This is why you don't chase after the bad guy.

[Schwing]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37146102&ni...in-east-millcreek&fm=home_page&s_cid=topstory

This is a local story and I'm sure there are still a lot of details to emerge. For me, the take away is that it is not often prudent to chase after the bad guy when he is already in retreat.

I feel a huge amount of sympathy for this man's 16 year old son. I also question why he would allow his son to chase after this intruder with him.

 

[hso]

Bruner ran off and Jacobs chased after him.

Huge mistake for anyone to make to chase anyone.

 

[Reloadron]

This story recently went down south of us up here in the Cleveland, Ohio suburbs. You are not allowed to chase the bad guy down and shoot them.

Ron

 

[HGM22]

Super sad but a good lesson.

 

[joem1945]

Better to shoot through the door and use enough gun.

 

[splattergun]

In this case, the perp had left. The homeowner followed him. Sadly stupid move.
But I can not claim shooting through a door is any less stupid.

 

[morcey2]

I wouldn't be so quick to judge. This has been all over local radio and I've heard more than one person claiming to be from that neighborhood saying that the perp said he was going to hit a different house. One said it was a specific threat, but another said it was just a vague "then I'm going to hit one of the other houses" type threat and that was why the homeowner and his son both went after him in the very close-knit neighborhood. The perp was also know to many in the neighborhood, but they don't know if the homeowner knew him at all. Unfortunately, the only other person who likely knows what transpired is the son, who just watched his dad get killed. That part of the story will come out at some point, but it'll probably be a little while before that comes out.

Would I have chased him? Probably not.

Matt

 

[splattergun]

All the more reason to relay that information in your 911 call. Not chasing after him.
I went to Jr. High school in that neighborhood.

 

[The Alaskan]

In the days before stand your ground, if you "chased a bad guy" you gave up your claim to self defense. Chasing a bad guy down and shooting him (for any reason) was murder. Likewise, if you had instigated/started a fight, but then fled and tried to get away but couldn't, you could legally use self defense.

But that was before stand your ground. These days, it's a free for all.

At any rate, in my view, the homeowner was wrong. And stupid.

 

[sequins]

Shooting through the door or chasing are all mistakes.

I speculate that Bruner didn't shoot first because I really doubt the homeowner took a shotshell to the torso and then effectively returned fire with two fatal upper body shots as is suggested. I'm guessing Bruner squeezed off the shotgun as he got hit rather than the other way around.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/0...on-porch-convicted-murder-after-jury-rejects/

 

[old lady new shooter]

In California you're not allowed to chase the BG, and if he's banging on your door or windows but has not (yet) broken in our version of the castle doctrine does not apply.

 

[GJSchulze]

But that was before stand your ground. These days, it's a free for all

Stand your ground does not mean you can chase. It's really a misnomer in that it really means 'No Duty to Retreat.' It relieves the defender from having to prove that he couldn't retreat. You should always want to avoid shooting when you can retreat safely. If you shoot someone in self-defense you still may go to trial, which will cost a bundle and even if acquitted, you can still lose a lawsuit.

Regardless of that, chasing someone like that is just plain stupid. You have drawn your weapon and chased away the intruder. You have successfully defended yourself and family. Call it a win and call the police.

 

[JohnKSa]

If you have a violent encounter with a bad guy and he manages to disengage, that encounter is over.

If you chase him down and initiate a second armed encounter while he is trying to get away, it's quite possible that he can claim self-defense if he feels that his life is in danger and therefore shoots you to end the second encounter.

But that was before stand your ground. These days, it's a free for all.

That's not remotely true.

Before the stand your ground laws, if you were violently attacked, even if the circumstances of the attack clearly put you in danger of death or serious injury and would normally justify a claim of self-defense, you were still unable to legally claim self-defense unless you could prove to the court's satisfaction that you could not reasonably retreat.

All the stand your ground laws do is say that if you are violently attacked in a place where you have a legal right to be, that you can claim self-defense if the circumstances of the attack would warrant a deadly force response EVEN WITHOUT first proving that you were unable to retreat.

 

[The Alaskan]

If you have a violent encounter with a bad guy and he manages to disengage, that encounter is over.

If you chase him down and initiate a second armed encounter while he is trying to get away, it's quite possible that he can claim self-defense if he feels that his life is in danger and therefore shoots you to end the second encounter.That's not remotely true.

Before the stand your ground laws, if you were violently attacked, even if the circumstances of the attack clearly put you in danger of death or serious injury and would normally justify a claim of self-defense, you were still unable to legally claim self-defense unless you could prove to the court's satisfaction that you could not reasonably retreat.

All the stand your ground laws do is say that if you are violently attacked in a place where you have a legal right to be, that you can claim self-defense if the circumstances of the attack would warrant a deadly force response EVEN WITHOUT first proving that you were unable to retreat.

I'm aware of that, and, technically at least, you are correct. But there are some unintentded side effects to that.

First of all, lethal force should always be an absolute last and final option, a last ditch stand after all other avenues have been approached and failed. (Admittedly, you can get to the final option pretty quickly-seconds or less.)

Prior to stand your ground laws, you had a "duty to retreat," a legal obligation to use violence only as a last and desperate resort.

Subsequent to stand your ground, you can pretty much shoot anyone who you believe is a threat (whether they actually are or are not isn't terribly relevant), and it is virtually impossible for anyone to say otherwise because no one can prove what was in your mind at the moment you pulled the trigger. (And let's be honest, that, too, is a result of our "innocent until proven guilty" concepts and our rights to due process of law, which I hold as unassailable.)

So, in my legal layman's view, all stand your ground did was move the lethal option from last to first, and I think that concept is bad for society overall.

 

[Spats McGee]

Subsequent to stand your ground, you can pretty much shoot anyone who you believe is a threat (whether they actually are or are not isn't terribly relevant), and it is virtually impossible for anyone to say otherwise because no one can prove what was in your mind at the moment you pulled the trigger.

I realize that you included the word "virtually," but the reality is that prosecutors successfully prove varying degrees of intent and knowledge every day around the country. SYG laws typically include elements such as the defender "reasonably believing" that he or she is in fear of imminent death or substantial bodily injury. If the statutory language is as I've listed it ("reasonably believes"), then the prosecutor can eliminate a SYG defense by showing that the SD Shooter's belief simply wasn't reasonable.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by The Alaskan:

So, in my legal layman's view, all stand your ground did was move the lethal option from last to first, ....

What on Earth gave you that idea?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by morcey2:

I wouldn't be so quick to judge. This has been all over local radio and I've heard more than one person claiming to be from that neighborhood saying that the perp said he was going to hit a different house. One said it was a specific threat, but another said it was just a vague "then I'm going to hit one of the other houses" type threat and that was why the homeowner and his son both went after him in the very close-knit neighborhood.

That would not have begun to justify a threat of, or the use of, deadly force.

Nor does it make the idea of going outside in pursuit of an armed criminal any less foolhardy.

 

[morcey2]

Posted by morcey2:That would not have begun to justify a threat of, or the use of, deadly force.

Nor does it make the idea of going outside in pursuit of an armed criminal any less foolhardy.

I'm not trying to justify it. I'm just adding information that might help understand the homeowner's mindset.

I speculate that Bruner didn't shoot first because I really doubt the homeowner took a shotshell to the torso and then effectively returned fire with two fatal upper body shots as is suggested. I'm guessing Bruner squeezed off the shotgun as he got hit rather than the other way around.

According to what I've heard and read, there's no question that Bruner shot first. Several neighbors report hearing one very loud gunshot (most likely the shotgun) followed shortly by two much quieter gunshots (most likely from the revolver). Also, if someone can take 7 or 8 center-of-mass shots from a 45 ACP and keep coming, the homeowner who was running on adrenaline very possibly could have kept functioning for a short time after a torso shot from a shotgun, especially if it didn't disrupt his spine. I don't know exactly where he was hit or if it was birdshot, buckshot, or even a slug.

Matt

 

[Theohazard]

But that was before stand your ground. These days, it's a free for all.

Subsequent to stand your ground, you can pretty much shoot anyone who you believe is a threat

So, in my legal layman's view, all stand your ground did was move the lethal option from last to first

Your statements show you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Before you jump to criticize "stand your ground" laws, you should at least make a small attempt to understand them.

Try reading this first, it's a guide to "stand your ground" laws written by several of the lawyers on THR's sister forum. Here's an excerpt:

"It is even more important to understand that neither 'stand your ground' laws or court rulings of similar effect change the fundamental tenets of the use of force laws. Their only effect is to remove the duty to retreat. Force, deadly or otherwise, may only be used when it is immediately necessary and otherwise justified under the law."

 

[Kleanbore]

Thanks, Theo. Good put.

That link is also on THR. Several attorneys did assist the author in putting it together.


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=718860

 

[Theohazard]

Ah, there it is. I thought I remembered seeing it posted here on THR also, but I looked for it in the Legal section and couldn't find it there.

 

[GJSchulze]

Does anyone know where the phrase "Stand Your Ground" originated? I don't believe any actual law uses those words and if they do, they put it into context. My guess is that it was used by anti's to demonize the laws that state that there is "No Duty to Retreat."

We hear "SYG" over and over again along with the idea that it just let's us blast away. That any concealed carrier believes that and states that is a bit mystifying and horrifying to me. Are so many of us "dumb rednecks" such that we don't bother to learn what is legal when defending oneself?

We are often our own worst enemies, aren't we?

I suggest that people read Self-Defense Laws of All 50 States
to get scared straight (essentially), so to speak.

 

[boom boom]

For commenters regarding shooting through doors or misunderstanding SYG and Castle Doctrine laws, you might try reading the Law of Self Defense by Andrew Branca, a noted attorney. I would further suggest reading Self-Defense Laws of All 50 States by Evan Vilos and Mitch Vilos for a common sense breakdown of self defense laws in your state, and Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right to Self Defense by Massad Ayoob and Jeff Weiner for an updated version of In the Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob.

Unless you are a sworn law enforcement officer who has that duty, it is hazardous in the extreme to chase after someone both physically and legally. Sorry this time ended up as a tragedy.

 

[chipcom]

The only way one might justify deadly force after chasing down some goblin would be if you could prove he was putting the life of another in imminent danger of death or grevious bodily harm...and even then you might still face charges that it was your chase that put the goblin in the position to threaten someone else.

Moral of the story, when the threat is removed, stop the lesson, call the cops and sit down with a nice cold glass of Mug root beer.

 

[The Alaskan]

Your statements show you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Before you jump to criticize "stand your ground" laws, you should at least make a small attempt to understand them.

Try reading this first, it's a guide to "stand your ground" laws written by several of the lawyers on THR's sister forum. Here's an excerpt:

Ohhh...I think I understand the law well enough.

By removing the "duty to retreat", Stand Your Ground laws encourage people to use guns first without even considering or attempting to use any other recourse.

At least with "a duty to retreat" you were required to at least try to escape. If escape was not an option, THEN you could resort to guns.

I don't have an issue with the right to self defense. And I don't have an issue with using a firearm for self defense. I have an issue with this notion that we can shoot first and ask questions later. I have a problem with stand your ground because it encourages people to skip every other option and go immediately to the killing part. Yeah, I have a problem with killing other human beings until it is absolutely necessary and ALL other options (including retreat/escape-even if you have a right to be there) have been exhausted.