[xxlappelduvidexx]

Originally Posted by houseoftechno ↗

The criminal in navy was standing at the rear door and not running away when the shot rang out. Although the bullet hit the fleeing criminal, the overall threat to the homeowner was still active at the time of the shooting.

Exactly. You worded it better than I was able to. (it's like 4am and I'm a little tired lol)

[stanmarsh]

This case appears to have a lot of similarities to a Minnesota case that was featured on one of those Discover ID shows a few years back. The homeowner shot two teenaged cousins who had broken into his home on Thanksgiving day in 2012. He was convicted of double homicide.

https://www.investigationdiscovery.c...ng-day-murders

The article also discusses the case in terms elements of proof required in Minnesota (Castle Doctrine) and Florida (Stand Your Ground) at the time of the article.

If both of states still require an attempt to retreat prior to firing, I think this homeowner will probably be charged. I'm sure somebody here will tell me if this is still the case.

[mr_feelgood]

Originally Posted by stanmarsh ↗

I'm reluctant to wade into this one because so many people have become so strongly influenced by their own cultural, ideological, and political biases that "fitting the narrative" becomes more important than critically analyzing what actually took place and having a rational discussion.

When I first watched this video, my initial impression was that it was a marginally justifiable case of self-defense. After watching it a few more times, however, I have serious doubts.

First off, keep in mind that the camera provided an excellent view of what the perps were up to. It's reasonable to assume that whoever was in the house had been watching the same thing in real time.

While I don't doubt that the perps were trying to make entry, it's not at all clear that they were actually successful. To me, it looks like they had only gotten as far as checking the door to see if it was unlocked. It's difficult to know if it was--a very important question in this specific case.

What struck me as odd was that even though the perp reacted very quickly, he went down before he could even take a step and a half. Furthermore, it wasn't entirely clear what he was reacting to. What is clear is that things went south very quickly and that even cat-like reflexes couldn't save him.

Then, there is his partner. He appears to be reacting more to him rather than anything he sees. Ironically, the slower, larger, easier target is the one who gets away.

While it's difficult to tell for certain whether the perps opened the door, it is a fairly safe bet to assume that the shot was fired through a partially opened door. There is no indication of the round passing through the door (e.g. splinters or broken glass).

Say what you will, but it's my contention that the homeowner's actions raise significant doubts about whether this is a case of justifiable self defense or if lesser degree homicide or manslaughter charges are warranted.

Before anyone trolls me, hear me out.

Assume that the person inside the home knew what was happening because of the camera. Acting on that "intelligence", they make the conscious decision that the best course of action is to quietly take up a position against the wall immediately next to the door. Once in position, they would be out of sight, can lie in wait, and have the element of surprise the instant the door was breached.

Legally-speaking, this probably fallls into a grey area in most states. Law is not my background, so I cannot say for certain. I do suspect that there are a significant number of people who would believe that this might still a justifiable shoot.

But what if it's not the perp, but the the shooter, who actually opened the door? What if the perp never opened the door, let alone made entry into the residence? What if it could be proved that the perp was definitely fleeing and posed no imminent threat to the homeowner when they were shot.

Based on what I see in the video, it's my contention that this is exactly what happened. This isn't based on my personal bias, it's simply the facts.

The reason the perp reacted so quickly was because he felt the knob being turned from the inside (possibly being unlocked?). It's the only explanation that aligns with what I see. Neither of the perps ever saw the shooter because the door remained closed the entire time.

We will never know for sure how much further the perps would have gone because the shooter decided to take the initiative and determined the outcome.

If I am correct, while remaining in position, the shooter opened the door with his left hand, then fired the gun with the right once he had the opening. It was at that point that the perp, who had already turned to flee, stepped directly into the line of fire and was shot point blank.

This is the only theory I can think of that aligns with what is seen in the video. If anyone can explain how someone could react so quickly and still go down before they can take their second step, I'm all ears.

If this is indeed the case, I'm not so sure that the vast majority of people would be willing to simply give this person a pass. This should be true regardless of where one lives or their party affiliation.

In addition to whether the door needed to be unlocked before it could be opened, I would think that the exact time that the homeowner notified the police and the perps criminal history would be major considerations into the extent of the charges and any prosecution would be successful.

In any event, the only thing that should be black and white about this case is the law and the multitude of facts that we simply do not know.

There should be no reason to tell me to f*ck off because of this post. This isn't pro anything, and if you can't see that, then you're the one who issues.

Not guilty. Was self defense
You can see yourself out

[Necrotic Bowel]

Originally Posted by stanmarsh ↗

This isn't pro anything, and if you can't see that, then you're the one WHO issues.

Don’t you just love it when some know-it-all posts a long rambling rant and ends it with a stupid mistake?

That’s called karma

[FineWithThat]

The kid was running away.
On the other hand...who cares about thrives.

[stanmarsh]

Originally Posted by Necrotic Bowel ↗

Don’t you just love it when some know-it-all posts a long rambling rant and ends it with a stupid mistake?

That’s called karma

Have you ever tried typing something that long on a phone? I think I did pretty well. (BTW, you omitted the period after "karma", which I find to be somewhat ironic).

I'm not a know it all, but I am very analytical. I've also never hesitated to acknowledge when I was wrong. I also inquired about whether the laws I referenced in my most recent post have been updated.

In this case, I was simply pointing out that there may be more to this particular case than it initially seems.

I live in a suburb in the Midwest and it's not unusual for the neighbor's kids to be playing, goofing around, or cutting across my property. If were to open the door and take someone's life and told law enforcement that I opened the door and fired because I heard someone jiggling my door knob in the middle of the day, I'm not so sure I could claim self-defense.

On one hand, I see the swingset in the yard and I can empathize with the homeowner.

I just find it unfortunate that people cannot have rational discussions about things anymore.

[ironmike]

I looked up the self-defense/stand your ground, civil and criminal justice website. I'm saying "I looked it up" for the simple reason of regardless of what anyone's opinion is, the law is the last word on the matter.
There are variants to the language based on the state but the common thread appears to be:
"...cannot use deadly force unless he has reasonable belief of imminent death or injury, and either he or she cannot retreat in safety or the attacker displays or uses a lethal weapon"

I think the "reasonable belief" caveat provides enough protection in most scenarios to protect the homeowner if they use deadly force.

In this case, looks like it was a split second between intruders seeing the homeowner, gun in hand their decision to abandon so I'm leaning towards the law siding with the homeowner. But that said, if I'm the homeowner I'm yanking down the cameras before the police arrive to prevent a prosecutor showing the replay in super slow motion to a jury. I think I could wimper my way through a "reasonable belief of imminent danger" that would leave a jury in tears, especially if my 2 year old granddaughter was in the house with me.
I think I have enough sense to discern a threat vs my 14 year old neighbor with his buddy hoping my slider is open so they could pilfer some beer from my fridge.

[mrnobody998]

Look at how high his fences are. He clearly has an expectation of privacy. People saying “bad shoot” are idiots. I could see it being questionable if it were the front
door

[Massacreman]

Honestly, it's legally gray but if they were doing what the masks suggest they were, it's morally Gucci.

[Rikbikboo]

hope the home owner gets off, Far as I can see they were trying to break in and the intent was there so fuck them. Opt for a jury any worth their salt would say intent was there and fuck him. He only ran when he spotted the gun. it was so quick it could be argued he fired the shot just as the perp run. Id find him not guilty and I hope a jury will too. Scumbag burgling cunts eat shit and die.