Idaho teen shoots burglar during home invasion, gunfight
370 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51311894]i can't take "the robber is carrying a gun to protect himself because the homeowner likely has a gun" and [b][i]especially[/i][/b] "the robber only shot at the homeowners because they were cornered" in addition to "the homeowners should have just fled/hid when they saw someone had broken into their home" as anything besides victim blaming[/QUOTE]
If I want someone to not risk their life, it's victim blaming. Ridiculous, so in any other situation where people risk their life (driving drunk, walking on railroads), it's victim blaming as well? Because I warn them to not take that risk? They are putting themself in harms way, when that isn't necessary.
[editline]5th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51311957]Oh, also all you people on about calling the police instead: What's to stop 1: the burglar shooting at and possibly killing the police and/or 2: the burglar being shot by police? A person being armed massively complicates the process of capturing them[/QUOTE]
1. Because playing hero yourself instead of the police acting is certainly better. /s 2. So what? This is about you not risking your own life, not the criminal continuing to act agressive when the police show up.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313049]If I want someone to not risk their life, it's victim blaming. Ridiculous, so in any other situation where people risk their life (driving drunk, walking on railroads), it's victim blaming as well? Because I warn them to not take that risk? They are putting themself in harms way, when that isn't necessary.[/QUOTE]
What a terrible argument, lol. In both your examples they are risking the well being of innocent people other than themselves. Not remotely the same as this situation.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51312006]My question to you is how is this [I]worse[/I] than your proposed solution, which could've potentially compromised the likelihood of them coming out unscathed to a further degree?[/QUOTE]
They enter the room, the intruder shots and kills them. The end. They leave the house and wait for the police. The intruder stays/escapes and the homeowners was unhurt.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51313090]What a terrible argument, lol. In both your examples they are risking the well being of innocent people other than themselves. Not remotely the same as this situation.[/QUOTE]
The quote was about me telling people not to do things without it being victim blaming. Don't risk your life confronting an intruder, don't drive drunk and don't walk on a railroad. All three advise are likely to make it safer.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313049]If I want someone to not risk their life, it's victim blaming. Ridiculous, so in any other situation where people risk their life (driving drunk, walking on railroads), it's victim blaming as well? Because I warn them to not take that risk? They are putting themself in harms way, when that isn't necessary.
[editline]5th November 2016[/editline]
1. Because playing hero yourself instead of the police acting is certainly better. /s 2. So what? This is about you not risking your own life, not the criminal continuing to act agressive when the police show up.[/QUOTE]
#2 was more directed to Ecksdee and those who were agreeing with him on the point that deciding to confront someone posing lethal threat with a potentially lethal response is somehow immoral. As for #1, again, they didn't know he was armed until he opened fire on them, at which point the very act of retreating could put them in more danger than returning fire, beyond the shift in certain advantages within the fight as I explained above, if you'd cared to read it. That, and it's a fight or flight response and it's not something everyday people typically have control over.
Plus what Alice said, and that's only if the Police even do catch him fleeing, or eventually track them down after god knows how many more burglaries potentially involving homicide in-between. If they have the means, the reason and the ability to address that problem there and then in the moment, what should stop them? It even ended without fatalities.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313151]The quote was about me telling people not to do things without it being victim blaming. Don't risk your life confronting an intruder, don't drive drunk and don't walk on a railroad. All three advise are likely to make it safer.[/QUOTE]
And it's still a retarded comparison because it's an entirely different situation involving a hostile intruder rather than a person simply being stupid.
How the heck can you defend the robber? He was trying to take stuff that these people worked hard for. Dude is a parasite that leeches off of the success of others and was willing to gun them down just to take things that don't belong to him. Far as I'm concerned he got what he deserved. If you break into someone's home then everything that happens to you is your fault. The robber broke the law, and he suffered because of it.
Let's make this point once and for all, if you still don't get it, it's hopeless.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51312221]Such a course of action led to them establishing this before he could leverage that fact in any real way, and put them in the best position to deal with that threat directly.[/QUOTE]
You shouldn't deal with the threat directly, that's taking unnecessary risk to your life.
[QUOTE]Had the burglar been unarmed, they could've forced his surrender. Unfortunately that wasn't the case, but it was one of the best possible outcomes to the situation. Everyone's alive, the homeowners still have all their shit minus one shotgun shell, and the burglar didn't get away to go commit other crimes.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that they might as well have died themselves, therefore it's better to simply stay away until the police arrives. No one dying is more about luck here, than playing hero, taking out intruders by yourself. Not confronting means less risk to be harmed.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51309342]It's a vicious circle. With firearms being commonplace in the US, you have more chances of getting shot by a criminal, thus people arm themselves for self-defense, which in turn makes robbers more likely to be shot by homeowners, which means they're more inclined to shoot than just flee when discovered, etc.
Basically people almost never want to kill but they also don't want to die, it's sort of like the prisoner's dilemma. I suppose that reflection takes precedence on the legal consequences, especially when you're high on adrenaline due to fear.[/QUOTE]
But don't more armed house owners also make burglaries way less likely to happen. As burglars rather not want to get shot.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51313175]As for #1, again, they didn't know he was armed until he opened fire on them, at which point the very act of retreating could put them in more danger than returning fire,[/QUOTE]
They key word here is COULD, while confronting is ensured to be more of a risk than retreating.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313227]Let's make this point once and for all, if you still don't get it, it's hopeless.
You shouldn't deal with the threat directly, that's taking unnecessary risk to your life.
The problem is that they might as well have died themselves, therefore it's better to simply stay away until the police arrives. No one dying is more about luck here, than playing hero, taking out intruders by yourself. Not confronting means less risk to be harmed.[/QUOTE]
1.) Guy showed a complete disregard for the family's economic well-being by stealing shit in the first place.
2.) Guy showed a complete disregard for the family's safety by bringing a weapon then using it.
3.) Cops could easily take a long time to show up, even more so in rural areas such as most of Idaho.
4.) If the guy isn't apprehended quickly he runs a high chance of getting away with it (thus potentially forcing the family into a desperate situation like he himself was in to begin with).
5.) If the cops can't show up quickly and the occupants of the house can't tell the burglar's intent nor capabilities they are endangering themselves by [I]not[/I] taking action.
There's no way you can spin this which actually puts the home owner and his son in the wrong here no matter how much you try to stretch your argument.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51313179]And it's still a retarded comparison because it's an entirely different situation involving a hostile intruder rather than a person simply being stupid.[/QUOTE]
Risking your life is stupid regardless of when it happens. At least in this case, when waiting rather than confronting is less dangerous.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313274]Risking your life is stupid regardless of when it happens. At least in this case, when waiting rather than confronting is less dangerous.[/QUOTE]
And if you are only risking your own life or that of someone who is hostile towards you then that is your choice to make and there is no issue. The government/law does not exist to nanny people. It exists to keep order.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313138][B]They enter the room, the intruder shots and kills them.[/B] The end. They leave the house and wait for the police. The intruder stays/escapes and the homeowners was unhurt.[/QUOTE]
That first bolded bit? The opposite happened.
What's to stop the burglar engaging them from the window (Whether by prior intent to murder or perceived self-defence on his part)?
Let's say the burglar stays and the police do happen to show up in a timely fashion - You've got a whole other tin of worms which is a guy holed up in a house against a pair of coppers who are without the element of surprise and not much more in the way of firepower (Or a big step up if they called in SWAT or w/e, not too familiar as to what the procedure would be). Again, there's no telling how that situation would've gone, they'd still be putting themselves in harm's way, and the burglar would've most likely ended up dead as a result of it.
The flipside of that coin and more likely outcome is the burglar simply getting away with whatever he was there to steal. The actual outcome prevented everything encompassed by the above.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313255]They key word here is COULD, while confronting is ensured to be more of a risk than retreating.[/QUOTE]
You been putting too much time in the mental gymnasium matey, have the day off.
Since apparently you read (And quote) selectively, I'll reiterate: They didn't know he was armed. They probably thought as most people seem to do; that he's not looking to harm anybody, just make a quick bit of cash for whatever reason, in which case they want to prevent him from doing that by stealing their shit. They prepared to be able to defend themselves with lethal force should the need arise, and the need didn't make its self known until they were [B]shot at [/B]in attempting to confront the burglar. And once again, I'll reiterate: Fight-or-flight. If you've never been in a life-threatening situation, specifically one where another person is posing the danger, here's how it goes: You either shit yourself and run faster than you think you ever have done in your life, or you respond violently in every sense of the word.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51313272]1.) Guy showed a complete disregard for the family's economic well-being by stealing shit in the first place.
2.) Guy showed a complete disregard for the family's safety by bringing a weapon then using it.
3.) Cops could easily take a long time to show up, even more so in rural areas such as most of Idaho.
4.) If the guy isn't apprehended quickly he runs a high chance of getting away with it (thus potentially forcing the family into a desperate situation like he himself was in to begin with).
5.) If the cops can't show up quickly and the occupants of the house can't tell the burglar's intent nor capabilities they are endangering themselves by [I]not[/I] taking action.
There's no way you can spin this which actually puts the home owner and his son in the wrong here no matter how much you try to stretch your argument.[/QUOTE]
3. Doesn't matter, they confronting instead of staying as far away as possible from the intruder is more risky.
4. Doesn't matter, your life and safety is more important than he getting caught.
5. What's making you more likely getting shot, confronting a possibly armed intruder or staying away? They are endangering themself by possibly getting shot. Staying away far more likely avoids that.
They are unnecessary putting themselves at risk and for that they did wrong. Firing on a intruder in self-defence is not wrong. They just approached the situation the wrong way.
[editline]5th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51313289]And if you are only risking your own life or that of someone who is hostile towards you then that is your choice to make and there is no issue. The government/law does not exist to nanny people. It exists to keep order.[/QUOTE]
For me this discussion isn't about what's legal but what to do to ensure the homeowner ends up more likely unharmed.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313316]3. Doesn't matter, they confronting instead of staying as far away as possible from the intruder is more risky.
4. Doesn't matter, your life and safety is more important than he getting caught.
5. What's making you more likely getting shot, confronting a possibly armed intruder or staying away? They are endangering themself by possibly getting shot. Staying away far more likely avoids that.
They are unnecessary putting themselves at risk and for that they did wrong. Firing on a intruder in self-defence is not wrong. They just approached the situation the wrong way.[/QUOTE]
3.) Matters plenty. The intruder could very easily pursue them to try and prevent the police from being called.
4.) Not when him not getting caught endangers more people. He clearly, as shown in this very article, had no regard for the safety of his victims. If he was allowed to go free it would only serve to endanger any future victims, especially since there's a high chance he wouldn't get caught.
5.) They were in danger regardless of which action they took. They chose to take the action that they felt safest taking by confronting the unknown danger that was the burglar.
Putting themselves at risk is not wrong. You are looking at this from far too myopic a point of view. By putting themselves in immediate danger they were able to far better control the situation and thus protect not only themselves but their property and potentially other innocent people as well. The situation was handled perfectly fine.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313316]3. Doesn't matter, they confronting instead of staying as far away as possible from the intruder is more risky.
5. What's making you more likely getting shot, confronting a possibly armed intruder or staying away? They are endangering themself by possibly getting shot. Staying away far more likely avoids that.
[/QUOTE]
My answer to the question 5 and address to 3 in one go; Depends entirely on the context. When the possibly armed intruder's intent is not known, and he is in a vantage point overlooking open ground they'd have to cross to retreat to a safe distance (Rural area, suburban yard and road for example, which is most likely how it is in this case), they're gambling with their life to a greater degree by giving him that tactical advantage. Whereas with the relative element of surprise, they immediately establish his intent (Which may well have been changed by their re-entry into the building), have some degree of cover/concealment assuming they didn't "walk into the room" as you imagine (Guess what, if you think there's potential danger around a corner you don't walk around it, you peek) and are at greater odds of, granted, both entering into, but also winning the firefight, as well as accomplishing their initial objective of preventing him from stealing their shit.
[QUOTE=Sled Dog;51309026]To think there's people that say civilians have no use for guns in their home... You gotta be kidding me.[/QUOTE]
Well the robber wouldn't have had a gun either if that was the case. Except in America even if they tighten the gun laws there's still going to be millions of guns floating around.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51313310]That first bolded bit? The opposite happened.
What's to stop the burglar engaging them from the window (Whether by prior intent to murder or perceived self-defence on his part)?
Let's say the burglar stays and the police do happen to show up in a timely fashion - You've got a whole other tin of worms which is a guy holed up in a house against a pair of coppers who are without the element of surprise and not much more in the way of firepower (Or a big step up if they called in SWAT or w/e, not too familiar as to what the procedure would be). Again, there's no telling how that situation would've gone, they'd still be putting themselves in harm's way, and the burglar would've most likely ended up dead as a result of it.
The flipside of that coin and more likely outcome is the burglar simply getting away with whatever he was there to steal. The actual outcome prevented everything encompassed by the above.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the opposite happened. But my point is that this might as well have happened. As well as you think he might have shot them from the window, if they left the house. He might have killed them in the room, when they entered. Both are possibilites. I still believe that carefully leaving the house armed while waiting for the police would have been a more safe option. As I said earlier, this is more due to luck than people's intruder fighting skills. For all they knew, this might have been a very aware criminal, who knew they were going to enter and then he ambushed then. Which would have been avoided if they left the house.
[QUOTE]You been putting too much time in the mental gymnasium matey, have the day off.
Since apparently you read (And quote) selectively, I'll reiterate: They didn't know he was armed. They probably thought as most people seem to do; that he's not looking to harm anybody, just make a quick bit of cash for whatever reason, in which case they want to prevent him from doing that by stealing their shit. They prepared to be able to defend themselves with lethal force should the need arise, and the need didn't make its self known until they were [B]shot at [/B]in attempting to confront the burglar. And once again, I'll reiterate: Fight-or-flight. If you've never been in a life-threatening situation, specifically one where another person is posing the danger, here's how it goes: You either shit yourself and run faster than you think you ever have done in your life, or you respond violently in every sense of the word.[/QUOTE]
My entire point is that all this is unnecessary risk, leave the house and wait for the police. Don't do everything yourself.
[QUOTE=Sunday_Roast;51313232]But don't more armed house owners also make burglaries way less likely to happen. As burglars rather not want to get shot.[/QUOTE]
Maybe, but the burglars who do act will likely also be more dangerous.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51313336]3.) Matters plenty. The intruder could very easily pursue them to try and prevent the police from being called.
4.) Not when him not getting caught endangers more people. He clearly, as shown in this very article, had no regard for the safety of his victims. If he was allowed to go free it would only serve to endanger any future victims, especially since there's a high chance he wouldn't get caught.
5.) They were in danger regardless of which action they took. They chose to take the action that they felt safest taking by confronting the unknown danger that was the burglar.
Putting themselves at risk is not wrong. You are looking at this from far too myopic a point of view. By putting themselves in immediate danger they were able to far better control the situation and thus protect not only themselves but their property and potentially other innocent people as well. The situation was handled perfectly fine.[/QUOTE]
3. Still putting themselves at less risk than confronting the intruder.
4. Not your job, leave that to the police. If you died trying to stop him and he still escaped, what good is that?
5. Danger, yes. The question is what is more and what is less dangerous to do.
They were lucky, they might have died. What would you have said then?
[QUOTE=_Axel;51313384]Maybe, but the burglars who do act will likely also be more dangerous.[/QUOTE]
Those that aren't (ie unarmed) can be dealt with in a non-violent manner. Those that are will be bigger targets for law enforcement by their crimes, and are at greater risk of death or incarceration. I'm not going to posit my views on gun control or specifically the use of firearms for home and self defence in general because America's a special case due to the cocktail of its size, gun laws, crime rates and socio-economic environment. I think it's a retarded position to hold though that if criminals are armed that civilians shouldn't - And taking away guns from criminals is going to be a lot more difficult than depriving said civilians of them, in general but especially in America's case.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51313350]My answer to the question 5 and address to 3 in one go; Depends entirely on the context. When the possibly armed intruder's intent is not known, and he is in a vantage point overlooking open ground they'd have to cross to retreat to a safe distance (Rural area, suburban yard and road for example, which is most likely how it is in this case), they're gambling with their life to a greater degree by giving him that tactical advantage. Whereas with the relative element of surprise, they immediately establish his intent (Which may well have been changed by their re-entry into the building), have some degree of cover/concealment assuming they didn't "walk into the room" as you imagine (Guess what, if you think there's potential danger around a corner you don't walk around it, you peek) and are at greater odds of, granted, both entering into, but also winning the firefight, as well as accomplishing their initial objective of preventing him from stealing their shit.[/QUOTE]
Firefights are not healthy, you live longer if you avoid them. That's my advise, clearly they thought differently but i'm not letting a firefight determine a winner.
Okay, while I am normally a vocal proponent of armed self-defense, there are a few ideas here that are getting repeated that are generally wrong.
First, murder committed during robbery is extremely rare, which can be seen through a comparison of the homicide and burglary statistics, even without discounting the gang violence which accounts for a high percentage of homicides.
In addition, the overwhelmingly most likely result of a gun being drawn is that the home intruder leaves- varying estimates on defensive gun uses (DGUs) place the number of incidents at anywhere from 80,000 (National Crime Victimization Survey) to over 3 million (Kleck & Gertz). There are only a few hundred justifiable homicides reported by the FBI per year, so even assuming each justifiable homicide is accompanied by 5 instances of the attacker surviving being shot (an 83% survival rate, not far off from the real stat for firearm injuries), the number of DGUs that end in neither the attacker nor defender being shot outnumbers the number of DGUs where the attacker is shot by a factor of anywhere from 50:1 to 1900:1.
Bottom line: Most criminals are not looking to commit murder just to silence witnesses, but most criminals immediately GTFO when a gun is threatened or used against them. Examples like this story are a statistical oddity, but thousands of stories of a homeowner drawing a gun on an intruder only for them to flee the house go unreported because they're not newsworthy.
Second, clearing your house if you suspect there's an intruder is generally a bad idea. I am not going to sit here and play Monday morning quarterback about the homeowner's actions here because every situation is different, but if you guys ever take a class or course on home defense it will be [i]hammered[/i] into you that the best thing to do is get your family together in the same room, point your gun at the door, and call 911.
Avoiding confrontation is statistically safer than confronting an intruder, the key detail here is that the homeowners likely didn't know whether there was an intruder in their home. It seems to me that many of these replies are defending room-clearing as a general practice for dealing with intruders, and that's not the best practice.
But for the people trying to say you shouldn't confront the intruder and that it's the family's fault he's dead, nah, that's literally victim-blaming. The intruder is entirely responsible for putting himself in that situation and the family is under no obligation to let him steal what he wants. Don't confuse self-defensive best practice for a moral or legal obligation- even if it might have been a better idea to stay holed up rather than confront the guy, it's not their fault he responded violently and directly caused his own death through attempting murder on a prepared defender.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313405]3. Still putting themselves at less risk than confronting the intruder.
4. Not your job, leave that to the police. If you died trying to stop him and he still escaped, what good is that?
5. Danger, yes. The question is what is more and what is less dangerous to do.
They were lucky, they might have died. What would you have said then?[/QUOTE]
3: You're making huge assumptions. The truth to this statement is again entirely dependent on the context (Of terrain/building structure and the people involved)
4: What if they'd done as you said and the police had died and he'd got away? They're people with families just as much as the homeowners, and they're just as mortal as everyone else.
5: The answer to that question can only be hypothesised when applied to a hypothetical scenario. In the reality of this case, how dangerous retreat would've been is a non-factor as it's not the course of action they chose.
[editline]5th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=catbarf;51313447]
Second, clearing your house if you suspect there's an intruder is generally a bad idea. [...] if you guys ever take a class or course on home defense it will be [I]hammered[/I] into you that the best thing to do is get your family together in the same room, point your gun at the door, and call 911.
Avoiding confrontation is statistically safer than confronting an intruder, the key detail here is that the homeowners likely didn't know whether there was an intruder in their home. [/QUOTE]
They did know he was there, they spotted him climbing out through the window and he got back in. They might've known down to which room he was in, but probably would've been hoping that they could resolve the situation favourably and non-violently due to him being unarmed; they likely didn't expect to take fire in going to confront him for the same reasons you explained, and once shots have been fired any assumptions they could've had about his intentions likely went out of the same window he tried to climb out of - to put one's self in their shoes, their instincts are going "That guy just tried to end my life. I've got a shotgun in my hands and I know how to use it" - and the rest is history, as they say.
Can we stop using burglar and robber interchangeably in this thread. I'm having an aneurysm trying to read this.
Robber: Someone who commits robberies
Burglar: Someone who commits burglaries
Robbery: Taking personal property from a person with force
Burglary: Someone who unlawfully enters a building or dwelling with criminal intent
Robbery: Crime against the person
Burglary: Crime against property
Generally speaking (because things differ based on states), you cannot shoot someone unless you [I]reasonably[/I] believe they are going to cause great bodily harm or death -- which means you cant just shoot someone for being in your house.
[QUOTE=RB33;51313405]3. Still putting themselves at less risk than confronting the intruder.
4. Not your job, leave that to the police. If you died trying to stop him and he still escaped, what good is that?
5. Danger, yes. The question is what is more and what is less dangerous to do.
They were lucky, they might have died. What would you have said then?[/QUOTE]
3.) Still irrelevant. They were in danger either way. Period.
4.) You didn't even read the entire thing, let me quote it for you:
[QUOTE]4.) Not when him not getting caught endangers more people. He clearly, as shown in this very article, had no regard for the safety of his victims. If he was allowed to go free it would only serve to endanger any future victims, especially since [B][U]there's a high chance he wouldn't get caught.[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
See the issue here? You are advocating less danger now for more danger and damage later.
5.) Doesn't matter. If they are in danger either way then they should take the option that they feel most safe in.
[QUOTE]They were lucky, they might have died. What would you have said then?[/QUOTE]
My opinion wouldn't change. It would have been tragic, sure. But they chose to confront the burglar and that was their choice to make. As a bit of a silver lining too, the fact they'd have died would have made the police pursue the burglar even harder than they normally would for a burglary since the burglar is very clearly a danger to the public at this point.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51313509]Can we stop using burglar and robber interchangeably in this thread. I'm having an aneurysm trying to read this.
Robber: Someone who commits robberies
Burglar: Someone who commits burglaries
Robbery: Taking personal property from a person with force
Burglary: Someone who unlawfully enters a building or dwelling with criminal intent
Robbery: Crime against the person
Burglary: Crime against property
Generally speaking (because things differ based on states), you cannot shoot someone unless you [I]reasonably[/I] believe they are going to cause great bodily harm or death -- which means you cant just shoot someone for being in your house.[/QUOTE]
I've seen burgalry defined specifically as committing a crime within a property; In this case one of them is theft, one of them is attempted murder and breaking & entering/unlawful entry on top would probably be caught in that umbrella. Hence, he's a burglar. Robbery's basically extorting belongings from a victim under threat of violence. Their actions were legally justified since the belief that the burglar was going to cause GBH or death was a reasonable one, due to the fact he shot at them.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51313541]I've seen burgalry defined specifically as committing a crime within a property; In this case one of them is theft, one of them is attempted murder and breaking & entering/unlawful entry on top would probably be caught in that umbrella. Hence, he's a burglar. Robbery's basically extorting belongings from a victim under threat of violence.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that by his definition burglar(y) is the proper term here since the only force used wasn't for stealing to begin with but only once the burglar was confronted.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.