Good for the Homeowner I say. Wauconda is usually a fairly quiet suburb.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-home-invaders-shot-wauconda-dec28,0,7388717.story
Homeowner 2, Scumbags 0
- Thread starter Cryozombie
- Start date
Good for the Homeowner I say. Wauconda is usually a fairly quiet suburb.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-home-invaders-shot-wauconda-dec28,0,7388717.story
A glass raised to a critical error in the victim selection process.
Deaf Smith
Master of Arts
Need to teach that homeowner how to shoot better. These two might come back.
Deaf
Deaf
How anyone can dispute Darwin after that is beyond me.
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
Perhaps natural selection is making a come back?
Pardon me for saying so, but there's something odd about this story. I suspect more information will be forthcoming. A robbery attempt? It doesn't say that. The statement "repeated demands and physical altercations," just sounds weird.
I'm all for homeowners defending their homes against intrusion, and use of deadly force in such situations doesn't bother me either. But something about this limited account does not ring true.
I'm all for homeowners defending their homes against intrusion, and use of deadly force in such situations doesn't bother me either. But something about this limited account does not ring true.
OP
OP
Some additional information that I cannot confirm or deny as true says the Home Invaders are claiming they broke in to recover their son from the home, but mistakenly got the wrong address.
Deaf Smith
Master of Arts
A while back in Houston, during Halloween, an Asian college student, being drunk, went to the wrong house in his costume. He banged on the door, shouted to them to let him in, and then, even when they tried to push him out he just became more forceful. They ended up shooting him.
Moral of the story, don't pick the wrong house, especially in Texas.
You can get shot that way real quick.
Deaf
The Yoshihiro Hattori case? That was a Japanese high school student visiting the U.S. on an exchange program that was shot to death in Baton Rouge.
Big difference between that case and this one. In the Wauconda story, the perps not only tried, but also succeeded in breaking in to the homeowners home.
Yoshihiro Hattori never tried (let alone succeed) to break in to the homeowner's home on Halloween night when he was in his John Travolta costume. The homeowner shot Yattori for trespassing.
The homeowner was acquitted of homicide charges, but a civil judgment ordered the homeowner to pay $650,000 in damages, part of which was used by the family to lobby for stricter gun control. Hattori's parents also got an apology from President Clinton.
http://www.lsulegacymag.com/2009/06/30/lost-in-translation/
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/16/u...s-in-japanese-youth-s-death.html?pagewanted=1
Deaf Smith
Master of Arts
Carol,
You cannot shoot someone for trespassing in Texas or Louisiana. And I mean anywhere. And at the time of Yoshihiro Hattori's case, there was no Castle Doctrine in Louisiana (or anywhere else.)
And since the homeowner was acquitted, then the jury decided the defendant was in fear of their life when they shot, and thus they were justified.
Sue? Oh yea, back then with no Castle Doctrine, you could sue for wrongful death even inside your house (still can outside the house in Texas, dunno about Louisiana.)
The wrongful death suit is not about being guilty of a crime, but having caused the death of a loved one when there is a possible option to not use such force. In this case the jury felt, with a preponderance of evidence, that the homeowners could have retreated. Note I said preponderance of evidence. That's 51 percent. Not the same as resonable doubt.
Deaf
You cannot shoot someone for trespassing in Texas or Louisiana. And I mean anywhere. And at the time of Yoshihiro Hattori's case, there was no Castle Doctrine in Louisiana (or anywhere else.)
And since the homeowner was acquitted, then the jury decided the defendant was in fear of their life when they shot, and thus they were justified.
Sue? Oh yea, back then with no Castle Doctrine, you could sue for wrongful death even inside your house (still can outside the house in Texas, dunno about Louisiana.)
The wrongful death suit is not about being guilty of a crime, but having caused the death of a loved one when there is a possible option to not use such force. In this case the jury felt, with a preponderance of evidence, that the homeowners could have retreated. Note I said preponderance of evidence. That's 51 percent. Not the same as resonable doubt.
Deaf
OP
OP
The thing I have to wonder is...
Why were they doing it in ski masks. I mean, sure, its been cold, but do you force your way into someones home wearing them because you were just trying to keep warm?
The homeowner himself, and/or his defense team testified that he and his wife were safe and secure in their own home, that Hattori never tried to break in to the house, and that the homeowner was largely reacting to his wife's panic, and that his wife said she really wasn't thinking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori
The homeowners were acquitted, but this circumstance is very different form Wauconda where the door was clearly broken in by the perps and the the perps got in to an altercation in their own home (and it appears the homeowners will not be charged with a crime).
Hattori was outside of the house when he was killed.
Louisiana didn't have a castle doctrine per se in place at the time, but they did have a very similar "kill the burglar" statute which permits the use of deadly force without any duty to retreat.
The homeowners weren't absolutely found guilty of a crime. They were acquitted. But the acquittal had its costs to the homeowners.
- They had to go through a murder trial, and pay the associated bills to retain an attorney
- They apparently have a ton of regret on their souls from the death of a teenager that really wasn't trying to hurt them
- They sparked international controversy and publicly announced he would never own a gun again
- They are $650,000 poorer
And for firearms rights supporters, the acquittal had a cost. The incident was/is used to fuel anti-gun legislation, both by example by funding.
I don't think the moral Hattori story is "don't mess with the wrong house."
I think the moral of the Hattori case, especially when contrasted to the Wauconda case, is that panicking while defending oneself against a potential threat may get oneself exonerated in court. And it may mean there are additional unpleasant costs. However, keeping a rational head while shooting a potential threat means one may avoid with court to begin with, let alone the supplemental human/monetary costs.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Yeah, that would be my story too.........two men with ski masks......we were just looking for 'our' son........we thought something was wrong so we forced our way in.......yeah, that's the ticket.....yep.....riiiiigggghhhhttt.
I grew up in Baton Rouge, and I remember the Hattori case. I also remember a rumor surrounding it, that the shooter was a Vietnam vet who panicked because the kid was Asian. A lot of people thought the shooting was a result of the guy flipping out due to latent PTSD. <sigh>
As for Castle Doctrine, and shooting trespassers in Louisiana: Louisiana law is unusual in that it is based on Napoleonic Code, rather than Common Law. The "shoot the burglar" provision Carol mentions did exist at the time of the Hattori case; I think it has since been changed to be somewhat more in line with other states, but I haven't lived there in a while. The strength of the provision is such that homeowners would not be prosecuted for shooting a burglar even if they chased him down, or shot him as he was leaving. Also, in Louisiana, a car was (maybe still is) considered a "rolling domicile," an extension of one's home, so it was also permissible to shoot someone burgling one's car.
This section of the LSU Legacy article struck me as odd:
As for Castle Doctrine, and shooting trespassers in Louisiana: Louisiana law is unusual in that it is based on Napoleonic Code, rather than Common Law. The "shoot the burglar" provision Carol mentions did exist at the time of the Hattori case; I think it has since been changed to be somewhat more in line with other states, but I haven't lived there in a while. The strength of the provision is such that homeowners would not be prosecuted for shooting a burglar even if they chased him down, or shot him as he was leaving. Also, in Louisiana, a car was (maybe still is) considered a "rolling domicile," an extension of one's home, so it was also permissible to shoot someone burgling one's car.
This section of the LSU Legacy article struck me as odd:
"However, since he was not well trained with firearms, instead of shooting the gun in the air or shooting the perceived attacker in the leg, he shot Hattori in the chest."
In my limited training with firearms, I was told to always shoot to stop an attacker (or in this case, an innocent kid), which means mid-chest. No one would ever advise shooting in the air or leg, would they? Do people generally think that gun self defense should involve warning shots, or shooting at extremities? If so, no wonder people get their guns taken away from them and used on them. Sheesh.
Nah. The homeowner was only 30 when he shot Hattori. Too young for Vietnam. He was a guy that worked in the butcher department of a Winn Dixie. Some say his defense partly won by showing the jury he was just a regular guy. By the accounts I read....he was. There may have been cultural misunderstandings on both sides.
Exactly. You don't shoot to warn, or to wound, or to slow down. You shoot to STOP. If you don't need that level of force, you don't need a gun. If you do need that level of force, then it is a threat severe enough that you need to stop immediately.
The LSU was a sociology article IIRC. It has a bias, and I don't necessarily agree with the some of the points they are making, but it had some factoids for the case.
At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi!
At last we will have our revenge!
:jediduel:
Similar threads
