Toledo, WA geezer defends castle keep...intruder in repose.

you should freeze. Now he is frozen. What a twist!

my guess is one who uses a single word warning needs only a single shot punctuation.

tell me how progressive gun owners are again...

Not sure where you draw that conclusion, but hey, whatever will get you a response, right?

"oh its a victory for gun owners! yay death!"

The Parable of the Castle Keep. Moral lessons are worthy of discussion.

Or at least the need for the RIGHT to own a gun. Howardx, you will be HARD PRESSED to find anyone in this forum that contributes regularly that is GLAD someone is dead. The only one I see "celebrating" it is YOU. YOU are using it as a stone to throw in your glass house. YOU are the one screaming "LOOK AT THE DEAD GUY! LOOK AT THE DEAD GUY!" YOU, Howardx, just you.

the ghouls in this forum revel everytime one of these articles is posted.


see post #1 for perfect example, "what a twist!" glad its so entertaining for you.

you yucking it up over some guys death. very progressive.

How telling.

its used to point out just how far you are from being a progressive.

http://www.justiceharvard.org/

Blessings.

Please share the link with others.

:hi:

Blessings.

as in the intended victim not being killed or harmed in anyway. And potential future victims of this scumbag being likewise saved from harm/death.

I think that is a good thing, you?

is sickening. end of story.

at least we're in favor of the good guy living.

End of story.

why is the homeowner automatically a good guy? considering the lack of details in the article i personally wont make that assumption.

It may turn out, by some bizzarre twist, that the homeowner in the OP might be, say, a drug dealer, and the fellow that broke in was just looking for his stash or something.

Things may not turn out as they first seem. Absolutely fair point.

He even gave the goblin two chances to stop. That is two more chances than he had to give.

any reason we should just blindly believe the homeowner?

The dead goblin was an unlawful intruder.

The resident lived there.

That makes the goblin the agressor bad guy, and the resident the defender. Whether or not he actually yelled "Freeze" is of no consequence. Personally, I would not have, as in doing so one passes the initiave to the goblin. Doing that could get me killed, and I refuse to risk my life to save a goblin's life.

does dehumanizing the intruder make it easier for you?

Why does it need to be 'easier'?

thinking of the intruder as a "goblin" rather than a human being with a life, family who will probably miss him etc etc makes it much easier to put on the tough guy act i see here.

Put yourself in that situation. You are awaken at 10:30PM by sounds of somebody breaking into your residence. You get up and a stranger has broken into your home and is coming towards you. Now what do YOU do?

i doubt it was necessary, notice there is no mention of the intruder being armed.

No mention of an electric wheelchair, so I'm going to assume 'yes'.

That's all someone needs to kill you. If you have a firearm, the firearm can only protect you from a potentially lethal beating, if you USE it.

a gun isnt the only method for self defense and is in fact the crudest.

How old are you? I am a senior citizen, and am no longer able to fight against a young man and have any hope of victory. To defend myself, I would need a tool.

And you have not established what you WOULD do in that situation. I strongly suspect that you are in denial that violent crime can happen to you. If you faced an intruder in your home, do you really think that a few verses of Kumbaya would solve the problem?

the crudest method of self defense.

Hell, look at this article. 62 year old man? My dad couldn't have kicked my ass when he hit 60. If he had the need, he certainly could have protected himself from me with a firearm.

You think the oldest form of physical violence is LESS crude than using a firearm for self defense? Your premise is broken, sir.

n/t

Yeah, that's great and all if the person is question is jackie chan or bruce lee, and they have notice, and they are within arms reach.

But as the vast majority of the world are not either of those people that isn't really a viable defense.

Asking the 85 year old, 90 lb woman who was just beaten and robbed by a 6ft5 300 lb ex-con "why didn't you just use karate on him" seems a bit callous don't you think?

That if a stranger comes into our house and didn't stop my Husband would shoot him in a heart beat

But I will not spend any effort mourning the intruder. Why in the hell would I?

his Momma loved him. I am sure she was proud he was a burglar. He was good boy and only been in jail a few times. All his female relatives will be weeping at his funeral. The death penalty wasn't appropriate for stealing. He was trying to turn his life around, he missed sex in the prison shower or some other lame ass excuse why he decided breaking into people's houses, and stealing their stuff was a noble vocation.

Now I am sure that you admire his initiative at not waiting for a government program to redistribute wealth, but I look at it as evolution in action. Getting shot by irate householders is an occupational hazard for burglars. (Bitch to OSHA, if you think irate homeowners create a hostile work environment.) This goon was NOT feeding his starving kids, he wasn't being held down by the man, it wasn't a loaf of dry crusty bread and warm curdley milk he was after. He was not a victim of bad economy or anything else. He was a thief because he chose to be.

He was miserable, but not Les Miserables. Call it Schadenfreude if you want, but when thieves, rapists, wife-beaters, etc., have the tables turned on them by their proposed victims it's a far, far better outcome than what they had planned, save them choosing not to be thugs to start.

and yes, IT really is THAT SIMPLE, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

I happen to like it. If it offends you, that is a plus.

It is noteworthy that you are responding to my use of "goblin" and ducking the established facts that I referred to.

because you choose to believe the homeowners story doesnt mean its fact.

The resident was in fact the resident.

The goblin had broken into the home.

Those are facts.

If you're okay with calling people shape-shifting, grave-robbing corpse-eating demons (i.e. "ghouls"), you can't exactly object to somebody else using the term "goblin."

I mean what was he doing in his own home that late at night? Does he have an alibi, or a compelling reason to be in his own home?

And clearly the intruder was just over to see if they guy wanted some late night cookies and milk, kind of like santa in reverse. What a saint, we are surely worse off for his death.


Hey, you aren't home right now are you? If so, why? What are you up to?

is sickening. end of story.

It's not sickening that the victim is still drawing breath. In fact, I celebrate life.


An awful lot of people seem to like posting negligent and illegal uses of firearms, some respond by posting lawful and moral use cases. This is one.

Firearms MAY be misused, but they are FOR protecting human life. Case in point, in the OP.

they are tools designed specifically to take life.

Because they all carry firearms.

I say again, firearms are for protecting human life.

and occasionally act as executioners

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4123341

Executioners carry out sentence with full force of law. (In the United States anyway)

A murderer violates the law while killing. That police officer you cited was a murderer. Not an executioner.

Firearms do not have to take life, to save a life. But they may also take a life, while saving one or more lives. That doesn't preclude the purpose of a firearm being 'to protect human life'.

If some deranged lunatic attacks a police officer with a knife, and the officer shoots him in self defense, the firearm was used to protect human life. Period. Whether or not the knife wielding maniac survives.

If the same knife wielding maniac drops his knife when confronted by a police officer with a gun, again, the firearm was used to protect human life.

i dont choose to. guns are tools specifically designed to kill. the fact that the police carry them is irrelevant to the argument.

I'll have to buy new ones.

Tell me, when the police shot down the scumbag that was shooting people in the Tacoma Mall a couple years back, saving any of hundrends of people still trapped under tables, behind counters, and in stores inside the mall, would you say the police used their firearms to kill, or to protect human life?

Motivation is important.

is that both statements are correct. firearms protect life ONLY by taking life or presenting the threat of loss of life.

'or presenting the threat of loss of life'.

Both criteria can SAVE one or more lives.

Many of my firearms aren't even designed for use on humans, but that aside, all of my conceal/carry weapons were SPECIFICALLY designed, either for police duty, or designed and MARKETED as self-defense weapons. Weapons for protecting human life. Not for going on a killing spree. Not for murdering my wife or my neighbor. Not for any nefarious purpose.

Murder, is mis-use. My Springfield XD9 is specifically designed as a police service/duty weapon. It is marketed as such to the police, and as a self-defense implement for consumers. At no point will you find any marketing material targeted to thugs, for this pistol. You will not find any features on it that lend themselves to drive by's, or murdering someone, without any ability to do a ballsitics match on the round or casing, or 'lack of fingerprints' or lack of a serial number, etc.


Those of us who approve of, and encourage LAWFUL self defense, do so to protect life. We choose tools FOR protecting life. The protection of human life does not always REQUIRE, but may involve taking another life. The same can be true of hand to hand combat. Do you consider Karate training to kill? How about Tai Chi? Tai Chi is swordplay. Hope that doesn't upset you the next time you see a troop of elderly people doing their mass murder tai chi training camp in a sunny park on a nice day.

if you cant admit that your guns for "self defense" are in fact meant for killing we are just going to talk past each other all day.

Fact is, most firearms are woefully inadequate for killing humans. Including some calibers that even the Police have carried, or still carry, such as .38 special. That's not to say it won't inflict great harm, or that using it doesn't constitute applying deadly force, but in all seriousness, there are plenty of firearms, plenty of calibers, and plenty of types of ammunition that are woefully, embarrassingly inadequate for the purposes of 'killing' a human.

edit for past tense.

other than futility.

"if you cant admit that your guns for "self defense" are in fact meant for killing"

Not a declaration indeed.

More to the point, why specifically do you object to the average Joe or Jane using them to defend themselves, if needed?

Yes, they can be misused for assault and/or murder.

Then again, you can't give an ironclad guarantee the the computer you use to post here will never, ever be used
to commit a crime like fraud, criminal hacking, or the distribution of child pornography, can you?

I would venture to say you didn't need a permit to get it.

Accept it, freedom has risks.

You've already acknowledged that a firearm can be used to protect by, and I quote, "presenting the threat of loss of life." A threat is potential harm, not actual harm, so you've already acknowledged that a firearm can be used in defense of self or others without actual bodily harm being inflicted.

So yes, firearms are designed to be capable of inflicting potentially lethal physical trauma, but just because they're capable of that, doesn't mean it's the only thing they can be used for. In fact, it's not a given that any particular firearm will be used to inflict physical trauma at all in the course of its existence, even if it's used in self-defense.

"Executioner," my ass. The deceased in the Everett incident was a drunk driver who was trying to drive away from the traffic stop. A drunk guy with an apparent chip on his shoulder at the wheel of a Corvette is pretty fucking serious threat to innocent life and limb in my book, and in my provisional opinion, Officer Meade was fully justified in shooting the son of a bitch. Meade may well have saved one or people's lives by using his gun.

much scarier than "burglary"

Pick a point, man. You seem unable to pick one and stay with it. I mean, what IS your point?

You come downstairs and find some dude walking out your front door with your TV, that's a burglary. You can't shoot him (Barring certain states with certain 'castle doctrine' statutes (which I think need a close look at)).

Someone breaks in, and you don't yet know their intentions, that's a home invasion. They might be there just to steal. Maybe to rape. Maybe to kill. Who knows. If you order them to leave, and they do not, I think it's fair to assume they are not there just for the TV.

the term "home invasion" makes the use of deadly force seem more palatable to some.

"A break and enter of occupied residential premises with forced confinement, assault or battery of occupants."

http://duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HomeInvasion.aspx

Why wait until the unauthorized visitor has the upper hand before defending yourself?

i have no reason to believe the homeowner at this point. i'll believe the detectives on the case. the homeowner has quite a bit of reason to lie.

Keep reading as more details come out:

"Lewis County deputies said the 62-year-old homeowner woke up after hearing a noise that led him to believe someone was trying to break into his home. He then heard someone walking up the stairs inside his home, according to the sheriff's office.

The homeowner told the burglar to "freeze," deputies said, but the man continued to advance toward the homeowner. Lewis County authorities said the homeowner told the burglar to "freeze" a second time, but he still continued to move toward him.

The homeowner then shot the burglar, deputies said."

detectives are investigating. what the deputies on the scene told the press may not be the real story.

The results of that investigation may not ever be public. So I hope you aren't holding your breath waiting for an update.

In the United States we have this progressive ideal of a presumption of innocence. You should try it.

Perhaps you could contact OSHA with your concerns on behalf of the home invader's....err, burglar's...err, alternative shopper's survivors.

All these guns in the hands of the general public are definitely an occupational hazard for housebreakers!

cant imagine why people shun this forum.

discourse card now.

to realize that civil discourse doesnt happen, unless i agree with you. without more facts further argument is pointless. clearly i dont agree with you and the others here, my mind isnt going to be changed and neither is yours.

See my thread wherein I championed the cause of a national firearms registry. Opposition was strong, and adamant, but respectful.

Probably because I didn't belittle anyone.

i find that hard to believe.

the first thread is an argument with people being called "pig ignorant cretins" so its not exactly the lovefest you claimed. as for not belittling people, that tends to be in the eye of the beholder dont you think?

I did not belittle anyone. These are facts.

Iverglas is entitled to her opinions, and any squabbling that occurred between her and another poster does not in any way invalidate my point. It is entirely possible for open and respectful debate in this subforum. You only have to participate.

I put up a strong argument, I received strong opposition. At no point was I mistreated for my position. These are FACTS, not open to the whims of 'the eye of the beholder'.

In discussion, we have to take the report of the news as the established facts. You can play the maybe game all day long. Even if it goes to a grand jury and he is no-billed, you can say that "Maybe he fooled the jury." or other maybes to avoid the idea that the resident legitimately defended himself.

One notes that you still haven't said what you WOULD do. Offer cookies and milk?

i live in los angeles. im well acquainted with violent crime.

i told you what i would do already, use less than lethal means. consider this my final answer.

If you are capable. If your attacker doesn't necessarily have lethal designs for you.

Even if you are not capable, it is your perogative to choose less than lethal forms of self defense. The rest of us will chose as we feel appropriate.

You are jumping through all kinds of hoops to try to avoid the idea that the intruder was a bad guy. That is what convinces me that you are in denial about violent crime, and the need to defend against it.

What less than lethal means? Remember that you have no idea what the other guy has, but you do know that he has used force to illegally enter your home. In real world violence, you will only get one chance to defend yourself. If that doesn't work, then you will be at the tender mercies of the intruder. That is the reality that you deny.

i would use less than lethal means to defend myself, as i have successfully in the past. we're done.

he shouldnt have been in the house. feel better? the fact that he broke into someones home doesnt mean to me that the homeowner gets to execute him for a minor felony.

–verb (used with object)
3. to inflict capital punishment on; put to death according to law.
4. to murder; assassinate.


So which one of these are you accusing the homeowner of? Since he didn't put the intruder to death via due process of law, and, so far, did not murder or assassinate, by what justification do you use the word 'execute'?

who the hell do you think you are? i'll say what i please and i certainly dont feel any need to justify anything to you. as far as im concerned the homeowner murdered the intruder, he may not be charged for the murder due to self defense but its murder nonetheless.

It's you. You are why.

Personal insults. Inflammitory language. Baseless accusations.
Thanks for treating the forum like a dump.

who stink up the conversation/debate with bar room dissing, repeated attacks and culture war histrionics. In this way, they may be seeking to turn off others from entering the debate. The effect is limited, however, as we hear (from time to time) calls to ban or do away with the guns forum because it isn't "progressive." That's gun-control-speak for "we're losing the battle."

But if you can't or won't justify your position by reasoned argument, you don't get to complain if others dismiss it out of hand. Because by the same token, we can say "that may be your opinion, but it's wrong."

And it is wrong: "murder" has a specific meaning, namely the deliberate and unlawful killing of another person. When a homicide (and nobody can reasonably dispute this was a homicide) is ruled to be justifiable on the grounds of self-defense, it is not murder, no matter how often or how loudly you call it that.

Or was he supposed to dial 911 and wait the rest of his life while the police arrived? The goblin had given the resident reason to fear for his life. At that point one is able to use deadly force to stop the intruder. If the goblin dies as a result, that is just tough luck for the goblin.

You still haven't specified what "non-lethal" force you would have used. Remember, in the real world, you only get one try. If it doesn't work, you are at the tender mercies of the goblin.

Give me the legal definition of a "minor felony". I can't seem to be able to find one.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

Seriously. That's not the course I would choose, but you are free to choose it.

At the same time, I would strongly assert the moral validity of choosing to defend one's self with a firearm in extremis, even if that defense ends up killing the person who is attacking you. I would include the case in the OP as an example.

It's sad that the guy died, but that was a consequence of his own actions. And I would imagine the homeowner/resident
is (or will be) going through some sort of PTSD, even if what he did was entirely justified.

So do posters who repeatedly proclaim their moral superiority over other posters.

I would also add what a friend of mine once said:

"If you aren't ready to play water polo, don't jump in the pool."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were not forced to participate, amirite?

morons who refuse to understand the terms "illegal entry", "criminal intent", "legal resident", "self-defense" and "presumption of innocence" or any of their synonyms. But feel free to play your twisted game any way you want to.

By the way, you avoided the question above, so I'll re-ask it as directly as possible: How do you suggest a 62 year-old man defend himself against a younger, more physically fit illegal intruder who refuses to stop when twice given a lawful order to do so?

Take your time and formulate a good, honest answer, we'll wait...

Debaters talk, cowards walk.

See ya...

There will be signs of forced entry. Those are extremely easy to spot.

The corpse should have his B&E (Breaking and Entering) tool(s) on him.

As you said, blood at the site of the shooting.

Detective will check the background of both people. Likely the goblin will have an extensive police record. (They usually do.)

This will likely be open and shut, and the media won't both with any follow-up.

IF what the homeowner said about ordering the intruder to 'halt', twice, and the intruder ignored the order and continued approaching him, you'll have a hard time selling the case that this might have been a simple burglary.

When the intruder got near the homeowner, what do you think he intended to do? Ask him politely to step aside so he might peruse a jewelry box in the bedroom or something?

Fotunately, it's rather short:

(emphasis added)

Work on those research skills, mmkay? Then you can come back and hang out here without embarrassing yourself.

if the homeowner had known the guy chances are the article would have reflected that rather than the fact that an "intruder" was killed.

Detectives, as you pointed out earlier, will establish that. Probably their primary goal. If they can prove the intruder was in fact, not a stranger, that puts a hole in the homeowner's story, and suggests possible foul play.

And no, the news article may not reflect that, if the homeowner insisted he didn't know the intruder. That doesn't make it true.


You should keep your outrage over 'alleged intruder', the low resolution of early news reports, and 'what guns are for' and all the rest, distinctly separate. You had made a good point earlier about possibilities other than what the news article suggested, but now you're wandering again.

we'll see how it turns out. hopefully more information will be forthcoming.

There will likely be no follow-up, UNLESS some sort of foul play can be proven.

Your debating skills are sorely lacking. First, you accuse posters of being ghouls who celebrate death, then you impugn their credibility, then you automatically assume that there is something not right with a story about a homeowner defending himself in his own house. You make a lousy debater...although you might have a good shot at a career in politics!
Let's get one thing straight - no one here, at least in any post that I have read, is celebrating, or even advocating, killing others. If you truly believe this, you are delusional. If you don't, but are simply using it to bait others, I would venture an opinion that you are harboring extreme anger, and that you should seek help in dealing with this.


(Legal Disclaimer - I have no formal psychiatric training, anything I write here should not be accepted as a valid medical diagnosis...)

Edited for lousy typing skills-go figure...

when it became clear...

If you are going to presume to lecture us on law (or fact, for that matter), don't be surprised when an inaccuracy is pointed out.

When the person enters your home without permission.

However, that is my second line of defense. For very little cost, less than a 1,000 rounds, you can secure your home with fortified doors and locks, alarms , lighting and a safe room. I have insurance to protect my stuff. I must admit that I sometimes get a charge out of it when I hear about a 90 year old woman that shoots a couple crooks in her house. I'm not a 90 year old woman and I the very last thing I want to do is shoot anyone if I have other ways of protecting myself.

The intruder made a series of poor choices that led to his death.

this was not going to turn out well for anyone involved.

Even people who are completely cleared of wrongdoing in a deadly force incident usually suffer lasting negative consequences. You can lose friends, you job, your marriage, a bunch of money, and end up with persistent guilt.

See the link in post #17 above for a trailhead on the path.

To me the morality is simple.

The 62 year old found a stranger climbing his stairs at 10:40 pm. The intruder was given two chances to stop but decided to ignore them. The homeowner who was in fear for his life shot the man.

Quite possibly the intruder might have disarmed the homeowner and killed him.

I don't need to read a lecture on morality to determine that the home owner was entirely in the right (assuming the details of the story were correct).

I have a lot of sympathy for those who lack education or opportunity or who are hooked on drugs. That stops when an individual threaten my life or the lives of those I love. At that point I really don't care what caused the individual to invade my hose and threaten me.

One question a gun owner who owns weapons for self defense has to answer is "Would you be willing to kill another individual if truly necessary?"

I can honestly answer, "Yes."

decisions. Intentions guide our decisions. Be mindful of intentions.

In the case described the shooter may well suffer emotional problems from the incident. It is also possible that he will face legal costs.

On the other hand, if he acted correctly to the situation, he survived. If he had family members in the house they also survived.

Sometimes that's the most important thing.

It cannot be repeated too much.

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2009/10/29/area_news/doc4ae908c30fdfb264589167.txt

The dead guy was Mark Ronald Michels of Toledo, WA, age 45.

(Snip)

Michels had a criminal history that includes felony convictions in Idaho for burglary and grand theft. He was also found guilty of second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm in Cowlitz County, as well as numerous misdemeanors, according to court records.

(Snip)

Hanson said the two had been friends, but Michels couldn’t kick his addiction to alcohol.

“I tried everything to get him straightened out,” said Hanson, who said he caught Michels drinking on the job shortly before firing him.
-----------
And more info here: http://www.king5.com/news/local/Lewis-County-man-shoots-kills-man-in-home-66934917.html

(Snip)

Terry Hanson, Michel's former boss at Washington Truck Rebuilders, said Michel was a father of two and a good mechanic, but he also called him a liar with alcohol problems.

"He was very talented, but he wasn't very bright," he said.

The homeowner is being investigated to determine if he acted in self-defense. He has not been taken into custody.

His fiance was also in the house at the time.

The sheriff believes he was justified in his actions.

"From what we know now, there was a direct threat to the homeowner and his family. He did everything that we think is possible to avert the use of deadly force," he said.

Hanson was the ex-employer, but the goblin went to a stranger's home to commit his offense.

The investigation is far enough advanced that the sheriff has an opinion. That means that the investigation has reached the point that they don't expect to find any evidence that points in a different direction. The sheriff thinks it was justified.

The resident was not taken into custody. They only do that when they are convinced that it was justifiable homicide, and do not plan to charge him.

The resident has his fiance living with him, so he had a loved one he was concerned about and protecting.

The perp had two prior convictions, was a boozer and a liar, and couldn't hold a job due to the booze.

and the homeowner was likely a drug dealer.

How could that not be true?

I would suggest reminding them of this when they jump in for another game...

GSC nailed it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=264206&mesg_id=264283

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2009/10/31/area_news/doc4aea287c0d4af245173377.txt

The Toledo homeowner who shot and killed an intruder Tuesday night has been “very remorseful” in the days following the incident, and the investigation continues to indicate he fired out of fear for his life, authorities said Thursday.

“He was shook up,” said Lewis County Sheriff’s chief deputy Gene Sieber. “He had all the characteristics of a person who woke up and had an intruder in their home. He was quite scared at the time.”

(Snip)

All indications are just as it originally looked,” Sieber said. “An intruder was in the home, and the homeowner defended himself.”

Good thing I am not trying to hold my breath.

http://www.chronline.com/articles/2009/11/06/news/doc4af31a74b7442707745788.txt

“The homeowner had a constitutional right to both keep and bear arms and was following the laws of the state of Washington concerning self defense,” said Sheriff Mansfield in the release. “He exercised his God-given right to protect himself and his family from a criminal entering unlawfully into his home.”