Latresse Monroe, 26, was shot and killed early Wednesday morning. (Photo credit: Facebook)
Guns dot com
A Florida man shot and killed a suspected female intruder early Wednesday morning, raising questions about whether the fatal shooting was self-defense or homicide.
Joseph McGuire, 64, of Archer, Florida, fatally shot 26-year-old Latreese Monroe on Wednesday around 2 a.m. after Monroe had kicked in the man’s front door, according to an Alachua County Sheriff’s Office report.
Following the shooting, McGuire called 911 to report the incident.
When police arrived on the scene, they discovered Monroe on the ground with a gunshot wound to her torso. She was partially in the home near the busted door, according to the report.
Kicking in the door of an armed citizen's home tends to be kinda dangerous, just as it should be.
ReplyDeleteIf that story is accurate, I'd say the gene pool just got a little cleaner.
I am sure she just wanted to give him a hug and wish him well right?
ReplyDeleteThis isn't shaping up to be someone shooting a burglar. It appears that Monroe was a frequent visitor to the McGuire home.
ReplyDelete"Neighbors told The Sun on Wednesday that they often saw Monroe coming and going from McGuire's house and they sometimes saw her in his car."
That being said, Kurt is correct in that if you kick someone's front door at 2am, you shouldn't be surprised if you aren't offered a cup of coffee and breakfast.
Both parties also seem to have some history with the law, though the woman seems to have outdone the man in that department.
"Although Forgey said that there was no history of McGuire being taken to the jail, Alachua County public court records show he has been arrested on charges of aggravated battery."
"Monroe had been taken to the Alachua County jail nine times previously on charges of aggravated assault, battery, fraud, resisting an officer, suspended license and probation violations, said ASO public information officer Art Forgey. "
http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?p=1&tc=pg&AID=2014140329630
It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.
I don't know why you say Kurt is right. The additional details you provided seem to indicate the "armed citizen" knew who it was and was not acting in simple self defense.
DeleteBecause everyone knows that when your door is kicked down at 2:00 AM by someone you know, there is no need to defend yourself.
DeleteIs that what we are to assume here, Mikeb?
Mike, as I said in my original post, this isn't sounding like self defense any more than the Curtis Reeves was seriously defending his life when he shot someone for throwing popcorn at him.
DeleteWe still know almost nothing about the chain of events. However, if my best friend kicks in my door at 2AM, he or she shouldn't be surprised if I come to greet them armed. What do you think will happen if you kick in the door of a police officer in the middle of the night?
Sure, Kurt, the need to defend oneself against an unarmed girl is paramount. That comes even before the sanctity of life, everyone's life, even drunks and addicts who kick in doors.
Deletess, what should happen is the door-kicker should be met with a person who makes an honest decision about the lethality of the threat. It doesn't sound to me like that happened here, or in the drunk teenager story the other day or in the Alzheimer's sufferer's story last month.
DeleteSure, Kurt, the need to defend oneself against an unarmed girl is paramount.
DeleteChange that to "defend oneself against a home invader with a long, rich history of alleged violent crime," and you would be talking about this situation (and, wonder of wonders, you'd be correct).
Kicking someone's door down is a pretty strong indicator of bad intentions. The door-kicker is a boil on the ass of humanity, and needs to be lanced.
what should happen is the door-kicker should be met with a person who makes an honest decision about the lethality of the threat."
DeleteYou are correct Mike, and I'm guessing that after its investigated that the truth will come out on the true situation.
You say that in a nice, reasonable way, Mike. Too bad you don't really mean that they should make "an honest decision about the lethality of the threat." Instead, you mean that they should retreat before the threat and let them tire themselves out, because we know (after the fact) that they're unarmed, and therefore using any force on them is inexcusable.
Deletess, what's your take on this one?
DeleteSimon, that's total bullshit. I have no problem with legitimate self-defense. But I cannot accept the blanket rule that anyone who kicks in your door should be killed on the spot. That's what Kurt's preaching and I guess you're in the choir.
"I have no problem with legitimate self defense."
DeleteYes, but as I said, you keep maintaining that, as a blanket rule, you can't have legitimate self defense against an unarmed person breaking into your place at night.
As for what you claim about Kurt and me, I can't speak to his intention, but my position is basically that if you're breaking in to someone's home when they're there, especially at night, there's a good chance you have evil intent. That being said, like SSG, I expect an investigation which can show what happened and discover any evidence that might be there to rebut the presumption in favor of the homeowner.
So what's one supposed to do when they find themselves with an advantage in arms? Toss it to the side and put up their dukes?
DeleteOf course the ideal is if the aggressor realizes their disadvantage and either runs or waits for the police. But in a lot of these cases we are talking about someone so hopped up on drugs or alcohol that their kicking down a door to a house that they don't live in. Theirs not a lot of rational behavior. So what if they charge the homeowner with a gun? What are they supposed to do? This is where you end up calling for their arrest and prosecution.
Simon, I have no "blanket rule." Those are your words which, as usual, are meant to mislead.
DeleteYou said about a person kicking in the door "there's a good chance you have evil intent." That's not good enough for killing them on the spot. Yes, there may be a good chance they have evil intent, but just kicking in the door at night does not necessarily raise the level of threat to that required for a lethal response.
You're the one using a blanket response.
"You're the one using a blanket response."
DeleteActually--if you looked after the sentence of mine you quoted, you'll see that I said you need an investigation to see what really happened and that such an investigation could outweigh that presumption--in other words, a case by case determination, not a blanket rule.
You, on the other hand, have simplified your analysis of many cases to "the unarmed person is dead; it was obviously not self defense."
Simon, you're really pissing me off now. Is that your intention. Assigning this to me is why I call you a liar.
Delete""the unarmed person is dead; it was obviously not self defense.""
What I actually said was this: "just kicking in the door at night does not necessarily raise the level of threat to that required for a lethal response."
What I actually said was this: "just kicking in the door at night does not necessarily raise the level of threat to that required for a lethal response."
DeleteWhat you have also said is:
I have accepted legitimate DGUs in the past. But not when the dead guy was unarmed.
And:
I suppose there could be an unarmed attacker who receives a legitimate DGU right in the chest, but I can't remember one.
You can call Simon a "liar" if you want, but if you were being honest, you might instead call him a "concise summarizer."
She kicks in the door. Now what could she possibly have had in mind? Mikeb, when you stop sympathizing with criminals, you might have a better chance at convincing people.
ReplyDeleteThe article indicates they were both criminals. I'm surprised he was legally allowed to own guns.
DeleteBy the way did you notice how he was detained by the police immediately?
The article indicates they were both criminals. I'm surprised he was legally allowed to own guns.
Delete"Arrested on charges of aggravated battery" does not mean convicted of anything.
"By the way did you notice how he was detained by the police immediately?"
DeleteSo was George Zimmerman. He was taken to the police station in handcuffs. Your point?
My point is that all the other times when that does not happen it's WRONG.
DeleteAh yes. We must arrest all people claiming self defense immediately, even if it's a clear case.
DeleteNo, not if it's a clear case. But, when the dead guy has no weapon that's not a clear case. That's a case that most likely was an unnecessary killing. That shooter should be arrested.
DeleteSo your all other cases comment was all others with an unarmed shootee, not all cases of door kickers. Thanks for the clarification.
Delete