Teen Shoots Home Invader

[Alaska444]

True enough, but if the kid is unarmed and all of the elements of self defense are not present, you will have a case of shooting the kid over property which in most states is not a viable defense. In CA, you might have an issue holding the kid by gunpoint waiting for the cops. Yes, it is that bad in Californiland.

 

[Skribs]

Well, Carlos Hathcock (US Marine sniper, 93 confirmed kills in Vietnam) said about shooting a kid transporting AKs that it doesn't matter if it was a kid or an adult holding the gun, the AK still shot a 7.62mm bullet. I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea.

Unless I know for certain that an intruder is unarmed, I'm going to treat him as potentially armed and be ready to defend myself.

 

[BCCL]

Anyone consider that the top of the staircase, being a natural "choke point" in the house, may have been the "defensive position" he intended it to be??

He had the "high ground" and they had limited ability to advance.

Pretty much everything this young man did worked out to his and his siblings favor....that sounds more "smart" than "luck" to me.

 

[conw]

I'm not saying shoot without IDing target, but after IDing the target as a burglar, it is safe to assume they are a hostile?

I'm violating my policy of reading threads that attempt to hash out the legalities of home-defense, but for what it's worth, you may want to substitute "reasonable" with "safe," or at least invert the question.

Is it safe to assume the person in that hypothetical is not a hostile?

Is it reasonable to assume that person is a hostile? I would say so, until circumstances change or the person demonstrates otherwise.

Going down the path of "reasonable," which assumes one acts in the best interest of one's safety while giving consideration to the intent of others based on observable evidence, I would argue that a person in my home, illegally, pillaging or whatever the hypothetical entailed, merits treatment as a potential lethal threat until they demonstrate otherwise.

It would, in my view, in some situations, be "reasonable" for the hypothetical homeowner to draw first to gain initiative prior to being able to fully assess the situation, since the presence of an unknown burglar ID'd as such tends to be a red flag; the question of whether or not the gun is used to fire projectiles at said unknown burglars would be a decision that could be made more safely once the homeowner had regained initiative.

This does go against the Internet Lawyer* hardline doctrine that every single time one draws one's gun, one must fully intend to use it, but then, I've never found that type of person to offer constructive advice on how a reasonable person might handle such a situation.

*actually I should clarify that I have not heard this from anyone purporting to be an actual attorney

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by BCCL: Anyone consider that the top of the staircase, being a natural "choke point" in the house, may have been the "defensive position" he intended it to be?

Not likely. According to Phoenix police officer James Holmes, the boy was coming down the steps.

If that is true, he did exactly what I would have done had it happened to me, for a period of many years, and until I took the opportunity to study and learn a little and to really think about how to stay alive.

He had the "high ground" and they had limited ability to advance.

It is just as easy to shoot up the stairs as down.

 

[Skribs]

Conwict, I think that stems from "never point a gun at something you're not willing to destroy." My philosophy on that is, until I have decided to fire, my finger won't be on my trigger, but you bet the gun is going to pointed at the intruder if I have reason to believe (good call on reason vs. safe) that s/he is a potentially lethal threat. I may not intend to use it at that time, but I am prepared to.

Anyone consider that the top of the staircase, being a natural "choke point" in the house, may have been the "defensive position" he intended it to be??

It's possible. But like KB said, it sounds like he was going to meet the intruder. Of course, if the intruder burst into the door and was met with a bullet, then he was letting the attacker come to him - it just wasn't the bedroom door.

ETA:

People shouldn't be allowed to post while I'm typing.

It is just as easy to shoot up the stairs as down.

If you're on the stairs, then yes. If not, then the top of the stairs can act as a partial barrier, and also make it harder for the BG to take cover behind furniture. Also, if your stairs have walls on both sides, its a good choke point. But, if he was on the stairs instead of on top, then these don't really apply.

 

[Brockak47]

After thinking about this, who breaks into a home on a Friday afternoon. Just saying more likely than not this is probably drug related. Ya I know I just assumed a lot, but if any of you know Laveen, you know it's not the same town it used to be.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by conwict: This does go against the Internet Lawyer hardline doctrine that every single time one draws one's gun, one must fully intend to use it,...

I've heard it put that way, but I don't think it's a good way to say it.

In most states (all but two* the last time I checked), it is unlawful to draw a weapon (more accurately, to present one in a manner that would be perceived as threatening) except in an act of lawful self defense, or except if deadly force is otherwise justified. Of course, things can change fast--the justification can cease instantly.

When one is within one's domicile and a potentially deadly threat is outside, having one's gun in hand does not threaten anyone. And if the threat has made it indoors, it would seem to me that clear justification exists.

I have faced three men with gun in hand. One came into the house uninvited and threatened murder; one forced his way in; and one tried to get in by breaking down the door and changed his mind when he saw my firearm. I have never fired at anyone.

_______
*Minnesota and Tesas; force must be justified, however.

 

[tepin]

I completely agree however I wouldn't want to be at the top and exposed. My stairwell is open at the top along the hall (wrought iron spindles 36 inches high) so I take a position at the back of the stairs and anyone coming up gets 00-Buckshot in the back. A false alarm at 3AM always gets the heart pumping... although, after the 3rd false alarm, I have more control and don't shake as bad.

Regarding the news story... When I was in 3rd or 4th grade (I am 43 now) I was home sick, dad at work and mom at the grocery store. We were always told not to answer the door unless we knew someone was coming over. It was early afternoon and I was in the living room watching TV and the doorbell rings. I ignore it and it rings again. I mute the TV and went to the window and took a look without moving the curtains. Bell rings again. I couldn't see the guys face but based on his dress I would put him somewhere between 18 and 23 wearing a blue tank and feathered back blond hair. He proceeds to open the screen door and tries turning the knob. I hit high gear, went to the folks bedroom, grabbed dads Ruger speed six .357 and ran back to the living room where I had a clear view of the front door and back door. My beagle (Snoopy) jumped up on the couch and started barking...

6PM or so rolls around and the doorbell rings. Dad answers the door and it's a Tulsa, OK cop. Come to find out the house next door was robbed. He asked if we had seen or heard anything. Dad told him what happened. The cop looks at me and asks why I didn't call 911..... My reply was, "because I had my dads gun"

Needless to say, my dog saved that poor SOB that day. If he had entered the home I was going to drill him. I don't recall feeling fear or any apprehension what-so-ever.

One might wonder if the 14 year old in the story wasn't a more formidable adversary than the average adult.

Anyone consider that the top of the staircase, being a natural "choke point" in the house, may have been the "defensive position" he intended it to be??

He had the "high ground" and they had limited ability to advance.

Pretty much everything this young man did worked out to his and his siblings favor....that sounds more "smart" than "luck" to me.

 

[TrickyDick]

It's good to hear that this young man was confident enough, as were his parents to allow him handle a firearm and use it in a professional manner for the safety of his family. And what I mean by that, although alot of parents teach their children to shoot, not too many will leave their firearms unlocked and loaded. But it obviously seems that his parents had enough confidence in their children to protect themselves with a firearm if they weren't home. But who knows; it could've been Very good parenting, or lack of. but in the end, i'm glad the armed intruder was disposed of.

 

[conw]

It is just as easy to shoot up the stairs as down

Without attempting to draw any conclusions from the below, I would say that this is pretty demonstrably untrue. It's untrue for the same reason that (even though I don't agree with it as often as most people do) people constantly repeat "don't clear your house."

A dominant position is a dominant position. Stairs with a typical angle and of a typical length do allow for greater visibility with less exposure, at the top relative to the bottom. This advantage can be accentuated or conceded by the person at the top.

Even if a person entering a doorway at the bottom of the stairs is aware there is an armed person inside, there are other areas he/she must direct his/her attention besides the top of the stairs, which are not in immediate view - it's not normal to enter a room/door with one's head canted back at a 30 degree angle.

This is why 3+ "tactical football players" (SWAT team members) enter rapidly and fan out in a situation like that. The room is pre-divided geometrically - one guy's "up," another is "left," another is "hard corner left," another is "right," another is "hard corner right," another is maybe backing up the "up" guy.

That's the only way highly trained guys that train monthly or weekly can afford to assume "He is at the top of the stairs!"

Chances of a bad guy a) knowing stairs are there, b) assuming defender is there, c) being correct in any given instance (when there are usually, as I hopefully demonstrated, at least 7-8+ planes of concealment), and d) if we still assume for the sake of argument that all of the above is true, getting off an accurate shot first or having the wherewithal to withstand incoming fire from the defender...well, I don't know chances, but I'd disagree with "just as easy."

 

[orionengnr]

One has to wonder just -what- did this kids parents do to get someone -that- PO'd at them?

Yes, let's blame the victim.
How very High Road of you. :banghead:

 

[heeler]

^^^...And on that note..
Houston is well known for home burglaries as well as home invasions.
A lot of times the home invasions are drug related,which comes as no surprise to law enforcement types,but other times it's ethnic gangs going after the same ethnicity such as a business owner that takes cash home.
But then there are a lot of these guys,mostly young men,that just flat out storm a residence of nothing more than working class people who are just chosen because they have a nice car in the driveway and a decent looking home.
It happens man!!

 

[1911Tuner]

Is it safe to assume the person in that hypothetical is not a hostile?

Indeed...especially given the fact that a forced home invasion isn't the act of a friend.

Is it even safe or reasonable to believe that he's not armed, even though no weapon is plainly visible?

If we're to make assumptions in this scenario, it would be prudent to assume that he's both armed and hostile unless and until he proves otherwise by running or surrendering.

On the kid getting off the first shot...Maybe it was skill and maybe it was luck. It really doesn't matter. He did. That's what counts. The invader may have suffered from "Deer in the headlights" syndrome, frozen in place because he wasn't expecting an armed response to his planned activities, giving the defender time to aim and fire.

 

[Skribs]

Yes, let's blame the victim.
How very High Road of you.

There is a subtle difference between blaming the victim and learning from the victim's story what could have been done differently to avoid, prevent, or repel the attack. If the victim's actions are ever brought up, everyone just says "don't blame the victim", which prevents learning from the situation. If we never learned from the victim, none of us would carry, and none of us would lock our doors.

Is it even safe or reasonable to believe that he's not armed, even though no weapon is plainly visible?

If we're to make assumptions in this scenario, it would be prudent to assume that he's both armed and hostile unless and until he proves otherwise by running or surrendering.

I think I implied this, but yes, that's what I'm saying. Considering how easy it is to conceal a gun, I have to assume he's armed. And a 9mm fired from 14 year old hands is as deadly as those from 30 year old hands.

The invader may have suffered from "Deer in the headlights" syndrome, frozen in place because he wasn't expecting an armed response to his planned activities, giving the defender time to aim and fire.

Could also be that he didn't expect a kid to be the defender and either A) didn't think the kid would shoot or B) he didn't want to shoot a kid.

 

[Fred Fuller]

We're getting into circular speculation at this point... and the sniping is not helpful either.