Man shoots armed intruders

[KenpoTex]

It's nice to occasionally see a situation where the homeowner is not treated like a criminal and the criminals like victims.

http://www.shelbycountyreporter.com/articles/2004/10/14/news/news03.txt

Shelby resident shoots intruder - Three Georgia prison escapees still on loose.

By Patrick Crotty/Reporter Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:09 PM CDT

A Shelby man shot a Georgia fugitive in the face as he came home to find a group of escaped inmates burglarizing his home.

Sheriff's deputies responded to a shooting in the Shelby community early Monday morning.

At about 7:08 a.m., deputies responded to an Emergency-911 call from a convenience store located at the intersection of county highways 47 and 71.

The call indicated that someone suffering from a gunshot wound was at the store.

According to information from the Shelby County Sheriff's Office, a sheriff's deputy responded to the convenience store and found a male subject lying on the floor suffering from a gunshot wound to the left side of the face. A customer and store employee were administering medical aid.

Southeast Shelby Rescue arrived, along with RPS ambulance, and continued medical treatment. Lifesaver helicopter arrived and transported the victim to University Hospital in Birmingham.


According to sheriff's reports, the 911 call coincided with a call about a burglary in process in the 100 block of Higgins Road.

The burglary occurred a short distance from the store. Suspects from the burglary matched descriptions of the vehicle and three men who dropped the gunshot victim off at the store.

Initially, sheriff's deputies could not identify the wounded fugitive.

"The information we now have is that this young man was brought to the store and let out by three other persons driving a white Jeep Cherokee with a Shelby County license tag.

"At the almost identical time that this call came in to 911, another call was received reporting a burglary in progress in the 100 block of Higgins Road, which is a short distance from this store. The suspects in the burglary left in a white Jeep," Curry said in an initial statement, indicating the victim had no identification.

"His injury is very serious and it is important that contact be made with family as soon as possible," Curry said.

On Higgins Road, the owner of the residence encountered several people inside when he came up on the porch, sheriff's reports stated.

Four men left the home quickly as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun. One of the shots struck the gunshot victim who was later left at the convenience store. Descriptions of the vehicle from the home burglary match the vehicle that dropped the man off at the store.

On Tuesday morning, District Attorney Robby Owens said deputies worked throughout the night pursuing leads on the three fugitives that remained at-large.

The name of the homeowner who shot the fugitive will not be released as long as the others remain at-large.

At presstime, Tracy O. Mullins, 30, who was serving at least three years in a Georgia state prison for firearms possession and other offenses, was in the intensive care unit at UAB Hospital.

The three remaining fugitives were also Georgia state inmates and included: Joshua J. Thompson, 19, who was serving an 18-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter; Joseph M. Lee Jr., 21, who was serving at least 12 years for armed robbery and other offenses; and Micah D. Sheer, 22, who was serving 17 years for aggravated assault and burglary.

The homeowner will not face criminal charges, Owens said.

He described the situation at the Shelby home as a home-invasion and robbery attempt. The homeowner found several men inside of his home and some outside. He said the white Jeep Cherokee was parked around the back of the home.

"He became suspicious and decided he better protect himself," Owens said.

Curry defended the homeowner's actions.

"The owner of the property found himself in a dangerous and difficult situation, outnumbered four-to-one while trying to protect himself and his property from this group whose intentions were unknown. He fired several shots from a handgun in an attempt to stop the suspects," Curry said.

 

[Flatlander]

I'm lovin' it!

 

[8253]

finally, a person protects himself and his property and dosent get in trouble.

 

[Gary Crawford]

That's the great thing about escaped fugitives..they are always "in season"

 

[Bammx2]

That's the great thing about escaped fugitives..they are always "in season"

I'm using that one!

 

[psi_radar]

This is also a good case for advocating concealed carry--this was a home invasion the homeowner walked into rather than being inside as it happened. If, like most gun owners, he left all his guns in his home when he stepped out the door, he wouldn't have been able to protect his property upon returning.

 

[michaeledward]

Four men left the home quickly as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun.

Thoughts on this sentence?

It seems that the homeowner was not in jeopardy of life or limb. Later in the report 'Curry', apparently the Shelby County Sherrif, is quoted as saying the intentions were "unknown", although the District Attorney reports the intentions were a "robbery".

Also, where in the report does it indicate the intruders were 'Armed'? ... which is how this thread is titled.

 

[Mark Weiser]

The key in this kind of case is too establish the intent of the four men in going into the home and the intent of the homeowner in his actions.

The home did have firearms inside due to the owner getting a weapon I assume and being in that part of the country and outside of the city that would be a safe assumption. Then he had the possiblity of facing four armed intruders and now that the owner came home it becomes a felony and I assume the convicts are aware the law just as we are and burglarizing a occupied dwelling is a serious felony.

He had every right to protect his life.

 

[dearnis.com]

At presstime, Tracy O. Mullins, 30, who was serving at least three years in a Georgia state prison for firearms possession and other offenses, was in the intensive care unit at UAB Hospital.

The three remaining fugitives were also Georgia state inmates and included: Joshua J. Thompson, 19, who was serving an 18-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter; Joseph M. Lee Jr., 21, who was serving at least 12 years for armed robbery and other offenses; and Micah D. Sheer, 22, who was serving 17 years for aggravated assault and burglary.

No mention was made of them being armed...or not being armed. However, do you seriously believe that the homeowner was at no risk from this crew?? And yes, career criminals do frequently flee from "victims" directing fire at them.

 

[michaeledward]

The key in this kind of case is too establish the intent of the four men in going into the home and the intent of the homeowner in his actions.

The home did have firearms inside due to the owner getting a weapon I assume and being in that part of the country and outside of the city that would be a safe assumption. Then he had the possiblity of facing four armed intruders and now that the owner came home it becomes a felony and I assume the convicts are aware the law just as we are and burglarizing a occupied dwelling is a serious felony.

He had every right to protect his life.

1) The District Attorney indicated the 'intent' was 'robbery'.
2) It is unclear if the home had firearms inside, or if the homeowner was carrying the weapon with him, or both. It is not safe to make an assumption that because a weapon is in the home that the intruders have access to the weapon. Don't you all keep your firearms in a gun safe? Do you keep your stored weapons loaded? It does not follow that the intruders had firearms.
3) Of course the Homeowner has every right to protect his life. The report seems to indicate that his life was not in danger; the intruders "left the home quickly".

No mention was made of them being armed...or not being armed. However, do you seriously believe that the homeowner was at no risk from this crew?? And yes, career criminals do frequently flee from "victims" directing fire at them.

From the article, it appears the intruders were fleeing before the victim began directing fire at them. I will grant you that the article does not state the homeowner shot the intruder in the back, but that is the way I read it.

 

[Mark Weiser]

In his civic duty as a citzen he had every right to stop a fleeing felony since they were just in his home committing a felony.

There is no mention of what was being or even if any property was taken such as firearms, cash, or other valuables.

 

[psi_radar]

1)

From the article, it appears the intruders were fleeing before the victim began directing fire at them. I will grant you that the article does not state the homeowner shot the intruder in the back, but that is the way I read it.

The perpetrator who was shot was wounded in the left side of his face, which means he was either looking over his shoulder while fleeing or facing the homeowner. There's a chance it entered his neck and exited his face, but I think they would have mentioned that.

I think it's pretty clear that these guys were a threat to the homeowner. What would your reaction be to coming home and finding at least a few menacing guys rooting around in your house? Would they have fled if the homeowner brandished a fireplace poker at them? Probably not. He was perfectly justified in using the firearm as he saw fit. I'm sure the fugitives knew they were running that risk when they entered his home uninvited. Heck, they've been risking a violent end since they escaped from prison.

Btw--here in Colorado this shooting would be considered justified under the "make my day" laws.

 

[michaeledward]

psi_radar, thank you for point out the injury was to the face. That is mentioned twice in the article, but I read right past it a couple of times.

I do question whether the intruders were any threat. I have read three other articles concerning this incident. All of them say the intruders were fleeing. I do not believe, from what I can read, that the homeowner was in any danger.

This is not to say that the intruders were boy scouts (or girl scouts). All four intruders have apparently escaped from a medium security prison. While it is unclear if the escapees are armed, currently, they are considered dangerous.

At the time of the shooting, it appears that there was no way for the homeowner to know that these were escapees, or that they would be considered dangerous.

It seems that some are reading more facts in this story than actually presented in the article(s). At no point does the reporting indicate that the homeowner brandishing a weapon was the reason the intruders fled; be that weapon a gun or a fireplace poker.

Mark_Weiser .... civic duty to shoot someone?

 

[dearnis.com]

Michael;

I mean this question seriously; I'm not trying to pick a fight.
Why so concerned about a career criminal who picked the wrong house and got shot? He made choices, they had consequences.

 

[michaeledward]

Michael;
Why so concerned about a career criminal who picked the wrong house and got shot?

I am not concered about the career criminal who picked the wrong house. I am concerned about, and frankly a bit scared by, the response of the people who posted to this thread before me.

Intruders are "in season" ? (at the time, the homeowner could not have known these were 'escaped fugitives').


Ronald McDonald with a gun?



​

It seems that there is little concern among the gun owners for "proportional response". The theory of proportional response comes from the ethical discussion of a 'Just War'; violence used must be in proportion to the injury suffered.

Some have put forth the argument that the intruders were or could be assumed to be armed, because the homeowner was a gun owner, and could be assumed that guns are kept in the house. Of course, these assumptions are not backed up with facts.

The county district attorney stated the invasion was a robbery, but there is no list of stolen goods. These guys could have been stealing Corn Flakes. For this, they get shot?

There is no report that the homeowner was threatened in any way. The report states the intruders were fleeing the scene.

I was told it is a 'civic duty' to stop them. I don't own a gun, how would I, in a similar circumstance perform my civic duty?

Even the title of this thread is mis-labeled. There is no report that the intruders were armed.

Of course, I know that walking into this Forum that the Gun Owners don't want my opinion. You aren't interested in an anti-gun position. But it seems that the posters to this thread are cheering the fact that someone got shot.

I went to a gathering recently. I spoke with a 16 year soldier, working toward his 20 years. He stated very clearly, that after having served in a live-fire situation, where people were shooting at him to kill, he would never raise his weapon toward a civilian. If an intruder came into his house, he would ask for a time-out to get himself and his family out of the house, and let the intruder take anything he wanted. This gentleman owns an Assault Weapon, which he purchased just because the Government had told him he wasn't going to be able to buy one. This gentleman is currently in an Army training center which will put him in charge of 500 soldiers on the battlefields of Iraq, planning all aspects of their duties. Seems to me his point of view was very reasonable (even if you think mine isn't).

Said more simply, I believe the response of the homeowner was not in proportion to the actions of the intruder. I remain open to new facts. But until such facts make themselves known, I find his actions morally reprehensible.

Michael

 

[Mark Weiser]

Well here in Kansas. Us country folk do not take kindly to people in our homes that are not invited by me or one of my family members. You as a criminal have a choice or risk to walk into anyone's house in Kansas and take the risk of being shot. That is a fact!

No one has the right to come into my house and steal my stuff I worked hard for and my wife as well. Saying that I would just walk out of my house and let them have free reign to pick over my stuff is immoral from my point of view.

The anti gun people would have us lay down like sheep and let the criminal element have free reign to run amok among the populace. I for one would rather have a few armed citzens and let the criminal elements roll the dice if they wish to commit crimes and take thier chances. Of course this is just an ole country boy from the sticks here in Kansas opinion and fact of life here.

 

[Flatlander]

Said more simply, I believe the response of the homeowner was not in proportion to the actions of the intruder. I remain open to new facts. But until such facts make themselves known, I find his actions morally reprehensible.

Mike, are you unconvinced that the authorities working the case are able to determine the justifiablity of the shoot?

I think it's mighty difficult to glean the nuggets of absolute fact from the article, or any article for that matter. I also tend to take the decision of the LEOs to charge or not as being something rooted in available evidence, likely seasoned with a bit of judgement based on the available information. I think that statistically, they are usually on the mark as to whether or not to press charges in these circumstances.

I think that the crux of the thread is to celebrate the fact that for once, as it is rare, a homeowner was able to justifiably defend their home without being treated as a criminal. That's a happy ending, if you ask me.

The reason I personally have any response to this at all is as a result of my NOT being able to make the choice of whether or not to carry. Here, there is no such thing as a justifiable civilian shooting. They may not get me for homicide, but they'll get me for reckless endangerment, manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, and any weapons offenses they figure will stick. For defending myself and my family in my home.

If I am able to trust that the LEOs involved have done their job correctly (which I do), then I applaud the man for keeping his wits, not panicking, and making a clean shoot.

 

[Flatlander]

No one has the right to come into my house and steal my stuff I worked hard for and my wife as well. Saying that I would just walk out of my house and let them have free reign to pick over my stuff is immoral from my point of view.

As factual as you deem it to be, Mark, theft, IMO, is not justification for ending a man's life. That's why prisons were created.

 

[Mark Weiser]

Okay here is the main problem if you and your family are in your house and someone comes into your home while you are there. They hear voices, the car is in the drive, kids are laughing and the TV is on.

Then you have to make the decision that they the criminal has the intent to do you harm due to the facts of you being home at the time. Then you have the right to defend yourself, your family and your property with all means at your disposal. Under Kansas Statues the Home Invasion is consider a felony and the home being occuiped implies intent of doing bodily harm. Therefore lethal force can be used in this kind of situation.

 

[michaeledward]

No one has the right to come into my house and steal my stuff

And where, exactly, did you see me arguing that such activity was acceptable?

The anti gun people would have us lay down like sheep and let the criminal element have free reign to run amok among the populace

I don't know who you are discussing this with, because I certainly made no claim that the criminal element should be free to 'run amok'. I am quite certain I said no such thing.

Mike, are you unconvinced that the authorities working the case are able to determine the justifiablity of the shoot?

I think it's mighty difficult to glean the nuggets of absolute fact from the article, or any article for that matter. I also tend to take the decision of the LEOs to charge or not as being something rooted in available evidence, likely seasoned with a bit of judgement based on the available information. I think that statistically, they are usually on the mark as to whether or not to press charges in these circumstances.

I am convinced of nothing and I am unconvinced of nothing. The district attorney has stated that he is not going to bring charges against the homeowner. Of course, with full knowledge, we know the intruder was an escaped convict. At the time of the shooting, the homeowner did not have that piece of information. Would the DA react the same if it was some indigent citizen who was shot? A returning Iraq Veteran?

Yes, it is difficult to determine facts from three or four newspaper articles. But many in this thread are drawing as conclusion, facts that are not in evidence. (i.e. that the homeowner was defending himself, that the intruders were armed.)

I think that the crux of the thread is to celebrate the fact that for once, as it is rare, a homeowner was able to justifiably defend their home without being treated as a criminal. That's a happy ending, if you ask me.

With the evidence we have, we can be certain the homeowner did "defend" his home. But are we certain it his actions were 'justifiably' appropriate?

The argument I am reading is that the homeowner was justified in shooting someone because: a) the person was in his house without permission, and b) the person was fleeing

I posit that the use of a firearm, with the intent to kill, was not "justified". That action was not warranted based on the theory of proportionality. This is a different argument than is the use of the weapon legal or not.

The reason I personally have any response to this at all is as a result of my NOT being able to make the choice .... For defending myself and my family in my home.

If I am able to trust that the LEOs involved have done their job correctly (which I do), then I applaud the man for keeping his wits, not panicking, and making a clean shoot.

There is no evidence that the homeowner was 'defending' anything. I am open to new facts. But according to the reporting, the intruders were fleeing the scene. There was no reported threat to the homeowner. The use of deadly force was not required.