Homeowner Shoots Intruder

Status
Not open for further replies.

kje54

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
1,901
Location
Duke City
Then treats his wounds until PD arrives. This was here in town, the suspect was running from police in a stolen car. They spike stuck his tires, he ran on foot, broke into the lady's house and demanded her car keys. She gave him a set of keys, he went outside, she called the cops and armed herself. Apparently it wasn't the right set of keys, he came back in, she warned him she was armed and he didn't listen. Bad decision on his part. The homeowner was justified and is not in trouble.


https://www.krqe.com/news/crime/albuquerque-burglary-suspect-shot-by-homeowner/
 
I've thought about that quite a bit. I imagine that helping care for the fellow you just shot looks pretty good to cops/judges/juries, but I'd need to be awfully sure the guy has no more fight left in him first. Even cops handcuff dead people before treating them...
 
I wouldn't count on any gratitude or even sympathy from the perp, his family/crew, his lawyer, or the law in a Leftist municipality.

Heck, like Jerry said, you put yourself in double liability jeopardy by providing incompetent aid. All the first aid classes and videos begin with disclaimers basically telling you to expect to get sued if you use any training on a stranger. 😠
 
I hate this part, it's like she didn't have enough justification to protect herself! That and she might be in trouble for protecting herself, from someone that came back in her home, threatening her.
Exactly!
what kind of society do we live in when criminals have more rights than the victims?
How sad is it that a person defending themselves (and quite possibly their families) have to worry first about being prosecuted for self defense when the perpetrator enters the person’s house illegally?
I'm not justifying shooting everyone who enters someone’s home, but seriously!
 
Exactly!
what kind of society do we live in when criminals have more rights than the victims?
How sad is it that a person defending themselves (and quite possibly their families) have to worry first about being prosecuted for self defense when the perpetrator enters the person’s house illegally?
I'm not justifying shooting everyone who enters someone’s home, but seriously!
Welllll....we no longer live in a country with a justice system. We live in a country with a "legal" system, that is far too open to "interpretive prosecution" as I call it, where prosecutors and political hacks make law with no force of constitutional authority. As a citizen and a retired cop, my first thought is "Damn! Good for her! Score one for the good guys!" The first thing a POS, scumbag prosecutor who is looking for swag is thinking "Can I get political traction from this?". It is sad, you're right.
 
Is there any sort of Duty to Aid ?
In The Sopranos episode "Knight in White Satin Armor" Janice Soprano shoots her fiancee Richie after he punches her hard in the face. She then calls her brother.
 
Is there any sort of Duty to Aid ?
In The Sopranos episode "Knight in White Satin Armor" Janice Soprano shoots her fiancee Richie after he punches her hard in the face. She then calls her brother.
i am not sure, it would not surprise me some state says we have to.

what if we screw up and the perp dies..??

best to call 911 ASAP, let the pros handle it.
 
Is there any sort of Duty to Aid ?
In The Sopranos episode "Knight in White Satin Armor" Janice Soprano shoots her fiancee Richie after he punches her hard in the face. She then calls her brother.

 
Exactly!
what kind of society do we live in when criminals have more rights than the victims?
Not picking on you specifically, but “Justifiable homicide” is a concept that dates to the 1300s. It makes sense to me. Boils down to “murder is a sin”, so there needs to be a reason why a rational person responded with lethal force.

I don’t think anybody was saying the homeowner wasn’t justified either.
 
I hate this part, it's like she didn't have enough justification to protect herself! That and she might be in trouble for protecting herself, from someone that came back in her home, threatening her.
I posted this on another board and the very first response was a question of justification. I included "she's not in trouble" here to avoid any confusion........ Looks like it and the fact she rendered aid opened up a whole nother can of worms.

Dr House Eating.gif
 
Heck, like Jerry said, you put yourself in double liability jeopardy by providing incompetent aid.
It may be a good plan to check the "Good Samaritan" laws in your state.

....as a matter of fact, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have so called "Good Samaritan" laws. While there are limitations, trying to help, even if incompetent, is better than standing there watching someone bleed out. So......unless she put a tourniquet around his neck to stop the bleeding, I doubt if she put herself in legal trouble for aiding the perp.
Is there any sort of Duty to Aid ?
...I believe there are only three states, (Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Vermont) that require one to provide aid if it doesn't put the "good Samaritan" in danger.


Kudos to the woman. She kept her wits about her and did all the right things to keep herself safe.
 
since I'm not allowed to be judge jury and executioner I'm not going to be a half ass paramedic either.
That's funny, for all we know she could have been a half assed paramedic or a very good paramedic. Heck maybe even a nurse, PA or doctor. Since the story did not contain any of that information her background is pure speculation.
 
Thankfully am living in Wi with excellent self protection laws and liability protections. And anyone who breaks into another's home is subject to these laws.
 
Then treats his wounds until PD arrives. This was here in town, the suspect was running from police in a stolen car. They spike stuck his tires, he ran on foot, broke into the lady's house and demanded her car keys. She gave him a set of keys, he went outside, she called the cops and armed herself. Apparently it wasn't the right set of keys, he came back in, she warned him she was armed and he didn't listen. Bad decision on his part. The homeowner was justified and is not in trouble.


https://www.krqe.com/news/crime/albuquerque-burglary-suspect-shot-by-homeowner/
Surprised Gov. Grisham didn't declare a gun-free zone in the woman's home and reward the "legally challenged economically disadvantaged car-less person" with a million dollars and five-acre estate for being harassed by the police and shot by the woman. All he (is that the correct gender?) wanted to do was simply utilize the woman's car. Clearly, she didn't need it. It was just sitting in her drive-way, not even being used!

So, how long before the city of Albuquerque sends code enforcement under Gov. Grisham's orders suggestion to this poor woman's house and cites her with a million and one violations since APD didn't book her for shooting the scumbag?
 
since I'm not allowed to be judge jury and executioner I'm not going to be a half ass paramedic either.
....does not take much of a paramedic to stop someone from bleeding out. Working in a school, we are trained in "Stop the Bleed". Simply using pressure points and/or a basic tourniquet can save someone's life until real medics get there. One of the interesting points that "Stop the Bleed" instills, is that a good portion of victims in school shootings would have lived, had someone given them simple first aid within 4 minutes to stop them from bleeding out from a bullet wound to their extremities. Used to be folks were afraid to use tourniquets because of fear of a lawsuit should that person lose a limb. Heck, it was even against the law for Paramedics to use them in the ambulance on the way to the hospital for a while. Till those that made those laws realized they were killing people.
 
....as a matter of fact, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have so called "Good Samaritan" laws. While there are limitations, trying to help, even if incompetent, is better than standing there watching someone bleed out. So......unless she put a tourniquet around his neck to stop the bleeding, I doubt if she put herself in legal trouble for aiding the perp.

...I believe there are only three states, (Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Vermont) that require one to provide aid if it doesn't put the "good Samaritan" in danger.


Kudos to the woman. She kept her wits about her and did all the right things to keep herself safe.
Florida's law is 768.13

768.13 Good Samaritan Act; immunity from civil liability.—
(1) This act shall be known and cited as the “Good Samaritan Act.”
(2)(a) Any person, including those licensed to practice medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment either in direct response to emergency situations related to and arising out of a public health emergency declared pursuant to s. 381.00315, a state of emergency which has been declared pursuant to s. 252.36 or at the scene of an emergency outside of a hospital, doctor’s office, or other place having proper medical equipment, without objection of the injured victim or victims thereof, shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.
(b)1. Any health care provider, including a hospital licensed under chapter 395, providing emergency services pursuant to obligations imposed by 42 U.S.C. s. 1395dd, s. 395.1041, s. 395.401, or s. 401.45 shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such medical care or treatment unless such damages result from providing, or failing to provide, medical care or treatment under circumstances demonstrating a reckless disregard for the consequences so as to affect the life or health of another.
2. The immunity provided by this paragraph applies to damages as a result of any act or omission of providing medical care or treatment, including diagnosis:
a. Which occurs prior to the time the patient is stabilized and is capable of receiving medical treatment as a nonemergency patient, unless surgery is required as a result of the emergency within a reasonable time after the patient is stabilized, in which case the immunity provided by this paragraph applies to any act or omission of providing medical care or treatment which occurs prior to the stabilization of the patient following the surgery.
b. Which is related to the original medical emergency.
3. For purposes of this paragraph, “reckless disregard” as it applies to a given health care provider rendering emergency medical services shall be such conduct that a health care provider knew or should have known, at the time such services were rendered, created an unreasonable risk of injury so as to affect the life or health of another, and such risk was substantially greater than that which is necessary to make the conduct negligent.
4. Every emergency care facility granted immunity under this paragraph shall accept and treat all emergency care patients within the operational capacity of such facility without regard to ability to pay, including patients transferred from another emergency care facility or other health care provider pursuant to Pub. L. No. 99-272, s. 9121. The failure of an emergency care facility to comply with this subparagraph constitutes grounds for the department to initiate disciplinary action against the facility pursuant to chapter 395.
(c)1. Any health care practitioner as defined in s. 456.001(4) who is in a hospital attending to a patient of his or her practice or for business or personal reasons unrelated to direct patient care, and who voluntarily responds to provide care or treatment to a patient with whom at that time the practitioner does not have a then-existing health care patient-practitioner relationship, and when such care or treatment is necessitated by a sudden or unexpected situation or by an occurrence that demands immediate medical attention, shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission relative to that care or treatment, unless that care or treatment is proven to amount to conduct that is willful and wanton and would likely result in injury so as to affect the life or health of another.
2. The immunity provided by this paragraph does not apply to damages as a result of any act or omission of providing medical care or treatment unrelated to the original situation that demanded immediate medical attention.
3. For purposes of this paragraph, the Legislature’s intent is to encourage health care practitioners to provide necessary emergency care to all persons without fear of litigation as described in this paragraph.
(d) Any person whose acts or omissions are not otherwise covered by this section and who participates in emergency response activities under the direction of or in connection with a community emergency response team, local emergency management agencies, the Division of Emergency Management, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency is not liable for any civil damages as a result of care, treatment, or services provided gratuitously in such capacity and resulting from any act or failure to act in such capacity in providing or arranging further care, treatment, or services, if such person acts as a reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.
(3) Any person, including those licensed to practice veterinary medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment to an injured animal at the scene of an emergency on or adjacent to a roadway shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.

 
Is there any sort of Duty to Aid ?
In The Sopranos episode "Knight in White Satin Armor" Janice Soprano shoots her fiancee Richie after he punches her hard in the face. She then calls her brother.
That comes down to the totality of the circumstances. If you can render COMPETENT aid in COMPLETE safety to yourself...then it could be argued that you should, if for no other reason than potential courtroom positive optics. If you CAN'T render COMPETENT aid in COMPLETE safety to yourself...then you can't be compelled to further endanger yourself after having been FORCED TO DEFEND YOURSELF TO STOP A DEADLY ATTACK (Remember that phraseology, it's important).

1. You are NOT a cop, trained to restrain a downed subject in the aftermath of a critical incident
2. You lack competent backup to provide cover while you render aid
3. You are probably not a paramedic
4. You are "really shaken up" in the aftermath of a dynamic critical incident

Any reasonable person, knowing what you know/knew at the time would most probably do the same thing. The "reasonable man" standard.

Call 911, and break contact to a safe distance from which you can still cover the downed subject, and wait for the guys in the big boxy truck with the red and white woo woo on top.
 
Thankfully am living in Wi with excellent self protection laws and liability protections. And anyone who breaks into another's home is subject to these laws.
Enjoy them while they're still in effect. Since the left purchased a majority on the state Supreme Court, our 2nd amendment freedoms are in jeopardy big time.
 
Enjoy them while they're still in effect. Since the left purchased a majority on the state Supreme Court, our 2nd amendment freedoms are in jeopardy big time.
.......I doubt that our 2nd Amendment rights are in any real jeopardy here in Wisconsin. Both chambers of the state legislature are still controlled by the right.
 
Let's look at this from a purely selfish, amoral perspective for a second:

I shot the guy to STOP him. He's stopped. It's not in my legal or financial best interests that he die; in almost every objective measure, it's better for me if he does not. In fact, the ideal situation would be I fire one round that passes next to his ear and, hearing that, he passes out on the floor. (Sort of kidding, but you get the point.)

It's in my self-interest, outside of the optics and politics, to have him survive. If I can help make that happen, I'm going to.

Larry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top