Was This Shooting/Killing Justified?

[rhinefire]

a

It's a really bad idea to take the shot before the suspect is through the door. We hear all to often about someone taking out a loved one who was "trying to make a point" or taking out a drunk who happened to be at the wrong door. Apartments are notorious for drunks showing up at the wrong place.

Read This: I knew a guy that grew up an alcoholic like his father. He was drinking at a very young age and was hooked on it. I'll say he was about 27 when he went to what he thought was his first floor apartment late at night in a drunken stupor. He had lost his keys and was trying to get in through the sliding glass doors. The problem was he was at the wrong apartment and consequently was shot to death by his neighbor who thought he was a burglar trying to pry his way in. True story.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Not enough information given for me to decide. Firing without knowing what (or who) your rounds may hit is not justified IMHO.

Doesn't matter who or what was trying to break in. The fact that they are trying to break in is enough. Not even police have the right or ability to break into a home without announcing themselves as police.

 

[rhinefire]

It's a hell of a thing to kill a man....

I have a 357 at my bedside nightstand and live on the second floor. I keep a 38 +p hollow points in my living room for potential intruders through my front door. A shot with the .38 will not go through the bad guy and again through my neighbor's door. Not true of the 357 which if fired would have to go through three walls, my door and the neightbors door before endangering her.

 

[Kal'Stang]

So would she not be closer to the apartment ? I think she may have been trying to get away from the place since she may have seen the guy with the gun but the guy just shoot her when she was running away therefore not justifiable since she would not be a threat to his safety as well as since the sidewalk is public property and not a crime to be on , but that is just assumptions .

A side walk can go right up to a door.

 

[braymoore]

HOUSTON – A northwest Houston apartment resident shot and killed a woman who was trying to break into his home early Tuesday, according to Houston police.
Police received a call about a suspicious person at a complex in the 6000 block of Hollister, just north of W. Tidwell Road, around 4 a.m.
Officers arrived to find a woman, who was in her 20s, lying on the sidewalk with a crowbar in her hand. She had been shot to death.
Police said the woman had been trying to pry open the front door of an apartment when the 23-year-old resident, who feared for his safety, fired three shots through the front door. Two of them hit the woman and the other went into the bedroom of teenagers who lived in a separate unit. Luckily, they were not harmed.
The woman’s identity is being withheld pending verification from the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences.
The case is being referred to the Harris County grand jury.

This is from the Houston Chroncile and it happened on June 18, 2013. QUESTION: Is this shooting justified? Was the resident's life in jeoprody? To me the resident was justified because one does not wiat to make certain they will be attacked instead one has to make the life or death decision.

If the shooting was justified? I do believe so. But the whole shooting without knowing who it is, that could turn into a big accident. What if it was someone he knew like a friend or relative. I understand whatever they were doing is absolutely stupid on thier part but he would have to live the rest of his life knowing that he killed someone he knew.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Doesn't matter who or what was trying to break in. The fact that they are trying to break in is enough. Not even police have the right or ability to break into a home without announcing themselves as police.

Really? Have you never heard of "no knock" police raids, frequently used to catch "drug dealers"?

Stop SWAT Raids | VICE United States

 

[Kal'Stang]

Really? Have you never heard of "no knock" police raids, frequently used to catch "drug dealers"?

Stop SWAT Raids | VICE United States

Those are breakdown the door with a battering ram full rush mode. Not take your time with a crow bar and hope no one hears mode. And even after they break down the doors they'd better be hollering that they are police or a person cannot (or at the very least should not be) be held accountable for shooting one because he/she thinks some thugs are attacking him/her. I would have no more problem shooting a cop that broke into my place without identifying themselves than I would a convicted murderer.

 

[BretJ]

Doesn't matter who or what was trying to break in. The fact that they are trying to break in is enough.

Legally perhaps. But all things considered, I still could not condone firing blind through a door given all that the shooter knew. Find cover, announce you are armed and calling the police. If they still enter, then depending on circumstances, make the decision at that point. You already have a huge tactical advantage; you know where they are, they do not know where you are.

Not even police have the right or ability to break into a home without announcing themselves as police.

"No Knock" warrants are legal but have ended badly on occasion.

A buddy of mine shared a home with another guy in Texas. The other guys car had been broken into the night before but was interupted before the asshats could take the stereo from the car. My buddy stayed up the next night on the hunch these guys might come back to finish the job. Three or four kids came back that night and broke into the vehicle again. When he confronted them, all of them were able to run but the kid in the car . He held him there for the cops.
The cop who responded explained to the kid that my buddy had every right to shoot him. But my buddy told me later that there was no way he could have looked the kids mom in the face and told her that he shot a 16 year old over a car stereo.

But again, what is morally acceptable/ethical in one circumstance may be unacceptable/unethical in another. If it is only my property at risk, I refuse to take the life of another individual. I also refuse to do what many gun control advocates do and assume there is a single suitable solution that will cover every situation/possibility. ("You only need 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 rounds" or "Nobody needs a semi auto for hunting/self defense", "You can just leave/run away", "Just give the thug what they want", "Be compliant and don't look at them threateningly", "Just blow a whistle" etc.)

 

[Surtr]

Yeah, but doing that through a door is luck, not skill. Where'd that third round go again?

I was referring to your blatant misuse of the term "spray and pray", which this clearly wasn't.

 

[humbolt]

I have a 357 at my bedside nightstand and live on the second floor. I keep a 38 +p hollow points in my living room for potential intruders through my front door. A shot with the .38 will not go through the bad guy and again through my neighbor's door. Not true of the 357 which if fired would have to go through three walls, my door and the neightbors door before endangering her.

I keep a loaded 12 gage on hand, with field loads. There are others, but that's the go-to weapon with predictable results, and minimum danger to surrounding people. Where I live, there aren't any other people living nearby, so it really wouldn't matter all that much what weapon I chose.

 

[mak2]

Training reduces the odds, even if a little. Why do you find that so offensive?

I guess the word "training" means one never make an errant move in a panic or close call situation!!?? You get your stupid little certificate from the local gun store after 8whole hours of training and now you are a Navy Seal. These are citizens, not Rambos

 

[mak2]

I agree with you about he 12ga. A lot of people around here dont.

I keep a loaded 12 gage on hand, with field loads. There are others, but that's the go-to weapon with predictable results, and minimum danger to surrounding people. Where I live, there aren't any other people living nearby, so it really wouldn't matter all that much what weapon I chose.

 

[humbolt]

I was referring to your blatant misuse of the term "spray and pray", which this clearly wasn't.

Seems appropriate to me. At least, that's what it sounds like occurred. The shooter fired blindly. If not, then how do you explain the third round?

 

[Surtr]

Seems appropriate to me. At least, that's what it sounds like occurred. The shooter fired blindly. If not, then how do you explain the third round?

Because you don't know what it means. "Spray and pray" refers exclusively to fully automatic weapon fire. This person didn't fire blindly, they were controlled shots. How else would you explain the first two?

 

[humbolt]

I agree with you about he 12ga. A lot of people around here dont.

I know. It's a matter of preference, I suppose. I find the shotgun a more deliberate and devastating weapon. That doesn't mean the 45 isn't around, as well.

 

[humbolt]

Because you don't know what it means. "Spray and pray" refers exclusively to fully automatic weapon fire. This person didn't fire blindly, they were controlled shots. How else would you explain the first two?

Well, consider this incident the domestic version of full auto fire - I still think it's appropriate. The person fired through the door, i.e. he couldn't see the target. That's one thing when your hunting game (and not advisable then), and quite another when a human life or lives is involved. The woman was armed with a crowbar. A shooter under control would've let the woman break in, and then shot. Firing blindly through a door is the act of someone in complete panic. That the woman was hit at all was dumb luck and close proximity. Nothing more. And I call that spray and pray. You can call that want you want. Call it skill and cunning, if it pleases you.

 

[clownboy]

I think in the end he'll be found to be legally justified. But I heard nothing about him announcing he had a gun. Maybe not a requirement in this situation, but it could have easily caused her to discontinue her break-in and resolved the situation without loss of life.

 

[BretJ]

Why should she have to go to firearm class? In a panic mode all the rules go out the window-you should know that!!

While I don't think it should be an absolute mandate, having even a few hours of training makes a firearm a more effective tool and has the potential to calm the panic and increase your odds. Kind of like a having a first aid kit or fire extinguisher. Both are useful without training, but exponentially more effective with even minimal training.

 

[jaeger19]

A few thoughts.

Obviously the shooting is justified as it was self defense. Breaking in, weapon, and reasonable fear for ones life. (face it.. the person was breaking into the house with obviously no concern whether the person was home or not. Obviously, she must have thought she was prepared to deal with a home owner)

As far as shooting through the door. I keep coming back to the fact that 2 out of three bullets struck and killed their intended target. That hardly seems like one was "shooting blind" through a door. If so, it was awfully lucky. I would surmise that her position had been somewhat verified either by looking through a window, or a peephole.

Now on to the other residents having bullets in their apartment. Lets say that the women HAD managed to open the door and was rushing to club the home owner with the crow bar. Is it the expectation that the homeowner should be able to fire, and hit the women with no pass through bullets and to wait until she has a good backstop behind her before opening fire? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect a home owner in defense of their lives to only wait until assured of getting a one shot kill with a good backstop behind the perpetrator.

 

[YoungConserv]

A few thoughts.

Obviously the shooting is justified as it was self defense. Breaking in, weapon, and reasonable fear for ones life. (face it.. the person was breaking into the house with obviously no concern whether the person was home or not. Obviously, she must have thought she was prepared to deal with a home owner)

As far as shooting through the door. I keep coming back to the fact that 2 out of three bullets struck and killed their intended target. That hardly seems like one was "shooting blind" through a door. If so, it was awfully lucky. I would surmise that her position had been somewhat verified either by looking through a window, or a peephole.

Now on to the other residents having bullets in their apartment. Lets say that the women HAD managed to open the door and was rushing to club the home owner with the crow bar. Is it the expectation that the homeowner should be able to fire, and hit the women with no pass through bullets and to wait until she has a good backstop behind her before opening fire? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect a home owner in defense of their lives to only wait until assured of getting a one shot kill with a good backstop behind the perpetrator.

That's why you carry with frangable ammunition eliminates through shots.

 

[Rocketman]

HOUSTON – A northwest Houston apartment resident shot and killed a woman who was trying to break into his home early Tuesday, according to Houston police.
Police received a call about a suspicious person at a complex in the 6000 block of Hollister, just north of W. Tidwell Road, around 4 a.m.
Officers arrived to find a woman, who was in her 20s, lying on the sidewalk with a crowbar in her hand. She had been shot to death.
Police said the woman had been trying to pry open the front door of an apartment when the 23-year-old resident, who feared for his safety, fired three shots through the front door. Two of them hit the woman and the other went into the bedroom of teenagers who lived in a separate unit. Luckily, they were not harmed.
The woman’s identity is being withheld pending verification from the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences.
The case is being referred to the Harris County grand jury.

This is from the Houston Chroncile and it happened on June 18, 2013. QUESTION: Is this shooting justified? Was the resident's life in jeoprody? To me the resident was justified because one does not wiat to make certain they will be attacked instead one has to make the life or death decision.

yes, it was justified. If they had these laws in Chicago, crime would be non existent

 

[molten_dragon]

HOUSTON – A northwest Houston apartment resident shot and killed a woman who was trying to break into his home early Tuesday, according to Houston police.
Police received a call about a suspicious person at a complex in the 6000 block of Hollister, just north of W. Tidwell Road, around 4 a.m.
Officers arrived to find a woman, who was in her 20s, lying on the sidewalk with a crowbar in her hand. She had been shot to death.
Police said the woman had been trying to pry open the front door of an apartment when the 23-year-old resident, who feared for his safety, fired three shots through the front door. Two of them hit the woman and the other went into the bedroom of teenagers who lived in a separate unit. Luckily, they were not harmed.
The woman’s identity is being withheld pending verification from the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences.
The case is being referred to the Harris County grand jury.

This is from the Houston Chroncile and it happened on June 18, 2013. QUESTION: Is this shooting justified? Was the resident's life in jeoprody? To me the resident was justified because one does not wiat to make certain they will be attacked instead one has to make the life or death decision.

I would say it's borderline. He had a door between him and her, and she was only armed with crowbar, it's kind of hard to argue that he was in serious danger right at that point. He should have called the cops and waited to see what happened. If she did get the door open, then I'd absolutely say it was justified.

 

[Texmex]

I would say it's borderline. He had a door between him and her, and she was only armed with crowbar, it's kind of hard to argue that he was in serious danger right at that point. He should have called the cops and waited to see what happened. If she did get the door open, then I'd absolutely say it was justified.

If you always wait till the door is opened, you stand a much better chance of being shot yourself by the intruder.

 

[Surtr]

Well, consider this incident the domestic version of full auto fire

If it were the "domestic version" of spray and pray the walls would have been riddled with bullet holes. It's uncontrolled panic fire with direction given at all.

The person fired through the door, i.e. he couldn't see the target.

The criminal was also attempting to pry the door open. That leaves very little options as to where the intended target could be. Most normally functioning human beings can, in fact, discern the location of moving things by sound.

The woman was armed with a crowbar.

Great. Now he's supposed to be psychic.

A shooter under control would've let the woman break in

I wouldn't give them that advantage.

And I call that spray and pray.

Which means you still have no grasp of the concept. Just stop using the phrase, because you clearly don't understand what it means.

 

[Surtr]

I think in the end he'll be found to be legally justified. But I heard nothing about him announcing he had a gun. Maybe not a requirement in this situation, but it could have easily caused her to discontinue her break-in and resolved the situation without loss of life.

I've always been against shouting at the intruder, because it gives them an advantage. You're letting them know that someone is there, you're giving away your position, and they now know that you're armed. You don't know their motives, or how many of them there are, and you just gave them enough information to adapt their attack to the information you've given him/her/them. Maybe it's just a dumb crack head looking to score a couple bucks, and maybe it's something a hell of a lot worse. You aren't a cop, you shouldn't have to increase your risks. You minimize the risks by neutralizing them as fast as possible, leaving them absolutely no time to react.

If they run away, let them, but don't give them a chance to gain superior ground.