OT man in trouble for shooting a burglar

Deadly force is legal in most states if protecting ones self but not for protection of property.

Don't even think about setting a spring gun (man trap).

Dean

I would give that guy more shotgun shells just for shooting those losers.
If he is found guilty it would set a bad example.
If Iowa has the castle doctrine law then he might be off scott free.

I havent read the article, were on our way to a fish fry, but as an attorney (although I dont practice criminal law, so while this may be considered somewhat of a "professional opinion" I dont warrant it to be of more value then pure lay opinion) I will toss out a few "tidbits" before I leave

I do know the law places a higher value on human life then property,,,,,,,,The law doesnt like the use of deadly force if the robber is in retreat (but moreso if hes attacking) ,,,,,,,The law is concerned with replying in like kind (but that has all sorts of exceptions and loopholes),,,,,,,, The law does allow a homeowner to protect himself and family A LOT MORE IF HES INSIDE VERSUS OUTSIDE THE HOUSE,,,,,,,The law really really allows more protection (even deadly force) if its the middle of the night and dark and youre in your home,,,,,,,,,The law allows "self defense" but that has to be reasonablde ya know, if an unarmed 90 lb weakling is battering a 6 ft 220 lb football player, the footbal, dude best NOT pull out a 45 n blow him away,,,,,,,Its best if the "robber" you blow away is discovered INSIDE the house, and also NOT running towards the door!!!!!!!!

Theres lots more but I gotta go, the use of deadly force IS VERY COMPLEX LAW and even expert criminal lawyers can differ and its very FACT SENSITIVE so whatever yall do DO NOT go out and make a lifes decision based on anything said here by lay persons or even attorneys.

Im a pro police law n order conservative second amendment NRA kinda guy, but the civil libbers and extreme left have turned a lot of this upside down to where the person trying to protect himself or his family or who is defending hemself gets second guessed and goes to jail and gets sued while the robber (especially if an illegal alien) becomes the victim and is rewarded GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

John T

Depends on who the sheriff/cop is. Why did they charge the homeowner? Being a retired cop and making a few of these types of crimes/burglaries my advice to the homeowner was to NOT talk to the police regardless of how "guilty" it made you look. Given the chance, pick up a phone book and call an attorney and keep your mouth shut. You will be glad you did. If it comes up in court just say you didn't trust the cops or you were in shock. My brother shot a man in the rear in Ohio in 1964. The man (burglar) was surely injured. Sheriff said don't worry about it. End of story.

Amen, if your state doesn't have the Castle Doctrine,you need to contact your state officials and work hard to get it made a state law. If someone breaks in on me and I shoot him he is paid for, He or his family can't sue, case closed, never hear of a home invasion around here, because I personally don't know anyone that doesn't own a gun, even the pastor at our church has a shotgun. Crooks think twice when the law is not on their side.

A Michigan state cop told me that if a guy breaks into your home you must shoot to kill. If the guy is on the front porch you cant do anything. The guy has to be IN the house, then blow his head off. Semi-auto 12 gage is best, shoot twice to make sure he is dead.
If a guy broke into my house I would really like to shoot him with one of Winchester .30-30 rifles. Just to see his head explode like dropping a cantaloupe off a 10 story building.

If there were more Mr Hopp's there would be less crooks. The crooks should be afraid of the owner, not the other way around.

Here in New Mexico ,we have it in our state constitution-"you have a right to protect your Proberty, your Family and your self with deadly force " We can also open carry or can conceal a firearm in our vehicle, and we still have burglars. -mike

But Mike, if you remember back in the 90"s that woman up in the North East Hights of Albuquerque was civilly sued and The SOB won. The bugler fell through the sky light in the kitchen and fell on the kitchen island where he stabbed himself with a kitchen knife that had been left there and had to call an ambulance he was bleeding so bad. APD arrested him and he was convicted of Burglary. served 45 days in jail and then sued the home owner and was awarded 100,000 dollars plus his medical expenses. What a crock.

In Arkansas, since he was running away Mr. Hopp Could be charged. You can protect yourself and property with deadly force "if you are threatened." However, it would be real hard to find a jury to convict him and might not find a judge to sign an arrest warrant.

Hats off, to Mr Hopp. The sheriff shoulda arrested the guy with the bullet in him, for stealin lead. Well a jury should decide, better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6.

Good advice, that friendly folk talk you engage in with sheriff Billy Bob is likely admissible evidence. Im not aware you have to voluntarily tell them a whole lot but as I said Im NOT a criminal lawyer.

John T

Hi Mike, Yes you still have crime,but I bet you don't have as much as you could.

After reading the article I don't think the guy should be charged with anything. I can understand the whole deadly force to protect yourself but not property thing but the article clearly states that the guy caught two of them in the house and used the shotgun to scare them out of the house. Wether they guys had plans to do him any harm had the known he was home is anybodies guess, but the fact remains they were in the house. After they went back through the door, what is the guy expected to do, what would any sane human being do, sit in the house or follow them out and make sure they were really leaving or just headed for reinforcements. Looks to me like all that happened, ased on his story, is that once outside in the dark he tripped and when he hit the ground the gun went off and the burgler got unlucky. Why would the guy lie about something like this? Heck he should have had the skinned places to prove his story and, if it were me, should have been fussing about only winging the SOB instead of making sure he didn't rob anybody else in the future.


Personally I think that if the guy gets charged then he should turn around and sue the police department. Heck he'd been robbed several times before so shouldn't they have been looking after him a little better???...after all that's part of what the old man pays his taxes for isn't it. You'd think he'd have a reasonable expectation that they'd be at least trying to catch the guys that had robbed him and others and keep them off the streets. Seems to me he'd have a good case against them for not keeping criminals in jail after they are charged for a crime instead of letting them out to rob, kill, etc again because of budget constraints, etc. ((((I'm assuming here that this wasn't the first time these guys had done this nor the first time they had been caught. Around here it's common for criminals to be let go to commit more crimes the day they get out))) If they can't keep criminals in check then there's nothing left but for the common citizen to do it for themselves in the best way they can. If a 60 something year old man isn't allowed to protect himself against three guys then we have a BIG problem in this country that need to be fixed fast. But that's just my .02

Thanks for sharing. Thats too bad unless I'm on the jury, and then Mr. Hobbs is home free, other than having been a victim in his own home once again.

Mark

A proper jury of peers should consist of people who have been robbed several times.

Read Maasad Ayoob's book, "In the Gravest Extreme"
to be prepared for the aftermath of using deadly
force.

(quoted from post at 20:12:24 11/12/11)
In Arkansas, since he was running away Mr. Hopp Could be charged. You can protect yourself and property with deadly force "if you are threatened." However, it would be real hard to find a jury to convict him and might not find a judge to sign an arrest warrant.

Click to expand...

Yes, but as any street-wise cop can tell you, and they have the evidence to back this up, any perp within 21 feet of you is a clear and present danger, and even more so when his back is turned to you, because you cannot see what he is doing.

Around here, (TN) we have the castle doctrine too, and if your door is unlocked, your "castle" extends to your porch as well. We also have a law that says you can threaten deadly force to protect property, but cannot actually use it. Doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me, but then again, neither do most of the politicians.

A friend of mine and his father ran a small gas station and tire repair shop. Back in the 70's he shot a burglar exiting their building and drug him back inside, no charges. 20 years later similar thing takes place he shoots a burglar getting ready to leave in a car.He got away with both. He himself died of natural causes a couple of months ago.
A few years ago the local Chief of Police says on TV that if some one breaks in your house shoot them because that is what He intends to do if he is presented with the same situation.
Ron

That is true. I can run at you and stab you before you can pull your sidearm. From 20 feet away.

(quoted from post at 17:17:29 11/12/11) http://www.omaha.com/article/20111112/NEWS97/711129891#burglars-homeowner-face-charges

Click to expand...

Try Canada or even worse England. You are supposed to dial 911 and do nothing else while waiting for the cops.
Try protecting yourself or worse yet protect yourself with any sort of weapon. You will be in more trouble than the thief or aggressor.
The law did improve slightly in Canada this year after elected a conservative government. And after a Toronto Cops made a high profile mess for themselves. By arresting a shop keeper who ran down and tied up a known thief that was caught red handed.
The case was such a miscarriage of justice that even the abundant media sided with the shop owner.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2010/10/29/chen-verdict.html