Man defending home is arrested.

U

ubikk

Guest
#1
What do you think of this story? Do you think that castle doctrine applies here? Or is your yard your property? Are house walls just some arbitrary line? Are we saying it's OK to draw lines with regard to the use of weapons - even on your own property?

Late Tuesday night, (a prank) turned to real horror. Five thrill-seeking girls set to begin their senior year at Thomas Worthington High School on Friday ran afoul of an armed resident of the home, leaving 17-year-old Rachel Barezinsky critically injured by gunfire, police said. Allen S. Davis, a 40-year-old man who lives at the house with his mother, said during a jailhouse interview that he was defending his home....
Davis, who police said had no criminal record, is charged with five counts of felonious assault. He was being held in the Franklin County jail ...

He admitted opening fire from his first-floor bedroom window after hearing the girls outside around 10 p.m. He said he repeatedly fired shots from a .22-caliber rifle... .."I didn’t know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were," he said. "In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you’re going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder."

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/08/ 24/20060824-A1-02.html
What do you think? (I think the guy gives himself his own haircuts for one thing)

Alternate link: http://www.columbusdispatch.com/emailme/emailme.php?story=dispatch/200 6/08/24/20060824-A1-02.html
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#2
I think the guy sounds like a nut case. Sure it's fine and noble to defend your house . . . but high school girls? What the hell were they going to do? Sing Paris Hilton songs really loud- wait, that actually may justify shooting. Whatever the case, this is a perfect example of why it's stupid to allow everyone access to guns. This guy is obviously paranoid and a poor judge of a situation.
 

breathilizer

Resident Ass-Kisser
#3
I agree with the house owner. He has every right to defend his self, his family, and his property. Di he make the best choice? Probably not, but we're speaking in hindsight. We have no room to voice our opinion against him when he is the one who was in the situation, and he is the ultimate source for his interpretation of the events.

Merc, I'm surprised with your distaste for guns. Granted if all guns could be eliminated, the world would be a better place. But they can't be, so we have to do what we can to make the world safer, even if accidents happen.

When you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns. I know it's liche, but it is an unfortunate truth.

PS: I keep a loaded 9mm Sigma Series S&W locked in a metal case in my truck back home.
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#4
It's not that I have a total distaste for guns, I just don't have enough faith in the general population to agree that everyone should be allowed to own them.
 

breathilizer

Resident Ass-Kisser
#5
But what is the best solution to our problem? Criminals and gangbangers aren't going to give up their guns. Should we disarm the innocent and let the criminals and gangbangers have a free for all?

I'm sure you've heard the claim that you're more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. But, that claim doesn't figure in family members who are a threat or intruders who are scared away. Food for thought.
 

Hoosier_Daddy

Registered Member
#6
I have to repectfully disagree with you, Breathilizer. This man was in no imminent danger which is the staple for justifiable homicide, and make no mistake about it, this was a homicide. The applicable legaleze in this case would be a private individual will, in many cases, be justified in committing homicide, while acting in self-defence if a threat of imminent danger to life is proven. From the confines of his home he had ample opportunity to secure himself should a threat be realized and call the authorities. I suspect this man will need to use a dimished capacity defense, otherwise he'll be prosecuted and found guilty of reckless homicide or manslaughter at the very least.



Hoosier.
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#8
Okay cool it on the gun control talk. If you want to talk that, revive the Gun Control thread. From what i'm gathering, this is about how property rights and self-defense apply, and in what circumstances.

She's going to be fine.
Doctors have told the family that they are "cautiously optimistic" about Rachel’s recovery.
She got shot in the upper body and head. That's not something to positively generalize about.

Well the story says they didn't threaten the man, and weren't even close to the house. If he can do that, can he shoot the milkman, Jehovah's Witnesses, and insurance salesmen walking to the door?

Kaz
 

Hoosier_Daddy

Registered Member
#9
breathilizer said:
Hoosier... With all due respect in return, read the article. The girl didn't die. She's going to be fine.


My bad, I didn't look past the original post where it said she was critically injured. I had it in my mind that she was mortally wounded. That does change the charge to reckless endangerment at the very least, but the prosecutorial outcome will be the same.


Hoosier.
 

breathilizer

Resident Ass-Kisser
#10
If the milkman, Jehovah's Witness, or the insurance salesman came on my property at 10am and were acting suspiciously, yeah I'd fire a few shots to scare them away. If they came back, I'd shoot at them. That's what this man did, and he was justified in doing so.