“Play stupid games win stupid prizes.”
Nope.
No threat to the shooter’s life. The shooter is going to jail, and I think that’s as it should be.
I agree. Sounds like a bad shoot.
castle doctrine...you don’t wait to see if your life is threatened in your own home...no charges.
“No threat to the shooter’s life. The shooter is going to jail, and I think that’s as it should be.”
Maybe they attacked the homeowner when he caught them in the garage? Not much info in the story. The police are still interviewing the home owner.
THAT assessment depends on the lighting. A lot.
Certainly an important element, also was this a break in or were they walking in thru an open garage door - need more facts.
Correct, all property is now public community property and access cannot be denied to the public.
I have to agree. Arrest yes, maybe jail time. But jeez.
Oh, OK. I just go take your crap then.
Don’t you dare resist or your going to jail, bitch.
I tend to agree but would need to know more. Was he in the garage when they came in and was trapped? Short of that type of situation, why wouldn’t you just call the cops? I carry and have zero desire to actually shoot someone. Wouldn’t do it over money, I’d hand my wallet over rather than have that on my mind for the rest of my life. Now, and I understand that this is difficult for anyone not in the situation to assess, if I felt threatened or felt my family was threatened...well, that’s why I carry. And close calls of the interpretation of that risk favors the person who felt at risk. I am pretty sure that’s how the courts will look at it. If you clearly are not at risk, you don’t have the right to shoot.
If you’re inside my house, and I don’t know you, and I didn’t let you in, you’re getting made into swiss cheese no questions asked.
Give him a $1 fine, he can mail it in.
How do you know that the shooter did not feel that two males in his garage did not constitute a threat to his life?
Were you there?
Were you in his head?
There is simply no way to tell. Which is why in Texas home owners are protected by law in this case so that some liberal DA cannot try to convince a jury that they can read the homeowners mind.
Stay out of other people’s garages.
So much bleeding heart liberalism infecting even conservative thinkers.
“No threat to the shooter’s life. The shooter is going to jail, and I think that’s as it should be.”
In Ohio, which is a castle doctrine state, the State has the obligation to prove the defendant did not fear for his life.
He was investigating a break in in his property. Two large men were there without reason in the middle of the night.
Unless the idiot said he did not fear for his life, he’ll walk.
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.
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.
“No threat to the shooter’s life.”
True perhaps, but if it’s dark how do you know there is or is not a threat? Do you wait for the muzzle flash?
See my 118
Do they not have castle law in Ohio? A garage is part of the house, or so my property tax assessor claims.
You have no way of knowing that. Two against one, and from the pics at the article they were adult size and in athletic physical condition. We don't know how old, or how frail, the owner was.
If I was investigating suspicious sounds in my garage, and suddenly came upon these two large thugs, I would feel threatened. If they advanced upon him with the apparent intent to overpower him, then he would have the right to shoot.
“No threat to the shooter’s life.”
Proof?