arma virumque cano (et alia)
Why would there be charges? A drunk home invader gets shot. It's really easy not to have that happen to you.
The question is not how the teen intruder could have avoided getting killed. The question is did the home owner really have to kill him.
Below you try to defend the teenager by saying he may have been blind drunk. Really? Saying that someone is so inebriated as to be unconscious of his actions only helps the homeowner's case.
No it doesn't, Greg. A drunk person, stumbling around in the dark, is not normally a lethal threat. But, when you tough gun owners are standing your ground, he's an easy target for your outrage.
Someone stumbling around out of control is a threat. Most of the time, it's a minor threat, warranting a drunk and disorderly charge. But when such a person breaks into another's home, we've moved up to a whole new level of danger. But as I've said, the result is easy to avoid: Don't get that drunk in public.
Stumbling drunks are only a threat to themselves unless they are driving, using dangerous machinery, or have a gun on them. Deadly force is not necessary to subdue a stumbling drunk. I know I have been a bartender for 30 years.
Breaking into someone's home--whether intoxicated or not--is a clear threat. Being drunk only adds to that. Sid, I suspect that you'd feel differently about a drunk in your home as opposed to one in your bar.
Greg, the fact that the stumbling around took place in the guy's home did nothing to heighten the level of danger. It only heightened his sense of outrage and his ability to get away with an unnecessary killing.
If he's a stumbling drunk, he can be easily subdued whether, or not he is in my home, without killing him.
The challenge is that it can be hard to tell what a person is intoxicated on, which can have an affect on their response. With just about anything though, its the old saying that you don't know which direction they'll go. Will they just let you grab them by the scruff of the neck and shove them out the door? Or will they try to kick your ass, or worse. Are you suggesting that there be a requires escalation of force expecting a homeowner to try to physically subdue someone before using lethal force? By the sound of the chain of events, the homeowner started the encounter between the intruder and the unarmed guest. After a verbal warning and a warning shot, he shot him. The intruder then proceeded to walk past him and continue to head for the bedroom area where the guest was. That is when he was shot in the back. As I said earlier, if a cop points a gun at you and tells you to stop, and you keep coming, what do you think is going to happen? And if you keep coming after he shoots you, what do you think will happen?
Typical misunderstanding on the tactics of handling drunks. You obviously don't have any understanding. There are also tactics to subdue armed sober violent people without being armed yourself, but I'll skip that and just let you believe a fantasy.
"There are also tactics to subdue armed sober violent people without being armed yourself, but I'll skip that and just let you believe a fantasy." So are you suggesting that you believe a homeowner should be required to engage in a "fair fight" with an intruder?
No jack ass, I'm suggesting something you don't believe in, tactics that don't require a gun. Something you and your buddies are to much of a coward to even study up on. Time to move on now, that's enough bullshit from a lying coward, you.
“You have a person that…actually comes in through a window…The alarm sounds off…He was six-foot tall, unknownst to the…homeowner, wearing dark clothing,” Sheriff Michael Chapman of Loudon County, Va., told “20/20.” “You look at everything in context of what’s going on: 2:30 in the morning, somebody breaking in to your house, you..had no idea who this person was.” http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-cry-murder-drunk-teen-killed-home-invasion/story?id=21474534&page=2 So the homeowner yelled at him to leave, fired a warning shot, then shot him while the "kid" was facing him. But the intruder kept walking further into the house. Doesn't sound so incriminating when you hear the whole story. When police point a gun at you and tell you to stop and youkeep walking towards them, you'll likely get the same treatment, though likely without the warning shot.
I thought I heard that the kid was shot in the back.
Shot in the back, is key. If the person was retreating, or leaving, then the immeadiate death threat is over.
Its a pretty complicated by the description. Looks like they were face to face during the verbal warning, warning shot, and first shot into body. Then it appears he walked past the homeowner and headed for bedroom where girlfriend was sleeping. If this is the case, he continues to be a threat and shooting him in the back is quite justified. He wasn't leaving or retreating."Wilder has said that Gourdley walked past him and was headed towards the bedroom where Wilder's girlfriend was sleeping." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/13/caleb-gordley-parents_n_4589365.html
Of course he didn't exactly know what he was shooting at, a negligent mistake. If he had known, would he have shot?
In what way didn't he know what he was shooting at? The lights came on when he climbed in through a window. That might have been an indication of illegal intent itself. A stranger climbs into your house through a window, he doesn't heed your verbal warnings, and he keeps advancing after your warning shot. You then shoot him, and comments that you shot him and keeps walking past you and towards the bedroom of your loved one. What part shows negligence?
It sounds equally likely that the kid was blind drunk, in a blackout and not really any threat at all. The home owner was so outraged at the intrusion that in anger shot and killed the kid, saying in effect, how dare you.The taking of a life should be taken so seriously as to demand clear justification. SYG and castle doctrine get in the way.
It sounds like the homeowner took reasonable steps in avoiding the need to shoot him. There were verbal warnings, even one of those problematic warning shots we've discussed before he actually shot at and hit him. If it were to happen in my home I'd likely not use a warning shot for the simple fact that the round could go through a wall and injure an innocent. The only thing he didn't do was to engage in hand to hand combat. With the steps I see performed here I'm not seeing uncontrolled rage here. More likely justified fear for safety. He performed two separate actions before shooting him.