A cautionary tale

[Optimistic Paranoid]

John Farnam of Defense Training International is one of the foremost firearms instructors in the world.  I had the privilege of training with John back in 2004.  On his website, he publishes a steady stream of what he calls DTI quips.  I thought I'd share his latest with you.

When You Have a Choice

Posted by John S. Farnam on 18 Aug 2015

“Reluctant” Prosecution:

 

Earlier this month in OH, a homeowner shot and killed a burglary suspect.

The homeowner, armed with a pistol (brand/caliber unreported), confronted a pair of burglary suspects who were in the act of forcible entry into his home.

Not clear if words were exchanged, but the brace of burglars instantly decided to disengage and run away.

Homeowner decided to chase them as they fled, and in the process, fired at least one shot in their direction. At least one of his shot(s) struck one of the suspects. It proved fatal!

The second suspect escaped unhurt, but was arrested a short time later. He has been charged with burglary, and murder too, as he was an active participant in the felony which ended with the death of his partner in crime.

Homeowner is claiming self-defense, but he has nonetheless be charged with “voluntary manslaughter” He is currently free on bail.

The prosecutor in this case is faced with a “reluctant” prosecution. He has no choice but to charge this homeowner, an otherwise likeable, productive person.

Yet, the prosecutor apparently believes “self-defense” is just a little too much of a stretch.

However, the prosecutor also knows full well that neither judges, nor juries, have the slightest sympathy for burglars, who are invariably sleazy, multiply-arrested, multiply-convicted, perpetually unemployed/unproductive, dope-using human sewage!

Applying current moral standards, the jury may thus acquit, even in the face of credible evidence presented by the prosecutor. That is why we have juries!

If that is the ultimate outcome, I’m sure the homeowner will be relieved, but his “victory” will be brief!

In order to even get to criminal court, he will have spent at least 100k (with no guarantees and no refunds!)

You know how our “system” works:

“Innocent, until proven indigent!”

We have in this Country the best justice money can buy, and I’m confident this defendant will pay retail for every bit he gets!

While all this is going on, this same homeowner will received a curt letter from the law firm of “Dewey, Screw’em, and Howe,” who now represents the “estate” of the decedent. You’ll find them at “800-it-hurts-so-bad” They run TV ads during women’s mud-wrestling!

The Deweys will inform the homeowner that the poor, bereaved widow of dead burglar (who has not seen him in the last ten years, and didn’t even know he was dead until she heard about it a news report) is suing for “wrongful death,” et al

Not much to like, I’m sure you’ll agree!

If you’re wondering if there is a point lurking in all of this, here it is:

A much better outcome would have been achieved had the homeowner simply watched as the pair of burglars ran away, had not pursued them, had not shot at them as they ran, and had then called the police.

Even that outcome would have been far from “pleasant,” but, in relative terms, it would have represented a vast improvement over where he finds himself now.

(1) Chasing after felons with pistol in hand, (2) holding felons at gunpoint, and (2) seeking confrontation with dangerous criminals may all look sexy in the movies, but it invariably represents bad personal practice in reality.
Your defensive firearm(s) is there exclusively to protect your life. Defending yourself with gunfire, even when acutely and legitimately necessary, is still a terrible, life-altering event, to be done only when you have no choice.

  
Regards
John

 

[MikeRuth]

This is very true and as soon as he said went after them he screwed up. If you choose to use a lethal weapon then they better have crossed the line into your home before using lethal force.

I for one know this and respect it! I tell ya I don't even want to think of the hell I'd be going through even in a clear cut case of self defense.

 

[offroad]

something about castle doctrine? you can defend the inside. but when they run, you do not chase. And since this all seems like a contrived story to inflame the feelings of folks, why not add, that the burglar had stolen personal valuable information (your schedule of when children are at home) that put you at risk for home invasion again; and that you thought the defendant had a gun, and was firing, and you defended yourself. Petition to have it all thrown out of court. Find a victims funding group (like various rifle and firearms folks) and ask for a pro-se lawyer legal help. Or ask the local news and local elected officials for help, to fight the crime of victim blaming.

 

[mockturtle]

If he had shot them as they were breaking in or were inside his home, there would--in all likelihood--be no problem. Shooting someone fleeing, in the back, for example, still doesn't win you many points in a court of law.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

something about castle doctrine?  you can defend the inside.  but when they run, you do not chase.  And since this all seems like a contrived story to inflame the feelings of folks, why not add, that the burglar had stolen personal valuable information (your schedule of when children are at home) that put you at risk for home invasion again; and that you thought the defendant had a gun, and was firing, and you defended yourself.  Petition to have it all thrown out of court.  Find a victims funding group (like various rifle and firearms folks) and ask for a pro-se lawyer legal help.  Or ask the local news and local elected officials for help, to fight the crime of victim blaming.

1:  I know John Farnam and I'm positive this is not some "contrived" story.

2:  I am not a lawyer.  I have, however, done LFI-1 and LFI-2, both 40 hour courses at Massad Ayoob's old Lethal Force Institute, and I can tell you that the anytime there's a death, the crime scene boys are going to go over everything with a fine tooth comb, and every word out of your mouth better be backed up by what they find.  Lying to the cops is absolutely the WORST thing you can do, cause now they can provide that proof (he said, but the physical evidence PROVED)  to the jury to demonstrate that you are a liar and the jury can't believe anything you say.  At that point, kiss your old life goodbye.

3:  The other ideas strike me as pretty thin reeds.

The take away from this story is about as simple as it gets.  The use of deadly physical force against any other human being is absolutely a last resort, only justified to protect yourself or someone else from death or grave bodily harm.

Regards
John

 

[CTP]

1:  I know John Farnam and I'm positive this is not some "contrived" story.

2:  I am not a lawyer.  I have, however, done LFI-1 and LFI-2, both 40 hour courses at Massad Ayoob's old Lethal Force Institute, and I can tell you that the anytime there's a death, the crime scene boys are going to go over everything with a fine tooth comb, and every word out of your mouth better be backed up by what they find.  Lying to the cops is absolutely the WORST thing you can do, cause now they can provide that proof (he said, but the physical evidence PROVED)  to the jury to demonstrate that you are a liar and the jury can't believe anything you say.  At that point, kiss your old life goodbye.

3:  The other ideas strike me as pretty thin reeds.

The take away from this story is about as simple as it gets.  The use of deadly physical force against any other human being is absolutely a last resort, only justified to protect yourself or someone else from death or grave bodily harm.

Regards
John

The sad thing about this story is the home owner probably saved a future home owner from getting killed or broken into.  Every serial killer started out as a burglar.

 

[akrvbob]

That wild shot could just as easily have gone through his neighbors window and killed his 3 year old daughter.

If you want the power of a gun then you also get the responsibility. This man is totally responsible for his actions, not the two burglars. Neither of them forced him to chase them and pull that trigger.

It's manslaughter and he needs to go to jail. I'm sorry for his family but he also deserves to be wiped out financially by the burglars families lawsuit.
Bob

 

[Jana]

Burglary is not a capital crime, and even if it were, the homeowner is not the judge, jury, or executioner. Deadly force is only justified to defend oneself or others. Once they are running away, they are not a threat.

I would be willing to shoot anyone who broke into my home because I would think they were a danger to me. That is not something I say lightly because it's my "right", it's something I have spent a great deal of time giving very serious thought to. I know how to shoot, I know to be sure what's behind the target and to consider where every bullet could end up. I don't know if I could do that well in a real threat situation, but I would try like hell. And I think I could handle to emotional consequences of having shot someone.

We are well-armed. We own quality guns and take meticulous care of them. We own safes and all guns except home defense weapons are in them. If there are children in the house, even those guns are locked up. We have rigid safety protocols with tons of duplication to be sure every weapon is handled safely every single time. We put 100s of rounds through our guns--we are familiar with them. We keep our doors locked and until recently, we've always had a dog. We discuss defense scenarios. I hope we never have to put them into place.

Frankly, I think we do pretty much the minimum to be responsible gun owners.