From The Armed Citizen.
From the Publication of January 6, 2010
Burglary suspect shot by Jarales homeownerCharges are pending against a man who was shot in the chest by a Jarales resident while allegedly trying to break in.
Valencia County Sheriff’s Deputy Chris Trujillo said the shooting occurred shortly after midnight on New Years Day at a house on Mill Road.
According to the deputy, the homeowner, whose name has not been released, heard someone trying to break into his home and called 911. When the suspect entered the house, the homeowner shot him once in the chest, Trujillo said.
“The intruder was airlifted to University of New Mexico Hospital,” Trujillo said.
He said the suspect’s condition was not immediately known Monday, but he is expected to face breaking and entering and other charges upon his release from the hospital. Police are not releasing the suspect’s name until the charges have been filed.
Trujillo said the homeowner is not being charged with any crime.
“He was defending his property,” Trujillo said.
My contention is that many of these so-called DGUs are nothing of the kind. In this story, for example, it sounds like the homeowner laid in wait for the burglar. I pictured a spider quietly awaiting his prey. In my opinion there's too much emphasis on the stand-your-ground defending-what's-mine mentality and too little emphasis on the value of life, even the criminal's.
Even when these incidents fall within the letter of the law, it is morally wrong to shoot someone when it can be avoided.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Mikeb, you ever stick your hand in a beehive? How much you wanna bet the bees sting you?
ReplyDeleteWell, people sting too. Only with bullets. All animals (man included) protect their personal space.
It's easy to talk about value of a criminal's life when you're not the victim. But when it's your house being broken into and your life that's potentially at risk, baser instincts take over.
Personally, i think the intruder is lucky. He'll live to intrude another day. And if he has sustained permanent injuries, he might even get a disability check from the government.
So what are you saying?
ReplyDeleteYou believe that spiders call 911 and then eat a fly?
Guess the homeowner should have waited to see what the intruder's real intentions were. I mean was he there to commit a crime or was he there to commit a crime? Because if he was there to commit a crime then obviously the homeowner should never have defended himself but if instead he was there to commit a crime then the homeowner would be justified.
ReplyDeleteMike, what from this story leads you to believe that the homeowner was lying in wait for a burglar to come in so he could shoot them? Sounds like the product of an overactive imagination to me.
ReplyDeleteWhen the suspect entered the house, the homeowner shot him once in the chest.
ReplyDeleteGood shoot. Case closed. Getting shot by homeowners is an occupation hazard of burglary.
Don't want to be shot? Quit breaking into homes. Simple right?
BTW - Here in Delaware you may use deadly force to halt the commission of a "forcible felony." Guess what's considered a "forcible felony?" Oh yeah, burglary.
FWM - Maybe he just broke in so he could sit down with the homeowner and chat over some milk & cookies....
ReplyDeleteEven when these incidents fall within the letter of the law, it is morally wrong to shoot someone when it can be avoided.
ReplyDeleteIt easily could have been avoided MikeB. Had he not broken into this guys home he would not have been shot.
His actions caused him to be shot.
Legitimate DGU. Breaking into peoples homes in the dark of night should always be hazardous to your health. Making burglaries safer for burglars will encourage more to choose this particular career path.
ReplyDeleteCalled 911 first, then shot someone once they were in his house? Sounds fine to me.
ReplyDeleteWhat would you propose the victim do in a case like this? (The home invasion victim I mean, not the felon who got shot)
This story needs more nuance. Was the intruder armed? Was it a drunk man thinking he was entering his own home? Or a starving kid looking for a meal? A reflexive killing of a person who except for entering a home without authorization posed no threat seems like an excessive use of force.
ReplyDeleteIt's also a good way to kill your teenage son accidentally.
This homeowner knew someone was attempting to enter, armed himself, and as Mikeb points out apparently laid in wait. He had already called 911 and authorities were on the way. If he could determine that the intruder was not armed, subdue him with less than deadly force, and turn him over to the police, he should do so.
Only if the intruder was armed and ignored warnings to stop should deadly force be used.
It's so sad that this guy survived after being shot in the chest.
ReplyDeleteThe home owner should buy some better ammo.
He probably used run of the mill FMJ(full metal jacket) when he should have dispensed CTJ rounds.
CTJ is "Come to Jesus". It's at every gun show I attend.
Damn nice defensive rounds; it explodes inside flesh.
No survivors.
To me it seems like a sad sick society when people feel this kind of killing is justified.
ReplyDeleteI may have an overactive imagination, as RuffRidr said, but how else do you picture this scene from the details given? I'd say anyone who thought this was a case of lethal threat has the overactive imagination. And anyone who thinks it was justified because the guy was committing a felony is lacking in compassion for everyone involved, shooter included.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteThe man did everything he could to give the police a chance to protect him. When the state failed to show up in time, he was left with little recourse.
Whether or not there are 2 million or just 2 DGU's a year, that does not change the fact that there are thousands of murders and rapes committed every year where the victim did not or could not defend themselves.
It is easy for us to armchair quarterback what others have gone through, but honestly Mike, if you were in the same situation, which side of the ledger would you want to be on?
It is justified. Breaking into peoples homes carries with it the risk of being killed by the occupants.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong with that.
"Making burglaries safer for burglars will encourage more to choose this particular career path."
ReplyDeleteLook no further than Great Britain for proof of this.
Not knowledgeable on New Mexico self-defense laws to say for sure, but if it follows like other southwestern states, it's a justifiable homicide. Even if it's not, you'll never find a jury in that part of the country that will convict. In most of the Southwest, it's culturally acceptable to use deadly force to prevent a home invasion.
ReplyDeleteA lawyer I know from the Southwest told me a story once of a prosecutor who kept bringing cases of homeowners shooting burglars in the back, and who kept getting acquittals. Asked why he kept bringing these kinds of cases, he said "Well, this kind of situation is really the only kind of case you can bring under the revised statutes." The reply was "It doesn't matter what the statutes say, if you can't find a jury that will convict on it, for all intents and purposes, the practice is legal."
Like it or not, that's how our system works.
Heh, I remember that story Sebastian. Wasn't it in AZ?
ReplyDeleteAnd anyone who thinks it was justified because the guy was committing a felony is lacking in compassion for everyone involved, shooter included.
ReplyDeleteDamn skippy I lack compassion for people who think they're entitled to other people's stuff to the point they'll break in and try to take it. Those creatures are the two-legged equivalent of rabid dogs and for the sake of civil society deserve the same fate. You know, now that I think about it, that's probably an insult to rabid dogs because those people, unlike the rabid dog, make a conscious choice to do what they do. Why should I put the same value on the criminal's life as I do my own? More to the point, why should I put the same value on said criminal's life as I do those I love? And just how far are you personally willing to take that line of reasoning? Where do you draw the line? And why?
You're good at saying that pretty much every use of a gun is wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhat the fuck is the right thing for the homeowner to do here? "Here, let me help you carry that so you don't hurt your back"?
I'm serious--what do you think the homeowner should have done?
Pistolero, Thanks for coming by. I knew you'd be one of those compassionless ones when it comes to criminals. What I don't know is where that attitude comes from. Is it the result of being squeaky clean yourself. Are you one of those guys who've never brocken the slightest law? That would surely give you the right to talk that tough talk. But that would also make you a rare example. Even Mike W. admitted today somewhere around here that anyone who's owned guns for a couple years or more has inadvertently committed crimes. But those you blame on the laws, those wouldn't be your fault.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason people get so opinionated about criminals is to feel superior to them. You know, the clear divide between the good guys and the bad guys which allows the good guys to scorn the bad guys as bums and losers.
Or is there some other reason? Why do you have this attitude?
What I don't know is where that attitude comes from. Is it the result of being squeaky clean yourself. Are you one of those guys who've never brocken the slightest law?
ReplyDeleteLots of people have broken administrative laws. Hell, you can't live your day to day life without committing federal crimes, really. But that's because our society has criminalized nearly everything. That doesn't shed any lights on the moral implications of violent crimes, which is the proper frame you want to argue in.
If someone decides another person's life is worth threatening over a material good, they've surrendered whatever consideration they are owed as a fellow human being. I think the same for people who would break into someone's house in the middle of the night. A homeowner should not first have to ascertain your intention there. Break into an occupied home, I have no problem with the law defaulting to your intent being felonious, mad quite probably violent, and allowing homeowners to use deadly force to terminate the intrusion.
Heh, I remember that story Sebastian. Wasn't it in AZ?
ReplyDeleteYes, it was.
FWM asks, "...if you were in the same situation, which side of the ledger would you want to be on?"
ReplyDeleteWell, I wouldn't have a gun unless I lived in a very bad neighborhood like Detroit or Newark, so I'd have to do the best I could with bare hands or improvised weapons. But if I did have a gun and someone was breaking in I'd try to ensure there was lethal threat before shooting the guy. Anything short of that would make me one of the bad guys rather than a DGU hero. And the fact that the law allows for this doesn't change it from murder in my book. If you kill somebody you don't have to, that's murder, even if the poor bastard was in the middle of a felony himself.
Is it the result of being squeaky clean yourself. Are you one of those guys who've never brocken the slightest law?
ReplyDeleteBetter not light a match, lest that straw man burn your house down. For you to imply that has a thing to do with the price of tea in China means that you think speeders are on a par with thieves, rapists and murderers, which says more about your morals than anything. And FYI: I don't FEEL superior to thieves, rapists and murders. I AM superior to them. Because they ARE bums and losers.
If you kill somebody you don't have to, that's murder, even if the poor bastard was in the middle of a felony himself.
ReplyDeleteExcept that the law disagrees with you and says it is in fact justifiable homicide.
Another reason people get so opinionated about criminals is to feel superior to them.
ReplyDeleteI don't need to "feel" superior to violent criminals. I am superior to them. Notice I said Violent? Most of us are criminals one way or another. Most of us break laws, knowingly or otherwise, but most of do not commit predatory acts of violence against our fellow citizens.
Why should I have respect or compassion for someone who acts as though he may do what he wants to people, and take what he wants by threat of violence and brute force?
Why in the hell should I have compassion for someone who thinks that approaching me on the street, pulling a weapon and demanding that I give up my property is an acceptable form of social interaction?
I have compassion and respect for the guy who is hard up and asks me for a bite to eat, or for a few bucks so he can catch the bus. Why? because those folks are asking for help rather than assaulting me.
You are comparing violent criminals who prey upon others with those who are caught in a clusterfuck of gun laws that no person could reasonably be expected to know.
A gun owner who has inadvertently committed a VICTIMLESS crime by stepping over a state line or accidentally walked within 1000ft of a school while harming no one and going about his business is NOT the same as someone who commits rape, or murders someone, or makes the conscious decision to forcibly enter someone else's home.
"But if I did have a gun and someone was breaking in I'd try to ensure there was lethal threat before shooting the guy."
ReplyDeleteAnd when does that happen? When he holds a gun up and says "I'm going to kill you now." Is that when you say "oh crap, you're serious. Let me get my gun first. Hold on a second."
We were not there and do not know what the homeowner thought or what transpired. Perhaps he did wait as long as he could. He certainly wasn't "lying in wait". He called the police but as the saying goes, "when seconds count, the police is only minutes away".
At least you admit you would use deadly force if there were no other option. You are far ahead of most of the gun control sheep.
Sevesteen asked, "What the fuck is the right thing for the homeowner to do here?"
ReplyDeleteI think I answered this in responding to some of the other comments, but to cap up. I say the homeowner has a moral obligation to make sure it's truly a case of lethal threat before shooting. As FWM said, that's not easy to do, but that is the real criterion, lethal threat. If a guy is committing the felony of climbing in your window or stealing your car or TV, you cannot kill him, in spite of what the law says, unless you want to incur the wrath of the universe. It's bad business.
"I say the homeowner has a moral obligation to make sure it's truly a case of lethal threat before shooting."
ReplyDeleteAnd you have what, maybe a second or two at best to make that determiniation? It sure is easy for you to play armchair quarterback after the fact and condemn the guy. I just hope you don't find yourself in his shoes someday.
I say the homeowner has a moral obligation to make sure it's truly a case of lethal threat before shooting.
ReplyDeleteAnd doesn't the burglar have a moral (not to mention legal) obligation to refrain from breaking into homes?
You say what you would NOT do, you don't say what you would do--Stand and watch as he empties your house? Leave your home if he orders you to?
ReplyDeleteI would do what I could to convince him not to enter--"Cops are on their way, I have a gun, get out!"
If he enters anyhow, I don't see how I could assume he's not a threat.
Today is the 1 year anniversary of my husband getting shot. the facts as presented by the sherriffs dept are completely false and negligent. The "homeowner" in this case was not the property owner, he was a drug addict who had been asked to leave the camper trailer (in which he had stayed in for a couple of weeks) by the real property owner. The real property owner asked my husband to go with him to make sure the thug was off the property. Driven to the property by the property owner, my husband knocked on the door, the thug (being a felon, on probation for beating his wife) opened the door and put the gun point blank to my husbands chest and shot him, The felon with the gun NEVER called the police, before or after the shooting. My husband fled for his life, the shooter chased after him, luckily could not find my husband. The police did show up, because my husband went for help, and a kind citizen called the police. The police showed up and never questioned the witnesses, one being the property owner. They did however take the statement of the shooter. The police never verified any of the information the shooter gave them. Charges were placed on my husband, and when the DA saw the case and the statements of the witnesses, the case was thrown out. This thug is and has been on the run since the shooting. We are gun owners, and believe in protecting our home and family, and if this fella ever shows up again, you will have another shooting to blog about... the rest of the story.
ReplyDeleteWow. What a story. Thanks for sharing it.
ReplyDelete