"Police say that the homeowner interrupted a burglary in progress at his home and called police. The homeowner and intruder had an interaction, and the homeowner shot the intruder before police arrived. When police arrived, the intruder was pronounced dead. Police later learned that the victim and the homeowner were brothers, and that the deceased had prior felony convictions and was arrested for possession of a handgun and possession of stolen property. Homicide investigators and the Marion County Prosecutors Office are investigating the incident. The Marion County Coroner’s Office will be performing an autopsy to determine cause and manner of death."
It seems to say that the dead guy, the burglar that is, was a felon. I'll look to find another source to confirm though since there is room for confusion in this case. Though since there is no mention of an arrest, I'm thinking it's the dead guy.
I think they meant the intruder HAD been arrested for possession of a handgun and possession of stolen property in the past and was indeed committing a crime in this situation as well. The article states that the owner had called police, but before police could get there the brothers fought and the homeowner ended up shooting the intruder. Now it is not clear from the article how serious the fight was, but if the homeowner was being attacked should he have just taken his beating until the police arrived? How many punches is he expected to take before he can fear for his life and use lethal force to protect himself? If instead the brother started fighting with a police officer that was trying to arrest him, how many punches is the police officer expected to take before he can use lethal force to stop the attack? If the number is different, then why?
"Investigators later that the suspect was the homeowner’s brother. The suspect has prior felony convictions and was arrested for possession of a handgun and possession of stolen property. Investigators are still reviewing the details of the incident, and at this time it is unknown as to whether the homeowner will be charged in the shooting."
The description of the event seems to be pretty consistent which means they are likely going of the same police statement. But it also seems pretty clear to me that the person who broke in, aka the dead guy was a felon.
"We don't allow citizens to execute felons because they are felons. The evidence for self defense to kill, isn't there yet."
Jack, in this country there is a presumption of innocence. So far, after a week, there's no word on any charges being brought.
I also found this article which if accurate, in my opinion marks him at lacking in the good decision department. IMHO, if you see that your house. Has been broken into and you're still outside, you should never go inside. The best course is to call the police and let them go inside to search.
They have numbers and time on their side. And they might send a police dog in to play with the burglar until he asks nicely for a ride to jail. Just my opinion though. "Derrick Anderson allegedly returned to his Indianapolis property at midday Saturday to find one of his windows had been smashed, reports WTHR. The 34-year-old worried the burglar had found his firearms."
"Jack, in this country there is a presumption of innocence. So far, after a week, there's no word on any charges being brought." There is also due process, not executions. You will probably disagree with me, but the fact that someone finds a stranger in their house is not enough reason to kill them. That crook (?) has to endanger your life (IMO) for you to use deadly force. Why haven't the police said anything yet? Maybe the brothers had "bad blood" for each other and the shooters story isn't matching up with the evidence, who knows, I'm waiting for more information.
"Implied" lethal threat is not good enough to take someone's life. It has to be real, unless of course, you live in one of those really backward states that allow killing someone for stealing your stuff.
"Implied" lethal threat is not good enough to take someone's life. It has to be real, unless of course, you live in one of those really backward states that allow killing someone for stealing your stuff."
As has been said in numerous accounts, this isn't sounding like a case of mistaken identity, and since the brother had to break in, there doesn't seem to be any question as to him having any kind of permission to be in the house. The homeowner came home to discover the break-in and called the police. I'm curious about whether he discovered it before or after he went in the house. Also notice that the police don't seem to have any suspicions in regards to the circumstances of the event since the video states that its a noncriminal investigation.
If a criminal enters your home it is reasonable to believe that they intend to harm you and your family and you have every right to defend your family from that danger by what ever means necessary....To be so naive to think that a scumbag who has so little respect for you that he would violate your sanctuary is only interested in taking your stuff is a risk most sane people are not willing to take with their family's lives Mike....
Didn't watch the video, but the print component of the story says nothing about any "mistake," and that the homeowner indeed "interrupted a burglary in progress. "
The man did not die because of stuff mike..he died because he violated a persons home had he been outside taking stuff Id agree with you but once the criminal has chosen to enter someones home the rules change...you enter someones home without permission you should have the reasonable expectation that you will be leaving in a bag because the home owner has every right to believe that's what the criminal is there to do to them or their family
"Police say that the homeowner interrupted a burglary in progress at his home and called police. The homeowner and intruder had an interaction, and the homeowner shot the intruder before police arrived.
ReplyDeleteWhen police arrived, the intruder was pronounced dead.
Police later learned that the victim and the homeowner were brothers, and that the deceased had prior felony convictions and was arrested for possession of a handgun and possession of stolen property.
Homicide investigators and the Marion County Prosecutors Office are investigating the incident.
The Marion County Coroner’s Office will be performing an autopsy to determine cause and manner of death."
http://wishtv.com/2015/03/21/fatal-shooting-on-near-west-side/
I think they mean the shooter "had prior felony convictions and was arrested for possession of a handgun and possession of stolen property."
DeleteIt seems to say that the dead guy, the burglar that is, was a felon. I'll look to find another source to confirm though since there is room for confusion in this case. Though since there is no mention of an arrest, I'm thinking it's the dead guy.
DeleteWhy do you think that mike when the article states it was the deceased?
DeleteI think they mean the shooter "had prior felony convictions and was arrested for possession of a handgun and possession of stolen property."
DeleteWhat gives you that impression?
I notice also that the homeowner called police before shooting the home invader. Doesn't really sound like someone in a hurry to kill, does it?
I think they meant the intruder HAD been arrested for possession of a handgun and possession of stolen property in the past and was indeed committing a crime in this situation as well. The article states that the owner had called police, but before police could get there the brothers fought and the homeowner ended up shooting the intruder. Now it is not clear from the article how serious the fight was, but if the homeowner was being attacked should he have just taken his beating until the police arrived? How many punches is he expected to take before he can fear for his life and use lethal force to protect himself? If instead the brother started fighting with a police officer that was trying to arrest him, how many punches is the police officer expected to take before he can use lethal force to stop the attack? If the number is different, then why?
DeleteI think it's unclear.
Delete"Investigators later that the suspect was the homeowner’s brother. The suspect has prior felony convictions and was arrested for possession of a handgun and possession of stolen property.
DeleteInvestigators are still reviewing the details of the incident, and at this time it is unknown as to whether the homeowner will be charged in the shooting."
http://fox59.com/2015/03/21/police-investigate-shooting-on-near-north-west-side/
The description of the event seems to be pretty consistent which means they are likely going of the same police statement. But it also seems pretty clear to me that the person who broke in, aka the dead guy was a felon.
" But it also seems pretty clear to me that the person who broke in, aka the dead guy was a felon."
DeleteWe don't allow citizens to execute felons because they are felons. The evidence for self defense to kill, isn't there yet.
"We don't allow citizens to execute felons because they are felons. The evidence for self defense to kill, isn't there yet."
DeleteJack, in this country there is a presumption of innocence. So far, after a week, there's no word on any charges being brought.
I also found this article which if accurate, in my opinion marks him at lacking in the good decision department. IMHO, if you see that your house. Has been broken into and you're still outside, you should never go inside. The best course is to call the police and let them go inside to search.
They have numbers and time on their side. And they might send a police dog in to play with the burglar until he asks nicely for a ride to jail. Just my opinion though.
"Derrick Anderson allegedly returned to his Indianapolis property at midday Saturday to find one of his windows had been smashed, reports WTHR.
The 34-year-old worried the burglar had found his firearms."
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ind-man-shoots-kills-brother-burglarizing-house-cops-article-1.2160354
"Jack, in this country there is a presumption of innocence. So far, after a week, there's no word on any charges being brought."
DeleteThere is also due process, not executions. You will probably disagree with me, but the fact that someone finds a stranger in their house is not enough reason to kill them. That crook (?) has to endanger your life (IMO) for you to use deadly force. Why haven't the police said anything yet? Maybe the brothers had "bad blood" for each other and the shooters story isn't matching up with the evidence, who knows, I'm waiting for more information.
Doesn't sound like it was mistaken identity, appears the brother really was a burglar.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the title of the post is a little sloppy. But, the salient points are there, one dead, brother, questionable lethal threat.
DeleteThe lethal threat is implied once the criminal has violated the home Mike....
Delete"Implied" lethal threat is not good enough to take someone's life. It has to be real, unless of course, you live in one of those really backward states that allow killing someone for stealing your stuff.
Delete"Implied" lethal threat is not good enough to take someone's life. It has to be real, unless of course, you live in one of those really backward states that allow killing someone for stealing your stuff."
DeleteAs has been said in numerous accounts, this isn't sounding like a case of mistaken identity, and since the brother had to break in, there doesn't seem to be any question as to him having any kind of permission to be in the house.
The homeowner came home to discover the break-in and called the police. I'm curious about whether he discovered it before or after he went in the house. Also notice that the police don't seem to have any suspicions in regards to the circumstances of the event since the video states that its a noncriminal investigation.
If a criminal enters your home it is reasonable to believe that they intend to harm you and your family and you have every right to defend your family from that danger by what ever means necessary....To be so naive to think that a scumbag who has so little respect for you that he would violate your sanctuary is only interested in taking your stuff is a risk most sane people are not willing to take with their family's lives Mike....
DeleteYou're wrong George. You're the kind of shoot-first gun owner who gives the rest a bad name.
DeleteThis guy wasn't even blind.
ReplyDeleteDidn't watch the video, but the print component of the story says nothing about any "mistake," and that the homeowner indeed "interrupted a burglary in progress. "
ReplyDeleteSo, what's the problem here, again?
The problem is murdering someone for attempting to steal your stuff. It's overkill, literally.
DeleteThe man did not die because of stuff mike..he died because he violated a persons home had he been outside taking stuff Id agree with you but once the criminal has chosen to enter someones home the rules change...you enter someones home without permission you should have the reasonable expectation that you will be leaving in a bag because the home owner has every right to believe that's what the criminal is there to do to them or their family
DeleteHis brother was the burglar there is no mistaking that fact....
ReplyDeleteHe smelled gunpowder? Did he hear a shot?
ReplyDelete