Man looking for sandwich shot by homeowner.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

Intruder Fatally Shot By Homeowner In Garrard County

Police are investigating after they say a man was shot to death early Tuesday morning while trying to break into a home in Garrard County.

The incident happened at about 12:45 a.m. at a home on Old Richmond Road. Kentucky State Police said Dallas Richard Helton, 40, had broken into the back of the home, and was shot once in the chest by the homeowner, Herlin McQuerry, 67. Helton stumbled out to the driveway where police said he died.

snip

Helton's family claims they were looking at rental property. However, Kentucky State Police said Helton was wearing a black ski mask and armed with a crowbar. Police added McQuerry's house was not listed for rent.

http://www.wlextv.com/global/story.asp?s=10759807


He just had the crowbar in case the frig had a lock on it.

[virgogal]

1. Looking for rental property at 12:45 a.m.? Very funny.

[Xipe Totec]

2. Sandwich?

I'm sorry, but I don't see any mention of a sandwich in the linked story.


Are you taking poetic license here?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. Just giving the criminal the benefit of the doubt. I would hate to seem like a heartless gun nut.

[Xipe Totec]

9. I'll grant you the same courtesy,

and take you at your word.

I know the intruder's story is weak, but they did claim they were looking at rental property....

with a crowbar, I know...

So I didn't think it was necessary to embellish the story with any sandwich relish... or flourish... or whatever...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. Thanks.

A gun grabber decided last week to post criminal stories with titles like Man shoots intruder. So really it was just a little turnabout. Although the excuse has been made here many times that burglars are probably only looking for something to eat.

[yost69]

11. I dare anyone

to break into my house in the middle of the night with a crowbar and a skimask. They will get something to eat for sure. May not taste the greatest but it will 100% definitely be hot.

[rd_kent]

51. I dare you to make it past 10 posts. n/t

[yost69]

90. I will. I will just go around like you

saying stuff like i dont give a flying fig. that should get my post count up pretty quick huh?

[iverglas]

91. hahahaha

Imagine, someone confusing rdkent with me. ;)

As for rdkent's original post here -- I'm wondering how we would distinguish yost69 from scads of other posters in this forum, who have all said essentially the same thing as yost60 in essentially the same words.

[yost69]

93. I didn't exactly confuse the two of you

I was just making a comment about how useless his post was to the op. As was the one he made to me. Have no idea why he made a comment about my post count. Obviously everyone starts out with zero and has to work their way up.

[yost69]

95. Oh my

i made it past 10.

[imdjh]

66. That was truly in the grand tradition of thread titles. Good job. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. Thanks.

Sometimes even a dumb old fireman can be creative.

[Tiggeroshii]

3. Can you make me a sandwich?

[sharesunited]

4. A mistake not to charge McQuerry. He had a duty to warn before using deadly force.

[dmallind]

7. NO - absolutely false. There is no legal duty to warn

When somebody breaks into your house carrying a weapon you are insane to wait and warn.

[sharesunited]

8. Aren't you mixing up legal duty with your personal belief that it's always prudent to shoot first?

[Katya Mullethov]

15. No

You are mixing up your own personal beliefs with a legal duty . Because there is not one . Just as there is no legal requirement , expectation , or even the possibilty that the police can protect you . Because they can't .

[Statistical]

24. Please cite the state statute requiring a "duty to warn".

I am not aware of any state that requires a "duty to warn".

So even if you find another state that doesn't apply to this specific case I would be interested.

[iverglas]

25. probably not

But likely mixing up legal duty with how a decent human being would feel obliged to act.

[Statistical]

27. Why should a law abiding home owner risk injury to lower risk of injury to a felon?

If the intruder had a gun (often hard to tell in a dark house at 12:45 in the morning) and upon being alerted by the homeowner shot and killed the homeowner you would use that as an example of how guns don't prevent crime.

Kinda win-win for your cause if the homeowner warned the intruder and died as a result.

[iverglas]

28. why would I even consider responding

to filth like

Kinda win-win for your cause if the homeowner warned the intruder and died as a result.

?

Don't bother. Rhetorical loaded question. I wouldn't.

[Statistical]

29. I didn't think you would. It was more a question than a statement as in...

A law abiding home owner shouldn't be forced to increase risk of injury to himself/herself in order to reduce risk of injury to a felon who has broken into the home.

Warning the criminal does increase risk to homeowner. Maybe you consider that increased risk slight and acceptable but not everyone does. Nobody should be forced to put themselves and their family at greater risk to protect the interests of a criminal.

Luckily the legislature in this state (and every state I believe) has found forcing an increase in risk upon the law abiding to protect the criminal to be abhorrent.

[eqfan592]

33. Big + 1 there Statistical. (nt)

[iverglas]

34. maybe, whatever, blah blah

Maybe you consider that increased risk slight and acceptable but not everyone does. Nobody should be forced to put themselves and their family at greater risk to protect the interests of a criminal.

I consider exactly what the law of every civilized jurisdiction I know of has considered for a very long time, as you have known for a very long time.

You and I and everybody else knows what that is, so there's no need to repeat it here.

I'm with the Kentucky judge and the Kentucky legal expert on this one. Company I'm happy to keep.

[burrfoot]

37. ?

Do you now get to the be the one who decides who is and who is not a decent human being?

[iverglas]

44. who better?

Do you now get to the be the one who decides who is and who is not a decent human being?

You?

Maybe we could ask Deadric whatsit. Oh, damn; he's gone.

[rd_kent]

53. In this case, yes!

The INDECENT human is the one trying to break in to another humans home. Can you really argue with that?

[JonQ]

48. He also had a moral obligation

to help the criminal carry out whatever property he chooses. Can't have him throwing out his back or twisting an ankle in the process of carrying out the homeowners bigscreen TV, that would be barbaric.

Also, leave the lights on, you know how much it hurts to stub a toe on some unseen piece of furniture that you haven't yet stolen.

[iverglas]

50. Oh, a day without the Guns forum

would be like a day without The Three Stooges.

[JonQ]

77. I feel the same way

except instead of 3 there's only one, very persistent, very Canadian stooge.

[oneshooter]

12. Under Kentucky law

There is no requirement of a "duty to warn" Before you start spouting off such nonsense you might try to look up the law.

Try Here: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statrev/ACTS2006/0192.pdf

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[paulsby]

23. i've studied the law in several states

although not all of them. i have NEVER heard of a duty to warn as a requirement before using deadly force, for civilians. some police agencies (including mine) reference a preference for a warning in certain circumstances before using deadly force. this is only when practicable, and of course is only a restriction on law enforcement via policy, not a law that applies to non-police

[iverglas]

26. ah, Kentucky law

The original link is now dead, but the comments can be read here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=127275

I reproduce them, with emphasis:

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/15132235.htm

A Fayette judge struggled to make sense of Kentucky's new "home intruder" law yesterday, calling the National Rifle Association-backed legislation confusing, vague and poorly written.

"I'm not quite sure that the drafters had even a marginal knowledge of criminal law or Kentucky law," Circuit Judge Sheila Isaac said. "It is absolutely silent on the court's role."

...

Prosecutors around the state have expressed concerns about the law, which they say is difficult to interpret and raises numerous questions.

...

In an interview yesterday, University of Kentucky law professor Robert Lawson, widely considered the state's foremost expert on criminal law, sharply criticized the law.

"It is the worst legislation I have ever seen in 40 years," said Lawson, the principal drafter of Kentucky's penal code, which was adopted in 1975.

Which is pretty much what counsel to the Florida legislature said about Florida's counterpart law.

[Scout]

30. yeah, but she's just a girl, and probably doesn't own a gun, so who cares what she thinks?

:sarcasm:

[Indy Lurker]

35. Why is this bad law?

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

... (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.


The prosecution can still show the homeowner was wrong. He or she just has to show that the person shot was not unlawfully and by force entering or attempting to enter a person's dwelling.

[iverglas]

42. feel free to look it up

if you actually don't recall the multiple discussions of these abominations that have taken place in this place over the years.

[Indy Lurker]

59. Just because you don't like it, dosen't make it a bad law.

It was properly voted on, and signed into law.

The good people of Kentucky through their elected representatives decided that someone breaking into your house by force is a sufficient threat to warrant self-defense.

Just because you don't feel a person who unlawfully and by force enters your home is a threat doesn't mean others have to share your view.

[iverglas]

61. FOLLOW the FUCKING THREAD

The individuals who said it was "bad law" were

1. A JUDGE in Kentucky

2. the leading CRIMINAL LAW EXPERT in Kentucky.

I just happen to agree with them.


Just because you don't feel a person who unlawfully and by force enters your home is a threat doesn't mean others have to share your view.

And just because a bunch of pandering and/or right-wing politicians pass some legislation doesn't mean it's good law.

Or heck, are you forgetting good old Jim Crow?

[Indy Lurker]

72. Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional.

Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional.

Do you believe these laws are unconstitutional, or just undesirable?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. What is wrong with you? You really seem depressed since you return.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. They should take it up with the state legislature.

[X_Digger]

38. Funny, it hasn't been on the legislative agenda to be amended..

.. guess it's not _that_ big a deal.

[iverglas]

43. funny, neither are bans on same-sex marriage

Need I go on?

[X_Digger]

45. No.. tempests in teapots don't need to be explained..

.. If this law were so atrocious and hard to follow, I'd expect local prosecutors & even the state AG would be lobbying for a change..

Since they don't appear to be..

:shrug:

[iverglas]

46. hard cases, bad law ...

We'll just have to wait and see whether a case that demonstrates the problems comes up.

Check this one out.

http://www.ktvq.com/Global/story.asp?S=10595068

Associated Press - June 25, 2009 12:55 PM ET

WRIGHT, Wyo. (AP) - Prosecutors have withdrawn a weapons-related charge against a Wright man, citing Wyoming's "castle doctrine" law on self-defense.

An attorney says it may be the first time the year-old statute has been used in Wyoming.

Zebulon Alfred Goodrich was charged with misdemeanor reckless endangerment for allegedly pointing a gun at his sister in March. Prosecutors said Tuesday they couldn't meet the burden of proof because of allegations that Goodrich's sister was trying to force her way into the home.

Defense attorney Nick Carter says it's the first time he knows of that the castle doctrine has come into play since it went into effect last summer.

The result would have been the same, under these laws, if he had shot her.

I'll lift the Kentucky law from Indy Lurker's post and assume the Wyoming law is the same (my emphases):

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

... (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

The person in question could be his unarmed 97-pound sister, and he could shoot and kill her with impunity.

I guess we'll just have to wait until it happens. When it does, it will doubtless followed by solemn pronouncements by the NRA-ILA and its bedfellows about the right of people to kill unarmed family members.

[iverglas]

47. for ref

... mainly mine ...

The Wyoming statute is indeed identical:

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/statutes.aspx?file=titles/Title6/Title6.htm

6-2-602. Use of force in self defense.

(a) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to himself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury to another if:

(i) The intruder against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, another's home or habitation or, if that intruder had removed or was attempting to remove another against his will from his home or habitation; and

(ii) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring.

(b) The presumption set forth in subsection (a) of this section does not apply if: ...

(c) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another's home or habitation is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. No such requirement exists.

Providing a warning, whether its a verbal or a shot off target is neither required nor wise.

[proteus_lives]

17. First I've ever heard that nonsense.

Who would be so fucking stupid as to warn a person breaking into their home?

[AtheistCrusader]

21. We don't charge people for fantasy crimes

that are not present in applicable law.

[rd_kent]

52. I do not htink thats right. Beside, fair warning is when you force your way in

At least at my house. Once you try and get in without my permission, I consider that to be justification. Don't agree? Try to break in and we will let the court decide.

[iverglas]

54. y'know

There just aren't a lot of chicks around here to be attracted by the sound of the chest-pounding.

Maybe the Lounge?




Picture Title: Young male gorilla pounding its chest
Image Location: Evengue-Gorillas, Loango National Park in Gabon (Central Africa)
Photographer/Camera: Photo taken by Rhett A. Butler using a Canon Digital Rebel XT

[spin]

58. LOL (n/t)

[rd_kent]

75. Hahaha. Thats funny!

Good one. I guess it's a good thing I'm not trying to attract chicks.

I was, however, trying to attract a discussion about this topic, and yet all you can come up with is an insult? You are doing that to me in other threads too. Have I done something to deserve insults instead of responses to the topic being discussed? Or are you JUST an asshole?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

13. If my last name was McQuerry

I'd change it.

[rrneck]

16. I thought a homeowner shot a sandwich.

:bounce:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. That would have to be a bad sandwich.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Vat vas that, sandvich?!

Kill them all??

Gooood Ideeeeaaa...

[slackmaster]

32. The sandwich was good, the homeowner was innocent

I blame the potato salad.

[proteus_lives]

18. Good for the home-owner.

Bad for the asshole with a crowbar.

[trumanh59639]

22. Yet more culling

Fantastic.

[iverglas]

49. I hope you don't mind

if we quote you from time to time.

We wouldn't want anyone to have the impression that no one in the Guns forum ever revels in death.

Well, I mean, there are some who try earnestly to convey that impression. Too bad for them, I guess.

[JonQ]

56. He could just take a page from your playbook

and deny he ever said anything you quote him as saying, then go off on some bizarre tangent.

[iverglas]

57. or from yours

and make false statements about someone else whenever the urge strikes.

[JonQ]

76. Yeah, exactly like that

except the scenario I mentioned actually happens, whereas yours is made up. But otherwise, yes.

[slackmaster]

31. I love ambiguous and misplaced modifiers

A man was looking for a sandwich that had been shot by a homeowner.

[gorfle]

39. The man's son.

The man's son was in the getaway car. Sad.

[Statistical]

41. Now the families insane comments makes sense.

The whole "looking for rental property" line is a lame way to try and protect the son from possible criminal charges.

That kid is going to need a lot of therapy.

[Lorax]

40. I got your warning, right here.

Here's my warning. If you break into my house at 12:45am, wearing a ski mask and carrying a crowbar, you are likely to get shot. Is that warning enough for you?

It is not my problem if someone is so stupid that they can't anticipate that as one possible outcome of their CRIMINAL act.

[iverglas]

55. oh, and post 54

is for you too!

[Lorax]

60. In re: post 54

I think I just don't get your brand of sarcasm as I've been confused by one of your replies in another thread.

This has nothing to do with chest thumping. It's a statement of fact. I will do whatever I have to do to protect my family. Every time and without hesitation. Sorry if you find that repulsive but to me it's that simple.

And by the way, I am a "chick". How misogynistic to automatically assume otherwise. Along that sexist line of thinking, if I wanted to I could suggest that anyone unwilling to defend themselves should "grow a set". But I won't go there.

[iverglas]

62. yeah

You and Sarah Palin, eh?

[Lorax]

63. What's your point?

As I've already said, I don't get your brand of sarcasm. Why don't you just come out and say whatever it is you want to say?

[iverglas]

64. I don't think I've been at all unclear

I found your initial post distasteful. Clear enough?

[Lorax]

69. Yes, thank you.

Now that was all you had to say. No need to hide behind unwarranted sarcasm and insults. You are entitled to find any or all of my posts distasteful. Just as I am entitled to not give a damn about what you find distasteful.

Just don't break into my house at 12am wearing a ski mask and carrying a crowbar, and we can all get along just fine.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. It seems it is physically impossible for her to do that. Must be the lawyer in her.

[imdjh]

71. A lawyer whose final argument is "whatever"? LOL. nt

[iverglas]

80. nope

But you go ahead and play pretend.

I haven't been a lawyer for 15 years; I switched to a different field of endeavour, still in the field of law. All of my fan club know this.

I wasn't making an argument. Anyone who actually can't tell this from my posts in this little subthread really does have a problem. Not that I wasn't aware of this and hadn't been for quite some time: most people in this forum, and indeed at this website, and indeed all over the internet, and a whole lot of people USofA and even much of the world, these days, can't tell an opinion from an argument.

Hint: what you saw in this little subthread was my opinion. I hope that helps.



typo fixed ............

[Lorax]

92. Arguments vs. opinions

Your statement about making an argument vs. stating an opinion is interesting. In the sense that an argument involves evaluating ideas by considering available evidence, you are correct, you have not been making an argument for anything. Much of this thread, (and many posts on this board) contains posts written by people offering an opinion, (a point of view shared without supporting evidence). There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It can actually be quite enjoyable, as differing opinions foster interesting and lively debate.

However, you Iverglas, have moved beyond simply offering an opinion. In this thread, and in many others, you have moved into the realm of personal attack. It's disruptive and tiresome. It's also a shame because rather than persuade others to consider your opinion, your methods cause many to automatically tune you out.

You seem to be an intelligent person who is passionate about your beliefs. Surely you can get your point across without belittling others. An educated and intelligent person should be capable of engaging in debate with others offering differing opinions, even when those opinions are distasteful. You can do better than this.

I suggest you ask yourself why you are here. If the answer to that is to engage in debate about 2nd amendment issues, then I have to assume you would like others to thoughtfully consider your opinions. If that is the case, then I strongly suggest you reconsider your approach. On the other hand, if you simply come here to stir up drama and insult others, I suggest you get a better hobby.

[iverglas]

94. are you stalking me??

Finding posts of mine in conversations you aren't involved in, in order to post things like:

In this thread, and in many others, you have moved into the realm of personal attack.

and a whole lot more ... how'd that go? ... disruptive and tiresome crud.

Trust me, if I want your opinion about ME, I'll ask. (Oh, and if you see a personal attack by me, do feel very free to punch that "alert" button.)

Opinions about the subject matter of the board are one thing, pointless and useless as they may be.

I'm sure there are places where your opinions about me are considered to be relevant. (Just google; you'll find some.) This ain't one of them.


I suggest you ask yourself why you are here.

I suggest you take a long walk off a short pier.

There. Are we even?

[rd_kent]

82. Because she/he is a coward

Does the same to me in many other threads. Full of insults and appearent humor that only he/she gets.
I also find it interesting that a Canadian (or someone who lives there) feels the need to weigh in on an issue that does not affect him/her.

[iverglas]

83. I find so many things amusing

Myself included. Especially around here. There's just so much good material to work with.


I also find it interesting that a Canadian (or someone who lives there) feels the need to weigh in on an issue that does not affect him/her.


I find it sad that so many around here are so ignorant.

A number 1: Ideas affect everyone, anywhere, anytime. They also interest intelligent people everywhere, for their own sake, and bad ideas are of particular interest to rational, decent people, who feel a duty to challenge and oppose them. You just never know what might come of a bad idea left unchallenged and unopposed.

A number 2: The right wing agenda in the US affects everyone, everywhere, all the time.

B number 3: Firearms policies in the US affect everyone in the world, and in particular in its neighbour states, one of which is Canada.


Just some stuff to ponder.

[rd_kent]

84. But yet, you fail to have a point, ever!

You deal in sarcasm and insults. "All of my fan club know this" - and we do too. I'm not putting you on ignore...just yet....because I think that on some topic, you may actually have something to say, and I think it may be insightful. I'm not holding my breath, though.

[iverglas]

85. you've been here for over 4 years

If you want to pretend never to have seen any of the hundreds and hundreds of substantive, fact-packed posts I have written in this forum, you feel entirely free to do that. I really don't give a flying fig.

[rd_kent]

86. "I really don't give a flying fig"

Well, good. Stop responding to my posts then.

[iverglas]

88. no

Stop responding to my posts then.

Uh ... post 86. Was someone talking to you?

But how about this: if you have something to say to me, stand up and say it to me.

[rd_kent]

89. I have been standing and saying it

But you are full of nothing but sarcasm and insults. Let me know when YOU have something to say and I will take you off ignore.

C ya!

[jimmyflint]

67. lol

crowbar,ski mask,and breaking into houses in the middle of the night. I am surprised he lived that long.

[imdjh]

68. So how come Tonya Fowler hasn't been charged with murder?

If you are driving the getaway car for a robbery and someone gets killed, then you're charged with murder, right?
So how come if you are driving the getaway car for a burglary of an occupied dwelling (which in my book is a robbery) then you aren't charged with murder?

[Lorax]

70. I don't think so.

I don't think felony murder charges apply if it is the co-conspirator who dies.

[oneshooter]

73. I don't know about Kentucky law

But in Texas all suspects involved in a felony that results in the death of the victim and/or one of the suspects results in murder charges. This includes getaway drivers.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

81. one point for me

At least I don't pretend to be a lawyer on the internet.


(Hint, again, for anyone hintless in the vicinity: anyone who is learnèd in the law can have a worthwhile legal opinion.)

[Statistical]

74. felony murder charges vary wildly from state to state.

In some states if you are invovled = felony murder.
Some restrict it only to deaths of victims.
Some restrict it only to criminals involved in the hostile act (i.e. two people break in one dies, survivor gets felony murder).

There is no real uniform standard for felony murder.

Lastly from a legal stand point burlary is not consider a violent crime. It is considered property crime. Now it is possible for a burglary to result in a violent crime (assault, robbery, attempted homicide, etc). However just the burglary alone is not a violent crime.

So just idle speculation but it may be Tonya good luck that her co-conspirator died before being able to commit a violent crime. KY law may only apply felony murder to violent crimes.

[imdjh]

87. Google image "tonya"