Justifiable homicide

[JNI64]

Yay finally a good guy wins . Apparently over the weekend at deadman campground in tusilumne Colorado a couple sleeping in their tent a stranger enters their tent in the middle of the night the husband wakes up to him on top of his wife screaming a struggle ensues and good guy shoots bad guy. Entering a mans tent is like entering their home.

[Rain Man]

Nothing to celebrate.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Incident occurred at Deadman's Campground near Kennedy Meadows in Stanislaus National Forest in Tuolumne County, California, not Colorado. Police are still investigating. No, it doesn't sound like anyone will be charged at this point. But as Rain Man notes, killing someone, even if you have to in self-defense, is nothing to celebrate. https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article232607617.html

[JNI64]

Sorry for the bad info on location. And I concur nothing to celebrate. I apologize for coming off so cailluss. But this seems to be happening a lot lately and if it had to happen I'm just glad the good guys won. Being prepared has its benefits, just saying.

[mateozzz]

Assuming the story is correct, it sounds justifiable. However, there's always a chance the story is slanted a little. Like if it was a guy who was just trying to get into the wrong tent (stoned, drunk, etc...) and had no ill intentions but didn't get a chance to recognize his mistake. I know there are lots of strong opinions on both sides, but it pays to keep an open mind.

[rickb]

Assuming the story is correct, it sounds justifiable. However, there's always a chance the story is slanted a little. Like if it was a guy who was just trying to get into the wrong tent (stoned, drunk, etc...) and had no ill intentions but didn't get a chance to recognize his mistake. I know there are lots of strong opinions on both sides, but it pays to keep an open mind.

Good post.

[orthofingers]

I've heard that many or most times, even when there is a clear cut case of justifiable homicide, the innocent person is still put through hell legally, financially and emotionally in the aftermath of the incident.

[Trailweaver]

in response to "Orthofingers" - that depends in large part on what the laws are in the state where the incident happened. Not every state has a "stand your ground" law, and yes, if authorities find your story (or the evidence) doesn't quite match up with what happened, you could be charged, if not with a homicide, then something less, like involuntary manslaughter.

Just an opinion, but if you are going to carry a weapon, and you are going to decide to use it, you often have only seconds in which to use your judgement on a situation, and you better hope your judgement is a good call. Homicide is permanent.

[Five Tango]

This is several years old but it describes the code in California at that time.I am hopeful no charges will be filed based on the limited information we have. https://www.wklaw.com/california-self-defense-laws/

[perrymk]

Not every state has a "stand your ground" law,

Most states with "stand your ground" laws distinguish between "stand your ground" and self defense. I believe all state have some version of a self defense law. On the surface this appears to be a self defense case. I'm sure more details will come out in time.

[JNI64]

Active self protection. It's a huge responsibility knowing you possess the power to take a life, like stated before you really have to be sure. If we're getting the correct story this poor guy wakes up at 2am to his girlfriend screaming and some stranger on top of her .he probably screams get out the guy starts fighting and he reaches for equalizer. And if he was drunk or on drugs or both they can be extremely difficult to deal with.

[gpburdelljr]

Why speculate? Eventually more info will come out.

[Pinnah]

Gun owner. Have my LTC. Regular backpacker.

I see no good guy or bad guy here yet. Could just be a case if mistaken tent that escalated to deadly levels due to the presence of a handgun. Fortunate the woman or other campers weren't struck.

I'd recommend waiting for a full report to draw any conclusions one way or the other.

[Five Tango]

So what is the proper procedure for reacting to an incident like this?Inquiring minds really want to know.......

[JNI64]

Live through it.......

[JNI64]

And it seems to me this gentleman handled it the proper way. He stopped the threat , no charges that we know of. Hike on!

[fastfoxengineering]

Firing off a gun in a tent with three people inside sounds traumatizing. Let alone killing someone. Definitely a gruesome, life altering event.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk

[JNI64]

Yes it certainly does. But I think inviting him out for smores and a version of cumeby yah and talking about our feelings was not an option at this point.

[Shutterbug]

I can't form an opinion on this without more information. Is it possible that the intruder merely made a mistake and entered the wrong tent? Could the man who did the shooting have resolved the situation with less force?

[fastfoxengineering]

Sure. All the details aren't there. One observation from my point of view (background in firearms and training). An individual who is obviously sleeping with presumably a handgun (did they state what it was?) at the ready is one of two things. Someone trained with weapons and has training on threats. He sleeps with his weapon every night. Or two... a more common gun totin, prideful individual. Usually number two gets excited because hes going camping! And can now justify bringing the .357 to bed because they're in bear country! Otherwise the wife makes him keep it in the safe. When confronted by a threat. Freaks out. Pulls a gun. And Shoots.

Lots of details missing.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk

[JPritch]

Sure. All the details aren't there. One observation from my point of view (background in firearms and training). An individual who is obviously sleeping with presumably a handgun (did they state what it was?) at the ready is one of two things. Someone trained with weapons and has training on threats. He sleeps with his weapon every night. Or two... a more common gun totin, prideful individual. Usually number two gets excited because hes going camping! And can now justify bringing the .357 to bed because they're in bear country! Otherwise the wife makes him keep it in the safe. When confronted by a threat. Freaks out. Pulls a gun. And Shoots.

Lots of details missing.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk

Good summary. I've known too many of the latter. Scary.

[Five Tango]

Sure. All the details aren't there. One observation from my point of view (background in firearms and training). An individual who is obviously sleeping with presumably a handgun (did they state what it was?) at the ready is one of two things. Someone trained with weapons and has training on threats. He sleeps with his weapon every night. Or two... a more common gun totin, prideful individual. Usually number two gets excited because hes going camping! And can now justify bringing the .357 to bed because they're in bear country! Otherwise the wife makes him keep it in the safe. When confronted by a threat. Freaks out. Pulls a gun. And Shoots.

Lots of details missing.





Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk

So what would you suggest the victims do in this situation?

[grubbster]

So what would you suggest the victims do in this situation?
At this point no one on this forum knows which one was the victim.

[Five Tango]

At this point no one on this forum knows which one was the victim.

I think if most of the people in this forum woke up with someone in their bed tonight assaulting their wife then it would not take them too long to figure out who the victim is in that situation.But then again some of you might want to ask him if he understands that he is in the wrong home,wrong bed,with the wrong lady,doing something that she does not approve of?

[fastfoxengineering]

So what would you suggest the victims do in this situation?I never said anything should have gone down differently. Therefore im not suggesting anything.

If the facts are as stated, then yeah, justified. Seems like the police saw it that way.

Or did some drunk dude stumble into the wrong tent and some trigger happy, inexperienced gun owner blow his head off in an act of panic when the guy fell onto his wife?

And thats how the "victims" saw it all go down. There I said it. Pretty easy to bend the truth on this one.

We will never know.

The scary part is number two scenario seems more likely to happen imo.

All speculation. Knowing WHY this individual had a piece next to him can give some more insight into the whole situation. What was his background with weapons?

Did he have a gun because he carries everyday and it's just part of his life? This would make one feel much more confident in his story.

Or did he have a gun that comes out of the safe twice a year due to an irrational fear of camping and thinks of the gun as some brass balls. Therefore much more likely to send off a round that didn't need to.

This kinda info actually clarifies much of the shooting.

All speculation when you weren't in the tent to see it go down.

The guy crawled into the tent. Crossing a serious personal space zone for sure. No arguing that.

This is just one of those times when the only evidence is that the guy entered the tent. Anything after that is all what the couple said.

And im not saying they are liars. But if you messed up and blew some drunkards head off. Wouldn't you use their exact story?


Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk

[Five Tango]

Apparently the police believe the story and may have likely proved it true with a lie detector test which would explain why no charges have been filed.

Whether or not the shooter is a "trained firearms professional" or just some goober exercising his 2nd amendment rights makes no difference,because if the story is true,he acted appropriately under duress and in the dark the moment his companion's screams awakened him to a fight in progress.

If he is lying he is rightly headed to jail but since it has been four days since the incident and no charges have been filed then I expect that will not be the case.By the way,do we know if the deceased was drunk,insane,or on drugs or is that simply speculation?Since California has Castle Doctrine and the survivors felt their lives were in danger,why would it make any difference if the perpertrator were under the influence when the assault was committed?

Anyone who owns and carries a firearm would be well advised to read "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoub which gives good information as to when the use of force is called for and when it is not.

[rickb]

Whether or not the shooter is a "trained firearms professional" or just some goober exercising his 2nd amendment rights makes no difference,because if the story is true,he acted appropriately under duress and in the dark the moment his companion's screams awakened him to a fight in progress.
Even with an identical set of facts, members of the law enforcement community get treated far differently than commoners in these kinds of situations.

Seems like the shooter is being presumed innocent so far — almost like he has a badge.

[Time Zone]

Apparently the police believe the story and may have likely proved it true with a lie detector test which would explain why no charges have been filed.

I don't know what the PD relied upon, but for the record, polygraph tests ("lie detectors") prove nothing regarding truth or falsity.

[TNhiker]

I don't know what the PD relied upon, but for the record, polygraph tests ("lie detectors") prove nothing regarding truth or falsity.




and cannot be used as evidence in the court of law.....

[Time Zone]

and cannot be used as evidence in the court of law.....
Generally, yep. I was going to include that but decided to be concise.

There are apparently some jurisdictions where results can be admitted into evidence if both sides agree, but when would both sides in a contested case agree to such a thing?

Also, while results may correlate with nervousness and anxiety, an innocent person may have those things in spades when accused of a serious crime, facing a trial, massive legal bills, etc etc. [For a similar reason, psychopaths can beat such tests. hakuna matata to them]

[TNhiker]

If he is lying he is rightly headed to jail but since it has been four days since the incident and no charges have been filed then I expect that will not be the case.




well...

they could (and probably are) waiting to see what the prosecutor says about all this............or they can even take it before a grand jury and see what the grand jury thinks about it.....

just because he ain't in jail now doesnt mean that they can come back and charge him later on if warranted......

[JNI64]

Even with an identical set of facts, members of the law enforcement community get treated far differently than commoners in these kinds of situations.

Seems like the shooter is being presumed innocent so far — almost like he has a badge.

Really wow, now it's a possible cover up for a fellow police officer!

[Five Tango]

I don't know what the PD relied upon, but for the record, polygraph tests ("lie detectors") prove nothing regarding truth or falsity.

True,they are not infallible and generally are not admissable in court but for some reason,law enforcement seems to consider them a valuable tool as they get used all the time.

[JNI64]

I'm almost sorry I started this thread. But somebody was bound to anyway I have a suspicion. Ya know every scenario discussed above is a possibility . It's the crazy season this year in the woods that I know for sure!

[One Half]

I've heard that many or most times, even when there is a clear cut case of justifiable homicide, the innocent person is still put through hell legally, financially and emotionally in the aftermath of the incident.

legally and financially depend on the state. MA - you're life is screwed. Tx - not so much.

[rickb]

Really wow, now it's a possible cover up for a fellow police officer!

Your perspective is flawed.


Unfortunately, when it come to anything associate with guns, everyone is not treated equally — in some jurisdictions.

Do you seriously think all people are treated similarly in these kinds of situations?

[JNI64]

Perhaps just the way I perceived it doesn't matter. And no I definitely don't believe people are treated equally there's double standards everywhere including my workplace. My point is this is just another danger we face going out in the woods like we do. There's another thread on it right now. we prepare for ticks, rabid animals, heat stroke, freezing to death,etc... this is just another danger we need to prepare for the crazies.just try to have some kind of plan. Because any of these traumatic events that's happened this year could happen to any of us.Maybe I should have put a question mark after my title? ( not paranoid just prepared).

[Traveler]

[QUOTE=Five Tango;2251433]Apparently the police believe the story and may have likely proved it true with a lie detector test which would explain why no charges have been filed.

Whether or not the shooter is a "trained firearms professional" or just some goober exercising his 2nd amendment rights makes no difference,because if the story is true,he acted appropriately under duress and in the dark the moment his companion's screams awakened him to a fight in progress.

If he is lying he is rightly headed to jail but since it has been four days since the incident and no charges have been filed then I expect that will not be the case.By the way,do we know if the deceased was drunk,insane,or on drugs or is that simply speculation?Since California has Castle Doctrine and the survivors felt their lives were in danger,why would it make any difference if the perpertrator were under the influence when the assault was committed?

Anyone who owns and carries a firearm would be well advised to read "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoub which gives good information as to when the use of force is called for and when it is not.[/QUOTE


An investigation of this type will take a while to reach a conclusion never mind conduct. A shooting in an uncontrolled rural/wilderness area has a lot of logistical issues that will slow down the investigation, four days most certainly would not be enough regardless of what a polygraph that can be manipulated claims. Some of these logistics include:

Finding witnesses who have moved up/down trail will be difficult if not impossible after about 24 hours. Even if there is a list with contact information it may take months before contact can be made. This is perhaps the most difficult and potentially important issue as witnesses can help corroborate statements to LE.

A forensic examination of the scene to look for gunpowder residue, blood spatter and other evidence in the tent (tent walls, sleeping bags, clothing, etc) before the scene is disturbed is needed to determine who was in the tent and where they were. Who's to say the shooting didn't happen outside the tent and the body dragged into it. Just getting that equipment to the scene and completing a thorough examination will take several days.

Victim and shooter/shooter girlfriend relationships have to be investigated. May have been an on-going feud, busted romance, or business deal that went bad, could be complete strangers. This may take weeks to months to complete.

Autopsy of the shooting victim to ascertain sobriety, how far away the gun was and angle of the shot to determine body position, determine which hand the shooter used, determine defensive wounds.

Investigations take a fair amount of time to bring into play and develop results that are compounded by the remote location, difficult access, and crime scene pollution in rural areas of this type. While the initial investigation by LE may have determined it was likely self defense, it's difficult to confirm without forensic evidence. It would not be unusual for many months to go by before any charges are filed or exoneration was finalized.

[Rain Man]

I'm almost sorry I started this thread.

Since it has nothing to do with the AT, I've got to agree with you.

[fastfoxengineering]

Yay finally a good guy wins.

It's because you said that. Celebrating a homicide.

I know it's not what you meant. But the way you kicked off the thread kinda set the tone.


Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk

[JNI64]

Forgive if I'm wrong (again) but I didn't realize this was just a AT related website . And yes I sometimes get in trouble for my strong feelings or words/ strong personality. If these folks in the tent were innocent then I'm elated they were victorious however they had to.

[Five Tango]

I don't think your thread is out of line because it is related to campsites/tents etc and issues like crime that also affect the AT.Lots of different threads in this forum that are not strictly about the AT.

[JPritch]

I see no issue with the post. There have been plenty of non-AT specific threads on here, but still relevant to the backpacking community. I enjoy WhiteBlaze because discussion is encouraged here. Some of the AT Facebook groups are ridiculous with the amount of censorship they impose on their members.

[MichaelK7]

I've heard that many or most times, even when there is a clear cut case of justifiable homicide, the innocent person is still put through hell legally, financially and emotionally in the aftermath of the incident.

I'd rather still be alive and dealing with the consequences instead of the alternative.
I hope the shooter and the woman aren't plagued by this incident for too long.

[Traveler]

I'd rather still be alive and dealing with the consequences instead of the alternative.
I hope the shooter and the woman aren't plagued by this incident for too long.

I hope they aren't found to be complicit in a murder.

[The Weasel]

The lawyer in me says, "This story is fishy." Picture the scene: It's late at night. A tent, likely a reasonably small compartment even if not a backpacking tent, and likely with a closed zipper to keep varmints (including human ones) outside has a man and his wife in it, each likely inside a zipped sleeping bag. With neither the man nor the woman hearing anything, the tent is unzipped sufficiently for a man to enter without being heard, despite the likely disorganized contents of the tent on the floor. For undisclosed reasons, the man (who is presumably mostly, if not entirely, clothed, or else that raises further noise issues) is able to identify which way the woman is facing and, for yet further reasons gets on top of her, despite her being in a sleeping bag with clothes on. Up to this point, the husband is still fully asleep, and the woman silent, and the intruder is so stealthy that there is no disruption. Suddenly, she screams! And then, with no inquiry, not even a "W T F" issued, the instantly-awakened and totally alert and focused husband has his trusty Peacemaker out of its probably semi-hidden location (yet oh-so-easily reached in the dark from the bowels of his pack!) out and - yes, it's darker in the tent than outside in the night - is able to nail the intruder with a coupla rounds of center mass and save the damsel.

Distinct odor of yesterday's salmon, folks.

[petedelisio]

Sure. All the details aren't there. One observation from my point of view (background in firearms and training). An individual who is obviously sleeping with presumably a handgun (did they state what it was?) at the ready is one of two things. Someone trained with weapons and has training on threats. He sleeps with his weapon every night. Or two... a more common gun totin, prideful individual. Usually number two gets excited because hes going camping! And can now justify bringing the .357 to bed because they're in bear country! Otherwise the wife makes him keep it in the safe. When confronted by a threat. Freaks out. Pulls a gun. And Shoots.

Lots of details missing.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk

What about the person that isn't trained well but still isn't prideful?
Why make up fanciful stories about how the wife deals with things at home?
Just adding fodder.

[rickb]

The lawyer in me says, "This story is fishy." Picture the scene: It's late at night. A tent, likely a reasonably small compartment even if not a backpacking tent, and likely with a closed zipper to keep varmints (including human ones) outside has a man and his wife in it, each likely inside a zipped sleeping bag. With neither the man nor the woman hearing anything, the tent is unzipped sufficiently for a man to enter without being heard, despite the likely disorganized contents of the tent on the floor. For undisclosed reasons, the man (who is presumably mostly, if not entirely, clothed, or else that raises further noise issues) is able to identify which way the woman is facing and, for yet further reasons gets on top of her, despite her being in a sleeping bag with clothes on. Up to this point, the husband is still fully asleep, and the woman silent, and the intruder is so stealthy that there is no disruption. Suddenly, she screams! And then, with no inquiry, not even a "W T F" issued, the instantly-awakened and totally alert and focused husband has his trusty Peacemaker out of its probably semi-hidden location (yet oh-so-easily reached in the dark from the bowels of his pack!) out and - yes, it's darker in the tent than outside in the night - is able to nail the intruder with a coupla rounds of center mass and save the damsel.

Distinct odor of yesterday's salmon, folks.


The Weasel!!!!!

[centerfieldr162]

The lawyer in me says, "This story is fishy." Picture the scene: It's late at night. A tent, likely a reasonably small compartment even if not a backpacking tent, and likely with a closed zipper to keep varmints (including human ones) outside has a man and his wife in it, each likely inside a zipped sleeping bag. With neither the man nor the woman hearing anything, the tent is unzipped sufficiently for a man to enter without being heard, despite the likely disorganized contents of the tent on the floor. For undisclosed reasons, the man (who is presumably mostly, if not entirely, clothed, or else that raises further noise issues) is able to identify which way the woman is facing and, for yet further reasons gets on top of her, despite her being in a sleeping bag with clothes on. Up to this point, the husband is still fully asleep, and the woman silent, and the intruder is so stealthy that there is no disruption. Suddenly, she screams! And then, with no inquiry, not even a "W T F" issued, the instantly-awakened and totally alert and focused husband has his trusty Peacemaker out of its probably semi-hidden location (yet oh-so-easily reached in the dark from the bowels of his pack!) out and - yes, it's darker in the tent than outside in the night - is able to nail the intruder with a coupla rounds of center mass and save the damsel.

Distinct odor of yesterday's salmon, folks.

Not sure what makes this "fishy" ? I sleep with my gun beside me in my tent every night on the trail and my gun beside me on my nightstand at home. If there's an intruder, the first thing I am doing is grabbing my gun. I'd never have my gun down inside my backpack in my tent. Why assume this person did that? I don't even sleep with my pack in my tent. Also, where was it stated the husband was "fully asleep"? I'm hyper-aware on the trail and hardly ever go into deep sleep, no matter how many miles I've hiked or how exhausted I am.

[XCountry]

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/07/17/deadmans-campground-tent-man-shot/

[JNI64]

Sounds like a nice guy. Sounds like he got what he deserves!

[The Weasel]

The Weasel!!!!! Who else, but? TW

[gpburdelljr]

The lawyer in me says, "This story is fishy." Picture the scene: It's late at night. A tent, likely a reasonably small compartment even if not a backpacking tent, and likely with a closed zipper to keep varmints (including human ones) outside has a man and his wife in it, each likely inside a zipped sleeping bag. With neither the man nor the woman hearing anything, the tent is unzipped sufficiently for a man to enter without being heard, despite the likely disorganized contents of the tent on the floor. For undisclosed reasons, the man (who is presumably mostly, if not entirely, clothed, or else that raises further noise issues) is able to identify which way the woman is facing and, for yet further reasons gets on top of her, despite her being in a sleeping bag with clothes on. Up to this point, the husband is still fully asleep, and the woman silent, and the intruder is so stealthy that there is no disruption. Suddenly, she screams! And then, with no inquiry, not even a "W T F" issued, the instantly-awakened and totally alert and focused husband has his trusty Peacemaker out of its probably semi-hidden location (yet oh-so-easily reached in the dark from the bowels of his pack!) out and - yes, it's darker in the tent than outside in the night - is able to nail the intruder with a coupla rounds of center mass and save the damsel.

Distinct odor of yesterday's salmon, folks.
It took a huge number of assumptions, unsupported by any facts, to reach your conclusion that something is fishy.

[kestral]

And the place is named “Deadman’s campground “. Wow

[JNI64]

Maybe he did get the wrong tent he was looking for a kid.

[JNI64]

SAD BUT TRUEE !!! Lets take care out there ladies and gents.............

[rickb]

I wonder if the dead person would have taken the risk of entering a stranger’s tent if he lived in a state where more people had carry permits.

Google tells me that California has issued only about 92,000 active CCW permits. By way of comparison my relatively small state of Massachusetts has over 400,000 out there.

Of course LEOs also carry legally, greatly increasing the total number of people who can lawfully carry.

[Lone Wolf]

loved livin' in Vermont. constitutional carry state. no permit needed. very low gun violence

[JNI64]

As the case in wv. Open carry no permits required.

[The Weasel]

The lack of facts is precisely my point. We have a story with virtually no facts, but dozens of questions, that draws a conclusion, i.e. that the death was justified. Absent answers to the questions, there is no justification for the conclusion.


It took a huge number of assumptions, unsupported by any facts, to reach your conclusion that something is fishy.

[Traveler]

It took a huge number of assumptions, unsupported by any facts, to reach your conclusion that something is fishy.
Much as it did to reach the conclusion he should have been shot dead. Go figure.

[rickb]

What we do know is that the police were confident enough in what happened that they issued a public statement without reservation or couched in double speak very soon after the incident:

Reports indicate that a man and his girlfriend were asleep in their tent when an unassociated 36-year-old Watsonville man entered their tent” about 2 a.m., according to the post. “The woman woke up to the Watsonville man on top of her. The woman yelled to wake up her boyfriend ... During the ensuing confrontation, the Watsonville man was shot...

I think this is great. The shooter no doubt has enough to deal with right now — and even though they said “reports indicate”, that clear statement helps address any concerns of neighbors and coworkers who might think the incident to be fishy. Also great that the Police have not released the shooter’s name or home town, and then followed up with a report on the deadman’s past criminal history.

In short, the police have — as I think they should have — presumed the shooter guiltless and acted as such with their public comment. This has to make things a bit easier for the couple in the tent, as they reintegrate into their home and work lives.

While Weasel makes some very solid points, I applaud the authorities for this — especially we assume the shooter was a civilian and not member of the law enforcement community or other special class of citizen..

Remarkable in that case, IMO.

We may never know.



Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article232607617.html#storylink=cpy

[The Old Chief]

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/07/17/deadmans-campground-tent-man-shot/

This was posted yesterday at around 4:00pm. Stop speculating and read what the Sheriff from that jurisdiction has released.

[Zea]

I have a friend that always brings a gun when backpacking, but refuses to use deet or permethrin or stop and do tick checks in high-tick areas.

People are funny with risk perception.

Glad this case seems to be cut and dry, sucks for all involved. Not making any excuse, but it's hard not to suspect a real mental health issue at play.

[DownYonder]

This was posted yesterday at around 4:00pm. Stop speculating and read what the Sheriff from that jurisdiction has released.

The victim should get an award!! I will be the first to contribute to his defense fund if needed.

[The Weasel]

Thanks. There's always more to a story, and glad to see this was it.

TW

[JNI64]

The victim should get an award!! I will be the first to contribute to his defense fund if needed.

I'll be the second!!

[George]

So what is the proper procedure for reacting to an incident like this?Inquiring minds really want to know.......

not in your home I do not believe there is as clear of a "path to innocence"

this is an in your own home scenario, that if you have a clean record should result in not even being brought into custody for questioning

5 main items

1 weapon(especially firearm) is legally possessed

2 structure was secured (break in needs to have occurred) - does not matter how drunk/ confused a person is if they break in

3 person who broke in is unknown to you by sight or name

4 authorities were notified previous to deadly force being used

5 person who broke in was warned to stop/ leave before deadly force was used

for # 4 and 5 call 911, put the phone upright and yell a warning, leave the phone on until law enforcement arrives (all is recorded) - side note: let the responding law enforcement know where in the structure you are(through the dispatcher) and lay down any weapons - after a shots fired incident the officer will of course have a priority of there own security

if the person who broke in enters a final barricade (usually bedroom door) after the warning there should be little question of a killing being justifiable - assuming all 5 items check out - that does not mean you will not be sued/ charged with a crime, incur significant expense, mental trauma etc - just that in the end, you are not guilty of a crime

if 1-5 are not all certain it does not necessarily mean you are guilty, just that more red flags will be raised/ investigated

of course in this tent/ campground situation everything is more murky, but IMO protection of family would come far above legalities

[George]

Anyone who owns and carries a firearm would be well advised to read "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoub which gives good information as to when the use of force is called for and when it is not.


2nd this but do not stop there - critical threat training simulates these scenarios as close as you can get - my choice after extensive training and certifications - I have never carried, IMO the threats do not equal the rest of it - the best protection has worked so far, it sits on your shoulders

[The Old Chief]

not in your home I do not believe there is as clear of a "path to innocence"

this is an in your own home scenario, that if you have a clean record should result in not even being brought into custody for questioning

5 main items

1 weapon(especially firearm) is legally possessed

2 structure was secured (break in needs to have occurred) - does not matter how drunk/ confused a person is if they break in

3 person who broke in is unknown to you by sight or name

4 authorities were notified previous to deadly force being used

5 person who broke in was warned to stop/ leave before deadly force was used

for # 4 and 5 call 911, put the phone upright and yell a warning, leave the phone on until law enforcement arrives (all is recorded) - side note: let the responding law enforcement know where in the structure you are(through the dispatcher) and lay down any weapons - after a shots fired incident the officer will of course have a priority of there own security

if the person who broke in enters a final barricade (usually bedroom door) after the warning there should be little question of a killing being justifiable - assuming all 5 items check out - that does not mean you will not be sued/ charged with a crime, incur significant expense, mental trauma etc - just that in the end, you are not guilty of a crime

if 1-5 are not all certain it does not necessarily mean you are guilty, just that more red flags will be raised/ investigated

of course in this tent/ campground situation everything is more murky, but IMO protection of family would come far above legalities
I can't say you're wrong for giving this information as it relates to your State, but in North Carolina you will see it's very much different. I don't know of any jurisdiction in the United States where you need the permission of law enforcement prior to the use of deadly force. If you have the time to do all the things you say to do you probably have time to pack a suitcase, get in your car, and drive to the nearest police station for help.
https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-51.2.html
https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-51.3.html

[4eyedbuzzard]

God forbid you ever have to shoot anyone in self-defense, shut-up and DEMAND to have a lawyer before answering any questions. Note that when police officers are involved in a shooting, they don't make statements without legal representation. You would be wise to follow their example.

[The Old Chief]

God forbid you ever have to shoot anyone in self-defense, shut-up and DEMAND to have a lawyer before answering any questions. Note that when police officers are involved in a shooting, they don't make statements without legal representation. You would be wise to follow their example.
You can be rest assured that if I do shoot someone in self defense I will use a criminal defense attorney of my choosing and won't rely on the sage advise of commenters on Whiteblaze.

[Five Tango]

not in your home I do not believe there is as clear of a "path to innocence"

this is an in your own home scenario, that if you have a clean record should result in not even being brought into custody for questioning

5 main items

1 weapon(especially firearm) is legally possessed

2 structure was secured (break in needs to have occurred) - does not matter how drunk/ confused a person is if they break in

3 person who broke in is unknown to you by sight or name

4 authorities were notified previous to deadly force being used

5 person who broke in was warned to stop/ leave before deadly force was used

for # 4 and 5 call 911, put the phone upright and yell a warning, leave the phone on until law enforcement arrives (all is recorded) - side note: let the responding law enforcement know where in the structure you are(through the dispatcher) and lay down any weapons - after a shots fired incident the officer will of course have a priority of there own security

if the person who broke in enters a final barricade (usually bedroom door) after the warning there should be little question of a killing being justifiable - assuming all 5 items check out - that does not mean you will not be sued/ charged with a crime, incur significant expense, mental trauma etc - just that in the end, you are not guilty of a crime

if 1-5 are not all certain it does not necessarily mean you are guilty, just that more red flags will be raised/ investigated

of course in this tent/ campground situation everything is more murky, but IMO protection of family would come far above legalities
If I wake up in the middle of the night to a screaming wife with a stranger on top of her you can be assured I will NOT call law enforcement or play with a telephone before dealing with the threat because it could be reasonably expected that the intruder would be inclined to murder the husband before he proceeds to rape and murder the wife.

[trailmercury]

post deleted

[Astro]

This was posted yesterday at around 4:00pm. Stop speculating and read what the Sheriff from that jurisdiction has released.

Reminds me of the great closing argument for capital punishment... there are no repeat offenders!

[The Weasel]

Yeah, and if we later find out they were innocent, they can't complain, either!

TW

[Five Tango]

Yeah, and if we later find out they were innocent, they can't complain, either!

TW

Please explain to me how a man in that situation could be considered innocent under the law or any stretch of the imagination.Inquiring minds want to know how he would not be guilty of breaking and entering plus assault.

[The Weasel]

Easily done in many ways. Here is one (lawyers call this "mooting", using hypotheticals to test application of law):

The man was temporarily insane, under any of several texts. As a result, unable to form intent to commit a crime. Not guilty. Pres Reagan's near assassin was this way. Many other ways can be shown.

TW

[JNI64]

Let's move on folks . Just a freaked up situation. I opened this thread I'm moderating and closing it. HIKE ON!!

[Five Tango]

Easily done in many ways. Here is one (lawyers call this "mooting", using hypotheticals to test application of law):

The man was temporarily insane, under any of several texts. As a result, unable to form intent to commit a crime. Not guilty. Pres Reagan's near assassin was this way. Many other ways can be shown.

TW
post deleted

[George]

I can't say you're wrong for giving this information as it relates to your State, but in North Carolina you will see it's very much different. I don't know of any jurisdiction in the United States where you need the permission of law enforcement prior to the use of deadly force. If you have the time to do all the things you say to do you probably have time to pack a suitcase, get in your car, and drive to the nearest police station for help.
https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-51.2.html
https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-51.3.html

never said you need permission before the use of deadly force - just that the calling(and other steps) help avoid complications - read the post carefully, locked doors etc is a daily routine, the call takes little time, with some training/ practice the steps can be quick, there is no great expenditure of time as outlined - personally I do not have a problem doing a little more before potentially taking a life

[GaryM]

Law enforcement will NEVER give you permission for deadly force. It would open them to massive amount of liability to whatever might happen. The most they *might* say is to do what you need to do to insure your personal safety.

Just thinking of a dispatcher saying "Ok, go ahead and shoot/kill them now" just makes my head spin.

[perdidochas]

not in your home I do not believe there is as clear of a "path to innocence"

this is an in your own home scenario, that if you have a clean record should result in not even being brought into custody for questioning

5 main items

1 weapon(especially firearm) is legally possessed

2 structure was secured (break in needs to have occurred) - does not matter how drunk/ confused a person is if they break in

3 person who broke in is unknown to you by sight or name

4 authorities were notified previous to deadly force being used

5 person who broke in was warned to stop/ leave before deadly force was used

for # 4 and 5 call 911, put the phone upright and yell a warning, leave the phone on until law enforcement arrives (all is recorded) - side note: let the responding law enforcement know where in the structure you are(through the dispatcher) and lay down any weapons - after a shots fired incident the officer will of course have a priority of there own security

if the person who broke in enters a final barricade (usually bedroom door) after the warning there should be little question of a killing being justifiable - assuming all 5 items check out - that does not mean you will not be sued/ charged with a crime, incur significant expense, mental trauma etc - just that in the end, you are not guilty of a crime

if 1-5 are not all certain it does not necessarily mean you are guilty, just that more red flags will be raised/ investigated

of course in this tent/ campground situation everything is more murky, but IMO protection of family would come far above legalities

Glad I live in FL, where the above is not necessary. In FL, if someone broke into an occupied dwelling (and yes, tents would count, and there is no requirement that it be secured), it's considered a forcible felony. Lethal force is allowed to be used in defense. #4 and #5 is not necessary, nor really #3 (although I do admit things would get more dicey if you knew the person you shot).

[JNI64]

Let's move on folks . Just a freaked up situation. I opened this thread I'm moderating and closing it. HIKE ON!!

We've beat this thing to death ( no pun intended)

[Alligator]

We've beat this thing to death ( no pun intended)Yes indeed. Closed.