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

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52057779]Obviously a law wouldn't have that specific requirement as that would be much too specific for a murder charge. Don't play stupid. They guy was no threat.[/QUOTE] I'm not understanding your point then. If you're talking about colloquially, then yes, he is a murder. But charge-wise, I think this would be better charged as voluntary manslaughter because it fits better and he's guaranteed to be put away for a long time.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52057410]He should have called the police. You use a gun when your life is imminently in danger. He separated himself from the intruder, then went out of his way to drive back to his other house and get a gun before returning to shoot him with it. That is murder.[/QUOTE] Oh, he called the police... [QUOTE]The homeowner called 911 and said that he shot and killed an intruder, Adams told KOMO.[/QUOTE] [url]http://abcnews.go.com/US/homeowner-arrested-fatally-shooting-intruder-found-shower-police/story?id=46536513[/url]

[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] Heat of the moment is [B]not[/B] "oh man someone has broken into my house, let me get my gun and shoot him if I find him instead of notifying the police" The homeowners life wasn't in danger. He should have called the cops immediately when he saw his door was kicked in, instead of going inside himself. Grabbing a gun, searching your broken-into property, and shooting a bugler in the shower puts this into "murdered a guy" rather than "acted in self defense/whoops didn't mean to murder that guy".

[QUOTE=Megadave;52057369]I mean on one hand you have to be a total dumbass to trespass on someone's property and shower. On the other hand, you don't shoot a literally naked and undefended person. Just get the gun and tell the dude to get the fuck out. Both were in the wrong, but I don't believe he should be charged for murder. You trespass there are consequences, sucks he had to find out this way. Man should probably have his gun confiscated though if he can't think it through this clearly, not that that will stop him from getting another. Point being, both sides are guilty, and someone got killed unfortunately. I wish the situation had gone down a better way.[/QUOTE] No, this man was completely in the wrong. He retreated to the safety of his home where he should have notified the police. He could have gotten his gun and went back and stayed outside perhaps to make sure nothing was stolen however I dont believe you should kill an unarmed, naked man and call it self defense. Its a psychopathic fit of rage and murder in my eyes. This guy should never own guns again and be locked up for a long time.

So is nobody acknowledging (until now) the fact that he could have called the police. He never even -had- to put himself in danger. [editline]4th April 2017[/editline]

If you have the time to go home and fetch a gun, you have enough time to call the cops. Imo he deserves the murder charges.

A bunch of sources say the killer was a 59 year old man, and the victim was a 31 year old visiting his mother in the county. People don't know why he broke into the house. The local police say the killer had more than enough time to call authorities. E: Also, the victim didn't have a criminal record apparently

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52057801]I'm not understanding your point then. If you're talking about colloquially, then yes, he is a murder. But charge-wise, I think this would be better charged as voluntary manslaughter because it fits better and he's guaranteed to be put away for a long time.[/QUOTE] A manslaughter charge for this case would never fly in court. A big component of this guy's charge was obviously intent. If he had, say, told the man to leave and shot him in a panick as he moved towards him to leave that could be manslaughter. What happened is this man shot an unarmed, showering dude through a curtain and killed him. This is after, of course, retreating and then reintroduced himself into the situation. Generally, a bathroom only has one real avenue of escape. Homeowner essentially cornered someone and shot them to death without any threat to bodily injuryever occurring [editline]4th April 2017[/editline] He shot him MULTIPLE TIMES

It looks to me that this person took advantage of the situation and the law to get his gun off. But the article it self says there is more to this case than has been released to the press, something which might make this a little less black and white.

After doing some reading, it seems I was confused a little on what was what. Murder would be correct. My mistake.

Straight up murder, once you leave the building the intruder is in when you find him in there you're no longer defending yourself. Then again, there are some fucked up laws in america like in Texas where that guy got off shooting a hooker who wouldn't have sex with him after he paid her because he was recovering stolen cash or something during a nighttime theft. [url]http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php[/url] Americans need to stop treating the law like their bible, people forget the legal system involves a trial by a panel of your peers so yes the public does decide your fate in the legal system.

What a fucking coward.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;52058092]Straight up murder, once you leave the building the intruder is in when you find him in there you're no longer defending yourself. Then again, there are some fucked up laws in america like in Texas where that guy got off shooting a hooker who wouldn't have sex with him after he paid her because he was recovering stolen cash or something during a nighttime theft. [url]http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php[/url][/QUOTE] There are states where 'castle doctrine' applies to property as well, and shooting a purse-snatcher in the back is a legal, moral and socially-acceptable action. It's pretty fucked up. [QUOTE=ultra_bright;52058092]Americans need to stop treating the law like their bible, people forget the legal system involves a trial by a panel of your peers so yes the public does decide your fate in the legal system.[/QUOTE] If a jury convicted or acquitted someone, in knowing defiance of existing law, wouldn't that get overturned in an appeals court?

[QUOTE=Luni;52058180]There are states where 'castle doctrine' applies to property as well, and shooting a purse-snatcher in the back is a legal, moral and socially-acceptable action. It's pretty fucked up. If a jury convicted or acquitted someone, in knowing defiance of existing law, wouldn't that get overturned in an appeals court?[/QUOTE] Nope, jury nullification is a thing that exists for that reason as far as acquittals go. Double jeopardy and such. For convictions it could always go to appeals though.

[QUOTE=abcpea2;52057594]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] Jesus dude, eight times I can get but [b]nine?[/b] You need help.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52057917]After doing some reading, it seems I was confused a little on what was what. Murder would be correct. My mistake.[/QUOTE] Thanks for admitting to this, a lot better than what most Facepunchers would do in your situation.

This violates so many self defense and lethal force trainings I've received I think my brain did a backflip in my skull

Someone breaking into your property is not a justification for lethal force alone. Especially when they're clearly unarmed at the time. He should have called the cops and waited. His life wasn't in any danger.

[QUOTE=OvB;52058669]Someone breaking into your property is not a justification for lethal force alone. Especially when they're clearly unarmed at the time. He should have called the cops and waited. His life wasn't in any danger.[/QUOTE] US self defense/lethal force law in most places explicitly prohibited what the guy did. He didn't have to leave and could have shot him at the time of his first encounter, but returning to the scene to shoot him is absolutely prohibited. As it should be, I feel

This man wasn't defending himself when he decided to go and get his gun from another location. He had intent to go get the gun return and shot the intruder. That is negligent homicide and/or second degree manslaughter.

[QUOTE=Terabit;52058765]This man wasn't defending himself when he decided to go and get his gun from another location. He had intent to go get the gun return and shot the intruder. That is negligent homicide and/or second degree manslaughter.[/QUOTE] He definitely had malice aforethought when he returned to kill the man, I'd argue. I'd pull for murder, but I'm not a DA either.

I'm a proponent of the Castle Doctrine law and even living in a state where we do have the right to fend ourselves from an intruder we of course have to rationally assume they come with a risk of death or bodily harm. Sounds like this guy murdered someone in his home instead and he had premeditation.

[QUOTE=abcpea2;52057594]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] I hope that if you ever apply for a firearms license, they find this post during the background check.

[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 he went out of his way to kill this dude when he should have called the police.[/QUOTE] Where in Washington law does it state that only the current residence is a legal location for Castle Doctrine? I know Wikipedia states it but Wikipedia's article is a generalization of the law while each state has typically drastically different iterations of the idea. In general terms, Castle Doctrine usually describes protecting yourself, someone else or your property from damage which could feasibly extend beyond your current residence's property line e.g. a second house. Not going to argue one way or other about the article. But this doesn't seem necessarily true.

[QUOTE=OvB;52058669]Someone breaking into your property is not a justification for lethal force alone. [B]Especially when they're clearly unarmed at the time.[/B] He should have called the cops and waited. His life wasn't in any danger.[/QUOTE] The thing is, in a situation where your home is being invaded, there's no way to tell if the invader is armed until you're face-to-face with them. Even then, they could be concealing a weapon. Not to mention if you have a family it's pretty understandable to take ample measure to ensure their safety. Obviously I'm speaking in general terms, not necessarily about this specific case. This was pretty fucked.

I've actually been following this news story for a few days now. Homeowner is looking at murder charges. As someone who believes in the right to defend yourself I feel like this should go without saying..... this guy committed murder. He had every opportunity to call 911 and broke like every self-defense rule there is. It is insane that he entered went into his separate property, saw a dude showering, argued with him. Then left the said property and came back with a gun and shot him. This isn't self-defense, while yes it is fucked up someone was in his other property but after the home owner left there was no threat. He should have just called the police and let them handle it. Instead he murdered someone. Worst part of the story is the guy he shot was apparently a good dude, but he was in some fucked up metal state (not sure from what) but ended up going into this guys property thinking it was his friends property or something. I can't remember the exact details but there has been a lot of follow up articles local news on this case. The whole stand your ground and castle doctrine is based on the idea you can't escape and there is the potential for bodily harm. This homeowner, went into a separate building to investigate, found a man showering, left, returned with a gun, and shot the guy through the shower curtain while he was showering. Premeditated. Simple as that.

The man had plenty of time to think about the situation on his way to and from getting his gun. It's not like he suddenly shot the man without thinking. Yes it sucks that the man was in the wrong house and that's a problem but I find more fault with the shooter who clearly wasn't trying to find a safe solution to the situation

This guy is absolutely a murderer. He was in no danger whatsoever, and had ample time to call the police and let them handle it. It disappoints me, though, when people assume that gun owners are dreaming that they'll get to use their guns on another person. I own a handgun for home defense, and the thought of actually using it horrifies me. The idea of ending another person's life -- even if they pose an imminent threat -- is something I don't know if I can handle. I am pretty confident, however, that I'd rather have killed someone than be murdered.

He got charged with murder. [url]http://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/local/code-911/2017/04/05/suspect-belfair-shooting-charged-first-degree-murder/100084474/[/url]

[QUOTE=MR-X;52063816]He got charged with murder. [url]http://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/local/code-911/2017/04/05/suspect-belfair-shooting-charged-first-degree-murder/100084474/[/url][/QUOTE] Outstanding.