Vet kills intruder. Good shoot or bad shoot ?


PDA






TheFringe
May 5, 2007, 11:41 AM
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/ap_burglarshot_070504/

War vet, home early, kills burglar

The Associated Press
Posted : Friday May 4, 2007 6:25:32 EDT

AUGUSTA, Ga. — A man authorities say had broken into an Army officer’s home to steal guns was shot to death by the Iraq war veteran, who had come home early.

Capt. Barre Bollinger told police he returned from work around 3:30 p.m. Wednesday and found his house had been ransacked, Richmond County sheriff’s investigator Thomas Johnson said.

Bollinger, who is stationed at Fort Gordon, entered his bedroom and noticed that guns were missing.

He grabbed his SKS rifle — a weapon similar to an AK47 assault rifle — and called 911, Johnson said.

“While on the phone with 911, he sees the suspect approaching his back door,” Johnson said. “Because he believes the man now is armed with his stolen weapons, Mr. Bollinger fires at him three times.”

Errol Lavar Royal, 29, was shot at least twice in the stomach area. He was later pronounced dead at Medical College of Georgia Hospital.

Royal lived with his parents near the home that was burglarized, police said. A search of his home turned up two guns taken from Bollinger’s house and marijuana, Johnson said.

Police had no immediate plans to charge Bollinger in the shooting.

I have started a bit of controversy on another forum by stating this was a bad shoot based on the news account.

He sees a man approaching his back door and presumes he is armed, then shoots him 3 times ? What if this person had been a friend of the burglar happening upon the scene for the first time ?
In most states an un-armed intruder would need to be inside your dwelling for lethal force to be justified. Conversely, if the guy in the backyard had been brandishing as he approached the back door, homeowner could then use lethal force as he would be imminent fear for his life. The individual was neither inside nor brandishing according to the news account.

Personally I am glad that a criminal's career has come to an end, but I'm not so sure that I (a long-haired rock musician) would be spared prosecution by the authorities given the same scenario had I been the homeowner.

If you enjoyed reading about "Vet kills intruder. Good shoot or bad shoot ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kindrox
May 5, 2007, 11:49 AM
A good deal of the truth was likely left out of the story. Since the Army officer was not arrested/charged, I think you can say with certainty that important information was left out of the story, so the debate is a moot point.

What other stories, missing key information, could we also debate?

El Tejon
May 5, 2007, 11:55 AM
I'm guessing the Joejaw statute (or judicial interpretation) includes the curtilage.

Heavy Metal Hero
May 5, 2007, 12:01 PM
I fail to see how this is a bad shoot?

I realize a lot may be left out. We do not know what he saw, he could have I.D. a non-friendly. I would have fired too if someone was at my back door and I had just been robbed of weapons. A visitor, whom I don't know, has no right coming to my BACK door anyways.

What if this person had been a friend of the burglar happening upon the scene for the first time ?

Don't do the crime if you don't want the risk.

TheFringe
May 5, 2007, 12:22 PM
Personally I'm pleased that he's not being charged, but I'm still not sure that (according to the brief news account) shooting an un-armed individual in your backyard legally qualifies as a good shoot, especially during daylight hours. Again, glad he is being given the benefit of doubt, and I agree there is much more to the story that is not being disclosed. I however would have waited a few more seconds for the individual to enter my house.

Lupinus
May 5, 2007, 12:27 PM
He sees a man approaching his back door and presumes he is armed, then shoots him 3 times ? What if this person had been a friend of the burglar happening upon the scene for the first time ?
Sounds like a personal problem

akodo
May 5, 2007, 01:04 PM
What if this person had been a friend of the burglar happening upon the scene for the first time

this 'what if' is just silly. A 'friend of the burglar' who also is in the home is considered an accomplice. So what you have is multiple theives who are armed and have no regard for the law.

HiVelocity
May 5, 2007, 01:08 PM
Okay, just food for thought.

1- None of us were there, we don't know the circumstances; no armchair quarterbacking here.

2- Did the Army Officer reasonably fear for his life? I say, "Yes".

3- In light of the event, would you reasonably believe that the intruder would still be in possession of one of your weapons? I say, "Yes"

4- Did the perpetrator make any "Furtive moves" when re-entering the Army Officer's residence? If he did, the shoot was good. If he didn't and the officer could articulate the 2 facts above, still a good shoot.

5- In today's world, given the same or similar circumstances, we probably would have done the the same thing.


HiVelocity in SC

MudPuppy
May 5, 2007, 01:09 PM
Royal lived with his parents near the home that was burglarized, police said. A search of his home turned up two guns taken from Bollinger’s house and marijuana, Johnson said.

Good shoot. (He may not have known so at the time...)

TheFringe
May 5, 2007, 01:23 PM
Akodo states: this 'what if' is just silly. A 'friend of the burglar' who also is in the home is considered an accomplice.

Hi Velocity states:
4- Did the perpetrator make any "Furtive moves" when re-entering the Army Officer's residence? If he did, the shoot was good. If he didn't and the officer could articulate the 2 facts above, still a good shoot.

My whole point is that according to the report the subject had not re-entered the home. Can you legally shoot an un-armed man in your backyard ?

Heavy Metal Hero
May 5, 2007, 01:23 PM
1- None of us were there, we don't know the circumstances; no armchair quarterbacking here.

What good is an online forum if we can't armchair quarterback things? ;)

Titan6
May 5, 2007, 01:41 PM
Neutral. Not enough info. With the info presented maybe. He had no idea if the guy had just walked out for a sec and was coming back or not. Reasonable to assume that if your house has been robbed the 1st tresspasser you come upon did it? Maybe.

TheFringe
May 5, 2007, 01:44 PM
Just so folks don't get the wrong idea, I should point out that over the last several months I have taken a lot of flak on sites such as ar15.com for condoning lethal force used by victims against their un-armed muggers. One forum member was actually banned for threatening to "draw down on me if he ever saw me draw down on my un-armed mugger." That is why I have joined this forum.

I have also advocated removing all weight lifiting gear from prisons with my own 'LESS WEIGHTS/LONGER WAITS' campaign. Some recently released (on early parole) violent felons can bench press 500 pounds and are usually under the influence of meth or crack while kicking in your door at 3 AM. I will not fist fight an individual of this description attempting to assault or mug me, but rather use lethal force to stop the attack. Therefore I want it understood that I am just posing a question here rather than judging the homeowner.

Axctal
May 5, 2007, 01:52 PM
My impression was that BG was still INSIDE the house attempting to LEAVE through back door while armed with stoilen weapons

TheFringe
May 5, 2007, 01:55 PM
That is very possible and would make it a good shoot. Very poorly written article.

sierrabravo45
May 5, 2007, 02:05 PM
I think he should have asked him to lie down on the ground and then wait for the cops. This would have done a few things.

1. Employ lawyers for the next few months debating the case.

2. Provide jurors a nice salary while they are listening to the lawyers.

3. Once the "innocent victim" (innocent until proven guilty. They guy could have been the pizza delivery boy walking in to a ransacked house through the back door) was charged. The taxpayers would have to pay for his 3 squares a day, cable TV and education while he was in jail.

4. Counseling would probably have to be provided also since he went through mental anguish in the robbery. (the robber, not the soldier should be helped).

I really think he went pursued the wrong direction......:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener:

Hobie
May 5, 2007, 02:11 PM
I find that most newspaper articles are poorly written and give only slightly more information than you could pick up from friends around the water cooler. Multiple sources are needed from which to deduce the truth. The key information is that the shooter was not charged.

p85
May 5, 2007, 02:28 PM
I certainly don't have enough information to say whether this was a good shoot or not. Here in NC, if you were to wait for someone to enter your home before shooting, you cannot shoot unless 1. you cannot retreat any further and 2. you genuinely fear for your life. However, if they are still outside and are attempting to enter without your permission, armed or not, you have the legal right to stop they from entering by lethal force. I know it seems to be backwards, but that is the way it is. Once they are inside, you cannot escalate (sp) the situation. You cannot even hold them for the police as you have no "citizens arrest" power. I would like to see legislation for "castle doctrine" similar to that of other states enacted here.

Bob

Aguila Blanca
May 5, 2007, 02:39 PM
My whole point is that according to the report the subject had not re-entered the home. Can you legally shoot an un-armed man in your backyard ?
In most states ... yes.

The law in most states says that you may employ deadly force in self defense if you fear immediate death or serious bodily harm. Most of these laws do not limit this to within the home, nor to nighttime hours. I think my thought process would be similar to that reported for the Army lad -- I know my guns have been taken, I see a person whom I assume to be the perp approaching my BACK door ... I'm going to assume that he is armed and prepared to do me unwell if not dealt with.

I vote good shoot. The law does not require that the facts causing your fear be 100 percent correct, the law only requires that you fear for your life.

M2 Carbine
May 5, 2007, 02:42 PM
I believe the fact that he isn't being charged says there's more to the story.

If a little more info was known, I probably would have shot to.


I would like to see legislation for "castle doctrine" similar to that of other states enacted here.


The Texas Governor just signed the "Castle Doctrine".:)

TheFringe
May 5, 2007, 02:50 PM
Thank you all for the informed responses. I knew there was a reason I joined this forum !

Soybomb
May 5, 2007, 04:02 PM
If I've learned anything its that whats printed in the newspaper is seldom right. In this case I'm betting the story printed isn't the full and complete story.

Warren
May 5, 2007, 04:14 PM
In general in these situations I give the benefit of the doubt to the person who DIDN'T initiate the overall situation that lead to the death.

So regardless of the facts (inside? outside?) of the shooting itself, I'll give a pass to the homeowner because the dead un turned out to be a criminal and the one responsible for this particular theft.

Though I don't condone shooting someone who has given up. Or going over to his place and shooting him. Or waiting a few days or weeks and then ambushing him. None of those situations are kosher.

Don Lu
May 5, 2007, 04:20 PM
I understand why he shot, and luckily it turned out to be the BG who was hit, But Im not so sure it was a good shot (soley based on the info provided). If you cant Identify the threat as a threat then you may want to hold off on shooting. Depending on his role in Iraq, he may have been used to shooting w/o asking himself some key questions, and I understand that as well. The person shot could very well have been a neighbor who saw some suspicious activity and was coming to check on things as a good samaritan, could have been a meter reader for the gas or electric company. I think the "what ifs" are what make this a questionable shot.

F4GIB
May 5, 2007, 04:22 PM
Can you legally shoot an un-armed man in your backyard ?

Sometimes. This time, for example.

Waitone
May 5, 2007, 04:51 PM
Reporters can mess up an article in two obvious ways. They can omit important information or they can garble the information they do present. In this particular situation the reporter presented gun related information with seldom seen clarity. He grabbed his SKS rifle — a weapon similar to an AK47 assault rifle — and called 911, Johnson said.He specified the rifle "brand" properly--SKS. He described the weapon properly--similar, He identified an analog properly--AK47. And described the analog technically correct--assault rifle. In summary the reporter was splendidly accurate precisely at the point other reporters fall into a bowl of mush.

My conclusion at this point is based on his accurate portrayal of the firearms used his reportage of the remaining facts in the incident is accurate. That says nothing about facts in the incident that never made it to print. All I can do at this point is throw on a fair amount of windage and sorta kinda say the entire report was representative of what happened and that there are no gross misrepresentations or omissions.

Doug Add
May 5, 2007, 04:54 PM
I would like to see legislation for "castle doctrine" similar to that of other states enacted here.

Momentary off topic comment to p85 follows.

Just such a bill has been introduced in the state senate:

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=S1251

I would encourage you to contact your Senator and the members of the Judiciary Committee I (Civil) expressing your desire for this bill to become law in North Carolina. Here are the committee members and their contact information:

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Committees/Committees.asp?sAction=ViewCommittee&sActionDetails=Senate%20Standing_70


We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion.

gunsmith
May 5, 2007, 05:38 PM
My whole point is that according to the report the subject had not re-entered the home. Can you legally shoot an un-armed man in your backyard ?

It depends on what state your in.

BBQJOE
May 5, 2007, 06:12 PM
Had this guy been robbed by the BG before?
Or did the BG make a trip home with the guns and decide to go back for more?

Greed can be deadly.

I'd say it was a very LUCKY good shoot.

Mumwaldee
May 5, 2007, 06:28 PM
Good shoot. Good job. Good bye bad guy. Criminals beware.

*29 year old perp living with his parents...laying around getting high on his parent's dime and stealing from productive citizens to either fund his habit or arm himself for more aggressive robbery....I have zero sympathy.

JesseL
May 5, 2007, 06:33 PM
I would say that if:

The home owner is alive
The home owner is not in jail
Bonus: the burglar is dead


It is by definition a good shoot. Nobody can say for sure that the homeowner was acting wisely based on on what he knew at the time, but the results can't be argued with.

daysleeprx
May 5, 2007, 07:37 PM
Forgive the off topic post...but when I first read the title of this thread I was imagining a story of a Veterinarian protecting some sick animals. :D

PRazz
May 5, 2007, 07:40 PM
Taking belly shots, that's a pretty bad way to go. He picked the wrong house. I don't know the whole story, only this soldier does. I certainly would not want an incident about me in the paper to be taken as truth. My personal feeling is that if I come home and find my house burglarized I will assume that:
1)the person is still present
2)he has armed himself "to the teeth" with any of my weapons not on my person and still in the house
3)deadly force will be used on any individuals found on my property who continue in a forward motion towards me, wife, kids, fish.
This would of course be with a 911 call in progress and listening if time permits. Break-ins aren't just theft based like back in the old days. The perp could be in your house for any sick reason. maybe he saw your wife at the grocery store and decided to pull a home invasion or enter and lie-in-wait. Like you say, lots of what ifs.

starboard
May 5, 2007, 08:35 PM
Another piece of trash dead and buried. I am grateful to the officer for his service, first abroad and now at home.

Double Naught Spy
May 5, 2007, 08:48 PM
Home invasion burglary is a dangerous pursuit. Many never learn this.

jpk1md
May 5, 2007, 09:00 PM
AUGUSTA, Ga. — A man authorities say had broken into an Army officer’s home to steal guns was shot to death by the Iraq war veteran, who had come home early.

“While on the phone with 911, he sees the suspect approaching his back door,” Johnson said. “Because he believes the man now is armed with his stolen weapons, Mr. Bollinger fires at him three times.”

Based on what is written above I say Good Shoot.

PrimaryB
May 5, 2007, 09:49 PM
Good Shoot. This scenario could have other endings but fortunately we are posting to this one. No one likes to see a life lost. No celebration here but that is how it's supposed be. :(

PB

thexrayboy
May 5, 2007, 10:56 PM
Just a bit OT but.....

Provide jurors a nice salary while they are listening to the lawyers.



Where the heck do you do jury duty? Most places the pay is barely enough to cover the cost of gas and lunch for the day you are in court.

Ok back to the discussion of a shooting with poor reporting by the media and a happy outcome for the good guy.

gunsmith
May 6, 2007, 08:13 AM
well, I sure hope the bad guy has learned his lesson and will not try this stunt again!

Lashlarue
May 6, 2007, 09:40 AM
My guess is that the reporter is anti-gun.Describing the weapons so clearly as assault weapons, then leaving the impression that it was an unnecessary shooting.Since the officer was inside his home I don't believe he could see through the back door which makes me tend to believe the suspect was re-entering the premises. Having witnessed what a 45acp will do at close range, it is very possible the intruder was in the house when shot and his body ended up outside since the muzzle energy of 7.62x39 is considerably more than 45acp.

Rumble
May 6, 2007, 11:02 AM
I'm not particularly exercised about the fact that the burglar got killed here, since he was stealing guns and risking "big boy" consequences.

I at first thought that the burglar was inside and leaving by the back door, and that Bollinger saw him move past toward the door. However, the search of the burglar's residence turned up guns of Bollinger's, so I understand that to mean that the burglar was returning to Bollinger's house, after already making off with a couple guns.

I'm on the fence here--"good" or "bad" shoot will depend almost entirely on the law of the state and any specifics that crop up.

fgr39
May 6, 2007, 11:23 AM
That neighberhood of Augusta is not a good place to live. This was the second home invader shot in about a week, I think they were less than a mile from each other too. When you live in an area like that it has to be taken into account for part of the mindset. Everyone here on Fort Gordon thinks the CPT did the right thing and hopes it sends the message to other BG's that this will happen to them, we are also waiting for the report to pop up on the civil case (you know its comming). The big question I had was why is a CPT living in south Augusta? I knew enough to spend the extra money and live in Columbia County.

beaucoup ammo
May 6, 2007, 11:24 AM
The article is an abysmal example of "Police Blotter Reporting." There's not enough information to base a conclusion. There's a lot missing here.

Having discovered many of his weapons missing, however, I feel the homeowner was justified in shooting the criminal.. as I also would have to assume the guy was armed and coming back into my home.

I'd really like to know the real skinny and not just a bad attempt at reporting.

foob
May 6, 2007, 12:05 PM
4- Did the perpetrator make any "Furtive moves" when re-entering the Army Officer's residence? If he did, the shoot was good. If he didn't and the officer could articulate the 2 facts above, still a good shoot.

I would say it wasn't a good shoot if all the officer had to go on was fear and reasonable belief the target was in possession of firearms.

I believe the basic standard consist of
1. ability
If he saw the target carrying a firearm or other weapon, this criteria would definitely be satisfied. Unfortunately, all he had was
(i) stolen firearms (which could have occurred hours ago after he left for work)
(ii) unknown man approaching back door
It's not clear this criteria is satisfied, and may be best decided by a jury.

2. opportunity
It seems, from the minimal details, that the target approached the back door from outside (probably stole firearms and stored it away, came back for more). Considering the target wasn't carrying any firearm, and the officer could see the target well enough to put 2 out of 3 shots into the stomach area, it is unclear whether the opportunity to cause immediate, unavoidable deadly harm to the officer was there.

3. jeopardy
I don't think the officer could tell the intent of the target was to cause deadly harm to him, or that the danger was immediate and unavoidable. So this criteria also doesn't seem to be reasonably met.


Not considering castle doctrine laws, none of the 3 criteria mentioned above seems to be met, at least not convincingly. So I'm very surprised he wasn't charged, and would make a wild guess that his military history played a part. Also it was a home shoot, not CCW on the streets, so that also probably influenced the investigators.

From my cynical point of view, I'm glad a burglar has been punished and a man defended his home. But in relation to the law, I think he is lucky to have gotten off lightly, and hope nobody thinks he or she can get away with it too.

Gerald in Ga
May 6, 2007, 12:42 PM
This the article as ran in the Augusta Chronicle paper. The tv news said that Capt. Bollinger watched this guy jump over his fence to get to his house. Oh well. You can reach the reporter at the info at the end of the article.

News » Metro Welcome, Soldier comes home early, kills burglar
By Timothy Cox| Staff Writer
Thursday, May 03, 2007125 commentsPRINTEMAIL A man who police said broke into an Army officer's south Augusta house to steal guns was fatally shot Wednesday by the soldier living there.



1 / 2

Timothy Cox/Staff
A man who police said broke into an Army officer's south Augusta house to steal guns was fatally shot Wednesday by the soldier living there.
Click photo for optionsErrol Lavar Royal, 29, of the 2200 block of Ramblewood Drive was pronounced dead at Medical College of Georgia Hospital about 6:45 p.m. Police said he lived with his parents near the burglarized home in the 3400 block of Linderwood Drive in the Pepperidge subdivision.

Capt. Barre Bollinger, an Iraq war veteran, told police he returned from work about 3:30 p.m. and found his house had been ransacked, said Richmond County sheriff's Investigator Thomas Johnson.

Capt. Bollinger told police he entered his bedroom and noticed that guns were missing.

He grabbed his SKS rifle - a weapon similar to an AK-47 assault rifle - and called 911, Investigator Johnson said.

"While on the phone with 911, he sees the suspect approaching his back door. Because he believes the man now is armed with his stolen weapons, Mr. Bollinger fires at him three times," Investigator Johnson said.

Mr. Royal was shot at least twice in the stomach area. A search of his residence produced two guns taken from Capt. Bollinger's house and marijuana, the investigator said.

Neighbors told police that Capt. Bollinger, who is stationed at Fort Gordon, generally works from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., but occasionally returns home early.

As of now, there are no plans to charge Capt. Bollinger in the shooting, police said.

A similar shooting occurred a week ago, when a woman shot an intruder on Lexington Drive, less than a mile from Linderwood Drive.

Reach Timothy Cox at (706) 823-3217 or tim.cox@augustachronicle

akodo
May 6, 2007, 12:56 PM
I was re-reading the little bit of info that we have.

The way it is written, the burglar could have been either
1. IN the home approaching the back door
2. OUTSIDE the home approaching the back door

Browning
May 6, 2007, 01:05 PM
Sounds like good shooting to me, he hit him with all three didn't he? :D

He shot a burglar, who now won't be able to burglarize anyone's home (or attack anyone else if his criminal career progressed that far) and he got his stuff back, what more could you ask for? Just because you think that the cops would hassle you more because of your long hair doesn't put you in league with defending a burglar. It just means that sometimes the cops are judgemental morons.

The media also isn't going to do a very good job of describing the thought processes of the armed homeowner in shooting this guy. For one they'd think it too graphic and two they don't want other people to defend themselves against burglars. Who knows what gave the guy away, something must have told the vet that this guy was dirty or else he wouldn't have shot him three times.

I for one am glad he did it, one less gun stealing burglar in the world.

foob
May 6, 2007, 01:09 PM
Good logic. We should change all criminal statutes so the mandatory sentence is the death penalty.

Also due process should be thrown out, any cop or civilian that sees a person in the commission of a crime should shoot to kill.

-----
I think most people here think it's a morally good shoot, but I think the question from the original poster is whether it is a legally good shoot.

Gerald in Ga
May 6, 2007, 01:33 PM
This is what the Georgia law says. This comes from a news station in Augusta.

Georgia Gun Laws Liberal For Homeowners; Home Invaders Beware
By Danielle Johnson, djohnson@wagt.com

It's a split second decision some homeowners have to make, should they shoot an intruder. For Ricky Lanier it's easy to answer.

“I mean I've thought about it a bit but it's just not worth it have a weapon in your house with children,” he says.

Under Georgia law if someone makes threat on your life within the four corners of your property you have the right to use deadly force. And it can be either verbal or physical threat. Danny Craig, the Richmond County District Attorney, says by law the decision to shoot is soley left up to the owner.

“A person is entitled to use deadly force against another person at any time when he feels that person has threatened deadly force or serious bodily harm against him,” he says.

But even more important than your right to shoot is knowing how to use your gun. Lieutenant Derick Still is an instructor with the Richmond County Sherriff's Office.
He says when approaching an attacker keep both hands on the gun but off the trigger.

“Having your hand on the trigger a loud noise could go off, you could be startled you could press it anyway and so sympathetic fires,” he says.

He also says you can give a verbal warning before you fire. Aim for the largest area on the body. And he says in most cases two shots are enough.

While the laws are loosely based on perception there are some cases in which you cannot shoot someone on your property. That includes, trespassing because it's not considered a threat to you.

If you cannot prove that your life in danger and you shoot someone, then it's up to a jury to decide if you did the right thing.

Story Created: May 3, 2007 at 6:16 PM EDT

Story Updated: May 3, 2007 at 6:33 PM EDT

gunsmith
May 8, 2007, 12:56 AM
Good logic. We should change all criminal statutes so the mandatory sentence is the death penalty.

Also due process should be thrown out, any cop or civilian that sees a person in the commission of a crime should shoot to kill.

you seem upset, I cant understand why.
I have been a victim of a home invasion, I cooperated and was stabbed for my cooperation.

Now I have a gun and if you break into where I live, I have good reason to assume you mean to cause serious trauma or death, I will shoot first.

This is not some guy simply climbing over a fence.

foob
May 8, 2007, 01:11 AM
I'm not upset. I'm just using hyperbole to respond to the previous poster, in an attempt to show him what his thinking might lead to.

It just seems (from the admittedly limited info in the article), that an unfamiliar guy approached his back door from the outside. I suppose the door was open so he could see him. And the shooter made many assumptions when shooting him.

Assumptions he made:
1. The guy is the burglar. True
2. The guy is armed. False
3. The guy's intent is to cause deadly harm to shooter. Unlikely, with no weapon, and early return of shooter

I'm just saying he's really lucky not to have been charged.

Mumwaldee
May 8, 2007, 03:53 AM
Assumptions he made:
1. The guy is the burglar. True
2. The guy is armed. False
3. The guy's intent is to cause deadly harm to shooter. Unlikely, with no weapon, and early return of shooter


He probably didn't have a lot of time to analyze the situation and come up with the "perfect" plan. He comes home...his door is kicked in or window's knocked out and his guns are missing. Bearing that in mind:
Seeing someone you don't know diddy-bopping through your back yard on his way back into your house, it's reasonable to assume:

1. The guy is the burglar. Probably.
2. The guy is armed. Probably(with your weapons)
3. The guy's intent is to at least steal some more stuff and he may kill you because you've seen him or because he didn't expect you to be there and you scared the crap out of him while he was fiddling with his new guns.

The homeowner is lucky to be alive. ;)

Zen21Tao
May 8, 2007, 04:45 AM
I have a good friend stationed at Ft. Gordon (Signal Analyst with 297th MI Bat) that I will check with to see if he has any added inside info. As for for the shoot, I say one less criminal dirt bag breathing our clean law abiding air, Hooah!!

Trebor
May 8, 2007, 04:54 AM
You know, it doesn't matter what anyone here thinks if it was a good or bad shoot. What matters is what the *prosecutor* thinks. So far, no charges are filed, and that's good enough for me.

Ala Dan
May 8, 2007, 05:10 AM
Personally, I'm very happy that the war vet isn't being charged; but like many
here, do believe that many actual details of the shooting are missing~! :scrutiny: ;)

gunsmith
May 8, 2007, 08:18 AM
from the inside of his ransacked house.....sometimes one plus one equals justifiable use of deadly force.

scout26
May 8, 2007, 09:13 AM
Hmmm,

Guy jumps fence in back yard and is approaching recently burglarized house. (not a kid hopping fences going form yard to yard taking a shortcut.) It's not a neighbor, friend, cop or someone else you recognize. He's not wearing a Fedex, UPS, DHL or other delivery uniform and it's not Ed McMahon carrying a giant Publishers Clearing House cardboard check, I would presume that he is there to do me harm. Since some of my guns are missing I'd assume that he had armed himself with at least one of them. I think it's more a question of "How far from the back door was he when the CPT fired." If the guy is obviously attempting to enter, righteous shoot. If he's a fair distance from the house then it becomes questionable.

Too many facts left out of the story, we're not there to see the physical layout of the scene, nor any of the other evidence (like the 911 recording), and since the local DA is not pressing charges, I'll defer to his judgement. Good Shoot.

Lurper
May 8, 2007, 10:55 AM
Obviously a good shoot, he wasn't charged. In many states and it sounds like GA is one, you are legally justified in usinge lethal force even if the assailant is unarmed. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say a reasonable man would be in fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm under the circumstances given.

delta53
May 8, 2007, 11:06 AM
we hear what Errol Lavar Royal, 29 has to say till then nothing except return the property to victim :)

quatin
May 8, 2007, 01:37 PM
If a state has a "castle doctrine" (not saying that guys state did). Do you need to have a reason to shoot or can you just shoot anyone inside your house that's not supposed to be there? For example: You live alone. In the middle of the night you see a shadow in the living room. Are you allowed to use deadly force?

foob
May 8, 2007, 01:43 PM
If a state has a "castle doctrine" (not saying that guys state did). Do you need to have a reason to shoot or can you just shoot anyone inside your house that's not supposed to be there? For example: You live alone. In the middle of the night you see a shadow in the living room. Are you allowed to use deadly force?

Seems like you can in Indiana (part of statute).
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

But seems like you cannot in Florida (wiki quote, not statute):
In Florida, Castle Doctrine applies to any place where a person has a legal right to be, not just their own home. Opponents of this Castle Doctrine law have referred to it as a "shoot first" law, implying that it allows people to "shoot first, ask questions later" any time they are frightened. However, all laws pertaining to the use of deadly force still apply. The law still requires citizens to articulate the ability, opportunity and intent of an attacker to do grave bodily harm to a person exercising his or her right to self-defense. Since the passing of this law, several other states have enacted similar legislation.

glocktoberfest
May 8, 2007, 02:12 PM
I was waiting for the quote , here it goes .........

Errols mother said .

" he was a good boy "

lacoochee
May 8, 2007, 02:21 PM
Good Shoot/Bad Shoot had no bearing on the decision by the prosecutor not to pursue charges. Prosecutors like to win, here are the facts:

Shooter is Active Duty Army Officer Iraq War Vet.
Robber broke into his home stole firearms and came back for more.
Shooter kills Robber as he approaches back door.
Search of Robbers home by police find stolen weapons.

Now, you are sitting on a jury, and hear the above, Not Guilty.

Had he shot the wrong guy he would be going to jail, but he didn't.

Would I have no, I would have waited for his foot to cross my threshold, then I would have shot him, center mass.

WeThePeople
May 8, 2007, 02:22 PM
I just happy that he used an "assault rifle." Now we have another argument for "legitimate" use.

Legionnaire
May 8, 2007, 02:27 PM
Any links to follow-up reports? Still sense that we don't have all the info here.

MrDig
May 8, 2007, 02:35 PM
Why are people who were not there and or directly involved passing judgement? Who am I to say if this was a good shoot or a bad shoot based on the information at hand. This is the same mentality that second guesses LEO's who use their weapons in the line of duty and or the Soldier shooting a "Civilian". Neither you nor I were there, I have never been in that hostile a situation therefore I am unable to pass "Judgement" on the person that was there and did the shooting. In particular based on the limited information.

foob
May 8, 2007, 02:41 PM
Why are people who were not there and or directly involved passing judgement? Who am I to say if this was a good shoot or a bad shoot based on the information at hand. This is the same mentality that second guesses LEO's who use their weapons in the line of duty and or the Soldier shooting a "Civilian". Neither you nor I were there, I have never been in that hostile a situation therefore I am unable to pass "Judgement" on the person that was there and did the shooting. In particular based on the limited information.

Always the same old argument against giving an opinion, especially when it offends you. Lighten up, jeez. Ever killed anybody? Don't give an opinion on a murderer then. Ever suicide bombed a building? No? Then don't pass judgement on terrorists. Ever been a muslim... you get the idea.

Who are you to say? You are a human. One given the faculties to think, observe, make inferences, and place value judgements on anything you desire.

Nobody is passing judgement (in quotes whatever that means) on the person, we are passing judgement, or giving an opinion, on his actions, given the available information. Opinions are a dime a dozen, they don't mean crap. They can be "wrong".

Nobody except God has all the information, does that mean we can't discuss a topic and give an opinion?

This is an internet forum, not the jury deciding his fate. Relax about not having all the information...

Great argument for an accused to the prosecutor and judge. You guys weren't there nor directly involved, so don't second guess my decision. The jury can't judge me because they weren't there. They don't have all the information. Jesus Christ do people actually make convincing arguments anymore.

---

Every post on this forum is made with limited information. Which caliber do you think is best? Have you tested all the calibers available? Have you shot enough people with enough calibers to know for sure? Is an AR more accurate than an AK? Is an AK more reliable than an AR? Which are the top 10 battle rifles?

DogBonz
May 8, 2007, 02:42 PM
Is that he shot through a door at some one after he called the police. He could have shot a plain clothes officer who was responding. Other than that, I am glad that a vet is safe and that he will not be persecuted… I mean prosecuted for defending himself.

Werewolf
May 8, 2007, 02:54 PM
There's one less scumbag in the world (they found the Cpt's guns in his house so he was guilty).

The Captain isn't being charged.

'Nuff SAID!

ArfinGreebly
May 8, 2007, 06:07 PM
Home defense with a rifle, shots to COM rather than fancy head-shots or idiotic "shoot to wound."

No silly "stop-or-I'll-shoot" dialog. Armed intruder as far as he knows, so either "hey, are you armed with one of my guns?" or "hey, stop right there!" (bad guy panics and shoots) or "bang! bang! bang!"

I'm going with "bang! bang! bang!" thank you very much.

Journalistic bias leaves out data that would probably make the shooting a complete "duh!" moment.

Journalist describes rifle as "similiar to . . . assault rifle" while omitting actual distance from bad guy to back door.
Capt. Bollinger told police he entered his bedroom and noticed that guns were missing.
House is ransacked . . . entered bedroom . . . "noticed" guns were missing.

Clearly data is omitted. Unless he was in the habit of leaving his rifles lying on the bed, he had to enter his bedroom, go to the closet/cabinet/safe where the guns were stored, and count the little piggies, concluding that some piggies were missing (alternatively, looks in safe, and his two bestest rifles on the right-hand side are gone, leaving a large gap in the rack-o-rifles).

Oh, and he "grabbed" his (already loaded and cocked??) SKS?

I don't store anything loaded in my safe, so the sequence would be "grabbed and loaded" his rifle.

The report is pretty sketchy. I guess it's tough to leave out the best parts of the story and still have a story.

I figure the police got it right.

runfrumu
May 8, 2007, 07:06 PM
anytime someone breaks into your home and you shoot them it's a good shoot to me.

If you enjoyed reading about "Vet kills intruder. Good shoot or bad shoot ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!