Sutherlin man who shot intruder (inside home) sentenced to 19 months

nrtoday.com ^ | 8/8/2009 | Staff

[Red in Blue PA]

Smith walked in through the unlocked door and was unbuckling his pants and taking off his shoes when Cramer's wife, Christy, found the man, Stoll said. Smith then laid down on the couch and went to sleep, she said.

Christy Cramer went into the master bedroom with her daughter and locked the door. The pair then left the house through a back door in the bedroom, Stoll said.

Christy Cramer picked her husband up at the nearby bar and took him home. All three entered the home but could not get into the bedroom where guns were located because the door was locked from the inside, so Christy Cramer and the young girl went to the car and called police, Stoll said.

Meanwhile, Cramer went around the outside of the house to the back door, grabbed a gun and re-entered the living room, Stoll said. Cramer woke a sleeping Smith with the butt of his gun and a verbal argument ensued, she said. At some point, Smith reached toward Cramer, Stoll said.

“We don't know if he was reaching at the gun or at his shoes, which were over there too,” she said.

Cramer said he believed Smith was reaching for the gun and shot the man in the chest, Stoll said. Smith never left the couch, she said.

“He was totally and completely on the couch,” Stoll said. “His feet were up. He was only able to get up on an elbow.”

Cramer had said early on that he was acting in self-defense when he shot Smith. Stoll said the law does not allow people to use deadly force, even in their own homes, unless the intruder is committing a felony. The state believed Smith's only crime was trespassing, which is not a felony, Stoll said.

[goldfinch]

The wife and child got out of the home safely. The hubby was in the bar...so the house was empty except for the intruder sleeping on the sofa. I am a big proponent of the right to defend yourself inside your home...but this was definitely a time to call the police and wait for them to do their job. There was no reason for the hubby to go in the house and confront the sleeping intruder.

The moral of the story is...don't get drunk enough that you wander into a strange home, take off your pants, and fall asleep on the sofa. And, don't get drunk enough that you think you think you have the right to shoot someone sleeping on your sofa, when you should sit down at a cafe, have a cup of coffee with you family, and wait for the cops to remove a sleeping intruder. If either or both men had not been drinking, odds are they would have used better judgment.

I have no sympathy for either of them.

[bgill]

Yeah, the story didn’t make any sense with the wife wandering around in the house while the guy was getting settled for his nap.

[Dayman]

He should have gone to a jury trial, he would have had a good chance of at least a hung jury. As others have stated, kicking in a door is a felony nomatter what state you are in.

I don’t waste my time mourning the loss of a home invader, and I certainly would not vote to convict someone who shot one. Drunk or not, that is what the intruder was, even if he did fall asleep on the couch.

[SaraJohnson]

It is very clear that if the wife and daughter were able to escape, they were able to call the police. Instead they went and got dad FROM THE BAR to kill the guy. This was plain stupid.

[Shooter 2.5]

The state believed Smith's only crime was trespassing, which is not a felony, Stoll said.

Since the drunk intruder did not kick in any door. He wandered through an unlocked door. Moral of the story is deadly force is a last resort. Having your doors locked should be the first.

[Still Thinking]

Guilty. You, the homeowner, retreat from danger, only the cops can advance with deadly force.

No so in a growing number of states, which are recognizing that innocents have no duty to retreat when they're where they have a right to be. I'd bet Oregon's not one of those states, so you're probably right if that's what you meant.

[bobby.223]

yep, falsifying a crime scene, (and that act WILL BE discovered), especially a crime scene where lethal force was used, real smart.

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

1) Who is this Stoll who "said" so much?
2) Was this person present at the time of the shooting?
3) If not, why are we reading about 19 months in the crowbar motel?

Regards,
GtG

[Do the math]

This happened to me when I was a teenager. I woke up about 7 AM and went to the kitchen to get something for breakfast. When I entered the kitchen I got a strange feeling, and I looked into the living room and saw a strange man sleeping on my sofa. I ran into the bedroom and got out my 22lr rifle. When I went into the living room I could tell that the man was drunk. I used the rifle to poke him and he woke up, and you should have seen the look on his eyes when he saw my rifle pointed at him. He said that he was looking for Sam, which is my dad’s name. He also told me that he was sorry for falling asleep on my sofa. I told him that he was lucky that I had not shot him yet and to get the hell out of my home. I never saw that man again.

The point is that I was very scared when this happened, and I would have shot this man in self defense if he made even the slightest aggressive move toward me. I would have probably found the home owner not guilty.

[Talisker]

No it looks like homicide.

Homicide is killing in general, murder is killing with malicious intent. The perp was laying on the couch, shoes off, feet up, defenseless. The homeowner went back in, got a gun, and stood over him with it.

No doubt some angry words were exchanged. But the dead perp was found with his feet still up. So I have a hard time understanding how that shooting could be self-defense, or even accidental.

[Talisker]

...using the line above, if two thugs kick in your door with guns in their hands and are just standing there, they have not yet committed a felony per se, so it is not okay to shoot them under the law they are citing?

Them standing there don't mean squat - kicking in your door is felonius assault and immanent threat, and them being armed just doubles it down. Blast away.

[marktwain]

“The homeowner should have done the SMART thing—grab a kitchen knife, put it in the guy’s hand and claim self-defense. Law abiding citizens are at the mercy of their leftist masters in states like Oregon. It’s time those citizens learned how to defend themselves from the REAL criminals—their elected officials.”

---

I guess you have never watched CSI. There is enough truth in it that pulling a stunt such as you suggest will get you convicted of Murder in the first degree.

[mad_as_he$$]

Homicide, Murder1,2,3.

Homicide, mansalughter (varying degrees by State).

Homicide, justified.

Here in Nevada it is what is in the mind of the shooter. The fact that the guy only got 19 months tells me it WAS not a murder conviction. However, once you and your family are out of home safely going back in and shooting the intruder is bad form. Espcially when the wife has already caleld the cops.

[Talisker]

Yeah, on third thought I don't know that murder would apply, certainly not premeditated. But - even if he felt provoked or endangered by the perp, it was because he went back in and stood over him with a gun while his wife called the police. On the other hand, it was his house, and the perp was an invader. On the other other hand, hold someone at gunpoint under non-crisis conditions, and you'd better not have any "accidents." So yeah, homicide rather than murder, of a non-first degree nature.

[Salvation]

Oregon Ping

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Oregon Ping List.

Any of you hear about this?

[Clinging Bitterly]

Yup. That shooting was probably a year ago or so.

I believe all these people were “known” in those parts (so to speak). And the shooter and the victim and the shooter's wife knew one-another (at least the victim and the shooter's wife did). And early on it was tossed around that there was some question as to whether or not the victim might have believed he had permission to crash there (from the wife). So there is more, perhaps not confessed or provable, but known on the street.

Charging a homeowner for killing an intruder in an occupied home is a third rail to any prosecutor in Oregon. It just doesn't happen. The folks in Douglas County would have run the D.A. out of town on a rail for pressing charges if they thought the shooter had a leg to stand on.

[Danae]

Its closer to Roseburg really.

[B Knotts]

We need “castle doctrine” in Oregon. We won’t get it until we throw out the Democrats, though.

[Cuttnhorse]

I recently attended an advanced combat handgun course...something I highly urge all CCW holders to do...and it was very good and extremely worthwhile.

Part of the course was a shoot-no shoot drill at a fabricated course with plywood walls, “windows” and full size photo targets doing various bad and innocent stuff. You had to finish the drill then walk through with the instructor and explain what you did and why...why you fired, why not and why the hesitation. Fantastic exercise and everyone packing should make the effort to attend a course like this.

[Cuttnhorse]

There is enough truth in it that pulling a stunt such as you suggest will get you convicted of Murder in the first degree.

Exactly and it's easy to spot the non-serious gun owners on these threads. I have sat through 3 CCW courses in 3 different states, all taught by exLEO and everyone of them warned about tampering with evidence in a shooting incident. They all say that you must NOT ever do something so stupid like planting evidence or altering a shooting scene.