Suspected Burglar Killed By Homeowner in Roanoke

http://www.wset.com/story/15093629/...ner?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

It looks like this is a pretty clear cut case for once.

I wonder how the burglar was injured.

Not really a lot of details. The article doesn't even say what caused the injuries. Was he beat up or shot? Either way, it seems the police believe it was a justified response. Not sure it's a clear cut case with only these few details.

Not much more info in this article:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/293235

Looks like an 'occupied home invasion'. They seem to be happening more and more all across the country.

Anyone else find it annoying that they lump the intruders death in as "The eighth homicide this year"?

That's weird... the URL of the TV station story has "shot" embedded in the address, yet the text of the story does not say "shot". I guess we citizen readers must be too stupid to notice the URL...

TFred

builtjeep said:

Anyone else find it annoying that they lump the intruders death in as "The eighth homicide this year"?

Click to expand...

Well it apparently was a homicide, but judging from the limited amount of information in the article, it appears that it will be ruled excusable. Still the press, in all of their radiant self-anointed glory, can be trusted to paint an excusable homicide without using the word "excusable" in order to further their disdain of armed citizens.

SouthernBoy said:

Well it apparently was a homicide, but judging from the limited amount of information in the article, it appears that it will be ruled excusable. Still the press, in all of their radiant self-anointed glory, can be trusted to paint an excusable homicide without using the word "excusable" in order to further their disdain of armed citizens.

Click to expand...

That's a stretch.

C'mon, it's clear that it was/is a homicide. So that's what they report.

Hard to report it an "excusable" homicide until it's ruled that way.

How would you have written the report, SB?

Lots of speculation off of a 104 word article.

C'mon, it's clear that it was/is a homicide. So that's what they report.

Click to expand...

Guilty until proven innocent, right Hank?

epilogue said:

Lots of speculation off of a 104 word article.



Guilty until proven innocent, right Hank?

Click to expand...

Huh?

"Guilty" of what? Who is "guilty," epi?

HankT said:

That's a stretch.

C'mon, it's clear that it was/is a homicide. So that's what they report.

Hard to report it an "excusable" homicide until it's ruled that way.

How would you have written the report, SB?

Click to expand...

You will note, sir, that I clearly said "appears" as per the link's information. Yes, it certainly does appear to have been a homicide, but until all of the investigative data is gathered and examined, we can't even say that, now can we? The gist of my point was how the press tends to paint these things.

Homicide is merely the killing of one person by another. That appears to be what has happened in Roanoke. Whether it is a legally justified or a legally criminal action has no bearing whether the action was a homicide.

Burglery vs. Robbery

Burglery implies it is not a crime against a person, only property; and lethal force is not justified.

If when confronted, the burgler threated the "confrontor" making him fear for his safety, then lethal force would be justified.

HankT said:

Huh?

"Guilty" of what? Who is "guilty," epi?

Click to expand...

I both miss-read and miss-interpreted, I apologize.

rugerdon said:

Burglery implies it is not a crime against a person, only property; and lethal force is not justified.

If when confronted, the burgler threated the "confrontor" making him fear for his safety, then lethal force would be justified.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing you haven't been to one of user's Lethal Force Seminar's eh? There are two types of burglary as provided for in Virginia law: The English Common Law form and the Code of Virginia statutory form. During the night when a burglar enters your home the Common Law definition of burglary applies and you most certainly may justifiably use lethal force against one who enters the home under cover of darkness, because it is expected that people are within the homeplace and the burglar would be expected to assume that he/she is entering an occupied dwelling to commit whatever crime he/she is about to commit. Under these circumstances it is reasonable to assume that that burglar intends grave harm to those occupying the dwelling at night. The Common Law version of burglary does not include one who breaks into a home during the day, since it assumes that those who would occupy the home are gone, off working or tending to things elsewhere and the trespassor would be entering the home without intent to cause harm to the individual. Under this circumstance the Common Law assumes the person is at best a trespassor and potentially could be considered worse if he/she has damaged the property to gain entrance. Thus the use of lethal force is not justified for a mere trespassor.

However, under the codified version of burglary, lethal force is authorized, even during the daytime. However, a trespassor is not considered a burglar unless that trespassor, trespasses with the intent to commit a felony, or poses a reasonable, imminent, credible threat of grave harm to your health or threat of death. Only under this circumstance may lethal force be justifiably used to repel someone who has entered your home during the daytime.

I am not an attorney, I am not your attorney, however this is my recollection of the law with regard to burglary and nothing more as presented by "user" here on this forum.