TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pol ... ml?hpid=z4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Washington Post
By Caitlin Gibson, Published: March 19

About 2 a.m. Sunday, his friends dropped him off after the party, but Caleb wrongly entered the house two doors from his by climbing through a window.

The homeowner, (snip), heard his burglar alarm go off and confronted Caleb. He fired a warning shot and told the teenager to leave. When he didn’t, Wilder shot again, fatally striking Caleb, law enforcement officials said.

Without the treat of a deadly weapon by the teen, this case is a lot more problematic for the homeowner.

It would seem to me that you would have to be pretty drunk to ignore a warning shot being a good reason to leave immediately. A mistaken house is one thing. Figuring out via gunshot that you are in the wrong place and not acting on it right away is another.

The case isn't problematic for the homeowner at all, because the castle doctrine applies.

16 year old kid get grounded by parents for not cleaning his room, sneaks out get drunk til 2am and its the gun owners fault?

baldeagle wrote:The case isn't problematic for the homeowner at all, because the castle doctrine applies.

The Castle doctrine SHOULD apply. The article indicates that the police are mulling over charging the home owner. That makes it problematic for him. This is one of those cases like the unenforceable 30.06 signs where you may ultimately be vindicted but it could be expense to get there.

chasfm11 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:The case isn't problematic for the homeowner at all, because the castle doctrine applies.

The Castle doctrine SHOULD apply. The article indicates that the police are mulling over charging the home owner. That makes it problematic for him. This is one of those cases like the unenforceable 30.06 signs where you may ultimately be vindicted but it could be expense to get there.

Any homicide case will be reviewed by the police and the prosecutor. They will usually say they are deciding wheter to persue charges until all of the facts are known. Many times they will go ahead and take it to a Grand Jury to make the call.

chasfm11 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:The case isn't problematic for the homeowner at all, because the castle doctrine applies.

The Castle doctrine SHOULD apply. The article indicates that the police are mulling over charging the home owner. That makes it problematic for him. This is one of those cases like the unenforceable 30.06 signs where you may ultimately be vindicted but it could be expense to get there.

"Virginia law is largely silent on when a homeowner can shoot an intruder. But years of legal precedent give wide latitude to people who fear for their safety when someone enters their home."

Sounds to me like the media thinks there is no castle doctrine in VA.

From the information available at this point, I see no grounds for charges against the homeowner. He was most certainly justified in fearing for his life.

A stranger entered his home through a window (it hasn't been revealed if force was used) in the very early morning hours, was confronted by the homeowner who demands he leave, he fails to comply, the homeowner fires a warning shot and the intruder still refuses to leave, and the homeowner finally ends the threat with deadly force.

I don't see anything at all to indicate misconduct on the homeowner's part.

What I do see is really good grounds for both criminal and civil charges against the folks who furnished alcohol to the deceased.

Excaliber wrote:A stranger entered his home through a window (it hasn't been revealed if force was used)

All legal precedent that I'm aware of says that turning the door knob of an unlocked door = "use of force"
Unless the window was open and had no screen.......
Even then, it could be considered "use of force" if he moved the drapes out of the way.

IANAL

RoyGBiv wrote:

Excaliber wrote:A stranger entered his home through a window (it hasn't been revealed if force was used)

All legal precedent that I'm aware of says that turning the door knob of an unlocked door = "use of force"
Unless the window was open and had no screen.......
Even then, it could be considered "use of force" if he moved the drapes out of the way.

IANAL

You are correct in the technical legal sense, at least in TX, although I don't know if Virginia law sees things this way.

I was referring to the much looser common usage of the term, which most folks understand as requiring that something be damaged or broken as in "breaking and entering."

Interesting article, but good example to think before you shoot. Another perfect example why you call an attorney if you are involved in a shooting before giving a statement.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Excaliber wrote:A stranger entered his home through a window (it hasn't been revealed if force was used)

All legal precedent that I'm aware of says that turning the door knob of an unlocked door = "use of force"
Unless the window was open and had no screen.......
Even then, it could be considered "use of force" if he moved the drapes out of the way.

IANAL

If the alarm sounded, then I'm guessing he must have opened a window. Doubt the homeowners would go to bed with motion sensors armed (unless zoned seperate. That's for another discusson). No matter, this is going to be a rough one for the homwowner knowing he killed a neighbor kid, right or wrong. These two families will more than likely end up like Hatfield's and McCoy's and never be able to stay living near each other.

Excaliber wrote:From the information available at this point, I see no grounds for charges against the homeowner. He was most certainly justified in fearing for his life.

A stranger entered his home through a window (it hasn't been revealed if force was used) in the very early morning hours, was confronted by the homeowner who demands he leave, he fails to comply, the homeowner fires a warning shot and the intruder still refuses to leave, and the homeowner finally ends the threat with deadly force.

I don't see anything at all to indicate misconduct on the homeowner's part.

What I do see is really good grounds for both criminal and civil charges against the folks who furnished alcohol to the deceased.

It will be interesting to see if Loudoun actually files charges. While some areas of VA are very 2nd Amendment friendly, there are others, and I believe that Loudoun is one of them, that are a lot more like MD. There are some in that area who believe that the defender always has a responsibility to retreat. I agree that in Texas, this should be a lot more cut and dried.

If more prosecutions were made of those furnishing liquor to minors, there would be a lot less of that. I suspect that other minors were involved, with or without their parents' knowledge or consent.

I live in VA. We have castle doctrine (but by court cases instead of law). The homeowner should be in the clear. An unknown person entered his house, when confronted and told to leave he continued to advance putting the homeowner in fear of his life for himself and his family. It is sad that it was a neighbors kid and I would certainly be very upset, however, what could he do? Most likely he will be no-billed and go on his merry way (though saddened I am sure). If Loudon presses charges (with the information I have at hand) I think they will be wasting everyone's $$.

Sometimes stupidity is lethal. One to tell your children so that they don't face the same fate.

How do we know he wasn't a burglar except for claims by his accomplices?

bayouhazard wrote:How do we know he wasn't a burglar except for claims by his accomplices?

Right.. Came home drunk but not ready to settle down. Decided that his neighbors TV, or worse, his daughter is looking good right about now so he hops through a window to find himself six feet under.