Thread: Rock Creek homeowner is alive instead of being another victim

My wife doesn't understand why I have a weapon in the living room when we watch tv. I'll be sure to have her read this article.

Good show!

Originally Posted by Mac_Fan

My wife doesn't understand why I have a weapon in the living room when we watch tv. I'll be sure to have her read this article.

we were sitting in the living room of a rental house, someone tried the door, HARD, luckily I had it locked. Didn't have a weapon with me at the time so it could have been BAD for us. It won't happen again as I carry one 99% of the time now.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member

Originally Posted by deen_ad

we were sitting in the living room of a rental house, someone tried the door, HARD, luckily I had it locked. Didn't have a weapon with me at the time so it could have been BAD for us. It won't happen again as I carry one 99% of the time now.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member

I'm with ya on this one. Why not carry in your house when it's the easiest place to do so?

If I had to leave the room to get a weapon I am giving someone a chance to take a hostage or hurt a family member. I know it's a remote possibility of anything happening but so is me dying tomorrow in a car crash but I still have life insurance for that so why not be armed at the home too?

-d

Originally Posted by kaoboi503

He didn't just allegedly break the window, he was allegedly gaining access or had already entered the home. Someone breaks into your house and what would you do? Ask them if they want some tea and crumpets?

Hahahahah some tea and crumpets ahahahahaha. Lets just hope the bad guy doesn't turn around and sue the guy who shot him lol.

Originally Posted by Kimber Custom

You are listed as WA but since this event occured in OR I will cite OR law:

161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]


The bad guy having a weapon is not a requirement per the statute.

Civil liablity is another story.

YMMV

I have plenty of weapons for an intruder to pick up.

Now without looking,how many knives are lying around the kitchen?
How about other blunt objects?
Knitting needles?
Treking/ski poles?
Maybe you have an axe you leave on the porch for wood?

These constitute deadly weapons, and if he happens to grab one my life would be in danger.

Most every house has easy access to deadly force,even if the guy is horizontally challenged.

In other words,a butcher type knife might be in the sink when the cops come.

Originally Posted by mjbskwim

I have plenty of weapons for an intruder to pick up.

Now without looking,how many knives are lying around the kitchen?
How about other blunt objects?
Knitting needles?
Treking/ski poles?
Maybe you have an axe you leave on the porch for wood?

These constitute deadly weapons, and if he happens to grab one my life would be in danger.

Most every house has easy access to deadly force,even if the guy is horizontally challenged.

In other words,a butcher type knife might be in the sink when the cops come.

A broken piece of glass can be a deadly weapon.

Post #14:"I'm sure glad I don't live my life in a constant state of paranoia!"
.
It ain't paranoia if somebody really IS out to get you.
.
("Your" here does not address riverrat373)
Also - saying you shot low to avoid killing an attacker can be evidence that in your own mind you didn't believe that the use of lethal force was justified. One thing any SD/HD instructor will tell you: no warning shots and never shoot to wound. You aren't shooting to kill - you are shooting to stop the assailant, and COM is the best place for (a) stopping shot(s). It also just happens to be more likey to be lethal, but that is irrelevant. A "wounding" shot is more likely to miss, more likely to over penetrate, and less likely to be effective. Besides, a leg shot is no guarantee that you won't kill the shootee. Are your knowledge of anatomy and physiology and your shooting skills so consumate that you can make a leg shot without rupturing the femoral artery while the target is moving and trying to kill you while avoiding getting shot? I am not advocating killing out of anger; anger clouds the mind. Do what is necessary to survive when confronted with the gravest extreme of peril. Any attempt to mitigate harm to the perp based on misplaced feelings of compassion reduces your own chances of survival, increases the chances of injuring an innocent party, and probably allows the assailant to lie on you in court. If shooting is justified, multiple shots to the chest are justified and necessary.

Probably some hungary lawyer with a dream of changing gun owners laws will take the case of the perp in civil court, hoping to set a precedent and get his name inscribed in history. After all the guy accidently fell against the window and was defending himself against an irate person in the house. Plus he has been shot in the leg and cannot work anymore at his job of kicking cans into the dumpster. Why it might go to the Supreme Court and Sotomayer will understand and vote to ban all guns in the hands of homeowners, which the AG Holder will gleefully enforce. Look at the bright side. Spad.

Let it be known that the sovereign state of "sleepyNseattle" hereby adopts the "Ding Doctrine" as official policy in regards to repelling trespass to "OUR" personal borders...ei; or otherwise known as our .........personal bubble.

Originally Posted by biggie24420

Hahahahah some tea and crumpets ahahahahaha. Lets just hope the bad guy doesn't turn around and sue the guy who shot him lol.

Don't know if it was on this board or another, but I recall having read the suggestion that the homeowner in such a situation should immediately and pre-emptively file a civil suit against the intruder for emotional pain and suffering as well as any physical or property damages.

Sounds like he shot him in the leg on purpose. Hey man, nice shot.

So the first quote sounded like it came from the "Dead Fish Wrapper" or some other Liberal media that has it's usual dilutions of a disarmed society. In an on camera interview the homeowner said "I wasn't trying to kill the guy so I shot him in the leg". The story was told just as the Lars Larson interview.

Glad to hear the homeowner and wife are safe after the situation but if you keep a gun for self defense you don't shoot to wound. They both came way too close to being victims of their own firearm.

Let it be known that the sovereign state of "sleepyNseattle" hereby adopts the "Ding Doctrine" as official policy in regards to repelling trespass to "OUR" personal borders...ei; or otherwise known as our .........personal bubble.

it's pretty close to the castle doctrine cept that ya have time to sit down and finish your pizza rolls while they're still hot afterwards while waiting for the lime truck to show up.The clause in it gives you 20 minutes of personal time before unloading,dragging and digging.

Originally Posted by kaoboi503

He didn't just allegedly break the window, he was allegedly gaining access or had already entered the home. Someone breaks into your house and what would you do? Ask them if they want some tea and crumpets?

As stupid as it sounds, the homeowner would probably be charged if he had killed the man. Some states have a 'Make my day' law, basically making it okay to shoot intruders. Most states do not allow people to kill intruders unless their own life is in immediate danger. I don't know how you could live with yourself if you killed someone in this circumstance. Not saying that he was a model citezen, but the worst crime he commited prior to breaking and entering was going back to a bar he was 86'd from. Sounds like he may have alcohol and anger issues, but I think it is a far cry from deserving to die. I think the homeowner did an awesome job stopping the intruder with minimal incident.

Killing someone, reguardless of the circumstances is a nightmare for all parties involved. The poor homeowner would probably have lost the firearm involved just because it turns into evidence.

Originally Posted by revjen45

Post #14:"I'm sure glad I don't live my life in a constant state of paranoia!"
.
It ain't paranoia if somebody really IS out to get you.
.
("Your" here does not address riverrat373)
Also - saying you shot low to avoid killing an attacker can be evidence that in your own mind you didn't believe that the use of lethal force was justified. One thing any SD/HD instructor will tell you: no warning shots and never shoot to wound. You aren't shooting to kill - you are shooting to stop the assailant, and COM is the best place for (a) stopping shot(s). It also just happens to be more likey to be lethal, but that is irrelevant. A "wounding" shot is more likely to miss, more likely to over penetrate, and less likely to be effective. Besides, a leg shot is no guarantee that you won't kill the shootee. Are your knowledge of anatomy and physiology and your shooting skills so consumate that you can make a leg shot without rupturing the femoral artery while the target is moving and trying to kill you while avoiding getting shot? I am not advocating killing out of anger; anger clouds the mind. Do what is necessary to survive when confronted with the gravest extreme of peril. Any attempt to mitigate harm to the perp based on misplaced feelings of compassion reduces your own chances of survival, increases the chances of injuring an innocent party, and probably allows the assailant to lie on you in court. If shooting is justified, multiple shots to the chest are justified and necessary.

Very well put. Shooting to wound probably means you weren't in fear of your life, and therefore did not have just cause to use a deadly weapon. I think the #1 rule should be keep your mouth shut until you talk to a lawyer. Even if you know 110% you are innocent, such comments could really come back and bite you in the rear.

Originally Posted by Kimber Custom

You are listed as WA but since this event occured in OR I will cite OR law:

161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]


The bad guy having a weapon is not a requirement per the statute.

Civil liablity is another story.

YMMV

Thanks for posting blackletter law. IMO we don't need more of a Castle Doctrine; this is pretty broad.

It doesn't even say that it has to be your dwelling, or that it has to be occupied. Joe Horn should wish for such a law!