Skip to comments.Homeowner Charged for Shooting Intruder
Posted on 09/11/2009 4:50:07 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
LITHONIA, Ga. (MyFOX ATLANTA) - A Lithonia homeowner who shot a man who allegedly tried to burglarize his home will face charges. The shooting happened Thursday morning on Gadwall Circle in Lithonia. Police said it appeared that the suspect was outside of the house.
"It came in through here went through the garage, hit the electrical panel, went through the bathroom and lodged in the wall," said Eric Thomas of the bullet that hit his home after a neighbor shot at an alleged intruder.
The shooting happened Thursday morning when police said the burglar entered a house located a couple of doors down from where Thomas lives.
Police said the unidentified homeowner interrupted the burglar and apparently shot him as he fled.
DeKalb County police said the homeowner who shot the suspect was charged with aggravated assault because the shots were fired outside of the home.
Investigators said the homeowner was taken to jail.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxatlanta.com ...
What is so unbelievable? The fact that the homeowner was charged? Or the fact the homeowner was stupid enough to fire his weapon outside his home?
Morally, it is wrong to charge him......even those in the story see that, but apparently you do not:
“We got laws that say certain things, but morally I don’t think he should be charged because he was protecting his home and this subdivision,” said Thomas
With my exceptionally slow dial-up connection I wasn’t able to read the entire article, but from what I’ve seen, the homeowner’s rights to self-defense disappeared once the burglar was fleeing.
In almost all (or all) states you can use deadly force only in the event of immediate fear of serious injury or death. That’s Homeowner Defense 101.
The first fifteen minutes of the Atlanta evening news is usually devoted to body bag journalism. Home invasions have become an everyday occurance.
So if you ever get burgled in Texas, put the TV remote in his dead hands before the cops get there. Or a potted plant. Whatever.
Morally I agree with killing a fleeing burglar, because what you are doing is protecting his next victim from possible death or injury, and if he's burgling your house, it is reasonable to assume that you weren't the first and won't be the last.
I find it ludicrous that many laws serve to protect the individual, but not the overall society. Shooting a fleeing perp serves the entire society, not just the burgled victim.
De Kalb County is possibly the most liberal county in Georgia, with Democrat percentages in national elections at a 3-1 margin, even wider than those in adjacent Fulton County, where most of the city of Atlanta is located. It is also a majority black county.
The homeowner was not stupid. But your answer is foolish and stupid both.
Better yet, practice, practice, and practice some more until you can perform the only acceptable form of gun control - hitting what you're aiming for.
Also, a shotgun with #4 buck works great and doesn't over-penetrate.
You would think there would be real criminals that law enforcement in this area could be going after.
Not to mention the savings in court costs and the price of incarceration.
Yeah, those skateboarders and octogenarian shopping scooter scofflaws are real trouble.
My point was that the response of the poster of the article (a feeling of incredulousness about the law’s response to the situation) just wasn’t applicable.
I had a fleeing thought that Texas might be the exception but other states’ maintain that one must be IMMEDIATE fear for one’s life or serious injury before using deadly force.
I disagree with your suggestion that the law ought to permit shooting a fleeing felon. Our judicial system maintains that citizens are not judges and executioners and I agree with that stance.
One would think!
But now we have a community organizer running the country, Holder as AG (dismissing charges against armed thugs at pollig stations), so is this really a surprise?
Welcome to the new Amerika folks, where homeowners are charged for defending their property.
If I am ever on a jury where the homeowner shoots a fleeing burglar, I will probably vote not guilty. Now if he shoots him when he is down, then that is a different matter.
Also, I will not shoot at a fleeing person if the background is not pretty safe. The fact that a bullet hit another house with innocent people inside is not a plus factor. Unfortunately the “law” does not have a spank this guy for stupidity punishment. Punishing the homeowner as if he is a criminal is clearly unwarranted. He did not start the dance, it was a scumbag who entered his house. If he is convicted he loses the right to defend himself in the future.
Well he will be able to purchase a crossbow, sword, compound bow, build a potatoe gun, etc.
Authorities have DISCRETION in these cases.
Is it unreasonable for a homewowner who feels threatened by a burglar to come outside of his home to defend everything he has worked his entire life for? If you think that is unreasonable, then let’s just agree to disagree.
Yes, I know that prosecutors have discretion in these cases and sometimes they may conclude that the homeowner, in a state of distress under the circumstances, might have shot an invader in the back inside or outside of the homeowner’s dwelling. They may choose to not prosecute given the individual’s stress situation.
Nevertheless, I guess you and I will just, as you put it, agree to disagree about shooting someone who is fleeing. Mind you, I am not saying you are unreasonable—hell, it must be extremely stressful to have your privacy invaded and face loss of your precious possessions; I’m just siding with the law
I would really like to hear all the circumstances in this event. If the guy was down and the homeowner capped him in the ass, that is wrong.
But, in the heat of the situation, if they guy was focused on the perp and not fully aware I can’t find a lot of fault other than carelessness. If the perp was shot in the doorway and falls outside how is that judged?