A legitimate case of Self Defense?

[I594 Sucks]

This incident was recently listed on Google Search:

Mizzy TikTok prankster: Who is Bacari Ogarro and where is he from?

In an exclusive interview with the Independent, Mizzy said: ‘I’m a Black male doing these things and that’s why there’s such an uproar on the internet’

www.independent.co.uk

Scenario: I'm in my bedroom getting dressed, when my wife screams from the living room.

I grab my gun from it's hiding place and run into the living room, where I encounter a strange man facing my wife.

As the man turns toward my presence, I spot a bulky black object in his hand, whereas I proceed to fire three shots into him from six feet away.

The mortally wounded man falls to the floor and I notice that the object he was holding was a smart phone.

Considering the facts that:
1. My wife was screaming in shock and fear.
2. The man was obviously an intruder.
3. I originally could not tell what he was holding as I'm somewhat nearsighted and my glasses were still sitting on our dresser.

Could this be seen as anything but a pure act of self defense, in the U.S.?

This is my idea of a possible response to the irresponsible actions of this crazy TikTok poster, in the UK. One wonders if he would've had the guts to make such a move if the gun laws in Great Britain weren't so strict.

Read More

 

[bradsteen]

Yet another Darwin award waiting to happen. There must be something in the water.

 

[RVTECH]

Could this be seen as anything but a pure act of self defense, in the U.S.?

My answer would be no, it could NOT be seen as anything but self defense however legalities of it will depend on the laws of the particular state.

 

[Nosferatu]

Could this be seen as anything but a pure act of self defense, in the U.S.?

By a reasonable person, no. By the letter of the law, in WA, I think you'd be charged, but probably plead down.

While there is a castle doctrine, the responding force must be "reasonable" and "not excessive to repel the threat". It's hard to prove someone was a physical threat while holding a phone, but the fact he unlawfully entered your home gives you a reasonable justification to respond to the intrusion. It would be up to the jury to decide what that means in the situation presented to them.

I'm not a lawyer, just my $.02 based on what I've studied. WA Gun Law on Youtube covers a lot of this stuff, and may in fact have done a video on a similar scenario you're talking about.

 

[Koda]

Could this be seen as anything but a pure act of self defense, in the U.S.?

Yes. A prosecute can make that look like murder.
Consider castle doctrine laws are not a carte blanche right to use lethal force inside your home, you still have to prove your life was in danger.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Didn't click but it sounds like a serial killer creepin. Whatever

 

[Member 53328]

No feelings loss.

With that being said I think you would get charged with at least manslaughter if that happens in the metro areas of the PNW.

Put a kitchen knife in his hand. Make sure it's wiped for prints. Then you're A OK. Haha.

Should go without saying this isn't legal advise.

 

[titsonritz]

100% geographically dependent.

 

[Member 53328]

100% geographically dependent.

Yup.

 

[Bushman]

100% geographically dependent.

In WA, you will be charged with a felony if you interrupt him raping your wife. Additional felonies for not baking him a cake and cleaning his juice off her afterwards for him, then giving him a ride to a safe injection site. Thanks to a certain party of voters.

 

[Camelfilter]

By a reasonable person, no. By the letter of the law, in WA, I think you'd be charged, but probably plead down.

While there is a castle doctrine, the responding force must be "reasonable" and "not excessive to repel the threat". It's hard to prove someone was a physical threat while holding a phone, but the fact he unlawfully entered your home gives you a reasonable justification to respond to the intrusion. It would be up to the jury to decide what that means in the situation presented to them.

I'm not a lawyer, just my $.02 based on what I've studied. WA Gun Law on Youtube covers a lot of this stuff, and may in fact have done a video on a similar scenario you're talking about.

In OR I *believe* home breaking in scumbags need not be armed to defend yourself / family using lethal force (firearm). Castle doctrine.

IIRC there was a case of such a bit back (within a year or so?). Where a mom found some rando in her child's bedroom & shot him. Justified.

Thinking it was up Portlandia way.

 

[Loc]

The TikToker really is an idiot trying to race bait the public. I hope the responsible prosecutor/magistrate in the UK makes a public example of him and makes it clear that ANYONE engaging in this type of behavior - regardless of their skin pigmentation - will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Oh, and thank you for publicly posting the evidence to convict you dufus.

 

[Alexx1401]

What will happen here in this situation will vary WIDELY with one, where it happens. Two will be what the shooter says to police. Almost every time a "good shoot" turns into a court case the shooter talked himself into court.
As for the people in the UK having fun with this the simple solution would be a good, and I do mean real good, beat down. Destroy the phone and have two people in the house with a story that the other one assaulted them and fought them. The one who got beat would of course be screaming he was just playing a joke. Don't know how his phone ended up in the microwave.

 

[OldBroad44]

It may depend on whether the door is locked. Just walking into a house through an unlocked door may not be breaking any laws. If someone has committed breaking and entering that's a clear crime, and doing it when someone is home suggests he intends crimes worse than just burglary. Rape, abduction, kidnapping, beating, murder.

 

[sobo]

From the article (emphasis mine):

"He started to realise that every time he "upped the ante and did wilder videos" he would garner more online engagement – so that is what he continued to do."

So, clicks, likes, and apparently some monetary gain have become the reward for doing this sort of boolscheet. I will shed not one tear for any moron that accepts "Mizzy's" conclusion and goes about doing this stoo-pit shiit.

People the world over have become more stupid the longer "social media" exists. If this shiit continues, we're doomed as a species...

 

[dangerranger60]

The only alarm bell that rings for me was when the OP said I did not have my glasses on and was not sure what he had in his hand.
I would just leave that out. unless I was asked. That is just giving the DA something to grab on to. If asked I would not lie, I just would not volunteer it.
The intruder had no business being there, He rushed towards me with a weapon in his hand, and he was shot. Any other info they can get from my lawyer in a day or so. DR

 

[OldBroad44]

The only alarm bell that rings for me was when the OP said I did not have my glasses on and was not sure what he had in his hand.
I would just leave that out. unless I was asked. That is just giving the DA something to grab on to. If asked I would not lie, I just would not volunteer it.
The intruder had no business being there, He rushed towards me with a weapon in his hand, and he was shot. Any other info they can get from my lawyer in a day or so. DR

Right. Since OP is trying to invent a good test case, I'd have the intruder have empty hands but reach suddenly for his pocket or belt. But turn out not to have a weapon.

 

[Member 83510]

If you read the ORS for limitations on the use of deadly force, section 2 states committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling. The definition of burglary according to ORS 164.215 is when the person enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein. I've bolded the important part. Merely entering a building/dwelling is trespassing. There needs to be an additional crime for it to elevate to burglary from mere trespassing. If they broke a window to enter that would criminal mischief which is your second crime, If they were in the process of stealing something that would be your second crime - so on and so fourth.

Now, if I was in the other room and this person entered and a member of my family screamed for help, I could articulate that under the totality of the circumstances I was acting under the belief that a stranger in the confines of my home was causing harm to my family members so I used deadly force to stop the threat. This of course wouldn't work if the guy was standing in my living room just hanging out while my family member stood by screaming and I can see that my family member has not or is not about to be harmed. In the situation where the guy is just hanging out, ORS 161.225 says you can use physical force to remove a trespasser from your premises.

 

[Koda]

Merely entering a building/dwelling is trespassing. There needs to be an additional crime for it to elevate to burglary from mere trespassing.

this is the part that many people dont know, many people think castle doctrine gives them a right to use deadly force inside the home and it doesnt. In fact Oregon doesnt have a specific castle doctrine law it has limitations in use of deadly force that must be considered inside the home or out.

 

[Catfishmoon]

Scenario: I'm in my bedroom getting dressed, when my wife screams from the living room.

I grab my gun from it's hiding place and run into the living room, where I encounter a strange man facing my wife.

As the man turns toward my presence, I spot a bulky black object in his hand, whereas I proceed to fire three shots into him from six feet away.

I don't think that scenario describes a situation where a shooting is 100% automatically justified... What is the evidence the shooter was absolutely certain the victim was an uninvited intruder since the shooter had been in a different room the entire time?
Perhaps the victim is a police detective the woman allowed into the house who just informed her a child died in an accident and she started screaming? There are other possibility scenarios.
As always in America, it would vary by state, by jurisdiction, by prosecutor and by jury.

If a prankster happened to get shot while doing this, I would only feel bad for the family he involved.