Cleveland man who killed burglar shoots another one

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.cantonrep.com/newsnow/x1922386584/Cleveland-man-who-killed-burglar-shoots-another-one

CLEVELAND —

Authorities say a northeast Ohio man who fatally shot a burglar in his home in November shot another man who broke into his home this week.

Police say the latest intruder was shot Monday morning in Miodrag Burgarcic’s house in Cleveland. He was taken to the hospital with an arm wound. Burgarcic told officers he was holding the burglar at gunpoint and fired when the suspect tried to hit him with a lamp.

The Plain Dealer reports that Burgarcic fatally shot a 43-year-old knife-wielding burglar in the chest after finding the man in his home Nov. 21. No charges were filed.

The prosecutor’s office will review the circumstances of the latest shooting.

Sometimes lightning does strike twice.

[ileus]

1. Last time I was in Cleveland I was told to get off the streets.

by a security guard we asked directions to while at the RRHOF.


I'm starting to wonder if Cleveland is a good place to live or not.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. The MSM got it wrong. He shot two home invaders. He did not merely shoot two burglars.

An intruder who "who broke into his home" and attempted to cause harm by using a blunt object is not a mere burglar.

Also, a knife-wielding intruder is not a mere burglar.

Both were home invaders.

[TheMadMonk]

3. What's he doing that makes his home attractive to burglars?

Streetside windows wide open?

Desirable and portable items in clear view?

There's enough reports of other individuals essentially engineering (or deliberately going into) situations where they can "justifiably" use their guns, that I'm a little suspiscious here.

[geek_sabre]

4. humor me

cite one report where a justifiable home shooting was engineered.

Since you're going with the "well, if she hadn't been wearing that, she might not have been raped" argument and all.

[TheMadMonk]

7. Raul Rodriguez.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/defense-murder-drove-man-kill-neighbor/story?id=17226874

Not home invasion, but that was not what I said. It's still a gun nut found in a court of law, to have deliberately set out to use the law to "get away with murder".

Sufficiently humoured?

I'm not saying it's not genuine. Just that it tweaks my suspiscion. Yes homes do get hit twice in succession, but generally because the first job was successful and the burgulars are going after the brand spanking new items bought to replace what was taken the first time around.

Ignorant, stupid or sorely tempted, that's what #2 had to be to go into a property where another burgular had been killled by the occupant barely 2 months earlier.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Second burglar might not have got the memo that the first one didn't survive.

[TheMadMonk]

27. Which is why "ignorant" was my first but not exclusive...

...option.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. I certainly see your point about possible baiting.

Granted, *to me* the survival of the second person tends to speak against that, as he could testify things like 'the window was open, and there was a pile of cash on the table', etc. But I am always a shade suspicious.

I tend to dislike Castle Doctrine/SYG for this reason. I strongly advocate for No Duty to Retreat, and for civil immunity in cases where the victim didn't commit any criminal infraction in defending themselves. But CD/SYG are problematic to me. It limits the scope of reasonable people that might investigate to see if there was something 'not quite right' about the situation.

I accept that in my state, if I shoot someone in self defense, even in blatantly obvious self defense, I may have to explain my actions to a grand jury. I'm cool with that. I consider that a necessary safety valve, because after all, the very reason I *own* firearms, is to preserve human life. Just the possibility that someone might engineer a fake justifiable homicide concerns me.

You've clued in to one possible indicator: multiple events. I don't think it applies in this case, but I certainly see why you called it out.

Edit: I would have phrased it differently though.

"What's he doing that makes his home attractive to burglars?"

I might have said:

"Is he doing anything that might make his home attractive to burglars? (bait)"

The way you phrased the first half of that sounds like a conclusion that he IS doing something unusual, rather than asking if.

[gejohnston]

5. enough reports?

any substantiated or just claimed without evidence?

Is Bait Car entrapment?

[TheMadMonk]

8. ABSOLUTELY if done by a private citizen.

Particularly if said private citizen were hiding under a blanket in the back seat ready to shoot the thief as soon as he's been "kidnapped".

Substantiation: http://abcnews.go.com/US/defense-murder-drove-man-kill-neighbor/story?id=17226874

[gejohnston]

9. get back with me after the trial

and the trial transcript is public, if Texas allows it.

[TheMadMonk]

11. TRIED, CONVICTED AND SENTENCED.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/texas-man-convicted-murder-claims-stand-ground-defense-17234575

[gejohnston]

12. then it has nothing to do with the case at hand.

so why bring it up?

[TheMadMonk]

13. He deliberately engineered a conflict and shot a man.

It's 100% relevant, if Miodrag Burgarcic deliberatly set out to entice a burgular into his home with the intention of confronting that burgular with his gun.

[gejohnston]

14. If, there is no evidence of that.

Home invasion is home invasion. Both of these guys were armed. You are jumping to conclusions with no evidence.
The improbable is always possible.

[TheMadMonk]

16. One hopes the authorities are looking very closely...

..for such evidence. And re-examining the previous incident, to be certain that it was properly justified.

Not home invasion if you leave your window open with an iPad in plain sight, and are lying in wait.

Please note, I never claimed this to be the case, just that the circumstances made me suspiscious.

[gejohnston]

17. are you suspecious because you equate

self defense with vigilantism? That is a fairly common meme. If you reach in through the window with your hand, it is theft. If you enter the window or kick the door in while someone is home, is burglary or home invasion depending on locality. Either with a weapon and with someone home is always home invasion. By your logic, if someone leaves their keys in the car, it is an invitation and not grand theft auto. Sorry, in the real world, it is still grand theft auto.

So, should David Gregory be charged with violating DC gun laws? Millions of people witnessed it. MPD told him not to do it.

[TheMadMonk]

19. No, I worry about a PATTERN of self defence...

...being vigilantism.

And here in Australia, as well as other parts of the world it is absolutely a criminal offence to leave the keys in the ignition. AND IT STILL REMAINS AN OFFENCE TO STEAL THE CAR.

One too many cases of a lazy parent leaving kids + keys in car while they just popped in for the milk.

If he was advised not to do it then absolutely. He could have used a prop to the same end.

[gejohnston]

21. then you don't know what vigilantisim is

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism
In this case, he was holding him for the cops. A vigilante would not have called the cops, he would go right to sentencing. +

And here in Australia, as well as other parts of the world it is absolutely a criminal offence to leave the keys in the ignition. AND IT STILL REMAINS AN OFFENCE TO STEAL THE CAR.

Not in the US. The Crown is not our mum and dad. We expect people to be respectful individuals and be responsible for their actions. It is part of that radical experiment from the Enlightenment that our radical founders put into action, while the conservatives scurried off to Canada and England.

One too many cases of a lazy parent leaving kids + keys in car while they just popped in for the milk.

In some places that might be child neglect or endangerment, keys or not.

If he was advised not to do it then absolutely. He could have used a prop to the same end.

That's not the way our cops do things.

[TheMadMonk]

23. Perhaps he thought two bodies in two months...

...might make the cops a little suspiscious and settled for just winging the second.

Did burgular #2 actually threaten with the lamp, or is that part of the narative that excuses his shooting another human being.

(Oh BTW, a deliberate disabling shot is generally considered an indication that the situation had not yet escalated to the point of life endangerment. And thus outside of a few backwards states which permit lethal defence of property, it doesn't qualify as a justifiable shooting.)

And I bet that you're one of those "rugged individualists" who thinks seatbelts and helmets should be a matter of choice too.

Leaving keys in the ignition is an offence: because it's a waste of police resources; because car thieves (particularly underage joyriders) are a serious menace to the public; and because it has a negative effect on EVERYBODY'S insurance premiums.

Kids in the back seat were just the heartstring jerking excuse the parliaments needed to pass sensible legislation, that lazy idiots considered to be pointless nannying.

Why should leaving kids out to be kidapped ever be neglect from your POV? After all, you just got done telling me, it's an individual choice, you're not responsible for a criminal taking advantage of your action or inaction.

Really? A prop magazine (and I presume prop gun) should be grounds for arrest, but not the real thing?

Or ar you saying your cops do their own ajudication, and decide whether or not a clear and demonstrable criminal offence should be prosecuted based upon who's doing the offending (and perhaps their reason).

THIS I'd believe, given the number of posts regarding cops making just those decisions based upon skin colour, financial status, or whether or not you're getting up the nose of important people like bankers and stockbrokers.

BUT ITS NOT SOMETHING I'D BE PROUD OF!

[gejohnston]

25. cool

...might make the cops a little suspiscious and settled for just winging the second.

Did burgular #2 actually threaten with the lamp, or is that part of the narative that excuses his shooting another human being.

(Oh BTW, a deliberate disabling shot is generally considered an indication that the situation had not yet escalated to the point of life endangerment. And thus outside of a few backwards states which permit lethal defence of property, it doesn't qualify as a justifiable shooting.)

Are you an expert is these matters, or are you just making it up?

And I bet that you're one of those "rugged individualists" who thinks seatbelts and helmets should be a matter of choice too.

I wear them and yes I am an "individualist"

Leaving keys in the ignition is an offence: because it's a waste of police resources; because car thieves (particularly underage joyriders) are a serious menace to the public; and because it has a negative effect on EVERYBODY'S insurance premiums.

good for you.

Why should leaving kids out to be kidapped ever be neglect from your POV? After all, you just got done telling me, it's an individual choice, you're not responsible for a criminal taking advantage of your action or inaction.

Kidnapping is very rare in the US. When it does, it is usually custody issues.

Really? A prop magazine (and I presume prop gun) should be grounds for arrest, but not the real thing?

Was it a prop magazine? It is worthy of investigation. If it real, he said it was real, then it is grounds for arrest.

Or ar you saying your cops do their own ajudication, and decide whether or not a clear and demonstrable criminal offence should be prosecuted based upon who's doing the offending (and perhaps their reason).

DAs do, and don't insult my intelligence saying classim and racism doesn't exist in Australia.

[TheMadMonk]

26. Not an expert. My statement is based on a number of...

...of DU posts on the subject of justifiable use of a firearm.


"Good for me?" What sort of snark is that? I didn't write the laws. But I bloody well agree with them. IF another's "free choice" negatively impacts me/society, why the fuck should I/we suffer for it without recourse?

WTF do custodial disputes have to do with a hopped up car thief failing to see kids in the back seat until they're 5 miles down the road? IIRC a child ended up dying (or coming close to it) under those circumstances when the thief abandoned the car in high temperatures.

NO it was not a prop magazine, but partial credit for confusing matters to the point I ended up justifying something you already agreed with.

You SAID: "That's not the way our cops do things." Not your DAs.

I do not deny that classism and racism exist here. But to nowhere near the same extent that they exist in the USA.

And (outside of a few wannabe skinheads/neonazis) where it exists, our classim and racism has become a relatively casual thing directed mainly at stereotypes. Face to face, we tend to judge others friend or arsehole based upon actions, not skin colour or ethnicity.

And you should not insult my intelligence with bait and switch arguments. But I will thank you for not accusing me of being a rape apologist.

[gejohnston]

28. you were not being accused of being a rape apologist

they were simply using it as an analogy that you were "blaming the victim"
No, DAs don't instruct home owners how to secure their stuff either.

[Berserker]

6. Yup

Could it be just like women who have their skirts to high? Does that make you a little suspicious also? Do these lady's engineer rape in your world? Is rape justifiable in these instances? I'm a little suspicious of your post.

[TheMadMonk]

10. No rape is never justifiable. However, IF her INTENTION...

...was to smoke out a rapist for "instant justice" (even if that rapist had offended before) then she is every bit as much a criminal as the rapist.

[Eleanors38]

15. Wearing short dresses and no bra, obviously.

[TheMadMonk]

18. Get off the grass. Rape is never justified.

Nor is vigilante justice. Nor revenge. However, it is almost guaranteed that in any discussion of rape, both will be advocated and cheered.

Perhaps my question could have been better framed: "What is it about his home that is so attractive to would be burgulars."

If your primary form of home defence is reactive (ie a gun), then you are part of the problem, not the solution.

If you believe (as some of the worst have openly stated) that you don't need locks if you have a gun, then you're a fucking criminal menace.

[Eleanors38]

20. You blamed the victim, not me. And you seem to admit it.

[TheMadMonk]

22. No, I questioned whether or not the victim was blameworthy.

(edit to add) I asked if this was a legitimate case of self defence or vigilantism.

Significant difference between what I said/asked and the words you and several others have tried to put in my mouth.

And if (I say IF) he laid a baited trap, then shot a man, he most certainly is blameworthy.