This kinda sucks...

Discussion in 'Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection' started by 70cuda383, Jan 24, 2013.

  1. 70cuda383

    70cuda383 New Member

    574
    0
    0
    man is indicted for manslaughter when he shoots intruder, Police say man was outside the house when shot

    http://www.10tv.com/content/stories...ed-following-shooting-suspected-intruder.html



    I can't really pass judgement without knowing more details. did the man present the weapon and the intruder dove out the window, and as he was running away the man inside the house ran to the window and started shooting at the intruder as he ran across the lawn?

    or did the man inside present his weapon, the intruder continued to advance into the house, and the man fired, the intruder fell down, the person ran to the window and the intruder started to get back up?

    in one case I can clearly see the manslaughter charge as the intruder is running away across the lawn.

    in the other case, I think the person still had a belief that he was in danger, when the intruder continued to advance into the house even AFTER seeing the homeowner with a gun, and after he was shot, and getting back up, how was the home owner to know if the intruder was coming back for round 2, or getting up to leave?

    I'd have to be on the Jury so I can hear all the evidence before I could actually pass judgement on this one.
     
  2. rocshaman

    rocshaman New Member

    3,250
    0
    0
    Looks like a perversion of justice to me. If you're gonna invade someone's home, you better be prepared to face the consequences. The guy wouldn't have got shot if he'd stayed home and out of other people's houses.
     

  3. 70cuda383

    70cuda383 New Member

    574
    0
    0
    I agree completely, however, the justice system is always biased towards the bad guy, and it's hard to claim self-defense when you shoot someone in the back.


    hopefully a good lawyer will help the guy out "my client fired at the home invader, because he thought the evildoer was running to get a weapon of his own, and this brother, this son, who's never done anything wrong, was trying to defend the lives of his innocent and defenseless family members"
     
  4. Squawk

    Squawk New Member

    864
    0
    0
    Sadly, a educated gun owner knows two things.

    1. If someone breaks in your house, you better shoot them while they are in the house.

    2. If you shoot someone outside of your house, you need to be able to prove that you felt your life was in danger.

    Is it right? No. But it is what it is.
     
  5. HOSSFLY

    HOSSFLY New Member

    6,932
    0
    0
    Sucks bad but in some places thats the law- Shoot the sumbitch IN your house or not at all-
     
  6. BeyondTheBox

    BeyondTheBox New Member

    2,630
    0
    0
    What's really interesting, maddening, is what passes for evidence these days.
     
  7. Camoking1206

    Camoking1206 New Member

    6
    0
    0
    If he fell out of a two story house wouldn't there be evidence of the fall? Broken ribs? Bruising of any sort?
     
  8. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    Dead men don't bruise. If he was dead (or nearly so) when he hit the ground then the body would not have any bruises.

    They should have dragged his ass back into the house before the cops got there. May be tampering with evidence but would they be any worse off?

    The cops I have talked to say that by the time they arrive at my place the body better be inside and approaching room temperature and the body best have a gun in its hand, preferably with a round or more fired from that gun. They have said I should confirm this before calling 911.
     
  9. 70cuda383

    70cuda383 New Member

    574
    0
    0
    Enter "the throw away gun" haha.


    Like I said in above posts...There's no way to knowing if this is a legit case of manslaughter or if there's a DA out to make a statement, from just a media article. Only way to know is to be in the courtroom during the trial to hear the evidence presented.

    Funny thing is, I found that story yesterday while looking at the local news channel's website to see if my kid's school had another delay due to sub zero wind chill. pulled up the website and BOOM, there it was front and center
     
  10. 70cuda383

    70cuda383 New Member

    574
    0
    0
    Just noticed this got moved....sorry for putting int the wrong spot originally...my thoughts were "media story about a gun owner being prosecuted...fits in the "firearms in the media" section.
     
  11. treehugger49

    treehugger49 New Member

    421
    0
    0
    The facts outlined in the article are considerably incomplete.

    Indicted doesn't mean convicted. Hopefully, a jury of his peers will see things differently from the prosecutor, who seems not to be very well thought off from the comments of the locals.

    Regardless, the shooter's life will never be the same.
     
  12. GeneralPatton

    GeneralPatton New Member

    1,036
    0
    0
    GA has laws preventing armed citizens who fire on those threatening life from being prosecuted. And also another law preventing any civil actions.
     
  13. drvsafe

    drvsafe New Member

    1,636
    0
    0
    litigious society, makes me sick...
     
  14. lawofselfdefense

    lawofselfdefense New Member

    6
    0
    0
    Well, of course, the matter largely rests on whether the defensive force was used while the trespasser was inside the house or when he was outside the house. Given the decision to indict, I'd speculate that either the prosecutor's forensic evidence indicates the latter, or he's just decided he can make a compelling case to the jury regardless of the forensics evidence.

    If the trespasser was in the house, the defendant has a lot going for him. Ohio O.R.C. 2305.40 "Owner, lessee, or renter of real property not liable to trespasser" , section (B), provides that the defendant is not liable to damages to the trespasser if (1) the owner was inside the dwelling, (2) the trespasser made, is making, or attempting to make unlawful entry, and (3) the owner used reasonably necessary force to repel the trespasser.

    (The full text of O.R.C. 2305.40 can be found here: http://lawofselfdefense.com/blog/statute/ctd8ltn/ ‎)

    (Incidentally, note that of section (C) of O.R.C. 2305.40 applies important restrictions to section (B).

    Of course, 2305.40 provides protection only against civil damages, not criminal charges. Also, it applies only while the owner is "repelling" the trespasser. Once the trespasser has been repelled (e.g., he is outside the home and no longer attempting to unlawfully enter), 2305.40 does not justify the use of further force.

    In addition, O.R.C. 2901.05 "Burden of Proof--reasonable doubt--self defense" provides for a legal presumption (importantly, a rebuttable presumption) of the defendant having acted in self defense when using lethal force against a person who is unlawfully entering, or has entered, a residence. But as all self defense is fundamentally based on necessity, once the trespasser is outside and no longer attempting to unlawfully enter, he is no longer an imminent threat and no longer a legitimate target of lethal force--unless he somehow WAS continuing to represent an imminent threat, such as shooting into the home, etc.

    (The full text of O.R.C. 2901.05 can be found here: http://lawofselfdefense.com/blog/statute/c84nky3/)

    Unfortunately, O.R.C. 2901.05 also affirms a real oddity of Ohio self defense law. In every other state, although the defendant bears the burden of production on self defense, once that burden of production has been met the state bears the burden of persuasion to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did NOT act in self defense. In Ohio, and ONLY in Ohio, it is the defendant who bears the burden of persuasion to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he DID act in self defense.

    For sure, this will be an interesting case to keep on eye on.

    Andrew
     
  15. Chase127

    Chase127 New Member

    160
    0
    0
    In Alabama y can shoot somebody anywhere on your property aslong as you have one of those little no tresspassing signs posted somewhere we are fairly easygoing about shooting dirtbags down here
     
  16. HOSSFLY

    HOSSFLY New Member

    6,932
    0
    0
    As it shud be :)
     
  17. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    0
    0
    Reading the article sounds like the homeowners claim the perp was inside a second floor bedroom, shot, and flipped through the glass window, to the ground below outside. DA claims he was shot outside while fleeing across the lawn.

    I don't have much faith in investigations but this seems pretty easy to prove.

    I have shot a few animals in my time and there is always blood, hair, fibers, flying off the target at the location of impact.

    Given the power of adrenaline it's highly likely a person could be shot, fall out a window, hit the ground, and run some distance before collapsing. It's also highly unlikely there would be no evidence inside the house.

    Personally, I thing you should bs able to shoot a fleeing bastard who forces entry but that just ain't the law in most jurisdictions.

    Still, hope the homeowner gets off.

    Tack
     
  18. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,823
    133
    63
    I have seen the mug shots of Phenix City arrestees. Apparently if the home-owner can't finish the job, the police will.