Homeowner Shoots Man Trying to Break Into Pickup

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

Wichita police are trying to determine if a shooting late Monday was in self-defense. It happened in the 1300 block of N. Emporia at around 10:30 Monday.

A man told police he heard a crash outside. He got his handgun and went outside, where he found a 47-year-old man trying to break into his pickup.

Police say the suspect then stumbled toward the homeowner. The homeowner shot the man once in the hip and called 911.

http://www.kwch.com/Global/story.asp?S=11718409

[ORDagnabbit]

1. dont do the crime dont get shot... pretty simple

[virgogal]

2. Ditto !

[Hoopla Phil]

9. That about sums it up.

[sharesunited]

3. The hip? That can cripple! How would that homeowner like to be shot in the hip?

[Pavulon]

4. When he goes breaking into peoples shit and advances on an armed man

he can find out. There is a lesson here, look for it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. He's in critical condition. Maybe you shouldn't make too much fun.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Yep. Pretty much no place on the human body you can shoot someone

without some risk of death. "hip" includes meat that contains a rather large artery.

This guy COULD be a goner already. I'd rather see him stand trial.

[taurus145]

12. You forgot to wheedle "Gun love" into your post.

[sharesunited]

13. Gun love siphons any human compassion out of the heart.

Sure, shoot him in the hip and cripple him and put him in the IC unit.

Good on him. Right?

Is vigilantism a Democratic value?

[PavePusher]

16. Defense of self or property...

is not "vigilantism".

But you knew that, right?

Hint: DICTIONARY and LEGAL STATUTES.

[taurus145]

18. Hip hell!

I wasn't there, so I don't know how I would have reacted in this instance, but I can tell you with certainty that the hip is not where I aim when it's necessary to defend life. I'd lay odds that the criminal's hip was not the intended target.

Instead of ICU either the person at whom I'm shooting or me will be SFU. It's an all or nothing game. Deliberately shooting to wound is pure Hollywood.

on edit:

OMG! I said "game". That'll open the ball for some great disparagement.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. I wish the perp a speedy recovery.

There's a courtroom somewhere waiting on him.

And, if the story is accurate, this is not an example of vigilanteism. Self defense is not extra-legal punishment. It may seem like it to the recipient, but it's not.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Why are you always against self-defense? N/T

[oneshooter]

22. You are right,

perhaps he should have placed his shots COM. Then you would not worry about the Goblin being crippled. Besides, we are always being told that it is better to shoot them in the arm or leg. The hip is the top of the leg!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

23. He wouldn't. But then he isn't a criminal and a menace to others(nt)

[proteus_lives]

28. That evil, evil man!

That homeowner should have allowed his vehicle to stolen! :sarcasm:


You're never-ending sympathy for felons makes me sick.

[Atticus]

6. It only took three posts for both ends of the spectrum to chime in.

None of the posters actually KNOW what happened, but they know their position on gun control or the "right to bear arms."

Some gun owners are sterotypical whack jobs who shouldn't be allowed out in public without a "minder". Most, however, are honest, decent citizens who own inherited firearms or legally-acquired weapons which they use for hunting or sport shooting. You can oppose all guns if you choose to, but don't equate all gun-owners.

Some shootings are gross over-reactions by ignoramuses who just thought it would be "cool" to shoot someone and thought they had a justifiable excuse. But, some are clearly self-defense and amounted to a criminal getting hurt in order to prevent an innocent person from getting hurt. Do I wish such shootings wouldn't happen? Absolutely---but I can't blame the shooter when they do.

Hopefully, responsible people will investigate this incident and decide whether or not the shooting was justified. But, none of us know that now.

[PavePusher]

7. Very reasonable.

Thank you.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. The news rarely tells all the story.

Often we only get three or four lines. So all that we have to go on is almost always only part of the story. If we required the full story, we would rarely be able to discuss anything.

[doc03]

8. Ohio law says you can defend yourself if someone

is trying break into your home or an (occupied vehicle). Myself I wouldn't shoot someone that was just trying to break into my car. The purpose of CCW is to protect yourself or another from harm not to protect property.

[PavePusher]

10. In these days....

having your vehicle present and in working order may be essential to getting or keeping a job and, by extension, keeping your domicile, food on the table, medical care, etc.

I'd say it is O.K. to defend your property with force. They may very well be endangering your life by stealing/damaging your vehicle.

[doc03]

11. The defence of property is not the intent of the CCW

If you think that is the purpose of the CCW you should not be permitted to have the permit.
If that's what you think couldn't you also say the criminal has the right to steal to provide for his family. The purpose of the CCW is to protect yourself or another from imminent physical harm, property can be replaced a life can't.

[lepus]

14. This is not a CCW issue.

It is an escalation of defense of property to self defense issue pure and simple.

Robber breaking into car. Breaking law.
Owner stopping robber with threats of lethal force. Lawful.
Robber escalating situation by threatening owner. Breaking law.
Owner defends self by stopping robber with possibly lethal force. Very probably lawful in that state

AFAIK, this was in Kansas. I am not sure what the laws are there, but from my own state laws, I would be on solid ground for shooting the guy if he attempted to attack me while I interrupted him robbing my car.

BTW I do not think a CCW is required for firearm ownership where this happened.

[doc03]

25. Deleted

[PavePusher]

15. No, the intent of a CCW is to have my firearm available to me...

in more places, so that I can exercise my right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" by defending myself and my property against criminals.

Some people may not be financially able to replace a vehicle in time to keep their job. Your circumstances do not equate to everyones circumstances.

And if you think this line of reasoning implies a right for a criminal to steal, we don't have a lot to discuss.

On Edit: As Lepus stated, a CCW is not a requirement for self-defense or defense of property. And how the heck did CCW come in to this anyway?

[doc03]

26. Deleted

[PavePusher]

27. What did I miss? n/t

[doc03]

34. Well actually I discovered I had this thread confused with

the other one. In that one the guy confronts the two burglars and one runs away and the other puts his hands up and says what are you gone to do shoot me and the guy shot him.

[aikoaiko]

17. Supposedly, the thief made some kind of move toward the truck owner.

If true, such an action may merit lethal force to defend self.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. Since when do you need a CCW to have a gun in your own home? N/T

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Strictly speaking, CCW is not an issue here. No permit required to investigate a bump in the night

on your own property.

But your point is well taken.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. You sure your name isn't grumpy instead of doc.

[Pavulon]

24. I agree. I would call the police and confront the burglar with a shotgun

and tell them to freeze. If they comply I cover them until the law shows up. If they run off, I do nothing. If they do something really stupid like charge me or reach for their waist band well that is what the shotgun is for.

The VAST majority of legal owners like you and me have zero urge to fire on a person.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. +1

And I rarely, if ever do a 'plus one' empty post.

[RealityInSeattle]

35. CD Player = Human Life

For a gun cheerleader.

Any excuse to kill when you are scared of the world and own a bunch of guns.

A $40.00 CD player? Oh yea, you deserve to die.

[eqfan592]

36. Of course, you ignore the REALITY of the situation....

...and that the homeowner didn't shoot until the criminal began to approach him. Either way, the powers that be will determine one way or another if he was justified. But breaking it down as you did just goes to show how disingenuous and intellectually dishonest you are.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. Like all gun-grabbers, you ignore that the goblin was advancing on the defender.

The goblin threatened the resident's life, and because of that threat he was violently stopped. That he also died is a side result.