Man arrested for Shooting Home Invader

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^

[HotTubDave]

Home invader shot in head in Knoxville Tuesday, November 14, 2006 By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette A Knoxville man was charged with shooting and critically wounding an armed gunmen during a drug related home invasion robbery last night. Police withheld the identity of the wounded intruder. The resident suspected of shooting him has been identified as Bruce Charles Jr. The charges stem from an incident at 11:30 p.m. in the 300 block of Suncrest Street, where police found the 19-year-old intruder lying on the living room floor with a bullet wound of the head. Mr. Charles, 20, said he had been at home with his 2-month-old baby and the infant's 19-year-old mother when two men entered his residence. One of the intruders pulled a pistol and demanded money, police said. Mr. Charles retrieved a gun and shot one of the intruders in the head, police said. The man who was shot was taken to Mercy Hospital, where he was in critical condition today. Mr. Charles was charged with illegal possession of a firearm, possession of marijuana and possession with intent to deliver the pot.

[Oberon]

He wasn't charged with actually shooting the other guy, but that could be because he isn't dead yet.

Police might well have charged him with what they thought a grand jury would agree with. Thankfully it's still difficult to convince people that shooting armed invaders is wrong, especially with a woman and baby in the home.

[monday]

"Unless you're a copper-riveted idiot, it would seem appropriate to not have any "evidence" in evidence when the police arrive. So how did illegal drugs turn up in the homeowner's possession?"

Notice he was charged with "intent to deliver", not "intent to distribute"? It's possible the drugs were not his, but that he was delivering them. If he had flushed them down the toilet, he would have been in serious trouble with the people he was to deliver the drugs to. Better to hide them in the closet and hope the police don't search. If they do, at least he can blame the police for taking the drugs, so the people he was delivering them to won't kill him.

BTW, police don't need a warrant to search a crime scene. If you shoot a home invader, expect the police to look in every nook and cranny of your house for evidence you may have tried to hide before they arrived. It's standard procedure.

[Centurion2000]

Sounds more like a drug deal that went bad more than anything else.

[SampleMan]

Unless you're a copper-riveted idiot, it would seem appropriate to not have any "evidence" in evidence when the police arrive. So how did illegal drugs turn up in the homeowner's possession?

19-year-old wife, 2-year-old child, drugs in the house, probably a drug deal gone bad... I think you are thinking to hard. The guy likely is a class A idiot.

[Oberon]

I think you are thinking to hard. The guy likely is a class A idiot.

Yeah, you're probably right.

Life is hard. It's even harder if you're stupid.

[middie]

If the state has a felony murder rule, and I believe all states do, anyone killed while engaged of the commission of a crime, any co-conspirator or partcipant can be guilty of murder. The resident was in felony possession with intent to distribute, someone was killed; the potential charge is permissible. There were two felonies operational at the same time, the resident apparently was not charged with regard to the invader's crime but rather his possession felony during the commission of which he fatally shot someone. That's how I would charge it.

[Nathan Zachary]

"As usual, the bad guy is protected and the defender of his own property is labeled a criminal for doing so. Oh wait, I guess pot made him shoot someone threatening his family with a gun--so thats okay."

The poor innocent drug dealer was just sitting home minding his own business. How dare he be labeled a criminal, Everyone knows that it's absolutely a MUST for felons to have guns when dealing large amounts of pot, why the police are "picking" on him for having a gun for self defence especially when the guy in the dangerous drug business is just plain harrasment.../s

[subterfuge]

How MUCH pot before you get charged with intent to distribute? Seems to me that it would be more than a couple hits.

Actually, if the cops find dope in two seperate containers or baggies, they assume you're a dealer. It makes it easier to confiscate your house, car, money etc.

[subterfuge]

Most certainly. Haven't you ever seen the 1933 classic refer madness. It just turns you into a fiend?

Yeah, I saw it years ago. What a hoot! No pun intended. Nevermind that half the lawyers, judges, cops and majority party officials are doing it, but hey they are the ones controlling things so it's okay for them.

[basil]

I think it's a bad drug deal between 2 drug dealers. I'm thinking that these guys were in "business" together and the one who was shot came to get some money that he thought the homeowner had that belonged to him.

Perhaps the "illegal" gun was because the homeowner is a felon?

[Tenacious 1]

[Not sure what happened here. It looks okay until the last paragraph. Then I can't decide if the newspaper is slanting the story to protect the shooter or the shootee.]

I suspect that the owner invited his guests in to sell them drugs. The deal went south and a man was shot during the commission of a felony. I am no lawyer but self defense may be a stretch while in the act of committing a felony. Hard to tell.

[subterfuge]

You're right and I didn't mean to imply the shooter wasn't a criminal, in his own right, as a drug dealer.

[SengirV]

Note to self - don't keep illegal drugs in two seperate containers or baggies. OK, problem solved.

[7thOF7th]

The distortions the media takes with this kind of story is treasonous! They count this kind of violence in their reports about "the most crime ridden cities in America", and suddenly everyone believes the lie. All because "crime on crime" is counted in the analysis and combined with statistics of "crime on innocents". The press has an inherent responsibility to GET IT RIGHT! Do It!

[subterfuge]

Yer funnie!

[JamesP81]

What I'm getting at is that I suspect there's something important that the article isn't telling us.

Probably so, all said. And, as has been pointed out, he isn't charged with shooting the intruder. It's drug charges he's been brought up on.

[NonLinear]

Hey Dave,

I only got half a ping!

-NL

(c8

[Concho]

A lot of these reporters are working on articles by the word. They are paid so many pennies for each word that they write. They are liberals to begin with and so they embellish and distort and spin what little news that they can dig up in the effort to get a raise, or get to a different paper that pays better. It matters not whether the article covers the truth, it is as they see it through their rose colored glasses.

[CountryBumpkin]

Agreed. Perhaps the home owner was a convicted felon, hence the illegal weapon possession charge. There is no mention of the home owner being charged with the shooting, which makes since if he was arrested on incidental or unrelated charges.