• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

CA - 911 call of man that shot and killed 2 people that were burglarizing the house next door

No NAU

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
107
Location
Bend, Oregon, USA
imported post

I am amazed that the 911 operator tries to tell this caller to just be a sheep and stay in his house.

I would certainly want my neighbor to react this way if I was burglarized (and they would).

Link to 911 call audio:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f3d_1195171937

Nov. 15, 2007 Pasadena
BOOM YOU'RE DEAD
A Pasadena homeowner this afternoon fatally shot two men he believed were burglarizing his neighbor's house, police said.

About 2 p.m., the homeowner in the Village Grove East subdivision heard noises he thought sounded like broken glass, said Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett, with the Pasadena Police Department. The man determined the noise was coming from next door.

The man, who police have not identified, knew the owner of the house in the 7400 block of Timberline Drive was not home, and that the noise could possibly be a burglary, Corbett said. The man then called police to inform them he thought his neighbor's house was being burglarized.

The man then saw two men coming through a gate in the backyard of the neighbor's house.

"He confronted them with a shotgun," Corbett said, and asked them to stop. They did not and he fired two shots, striking each man once, Corbett said.

One man was found dead about two houses from where the reported burglary occurred. The other was found dead across the street, Corbett said.

Police are interviewing the homeowner.

A window in the back of the neighbor's house was broken
 

No NAU

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
107
Location
Bend, Oregon, USA
imported post

I agree the legality of the shooting is going to come into question. I think his only hope is where he says they were coming in the yard towards him and he didn't know what to do.

The thing that amazed me is the 911 operator telling him not to defend himself and his neighborhood.

It does sound like it goes from "Move and you're dead," to boom pretty much instantly. Of course not being able to have seen the event this is just pure speculation as to what was happening.
 

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
imported post

He is rightfully screwed on this one. He had no responsibility (legaly or moraly) to use deadly force to defend his neighbors property. The comments he made about them coming into his yard will probably not help him. 1, he didn't sound that sincere about them being in his yard. The tone of his voice and his previous statements make it sound like he was just trying to defend his actions. 2 He went after them after being advised not to. At the time he left his house, he was in no danger. If they HAD come to his house he would have a case, but running after them while they were leaving someone elses house was stupid.
Unfortunatly, it seems what we have here is what the anti's are afraid of, a guy who realy want's to shoot someone, and was just waiting for the chance to do so.
The bad part about this is the image it reflects on the rest of us. The morning show I listen to dovetailed this right into a sarcastic "yeah, all we need is more guns in the world" rant. I pretty much agree with the rest of their ideas, but their gun policy is about 180 degrees off of mine, and this incedent played right into their hands. How hard is it going to be to convince people that letting people be armed is a good thing after this? the whole thing sucks.

Edit:
"They are getting away"
"I can't see where they went, I'm going out"
"One of them is in the yard over there, the other one is running down the street"

Seems like they were leaving the scene, with officers on the way (they showed up immediatly after he shot them). He honestly had no reason to chase them down and kill them over someone elses property.
 

Heartless_Conservative

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
269
Location
, Oregon, USA
imported post

It depends on what state he's in, but it was probably legal for him to attempt to aprehend them, and if they really did make threatening movements then it was not 'killing over property.' The fact that they haven't released his name yet means he probably won't be changed, and he wasn't arrested on the spot either.
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
imported post

It does depend what state he was in, whether or not his actions were legal.

He did not make things better for himself by discussing this on the phone.

Furthermore, I understand that it can be frustrating to have someone tell you not to defend yourself, however these are dispatchers, and probably not sworn personell, nor lawyers. If they were to advise someone TO USE lethal force, or force at all, they could be sued and be in a mountain of crap. I am sure it is policy to tell anyone not to use force.

If the dispatch said, sure go out and shoot them, its legal, he would be long gone.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
imported post

This won't fly in OHIO. Ohio does not have the castle doctrine.

However, if the state prosecutes and the jury acquits, would not that be a strong message to the anti gun nuts.
 

DreQo

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
2,350
Location
Minnesota
imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:
The story wrote:
One man was found dead about two houses from where the reported burglary occurred. The other was found dead across the street, Corbett said.
Damn, did the guy use an 8-gauge or something?

:shock:

Uhhh wouldn't an 8 gauge do MORE damage than a 12, seeing as how it is bigger??

I don't think it's a good strategy to shoot and not kill, though. If I was forced to shoot someone, it's more than likely to stop them from using a weapon to hurt or kill me. If I shoot the guy and only wound him, he can probably still use that weapon, so I would continue to shoot until he stopped moving.
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
imported post

DreQo wrote:
imperialism2024 wrote:
The story wrote:
One man was found dead about two houses from where the reported burglary occurred. The other was found dead across the street, Corbett said.
Damn, did the guy use an 8-gauge or something?

:shock:

Uhhh wouldn't an 8 gauge do MORE damage than a 12, seeing as how it is bigger??

I don't think it's a good strategy to shoot and not kill, though. If I was forced to shoot someone, it's more than likely to stop them from using a weapon to hurt or kill me. If I shoot the guy and only wound him, he can probably still use that weapon, so I would continue to shoot until he stopped moving.
Hmm, I don't think it would be a bad strategy to aim to kill someone, however, if you hit them and they don't die, and they release their weapon, I don't think its a wise strategy to kill them just because they are still moving.
 

DreQo

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
2,350
Location
Minnesota
imported post

openryan wrote:
Hmm, I don't think it would be a bad strategy to aim to kill someone, however, if you hit them and they don't die, and they release their weapon, I don't think its a wise strategy to kill them just because they are still moving.

Well I look at it this way: If he's holding a weapon and I'm threatened enough to shoot him, I'm gonna shoot 2 or 3 times before he has a chance to drop the weapon. At that point of course I'm going to assess the situation, and if his weapon is dropped I'm not gonna keep shooting. Ya never know if they've got a BUG, though, and they've already shown intent to hurt or kill you, so I would keep them at gun point until it was very clear that they weren't gonna do any damage.

So if I put myself in this guy's shoes, and I had a shotgun and two guys that I felt threatened by, I'd probably either give them each a shell or throw one in the middle if they're close enough to get them both before I give them each their own. Keep in mind, though, I'd only do this if I knew they had weapons and I felt that was the only way to keep myself from getting hurt or killed. I sure as heck wouldn't shoot once or twice and give them enough time to run away...if they had enough time to turn and run, they could have easily pulled a gun out and shot me. Ya know?

Does that make more sense? lol
 

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
imported post

color of law wrote:
This won't fly in OHIO. Ohio does not have the castle doctrine.

However, if the state prosecutes and the jury acquits, would not that be a strong message to the anti gun nuts.
I don't know of any castle doctrine that applies to your neighbors, especially if you hardly know them

openryan wrote:
Hmm, I don't think it would be a bad strategy to aim to kill someone, however, if you hit them and they don't die, and they release their weapon, I don't think its a wise strategy to kill them just because they are still moving.
If they are unarmed and wounded then they are unlikely to be a deadly threat. Killing that person would likely be murder (and rightfully so).
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
imported post

DreQo wrote:
openryan wrote:
Hmm, I don't think it would be a bad strategy to aim to kill someone, however, if you hit them and they don't die, and they release their weapon, I don't think its a wise strategy to kill them just because they are still moving.

Well I look at it this way: If he's holding a weapon and I'm threatened enough to shoot him, I'm gonna shoot 2 or 3 times before he has a chance to drop the weapon. At that point of course I'm going to assess the situation, and if his weapon is dropped I'm not gonna keep shooting. Ya never know if they've got a BUG, though, and they've already shown intent to hurt or kill you, so I would keep them at gun point until it was very clear that they weren't gonna do any damage.

So if I put myself in this guy's shoes, and I had a shotgun and two guys that I felt threatened by. I'd probably either give them each a shell or throw one in the middle if they're close enough to get them both before I gave them each their own. Keep in mind, though, I'd only do this if I knew they had weapons and I felt that was the only way to keep myself from getting hurt or killed. I sure as heck wouldn't shoot once or twice and give them enough time to run away...if they had enough time to turn and run, they could have easily pulled a gun out and shot me. Ya know?

Does that make more sense? lol
Yes, that makes much more sense!

This guy however should not have went outside. I do realize that he was good friends with the neighbors, and that their property was being stolen right before his eyes, however there were better ways to go about this.

He could have stayed in the house, with his firearm, and made sure they did not break into HIS residence. Granted if it was legal in his state, then thats fine, however I wouldn't want to try his case before a jury, since even though its legal, he put himself into the hands of danger for something that was not even his. I think it could hold up in court if it was legal, but would be hard.

The other option, if he was intent on these guys being caught, would be to get in the car (assuming he had a cell phone) call police and pursue them at a safe distance until the police caught up. On the tape police arrived only seconds after the man shot them, they would have been either apprehended or shot by police anyway.

It is too bad it happened this way, the guy sounded a bit looney on the phone, as he tried to prove his legality to the dispatcher too much, however he seemed legitimately concerned. I suppose his anger blurred his judgement.
 

DreQo

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
2,350
Location
Minnesota
imported post

Yyyeah I'm not gonna say what he did was right, nor will I say he was wrong. I think the moral of this story is you shouldn't rob someone's house :D.
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
imported post

DreQo wrote:
Yyyeah I'm not gonna say what he did was right, nor will I say he was wrong. I think the moral of this story is you shouldn't rob someone's house :D.
At least in a state with a Stand Your Ground law if the neighbors are home!
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

No NAU wrote:
I am amazed that the 911 operator tries to tell this caller to just be a sheep and stay in his house.

I would certainly want my neighbor to react this way if I was burglarized (and they would).

Link to 911 call audio:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f3d_1195171937

Nov. 15, 2007 Pasadena
BOOM YOU'RE DEAD
A Pasadena homeowner this afternoon fatally shot two men he believed were burglarizing his neighbor's house, police said.

Is that for real? Does that fool not understand english?

Unless those batos attacked Joe Horn with a weapon (even a stapler), heis a majorgoof with a gun. Utter and pathetic lack of sound judgment.

Now, the costs start piling up. Monetary, psychic, societal and familial. He gets to pay the bill.

On a postive note, that dispatcher was cool and uber-professional. He did a perfect job.

I bet he cried.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

The call was a good example of "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Legally, he probably would have been better off to hang up after making the call rather than letting it all get recorded. I could see him getting prosecuted, but the DA ought to consider whether the greater good would be served by prosecuting this man and discouraging citizen action, or by keeping would-be burglars guessing whether the house they're breaking into might have somebody present or nearbywho is armed and willing to confront them.
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
imported post

Yes, in TX itIS legal to use deadly force to protect personal property...at night. That's the real way to deal with crime.

I hope the guy walks, or if he goes to trial, no TX jury will find him guilty.

There should be no law against looking outfor your neighbors...their property included.

He's definitely my kind of "good neighbor."

-- John D.
 
Top