Posted on 05/28/2014 3:47:17 PM PDT by lbryce
A 73-year-old man has been charged with murder in a recent shooting that killed a man and wounded a woman who had done meth and entered his vacant duplex without permission in suburban Reno.
The defendant, Wayne Burgarello, acknowledged the Feb. 13 shooting at a property he owns in Sparks but says he was acting in self-defense under Nevada's "stand your ground" law, according to court records.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Wilson said as Burgarello approached, Devine started to get up from the floor and said they were just sleeping. That's when the shooting began, she told police.
Some might argue that the "stand your ground" rule might not apply here and that the guy went a bit too far.
If he saw the two sleeping on the floor, and in such a situation wasn't in any danger had other options in which to deal with finding two people who were sleeping and had entered his home illegally.
Well, waking them up was certainly not unduly aggressive. If he woke them up and they were threatening to him, then he might have been justified, depending on the particulars of the law. If he just woke them up and started blasting away, then he should be culpable, but I doubt he did that.
Besides, what were the “other alternatives”? If he called the cops, they probably would have shot him and his dog, and either shot the couple or entered them in contention for couple of the year.
If I'm on the jury and you can't prove to me that the squatters were a threat to the shooter, then I'm voting guilty..........
I would have to agree.
If I’m on the jury the burden of proof would be that they were NOT a threat with the underlying assumption being that individuals who are squatting are automatically stealing from the property owner.
The fact that they were meth heads tells me everything I need to know about threats. People on that drug are clinically insane and psychotic, not rational people.
Shudda called in the BLM.
I agree with you.
Meth heads are totally insane, psychotic, and can turn physically hyper-aggressive for any reason.
This is a 73-year old.
Not guilty.
Not I; meth addicts are irrational at best, very dangerous at worst. This guy did the community a favor.
Thanks.
If those two had woken up while he was calling the police, he might have been murdered.
As for his age, I think prison would be pointless at this juncture. He is old and most elderly people can’t defend themselves as well as the young (a revelation to a lot of liberals).
As for mental health, druggies often have an underlying cause.
Squatting, stealing or threatening great bodily harm are all different.........
You can squat if you want, but that doesn't give me the right to kill you
You can steal if you want, which certainly wasn't the case here............
Or you can threaten my life which would then allow me some protection under the law to kill you........
None of the above other than the squatting has been alleged................
Castle Doctrine won't even be accepted as an argument unless this guy can prove that the squatters were going to either kill him or do great bodily harm.........
If I were the remaining wounded squatter, I certainly wouldn't want YOU as my defense attorney...........
In Texas if you feel yourself or your possessions are being threatened you can use deadly force. If I walk into my home and strangers are inside, I’m probably going to feel like, at the very least, my possessions are being threatened. I don’t see my home as being any different from my rental property.
Plus, I sure wouldn’t put much stock in the meth head’s testimony.
Well, I shot a man in Reno........just to watch him die....
His mistake was leaving a witness to the shooting alive.
High on meth, and trespassing.......it'd be damn difficult to convince me beyond reasonable doubt. All the old man would have to do is say, "I claim Stand Your Ground, and anything beyond that, I plead the 5th."
Short of audio/video to the contrary or hard evidence he shot them while they were asleep, he'd have my "Not Guilty."
Without some concrete physical evidence proving the owner a liar I would be inclined to believe that the squatters cuased him to fear for his person. I would also find that fear reasonable unless the squatters were fleeing in the opposite direction, which by the survivors account they were not. Given only the facts presented in the article (two druggie squatters are roused and make furtive movements towards the property owner) I would not convict.
I understand what you are saying......but there's a big difference between the house you live in which you certainly have the right to protect against invasion and a barn, or shed or rental property which is not inhabited by anyone.
If the guy can prove that his life was in danger and required his killing of one and wounding of the other, then good for him.........
If I was a 73 year old, I would not take any chances of one of them suddenly pulling a gun and shooting me before I had a chance to react. My viewpoint would be that they were illegal intruders, and my expectation is that my life would be at risk from them.
If "furtive" movements justify a homicide and another wounded in your mind, then who am I to argue.......
Then you'd better lawyer-up bro.........
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.