Judge aquits two men who shot intruder

The Baltimore Sun Website ^ | January 24, 2003 | Allison Klein

[Ranxerox]

Arguing that the state's murder case "challenged the foundation of the right to defend yourself," two Harford County businessmen were acquitted yesterday of gunning down a drug addict who broke into their East Baltimore warehouse.

Prosecutors said the men, frustrated by repeated burglaries at their business, were acting with murder in mind, not self-defense, when they killed Tygon Walker with a shotgun and a handgun in June 2001. But Baltimore Circuit Judge John M. Glynn pronounced Kenny Der and Darrell R. Kifer not guilty of first-degree murder seconds after attorneys finished their closing arguments.

[csvset]

First, I'd think that if you were shot 5 times with a .45, you'd have gone down before the 5th shot.

From the article; " Walker, who had no money or drugs on him, was intoxicated and high on morphine, according to an autopsy report."

I'm not sure if his morphine buzz keep him going like a zombie or not, that's a possiblity though.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

The question should not be:

"Is it worth killing a man to protect X"

rather:

"Is it worth me risking my life to steal X?"

The burgler created the situation and started the chain of events that led to his own demise. If he had not broken the law, he would not be dead, but he chose to put his own life on the line when he broke into that warehouse. Therefore, the responsibility of his own death is entirely due to his own choices and actions.

[RonF]

The real question is: do I have the right to use deadly force in self-defense or not?

I believe so, and in general so do the various state statutes.

If I do have that right then the number of hits is immaterial, since the end result is the same.

I don't agree. If someone threatens you with a deadly weapon, such as a hammer, then shooting him is certainly justified. But once the man is down with bullets in him he's no longer a threat. There's a difference between using deadly force to defend yourself and killing a man in the process, and killing him out of anger even though he's no longer a threat. It's not clear to me from this source whether or not the former or the latter happened.

There aren't varying degrees of "deadness", dead is dead whether from one shot or eleven.

No, but there are varying degrees of being wounded. There's a big difference between being shot once or twice and being shot 11 times, especially if it turns out that those 5 shots in the back are 5 gun discharges, not 5 shotgun pellets from the same discharge. People often survive being shot once or twice. The point of defending oneself with deadly force is to keep from getting killed, not to kill someone. If you kill them in the process of defending yourself, O.K. If you kill after your life is clearly no longer in danger, then that's murder.

I'll accept "heat of the moment". You pick up your gun and you keep shooting until the man's down. I realize that it's not a TV show. But I need to know more about the 5 shots in the back.

[RonF]

"Is it worth me risking my life to steal X?"

Theft is not punishable by death. The deadly force here was justified by the deadly weapon (the hammer) and the threat to use it, not the theft.

Yes, this burglar created the situation that led to his own demise. If it turns out that he would have died just from shots when he was still standing, I've got no problem. But if it turns out that this guy was down and then was repeatedly shot in the back then something's wrong. But it's not clear from this article if that's the case. You have a right to self-defense, but not to vengance.

[RonF]

From what I've read from other postings here on FR, 2 or 3 shots from a .45 will physically knock you down whether you're feeling pain or not.

[Tijeras_Slim]

I don't have a problem with their effectiveness...just lack of frugality (ammo's expensive!)

I used to shoot at On Target near Ft. Meade and the Wm. Batargis Memorial range up towards Frederick, as well as on some family land on the Eastern Shore.

[ko_kyi]

Well, I think their website is www.kennyder.org. While it doesn't explicitly state that my interpretation is correct, you can understand why I thought that there was only one shotgun blast. Here is an excerpt:

The testimony and cross-examination of the Medical Examiner, Dr. Ripple consisted of her making statements about the number of bullet wounds and the direction the body had been hit. From what I remember she stated that the body had been hit multiple times basically once in the front leg. Once in the front abdomen, once in the back arm and once in the back of the head. She stated that the bullet to the back of the head would of dropped the intruder down immediately. There were also a couple of grazes.

Upon questioning she admitted that the back of the head wound was probably the last hit since it would of dropped him automatically.

There is more detail about lots of other stuff as well.

[ko_kyi]

No kiddin! I shoot at On Target. I need more range time desperately, and I don't have a whole lot of natural ability either. It's a good range.

[Ranxerox]

...But once the man is down with bullets in him he's no longer a threat. There's a difference between using deadly force to defend yourself and killing a man in the process, and killing him out of anger even though he's no longer a threat...

You're making many assumptions here that aren't necessarily valid. A "man down with bullets in him" doesn't mean he is no longer a threat. For example, how would I know he doesn't have a concealed weapon on him that he could pull when my guard is down? Did I hit the intruder? I have seen people miss a 30" x 30" paper target from 20 feet away, under optimal conditions, never mind a stressful encounter with a possibly armed intruder. Also, I have shot a deer with a 12 ga. slug that did nothing more than look up before trotting off 50 yards and collapsing. I have also completely missed a deer that fell down from the noise, then jumped up when I approached him and ran off. The point is that assessing a threat is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. Ask those cops in New York who shot that fellow 41 times for pulling out his wallet if they thought he was still a threat.

[chuknospam]

Bang for justice, finally!

[tracer]

It would appear that Tygon has been "hosed"....

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

You have no right to complain about treatment you recieve from anyone that you have threatened to harm or have created a situation which within they feel they may be harmed. A burgler creates that situation by the act of breaking and entering.

The actions that may be taken after the victim encounters a burgler should not be of consequence in any case. The victim did not create the situation, the victim did not initiate contact, so why then should the victim be held accountable for any outcome that proceeds from the criminal's actions?

In this particular case, low lighting, a criminal who may have been numbed by intoxication, and a rush of adrenalin would explain why so many shots were fired and why the firing probably lasted around 2 seconds. 6 shots from a .45 and 5 shots from a pump action shotgun do not take long to fire.

[Tijeras_Slim]

It would appear that Tygon has been "hosed"....

LOL! Don't worry, there's still his brother Tygothane! Perhaps the whole family will develop a leak.

[RonF]

I'm not making any assumptions. Yet. What I'm saying is that the statements that the dead man was shot 11 times, 5 times in the back, can be interpreted in different ways depending on the existence of different scenarios, a couple of which I describe. I don't assume any of them are true, I'm saying that the story as given doesn't allow for a determination of whether what happened was purely self-defense or whether vengance was also involved. I've also asked for further information to clarify the issue.

I should think that the report that the dead man was shot 5 times in the back should at least raise questions, and that's what I'm doing.

[Khepera]

really they should have shot him 100 times.

[RonF]

"You have no right to complain about treatment you recieve from anyone that you have threatened to harm or have created a situation which within they feel they may be harmed. A burgler creates that situation by the act of breaking and entering."

If you are stating this as a moral assertion, that's one thing. But I don't think it's true in a legal sense. I believe that you have to be facing deadly force to use deadly force. I do know that people have been prosecuted for shooting home invaders in the back as they were trying to flee, the interpretation being that since they were trying to run away they no longer posed a threat.

[Tijeras_Slim]

There's an indoor range about 5 miles from me, and I go during lunch hour atleast three times a week. It makes a big difference.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I was making a moral assertion. Legally, in Maryland, they have an obligation to use minimal force. The victims in this case may have over-reacted in terms of the law, but the judge in this case decided that they were in an understandable state of frustration due to the inaction on the part of the responsible Governmental agencies that are to protect their property in return for the surrender of rights to defend their own property as they see fit.

A violation of a social contract on one side does not justify a violation from the other side, but in this case the judge said that they were excused.

[AnAmericanMother]

When the panic's on, you can't be held to the rational thinking of all us comfortable posters in nice warm (relatively) studies with coffee at our elbows.

I have been in a threat situation, and it ain't pretty. What with the huge jolt of adrenaline that hits your system, and the sheer fear engendered by a large stranger coming at you yelling threats, your brain more or less goes on autopilot. If you've been well trained, you'll function fairly well, but there is no logical thought going on. There's no time.

Most people just keep pulling the trigger until it doesn't go "bang" any more. And it looks like the judge realizes the truth of this.

The only reason my assailant didn't get filled full of lead is that he ran as soon as he saw the muzzle of the .45 trained on him. (Guess he wasn't hopped up on morphine.)

[Liberal Classic]

Prosecutors said the men, frustrated by repeated burglaries at their business, were acting with murder in mind, not self-defense...

How dare they lose their patience with those poor, misguided burglars?