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

I hope he gets convicted. People like him are why we have countries that ban self-defense.

Either good/lucky police-work is responsible for getting the true story (with the murderer running back to get his gun) OR the murderer himself is just a dumb idiot for admitting it like it is.. He probably wasn't a blood lusting sadist with an itchy trigger finger.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;52057570]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] Someone who squats at my residence gets no rights. There is no legal right to someone not letting me in my own home I can assure you that. I don't know what dumb ass legal system thought people should get rights for squatting.

[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] That's a very broad statement considering the different variation of castle doctrines across the states. Here in Minnesota its considered "your place of abode", which can be your house, a hotel you're sleeping in, etc. Generally though it's considered where ever you're sleeping that night. In the context of this situation I don't think castle doctrine would apply, and because of the level of premeditation even if it did he'd still be charged with murder. Fucking nut job who makes gun owners like me look like blood thirsty animals looking for a legal excuse to kill someone.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;52057570]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] Steal a bike? Fined. Steal a car? Jailed. Steal a [I]house? Become legally entitled to the property?[/I] What?

I never "get" people who do this reminds me of that dude that used to post on FP that was super proud that he chased down and gunned two robbers in the street and got away with it like wtf

[QUOTE=ghosevil;52064070]Either good/lucky police-work is responsible for getting the true story (with the murderer running back to get his gun) OR the murderer himself is just a dumb idiot for admitting it like it is.. He probably wasn't a blood lusting sadist with an itchy trigger finger.[/QUOTE] Maybe he thought it was covered by self-defense? Personally I'd categorise murdering some dude for no apparent reason pretty fucked up, but otherwise your standard for bloodlust is pretty high.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52065421]Maybe he thought it was covered by self-defense? Personally I'd categorise murdering some dude for no apparent reason pretty fucked up, but otherwise your standard for bloodlust is pretty high.[/QUOTE] I'll have to admit I'm operating under assumptions probably easily dispelled if I had all of the case information in my hand... But he got his gun, ran back, and shot him to death? There are dozens of ways he could have helped himself out and changed his police statement/manipulated the evidence so his case didn't appear to be so cut-and-dry. My point is just that the perp must be borderline geriatric to explain his behavior.

The facts are simple, the application of personal feelings over the event are moot and add nothing to the thread. The intent was clearly premeditated murder, intent of premeditation was shown when the accused vacated the uninhabited dwelling to retrieve a firearm to dispatch the trespasser. There are specific circumstances where "Castle Doctrine" applies, this is not one of them. Had the accused been occupying the dwelling and the individual entered uninvited, the accused would have been well within his rights...assuming the State of Washington has a form of Castle Doctrine on the books. The intent of "Castle Doctrine" is established on the predication that a legal inhabitant has the right to feel safe within their dwelling, vehicle, or place of business and that uninvited and or forced entry can be met with lethal force because the intent of the intruding party is unknown to the legal inhabitant and law follows the assumption of "worst case scenario". (Please note that I am NOT a lawyer, but am well read on US law in a general sense, nothing I've said should be taken as fact and you should research the subject matter for yourself) However, irregardless of economic status, breaking into private property because one may be "homeless or down on their luck" is NOT an excuse to trespass, nor does it give legal or moral clemency to an individual in regard of the law in general.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52064499]Steal a bike? Fined. Steal a car? Jailed. Steal a [I]house? Become legally entitled to the property?[/I] What?[/QUOTE] He's right. And I'm not defending it, it's completely stupid and typically holdovers from gold rush era shit. It happens here all the time with the homeless, they have to be formally served eviction notices by a sheriff and given 72 hours to vacate if they're inhabiting city property before they can be arrested or charged. It doesn't, however, protect them from being shot by the homeowner, cases like this notwithstanding.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52064499]Steal a bike? Fined. Steal a car? Jailed. Steal a [I]house? Become legally entitled to the property?[/I] What?[/QUOTE] you don't become legally entitled to the property, although there is an old law in England that if you live on a piece of land for 13 years and the original owner cannot be found to contest it then you legally become the new owner

While I can't contest the fact that the guy should have called the police, I still think it's entirely the right move to assume that this person wasn't up to any good simply because it's the only way to guarantee your safety. You have no idea what their plan was, or if they're hiding a gun behind the frosted shower door. You don't know if there's another person in the house. You don't know if they just hid something in your toolshed out the back under the assumption that no one is in the home. One can scoff at these claims and bank on the idea that most people are reasonable, but I think in these scenarios its best to work explicitly with the facts: someone has broken in. Someone is in the shower. You don't know anything about this man. And when a cop or whoever approaches the situation, they don't simply waltz in with the assumption that the person who has broken in is a mere disabled homeless veteran down on their luck. In situations like this, perhaps one should be more like a cop: prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. Or, maybe, just prepare for the worst and take control of the scenario so that the worst can't happen and things don't have to escalate - drop the hoping.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;52066368]While I can't contest the fact that the guy should have called the police, I still think it's entirely the right move to assume that this person wasn't up to any good simply because it's the only way to guarantee your safety. You have no idea what their plan was, or if they're hiding a gun behind the frosted shower door. You don't know if there's another person in the house. You don't know if they just hid something in your toolshed out the back under the assumption that no one is in the home. One can scoff at these claims and bank on the idea that most people are reasonable, but I think in these scenarios its best to work explicitly with the facts: someone has broken in. Someone is in the shower. You don't know anything about this man. And when a cop or whoever approaches the situation, they don't simply waltz in with the assumption that the person who has broken in is a mere disabled homeless veteran down on their luck. In situations like this, perhaps one should be more like a cop: prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. Or, maybe, just prepare for the worst and take control of the scenario so that the worst can't happen and things don't have to escalate - drop the hoping.[/QUOTE] You realize after the initial encounter, he drove to another property, retrieved a gun, and came back to shoot him, right?

[QUOTE=Sonador;52066386]You realize after the initial encounter, he drove to another property, retrieved a gun, and came back to shoot him, right?[/QUOTE] I know. I think he was shitty for doing that. That's why I said he should have called the police. I was merely responding to the people in this thread instantly assuming that the guy [I]probably[/I] didn't do anything wrong or was up to no good. My stance is that you should default to the worst when it comes to these kinds of unknowns.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;52066452]I know. I think he was shitty for doing that. That's why I said he should have called the police. I was merely responding to the people in this thread instantly assuming that the guy [I]probably[/I] didn't do anything wrong or was up to no good. My stance is that you should default to the worst when it comes to these kinds of unknowns.[/QUOTE] Okay, thanks for clarifying. Yes, I absolutely maintain the person trespassing was in for an awful time in the first place, but the ideal story should have ended with him in the back of a patrol car, not the victim of murder. If the owner of the home was armed during his first encounter with the trespasser and had shot him, we wouldn't have a thread about it.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52066315]you don't become legally entitled to the property, although there is an old law in England that if you live on a piece of land for 13 years and the original owner cannot be found to contest it then you legally become the new owner[/QUOTE] Adverse possession exists in the US as well, usually 20-40 years though, and the owner has no recourse even if he does show up once it kicks in.

Reminder that the actual criminal in this situation was the one who broke into the house.

[QUOTE=The Genie;52074028]Is it not possible that both parties in this scenario are criminals? It's just that one of the crimes committed is far more severe than the other.[/QUOTE] While this particular case points to unnecessary use of a firearm for the homeowner, I think it's ignorant to pretend that this entire situation isn't brought about by a home invasion from the start. The ruling should certainly take that into account.

[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;52074047]While this particular case points to unnecessary use of a firearm for the homeowner, I think it's ignorant to pretend that this entire situation isn't brought about by a home invasion from the start. The ruling should certainly take that into account.[/QUOTE] Of course it won't affect the ruling. It may - but shouldn't significantly - affect the sentencing. Unfortunately for you, in the world of [i]legal[/i] causation, the intruder did not contribute. The homeowner is 100% at fault. There is no shared causation here.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52057522]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] The guy definitely went too far, but everyone's fight/flight response is going to be different. I had a PAP AK pistol with an "arm brace" that I used for home defense. One night, I heard voices in my kitchen like someone had made their way inside my apartment. I grabbed the AK and two options were presented in my mind, hold down the bedroom and wait for them to come to me, or run out and meet them head-on. For some reason, I chose the latter and stormed my kitchen ready and willing to shoot someone despite being pants-shittingly terrified. Turned out to be odd acoustics from people outside, the sound was traveling in a way that made it sound like they were in my kitchen. Another time, my door was kicked in the evening despite my lights being on and I was clearly making noise loud enough for people to know it was an occupied unit. Managed to get to the gun before the 2nd kick blew my shitty ass door open, I illegibly screamed "GET THE FUCK OUT," at the top of my lungs and had my finger on the trigger, was going to pull it if they took one step inside. The two guys at the door turned tail and ran, I saw one of them with something that looked like a crowbar, the other had something I didn't manage to make out, possibly a baseball bat or axe handle. If this guys house was next door, I feel like an extreme fight response would be enough to get his mind to run back to his main house, grab a weapon, and make his way back. Definitely went too far, definitely committed murder, but it isn't too hard for me to comprehend the thought process since my experiences with real and imaginary home invaders invoked a very strong, "kill those motherfuckers," response. I didn't *want* to kill anyone, I was scared as fuck, but it's really just instinct at that point as I'm sure you know.

[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;52074047]While this particular case points to unnecessary use of a firearm for the homeowner, I think it's ignorant to pretend that this entire situation isn't brought about by a home invasion from the start. The ruling should certainly take that into account.[/QUOTE] no one is though?

Reminds me of this guy who baited two teenagers to break in so that he could finish them off. [video]https://youtu.be/r6RGXGgTr6g[/video] As usual, YouTube comments side with him.

[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;52074015]Reminder that the actual criminal in this situation was the one who broke into the house.[/QUOTE] It is dangerous to treat the world explicitly in comparisons or binary thinking. Relevance is not always determined by severity - both people are criminals, and both have committed crimes. Your interpretation of who conducted worse behavior should not mean one should be treated as being "actually" wrong and the other a victim of another person's actions. If you want to say the homeless person was the catalyst to the entire situation and therefore the bigger criminal, I disagree but won't be discontent with you having that opinion - it's understandable. However, I personally believe it's scary in general when things become shadowed and forgotten. Personally, I think they are both guilty of different things and deserve to be judged by their own actions and own responses alone, and I think in doing that there is ensured fairness among people who tend to disagree. Had the homeless person survived, I would have still wanted him charged even though I have more disdain for the shooter in the situation.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;52074396]The guy definitely went too far, but everyone's fight/flight response is going to be different. I had a PAP AK pistol with an "arm brace" that I used for home defense. One night, I heard voices in my kitchen like someone had made their way inside my apartment. I grabbed the AK and two options were presented in my mind, hold down the bedroom and wait for them to come to me, or run out and meet them head-on. For some reason, I chose the latter and stormed my kitchen ready and willing to shoot someone despite being pants-shittingly terrified. Turned out to be odd acoustics from people outside, the sound was traveling in a way that made it sound like they were in my kitchen. Another time, my door was kicked in the evening despite my lights being on and I was clearly making noise loud enough for people to know it was an occupied unit. Managed to get to the gun before the 2nd kick blew my shitty ass door open, I illegibly screamed "GET THE FUCK OUT," at the top of my lungs and had my finger on the trigger, was going to pull it if they took one step inside. The two guys at the door turned tail and ran, I saw one of them with something that looked like a crowbar, the other had something I didn't manage to make out, possibly a baseball bat or axe handle. If this guys house was next door, I feel like an extreme fight response would be enough to get his mind to run back to his main house, grab a weapon, and make his way back. Definitely went too far, definitely committed murder, but it isn't too hard for me to comprehend the thought process since my experiences with real and imaginary home invaders invoked a very strong, "kill those motherfuckers," response. I didn't *want* to kill anyone, I was scared as fuck, but it's really just instinct at that point as I'm sure you know.[/QUOTE] It sucks because in the situation you just described, I can see how someone would shoot at them even as they were running away without at all realizing what they were really doing. It seems like in that scenario, it's possible to be so scared and on edge that you just register the danger, and not the fact that the danger is actually leaving. But that's just my opinion, as someone who's never had to deal with such a thing.

[QUOTE=geel9;52078876]It sucks because in the situation you just described, I can see how someone would shoot at them even as they were running away without at all realizing what they were really doing. It seems like in that scenario, it's possible to be so scared and on edge that you just register the danger, and not the fact that the danger is actually leaving. But that's just my opinion, as someone who's never had to deal with such a thing.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. You aren't really thinking at that point, it isn't a logical thought process. That's why guys like SEALs and other special forces are so badass, they have drilled and drilled and drilled and experienced so much to the point where they are able to stay calm and think logically even when shit is hitting the fan. The average person isn't going to be able to do that. My brain drew the line at my property, they didn't cross the line into my apartment so I didn't pull the trigger. However, I would often practice my home defense procedure (I lived behind a Motel 6, it was a pretty bad spot, apartments there got broken into very regularly) and drew the line at the door every time I drilled. So, it wasn't me *choosing* to draw the line there when it actually happened, it was just muscle memory at that point. I didn't understand my actions until I viewed it in retrospect.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52057346]seriously? This is true in the same sense that most Britons dream of being beaten up with a cricket bat by an intruder because it's illegal to defend yourself.[/QUOTE] No it isn't. As a resident of the UK, I dream of a nation where the cricket bat I'm getting mugged with is made of foam and covered in bubble wrap. Can't be too careful. [editline]10th April 2017[/editline] On a more serious note, this is absolutely murder. Not just murder, but premeditated. Jeez getting caught like that in someone's house is scary enough as an intruder, but to shoot because he's in the guy's shower is just plain old crazy. [editline]10th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=geel9;52078876]It sucks because in the situation you just described, I can see how someone would shoot at them even as they were running away without at all realizing what they were really doing. It seems like in that scenario, it's possible to be so scared and on edge that you just register the danger, and not the fact that the danger is actually leaving. But that's just my opinion, as someone who's never had to deal with such a thing.[/QUOTE] If it helps you any, most intruders target houses they think are empty, unarmed and usually flee if they're discovered. Being a bit scary if you're capable of doing it is a good idea but charging into the area you think they are is not so intelligent. You're better off moving more slowly and carefully. With regards to the second one, that's frightening. I have a security door with a deadbolt. I've seen cops try and break a door exactly like this one in before end it took three muscular men 45 minutes. I highly recommend them. A burglar would tire themselves out trying to get in.