Shooting in Sterling

[OC for ME]

<snip>I wonder if this is the young man's first experience with alcohol.

.....last one anyway.

 

[skidmark]

He walked past a man with a gun who had warned him to stop both verbally and by firing his weapon? At that point I have to think that, besides being wasted, he's been confronted like this before. What was this kid really like to live with? I hope the Sheriff's investigation looks into his home life.
Methinks "little angel" isn't an accurate term.

Not gonna happen. Not never.

Kid's background is not relevant. What is important is that he was where is was not supposed to be, and that the HO shot him which caused him to die. now we need to figure out if the HO can claim excusable homicide based on self defense/defense of innocent others.

If the HO's response time was such that the kid had already passed the point where the HO came out on the ground/lower level, then the HO needs to revise his Repel Boarders plan so as to be between the intruder and the stairs leading up to the level where the rest of the family sleeps.

Not to belabor the point but if the HO's bedroom was also on the upper level he had no busioness being on the lower level. Use the stairs as a fatal funnel while directing the rest of the family into a safe room. (Since you should plan on using a cell phone to call 911, the bigger ones moving to the room of the littelest one may be safer than trying to herd kids across the full length of a house in the middle of the night with alarms going off and daddy shooting up the place.) Defend the upper level/safe room and let the cops clear the home when they arrive.

Does anybody want to answer this question:

Presuming that the HO came onto the lower level at a point behind the kid, and issued verbal commands and fired "warning shots" from behind the kid, how do you reasonably determine that the kid, (roughly) halfway up the stairs, actually presents a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury?

If you don't like that one, how about this:

As defense attorney how would you overcome the CA's assertion that the HO shot because he was merely afraid, as opposed to apprehending a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to the members of his family on the upper level?

I'm off to the store to ay in a larger supply of popcorn. This is going to be one to watch.

stay safe.

 

[scouser]

Regardless of relative positions of the HO and the kid, which are all just speculation, what is the LEGAL position of an uninvited person who has forced their way into an occupied dwelling during the hours of darkness?

The way I have until now understood things, an uninvited forced entry in the hours of darkness is considered hostile with the assumption of impending violence by the intruder to prevent themselves being apprehended and force (up to and including deadly) is justifiable.

None of us were there and, God willing, will not find ourselves in that situation, so we don't know exactly what happened. However, I do know this, if you are in my home uninvited and fail to IMMEDIATELY leave when I confront you, instead choosing to head in the direction of Logan's room, YOU WILL NOT GET THERE.

For me, TFred is making sense. I understand what the older heads are saying and I'm full of respect for them BUT put in the position of the home owner not knowing who is in his home or why I can't see what he's done wrong. As a parent I feel for the kid's parents and pray that I'll never be in their position, and as a parent of a boy believe me I worry about what trouble he might find himself in at some future moment in time.

I've been EXTREMELY drunk in my youth to the point of not remembering anything the following day or the day after that, BUT I always knew which house I lived in and could always knock on the door if for some reason I couldn't get the key anywhere near the lock.

 

[peter nap]

I was done with this thread but I'll throw in one last comment.

I've said all along the Homeowner was legally justified. Legally is just a small part of the equation though. I have no qualms about killing people that need killing. What I do hae a problem with though are the people here that are living in a bubble.

I can understand the ones that don't have kids. A lot of them have selective memory about their teenage years.
But...for the people that have kids and I'm not including you Scouser, you're just talking about the legality....

for the ones that have kids and think their little angel will never do any thing stupid and that nasty ole boy was a criminal for getting drunk and letting his friends stuff him in a window at the wrong house and he got what he deserved....You people are in for a very rude awakening. They will succumb to peer pressure at some point and if you miss it, you are a poor parent..... Hopefully it won't be as bad as this one but they will fall from grace during the insanity years.

But ask yourself how you would feel if they were in the same situation and instead of grabbing the kid by the collar, some homeowner blows Jr's brains out.

Now I'm done with it!

 

[skidmark]

Stephen Wenger's comments on the Sterling shooting:

More Details on That Shooting in Virginia:

The homeowner who shot and killed a teenager who entered his home by mistake early Sunday morning gave verbal warnings to the boy and fired a warning shot, the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office revealed this [Thursday] afternoon... According to the sheriff's office, the homeowner gave verbal warnings and discharged his firearm as a warning after discovering Gordley in his home. When Gordley continued up the home's stairwell and into a hallway, the homeowner discharged his firearm several times. Gordley was struck once in the left rear shoulder after passing the homeowner in the hallway and walking toward an upstairs bedroom where the rest of the family was located. He died at the scene. Sheriff Mike Chapman has said the investigation showed Gordley had no criminal intent when entering the home... (While it's not clear where the homeowner stood when he fired, I'm concerned about the points of impact of the rounds that did not strike the intruder as he headed for the bedroom. For this reason, in this type of home, it is generally wiser to remain upstairs and, if necessary, engage the intruder as he heads up the stairs. I would certainly infer intent to do harm if an intruder headed for an occupied bedroom in my home. As I understand the Old Testament distinction between killing a daytime and a nighttime burglar, the issue was more figurative than literal and refers to the ability to distinguish between mere theft and intent to harm the occupants of the home.)
http://www.leesburgtoday.com/news/s...cle_643db046-925f-11e2-99f5-001a4bcf887a.html

1 -

Gordley was struck once in the left rear shoulder after passing the homeowner in the hallway and walking toward an upstairs bedroom where the rest of the family was located.

Well, that clarifies that.


2 -

I would certainly infer intent to do harm if an intruder headed for an occupied bedroom in my home.

Inferring intent to do harm is not the same as reasonably fearing imminent death or serious bodily injury. Comments like this will wind up putting someone behind bars.
This shooting happened in Virginia. There is no sense in discussing what the Bible or the laws in other states have to say about using deadly force in self defense/defense of innocent others. Here in Virginia we are left behind the reaction curve, as opposed to a Biblical injunction saying that G*d is OK with killing the thief in the night because it is in the night.

The beautiful thing is that PeterNap and I can disagree about the legality of the homeowner's actions. We will both await the conclusion of the legal process to see which one of us was less wrong than the other. (It's never about being "right".)

stay safe.

 

[peter nap]

The beautiful thing is that PeterNap and I can disagree about the legality of the homeowner's actions. We will both await the conclusion of the legal process to see which one of us was less wrong than the other. (It's never about being "right".)

stay safe.

Not really disagreeing Skid. It is a very close call that I didn't really get into because I wouldn't have shot the kid.

 

[user]

The (multi-part) question I have is this: Who did he think (or did he even realize that someone) was pointing a gun at him? Did his own father confront him so often in his own home that he became used to it, perhaps because he frequently used the window to enter/exit his own house?

Civil action? Doesn't seem likely. Contributory negligence?

Contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk don't apply to intentional torts; if anything, this was battery. I don't think he's liable, either criminally or civilly, though.

I think there's all together too much analysis of the facts going on here. But before I get to my analysis, how about the NRA/ILA's "castle doctrine" bill that we succeeded in getting shut down last year? If that bill had passed and become law, the homeowner would have absolutely no defense to a charge of murder. That's because his life was not actually threatened.

Which gets me to my main thought on the issue: the relevant branch of the real "castle doctrine" which Virginia appellate opinions refer to as "defense of habitation", applies here. The homeowner didn't have to know whether it was a teenager, that he was drunk, that he was a neighbor, or that he was in the wrong house by mistake. All the homeowner needed to know was that there was an intruder in his house at an hour and by means that could not be mistaken for "mere trespassing". If the same thing had happened at two in the afternoon and the kid had come in through an open door, that would make it different. But in these circumstances, the homeowner presumably had a good faith belief, based on objective fact, that the intruder was at least willing to kill anyone whom he may have found in the house, even if that was not his specific intent. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what the castle doctrine is all about. The big difference between that and the self defense/defense of others rule is that defense of habitation does not require a specific threat. Nor does it require evidence that the intruder was actually a burglar (i.e., one who enters with felonious intent). And the castle doctrine is a good (but affirmative) defense in both criminal and civil cases. (At least in theory, who knows what an individual court will do in any particular case?)

By the way, I have no opinion about whether the homeowner was "right" from any perspective, since I have no idea what really happened.

 

[Grapeshot]

^^That^^ gentlemen is the voice from Olympus

 

[jegoodin]

I just don't see myself asking the strange man pushing past me on his way upstairs to the room where my wife is sleeping at 2:30am with the burglar alarm going off for his ID and an explanation of why he is in my house. Some actions speak for themselves.

As for criticizing the parents "forgiving" the shooter. Give me a break. They are distraught over the loss of their son. They hold no animosity toward the shooter and are trying their best to relay that to him. Could they have chosen a better word, perhaps. I think you are playing semantics....

I'm guessing the shooter, who is probably a very decent man, is beating himself up pretty badly at this point and is thankful for the kids parents for showing some degree of understanding and forgiveness. I saw them on TV reading their statement and thinking to myself that these are really nice people.

 

[TFred]

I just don't see myself asking the strange man pushing past me on his way upstairs to the room where my wife is sleeping at 2:30am with the burglar alarm going off for his ID and an explanation of why he is in my house. Some actions speak for themselves.

As for criticizing the parents "forgiving" the shooter. Give me a break. They are distraught over the loss of their son. They hold no animosity toward the shooter and are trying their best to relay that to him. Could they have chosen a better word, perhaps. I think you are playing semantics....

I'm guessing the shooter, who is probably a very decent man, is beating himself up pretty badly at this point and is thankful for the kids parents for showing some degree of understanding and forgiveness. I saw them on TV reading their statement and thinking to myself that these are really nice people.

I saw the video, and in fact, I said nearly the same thing here, that they seemed like decent folks. I'm not trying to demonize anyone needlessly, but words have meanings, and I can't read minds. I have to assume they meant the words they said. You could be right, but there is no way to know unless they say more.

In the end, it matters not at all. They have a great deal of pain to process, and I hope they will be able to do that in peace.

TFred

 

[half_life1052]

IMO this is a alcohol related death, more than anything else. Nobody should get that drunk they do not know their own home. If it had been me he would probably have survived but suffered dog bites from a grouchy old wolf, and protective retriever. My wolf is 16 years old and has no sense of humor whatsoever.

Alcohol kills more people outside of natural causes, especially when taken into consideration that a portion of motor vehicle fatalities are caused by drunks. I wonder if this is the young man's first experience with alcohol.

My wolf had a sense of humor right up until the end (at 21) but not what I would call a nice sense of humor where it related to strangers. God how I wish he were still around.