Article says the BG was not armed, but in all due respect to the reporter, what are you supposed to think when someone breaks into your house at 4:36 am?
I'm with JB. Dude breaks into your house, doesn't matter if he's armed or not. He's immediately subject to the homeowner's rules.
Yep. The homeowner should have turned the lights on and searched his pockets before shooting him.
The last line by the reporter was just a statement of fact. It was not the reporter showing bias. If there was no mention of a weapon the first question would have been "did he have a gun?"
We will see the mettle of our D.A. shortly. Whether the BG was armed or not shouldn't be the first or only factor.
I'd like to see more facts on what happened. Why did they call it a "Home Invasion"? Was there an intent to burglarize while the homeowners were obviously in the house and harm them or threaten them in some way or ??? Or is this just a headline grabber? I've never seen a definition for "Home Invasion" but I'd like to know if there is any legal difference too.
I'd like to see more facts on what happened. Why did they call it a "Home Invasion"? Was there an intent to burglarize while the homeowners were obviously in the house and harm them or threaten them in some way or ??? Or is this just a headline grabber? I've never seen a definition for "Home Invasion" but I'd like to know if there is any legal difference too.
Did the homeowner run out of ammo?
Hmm, when I read it, I would assume that the possible charges were for the home invader, not the homeowner.
It's left very open ended.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oklahoma City Trades added Price drop Heavy duty extruded metal Cabinet- Latest: Almost Jack Burton
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
