Elderly man cleared of shooting two intruders, killing one

The flying mouse

A NEVADA MAN who was accused of murder after confronting two unarmed trespassers with a deadly barrage of gunfire at a vacant duplex he owns was found not guilty yesterday of all charges in the latest case to test the boundaries of stand-your-ground self-defence laws.

“I was trying to protect my own life,” he said. “Since they were there in a threatening manner, I reacted.”
Ristenpart said it was Devine and Wilson, not Burgarello, who “created the dangerous, threatening situation, trespassing, getting high on meth and being where they shouldn’t be, where they had no right to be.”

Justice was not served today,” said the Reverend Howard Dotson, a former Sparks minister. “Cody Devine did not deserve to die for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
http://www.thejournal.ie/stand-your-ground-laws-cleared-of-shooting-2134651-May2015/

TLDR, Man shoots two men, one dead who came onto his property and his found not guilty of murder.

Do you think this was the right decision ? Would you protect your property as far as shooting people who intrude into your home ?

i agree with the verdict and yes i would defend my house against intruders with all possible means at my disposal.

Timberrrrrrrr

No issue with the verdict at all, let it be a lesson to others.

The One Doctor

This is relevant to Ireland because...?

Cathy.C

Jaysus wasn't Robert Downey Jr lucky so back in '96

The flying mouse

The One Doctor wrote: »

This is relevant to Ireland because...?

This is a discussion board, we have had instances like this similar before in this country, there are at the moment uproar in rural Ireland about being forgotten about re crime in there areas, Some are openly advocating protecting there properties as they see fit, That's why i see it as relevant to Ireland,

If you don't like the thread don't bother posting in it.

Shint0

The law has been strengthened here for this type of scenario so you can use reasonable force. Better than having to wait for an ASBO which they never bothered to enforce:rolleyes:

washman3

He should be given a medal...!!!

The Randy Riverbeast

Depends, if they broke in then I dont have much sympathy. It's usually best to shoot first rather than wait to be shot.

Arsemageddon

Shint0 wrote: »

The law has been strengthened here for this type of scenario so you can use reasonable force. Better than having to wait for an ASBO which they never bothered to enforce:rolleyes:

Irish law was changed in 2011, it allows the use of reasonable force to defend your home only. Defence of other property (e.g. rental property in this case) would not be legally valid.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/35/enacted/en/html

The fella in Nevada appears to have been a bit of a nutter, neither of the men he shot were armed. the defendant had sat in a vacant apartment building he owned waiting to ambush any trespasser. He could just have fired warning shots.

lawlolawl

Seeing as how the courts anywhere aren't usually willing to do anything significant about this kind of thing, i'm perfectly happy with people taking matters into their own hands with "intruders".

It should honestly be happening a lot more in this country. I live in a rural area near a motorway exit and "intruders" have made it one of their favourite areas to target over the past few years. The Garda ARU are a fairly regular sight around here, but they are usually showing up hours after the fact.

We could do with a few more armed citizens putting manners on a certain section of our society so that this isn't the case any more. I have zero problems with someone defending their property by eliminating the vermin that would prey on it. I'd do the same thing in their position and the judiciary don't seem to be willing to fix the problem, so........

lawlolawl

Arsemageddon wrote: »

why not just have fired warning shots?

The shots coming back at you won't be warning shots.

Do what you need to do. Those people had no business being there and they were dealt with accordingly.

Carlos Orange

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Depends, if they broke in then I dont have much sympathy. It's usually best to shoot first rather than wait to be shot.

They were squatting in a house nobody was living in.

Arsemageddon

lawlolawl wrote: »

The shots coming back at you won't be warning shots.

Do what you need to do. Those people had no business being there and they were dealt with accordingly.

The two men who were shot were unarmed, no one was shooting back at him.

lawlolawl

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The two men who were shot were unarmed, no one was shooting back at him.

Oh well.

Just made things easier for the person defending themselves.

Arsemageddon

lawlolawl wrote: »

Oh well.

Just made things easier for the person defending themselves.

If he was armed and lying in wait and the other two fellas were unarmed how on earth do you make out that he was defending himself.

lawlolawl

Arsemageddon wrote: »

If he was armed and lying in wait and the other two fellas were unarmed how on earth do you make out that he was defending himself.

Why were the "other two fellas" there?

Were they popping in to visit a neighbour?

darkpagandeath

More guns would have stopped this happening, The unarmed guys could have defended themselves. :rolleyes:

Arsemageddon

lawlolawl wrote: »

Why were the "other two fellas" there?

Were they popping in to visit a neighbour?

They were squatting in the building and were asleep when the auld fella entered the building. They were still lying down when he shot them.

By the by, there is a marvellous new invention called Google.

suicide_circus

Dead guy is white, no social media campaign necessary.

darkpagandeath

suicide_circus wrote: »

Dead guy is white, no social media campaign necessary.

I wonder if there will be riots and looting in their honour ?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Arsemageddon wrote: »

If he was armed and lying in wait and the other two fellas were unarmed how on earth do you make out that he was defending himself.

He owned the property, if I understand correctly, he's more right to be there than the other two

darkpagandeath

LexieOnRale wrote: »

He owned the property, if I understand correctly, he's more right to be there than the other two

Is he judge dredd ? It's stand your ground law not execution law.

Arsemageddon

LexieOnRale wrote: »

He owned the property, if I understand correctly, he's more right to be there than the other two

It's blatantly obvious he had more right to be there, I never said he didn't.

Arsemageddon

Arsemageddon wrote: »

If he was armed and lying in wait and the other two fellas were unarmed how on earth do you make out that he was defending himself.

"Lying in wait....?" It's his fuppin' house, mate, he can do whatever the hell he pleases. If the other two clowns were unarmed that's none of his business.

Arsemageddon

Deleted User wrote: »

"Lying in wait....?" It's his fuppin' house, mate, he can do whatever the hell he pleases. If the other two clowns were unarmed that's none of his business.

Actually, that was a mistake I read in the first account of the shooting. He wasn't lying in wait.

The shooter owned a house that had been vacant for 9 years This building was not his family home and wis in a run down neighbourhood. The other two (man & woman) occasionally squatted there. On the day of the shooting a neighbour phoned the shooter to tell him that they thought there was someone in the house. Rather than call the cops the owner went to the house and entered with a gun in each hand. The couple were asleep and did not hear him enter the building He shot them while they were still lying down just after they woke up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3102999/Prosecutor-Man-killed-trespasser-sought-confrontation.html

I have no problem with anyone defending their home. In this case the shooter went out looking for trouble and killed an unarmed man.

P.S. I'm not English, I'm not Australian, and I'm not a fvcking sailor - don't call me mate.

FTA69

The tone of some posters here is sad to be honest; macho posturing about people getting what's coming to them and all of that other chest-puffing b*llocks.

The reality is that two misfortunates squatting in a semi-derelict vacant building for the night were shot dead by someone who was lying in wait for them armed to the teeth. Claiming "self defense" in that situation is laughable.

Two people were killed like, that's tragic - not an opportunity for point scoring and snyde remarks.

Seems pretty shocking.

I'm all for the stand your ground stuff, use of force to deal with the threat of force.

To shoot squatters? That's taking defence of private property back to the days when people were hung for stealing sheep.

gctest50

Deleted User wrote: »

Seems pretty shocking.

I'm all for the stand your ground stuff, use of force to deal with the threat of force.

To shoot squatters? That's taking defence of private property back to the days when people were hung for stealing sheep.

They went there to take meth :

According to Wilson, she and Devine took methamphetamine the morning of February 13 before Devine drove her to Burgarello's home - an abandoned property that Wilson had been illegally squatting at off an don for the past three years.

can't blame him for being armed given all you'd see :

addict Sean King stomped on his girlfriend so many times her heart eventually stopped when a hole was torn in it, leaving her with injuries similar to that of a high-speed car crash.

bridgettedon

gctest50 wrote: »

They went there to take meth :

can't blame him for being armed given all you'd see :

Ok but why shoot? Why didn't he call the cops? What this man did was far worse than what the 'squatters' did. He should have got some jail time.

gctest50

He thought they had a gun afaik - they found a black torch at the scene

Arsemageddon

gctest50 wrote: »

They went there to take meth:

Actually they had come down off the meth and had gone to the house to sleep.