“’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.
I guess it is implied by the statements of the police to the press that the owner told them the facts that they were sharing with the reporters.
If so, the guy is stupid for telling them AND for shooting the burglar.
But I still wonder if they are distorting what he told them.
If he went home and got his gun and came back, he probably would not be breaking the law.
If he tried to arrest the guy, he probably would not be breaking the law.
Both of these actions would probably be stupid, as opposed to calling 911, but not illegal.
Either way, you don’t shoot someone for being in your shower. That’s not a deadly threat.
I hate to prejudge, but it certainly sounds like a bad shooting.