View Full Version : Burglar Enters Home With Knife, Leaves With Two Bullet Wounds
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/strange/news-article.aspx?storyid=59519
Bill Harsey
07-10-2006, 08:31
Well done Mr. Brown.
mumbleypeg
07-10-2006, 08:37
"whoops"!
Goggles Pizano
07-10-2006, 11:25
Good to see training never takes a break! Continue firing until the threat is neutralized-great job Mr. Brown, great job! I wonder how many hits and where?
"Whoops there it is....."
Gentlemen,
Not to stir the hornets nest.....For my own misunderstanding, but if Mr. Brown had killed or wounded the suspect when he fled, couldn't he of been charged with man slaughter or been held liable in civillian court? According to my understanding, I thought you were only allowed to use deadly force when your life is threatened - I could of sworn I've heard stories of criminals sueing their victims for wounding them while they fled, something about the victim not being justified in using deadly force because their attackers were fleeing and thus no longer in danger.
Thank you for clarification.
The Reaper
07-10-2006, 12:23
Assumint that the report is true, the first rounds would seem to be justified by the knife, distance, and the age disparity.
Follow-up rounds in pursuit would IMHO, depend on whether the attacker dropped the weapon and/or was still in the victim's home.
It really all depends on the DA. No indictment, not worries. I do not see many presecutors pushing too hard to try a 73 y/o vet who shot up a young thug brandishing a knife after breaking into his house.
I would prefer to get all of the rounds into him that I could while he was facing me and armed, presenting a threat, but hindsight is 20/20. If he had used a shotgun, we probably would not be having this question.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Goggles Pizano
07-10-2006, 14:19
Fonzy,
I can't answer the civil questions however from a law enforcement perspective if he is awakened by an armed intruder he has every right to defend himself. Even if the subject is fleeing from one room into another (regardless if his intent is to exit the residence which is impossible to know if your the homeowner) he is still armed and poses a threat to other members of the household, or the intruder could simply be repositioning for counterattack. In my book if he's in the house he's receiving multiple shot groups until I know he's gone. That varies state to state however. HTH
Warrior-Mentor
07-10-2006, 15:14
AL or RL please chime in.
Laws vary by state. Some states have a duty to retreat(CA)...others see your home as enter at your own risk.
He got what he deserved IMHO.
JM
Roycroft201
07-10-2006, 19:19
Well, this is timely. Thanks, Dan, for posting it.
Gentlemen,
Appreciate the responces. Just curious.:o
Bravo1-3
07-10-2006, 21:21
As I read it, he did not chase him, he just fired a shot or two through the doorway after the guy had run off. If the thief had been a step or two slower, he'd have caught another round or two.
My wife and I are LOAO...Laughing our asses off!
Just goes to show you, never bring a knife to a gunfight.
I believe a "You're right and I'm sorry..." would've been in order there.
I'll lay odds, that Mr. Brown is a Republican.
And I'll even further that, with saying, that he has aspirations of becoming a Red Neck Republican. :D
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11286
He said "whoops". That is priceless
airborneFSO
07-11-2006, 07:37
Nice to see Mr. Brown in the right frame of mind. This should be a lesson to all. Good Job Sir.
Team Sergeant
07-11-2006, 08:21
Gentlemen,
Not to stir the hornets nest.....For my own misunderstanding, but if Mr. Brown had killed or wounded the suspect when he fled, couldn't he of been charged with man slaughter or been held liable in civillian court? According to my understanding, I thought you were only allowed to use deadly force when your life is threatened - I could of sworn I've heard stories of criminals sueing their victims for wounding them while they fled, something about the victim not being justified in using deadly force because their attackers were fleeing and thus no longer in danger.
Thank you for clarification.
You hypothesize from one side of the picture. How do we know the idiot boy didn't charge Mr. Brown, see the weapon, turn to run as a "slower" Mr. Brown raised his weapon to defend himself and fired. And by the time Mr. Brown fired the idiot was presenting his back to Mr. Brown.
Knowing that Mr. Brown missed "idiot boy", idiot boy could have again charged Mr. Brown with the same results. Firing a weapon at some ones back does not always mean the bad guy is actually running away and no longer a threat.
I know of a state trooper that shot and killed a bad guy "running away". The bad guy was still shooting as he was "running away" and appropriately took one in the back that killed him. Good thing there was witnesses.
TS
Fonzy,
Use of lethal force is authorized when you are in danger of death or serious bodily injury as the result of the suspect behavior. Also, if the suspect has just murdered or inflicted serious bodily injury and he is fleeing and it is likely he will harm another person; deadly force is warranted.
Well done Mr. Brown.
CoLawman
07-11-2006, 22:59
Fonzy,
Just to add to what has already been posted. Colorado has the "Make My Day Law." If a person is attempting to enter your residence or business and you feel you are in imminent danger you may employ deadly force. If a person is found in your house you do not have to determine if he is armed. If you feel you are in imminent danger.......you may use deadly force.
We have had some interesting cases as a result of this law. Our officers did a no knock warrant. As they entered the residence yelling police, a man inside fired at officers. First officer in the door returned fire striking the idiot. The DA chose not to prosecute due to the Make My Day Law and the subjects stated claim that he did not understand english. Eventually the case was settled with the guy for a quarter million.
Another guy was banging on a man's door trying to get him to come out and fight. When the man refused, the guy outside kicked the door in.......just as he stepped foot across the threshold........a steak knife was plunged into his chest. No prosecution for the stabber and the stabbee was charged with burglary.
I know of a state trooper that shot and killed a bad guy "running away". The bad guy was still shooting as he was "running away" and appropriately took one in the back that killed him. Good thing there was witnesses.
TS
When TS and I first met he told me about that incident. GOOD thing there were witnesses.
I lived in CO when the 'Make My Day Law' was passed. I remember something of the first trial concerning that legislation. A good friend of mine was on the jury.... for weeks. Tried Googling for the facts I have forgotten, but here is the gist of that first case. A guy had been having problems with a neighbor. Came to a point, one day, the neighbor became more of a threat. As I remember, The homeowner shot the neighbor while standing just outside his front door in his yard. This was in the mid to late 80's. He was found innocent.
Here is the deal. In CO, at least back then, that law included ALL your property, not just your dwelling.
CoLawman may be able to fill in the blanks.
CoLawman
07-13-2006, 10:36
Here is the Colorado Make My Day Law:
18-1-704.5 C.R.S. Is the actual portion referred to as the Make My Day law.
COLORADO STATUTES REGARDING DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE AND CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARMS
18-1-704 Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of A Person
1. Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
2. Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
a) The actor has reasonable grounds to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or
b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 184-204; or
c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 184-301 or 184-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 or 18-3-403, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 or 18-3-203.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:
a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or
b) He is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or
c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
18-1-704.5 Use Of Deadly Physical Force Against An Intruder (“Make My Day law”)
1. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
3. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions or subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
4. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
18-1-705 Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of Premises
A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the building, realty, or premises. However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704, or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson.
18-1-706 Use of Physical Force in Defense of Property
A person is justified in using reasonably and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704.
Firebeef
07-13-2006, 10:39
You feeelin lucky, boy???
Just adding info, if I may, gents..
A few years ago, my house was broken into while I was away. I was specifically informed by the police, that had I been present, I may have used deadly force only if there had been (and I quote, word for word) no way out of the area or I was being back literally into a corner and many cases were now requiring that the defendant prove that he or she was being backed into a corner. But that's just how it was in North Carolina, at least a few years ago.
The Reaper
07-15-2006, 20:01
That would be a very aggressive prosecutor, as AFAIK, there is no requirement for a NC resident to retreat in either home or place of business before employing deadly force.
I see no real hope of a conviction of a homeowner in NC as long as there was no effort to tamper with the evidence or to lure the intruder in. My understanding is that the law here provides deadly force may be employed if a reasonable person would believe that the intruder had the means, intent, and opportunity to inflict deadly harm on them or others.
Sounds more like they were trying to influence your thinking.
TR
NC does not have a "duty to retreat", but authorization for use of deadly force is pretty narrowly defined and would require more than mere presence in one's home. One of three criteria have to be met for deadly force to be authorized; one strictly covers corrections officers. The other two involve defending self or third party from use or imminent use of deadly force; and effecting the arrest or preventing escape from custody by a person who is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon or who indicates by his conduct indicates he presents the imminent threat of death or serious injury to others unless apprehended without delay.
Of course, it all depends on how well you articulate :D.
Having just spent the evening here at Bragg with Mav and her family, I believe she could have unleashed the female toddler scream of death along with a hail of fried rice and sent any intruder to his grave :).
bost1751
07-15-2006, 22:47
Gotta love colorado's "make my day" statute. As for Mr Brown, you got to love it! Nothing like bringing a knife to a gun fight anyway. I will bet there is still a civil suit. That's what we have come to in this country.
jasonglh
07-16-2006, 00:11
In Kentucky the law not only serves to protect the homeowner from criminal charges but from civil suits as well. There is no need to retreat in the home or the automobile.
The one thing this last years legislature got right.
Having just spent the evening here at Bragg with Mav and her family, I believe she could have unleashed the female toddler scream of death along with a hail of fried rice and sent any intruder to his grave :).
ROFLMFAO!!! ;)
Mr Brown took the fight to the enemy.
Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken when I lived in TX a homeowner had the right to shoot a person up and until they left the property, not the home, but the property, be it in a neighborhood or the back-forty. My sister still lives there and I'm pretty sure this is still the case.
Smokin Joe
07-19-2006, 00:57
AZ has a new Self Defense law. The just of it is. If someone breaks into your house, them being in your home is all the justification you need to respond with deadly force. You do not need to identify a weapon.