Posted on 08/29/2019 12:32:05 PM PDT by Morgana
An Ohio homeowner shot dead two teenage boys who he say were 'trespassing' on his property on Wednesday night.
The homeowner has not been named but is being questioned.
He told police that on Wednesday at 9.30pm, he shot the two boys in his 'garage'. He called 911 afterwards.
The boys have been identified as 17-year-olds Devon Henderson and Javier Harrison. It remains unclear if they were trying to break into the property, or what their motive for being there was.
When the homeowner called 911, he told the operator: 'I shot two guys. I shot two persons tried to rob… to do something in my house.'
Dayton Daily News, a local outlet, says one of the teenagers' father's believed they knew the shooter and had been in the garage before.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Devon and Javier were there for good legal reasons, right?
“Yep, cased the place and came back for the goods.”
If they took even one step toward the owner, or raised a hand, it was a good shoot.
Don’t think it’s anger. I think the poster is saying that society basically tells us not to defend property. You’re supposed to call the cops, let the two guys spend a few days in juvenile hall, then get your ass beat when they come back after release and jump you.
The homeowner was outnumbered two to one.
Your stupid little “no threat to the homeowners life” fantasy is not connected in any way to reality.
It’s not, anyone who wrongfully thinks that square inch of private property is not private property is brainwashed by the Communists. In the mean time they are encroaching into our very bedrooms because these clueless are just rolling over and accepting it.
If they were in the garage, they were already broken in to the property.
This line takes the cake:
“Javier’s father says he should not have shot and that the boys had been to the garage before”
Like that makes it all fine and dandy that they were in the guy’s garage late at night?
You can see the guy is living in the Alamo with his house all boarded up.
“I don’t generally shoot dead people.”
I didn’t want to give you that much credit.
I think it'll boil down to how much threat there was to his safety or the safety of others. By the strict letter of the law he might be right but since there was no evidence at all that they posed any danger to him then he may have a hard time avoiding jail.
There are a lot of things he could say that would be bad for him...
"I asked them to leave, and they would not"
I was angry that they were stealing stuff from my garage"
"They have been breaking in over and over, and I was tired of it"
There are a lot of stupid things he could say.
That is why he should way just two words: "LAW YER"
*** Your stupid little “no threat to the homeowners life” fantasy is not connected in any way to reality. ***
Your reality is flawed.
24 posts before someone was thinking like me.
CURED.
Should these idiots have been in that garage? No.
Should the guy have called the cops and kept an eye on the place instead? Maybe. I dont know if he was investigating some noise and shot out of fright.
Am I like “They got what they deserved”? No. Just because he took them out with a gun doesn’t mean I’m going to toss confetti and chalk it up to a victory for the 2nd amendment.
Is the dad an idiot for being mad at him? Yes.
In the end two young lives got sh*t parenting and guidance, and now they are gone, and this guy is going to go through heck from the aftermath. So what am I supposed to be happy about.
Not enough information in the article to make either determination with any accuracy.
Two healthy teen-aged boys discovered invading any part of another household during the night might reasonably be considered an immediate threat to life.
The homeowner called 911 immediately, repeated a justification formula, and then shut up. Except for the part where he supposedly said "they were trespassing", he did OK.
"They were trespassing" by itself does not support a claim of self-defense in a shooting. But if they confronted the homeowner in any way, he had reasonable cause to shoot them.
The suspects are Black. If the homeowner is Black, there probably won't be any charges filed. If the homeowner is White, he will probably be charged with something.
Unless he shot the "teens" in the back as they were running away, or brags about "shooting those dammed kids from the neighborhood who kept stealing my stuff" I would suppose there will never be a conviction.
So I can just break into your house and steal everything.
As long as I don’t make a move against you, its all good.
It’s like a football end zone, Once they passed over the invisible, but legal, “plane” of the property line without permission they were trespassing and committing a felony. anything past that line is at that point irrelevant, it is ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY.
They have led us to believe that even parts of our private property are public access property and it is totally unconstitutional and we are fools if we allow it.
Preparing for a funeral it would seem.
But the missing details will determine if this was a 'legal' shoot or not. Brief look at Ohio law says its castle doctrine. So if the shooter was in the detached garage when the perps entered, then he may be able to justify the shoot. If he heard or saw it from the house and then entered the dwelling, not so sure now. If he intended to shoot them he is in trouble. If he entered to see what was going on and subsequently felt threatened, maybe its justified.
Agree with other advice given earlier. He needs to shut up and let his lawyer do the talking. I think he made a mistake on the 911 call if he said they were trying to "rob" him. Questionable about threat to life with that statement.
Need to look carefully at the laws for this state. Shooting in self defense is always justified. Shooting to protect property not always so.
Ya think????.....LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.