Finding a naked teacher’s aide in your home shower? Is that a reason to homeschool? Or a reason to get ADT?
He should be charged with murder. He LEFT to get a gun, meaning he was under no imminent threat. He could have called the cops and waited outside.
Granted the guy had no business taking a shower in someone else's house, however the shooter was in no danger. This is clear by him being able to leave and then return. When he left he should have just secured his weapon and called the police.
IOW once he broke contact he was out of any danger.
He gives gun owners a bad name. LOCK HIM UP!
If this is the incident I am thinking of, he found the guy in the shower and LEFT the house to go to another house nearby to retrieve his gun. Then he CAME BACK to the house and shot the guy in the shower. Then he called 911 to report it.
That is pretty clearly murder to me.
Of course he was charged. You have the right to self defense, and you have the right to use lethal force in self defense if faced with an imminent threat of being killed or seriously injured. That does not apply here. Once the shooter left the house, there was no imminent threat. He should have called the police to deal with the intruder.
These type of incidents and those who defend the shooter in them just give lefties ammunition for their gun control argument. This one’s a no-brainer. You don’t have the right to shoot someone simply for tresspassing; there must be an actual threat.
Yes, it’s murder.
SOOOO he finds the guy in the shower, talks with him, then leaves to get his gun and goes back and then shoot him? How can he claim threat or self defense if he voluntarily returned to the scene? And then shot the guy through the shower curtain?
Absolutely he should be charged.
You can only shoot someone if you are in fear for your life or limb, and in some states, for your property. Washington state is not one of the property-states.
Ergo: If you leave freely, then return with a firearm, you clearly were not in fear for your life or limb. You were able to leave. You did not call the police, instead, you returned to an area of possible danger.
That makes it impossible to claim you were in fear for your life or limb. Thus, murder.
Q.E.D.
The homeowner left that house to go to another house he owned to get a gun to come back to the house where the guy was taking a shower and shot him through the shower curtain; seems since he had time to do all that he could have called 911 - then got his gun and sat on the guy's clothes.
PS: How else would someone be taking a shower if not naked. I mean the story lead intro is a bit ... hmmm
This story from a different source was posted a couple days ago but doesn’t have the info
your posting has regarding some of the details. Especially about them having words prior
to owner leaving to get his gun.
snip
The man owns two pieces of property next door to each other. He lives in one house
and runs an internet-based business next door, which is where he found the intruder.
He told police he noticed signs of forced entry when he went to work on Saturday.
The man said he went inside and found Rosa using the shower.
Police said the homeowner confronted Rosa and the pair exchanged words before he left
and returned to his house next door to retrieve his gun.
The man then allegedly came back to the property and fired multiple rounds into the
shower, killing Rosa, according to Mason County Sheriff’s Lt. Travis Adams.
He then called 911 to report the shooting.
end snip
Posting from a couple days ago
Deputies: Homeowner arrested after fatally shooting intruder in shower (WA)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3540355/posts
111 comments
I don't think you understand how the Castle Doctrine works, assuming Washington state even has such protections in their law. The homeowner committed manslaughter at a minimum. Lock him up.
He must have been one of those liberals who armed up after being afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome. No sane conservative would have done what he did.
Would he have shot the intruder if it was a naked FEMALE teacher’s aide? Now it sounds like an erotic fantasy.
There’s lots of arguments that could be made but not after he left the house!
He left and was clearly safe and then went back into the supposed danger to attack the criminal.
He was not, as far as I’ve read, protecting a loved one or another person from imminent danger.
It appears that this was just, ‘A criminal is in my house so I get to kill him.’
If the guy had attacked him that would change everything.
If there was a child in the house that might even change things.
But the guy was just trespassing.
I can imagine he may have been scared but a jury may look at his actions and see a guy who is angry and thinking, “I’m going to kill this SOB!”
And that’s not self-defense.
This was a bad shoot.
Did he know the guy? Was he covering up a homosexual affair/fling? Just wondering.
It just seems like something major is missing from this story.
To enter my castle without my permission is suicide.
The property was not the shooters residence. it was his place of business. The shooter confronted him. He wouldn’t leave. The shooter does not call the cops, goes home, gets a pistol and then shoots the trespasser without further warning.
CC