Vet kills intruder. Good shoot or bad shoot ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not upset. I'm just using hyperbole to respond to the previous poster, in an attempt to show him what his thinking might lead to.

It just seems (from the admittedly limited info in the article), that an unfamiliar guy approached his back door from the outside. I suppose the door was open so he could see him. And the shooter made many assumptions when shooting him.

Assumptions he made:
1. The guy is the burglar. True
2. The guy is armed. False
3. The guy's intent is to cause deadly harm to shooter. Unlikely, with no weapon, and early return of shooter

I'm just saying he's really lucky not to have been charged.
 
Assumptions he made:
1. The guy is the burglar. True
2. The guy is armed. False
3. The guy's intent is to cause deadly harm to shooter. Unlikely, with no weapon, and early return of shooter

He probably didn't have a lot of time to analyze the situation and come up with the "perfect" plan. He comes home...his door is kicked in or window's knocked out and his guns are missing. Bearing that in mind:
Seeing someone you don't know diddy-bopping through your back yard on his way back into your house, it's reasonable to assume:

1. The guy is the burglar. Probably.
2. The guy is armed. Probably(with your weapons)
3. The guy's intent is to at least steal some more stuff and he may kill you because you've seen him or because he didn't expect you to be there and you scared the crap out of him while he was fiddling with his new guns.

The homeowner is lucky to be alive. ;)
 
I have a good friend stationed at Ft. Gordon (Signal Analyst with 297th MI Bat) that I will check with to see if he has any added inside info. As for for the shoot, I say one less criminal dirt bag breathing our clean law abiding air, Hooah!!
 
You know, it doesn't matter what anyone here thinks if it was a good or bad shoot. What matters is what the *prosecutor* thinks. So far, no charges are filed, and that's good enough for me.
 
he witnessed the bad guy climbing over his fence

from the inside of his ransacked house.....sometimes one plus one equals justifiable use of deadly force.
 
Hmmm,

Guy jumps fence in back yard and is approaching recently burglarized house. (not a kid hopping fences going form yard to yard taking a shortcut.) It's not a neighbor, friend, cop or someone else you recognize. He's not wearing a Fedex, UPS, DHL or other delivery uniform and it's not Ed McMahon carrying a giant Publishers Clearing House cardboard check, I would presume that he is there to do me harm. Since some of my guns are missing I'd assume that he had armed himself with at least one of them. I think it's more a question of "How far from the back door was he when the CPT fired." If the guy is obviously attempting to enter, righteous shoot. If he's a fair distance from the house then it becomes questionable.

Too many facts left out of the story, we're not there to see the physical layout of the scene, nor any of the other evidence (like the 911 recording), and since the local DA is not pressing charges, I'll defer to his judgement. Good Shoot.
 
Obviously a good shoot, he wasn't charged. In many states and it sounds like GA is one, you are legally justified in usinge lethal force even if the assailant is unarmed. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say a reasonable man would be in fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm under the circumstances given.
 
If a state has a "castle doctrine" (not saying that guys state did). Do you need to have a reason to shoot or can you just shoot anyone inside your house that's not supposed to be there? For example: You live alone. In the middle of the night you see a shadow in the living room. Are you allowed to use deadly force?
 
If a state has a "castle doctrine" (not saying that guys state did). Do you need to have a reason to shoot or can you just shoot anyone inside your house that's not supposed to be there? For example: You live alone. In the middle of the night you see a shadow in the living room. Are you allowed to use deadly force?

Seems like you can in Indiana (part of statute).
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

But seems like you cannot in Florida (wiki quote, not statute):
In Florida, Castle Doctrine applies to any place where a person has a legal right to be, not just their own home. Opponents of this Castle Doctrine law have referred to it as a "shoot first" law, implying that it allows people to "shoot first, ask questions later" any time they are frightened. However, all laws pertaining to the use of deadly force still apply. The law still requires citizens to articulate the ability, opportunity and intent of an attacker to do grave bodily harm to a person exercising his or her right to self-defense. Since the passing of this law, several other states have enacted similar legislation.
 
Good Shoot/Bad Shoot had no bearing on the decision by the prosecutor not to pursue charges. Prosecutors like to win, here are the facts:

Shooter is Active Duty Army Officer Iraq War Vet.
Robber broke into his home stole firearms and came back for more.
Shooter kills Robber as he approaches back door.
Search of Robbers home by police find stolen weapons.

Now, you are sitting on a jury, and hear the above, Not Guilty.

Had he shot the wrong guy he would be going to jail, but he didn't.

Would I have no, I would have waited for his foot to cross my threshold, then I would have shot him, center mass.
 
Any links to follow-up reports? Still sense that we don't have all the info here.
 
Not Certain I understand.....

Why are people who were not there and or directly involved passing judgement? Who am I to say if this was a good shoot or a bad shoot based on the information at hand. This is the same mentality that second guesses LEO's who use their weapons in the line of duty and or the Soldier shooting a "Civilian". Neither you nor I were there, I have never been in that hostile a situation therefore I am unable to pass "Judgement" on the person that was there and did the shooting. In particular based on the limited information.
 
Why are people who were not there and or directly involved passing judgement? Who am I to say if this was a good shoot or a bad shoot based on the information at hand. This is the same mentality that second guesses LEO's who use their weapons in the line of duty and or the Soldier shooting a "Civilian". Neither you nor I were there, I have never been in that hostile a situation therefore I am unable to pass "Judgement" on the person that was there and did the shooting. In particular based on the limited information.

Always the same old argument against giving an opinion, especially when it offends you. Lighten up, jeez. Ever killed anybody? Don't give an opinion on a murderer then. Ever suicide bombed a building? No? Then don't pass judgement on terrorists. Ever been a muslim... you get the idea.

Who are you to say? You are a human. One given the faculties to think, observe, make inferences, and place value judgements on anything you desire.

Nobody is passing judgement (in quotes whatever that means) on the person, we are passing judgement, or giving an opinion, on his actions, given the available information. Opinions are a dime a dozen, they don't mean crap. They can be "wrong".

Nobody except God has all the information, does that mean we can't discuss a topic and give an opinion?

This is an internet forum, not the jury deciding his fate. Relax about not having all the information...

Great argument for an accused to the prosecutor and judge. You guys weren't there nor directly involved, so don't second guess my decision. The jury can't judge me because they weren't there. They don't have all the information. Jesus Christ do people actually make convincing arguments anymore.

---

Every post on this forum is made with limited information. Which caliber do you think is best? Have you tested all the calibers available? Have you shot enough people with enough calibers to know for sure? Is an AR more accurate than an AK? Is an AK more reliable than an AR? Which are the top 10 battle rifles?
 
The only issue that i have

Is that he shot through a door at some one after he called the police. He could have shot a plain clothes officer who was responding. Other than that, I am glad that a vet is safe and that he will not be persecuted… I mean prosecuted for defending himself.
 
There's one less scumbag in the world (they found the Cpt's guns in his house so he was guilty).

The Captain isn't being charged.

'Nuff SAID!
 
Good Shoot, Bad Journalism

Home defense with a rifle, shots to COM rather than fancy head-shots or idiotic "shoot to wound."

No silly "stop-or-I'll-shoot" dialog. Armed intruder as far as he knows, so either "hey, are you armed with one of my guns?" or "hey, stop right there!" (bad guy panics and shoots) or "bang! bang! bang!"

I'm going with "bang! bang! bang!" thank you very much.

Journalistic bias leaves out data that would probably make the shooting a complete "duh!" moment.

Journalist describes rifle as "similiar to . . . assault rifle" while omitting actual distance from bad guy to back door.
Capt. Bollinger told police he entered his bedroom and noticed that guns were missing.
House is ransacked . . . entered bedroom . . . "noticed" guns were missing.

Clearly data is omitted. Unless he was in the habit of leaving his rifles lying on the bed, he had to enter his bedroom, go to the closet/cabinet/safe where the guns were stored, and count the little piggies, concluding that some piggies were missing (alternatively, looks in safe, and his two bestest rifles on the right-hand side are gone, leaving a large gap in the rack-o-rifles).

Oh, and he "grabbed" his (already loaded and cocked??) SKS?

I don't store anything loaded in my safe, so the sequence would be "grabbed and loaded" his rifle.

The report is pretty sketchy. I guess it's tough to leave out the best parts of the story and still have a story.

I figure the police got it right.
 
anytime someone breaks into your home and you shoot them it's a good shoot to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top