|
|
04-04-2017, 01:11 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 30,918
Likes: 41,503
Liked 29,156 Times in 13,783 Posts
|
|
One fatality in WA state....
This is more of an example of what NOT to do...
A homeowner was in his house and went to check on the property next to his when the shooting occurred. The Sheriff's deputy said that the same man owns the second property and runs a business out of a building on the land.
When the homeowner arrived on the second property, he found a screen off the window and the door kicked in. The homeowner went in and saw the intruder in the shower.
Detectives say the homeowner went back to his home, got a gun and returned to the other house and shot the intruder multiple times.
The homeowner is facing a murder charge.
As much as I've heard about 'castle doctrine' and 'stand your ground' I don't think that any state in the Union could find a way to justify this killing.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
Last edited by rwsmith; 04-04-2017 at 01:13 AM.
|
04-04-2017, 01:50 AM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Eastern WA
Posts: 3,291
Likes: 1,763
Liked 7,208 Times in 1,888 Posts
|
|
Yeah we've been talking about this locally.
The sad thing is, there are waaay too many keyboard commandos that don't see anything wrong with it. Intruder in house = license to kill. I asked them, "What about a 10 year old?", or, "What about a clearly mentally impaired person?" They just assume it's like the script, a dude with a five o'clock shadow and black watch cap with a crowbar or worse in his hand.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
04-04-2017, 05:03 AM
|
|
Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 12,990
Likes: 17,229
Liked 41,503 Times in 9,146 Posts
|
|
Never know what legal interpretation the prosecutor will apply, especially if the shooter is a prominent person.
I mentioned this case a year ago when it occurred. The shooter joined my range, and received firearm training there, after experiencing two burglary's at his home.
Even though his girlfriend was shouting at him that the 911 operator said he should not leave the house to confront the man and the police would arrive in moments, the homeowner chose to leave the safety of his home, to try and force a trespasser off his property at gunpoint, then killed him. No charges were filed, and Castle Doctrine was invoked, ironically in defense of a castle.
Coroner releases more details in fatal shooting outside Greenville castle
This link has the recorded 911 call for the Greenville Castle shooting.
LISTEN: 911 call released in Greenville Castle shooting
Last edited by bigwheelzip; 04-04-2017 at 06:22 AM.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
04-04-2017, 08:54 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 2,661
Liked 4,324 Times in 1,793 Posts
|
|
There are a couple key things to note about this story:
(1) The structure where the intruder was found wasn't an occupied dwelling. Nobody was living there. That matters a great deal when it comes to a number of different statutes--for instance, in my own state, lethal force is permitted to prevent arson, but only in the case of an "occupied dwelling" (the jury gets to decide what that means--house, business, or even barn with horses).
(2) The accused left his house, checked on his other property, discovered the intruder, returned to his house, retrieved his firearm, and then confronted the intruder. In other words, he had opportunity to simply leave and call the police, which he didn't do until after the shooting. To me, that does not pass the "reasonable person" check.
(3) We do not know what exactly transpired in that bathroom. Much has been made about how the deceased was (presumably) naked, and thus, "how could he have been a threat"--even from some gun-friendly writers.
Now, I don't know what exactly Washington statutes require for acceptable lethal force. However, it seems to me that by leaving the scene, arming himself, and then returning, the accused may have become a "willing combatant". In other words, depending on how you interpret it, a claim of self-defense may not be valid, regardless of what actually transpired. In many jurisdictions, you can't claim self-defense if you willingly start a fight with someone on your property, begin losing said fight, and then decide to shoot the guy who's winning the fight you started.
There was no immediate threat when he armed himself, and I don't see how he can claim he was in fear for his life when he returned, armed. The specific duty to retreat no longer applied as soon as he went back.
I think that the accused homeowner's guilt or innocence hinges on what right he had, under Washington statutes, to confront an intruder on his property. I don't think that you could claim any sort of Castle Doctrine protections--i.e., "I had no duty to retreat because I was in my own dwelling"--because the house in question was not occupied and was not the accused's residence.
At best, he was very, very, very stupid. At worst, it was criminal. And unfortunately for him, I think that by going back to arm himself, he's opened himself up to premeditation.
Last edited by Wise_A; 04-04-2017 at 09:00 PM.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
04-04-2017, 09:18 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Stick Marsh, Fla.
Posts: 9,404
Likes: 4,871
Liked 20,875 Times in 6,324 Posts
|
|
Stupid is as stupid does...................
__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
04-04-2017, 09:29 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wickiup Junction, OR
Posts: 874
Likes: 11
Liked 1,134 Times in 461 Posts
|
|
It's Been hypothesized there may be more to this (lots more) than what is being reported....
|
04-04-2017, 09:43 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 30,918
Likes: 41,503
Liked 29,156 Times in 13,783 Posts
|
|
Simply put.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkcavalier
Yeah we've been talking about this locally.
The sad thing is, there are waaay too many keyboard commandos that don't see anything wrong with it. Intruder in house = license to kill. I asked them, "What about a 10 year old?", or, "What about a clearly mentally impaired person?" They just assume it's like the script, a dude with a five o'clock shadow and black watch cap with a crowbar or worse in his hand.
|
Simply put, these people are NOT helping our cause. I cringe when I hear about this.
There were a bunch of guys living in a 'compound', talked all the time about taking down the oppressive government, their time was going to come, just waiting for the right moment, etc.
Well, they got a guy in their ranks who was a REAL loose cannon and started calling people all over to put Operation Stupid into action and they started coming out in force. As dumb as all this sounds, they realized themselves what was happening and called the police to come take that guy away. It's a short trip from just plain dumb to really stupid and having a gun in hand makes some people really stupid.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
|
04-04-2017, 09:47 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: On someone's last nerve..
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 937
Liked 2,519 Times in 794 Posts
|
|
...and in the meantime 650 million guns were owned responsibly.
|
04-04-2017, 09:53 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Stick Marsh, Fla.
Posts: 9,404
Likes: 4,871
Liked 20,875 Times in 6,324 Posts
|
|
All it takes is one.............
__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.
|
04-04-2017, 09:59 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wickiup Junction, OR
Posts: 874
Likes: 11
Liked 1,134 Times in 461 Posts
|
|
Yep - and bad news travels faster than good ever does.
|
04-04-2017, 10:03 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 3,979
Liked 2,918 Times in 803 Posts
|
|
From the basic facts presented, I don't believe lethal force was justified in this case. First, was there a threat of death or great injury toward the shooter or someone else? It doesn't appear so. Was law enforcement called? I would make a educated guess that this was not a justified shooting from what we've been told. Using lethal force, weather it be in the form of a firearm or any item used as a weapon must be fully justified.
|
04-04-2017, 10:34 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 2,661
Liked 4,324 Times in 1,793 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistered
It's Been hypothesized there may be more to this (lots more) than what is being reported....
|
Agreed, I think he knew the guy in the shower or had some prior contact. But I'm just armchairin' it.
Still doesn't explain why he would admit to retrieving the gun. It's a big ol' wrinkle in the story. Could just be stupid--and I always bet on stupid.
|
04-04-2017, 11:00 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Thibodaux, Louisiana
Posts: 3,457
Likes: 3,436
Liked 3,766 Times in 1,540 Posts
|
|
Makes you wonder, was he wearing a CCW badge?
Steve W
|
04-04-2017, 11:13 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wickiup Junction, OR
Posts: 874
Likes: 11
Liked 1,134 Times in 461 Posts
|
|
Agreed, I think he knew the guy in the shower or had some prior contact. But I'm just armchairin' it
That's exacting what I am thinking - we had an oddly similar scenario in Bend a few years ago and it turned out twos company and threes a crowd....
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
04-05-2017, 05:13 AM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 7,330
Likes: 7,503
Liked 5,556 Times in 2,547 Posts
|
|
I wonder what the rest of the story is. Interesting that no one wants the shooter to be judge and jury on the deceased, but a lot of folks want to be judge and jury on the shooter.
We shall see.
|
04-05-2017, 05:58 AM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 2,661
Liked 4,324 Times in 1,793 Posts
|
|
Because according to the story he himself told, his actions range from profoundly stupid to criminal? I mean, not a lot of latitude here.
|
04-05-2017, 06:32 AM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 7,330
Likes: 7,503
Liked 5,556 Times in 2,547 Posts
|
|
From the only news source I saw, it wasn't a long story. I don't even really know that that is what he actually said.
|
04-05-2017, 07:01 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wickiup Junction, OR
Posts: 874
Likes: 11
Liked 1,134 Times in 461 Posts
|
|
Kind of hard to be a judge and jury on the deceased when he can no longer defend his actions or tell his side of the story, I mean all we have left is the shooter an on the 'surface' does not seem to have much in the way to defend or support his own actions.
|
04-05-2017, 07:12 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 14,661
Likes: 7,937
Liked 20,623 Times in 5,958 Posts
|
|
Unless there's a law in Washington that forbids a property owner from willfully approaching a trespasser, or otherwise requires a property owner to flee in the presence or suspected presence of a trespasser, it seems to me that the issue is whether or not the property owner was acting in self defense at the time of the shooting.
Not sure how a jury would see it. Seems to me our nation is moving toward the general notion that absent running away and hiding under the bed that the victim of crime is complicit.
|
04-05-2017, 07:34 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wickiup Junction, OR
Posts: 874
Likes: 11
Liked 1,134 Times in 461 Posts
|
|
Based on his story he neither ran away or hid under the bed. Another element of this situation that is uncommon is it took place in a completely separate house which was not occupied and depending on the laws of the state might work against the owner. What he should have done was went and flipped the main breaker to the house power off providing it would have been in a safe place to access and he could have quickly left safely, returned to his main occupied house, locked the doors, armed himself and while waiting for the police to arrive kept a non-stop overwatch on the unoccupied house. Pretty basic tactics - cover and concealment until the 'troops' arrive.
Last edited by Mistered; 04-05-2017 at 07:46 AM.
|
04-07-2017, 02:43 AM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 2,928
Likes: 1,351
Liked 2,660 Times in 1,302 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mainsail
...and in the meantime 650 million guns were owned responsibly.
|
But you only hear about the .001% that aren't !!
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
04-07-2017, 05:59 AM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 2,661
Liked 4,324 Times in 1,793 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil
Unless there's a law in Washington that forbids a property owner from willfully approaching a trespasser, or otherwise requires a property owner to flee in the presence or suspected presence of a trespasser, it seems to me that the issue is whether or not the property owner was acting in self defense at the time of the shooting.
Not sure how a jury would see it. Seems to me our nation is moving toward the general notion that absent running away and hiding under the bed that the victim of crime is complicit.
|
The problem, Chat, is that he left, armed himself, and came back. That doesn't spell "victim" to me--it spells "dumb". Calling this guy a victim is a disservice to real victims--battered wives, poor folk in urban dystopias, rape victims, and survivors of violent encounters. People that, one way or the other, didn't have the option of just walking away. He had every opportunity to do the smart thing and call the cops.
But, like a couple of us opined, there's a bit more to this story.
Prosecutors File First-Degree Murder Charges in Belfair Shooting Death of Man in Shower | Crime & Sirens | chronline.com
Turns out the deceased was drunk. These sorts of drunk break-in shootings are, in my estimation, one of the hazards of drinking that much. A tragedy, much the same as wrapping your car around a tree or running over a kid--your own damn fault.
Gets worse, though.
The homeowner--Bruce Fanning-- did confront the deceased (Nathaniel Rosa), during Round One. Fanning claims Rosa uttered "unintelligible threats", at which point Fanning returned to his house, retrieved a S&W in .45, and went for Round Two. Then at some point, he shot Rosa three times, allegedly through a shower curtain. Nothing I've read states that the bullets were recovered from Rosa's body, which would prove that the shower curtain was in between him and Fanning. In other worse, best-case scenario, they were through-and-throughs.
Note that all of this is based on the accused's own testimony. This is as good as he can make it sound.
So, there are only two scenarios:
(a) he believed Rosa was a threat, in which case, why did he confront him again instead of calling the police?
(b) he did not believe Rosa was a threat, in which case, why did he arm himself?
Neither scenario is exactly a good one.
Here's the deceased: a big, burly guy that I sure as hell wouldn't start a fight in a bathroom with:
Here's Fanning, at his arraignment. The kind of photo your local news is just dying to get--the accused smiling while in court for murder:
Personally, I'd say there's no real victim here. Rosa was drunk of his own accord--that's his damn problem. If he rolled over grandma in his truck, we'd all be ready to tie a noose for him. But Fanning's own account makes zero sense, and he bought his troubles with his own money. I don't have an ounce of sympathy for him, either.
|
04-07-2017, 07:39 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 736
Likes: 2,823
Liked 518 Times in 278 Posts
|
|
Doesn't sound like he was in any imminent danger to me. ?
__________________
S&W BG380, S&W 915 9mm
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|