Drunk 21 year old intrudes into the wrong house

[silverado427 10,822]

I'm just wondering what be your thoughts on this subject. In my mind a intruder is a intruder, Male , female , alien , zombie , whatever . the fact that she is a drunk 21 year old girl doesn't matter, or does it, What's your feeling on this issue http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/colorado-college-student-shot-trespassing-16435872

[djg0770 481]

1) Doesn't matter.

2) In NJ, the homeowners would have been charged and the drunk girl would have got off without anything

[tony357 386]

I would say it does not matter.

 

maybe some discretion should have been used, but in the heat of the moment who could say..

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Sad situation, and in all practicality, it was just a drunk girl who wondered into the wrong home and luckily didn't wind up dead. I don't know if the charges fit the crime, but I don't know CO law and with CO's "Make my Day" law it's just good that the homeowners won't be charged.

[Regulator72 80]

Love her attorneys quote, "She was shot, shouldn't that be punishment enough?" ~ I might actually agree with him, this time..

[PK90 3,573]

They should either charge them both and waste a lot of time and money to have both found NG, or do nothing and chalk it up to lessons learned.

[alec.mc 180]

So that's where John ( reporter ) from PIX channel 11 went. CO, good for him.

 

Why can't NJ her cool sounding laws like " Make my day punk " law. Jeez

[silverado427 10,822]

The way i think all the blame lies on the intruder, no if ands or buts. What if she had a weapon of some sort would she still be thought of as just a drunk girl. In my younger days i've had a pop or two and guess what i never wandered into someone else's house.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Love her attorneys quote, "She was shot, shouldn't that be punishment enough?" ~ I might actually agree with him, this time..

 

I am thinking the same thing, but with most stories you never know what really really happened. You never know if it was a college prank and some people she was with prompted her to enter the home (Not likely but not out of the question). While she looks like a nice innocent girl and all, you really never know. I think more facts are needed and probably like a lot these stories, we will never know all the facts.

[tony357 386]

So that's where John ( reporter ) from PIX channel 11 went. CO, good for him.

 

Why can't NJ her cool sounding laws like " Make my day punk " law. Jeez

 

NJ does have one..

 

Make my day PUNK, "Give me your car"

[hd2000fxdl 422]

So that's where John ( reporter ) from PIX channel 11 went. CO, good for him.

 

Why can't NJ her cool sounding laws like " Make my day punk " law. Jeez

 

In the PR of NJ it would be called "Punked for another day sucker" law.. lol

[Malsua 1,422]

It doesn't matter who the person is, they are forcibly entering the home.

 

In this particular case, she's not going to get any time. She's a pretty blonde girl. She'll be required to have alcohol counseling, some hours of community service and probably a small fine and court costs.

 

Look at all those "naughty teachers".

 

Debra Lafave...No jail sentence.

 

The further down the ugly scale you go, the longer the sentence.

[vjf915 456]

I'm just wondering what be your thoughts on this subject. In my mind a intruder is a intruder, Male , female , alien , zombie , whatever . the fact that she is a drunk 21 year old girl doesn't matter, or does it, What's your feeling on this issue

 

An intruder, is an intruder, is an intruder. In the middle of the night, I don't know if it's a drunk teenage girl who walked into the wrong house, or if it's some male transvestite who's all cracked out. I don't know what their purpose for being in my house is, but they're NOT supposed to be there. So that's a problem.

[JrzyGuy30 0]

It doesn't matter who the person is, they are forcibly entering the home.

 

In this particular case, she's not going to get any time. She's a pretty blonde girl. She'll be required to have alcohol counseling, some hours of community service and probably a small fine and court costs.

 

Look at all those "naughty teachers".

 

Debra Lafave...No jail sentence.

 

The further down the ugly scale you go, the longer the sentence.

 

And whomever said looks don't matter in this world was lying to you..

 

On a serious note, a trespasser is a trespasser... they just wanted to give some headline attention to this but she'll be fine I'm sure..

[Soju 153]

I think most of us here agree, it is good that the homeowners will not be charged with anything, because they shouldn't. It was a shitty situation, and I don't fault them.

 

The girl is lucky to be alive. She messed up, and payed the price. But charging her here, and with a felony? That is ridiculous. I'm sure nobody in the states attorneys office had ever been drunk before, or done something stupid before...

 

I mean, if everybody that got drunk and did something illegal while intoxicated got charged with felonies, most of the adult population would be a felon.

 

Making someone a convicted criminal when they never had any criminal intention, is more malicious then what it sounded like she did. Pity.

[RobertJames 14]

We need an "I'd hit it" smiley.

[bulpup 98]

 

Why can't NJ her cool sounding laws like " Make my day punk " law. Jeez

 

I find that names like that are completely prejudicial. All it should be called "the <state> personal defense laws."

 

Those prejudicial nick names come from the antis.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rifleman1 32]

I'm just wondering what be your thoughts on this subject. In my mind a intruder is a intruder, Male , female , alien , zombie , whatever . the fact that she is a drunk 21 year old girl doesn't matter, or does it, What's your feeling on this issue http://abcnews.go.co...assing-16435872

1. She is tresspassing although there was no criminal intent
   
2. The homeowner did not appear to identify the intruder. Where was his light?
   
3. Since there are no priors or criminal intent and she was not armed, shooting her should be punishment enough
   
4. NJ needs a "Make My Day" law. I'll have to look up the details on that law.
   

[Justjules 0]

If a 21 yo college girl broke into my house, I would actually be pretty excited...I wouldnt shoot her...

[BCeagle 12]

If a 21 yo college girl broke into my house, I would actually be pretty excited...I wouldnt shoot her...

 

Maybe on her.

 

Honestly, what an awful shot to hit her in the hip.

[Justjules 0]

If it were NJ I could imagine the criminal charges and the lawsuits as a result....

[BlueLineFish 615]

Maybe it's me but if I see a female enter my house that's obviously intoxicated and is seemingly unarmed my first reaction won't be to shoot. Am I going to quickly restrain that person to gain the upper hand in the situation...yes. But to shoot them when I don't see an imminent threat is wrong. But I don't know all the details and what I feel is a threat will be far different from what someone else feels is a threat

[tblant 6]

I am fine with the homeowners taking the shot, and certainly glad they will not be charged. It's their call, they are there and the ones feeling the intensity of the situation. Even assuming there was good lighting and you can tell it is a female with no weapons in her hand, she may have one concealed and I am definitely thinking her male buddies are right behind her after she distracts me.

I would only shoot if she continued to come towards us despite a gun pointed at her and verbal warnings. No need to chance fending her off with one hand as Junkie 1 charges through the door.

 

[Underdog 1,593]

There is no possible way to know that this "adult" did not have any intentions to do some kind of harm or that she was not there to rob them, etc., especially given the fact that she just didn't enter their house, but that she was entering their bedroom--safe room. Additionally, there was no way for the home owners to know if she was alone, etc. She could have been a distraction to them while more harm came to them. The girl should be charged on a number of counts including emotional distress that her actions caused the home owners that were made to respond to her. People have to take personal responsibility for their actions. Would it matter if she was 17 instead of 21. No, except maybe her parents should be charged as well. And, her mental state should be determined.

 

Is it a sad situation. Yes, but could have been worse as the couple might have had to live with the fact that they were responsible for her death or this girl's family might not have her anymore. If all pans out, should the girl be charged with a felony. I don't know, but she should be charged with something and she is an adult. I would be fine with her having to do some kind of community service after she is healed.

 

Do people make mistakes, sure. And there are consequences. Perhaps the couple left their door unlocked which opened this up for this to happen. If the teen broke in that would certainly give them justification.

 

As far as identifying the victim, It should been more than enough if you verbally warn someone that you intend to shoot if they further risk your life or safety by entering your bedroom while you are there. Maybe the couple didn't have a flashlight available and it was too dark and they were afraid to turn on the light and give up their advantage. I certainly would want to know what I was aiming at as that moment would forever change my life, though. Maybe this couple should have had more training?

 

Again, people need to take responsibility.

[Underdog 1,593]

If a 21 yo college girl broke into my house, I would actually be pretty excited...I wouldnt shoot her...

 

Disgusting.

[tblant 6]

I am against warning shots, but this situation made me rethink it. I am still against it though...gotta be responsible for every round.

[Anselmo 87]

Know your target and what is beyond.

Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt. Think first. Shoot second.

 

Maybe it's me but if I see a female enter my house that's obviously intoxicated and is seemingly unarmed my first reaction won't be to shoot. Am I going to quickly restrain that person to gain the upper hand in the situation...yes. But to shoot them when I don't see an imminent threat is wrong. But I don't know all the details and what I feel is a threat will be far different from what someone else feels is a threat

 

I'm in full agreement with BLF. Killing some drunk girl in your house by accident is something you'll have to life with the rest of your life. You can rationalize it all you want on the Internet but killing someone is no trivial matter.

[Justjules 0]

Disgusting.

You know what is disgusting? You understanding of laws both morally and legally , pertaining to the use of deadly force in NJ and what you perceive as an "imminent threat" to your life. Your perception of when it is ok to shoot someone is far off living in NJ. Perhaps in Colorado it ok to shoot someone for simply intruding in your home, but I can assure you in NJ in this case you would be held criminally and civilly liable if you had shot her.

 

 

A person may use force against another person if he reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person. Such justifiable use of force is commonly call "self-defense." The provisions for self-defense to protect citizens from criminal charges is found in the criminal code at NJSA 2C-3-4(a), which states in part:

"... The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion."

In other words, self defense is the right of a person to defend against any unlawful force. Self defense is also the right of a person to defend against seriously threatened unlawful force that is actually pending or reasonably anticipated.

When a person is in imminent danger of bodily harm, the person has the right to use force or even deadly force when that force is necessary to prevent the use against (him/her) of unlawful force. The force used by the defender must not be significantly greater that and must be proportionate to the unlawful force threatened or used against the defender.

Unlawful force is defined as force used against a person without the persons consent in such a way that the action would be a civil wrong or a criminal offense.

If the force used by the defender was not immediately necessary for the defenders protection or if the force used by the defender was disproportionate in its intensity, then the use of such force by the defendant was not justified and the self defense claim in a criminal prosecution falls.

Deadly Force and Criminal Prosecution

The use of deadly force may be justified only to defend against force or the threat of force of nearly equally severity and is not justifiable unless the defendant reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect (himself/herself) against death or serious bodily harm. By serious bodily harm, we mean an injury that creates substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement or which causes a protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

One cannot respond with deadly force to a threat of or even an actual minor attack. For example, a slap or an imminent threat of being pushed in a crowd would not ordinarily justify the use of deadly force to defend against such unlawful conduct.

In addition, one can under limited instances use force in the protection of others (NJSA 2C:35-5). Limited force under certain instances is also afforded in the criminal code for the defense of personal property (NJSA 2C:3-6C).

Defense of Real Property (Your Home) and Criminal Liability

A section of our criminal law provides that:

"the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor is in possession or control of premises or is licensed or privileged to be thereon and he reasonably believes such force necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises."

A person commits a criminal trespass if, knowing that (he/she) is not licensed or privileged to do so, (he/she) enters or surreptitiously remains in any structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.

Our criminal law further provides that, in defense of your home:

"the use of force is justifiable...only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor reasonably believes that (a) such request would be useless; (b) it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request or © substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made."

HERE IS THE TRICKY PART PAY ATTENTION!!!!

"The use of deadly force is not justifiable in the defense of premises unless the actor reasonably believes that:

(a) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(b) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other criminal theft or property destruction; except that

© Deadly force does not become justifiable under subsections (a) and (b) unless

(i) The person against whom it is employed has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or

(ii) The use of force other than deadly force to prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of serious bodily harm."

 

Simply shooting someone for being in your home? Not gonna cut it in NJ...

Shooting someone on the "presumption" that there might be someone else with him or her or fearing what could happen under various scenarios, (What if) is not gonna cut it as a defense in the State of NJ. Your life is ruined..Period...

[Underdog 1,593]

Know your target and what is beyond.

Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt. Think first. Shoot second.

 

 

 

I'm in full agreement with BLF. Killing some drunk girl in your house by accident is something you'll have to life with the rest of your life. You can rationalize it all you want on the Internet but killing someone is no trivial matter.

 

BLF is a trained professional. Fish might not have a background of psychotic people making threats to him, either.

 

My question is how did a drunk girl get in your home? It might have been better if she had been outside banging on the door to get in while the cops were en route. Again, if it was unlocked, that couple learned a lesson. Did she open up a window and clime in? Did she kick the door open?

 

For all we know, this individual was trying to commit suicide.

[tblant 6]

I agree it is no trivial matter. In fact, it could be a drunk guy and I would feel the same way. It could be a thief and I am not going to shoot unless they come towards me despite warnings.

But the flip side is there could have been male intruders as well and your child might be in the other room and if the girl keeps walking towards you, and if she is armed or others involved and your wife or kids get hurt or killed then how do you live with that. Some things are tough to leave up to chance.