View Full Version : Some interesting "property defense" shooting cases
Some interesting cases lately related to property owners who have fired on trespassers or thieves, only to find themselves facing prison sentences. Both of these cases are tricky, because initially you find yourself in sympathy with the property owners, but then in both cases when you read the details, it seems like they made some poor tactical decisions (in terms of avoiding entanglement with the legal system).
Case 1: WA man fires shotgun into teen car for parking/tresspassing on his property.
Details:
http://www.enterprisenewspapers.com/article/20090418/NEWS01/704189831/0/ETP06
Case 2: OK man (retired Army officer) shoots and kills a teen who was robbing his store.
Details:
http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=10438401
Some interesting cases lately related to property owners who have fired on trespassers or thieves, only to find themselves facing prison sentences. Both of these cases are tricky, because initially you find yourself in sympathy with the property owners, but then in both cases when you read the details, it seems like they made some poor tactical decisions (in terms of avoiding entanglement with the legal system).
Case 1: WA man fires shotgun into teen car for parking/tresspassing on his property.
Details:
http://www.enterprisenewspapers.com/article/20090418/NEWS01/704189831/0/ETP06
Case 2: OK man (retired Army officer) shoots and kills a teen who was robbing his store.
Details:
http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=10438401
Case #2 I think I've seen the video for. It was pretty bad.
the "castle doctrine"is a solid law in mississippi,,, people don't have any more patience with theives these parts, fairly clear-cut to shoot someone stealing your stuff-------but------ what do i own that's worth taking a life over???my motorcycle??my riding lawn mower??? my 4-wheeler??? nawwww,,,, but,,,,,,come in my house at night,,,,,,,,,
I agree. He was good to go until he went back and emptied more rounds into him. I think ultimately he will be acquitted by sympathetic jurors.
Case #2 I think I've seen the video for. It was pretty bad.
Mr.Goodtimes
06-04-09, 20:26
the first guy is an idiot for doing what he did. the kids werent hurting anything at the time and simply asking them to leave would have sufficed to say the least.
the second guy was good till he decided to walk up to him and shoot the kid 5 more times point blank.
AT350Kobra
06-04-09, 22:21
Both are screwed IMO. Second guy should have exercised self control after shooting the first guy.
**** it, finish em' off, that's what I'm talking about. One less dirtbag in the world. Just hope the guy gets off for it.
"I think ultimately he will be acquitted by sympathetic jurors." Hope so.
the "castle doctrine"is a solid law in mississippi,,, people don't have any more patience with theives these parts, fairly clear-cut to shoot someone stealing your stuff-------but------ what do i own that's worth taking a life over???my motorcycle??my riding lawn mower??? my 4-wheeler??? nawwww,,,, but,,,,,,come in my house at night,,,,,,,,,
the problem with deciding if it's worth taking a life over "stuff" is that you have no idea what "stuff" he's there to take- your life? your daughters virginity?
empty the mag.
I'm torn on this one. Threat of imminent death... well that was established when the "kids" walked in with a gun and intent to commit a crime. The fact that the defendant shot one and didn't kill him even though he was unarmed is where I get a little wiggly on this. What if he'd killed him? He was unarmed... he wasn't presenting an imminent threat to the defendant, but his partner was. The mere fact that they walked into a business with the intent to commit a crime WITH A GUN says to me that they are a threat regardless of their condition.
The problem arises when you ask where the threat starts and ends. Are we to believe that this "young boy" as the DA puts it, after recovering, is going to straighten his life up and become a doctor that cures cancer? Odds say no. He's probably going to continue to be a threat to the defendants life. In fact, I'd bet that he'd become MORE of a threat to the defendant after his recovery and release. The threat of imminent death can be, or should be argued past just the moment of the incident in my opinion. Have any of you dealt with the youth of today? You look at them wrong and they will find you later to make a point. You run them off your property and you'll have twice as many of them or more making more of a problem. I wonder, how many times has this pharmacy been robbed? Not mentioned in any of the reports I've read. I'd be willing to guess that it's been hit before. Just how much is a person supposed to take before they realize that next time, they might not be so lucky.
I'm not supporting the fact that he shot an apparently unconscious person, but that the "threat of imminent death" might carry over for more than a fraction of a minute, especially considering that once the first round goes off, you probably aren't thinking rationally at that point regardless of training or mindset. He probably saw "BAD GUYS" and shot at them. He rearmed and continued shooting at bad guys. It was probably not necessary to shoot the guy on the ground, but there's no telling how scared for his life he was regardless of the assailants condition. He was no doubt still scared to death. To me, that might constitute imminent death or bodily harm.
Bad scene either way, but when people choose to break the law, they should be prepared to face the consequences... as will the defendant in a court of law.
I think he'll be acquitted, but his life is irreversibly changed, and not for the better.
How about this one?
Texas Couple to Face Murder Charge for Shotgun Blast at Car that Killed Boy
Sign Outside Home of Gayle and Sheila Muhs Warns 'Survivers Will Be Reshot'
By SARAH NETTER
May 11, 2009
Gayle and Sheila Muhs gave trespassers a blunt warning. They posted a large sign outside their Texas home saying trespassers would be shot and survivors would be shot again.
Police say Gayle and Sheila Muhs could face murder charges after they opened fire on two vehicles last week, killing a 7-year-old boy.
The Muhs are currently being held on charges of aggravated assault for allegedly firing at least two shotgun blasts at a pair of packed cars that stopped outside their rural Texas house. Those charges are expected to be upgraded to murder, since a 7-year-old boy who was wounded in the assault has died from shotgun pellets to his head and face.
But police said the families in the two cars were driving on a public road when the Muhs opened fire from their house, killing Donald Coffey Jr. and hitting three others, including the boy's 5-year-old sister.
Outside the Muhs' house is a handpainted sign complete with misspelling and exclamation points that warns: "Trespassers Will Be Shot. Survivers Will Be Reshot!! Smile I Will."
Liberty County Sheriff's Department Chief Deputy Ken DeFoor told ABCNews.com today that the shooting was the most "violent reaction to something so blatantly, blatantly minor" he's ever seen.
Police got a 911 call just after 9 p.m. Thursday, DeFoor said, from Sheila Muhs who "reported there were people in jacked up four-wheel automobiles ... and that she shot them." She also reported that the vehicles were destroying the nearby levees.
But in reality, DeFoor said, the families in the two cars had done nothing illegal. And, he said, they never set foot on the Muhs' property.
The first guy is a dumb@$$, if you're not threatened then don't use a gun. The same with the third scenarion that kmrtnsn posted, I think that those folks face a very real possibility of the chair if it happend the way it was reported. As for the second one, it seems like the guy started out good and then f-d up when he shot Mr. gangbanger again. Most likely he was still a little jacked and wasn't thinking straight or maybe he saw a threat that wasn't apparent on camera, I don't think we'll ever know. I hope he gets off, even though he made what I consider a poor choice he was still trying to do the right thing in a crap situation. It would be interesting to find out what level of firearms training he had. And before anyone says it, just because you're an army officer doesn't mean that you know crap about shooting. just my 2 cents.
I think ultimately he will be acquitted by sympathetic jurors.
I’m betting he pleads down to a lesser charge and serves a few years.
I feel sorry for the second guy. I just watched the video tape of the shooting and I can see why he might have still felt threatened. The kid did have a backpack and there could have been a weapon inside the backpack. I just wished he had fired the followup shots before stepping out the door for the other suspect. I feel no sympathy for the kids involved in this shooting and honestly I would like to see the person who pulled the gun out charged with 1st degree murder because he is the one who got his friend killed. For the pharmisct shut up and let your lawyer do the talking for you.
If I am not mistaken it has been determined that the downed perp was unconscious. He could have simply went to the phone, dialed 911 and then covered the perp until the police arrived. if he was concerned about him then he shouldn't have turned his back on him twice.
The prosecutor has stated publicly that under the felony murder law in Oklahoma the other perp will also be charged with first degree murder.
I don't think any of us have expressed sympathy for either douche bags.
I feel sorry for the second guy. I just watched the video tape of the shooting and I can see why he might have still felt threatened. The kid did have a backpack and there could have been a weapon inside the backpack. I just wished he had fired the followup shots before stepping out the door for the other suspect. I feel no sympathy for the kids involved in this shooting and honestly I would like to see the person who pulled the gun out charged with 1st degree murder because he is the one who got his friend killed. For the pharmisct shut up and let your lawyer do the talking for you.
the Texas one is scary since I like to go out 4x4 with my little ones
and I can see some hicks thinking of shooting at truck they dont like is OK
problem is PEOPLE any more are idiots for the most part it seems on both sides of the fence !!!!!
Mr.Goodtimes
06-05-09, 06:12
those people in the third one are absolute idiots, actually, i think their sick. i hope they both get the chair. those sorta people are the kinda idiots that give gun owners a bad name.
It seems like the pharmacist has a pretty good lawyer. I think the DA made a mistake by charging him with 1st degree murder. I think the lawyer will have him take the risk of going to trial on the first degree murder charge, of which he'll get off on. The DA is probably hoping he'll try to plead to a lesser charge. I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't there have to be premeditation for 1st degree? Just walking back and getting another gun isn't enough premeditation, I wouldn't think. I'm sure the lawyer will argue state of mind or something like that.
Wouldn't walking past him twice and turning your back on him, getting another gun, emptying a gun into him while he is down be premeditated? I would think so. Especially if there is something that shows he was incapacitated and not posing a threat.
It seems like the pharmacist has a pretty good lawyer. I think the DA made a mistake by charging him with 1st degree murder. I think the lawyer will have him take the risk of going to trial on the first degree murder charge, of which he'll get off on. The DA is probably hoping he'll try to plead to a lesser charge. I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't there have to be premeditation for 1st degree? Just walking back and getting another gun isn't enough premeditation, I wouldn't think. I'm sure the lawyer will argue state of mind or something like that.
Wouldn't walking past him twice and turning your back on him, getting another gun, emptying a gun into him while he is down be premeditated? I would think so.
There is absolutely no way, and I mean no way, that he will be convicted of first degree murder. The prosecutor is either an idiot or he charged him with that deliberately, knowing he will get off beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I know you are a smart guy, but I think you missed the boat just this one time. To state that an elderly, partially-disabled shop owner, with a woman and child in his store,who has been robbed at gunpoint before, is guilty of premeditated murder after reacting as he did in that extremely tense, confusing and adrenaline filled situation is simply incorrect.
At best reckless manslaughter.
I never said that he would be convicted, as matter of fact I said the opposite. But, I would think that the prosecutor has read the statutes in OK and knows if it is first degree murder or not. I have no clue. Maybe he did charge him knowing that the jury would find him not guilty. I have no clue. But looking at the video he seemed to be moving just fine.
I still say that the coup d' grace 5 rounds were wrong regardless. Here are some things I would like to know.
1. Does he in fact have a CCW or did he just have the gun in the store as many states allow?
2. What type of training has he had both before and after the other incidents?
There is absolutely no way, and I mean no way, that he will be convicted of first degree murder. The prosecutor is either an idiot or he charged him with that deliberately, knowing he will get off beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I know you are a smart guy, but I think you missed the boat just this one time. To state that an elderly, partially-disabled shop owner, with a woman and child in his store,who has been robbed at gunpoint before, is guilty of premeditated murder after reacting as he did in that extremely tense, confusing and adrenaline filled situation is simply incorrect.
At best reckless manslaughter.
But looking at the video he seemed to be moving just fine.
I still say that the coup d' grace 5 rounds were wrong regardless.
He wears a body brace due to a permanent back injury. It is visible in the video as well as his TV coverage.
As someone who is in a combat zone, perhaps your valiant but likely difficult time there has hardened you to an extent that you see the incident through a trained professionals eyes as opposed to those of this rather frail, frustrated and likely fearful old man's. He is simply trying to run a store and earn a living, not seek out or even defend against confrontation.
That POS put himself in that place doing that deed. I doubt it was to feed the kids at home. Goodbye to him and all like him.
Spurholder
06-05-09, 14:49
Found this on the 'Web. Apparently OK is a state where something called "Malice Aforethought" is on the books as a condition of Murder in the First. Here's a LINK (http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=81116) to the state's standard jury instructions.
Apparently the prosecutor will have to convince a jury that his intent was to kill the thug...and according to the attachment, intent can "be formed instantly before the commission of the act."
Truly sucks for this guy... not a lawyer, but I would've thought there would be no way this guy could be charged with Murder 1.
Spurholder
06-05-09, 14:51
double
EzGoingKev
06-05-09, 15:05
Regarding the first situation, the old man is a moron.
Regarding the second situation, the robber got what he deserved. If he hadn't been up to no good he would still be alive. Too bad, so sad.
Regarding the third situation, I hope the two home owners get shivved in jail.
EzGoingKev
06-05-09, 15:12
double
Found this on the 'Web. Apparently OK is a state where something called "Malice Aforethought" is on the books as a condition of Murder in the First. Here's a LINK (http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=81116) to the state's standard jury instructions.
Apparently the prosecutor will have to convince a jury that his intent was to kill the thug...and according to the attachment, intent can "be formed instantly before the commission of the act."
Actually, I would challenge you to post any legitimate reference that proves true malice aforethought applies here. Malice intent, as defined by first degree murder, is not instantaneous nor can be generated by rage nor fear and therefore can not be formed at will in an instant. Those are my own words, but from what I recall that is how it works. Plus, there are different levels of intent in the eyes of the law to start with.
That's what we have second and third degree options here as well as reckless manslaughter.
Maybe this is what the prosecutor used to make his decision. This is from the Oklahoma Statutes;
A person commits murder in the first degree when the death of a child results from the willful or malicious injuring, torturing, maiming or using of unreasonable force by said person or who shall willfully cause, procure or permit any of said acts to be done upon the child pursuant to Section 7115 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes.
Actually, I would challenge you to post any legitimate reference that proves true malice aforethought applies here. Malice intent, as defined by first degree murder, is not instantaneous nor can be generated by rage nor fear and therefore can not be formed at will in an instant. Those are my own words, but from what I recall that is how it works. Plus, there are different levels of intent in the eyes of the law to start with.
That's what we have second and third degree options here as well as reckless manslaughter.
The DA chooses to seek an indictment based on the facts, allegations, and the law. Not on whim. DA's take cases that they can win, loosing is embarrassing and not career endusive; trials are expensive. In many locales, a coroner's inquest will drive whether or not the DA seeks prosecution or not. Below are two of the circumstances in Oklahoma that are applicable to the above mentioned case.
R.L.1910, § 2312.
§21-701.7. Murder in the first degree
A. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.
B. A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of murder of another person, shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill, intentional discharge of a firearm or other deadly weapon into any dwelling or building as provided in Section 1289.17A of this title, forcible rape, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, escape from lawful custody, eluding an officer, first degree burglary, first degree arson, unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.
Malice aforethought is another term for premeditation.
A. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.
You just proved why he will be acquitted. The words "manifested by external circumstances capable of proof" are the loophole he will deservedly slip through.
Based on this and some of your other previous posts, you sound like the internet police.
Spurholder
06-06-09, 08:05
Actually, I would challenge you ...
Hey, I hope the guy walks from this...I was merely trying to figure out why this DA was going after the pharmacist with a Murder 1 charge, and threw up the link that I believed might explain his reasoning. That's all.
Here's a recent shooting from Ferndale MI. Interestingly, no charges have been filed (yet?). Ferndale is considered a very "liberal" city...
http://www.wxyz.com/news/story/Ferndale-Renter-Shoots-Man-No-Charges/f30zUkTsQkqzly72ruAsRg.cspx
Ferndale Renter Shoots Man, No Charges
Last Update: 6/05 3:49 pm
(WXYZ) - A Ferndale man will not face charges for shooting a man who was standing in the bushes outside of his apartment on 9 Mile Road.
The prosecutor determined that the shooter, who also happens to be a security guard at a mall, acted in self defense.
On Wednesday at 2:00 a.m. the 27-year-old apartment resident reportedly shot the 58-year-old man.
He lives with his fiancee who happens to be a police officer for an area police department.
According to police, the shooter said he heard noises outside of his window and saw a man in the bushes. He told police he felt threatened and fired two shots. One of the bullets hit the man in the neck.
After the shooting, the renter went to a 7/11 store and saw Michigan State Troopers. He handed over his gun and told them he shot an intruder. Michigan State Police handed the case over to Ferndale Police.
The shooting victim is in the hospital and is expected to survive.
Police had been investigating the case to determine if the shooting was justified.
The pharmacist was on autopilot, considering his weight, he must have been about half a heartbeat away from having all the higher reasoning of a lizard.
Those kids made a choice to make a living by sticking guns in peoples faces. They made the only sober choice throughout the ordeal, they chose armed robbery. The voters and jury will make their independent decisions on the DA's actions too. We have so many laws that if the law was applied 100% to all of us, we'd all be some combination of broke/dead/divorced/imprisoned.
I'm tired of stringing up the good guys for technical violations, while the bad guys get the revolving door. Human life is worth something, but that also means your life is worth something when someone sticks a gun in your face. You've got a right to go home unmolested by the DA when the only real mistakes you made were getting up on time and getting to work despite recently having back surgery.
To be honest, i don't think he really meant to shoot the kid again. I think he was just in shock and reacted to the situation that way. He probably could have thought he forgot he shot him and the kid was going to shoot him. Anything could have been going threw it head in his physical condition and in that situation.
Kid got what he deserved though. If Someone is trying to rob my store, and they want to put a gun in my face they better not hesitate to pull that trigger because I don't think its my time to go by someone else pulling a trigger. Don't think thats gods intention of takin people. I do think the good lord puts my Beretta in its holster to protect my life though.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.