Man confronts two intruders in his home

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

Police identified a man fatally shot Tuesday inside an Oklahoma City man’s home as Ronald Penn, 29.

Penn and another person had broken into the house of Scott Henson, 41, in the 2200 block of SW 57 when Henson came home for his lunch break about 11:30 a.m., police said. Henson, whose wife said has a concealed weapons permit, pulled out a handgun and shot Penn to death.


http://newsok.com/slain-oklahoma-city-home-intruder-identified-police-seek-second-burglar/article/3372932

[Renew Deal]

1. Does this guy post on DU?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=8788450

[geckosfeet]

2. Oh that's classic. He was a trigger pull away from killing an innocent person.

I know in MA, the castle Law says that unless you or someone else is in danger of great bodily harm, you shouldn't kill or injure a person who is on on your property or in your home. It does not specifically address drawing your gun on someone for being on your property or in your home.

MA

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

Minnesota is just as vague with regard to drawing a firearm, but also adds a statement on commission of felony. So, if someone is committing a felony on your property, you can kill them:

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when
necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the
actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in
the actor's place of abode.

My guess is that no states Castle law mentions unannounced condo association inspectors. This potentially leaves unannounced condo association inspectors open to being shot, or at least having a gun pulled on them.

I can think of many situations where someone would be in my home or on my property without my knowledge or explicit permission. Would I pull a gun on them? Not without some indication of their intent to commit a crime or injure me or someone else.

In this case I would have withdrawn and called the police, informed the police that I was armed and would shoot to defend my property and myself. I don't think that I would have confronted them in the manner that this fellow did as there was no immediate danger.

[benEzra]

3. All Castle Doctrine laws apply only to unlawful entry.

They do not apply to people who have a right to enter the home. If someone lawfully enters and (unlawfully) attacks you, you can still shoot in self-defense, but it falls under regular self-defense law, not the Castle Doctrine.

In most states, it appears that the fact of a illegal forced entry is considered grounds for reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or a forcible felony. It appears that is not the case in Massachusetts, though.

[Statistical]

5. If the condo association didn't notify the owner they can not just enter the domicile.

Except in the case of an immediate emergency (gas leak, fire, etc).

Based on the facts of the story (we haven't heard both sides but just based on what we do know) the two men were criminally trespassing which is a felony. MN law would protect the home owner as a castle doctrine action.

Given there were two men and the homeowner surprised them if the distance was short I would have done the same thing.
It is easy to second guess someone in a situation where you have less than a second to react.

If his home layout is anything like mine he may have been 5-10ft from the two men. Two potential criminals who can cover 5-10ft in 1-2 seconds.

Sometimes waiting isn't the best action. Drawing his weapon ensured that he controlled the situation. It is less likely a criminal is going to try and rush an armed homeowner than one they believe is unarmed.

[Pierre.Suave]

15. I am coming out of DU retirement to respond to this post

it is quite an assumption to assume that they were innocent.

FYI, they were not. neither the condo board or the management company I rent this condo through had any knowledge nor authorized anyone to perform "health and safety" inspections. Only one of the 2 men was actually on the condo board, and both were ARRESTED, CHARGED, and will be found guilty.

Second, no one knew what they were doing, who they were, or what they might do if confronted until AFTER the fact.

they WERE committing a crime, and I was FULLY within my rights to act as I did. If I had actually shot them, things may be different but I have control over my trigger finger. If they had a weapon though, things WOULD be different for THEM.

You should be careful when you make assumptions, you should also be careful with your monday morning quarterbacking...

[Hoopla Phil]

16. Holly Smoke!!! The man himself. Let me congratulate you Sir for

the admirable restraint you showed in this incident. You are a credit to all that choose to carry.

THANK YOU!

[Hoopla Phil]

17. LMFAO! I just realized something.

The anti's are going to have a real tough time now with their rhetoric on this issue now that it has been identified that the person in the article is in fact a DU member. You cannot say bad things about a fellow DU member, Ha Ha Ha.

[Pierre.Suave]

18. I am not the person in the article

I live in Minnesota, not Oklahoma, but apparently, there has been a lot of home invading lately...

[Hoopla Phil]

19. Pardon me. Didn't realize this was a divergence from the O.P.

[Pierre.Suave]

20. It is ok

I had a similar incident, and am linked above. No one was injured in my incident.

[Hoopla Phil]

9. Very judicious use of a firearm. I hope those people are prosecuted

to the fullest extent of the law.

[Shagbark Hickory]

4. I hope she enjoys the ensuing legal battle to stay out of prison.

They'll probably going to go broke paying the legal bills.

[Statistical]

6. Nope.

No legal battle not even an arrest.

Luckily OK is one of 22 states that respects the right of self defense via a "Castle Doctrine".

http://oklegal.onenet.net/oklegal-cgi/get_statute?99/Title.21/21-1289.25.html

§21-1289.25.

PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER

A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of
Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own
homes.

B. Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of
physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, against
another person who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling, and
when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person might
use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of
the dwelling.

C. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including but not
limited to deadly force, pursuant to the provisions of subsection B of
this section, shall have an affirmative defense in any criminal
prosecution for an offense arising from the reasonable use of such
force and shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or
death resulting from the reasonable use of such force.

D. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma
Self-Defense Act, Sections 1 through 25 of this act, shall not be
construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the
provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.

OK language is pretty strong. "when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person might use ANY physical force, no matter how slight."

Even if there is a prosecution the shooter has an affirmative defense which means the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter did NOT have a reasonable belief.

Given that the criminal broke into the house.
Given that many criminals use physical force on their victims.
It is reasonable to believe that the criminal may have tried to use physical force on someone in the home.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. Thanks to the castle doctrine that won't be the case.

[Hoopla Phil]

10. I hope you are happy in the knowledge that Castle Doctrine will not allow for that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. You should work on the reading comprehension she didn't shoot anyone.

[Hoopla Phil]

8. Good ending. This could have been a news paper headline

"woman raped and murdered after walking in on buglers"

[Statistical]

11. That would be bad reporting. The gun owner was a man n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

13. I know. It could have been real bad.

[Hoopla Phil]

14. You know, this reminds me of a similar incident I had personally.

This was probably around 1997, only a couple years after CHL passed in Texas. I came home to my apartment for lunch one afternoon and heard someone in one of the back rooms. (please note that in Texas it is law that if maintenance is in your apartment and no one is home they are required to hand a notice on your door that there is someone in there). I pulled out my pistol and eased around the corner allowing 3 feet back from the corner (you do not snug the wall like you see in the movies - imitating gun handling in the movies can get people hurt.) As I ease around I see a man in profile sitting on the flore. He looks up with very wide eyes and says "maintenance".

When I moved into the apartment several months before I had noted on my "check list" that there was a large burn spot in one of the bedrooms. They had finally got around to repairing that section of carpet. Oddly enough I always had very prompt responses on maintenance request again AND, they always used the notice hangers on my apartment door from that point forward.