Ck this out man gets blasted

[ted]

http://www.wsmv.com/story/16680146/police-resident-pulls-gun-on-would-be-burglars

[Jonsaiga]

• Unless the home owner gets extremely luck, he will be going to jail. He was justified in his actions against the intruder but far from it with the guy outside.
  

[QuietDan]

I love stories like this, and I love the comments that come afterwards. I try to Plus 1 the positive comments and Minus 1 the negative comments. The Plus 1's to into a big ol' database in the sky and the media outlet uses the numbers to decide what to cover next time. More Plus 1's, more homeowner versus the burglar stories get covered.

[QuietDan]

• Unless the home owner gets extremely luck[y], he will be going to jail. He was justified in his actions against the intruder but far from it with the guy outside.
  

The homeowner wasn't charged at the scene, that's a good sign. It's weasel words to say that the homeowner's use of force will be a part of the investigation. Deep down inside, I imagine the cops are cheering. A grand jury would probably 'no bill' this. Two more useless thugs off the street -- for now. Probably would have been better if they were approaching air temperature.

I know we're all supposed to be champions of life and of following the rules closely, but for gosh sakes so many of us have been victimized by criminals that a lot of us just want to jump up and down with joy when the victims fight back, even if they don't always follow all the rules. Bloodthirsty of me, I know, I should be ashamed of myself but I'm not.

[Guest pfries]

Well I plused one your post QuietDan hope it does not bring any unwanted attention

[QuietDan]

Well I plused one your post QuietDan hope it does not bring any unwanted attention

Thank you very much I'll surely take it Sir -- but I'm not trying to troll for bonus points on TGO. I'm sure you know that I mean Plus 1'ing the comments that follow the story on the WSMV website, or wherever the story is originally posted.

[Dennis1209]

Well, guess who is paying the astronomical medical bills to save this scum bags life and limb? It be YOU... fellow comrads, through your taxes. Makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over does it?

[Guest NYCrulesU]

The homeowner wasn't charged at the scene, that's a good sign. It's weasel words to say that the homeowner's use of force will be a part of the investigation. Deep down inside, I imagine the cops are cheering. A grand jury would probably 'no bill' this. Two more useless thugs off the street -- for now. Probably would have been better if they were approaching air temperature.

I know we're all supposed to be champions of life and of following the rules closely, but for gosh sakes so many of us have been victimized by criminals that a lot of us just want to jump up and down with joy when the victims fight back, even if they don't always follow all the rules. Bloodthirsty of me, I know, I should be ashamed of myself but I'm not.

Well said!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Nothing bloodthirsty about it. You have a right to protect your property and your

family. Give him a trophy.

If every time the person defending his property is scrutinized more than the criminal,

some of the laws need to be changed. It's too easy to become a criminal when you

really are the victim.

[Jonsaiga]

The homeowner wasn't charged at the scene, that's a good sign. It's weasel words to say that the homeowner's use of force will be a part of the investigation. Deep down inside, I imagine the cops are cheering. A grand jury would probably 'no bill' this. Two more useless thugs off the street -- for now. Probably would have been better if they were approaching air temperature.

I know we're all supposed to be champions of life and of following the rules closely, but for gosh sakes so many of us have been victimized by criminals that a lot of us just want to jump up and down with joy when the victims fight back, even if they don't always follow all the rules. Bloodthirsty of me, I know, I should be ashamed of myself but I'm not.

For clarification sake...... are you refering to my words as "weasel words"?

[QuietDan]

For clarification sake...... are you refering to my words as "weasel words"?

Nope. The words in the story. The police dodged the issue of the beat down applied to the perpetrator by the victim and didn't diss on the victim's use of force. They said it would be a part of the investigation and made no on the spot judgement or characterization of it.

[Jonsaiga]

^{Thanks for clarifying Dan!}

^{I agree 100% that the law regarding defending property needs to be changed. However, current law states that you do not have a right to defend your property alone and you can not use leathal force to do so. Any one who has taken the HCP class knows that this is specifically pointed out as not being a justifiable shooting situation. If things went down as reported, andthe man outside was not actively posing a threat of immediate serious bodily harm and/or death to the home owner.......... then the home owner was not justified by law to open fire on the second man. I'm not disagreeing with the home owner's actions........ I'm saying he acted outside of what the law allows .}

^{The home owner would have been legally justified in shooting and killing the first man as soon as he forcably entered his home whether he felt the threat of serious bodily harm or not because it is implied according to the law, because he entered an occupied dwelling. If they are inside it is implied.... if they are outside it must be shown they posed a threat to immediate harm.}

^{Now.... do I personally feel that the home owner was justified in his actions? Yes I do! Do I personally think the home owner should be able to defend his property? Yes I do!!!! I think the guy deserves a medal and would gladly buy him a beer and a box of shells. But it is not about what I think and how I personally feel about what went down......... it is about what the law allows in the given situation!}

^{From the story it sounds like the police haven't charged the home owner yet. This tells me they probably don't want to. However, since the home owner technically acted outside the perimeters of the law..... the case will have to be reviewed by the DA and the decesion on whether or not to press charges will be left up to the DA's office.}

[QuietDan]

^{Thanks for clarifying Dan!}

^{I agree 100% that the law regarding defending property needs to be changed. However, current law states that you do not have a right to defend your property alone and you can not use leathal force to do so. Any one who has taken the HCP class knows that this is specifically pointed out as not being a justifiable shooting situation. If things went down as reported, andthe man outside was not actively posing a threat of immediate serious bodily harm and/or death to the home owner.......... then the home owner was not justified by law to open fire on the second man. I'm not disagreeing with the home owner's actions........ I'm saying he acted outside of what the law allows .}

^{The home owner would have been legally justified in shooting and killing the first man as soon as he forcably entered his home whether he felt the threat of serious bodily harm or not because it is implied according to the law, because he entered an occupied dwelling. If they are inside it is implied.... if they are outside it must be shown they posed a threat to immediate harm.}

^{Now.... do I personally feel that the home owner was justified in his actions? Yes I do! Do I personally think the home owner should be able to defend his property? Yes I do!!!! I think the guy deserves a medal and would gladly buy him a beer and a box of shells. But it is not about what I think and how I personally feel about what went down......... it is about what the law allows in the given situation!}

^{From the story it sounds like the police haven't charged the home owner yet. This tells me they probably don't want to. However, since the home owner technically acted outside the perimeters of the law..... the case will have to be reviewed by the DA and the decesion on whether or not to press charges will be left up to the DA's office.}

I'm thinking we're reading it pretty similar . . .

I'm also thinking that . . . don't know the exact technical term and it probably varies from state to state . . . there's a "what would a reasonable person caught in the heat of the moment do" standard that gets applied to cut down on the DA's monday morning quarterbacking. I imagine the victim's lawyer would help assist his client in shaping his statements to encourage the DA to see things that way. I also imagine the cops would need a lot less encouragement -- along the lines of "So Mr Victim, if I understand you correctly, you were in FEAR OF YOUR LIFE when you shot Mr Perpetrator?? . . . " . . . and Mr Victim says, "Yes, exactly Officer, I was in FEAR OF MY LIFE when I shot Mr Perpetrator . . . "

Edited February 11, 2012 by QuietDan

[Moped]

After reading the story, I doubt that the homeowner will face any charges in the end, I pretty sure that here in Knoxville, the police would buy his lunch! That sort of stuff just doesn't happen here.

[Makiaveli]

I believe the second guy was shot when he got out of the truck. So not a stretch to think he was in fear of the guy coming at him.

Remember this guy had ALREADY been shot at, and was approaching the victim a 2nd time. Seems to me that means he is either delusional and thus likely to pose a threat or has some plan to harm the victim despite the shotgun.

[Guest Republican]

I think the fact that he used non lethal force on the guy he caught says alot. He could have just murdered him if he wanted. He obviously thought the guy in the truck was armed and he might have been.

PS

It reaffirms your love for shotguns when you read a story like this.