Anyone?

You can shoot if they are tresspassing on your neighbor's property. YOu can shoot if they are running away with a piece of your property. Basically, if they left a footprint in your yard and you do not have a life insurance policy on that person, you are in the clear. Some day, some poor meter reader is going to be killed. And folks in my state will just yawn and say "He knew the job was dangerous."

Sounds like the northern states have tougher standards.

I think many people in this country are just accustomed to the idea that a certain number of people will be shot and killed in this country every year. They care not to think about our ability to change this or why it's wrong.

It's enough to make one want to

There is no attempt to establish the state of mind of the homeowner. The D.A. simply concludes that he's covered under the Castle Doctrine because no reasonable jury could convict this man of murder.

"The homeowner had absolutely no idea who could possibly have been inside his home at 2 a.m." - Ridiculous.

Read the D.A. report for yourself: http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/slinger-homeowner-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-shooting-9q4mdbl-143712626.html

First, the Wisconsin law - and we do live under laws - starts from the presumption that the homeowner is justified. Only when it can be demonstrated that the homeowner acted maliciously should they be prosecuted. That is a horrible assumption to make, but the law so requires. That doesn't make the DA bad, it makes the law - that which the DA upholds and defends, but doesn't themselves write - bad.

In addition, the police are bound to investigate crimes pursuant to what the law says. In Sanford I think they very likely violated even their own loose standards, but Wisconsin isn't Florida just because there were shootings in both states. The cops in this case had to presume the homeowner was justified - it says so right in the law - so arresting him would seem to actually violate the law. In this instance the cops did what the law required of them, but it was the law itself which was bad.

Second, the ridiculousness of someone trying to determine a distinct other person's "state of mind" notwithstanding, the cops actually DID try and do that - to the extent any human being can ever fully discern that of another - by interviewing him and screening him for alcohol. They also even made note that he appeared to be "in a state of disbelief or shock." What more should they have done? Again, remember the police are bound to follow the presumption of justification. Should they have arrested him anyway, the law be damned?

The D.A. makes a decision on whether or not take it to a grand jury and he must do so conscious of the facts of the case. The reality here is that the homeowner reasonably knew who it may have been having just moments before gotten off the phone with the police. He himself said he feared retaliation. The conclusion in the D.A. report that he had no idea who it might be is flawed. The D.A. report as a whole is incomplete and reflects a moralizing tone that seeks to exonerate Mr. Kind while accepting inconsistencies in the Mr. Kind's story at face value.

Unanswered questions:

The D.A. report in no way estimates what the relationship between Adam Kind and the Hess family may have been like. Was there prior history here?

What was words were exchange in the conversation between Adam Kind and the party goers in the car?

If Adam Kind was worried about an intruder, and reasonably believed that the person may have been in the porch, as the D.A. report suggests, why did he enter the room before calling out to see if someone was there?

These are gaps in this investigation that we won't have answers too because the police appear to have approached this from the start as a Castle Doctrine case, which is not as the D.A. report notes, a carte blanche to kill:

I actually did read the report, and before I respond further let me say that I am in full agreement that any law which forces law enforcement to "presume" anyone's guilt or innocence is an abomination. The Wisconsin law explicitly says that law enforcement shall presume the homeowner to have fired justifiably, and that of course is extremely dangerous because the law isn't supposed to ASSUME things like that. The law is supposed to presume innocence until the proof of guilt, but that's meant to direct law enforcement to build a provable case as opposed to simply taking people's words for things.

That said, I recommend you read Wisconsin's law on the matter. In part it says that "the court must presume that the person reasonably believed that the force was necessary ..." which of course means any case taken to trial must be able to credibly show that the shooter CLEARLY didn't have reason to shoot someone. In this case you've got a man in your house at 2 AM. I can tell you that if you tell 99% of people in this country that someone entered a home illegally at 2 AM, you'd like not run up against a lot of people saying that the homeowner should've waited for the police. That point is important because - while I'm estimating the support for that idea, and admittedly don't have a scientific poll on it - juries are drawn from our peers; peers being those who largely see any penetration of someone's home as reason to pull the trigger - especially after being instructed to ASSUME he had good reason.

DAs aren't law school flunkies who just barely understand the law. And even when a jurisdiction doesn't have the best DA he or she will have a team of highly qualified individuals advising them. While you and I are free to approach the issue without the court-mandated assumption of justifiability, the jurors wouldn't have had that same liberty and would've needed to be shown ample evidence to suggest that the shooter - in his mind - didn't have REASONABLE belief to pull the trigger. What's more, the castle doctrine intrinsically gives him the right to search his home armed as he pleases. In other words as the law explicitly says, "if a person used defensive force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court must presume that the person reasonably
believed that the force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person if ... the person knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred." Read that carefully because it says that this guy was actually perfectly within his rights to use lethal force because Mr. Morrison had in fact broken in.

In fact, the only 2 exceptions are police officers who identify themselves cannot be shot upon entry, or if the person was using his residence to further criminal activity (for example a meth lab).

So the state of mind - such as that could ever be ascertained - is really neither here nor there in terms of what the law itself mandates, unless of course the DA could develop some really damning evidence that in fact Mr. Kind had long plotted to kill Morrison, something not supported by any of the questions you or anyone else have raised. Yes, a DA may "choose" to prosecute anyone, and of course people are also free to sue for wrongful arrest - as would have almost assuredly happened in this case. Given the law he likely would have won that suit, as it explicitly assumes justifiability and Mr. Morrison meets neither of the 2 automatic bars. Moreover, it would be almost impossible to convince any jury - especially one court-bound to assume justifiability - that a person entering the residence of another without permission at 2 AM should've been presumed to be unarmed and not a threat. In fact I can't think of many jurisdictions in which that might fly.

What you're presuming - a presumption not legally allowed by Wisconsin law - is that Mr. Morrison simply ran into Mr. Kind's home to duck the police. But a jury MUST ASSUME something else: That Mr. Kind had good reason to believe that he needed to defend himself using lethal force. You may disagree or not like that assumption all day long, but under current Wisconsin law it is the legally required assumption. That Mr. Kind called the police about the party doesn't excuse Mr. Morrison breaking and entering, B&E being one of the conditions under which a person may justifiably shoot another. And as a homeowner myself I can tell you that if I heard a disturbance from within my home I would do everything possible to protect my family as well, up to and including deadly force if I deemed it necessary. My bar for necessity might be slightly higher than Mr. Kind's, but then again I wasn't there so I don't know if Mr. Morrison truly took a step towards him or not. Neither do you. Even if he didn't, though, he had still broken in to an occupied home, and under Wisconsin law he simply must be PRESUMED to have acted justifiably.

Respectfully I suggest that (thankfully) you don't know what it's like to have someone break in to your home while you're there, as sometimes little things like how many times you yelled what at them don't always remain perfectly clear. For some people even the "large" events of an encounter like that don't remain clear, witness a life-or-death rape account of some women in which they forget some of the key details (those who do forget, that is). What you're seeking is a robot or perhaps a police officer, someone with perfect training to deal with a break-in when in fact that's an unreasonable expectation - especially given Wisconsin law. While it's tragic that Mr. Morrison probably only broke in to duck the law, the reality is that even knowing Mr. Kind was the one who called the cops doesn't mean he should've assumed a peaceful purpose to his visit. In fact I'd think that such an assumption would be rather naive in most situations, perhaps letting alone this one well after the fact. I'd also suggest that as someone who's been there with thieves in your house while you're trying to defend your 2 year-old daughter from God only knows what, calling out isn't something you do lest you give them a clue where you are so that they might overtake you.

He acted in haste and he acted recklessly - his actions were not reasonable and that is an argument that should be taken to a grand jury to sort out. That is the minimum attempt at justice that the Morrison family should have expected from this D.A. I do not believe you can reasonably view this as a single act, divorced from the evenings prior events. Mr. Kind is on the phone with the police less than 10 minutes before he shoots Mr. Morrison concerning his neighbors party. His statement is contradictory and reflects a likely degree of malice toward the party goers, the only people he could reasonably expect to be in the area at that time. The D.A. did not conduct adequate investigation, there is no attempt to determine who was in the car in the prior confrontation or if Mr. Kind threatened the party goers. That is a piece of evidence that can be obtained and is not being obtained by the police or the D.A.'s office. Mr. Kind may have the presumption, but there is substantial indicators that he did not have reasonable belief that night and that he may have acted in anger.

You are acknowledging that this law is unjust and the D.A. ought to have an obligation to test theories beyond the presumptive one, he did not go that far. There is no attempt to establish any prior history between the Hess family and the Kind family. There is no attempt to determine what the prior confrontation consisted of. There is no attempt to determine why Mr. Kind believed he needed a weapon to deal with the likely intruder, a party goer. His claim to have been surprised by Mr. Morrison is specious at best according to his own statement. That these basic questions are not even explored shows not just a presumption that the homeowner is innocent, but an attempt to even begin to explore an alternate theory.

Your hyperbole aside that I don't understand "that it's like to have someone break in to your home while you're there," and that we know that his wife believed him to have yelled twice, the reality is that the Morrison family likely isn't going to forget this and just take the D.A.'s word that these gaps in his investigation are acceptable. I hope they have a good lawyer. If this law legalizes what otherwise would be murder than this law, and it's relatives have got to go because they are a travesty of justice.

We're not going to agree. You clearly believe that deadly force is justified at the slightest provocation in what is honestly a more complex case than you suppose, and I simply do not, it must be "reasonable" in its belief "that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself." I think there is significant evidence that it was not and that ought to be a matter for a grand jury to decide.

You keep arguing what you think ought to be with seemingly no regard for what is. I appreciate that you don't like the law; I appreciate that you'd write it differently if you could. But I think it's past time to acknowledge that your vision of the law simply isn't what the law actually says right now, and is in fact quite different. The quicker you both understand and appreciate that the law doesn't always say what you think it ought to - yet still applies as written - the quicker you'll understand why Mr. Kind can't be charged, barring some new evidence.

Your inexperience with home break-ins becomes extremely evident with your assertion that events cannot be divorced, that Kind should've assumed Morrison was a party-goer. With all due respect the ease with which you assume how Mr. Kind should have felt - up to now saying the limitations on what he should have assumed - betrays your inexperience with the situation. I'm glad you've not been in it; it's difficult, stressful, and terrifying. But your inexperience doesn't limit the boundaries of reasonable assumption simply because you might have acted differently: many reasonable people HAVE acted differently than you and saved their own lives in the process. In this case we NOW know - with perfect hindsight and much more knowledge at our disposal than had Mr. Kind at the time - that Mr. Morrison had simply broken in to avoid getting busted by the cops. But within that statement - one you certainly can't deny - you'll notice, if you read the Wisconsin law, that Mr. Morrison IN SO DOING makes himself a subject to the "castle doctrine" because it explicitly includes breaking and entering as one of the conditions for which the shooter is to thereafter be assumed to have acted in self defense. How that simple concept escapes you is, I'll admit, a bit frustrating, but that it escapes you doesn't mean it's still not the law.

I'll admit that *IF* the law was written as you'd like it, yes, then Mr. Kind could be charged. I have no idea why you simply refuse to read what the law says (here it is: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/94), but problematically for your argument it simply doesn't support what you're saying. In fact if you bother to read it you'll notice it's explicit in saying just the opposite of what you are. Your own credibility notwithstanding, I think I'll take the law's word for what it says more than yours for what you think it ought to say.

Moving along, I have no idea how you've now arrived at "murder" in this case since you seem to be basing that opinion not on any verifiable law, but instead on some roving set of standards which you uniquely apply as you see fit. Tell me, Mr. Darrow, while you're going on about the family having a good lawyer and such - hoping to high heaven they understand the law slightly better than you do - have you noticed the part of the Wisconsin law which EXPLICITLY proscribes civil liability suits in "castle doctrine" (justifiable) cases? Did that part meet your legal review? Or will that be another instance of the law which you're simply just going to ignore as you're doing with the rest of it?

The difference between you and I is that I'm not "supposing" anything. What I'm doing is reading the law as its written. What you're doing is making an entirely different law up to replace one you don't like. Equally as bad, you're now putting words in my mouth that I never said nor implied. I don't think the "slightest provocation" is grounds for deadly force, nor have I ever said or even suggested that. Instead, that's an exaggeration - hyperbole to use your word - used to try and discredit me. Yet the problem is I never said that. So the only person it discredits is you, friend.

From the D.A. Report:

But they don't say quite what you think they do. Saying something isn't a "complete bar" is in lawyer speak a simple way of saying that of course the law doesn't bar prosecution in literally every possible instance of home intrusion. But notice it also says "it would be difficult." You're reading that partially for the areas which out of context seem to suit you, not at all for the parts which don't. What you're also missing from the same DA report is that a person huddled inside a darkened room - an intruder - is presumed to be more dangerous, and that when they take a step TOWARDS the homeowner that is perceived by both law enforcement and the homeowner as an ADDITIONAL aggressive action - the first being that they forced entry into a home in which they don't belong. The reason for that is obvious: Breaking and entering into an occupied dwelling carries with it the implied understanding that the occupant may view you as a threat, and a further approach TOWARD the occupant is seen by almost everyone - excluding you, of course - as a potentially hostile action. Those intent on staying alive don't take such insane risks as allowing an intruder to approach them into infinity, as confrontations like that have a way of spinning out of control. That you want to take that risk is your right, but don't expect the rest of us to want ourselves or our families in that sort of peril.

What you're also conveniently - and conspicuously - missing is that Mr. Morrison had no business in Mr. Kind's house. Put another way, he broke in. Again, this is where some first hand experience might help you, but when you see a stranger inside your home you don't simply assume he's there selling girl scout cookies, especially not when you have small children in your home. What you're doing is sitting here well after the fact with ALL sides of the story, audaciously making assumption after assumption about what reasonable is to a person who - at the time - didn't know what you do. That he called the cops on a teenage party is almost irrelevant given the fact that even if he'd assumed that it was one of them, he can credibly say that he feared revenge for having called the cops - and when you break into someone's home the violence is essentially implied, unless you're running away towards an escape of some kind. But Mr. Morrison wasn't running away: The shot hit him in the chest, the front.

I would never wish a home intrusion on anyone. They're traumatic. But in this case you're talking with absolutely no experience on the matter, acting as though you know full well what someone in that situation SHOULD presume. You have 2 people in this thread who actually HAVE experienced it telling you that the assumption isn't what you, naively, think it is, yet you ignore that because it doesn't suit YOUR worldview. Problematically for you, fortunately for the rest of us, the law itself doesn't suit your worldview for it explicitly says that use of deadly force is presumed justified for home intrusions - the home intrusion not being in doubt in this case. Thus, since the home intrusion is not in doubt, neither is Mr. Kind's presumption of justifiability ... not until something else could impeach that. Not remembering how many times he said what to an intruder isn't quite the damning piece of evidence you seem to think it is, especially given that Mr. Kind is not a trained law enforcement officer with experience and specialized knowledge on handling the "tunnel vision" effect that stressful situations so often cause. It's well-documented that emergency situations are often poorly recorded by the participants, so a mere man - as opposed to a trained professional - simply cannot be expected to be able to give you an EXACTING chronology of literally everything. It's an unreasonable assumption made by you based on literally nothing.

Moreover, I think you're understanding the "Castle doctrine" precisely backwards, as it's not contingent upon the homeowner PROVING reasonableness, but instead the prosecutor - after the presumption of justifiability is legally granted to the homeowner - must PROVE that he was unjustified. That's what innocent until proven guilty means: That you don't have to prove your innocence prior to being granted your freedom. Instead, the prosecution must prove your guilt. Insofar as that goes, I think you're misunderstanding quite a bit about the American legal system.

You are entitled to your opinion. But you're not entitled to rewrite the law when and where it suits you, or to allege what is written in plain language says something other than what it clearly does. If you want to change the law that's certainly fair. But you're not going to convince many who are literate to believe that the law says something other than what it actually does, I'm afraid. For all of your protestations and exaggerations, you have yet to demonstrate how a DA - much less a jury - is supposed to dismiss the LEGAL DUTY of presumption of justifiability in favor of some inane theory wholly resting on the idea that Mr. Kind's inability to recall if he said something once or twice intrinsically shows murder. It's preposterous, in short, and thankfully not at all enshrined in any law of which I'm currently aware - other than the fantasies you purport to be law.

As far off as you demonstrably are on this, I'd suggest that in place of "rest" you do a bit of reading the law itself, and some familiarization with the typical recollection patterns of most victims might also do you some good.

There were attempts to establish the state of mind of the homeowner. They did test him for drugs and alcohol. They did interview him. They did ask him what he was thinking at the time.

Still, *should* a person have to justify their behavior in defending their home at 2 AM?

The guy came through a door that was ordinarily locked to get into the residence. The homeowner stated that the outside door to the enclosed porch was usually locked, he thought he had locked it behind him when he came through it last, and the door to his home from the porch was not locked. He thought the person in his back porch would have had to have broken through the lock to get into his property.

If I had been on a jury, I couldn't have convicted the homeowner. If you feel it should have gone though to a jury, and that just ignoring it without letting it go to a jury was wrong, I understand.... but if I was serving on that jury I would have acquitted.

He also says he feared someone was climbing onto the roof of it to climb into the second floor. He knew police were in the area, he suspected someone was in that room, and still he went charging around with his handgun. Talk about failing to protect your family...

Should I be expected to ask questions if I find an intruder in my home?

Should I be expected to ask them if they're just going to make a snack in my kitchen, if they are planning to rob me, or if they're planning to harm me? In the time it takes me to ask "What are you doing here?" they could attack me. And I, at least, as a very petite female, couldn't fight them off easily. Please tell me, what other *reasonable* business could a person have to be in my home? Hiding from the police is NOT reasonable, in my eyes, by the way.

The fact he knew a drunk party was going on in his neighborhood, to me, is even more reason to be scared, not less. He had reason to presume that if it was related to that incident, that whoever was in his home was intoxicated and therefore even more dangerous than they would be sober.

I'm not sure your size has anything to do with it - I for example am fairly large with a military background and I wouldn't want to be questioning any burglars in my home either. I might be bigger and more well-trained but I'm not bulletproof or invincible. Anyone can get the drop on anyone at the right time (or wrong time, depending on who's losing).

I don't advocate executing someone in the back of the head, but if they make any aggressive moves after having already taken the very aggressive move of breaking in simply doesn't give me a good vibe. I'm glad I'm not alone on that.

According to the DA's report, he said nothing of the sort, no warning at all -- though the DA's report is only too accommodating to not hold that against him. Instead, Kind pointlessly shouted/screamed a rapid succession of "What are you doing in my house?! Why are you in my house?! Why are you in my house?!", never letting Morrison answer after the latter apparently made nothing more than a placating gesture for lack of being able to find the right words in a few seconds. The back room/porch was unlit, and Morrison evidently never even knew Kind was aiming a pistol at him.

"She indicated that she heard her husband say, 'What are you doing in my house?' two times and that he was yelling this. She stated that she also heard him say 'Stay where you are,' and then she heard a single shot fired. She indicated that after the shot, she was trying to call 911 and that her husband yelled to her 'I shot him'. She stated that her husband yelled for her to get an ambulance."

----

There have only been two shootings I've seen under Castle Doctrine that have been of people without criminal intent.

They were both drunk.

This case, and one out of Oklahoma where the homeowner shot a drunk who threw a chair through her back patio window after trying to break in for more than five minutes and not knocking or identifying himself -- shot pretty much at her patio door when he broke through it and came into her house, didn't wait or ask questions. Turns out his sister was unconscious from a drug/alcohol overdose, they were both intoxicated, and he was likely trying to get her help after he crashed his truck. But was going about it the totally wrong way.

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/12/caught_on_tape_donna_jackson_b.php

If we find an instance where someone who *wasn't* drunk or high that didn't have criminal intent and ended up getting shot by a homeowner, maybe I'll change my mind. Until then.... I'm much more afraid of a drunk than I am a sober person. Sure, their balance may be off, but that includes their mental balance.

Really breaks it all down and the image is very helpful in picturing what happened. I hope there is something similar for the one in Florida.

Unfortunate incident all the way around. Not the best decision but don't fault him for trying to avoid police detection w/ underage drinking.

This is the first case to be considered under the new Wisconsin Castle Law. I for one having read the D.A. report think it's cursory, presumptive, and incomplete. Tragic all the way around, but I do think Mr. Kind bears some responsibility here, he made a tragic choice, and the Morrison family deserves some real answers. There's no doubt this could have been avoided, but the reality is that it wasn't, and the question that begs to be answered is what Mr. Kind's responsibility in avoiding it ought to have been.

I find these laws to be abominable and an end run around an equitable justice system.

Very simple.

without at least issuing a warning.

In an unlit porch/room, where Morrison apparently didn't know that a gun was trained on him, it's quite simple to open one's mouth and say, "Don't move, or I'll shoot" -- words Kind never even close to using.

It's also "quite simple" to not break into someone else's home. I know from experience because I never have.

I also know from experience what it feels like to confront both armed and unarmed burglars in my home. It happened to me in foreign countries on several occasions. This "simplicity" you assume goes right out the window once the burglar illegally squeezes his way through it.

I also know from experience having gone to a worker's home to organize them into our union and the homeowner pulled a shotgun on us, pointed it, and said "what the **** are y'all doin here?" in place of "don't step onto my property" or any other more direct command. We froze, slowly raised our hands, and backed SLOWLY away from him - even though we hadn't yet entered his property (he met us at the gated fence which surrounded his yard, we were still on the sidewalk outside of his fenced area, and not on his driveway portion which extended underneath the fence into the public gutter).

Lots of things are "quite simple" until you find yourself doing them.

Especially when one fetches their handgun and anticipates meeting an intruder in the dark.

And equally of value, how did you phrase the warning when the encounter caught you by surprise?

Wasn't he the one who fetched his handgun, anticipating such an encounter?

Good to know that you feel such authority with subjects you know nothing about.

With respect to Mr. Kind - while neither of us knows his wants, desires, or thoughts - I'd suspect he wasn't seeking to kill anyone but instead was seeking to protect his family and ensure that no one was in his house. When you search your house - speaking as someone who's done it, both finding someone there and otherwise - you're hoping and praying that your ears were wrong, and when you do in fact find someone it DOES startle the hell out of you. And in the other case, if you know for sure they're in the house, it's not the warm and exciting feeling you're assuming it is. Instead it's fear, apprehension, but a sense of urgency all at the same time. If you think there's this vast amount of time you get to compose yourself and prepare your best dirty harry line you're sorely mistaken ... and it's something you'd know if you'd been in that position.

Unlike you I don't pretend to know what Mr. Kind's exact state of mind or exact motivations were, but I can say that generally speaking a homeowner dreads the idea of having to shoot someone. That they search their home - the one an intruder has illegally broken into - doesn't mean they're exactly looking forward to anyone being in there, the whole idea of that being it's illegal to break and enter.

You don't know that the intruder is alone or has a partner, nor do you know if he's armed.

http://www.thetowerlight.com/2012/02/towson-homeowner-shot-during-burglary/

http://www.wistv.com/story/16477160/person-shot-during-home-invasion

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/homeowner-shot-multiple-times-1252492.html

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/police-homeowner-shot-through-door-attempted-home-/nHTLx/

No, I'm not going to take a chance. I'd much rather be like these folks-

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/serial-burglar-shot-by-homeowner

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-19/news/chi-police-1-dead-in-lasalle-county-home-invasion-shooting-20120219_1_home-invasion-homeowner-intruder

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/homeowner-shoots-home-invasion-suspect

Do you really want to make yourself a target? Would your family mourn you by saying, "At least he didn't shoot without yelling first."

But all he yelled before pulling the trigger was "What are you doing here?!" His victim was apparently attempting to answer him with a placating gesture before he got shot by someone with a gun he couldn't even see in the dark.

As for your other links: no relevance to the incident at hand, because they all involve bona-fide armed robbers. It's not clear why you posted them.

You said..

[div class='excerpt']Doesn't give a gun owner the moral right to shoot someone he's confronted without at least issuing a warning.

Whether the homeowner did in this case or not is immaterial to your statement.

You don't know if the person illegally in your house is an armed robber or a 20 year old marine who has now violated parole and is trying to keep the cops from finding him (as Morrison was).

to open one's mouth and issue a standard warning to "remain where you are" or "I've got a gun" or words to that effect. The homeowner surprised Morrison, not the other way around; and, wielding a gun, had the upper-hand during the entire encounter.

In this particular case, had the intruder been warned not to make a move, or had been told that a gun was pointed at him, but nevertheless did make a move, then the home-owner would have been well within his moral rights to pull the trigger. But that doesn't apply in this case at all, as no such warning or instructions of any kind were issued and the victim didn't even know that a gun was trained on him in the first place.

The intruder could be armed, pointing a gun at him; the intruder could be armed, with a crowbar / tool (remember the homeowner thought the outer door was locked); the intruder could be unarmed.

Would you have the homeowner give away his position, and make himself a target when he doesn't know which case is true?

before forming a response here. The homeowner did yell and "give away his position", he just didn't say the very simple words which could have easily prevented a tragedy:

You said:

[div class='excerpt']Doesn't give a gun owner the moral right to shoot someone he's confronted without at least issuing a warning.

I don't think he had an obligation to yell at all and risk his life, to an intruder he didn't know was unarmed.

So whether he yelled, "The sky is full of rainbows!" or "Frankincense and myrrh!" -- doesn't make a bit of difference.

Good grief.

If so, by what moral precept?

You provided no compelling argument to contradict what is basic common-sense concerning these specific types of homeowner/intruder encounters, and don't even seem to know much about the incident to begin with. Did something change concerning the specific incident in question that we don't know about?

Nothing more.

It's not a moral or legal obligation I agree with, either.

Yes, the kid made a mistake.

But the need to "protect the nest" is so engrained into human psyche that it *should* be respected by law. The kid should not have run into another person's home. And yes, I have several friends who have enclosed porches on the back of their home. The doors securing them are locked. They consider the porch part of their home. If I walked out onto their porch and saw an intruder, I would have been scared out of my mind. I wouldn't have known what they were intending.

Honestly, my thought on these cases is that if a person has broken through a secured entrance to get to the place in my home they are at, I should be able to presume that they are up to no good. If the enclosed porch was locked... then I believe the homeowner was justified if someone had broken through the lock.

...about 40 years, and it's worked out quite well for us.

I am really not prepared to argue that someone shouldn't be allowed to use deadly force against a person not supposed to be in their home.

with murder or a lesser charge.

Tragic things happen. The cause of the whole incident was the young man, in my view. Maybe your energy would be better spent working toward educating young people about underage drinking, and what can happen.

The homeowner encountered someone drunk or whatever from the loud party next door, where there had been belligerent people, in a small, dark room. Then the young man took a step towards him.

The homeowner doesn't have to have a minutes long conversation with a stranger who has entered his home in the wee hours of the morning to see what the stranger wants. The stranger is obviously not making a polite social call. There were children in the house to protect.

I'm sorry, but when you enter someone else's home/enclosed porch in the wee hours of the morning, it is reasonable for the homeowner to think you mean them harm. The homeowner isn't a trained cop. He's just a guy who reacts to a drunk stranger breaking into his home.

If I found someone in my home at 2 a.m., or even my garage, after breaking in, I would shoot. I would naturally think they mean me harm. Why else would someone break into my home, esp at that time of night? It's a tragedy, but it wasn't the homeowner's fault.

...what is being said is that there are inconsistencies in the police and D.A. investigation that should have been dealt with before making a determination not to send this to a grand jury. There is more to this shooting than you describe, and evidence/statements that are missing in the D.A. narrative. Also, I do not need to be told what to do with my energy, this is DU. Thank you.

with an unlocked door to the house...children inside...a shot in the dark.

It's a tragedy. But one caused by the drunk intruder. This is the risk a stranger takes in intruding into someone's home in the middle of the night. I would expect a homeowner to shoot, if he had a gun. Any reasonable person would think the intruder was there for a bad reason. The homeowner doesn't have to take the risk of waiting to see if the intruder is friendly. It's HIS house.

Young people could be told about this incident as an example of the stupid things a person can do when drunk or on drugs, besides driving and killing innocent people.

I knew someone casually who shot and killed a burglar who was crawling on the floor in his bedroom. My acquaintance woke up, saw the person, grabbed his gun, shot, and killed the man. The man turned out to be a common thief, unarmed, middle aged. He was probably there just to burglarize. But the homeowner doesn't have to take the risk of finding out if the intruder was armed, or what he was doing. By then, the homeowner could be dead.

The homeowner is the innocent one here. He wasn't doing anything but trying to sleep, when a drunk intruder came into his premises.

...or constitute some sort of guiding principle, there was much more going on here...the law states that there must be reasonable belief "that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself." The question is that given the prior chain of events if there was reasonable belief. We don't know because the investigation is incomplete and will likely never be finished. The law that permitted this is incomplete investigation needs to be changed. That's my opinion, I'm sticking to it.

harm. Period. Why else would he be there? You don't seem to get that. You're not placing yourself in the position of a person who is faced in the middle of the night with an intruder...especially one from the group of belligerent people next door who had had an altercation with the homeowner earlier.

Home invasions are on the rise. This is on everyone's minds these days.

You break into my house at night...I will shoot at you and hopefully hit the mark. You are there to do me harm, absolutely. I can't risk having a conversation with a criminal to see if he's just making a social call (anyone who breaks into my home is a criminal, ipso facto).

I'm beginning to understand how the young man thought it would be all right to do just whatever the hell he wanted with other people and their homes, if this is the attitude he was raised with. Whatever you want to do, sonny boy, is okay. Everyone else has to step out of the way and understand your quirky ways.

If I'd ever done what that young man had done, my dad would've beat the shit out of me and said, "What the hell made you think you had the right to go into someone's home in the middle of the night without their permission? Are you totally stupid? You could've gotten yourself killed! Or someone else might've been hurt!"

I'm beginning to wonder...just what the hell was that young man doing in that person's house at that time of night, drunk on his ass? Maybe he was intending to do something to that homeowner or his family. Methinks his family doth protest too much.

...he was drunk, on bail with a sobriety cause from previously being cited for drinking, the homeowner had confronted party-goers just an hour before and had called the police. The homeowner had been on the phone with the police just 10 minutes before and knew that teens were still in the area. Your post is what we call in Hawaii pure shibai.

I've yet to read a case of a sober person without criminal intent who got shot breaking into someone's home. If you're aware of any cases, I'd be all ears.