American man finds intruder showering at his 2nd property, goes back home to get a gun and kills him - Sensationalist Headlines

I think everyone can agree that the homeowner should have just put the fear of god in the guy instead of bullets. But personally, people who break into houses are putting themselves at forfeit automatically, the homeowner can't always know the full situation and intentions of burglars, and they shouldn't have that burden. Shit situation, the courts will decide how much meditation the homeowner used instead of righteous defense, but personally I am happier to live in society where I am not punished for defending my property and family with a huge advantage. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy is accredited with the charge though.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52057482]It's more inline with manslaughter than murder. Murder requires malice aforethought. Heat of the moment (like this case) is manslaughter.[/QUOTE] The heat of the moment you know when he saw him in the shower and had time to go back next door grab his gun and shoot him to death, yeah he really acted fast.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52057497]I think everyone can agree that the homeowner should have just put the fear of god in the guy instead of bullets. But personally, people who break into houses are putting themselves at forfeit automatically, the homeowner can't always know the full situation and intentions of burglars, and they shouldn't have that burden. Shit situation, the courts will decide how much meditation the homeowner used instead of righteous defense, but personally I am happier to live in society where I am not punished for defending my property and family with a huge advantage.[/QUOTE] This was in an unoccupied home that this guy owns but was checking on. Sorry, but castle doctrine only applies to your dwelling. If he had had the gun on him in the first place the panic reaction would be arguable, but he went out of his way to kill this dude when he should have called the police.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52057507]This was in an unoccupied home that this guy owns but was checking on. Sorry, but castle doctrine only applies to your dwelling. If he had had the gun on him in the first place the panic reaction would be arguable, but this was premeditated. He should have called the police.[/QUOTE] -ship- misread Yah, that is where the court will have to decide how much he did occupy this space if it was his workstation which is consistent in a lot of cases.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52057514]People can only own one property?[/QUOTE] Can you live in two houses at once?

I'll add that I've had to use my 12ga in a home defense scenario and could honestly barely hold on to it. The thought of having to shoot someone made me so nervous I really just wanted to put it down. When it came to it, the impulse to pull the trigger never fired, and the intruder escaped through the front door. With this experience in mind I struggle to understand the heat of the moment excuse for finding a guy in your second, empty, unoccupied home, slinking back to your other house to get a gun, and re-entering all with the express purpose of killing the squatter who was taking a shower.

[QUOTE=duckmaster;52057516]Can you live in two houses at once?[/QUOTE] It is possible to have multiple dwellings. A person can have a home in one place and one in another, but spend their time in each differently and still get full home defense protection under the law.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52057524]It is possibly to have multiple dwellings. A person can have a home in one place and one in another, but spend their time in each differently and still get full home defense protection under the law.[/QUOTE] Castle doctrine only occurs to your current living space. If someone breaks in to a house you are not presently living in you can't rush over and shoot them, lol.

Just how long his shower lasted?? The owner had time to go home, get a gun, go back, and the intruder was still in the shower. I guess they're neighboors but still

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52057491]Sorry, but a well-adjusted, rational individual doesn't decide to kill someone and never change his mind in the process of going all the way to and back from his other house to get the gun to do it with. This was murder. It looks like they only want to charge him with second degree.[/QUOTE] A well adjusted individual doesn't find their wife cheating on them, decides to kill the person, and never changes their mind in the process of going all the way to the kitchen to grab the knife to do it. Premeditation takes time and planning. This had neither. This was heat of the moment. [QUOTE=duckmaster;52057505]The heat of the moment you know when he saw him in the shower and had time to go back next door grab his gun and shoot him to death, yeah he really acted fast.[/QUOTE] People have time in "the heat of the moment" to go to their vehicles or other rooms to grab firearms or weapons. This is no different. There was no planning, there was no premeditation.

[QUOTE=Segab;52057533]Just how long his shower lasted?? The owner had time to go home, get a gun, go back, and the intruder was still in the shower.[/QUOTE] The other home was just next door, apparently. The average person spends 10-15 minutes in the shower, and I can imagine that someone who doesn't have regular access to a shower spends even longer when they get a chance to.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52057528]Castle doctrine only occurs to your current living space. If someone breaks in to a house you are not presently living in you can't rush over and shoot them, lol.[/QUOTE] So my immediate family owns a lake house that they use amongst each other almost every other weekend and sometimes weeks at a time. They have the full right to defend themselves as they would in our original house. Most people only have one dwelling, but courts and the law can obviously see that you can have multiple dwellings. And that is what they will have to decide with this guy and his 2nd property, but from the article it doesn't look great.

[QUOTE=duckmaster;52057516]Can you live in two houses at once?[/QUOTE] You certainly took the discussion in a weird direction. The problem is that this guy deliberately killed an unarmed intruder, not even in self defense or in the heat of the moment, not that he owns two houses. Castle doctrine is barely relevant to the discussion anyway, castle doctrine isn't “shoot any trespasser on sight with no repercussions "

Lol he clearly just wanted an excuse to use his gun on somebody, guy was probably homeless.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52057537]So my immediate family owns a lake house that they use amongst each other almost every other weekend and sometimes weeks at a time. They have the full right to defend themselves as they would in our original house.[/QUOTE] Yes, if they are actively using it as a living space. If someone breaks in to the lake house while you aren't there and, for example, you have a remote alarm, you can't decide to drive there and shoot the guy while he's still there. You're supposed to call the police. Home boy here wasn't living in that house at the time. He just owned it. Since he wasn't living in it, it wasn't his castle by law. It is just a building he owns, which was sitting empty.

[QUOTE=The golden;52057545]Defend yourself? I'm pretty sure an unarmed naked (and probably homeless) man in your shower isn't any threat to you... Ugh please don't tell me you're actually trying to justify murder.[/QUOTE] I'm just talking in general now. You can go reread what I said earlier about scaring off the guy.

wouldn't just kicking him out with no clothes on be enough of a punishment he'll be arrested for indecency, probably labelled a pedo or sexual predator for the rest of his life, and on top of that be wet and cold and uncomfortable.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52057482]It's more inline with manslaughter than murder. Murder requires malice aforethought. Heat of the moment (like this case) is manslaughter.[/QUOTE] Leaving the building, driving to another, getting a gun, and coming back to shoot him is not "heat of the moment". You could make a pretty strong case that it is premeditation since he had ample time to call the cops if he could do that.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;52057561]Leaving the building, driving to another, getting a gun, and coming back to shoot him is not "heat of the moment". You could make a pretty strong case that it is premeditation since he had ample time to call the cops if he could do that.[/QUOTE] The house is next door, not on the other side of town. More like walked a couple steps.

[QUOTE=TheJoey;52057555]wouldn't just kicking him out with no clothes on be enough of a punishment he'll be arrested for indecency, probably labelled a pedo or sexual predator for the rest of his life, and on top of that be wet and cold and uncomfortable.[/QUOTE] In most places you can't kick someone out of your home if they are squatting. They can have legal rights and refuse you entry to your own property in certain situations. I believe it varies by state and duration of occupancy.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52057569]The house is next door, not on the other side of town. More like walked a couple steps.[/QUOTE] There is no way heat of the moment manslaughter can apply to "there's a dude next door, better grab my gun and go kill him".

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52057569]The house is next door, not on the other side of town. More like walked a couple steps.[/QUOTE] Again though the owner was not under any pressure, threat, or anything he was not in danger he could have called the cops and locked himself into his house and waited till they showed up and arrested the guy.

if it was me i would have shot him in the head nine times [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Nice edge - Advocating murder" - Reagy))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Ajacks;52057570]In most places you can't kick someone out of your home if they are squatting.[/QUOTE] no. [quote]Sheriff’s Lieutenant Travis Adams says the man owns both properties and runs a business out of a building on the second property.[/quote] the homeowner/property owner was not renting out the property. it was a business. and nowhere in the article is the man called a "landlord", nor does it explain anything about him renting it out. the guy wasn't just a "squatter" by legal definition, if we were to go by the info here. this was a breaking and entering, straight up. so yeah, he can just throw him out. physically if possible.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52057507]This was in an unoccupied home that this guy owns but was checking on. Sorry, but castle doctrine only applies to your dwelling.[/QUOTE] Eh, there is no way the intruder can know for a fact that the building is unoccupied until they have already broken in. Anyone that breaks into any building should know that they may be forfeiting their life. The owner has no idea of intentions, yeah, the intruder was taking a shower, but could still turn around and beat the owner to death. Saying "unarmed" means nothing as an unarmed person could vary well beat you to death. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;52057507] If he had had the gun on him in the first place the panic reaction would be arguable, but he went out of his way to kill this dude when he should have called the police.[/QUOTE] I would say that if he already had the gun, I wouldn't really question it. But I do agree that he should've just called the police, once he turned around and left to go get a gun in a totally different building, he should've just told the police. If you had all that time, there wasn't really a good reason to go in guns blazing. I am personally a gun owner, with a AK74 and a M&P 9mm Shield. However, the last thing I want to do is shoot someone, I love shooting for sport, and having the ability to defend myself if the need ever arose. But I would likely threaten someone to leave long before pulling the trigger on them. You are taking a life, you have no idea if they are mentally ill, hard on their luck, or just a piece of shit. I cringe really hard when I see people with the mindset of "Can't wait to have a chance to blow some motherfucker away". You have no idea how you will react to taking someone's life, even soldiers, people trained long and hard for exactly that purpose even come back with PTSD and have nightmares about it.

stand your ground is not grounds for cold blooded murder.

[QUOTE=abcpea2;52057594]if it was me i would have shot him in the head nine times[/QUOTE] If you own a gun hoping to one day live out some sick revenge fantasy on a home invader, you shouldn't be owning guns in the first place and should also get psychiatric help.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52057577]There is no way heat of the moment manslaughter can apply to "there's a dude next door, better grab my gun and go kill him".[/QUOTE] It applies as much as "there's a man on top of my wife upstairs. Better grab my gun and kill him." You can't prove premeditation in this case, and the slam dunk charge is manslaughter. [QUOTE=duckmaster;52057583]Again though the owner was not under any pressure, threat, or anything he was not in danger he could have called the cops and locked himself into his house and waited till they showed up and arrested the guy.[/QUOTE] Which is why he should be charged and sent to prison. Nobody here is saying he's innocent and should be let free. [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52057591]Grr if I ever see someone using my shower I'll be sure to put one right between his eyes! He is a murderer. Shooting an unarmed man, who you know is no threat is murder. People like this do not need access to firearms and this man should get a good sentence.[/QUOTE] yeah, you don't know the law if you automatically think unarmed = murder charge. We have varying levels and different charges for different circumstances.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52057742]Unarmed and naked in the shower, is that better?[/QUOTE] I don't see a charge that has "unarmed naked in the shower" as a requirement. There's things like premeditation and intent, but not "unarmed naked in the shower".

[QUOTE=CanUBe;52057342]Most Americans only dream of killing an intruder. I guess they get a little excited when given the chance to make their dreams come true.[/QUOTE] this is so out of touch with reality it's hilarious do you also think chinese people actually name their kids after pots and pans or the irish are all terrorists?