Nevada apartment owner found not guilty

The Salt Lake City, Utah based KSL TV posted an article on their web page regarding the not guilty verdict in the case of a Reno apartment owner who discovered and shot two persons while he was inspecting an unoccupied apartment. (No registration nor fee required to read articles or comments.)

There is quite a bit in the article about "stand your ground laws." But at first blush--and having no information beyond this one article--this sounds more like a "defense of habitation" situation to me than a "stand your ground." Comments are running mostly in favor of the not-guilty verdict and for the owner's right to defend himself.

As is to be expected, the media makes a big deal over the intruders being "unarmed" without any real attempt to discuss whether or not they posed a risk to the owner. Also some discussion of the owner firing (or at least landing) 8 shots as if that is excessive when confronted by two unknown persons inside your own property. The owner seems to have reasonable marksmanship.

This is not a case of an occupied home being invaded. It seems the trespassers were more or less squatting in the unoccupied apartment, using it as a place to do meth. The prosecutor claimed it was a murder out of anger for multiple break-ins and burglaries. Defense claimed it was legit self defense. Took the jury 6 hours to reach a not-guilty verdict.

Anyone in Reno know any more than is in this article?

Charles

he was "right" but made many mistakes.
I would have called the cops.
he probably spent a lot of money/time in court ...

chrsjhnsn said:

he was "right" but made many mistakes.
I would have called the cops.
he probably spent a lot of money/time in court ...

Click to expand...

Nowhere in the article does it say that he was aware of anyone being inside when he entered his property. If I come up to my rental and see signs of someone being in there - lights, movement, sounds then yeah, I'm calling the cops. But the meth heads were apparently asleep, and I don't see how the owner could possible know that someone was inside. Once he encountered them and saw what he perceived to be threatening movements, he had only a split second to make a decision. I would've unloaded on them too. Cops have shot unarmed people and gotten away because they claimed "furtive movements" were made.

The bottom line is, the owner had the right to be there, meth heads did not. They created the situation, they got shot to pieces. I am not going to shed any tears and I'm glad the jury did the right thing.

I'm also taking down the name of the lawyer. Looks like she did real good debunking prosecutions absurd claims of premeditation.

odesskiy said:

I'm also taking down the name of the lawyer. Looks like she did real good debunking prosecutions absurd claims of premeditation.

Click to expand...

It is getting a little scary in terms of what can be twisted into "premeditation" isn't it? Heaven help the poor guy with a "No Trespassing. We don't dial 911" sign on his gate if he ever actually does have a situation that requires deadly force.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

It is getting a little scary in terms of what can be twisted into "premeditation" isn't it? Heaven help the poor guy with a "No Trespassing. We don't dial 911" sign on his gate if he ever actually does have a situation that requires deadly force.

Charles

Click to expand...

A life time ago I had a sign on the back door reading "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."

My liability insurance agent went bananas - rightly demanded immediate removal.

Grapeshot said:

A life time ago I had a sign on the back door reading "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."

My liability insurance agent went bananas - rightly demanded immediate removal.

Click to expand...

It is all fun, games, and good humor, until some ambulance chasing lawyer or prosecutor with a chip on his shoulder decides to look for anything at all to put the screws to the real victim of the home invasion.

Charles

I agree completely. I would never have a sign like that. For the reasons stated above and also my reluctance to announce to the world that I am a gun owner/carrier. I can't be there to protect my home 24/7. Don't need some stupid meth heads thinking they should break into my house to see if there are any guns laying around.

My late father, retired California Highway Patrol (back when cops actually were our friends) taught me an important lesson about signs and premeditation.

There are ambulance chasing attorneys everywhere. They are hungry. They will screw you.

There are messed up prosecutors everywhere, they will screw you.

Don't put up a "Beware of Dog" sign because one of the above may decide to take you to task for knowingly having a dangerous dog should a burglar, trespasser, or even a neighborhood kid enter your yard and get bitten.
INSTEAD, the sign should read "DOG, keep gate closed"

Same with the "We don't call 911", "To hell with the dog, beware of owner", etc. signs. Arsewipe prosecutors can twist that and paint you as just laying in wait hoping for the chance to shoot someone. Same with an ambulance chaser. Only difference is that the first can cost you your freedom and the second can only take your money.

When I was hanging out at Gunsite, there was a sign warning "PRIVATE PROPERTY -- NO EXIT" on the road. I don't know if it's still there.

The OFFICIAL explanation was that the road ends at the training center, rather than continuing on through . . .