Woman shoots man found under her bed


PDA






ScottsGT
January 18, 2008, 01:19 PM
http://www.thestate.com/312/story/287760.html

Posted on Thu, Jan. 17, 2008
Woman shoots man found under her bed
The Associated Press

LAURENS, S.C. --Authorities say a woman coming home from work shot and killed an intruder she found under her bed.

Laurens County Sheriff Ricky Chastain says the woman heard a noise in her bedroom Monday evening and grabbed a gun when she saw a hand underneath her bed.

Deputies say the woman fired three times as the man started to come out.

Authorities say 23-year-old Richard Vanderford was hit in the shoulder and chest. Chastain says he was a neighbor of the woman and did not have permission to be in the home.

The sheriff says investigators will present their findings to prosecutors to see if any charges should be filed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Woman shoots man found under her bed" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MrPeter
January 18, 2008, 01:22 PM
wow, interesting story! Is this a good shoot? If he was a neighbor I wonder if she recognized him? Is being under someone's bed uninvited when they get home threatening enough to use deadly force?
Interested in seeing what happens with this one.

siglite
January 18, 2008, 01:23 PM
Isn't it normally the husband who came home early that shoots the guy under the bed?

ScottsGT
January 18, 2008, 01:24 PM
Is being under someone's bed uninvited when they get home threatening enough to use deadly force?

It is in SC :D

hockeybum
January 18, 2008, 01:25 PM
hmm. this one makes you think. from what i understand she came home, BG was under bed, BG started to move out towards her, she shoot. this could go either way in court though....

BridgeWalker
January 18, 2008, 01:27 PM
Wow, turns out I have a tactical bed: it's a mattress directly on the floor, for the toddler's convenience. Also no chance of intruders hiding out there. Still have closets though...

I strongly suspect I would react the same way, though, absent other details. Entering my home without permission and hiding under my bed is indication of violent intent. I believe in most states the imminent threat of rape is considered justification for use of deadly force. Unless her bedroom is really big, she has no way of staying a safe distance away while ascertaining how he would behave next.

ApexinM3
January 18, 2008, 01:28 PM
Not enough info to pass judgment at this time. I'm curious to find the details on this one, though...

NG VI
January 18, 2008, 01:29 PM
if my girlfriend comes home and there's a stranger in the house i hope she has the presence of mind to get one of mine.

General Geoff
January 18, 2008, 01:30 PM
There you have it, folks.


The bogeyman can be persuaded; all it takes is a hot lead injection.

jlpskydive
January 18, 2008, 01:30 PM
It is in NC and I don't know any of my neighbors well enough not to think that they were there to do bad things to me or my wife if found under the bed.

XDKingslayer
January 18, 2008, 01:33 PM
No. This was not enough for deadly force to be used. Just because a guy is in another womans home uninvited and hiding under her bed doesn't make him a bad guy. It's entirely plausible that he was there to deliver flowers or was eradicating bed bugs.

Yes, that's sarcasm for the ones that won't get it. They're usually the same ones who question if a uninvited guy in a womans home hiding under her bed and starting come out from said bed is enough to justify deadly force...

Ed Ames
January 18, 2008, 01:33 PM
Is being under someone's bed uninvited when they get home threatening enough to use deadly force?



Generally yes. Not so much the hiding but the being there and the coming out. Being there shows illegal entry/intent. Coming out can be threatening. Assuming the story is accurate (and he wasn't "under the 19yo daughter's bed" or something) this would be justified under California law.

(I say CA law to avoid the assinine "the law in Texas isn't the law everywhere" comments... and because it's what I'm most familiar with.)

M2 Carbine
January 18, 2008, 01:35 PM
The guy is in her house, under her bed and there's any question if it's a "good shooting"?

Are you guys kidding?

What do you call justification for a "good shooting", after he rapes and kills her?:rolleyes:

outfieldjack
January 18, 2008, 01:37 PM
Bang Bang Bang... wonder if he was planning on staying under there until she went to bed that night?

MrPeter
January 18, 2008, 01:45 PM
No. This was not enough for deadly force to be used. Just because a guy is in another womans home uninvited and hiding under her bed doesn't make him a bad guy. It's entirely plausible that he was there to deliver flowers or was eradicating bed bugs.
There is absolutely no need to be rude or condesending. I was just thinking that because they mentioned that he was a neighbor that there could have been a set of (extremely) unlikely circumstanced that led up to a reason (although probably not a good one) of why he was under that bed. Picture this: Guy gets a new puppy, it runs out of the yard, and while looking for it, he sees it run up onto the neighbors back porch and into the left-open sliding glass door, opens the door, yelling, "hello!?". Thinking no one is home and feeling wierd about it, he goes in following the puppy, and tried to get it out from under the bed.

NO this is NOT a good reason to go into someone's home and YES you can expect to get shot if you do this. All I'm saying is that if I found someone under my bed when I got home I would definately draw, definately command them to show their hands but stay under the bed, and at least give them a second to say, "hey Peter! It's me, Doug! Don't shoot! Let me explain!"

On the other hand, if he was coming out and wouldn't stop when she commanded, that's another story. This article clearly doesn't state enough of the facts to be able to draw a conclusion.

In any case, you can save your sarcasm and wit for the playground.

ozwyn
January 18, 2008, 01:51 PM
this is why the monsters under the bed stop haunting humans after a certain age...

sounds like a good shoot to me.

MrRezister
January 18, 2008, 01:52 PM
I guess that depends:

What would you want your wife/sister/mother to do if she found someone under her bed upon returning home?

I know what I would want, but I shouldn't go into details or I might get banned.

TexasRifleman
January 18, 2008, 01:55 PM
and at least give them a second to say, "hey Peter! It's me, Doug! Don't shoot! Let me explain!"

Or give them a second to shoot you first, since you hesitated.

HKUSP45C
January 18, 2008, 01:57 PM
Oh, I disagree that the article doesn't have enough facts to draw a conclusion.

I won't shoot someone who wants property by theft (not forcible theft just stealing stuff). However, if you enter my house with out my permission or a badge\warrant you have signed your own death warrant. I'll assume you aren't there for iced tea and a chat about the new faux hardwood floors. I'll assume you're there to do me or mine harm and will take action accordingly.

If you cease all movement save breathing and possibly crying I'll cover you until the police arrive to escort you to the jail house. If you move I'll stop you from moving in the most expedient manner at my disposal and I'll do it with out asking you what your intentions are.

You just don't go roaming and hiding in other peoples houses hoping not to get caught or shot. It's an unhealthy way to make a living, at least it is in my house.

He broke in and hid, she caught him and shot him. He was wrong, she was right, regardless of the mitigating circumstances or the hypothetical puppies.

Chester32141
January 18, 2008, 02:01 PM
Is being under someone's bed uninvited when they get home threatening enough to use deadly force?

If it's not it ought to be ...

Ed Ames
January 18, 2008, 02:07 PM
...[because] he was a neighbor ... there could have been a set of (extremely) unlikely circumstanced...

That's true but not relevant. Why the person under the bed was there doesn't matter.

Whether the person under the bed had a right to be there does. E.g. if he was invited in by the shooter, by an adult child of the shooter, etc. then he had a right to be there and that would be a factor in determining whether this was a "good" or "bad" shooting.

The frame of mind of the shooter does. If she lives alone, came home, found something "not quite right" and armed herself to explore, found a stranger in her bedroom, and shot him to stop from being attacked and raped that's one thing. If she came home and found her 16yo daughter on the couch en dashabille, grabbed her gun and started searching, found the man and shot him fer doin what he shoulna outghta been doin... whole nuther story.

Most likely scenario is panty raid gone wrong... and if you play with fire you get burned... but other scenarios are possible.

BridgeWalker
January 18, 2008, 02:11 PM
To me, it is the hiding under the bed that pushes it over to a good shooting. People frequently wander into other homes, either accidentally (generally while either ill or under the influence of drugs/alchohol), or with ill-intent towards property alone. Hiding under the bed indicates lying in wait though.

If he was just a drunk, he'd be sleeping in the bed. If he was just a perv, he'd be going through her underwear drawer, not under her bed. If he was just a burglar, he'd be going through her jewelry box/trashing the house. He was carefully lying in wait, and I'd have to assume he was doing so armed.

In the other three possibilities, she is *still* probably justified in shooting. In this circumstance? Abso-freaking-lutely.

TEDDY
January 18, 2008, 02:15 PM
MOST PEOPLE WHO QUESTION THE SHOOTING ARE IN states that do not have laws to protect the people and therefore the posters are reluctent to defend themselves and suffer accordingly.Scott is right about SC.there was a case in SC exactly like this and AG declined to prosecute under SC defence law.even Mass has a castle law and a case law.florida has one too and you dont have to be in your home only, any place where you are entitled to be.
You should know you states law if you carry.:uhoh: :confused: :fire: :)

CT
January 18, 2008, 02:17 PM
That there is creepy.

ArfinGreebly
January 18, 2008, 02:20 PM
. . . and grabbed a gun when she saw a hand underneath her bed.
Doesn't say "from where" she grabbed.

Handbag?

Holster?

Dresser drawer or closet?

In any case, it wasn't far.

Strikes me that she was fairly prepared and mentally ready.

South Carolina? Why would a guy in South Carolina feel safe sneaking into someone else's home? Strikes me that you might pull that off in Massachusetts, but . . . I dunno, maybe he's an import and doesn't understand the local culture.

All in all, I'm thinking that was a pretty dumb move on his part.

My vote? Ladies in ALL the states should think like this.

Hidin' under a lady's bed is bad manners.

Mind yer manners.

NG VI
January 18, 2008, 02:23 PM
HAHA! senior status!

BobbyQuickdraw
January 18, 2008, 02:25 PM
The signs we do have point to this guy being up to something nefarious. The woman is innocent until proven guilty.

The guy not so much, because he broke the law (without question, you can not enter someones home without their permission), did something stupid, and got dead.

Superlite27
January 18, 2008, 02:33 PM
Where he is located HAS NO BEARING.

The question is "Can a reasonable person determine if the shooter was afraid for their life?"

I'm a 6' 200lb. male, and if a burglar crawled out from under my bed, I would surmise that they intended to do me harm.

A reasonable belief would be that the man waited there to determine whether or not she was alone. Enough for me to determine that it was reasonably possible for her to be afraid for her life.

Good Shoot.

Mannix
January 18, 2008, 02:44 PM
I figure the best case scenario was that the perv was interrupted while rummaging through her undie drawer, and decided hiding under the bed was a good idea.

In any case, kudos to her for being prepared.

NGIB
January 18, 2008, 02:55 PM
Would I have shot on the spot, not sure. I can guarantee you my wife would not have stopped at 3 shots. She would have emptied her pistol, reloaded, and then studied the situation. Same goes for my daughters. I have drilled into them repeatedly that if the situation feels bad - shoot...

TallPine
January 18, 2008, 04:24 PM
Sounds like a good shooting to me - she hit him in the chest and shoulder.

Though maybe she still needs a little training. Best thing would be to take an old bed out to the shooting range and practice shooting at a target under the bed.

BridgeWalker
January 18, 2008, 04:30 PM
Where he is located HAS NO BEARING.

I assure you that to the prosecutor, the facts of the case WILL MATTER.

Clipper
January 18, 2008, 04:39 PM
Though maybe she still needs a little training. Best thing would be to take an old bed out to the shooting range and practice shooting at a target under the bed.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha! I love it! TP, you wouldn't be making a pre-emptive strike against the inevitable 'Not bad, but of course she could have done better with (insert your favorite program here) TRAINING' commentaries that MUST follow, are you?

silverking
January 18, 2008, 04:43 PM
I'm sure he wasn't huntin' dust bunnies----well done, dear lady!

MillCreek
January 18, 2008, 05:17 PM
I think about how in my misspent youth, there were a couple of times when the parents came home early at my girlfriend's house and I had to emergently hide behind the couch or under the bed for a while. Good thing no one shot me.

HKUSP45C
January 18, 2008, 05:37 PM
I think about how in my misspent youth, there were a couple of times when the parents came home early at my girlfriend's house and I had to emergently hide behind the couch or under the bed for a while. Good thing no one shot me.

Good thing indeed. Though I think in your case the screams of the father's daughter proclaiming you as invited "guest" might keep you from getting shot as an intruder, to the home, other intruder statuses may still have got you shot ;)

We're still piling on hypotheticals that have nothing to do with grown men under the beds of grown women, uninvited, wot got them shot.

mekender
January 18, 2008, 06:45 PM
Where he is located HAS NO BEARING.

I assure you that to the prosecutor, the facts of the case WILL MATTER.

fortunately, the law in most states is written so as to imply that a burglary is forcible felony and lethal force is justified in stopping that act...

the fact is, rape, murder, arson, burglary, home invasion, robbery and aggravated assault all qualify under most states laws... the only facts that become relevant are weather or not the person with the holes in him was committing one of those acts... his location in the house is irrelevant, he was in the act of committing a forcible felony...

from SC law

SECTION 16-11-312. Burglary; second degree.

(A) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if the person enters a dwelling without consent and with intent to commit a crime therein.

(B) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if the person enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime therein, and either:

(1) When, in effecting entry or while in the building or in immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime:

(a) Is armed with a deadly weapon or explosive; or

(b) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or

(c) Uses or threatens the use of a dangerous instrument; or

(d) Displays what is or appears to be a knife, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm; or

(2) The burglary is committed by a person with a prior record of two or more convictions for burglary or housebreaking or a combination of both; or

(3) The entering or remaining occurs in the nighttime.

(C) Burglary in the second degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than fifteen years, provided, that no person convicted of burglary in the second degree shall be eligible for parole except upon service of not less than one-third of the term of the sentence.

SECTION 16-11-440. Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business.

(A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.

(C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

(D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

SECTION 16-1-60. Violent crimes defined.

For purposes of definition under South Carolina law, a violent crime includes the offenses of: murder (Section 16-3-10 ); criminal sexual conduct in the first and second degree (Sections 16-3-652 and 16-3-653); criminal sexual conduct with minors, first and second degree (Section 16-3-655); assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct, first and second degree (Section 16-3-656); assault and battery with intent to kill (Section 16-3-620); kidnapping (Section 16-3-910); voluntary manslaughter (Section 16-3-50); armed robbery (Section 16-11-330(A)); attempted armed robbery (Section 16-11-330(B)); carjacking (Section 16-3-1075); drug trafficking as defined in Section 44-53-370(e) or trafficking cocaine base as defined in Section 44-53-375(C); manufacturing or trafficking methamphetamine as defined in Section 44-53-375; arson in the first degree (Section 16-11-110(A)); arson in the second degree (Section 16-11-110(B)); burglary in the first degree (Section 16-11-311); burglary in the second degree (Section 16-11-312(B)); engaging a child for a sexual performance (Section 16-3-810); homicide by child abuse (Section 16-3-85(A)(1)); aiding and abetting homicide by child abuse (Section 16-3-85(A)(2)); inflicting great bodily injury upon a child (Section 16-3-95(A)); allowing great bodily injury to be inflicted upon a child (Section 16-3-95(B)); criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature (Section 16-25-65); abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult resulting in death (Section 43-35-85(F)); abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult resulting in great bodily injury (Section 43-35-85(E)); accessory before the fact to commit any of the above offenses (Section 16-1-40); attempt to commit any of the above offenses (Section 16-1-80); and taking of a hostage by an inmate (Section 24-13-450). Only those offenses specifically enumerated in this section are considered violent offenses.

there is nothing that says that it depends on where in the structure the offender is... this woman is totally justified

armedandsafe
January 18, 2008, 07:25 PM
Though I think in your case the screams of the father's daughter proclaiming you as invited "guest" might keep you from getting shot as an intruder

Many years ago, my daughter came home with a young lad in tow. After introducing him, she turned to me (cleaning guns in the living room) and said, 'He's mine...don't shoot him." and smiled sweetly at him. :D

Pops

Rustynuts
January 18, 2008, 08:31 PM
+1 for Florida. See BG in house, BLAM no questions asked, no revealing your position to him with warnings, etc. Much better survival odds for the victim.

Superlite27
January 18, 2008, 09:18 PM
the fact is, rape, murder, arson, burglary, home invasion, robbery and aggravated assault all qualify under most states laws... the only facts that become relevant are weather or not the person with the holes in him was committing one of those acts... his location in the house is irrelevant, he was in the act of committing a forcible felony...

Thanks mekender. Much more accurately worded than my attempt. If a person is in the process of committing a forcible felony, good shoot.

But, in my own opinion, they can be in the act of a felony, and I can still NOT shoot them.

But, if they make me afraid for my life, I'm opening up. I just think she might have been reasonably afraid for her life. I think a man under her bed is a frightening enough experience to justify her protecting herself.

BTW, BridgeWalker, I'm not too positive facts even matter to a prosecutor. (i.e. NIFONG) What SHOULD matter to a prosecutor is the law as it is written.

atblis
January 18, 2008, 09:30 PM
I figure the best case scenario was that the perv was interrupted while rummaging through her undie drawer, and decided hiding under the bed was a good idea.
That's about exactly what I was figuring.

BridgeWalker
January 18, 2008, 09:40 PM
Mekender and superlite: you missed two important parts of the statute Mekender cited. Those are "without consent" and "intent". Where the guy was in the house could be used to demonstrate that he was not there without consent (probably not in this case, in part *because of his location in the house*), and there are lots of arguments that could be made based on intent. Generally intent in this context simply means the volitional act of walking through the door, for example. There are arguments to be made in some jurisdictions regarding intent in the case of diminished capacity. Those probably don't apply here because of the obviously intentional nature of his concealment. Iow, where he was in the house.

Facts matter. Laws matter. Each element of the law matters. Laws applied to facts matter.

CZ 42
January 18, 2008, 09:59 PM
What else could this guy be doing under the bed? If he was 'looking for a puppy' he would've just glanced under. He could've benn ritarded or something, but I'd still say that was a BG asking to get shot. I am also one of the guys with tactical mattresses; no bedframe. Also right next to a windowsill covered with my favorite knives.

feedthehogs
January 18, 2008, 10:25 PM
To those who would sit there and ponder whether it was okay to shoot an uninvited person in your home, leave your next of kin info so we can contact them when your DEAD!

+1 for the woman.
Any time I got a woman who wanted her CCW or just instruction, I praised her over and over that she was doing a beautiful thing in wanting to protect herself because the system won't do it for her.

Does my heart good to see stories like this. :)

Superlite27
January 18, 2008, 10:36 PM
BridgeWalker,

Where the guy was in the house could be used to demonstrate that he was not there without consent

The wording of this statement confuses me. I think I see your point: Where the guy was could be used to determine if he WAS there WITH consent.

What would be an actual location that would positively prove he was consensually present? Even if he was in the process of taking a crap, he was still inside her residence feloniously. I cannot think of a location that could be used to prove he could have been there with permission.

I'm trying to see your point of view, but I can't see how his location determines anything.

Now, if some of his posessions were there, such as a toothbrush, or maybe a change of clothes or other property, he might have been justified in being there, therefore, she would be wrong.

But, where he is at? Even if he was in the shower, she could have been frightened by his presence. Where would he be justified in being other than NOT INSIDE?

Javelin
January 18, 2008, 10:42 PM
Bang Bang Bang... wonder if he was planning on staying under there until she went to bed that night?


Exactly why it was a good shoot! I can't find the facts but its something like 99% of all victims of violent crimes knew the culprit in one way or another... This is so easy to win in court and I am betting she will further win compensation from him (or his estate if he is dead) in civil court as well.

BridgeWalker
January 18, 2008, 10:53 PM
The wording of this statement confuses me. I think I see your point: Where the guy was could be used to determine if he WAS there WITH consent.

Yeh, so I've officially been in law school too long. I said it that way because it echoed the language of the statute.

The only point I was trying to make was that the position that an intruder, any intruder, is not necessarily grounds for deadly force. A burglary is grounds for deadly force, but someone who is in your house when you don't expect them to be in your house may have a way of demonstrating that they were not committing a burglary.

If that threshold of meeting all the strict elements of a burglary are not proven, then the shooter has a seriously weakened defense. If the guy is located in the basement next to the gas meter, she is gonna have a harder time showing the element of lack of consent. If he's lying on the floor, drunk, next to an open door, she is gonna have a harder time showing intent. If he's hidden under her bed, she is gonna have a pretty easy time fulfilling those elements. Also, if his family claims that they had some kind of relationship, that it was some kind of fight instead of a home invasion, it really helps her that there are evidence photos of him under her bed.

That's all I was saying.

FLA2760
January 18, 2008, 10:58 PM
He was likely there to rape and probably murder her.

Superlite27
January 18, 2008, 11:34 PM
If the guy is located in the basement next to the gas meter, she is gonna have a harder time showing the element of lack of consent.

O.K. I can agree with that. If he has a UPS uniform on, there are UPS boxes laying around with a UPS truck in the driveway, it would probably be kind of hard to prove his malicious intent (although possible, just hard to prove) if he's laying on your front porch. You would probably have a hard time proving your reasonable fear for your life as well.

mekender
January 19, 2008, 12:03 AM
If that threshold of meeting all the strict elements of a burglary are not proven, then the shooter has a seriously weakened defense. If the guy is located in the basement next to the gas meter, she is gonna have a harder time showing the element of lack of consent. If he's lying on the floor, drunk, next to an open door, she is gonna have a harder time showing intent.

hmm, only access to my basement is from inside my house... and drunk guys are more than capable of kicking down a door... both cases mentioned are still easily within the definition of a forcible felony...

the UPS example would be pretty clear murder as the person was on the porch, not inside the house... but just because someone is in a uniform and driving an official vehicle does not mean that they are friendly... true it makes it more likely that they are, but not 100%... so while a dead UPS guy on your porch would be VERY suspicious, a dead UPS guy in your bedroom would not nearly be the same level of suspicious...

it comes down to the persons right to access... in the case of a UPS guy, he has zero business in a bedroom... a cable guy would have no business in a room where there was no cable outlet unless he was installing cable there... a neighbor would have no right to be anywhere inside a house unless invited, and certainly not underneath a bed...

cobrian45
January 19, 2008, 12:12 AM
I think the mistake that some people make is interlacing the definition of what burglary is and justified use of deadly force. They can be mutually exclusive. The definition of burglary in this case has the wording "with consent". Great, but the case (if any) will not be about whether burglary was taking place or not. It will be about justifiable use of deadly force.

Mekender was gracious enough to provide that in the research as well.

SECTION 16-11-440. Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business.

(A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.

This, under this section has all the pieces of a justified shoot under the law. Unlawful entry of a dwelling and the shooter believes that forcible entry has occurred.

karz10
January 19, 2008, 01:03 AM
ummmm hello

Speaking legally, not ethically, I think there would have to be very severe extenuating circumstances for this woman to face any charges, because SC has a pretty cut and dry castle doctrine...

http://www.sled.sc.gov/ProtectionOfPeople.aspx?MenuID=CWP

There is more to this, I have it in my CWP class stuff, but too lazy to get it right now... As I recall, anyone trying to gain entry to your car, trying to get you out of your car, getting into your home, in your home, or on your property (within reasonable distance of your residence, not necessarily out on the back forty) is present illegally and/or not complying with you can be shot in self defense.

I'm the first to say that I, like everyone else, has my own criteria and may vary by situation to situation, where I would feel necessary to shoot in self defense, and there could be a situation where I would not feel threatened or compelled to shoot someone in the house, and would choose another course of action, but from what I've read on the law here, the victim of attempted attack in your vehicle, or having any intruder in your home, in SC, the victim here has significant legal protection, unless it can be somehow proven that the alleged victim had some alterior motive, like they lure someone into their home so they can shoot them or something like that, but if it's any way a self defense thing, I think there's a lot of protection in your own home here...

Neighboring NC does not have a so called castle doctrine, while still allowing for self defense, and in some cases not requiring the duty to retreat, living here on the border of the two states, the general consensus of firearms enthusiasts and CWP instructors that I know, seem to think the SC law in this case protects the gun owner a little more, comparatively...

Regards,

Karz

mekender
January 19, 2008, 01:37 AM
As I recall, anyone trying to gain entry to your car, trying to get you out of your car, getting into your home, in your home, or on your property (within reasonable distance of your residence, not necessarily out on the back forty) is present illegally and/or not complying with you can be shot in self defense.

burglary of a conveyance (while you arent in the vehicle) and trespassing on property are not usually justifiable reasons... now, if there is a threat of violence during those incidents, then sure, a case can be made for physical threat during the commission of a crime... this is pretty much what Joe Horn is arguing down in TX, that the 2 dead guys trespassed onto his property while committing a crime and threatened his safety... but i would be really hesitant of making a shoot outside of my home...

kd7nqb
January 19, 2008, 03:56 AM
Sounds like a good shoot to me. I wish I had more details, it brings up an interesting over penetration scenario, we always think about over penetration as far as walls but floors should be considered too. I know very little about construction, which is normally more rigid, walls or floors?

mekender
January 19, 2008, 03:40 PM
floors usually have more wood in them, plus can have pipes and metal braces... but on average, 2nd story floors are usually plywood with beams(2x4 or 2x6 underneath... then a bottom layer of drywall that forms the ceiling for the lower level...

that would offer minimal protection against FMJ pistol rounds and little to no protection against rifle rounds...

all said, in your average house, there are very few things that are good at stopping bullets... bathtubs, stoves, refrigerators, dishwashers, water heaters and possibly mattresses are about the only things... wood furniture can stop rounds, but it would be very unreliable... walls and floors are not going to stop rounds unless they are very heavy plaster or masonry

Brenainn
January 19, 2008, 04:55 PM
Coming from a girl, this is my veiw on it...

Obviously, being someones neighbor doesn't give someone ANY rights to unknowingly enter someone's home. It shouldn't give them any rights what-so-ever afterwards either...

There is no telling what the dude was planning, and what personal belongings he went through before she got home. It's creepy to me. I would have shot to prevent possible harm to myself. For all I could have know, he could have been packing too.

At least now, (if she gets off) the dude will know that she won't hesitate to actually shoot him. So he may not reconsider coming back later. Where as if she had just told him to "slowly come out" and held him until the cops came (which would have been to dangerous IMO) he may have thought of her as too soft to shoot him, and therefore an easier target if he were to come back.

I just keep thinking of the "come back" part and would be thinking that right before I shot him!

atblis
January 19, 2008, 05:02 PM
Authorities say a woman coming home from work shot and killed an intruder she found under her bed.

I don't think he'll be doing whatever it was he was doing ever again. Most likely that is a good thing.

Unfortunately, there is the possibility that he did not intend harm. I know people who play pranks like that. There's a possibility this isn't a bad shoot, but not really a good shoot either.

mljdeckard
January 19, 2008, 05:12 PM
Under Utah law, as far as I understand it, this man,

A: Entered the home either by violence or by stealth (He snuck into her house when she wasn't home,)

B: With the intent to commit a felony (He hid under her bed, when he could have hidden in the shower or a closet or jumped out the window. His being under her BED indicates a likelihood to commit harm to her.)

If I were a defense attorney, I think I could sell this one to a jury. If I were a prosecutor, I wouldn't want to try to push a jury the other way. HE put HER in the situation of trying to determine what his intent was by being where he shouldn't have been. This is HIS fault, NOT hers. I mean really, what could his explanation have been, "She borrowed my screwdriver last week, and I was just looking for it under her bed."?

Brenainn
January 19, 2008, 05:33 PM
Quote:
Authorities say a woman coming home from work shot and killed an intruder she found under her bed.
I don't think he'll be doing whatever it was he was doing ever again. Most likely that is a good thing.

Unfortunately, there is the possibility that he did not intend harm. I know people who play pranks like that. There's a possibility this isn't a bad shoot, but not really a good shoot either.

Oh... my bad. :P But still...

.cheese.
January 19, 2008, 06:25 PM
I don't know why...... but while I can't quite come to the conclusion that the lady did anything wrong.... I still feel bad for the guy.

I think it's that I feel bad he was so dumb that his stupidity got him killed.

I don't know. It's kind of sad though. Maybe I'm just more easily "gotten to" by this stuff. I usually feel bad for the criminal who died.... just from the sheer fact that had things gone different in that person's life, they could still be alive and maybe even a productive member of society.

It doesn't change the fact that if I am presented with a situation where it is needed, I will not hesitate to shoot to defend my life..... but it's still sad.

cobrian45
January 19, 2008, 09:38 PM
After initially discussing this from a dry and clinical legal standpoint, I must now offer my honest opinion on the issue. If my wife came home to that situation, my instructions would be to shoot until it goes click. I don't want to know, nor do I care, what his intentions are. He is in the home of another person without consent (from what I know of the story) and laying in wait. Period. I'd much rather see what occurred in this situation than this woman (or my wife in the same situation) find out the hard way the meaning of his true intent. I don't think anyone here would argue with that if you are honest with yourself. "We'll handle the DA, honey, and I'll destroy his reputation if he tries to prosecute this one." How are you going to spin a woman in her home defending herself from an intruder, regardless of where he lives? Seriously.

-terry
January 19, 2008, 10:13 PM
I agree with Cheese. It would be heartbreaking to take another life, even if required.

Avenger29
January 19, 2008, 10:54 PM
Unfortunately, there is the possibility that he did not intend harm. I know people who play pranks like that. There's a possibility this isn't a bad shoot, but not really a good shoot either.

And people who try to play stupid pranks like that are competing for the Darwin Award.

There was a girl killed in GA a couple of years ago because some intruders cut a hole in her flooring and gained access, then killed her. I think they also raped her.

If I came home, particuarly if I lived alone, and there is somebody in the house, especially hiding under the bed or in a closet, they are getting shot PRONTO. It doesn't matter whether they are a neighbor or someone I know. Neighbors, family members, and friends have all turned on people they know and murdered them before.

Down here, you damn well get in contact with a person BEFORE you pay a visit to their dwelling. You don't enter when they are not home, either. And you don't trespess on property playing pranks, either. Not everyone identifies targets as well as we do, either.

brigadier
January 20, 2008, 02:10 AM
I don't know about the entire state, but in Charleston, entering someones house uninvited is automatic grounds for deadly force.

LightningJoe
January 20, 2008, 02:22 AM
Regardless of the guy's hypothetical motives, from the point of view of the woman coming home and encountering the guy, what's the difference between his actions and those of an attacker who would hold her prisoner for 12 hours, rape her repeatedly, and then strangle her? I would say none. It's not her obligation to give him the chance to come up with an explanation of why he's under her bed. The fact that he's there initiates a fight. She must fight back with everything she has.

xpun8
January 20, 2008, 04:49 AM
Unfortunately, there is the possibility that he did not intend harm. I know people who play pranks like that. There's a possibility this isn't a bad shoot, but not really a good shoot either.

People that know someone well enough to pull a prank should/would know how the prankee will react. As a prankster there isn't a snowballs chance Hades I'd ever perform anything remotely close to this. I witnessed a prankster just about have his neck snapped when he hid behind a tree and surprised the wrong person. Instead of his wife it was our friend who is capable of killing you with a pen. :) Pranks that involve surprising people with your presence is just a bad idea. However, short sheeting, wrapping everything in bosses office in saran wrap or shoe polish on ear piece of phone are all acceptable, as long as you are willing to receive the consequences.

Ultrachimp
January 20, 2008, 04:52 AM
While I personally would have tried leaving and calling the cops (at least in principle), I wasn't there.

saspic
January 20, 2008, 05:23 AM
There is a lot of speculation in this thread. Fact is, if you weren't there, you don't really know what happened.
If he was a muscle-bound guy with a black ski mask and knife screaming threats, it sounds like a good shoot.
If he was a mentally challenged young man crying for his mommy and heading away from her and towards an open window, it clouds the issue.
The truth is probably somewhere in between. As Lightning Joe correctly gathers, from the lady's point of view, shooting was most likely the reasonable thing to do for her safety, and I won't judge her. But as much fun as these what-if scenarios are, you should be cautious about making blanket statements, e.g. "That guy would definitely have been dead in my house." That's the kind of thing that got Joe Horn in hot water.
Remember, carry a big stick and speak softly.

inkhead
January 20, 2008, 05:47 AM
It really boils down to ... she was a women and it was under her bed. A guy would probably get in quite a bit more trouble.

brigadier
January 20, 2008, 08:15 AM
I agree with a cease-fire upon surrender. Unfortunately, we'll never know if he ever actually did.

Bubbles
January 20, 2008, 08:31 AM
The article lacks important details.

Was the perp armed or not?

Did the perp have anything on him that would show his intentions (e.g. duct tape, handcuffs, ski mask, etc)?

Did the perp say anything as he was coming out from under the bed? "Please don't shoot me" versus "I'm going to ********" makes a difference.

How big was the man versus the woman (disparity of force)?

Is there a "history" between the two? Did they ever date, or were they barely acquainted? Also, some neighbors get along fine, others butt heads against the fenceline.

The article doesn't say.

HKUSP45C
January 20, 2008, 09:19 AM
That's the kind of thing that got Joe Horn in hot water.


Last I checked, Joe Horn wasn't in any hot water. He's just being crucified in the court of public opinion.

JWarren
January 20, 2008, 09:28 AM
Speaking legally, not ethically


The very fact that we are debating this speaks volumes for where our society has gone.

A guy under the women's bed in her house?????

Jesus Tapdancing Christ! When did we start LOOKING for reasons to justify EVERYTHING criminals do.

Let's use our brains for a second:


A guy is in your house while no one is home. OK.

He hears someone come in. Instead of calling out and quickly making you aware of his prescence and offering an explaination, he chooses to hide under YOUR BED.

Is is FAR more likely that he got lost and wandered into your bedroom or is it FAR more likely that he was planning on raping and killing you?

Does anyone besides me watch the news???


I've gone into my parents house when they were not home plenty of times. I've unlocked their front door and walked in when they WERE home, but in the back of the house and couldn't hear me. Every time it occured to me that I needed to be very careful that I don't get shot. When I open the door, I peek my head in and yell loudly "Mom-- Dad, its John... Where are you?" They answer and I come in. There is NO way I would walk in and surprise them. I damn sure wouldn't hide under the bed.


Has anyone been in a situation where they have seen a predator attempt a rape? I prevented the rape of my sister in my front lawn when I was 15 years old. Two guys on bikes threw her down at our rural mailbox and started tearing her clothes off. Following the logic of some, I should have concluded that they were trying to get a mustard stain off her blouse and thanked them for their concern. I guess I really shouldn't have pulled that gun.

In 2000, someone tried to abduct my mother while she was jogging. When she passed he turned a white cargo van into a private road. He opened the back of the van and it was completely open inside. It had no windows and had out-of-state plates. The guy was clean cut wearing a golf shirt and slacks. He took out of the back of the van a coil of rope and a "billy club" and placed them against his rear tire.

For about 20 minutes, he kept looking up the road where my mother had gone. He walked behind the van and urinated on the side of the road. After about 20 minutes, he realized that he must have lost my mother. Fortunately, she had the presence of mine to go hide in the woods and watch the man. After a bit, he calmly packed up his things, got back on the highway, and drove off. You think he was waiting around to ask directions???



People... use your common sense. The guy hiding under your bed is NOT there by some odd coincidence. He didn't come in looking for a kitten. He didn't trip on a slipper and fall where he rolled under your bed. He didn't just forget to announce his presence.

No... the man is a monster who was planning on unimaginable evil. STOP making excuses for him!

If the guy gets shot, there is not telling how many people that may have been saved from him. After the event with my mother mentioned above, I called the FBI. An agent told me that there were AT LEAST 75 serial killers operating in the USA that are completely off the radar. Think about that for a minute... If ONE of those slipped up and got himself shot, how many people would be spared rape, torture, and death at the hands of a monster?


I can't believe we are discussing the go or no-go of this. I can't believe there would be a question of the ethics of this.

Some people mentally create such stringent criteria for their go or no-go that it is beyond the realm of reality. Should the woman wait until the man exits from underneath the bed and begins to remove her clothes before it is justified? Or should that even be justified? After all, he may JUST want to rape her, but not kill her. Perhaps rape isn't justifiable since there is potentially the possibility that it would not be "life-threatening." Maybe she should just give him what he wants and he will go away....


Do we really believe that?



-- John

TallPine
January 20, 2008, 12:01 PM
There really are monsters under the bed ;)

.38 Special
January 20, 2008, 12:51 PM
There is a lot of speculation in this thread. Fact is, if you weren't there, you don't really know what happened.
If he was a muscle-bound guy with a black ski mask and knife screaming threats, it sounds like a good shoot.
If he was a mentally challenged young man crying for his mommy and heading away from her and towards an open window, it clouds the issue.
The truth is probably somewhere in between. As Lightning Joe correctly gathers, from the lady's point of view, shooting was most likely the reasonable thing to do for her safety, and I won't judge her. But as much fun as these what-if scenarios are, you should be cautious about making blanket statements, e.g. "That guy would definitely have been dead in my house." That's the kind of thing that got Joe Horn in hot water.
Remember, carry a big stick and speak softly.
Beat me to it.

I'll just add that the chest-thumping "I'd have unloaded into him, reloaded and done it again, and then beaten his dog to teach all criminals a lesson!" posts are juvenile, at best.

cruzan
January 20, 2008, 07:56 PM
Hi All I'm new here first post but I wanted to add that I think it was a good shooting and if I was on that jury it would have been an automatic "not guilty". Also I would have to disagree with an earlier poster that said maybe if it had Ups boxes around he/ may have hesitated , a uniform doesn't give you the right to enter my home can we all remember the "BTK Killer", I think he was a city inspector or something and that didn't slow him down one bit.

I hope that if my wife was in a situation like this she would have the presence of mind to react accordingly.

Feanaro
January 20, 2008, 09:09 PM
Oh for the love ah... look, if any of you ever BREAK INTO MY HOUSE and have "extenuating" reasons for it, like being chased by a WEREWOLF, you had better damn well TELL ME THAT if I come home, not hide under my bed.

It doesn't matter what he wanted. A strange man in someone else's house, hiding under the bed. That doesn't scream "I'm probably a burglar/rapist/serial killer" at all.

ApexinM3
January 20, 2008, 10:52 PM
All I'm saying is that some libtard, moonbat district attorney with an agenda will likely try to bilk this for all that it is worth just to make a name for himself.

Were it me in her shoes, that guy woulda been shot on site, also.

I just hope she is exhonerated quickly IF she happens to be charged.

If she is charged, I'll chip in some fundage towards her defense.

Avenger29
January 20, 2008, 11:16 PM
I'll just add that the chest-thumping "I'd have unloaded into him, reloaded and done it again, and then beaten his dog to teach all criminals a lesson!" posts are juvenile, at best.

It's not chest thumping. We don't give the bad guys leeway down here in SC.

People, take note: IF YOU ARE IN MY HOUSE WITHOUT MY PERMISSION, YOU WILL BE SHOT.

IF YOU ARE TRESPASSING ON MY LAND, YOU WILL BE HELD AT GUNPOINT UNTIL THE COPS GET HERE. IF YOU MAKE ANY SUDDEN MOVES, YOU WILL BE SHOT.

I AM NOT going "hand to hand" with you. Once you get inside the house, you will NOT be given a chance to surrender. I WILL be pulling the trigger as soon as I get a sight picture. Don't play stupid pranks on me. IT MAY VERY WELL BE YOUR FINAL MISTAKE.
I am not BULL****TING.
I am not CHEST THUMPING
I do not give criminals ANY ADVANTAGE.

I live in the middle of NOWHERE. I am IT when it comes to protecting me and mine. The police will arrive in an hour or two once they finally find the place and get through arguing which county it is in.

.38 Special
January 21, 2008, 02:41 AM
"It's not chest thumping" followed immediately by "We don't give the bad guys leeway down here in SC."

If you're willing to cross the lines, Leno really needs a good writer.

btg3
January 21, 2008, 10:04 AM
Hate to admit it, but y'ever notice how much these threads take on a soap-opera like tone? We guys get all wrapped up in the lives of characters we don't know -- just like the gals with the TV version. We relate vicariously to all the players and analyze all the angles of another-somebody-done-somebody-wrong scenario. And the endless chatter (gossip) about what might happen when the next episode is aired. Hope I don't miss the conclusion.

woodybrighton
January 21, 2008, 12:06 PM
he was either a monumental idiot gene pool now improved with his absence
or a predator gene pool improved
Womans feeling bad either way:mad:

If you enjoyed reading about "Woman shoots man found under her bed" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!