Don't know if you folks have seen this lunacy yet.

[JackThompson]

It will all come out during the trial. So many things we don't know.

Did the kid speak? Grunt?
Did he reach into his pocket suddenly?
How dark was it?
Was he stomping his feet menacingly or acting violent in any way?
Did he break something during his break in? (Giving the impression of a looter/burgler)
Was he wearing gang clothing?
Did he look like Diane Feinstein from behind?

The jury will decide while we pontificate.

 

[aslinged]

Who furnished the booze? Was it the parent's of the kids throwing the party or did they get it through other means?

 

[LogicBomb]

Because he was shot in the back? He was walking up the stairs when the homeowner shot him, after repeatedly ordering him to leave.

The process of natural selection is brutal sometimes, too bad the kid broke the law and participated in underage drinking... They should pass a law against that, if it can save just one life!


Raping someone because you were drunk... No excuse.

Killing someone because you were drunk... No excuse.

Robbing someone because you were drunk... No excuse.

Assaulting someone because you were drunk... No excuse.

Driving a car over two mothers because you were drunk... No excuse.

Entering into the wrong house because you were drunk... No excuse.

Voting for Obama because you were drunk... No excuse.

voting for Obama because I was drunk?? there is not enough tequila in the world

 

[BlindedByScience]

I thought he was a tall athletic male. A crazy guy walking up my stairs towards my family at 2am after warning him to stop might just have a weapon or be strong and crazy enough to strangle my kids before I can stop him. Should I wait until he's on top of my girlfriend before I take the shot? Sounds risky, I'm sorry, if I was armed I hope I would do the right thing quickly and not waste time 2nd guessing. Too bad the architect built all the houses the same, too bad his friend shoved him in the wrong window, too bad he was drinking underage. Too bad ABC news, too bad.

Pretty much my sentiment. If the situation allows, I'd confront and give clear, simple verbal instructions...like 'STOP WHERE YOU ARE'....but, coming up the stairs to the bedrooms and not stopping? The perp either gets real compliant, real quick, or they get shot.

 

[Caveman Jim]

All that matters is how a jury is going to look at it. If you're curious, look up some cases and see how they unrolled. Otherwise feel free to take your chances,
and remember that use of deadly force is most definitely a lose-lose situation, whether you are right or wrong.

Your mentality is that of try and reason with a complete stranger standing in your house at 2 Am. Am I missing something???

 

[Nwcid]

All that matters is how a jury is going to look at it. If you're curious, look up some cases and see how they unrolled. Otherwise feel free to take your chances,
and remember that use of deadly force is most definitely a lose-lose situation, whether you are right or wrong.

Your right, I am NOT taking a chance, a chance that I wrong which is why I take the stance that I have. I hope that I will never be put in that situation though.

 

[slimmer13]

It will all come out during the trial. So many things we don't know.

What trial? No charges were filed.

Sucks all the way around, for the parents as well as the shooter and his family but people need to realize that your own actions and nobody elses can get you killed if you make enough bad choices.

 

[Caveman Jim]

What trial? No charges were filed.

Sucks all the way around, for the parents as well as the shooter and his family but people need to realize that your own actions and nobody elses can get you killed if you make enough bad choices.

DING DING DING, Folks, we have a winner!!!

 

[SmawGunner]

I used to have a shoot first mentality and then I took some training classes where these topics were discussed in great detail and we were put through dozens of FOF scenarios.

The homeowner is really lucky he is not facing criminal charges and forced to pay $1000's to defend himself. The DA probably knows they dont have enough to convict but might bring charges anyway because of the public outcry. How are you helping your family when you have to pay out your life savings to defend yourself?

And then you have the civil lawsuit phase where its easier to lose a case like this and owe millions. How are you helping your family when you lose your life savings defending yourself?

And then there is the court of public opinion. You will be trashed in the local media and your neighbors will hate you. It may even affect your employability depending on your job. You may have to pick up and move.

There is alot to consider when making that decision to shoot. You better be damn sure that your life is in danger because the aftermath of defending yourself in court could end up being a lot worse than the shooting itself.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

There is alot to consider when making that decision to shoot. You better be damn sure that your life is in danger because the aftermath of defending yourself in court could end up being a lot worse than the shooting itself.

In this case his girlfriend's life. He's in good shape IMO because he warned the guy and didn't shoot until he got past and up the stairs. No doubt after the fact there might be a civil lawsuit and god help the homeowner if he's white and has used a racial slur anytime in his life but there isn't a case here.

 

[Stomper]

Counter-sue the parents for not properly supervising their underage child who had access to alcohol...

 

[Redcap]

Because there was no immediate threat. Or at least from the article I couldn't recognize one.

You are a real special kind of stupid.

 

[jbett98]

The sad fact here is that the homeowner did everything right, but it looks like he did everything wrong.

 

[U201491]

Your mentality is that of try and reason with a complete stranger standing in your house at 2 Am. Am I missing something???

We now know his potential mortality probability.

 

[U201491]

It will all come out during the trial. So many things we don't know.

Did the kid speak? Grunt?
Did he reach into his pocket suddenly?
How dark was it?
Was he stomping his feet menacingly or acting violent in any way?
Did he break something during his break in? (Giving the impression of a looter/burgler)
Was he wearing gang clothing?
Did he look like Diane Feinstein from behind?

The jury will decide while we pontificate.

That would be reason enough right there to fear for your life.

 

[Father of four]

Its just our messed up legal system.

A cop can put 20+ bullets in you and get away with it, but let an intruder break into your home in the middle of the night, you kill him and you are likely to go to prison. "For the people by the people"? Not anymore.

 

[Nwcid]

Counter-sue the parents for not properly supervising their underage child who had access to alcohol...

I know this is not quite the same but things like that are actually starting to happen, Pepper-sprayed Occupy Portland protester Liz Nichols gets $7,116 payment demand from city | OregonLive.com

The day of you can sue anyone for anything needs to stop. Even if the person being sued "wins" it is still a net loss to them in time, money, and their life. It should be changed that yes, you can use anyone for anything, BUT if you lose your case you are responsible for ALL of the costs.

 

[U201491]

I know this is not quite the same but things like that are actually starting to happen, Pepper-sprayed Occupy Portland protester Liz Nichols gets $7,116 payment demand from city | OregonLive.com

The day of you can sue anyone for anything needs to stop. Even if the person being sued "wins" it is still a net loss to them in time, money, and their life. It should be changed that yes, you can use anyone for anything, BUT if you lose your case you are responsible for ALL of the costs.

Theft from the taxpayer. That is who's money they take.

 

[AMT]

I know this is not quite the same but things like that are actually starting to happen, Pepper-sprayed Occupy Portland protester Liz Nichols gets $7,116 payment demand from city | OregonLive.com

The day of you can sue anyone for anything needs to stop. Even if the person being sued "wins" it is still a net loss to them in time, money, and their life. It should be changed that yes, you can use anyone for anything, BUT if you lose your case you are responsible for ALL of the costs.

It should be not just the loser has to pay for all costs, but the lawyer has to pay equally too. That just might - MIGHT - start to weed out frivolous lawsuits by people and bottom feeding attorneys.....

 

[Stomper]

Because there was no immediate threat. Or at least from the article I couldn't recognize one.

I remember the last time we "crossed swords" over the ORS covering use of deadly force concerning someone attempting to break into a DWELLING... You maybe, might, possibly have had some wiggle room in argument against the legality of popping someone outside the dwelling who was in the act of breaking in (I doubt a jury would convict), but when someone is FULL ON inside a dwelling deadly force is justified, and I don't see anything in the ORS that specifies qualifiers, other than (to paraphrase) "deadly force is justified against a person who is attempting to, or has broken into a DWELLING.

Imagine yourself; it's 2am, you hear a noise downstairs. Your heart is pounding, you're still waking up from sleep fog. You go down to investigate and you come upon a stranger you've never seen before in your home. On reflex you yell out "freeze", but the stranger just ignores you and proceeds to walk up the stairs where others are sleeping.

You yell "stop" again but the stranger keeps going up the stairs, so you shoot him until the threat stops going up the stairs. It could have taken one shot, or 17 shots, and of course it's into the stranger's back because he is going up the stairs, and you are at the bottom.

At 2am, most likely in a darkened house, you're going to reason with, and ascertain the intentions of a house breaker? REALLY?! Again, I will remind you that it is well and truly established case law THROUGHOUT the USA (anyway) that deadly force against a house breaker is justified.

The house breaker is responsible for his actions, and any and all circumstances that led up to his actions. In this case the house breaker was a 16yr old who just completed a week of punishment, then decided to imbibe alchohol (illegally), then after he irresponsibly lost track of time attempted to sneak back into his Father's house via a back window. He appears to be a "sneak" by nature/behavior, and while this isn't a capital offense in and of itself, it's obviously a hazardous behavior on many levels, even deadly at times.

Now, I'm a DA or I'm sitting on a jury and take this into consideration, that the 16yr old appears to have problems making "good decisions", but they are DECISIONS HE MADE.... No charges filed, and/or not guilty. NEXT!!

We live (and sometimes die) by the decisions we make, the 16yr old made a constant string of bad decisions, and the responsibility of his death lies DIRECTLY at his dead feet, not the homeowner who was brought into this by the decisions of the 16yr old.