Come home

>come home
>door kicked in
>find intruder in shower
>Shoot and kill intruder
>fuckinAright.jpg
>get charged with murder
>be american
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
wtf Sup Forums?
wtf washingtonbrofags?

abcnews.go.com/US/homeowner-arrested-fatally-shooting-intruder-found-shower-police/story?id=46536513

archive.is/wKLFH

The presumption that someone should be forced to call the police instead of take care of problems on their own is pretty bullshit.

If your life isn't in immediate danger, you can't kill someone. I don't necessarily like it, but that's the law.

Vigilante justice should be avoided when possible user. What this guy did seems pretty excessive to me.

>some american tries to shower for once and others shoot him on sight
LMAO

Vigilantism, to me, always implied going out and looking for "injustice" to "right", and it is indeed pretty bullshit. But if someone is invading your property, I wouldn't consider that being a vigilante to kill them, it would be defending your property. Someone on your property without your consent should always be seen as "imminent danger", whatever they're doing.

This. What ever happened to castle doctrine?

True, but this guy left the house and came back with a gun. I know it's a meme, but there really is no reason he couldn't have called the cops in this specific scenario.

>left the house
>came back
>threat still present

The cops aren't obligated to protect you or your property, why should you be obligated to call them when scum are trying to violate your rights?

It's about levels of force. The homeowner wasn't in any immediate danger. Shooting the thief was excessive force by most standards.
Also, judging by how the thief acted, he was probably retarded. Shooting a nonthreatening retard is pretty over the top.

He was able to talk to the intruder, leave, and come back. Using lethal force to remove a trespasser who has been clearly established as not representing a threat to your safety is not acceptable.

>The homeowner wasn't in any immediate danger.

My point is, anyone intruding on your property should be, under the legal definition, considered "immediate danger".

How do you know it's not in immediate danger though, like if they've broken into your house they've shown a clear disregard for your personal property and the law. How do you know they don't have a gun and won't shoot you at the drop of a hat?

Alternatively, how would you know that they wont attack you and try to take the gun?

I don't understand how that shit works, legally.

The homeowner spoke to the intruder and then left. He was in no danger after he left, and he put himself back into danger by reentering the house. He didn't call the cops at any point during the break-in. That's pretty questionable morally, and almost completely indefensible in court.

>it's morally indefensible to kill a home invader

Lmao. You sure are one giant pussy aren't ya

Oh in this case I completely agree with you, he crossed the line here. I just don't understand to what extent someone stops being a threat, legally, in these cases. Like if I break into someone's house, am sitting in their chair, and making no sudden moves, am I a threat or not?

Also couldn't the owner just shoot the guy and say he charged him as soon as he grabbed the gun, anyway? Unless you're retarded enough to film it, how would they even know?

>That's pretty questionable morally, and almost completely indefensible in court.

It is morally acceptable to kill anyone who comes into your home without permission

You have no idea what they plan to do, they forfeit their right to leave the home alive if they enter it illegally.

Maybe he was scrubbing his ass with the guys face cloth. Imho that's grounds for a shooting.

it varies by state

so he told him to gtfo, gave him a chance to do so, THEN shot him? seems legit to me.

That's not how the law works in most (possibly all) states.

Not if castle law

Idiot.

You shoot first THEN ask questions. Its the american way

Not sure. If you've escaped and then willingly go back in I'm not sure if the courts would be happy.

The key here is that he left and came back to kill the guy. If he had come up to the house, noticed the break-in, drawn a gun and then shot the guy upon finding him, that would have been fine. But he didn't. He left, got the weapon, came back and killed him. That indicates premeditation rather than him killing the intruder in the moment do to being in fear of his life or safety.

Good Goy

> charged
> not convicted
It's nothing you faggot

this

>The homeowner went inside and exchanged words with Rosa, who was in the shower at the time, police said.
>The homeowner left the premises without calling the police and returned with a firearm, police said.

>"He returned home, retrieved a firearm, came back over to the residence and fired multiple rounds into the shower ... killing the intruder," Mason County Sheriff's Lt. Travis Adams told ABC affiliate KOMO.

this is clearly premeditated murder.