Woman shoots man found under her bed

[NG VI]

HAHA! senior status!

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

The signs we do have point to this guy being up to something nefarious. The woman is innocent until proven guilty.

The guy not so much, because he broke the law (without question, you can not enter someones home without their permission), did something stupid, and got dead.

 

[Superlite27]

Where he is located HAS NO BEARING.

The question is "Can a reasonable person determine if the shooter was afraid for their life?"

I'm a 6' 200lb. male, and if a burglar crawled out from under my bed, I would surmise that they intended to do me harm.

A reasonable belief would be that the man waited there to determine whether or not she was alone. Enough for me to determine that it was reasonably possible for her to be afraid for her life.

Good Shoot.

 

[Mannix]

I figure the best case scenario was that the perv was interrupted while rummaging through her undie drawer, and decided hiding under the bed was a good idea.

In any case, kudos to her for being prepared.

 

[NGIB]

Would I have shot on the spot, not sure. I can guarantee you my wife would not have stopped at 3 shots. She would have emptied her pistol, reloaded, and then studied the situation. Same goes for my daughters. I have drilled into them repeatedly that if the situation feels bad - shoot...

 

[TallPine]

Sounds like a good shooting to me - she hit him in the chest and shoulder.

Though maybe she still needs a little training. Best thing would be to take an old bed out to the shooting range and practice shooting at a target under the bed.

 

[BridgeWalker]

Where he is located HAS NO BEARING.

I assure you that to the prosecutor, the facts of the case WILL MATTER.

 

[Clipper]

Though maybe she still needs a little training. Best thing would be to take an old bed out to the shooting range and practice shooting at a target under the bed.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha! I love it! TP, you wouldn't be making a pre-emptive strike against the inevitable 'Not bad, but of course she could have done better with (insert your favorite program here) TRAINING' commentaries that MUST follow, are you?

 

[silverking]

I'm sure he wasn't huntin' dust bunnies----well done, dear lady!

 

[MillCreek]

I think about how in my misspent youth, there were a couple of times when the parents came home early at my girlfriend's house and I had to emergently hide behind the couch or under the bed for a while. Good thing no one shot me.

 

[HKUSP45C]

I think about how in my misspent youth, there were a couple of times when the parents came home early at my girlfriend's house and I had to emergently hide behind the couch or under the bed for a while. Good thing no one shot me.

Good thing indeed. Though I think in your case the screams of the father's daughter proclaiming you as invited "guest" might keep you from getting shot as an intruder, to the home, other intruder statuses may still have got you shot

We're still piling on hypotheticals that have nothing to do with grown men under the beds of grown women, uninvited, wot got them shot.

 

[mekender]

Where he is located HAS NO BEARING.

I assure you that to the prosecutor, the facts of the case WILL MATTER.

fortunately, the law in most states is written so as to imply that a burglary is forcible felony and lethal force is justified in stopping that act...

the fact is, rape, murder, arson, burglary, home invasion, robbery and aggravated assault all qualify under most states laws... the only facts that become relevant are weather or not the person with the holes in him was committing one of those acts... his location in the house is irrelevant, he was in the act of committing a forcible felony...

from SC law

SECTION 16-11-312. Burglary; second degree.

(A) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if the person enters a dwelling without consent and with intent to commit a crime therein.

(B) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if the person enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime therein, and either:

(1) When, in effecting entry or while in the building or in immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime:

(a) Is armed with a deadly weapon or explosive; or

(b) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or

(c) Uses or threatens the use of a dangerous instrument; or

(d) Displays what is or appears to be a knife, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm; or

(2) The burglary is committed by a person with a prior record of two or more convictions for burglary or housebreaking or a combination of both; or

(3) The entering or remaining occurs in the nighttime.

(C) Burglary in the second degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than fifteen years, provided, that no person convicted of burglary in the second degree shall be eligible for parole except upon service of not less than one-third of the term of the sentence.

SECTION 16-11-440. Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business.

(A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.

(C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

(D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

SECTION 16-1-60. Violent crimes defined.

For purposes of definition under South Carolina law, a violent crime includes the offenses of: murder (Section 16-3-10 ); criminal sexual conduct in the first and second degree (Sections 16-3-652 and 16-3-653); criminal sexual conduct with minors, first and second degree (Section 16-3-655); assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct, first and second degree (Section 16-3-656); assault and battery with intent to kill (Section 16-3-620); kidnapping (Section 16-3-910); voluntary manslaughter (Section 16-3-50); armed robbery (Section 16-11-330(A)); attempted armed robbery (Section 16-11-330(B)); carjacking (Section 16-3-1075); drug trafficking as defined in Section 44-53-370(e) or trafficking cocaine base as defined in Section 44-53-375(C); manufacturing or trafficking methamphetamine as defined in Section 44-53-375; arson in the first degree (Section 16-11-110(A)); arson in the second degree (Section 16-11-110(B)); burglary in the first degree (Section 16-11-311); burglary in the second degree (Section 16-11-312(B)); engaging a child for a sexual performance (Section 16-3-810); homicide by child abuse (Section 16-3-85(A)(1)); aiding and abetting homicide by child abuse (Section 16-3-85(A)(2)); inflicting great bodily injury upon a child (Section 16-3-95(A)); allowing great bodily injury to be inflicted upon a child (Section 16-3-95(B)); criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature (Section 16-25-65); abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult resulting in death (Section 43-35-85(F)); abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult resulting in great bodily injury (Section 43-35-85(E)); accessory before the fact to commit any of the above offenses (Section 16-1-40); attempt to commit any of the above offenses (Section 16-1-80); and taking of a hostage by an inmate (Section 24-13-450). Only those offenses specifically enumerated in this section are considered violent offenses.

there is nothing that says that it depends on where in the structure the offender is... this woman is totally justified

 

[armedandsafe]

Though I think in your case the screams of the father's daughter proclaiming you as invited "guest" might keep you from getting shot as an intruder

Many years ago, my daughter came home with a young lad in tow. After introducing him, she turned to me (cleaning guns in the living room) and said, 'He's mine...don't shoot him." and smiled sweetly at him.

Pops

 

[Rustynuts]

+1 for Florida. See BG in house, BLAM no questions asked, no revealing your position to him with warnings, etc. Much better survival odds for the victim.

 

[Superlite27]

the fact is, rape, murder, arson, burglary, home invasion, robbery and aggravated assault all qualify under most states laws... the only facts that become relevant are weather or not the person with the holes in him was committing one of those acts... his location in the house is irrelevant, he was in the act of committing a forcible felony...

Thanks mekender. Much more accurately worded than my attempt. If a person is in the process of committing a forcible felony, good shoot.

But, in my own opinion, they can be in the act of a felony, and I can still NOT shoot them.

But, if they make me afraid for my life, I'm opening up. I just think she might have been reasonably afraid for her life. I think a man under her bed is a frightening enough experience to justify her protecting herself.

BTW, BridgeWalker, I'm not too positive facts even matter to a prosecutor. (i.e. NIFONG) What SHOULD matter to a prosecutor is the law as it is written.

 

[atblis]

Yep

I figure the best case scenario was that the perv was interrupted while rummaging through her undie drawer, and decided hiding under the bed was a good idea.

That's about exactly what I was figuring.

 

[BridgeWalker]

Mekender and superlite: you missed two important parts of the statute Mekender cited. Those are "without consent" and "intent". Where the guy was in the house could be used to demonstrate that he was not there without consent (probably not in this case, in part *because of his location in the house*), and there are lots of arguments that could be made based on intent. Generally intent in this context simply means the volitional act of walking through the door, for example. There are arguments to be made in some jurisdictions regarding intent in the case of diminished capacity. Those probably don't apply here because of the obviously intentional nature of his concealment. Iow, where he was in the house.

Facts matter. Laws matter. Each element of the law matters. Laws applied to facts matter.

 

[CZ 42]

What else could this guy be doing under the bed? If he was 'looking for a puppy' he would've just glanced under. He could've benn ritarded or something, but I'd still say that was a BG asking to get shot. I am also one of the guys with tactical mattresses; no bedframe. Also right next to a windowsill covered with my favorite knives.

 

[feedthehogs]

To those who would sit there and ponder whether it was okay to shoot an uninvited person in your home, leave your next of kin info so we can contact them when your DEAD!

+1 for the woman.
Any time I got a woman who wanted her CCW or just instruction, I praised her over and over that she was doing a beautiful thing in wanting to protect herself because the system won't do it for her.

Does my heart good to see stories like this.

 

[Superlite27]

BridgeWalker,

Where the guy was in the house could be used to demonstrate that he was not there without consent

The wording of this statement confuses me. I think I see your point: Where the guy was could be used to determine if he WAS there WITH consent.

What would be an actual location that would positively prove he was consensually present? Even if he was in the process of taking a crap, he was still inside her residence feloniously. I cannot think of a location that could be used to prove he could have been there with permission.

I'm trying to see your point of view, but I can't see how his location determines anything.

Now, if some of his posessions were there, such as a toothbrush, or maybe a change of clothes or other property, he might have been justified in being there, therefore, she would be wrong.

But, where he is at? Even if he was in the shower, she could have been frightened by his presence. Where would he be justified in being other than NOT INSIDE?

 

[Javelin]

Bang Bang Bang... wonder if he was planning on staying under there until she went to bed that night?

Exactly why it was a good shoot! I can't find the facts but its something like 99% of all victims of violent crimes knew the culprit in one way or another... This is so easy to win in court and I am betting she will further win compensation from him (or his estate if he is dead) in civil court as well.

 

[BridgeWalker]

The wording of this statement confuses me. I think I see your point: Where the guy was could be used to determine if he WAS there WITH consent.

Yeh, so I've officially been in law school too long. I said it that way because it echoed the language of the statute.

The only point I was trying to make was that the position that an intruder, any intruder, is not necessarily grounds for deadly force. A burglary is grounds for deadly force, but someone who is in your house when you don't expect them to be in your house may have a way of demonstrating that they were not committing a burglary.

If that threshold of meeting all the strict elements of a burglary are not proven, then the shooter has a seriously weakened defense. If the guy is located in the basement next to the gas meter, she is gonna have a harder time showing the element of lack of consent. If he's lying on the floor, drunk, next to an open door, she is gonna have a harder time showing intent. If he's hidden under her bed, she is gonna have a pretty easy time fulfilling those elements. Also, if his family claims that they had some kind of relationship, that it was some kind of fight instead of a home invasion, it really helps her that there are evidence photos of him under her bed.

That's all I was saying.

 

[FLA2760]

He was likely there to rape and probably murder her.

 

[Superlite27]

If the guy is located in the basement next to the gas meter, she is gonna have a harder time showing the element of lack of consent.

O.K. I can agree with that. If he has a UPS uniform on, there are UPS boxes laying around with a UPS truck in the driveway, it would probably be kind of hard to prove his malicious intent (although possible, just hard to prove) if he's laying on your front porch. You would probably have a hard time proving your reasonable fear for your life as well.

 

[mekender]

If that threshold of meeting all the strict elements of a burglary are not proven, then the shooter has a seriously weakened defense. If the guy is located in the basement next to the gas meter, she is gonna have a harder time showing the element of lack of consent. If he's lying on the floor, drunk, next to an open door, she is gonna have a harder time showing intent.

hmm, only access to my basement is from inside my house... and drunk guys are more than capable of kicking down a door... both cases mentioned are still easily within the definition of a forcible felony...

the UPS example would be pretty clear murder as the person was on the porch, not inside the house... but just because someone is in a uniform and driving an official vehicle does not mean that they are friendly... true it makes it more likely that they are, but not 100%... so while a dead UPS guy on your porch would be VERY suspicious, a dead UPS guy in your bedroom would not nearly be the same level of suspicious...

it comes down to the persons right to access... in the case of a UPS guy, he has zero business in a bedroom... a cable guy would have no business in a room where there was no cable outlet unless he was installing cable there... a neighbor would have no right to be anywhere inside a house unless invited, and certainly not underneath a bed...