3 home intruders shot dead in Albuquerque

[Desertdog]

I like this cops attitude.

3 home intruders shot dead in Albuquerque
'Hopefully this is going to send a message,' says police spokeswoman
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53542


Three men who broke into homes in the Albuquerque, N.M., area in the last month were shot dead by homeowners, and police say they hope would-be robbers take the hint.

The latest incident involved Raymond Gabaldon, 40, a repeat offender, who, police say, stole a car and then tried to break into a home in southwest Albuquerque.

"Hopefully this is going to send a message to people who are breaking into homes," Albuquerque police spokeswoman Trish Hoffman told the Albuquerque Tribune. "They're engaging in very dangerous behavior, not only to the people they're robbing, but to themselves."

None of the three homeowners involved in the shootings has been charged, though the cases are still under review by law enforcement.

(Story continues below)


An armed homeowner in Charlotte, N.C., also foiled a break-in Tuesday, police there report.

A man told police he was preparing to take out the trash at his home when he realized an intruder was in his house.

The resident told police he went to get a handgun and as he turned around, the attacker struck him in the back of the head. That triggered a fight between the attacker and the resident of the house. During the scuffle, the victim said, he fired his gun once, with the bullet striking the refrigerator.

The assailant then fled on foot.

In Kingsport, Tenn., an armed convenience store clerk yesterday pulled a handgun on a knife-wielding robber, fired once and drove him off with one shot.

And, in Seattle, an armed homeowner fatally shot an intruder Tuesday, according to a police report.

The homeowner was roused from sleep by an intruder. The 31-year-old homeowner grabbed his shotgun and killed Justin Hercyk. That case is still under investigation.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

It is refreshing to see the police doing the right thing by standing firm with law abiding gun owning citizens in their effort to combat crime.

Unlike some PD's that would chastise the homeowners as vigilantes.

 

[WeedWhacker]

In most similar publicized cases in the USA, homeowners using lethal force against intruders is still considered normal and acceptable. Heck, even in NYC and Washington D.C. (if you can "unlock" your long arm in time) it would be okay.

England, OTOH, is where all the craziness is where homeowners face jail time for defending themselves against intruders in their own homes. The Register had a story last week about legislation at some stage which would basically give them "Castle" status in their, err, castles. Good luck to you, Brits!

 

[Deanimator]

England, OTOH, is where all the craziness is where homeowners face jail time for defending themselves against intruders in their own homes. The Register had a story last week about legislation at some stage which would basically give them "Castle" status in their, err, castles. Good luck to you, Brits!

Don't be so sure.

I believe in the last year or so, Illinois was considering special legislation to protect anyone who defends his own life or those of a family member with a gun which they were not lawfully permitted to own.

In Chicago, if you use a handgun to defend your child from a violent molestor, you probably risk more jail time than the molestor would if he were to successfully commit the crime.

 

[Sistema1927]

Trish Hoffman also went on to say that one needs to be careful not to step over the line, and cited a recent case where an Albuquerque homeowner chased a burglar down the street and then gunned him down. This fellow is facing, rightfully so, a murder rap.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

This fellow is facing, rightfully so, a murder rap.

I'd argue with that. If it is ok for the cops to chase you down and shoot you to prevent you from fleeing a crime scene, why not the home owner you just tried to rob?

The "don't shoot 'em in the back" crap is just more PC nonsense.

 

[Desertdog]

The "don't shoot 'em in the back" crap is just more PC nonsense.

Agreed. For years, or maybe centuries, it was "Stop, or I'll shoot". And they did.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

Agreed. For years, or maybe centuries, it was "Stop, or I'll shoot". And they did.

Criminals should be very aware that their working environment is dangerous. That their initiation of force against another person or that persons property can carry deadly consequences. That there are no safe zones, no legal loopholes, no "but it was only a car, why'd you shoot me?" type garbage for them to hide behind.

You commit a crime against another, you are the one wholly responsible for what happens to you afterward. Even if you tried to jack Ed Gein and he ended up wearing your face around his house while chomping on your liver.

 

[S.P.E.C.T.R.E.]

Wow, I was expecting this:

"But police warned citizens not to take the law into their own hands. Just give the criminals what they want and they'll leave you alone."

Which is such bull because the law ORIGINATES from the citizens. Just because I, John Q. Citizen, empower police to defend the law, does not mean I give up my right to defend myself.

 

[tellner]

There's a well-established body of law concerning arrests with deadly force. The police do not have carte blanche to shoot anyone who runs. There are strict standards about how the fleeing person really does have to be exceptionally dangerous.

The homeowner who chased the intruder down the street and killed him is a murderer. The criminal was no longer a threat. At that point shooting him was not self defense.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

The criminal was no longer a threat.

No. After being shot and killed, he was no longer a threat. Most criminals into B&E have committed other crimes before getting to that point, and assuming they survive without being shot by a homeowner, often do so repeatedly before being apprehended by the police.

So, they may have no longer been an "immediate" danger, but they are still a danger. Would you let a rabid dog go lose in your neighborhood just because they are no longer in your yard?

I'm well aware of how screwed up our legal system is. You can't call it a "justice system" any more as "justice" has very little to do with it. Hide behind your legal standards... just don't try and grab the moral high ground by advocating the prosecution of the victim. It doesn't fly...

 

[Erebus]

The homeowner who chased the intruder down the street and killed him is a murderer. The criminal was no longer a threat. At that point shooting him was not self defense.

Ok, That may be true. It's debatable at the very least. What happens in this situation then. I hear a noise in the middle of the night, grab my pistol, go to investigate the noise and find someone in my living room with my stereo under his arm($1300 unit). He sees me and runs out the door. If I chase him to retrieve my stereo and he can't out run me do to the heavy stereo and decides to confront me and turns and pulls a knife/gun/club or tries to hit me with the stereo. Is it self defense if I shoot or is it murder? Did I have the right to pursuit to retrieve my property? Or should I have not chased him, called the police and just accept that since he posed no threat to me that I will very likely never see my property again?

 

[tellner]

Good Lord. I hope that DeadCorpse is never in a situation like this. It would be a shame for him to be locked up with rapists, muggers and other murderers.

The legal standard going all the way back to English Common Law - back when England was collectively about ten hairs away from a baboon - is that your right to kill people in self defense ends when they pose no immediate threat. You aren't G-d. You aren't the King. You aren't the Law. You can't kill someone because of what he might do someday. If he's running down the street to get away from you he's not a danger to you. Anything else is speculation and an excuse to exercise your trigger finger.

If the Law wants to kill you there has to be a trial, witnesses, judges, juries and some sort of appeal. When you shoot someone you are judge, jury, Court and executioner. Your right to do so must be constrained and limited. Otherwise you have nothing but the mob.

There must be something about this in the "Bloodlust" thread.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

The legal standard going all the way back to English Common Law

Based on. But not taken from rote.

How many times would a residency need to be robbed before I could defend myself? Would I be like that poor farmer in the UK who finally ventilated a pair of burglars, then got thrown in the slam anyway? Even though this same pair had repeatedly victimized him over and over again?

And yes, here in the United States, We the People ARE the Law. We delegate our authority to the police in certain matters. If the police aren't handy, then that authority is our to exercise as we see fit. We are sovereign.

If you want to go all pacifist, that is your choice. Just don't expect the rest of us to sit back and let lawlessness slide just because the perp has his Nikes on.

 

[RNB65]

'Hopefully this is going to send a message,' says police spokeswoman

Unfortunately, most of these people are so brain dead that a 2x4 to the face would not deliver a message they can understand.

 

[tellner]

DeadCorpse, nobody is saying that you can't defend yourself. If he breaks into your house and terrorizes you you can ventilate him if that's what you need to do to stop the threat. You can do it the very first time. What you can't do is chase him down and murder him when he's not breaking into your house, stealing your stuff and putting you in danger.

 

[Sistema1927]

Rev.DeadCorpse:

#1, do you know any of the details of the case to which I referred? (Nope, didn't think so.) Chasing an intruder who is fleeing without being in possession of any of your property several blocks from your home, tackling them, and then gunning them down in cold blood is murder, even in Texas.

#2, while it is permissible in your state of Texas to utilize deadly force to recover stolen property, that is not the case in most of the rest of the nation. Even when I lived in Texas (I married a native Texan, graduated from a Texas High School, attended a Texas University, and obtained my Master's Degree from a Texas school) I set personal parameters on my use of deadly force. I would not shoot someone to recover property, and would not shoot someone who did not pose a present danger to myself or associates. Sometimes you have to establish your own code of conduct even if the law gives you greater latitude. After all, I am the one who will have to live with my concience for the rest of my life.

#3, please tell me that you are not a Baptist, since the "Texas School" that I mentioned in #2 above is the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and I would hope that none of my Baptist brethren would be so callous as to advocate gunning down fleeing intruders in the back.

 

[TallPine]

Did I have the right to pursuit to retrieve my property?

You do in Montana. You may use force, but not "deadly force." Deadly force may be used to stop or prevent a "forcible felony."

 

[Caimlas]

The homeowner who chased the intruder down the street and killed him is a murderer. The criminal was no longer a threat. At that point shooting him was not self defense.

Nope, I disagree.

If you were working on the job - say, as a construction worker - and you narrowly escape getting your head hit with a heavy object because you're not wearing a helmet, what would you do? Wear a helmet next time.

If a criminal is on the job, and narrowly escapes getting his head shot because he didn't take the necessary precautions to immobilize the homeowner, what's he going to do? Take those precautions; namely, he's going to get a gun, a bulletproof vest, or both. It is a well known fact about criminals that they almost invariably get progressively more violent and bold in their crimes as their careers move on.

So, by not preventing him from continuing his 'career' - whether by killing him or convincing him to stop so the PD can come pick him up - he is not only 'still' going to be a threat; he's likely to be more of a threat.

The point is, just don't shoot him once he stops running.

 

[Caimlas]

DeadCorpse, nobody is saying that you can't defend yourself. If he breaks into your house and terrorizes you you can ventilate him if that's what you need to do to stop the threat. You can do it the very first time. What you can't do is chase him down and murder him when he's not breaking into your house, stealing your stuff and putting you in danger.

What if I want to protect myself from the fear and vulnerability that comes from being victimized? That's a pretty real - and often life-inhibiting - threat. Ask any rape victim.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

nobody is saying that you can't defend yourself.

What you are saying is that I should just let a criminal go if they are fleeing. When will you advocate that the cops do this as well?

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

please tell me that you are not a Baptist

Worse. I'm a Heathen. Could be why I have such little problem distinguishing between a moral action and a legal one. My actions in killing a criminal, who perpetrated a crime against me or my property, are moral. Regardless of if they are running away from me at the time.

Legality is a whole 'nuther morass of liberalized Bravo Sierra that long ago lost the "prime objective" of protecting equal Rights from infringement.

 

[Sistema1927]

Caimlas, I ask you, as I did the Rev.DeadCorpse, do you know the details of this shooting?

Elton John Richard II felt that he was justified when he chased the fellow who was breaking into his Ford Bronco in his driveway. He felt that he was justified when he continued this chase for four blocks in his bare feet. I bet that he felt justified when he pulled the trigger.

However, he is out on $50,000 bond, has lost his home, lost his security clearance as a Federal DOE agent charged with guarding nuclear materials, and he is still facing a murder charge with trial scheduled for this Spring. I am betting that he wishes that he had felt a bit less "justified" at this point. If I was a potential member of his jury I would take into account that his 20 weeks of federal law enforcement training should have caused him to conduct himself at a higher level of responsibility. In other words, his federal DOE badge didn't give him the right to hand out a death sentence to a car burglar.

 

[rustymaggot]

i think its kinda immoral to shoot a guy in the back when hes running away. still, each situation is different. for the robbers sake i hope hes running away with his hands in view.

 

[Sistema1927]

Worse. I'm a Heathen.

OK. Kind of wondering where the "Rev." come from, but I am sure that it is a long story.

BTW, cops don't have carte blanche to gun down fleeing felons. What makes this situation even more sad is the fact that the homeowner was an active LEO.