Here is what not to do or say if you shoot a burglar...geeez !

[texasjohn]

Good article..I tend to think what it says applies in the USA as well:

If you are burgled, take preventative measures immediately.
You are at increased risk of being hit again, and often it is within a month or so.
Repeat burglaries are often by the same person or an acquaintance.
The burglar typically lives rather close to his target, maybe passing it with some frequency.
The police are unaware of the prevalence of repeat burglaries, thus may not work to tie a particular person to other events.

A number of good statistics in the paper for those so inclined.

True, the shooter was a reportedly prior victim; could he have reported a burglary to conceal his future intentions or make the neighbors think he was also being victimized?

Now back to reality and the real world.

For a good, but long article on Repeat Burglary Victimization this Netherlands study has some good information. Prior burglary victims may gleam some information on preventing such again or determining if they will be made a victim again.

http://www.popcenter.org/library/crimeprevention/volume_12/04-Kleemans.pdf

Since this is a Netherlands study it highlights other countries are wrestling with the same problems currently impacting on the US.

Brin, am glad you started the thread...numerous good points have been made about excited utterances....your point was well stated in the title.

 

[Frank Surber]

In my experience there is a very fine line between protection of one's personal property and cold blooded murder.
The use of deadly force always has insinuating circumstances attached. Along with these are several responsibilities.
When there is a possible or probable threat to your life you must weigh in all possible outcomes of your actions after the fact.
This is never easy when your adrenalin is on overdrive upon discovering that someone is in the act of or has already broken into your property.
The one thing that is not functioning at it's capacity is your brain's ability to deductive reasoning when faced with a threat.
Shooting first asking questions later is not always the solution nor should it be con-screwed as reckless behavior.
When or if someone or a group meaning more than one person breaks into your home and the operative words here are (breaking in)
You are faced with the unknown, you cannot know if this or these persons are capable of or intent on doing bodily harm to you or other persons in your home. After all they have blatantly entered your home without your permission. Can you afford to wait to see if they are in possession of any weapons? I think not! The last thing you need is a battle of who's the quickest on the draw. Herein lies the shoot first ask later scenario. Now the question is do you fire a warning shot offering them the opportunity to exit your home or do you shoot them? Shooting a perpetrator once and killing them instantly often results in being no-billed even if it is found that they did not possess a deadly weapon. Shooting multiple times unless they are actually on the attack is going to land you in a long drawn out explanation of your actions the outcome will hardly ever be in your favor.
Shooting someone then actually dragging them to another location and shooting them again and again will inevitably be the result of your doing prison time or being locked up for many years subject to electro shock therapy.
There is a truism that the dead never lie and the wounded never tell the truth, at the same time you do not want to turn a Rembrandt into a Picasso either.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

I just want to humbly say as the OP the original title and subject of the thread was ~"Here is what not to do or say if you shoot a burglar...geeez !"

All I wanted to do is point out what not to do or say if you shoot a burglar....I feel sorry for this 60 something yr. old man who had been burglarized a number of times before... I suggest before any of us presume to judge him...we stop and think how it must be and feel like to hear your door opened and know there are burglars in your house...and now you are there...they have been there before...So I imagine he panics, and he is also mad...all kinds of emotions...and he did what he did...after it was over he probably realized how young they were and knew he should not have delivered the kill shot under the chin...but it was too late then..In my opinion the burglars are responsible for their own death....who among us knows what we would do under similar circumstances...? We may hope we would act differently ..but when we think it is our life or the criminal's life...I mean...add panic and fear to that + having been burglarized so many times before...Just sayin' ? We just have to remember , no matter what happens , be careful what is said after the fact. Hope it never happens to any of us.

Brin, what you say is all well and good, but don't forget...he WILL be judged by folks just like us, who were not there, and have to make their decision based on the investigation and his statements. Whether we're talking about the investigating officers, the Distict Attorney or the Judge and the Jury...they are getting their information after the fact and will have the same difficulty relating as we do, but will nonetheless have to make a decision on that basis. The actual stress, anxiety and fear will have to be imagined...and his statements do little to reinforce the image of a terrified, panicked and helpless old man. I suspect a jury's deliberation will have much the same content as this thread.

 

[brin]

When I first saw the newspaper article about this home invasion and shooting....I read it several times. I read it carefully because many times I wonder and plan what I will do if ever confronted with a burglar or home invader..this is called planning and practice...training for an event we hope we are never confronted with...So if this article and thread do nothing more than to make each of us think what we would do and practice as training for the event over and over then it has been worthwhile.

I just know that just having a weapon and not ever thinking it out or walking through an imagined event in your mind is not nearly enough the instant someone breaks in....Practice and training is makes us react automatically.

Everyone who has posted to this thread has helped all of us to examine the circumstances of such a threat....and I agree a jury will probably sound much like this thread in their deliberations..

 

[texasjohn]

I'm not trying to be pickey...but to understand/clarify perhaps your post.

insinuating circumstances...extenuating circumstances?

after the fact...before the fact?

con-screwed...construed?

Certainly, every situation is different, but in today's world of cell phones in every pocket, shouldn't a first action be to call 911 if possible and seek help? In my case, having a Texas CCL, I always carry two forms of protection with different response times: phone and weapon.

Am wondering, what is the experience you refer to? I don't understand the Rembrandt into Picasso reference.

In my experience there is a very fine line between protection of one's personal property and cold blooded murder.
The use of deadly force always has insinuating circumstances attached. Along with these are several responsibilities.
When there is a possible or probable threat to your life you must weigh in all possible outcomes of your actions after the fact.
This is never easy when your adrenalin is on overdrive upon discovering that someone is in the act of or has already broken into your property.
The one thing that is not functioning at it's capacity is your brain's ability to deductive reasoning when faced with a threat.
Shooting first asking questions later is not always the solution nor should it be con-screwed as reckless behavior.
When or if someone or a group meaning more than one person breaks into your home and the operative words here are (breaking in)
You are faced with the unknown, you cannot know if this or these persons are capable of or intent on doing bodily harm to you or other persons in your home. After all they have blatantly entered your home without your permission. Can you afford to wait to see if they are in possession of any weapons? I think not! The last thing you need is a battle of who's the quickest on the draw. Herein lies the shoot first ask later scenario. Now the question is do you fire a warning shot offering them the opportunity to exit your home or do you shoot them? Shooting a perpetrator once and killing them instantly often results in being no-billed even if it is found that they did not possess a deadly weapon. Shooting multiple times unless they are actually on the attack is going to land you in a long drawn out explanation of your actions the outcome will hardly ever be in your favor.
Shooting someone then actually dragging them to another location and shooting them again and again will inevitably be the result of your doing prison time or being locked up for many years subject to electro shock therapy.
There is a truism that the dead never lie and the wounded never tell the truth, at the same time you do not want to turn a Rembrandt into a Picasso either.

 

[joshuabardwell]

Am wondering, what is the experience you refer to? I don't understand the Rembrandt into Picasso reference.

I assume that it refers to messing up a person. Rembrandt did portraits. Picasso did cubism.

 

[texasjohn]

I could see it that way.
Or, Rembrandt has many famous religious paintings while Picasso's most famous, Guernica, is images of Nazi bombing and civilian suffering.

I assume that it refers to messing up a person. Rembrandt did portraits. Picasso did cubism.

 

[EE_Bota]

I'm not trying to be pickey...but to understand/clarify perhaps your post.

insinuating circumstances...extenuating circumstances?

after the fact...before the fact?

con-screwed...construed?

Certainly, every situation is different, but in today's world of cell phones in every pocket, shouldn't a first action be to call 911 if possible and seek help? In my case, having a Texas CCL, I always carry two forms of protection with different response times: phone and weapon.

Am wondering, what is the experience you refer to? I don't understand the Rembrandt into Picasso reference.

To me, 911 may not get the police there quick enough to stop what may transpire, but it might get an ambulance rolling quick enough to save me or the other guy. So unless the phone call interferes with my ability to shoot if needed, I hope to have the opportunity and the presence of mind to call 911 as early as possible.

 

[brin]

I have thought about 911...assuming they don't cut the phone line and you have a cell phone in your bedroom or with you if it is purring the day then you can call 911 as they are breaking in...but you better be getting to your weapon...See that is the value of discussing all of the things that go on in a very traumatic, confusing and volatile situation....Practice and first things first....To me protecting my family and my life is #1 ..then 911...since the very best response to our house has been 20 minutes...we are clear at the far side of the country ..1 mile from the next county line...The police are there to take a report after the fact in our case....we have to protect ourselves before the fact and I suspect it is the same way in most situations...

 

[texasjohn]

Exactly!!

To me, 911 may not get the police there quick enough to stop what may transpire, but it might get an ambulance rolling quick enough to save me or the other guy. So unless the phone call interferes with my ability to shoot if needed, I hope to have the opportunity and the presence of mind to call 911 as early as possible.

brin, exactly why I carry a cell phone and weapon, whenever am dressed and both are in easy reach otherwise. It's called "be prepared."

I think most burglers or bad guys are not set on shooting immediately (I said MOST) and will retreat if they discover that some form of resistance or occupancy exists when they anticipated none. They may or may not have a gun or other weapon. So, that avenue should be allowed (they retreat, not me) while being prepared to respond should a threat escalate to the definition of deadly.