Homeowner arrested after shooting intruder dead in the shower

[Hammerfest]

Sure but he's only putting himself back into danger after he removed himself from it because he wanted to play vigilante.

I don't think someone is "playing vigilante" when he investigates what's going on on his own property.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a judge in Tennessee that my family knows.

What's his name?

[Dug]

I don't think someone is "playing vigilante" when he investigates what's going on on his own property.

He is when he already investigated, saw the intruder taking a shower and instead of calling the police after he removed himself from the danger he grabbed his gun and went back to handle the matter himself.

[Hammerfest]

How does that matter?

Because it matters if these people you say you're talking to are real or not.

- - - Updated - - -

He is when he already investigated, saw the intruder taking a shower and instead of calling the police after he removed himself from the danger he grabbed his gun and went back to handle the matter himself.

Well, I disagree, based on the current information. Like I said, let's wait for the trial.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Again, this points back to a question I've been asking all along here... So a naked man isn't dangerous?

He wasn't a threat after the other man removed himself from the situation.

A naked man that was unaware of your return is very much not an immediate threat that requires deadly force. You can't assassinate a man and then claim self defense.

[cubby]

I think the argument if the guy is dangerous in a shower is a moot point anyway, it's the fact he left the house, went and got a gun, didn't call the police and came back and shot the guy. I would say even if the guy wasn't in the shower he would still face criminal charges.

Wait, and apologies for being outside the details here, but the owner in question left the house to get a gun, and then came back to shoot him? Because if that is so, the owner is truly fucked. He'll go down for 2nd Degree Murder, at least, and the prosecution has a shot at 1st.
@Hammerfest - while I appreciate arguing the other side of any issue, in this case, there is no other side. If the owner left and came back, he's done. My 10 year old son could convict him.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really. Even if they're not real, it doesn't make your nonexistent argument valid. Again, please provide your argument for how this intruder had the means and intent to commit bodily harm. It's what is required before a person is legally allowed to use deadly force.

You're not entirely correct, not in the case of a home invasion. Home invasions, depending on the state, you can just open fire, basically (for better or worse). This idiot (the owner, not nexx226, lol) left and came back. That's the ballgame.

[zenkai]

Wait, and apologies for being outside the details here, but the owner in question left the house to get a gun, and then came back to shoot him? Because if that is so, the owner is truly fucked. He'll go down for 2nd Degree Murder, at least, and the prosecution has a shot at 1st.
@Hammerfest - while I appreciate arguing the other side of any issue, in this case, there is no other side. If the owner left and came back, he's done. My 10 year old son could convict him.

- - - Updated - - -



You're not entirely correct, not in the case of a home invasion. Home invasions, depending on the state, you can just open fire, basically (for better or worse). This idiot (the owner, not nexx226, lol) left and came back. That's the ballgame.

Yeah, he owned 2 homes next to each other, one he used for business, that is the one broken into. He left it, went to his main home, got a gun, didn't call police and came back and shot the guy 4 times. Yeah I am sure he will be going to Prison for a long time.

[cubby]

Yeah, he owned 2 homes next to each other, one he used for business, that is the one broken into. He left it, went to his main home, got a gun, didn't call police and came back and shot the guy 4 times. Yeah I am sure he will be going to Prison for a long time.

Oh boy, this gets even better. So it actually wasn't his "home" but his place of business. That's gonna throw out the home property defense, even if he had one. If this wasn't WA state, he'd be looking at the death penalty.

[Orbitus]

Again, this points back to a question I've been asking all along here... So a naked man isn't dangerous?



The property owner was in his own home (his second home, to be precise) and the act of arming himself was done in his own self defense. Also, did you watch the video? The Georgia gal actually stands in her doorway and fires out at the intruders who have already exited... which means they weren't in her home anymore and those bullets likely traveled out onto other property (particularly the ones that missed). Nobody talks about that, including yourself. You give her all kinds of breaks but not the guy with two properties. Why? Because you aren't being intellectually honest. The guy taking a shower was dangerous. You could argue that he was less dangerous than the three armed idiots who broke into the Georgia woman's house, but what level of danger is your threshold for someone to be able to investigate and defend their own property from an intruder? My guess is it's whatever makes you feel self-righteous enough on a gaming forum.

Compared to a guy whom he doesn't know is there? A naked man is not.

And it doesn't matter if he was in a second home. The fact that he left, removed himself from the situation, and came back to shoot him, means he is going to jail for the rest of his life. It doesn't matter how much you spin it, you aren't going to win.

[Tijuana]

There is no law that allows for this. This is plainly murder, likely first degree. This clearly was not self defense. Castle doctrine/stand your ground laws only allow for you to shoot instead of retreat. There is no law that allows for retreat, then return to shoot.

But, how can we decide if a shooting is justified, without knowing the race of the shooter and the victim? I mean, that is usually what is most important around here...

[Hammerfest]

@Hammerfest - while I appreciate arguing the other side of any issue, in this case, there is no other side.

We'll see.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really.

Yes, really. If you can't identify the subject matter experts that you've talked to, then you might as well not even mention them at all since anybody can say that in a gaming forum.

- - - Updated - - -

He wasn't a threat after the other man removed himself from the situation.

Sophistry. I maintain that the home owner never actually removed himself from the situation since he never left property he owned. He saw something going on in one of his buildings, went to another building he owned (without leaving land he owned) and armed himself to confront the intruder. I don't think many people would question it if a farmer found that someone had broken into one of his barns and went back to his home to grab his shotgun before returning to the barn to confront the intruder. Until we know the circumstances of how the naked intruder died, we won't have clear picture of situation. If the naked intruder attempted to physically assault the property owner and the owner shot him in self defense, I don't think the owner is at fault here. If the owner executed the man while he was showering, then one can argue the owner was in the wrong. For me, the fact that the home owner never actually left his own property to arm himself before investigating the intrusion further is key here and I'll be interested in seeing how the law is interpreted during this case.

- - - Updated - - -

A naked man is not.

I'm pretty sure a naked man can be dangerous.

The fact that he left, removed himself from the situation, and came back to shoot him, means he is going to jail for the rest of his life. It doesn't matter how much you spin it, you aren't going to win.

He didn't "remove himself from the situation." He went from one edifice on his property to another to arm himself before confronting the intruder. If he had crossed over onto public property or someone else's property, you'd have a point. But he didn't, so you don't as far as I'm concerned.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

We'll see.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, really. If you can't identify the subject matter experts that you've talked to, then you might as well not even mention them at all since anybody can say that in a gaming forum.

- - - Updated - - -



Sophistry. I maintain that the home owner never actually removed himself from the situation since he never left property he owned. He saw something going on in one of his buildings, went to another building he owned (without leaving land he owned) and armed himself to confront the intruder. I don't think many people would question it if a farmer found that someone had broken into one of his barns and went back to his home to grab his shotgun before returning to the barn to confront the intruder. Until we know the circumstances of how the naked intruder died, we won't have clear picture of situation. If the naked intruder attempted to physically assault the property owner and the owner shot him in self defense, I don't think the owner is at fault here. If the owner executed the man while he was showering, then one can argue the owner was in the wrong. For me, the fact that the home owner never actually left his own property to arm himself before investigating the intrusion further is key here and I'll be interested in seeing how the law is interpreted during this case.

We know the circumstances of how the man died. He was shot through the shower curtain 4 times. The man who shot him never said a word before doing so. He also never called the police after removing himself from the situation. All of this comes from the man that did the shooting. He's pretty much already confessed to the crime. The police have said it was not self defense. The DA initially charged the man with second degree murder but, after further examination of the case, upped the charges to first degree murder.

What you think about the situation has no relevance. Once he left the house the intruder was in..he was removed from the situation. At that point he should have called the police and waited for them to arrive.

[LMuhlen]

I'm pretty sure a naked man can be dangerous.

A bomb can also be dangerous. You don't shoot it, though. You leave and call the police.

Also, anything can somehow be dangerous. A puppy, a TV, your child, a bottle of wine. If you decide to shoot everything that COULD POTENTIALLY be dangerous, you'd run out of bullets eventually.

Unaware naked man in the shower armed with a bottle of shampoo isn't high on the list of danger IMO.

[Hammerfest]

We know the circumstances of how the man died.

Is there a link?

[Deleted]

Sophistry. I maintain that the home owner never actually removed himself from the situation since he never left property he owned. He saw something going on in one of his buildings, went to another building he owned (without leaving land he owned) and armed himself to confront the intruder. I don't think many people would question it if a farmer found that someone had broken into one of his barns and went back to his home to grab his shotgun before returning to the barn to confront the intruder. Until we know the circumstances of how the naked intruder died, we won't have clear picture of situation. If the naked intruder attempted to physically assault the property owner and the owner shot him in self defense, I don't think the owner is at fault here. If the owner executed the man while he was showering, then one can argue the owner was in the wrong. For me, the fact that the home owner never actually left his own property to arm himself before investigating the intrusion further is key here and I'll be interested in seeing how the law is interpreted during this case.

For me, the fact that the homeowner retreated beyond a lockable door, then returned after arming himself, counts as removing himself from the situation. They were in an area that was secure against the intruder; contacting police would have been the prudent thing to do, IMHO, along with arming self in case intruder penetrated across properties. You raise an interesting point regarding farmers; however, I feel that the difference here is, in fact, relating to the proximity and thus response time of police. On a farm you're presumably remote, and thus police response times are likely to be higher; I also disagree with a shoot first response in general, but that's personal opinion.

I'm pretty sure a naked man can be dangerous.

I can't disagree here; as someone who was running a charity shop yesterday that was robbed by someone who was, in all likelihood, unarmed (always a possibility that she had a knife hidden, but yeah. Not going to fight over £32, particularly when policy says to comply with aggressors, and there's also the possibility of accomplices around), you never know what danger a person can pose. Would you say that, say, Mike Tyson wasn't dangerous when unarmed? Obviously, when guns enter the situation, you get more control, and thus the danger posed can be minimized by range, but to discount a naked person as not dangerous is always risky. A naked person in the shower is unlikely to have weaponry to hand, though, and is not currently providing a threat. Being in the shower implies a disassociation from the weapon that naked does not.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Is there a link?

I've already provided such to you a couple pages ago.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.3018015

"The individual walks over, sees his screen in his yard and notices the door is kicked in. He goes in, hears the shower and goes in and yells at the guy to get off his property. The individual pops his head out of the shower, and the owner said it seemed like he was drunk," Chief Deputy Ryan Spurling told the Daily News Monday.

"The owner then walked back to his main residence, went upstairs, got a gun, came back down, walked back over to the other property, saw the individual was still there and shot through the curtain four times and killed the individual," Spurling said.

He said Washington has self-defense laws that protect property owners, but use of deadly force must be necessary and reasonable.

"There's no duty to retreat, but at this point, the owner did retreat. Then he came back and reintroduced himself to the situation and shot," he said. "Based on what he knew at the time and what he told us, it didn't fit self-defense."

[Orbitus]

I'm pretty sure a naked man can be dangerous.



He didn't "remove himself from the situation." He went from one edifice on his property to another to arm himself before confronting the intruder. If he had crossed over onto public property or someone else's property, you'd have a point. But he didn't, so you don't as far as I'm concerned.

Sure a naked man can be dangerous, but since this naked man didn't even know the guy was there, he wasn't. And this douche is going to jail for possibly the rest of his life.

If he left one building to go to another building, which he did, he most certainly did remove himself from a situation. It doesn't fucking matter if he didn't leave his property, he left the building. And when he is convicted, there is no if here, when he is convicted you will see this. But I don't expect much from someone that doesn't accept facts in the scientific community to accept this fact either.

[Daymanmb]

This is a weird story and I think the shooter might be lying..

Why did the "intruder" take a shower in his second unit? Was it after fucking the shooters wife?

Why did the shooter want to check on his second property all of the sudden?

Seems a bit off that he happened to stumble across an "intruder" who "broke in" to take a shower after he suddenly decided to check on his second property... Something is fishy..

The "intruder" fucked the shooters wife and the shooter walked in on it after suspecting something was amiss. He killed the "intruder"and staged the rest.

[Daymanmb]

It's actually something that happens sometimes. People walk in the wrong house on accident and get shot. One of the downfalls of castle doctrine for sure. It's a dangerous thing to mix with trigger happy fucks who just want to murder someone.

Come on.. he didnt realize there wasnt a party happening in the house hes showering in? He didnt confuse the houses and walk in, notice there was not a party and walked out realizing his mistake, he took a god damned shower lol. This doesnt pass the reasonable person test.

[Ghostpanther]

Come on.. he didnt realize there wasnt a party happening in the house hes showering in? He didnt confuse the houses and walk in, notice there was not a party and walked out realizing his mistake, he took a god damned shower lol. This doesnt pass the reasonable person test.

He was drunk. Easy to get things messed up and be confused.

[Daymanmb]

He was drunk. Easy to get things messed up and be confused.

"Fanning said he thought the man was drunk." Yet, "He shot Rosa three times through the shower curtain, court documents say." Furthermore, "There was no verbal confrontation before the shooting, court documents say."

So how exactly was Fanning able to make this distinction without communication or even being able to see him? All I can see is Fanning saying he thought the intruder was drunk. I cant find confirmation that he was, in fact intoxicated, never mind to what degree.

Also, none of this explains Fannings reason for wanting to inspect the second property all of the sudden. It seems like a coincidence and a coincidence is rarely that.