Skip to comments.Drunk Home Intruder Raids Fridge, Gets Shot(WV)
Posted on 11/22/2012 12:33:56 AM PST by marktwain
When you hear a bump in the middle of the night, the first thing that comes to mind is a guy in a ski mask nabbing your flatscreen TV. The last thing you think of is some dude in his underwear raiding your fridge.
According to reports, 76-year-old Jack Boggess in Charleston, West Virgina awoke at around 3:30 a.m. to a sound in his house. He immediately phoned 911, and then went to investigate with his gun in tow.
Thats where the homeowner found Darin Lanning in nothing more than a T-shirt and his underwear eating food out of the homeowners refrigerator. Weve heard of getting munchies in the middle of the night, but breaking into a strangers home for a snack is a little bit on the crazy side.
The homeowner pointed his gun at the Lanning and ordered him not to move. The homeowner later claimed in the criminal complaint that Lanning moved towards him, so he was forced to shoot the intruder in the shoulder. Boggess recalled the scene, He came at me. I told him to sit still Christ, I didnt want to kill him. I didnt want to shoot him in the chest, so I shot him in the shoulder.
Lanning was then held at gunpoint until the police arrived.
It didnt take long for the cops to figure out that was Lanning was drunk as a skunk. Lanning had been arrested for public intoxication earlier that same day, when he confessed to drinking 12 beers and downing several shots.
Lanning was apparently so drunk that he wasnt even able to recall how he got to Boggess' home or to Charleston. He had been staying with a friend in a nearby town because of Hurricane Sandy. Lanning was taken to the hospital for treatment and was then escorted to his new temporary home: the South Central Regional Jail. He is being held on a $25,000 property only bond.
The police have announced that they will not press charges on the homeowner, whom they claim acted in self-defense. One of the homeowners neighbors, William Kinney, agreed with the police.
Boggess did the right thing, Kinney said, he didn't have to take a life, he did the right thing.
It does seem that delivering a nonlethal wound was the right way to go. Some gun owners wouldnt have any qualms about fatally shooting somebody who broke into their home, but delivering a kill shot to a guy whos drunk out of his mind is somewhat excessive.
What if you were in that situation? If theres an unwelcome intruder in your home at 3 a.m., do you shoot first and ask questions later, or would you refrain from shooting if you saw that the intruder was drunk?
“Christ, I didnt want to kill him. I didnt want to shoot him in the chest, so I shot him in the shoulder.
Laz spending the holidays in West Virginia ?
Shooting the man in the shoulder could easily have killed him.
Shooting him in the shoulder could hit the axillary artery or the brachial artery. The bullet severing this artery the man could have bled out in a few minutes.
Idiot is right, in CA if you don't shoot to kill they will charge you. You have to tell them you were trying to kill the guy but are simply a poor shot, admitting to merely wounding him such as this guy did will result in being charged because they feel if the situation didn't warrant killing the intruder than you shouldn't have fired at all. I feel pretty much the same way, either fire center mass or find another way to subdue the guy.
Sadly, he is now going to need a lawyer for the lawsuit when he gets sued.
... and apparently, so is the writer.
Evidently the 76 year old guy had something you might lack (situational awareness) and lacks something you might have (the urge to kill just because you might get away with it).
I wouldn't hesitate to go for a kill if the situation indicated it was the best way to survive, but I would hope I wouldn't execute some drunken idiot just because I could.
If all the guy had on was his underwear and he was raiding my fridge, I'd let him take what he can find. I can always buy more bread and beer......
(d) The justified use of reasonable and proportionate force under this section shall constitute a full and complete defense to any civil action brought by an intruder or attacker against a person using such force.
Like I said. Idiot.
I didn't shoot him because he had my ham sandwich in his hand, I shot him because he had my ham sandwich in his hand in my house.
“If all the guy had on was his underwear and he was raiding my fridge, I’d let him take what he can find. I can always buy more bread and beer......”
I won’t second guess the homeowner, but letting a thief, drunk or not, have your stuff without some sort of severe consequence is not the right answer.
I’d say his life or death depends on his mode of entry. If someone busts down the door, he’s as good as dead - drunk or not. If he stumbles into an unlocked door that’s a different story.
it aint that easy to hit what you aim at under those circumstances with a pistol anyway. they guy must be a pretty good shot to pick out a small specific part of the anatomy and hit it.
you always read stories of cops, trained professionals, firing multiple rounds with only one or two hits.
also, another great reason to get a dog, any dog. no one is going to break in drunk or sober with a dog barking his head off inside.
Wanna bet some lawyer is working up an “excessive force” suit against Mr. Boggess?
Dead men tell no tales.
In other words, if you manage to kill the guy than your side is the only one that gets told.
“... or would you refrain from shooting if you saw that the intruder was drunk?”
The homeowner had time to administer a sobriety test?
How’d the homeowner know the guy wasn’t high on bath salts?
Intruder could’ve been thinking... “Forget the ham sammich...I be wanting some of your head for a snack.”
“I wouldn’t hesitate to go for a kill if the situation indicated it was the best way to survive, but I would hope I wouldn’t execute some drunken idiot just because I could. “
You miss what we’re saying. We don’t kill (or intend to kill) for kicks. We do it so OUR LIVES do not get turned upside down because some stranger decides to break into our residence.
If laws were different and the presumption is ALWAYS that a stranger in your house is a life-threatening situation, then we likely wouldn’t be advised (virtually unanimously, I might add) to shoot to kill. But the advice we’re given is based on real outcomes in real shootings - and many homeowners have gone broke, or even to jail, because they they didn’t want to kill the guy.
This is why we have German Shepherds.Drunks won’t get in the house in the first place.
And you may as well throw out the butter. No telling what he did with that....
You let them go once, they’ll be back. After the law suit, Underpants will be the new homeowner.
Is it OK to shoot a drunk person in your home. You bet. There is no telling what a drunk person may, or may not do.
If someone is in my home at 3AM in the morning, it will not end well.
Unless a keyless drunk just happens to have a barking dog at his own domicile.
Not that I'm defending the drunk. The homeowner did what he thought he had to do to feel safe in his abode against an intruder.
In that case, any F.R. member would be doomed because none would ever admit to being "a poor shot".
It is simply a reality of human physiology that the two are roughly the same thing. Efforts to stop an attack will be concentrated on lowering the criminal's blood pressure in order to render him unconscious, damaging the nervous system so as to render the criminal unable to move, or damaging the brain in order to render the criminal helpless.
Once the attack has STOPPED, then one is no longer justified in further shooting, whether the criminal is still alive or not.
The permanent consequences of stopping the attack are simply a side-effect. There may someday be a convenient hand-held device that can reliably and harmlessly render an attacker immobile for long enough for law enforcement to arrive. When such a thing exists, we will face an obligation to arm ourselves with that tool in preference to firearms.