Man Charged After Firing Six Shots at Backyard Intruder

[Elza]

Steve in PA: You would also have to prove that the person was there to steal the chicken or anything else for that matter.

Yes and no.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

This is a rather gray area to begin with and you have to show the "criminal mischief" that took place.

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Technically, if you catch someone in the act of stealing your property you have the right to use deadly force. Personally, nothing that I own is worth killing someone over. Not that I care a flip about the perp I just don’t want the personal emotional baggage. At least I hope that I still have enough humanity left in me to feel bad about taking a human life.

 

[Elza]

Gillster: I was actually just responding to the comment about the original shooting not flying down here in Texas by stating that a shooting at least as un-justified and involving loss of life actually did fly down here.

I remember that as well. Caused quite a stir when it happened. But in this case the shooter showed that there was a theft in progress. Notice that ‘criminal mischief’ is not included in stopping someone from leaving the scene. If the theft had not taken place the shooter would not have been covered.

As there is no mention of theft in the OP even in Texas the shooter would not have been within the law to shoot at the boy while he was running away.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

getting biblical

The Texas law is almost Biblical.

A general reading of the biblical law is that a threat to property
only does not deserve death, but the thief should be bound by law
to make restitution. However, a thief who comes by night into a
dwelling is likely to be a cutthroat intent on mayhem and does
deserve death in order to protect the innocent. There is a world
of difference between robbery and thievery. A robber is
threatening death or bodily harm, not merely thieving property.
And an intruder by night is as different from a trespasser by day
as .... welll ... day and night.

Exodus (KJV translation)

21:14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour,
to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar,
that he may die.

22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that
he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

Exodus (TLB paraphrase/translation)

21:14 However, if a man deliberately attacks another, intending
to kill him, drag him even from my altar, and kill him.

22:2 If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house
and is killed, the one who killed him is not guilty.

ALSO:

"If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him."
The Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994. The Schottenstein Edition.
New York: Mesorah Publications. Vol. 2, 72a.

PLUS:
"Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!"
--Malcom Reynolds to Saffron in "Our Mrs. Reynolds" epsiode #6 of
Firefly, aired 4 Oct 2002.

 

[brerrabbit]

Not the homeowners responsibility to control crazy people running around. It either falls under his legal guardians or society in general.

People do not have the right to walk around my property without my permission. They will be asked nicely once to leave. After that they will be removed at the point of a firearm. If they make any attempt to confront me physically or do anything untoward, things will get very bad for them very quickly. As previously posted, some of us are very serious about our property rights.

I remember an old episode of Cops that was filmed in Oklahoma, where an old woman living alone fired upon a man in her backyard at night. She missed him. The LEO proceded to lecture her about shooting at shooting at people that she could not see clearly, while reloading her revolver for her.

In the OP, I do not believe that the homeowner was actually trying to hit the intruder. In this neck of the woods, the intruder would have been chargedafterwards and no action taken against the homeowner. Even if the intruder had been shot, based on his mental history, charges aagainst the homeowner would have still been unlikely. The burden of controlling societies crazies does not fall on the individual but society.

 

[Car Knocker]

The burden of controlling societies crazies does not fall on the individual but society.

And society is about to do that with this homeowner.

 

[brerrabbit]

Car knocker

As I understand it, the trespasser has had charges filed against him also.

While a lot of it depends on local political views, very few juries would have an issue of a homeowner removing a known mentally ill person from his property no matter what method he used.

If the man is not responsible for his actions, do not expect a senior citizen to be responsible for the actions needed to control him.

One thing to remember. The firearm was not used in a lethal manner. The homeowner has an incredibly good case for removing a deranged individual by using his handgun to instill fear. I have some major doubts about wether he will be convicted

The first question that you have to ask before you blame the homeowner though is why the local government had not put the crazy under control before then.

This seems like as that as long as he did not cause any major issues he was allowed to roam regardless of his actions. Then when he did cause problems, the local government arrested the person he caused problems for as a method of disclaiming their responsibility for allowing him to walk free..

 

[larry_minn]

Just read first half dozen posts... Don't you think a LAWYER would have been a good investment? (before he talked to Police)
Don't say "I shot at him as he was climbing over the fence to get away" Instead "he was climbing back over the fence but stopped and reached into his jacket as if he was pulling a gun so I fired" (if true)

 

[paintballdude902]

wait so if i go into some persons garage and say that i was jsut imagining him selling me his ferrari ...it would be fine?

hummmmmmmmmm IDEA!!!!!!!!!

 

[Car Knocker]

brerrabbit,

I believe we will see the homeowner plead guilty to lesser charges, perhaps assault with a deadly weapon and negligent discharge of a firearm within city limits.

very few juries would have an issue of a homeowner removing a known mentally ill person from his property no matter what method he used.

But did the homeowner know that the person was mentally ill? Probably not. And since we have no idea of what "mental illness" the trespasser allegedly has and exactly what his usual behavior was, there may not have been any reason for him to be "controlled".

In any event, the homeowner shouldn't skate for shooting up the neighbor's property when, apparantly he wasn't personally threatened with harm (none of the accounts of the event indicate the homeowner was threatened nor was the trespasser committing a violent felony).

 

[brerrabbit]

Wilder may or may not have known the man was mentally ill. From initially reading the story it seems he may have just thought the man was a thief and was trying to apprehend him.



Here is another link from cbsnews, same story same scant info.

I can see discharge of a firearm inside of city limits sticking. I do not see them getting a conviction on a 66 year old man for attempted homicide for removing a crazy in a jury trial. If Wilder has any type of lawyer, he will get away with a fine and maybe probation.

 

[migoi]

Interesting contrast between this:

Prosecutors have now charged Wilder with attempted homicide. I did talk to Wilder today. He did not want to go on camera, but he said that in his 66 years his name has never been in print, but he's making the news because of a bad judgment call.

and an article in my morning news....

Shooting found dangerous but not murderous
By Debra Barayuga and Rosemarie Bernardo
[email protected] [email protected]

A 22-year-old man who fired a gun during a 2005 home invasion at a Puck's Alley apartment was found guilty yesterday of the lesser offense of first-degree reckless endangering.

This was Ruben Royce's first trial stemming from a string of crimes including the robbery of actor Josh Holloway's home.

Royce was originally charged with second-degree attempted murder, which carries the penalty of life in prison with the possibility of parole.

"We are enormously pleased by this verdict," said deputy public defender Teri Marshall outside Circuit Judge Karl Sakamoto's courtroom.

"In this case the evidence did not support an attempted murder. He absolutely went there intending to do things, wrong things, criminal things," Marshall said. "He didn't go there intending to commit a murder."

A 12-member jury also found Royce guilty of first-degree robbery, first-degree burglary, use of a firearm in commission of a felony, possession of a firearm and place to keep a firearm.

Senior Deputy Prosecutor Maurice Arrisgado described the verdict as theoretically good, assuming Royce's sentences are served back to back.

Reckless endangering carries a maximum prison term of five years in prison. The robbery and use of a firearm in commission of a felony offenses each carry a maximum prison term of 20 years. The burglary, possession of a firearm and place to keep a firearm offenses each carry a maximum prison term of 10 years.

Royce also faces 26 other charges in separate cases that include the armed robbery at the Hawaii Kai home of Holloway, who plays the character Sawyer on the television series "Lost."

Royce admitted on the stand this week that he and an accomplice had gone to the apartment on Kalo Place to rob the occupants, believing there were lots of money and drugs there, Arrisgado said.

Royce admitted that he brought a gun with him because drug dealers usually are armed, and he wanted to be prepared.

His plan was to knock on the door and pretend to ask for someone as a way of getting into the apartment.

The male who opened the door cussed at Royce, told him to "get the hell out" and tried to close the door. But Royce managed to get his foot in the door jamb, blocking the door, and responded, "Oh, you like die?" Arrisgado said.

Royce then stuck the gun he was holding through the opening in the door and fired. The bullet missed the man and his friend who was trying to help force the door closed.

Royce testified that he pointed the gun around the door just to scare the occupants and that it went off, Arrisgado said.

The jury began deliberating Thursday afternoon and resumed yesterday morning.

Royce's accomplice, Chanh Thay Khounkeo, 28, pleaded guilty to burglary earlier this week and testified against Royce. Under a plea agreement, he will have to serve a five-year prison term with a mandatory one year and eight months.

Marshall said Royce is remorseful of his past criminal actions. "It is sunk into him the real distress and pain that people suffered as a result of his conduct," she said.

Royce's sentencing is scheduled before Sakamoto at 11 a.m. Oct. 2.

Maybe the homeowner should ask for a change of venue... move the trial to Hawaii.

Oops..sorry this only works for repeat offender criminals here. Regular, work everyday citizens who make errors in transportation or use of firearms are generally hung in the public square....

migoi