Homeowner arrested after shooting intruder dead in the shower

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -



You don't have fucking castle doctrine over your business and secondly the state doesn't have castle doctrine at all so stfu with your one line non artgument.

Depends on the state and even country. Because the basic code for the Castle Doctrine is this...

A Castle Doctrine is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place – e.g., a vehicle or home, as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used. The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws.

In Ohio it extents to a vehicle or residence of any you are legally in when someone attacks you or another person in the same. But not a business, but you are allowed to defend someone else or yourself if it appears your/their life is in danger no matter where you are. But the law does require you to retreat if it is possible when you are threatened if you are out in the public.

But for this case of the thread, the shooter was clearly in the wrong. Even here in Ohio he would have been charged.

[Allybeboba]

America is full of some scary folk. And I don't mean scary like "Wow that guy looks really tough, I wouldn't want to start a fight with him!". I mean scary like, mentally unstable.

With an inhuman focus on possessions and ownership I find it unsurprising that you had such a perverse fascination with slavery.

Anyone that thinks this person was within his rights to shoot some nutter naked in the shower after clearly not being threatened in the slightest is out of their mind and needs serious help. You're as likely to commit this offence as he was, all you need is the circumstance to present itself.

Many countries are "full of scary folk" wouldn't you say?

Considering how people in this forum are stuck on making this thread Anti-American and constantly bumping it yet ignoring the St. Petersburg massacre thread.

[Deleted]

There. Fixed that for you.

The world is full of scary folk, but there are not many nations that take excessive pride in their wont to bare arms.

[Ghostpanther]

The world is full of scary folk, but there are not many nations that take excessive pride in their wont to bare arms.

And that is cool if they want to do that. I will not bash them for that decision.

[Deleted]

Many countries are "full of scary folk" wouldn't you say?

Considering how people in this forum are stuck on making this thread Anti-American and constantly bumping it yet ignoring the St. Petersburg massacre thread.

Clearly there is an issue with American values.

- - - Updated - - -

And that is cool if they want to do that. I will not bash them for that decision.

I will.
10char

[Fencers]

Homeowner was good up till he left the property, did not contact police, and returned to the second property with intent to kill at the least.

[AlphaOut]

Homeowner was good up till he left the property, did not contact police, and returned to the second property with intent to kill at the least.

Yep, he had the opportunity to notify the police and avoid confrontation all together. It doesn't look like his life was threatened since he was able to leave.

[Derah]

There's several things to consider about this case.

1: The owner had 2 houses. He was able to leave the house with the intruder, pick up a weapon, and then come back. That forfeits any self-defense protection. If you're not in immediate danger, you don't get a pass for killing someone. Even if they are in your property.

2: The intruder was in the shower, naked. This means the intruder was unarmed and did not represent an immediate threat to the owner. The owner could have simply picked up his gun, then order the naked man to leave his property, rather than shoot him on sight. I mean, I could understand shooting an intruder without issuing a warning if the intruder is clothed, they could be hiding several weapons in their pockets that you don't know about. But the intruder was naked in the shower. Unless he can hide a fucking hand-canon inside his ass, he is in no way a threat to someone armed with a gun. The owner easily could have defused the situation by ordering the naked man to leave his property at gun point. He chose not to.

3: The proper course of action when there's an intruder in your house is to call the police. ALL THE TIME. Your house may be your sacred castle, yadda-yadda, but if you see an intruder, the only course of action is to leave the property (Along with your loved ones) and call the authorities. You are only meant to attack the intruders if leaving is not an option (maybe there's a disabled person you take care of, or multiple children, or any other large number of circumstances) or if they clearly represent a menace to you or someone else in the property. As scary as it is to see an intruder naked in your shower, an unarmed man vs a gun-totting man is not a menace.

Normally I'm all for self-defense, but this particular case is of someone who had an itchy trigger finger and was looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I don't feel there's anything wrong with that.

Your feelings are unimportant.

[Allybeboba]

Clearly there is an issue with American values.

- - - Updated - - -

Or....
A: people on this forum don't care about innocent people in St. Petersburg that were killed by terrorist bombings as much as they do about an unwanted intruder killed in America.
B: people on this forum are obsessed with the US for some odd reason.

Either way, people should to examine why they are worried more about that one more than the other. Especially, if neither if one doesn't directly involve them or doesn't have the potential to.

[Hammerfest]

Your feelings are unimportant.

When it comes to my own posts, they're very important.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say that's what happened here, I'm saying that's what your argument implies.

No, it's what you have inferred. Incorrectly, I might add.

[Hammerfest]

How is it different?

You honestly can't see the difference between your asinine little comparison scenario and this story?

[Easo]

This is page 21 and people are still arguing. How much more clear this case has to be for you not to do that?
Hammerfest, get a fricking grip. He is going to jail for murder, no if's or but's.
And yes, your feelings do not matter at all, it's law that matters. And law does not agree with you.

[Daws]

So using gun owner logic, the only thing that can stop bad people with guns is good people with guns. If only the intruder had the forethought to have a gun with him this senseless loss of life could have been avoided.

[Hammerfest]

This is page 21 and people are still arguing... Hammerfest, get a fricking grip. He is going to jail for murder, no if's or but's.

So somewhere in these 21 pages I missed the follow up story that was linked where the trial has already occurred and he's been sentenced already? Maybe you could help me out by providing a link to that follow up story because 5 days is an awfully short time for that to have occurred.

- - - Updated - - -

Fuck dude, you can't see that I'm not talking about this scenario? I'm talking about your argument that he should be allowed to shoot him simply because he's on his property.

Which has never been my argument. My position on this has been that until we know what precisely took place when he confronted the intruder, we really shouldn't condemn the guy the way some of you have been doing. Simply going from one edifice on his combined property to another to arm himself before confronting an intruder and the intruder ending up dead doesn't automatically make him a murderer. Murder makes him a murderer and murder has not been proven yet.

You claimed that because I held this position, it was the same thing as saying that I think it's okay to shoot a door-to-door salesman or religious solicitor who shows up at your front door. Clearly it isn't and any child could figure that out.

[Ghostpanther]

Clearly there is an issue with American values.

- - - Updated - - -



I will.
10char

Clearly you are not here for any constructive discussion, but to simply bash America. But thankfully this forum has a nice feature to deal with those like you.

[Hammerfest]

Self defense requires the inability to remove yourself from harm. He clearly had that ability, therefore a self defense argument is invalid. It's pretty fucking simple.

I'm curious (and amused, since you couldn't provide the aforementioned requested link). Who told you that "self defense requires the inability to remove yourself from harm?" Because an awful lot of people who have confronted intruders and had to shoot them would be incarcerated right now... including the young woman in this video:



The thing I think a lot of people on this forum do not understand is that it is a standard of behavior in many parts of the the US to arm yourself and confront an intruder. In some areas, like Milwaukee WI, law enforcement even encourages it:



It's time for some of you to get with the program.

[Ghostpanther]

I'm curious (and amused, since you couldn't provide the aforementioned requested link). Who told you that "self defense requires the inability to remove yourself from harm?" Because an awful lot of people who have confronted intruders and had to shoot them would be incarcerated right now... including the young woman in this video:



The thing I think a lot of people on this forum do not understand is that it is a standard of behavior in many parts of the the US to arm yourself and confront an intruder. In some areas, like Milwaukee WI, law enforcement even encourages it:



It's time for some of you to get with the program.

His comment only applies in some situations and in some places in the US depending on if the state has a Stand your Ground law or how it defines the duty to retreat. In Ohio, you are not required to retreat from your automobile or home/residence. And even extends to another person's home or automobile you are legally occupying.

[Hammerfest]

His comment only applies in some situations and in some places in the US depending on if the state has a Stand your Ground law or how it defines the duty to retreat. In Ohio, you are not required to retreat from your automobile or home/residence. And even extends to another person's home or automobile you are legally occupying.

I'm assuming you're talking about Clarke's PSA. I presented it only to demonstrate that the opinions expressed in this thread that nobody should arm themselves and confront an intruder onto their property is not held by a very large portion of the country. This "wait for the police to show up" mentality is rejected by Milwaukee County, again, as just an example.

- - - Updated - - -

This guy was NOT in the same building. Being on the same property is irrelevant.

We'll see how the trial goes.

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -


You're not required to attempt to flee but if you're clearly able to, a self defense argument won't hold up. It's like if came home to someone just sitting on your couch and they refused to leave. If they're clearly not a threat, you're not even allowed to physically force them to leave because that would be assault. You definitely couldn't shoot them because they refused to leave.

Not in all cases. Stand your Ground laws make it so you do not have to flee any place you are at which you lawfully have a right to be there and you can use deadly force to defend yourself if you feel your life is in danger or the attacker clearly means to do great bodily harm to you.

But of course in the matter of this case , the shooter is wrong and should be punished as Wash. does not have a Stand your Ground law and even if it did, the matter of how he acted would be enough to justify a criminal charge against him. His life was clearly not in danger and he overreacted and went beyond self defense.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm assuming you're talking about Clarke's PSA. I presented it only to demonstrate that the opinions expressed in this thread that nobody should arm themselves and confront an intruder onto their property is not held by a very large portion of the country. This "wait for the police to show up" mentality is rejected by Milwaukee County, again, as just an example.

- - - Updated - - -



We'll see how the trial goes.

You are correct. It is not unlawful to confront someone on your property with a firearm at the ready. But you can not use that firearm and be protected by law as you could if the intruder is found inside your home with you in there at the same time. You could only lawfully use it if the person attacks you or demonstrates they are going to with a deadly weapon. This guy will have a hard time proving his life was in danger.