# Shooting an Intruder



## SheilaOH (Jan 8, 2010)

On the news last evening. Columbus, OH. A 35 yr. old man shot to death.
Story. The 35 yr. old man was drunk and attempted to get into a resident's front door. On front door is a bumper sticker stating I doln't call 911 with a picture of a revolver. Somehow he was turned away from front door. A little while later he tried to get in rear door and entered. At this point a 19 year old male resident fired several gunshots into him. Long story short man dies.
So far, they are stating no charges have been brought against man doing the shooting. You must be kidding. I'm outraged. The 35 year old was trying to get into a home which wasn't his. Folks minding their own business, in their own homes. No charges brought thus far!!!! How could they even consider charging these people. I suppose they could've called 911. However, we are assuming they have a phone. Maybe they do not. Also we are assuming, the police could get there inside of a minute to prevent man entering. Once in - what were his intentions - I guess we'll never know. Nonetheless, how can they even consider blaming the homeowners. 

Then the story goes on to say that a little while before this incident the same 35 year old male was turned away from a gas station because of creating a disturbance and being drunk. Don't know the family, but my opinion is that it would be a travesty of justice to charge these people with any crime, no matter how small.

Your thoughts?!?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

I'm thinking the guy should have heeded the warning sign on the front door. Nice job of protecting the family on the part of the 19 year old.


----------



## BoldViolet (Feb 5, 2009)

Rose and Jim already said what I was going to say.


In many places, most cops do NOT arrive in "less than a minute." And it only takes seconds for someone to break into your house and cause harm.


----------



## sherry in Maine (Nov 22, 2007)

dont worry, this will be used as 'evidence' that guns are DANGEROUS!!!!! and you, the citizen need to be protected from your 2nd amendment rights . . . . . .


Throughout the last few months I've noticed headlines in newspaper about 'Man shot to death with GUN!' and 'GUN was deadly weapon in shooting' etc etc. All part of the plan to take away more rights.
He did the right thing.

And it is correct, police generally take more than a minute. . . .


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Even in the great socialist state of New York, I can LEGALLY use deadly force against an intruder inside my home. All you have to claim is that you feared for your life and safety or the lives and safety of others in the house. As far as the line about no charges being filed. All of these cases go before a Grand Jury who has the ability to file charges or not. The law says that he is justified therefore no charges are filed.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Florida is a castle doctrine and "stand your ground" state. There is no "duty to retreat". In Florida there would not even be a question of charging this young man. The law specifically prohibits charging anyone in this or a similar circumstance.


----------



## olivehill (Aug 17, 2009)

What does Ohio law say? That will be the determining factor. If the law does not protect the 19 year-old, sure, charges may be brought. If that's the case why wait until reading this story to be outraged? The law is the law is the law. I'm sure they didn't change it the night this happened so if the young man is not protected you should have been outraged long ago. 

Regardless of the law journalists will always report news in grandeur fashion such as this. It's what sells papers.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

"And it is correct, police generally take more than a minute. . . ."
Sadly, where I am, average response time for police is almost 30 minutes. No local PD, just the State PD. 
Matt


----------



## backwoodsman (Jan 21, 2010)

Ouch Road, thought the 20 minutes was bad where I use to live. Still believe in the old adage "I'd rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6".


----------



## mjb610 (Dec 7, 2009)

Hi everyone! i believe the castle doctrine law was passed about a yr ago in ohio. giving you the right to use deadly force to protect yourself in your home.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

backwoodsman said:


> Ouch Road, thought the 20 minutes was bad where I use to live. Still believe in the old adage "I'd rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6".


While I'd rather avoid either of those two, point well taken. Luckily, the neighbors around here are, how to say it,...very protective of each other. I got a call one day on my cell from my 1 neighbor, went like this...
him "Matt, you expecting somebody at your garage?"
me "yeah, client dropping off his tire for the VW, called me a bit ago"
him " okay, just checkin' before I gave him a warning".
me "thanks for caling, see you tonight".
Our version of neighborhood watch, I guess...LOL!
Matt


----------



## CFF (May 19, 2007)

"Personal opinion aside" 

If it goes to trial and I'm imaging that it will - the question will be did the guy deserve to die for breaking and entering ?

The home owner had better have a solid reason that he feared for his life, most courts would look at it and say the 19 year old could have shot the guy in the leg to stop him - several shots will tell the jury he meant to kill him.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

CFF said:


> "Personal opinion aside"
> 
> If it goes to trial and I'm imaging that it will - the question will be did the guy deserve to die for breaking and entering ?
> 
> The home owner had better have a solid reason that he feared for his life, most courts would look at it and say the 19 year old could have shot the guy in the leg to stop him - several shots will tell the jury he meant to kill him.


I fear for my life each and every time someone forces their way into my home.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

CFF said:


> "Personal opinion aside"
> 
> If it goes to trial and I'm imaging that it will - the question will be did the guy deserve to die for breaking and entering ?
> 
> The home owner had better have a solid reason that he feared for his life, most courts would look at it and say the 19 year old could have shot the guy in the leg to stop him - several shots will tell the jury he meant to kill him.




perhaps, but what a lawsuit that would bring. if a burglar can sue a homeowner for leaving a ladder leaning against a house, causing the poor burglars fall and injury, then shooting an intruder in the leg is bound to bring a lawsuit.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

MELOC said:


> perhaps, but what a lawsuit that would bring. if a burglar can sue a homeowner for leaving a ladder leaning against a house, causing the poor burglars fall and injury, then shooting an intruder in the leg is bound to bring a lawsuit.


From my response to a post at HT, and a thread, both in GC, as to stupidity (real or imagined) abounds...
The Darwin Awards...
http://www.darwinawards.com/
The Stella awards
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=346937
Take them for what they are worth, but realize that in most cases, personal responsibility has left the building. I read the ladder one you mentioned some time ago, but still pertinent.
It stinks that we should have to think of the ramifications of protecting our loved ones in our own homes because of a drunk, and the possible lawsuit for said drunk getting injured while breaking into out home. Heck, forget drunk, how about high, or just a burgular with a knife...sad it is.
Matt


----------



## mullberry (May 3, 2009)

Florida is a castle doctrine and "stand your ground" state. Georgia has this also(FINALLY). we call your home is your castle law.. If someone breaks in on me-being old- I would not shoot at a leg,. I would put a .45 auto in center mass . & not stop untill the thug hits my floor. ALSO I would sue the theifs family to repair the break in site The gallons of blood on the floor and hazerdous disposal, the .45 holes in my walls. & every thing else I can come up with.


----------



## Smokesignals (Jan 27, 2009)

CFF said:


> "Personal opinion aside"
> 
> If it goes to trial and I'm imaging that it will - the question will be did the guy deserve to die for breaking and entering ?
> 
> The home owner had better have a solid reason that he feared for his life, most courts would look at it and say the 19 year old could have shot the guy in the leg to stop him - several shots will tell the jury he meant to kill him.


Wrong! Shooting him in the leg would tell the court that the homeowner didn't really fear for his life. Several shots tells the court that it took that many shots to end the threat.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mullberry said:


> Florida is a castle doctrine and "stand your ground" state. Georgia has this also(FINALLY). we call your home is your castle law.. If someone breaks in on me-being old- I would not shoot at a leg,. I would put a .45 auto in center mass . & not stop untill the thug hits my floor. ALSO I would sue the theifs family to repair the break in site The gallons of blood on the floor and hazerdous disposal, the .45 holes in my walls. & every thing else I can come up with.


Make sure they replace your ammo too.


----------



## mullberry (May 3, 2009)

Thank you Jim, I added that to my list -- .45 auto hollow points---


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

A few miles from here, this bully who had always been in fights,and would shoot up in the air to scare folks and when the county sheriff's deputies came to get him they would always get in fights, but finally subdue him and take him to jail for a couple of nights and he was released.That happened dozens of times.

Well a couple of years ago,he was on another drunk and causing a disturbance,so some folks called the sheriff.Well this time,it won't the good ole boys deputies that knew him, and had been coming,it happened to be an MP out of Cherry Point Marine base,that was helping out at the sheriffs dept.

When he pulled up to the place the guy was,here come the guy with a baseball bat.The MP hollared two or three times for him to stop,but it took that 45 slug to make him listen.Sadly for him and the Marine that was the last sound he ever heard.
There was a mighty few folks who blamed the MP,but you can't wait until you are hit with a baseball bat to find out if the guy is bluffing.The bat will kill just as quick as a bullet.Most folks said they won't surprised and wondered why it took so long and the world is a safer place,and I agree.

The same thing if someone is breaking in to your house,if you wait till he harms you or a family member to see if he means business,you have waited tooo late to go in the protect mode.The best policy is to stay in the protect mode,that way you will never be late.I have always dispised to be late for anything.How bout ya'll??:gaptooth: Oh,I told this before,but around 4 am one morning,by the little light from a little night light,I watched the doorknob to my house turn one way then the other,had I not installed a deadbolt lock a few weeks prior,I would have killed the man when the door opened.I have always thanked God for helping me see I needed that lock.That night me and my visitor needed it.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

As a local judge once told me, "Dead men tell no tales". If I am in a situation where I have to actually shoot somebody I will not be aiming for the legs. A wounded person can still shoot back.


----------



## tamsam (May 12, 2006)

The way I see it, If a person breaks into your home he isn't there to have coffee with you. He is there to rob or steal and kill you if that is what it takes to get what he wants. If he breaks into my house he is here to hurt me or DW and he better be ready to meet his maker. I will shoot as I have in the past. When I was 18 I shot a man trying to rob the gas station I was working in. He kept trying to get his gun out of his pocket while looking down the barrel of a 45 and being told to stop. well when the police got there he was still alive but they wouldn't let me shoot him again. They found out he was wanted for 17 armed robberies and one person had been killed in one robbery. He most likely died in jail as he got 2 life sentences in NC and I don't know what he got in SC. Stay safe and keep you protection close. Sam


----------



## Micheal (Jan 28, 2009)

Just to toss another view out there - please cast no stones.....
Could it be possible for some do-gooder DA to be able to bring charges against the 19 yr-old for premedated murder? 
First he did not call the police as the drunk tried to enter the "front" door. The posted sign means nothing - could be provable that the person was to "drunk" to comprehend let alone read it or it was dark and not visable, etc. Time passed as the drunk stumbled around to the "rear" door. And then the 19 yr-old waited till the drunk not only broke in, but was well into the house to shoot him. 
Therefore premedation. 
Remember I'm just throwing this out as it could happen............


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Micheal said:


> Just to toss another view out there - please cast no stones.....
> Could it be possible for some do-gooder DA to be able to bring charges against the 19 yr-old for premedated murder?
> First he did not call the police as the drunk tried to enter the "front" door. The posted sign means nothing - could be provable that the person was to "drunk" to comprehend let alone read it or it was dark and not visable, etc. Time passed as the drunk stumbled around to the "rear" door. And then the 19 yr-old waited till the drunk not only broke in, but was well into the house to shoot him.
> Therefore premedation.
> Remember I'm just throwing this out as it could happen............


*****************************************************
'stunt' wouldn't be around the next time he ran for re-election. The people would run him out of town on a rail. 
They are fed-up with excuses being made for the 'scum of the earth' who have nothing but evil in mind for their fellow man.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Should be a whole list of people charged in the mans death. 

If he got drunk in a bar they should be charged in allowing him to get so drunk he didn't know where home was. There are laws againest that after all, In MICHIGAN.

The gas station attendant should be charged in he/she didn't call the law when a drunk caused a disturbance which may have save the mans life. there are drunk and disorderly laws too.

The shooter should also be charged in the death because they didn't bother calling the law about a drunk attempting to enter the front door. They took the trouble of turning him away at the front door after all. That's what the police are for. If they hadn't responded then the home owner would have been justfied in shooting the man.


 Al


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

i would say the alcohalism got him , probably the least painfull way to die from alchohalism. i have had two uncles die from alchohalism , one in the hospital when body finaly gave out age 60 probably would have been much sooner if he hadn't gotten clean a few times 12 stepping it, another who died age 32 in a car vs tree but had ,had many car acidents while OWI and while a good driver and a very nice guy drunk or sober, it may have been the least painfull way to die from alchohalism.

Al , i know i have , and many others probably have as well let a drunk go the law isn't always the best way to deal with them yuo hate to see a non violent guy drunk and looking for a way home or place to sleep it off , go to the lock up for the night and have just that many more reasons to be depressed and drink the next night , i suppose they woudl fine a reason eather way, what they really need is a non criminal punishment for drunks that are non violent , that stresses treatment , the fines penalties and tickets associated with lock up can be hard on a person , thier family. 


just remember to stop shooting when they hit the floor , if you are in a situation where you fear eminent boddily harm. and have to shoot.

right or wrong the law said when the threat has stopped the shooting has to stop and the dialing has to begin calling an abulance that is. they had to convic a man for here many years ago for manslaughter , not because he shot the bad drug dealer but because he went back after some time and blew the bad guys head apart post mortom with another shotgun round. yes , if he had not doen that the jury was going to let him go, i knew some one on that jury who commented on it years after the case was closed.

if your worried they will get up you can cover them from a distance while making the call to 911 or sending someone to the neighbors to make the call , but you may NOT put a finishing shot in them like a down deer.


----------



## Wis Bang 2 (Jan 12, 2010)

Smokesignals said:


> Wrong! Shooting him in the leg would tell the court that the homeowner didn't really fear for his life. Several shots tells the court that it took that many shots to end the threat.


Correct! PA does not have a castle doctrine law. You are to retreat if it is at all possible EXCEPT in your home. Any intruder on your front porch/yard/garage, etc. is not a threat until he/she enters the building and you are then in fear of your life.

Once one decides [truly a life changine decision] to use a firearm, the ONLY choice is to shoot at center mass and shoot until the threat is over...Shooting to wound someone is not the way to go once you decide to use deadly force.

Now in NJ, forgetaboutit...even when cornered in your home you can't exceed the force being used against you or you WILL be the one going to jail!

States w/ the castle doctrine allow the use of deadly force, anywhere, w/ out requiring one to retreat.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Here's the rub. Most people who shoot an intruder inside their home will still end up defending thier actions in a court of law, whether or not he or she lives in a Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground state. Many homeowners involved in a righteous shooting and having been found inoccent by a jury will still end up losing tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and lose of income. It's very sad. It does make one wonder if sneaking out the back door and letting the thug take your TV and valuables isn't a better decision.


----------



## mullberry (May 3, 2009)

Fever, In fla, & ga. The people defending there CASTLE seldome have to go to coart. around here any way


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mullberry said:


> Fever, In fla, & ga. The people defending there CASTLE seldome have to go to coart. around here any way


I've always heard people say that, if someone was trying to break in your house and you had to shoot them, to be sure to drag the body in the door before you called the police. When we lived in Ga., our sheriff told us to not worry about that, the deputies would take care of it for you.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

In Florida the law specifically prohibits charges being filed against a homeowner defending himself in his home, *or* against anyone who uses deadly force away from their home, if the deadly force is to prevent loss of his or someone else's life or to prevent a crime from being committed.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

deaconjim said:


> I've always heard people say that, if someone was trying to break in your house and you had to shoot them, to be sure to drag the body in the door before you called the police. When we lived in Ga., our sheriff told us to not worry about that, the deputies would take care of it for you.


I've always heard people talk about "dragging the body inside", but any investigator worth his salt is going to see that you did that, and know that you shot him outside. It's far better to have a clear cut law that protects a person who is protecting himself.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

tyusclan said:


> I've always heard people talk about "dragging the body inside", but any investigator worth his salt is going to see that you did that, and know that you shot him outside.


Lol,after you drag the body inside,you could tell the cops he had broke in, and was in the house when you shot him.

And the shot blowed him back outside,thats why theres blood in the yard,but he was bound and determined to harm you and your famly and he got up and come back in.Thats where all those drag marks on the ground,come from,him getting traction to come back in..

You then pulled the hammer back to shoot him again to finish him off,but he started getting weaker and fell on the floor. The reason there's not much blood in the house,is because after you shot him and blew him and his blood back outside,he didn't spend enough time in the house to bleed all that much.

You might not get them to believe that story,but you'll have them so confused,chances are they may label it a suicide,just to keep from hearing or writing down as notes,the story that no one will believe anyway,so they'll go with him breaking in,taking your gun and blowed his self back out doors.A little more believable and a lot less paper work,SUICIDE IT IS.No charges to the home owner:bouncy:


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Seems every one has lost sight of the dead person being drunk. Lost sight of the fact that *he was turned away from the front door ONCE*.

Putting up signs saying you do not call 911 does not give one the right to do as they wish. If that were the case I should put up property protected by Dan Wesson Remington and Winchester and no tresspassing signs. that way ever van load of bible pounders could be shot and killed putting all the people in tha area out of having to listen to those creeps.

In a court today the family of the dead person would win a bunch of money on a wrongful death suit, just for the fact NO BODY CALLED the LAW.

Jail for drunks should maybe be like the drunk on Mayberry RFD. Or the old west movies. 

 Al


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

tyusclan said:


> In Florida the law specifically prohibits charges being filed against a homeowner defending himself in his home, *or* against anyone who uses deadly force away from their home, if the deadly force is to prevent loss of his or someone else's life or to prevent a crime from being committed.


Yes, but someone.... like a court of law...still has to decide IF the person was actually defending himself in the home or was just PO'd a verbally abusive neighbor who came over to complain about a dog getting into his chickens (for example). And in the case of a person "defending" themselves away from home, someone....like a court of law....has to decide if the person the woman shot was actually a thug or someone who stopped to help her change a flat tire.


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

Cabin Fever said:


> Yes, but someone.... like a court of law...still has to decide IF the person was actually defending himself in the home or was just PO'd a verbally abusive neighbor who came over to complain about a dog getting into his chickens (for example). And in the case of a person "defending" themselves away from home, someone....like a court of law....has to decide if the person the woman shot was actually a thug or someone who stopped to help her change a flat tire.


Exactly, regardless of how the law reads a DA will make a decision whether or not to seek an indictment based on the information available.

KS also has the Castle Doctrine, to my knowledge it hasnât been employed yet. For a situation like this I firmly believe in using escalation of force, or the minimum amount of force necessary to stop the threat. Legally in KS I could use lethal force based on this situation, but thereâs no way Iâd want to IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. Not because I care about some knucklehead that may break into my house after my PC or TV, but because Iâd rather not spend the time and money defending myself in court if it wasnât absolutely necessary. 

My CCW instructor said in class that the average cost of defending one's self in a justifiable shooting was around 10K.

I've got better uses for that kind of money. 

Chuck


----------



## Manzanita (Dec 9, 2005)

> On front door is a bumper sticker stating I don't call 911 with a picture of a revolver.


That could be a problem. Folks, if you're serious about protecting yourself and willing to use deadly force to do so, don't advertise the fact with tacky signs. When the grand jury is deciding whether or not the shooting was justified or to press charges against the shooter, I can almost guarantee this will be an issue. 

A prosecutor will make it look like the homeowner was just itching for something like this.

Or... if no charges are filed, and the state doesn't accord lawsuit immunity for the defender, the dead guy's family will certainly use this in the civil suit that will be sure to come.


----------



## maniac1955 (Jan 28, 2010)

I live in Fl. Castle doctrine state. If someone tries to get in my home I will use all available force to stop the intrusion to protect my family. My MIL was murdered in mississippi four years ago by a crack head who killed her, in her home for approximately32.00 that he used to buy dope. He sold her car for use as a mule to a dealer for 5, 5.00 rocks and sold her cell phone for 10.00 and took a couple bucks from her purse. I only wish I could have been there to stop it. The bad guy also killed an elderly man the day before he killed my MIL to satisfy his drug habit. they found the old mans body the night of my MIL wake. I have no sympathy. This dirt bag gets to live out the rest of his life watching cable TV and Playing BB while we pay for it. I say kill the intruder and let God sort it out.


----------



## Manzanita (Dec 9, 2005)

Lest I be misunderstood, know that I am in complete agreement with you. Although I hope I never have to, once a threat was identified, I would not hesitate to open fire on someone forcefully entering my house. It would sound like a jackhammer in my house until the threat was neutralized.

The "make my day" type signs would almost certainly be used against someone finding themselves in that situation, though.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

*AGAIN READ THE WHOLE THING THRU AGAIN.* He was turned away at the front door first. I don't think enough effort was made to nutrlize the problem. I think some one just decided he broke in so I can kill them. 

I say put the 19 year old in uniform and sent him to Irqua or Afganistan. He'll get all the killing he wants then. 

 Al


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

If someone who was obviously drunk came to my front door and thought that it was his home, I would try to take the time to explain that it wasn't. If he were persistent, I wouldn't think of solving his problem by killing him. Many of us no doubt have been in situations where we haven't a clue how we got from point A to point B and woke up somewhere unexpected. By law, the shooter may have been within his rights. By common sense, he murdered a person whose only fault was having one beer too many.

Martin


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

alleyyooper said:


> *AGAIN READ THE WHOLE THING THRU AGAIN.* He was turned away at the front door first. I don't think enough effort was made to nutrlize the problem. I think some one just decided he broke in so I can kill them.
> 
> I say put the 19 year old in uniform and sent him to Irqua or Afganistan. He'll get all the killing he wants then.
> 
> Al


The thing is, none of us know how it happened. It says the drunk was turned away at the front door first. It doesn't say if the drunk was belligerent, agressive, making threats, ect. He may or may not have been. We don't know. We also don't know what happened when he came in the back door. He might have continued to be agressive and violent. He might simply have been looking for his bed to sleep it off. Again, we don't know.


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

Paquebot said:


> If someone who was obviously drunk came to my front door and thought that it was his home, I would try to take the time to explain that it wasn't. If he were persistent, I wouldn't think of solving his problem by killing him. Many of us no doubt have been in situations where we haven't a clue how we got from point A to point B and woke up somewhere unexpected. By law, the shooter may have been within his rights. By common sense, he murdered a person whose only fault was having one beer too many.
> 
> Martin


That's a pretty harsh judgement when we really don't know any of the details. Besides, he didn't get shot at the front door. He was shot after he entered the house through the back door a little while later. We don't know if the drunk was violent or making threats. Some people do become very agressive and violent when they're drunk. We don't know if this was the case or not. There are to many things about this particular case that we don't know to assume a person was murdered for having one beer too many. It's possible you're right. We just don't know.


----------



## Mooselover (May 4, 2009)

gotta say i agree with most posters here. but i gotta chainlink-fence and a moose that 'appears' nastier than he really is. (great protection). if someone is stupid enough(ie, high on some crap) to get to my door, they REALLY NEED to be shot DEAD with no questions asked!!!! and..... when LE comes to find the dead body, of said, dead Dumb----- , i'd let them decide if they wanna come into OUR yard with my nasty ----- rott that looks and sounds like he's gonna kill you (badges or NOT). yep, i think even law enforcement would reconsider coming over my fence.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

This past weekend we had a situation just like this in a suburb of Buffalo. An out of town fella and his wife were attending a baby shower. For some reason in the early morning hours the guy entered a neighbors home, waking the neighbor. The home owner grabbed a shotgun, had his wife dial 911 and then called out to the intruder that they called the police, that he has a gun and he should leave the house. The intruder came to the foot of the stairs and the homeowner shot and killed him. The man killed was a popular teacher. No charges are to be filed against the homeowner. People don't know why the guy was in there. They're doing toxicology report.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

OK my last post. Reading the very first post on the subject is what I am baseing my thoughts on nothing else.
The 19 year old as far as I feel did kill the drunk in cold blood. *No matter the state the drunk was in he was turned away at the front door*. *The law was not called to report the incendent.*

If I were on a jury in this wrongful death case I would award the family of the drunk the entire life time earnings of the 19 year old pure plain and simple.

And a big chunk of money from the gas stations attend who didn't report the trouble with the drunk and if a bar is where the fellow got drunk them too.


 Al


----------



## CFF (May 19, 2007)

Paquebot said:


> If someone who was obviously drunk came to my front door and thought that it was his home, I would try to take the time to explain that it wasn't. If he were persistent, I wouldn't think of solving his problem by killing him. Many of us no doubt have been in situations where we haven't a clue how we got from point A to point B and woke up somewhere unexpected. By law, the shooter may have been within his rights. By common sense, he murdered a person whose only fault was having one beer too many.
> 
> Martin



And I bet most courts would agree with your good common sense!


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Not sure, but I think this link is the threads story and a little different.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten...n-killed-during-break-in-attempt.html?sid=101


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Alcoholism is a fatal disease. The rest of the story is not even newsworthy.


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

Thanks for the link Eddie. It sheds more light on the story. It makes it seem like a much more clear cut case of self defense.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Another excellent example of why we should get *ALL* the facts and draw conclusions instead of jumping to them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> No matter the state the drunk was in he was turned away at the front door. The law was not called to report the incendent.


Why call the cops if the problem went away?

There's no requirement to call police for everything

It's possible he didn't seem threatening at that time

There are too few details given to be making ANY assumptions


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Well with the new info in the link posted above it seems the guy killed WAS a threat and it WAS self defense.

Guess that puts a kink in those wanting to make the shooter out to be a criminal.


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Well with the new info in the link posted above it seems the guy killed WAS a threat and it WAS self defense.
> 
> Guess that puts a kink in those wanting to make the shooter out to be a criminal.


Up until reply #49, all everyone knew was that a drunken man was shot and killed. The police report makes no mention of alcohol being a factor. It does, however, carry a vague hint of suicide. 

Martin


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Perhaps BEFORE deciding a person is a murderer it might be a good idea to have the facts...just saying.

And actually what we knew before the new link was a person broke into a home and was shot and killed.


----------



## Smokesignals (Jan 27, 2009)

Whether he was drunk or not is not relevant at all. He was breaking into the guy's appartment and the guy had a right to defend himself and his family. 

A drunk bad guy is just as big a threat (if not more) than a sober bad guy. 

Score one for the good guy!


----------



## nancy237 (May 29, 2008)

I have watched enough TV to know that if you do not completely kill them ,
they always get up , grab your leg when you are not expecting it and get your gun.

The 19 year old deserves an award..


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

Paquebot said:


> Up until reply #49, all everyone knew was that a drunken man was shot and killed.


Which is, with all due respect, why we shouldn't rush to judgement without knowing any facts.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

nancy237 said:


> I have watched enough TV to know that if you do not completely kill them ,
> they always get up , grab your leg when you are not expecting it and get your gun.
> 
> The 19 year old deserves an award..


LOL....and even in some cases once shot multiple times,once you turn your back on them they get up and run off...to star in ANOTHER movie....


----------



## IndianaWoodsman (Mar 17, 2009)

Alley...If your spouse was being attacked by a drunk while you called the cops wouldn't you be wishing you had a gun? 

I watched a movie with some friends the other night. Three drunk guys ring a doorbell and and when the door opens, attack and restrain the man and his wife. He is helpless as they try to kill him and has to watch as they mutilate and rape his wife a daughter. THAT is why I carry a gun. THAT is why I know that I will protect my family _by whatever means necessary_. There are real cases just like this every day all accross the world.

I answer the door, to folks I don't know or at night, with at least one gun on me and usually with a shotgun, ready to use.


----------



## swamp man (Dec 25, 2005)

Totally agree with everyone, and would be VERY surprised if any charges are brought against the young man....unless the drunk's family decides to launch a civil suit.

As for the "no charges have been brought against...." part, newspapers and internet news sites flub wording all the time, and in this case, they probably just weren't thorough in their explaination. That wording probably just means there was an investigation, par for the course when a corpse is involved, even if it's no-brainer case of self-defense in a castle law state.

Myself, I woulda' called the cops from my cell AFTER arming myself, cell in one hand, carefully aimed .357 mag in the other.....but it sounds like the boy handled it well.

Wish I had a link, but our local radio outdoors report covered a story outta' Mississippi here a while back. 9 year old girl home alone, bad guy kicks in door. Little girl runs upstairs to mom and dad's bedroom where the guns are kept, arms herself with a 12 gauge, and blows carp out of bad guy as he attempts to make his way upstairs.

.....punchline is, little girl was skeet champion in her age group two years running at the local gun club.

If you're gonna' be a bad guy, do your research...


----------



## swamp man (Dec 25, 2005)

alleyyooper said:


> I think some one just decided he broke in so I can kill them.


Well, that's the idea, ain't it?


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

alleyyooper said:


> OK my last post. Reading the very first post on the subject is what I am baseing my thoughts on nothing else.
> The 19 year old as far as I feel did kill the drunk in cold blood. *No matter the state the drunk was in he was turned away at the front door*. *The law was not called to report the incendent.*
> 
> *If I were on a jury in this wrongful death case I would award the family of the drunk the entire life time earnings of the 19 year old pure plain and simple.*
> ...


***********************************************
on the jury......so that at least some semblance of 'justice' would likely prevail. 
At worst, your fanatical desire to crush this man financially, would be met with *MORE* 
reasonable thinking from the rest and the man who you neither know, 
nor even attempted to walk in his shoes, would be able to go back to his home 
without having to worry about the financial repercussions that you wish to lay on his and his families head. 
At best, during voir dire, when you are questioned by both sides attorneys to find out if you would render 
a fair and impartial verdict, you would likely be 'chosen' by the defendant's attorney to leave *BEFORE* 
you could do any damage to his client and would therefore *NEVER* be on *ANY* jury. :Bawling:

BTW: I don't believe that there is *(yet) a mandatory requirement to call the police in *ANY *
state if someone is attempting to break in, nor does anyone have to have a phone in order to do so.

When all is said and done......you and *ONLY *you have to depend on yourself to protect *ALL*
that you hold near and dear. If *YOU *want to wait for the proper authorities to arrive 
to 'handle' the problem.....be my guest; as for the rest of us, we still have that little thing called the 
2nd Amendment that still works just fine in situations like this.


----------



## tamsam (May 12, 2006)

So many things not answered. How long before he went to the back door to break in. What was his mindset at the front door. Then how much force did he use to get in. Would it have made any difference had he called the police? Most likely not as most times but the time they finish the coffee and donuts the intruder is already in and killed everyone in the house or been killed them selves. This old thing of an excuse of he was drunk doesn't bring people back to life. If the drunk can't control himself enough to find his house he should never be allowed out by himself. Sorry but had he forced himself into my house he would be in the same boat. If someone breaks into your house with you in it most likely they have intentions to hurt you. Drunk it is more likely to get someone hurt. Oh well he was drunk and it only took one shot to stop him. I guess the guy meant to kill him. Well if I was to point a gun at a stranger that broke in my house he would hear a blast and that would be the last thing he heard. Quit making excuses for drunks and druggies. Dang now I am upset. Sam
I hate it when it takes a family of four to stop a drunk driver.


----------



## dezingg (Feb 25, 2010)

alleyyooper said:


> Should be a whole list of people charged in the mans death.
> 
> If he got drunk in a bar they should be charged in allowing him to get so drunk he didn't know where home was. There are laws againest that after all, In MICHIGAN.
> 
> ...


I interpret this as pointing out that others might have been able to deflect the night's fatal turn of events.

But what about the dead guy's responsibility to control himself and not break numerous laws and cause trouble for others and himself?


----------



## dezingg (Feb 25, 2010)

I tried to follow up to get more details, but the police's media report for public consumption has little information.

The police's news release says ... 
The police were called to respond to a shooting in response of a possible burglary. They found the victim lying in the parking lot with several gunshot wounds. He is rushed to the hospital where he dies shortly. The shooter/suspect was interviewed and released. The matter is to be reviewed by the Franklin County Grand Jury.
Here's the police department's media release (search for Cooper Rd to find the specific report)
http://www.columbuspolice.org/Media Releases/MediaRelease.html 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH said that the police identified the victim as Charles Sprague, 35, of Columbus. And reportedly quotes Detective James Day of the homicide squad saying, "It appeared that the victim in this incident was the aggressor and that the shooter was acting in self-defense. He'd actually tried to force his way into the apartment at the back door when this occurred." Day said the suspect told investigators that he felt threatened by Sprague, who was nearly twice his size, and tried to convince him to leave before firing shots.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/27/cooperfollow.html?sid=101

I found other reports supporting the use of deadly force including one that claimed that Sprague was a convicted sex offender. I have no idea where they found that info, although some localities publish lists.


----------

