Homeowner charged in robbers death

While I personally don't have an issue with gunning a fleeing felon who just shot someone the law may say otherwise. While charged with murder, I bet he walks. I mean, what jury wouldn't understand the emotional distress after seeing you buddy shot 3 times. At least I'd acquit him.

It sounds like this man may have acted outside of the written word and spirit of the "castle doctrine". This law does not give someone a legal means to shoot/kill a threat any way, any where, or any time they want -- the timing, location, and manner in which force is used is what distinguishes self-defense from murder.

By the sounds of it, it seems the attack was long over by the time the homeowner shot the burglar (seeing as the attacker was disarmed and fled the scene 30 minutes prior). It's very unfortunate that the friend was shot in the process, and I understand wanting to pursue the attacker (not just for retribution, but also to ensure the attacker wouldn't get away/come back at a later time/potentially hurt other people)...but there is a difference between morality and legality, and sometimes those things don't align with each other. Apparently the law in his state requires that the assailant be armed (or appear to be armed) in order to use deadly force outside of the home, but seeing as the assailant was shot with his own gun, that might be a tough case to make.

Yeah, I agree on the time/place component of your view on the Castle Doctrine Shiddy. I think it might depend on the reason for his following, was it to make sure that he didn't get away so that the police could arrest him? Or was it to kill him? Tough to say since no one else was there, weren't in his head and he could just lie.

-
NS : I didn't even know that there was a 3rd degree murder. Would that be like Manslaughter most everywhere else?

I personally feel conflicted about this as well. I can't say I blame the guy or even disagree with his actions, but I can't say I would do the same thing. It doesn't take much for a 1st degree rap, looks like we have 4 different ways to get charged with it and we use it here. Not too sure how that pans out in PA.

www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/File/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Committees/Criminal_Jury_Instructions/CHAPTER_3HomicideandRelatedOffenses.pdf (Not nearly as simple as PA's but a much more inclusive 1st degree murder club)

I think premeditated murder is an appropriate charge legally and could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He was sound of mind enough to pick up the rifle, go to his ammo stash and load it, allegedly mutter some incriminating shit, chase this (presumed unarmed) guy down, waste him and then contact police. Regardless of whether he was right in doing it or not, the brain was working and he was problem solving, even if not making the best decisions. The repeat drunk driving convictions make me doubt he could even legally own any gun on Form 4473 or get a PA CCW. I looked at PA DWI laws for a quick minute and the third and fourth DWI charges could get up to five years each.

www.montcopa.org/DocumentCenter/View/3880


Legally everything I learned in my research on murder, castle doctrine and in concealed carry classes indicates this would be far from a good shoot, and well into premeditated murder. Morally this is a clusterfuck of epic proportions. Browning and Gingerbread have weighed in on immediate justice for people who murder and kill, while I've yet to explain my position there I would say that this is pretty cut and dry case and it pretty much solved itself. If the guy had acted differently (if legally available) he may have not even been arrested. All legality completely aside if you break into my house, blast somebody close enough enough to be at my house three times and are clearly ID'ed, yeah you ought to be lit up at earliest convenience. He even illuminated him to make sure "hey, there's the guy covered in Terry's blood!" Fuck knows what this guy would go on to do if he had gotten away. Even if he had been caught attempted murder possibly dropped to assault with a deadly weapon isn't doing the poor bastard that just watched his buddy get shot three times any justice.

Guy kind of handled it like an idiot. Clearly not the brightest to score 4 DWI's. Where most people are either prepared to fight a home defender or flee/become victims/do nothing, he was neither. A holstered pistol may have stopped the threat immediately, leaving him time to drive his buddy to the hospital himself or come up with some other response that could have kept him out of jail. I mean seriously, it isn't bad enough your buddy is shot, you leave him to drive himself to the hospital?! Now his car is crashed and he's possibly injured further, as if his day didn't suck enough already getting shot, he gets to deal with all the BS with a car accident too. "No Terry, go drive yourself to the hospital, I gotta murder this sucker! You got this!" But again, all legality aside, even a drunken idiot who does everything wrong could make the moral decision that this guy needed to get wasted. Like stated previously maybe if more home invaders got this treatment and people weren't getting imprisoned these incidents would just happen less. 

I'm not sure how I feel about it. I guess it could be said it could have been a well justified self defense shoot that went stupid in every way possible, ending up in something something I want to use every English word but vigilante to describe. How could he screw up everything that bad? The one that sticks with me is the guy driving himself to the hospital. Was so drunk (assumption here) or his license so suspended than dude sends his buddy with three rifle wounds on his own? I sympathize with him but this is like the Beavis and Butthead of home invasion shootings. 

The area I struggle with is somebody who is likely barred from gun ownership in what could have been a legit shoot. Anybody who busts into a house and shoots somebody is dead to rights legally and morally. The whole thing is just a CF, I hope he walks, but I wouldn't hold my breath. 

In Nevada, I'm not sure about Texas, but it's lawful to pursue a fleeing felon for 24 hrs after an encounter. Anyone that shoots someone 3 times during a home invasion isn't a good guy and by all measures shouldn't be walking the streets. Whether the shoot was good or not in the eyes of the law, IMO, it was a good shoot no matter how clustered the entire case is.
Would I have done that or anything similar, no, absolutely not. Not even if it were lawful in SC. My hard and fast rule is to only used guns in immediate self defense or the immediate defense of others. The only exception is for national defense but that's an entirely different issue. I think this guy is a dope for doing what he did. It's beyond dangerous to go after an armed and dangerous malcontented criminal.