruding to shoot him).

[Ghostpanther]

We know it's premeditated because he had time to leave the scene, obtain a weapon, and go back. That shows intent to kill in which the intruder was not an immediate threat to the homeowner. It's murder plain and simple.

Not necessarily. The act of going back to his house and getting his gun and returning to the other building is not in itself proof he was intent on killing him. Depends on what happened when he confronted the intruder. The news article says he is under investigation for second degree murder. So we will have to wait to see how the investigation will turn out. Personally I think he will be charged with second degree murder.

[Mormolyce]

Even the so-called "castle doctrine" does not give you an unqualified right to murder anyone in your house.

It's an insane culture that encourages that mindset.

- - - Updated - - -

My home is my castle, You enter my home not invited, count on the consequences.

And your consequences will be: being in jail for murder.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait really it wasn't even his house? Ya the shooter is going to get fucked

Next week: Texas puts into law the "castle next door doctrine".

[Hammerfest]

It most assuredly makes a difference. Especially since the one property is used as a business.

Oh no... not an evil business!

- - - Updated - - -

I'm still looking for anyone to present an argument for why anyone who suspects an intruder is in any property they own should leave, go get a firearm, return, and shoot the intruder without question or warning.

We don't know what exactly happened yet. For all we know from that news story, he could have gone in there armed to protect himself and the shower guy may have attacked him... in which case it'd be a damn good thing the property owner had a gun.

[Ghostpanther]

Even the so-called "castle doctrine" does not give you an unqualified right to murder anyone in your house.

It's an insane culture that encourages that mindset.

- - - Updated - - -



And your consequences will be: being in jail for murder.

- - - Updated - - -



Next week: Texas puts into law the "castle next door doctrine".

It is not murder when you shoot a intruder who has broke in your home and you use deadly force to stop them. At least in Ohio with it's Castle law.

Depends on the circumstances, but if he is in Ohio and shoots someone who has broke into his home while he is there, he will be justified.

The Castle Law in Ohio extends to one's auto or any other building you have a lawful right to be in and are threaten with serous bodily harm. Even if you are in someone other's home or auto.

[Hammerfest]

Castle Law only apply's if you are in danger

Which brings me back to the question I've been asking, "A naked man isn't dangerous?"

- - - Updated - - -

The bottom line is, don't take showers uninvited at other people's houses...especially if you don't know whether or not they have guns. Best to stay stinky. Lesson learned - the hard way.

Also keep in mind that the showerer broke in. That means destruction of property. Plenty of reason to arm one's self before confronting the intruder.

- - - Updated - - -

If he is dangerous why are you engaging him in the first place.

Generally speaking if you arm yourself before engaging you have less to worry about.

[Deleted]

Oscar would be proud.

[Blueobelisk]

Zito helped me get a Nintendo Switch and they asked me that If I got one from their help I would add Plague Knight from Shovel Knight to my avatar.

How did help you get a Switch?

[Themius]

It is not murder when you shoot a intruder who has broke in your home and you use deadly force to stop them. At least in Ohio with it's Castle law.

Depends on the circumstances, but if he is in Ohio and shoots someone who has broke into his home while he is there, he will be justified.

The Castle Law in Ohio extends to one's auto or any other building you have a lawful right to be in and are threaten with serous bodily harm. Even if you are in someone other's home or auto.

The guy wasn't in his house he was in another property... taking a shower, perhaps a homeless guy who the fuck knows. Anyway Washington DOESN'T HAVE CASTLE DOCTRINE first of all. Secondly he left and got a gun and then went back and shot a naked guy taking a shower.

[Nehezbegar]

And your consequences will be: being in jail for murder.

Volenti non fit iniuria.

[Protean]

My home is my castle, You enter my home not invited, count on the consequences. If it was me, i would make the guy not guilty immediately.

If everybody thought like you did, burglars would start their workday by murdering every occupant of the home before getting to work. And trust me, they're more prepared for any confrontation than you.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet you are arguing against a homeowner who was defending his life and property. Get over it, your side lost the gun rights debate.

The home owner is a murderer. So I'd say you're defending the criminal.

- - - Updated - - -

How did he fuck up? A person was in his home, he felt violated and threatened. What kind of liberal snowflake are you to judge him.

What kind of conservative snowflake thinks a feeling is good enough validation for murdering someone?

[Ilikegreenfire]

Which brings me back to the question I've been asking, "A naked man isn't dangerous?"

- - - Updated - - -



Also keep in mind that the showerer broke in. That means destruction of property. Plenty of reason to arm one's self before confronting the intruder.

- - - Updated - - -



Generally speaking if you arm yourself before engaging you have less to worry about.

A naked man in your Workplace shower who doesn't even notice you is yes potentially dangerous but not actively a danger. Anyone is potentially dangerous. If he had the gun in the business he would have a much better case, even still he wouldn't be right shooting him in the back. He was in no intimidate danger.

He was in his house, went to his business saw a guy was inside who didn't belong, he left the and went to his house got a gun came back and shot the guy, instead of calling the cops.

If the guy had broken into an occupied home and tried to do this it would be another thing entirely

The poor fucker probably didn't know what was going on. The dude probably homeless just looking for a shower still had enough of a conscious to not break into a home but a business to try and get clean and feel like a human being again, if a guy has a business he probably has insurance, or at the least probably has the cash for overhead to buy a new screen.

I work retail in a warehouse store, i see a lot of desperate acts like people stealing diapers, and individual packs of food out of big boxes, shit like this happens in our fucked up society. Hell people even leave out perfectly good produce and meat to spoil just because they are too lazy to put it back, business profit margins are designed around shit like this.

Honestly getting hauled off but the cops could have been the best thing for imaginable the guy, he was either mentally ill and or homeless, 3 meals a day regular showers and a bed probably would have been a luxury for him.

[Protean]

Obviously the home owner was in the wrong. That being said, I have no sympathy for the PoS intruder. Only useless and/or nutty trash breaks into someone's home. This world is better off without such people.

I would have come back with the gun, ordered him out of the shower, and called the police. And (if I were so inclined) when the police got there...

" Oh officer I'm glad you're here. After I told him to sit down and wait for the police to get here after I called you, he got up and charged at me. I was so scared, I haven't been in a fight since high school. I think he would have got the gun away and killed me if I hadn't shot him."

useless garbage 1, nutbag in someone else's shower 0

Or people with mental illnesses that has gone untreated for decades because hey "m-muh money no h-healthcare".


It happens more than you think that someone gets confused because they're still getting their medication dialed in.

[Ragedaug]

If everybody thought like you did, burglars would start their workday by murdering every occupant of the home before getting to work. And trust me, they're more prepared for any confrontation than you.

If everyone thought like he did, there would be no burglars.

[PosPosPos]

Well, this is what you get when you allow citizens what essentially is full access to any gun they like. As much as conservatives love to lie about, no, guns don't protect you more than it does harm.

Source: every other developed nation with actual gun control laws.