CA: Man Who Shoots Burglar Goes To Jail - VOTE IN POLL!

[shooterx10]

GO TO THE WEBPAGE AND VOTE ON THE ON LINE SURVEY!

NBC11.com
Man Who Shoots Burglar Goes To Jail
Alleged Burglar Shot By His Own Gun

POSTED: 10:39 PM PDT July 20, 2004
UPDATED: 9:49 AM PDT July 21, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO -- A man suspected of breaking into a Fell Street apartment Tuesday afternoon found himself tumbling down stairs and running from a hail of bullets after the resident interrupted the burglary, San Francisco police said.

The alleged burglar, whose name has not been released, remained in surgery with several gunshot wounds some eight hours after the 1 p.m. incident, Officer Maria Oropeza said.

SF Burglar Shooting Twist

The man apparently was shot with the gun he brought to the home near Fell and Scott streets, and the home's resident, 29-year-old Harvey Williams, has been arrested on assault charges, Oropeza said.

Williams "came home and confronted the suspect at the front door," Oropeza said. "The suspect pulled a gun on the resident, and there was a struggle for the gun."

The struggle continued down the stairs, she said, with some shots being fired before the men -- and the gun -- landed on the sidewalk.

Thank you for your participation in this survey.VOTE: When Is It OK To Shoot An Intruder?Should you have the right to shoot an intruder who has fled your property?Yes, it is an extension of self defense.No, gun violence doesn't solve anything.Perhaps, it all depends on the intruder.

"The resident picks up the gun, it apparently accidentally goes off," Oropeza continued. "He chases the suspect, shooting at him several times. The suspect falls to the ground at Fell and Scott, where the resident holds him at gunpoint and waits for the police."

It was on the sidewalk, as the alleged burglar was running away, that Williams' actions turned from self-defense to assault with a deadly weapon, Oropeza explained.

The suspect will face charges of burglary, robbery, carrying a concealed weapon and carrying a loaded firearm, Oropeza said.

Williams was not hurt in the incident, Oropeza said.

Here is the link.

 

[Mac Attack]

What bull????!

If things had gone the other way all you would have heard about if at all would be small section of the newspaper saying "that a man was found shot to death in his SF apartment from a burglary gone bad. " People would forget about him and move on with their lives.

This is a F*&ked up world we live in. I commend the guy for doing what he did.

Mac

 

[Tharg]

Dunno....

I completely agree w/ SD use of a firearm. And *I* can see wanting to chase the guy down ... just in case he figured on later comming back and "teaching me a lesson"

But no matter how much i like that result - its not self defense any more when you take the man's gun away and the guy runs away, completely out of your house - and on to "public" property... shooting him in the back as he runs. Its just not.... (once again - even tho I happen to like that result - after all *I* didn't ask the man to come try to rob me at the muzzle end of a gun, HE shouldn't be suprised when i take offense track his azz down and shoot him w/ his own weapon)

I don't know of any laws CCW or otherwise that provides for shooting an attacker that is not classified as a threat any longer.

J/Tharg!

EDIT: btw... voted yes - like i said - the guy took his own life into his hands when he came to that guys property in order to rob him w/ a gun.

 

[JohnBT]

Chased him down the street and shot him huh?

Yup. No surprise here that he got time.

John

 

[stv]

It's unfortunate that Williams didn't know the use-of-force laws in this state - he'd have known that it's illegal to shoot an assailant who has ceased aggressions towards you.

But I was surprised to see that on the local news they were interviewing neighbors, and all the people they interviewed said they would have done the same thing. In gun-hating San Francisco. Go figure.

Me, I hope he gets off, but I bet he gets at least probation. IIRC, it's a felony.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I won't vote in the poll.

Except at night in Texas, it's generally illegal to use deadly force for the protection of property. Shooting the guy while the fight was in progress could be classified as self-defense. Shooting the guy while he was running away may be understandable in the excitement and adrenaline rush, but it's not self defense and it's not legal.

 

[kd7ctv]

It was on the sidewalk, as the alleged burglar was running away, that Williams' actions turned from self-defense to assault with a deadly weapon, Oropeza explained.

What a crappy way to learn about the deadly force laws.....

 

[R.H. Lee]

I voted yes just to skew the poll, but clearly shooting a fleeing felon is not self defense. Only cops can shoot fleeing felons. The homeowner DISARMED the burglar, then shot him with his own gun. The homeowner should get a pass just to send a message to wannabe gangsta's IMHO.

 

[PBIR]

...its not self defense any more when you take the man's gun away and the guy runs away, completely out of your house - and on to "public" property... shooting him in the back as he runs.

I don't know of any laws CCW or otherwise that provides for shooting an attacker that is not classified as a threat any longer.

That's pretty much my take too.

 

[Correia]

The article is sketchy on details. The bad guy can be running away, but that in and of itself is not what determines if lethal force is justifed or not.

The questions that the grand jury are going to ask:
1. Was he in immediate fear of grevious bodily harm?
2. Did the bad guy have the means, motive, and opportunity to inflict immediate bodily harm?

The article does not give enough details to make a reasonable conclusion. If the homeowner chased him a block and shot him, then it would not be a clean shoot. If they ended up right in front of the house, and the homeowner thought the badguy was going for another weapon or something like that, then it would be clean.

I always love how here on the internet, we are able to discern the exact legality of everything from pathetic little news articles. It is kind of like a mutant superpower.

 

[LiquidTension]

Does PRK have mandatory sentencing for this type of crime? I hope not, and I hope this guy gets off easy. Seems a little ridiculous that just because the ARMED ROBBER is a few feet away when you pull the trigger instead of in contact distance that the GOOD GUY will go to jail. As far as I'm concerned, the guy is still a violent felon and deserves whatever harm he brings upon himself, whether he's 10 feet away or ten inches. I know the law doesn't see things the same way I do though. Then again, very few people do

Yet another reason I couldn't be a doctor:

"OK, we're going into hour number 8 of surgery."
"What did this guy do to get shot anyway?"
"He broke into someone's house with a gun in order to rob the place."
"Oops. I guess he died on us!"

Seriously though, how many people could have used a surgeon in the 8 hours they spent working on this trash?

 

[wasrjoe]

The BG just tried to kill the homeowner. I don't really care what happens to the BG after that.

 

[Gunsnrovers]

Will have to wait for more information. From the article, it seems to suggest he shot the man in the back as he ran away. That's not going to look good. Unfortunately, there are far too few details.

 

[jefnvk]

His only mistake was not killing the guy. And I think that we can put to rest the 'fact' that people will only have their guns taken away and used against them. Well, maybe not. But anyways, how is someone that semes to be untrained in self-defense supposed to know that shooting someone that just threatened his life cannot be shot?

 

[Matthew Courtney]

"I believed that the intruder was making a tactical retreat in order to gain a position of cover from which to continue his attack".

 

[liliysdad]

He needs to go to jail. Threat was over, what he did was vigilantism, basically attempted murder.

 

[Correia]

liliysdad, and you can discern that from the meager clues in the newspaper how exactly?

 

[Jeff White]

Hawkmoon said;

Except at night in Texas, it's generally illegal to use deadly force for the protection of property.

Laws vary from place to place. You can use force to protect property in Illinois.

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading)
ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

(720 ILCS 5/7‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑1)
Sec. 7‑1. Use of force in defense of person.
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑2)
Sec. 7‑2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(a) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(b) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
(Source: Laws 1967, p. 696.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑3)
Sec. 7‑3. Use of force in defense of other property.
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

Corriea is right...there isn't enough information here to make any judgment. We just don't know what happened. We guess and speculate, but we're never really sure.

Jeff

 

[JohnBT]

Aw heck Correia, so we can't comment on internet write-ups, newspaper articles, tv reports or the radio shows?

I guess that just leaves eyewitness reports and all sorts of research has shown that they aren't worth spit.

John

_________________________________________________________

One bright morning in the middle of the night
Two dead boys got up to fight
Back to back they faced each other
Drew their swords and shot each other
A deaf policeman heard the noise
And came to kill the two dead boys
If you do not believe this lie
Ask the blind man
He saw them die

 

[liliysdad]

The resident picks up the gun, it apparently accidentally goes off," Oropeza continued. "He chases the suspect, shooting at him several times.

I dont need anymore than that to decide he was wrong. If the guy was running FROM him..he was not a threat TO him, now was he?

 

[Foe[H]ammer]

lilysdad:
[Q] I dont need anymore than that to decide he was wrong. If the guy was running FROM him..he was not a threat TO him, now was he? [/Q]

Not tonight anyway, but who's to say he won't score another gun tomorrow and come clean up?

I don't consider him a vigilante anymore than someone stopping a robber from potentially killing a hostage. He killed a violent felon ... running or not the man tried to murder the home-owner ... Darwinism at it's finest.

I'd have to say as much as I like my fellow man if you tried to kill me I'd make sure you never tried again. I'd also consider it duty to make sure you didn't try to kill my mom, grammy, sister, neighbor, co-worker ..... you get the hint.

I'll agree a man running from you is no immediate threat, but what happens when he spins around after 60 feet with gun #2 and fires into the night? He's already demonstrated he's willing to kill, he's armed and he's desperate .... why let him continue to try and harm you or others?

I really do see the "he wasn't going to kill you facing the other direction" angle, really I do. I'm not conflicted though, I have very serious beliefs about being armed and being prudent. I wouldn't shoot someone if they looked mean .... I certainly wouldn't kill someone over my TV or car .... but, trying to take my life (or at least leading me to think that's your intent) is gonna buy you a one way ticket straight outta my world, by hook or by crook.

Bottom line: You pull a gun on me and don't kill me, one of us is gonna be no more. I'm not Billy Bad A?? I just need to get home at night, there are folks around here who count on me.

 

[stv]

Just so we're clear, the robber isn't dead (yet...) - he's in stable condition at SF General.