Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Police block off entry into La Ventana Apartment Homes, 2901 N. Rainbow Blvd., after a home invasion Monday morning, Dec. 24, 2012, left one suspect dead and three others on the run.
Published Wednesday, Dec. 26, 2012 | 5:05 p.m.
Updated Wednesday, Dec. 26, 2012 | 7:05 p.m.
Intruder shot
The Clark County Coroner’s Office has identified the suspect who died in a home invasion shooting on Christmas Eve as Maurice Howard, 35, of Los Angeles.
Howard was one of four suspects who police say tried to invade a first-floor apartment at the La Ventana Apartment Homes, 2901 N. Rainbow Blvd. Preliminary investigation indicates that three handgun-toting men accompanied by a woman knocked on the apartment door.
Police said the assailants barged into the apartment — occupied by a couple and their infant — after a woman answered the door. They then attempted to rob the occupants and beat both of them, police said.
After the suspects fled, the victims both grabbed handguns and followed them into the parking lot, police said. The victims then shot at the suspects, striking Howard multiple times.
Police arrived around 10:10 a.m. and found Howard suffering from a gunshot wound in the parking lot. He was transported to University Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead. The coroner’s office is still determining a cause of death.
The other three suspects escaped in a silver 2002 Infiniti sedan. Police said the car was found a short time later inside the apartment complex parking lot, but the three suspects remain missing.
The man and woman occupying the apartment suffered minor injuries from blunt force trauma and were treated at UMC. Police said nothing in the apartment appeared to have been stolen.
This is awful. I mean that the other 3 scum bums weren't also tagged in the process of course.
With the updated information I have to say the couple is in for a bit of trouble. The incident was effectively over and they continued it.
Not only that, but it is now starting to sound like everyone knew each other and there is more to this story still.
If your house is invaded, the law says you can't chase someone out of the house, off your property, and into a parking lot and shoot them...
And, all things being equal, why would a mother and father **BOTH** give chase to four fleeing and armed suspects while leaving a baby behind in the house?? It all sounds very "personal"... doesn't it?
I believe as boftx mentioned, "there is more to this story still."
I think the couple will be a lot of trouble. Once the threat is over, you can't grab a gun, chase someone, and shoot them. I bet a jury will say the home invader intended only to steal, and the couple intended to murder. Sad. The gun folks were holding this up an example of guns saving the day, and it will turn out the access to guns was another families undoing. Having a gun increases YOUR chances of becoming the victim by 4x.
@created,
Where did you get that stat from?
With all of the home invasions and robberies in Vegas, we should really have a castle law like Texas. You come in my house with an intent to murder, maim, or steal, I get to shoot at you without repercussions.
Ashley Ashley, we do have such a law but you are not permitted, under the law, to chase down and kill the assailants. That's wrong. If you see a robbery, assault or burglary in progress, you are allowed to intercede or follow the suspect(s)and, if possible, hold them for police. So, why is a householder held to a different standard? Maurice Howard would be alive today if he & the others had not chosen to commit a criminal act. I have no sympathy for him.
So.....
Three handgun-toting male assailants plus one un-armed female barge into the apartment -- occupied by a couple and their infant -- after the woman answered the door.
The assailants then beat the couple and attempt to rob them, then flee the apartment.
Then the couple produce handguns, follow the suspects from the apartment into the parking lot, and shoot one of the assailants multiple times.
You gun rights people really wanna use this story as a pro-gun example??
The people in the apartment were just as bad as the "assailants". Police say nothing was stolen...except the couples' drug stash and obviously wouldn't admit that to the cops. This was no random break-in. They all knew each other.
Munch, you are probably correct. That being said, it is never okay to enter another person's dwelling without permission, so I have no pity for the man who was shot.
I agree with the poster above who said that the couple is probably in big trouble now, as well they should be if they took it to the parking lot. Innocent people could have been killed.
Years ago I lived with a self-proclaimed gun nut in an apartment. He selected ammo that was specifically designed to stop an intruder but not penetrate walls because he didn't want to hurt innocent people.
I think it was called rat shot, but it's been a long time so I could be wrong.
Realist: I have little sympathy for any of the participants in this story, However, the couple decided to arm themselves, chase down, and murder someone in cold blood who was no longer an immediate threat. For you to tacitly defend them, and thereby support guns in the process, speaks volumes.
Well we don't know if the victims were told the Perps would be back to finish the job or were coming back after giving the victims time to cash out at the ATM.... The threats on their lives may be of a continuing nature. While tis true that it sounds like the immediate danger was over, I'm not crying a river for the Perps. If they have any sense at all, they've hit the road and are not coming back to Vegas, Nevada or West Coast areas. Perhaps the victims can do community service for their adrenaline induced reactions? We should waste tax money, court time, costs to prosecute and incarcerate the victims for over - reacting? Let's get real. Not every guy and gal is fully versed in the limits to home defense / self defense law. Sounds like they helped Metro with real info on who would be associated with the Perp who died. Let's prosecute the other three Perps, if we can find them.
@Roslenda, if they choose to arm themselves, they damn well better educate themselves on the laws regarding those firearms and self / home defense.
Ignorant people, and people who tend to overreact have no business packing. It's a responsibility to own a firearm and should be treated as such.
Wow! Roslenda thinks criminals come to your house take your ATM card and tell you they are coming back. You are not supposed to have the police waiting. In Roslinda's world murderers get community service and thieves are prosecuted. Murderers shouldn't be jailed for over-reacting! They didn't know the law! I usually reserve the award for constant breaks with reality to Carmin, but this one will be hard to beat.
"adrenaline induced reactions?" - if that is your standard for killing someone - you are no different than any other criminal murderer.
Nothing was stolen from the home? You open the door on four gun totting men? Whether you knew they had guns or not - most reasonable people know NOT to open the door to four hooded men standing outside your home.
The idea of owning a gun is to PREVENT harm - not for you to go around chasing people and shooting them. Typical criminal mentality - no different than any other law breaking criminal.
Basically, the argument here is that they were criminals and deserved what they got. There is a simple test that I believe is at the heart of the matter. Do you believe that your possessions are more valuable than another human's life? That is what is being ultimately debated. In my life experience, those who call themselves MORE moral than others, more Christian than others, are the ones who have no problem valuing their possessions more than another's life. The moral position is to value life. The Christian position is to value life and never judge another, turn the other cheek, if they take your shirt, give your coat too.
"With the updated information I have to say the couple is in for a bit of trouble. The incident was effectively over and they continued it."
"If your house is invaded, the law says you can't chase someone out of the house, off your property, and into a parking lot and shoot them..."
"I think the couple will be a lot of trouble. Once the threat is over, you can't grab a gun, chase someone, and shoot them."
boftx, Test_Guy, CreatedEQL -- since none of you were there we'll all have to wait and see. As boftx opined "and there is more to this story still."
You all seem to have forgotten all citizens have the right to arrest, meaning use of necessary force to apprehend and detain the suspects until the police arrive to take them into custody. Who's to say that isn't what they were doing?
"...we should really have a castle law like Texas."
AshleyX2 -- Nevada may or may not. One must see how our Supreme Court has interpreted our Article 1, Sections 1 and 11. Start that @ http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NVConst...
"Ashley Ashley, we do have such a law but you are not permitted, under the law, to chase down and kill the assailants. That's wrong."
lvfacts -- may she is, maybe she isn't. But as Bob_R implied, that's up to the jury, if it gets that far.
"You gun rights people really wanna use this story as a pro-gun example??"
Markey -- yup!
"This was no random break-in. They all knew each other."
Det-Munch -- and you get that from where exactly?
"I agree with the poster above who said that the couple is probably in big trouble now, as well they should be if they took it to the parking lot."
The_Next_O -- as in any case where one kills another, it should be investigated. See my bit above about citizens' arrest. I hope the Sun continues keeping us informed as the case develops.
".....For you to tacitly defend them, and thereby support guns in the process, speaks volumes."
CreatedEQL -- yes it does. This volume says you're too eager to jump to conclusions then make up the facts to support the jump.
"We should waste tax money, court time, costs to prosecute and incarcerate the victims for over - reacting? Let's get real."
Roslenda -- good post, especially for reminding all the family were victims!
"if they choose to arm themselves, they damn well better educate themselves on the laws regarding those firearms and self / home defense."
The_Next_O -- assuming the threshold question here is whether or not the shootings were indeed self-defense, why? You ever face a violent home invader standing between him and your child? Until you do your posts on this issue are suppostional bunk.
"...how little does the common herd know of the nature of right and truth." - Socrates in Plato's "Euthyphro" (399 B.C.E.?)
"...most reasonable people know NOT to open the door to four hooded men standing outside your home."
unlv -- where exactly do you get "four hooded men" from? Since the article doesn't mention what they were wearing, and one of the four home invaders was female, I'm calling you out here as just another buffoon who makes it up as you go along. Get a grip and try again.
"Do you believe that your possessions are more valuable than another human's life? That is what is being ultimately debated."
CreatedEQL -- no, it's not. You failed to mention the part about how the victims were beaten. Do try not to be such a buffoon here, starting with sticking to the facts.
"I'm never too busy that I can't stop to enjoy someone else's suffering." -- the late, great George Carlin in "White Guys Who Shave Their Heads"
KillerB: My comments are and were 100% valid, even if the 'victims' were beaten. They still produced their gun, still chased them, still shot them, and it was over property. If you are 'jumped' and beaten and they guys then leave. You don't get to run, get a gun, and shoot them. My adherence to the facts is intact. I'm sorry that the morality part must have touched a nerve or made you uncomfortably reflect to the point of name-calling and inventing my transgressions.
I can see how this will go....
Well judge, we chased them outside and they shot at us, then we shot back and kiled the guy. The others escaped with the guns.
Judge: Sounds reasonable to me.
unlv student 9:17: So it's heroic for a Metro officer to kill a Veteran who is not threatening because the cops don't talk to each other but not for the victims to preclude further attack? As I said, not every person out there has experience in these situations. Put me on the jury (and I've gone with death sentence results) and these victims won't do hard time. Sounds as if they performed a public service--no mistaken identity there. Or, do you want to leave room for a SLA kidnap Patricia Hearst situation where the one killed must have been kidnapped and forced to participate in the crime?
created: I agree with you. However, "public" opinion is gonna go with the victims. You / they have no right to attack but it was certainly understandable in many circumstances--so I'm betting that even the DA will not try to indict unless it's to get a plea bargain and get the victims into rehab on their own dimes.
"Not every guy and gal is fully versed in the limits to home defense / self defense law."
What an asinine excuse. If you take the responsibility of owning a firearm you also have the responsibility of knowing the law regarding it's usage.
"What an asinine excuse. If you take the responsibility of owning a firearm you also have the responsibility of knowing the law regarding it's usage."
JerryWayne -- I got your excuses right here:
"All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness[.]"
"Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes."
That's all the law one needs to know about firearm usage. Everything else is just bureaucrats' technicalities. It would be "asinine" not to recognize the source of these quotes!
"If the exercise of constitutional rights will thwart the effectiveness of a system of law enforcement, then there is something very wrong with that system." -- Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 490 (1964)
No doubt it was drug related. It's a shame they didn't all kill each other..
If they had used shotguns instead of handguns perhaps there would not still be three of them at large. Even if the bad guys were only injured any hospital would have to report them when they showed up for treatment. Unless you are ex-military or similarly trained, the stats show that the average person in the heat of a gunfight will just not be all that accurate at anything but close range. The problem is even worse with non-lethal weapons such as a one-shot taser, where a miss will cost you dearly. (There is a 3-shot taser out now but even then you really can't practice much when each cartidge cost $25 a pop.)
A shotgun is way more useful for home defense, plus there's less danger of penetrating your neighbor's walls endangering innocent people. It does not take much skill to fire a shotgun in their general direction. Probably could have tagged all four with the first shot sending them into retreat mode. You used to be able to get a basic shotgun for less than $200 before recent threats of gun control legislation made them sell out everywhere and drove up prices. You can thank democrats for that, who incidentally have been know to have their own personal armed bodyguards which most of us can not afford. They probably even have their own collection of assalt weapons at home, that they don't want the rest of us to have.
Considering both victims were armed and that they followed them out into the parking lot I'm thinking they knew their attackers and were expecting something like this for whatever reason. I certainly would not leave the safety of my house at that point. You don't know who else might be waiting outside.