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.

gctest50

Arsemageddon wrote: »

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

Very reassuring that if you were actually there at the time counting you'd be reading this sorta stuff all the time :

wasn't that much in this guys system:

Rudy Eugene, 31, the man who police say horrifically ate a homeless man's face over Memorial Day weekend

Augme

I'd defend myself if I felt I was in danger. However I can't ever imagine actually wanting to murder someone just because they broke into my house. You'd want to a pretty big scumbag to do that.

Arsemageddon

gctest50 wrote: »

Very reassuring that if you were actually there at the time counting you'd be reading this sorta stuff all the time :

The only drug found in Rudy Eugenes system at autopsy was weed.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/27/medical-examiner-finds-only-marijuana-in-miami-face-chewer-system.html#ixzz1z2Ne6RED

Baron Kurtz

FTA69 wrote: »

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.

Exactly. It's baffling the mentality of the full-time mad b*stard, macho posters. Considering he was tipped off about it by a neighbour it's tantamount to murder.

Dyr

Augme wrote: »

I'd defend myself if I felt I was in danger. However I can't ever imagine actually wanting to murder someone just because they broke into my house. You'd want to a pretty big scumbag to do that.

America seems to be full of all types of space cadets

And they're armed

How many completely unrelated cases has gctest50 linked to have a go the victims? A stamping case from the UK, a reference to eating faces etc.

With all those sensational examples of bad things done by people on meth, it's such a pity we have no examples of the use of guns by people who just want to kill...none...

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Arsemageddon wrote: »

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

So if the local junkie wants to come into my house to sleep off whatever he's taken, what am I to do? Put a hot water bottle in his bed? Make him breakfast in the morning?

Don't break into other people's house and you won't be shot

FTA69

LexieOnRale wrote: »

So if the local junkie wants to come into my house to sleep off whatever he's taken, what am I to do? Put a hot water bottle in his bed? Make him breakfast in the morning?

Don't break into other people's house and you won't be shot

Read the article instead of commenting ad hoc.

The property in question was a vacant lot that the shooter in question was practically staking out waiting to shoot someone. There was no "home invasion" scenario.

An equivalent analogy would be you owning a shed or allotment on the other side of town and you shooting a homeless lad for sleeping in it.

How about some drunk homeless guy in this country trying to get a bit of shelter?

Would we really be all for the shoot 'em all approach?

I wouldn't. When law puts property concerns above the value of life, then I think the law needs to be looked at. Whether that be a person trying to get some sleep or a kid nicking a video player (as in the Tony Martin case). yes, when the threat posed is to the life of the occupier, clearly more force is appropriate.

cowboyBuilder

FTA69 wrote: »

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.

Exactly, I'd have no problem with this if this was a genuinely threatening break in and the man did fear for his life.
It's hard to draw the line though, but this case takes the piss.
Strange thing is another guy was found guilty of shooting a burglar that he baited in to his garage.

StudentDad

In my book this was murder and attempted murder. He knew the property was being used by unknown individuals. He didn't call the police. Instead he entered the property with weapons and shot two people, murdering one.

SD

For a man who was so afraid for his 'safety' why didn't he just call the police?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

FTA69 wrote: »

Read the article instead of commenting ad hoc.

The property in question was a vacant lot that the shooter in question was practically staking out waiting to shoot someone. There was no "home invasion" scenario.

An equivalent analogy would be you owning a shed or allotment on the other side of town and you shooting a homeless lad for sleeping in it.

He shouldn't be in it. I don't condone shooting someone for it but he was breaking and entering. There's an old house (vacant) in our town that has been broken into and has been used by addicts in the town to use drugs in. I used to date a guard from the station in our town and he told me how they'd have to get people in to clean up the used needles, and the owners would board it back up for the same thing to happen again.



He has every right not to want addicts on his property. Never mind the claim culture, if they hurt themselves there most likely they'd be able to sue.

RWCNT

All the psychopaths of the board will expose themselves on this thread.

FTA69

LexieOnRale wrote: »

He shouldn't be in it. I don't condone shooting someone for it but he was breaking and entering. There's an old house (vacant) in our town that has been broken into and has been used by addicts in the town to use drugs in. I used to date a guard from the station in our town and he told me how they'd have to get people in to clean up the used needles, and the owners would board it back up for the same thing to happen again.



He has every right not to want addicts on his property. Never mind the claim culture, if they hurt themselves there most likely they'd be able to sue.

That's beside the point. I'm not saying it's desirable to have some misfortunate addicts using one of your vacant properties but that's not what we're discussing here. The issue is whether it's correct or morally ok to lie in wait for these people and practically assassinate them when they're lying down.

As I said above, two people were shot for the horrendous crime of squatting in a vacant property - does a bit of trespass warrant the death penalty now does it?

As I said above, there was no home invasion scenario or danger to the gunman in question, and coming out with the "tough sh*t" attitude just stinks to be honest.

DavidLyons_

Augme wrote: »

I'd defend myself if I felt I was in danger. However I can't ever imagine actually wanting to murder someone just because they broke into my house. You'd want to a pretty big scumbag to do that.

Sorry, but if someone breaks into your property they do so at their own risk. So many elderly and vulnerable people at risk from intruders with mischief on their minds. I'd have no issue taking out someone breaking onto my home. My family's safety is paramount and I'm not taking any risk that the scum intuder may be unarmed etc.

You may want to wait until you feel you're in danger, but I wouldn't be taking that risk. If they took the trouble to break-in then they are a danger to you.

osarusan

I read a bit more about this.

The guy had known for a while that there were delinquents sleeping in the place, and it came up in court that he had commented before that he would lie in wait and shoot them one day. He of course said this was a joke.

There was also testimony (from a neighbour who was following behind him in the house) that when he entered the premises he announced/shouted that he was the owner and anybody inside should come out.

He didn't testify but there was a police interview played where he said that he saw the man who was sleeping wake up and raise something towards him which he thought was a gun ('his hand came up like a gun'), so he fired. The investigators found a torch under the dead man, but couldn't make any comment on whether he had been holding it at the time.

The 'stand your ground' law doesn't allow for the shooter to be the 'initial agressor', but I'd like to see how that is defined legally and what constitutes the initial aggression. I wonder how critical the defendant's testimony about the raised torch was to his defence under 'stand your ground'.

Here is the law:

The 2011 Legislature approved Nevada's "stand your ground" law, which basically affirmed case law throughout Nevada history that upheld use of deadly force in self-defense.

It says "justifiable homicide" is the "killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein."

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

FTA69 wrote: »

That's beside the point. I'm not saying it's desirable to have some misfortunate addicts using one of your vacant properties but that's not what we're discussing here. The issue is whether it's correct or morally ok to lie in wait for these people and practically assassinate them when they're lying down.

As I said above, two people were shot for the horrendous crime of squatting in a vacant property - does a bit of trespass warrant the death penalty now does it?

As I said above, there was no home invasion scenario or danger to the gunman in question, and coming out with the "tough sh*t" attitude just stinks to be honest.

Look, I personally wouldn't shoot someone for sleeping in a vacant building however, if I decide to break into a building, I need to take responsibly for whatever happens to me for breaking into another persons property.

If there's a lunatic with a gun, if there's an angry dog or if there is booby traps. The owner can lie in his own building all night long with a gun if he wants. It's his building.

FTA69

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Look, I personally wouldn't shoot someone for sleeping in a vacant building however, if I decide to break into a building, I need to take responsibly for whatever happens to me for breaking into another persons property.

If there's a lunatic with a gun, if there's an angry dog or if there is booby traps. The owner can lie in his own building all night long with a gun if he wants. It's his building.

He can wait wherever he wants, he isn't morally entitled to murder a prone man for sleeping in his vacant and half-derelict property across town. There's an Asda near me and homeless Eastern Europeans have been sleeping near the skips after jumping over a wall to get there, by your logic the security guards are morally entitled to go out and beat the sh*t out of the poor bastards (or worse) because "they shouldn't have been there"

HensVassal

Americans seem to believe in the right to be violent.
It seems that they want any excuse to shoot and or kill. A lot of the time the person doing the killing knows full well that their life isn't in danger but they are in a situation whereby they can shoot some and get away with it because they can make it sound like they feared for their life.

FTA69

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Sorry, but if someone breaks into your property they do so at their own risk. So many elderly and vulnerable people at risk from intruders with mischief on their minds. I'd have no issue taking out someone breaking onto my home. My family's safety is paramount and I'm not taking any risk that the scum intuder may be unarmed etc.

You may want to wait until you feel you're in danger, but I wouldn't be taking that risk. If they took the trouble to break-in then they are a danger to you.

More obfuscation and irrelevant comment. The auld fella wasn't in his own home when these two lads burgled him and threatened his life; he was staking out a vacant property and summarily shot two men for sheltering in it.

To compare this to an aggressive home invasion type situation is inaccurate and dishonest.