College student shot and killed for entering the wrong apartment.

[traveler106]

I know that a lot of members here like to celebrate when gun owners successfully defend themselves, but other situations also need to be discussed.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...an-killed-wrong-apartment-20140505-story.html

 

[JERRY]

wow, getting drunk and committing burglary in the "middle of the night" has consequences. whoda thunk it?

 

[SuperNaut]

I know that a lot of members here like to celebrate when gun owners successfully defend themselves, but other situations also need to be discussed.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...an-killed-wrong-apartment-20140505-story.html

Aren't you the same traveler106 that posted a troll thread titled "gun totin' liberal" back in 2007?

I'm also seeing this response to a similar thread back in 2006:

Let's think about what we're saying for a moment.
I'm glad the 19-year-old woman and her boyfriend in the story are OK.

But I'm not sending out any hoots, hollers or cheers of joy that one of the armed robbers is dead and the other is seriously wounded.

Of course, the outcome of this situation was better than the alternative -- it's better that the armed robbers were stopped, rather than harm coming to the couple -- but, really, the best possible outcome would have been if NO ONE had been killed.

I have two rifles and a shotgun, and the thought of even pointing one of them at a human being makes me uncomfortable, no matter what he or she is doing.

If the situation were to ever arise in which I had to use one of my guns on another person, I would not want anyone to hoot, holler, or cheer for me. And I would certainly not want anyone to say something horrible, such as, "Too bad he didn't kill both of them."

A simple, quiet confirmation that I had done the right thing would be all I would want. Killing a human being, no matter what he or she is doing, should not be an easy thing to come to terms with.

When we, as gun owners, say things like, "It's too bad she didn't kill the other one," we help perpetuate the myth that we are all bloodthirsty sociopaths waiting for someone to try to break into our homes so we'll finally have the chance to plug somebody.

I'm sorry to have to bring a little rain to the "home-defense parade," but, as a gun owner with a strong conscience, I believe we really need to think carefully before we celebrate someone's death.

I sense an agenda.

Please also note our own Arfin Greebly's on point response to the above post:

Let's not get too squishy

Quote:
by traveler106:
. . . the best possible outcome would have been if NO ONE had been killed.

You know, I read this a few times to get my head around it.

I must actually disagree. I find myself shaking my head at my own words.

You see, it's easy and acceptable to say no one should have been killed: it's proper and correct and socially endorsed.

After some contemplation, I conclude that the assailants, by their own actions, reclassified themselves as rabid animals for all intents and purposes. They gave up the rules of civilization. They made a decision (several, actually) to violate accepted mores, laws, decency, and humanity.

There really is no reasoned approach to getting such a person's attention.

By electing violence as their mode, they made themselves eligible for violent interdiction. Even if they were inept or stupid or careless or simply in denial of the possible consequences, this was a game they chose. Dying is a risk that comes with the territory. Denial of that risk doesn't mean it isn't there.

I might not be "comfortable with" pointing my rifle at someone either, but kick in my door and I truly believe I can overcome that bias.

This is not lightly said. There is a time and place where the death of an assailant is the right thing. It may not be the thing you try for. It may not be the desired result. It is nevertheless not necessarily wrong.

I am not particularly brave or tough. I know, however, that I would be willing to confront an invader in my house and use whatever force was needed to expel or halt the threat source.

More to the point, the death of an assailant is one of the acceptable outcomes. I've met death up close and personal. I found that, while it's no fun, I can deal with it.

I'm not going to hamper or compromise putting up the best defense I know how in order to spare the life of an assailant who's trying to kill me.

There might not be any joy in the act, but until the bad guys are "tactically resolved" they are in grave danger of meeting one of their known risks at high speed.

You see, the responsibility for my staying alive and for keeping my family alive is mine. Among the precautions I take are driving carefully (+seatbelt), washing my hands, locking my door at night, and not breaking into other people's homes.

Everyone else has his own responsibilities in staying alive, and enumerated among them is not breaking into my home. It is not my job to try desperately to save a home invader from his own bad judgement.

The answer is pretty simple: to dramatically improve your chances of living, don't do things that are likely to kill you, or make it necessary for someone else to do so.

Words that applied then and words that apply now.

 

[CZ223]

not knowing any more facts

than were printed in that very abbreviated article, all I can say is that had he entered my house at 1:45 in the morning, the results might well have been the same.

 

[rdhood]

I am going to take the high road here and , assuming the original article is true and that the dead drunk did enter the wrong apartment....


First, I believe it is possible. In some of the apartments I have lived in, it is easily done and has been done. I ALWAYS locked my apartment door for that reason. I even had good neighbors who made that mistake once (the come to the door, can't get in, knock, you answer through the door, they realize they are at the wrong place, you hear them tromp upstairs and enter the apartment above you). In this case, the article did not say if the door was locked (or not).

If you are going to have a gun and live in cookie cutter apartments, you at least need to lock the doors (always)! Then, you know for certain that anyone besides those with keys came in forcibly.

I don't think I have read enough to pass judgement here.

 

[Willie Sutton]

Don't feed the trolls...

Willie

.

 

[traveler106]

"Aren't you the same traveler106 that posted a troll thread titled "gun totin' liberal" back in 2007?"

Yep, that would be me.

"I sense an agenda."

I don't know whether I should be amused or alarmed that you consider the idea of responsible gun-ownership while condemning the uncivilized notion of "shoot first and ask questions later" to be trollish. Yes, I do have an "agenda," as you call it, and that is to promote responsible and rational gun-ownership.

"wow, getting drunk and committing burglary in the "middle of the night" has consequences. whoda thunk it?"

He wasn't committing burglary. He entered the wrong apartment. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Are you saying that you've never gotten drunk and made mistakes? If so, kudos to you.

"all I can say is that had he entered my house at 1:45 in the morning, the results might well have been the same."

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt because you said "might have been the same." Would you have pulled the trigger before ascertaining that the intruder was actually a threat?

"First, I believe it is possible. In some of the apartments I have lived in, it is easily done and has been done.... If you are going to have a gun and live in cookie cutter apartments, you at least need to lock the doors (always)! Then, you know for certain that anyone besides those with keys came in forcibly."

Finally, we have a voice of reason. The articles I've read don't say whether the door was locked, but I would guess that it was probably unlocked because a drunk college student probably wouldn't be able to quickly and easily enter a locked apartment without alerting the owner. I could be wrong.

The message that I'm trying to convey, here, is that this type of incident is exactly what causes problems for law-abiding gun-owners, and, so far, three out of four reactions to this article give me the feeling that gun-owners who want to be able to defend their homes are digging their own political graves. "Shoot first and ask questions later." This is the attitude that steers public opinion away from protecting the right to bear arms.

 

[Warp]

The message that I'm trying to convey, here, is that this type of incident is exactly what causes problems for law-abiding gun-owners

Exactly what type of incident is this, exactly?

If you really want to troll this the right way, wait until you can matter-of-factly show details about the incident that you admit to not knowing.

I don't think I have read enough to pass judgement here.

There isn't NEARLY enough information present to pass any judgment on anybody.

Unless you have an agenda and are making it up as you go just to stir the pot, of course.

 

[Miked7762]

OK, let's discuss!

The linked article is quite old and doesn't include any of the details released later. The student returned home to his apartment building drunk just before 2:00 am and pressed the elevator floor button for the 3rd floor instead of the 5th. He went to where his apartment would be. When his key did not work he began forcing his way into the apartment two floors directly below his, using enough force to break the doorknob off in the process. He was shot dead by the apartment owner. The owner was arrested but later released. No charges will be filed.

I have found no sources that directly state whether or not he gained entry. Given that no charges were filed and there were no reports of shots being fired through the door (newspaper accounts tend to love such details) I think we can assume he did. But again, that's only an assumption and not a reported fact.

Either way, is it up to the homeowner to determine the intruder's intention? Someone is kicking down your door at 2:00 am. Is it a burglar, killer, or a drunk idiot? Will they tell you if you should ask? Would you trust their answer?

If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

Would you have brought this up if the young man was killed with a shovel instead of a gun?

 

[Midwest]

Would you have brought this up if the young man was killed with a shovel instead of a gun?

Very good point!

.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I know that a lot of members here like to celebrate when gun owners successfully defend themselves, but other situations also need to be discussed.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...an-killed-wrong-apartment-20140505-story.html

I don't think it's fair to say we celebrate. Certainly no one should celebrate the death or injury of another person. We might be grateful when a good person is able to prevent his death, or the death of a loved one, at the hands of a criminal.

But the real problem raised by these sorts of events is when and how someone can recognize his need to use force in defense of his life. The decision to resort to force generally must be made is an instant during the course of a rapidly unfolding, possibly tumultuous event. And if the actor makes the wrong choice, he may die. The actor is literally betting his life.

Then we come along afterwards and have all the time in the world, and none of the pressure, in which to decide if we think the actor was correct. And we have nothing at stake.

At times an innocuous act will be substantially indistinguishable from a lethal threat. Our laws have struggled with that conundrum for hundreds of years, and there is no definitive answer. There is only the process embedded in our legal system for the assignment of fault and responsibility.

 

[Warp]

Lesson learned: Do not get drunk and try to break into somebody else's apartment.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I think if it woulda happen to me, the same thing mighta happen.

 

[flphotog]

Yup, sounds like the booze killed him to me.

 

[browningguy]

If someone uninvited is in my house at 130 AM, they are automatically classified as a threat. There is no need to ascertain any more than that.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Mission is not the best part of town. It's gentrifying, but it's not there yet. As a kid, when the Mission was almost all Mexican (and some Irish) it was safe and my classmates and I (jr. high age) wandered there freely without any trouble. Then other Central American nationalities moved in and tension built. Gangs formed and there were shootings. Heck, in nearby Glen Park a father and his two teenage kids were killed by one gangbanger who misidentified them as members of a rival gang. One associate (non LEO) got caught in the middle of a gunfight there as two gangs shot it out. Luckily he wasn't hit.

I have a LEO friend who was almost mugged in the Mission. He pulled his jacket back to reveal the star and gun and they ran. When I was walking to a Linguica factory, I was mistaken for Latino and the guy rattled something off in Spanish. The only word I understood was, "problemo." I told him in my best Yankee-English Spanish, "Hey man, no hab-blow day His-span-no." He broke contact at that point.

Anyhow, considering the above, would it not be reasonable that if the cops can't respond in time to your place to arrest someone who is breaking down your door at 2 a.m., what would you do? Ask him for his intentions and his student ID? Monday night quarterbacking is easy but if shootings, gang activity, drug deals, muggings are a part of life outside your apartment and given the same circumstances, most reasonable people would defend themselves up to and including deadly force.

ETA: No one celebrates the taking of a life. Rather, we celebrate life and that we survived a deadly encounter. It's not a bad thing when the good guys survive and I don't mourn for ne'er do wells. There's no shortage of the latter.

 

[Willie Sutton]

I don't know whether I should be amused or alarmed that you consider the idea of responsible gun-ownership... <snip>


As soon as you use the accepted code words for the anti second amendment agenda, you've lost any credibility that you might have here. As I said before, we don't generally feed the trolls. I am very certain that with only 40 posts here in the last 9 years of membership (including one titled "Gun Owning Liberal") that you are a very occasional contributor, parachuting in when it's convenient, and it's equally obvious that you're on the left side of the gun ownership spectrum. That's fine, we welcome all, but I respectfully don't beieve that your left of center views on self defense and home invasion, no matter if deliberate or unintentional, are going to be widely accepted here.



"But the real problem raised by these sorts of events is when and how someone can recognize his need to use force in defense of his life."

It's easy: Attempted entry, until successful, does not raise to that level. At that time it's time to call 911 and keep the operator on the line while retreating from the door. But when entry is gained, it's time to act to protect yourself.


Being drunk and stupid is lethal at times. Darwin wins again.


Willie

.

 

[traveler106]

Frank Ettin:

Have you read some of the responses to articles posted when an intruder is killed? Someone even mentioned a link from a while back on this thread where you can see exactly what I'm talking about. I also find it a bit disturbing that members of this forum call me a troll when I suggest that shooting and killing people is not a good thing.

You are correct about the difficulty of knowing how and when to use force.

4v50 Gary:

Yes, I know the Mission, too. I work there, and I agree that it's not a very nice part of town. I live in a pretty rough part of Oakland, myself. Home invasions do happen in my neighborhood. I'm not saying that I wouldn't have done the same thing because I don't know.

My main point is that incidents such as this are what lead to the public demanding stricter gun control, and a lack of rational discussion on the part of gun-owners can only push to sway public opinion on one direction.

 

[Warp]

My main point is that incidents such as this are what lead to the public demanding stricter gun control, and a lack of rational discussion on the part of gun-owners can only push to sway public opinion on one direction.

Bologna.

 

[Sam1911]

Willie's exactly right. There may be some possible quirk of luck or grace that shows the rightful occupant of a home that the person forcing their way into it is not a lethal threat and thus convinces them to hold fire. But that should be considered a neigh miraculous occurrence.

 

[Warp]

My main point is that incidents such as this are what lead to the public demanding stricter gun control, and a lack of rational discussion on the part of gun-owners can only push to sway public opinion on one direction.

So..precisely what gun control law(s) does the public demand as a result of a drunken man being shot while trying to force his way into somebody else's apartment?

And how would those gun control law(s) the public supposedly demands possibly alter the outcome of a similar incident in the future??

 

[Vern Humphrey]

This reminds me of a conversation with an Englishman who asked me, "If someone broke into your home at 3 in the morning, would you just shoot him in the head?"

I said no, I'd aim for center of mass.

 

[Ed Ames]

He wasn't committing burglary. He entered the wrong apartment. ...

No, he got drunk and became violent enough to break a door, or at least a door knob. He may or may not have been committing burglary but he was drunk and behaving dangerously.

A person who uses drink as an excuse for violence, even violence against property, is a threat. How would they react upon entering "their" appartment and finding a stranger? We have a fair indication by looking at the door. They are the sort of person who uses force and violence instead of their brain. There is a very good chance they would have attacked.

Being drunk isn't an excuse to behave in antisocial or dangerous ways. A lot of people take it as such, but that is a reflection on their upbringing and basic personality more than anything else. Drink doesn't change a person's core personality or behavior.

And yes, I have been intoxicated. Even at my worst I haven't violently attacked anything for failing to work the way I thought it should. In this guy's situation I would have looked at the numbers on the door and said, "Wait, this is 315 and I am in 515...back to the elevator."

I hope I won't have to face the situation of this self-defender, and if I do I hope I can find a solution that everyone can live with, but a violent person attempting to force entry to an appartment and getting shot is not a black eye for gun owners. The only way you can interpret it as one is to say that drunken violence is OK, a point of view I disagree with. It is no more OK to get drunk and force entry into an appartment than to get drunk and rape someone, and excuses or theories about why it was happening don't matter.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...a lack of rational discussion...

It's kind of hard to find something to discuss. It kind of boils down to this.

1. Fred does something.
   
   
2. Fred's act could be an innocent act or a lethal threat to John. The two are indistinguishable to John. John has only an instant to decide what to do.
   
   
3. John treats Fred's act as an innocent act. It is not, and John dies.
   
   
4. John treats Fred's act as a lethal threat. It is not, but Fred dies. However, it was Fred who performed the act, and it's possible that the way in which Fred performed the act had something to do with his act being indistinguishable from a lethal threat.
   
   
5. What is the right answer?

 

[TennJed]

"wow, getting drunk and committing burglary in the "middle of the night" has consequences. whoda thunk it?"

He wasn't committing burglary. He entered the wrong apartment. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Are you saying that you've never gotten drunk and made mistakes? If so, kudos to you.

.

Why are you sugar coating the most important part? You failed to explain that he FORCED his way into a lock house by breaking the door knob.