Young people doing a "prank" went around kicking in doors at 3 a.m. One homeowner shot them and is sitting in jail. Thoughts?

[old lady new shooter]

So another bizarro video brought by Colion Noir. There is apparently a prank going around on tik-tok of not just ringing a doorbell and running away which kids sometimes used to do, but actively pretending (?) to be breaking in at 3:00 a.m., by violently kicking doors etc. Wait till you see the video of the door-kicking! Homeowner appears to have shot through the door and hit one or two of them and is now sitting in jail.

Colion said Virginia where this happened does not have an actual castle doctrine law, but his sympathies are with the homeowner -- what would any rational person think on hearing his or her door being kicked in by multiple people at 3 am? One interesting fact is that while the miscreants showed videos of themselves doing other homes, they claimed not to have video of the one where the shooting occurred...

What do you guys think?

3am TikTok Pranking Teens Get Shot, & Armed Homeowner Is Arrested In Virginia

Teenagers were shot, and one was killed for what his friends called a “TikTok prank.” In this video, I break down the full story behind a deadly “ding dong d...

www.youtube.com

 

[Phaedrus/69]

It seemed absurd that the homeowner was arrested and I couldn't understand it...until they showed pictures of all involved. Then it was unfortunately pretty clear.

 

[JohnKSa]

Virginia homeowner charged with murder after shooting high school teen during attempted break-in, sheriff says

Tyler Chase Butler, 27, was charged with murder in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Bosworth Jr., the Spotsylvania Sheriff’s Office said.

www.foxnews.com

"One of Butler’s neighbors shared home surveillance footage with the outlet that shows the three teens going up to Butler’s home and not only ringing the doorbell but banging, kicking and slamming on a garage door."​

If they had just rung his doorbell and took off, that would be one thing. If they really were banging/kicking/slamming at 3AM, that seems like something very different.

Virginia teenager shot and killed by homeowner while recording TikTok prank video

Tyler Chase Butler was arrested on several charges, including second-degree murder, in the death of Michael Bosworth Jr.

www.nbcnews.com

"The juvenile said as they were running from a residence, he and his friends were shot at," the affidavit says."​

If he really did shoot them as they were running away, that's going to be a real problem for him. Even if justification existed at one point, it would have disappeared after it was no longer reasonable to assume that an attack was in progress. I assume that the home surveillance video will shed some light on the validity of the juvenile's claim.

Ok, all that aside, if you have kids or know of someone with kids, you should do your best to convince them that this is an impressively stupid thing for them to do. Point out that even if this guy goes to jail, one of the three kids who did this is now dead and won't get to revel in the glory of the Tik-Tok views the video generates.

Even the standard version of the prank has the potential for serious mayhem as 3 teenagers in 2020 may have realized briefly before they were killed by one of their targets.

Corona man sentenced to life without parole for killing 3 teens who ding-dong-ditched his home

A Corona man was sentenced to life without parole for the 2020 murders of three teenage boys who pranked him by ringing his doorbell and running away, commonly referred to as a ding-dong-ditch.

abc7.com

 

[SterlingBullet]

The state's law and precedents will apply.

I'm no lawyer, but if somebody is firing canons at the castle wall, apparently ya gotta wait till they break the moat door down and rush into the castle before you shoot any arrows at them.

Shooting through the door also denies you the opportunity to see the surprised faces of any true criminals when the red/green dot is followed by severe chest pain and regret on choosing the wrong house and hear them cry mama.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Hard to know the full circumstances, what with many "details" coming to us piecemeal, and generally with a point of view that isn't always unbiased.

And what makes it worse are the assumptions many people make without even a token of effort in trying to figure out the most basic of facts, as this screenshot below from a Ruger forum shows.

Bottom line...be sure of your target(s), folks, and remember: if the threat breaks off, so does the need for deadly force. If you're shooting blindly through a locked door...well, I CAN picture a justifiable circumstance or two, but...

 

[old lady new shooter]

Virginia homeowner charged with murder after shooting high school teen during attempted break-in, sheriff says

Tyler Chase Butler, 27, was charged with murder in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Bosworth Jr., the Spotsylvania Sheriff’s Office said.

www.foxnews.com

"One of Butler’s neighbors shared home surveillance footage with the outlet that shows the three teens going up to Butler’s home and not only ringing the doorbell but banging, kicking and slamming on a garage door."​

If they had just rung his doorbell and took off, that would be one thing. If they really were banging/kicking/slamming at 3AM, that seems like something very different.

Virginia teenager shot and killed by homeowner while recording TikTok prank video

Tyler Chase Butler was arrested on several charges, including second-degree murder, in the death of Michael Bosworth Jr.

www.nbcnews.com

"The juvenile said as they were running from a residence, he and his friends were shot at," the affidavit says."​

If he really did shoot them as they were running away, that's going to be a real problem for him. Even if justification existed at one point, it would have disappeared after it was no longer reasonable to assume that an attack was in progress. I assume that the home surveillance video will shed some light on the validity of the juvenile's claim.

Yes, if he shot them as they were running away he loses the presumption of self-defense.

Which means shooting through the door if the door doesn't allow you to see the breakers-in can be very iffy.

Ok, all that aside, if you have kids or know of someone with kids, you should do your best to convince them that this is an impressively stupid thing for them to do. Point out that even if this guy goes to jail, one of the three kids who did this is now dead and won't get to revel in the glory of the Tik-Tok views the video generates.

Even the standard version of the prank has the potential for serious mayhem as 3 teenagers in 2020 may have realized briefly before they were killed by one of their targets.

Corona man sentenced to life without parole for killing 3 teens who ding-dong-ditched his home

A Corona man was sentenced to life without parole for the 2020 murders of three teenage boys who pranked him by ringing his doorbell and running away, commonly referred to as a ding-dong-ditch.

abc7.com

The Corona case is completely different, the ding-dongers had already left the scene in their car, the homeowner got in his own car and chased them. Completely illegal.

 

[old lady new shooter]

The state's law and precedents will apply.

I'm no lawyer, but if somebody is firing canons at the castle wall, apparently ya gotta wait till they break the moat door down and rush into the castle before you shoot any arrows at them.

It depends on the jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, the moment it is clear the person/people are in the process of breaking into your home, you have the presumption of self-defense. For example, they put a fist through your sliding glass door, but haven't yet broken enough glass to enter, they're already in the process.

Shooting through the door also denies you the opportunity to see the surprised faces of any true criminals when the red/green dot is followed by severe chest pain and regret on choosing the wrong house and hear them cry mama.

 

[CDW4ME]

Some people may respond to a "prank" not as anticipated.

 

[JDeere]

Shooting through the door is never going to bode well in any state. Best have a good Atty. and a great defense. Just the way it is these days...

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

If you go around poking people long enough, the odds that you'll run into someone who'll knock your block off will go up until it approaches unity.

Keep pursuing it and the odds will further increase to the point where you'll eventually run into someone who'll kill you for it.

That's reality.

The fact that such a retaliatory act would be illegal doesn't change this.


While we can point out all day long that the guy who did the shooting was in the wrong, we cannot ignore the fact that the kids who initiated the whole debacle also bear some responsibility as well. They KNEW what they were doing was wrong by their very behavior.

This is, unfortunately, a very tragic way for these young men to learn this. Maybe the guy that got arrested was in the wrong...but these young men now have to live the rest of their lives knowing that their actions cost the life of one of their friends and an injury to a second.

And, on top of that, the deadly force response they provoked may very well result in another man being convicted on felony charges, spending time in prison, losing several rights, and who knows what other collateral damage along the way.

Does that man have children he's responsible for? Are there other people in his life he's responsible for, like maybe an ailing elderly parent? What are his employment opportunities going to be like after this? How will he financially recover from this, even if he manages to avoid a criminal conviction? How about the psychological issues he may have to deal with when finding out he took another person's life over a stupid prank which he took to be a serious threat to his life?


People's actions have consequences. Sometimes the magnitude of those potential consequences are so large that, in my opinion, the "law of unintended consequences" does not apply because it should be clearly obvious to even the most casual observer that things could go horribly away.

This man may get a felony conviction over a stupid act of provocation by teens who should have known better.


NOW... the question is "what lessons are there to be taken away from this by the rest of us?"

 

[Kleanbore]

Colion said Virginia where this happened does not have an actual castle doctrine law,

Castle doctrine would be irrelevant here.

 

[luzyfuerza]

Gather loved ones and guests to your designated safe room. Prepare, as planned, to defend yourselves against invaders who enter this space.

Once safe, call 911. Check security cameras and tell dispatchers what you see.

Borrowing martial terms: Stay there until invaders retreat or reinforcements arrive. There is no need to send out patrols to identify the enemy or track his movements. Or to defend your perimeter.

 

[jmorris]

From the video I think, "Always be sure of your target and whats beyond it." is still a good rule.

And if you really don't like old man Smithers, it would be a better idea to just ring his doorbell and run away.

And someone probably doesn't want the whole truth to come out yet. These days, I'd figure there would be two sources of video, one on the home owners and the others filming themselves.

Maybe we will know more if one ever surfaces.

Castle doctrine would be irrelevant here.

If they don't have one, it would be completely irrelevant. His lawyers could have arguments in court for him, the way TX law is written.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(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...

 

[Kleanbore]

From the video I think, "Always be sure of your target and whats beyond it." is still a good rule.

Yes indeed.

His lawyers could argue a bit more in court for him, in Texas.

Section 9.42 addresses the use of deadly force to protect or recover land or tangible, movable property. Nothing to do with castle doctrine.

I believe that Colion is incorrect. I believe that the Common Law in VA does eliminate any requirement to retreat from one's domicile before using deadly force, if deadly force is otherwise justified, in self defense. And that is what Castle Doctrine does.

In the case at hand, the resident may well have reasonably feared deadly violence, BUT--he was behind walls and a door, which, until breached, would provide protection against death or serious injury.

Sadly, this is a good teaching incident.

 

[lightman]

Sounds like we have some new candidates for the Darwin award! I hope the homeowner is acquitted.

 

[GBExpat]

What do you guys think?

Not enough information ...yet.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Sadly, this is a good teaching incident.

I do so wish more people would actually look at these incidents as real teaching moments instead of expounding on how this-or-that jurisdiction allows (insert action).

The plain fact of the matter is that what laws "allow" may often have to be asserted during one's defense in the courts.

"Courts" plural, because often both criminal and civil courts get involved.

The laws MAY "allow" something...but at what cost? Years of one's life spent in litigation? Entire years worth of annual income spent on legal fees to defend one's "allowed" actions? Another person's death on one's conscience?

The average life expectancy in the States is about 77 years, give or take. How many years of that can a person afford to spend dealing with such consequences, whether that be time in prison, huge debts incurred in legal fees, or the years/decades living with the death of another person on one's conscience?

The use of deadly force is SERIOUS business. It's use is heavily scrutinized because of the very fact that it's "deadly" and ANY LITTLE DETAIL may end up working against the person who uses it.

I cannot, after decades of first learning it, forget the definition of deadly force I learned when qualifying for my dolphins aboard my first submarine. It's fundamental, and ultimately it's the basis for the deadly force laws in all 50 states:


"Deadly force is that amount of force I know, or should know, will cause serious bodily injury or death, to be used as a last resort when all lesser means cannot be employed or cannot reasonably be employed."


This definition really applies to everybody, with the only difference being the ultimate responsibilities individual people are charged with. The jurisdictional laws may vary, but ultimately they don't vary between all that much.

As a Sailor, there were seven times deadly force was authorized, and there are some which do NOT apply to civilians.

"Civilians", for example, are not charged with the responsibility to actually go in harms way. Military and LEO are. Likewise, "civilians" are afforded no legal protections for acting as agents of the government, such as Qualified Immunity.


More time should be spent looking at incidents such as this one to figure out where things went wrong, how things ran afoul of the law, and what things/processes could have been done to mitigate the consequences. All with a focus on what the jurisdictional laws ACTUALLY SAY in context to the incident.

Less time should be spent focusing on how one could "justify" the use of deadly force.

 

[1KPerDay]

FAFO

 

[dweis]

I am fortunate that PA has a Castle Doctrine, but I would not shoot through a closed door because I would not know what or who I was shooting at. Suppose it was sa crime victim trying to get access to refuge by kicking the door to assure being heard. Suppose it was a stupid teenager just making trouble with no intent to do bodily harm. My rule is don't shoot at what you cannot see.

 

[Kleanbore]

The plain fact of the matter is that what laws "allow" may often have to be asserted during one's defense in the courts.

Everyone should keep that in mind--always.

Less time should be spent focusing on how one could "justify" the use of deadly force.

Indeed. A poster on another board had a sig line pointing out that the question was not one of whether one would be permitted to shoot, but whether one should have to shoot.

 

[JeffG]

"What the hell did you think was going to happen?"
Pretty much covers it. I am on the side of the homeowner, the courts/public opinion may not be.

 

[mm93]

I can easily see why shooting through the door and killing someone could land you in jail. How do you know it's not some drunk who lost his keys and thinks he'll kick his door down, but is too drunk to realize he's at the wrong door? Or what if someone is pranking the home owner by calling police to say there's a hostage situation and it's the police trying to get into your home when you shot them?
You have every right to defend your family and yourself, but I'd stop by getting far away from a door that might come flying open at any second, and after calling 911 I'd be waiting for the door to be kicked in before opening up on whoever did it.

 

[Kleanbore]

I can easily see why shooting through the door and killing someone could land you in jail. How do you know it's not some drunk who lost his keys and thinks he'll kick his door down, but is too drunk to realize he's at the wrong door? Or what if someone is pranking the home owner by calling police to say there's a hostage situation and it's the police trying to get into your home when you shot them?

Yes--and more importantly, if the door has not been breached, it would be extremely difficult to argue that the resident had reason to believe that deadly force had been immediately necessary.

That would be true even if it were possible to see the troublemakers.

 

[Turkeytider]

In the middle of the night, doors locked, someone kicks a door in/ breaks in through a window, obvious invasion….how on God’s green earth could someone be convicted of a crime by using deadly force? I’m not going to risk my loved ones.

 

[jmorris]

I can easily see why shooting through the door and killing someone could land you in jail. How do you know it's not some drunk who lost his keys and thinks he'll kick his door down, but is too drunk to realize he's at the wrong door? Or what if someone is pranking the home owner by calling police to say there's a hostage situation and it's the police trying to get into your home when you shot them?

I remember when I was becoming a young adult. My Father told me to never try and sneak in or out of the house, move around as normal.

My own Father might have shot me if I didn't have my keys and knocked on the door like this though...