Homeowner Shoots Intruder Overnight

[shadowrider]

Tulsa - A man was hospitalized and is now in jail after police say he broke into a man's home and was shot by the homeowner.

It happened at about 1:19 a.m. Wednesday morning at a home near Easton Street and North Irvington Avenue. The homeowner told police that the suspect, 20-year-old Bradley Alan Hill, had come looking for his girlfriend.

When no one would answer the door, Hill allegedly kicked the door open to find the homeowner standing there with a 12-gauge shotgun leveled at his head.

The homeowner says Hill was unfazed and began coming after him. He says he gave ground for about 30 feet, but when he was backed into his own bedroom, he opened fire, hitting Hill once in the leg.

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0310/714575.html

The man needs range time.

[Tikki]

1. Headline...as opposed to Shooting Intruder All Day...

:shrug:


Tikki

[oneshooter]

3. From the sound of it, it took him allnight to decide to shoot ! n/t

[Mike K]

25. Could be he was simply wise enough to position himself -

- so there would be no questions as to his options and intentions when it got to court.

Anecdote:

Having worked a 12-8 shift, CG is lying in bed in his (Brooklyn, NY) ground floor apartment at 11:00 AM when he hears the window adjacent to his bed sliding open. As he reaches for the .38 in the holster on his bedpost a leg slides through the closed drape followed by a hand then the head of a burglar. CG fires a shot which strikes the burglar who falls backward onto a paved courtyard where he bleeds to death from a severed artery before the police arrive.

CG lost his firearm permit, which cost him his job as an armored car guard. He was convicted of Third Degree Manslaughter but his two year prison sentence was suspended by a merciful judge. His legal expenses cost him every penny he had and put him in debt. CG's ignorance of the law led to his life being effectively ruined.

Instead of acting impulsively as he did, If CG had simply gone into the bathroom with his gun, waited for the burglar to get well inside and shot him from the bathroom, from which there was no accessible retreat, it would have been an open and shut case of justifiable homicide.

So it could be that the shooter in the topic incident knew exactly what he was doing.

[SteveM]

30. LOL. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. I don't see why he gave ground for about 30 feet.

If someone kicks in your door and you're standing with a shotgun pointed at them, they had better not come 1 foot closer, let alone 30.
That's just dangerously irrational, to charge an armed homeowner.

[shadowrider]

4. From the looks of things

the bad guy was given chances to leave and was only fired on when there was no other choice.

[slackmaster]

5. The sight of the homeowner's shotgun emboldened the intruder

If the homeowner had been holding a steak knife or a yo-yo, the invader would have politely excused himself and left peacefully.

[Mike K]

12. It's because he understands the law -

- which in most states requires that one attempts to retreat from an intruder, or any other threatening behavior, before employing deadly force. I believe Texas is one exception to this rule and there might be more, but anyone who keeps guns for home defense should become familiar with the laws pertaining to the use of deadly force.

An important side note: Even if one is an expert shooter and while exercising full control of his weapon fails to retreat but instead deliberately shoots an intruder in the leg or shoulder to wound and disable rather than to kill, it doesn't matter. Discharging a firearm at someone is considered deadly force (intent to kill) and must be justified.

[PavePusher]

14. Actually, very few places have a "retreat" requirement.

Why should someone have to "retreat" when they are the legal person in the situation?

[Mike K]

26. I know that New York City has the strictest retreat -

- requirement of all and that the requirement exists in varying degrees elsewhere, but I'm not acquainted with the full spectrum.

As for my personal opinion regarding the retreat requirement, I believe that someone who unlawfully and aggressively enters a private premises assumes the risk of being injured or killed by the lawful occupant. But that's just my opinion. It's not the law. And in court it's the law that counts, not personal opinions.

[Dappleganger]

15. Not in my state

of FL. If someone is kicking in the door it's safe to assume they're not there to sell me some girl scout cookies. ;)

[paulsby]

28. um, no

please provide evidence for "MOST STATES" CLAIM

i've been a cop in 3 states, and studied the law in 4 others, and out of those 7 in NONE is their a duty to retreat.

i suggest the idea that the MAJORITY require it (iow most) is thus suspect.

[Glassunion]

29. Legal Larry checking in.

Oklahoma Title 21§1289.25
No duty to retreat anywhere. They are a stand your ground state...


No known castle law in the following:

Iowa (Law does not require retreat from home, but may require retreat within the home)
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Virginia
District of Columbia

the other 46 states have either stand you ground laws or castle doctrine laws.

[SteveM]

31. Maybe he was fumbling for his ear protection.

[jeepnstein]

32. I won't second guess him on this one.

Falling back to a position of strength is not always a bad thing. If you've ever tried to extract someone who has barricaded himself in a room, well, it can get kind of ugly. Thirty feet isn't all that far and it may have taken him that much time to process everything that was happening. It was probably just a matter of seconds.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shadowrider]

8. If he was attempting to kill the guy

and hit him in his leg, yes, he needs range time. If his goal was only to put him down and not kill, he doesn't.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. More importantly, where was the girlfriend?

This story has a bad odor.

[Bold Lib]

9. With yet another boyfriend?

[safeinOhio]

20. If you want to be really safe

never monkey with some ones' monkey. Better than half of all murders involve love triangles. Jilted lovers do very crazy things like go after a guy with a shotgun pointed at them.

Safes rules to stay safe

1. Do not monkey with another persons monkey.

2. Secure your home.

3. Legally arm yourself.

4. Know and understand the laws of your state.

[shadowrider]

22. LOL

I NEVER, EVER mess with someones girlfriend or wife if the opportunity arises. My reasoning? I refuse to die of lead poisoning in .45 caliber doses.

[Endangered Specie]

10. SO much for the theory that a shotgun "will just scare em away"

[YllwFvr]

11. Wait, wait

I thought a shotgun would have peppered him from head to toe and blasted him backwards right out the door?! I see it on TV every time someone is hit with one.

I heard an opinion from a lawyer who specializes in firearms cases that if you feel the need to shoot, make sure they are dead. Otherwise they can testify against you in court or press charges that, even if defeated, can cost you thousands.

Like the man who shot to save a cops life and was then sued, costing him 40 thousand dollars to beat the charges.

[PavePusher]

13. That lawyer needs to quit practicing immediatly.

His advice will get someone imprisoned for murder. And he'll be aiding and abetting a felony.

[oneshooter]

16. In Texas you are protected by the "Castle Doctrine". n/t

[Statistical]

17. Castle Doctrine isn't bullet proof.

Someone executing someone simply because any future case is easier with criminal dead is not protected by Castle Doctrine.

Even with Castle Doctrine people have been convicted of crimes.

Castle Doctrine should never be used as a shield to allow people to acts as executioners.

You SHOOT TO STOP THE THREAT. It really is that simple. If the person remains a threat* you continue to shoot. It should never be your intent to execute someone. SHOOT TO STOP THE THREAT. IF you shoot a criminal and they live but you stopped the threat well that is fine. If they die as a result of your "stopping the threat" that is fine too.


* The advantage of Castle Doctrine is it puts presumption that someone entering your home is a threat. Thus you are protected when acting in defense of yourself or others even without determining if person is a threat.


SHOOT TO STOP THREAT. If a lawyer every recommends executing someone because it will make trial go easier report them to the bar and find another lawyer.

[oneshooter]

18. Sorry if I wasn't clear

I was referencing a legal "shoot to stop".

Damn garden is going to kill me yet!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Statistical]

19. I had no doubts about your understnding. Was more "in general"

[YllwFvr]

21. I dont think he was implying

you should walk up to an incapacitated criminal and put another into his head.

[Statistical]

23. Well it was more in response to your quote

"I heard an opinion from a lawyer who specializes in firearms cases that if you feel the need to shoot, make sure they are dead. "

You shouldn't make sure someone is dead. You should shoot to stop.

If you shoot to stop and the criminal dies you are protected under Castle Doctrine (wording and conditions vary by state).

If you "make sure someone is dead" then you have committed homicide and IMHO should spend the next 10-20 in prison. All it takes is a couple cases like that for us to lose all the progress we have made in RKBA over last 20 years.

[SteveSund]

27. Shoot to stop the threat

I am a lawyer and an occasional concealed carry instructor. That is bad advice. As others have mentioned, you shoot until there is no longer a threat. Then you stop. That doesn't mean that you make some kind of evaluation after every shot, but it also doesn't mean that you keep shooting once the person is no longer a threat.

[Euromutt]

24. Nothing is 100% certain, except death and taxes

We all know the findings from the Kleck-Gertz study that over 90% of successful DGUs involve no shots being fired. Assuming that's representative, that still means close to 10% do require the discharge of the firearm. I'd say a 90+% success rate is pretty good in any human endeavor, and the fact that failure does incur in a small number of cases by no means completely invalidates the theory. You just need to be prepared for the comparatively small number of occasions that it fails, so don't try to bluff with an unloaded gun (or a non-firing replica).