Homeowner Shoots Prowler With Rubber Bullets

[ileus]

http://www.kxl.com/01/27/12/Homeowner-Shoots-Prowler-With-Rubber-Bul/landing.html?blockID=583246&feedID=10446

He heard noise just before 4:00am and confronted a man at his back door trying to get inside, firing three rounds, hitting the suspect who rode off on a bicycle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Less Lethal saves the day.

[marsis]

1. Less lethal saves the day-

so he can come back and rob you another way.

[Hoyt]

2. That's it -- homeowner is safe, happy and you guys are pissed because he didn't shoot guy in head.

Maybe the threat wasn't so dangerous. I applaud homeowner for protecting himself without killing an unarmed man on a bicycle.

"He loads the shotgun with three rubber bullets followed by a lethal round." Maybe if some of the callous cowboys here would show the same sense, there wouldn't be so many calling for tougher restrictions.

[Common Sense Party]

5. How do you know the intruder was unarmed?

That's right--you don't.

[marsis]

6. Have you

ever had a break-in. Thought not.

[ileus]

7. You guys?

I was the one that posted the story. I see no problem with using beanbags or rubber bullets.

I thought it was a good story for both POV IMHO...

1. Ive's is happy another person is saved from harm

2. I'm happy the homeowner spared his life and property with a righteous DGU.

3. The Criminal is happy to not be taking a dirt nap.




Now we can debate if he'd return for revenge.

We can debate if he was armed and may or may not have had other intentions.

We can debate if his state needs a stronger castle doctrine.


However.com we can't debate if the rubber projectile done it's job because it did.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Couple problems with that.

Shooting someone with rubber bullets is still considered lethal force.

Using them, may be found in court, to be prima facie evidence that you didn't actually fear for your life, and were therefore not justified using lethal force. (This happened to someone who fired a warning shot into the ground, deliberately, in front of a home invader)

All's well that ends well, but this homeowner got pretty lucky.

[Union Scribe]

9. Yawn, another post from Hoyt accusing fellow DUers

of being bloodthirsty ghouls and wanting to kill people. I've lost count of these ridiculous smear jobs.

[SteveW]

20. Yeah, like someone gave him a season pass. nt

[TheWraith]

10. You are wrong in so many ways it boggles the mind.

For one thing, "less lethal" rounds are called that because they are NOT "non-lethal." A rubber bullet at short range can still kill a human being, it just doesn't ALWAYS do so.

Second, firing a weapon at someone, no matter what it's loaded with, is considered the use of lethal force for the exact reason above. Using a "less lethal" round to scare someone off, or when you are not directly in danger, is actually very reckless and could get you charged with a crime. You are only supposed to use a weapon when it's actually necessary, which is why you should never load it with something that might not be effective, since you're firing when your life is potentially on the line.

So in other words, you're actually applauding the kind of "cowboy" behavior you claim to hate, i.e. someone behaving recklessly with a firearm in a way that could get themselves or others killed when there's no need to.

[Hoyt]

11. Well good -- one of the "gun culture" actually posting that it is not necessary to shoot people.

That's a first. Why don't you tell it to your buddies whining because the unarmed guy on a bicycle wasn't shot to hell and left for the buzzards.

[liberal_biker]

12. Seems to me....

...most of the pro-gun side here has been pretty consistent in stating that shooting someone is a last resort and something to be avoided if possible.

[Hoyt]

13. I would hardly say "most."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

14. ok then ---

name names

and the link to the post that proves it

[liberal_biker]

16. I would.

"Most" indicates the majority. If you have actual facts to the contrary, by all means, present them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. That's good, asking him for actual *evidence*. Gave me a chuckle.

As we all know, our man Hoyt doesn't do 'evidence'...

[krispos42]

15. The guy used lethal force.

He pulled the trigger of a loaded firearm. A miscount or a fumble with the loading of the gun, and he's sending "more lethal" projectiles downrange rather than "less-lethal". And in the eyes of the law, I doubt there is much, if any, difference between shooting lead or shooting rubber.



The guy make a choice, a choice to accept more personal danger to himself in hopes of not having to become a killer of men. That's his choice to make, and it worked. The cops managed to find the guy, and at age 54, I'm hoping that by the time he gets out of jail he's too old and feeble to be breaking and entering.



Of course the flip side of this is the same as the overzealous use of tasers by cops... "well, since they're non-lethal, I can just blaze away!", whereas if he's been packing all buckshot, he probably would have been able to scare off the guy without pulling the trigger. Working the slide of a shotgun generate a very distinctive sound, and one that inspires fear in home invaders.

[ileus]

17. I'm sure he's out on bond already...

probably won't serve any time.

[one-eyed fat man]

19. Lifestyle choices

The cops managed to find the guy, and at age 54, I'm hoping that by the time he gets out of jail he's too old and feeble to be breaking and entering.

That kind of let's you rule out teen age prank or youthful exuberance. Pretty much sounds like a career criminal to me. He might be small time, he might not be particularly violent, but it sure looks like stealing is his choice of lifestyle.

I'm sure there are those here who would praise him as a true progressive. Redistributing wealth without waiting for a government program. Sticking it to the 1% as part of "Occupy Stranger's Garage."

Fighting the historic discrimination against thieves. From the Ten Commandments and the Code of Hammurabi thieves have been looked down upon. Good thing he wasn't caught under Sharia law. How could he give society the finger after they chop his hand off?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

3. Shooting someone is sometimes a crime

depending on the state.

I didn't see anything in the story that indicated the homeowner feared for his life. So the shooting could be a problem, if the county District Attorney feels like pursuing it. The DA will consider all angles, including how this would affect his re-election, then make a decision.

[pipoman]

4. I've known many DAs

and their primary concern (usually) is "how this would affect his re-election" or how it will effect his conviction rate. DAs love to state a '95% conviction rate' and such other silliness.