Female student trespasser shot...
- Thread starter majortoo
- Start date
- Status
Deanimator
Member
Was that the Scottish guy in Houston who bailed from a cab, jumped a fence and kicked in some guy's back door?
I remember that case from the '90s. It was heavily discussed in usenet talk.politics.guns, where several Brits were utterly outraged at the idea that in Texas you couldn't just go around kicking in people's doors in the middle of the night without fear of getting shot.
My response was:
- If that's how alcohol affects you, you should stop drinking.
- If you can't stop drinking on your own, get help.
- If you can't stop drinking on your own, and won't get help, get shot.
The "ban sharp kitchen knives" crowd didn't care for that AT ALL. I didn't much care.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I'm not talking about a duty to the intruder: I'm talking about a duty to myself and my family to avoid being in a shooting scenario at all. I'm not talking legal/illegal or right/wrong. I'm talking sensible/foolish.
Wouldn't it be much more simple to lock a door (sensible) than spend a lot of time and money dealing with the justice/civil/media aftermath (foolish)? I feel that as a gun owner I have a duty to myself AND my family not to be involved in a shooting if it is avoidable.
I'm not disputing whether it is right or wrong, or legal or illegal. I'm not placing blame on the home-owner: he was the victim of a home invasion. I'm not excusing the girl: people should drink responsibly. But don't we have a duty to ourselves and our families to avoid situations that end in shootings, if it is possible? Leaving a door unlocked is not avoidance.
Wouldn't it be much more simple to lock a door (sensible) than spend a lot of time and money dealing with the justice/civil/media aftermath (foolish)? I feel that as a gun owner I have a duty to myself AND my family not to be involved in a shooting if it is avoidable.
I'm not disputing whether it is right or wrong, or legal or illegal. I'm not placing blame on the home-owner: he was the victim of a home invasion. I'm not excusing the girl: people should drink responsibly. But don't we have a duty to ourselves and our families to avoid situations that end in shootings, if it is possible? Leaving a door unlocked is not avoidance.
Last edited:
I live in the middle of nowhere, crime is virtually non-existant. Noone around here locks a door when they are gone, let alone home in bed. Am I insuficiently "avoiding a threat"? Last year somone broke into a bunch of cars in the town up the road. None of them had doors locked. Somebody called in to the local paper and said that anyone dumb enough to not lock their stuff "Deserved" to be robbed. Lets just say that sentiment was not well recieved.
Wanderling
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2011
- Messages
- 923
It's not always cut and dry. I think people tend to jump to conclusions. Just because something is legal it's not always morally right. The devil is in details which we don't always know.
E.g.: the owner is sound asleep in the middle of the night. He feels / hears a stranger's presence in the bedroom. In panic, he pulls a gun and shoots. That's one thing, and something that, while unfortunate, is definitely not his fault.
The other way it could go down is this: the owner wakes up to the stranger walking in the bedroom. He pulls a gun, turns the light on and yells "Hey *** you want !" He sees that girl standing there completely wasted. He could've easily overpowered her & called the police, instead he shoots her because, hey, it's his right under the law, and when would he get such an opportunity again ?
E.g.: the owner is sound asleep in the middle of the night. He feels / hears a stranger's presence in the bedroom. In panic, he pulls a gun and shoots. That's one thing, and something that, while unfortunate, is definitely not his fault.
The other way it could go down is this: the owner wakes up to the stranger walking in the bedroom. He pulls a gun, turns the light on and yells "Hey *** you want !" He sees that girl standing there completely wasted. He could've easily overpowered her & called the police, instead he shoots her because, hey, it's his right under the law, and when would he get such an opportunity again ?
Colorado certainly does have a Stand Your Ground law. Case law from 1897 has affirmed a Coloradan's right to stand his or her ground, and in some instances chase the offender down. In fact, even if you are the initial aggressor, if you disengage, but the other party continues the fight, you have the right to stand your ground.
M2
Member
There is no legal requirement to lock your doors.
Take a look at bait cars as a comparison, just because a car is parked with the keys in the ignition is no justification to steal it.
But it is against the law to enter a domicile uninvited. She did so, was told to leave and failed to comply, and presented a threat to the occupants by approaching them after several warnings.
Considering the time of night, not being able to fully determine what the intruder's intentions were, and the clear threat I don't see how the homeowner was in the wrong for defending himself and his wife.
The young lady is lucky, but should have charges filed as she did criminally trespass. Perhaps it will be a wake-up call for her to get some help for her obvious alcohol problem...
Take a look at bait cars as a comparison, just because a car is parked with the keys in the ignition is no justification to steal it.
But it is against the law to enter a domicile uninvited. She did so, was told to leave and failed to comply, and presented a threat to the occupants by approaching them after several warnings.
Considering the time of night, not being able to fully determine what the intruder's intentions were, and the clear threat I don't see how the homeowner was in the wrong for defending himself and his wife.
The young lady is lucky, but should have charges filed as she did criminally trespass. Perhaps it will be a wake-up call for her to get some help for her obvious alcohol problem...
beatledog7
Member
Serenity:
We all have a duty to avoid using a firearm if there is any other possible way to head off possibly lethal danger to ourselves or those in our company. But once an intruder is in a private home without invitation--regardless of how that intruder gained entry--and fails to respond to calls to stop, the onus is now on that intruder.
I agree that we live in a time when, especially if we have guns in the house, we need to keep our homes secure. We don't know if this homeowner habitually leaves that door unlocked or if it was an oversight on the evening in question. However, to say that the homeowner bears partial responsibility for an intrusion because a door was left unlocked is the same as saying a lady in a short skirt has it coming or a man in an expensive suit is asking for a mugging.
Intrusion into an unlocked house is still intrusion, and it's the intruder who's wrong.
We all have a duty to avoid using a firearm if there is any other possible way to head off possibly lethal danger to ourselves or those in our company. But once an intruder is in a private home without invitation--regardless of how that intruder gained entry--and fails to respond to calls to stop, the onus is now on that intruder.
I agree that we live in a time when, especially if we have guns in the house, we need to keep our homes secure. We don't know if this homeowner habitually leaves that door unlocked or if it was an oversight on the evening in question. However, to say that the homeowner bears partial responsibility for an intrusion because a door was left unlocked is the same as saying a lady in a short skirt has it coming or a man in an expensive suit is asking for a mugging.
Intrusion into an unlocked house is still intrusion, and it's the intruder who's wrong.
Loosedhorse
member
From the story:
No argument there.
On the other hand, if locking my front door keeps me from having to deal with a drunk trespasser walking into my bedroom at 3:30AM, it's a "sacrifice" I'm willing to make. Especially since it costs me exactly nothing...
I'm not saying that the homeowner is in any way responsible for what happened. The responsibility lies on the trespasser. What I am saying is that locks are a convenient and generally pretty effective way to prevent drunken strangers from wandering into your bedroom in the middle of the night.
Fotno
Member
Very true. Not to mention that a busted lock or broken window helps establish intent on the intruder's part, and is additional evidence in the homeowner's favor should criminal or civil action be taken.
I always lock my doors.
Tony_the_tiger
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 905
Locking a door is a sound violence prevention technique and much more convenient and preferred than having to use a firearm in self defense.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Wow...this one went over the edge in a hurry! (Multiple deletions made.)
Spend much time here and you'll notice that we devote a whole lot of time to preaching layered security, situational awareness, and avoidance at ALMOST all costs of any bloodshed. We'll tell you that killing someone is the absolute second WORST outcome of any violent encounter -- with only the result of you and/or yours being shot, assaulted, and/or killed yourself being a more negative end.
This was a gross failure on the part of a person who let herself get out of her mind in public and won the "stupid prize" that such "stupid games" often reward.
This was also a gross failure on the part of the homeowner(s) who now have to live with all the various repercussions of having shot another person (blood, screams, terror, police, EMTs, investigators, press, in their own home no less -- as well as potential legal and relational and psychological unpleasantness that can result). And as unpleasant as that all will be, it could have been FAR, FAR worse. If a blitzed young woman could mistakenly get to them, how about a determined violent robber or even process predator?
Rights ... responsibilities ... repercussions. All different concepts and all interrelated.
The laws which define when the guilt for assault with a deadly weapon may be set aside because the standard of proof for a self-defense claim has been met, vary from state to state. So far, it appears the local police and District Attorney are accepting that this situation put the couple in realistic and reasonable fear for their lives -- as informed by Colorado's "castle doctrine"-type laws.
As none of us were there, and none of us saw what exactly happened, we're going to have to take the local authorities' word that the standards were appropriately met.
Spend much time here and you'll notice that we devote a whole lot of time to preaching layered security, situational awareness, and avoidance at ALMOST all costs of any bloodshed. We'll tell you that killing someone is the absolute second WORST outcome of any violent encounter -- with only the result of you and/or yours being shot, assaulted, and/or killed yourself being a more negative end.
This was a gross failure on the part of a person who let herself get out of her mind in public and won the "stupid prize" that such "stupid games" often reward.
This was also a gross failure on the part of the homeowner(s) who now have to live with all the various repercussions of having shot another person (blood, screams, terror, police, EMTs, investigators, press, in their own home no less -- as well as potential legal and relational and psychological unpleasantness that can result). And as unpleasant as that all will be, it could have been FAR, FAR worse. If a blitzed young woman could mistakenly get to them, how about a determined violent robber or even process predator?
Rights ... responsibilities ... repercussions. All different concepts and all interrelated.
The laws which define when the guilt for assault with a deadly weapon may be set aside because the standard of proof for a self-defense claim has been met, vary from state to state. So far, it appears the local police and District Attorney are accepting that this situation put the couple in realistic and reasonable fear for their lives -- as informed by Colorado's "castle doctrine"-type laws.
As none of us were there, and none of us saw what exactly happened, we're going to have to take the local authorities' word that the standards were appropriately met.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked