HD shooting for "taking as shower?" Shooter Arested
 

Fox News: Washington St. Resident Arrested after shooting an intruder that was "taking a shower" in shooter's home...

It would seem that the crux will be surrounding the Washington state "Castle Doctrine" laws, assuming there are any. Some are arguing on other FL 2A forums that if this had happened in FL, the "presumption" of "fear of life/great bodily harm" exists, per FL's Castle doctrine statute, and would justify the use of deadly force in this case, even though the shooter left the house, came back with a gun and then shot the intruder without contacting the police. Others argue that the FL castle doctrine does not extend that far, and that the defendant would be very hard pressed to justify said actions to a FL jury, as it seems this gentleman will have with a Washington Jury.

<popcorn>

Well I am all about protecting your home and family BUT as soon as he fled and returned without calling any LEO then shot and killed the guy, sorry that is no longer protection. I would say this guy is hosed I hope he enjoys jail, he certainly deserves it. What an idiot! Gives gun owners and proper gun users a black eye here.

Agreed. And I don't think even FL castle doctrine would protect him here, either, for the same reasons. Once he left and then returned armed, he became the aggressor.

Dumbass shoulda used a grenade

Well first I wouldn't have gone to check on the other house without my gun in the first place. If I had seen that someone was in one of my properties and I was going to confront them I would want to get my gun if I had left it at my home. On the way to getting it I would have called the cops, then, depending on how long I perceived the response time would be and if too long I may try to confront. I think that is justified up to that point. Now putting 4 shots through the shower curtain without verifying the person on the other side is a threat is where this guy went wrong. All that being said there is some definite spin going on in that article. Sounds like the "compassionate educator" employed by the local elementary school has some screws loose, possibly a perv who gets off breaking into people homes and using their showers and who knows what else. Maybe he didn't deserve to die but at least he isn't around kids anymore.

Now don't take this as starting anything because I RESPECT everyone's opinion here but I think you are still in the wrong here. After you call the cops and there is no initial threat I don't think you have any basis to to go back and confront the guy. I think you stand back and watch. Now all this assuming no family is in the house and you have no current actual threat to your own life. I think going back to confront is a really bad idea that just opens yourself up to issues legally and to your health.

In this case he was in the shower and maybe drunk so unless he starts after you I am not sure how dangerous he is AND neither do you going back in. I would have called on duty LEO and watched and observed from a safe but reasonable distance to protect my home. Going back in is the issue here, you are out, your family is out and the guy is in your bathroom. Nothing good can come from re-entering the house without the police.

Lawyers will eat this up I am sure.

I am going to ask one of our prosecuting attorneys and see what he says. We have the same type law here to protect your "castle".

Yeah, the "compassionate educator" baloney raised red flags for me too.

And you know that with self defense cases, the media never gets the story right initially.

We had one here in which the lawyer for the shooter worked in the same office building as I did. He told me that what happened wasn't at all what was being reported. The media had the guy painted as a heartless monster that chased down an unarmed boy and gunned him down in cold blood while the boy was begging for his life.

When the facts came out...CASE DISMISSED

http://www.cotep.org/forum/picture.p...&pictureid=888

This dumb bastage has earned through stupidity a long unhappy time. He might have been better off if he had shot himself instead. The drunk a hole behind the shower curtain may have even thought he was in his own home? As I recall from my shower education featuring Janet Leigh in the movie Psycho, never take a shower. Perhaps this nit whit shooter might be related to Tony Perkins? Oooppppsss Ton y Perkins. Sorry Tony.

Agree....media gets it all messed up, we don't even know all the details yet but here we are playing judge.

Based on details provided I am in agreement with you.. Left the house so no threat exists.. Call popo and wait..
Now we wait until further details emerge

That's about as ignorant as chasing someone OUT of your house and then shooting them in the back in the front yard.

Further proof that some people shouldn't own firearms.

As I said the shooter made a number of poor decisions and deserves what he will get.

So just to continue discussion, at what point do I no longer have a right to defend my property? The article said the second house was where he ran a business. Where does the law say I need to sit and watch someone break into my business and possibly destroy my livelihood? Yes I know in this case the burgler was just taking a shower but what if it were someone trying to steal or otherwise put my livelihood at risk? Say I own a jewelery store and I see a thief robbing my store? Do I have a right to try and detain them from fleeing before the police arrive? That was the angle I was getting at. If I see someone illegally on any of my property I can't gaurentee I will sit on my hands a wait for someone else to come and tell me they got away and my business is in shambles.

I hear ya. I think of all the store owners in places that suffered rioting and looting, etc. in recent times. I think of the grocery store owners that sat on roofs armed with long rifles and waited.

It's times and circumstances like that, that I wish we had deadly force/threat of deadly force as a defense against property crimes... similar to Texas.

That said, I think this gentleman is going to be in world of hurt. If it were NJ, there'd be no question that he'd face all kinds of charges (manslaughter at minimum) as NJ has a duty to retreat, even inside your house/property.

If you are in fear of a wet, naked man in your shower, shoot. But I think you'll have a hard time proving it was a reasoned response, regardless of the Castle doctrine.

I'll withhold my opinion until more facts come out.

The facts, as they are presented, do not make it look good for the shooter IMO.

See this is where I too get a bit antsy.

I remember one case in where a local truck repair shop was being robbed. The owner who was in the back room doing book work. The robber was not aware the owner was in the building. The owner who carried like everyone else in SD. Anyways the owner seeing it all unfold on camera goes out to the store front and tells the guy to get out! the guy drops everything and runs out. The owner then shoots the guy in the "rear" as he is fleeing from the store.

The owner was charged with assault. Because the perceived threat was leaving and even though he was destroying the store and trying to steal but because he was running away he should not have shot him. Even if he had items he would not have been justified in shooting the bad guy because there was no threat to live or the property. They ruled that a few items wasn't enough but say if he were trying to burn the building down then it would have been justified.

I think its a fine line and you will have to answer for.


Now if I owned a business in my home and a guy was in there stealing jewels but nobody was in danger in the home and I was outside the home. I would call the police and watch very closely. If he is just in making a mess I can live with that. BUT if he were to try to destroy the home by fire or whatnot I would get involved I think. If the bad guy tried to leave I would then also step in so he would not get away. But that is me, I know that suspects are not always caught.

AND we all know how difficult insurance companies can be with events such as theft and what not. Its a hard call yes. I hope none of us here have to make that call ever.

It all depends on the state you're in. If this had been Texas he may be ok.
Florida I doubt it. Had he discovered his property's door kicked in and gone in the first time to investigate armed and gotten into a confrontation with the guy he would be looking better. It was at that point the naked man had the Ability to do him harm, the Opportunity to do it as well and the homeowner was in Jeopardy. Naked unarmed men have killed before. So they are dangerous. But this guy removed all three, AOJ by leaving the premises and going to get his gun. First time in 'words were exchanged' articles say. So the guy probaly got enraged, went and got his gun, came back and shot the guy. Sounds like premeditation if you ask me.
I would not have entered the place where the front door was kicked in unarmed.
But since he left and came back he should have called 911 and waited outside with his gun in hand for the cops to arrive. If the intruder came out he would have been right to order him onto the ground at gunpoint. If the guy refused and came at him than all bets are off and again he would have been right to shoot the guy. But if the guy walked out and refused to listen, then ran off into the woods you can't really do much other than hope the cops bring a K9 which can sniff him out and chew him a new one.
This guy will go to jail for sure because he did everything wrong. Left, came back, shot the guy and then called 911? If you're gonna do that just shoot the guy and bury him in the woods. Don't murder somebody and then call the cops to tell them you did. :)

Agreed. The threat was eliminated once he left the house after the first encounter.