Posted on 06/21/2009 7:33:15 PM PDT by csvset
SUFFOLK
Police are questioning a store owner who they say shot and killed a man he believed was burglarizing his store in Whaleyville early this morning
Police received a call just after 4 a.m. about a burglary in progress at J-N-L Market, located at 6550 Whaleyville Boulevard, said Suffolk spokeswoman Debbie George.
The owner was also alerted to the burglary, George said, and went to his store with a firearm. When he arrived, he saw someone inside his business and fired at him through a store window, she said.
When police arrived, they found the owner of the business outside and the burglary suspect lying on the floor, dead.
Police interviewed the store owner at the police department, but he has not been charged and has since left the police station, George said. The shooting remains under investigation.
“A case like this is very complex and they’ll review all of the facts and circumstances” before making a decision about whether to charge the owner, George said. She said she did not know whether the man who was in the store was carrying a weapon.
Police are not releasing the owner's identity because he has not been charged with anything, she said. Police are working on identifying the burglary suspect.
Not really. The dirtbag got what was coming to him.
One robber, who shall rob no more, and who shall not contribute to the gene pool another like himself.
Cases like this one and the Oklahoma shooting might fall into "gray areas" over whether or not lethal force was justified. But I agree with what you said, "the dirtbag got what was coming to him" so I'm going to give the benefit of doubt (and a lot of discretion) to the store owner.
Burglarizing and robbing stores should carry the risk of getting shot and killed. And, really, the community is just a little better off today.
Well, officer, in the dark I thought he was pointing a gun at me, so I fired in self-defense.
Really? Who is going to pay for the window?
my sentiments exactly!!!go in side, blaze away, a few cans of soup or a loaf of bread or two do not add up to the expense of a window!!! on the other hand, if I’m his insurance company, I throw in the window just to honor him!!
Isn't that against the FR posting rules?
Which is where and how they belong. Outside, not messing up the floor, would be better, but you get what you get in these situations.
“Cases like this one and the Oklahoma shooting might fall into “gray areas” over whether or not lethal force was justified. But I agree with what you said, “the dirtbag got what was coming to him” so I’m going to give the benefit of doubt (and a lot of discretion) to the store owner.”
Drew, you have a good point. This storeowner probably should have laid down his weapon, entered the building, accosted the burglar to check whether the perp had a weapon, then, if the perp had a weapon, said “well, excuse me,” then exited the building, picked up his weapon and fired.
That would make it ok, right?
That would make it ok, right?
Oh, take a Xanax and calm down. I never said such a thing. I'm perfectly fine with the store owner shooting the burglar dead through the window. The police, however, may think differently.
I’d like to shake the store-owner’s hand & congratulate him on a good shot. One shot, one kill, I suppose?
That’s not gonna be a righteous shoot, IMHO. At least as far as the law is concerned.
“That’s not gonna be a righteous shoot, IMHO. At least as far as the law is concerned.”
I was beginning to wonder if there were any responsible posters on this. Thank You!
Lets wait and see what justification the shooter had before we start bowing down to store owner.
No one’s bowing down to anyone.
Since the “justice” system won’t take care of the problems of crime, it’s left for the general public to provide a deterrent.
If the guy was hungry, he could go to a rescue mission or the Food Bank, maybe even a benevolence ministry at a local church.
I’m no expert on the legal ramifications and I know no more than anyone else who has read the article as to the events.
But if we are discussing this with idea of learning from an unfortunate event vs. cheerleading the demise of a burglar (who, I hate to say, might have been only a teenager or some homeless guy in search of a meal) then I believe it’s important to distinguish between what’s allowable under some firearm laws and what isn’t.
1: I see no indication that the shooter/store owner could legitimately say he was in fear of his life. That’s game, set, and match as far as most self-defense deadly-force laws go, at least as I have read them.
2: He could have called the cops and even endeavored to hold the perp under point of gun until they arrived. Even then, without an overt bodily threat to the store owner, had the perp ran away, there was still no justification to shoot. In other words, there WERE alternatives....without being plain silly.
3: Whether or not the DA decides to prosecute under criminal laws, the shooter has left himself wide open to ruinous civil suit. And it’s very unlikely, also IMHO, that his insurance will foot the bill.
This storeowner, IMHO, is going to wish with his entire net worth that the burglar got away with as many six-packs as he could carry. Flame away.
I could not have said it better. Thank you!
Texas has a “Castle Law” that prevents Criminals shot while committing a crime from suing the shoooter. It also allows deadly force to prevent crimes such as burglary. In fact, you can shooot a burglar in the back if you have to, to prevent him from getting away with the goods even if he has already exited your property. (See Joe Horn)
Yep, and in Texas " to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime" are the justifications for use of deadly force in defense of property. But I don't think that is the case in Virginia.
The law is different in every state. Do you specifically know what Virginia's laws provide. In Texas it would be a righteous shoot, under the law. We've had cases of a guy shooting into a car full of "yutes" some of whom were stealing his custom wheels. Grand Jury returned a "No Bill". More recently we had a guy take out a couple of foreign perps who were making off with his neighbor's property, with the action being witnessed by a plainclothes officer whom the shooter did not know was present. Again, "no bill".
“Texas has a “Castle Law”...”
I’m generally aware of that but does it apply to a place of business vs one’s home? (If you know. I don’t)
And it should be pointed out as it was downthread that VA laws are probably quite different than TXs’.
Yes, it also applies to businesses.
Now I REALLY wanna move to the Lone Star State :)
[Where common sense apparently prevails]
You can in Texas, and several other states. You could under the old Common Law, and even Biblical law, as well. Well you could use deadly force against a robber, especially during the night.
Back when I was in college, or late high school I'm not exactly sure, an old woman, whose nickname was "Bloody Mary", long before the incident in question, killed a guy who was crawling through her window one cold night. He was unarmed, and likely just wanted a place to sleep out of the weather. (He was a transient, who would not have know of "Bloody Mary", and the house had no electricity, although there likely was smoke or vapor coming out of the chimney). She blew his head off, literally I'm told, with a 12 gauge. She was never charged. She was a neighbor to my Great Uncle, and had a been a family friend/acquaintance. I met her once myself, when Dad stopped to give her a ride into town. I also met her great neice and nephew, who had gone to my high school, and were in my AF ROTC Detachment. She did suffer from the incident, and moved into a "home" not too long afterwords.
This occurred in my hometown. The dead burglar has been identified as a 38-year-old white male from the northern part of the city of Suffolk (Virginian-Pilot update). The shooting occurred in the southern part of Suffolk, one of the few remaining rural areas of the city and an area not easily monitored by the police. This area has been subjected to numerous burglaries and home invasions in the past year (one elderly woman received a really nasty beating), and while a few of the cases have been solved, others have not. Strangely enough, my husband and I were just talking about the robbery problem this weekend, and he stated that he wouldn’t be surprised if something like this happened, given the frustration that many in the area of the burglaries feel.
I would also add the situations you mentioned, especially the Horn case got a lot of negative media attention. Without arguing the specifics of the cases it will only take a few more of these type shootings and the media and liberals will try to force the State to change their laws if it is not already happening.
I appreciate that you chimed in with that report, ma’am. It always helps to get a “feel” for what’s really going on at Ground Zero. Thanks & stay safe out there.
Hopefully, this will deter some of the crime.
The provisions of the law I cited above, predate the Castle Law, by generations. They've pretty much always been the case in Texas. They were once the case in the common law, and are even justified in the Old Testament. ..
Now we protect robbers and burglars from the traditional consequences of their acts.
Screw 'em. They'll have those agendas and do what they can to support them, regardless of whether folks use deadly, or potentially deadly, force to protect their property or not. Meanwhile, arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, and criminal mischief during the nighttime will be discouraged, as the law contemplates.
That's defensive thinking. Defense never won a war, although admittedly it can win battles, rarely, but on occasion. But being on the defensive strategically is no way to win.
These events have been happening for the 32 years I've lived in Texas. Not often, but steadily. In those same years, the laws have been strengthened in favor of the home defender, and the self defender. Heck when I moved here, you couldn't have a loaded handgun pretty much anywhere but in your home, or at a range. It had to be transported unloaded, out of reach and separate from the ammunition. Now anyone, not just concealed handgun licensees, can have a loaded one concealed in their vehicle, as long as there are traveling, which is defined as going somewhere, as well as transporting the weapon to/from the vehicle. We had no "permit" system for concealed carry, and open carry is mostly banned, (exception for hunting and fishing).
You don't win by giving the enemy what they want. That's premptive surrender. Texans, and their legislators, are having none of it.
Police: Man killed in Suffolk break-in had no gun
SUFFOLK
A man who was shot to death early Sunday by the owner of the store he had broken into did not have a gun, a police spokeswoman said Monday.
James Howard Durden Jr. fired from outside his convenience store and in through a window at Ernest Scott Roop, 38, after he was alerted from home in the early morning hours Sunday to the break-in at his nearby business.
Debbie George, the police spokeswoman, said Durden told police that Roop "pointed something at him," but she said she did not know if that was when Durden fired. In the store, police found a tire iron that they think Roop used, but it was not near his body, she said.
Meanwhile, police tested Durden's blood for alcohol after they noted - and a breath test confirmed - the presence of it on him shortly after the shooting, according to a search warrant filed Monday in Circuit Court.
Those details, as well as a review of surveillance camera footage, are part of an investigation into whether Durden, 46, was justified in firing his .45-caliber handgun at his J&L Food Mart in the rural village of Whaleyville.
The case then will be sent to the commonwealth's attorney to decide whether it warrants criminal charges, George said.
In general, the law is very grudging on private citizens' use of lethal force, but it is more clear on the right to kill to protect a life than on doing so to protect property, said Anne Coughlin, a criminal law professor at the University of Virginia.
Such cases are rare, and there is no recent Virginia case law on the topic, Coughlin said. Details such as how threatened Durden felt will come into play, she said.
"This is a tough, tough call for a prosecutor," she said.
Durden did not respond to a message left at his store Monday, and no one answered the door at his home.
He was badly shaken by the incident, said Mike Fowler, a friend who was with Durden's family the day after the shooting. He said he was confident Durden did what he felt he had to do.
The friends both own businesse s and have talked about how they would handle a burglary. Their consensus, Fowler said, was to shoot only if their life depended on it.
"There's no way in hell James Durden would have fired on somebody unless he felt 100 percent his life was in danger," Fowler said. "If anybody thinks he went up there like John Wayne and started shooting through the window like a damn fool, they're crazy."
The window, at the side of the store, had four bullet holes. Two men from Suffolk Glass Inc. replaced the 3-foot-by-7-foot pane Monday. One of them, Sam Morris, said he replaced the same window about six months earlier on another burglary attempt.
Durden had been the victim of multiple break-ins, Fowler said. None had been reported to the police within the past two years, according to the department's crime analyst, George said.
Less than half a mile down the road, Michele Dunning said her general store has been broken into four times since September. A suspect in two of the cases was being prosecuted, she said.
Few other businesses operate on the road that runs through Whaleyville. At the Food Mart, farm fields border two sides of the parking lot. Durden's home is just across the street.
Inside the store, business seemed to run as usual Monday. Three men smoked cigarettes at a small table between the soft drink coolers and the racks of bread. One of them, Emmett Jessee, said he felt sorry for the man who was shot but believed Durden was in the right.
Over by the register, at least three surveillance cameras looked down. Another pointed out toward the gas pumps through the window Durden shot into.
The call to police came at 4:04 a.m. from someone from Durden's home, according to the search warrant. Minutes earlier, a device similar to a baby monitor had crackled to life in the house, alerting the Durdens to the break-in, George said.
Fowler said the couple kept the device by their bed. Durden's wife went along to check on the store, saw the man inside and yelled at him through the window to leave, Fowler said.
About two minutes into the call to police, the caller said shots had been fired, George said. The search warrant said the caller told police an unknown man was dead in the store.
That man was Roop. To friends and family, he was "Scotty."
He had struggled for years with drug addiction, his parents said Monday from their home, where Roop had been living.
He had a criminal record, including a felony burglary conviction in 2003 that earned him jail time and was revoked twice, according to online court records.
He also had an energetic, playful way about him and a 13-year-old daughter whom he adored, his parents said. He had recently befriended a 6-year-old neighbor boy who has cystic fibrosis.
"Whenever he was sober, he was a sweetheart," said his mother, Diane Roop.
Scott Roop recalled the time his son insisted on camping out on the side of a mountain, way up past where his family's hunting party spent the night. Then there was the time his cheap reel broke on a big catfish, so he stripped to his underwear and jumped into a cold pond to pull the line in by hand.
The Roops said their son tried to quit his drug habit several times. He'd get clean and start eating right and exercising for a few months, but inevitably he'd falter.
"He was a kind guy," Scott Roop said. "That's the thing about it that's so disturbing."
No charges in fatal shooting at Whaleyville store
SUFFOLK
Criminal charges will not be pursued against the store owner who shot and killed a burglar in his business last month, the city announced today.
Police Chief Thomas E. Bennett released a letter from Commonwealth’s Attorney Phil Ferguson announcing the decision in James Durden’s shooting of Ernest Scott Roop.
“Mr. Durden was confronted with a very dangerous situation created by Roop and was legally justified in using deadly force as he genuinely believed that Roop had a firearm and that his own life was in danger,” Ferguson wrote. “In addition, from a practical standpoint, I am convinced that a Suffolk jury would not convict Mr. Durden of criminal misconduct under the facts of this case.”
Durden confronted Roop at about 4 a.m. on June 21 after Durden and his wife were alerted by an alarm to the break-in.
Ferguson released the following account of the confrontation:
“When the Durdens reached the store, they noticed a window had been broken out on the back (east) side of the building and a security bar was pulled away from the window. While looking through a window on the South side of the building, Mr. Durden noticed Roop inside the store at the cash register. Roop turned toward Mr. Durden with something in his hands which Mr. Durden thought was a firearm. Mr. Durden then fired his handgun three times in Roop's direction. Mr. Durden ducked down and when he looked up, he was face to face with Roop at the Southside window as Roop had run around the counter and toward the glass where Mr. Durden was standing. Mr. Durden, still perceiving Roop to be a threat, fired a fourth shot. Roop's body was found lying on the floor directly under the window. It was later determined that Roop did not have a firearm.
“The physical and forensic evidence support Mr. Durden's account of the incident. He has been cooperative with both this Office and the Suffolk Police Department.”
Update: Shooter won’t be charged.
yes they are. Many require that one be in fear for ones life or limb. The intruder need not actually have a weapon, it's a perception thing, and the question is, would a reasonable person be in fear for their life or limb under the circumstances?
But in other states, burglary in progress, or theft during the night time, are sufficient justification for use of potentially deadly force.
I don't know about Virginia, but in many states, a person injured or killed while committing a felony, or at least certain felonies, cannot claim civil damages occurring as a result of his/her actions, nor can her/his survivors.
Texas is like that, with a very few exceptions.
“Texas is like that, with a very few exceptions.”
Agreed. But if there are any states where a perp or his estate *might* be able to sue, it would be the northeast states and possibly VA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.