breaking news (9/2/08) Charlotte NC 5:00pm

imported post

http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-090208 krg-shooting.396eeedc.html

[size="+2"]Homeowner catches burglar, shoots him[/size] [size="-1"]06:28 PM EDT on Tuesday, September 2, 2008[/size] [size="-1"]By NewsChannel 36 Staff
E-mail Us: NEWS@WCNC.com[/size]
NewsChannel 36
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- A suspected burglar was shot and killed Tuesday afternoon when a man found him inside his home.
The shooting happened around 3:30 p.m. at a home in the 2000 block of Toddville Road in northwest Charlotte.
Neighbors tell NewsChannel 36 that a man came home to find a car he didn't recognize in the driveway and his door kicked in.
He got a gun out of his own car and then shot the person inside the home, who may have been stealing items from inside.
Medic says the shooting victim was taken via emergency traffic to Carolinas Medical Center. Police say the victim died there.
Detectives are questioning the homeowner at police headquarters.


Interesting, it doesn't say thief, home invader, it says shooting victim. slanted journalism?

imported post

Godscreation wrote:

http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-090208 krg-shooting.396eeedc.html

[size="+2"]Homeowner catches burglar, shoots him[/size] [size="-1"]06:28 PM EDT on Tuesday, September 2, 2008[/size] [size="-1"]By NewsChannel 36 Staff
E-mail Us: NEWS@WCNC.com[/size]

NewsChannel 36
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- A suspected burglar was shot and killed Tuesday afternoon when a man found him inside his home.
The shooting happened around 3:30 p.m. at a home in the 2000 block of Toddville Road in northwest Charlotte.
Neighbors tell NewsChannel 36 that a man came home to find a car he didn't recognize in the driveway and his door kicked in.
He got a gun out of his own car and then shot the person inside the home, who may have been stealing items from inside.
Medic says the shooting victim was taken via emergency traffic to Carolinas Medical Center. Police say the victim died there.
Detectives are questioning the homeowner at police headquarters.


Interesting, it doesn't say thief, home invader, it says shooting victim. slanted journalism?

Click to expand...

I thought the exact same thing.

Chalk one up for the good guys.

Thanks for the post.


Tarzan

imported post

Poor shooting victim. Maybe if we had the right government program for him, we could have given him money and counseling to prevent this. What a tragedy. This poor poor man didn't deserve to die, he was just a little misguided. The government let him down. [/sarcasm]

I hate stupid newspapers. shooting victim, what a load of crap.

imported post

To be fair it did say 'suspected burglar' at the beginning so the slant isn't too much.

imported post

I don't want to defend the perp, But if he was in the home and the home owner outside.At that point no ones life is in danger ,I know you have the right to defend yourproperty as well as yourself. But it seems to me that the home owner at that point may have brought the difficulty onto himself by entering the home,The perp probaly would'nt have gotten away with anything if the home owner would've just call LEO and waited outside and held him at gun point. The homeowner put himself in danger also by entering the home..

imported post

M&P.40 wrote:

I don't want to defend the perp, But if he was in the home and the home owner outside.At that point no ones life is in danger ,I know you have the right to defend yourproperty as well as yourself. But it seems to me that the home owner at that point may have brought the difficulty onto himself by entering the home,The perp probaly would'nt have gotten away with anything if the home owner would've just call LEO and waited outside and held him at gun point. The homeowner put himself in danger also by entering the home..

Click to expand...

Since we don't exactly know ALL the facts involved, it's difficult to come up with an entirely accurate "should have" or "shouldn't have" recommendation, but I'm willing to give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt.

I think if a citizen recognizes the inherit danger in confronting an intruder in their home, and they want to take that risk to protect their property and try to apprehend the burglar, they have every right to do so. Why wait outside for the thief to exit the other end of the house and get away while the police are minutes away?

Besides, whose responsibility is it to protect our property? Is it ours? Or the police? The police have NO DUTY to protect any individual citizen or their property, so who knows when they're going to show up? While I would agree the safest thing to do would be to call the police and wait for them to arrive,I don'tbelieve a citizen has any duty to wait. I think we rely on police far too much for many things the citizen should be taking care of themselves.

In my opinion, if the homeowner went in there with the intent on killing the SOB, then that may not have been the best choice. But if he went in with the intent on apprehending the suspect and holding him for police, and the thief attacked him, the homeowner has every right to self defense.

Yup, chalk one up for the good guys. If the homeowner gets off scott free (which I believe he will) maybe that'll send a message to other brazen daylight home invaders in the area: Don't do it or you may get shot!

...Orygunner...

imported post

M&P.40 wrote:

I don't want to defend the perp, But if he was in the home and the home owner outside.At that point no ones life is in danger ,I know you have the right to defend yourproperty as well as yourself. But it seems to me that the home owner at that point may have brought the difficulty onto himself by entering the home,The perp probaly would'nt have gotten away with anything if the home owner would've just call LEO and waited outside and held him at gun point. The homeowner put himself in danger also by entering the home..

Click to expand...

I see both sides of this and frankly am not sure how I would handle the situation. On the one hand, it is easy for folks to post "yeah, I'd have killed him, he's in my *&% house!!!". On the other, thieves (who could also be hopped up and not averse to using violence to get what they need for their next score) certainly make my blood boil. After all, THEY are the ones that have decided that property is worth more than their own life. Especially in Texas with our castle doctrine, a homeowner has every legal right to use deadly force in a similar situation.

Pro: the dearly departed will never do it again.

Con:the homeownermay be tried on criminal charges.

Pro: the late burglar isn't around to testify about the shooting.

Con: he might get sued.

Pro: the dead guy will definitely not retaliate after a mere burglary arrest & quick bail.

Con: his friends or family might.

Pro: some other idiot might think twice about this line of work.

Con: probably not. Most of these guys aren't making rational decisions nor do they read the news.

Pro: a grand jury will likely no bill him or, if indicted, he's got a great case for the petit jury.

Con: can he afford it and he's risking his own freedom.

The bottom line is that I don't know that there is a "right answer" here. I have no problem with the way it turned out but I wouldn't have second guessed the guy if he would have simply held him for the cops.

SA-TX

imported post

"suspected burglar" he was trespassing and obviously broke the door to enter his home.

score 1 for the home team :monkeyanother BG off the streets and out of the world my kids will grow up in

imported post

http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-090208-krg-shooting.396eeedc.html

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE:

Homeowner catches suspected burglar, shoots him
11:07 PM EDT on Tuesday, September 2, 2008
By NewsChannel 36 Staff
E-mail Us: NEWS@WCNC.com

NewsChannel 36
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- A Charlotte man comes to find his house allegedly being robbed and fights back, killing the burglar.

It happened at a home on Toddville Road in west Charlotte around 3:30 p.m. Tuesday, and neighbors say he did the right thing.

"He did what he should have done. I mean that’s no business breaking into his house," Clay Robinson told us. He’s staying across the street from the Toddville Road home where the shooting happened and says he heard two gunshots.

Investigators say the man who lives there came home to find red flags all over the place: A strange car in the driveway and the door that leads from the carport to the house kicked in.

Police say the homeowner went inside, found a suspected burglar and told the man they identify as Timothy Quinn to get down. But instead, they say Quinn charged at him and the homeowner shot him, killing the 31-year-old.

The woman who has lived next door for more than 30 years, Shirley Snow, said, "I think he had a right to defend himself and his home if it happened like I thought -- the guy was coming toward him. I think he had a every right to protect himself."


While it might not have been smart to enter the house, it looks like it will likely end up being ruled a clean shoot.

imported post

VERY GOOD

imported post

That was just about as good as I hoped it would be. He's completely within his rights to go into his own house to investigate, and if the burglar charged, he shot justifiably.

...Go Good Guys!...
...Orygunner...

imported post

SA-TX wrote:

I see both sides of this and frankly am not sure how I would handle the situation. On the one hand, it is easy for folks to post "yeah, I'd have killed him, he's in my *&% house!!!". On the other, thieves (who could also be hopped up and not averse to using violence to get what they need for their next score) certainly make my blood boil. After all, THEY are the ones that have decided that property is worth more than their own life. Especially in Texas with our castle doctrine, a homeowner has every legal right to use deadly force in a similar situation.

Pro: the dearly departed will never do it again.

Con:the homeownermay be tried on criminal charges.

Pro: the late burglar isn't around to testify about the shooting.

Con: he might get sued.

Pro: the dead guy will definitely not retaliate after a mere burglary arrest & quick bail.

Con: his friends or family might.

Pro: some other idiot might think twice about this line of work.

Con: probably not. Most of these guys aren't making rational decisions nor do they read the news.

Pro: a grand jury will likely no bill him or, if indicted, he's got a great case for the petit jury.

Con: can he afford it and he's risking his own freedom.

The bottom line is that I don't know that there is a "right answer" here. I have no problem with the way it turned out but I wouldn't have second guessed the guy if he would have simply held him for the cops.

SA-TX

Click to expand...

Notice how three of the five cons are the results of our legal system and not the now deceased burglar? That is unacceptable for the law to discourage a man from defending his own property.

imported post

I would agree that the risk is high in confronting a burgular inside your home or someone else's. However, at least in my state you are not just justified in self-defense or defense of another but you are also permitted to do a citizen intervention to stop crime. I could be 500 feet from a bank but if I know it is getting robbed, while it may be dangerous to go in there and stop the robbery, I do have the legal right to do so. Yes, he could have just waited outside his home for the police but on the other hand sometimes crime needs to be dealt with by the people and not just the police. My only advice is to use your head and weigh the benefits among the risks. Intervening is not worth getting yourself killed or in legal trouble. If you are reasonably sure that it is safe enough to intervene with your skills, weapons, and tactics, I recommend doing so. As the slogan goes, "Take a bite out of crime."

imported post

Orygunner wrote:

M&P.40 wrote:

I don't want to defend the perp, But if he was in the home and the home owner outside.At that point no ones life is in danger ,I know you have the right to defend yourproperty as well as yourself. But it seems to me that the home owner at that point may have brought the difficulty onto himself by entering the home,The perp probaly would'nt have gotten away with anything if the home owner would've just call LEO and waited outside and held him at gun point. The homeowner put himself in danger also by entering the home..

Click to expand...

Since we don't exactly know ALL the facts involved, it's difficult to come up with an entirely accurate "should have" or "shouldn't have" recommendation, but I'm willing to give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt.

I think if a citizen recognizes the inherit danger in confronting an intruder in their home, and they want to take that risk to protect their property and try to apprehend the burglar, they have every right to do so. Why wait outside for the thief to exit the other end of the house and get away while the police are minutes away?

Besides, whose responsibility is it to protect our property? Is it ours? Or the police? The police have NO DUTY to protect any individual citizen or their property, so who knows when they're going to show up? While I would agree the safest thing to do would be to call the police and wait for them to arrive,I don'tbelieve a citizen has any duty to wait. I think we rely on police far too much for many things the citizen should be taking care of themselves.

In my opinion, if the homeowner went in there with the intent on killing the SOB, then that may not have been the best choice. But if he went in with the intent on apprehending the suspect and holding him for police, and the thief attacked him, the homeowner has every right to self defense.

Yup, chalk one up for the good guys. If the homeowner gets off scott free (which I believe he will) maybe that'll send a message to other brazen daylight home invaders in the area: Don't do it or you may get shot!

...Orygunner...

Click to expand...

perfectly said.

imported post

Godscreation wrote:

He got a gun out of his own car and then shot the person inside the home, who may have been stealing items from inside.

Click to expand...

Godscreation wrote:

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- A Charlotte man comes to find his house allegedly being robbed and fights back, killing the burglar.

SNIP
Police say the homeowner went inside, found a suspected burglar and told the man they identify as Timothy Quinn to get down. But instead, they say Quinn charged at him and the homeowner shot him, killing the 31-year-old.

Click to expand...

Well, I certainly would say those are huge differences in the facts. The bias is still there. The first sentence of the 2nd story should have read "apparently" rather than "allegedly" given the facts as reported thus far.

So he did try to hold the guy for police but the BG rushed a guy with a gun and lost. Too bad, so sad, being a criminal is rightfully a dangerous job. I shed not a tear for the bad guy.

imported post

M&P.40 wrote:

I don't want to defend the perp, But if he was in the home and the home owner outside.At that point no ones life is in danger ,I know you have the right to defend yourproperty as well as yourself. But it seems to me that the home owner at that point may have brought the difficulty onto himself by entering the home,The perp probaly would'nt have gotten away with anything if the home owner would've just call LEO and waited outside and held him at gun point. The homeowner put himself in danger also by entering the home..

Click to expand...

I see your point about being safer to stay outside, but I think anyone who has ever arrived home to find their front door ajar (or in this case broken)can attest that your immediate reaction is to go inside and check things out.Usually the first thought is "OMG, did someone break in to my house? What did they take?"And in they go, usually oblivious to the fact that the intruder may still be inside. This fellow was lucky enough to have a weapon in his car so that he could arm himself prior to entering.

Edit: Just re-read that there was an unfamiliar car in the driveway. That would probably be enough red-flag to call LEO before going in, but again, that instinct to check things out is present.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

The bias is still there. The first sentence of the 2nd story should have read "apparently" rather than "allegedly" given the facts as reported thus far.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you can fault the reporter for that. They've had it pounded into their heads to put "alleged" in front of any sort of criminal activity to prevent the newspaper/TV station, etc. from being sued. Some reporter friends of mine gripe about this stuff all the time. They'd call the guy a burglar but management and the lawyers won't let them.

imported post

Safety is a tyrant's tool because no one can be against safety.

I'm going to have to extend the MMQB analogy/metaphor to armchair safeties (that would be Monday Morning Quarter Backs).

imported post

Do you only keep a gun in your car?
If burgular is in house where other guns are located,
then staying outside with less armement is the wrong thing to do.

He could have called police and reported himself for pickup before
the owner came home, and all would have been well.
bad choices = bad results.

Just wish the good guys could straighten out the media without
endangering thier liberty by talking.:banghead:

imported post

XD-GEM wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

The bias is still there. The first sentence of the 2nd story should have read "apparently" rather than "allegedly" given the facts as reported thus far.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you can fault the reporter for that. They've had it pounded into their heads to put "alleged" in front of any sort of criminal activity to prevent the newspaper/TV station, etc. from being sued. Some reporter friends of mine gripe about this stuff all the time. They'd call the guy a burglar but management and the lawyers won't let them.

Click to expand...

Certainly they may have a style sheet that requires "alleged" and I"ll agree with that likelihood.

That still doesn't change the bias inherent in the fact that the first story reads that he just shot the guy and the second story that he tried to hold the BG at gun point and only fired after being rushed. I did not word my post very well or convey my point well.