[Rumor]

Star-Telegram.com | 12/21/2006 | Resident shoots man on his property

The sign of the front door says: “Warning. Nothing inside is worth risking your life for. Owners of this property are armed and highly skilled to protect life, liberty and property from criminal attacks.”
And consider the sign on the front window: “No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.”

Even with the two signs, a guy still decides to break in. Idiot. Doesn't sound like the owner is going to be charged with anything, which I think is good.

Early Tuesday, another homeowner shot and seriously wounded a man he found in a detached garage on his property.
The homeowner told police that he believed that the man was burglarizing his home in the 4600 block of East Berry Street.
He fired a shotgun once at the man, hitting him in the chest, police said.
Investigators believe that the wounded man, identified as James Robert Jones, 40, had just been sleeping in the garage.
Jones was listed in critical condition Thursday at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth.
The homeowner told police that he was moving out of the house but had gone with a friend to check on the property shortly before 6 a.m. Tuesday.
The homeowner was questioned Tuesday and released. The case will be presented to the Tarrant County district attorney’s office to determine whether charges will be filed, Fort Worth police said.

This guy might be charged. I think the difference is that he used potentionally lethal force where the other guy used a disabling shot.

Either way, I suppose that's the risk you take entering someone elses home.

[Zeeb]

I know both guys clearly trespassed/broke in but the owners could have warned the intruder first--and the actual shootings may not have been necessary. I'm not opposed to shooting and even killing someone who is threatening your life but it should be a last resort.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

but the owners could have warned the intruder first--

What if the intruder also has a gun?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What if the intruder also has a gun?

What are the chances that they could draw and fire accurately more quickly than the guy who already has his gun loaded and aimed could just pull the trigger?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What are the chances that they could draw and fire accurately more quickly than the guy who already has his gun loaded and aimed could just pull the trigger?

If it was in the dark, how could you tell what was going on?

[Rumor]

Having two signs before you enter the house isn't warning enough?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Having two signs before you enter the house isn't warning enough?

What if he was illiterate?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If it was in the dark, how could you tell what was going on?

If it was that dark how did he even know that someone was there, let alone actually shoot them?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If it was that dark how did he even know that someone was there, let alone actually shoot them?

In the dark you can see people that shouldn't be there moving about. You cannot see what these people are holding or carrying with them.

Come on nonhuman this is just common sense. I have a feeling you are just arguing to be arguing.

[Zeeb]

The story mentioned one of these guys frequently visited a firing range. I can just picture him dreaming of an excuse to shoot someone with one of his new guns. He would get bragging rights at the range with his buddies.

If it was light enough for the owner to point a gun and shoot the guy it may have been light enough to determine if the intruder had a weapon.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

What if he was illiterate?

I wish there was a shaking fist emoticon. <--- I guess this will have to do.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

In the dark you can see people that shouldn't be there moving about. You cannot see what these people are holding or carrying with them.

Come on nonhuman this is just common sense. I have a feeling you are just arguing to be arguing.

Even if it's dark, he's already got the gun out. He can see where the guy is, he can see if the guy's moving or not. He could at least turn on the lights and see if maybe the guy's just some random drunk who got lost and fell asleep in the garage.

I agree that people should be allowed to defend themselves and their families with deadly force, and that, in the event, they have to be able to make the decision for themselves whether or not deadly force is warranted. I wouldn't say that what this guy did was or should be a crime, even if all he did was discover that there was a stranger on his property and shoot them with no warning (the very fact of being on someone else's property that you don't know should be warning enough). However I would encourage people, for moral not legal reasons, to at least try and resolve the situation without bloodshed.

That said, I probably would have done the same thing as him (Although my fiancee won't let me have a gun in the house until she's as comfortable using it as I am; a perfectly reasonable thing, I think, and probably just a really good idea. Of course that still leaves the question of if it's even worth it to get licensed in Massachusetts and where the hell we can find a range anywhere near here...)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I can just picture him dreaming of an excuse to shoot someone with one of his new guns.

And that, of course, is a big part of the problem. Just because someone owns a gun and actually takes the care and effort to know how to use it safely and effectively doesn't mean they're some sort of blood-thirsty maniac just waiting for a legal 'victim'.

Just because you're too immature to responsibly own a gun doesn't mean everyone is.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Even if it's dark, he's already got the gun out. He can see where the guy is, he can see if the guy's moving or not. He could at least turn on the lights and see if maybe the guy's just some random drunk who got lost and fell asleep in the garage.

Again you are still taking a big chance.

You are willing to. I am not.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And that, of course, is a big part of the problem. Just because someone owns a gun and actually takes the care and effort to know how to use it safely and effectively doesn't mean they're some sort of blood-thirsty maniac just waiting for a legal 'victim'.

Just because you're too immature to responsibly own a gun doesn't mean everyone is.

Oh please, I'm mature enough to know a gun isn't a toy or an extension of my masculinity.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I wish there was a shaking fist emoticon. <--- I guess this will have to do.

Hehehe.

We need a law mandating pictograms to accompany all no trespassing signs.

Also, they all must glow in the dark.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Oh please, I'm mature enough to know a gun isn't a toy or an extension of my masculinity.

So why aren't you assuming that this guy, who was actually responsible enough to spend a lot of time at the range practicing to keep his skills up, is as well?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What if the intruder also has a gun?

Well... you probably won't know until they shoot first.

By all means, give them that chance.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

So why aren't you assuming that this guy, who was actually responsible enough to spend a lot of time at the range practicing to keep his skills up, is as well?

Nonhuman, you were the first person to use the term, "responsible" and you used it to make an incorrect assertion about me.

However, I'm saying he fired quickly without asking questions. Police officers are better trained to deal with these situations and usually call out a warning first--unless a gun is pointed at them. According to the story that did not happen.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Nonhuman, you were the first person to use the term, "responsible" and you used it to make an incorrect assertion about me.

However, I'm saying he fired quickly without asking questions. Police officers are better trained to deal with these situations and usually call out a warning first--unless a gun is pointed at them. According to the story that did not happen.

The homeowner isn't a police officer*, hence does not have thier training.

*That I'm aware of.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Nonhuman, you were the first person to use the term, "responsible" and you used it to make an incorrect assertion about me.

However, I'm saying he fired quickly without asking questions. Police officers are better trained to deal with these situations and usually call out a warning first--unless a gun is pointed at them. According to the story that did not happen.

You were the one that appeared to make the 'logical' leap from 'frequently goes to the gun range' (i.e. responsible gun owner) to 'couldn't wait for an excuse to shoot someone with his shiny, loud toy' (i.e. immature moron with a gun). That's what I was objecting to: the common perception that gun owners are a bunch of violent louts just waiting for an excuse to kill.

I agree with you that he fired quickly without asking questions. I was the one who was saying that he possibly should have taken more precautions to see if the man was actually a threat or not. But Kevin is right that in the dark he had little way of ensuring that his life wasn't in danger without directly exposing himself to that threat.

[Doofy]

Homeowner's house, homeowner's rules. Anything else is subservience to an intrusive government.

Someone in your house who shouldn't be there? You should be able to shoot them then stake 'em on the front lawn to serve as a warning to other crooks. If you want to.
Personally I'd shoot 'em with non-lethals then tie 'em to a chair and force 'em to watch K-Fed videos for a month. Cruel and unusual? Yep. My house, my rules.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

You were the one that appeared to make the 'logical' leap from 'frequently goes to the gun range' (i.e. responsible gun owner) to 'couldn't wait for an excuse to shoot someone with his shiny, loud toy' (i.e. immature moron with a gun). That's what I was objecting to: the common perception that gun owners are a bunch of violent louts just waiting for an excuse to kill.

I agree with you that he fired quickly without asking questions. I was the one who was saying that he possibly should have taken more precautions to see if the man was actually a threat or not. But Kevin is right that in the dark he had little way of ensuring that his life wasn't in danger without directly exposing himself to that threat.

I'm not saying that gun owners in general are violent louts, I'm saying I have questions about the motives of this particular gun owner. Clearly, we need more details about this story and the guy may or may not be in the clear.

Even though you know how to "safely" use a gun (though that's somewhat of a contradiction in terms) doesn't mean you've been taught a protocol for preserving human life whenever possible. The police use this (or are supposed to in theory).

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Homeowner's house, homeowner's rules. Anything else is subservience to an intrusive government.

Someone in your house who shouldn't be there? You should be able to shoot them then stake 'em on the front lawn to serve as a warning to other crooks. If you want to.
Personally I'd shoot 'em with non-lethals then tie 'em to a chair and force 'em to watch K-Fed videos for a month. Cruel and unusual? Yep. My house, my rules.

Remind me to bring two or fifty good looking gals with nice boobies if I ever decide to stop by.

[Rumor]

Doesn't sound like a few of y'all are aware that there is actually two stories in my original post.

One where the guy shot the trespasser in the knee.

The other where the guy shot him in the chest with a shotgun.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I'm not saying that gun owners in general are violent louts, I'm saying I have questions about the motives of this particular gun owner. Clearly, we need more details about this story and the guy may or may not be in the clear.

Even though you know how to "safely" use a gun (though that's somewhat of a contradiction in terms) doesn't mean you've been taught a protocol for preserving human life whenever possible. The police use this (or are supposed to in theory).

But what is it that leads you to question his motives? That's he's in Texas? That he owns a gun? That he frequently uses his gun at a range? I just don't see anything here that would call his motives into question; he finds a stranger in his home, he defends himself from a threat.

I agree that this should be investigated. All shooting deaths should be. I just don't think it's productive for you to automatically be assuming that he's some sort of nut just because he frequents a shooting range.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Doesn't sound like a few of y'all are aware that there is actually two stories in my original post.

One where the guy shot the trespasser in the knee.

The other where the guy shot him in the chest with a shotgun.

I assumed we were talking about the chestshot. Shot to the knee seems like it would be pretty reasonable from most people's point of view.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I assumed we were talking about the chestshot. Shot to the knee seems like it would be pretty reasonable from most people's point of view.

Just checking.

Oh, the guy that got shot in the chest isn't dead. FYI

[climber]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I'm not saying that gun owners in general are violent louts, I'm saying I have questions about the motives of this particular gun owner. Clearly, we need more details about this story and the guy may or may not be in the clear.

Even though you know how to "safely" use a gun (though that's somewhat of a contradiction in terms) doesn't mean you've been taught a protocol for preserving human life whenever possible. The police use this (or are supposed to in theory).

You are showing your bias. There is no indication in the first story that the property owner had an itchy trigger finger. You question his motives simply because he actually shot someone. Also Gun and Safety are not a contradiction. All it requires is a responsible owner. The courts have generally ruled that shooting someone who is breaking into your home is not against the law.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Police officers are better trained to deal with these situations and usually call out a warning first--unless a gun is pointed at them. According to the story that did not happen.

Police officers go out into the world, into other people's houses.

Do you know how many officers shout out a warning when they find a burgular in their own house? Off duty?

I don't see this as a matter of training, not one bit. Potential threats out in the world are a completely different beast from ones that enter your home.

[centerchannel68]

If I found someone in my house, and had a gun, or a knife, I'd kill them. Why? If you wound them, they often come back later and try to sue your ass for something. Screw that. They die. I'm safe. The end.

If america's legal system wasn't so screwed up I'd totally agree with 'preserving life', but the fact is you can get sued for injuring someone breaking into your own house.

[climber]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I assumed we were talking about the chestshot. Shot to the knee seems like it would be pretty reasonable from most people's point of view.

I do not think there is any difference. If you use deadly force on an intruder you better have the legal right to do so. That means the person has to be a physical threat. Without that threat the use of a gun to incapacitate or apprehend would in my opinion be battery and against the law.

Generally someone who is breaking into or intruding in your home is considered automatically a physical threat. If someone broke in to my home I would call 911 and then prevent said intruder from making it up the stairs to the bedrooms. There they would be greeted by my .40 semi auto and 12 rounds regardless of their actual intent.

[climber]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

If I found someone in my house, and had a gun, or a knife, I'd kill them. Why? If you wound them, they often come back later and try to sue your ass for something. Screw that. They die. I'm safe. The end.

If america's legal system wasn't so screwed up I'd totally agree with 'preserving life', but the fact is you can get sued for injuring someone breaking into your own house.

It is also the plotline in countless horror/action movies. If you don't fill the bad guy up with a whole clip, they always come back at least one more time.

[sknapp351]

Originally Posted by climber 

If you use deadly force on an intruder you better have the legal right to do so. That means the person has to be a physical threat.

If there is an intruder in my house, illegally, criminally, then I do consider them a threat in every sense of the word. I think that is is being overlooked that these situations begin with someone willing to break the law and willing to place families in compromised situations. I do not think that a homeowner, legally inside their property should have to wait until a gun is even being raised in their direction.

SAm

[climber]

Originally Posted by sknapp351 

If there is an intruder in my house, illegally, criminally, then I do consider them a threat in every sense of the word. I think that is is being overlooked that these situations begin with someone willing to break the law and willing to place families in compromised situations. I do not think that a homeowner, legally inside their property should have to wait until a gun is even being raised in their direction.

SAm

Agreed! I was commenting on shooting someone in the knee versus the chest. Either location you had better have a legal reason to use deadly force, otherwise you are in trouble. Generally you can use deadly force to protect life and person, but can not when talking about property. The guy in the detached garage is arguably not posing an immediate physical threat. Thus shooting him in the knee or the chest is unwarranted.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

If I found someone in my house, and had a gun, or a knife, I'd kill them. Why? If you wound them, they often come back later and try to sue your ass for something. Screw that. They die. I'm safe. The end.

If america's legal system wasn't so screwed up I'd totally agree with 'preserving life', but the fact is you can get sued for injuring someone breaking into your own house.

You know, the person doesn't have to be alive for you to be sued. It sounds like some of you think that if you finish the person off that you're free of lawsuits. Nope. It's been known to happen that the relatives of the intruder will sue you. Just because you are cleared of criminal charges doesn't mean you're in the clear. The mother of the intruder just might end up owning the house her son broke into. I'm not saying its fair--it just is.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by climber 

It is also the plotline in countless horror/action movies. If you don't fill the bad guy up with a whole clip, they always come back at least one more time.

This is a good point. If you can't tell the difference between reality and a horror/action movie, you have no business with a gun. How does the saying go? Guns can get you into trouble but they can't get you out.

[climber]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

This is a good point. If you can't tell the difference between reality and a horror/action movie, you have no business with a gun. How does the saying go? Guns can get you into trouble but they can't get you out.

I am glad someone here understood my sarcasm. Shooting someone dead because they are a physical threat is one thing, but making sure they are dead just "because" is simply not very bright. I doubt you would win in court when said intruder wound up being the neighbor kid to drunk to walk into the right house!

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

You know, the person doesn't have to be alive for you to be sued. It sounds like some of you think that if you finish the person off that you're free of lawsuits. Nope. It's been known to happen that the relatives of the intruder will sue you. Just because you are cleared of criminal charges doesn't mean you're in the clear. The mother of the intruder just might end up owning the house her son broke into. I'm not saying its fair--it just is.

That's a lot less likely. I've even heard of some people throwing a bat or something in a dead person's hand so they have the case more solid. Whatever. I really don't care about dead criminals like that. Breaking and entering a bank, museum, company, etc is one thing, but someone else's home is something else entirely.

[Eynstyn]

Virtually all defensive shooting instruction teaches to shoot to stop the threat. Shooting at arms and legs can get you killed. You are taught to aim at the center of mass and double tap him. If he continues to come at you or pulls a weapon, shoot again until he stops trying to kill you. There is no consideration for whether the perp is dead or not. If you have reason to point a weapon at someone at all it's because that person is a threat to your life or if he is likely to pull a gun. If someone threatens your life you must stop that threat or risk losing your life to him.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn 

Virtually all defensive shooting instruction teaches to shoot to stop the threat. Shooting at arms and legs can get you killed. You are taught to aim at the center of mass. There is no consideration for whether the perp is dead or not. If you have reason to point a weapon at someone at all it's because that person is a threat to your life or if he is likely to pull a gun. If someone threatens your life you must stop that threat at risk of losing your life to him.

Exactly. The way I see it, once someone has made a threat against my life, they've forfeited the right to their own. If killing them is the only way that I can be sure they won't kill me, then you better believe they're not going to get the chance.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Exactly. The way I see it, once someone has made a threat against my life, they've forfeited the right to their own. If killing them is the only way that I can be sure they won't kill me, then you better believe they're not going to get the chance.

Please forget about the outcome of your shooting. If it is a necessary action to stop a threat and save your life you must focus ONLY on stopping the threat.

That is the only thing that is legally justified. There are people shot twice in COM by the police who are arrested and walk into the emergency room for treatment. The LEO's shoot to stop the threat.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Hehehe.

We need a law mandating pictograms to accompany all no trespassing signs.

Also, they all must glow in the dark.

In braille. Like on the drive-up ATM I use weekly.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn 

Please forget about the outcome of your shooting. If it is a necessary action to stop a threat and save your life you must focus ONLY on stopping the threat.

That is the only thing that is legally justified. There are people shot twice in COM by the police who are arrested and walk into the emergency room for treatment. The LEO's shoot to stop the threat.

My point was that the only way you can be absolutely sure that they're not going to pull another gun from somewhere once they're on the ground and you've let your guard down is for them to be dead. Put them on the ground, then put one in the head.

But even still, never ignore the fact that your actions have consequences. If you've killed someone defending your life, then you've still killed someone. You've taken a life. If that means nothing to you, then, frankly, I don't want you carrying a gun in the same space as me.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

My point was that the only way you can be absolutely sure that they're not going to pull another gun from somewhere once they're on the ground and you've let your guard down is for them to be dead. Put them on the ground, then put one in the head.

But even still, never ignore the fact that your actions have consequences. If you've killed someone defending your life, then you've still killed someone. You've taken a life. If that means nothing to you, then, frankly, I don't want you carrying a gun in the same space as me.

Let's be friendly here.

The act of putting a couple of rounds into an aggressor who is threatening your life is one thing. But putting a round in his head once he is down and no longer threatening you would be considered what? Think about why America got upset by the Rodney King video. He was down. He was defensive. Further blows on him were not needed to place him in custody.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn 

Let's be friendly here.

The act of putting a couple of rounds into an aggressor who is threatening your life is one thing. But putting a round in his head once he is down and no longer threatening you would be considered what? Think about why America got upset by the Rodney King video. He was down. He was defensive. Further blows on him were not needed to place him in custody.

If he seriously wants to kill you, then he's just as capable of doing it when he's on the floor bleeding. Unless you're 100% sure that he doesn't have another weapon on him, or you're going to sit there with your gun on him until some sort of reinforcements arrive, you're only option is to make sure he's dead. And if he seriously wants to kill you, you put a few rounds into him but don't kill him, and he gets taken away. What's to stop him from coming back to try again later? Maybe next time he'll catch you with your guard down.

Like I said before: when someone makes a threat against your life, they forfeit their right to their own.

[Jawbone54]

This story makes me smile almost as widely as when the granny shot the guy the broke into her home. You can hear her on the 911 call records saying, "YOU SON OF A *****! WHAT RIGHT DO YOU HAVE TO BREAK INTO MY HOME? YOU SON OF A *****!"

When someone breaks into my home, I have no idea if they're armed or not. I don't know how aggressive they may be. The fact that they broke into my house means at the very least that they intend to either harm me or commit SOME sort of criminal act. That is justification for me to take measures against them before they can do anything to me or my wife.

Potential victims CANNOT afford to take the chance.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Like I said before: when someone makes a threat against your life, they forfeit their right to their own.

Amen.

[climber]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn 

Let's be friendly here.

The act of putting a couple of rounds into an aggressor who is threatening your life is one thing. But putting a round in his head once he is down and no longer threatening you would be considered what? Think about why America got upset by the Rodney King video. He was down. He was defensive. Further blows on him were not needed to place him in custody.

You are wasting your breath here. They don't get it. I guess they can tell it to the jury when facing manslaughter charges.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Like I said before: when someone makes a threat against your life, they forfeit their right to their own.

That is actually not a legal principle.