What a tragedy.
To man in shower: “Put down your weapon!”
Man in shower: “But I can’t! Give me a minute!”
Blam, blam, blam blam!
Man coming at you in shower is no reason to blow him dead.
Incredibly stupid. He goes next door, gets a gun, returns, shoots the guy in the shower 4 times, then calls the police. Dead man had no criminal record.
Sadly, an avoidable murder. He had plenty of time to call the police. If it were a house he lived in, it might be more understandable about fear of return and revenge later on. So many reasons to despise the misuse of alcohol.
Probably some kind of Craig’s list queer hookup gone wrong.
Now I do not think he did the right thing, but if the law really is as quoted, how does anyone think he was not protecting his real (the building) or personal (the contents of the building) property?
I don't think he should have shot the guy, but I do feel that going home to get the gun was a prudent thing to do in case of confrontation, and that if the guy made threatening verbalizations to him what should he do?
Sure call the police first is a good idea, but finding a stranger in your shower is a stressful event and he might not be thinking with 100% clarity.
This one sounds like murder. Unlike the guy in Broken Arrow, OK, who was facing three armed intruders, the shooter in this case wasn’t under a direct threat.
“’Fanning then left the building, went next door to his home and got a hand gun, returned and shot Rosa,’ Spurling said... Both Spurling and a press release from the sheriff’s office said Fanning did not try interact with Rosa again before shooting him. ‘He wasn’t in any danger when he left the residence,’ Spurling said, later adding, ‘He reinserted himself, saw the individual was still showering and shot him — that’s not self-defense.’”
A good journalist would ask the officers how they know these supposed facts of the case.
Did the owner confess these things? They obviously did not get them from the intruder. No one else was present. No one else would know what happened but the owner.
If it happened the way the police describe it, then it is murder. But it is convenient for them to support their arrest and his being charged by stating these things as facts.
Remember to never answer police questions if involved in a shooting without first talking to a lawyer. Sometimes there is a gray area. Use the presumption of innocence in your favor. But don’t be stupid by shooting someone unless you truly feel your or someone’s life is in danger.
With regard to the rights of citizens who use a firearm, you better understand some basic things, or you may find yourself in prison or in debt to legal bills of a quarter of a million dollars or more.
1. Know if your state has a Castle Doctrine law.
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place – e.g., a vehicle or home, as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws.
A person may have a duty to retreat to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. Castle doctrines negate the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted in a place where that individual has a right to be, such as within one's own home. Deadly force may be justified and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another". The castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in the law of many jurisdictions.
Justifiable homicide inside one's home is distinct, as a matter of law, from castle doctrine's no duty to retreat therefrom. Because the mere occurrence of trespassing—and occasionally a subjective requirement of fear—is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine, the burden of proof of fact is much less challenging than that of justifying a homicide.
2. Understand the difference between Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/castle-doctrine-stand-ground/
Don’t get confused. The Castle Doctrine is not Stand Your Ground. The laws are vastly different and if they apply in your state you need to review them and understand what you can and can’t do. Just to make this perfectly clear, every state’s laws are subtly different from similar laws in other states. This is a general overview. Castle Doctrine applies in your home, if you are already inside. Stand Your Ground applies outdoors and only changes one element of the justification for the use of deadly force. They are vastly different.
3. If you use your firearm to defend yourself:
After you have neutralized the threat, call 911. Tell them YOU ARE THE VICTIM OF A CRIME. Tell them you need: medical, police, and give your address. Do NOT tell them you just killed someone. THEN HANG UP!!! Everything is being recorded and can and will be used as evidence. When police arrive, tell them where your firearm is located, and then tell them you are exercising your right to remain silent until your lawyer arrives. Make no statements to the police. If they persist, tell them you are not making a statement without your lawyer. If they ask you to move to their headquarters or station, comply with their instructions.
Something here just doesn’t make any sense to me. Why would the guy continue showering through all this? Whether he was an intruder or just confused and at the wrong house, seems like he would have turned off the shower and gotten out when the owner left. At first I thought maybe the showering man was mentally retarded or maybe had Alzheimer’s, but the article said he was a teacher so he had to be mentally aware. Just seems unbelievable that he just continued showering. Makes me wonder if the whole story is a lie.
I’ll just say I have mixed feelings about that one. We only have one witness.
Anyone with a firearm for self defense should read “In the Gravest Extreme” and/or take a training class in what is justifiable and what’s not. Its not that complicated, you can not be the aggressor, instigator, or re-initiate a conflict once contact has been broken. If you shoot someone without complete justification at best you will go to trial and spend a ton of money. At worst you are going to jail. The guy in Washington will almost certainly be prosecuted.
The problem is that the homeowner left to get a gun. That’s premeditation. If he’d had the gun on him to begin with that would be entirely different.
The lesson: If you cannot legally carry a gun you should have one in your home. Then when there’s an intruder in your home you don’t have to leave your home to get a gun and put your use of the gun on far less sound legal grounds.
To all the bleeding hearts on FR: Any person usurping the property of another deserves waht they get, even be it death.
Gun Sales Are Surging Among an Unusual Group
By
S. Noble -
April 4, 2017
Gun sales have slumped overall but there are some unusual groups buying guns who never bought guns before. Sales among minorities, women and LGBTs in particular have risen since the Pulse nightclub attack.
They are buying guns because they are fearful of attacks by Trump supporters though they really should be afraid of the Obama supporters, like the madman who shot up the Pulse nightclub.
Whatever it takes for people to realize they need to be responsible for themselves and not reliant upon government is likely a good thing.
http://www.independentsentinel.com/gun-sales-surging-among-unusual-group/