Wa homeowner gets 5 years for killing burglar [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Wa homeowner gets 5 years for killing burglar


Glockin26
07-06-2011, 18:14
Http://www.king5.com/news/Homeowner-who-shoots-burglar-gets-5-years-in-prison-125100609.html

dated today at 1:29 PM by DREW MIKKELSEN / KING 5 News Bio | Email | Follow: @Drewmikk CHEHALIS, Wash. -An Onalaska man who shot and killed a man who he thought was going to rob him will spend more than 5 years in prison.

I carry in the garage and think its good thing to remember that a car pulling up to your house is not a life or death situation

rattlehead55
07-06-2011, 18:34
"That night he waited in his garage with a loaded rifle and when the McKenzies came up his driveway, Brady began shooting."

You cant just shoot some one for pulling into your drive way.

Patchman
07-06-2011, 18:38
Brady had been robbed repeatedly prior to the shooting.

That night he waited in his garage with a loaded rifle and when the McKenzies came up his driveway, Brady began shooting.

He shot at their car first, and when the couple pointed flashlights at Brady, he shot and killed McKenzie.

Brady's attorney said his client was acting in self-defense.

"Rob really believed they had weapons and he was about to be killed," said defense attorney Don Blair.

The couple did not have guns.

The article was short on information about what the couple were doing by turning into the driveway. Could they have thought they were at a friend's house they intended to visit?

How did Rob come to believe they had guns? Because flashlights are attachable to handguns? Scary.

Again this proves that if all one has is a hammer, all problems look like nails.

HotRoderX
07-06-2011, 18:40
That night he waited in his garage with a loaded rifle and when the McKenzies came up his driveway, Brady began shooting.
He shot at their car first, and when the couple pointed flashlights at Brady, he shot and killed McKenzie.


Really the guy lucky he got such a light sentence. I am not saying don't protect your self but that to me screams looking for trouble. True people came up to his home uninvited but that dont give you the right to open fire at them. What would have happened if this unaware couple just had a the wrong house. Idiots like this guy that get our rights restricted or taken away.

chandne
07-06-2011, 18:44
What a freaking moron! I am shocked that he received only 5 years. This is exactly why so many people think that gun owners are trigger-happy dumb rednecks!!

10mmWendel
07-06-2011, 18:56
McKenzie's family members made emotional pleas to the judge to give Brady the maximum sentence.
"There's no eternal life in heaven. For you, only hell," said Brady's sister, Colleen Walczak.
/\
Did they mean to say Mckenzie's sister?

This is the kind of person that gives gun owners a bad name. He should be forced to rot in prison.

cowboy1964
07-06-2011, 19:19
The article was short on information about what the couple were doing by turning into the driveway.

The article clearly says police said they came to "rob the house". It's a messed up situation, for sure. If he had been in the house and they had attempted to enter it probably would have been justified. Does Washington have a Castle Doctrine law?

If one or both of the couple had had a weapon, would it have been justified?

EODLRD
07-06-2011, 19:28
At the time he shot they were simply tresspassing.

He would have been fine if he challenged them. But shooting right off the bat? Hell no.

LongGoneDays
07-06-2011, 20:31
They expect him to show remorse? All that would have done is make him look guilty.
Don't rob people.

ncglock19
07-06-2011, 20:42
:agree:

"According to prosecutors, Brady never showed any remorse or regret for the shooting."

Big Farking Deal. If I ever shoot someone robbing my house, I don't think I will feel remorse or regret. I will, however, mention that the robber made their own decision to rob someone, and they chose the wrong someone.

nc19

10mmWendel
07-06-2011, 21:08
I will, however, mention that the robber made their own decision to rob someone, and they chose the wrong someone.

nc19

Fair point haha

eb31
07-06-2011, 21:25
:agree:

"According to prosecutors, Brady never showed any remorse or regret for the shooting."

Big Farking Deal. If I ever shoot someone robbing my house, I don't think I will feel remorse or regret. I will, however, mention that the robber made their own decision to rob someone, and they chose the wrong someone.

nc19

Careful. Not showing remorse or regret for the taking of anothers life in defense of yourself might have some on this forum label you a psychopath.



In other news, I agree with you.

mrsurfboard
07-06-2011, 21:51
:agree:

"According to prosecutors, Brady never showed any remorse or regret for the shooting."

Big Farking Deal. If I ever shoot someone robbing my house, I don't think I will feel remorse or regret. I will, however, mention that the robber made their own decision to rob someone, and they chose the wrong someone.

nc19

First off you can't "rob" a house. You can burglarize one though. Second, where was it proven that the couple was there to "burglarize" it. Sounds like another hothead got what he deserved.

BroncoAZ
07-06-2011, 23:07
Sounds like a problem the police wouldn't help the homeowner with, so he (wrongly) took matters into his own hands. This might have been avoided if the previous robberies were dealt with. Brady should have waited until the others were in the home, then called the PD and used deadly physical force if the situation dictated.

Glock!9
07-06-2011, 23:32
First off you can't "rob" a house. You can burglarize one though. Second, where was it proven that the couple was there to "burglarize" it. Sounds like another hothead got what he deserved.

The article says the police stated the couple was there to rob the place. Either the wife of the dead guy admitted to it or they had a track record of it. The guy had also been burglarized a few times in recent past.

Z28ricer
07-06-2011, 23:45
While he shouldnt have gotten that, the law existed before he did it.

If you are going to use firearms for defense, of your person and/or property, know the laws and limits of doing so where you are.

Z28ricer
07-06-2011, 23:46
First off you can't "rob" a house. You can burglarize one though. Second, where was it proven that the couple was there to "burglarize" it. Sounds like another hothead got what he deserved.


Did you actually even read the entire article ?

JuneyBooney
07-06-2011, 23:53
Http://www.king5.com/news/Homeowner-who-shoots-burglar-gets-5-years-in-prison-125100609.html

dated today at 1:29 PM by DREW MIKKELSEN / KING 5 News Bio | Email | Follow: @Drewmikk CHEHALIS, Wash. -An Onalaska man who shot and killed a man who he thought was going to rob him will spend more than 5 years in prison.

I carry in the garage and think its good thing to remember that a car pulling up to your house is not a life or death situation

I think that brings back the old saying, "shoot 'em and drag them into the house".

Patchman
07-07-2011, 06:10
The guy had also been burglarized a few times in recent past.

Yes, that's true.


The article says the police stated the couple was there to rob the place. Either the wife of the dead guy admitted to it or they had a track record of it.

The police realized this AFTER the shooting, after the police IDed the couple, spoke to the surviving wife, searched their car, check open burglary cases , etc... The legal issue was whether the homeowner knew all this immediately before shooting.

Obviously the judge felt sympathy.

reniram
07-07-2011, 07:00
Does Washington have a Castle Doctrine law?

I was wondering that too. Even so that usually applies when an intruder is in the house, not necessarily on the property IIRC. I'm guessing this will be appealed especially if WA does have CD.

Sam Spade
07-07-2011, 07:02
Your decision to use deadly force gets judged by what you knew at the time. not what you suspected or feared, not what you found out later, not what the police find out about the other guy.

Fail, therefore criminal.

reniram
07-07-2011, 07:10
Your decision to use deadly force gets judged by what you knew at the time. not what you suspected or feared, not what you found out later, not what the police find out about the other guy.

Fail, therefore criminal.

If that's the case there would be no such thing as self defense or justifiable homicide as there's no way of KNOWING with absolute certainty that anyone is going to kill you even if they are pointing a gun right at you. AFAIK the law says you have to be in FEAR of great bodily harm, not KNOW that great bodily harm will come to you. And the whole point of Castle Doctrine is that the law presumes that an intruder in your home is there to do you great bodily harm. Or am I mistaken about that?

Bren
07-07-2011, 07:17
Wow, that guy was an amazing retard. I can't believe he only got 5 years and didn't get convicted of murder. It clearly met the elements of murder, so I assume the jury had sympathy for his stupidity.

Bren
07-07-2011, 07:22
If that's the case there would be no such thing as self defense or justifiable homicide as there's no way of KNOWING with absolute certainty that anyone is going to kill you even if they are pointing a gun right at you. AFAIK the law says you have to be in FEAR of great bodily harm, not KNOW that great bodily harm will come to you. And the whole point of Castle Doctrine is that the law presumes that an intruder in your home is there to do you great bodily harm. Or am I mistaken about that?

What Sam Spade said is actually the law. It is also not what you said.

Your belief, to be reasonable and accepted by a court/jury, can only be based on what you knew when you used force. An example is the guy, I think named Fish, who shot a guy in a park a while back for coming toward him, apparently unarmed (after Fish shot at his dog). No jury would have accepted that he believed he was in danger of death or serious injury, but he tried to use the screwdriver in the guy's pocket and his criminal history as a basis for his action. Problem is, he didn't know about either when he shot the guy, so it is logically impossible for them to have contributed to his belief that he was in danger - since that belief determines justification, he had none.

Legal training or study is helpful, if you carry a gun.

Bren
07-07-2011, 07:26
The article says the police stated the couple was there to rob the place. Either the wife of the dead guy admitted to it or they had a track record of it. The guy had also been burglarized a few times in recent past.

So? For all he knew at the time, he was shooting somebody who pulled into the wrong address or needed to turn in his driveway. Just because he turned out to be right later, that doesn't create a basis for the use of force that could have influenced him at the time. I could go to the right part of town right now and pick a guy walking down the sidewalk and shoot him and have a very, very good chance of picking a guy who is armed and has a history of violent crime - that doesn't change the fact that I didn't believe I was in danger (and probably wasn't).

reniram
07-07-2011, 07:34
What Sam Spade said is actually the law. It is also not what you said.

Your belief, to be reasonable and accepted by a court/jury, can only be based on what you knew when you used force. An example is the guy, I think named Fish, who shot a guy in a park a while back for coming toward him, apparently unarmed (after Fish shot at his dog). No jury would have accepted that he believed he was in danger of death or serious injury, but he tried to use the screwdriver in the guy's pocket and his criminal history as a basis for his action. Problem is, he didn't know about either when he shot the guy, so it is logically impossible for them to have contributed to his belief that he was in danger - since that belief determines justification, he had none.

Legal training or study is helpful, if you carry a gun.

There was a case in Florida a couple of years ago where a homeowner confronted an unarmed guy on his property around 4:00 AM. He shot and killed the guy with an illegal shotgun (too short). The homeowner had previously been the victim of a home invasion, and his story was the intruder lunged at him. Anyway long story short he was convicted of possession of an illegal firearm, but never charged in the killing of the intruder as the DA determined it fell under Florida's Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground laws. I'm pretty sure the homeowner in this case could not KNOW the intruder meant to do him great bodily harm. So is the law that much different in Florida than in Washington? I don't think the case you cited has any relevance for Castle Doctrine law.

Bodyarmorguy
07-07-2011, 07:52
I think that brings back the old saying, "shoot 'em and drag them into the house".

Yeah......cause the cops will never figure that out.

Palmguy
07-07-2011, 07:53
And the whole point of Castle Doctrine is that the law presumes that an intruder in your home is there to do you great bodily harm. Or am I mistaken about that?

What Sam Spade said is actually the law. It is also not what you said.

The "law" is a collection of, at a minimum 50 different laws at the state level and possibly many more than that at the local level. The law is not the same everywhere. The end part of what reniram wrote is absolutely correct if you are in Florida.

Florida Statutes Chapter 776
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
...
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

That said, this particular case from the OP has nothing to do with an intruder inside the house.

Gallium
07-07-2011, 07:56
Your decision to use deadly force gets judged by what you knew at the time. not what you suspected or feared, not what you found out later, not what the police find out about the other guy.

Fail, therefore criminal.


I do believe the wording of the law here says something to the effect of "resonably believe..."


'Drew

reniram
07-07-2011, 07:59
The "law" is a collection of, at a minimum 50 different laws at the state level and possibly many more than that at the local level. The law is not the same everywhere. The end part of what reniram wrote is absolutely correct if you are in Florida.

Florida Statutes Chapter 776
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.ó(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that personís will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
...
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a personís dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

That said, this particular case from the OP has nothing to do with an intruder inside the house.

Thanks for that confirmation. I was pretty sure that's how Castle Doctrine is in Florida, but I didn't have my copy of the Florida Statutes in from of me. I think Florida's Castle Doctrine was the model the NRA used when they listed which states have true Castle Doctrine laws, but I'm not sure of that, and I don't know if Washington is on that list.

Mayhem like Me
07-07-2011, 08:52
There was a case in Florida a couple of years ago where a homeowner confronted an unarmed guy on his property around 4:00 AM. He shot and killed the guy with an illegal shotgun (too short). The homeowner had previously been the victim of a home invasion, and his story was the intruder lunged at him. Anyway long story short he was convicted of possession of an illegal firearm, but never charged in the killing of the intruder as the DA determined it fell under Florida's Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground laws. I'm pretty sure the homeowner in this case could not KNOW the intruder meant to do him great bodily harm. So is the law that much different in Florida than in Washington? I don't think the case you cited has any relevance for Castle Doctrine law.

The law does not state"know" the law states "fear of death or great bodily harm"
The only one that can prove that is the shooter and he does that in his/her statements and what was present at the scene.

Sam Spade
07-07-2011, 08:52
A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death...

You do understand that "presumed" is not a slam-dunk defense, right? It's just telling you where the starting point for the case is, and what the state has to overcome.

I do believe the wording of the law here says something to the effect of "resonably believe..."


'Drew
Your wording is more precise than mine. But "reasonable beliefs" are based on actual knowledge and reasonable inferences from that knowledge, not Walter Mitty internet fantasies. A set of headlights pulling into your driveway doesn't make the cut.

reniram
07-07-2011, 09:11
The law does not state"know" the law states "fear of death or great bodily harm"

That was exactly my point in my first post on this thread when I replied to a poster who used KNOW (actually he used the past tense KNEW). FEAR is the operative word in the Florida Statutes, and FEAR is presumed under Floirida Castle Doctrine according to the Florida Statutes. It may be different in Washington.

Bren
07-07-2011, 09:36
The "law" is a collection of, at a minimum 50 different laws at the state level and possibly many more than that at the local level. The law is not the same everywhere. The end part of what reniram wrote is absolutely correct if you are in Florida.


I have some idea what the "law" is. That is also the law in Kentucky (the section you quoted). I even teach a class on it to law enforcement. Here, that section is in KRS 503.055. BUT it has nothing t do with this discussion of shooting people who pull their car into your driveway. Nobody entered or attempted to enter the home. So what he said is not relevant but, on point, it is also not a restatement of what Same Spade said, to which he replied.

Cream Soda Kid
07-07-2011, 09:40
The way that Ronald Brady handled it was downright stupid. He actually set up an ambush for those two people. I too, am surprised that 63 months is all he got for a sentence.

DOrth
07-07-2011, 10:25
If that's the case there would be no such thing as self defense or justifiable homicide as there's no way of KNOWING with absolute certainty that anyone is going to kill you even if they are pointing a gun right at you. AFAIK the law says you have to be in FEAR of great bodily harm, not KNOW that great bodily harm will come to you. And the whole point of Castle Doctrine is that the law presumes that an intruder in your home is there to do you great bodily harm. Or am I mistaken about that?

They didn't break into his house, nor did they point a gun at him. CD would have applied if he'd have been inside his house and they have forced entry. It would be impossible to claim that you feared for your life just because someone pulled up in your driveway. Had he waited until they got out of the car and challenged them he'd have been fine, but he chose to assume they were going to be a threat and opened fire.

How much time do you think he'd have gotten if he'd opened fire on a family who had simply pulled into the wrong driveway after they realized they'd gone too far, or had simply been mistaken about the house number they were going to? I think he was shown a great deal of leniency by the court.

reniram
07-07-2011, 10:40
They didn't break into his house, nor did they point a gun at him. CD would have applied if he'd have been inside his house and they have forced entry. It would be impossible to claim that you feared for your life just because someone pulled up in your driveway. Had he waited until they got out of the car and challenged them he'd have been fine, but he chose to assume they were going to be a threat and opened fire.

How much time do you think he'd have gotten if he'd opened fire on a family who had simply pulled into the wrong driveway after they realized they'd gone too far, or had simply been mistaken about the house number they were going to? I think he was shown a great deal of leniency by the court.

The case I mentioned in post 26 didn't involve any forced entry into the home and the intruder was unarmed. On top of that the homeowner used an illegal (for him to own) short barrelled shotgun.

In the WA case on this thread there is some discrepancy between theprint article and the video where the reporter says the homeowner had been burglarized several times including earlier that day, and that the couple knocked on the door first. Very few people today knock on strangers doors at 10:00 PM asking for directions. I'm not gonna second guess anything. I wasn't there, and I don't know all the details of the case beyond what's on the link (and as I mentioned there are discrepancies between the print and video). It may well be the verdict and sentence are justified. I just wanted to point out there have been cases with similar scenarios and different legal outcomes. The DA didn't even file charges in the case I cited in post 26.

Glock!9
07-07-2011, 12:08
So? For all he knew at the time, he was shooting somebody who pulled into the wrong address or needed to turn in his driveway. Just because he turned out to be right later, that doesn't create a basis for the use of force that could have influenced him at the time. I could go to the right part of town right now and pick a guy walking down the sidewalk and shoot him and have a very, very good chance of picking a guy who is armed and has a history of violent crime - that doesn't change the fact that I didn't believe I was in danger (and probably wasn't).

I did not say that at all....I did not condone his actions.

Donn57
07-07-2011, 22:29
The case I mentioned in post 26 didn't involve any forced entry into the home and the intruder was unarmed. On top of that the homeowner used an illegal (for him to own) short barrelled shotgun.

In the WA case on this thread there is some discrepancy between theprint article and the video where the reporter says the homeowner had been burglarized several times including earlier that day, and that the couple knocked on the door first. Very few people today knock on strangers doors at 10:00 PM asking for directions. I'm not gonna second guess anything. I wasn't there, and I don't know all the details of the case beyond what's on the link (and as I mentioned there are discrepancies between the print and video). It may well be the verdict and sentence are justified. I just wanted to point out there have been cases with similar scenarios and different legal outcomes. The DA didn't even file charges in the case I cited in post 26.

The big difference between the two cases is that in the one you cited, the shooter claimed that the intruder lunged at him. Besides, someone in your yard at 4:00 in the morning can be assumed to have ill intentions.

On the other hand, unidentified individuals pulling into a driveway are not an immediate threat no matter how many times the guy's house had been burglarized.

A reasonable person has reason to fear for their life if someone lunges at them in the dark at 4:00 AM. A reasonable person doesn't start shooting at every car that pulls into his driveway.

Donn57
07-07-2011, 22:32
Really the guy lucky he got such a light sentence. I am not saying don't protect your self but that to me screams looking for trouble. True people came up to his home uninvited but that dont give you the right to open fire at them. What would have happened if this unaware couple just had a the wrong house. Idiots like this guy that get our rights restricted or taken away.

Actually, he didn't get a light sentence. 63 months was the maximum sentence he could receive for the charge on which he was convicted.

OldCurlyWolf
07-08-2011, 01:27
First off you can't "rob" a house. You can burglarize one though. Second, where was it proven that the couple was there to "burglarize" it. Sounds like another hothead got what he deserved.

Slight misrepresentation there. Robbery means the owner of the property is present and in view. Burglary/theft means the owner of the property is not present or not in view.

The owner was present and in view. Attempting to take anything from the property would have been robbery

Bren
07-08-2011, 05:10
Slight misrepresentation there. Robbery means the owner of the property is present and in view. Burglary/theft means the owner of the property is not present or not in view.

The owner was present and in view. Attempting to take anything from the property would have been robbery

Technically, you can do both. In 2006 the legislature actually changed one of our statutes so that it refers to using force to prevent, among others, "robbery of" your dwelling. I make fun of that when I teach the class, but I also point out that entering or remaining in a building/house unlawfully, for the purpose of robbing a person, is both burglary and robbery.

doktarZues
07-08-2011, 05:33
From what I read they did determine they were there to ROB the house (sue me you dorks). Bad guy gets shot, family talks about how he was such a wonderful person, life goes on.

I'm on the fence on whether the guy should be in jail, guess I understand either way.

rjflyn
07-08-2011, 13:39
About the comments on Florida, having lived there for 4 years and seen a fair share of shootings in the paper I can attest that pretty much their CD law is solid. You force your way in to someones home thats pretty much prima facia evidence that your there to do harm and open yourself up to whatever the consequence. There was on incident where there were several teens who broke in to the home where the owner possessed drugs, he was cleared on the shoot, but got dinged on the weed. The kids posse got charged in his murder.

Palouse
07-08-2011, 14:08
The article clearly says police said they came to "rob the house". It's a messed up situation, for sure. If he had been in the house and they had attempted to enter it probably would have been justified. Does Washington have a Castle Doctrine law?

If one or both of the couple had had a weapon, would it have been justified?

There is no specific castle doctrine law in WA, but there is case law that supports castle doctrine despite it not being called as such. As the article stated, if McKenzie had been inside the garage, no charges would likely have been filed.

Palmguy
07-08-2011, 14:33
You do understand that "presumed" is not a slam-dunk defense, right? It's just telling you where the starting point for the case is, and what the state has to overcome.

Yes. I understand that the fact that someone may be in your house illegally does not grant you the legal authority to do whatever the hell you want to them. That said (and with the admitted disclaimer that I understand I am continuing a discussion outside the scope of the OP but will do so because I am being asked a question), Florida law does go pretty far to protect the people's rights to defend themselves in their homes (FS 776.012, 776.013) and protect them in that action from prosecution including arrest in the absence of evidence that the use of force was not protected by the aforementioned statutes (FS 776.032).


Your wording is more precise than mine. But "reasonable beliefs" are based on actual knowledge and reasonable inferences from that knowledge, not Walter Mitty internet fantasies. A set of headlights pulling into your driveway doesn't make the cut.

I could not agree more.



I have some idea what the "law" is. That is also the law in Kentucky (the section you quoted). I even teach a class on it to law enforcement. Here, that section is in KRS 503.055. BUT it has nothing t do with this discussion of shooting people who pull their car into your driveway. Nobody entered or attempted to enter the home. So what he said is not relevant but, on point, it is also not a restatement of what Same Spade said, to which he replied.

Understood. That's why the very last thing I posted was this:


That said, this particular case from the OP has nothing to do with an intruder inside the house.

CBDAVIS
07-08-2011, 15:16
In Oklahoma the CD extends to any mode of transportation. If someone attempts to pull you out of your car or off your bike, my reading of the law indicated you can use whatever force required, including deadly force, to keep them from doing so.

I think under Oklahoma law that a person would have a problem shooting at someone driving in their driveway unless, perhaps, they were shooting at you.

shaffer
07-08-2011, 20:06
Assuming the police were right, it sounds like timing was the only issue here. Poor guy jumped the gun instead of hanging low until they entered the house to commit the burglary.

Bren
07-09-2011, 08:15
Assuming the police were right, it sounds like timing was the only issue here. Poor guy jumped the gun instead of hanging low until they entered the house to commit the burglary.

You are exactly right - but timing is everything.

HarleyGuy
07-09-2011, 11:14
Would a reasonable man;

Sit in his garage armed, waiting for someone to walk or drive onto his property?

Open fire on someone without knowing their intentions or if they were armed or capable of causing him serious injury or death?

If the homeowner truly felt that his or his family's life was in danger he should have been INSIDE the house, on the phone calling 9-1-1.

It is not illegal (perhaps it is in Texas) to walk onto, or drive onto a person's driveway late at night.
Nor is it illegal to knock on someone's door, but the homeowner is NOT required to answer the knock if they choose not to.

Had the shooter been inside of his home none of this may have happened.

My (previous) home was burglarized and I can sympathize with the feeling of being victimized but burglary is NOT a capital crime.

Shooting someone because you think you can do it legally is not the act of a reasonable man.

federali
07-09-2011, 18:14
Robbery and burglary are two different crimes. You may be burglarized without being robbed. A burglary can also become a robbery. Robbery is the more serious of the two regarding use of force.
So, were they coming to burglarize the house or to rob someone at gunpoint? I don't think the newspeople understand the difference.

That the homeowner has experienced previous property crimes does not authorize him to open fire on a car in his driveway. People occasionally use my driveway to change directions and I don't wait for them with a scatter gun or an AR-15.

Human life is precious and it should never be needlessly sacrificed. You must know your local laws and you must be certain that if you don't employ deadly force, you will likely suffer death or serious injury. The homeowner's justification was flimsy at best. Now that he's a convicted felon and forbidden firearms, hopefully, he won't again embarrass gun owners.

Donn57
07-09-2011, 21:08
Shooting someone because you think you can do it legally is not the act of a reasonable man.

That may put quite a few folks around here in the "unreasonable man" category.