Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Police investigate the scene of a shooting where a Summerlin resident shot and killed an intruder in his backyard, Tuesday, March 20, 2012.
By Jackie Valley (contact) 
Wednesday, March 21, 2012 | 2:45 p.m.
The backyard intruder fatally shot by a Summerlin homeowner Tuesday morning has been identified as a Las Vegas teen, according to the Clark County Coroner's Office.
Demarcus Carter, 19, died from multiple gunshot wounds, the coroner said. His death was ruled a homicide.
The situation unfolded shortly before 9:30 a.m. when a homeowner in the 2100 block of Spurs Court, near Hualapai Way and Sahara Avenue, reported the shooting, Metro Police said.
The homeowner told detective he fired shots at the male, who he believed was trying to break into his home through the backyard, police said.
Police did not release whether Carter was armed or had ever made entry into the home. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
Detectives were interviewing the homeowner to determine the circumstances and perceived threat, police said. The homeowner, who has not been identified, was not injured.
Homicide detectives are investigating and will forward their report to the District Attorney's Office to decide whether to pursue charges against the homeowner, police said. The homeowner has not been arrested.
Police said use of force is considered reasonable — both for citizens and officers — when a person feels an action must be taken to protect his life or others' from serious injury or death.
The incident shocked neighbors, who described the area as a generally quiet and seemingly safe environment. Police said there had not been any noticeable crime increases in the area.
Again, the homeowners words are a little troublesome. "Believing" someone is going to break into your home and actually doing it are two different situations. Still need more facts.
Was this person breaking the window, the screen, the door. Was he jiggling the lock? was he only wandering around the backyard? Where was he shot? (location).
Not sure why this guy was even out among the public.
http://www.whosarrested.com/nevada/clark...
The judges who let this criminal go loose weren't thinking of the publics safety.
It's a nice ending to the story where the homeowner saves the taxpayers money.
TomD..the homeowner shot him through the window. The RJ seems to have a more informative story.
Amazing arrest record, Brian. Thanks. Looks like he was headed for the Big House, regardless...
Comment removed by moderator. Inappropriate
Brian D posted this link, but it does not show on the main page unless you look at "all" comments. Just re-posting here so it shows up on the main page.
http://www.whosarrested.com/nevada/clark...
Seems the intruder has quite an arrest record.
It will be interesting to learn the details of how this guy was shot.
Test_Guy,
That is interesting reading to put it mildly, but there is no way to confirm it is the same individual. The age seems right, if the age on the arrest record is from the last arrest at about this time last year, and the pattern certainly fits. But there is nothing in the story to make a positive ID from.
Even without that information, the comment about the R-J saying the homeowner shot Carter as he was apparently trying to break in through a window makes me more comfortable with what happened.
I hope the Sun can follow up with more detail and a confirmation that the arrest record online is for the same individual.
Well, I don't feel as uncomfortable as I did. Obviously this was a punk involved in trouble. No respect for the law. Just glad this wasn't a neighborhood kid who wandered into the backyard.
boftx,
Yup, I agree that we can't be sure it's the same guy and I thought about making the same comment you did. But, at this time of the day, my brain is set on "Deep Fat Fry" so I forgot to mention it. Good catch and thanks for the feedback.
I didn't read the RJ version yet. But will do so shortly. Thanks for the redirect.
I absolutely applaud the homeowner. If individuals aren't going to take lives seriously (i.e. previous record, skulking about on other peoples' properties)then we shouldn't treat the loss of their lives seriously. The world is way too overcrowded anyway. Save government money for people who need it, not career criminals. Hope he's happy in the big house in the sky.
Seems like he was hell bent to keep burglarizing and seems like our so-called justice system was hell bent on continually letting him loose to do so. He probably would've gotten popped eventually by a homeowner willing to standup for his or herself.
Some readers that live in the area had commented about how the burglary rate in the area had recently skyrocketed. Wonder if this guy was their one-man crimewave?
I suppose we can expect an appearance from the Rev. Al Sharpton demanding an independent federal investigation be done.
I'm a big proponent of 3 strikes. After 3 IMO you are going to be a criminal for life. If getting arrested and convicted 3 times can't stop you...nothing will. Might as well buy an island in the middle of the ocean and ship them all out. Drop supplies every month and let them fend for themselves.
TomD..I agree 99% except for the dropping them supplies suggestion. They can fish and drink rain water. No reason to waste valuable jet fuel on them.
Seems to me that a warning shot would have been plenty to keep this young man (and yes, likely criminal) from ever coming into that backyard ever again.
Even shooting him one time should have been plenty to prevent him from fleeing, if the objective was to get the police there to arrest him for trespassing.
But this shooter unloaded multiple times. And we're applauding him?
I can't help but notice the difference in performance here. An everyday citizen (presumably) who might be retired (Summerlin, at home in the day, yeah, I'm stereotyping) scores multiple hits on a target while five officers let off 29 shots with zero hits.
The intent in this event was to kill, not to defend. Multiple gunshot wounds defines the true intent. There was no hesitation to see if one bullet in the leg would have caused him to stop or lay down. It's the 'stop or I'll reload' philosophy while waving the Flag.
When I first started watching TV, the westerns were all in black and white. I remember two interesting themes from those California films:
1. The Good Guy sneaking up behind the bad guy at the window, or behind a rock and hitting him over the head with a gun. The bad guy falls to the ground, gets tied up and lives to confess.
2. In a confrontation, the Good Guy aims to shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand, or wounds him in the arm and knocks the gun loose.
3. Bad Guys most wore black or very dark hats so it was easy to tell who was going to get hit in the head.
Maybe the real West wasn't like this, but for many other reasons, Westerners had Honor, superior character, morals and as a result, were always better at aiming then the bad guys. Honesty always allowed one to aim better then the flakes.
We all wanted to be Cowboys because they were the source of moral virtues which demonstrated that human life was important even when it broke the law.
Hollywood movies in those days brought out the best in people. We watched The Cisco Kid, Red Ryder, Zorro, Roy Rogers and Dale Evans and Gene Autry Westerns.
They were all able to wound the arm or shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand with minor damage. The exception was Zorro - he accomplished the same action by using a whip. Zorro was cool. This was the America that was fun and the bad guys always got caught before the final commercial.
If the people from the NRA want to save America, they should put down their Bibles, Uzis, assault rifles, 30 round Glocks and start watching the old black and white westerns from Hollywood's 50's westerns to learn the higher definition of ethics and morals. What they follow now sucks all the way to the sewage plant, along with the Holy books that give them power.
A good shooter should only need one shot to bury a perp like this, but then people get nervous when the are under attack.
Someone is breaking into your house...the last thing on your mind is "I'll shoot one warning shot" or "I'll shoot once, then check to see if he surrenders"....BS, you shoot to kill. I've always been taught, don't pull the trigger unless you're prepared to kill a man. You don't want that person to fire back. Plus, most citizens are not sharp shooters or snipers. How are they supposed to assess whether or not they had a direct, non-lethal hit after one shot? It's crazy.
I applaud this guy for protecting his home. We lucked out by eliminating a repeat criminal from the streets/society. He probably saved many innocent lives that way.
So...the homeowner murders someone to protect his 'stuff' when he could have just called Metro and left the scene. Does this homeowner not have insurance? What goods could possibly be worth anyone's life no matter what kind of life that is? Stuff does not equal the importance of life.
Chunky says:
Well placed shots to the thoracic cavity are intended to stop someone from inflicting harm. A shot to the leg is very difficult and still leaves the individual with two free hands to use a weapon if they have one. In situations like this milliseconds stand between you as the victim and the bad guy as the victim. There's no time to take a leg shot and pray it works.
If the shots to the center mass of the body fail to stop your opponent, you may have to attempt a head shot.
Chunky sees ginormous 350++ pound 6'5" sized guys around all the time and realizes that these individuals, if determined or under the influence of drugs would be very hard to bring down with small caliber concealment weapons.
Who knows what the exact circumstances were but if multiple stints in prison didn't fix this guy, those bullets certainly did.
The Chunkyland Estate is close enough to have heard these shots on a good day and he's glad Ms. Chunky and family were not home when this guy showed up to break in.
Chunky is also glad the resident had the courage and skills the take this guy down in whatever manner he deemed necessary!
That's what Chunky thinks!
Anyone saying the homeowner shouldn't have killed this guy or should have just called metro and fled his own home is an idiot.
I don't care if this piece of trash was simply strolling through the backyard. I see it as if you are in my backyard you are a threat and you will be shot. And if you are shooting you don't shoot to wound or warn. You shoot to kill.
@Mark
You can't be serious. You want this guy to call 911, report what's happening and then run out his front door and let the intruder do as he pleases?..hoping the cops arrive before he runs off with your wallet, computer...whatever? Maybe kill his poodle? This is dumbest thing I've ever heard of. I'm not a big gun proponent, but this man was in his own home and it sounds like this he acted within his rights.
The "life" of this individual was ruined long before he broke into this home. He made his bed. He's dead thru his own actions. Lesson hopefully learned from his associates.
Comment removed by moderator. Make your comment without mention of race.
There were two lives involved here - the law abiding homeowner peacefully occupying his home - and a criminal!
The good guy is alive - the bad guy is dead!
GOOD News!
As far as shooting, one's level of training kicks in - for most folks, given the adrenaline and fear, they will fire multiple shots, if not empty their weapon! Well trained and well practiced folks may attempt to use a double-tap technique firing two rounds in rapid sucession, then two more if necessary - you have to do what you have to do protect yourself and survive - PERIOD!
"If the people from the NRA want to save America, they should put down their Bibles, Uzis, assault rifles, 30 round Glocks and start watching the old black and white westerns from Hollywood's 50's westerns to learn the higher definition of ethics and morals."
What?? Haha, ok, so you think real citizens facing real criminals should watch old westerns to learn how to shoot guns out of other peoples' hands? What are you talking about? Did you actually think about what you wrote, or was that entire post a transcript of your spoken word poetry at church?
Oh, and speaking of church, did you just suggest that people put down their Bibles in place of black and white westerns to learn the definition of ethics and morals?
Tolerance of criminals encourages more crime. The life of a criminal has no value as there is no shortage of them.
"...but then people get nervous when the are under attack."
Then more training is needed to keep one's cool when pulling out their weapon. Yes, people get nervous. Soldiers get nervous, police get nervous but their training helps them keep their cool. If everyone starts freaking out, then you will have problems. Innocent people will be shot.
After reading this burgler's arrest record..Two questions..1.why was this person allowed to be walking the streets and not in prison? 2.Where was this creeps last address so that the people who were victimized can possibly get some of their possesions back? The shooter did the world a great favor..
I hope this gentleman can live with himself. He could.ve called 911 and exited the house through the front door. He saw a black man and immediately he defaulted to the use of deadly force. I have nothing, except my family and my own life, that I am going to defend with deadly force. Good job guy, you protected your "stuff".....sarcasm folks.
I wish more people would defend their homes like this. If they did, we'd have less criminals on the street!
I live a mile and a half from where this happened. My house abuts the outer wall of the development where I live so it is a prime burglary target. I'm very glad this multi arrested burglar was shot and killed.
Did they know each other ? Was he having an affair with the man's wife ? daughter ? son ? Did he tell the guy to go back there ?
"I wish more people would defend their homes like this. If they did, we'd have less criminals on the street!"
For once, Anthony Sinatra said something I agree with.
Keep in mind this is not this kid's first burglary (He was previously arrested 3x for similar crimes).
It's always sad to hear about a teenager dying... but from what it sounds like, he made a repeated choice to break the law, enter people's homes/businesses, steal their property, and put himself in harms way. The only difference this time was that he didn't just get a slap on the wrist from the state.
A civilians defensive gun in their hand is meant to kill and everything else is bunk. More second guessing about how many shots were fired or how we should be disarming someone.
More silliness about running away or just letting him go so he can go down the road and hurt someone else. Oh, let him get away and (unstated result) he'll rob, kill, or rape someone else. Oh well, ho hum, that's just the cost of the ongoing implementation of an unreachable utopia.
How can any reasonable person read the kids arrest record and then blandly say the police will handle it? The Police DID handle it multiple times and the poor kid (I mean that too) was nurtured by a cruel system of catch and release, to his death.
Lawyers profit and kids gradually become career criminals due to our lawyer/criminal friendly legal system. The catch and release legal system only keeps honest people honest. It was designed by lawyers for steady profit and its main result is to GIVE lawyers on both sides steady profits. Another arrest of a multiple felon is always an opportunity for multiple lawyers to make money.
My sympathy to the homeowner having to experience this incident. Sadly our liberal court/justice system allowed this criminal out on the streets preying on the innocent public.
Nice they have the homicide cops investigating but I see no reason to proceed with charges against the homeowner. There is a chance they will find out something more but it is NOT OK for TRESPASSING intentionally and threatening residents. Again, if the homeowner felt threatened and with so much news of home invasions where one guy hits the front and another guy the back door, I cam identify with the homeowner.
Years ago, I was sitting on the couch when my front door was blasted open. If I'd had a gun..... If the perp had been in the back yard and I heard noise that sounded like he was trying to open the back door.....
For those calling for criminal action, I hope you find yourself in this situation.. You can politly ask the INTRUDER what his intentions are hope for the best.
"Excuse me sir, do you intend bodily harm?"
Bam, your tied up and your wife is getting violated..Some of us are not willing to take that risk with an INTRUDER.
One more thing.. When your in that situation you don't want to waste precious seconds thinking about and trying to aim for a leg.. Give me a break.. You point the weapon and aim for the biggest target, the chest..
If you think your going to be calm and calculated when someone is trying to break into your home, you are sadly mistaken.. I have been in this situation so I can speak from experience... Your adrenalin kicks in and rational thought goes out the window as you unintentionally jump into survival mode.
Do I shoot to wound and to protect, so when he is paroled next month, he can come back and sue my ass off... or do I shoot to make sure this is the last crime he commits?? Hmm........
What we have here is gun advocacy, bigotry and ignorance.
Instead of taking that vigilante wild wild west mentality - just default to the obvious self-defense argument: You believe this shooter was acting within his right because there was a legitimate fear of serious bodily injury or threat to his life (or that of others).
I'm not saying that defense is valid here, but that would be the obvious position to take if you feel the shooting was justified.
Here, we have a guy who lives in a neighborhood that apparently has little crime (according to neighbor statements - this could be wrong I know). There is no indication the deceased teen had a weapon. No indication the deceased person made verbal threats to the home owner. We know the teen was NOT inside the house.
What we do have is simple: A teenager in the back yard of a place where he should not have been. Was this kid trying to enter the home? Did he approach the home owner? What was he doing at the property? What made the homeowner believe the teenager posed a threat?
Here is what you can't do - you can't simply shoot someone who is on your property without the existence of reasonable fear of threat of life or serious bodily injury.
For those of you trying to default to this "I'll shoot first and ask questions later." It is ironic you defend such an act on the basis of you being the "good guy" and the victim being the "bad guy." Well, guess what? If you used deadly force in a circumstance where it is not justified - guess who is the bad guy? Guess who is the good guy?
And stop with the nonsense about your being able to protect yourself and your family. Most reasonable people will deduce that if someone is INSIDE your house - using deadly force is reasonable under the circumstances.
Did anyone notice this in the article:
<<His death was ruled a homicide>>
Metro does have to complete their investigation but if this ruling already has been announced, there is more to this. As someone said, in the RJ it was mentioned that the homeowner shot the kid thru a window. Was the kid trying to OPEN the window? Or the patio door? Was he actually TRYING to break in or did the homeowner believe that this kid WAS going to break in?
It is also obvious this was a racially motivated shooting.
If this kid was shot in the back because he was scared off after the first shot and was running away, criminal record or not, you're screwed if you shoot an unarmed person in the back. Metro themselves have been guilty of this. And those cops lost their jobs. I remember a story from about 2003; we were new to Vegas and Metro had a suspect, a handcuffed suspect, try to run away and they shot the kid in the back and killed him. Bad choice on Metro's part and they KNEW it. My old ex, with his 30+ years as a cop, couldn't believe that Metro shot the kid. He wasn't going too far with handcuffs on AND you do not shoot someone in the back....regardless.
I'd like to know where the police found the body - by the house or by the brick wall? Of course, we will never know the full story. Maybe some of these hotshot investigative reporters the Sun has can dig for more details. Coolihan maybe?
Should have shot him...should not have shot him? Where do we draw the line? One thing is for sure, if a line must be drawn it has to be the home itself. A persons home is the line in the sand. If ANYONE enters or tries to enter a persons home they must be prepared to forfeit their life. That is the ONLY message that matters. Noone should have to live in fear of someone coming into their home. Police Officers are being killed in their own garages, to say a regular person must use some imaginary checklist before shooting someone breaking into their home just complicates the overall issue. Nobody has time in this scenario to determine if the intruder is armed, does he have buddies around the corner, etc. Some homeowners would flee, some would fight, bottom line the bad guy knows when they arrive the possible outcome.Could a warning have been given, possibly. Erregardless this homeowner is a victim..PERIOD. I hope our DA sends the right message here.
Arrest record or not you can't just shoot someone to death from a window before you call police.
It came out last night on Channel 13 that the shooter was inside the house and shot the guy from a window. The kid was also unarmed. Mr. Summerlin is going to have a tough time explaining his fear for his life when he was inside with a loaded weapon and the kid was outside unarmed. I'm sure a warning shot would have made him run away but clearly the shooter had other ideas.
Where I come from it's called shooting fish in a barrel.
And man the comments above. Welcome to Nevada: Stay off my lawn or I'll shoot you in the head - no questions asked.
Really? Charming.
If the guy was inside his house - and from his window shot the kid simply because the kid was in the backyard - this is downright murder and should be prosecuted as such.
With more facts coming out - it appears this guy simply saw the kid in his back yard and felt he was entitled to kill.
You are not entitled to kill people for trespassing. You simply cannot justify the killing without the necessary threat of serious injury to yourself or threat to your life.
The kid could have been in the backyard retrieving a ball. Yes, people are accusing this kid of having a criminal record. But the owner did not know this at the time. And there are no facts that the kid was armed or making threats to the homeowner other than trespassing.
This matter needs to be looked into - you can't have people going around claiming they are justified in killing people with a minimal standard.
"It is also obvious this was a racially motivated shooting."
Det__Munch -- If your going to make a claim like that it would be helpful to back it up with some evidence.. Your unsubstantiated race card game does nothing to advance the problems with race we have in this country. It perpetuates them!!
Might as well say he was killed because he is gay.. We don't know if the owner of the house is black, white, asian, gay, metro or married to a black midget who lives in Thailand railing orphaned native americans.
So many of you are acting like the resident (Do we know he's a homeowner? Or is he renting?) was defending himself.
He was not.
The intruder was in the backyard. He wasn't jimmying the door. There was AMPLE opportunity to ward him off with a warning shot. Moreover, even if your survival instinct does kick in and you do shoot "the biggest target," I doubt very seriously there's just cause to hit the perp more than once.
If this man's behavior is justifiable without controversy, what's the limit of his right to take someone's life? We are talking, right now, about TRESPASSING.
Evil_Slayer - The law, or in your word limit, is clear.. If you fear sever bodily harm or death to you or your immediate family, you have the right to use deadly force in defense.
We don't know if the perp was attempting to break in or not so you can't say "he wasn't....", but given his criminal history that includes previous robberies, it seems like a logical assumption he was there for no good.
No, you do not have to give a warning shot if you are fearing your life.. Now, if the perp was running away, then it becomes criminal. This is unless he is in your home still and possibly running to try and find a weapon to use against you. Then, back shot is legal.
Evil: This one will not do it again.
The issue is, was he protecting his property from an intruder or not, or did he invite this person to come in and rob him.
It no longer matters weather he feared for his life, if this person was not invited to come in and attempt to rob him, he has the right to protect his property by whatever means he has available.
Sad to see another Aspiring Rapper get killed so young. He was such a good kid, never did nuffin to no one.
From VegasLee: Nevada is one of the states that adopted a Castle Doctrine. This homeowner should be alright. he had No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place.
Copy of the law.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Bills/AB...
The way I see it is that the homeowner defended his home, and prevented this intruder from victimizing somebody else. There have been so many home-invasions in Las Vegas, Henderson, and now Summerlin, that have happened over the past year that did not end well. Let's not forget, this kid entered this person's property UNINVITED. Don't they call that 'trespassing'?
Unfortunately, you can't just shoot somebody that enters your backyard, even if it's a scumbag and career criminal. If the dead person is indeed the same as in the linked arrest record, with a history of burglary and home invasion, there is no doubt what he was doing there.
Unless the shooter can show he feared for his life, he'll be in trouble. That's unfortunate in this case, but the law here in NV.
As far as the crazy lib comments about wild west and shooting to wound: You can only shoot when your life is in danger. If my life is in danger, I don't try to shoot the gun out of his hand. It's two to the chest and one to the head, and then we can reassess the threat.
You can protect your property without using deadly force, Clyde, let alone shooting a guy multiple times.
WallyWorld ... so, if you and I are walking down the street, and I believe you intend to do me bodily harm, I can kill you?
If you knock on my door, you're on my property. If I think you're there to do me harm, I can kill you?
What if it was a pest control guy, and not an intruder, and this resident had mistaken him for an intruder?
After reviewing district court records on his last home invasion, burglary conviction where he received boot camp instead of jail, there were co-conspirators in that case, and most likely there were people with him that morning may have been lookouts or someone with a car, I thought the law says if your in commission of felony and some one dies, the guy who drove him there or the look out would be responsible for his homicide,not the guy in the house I live about 1/2 mile away from where this happened and have lived here for less than year and there have 3 burglary's of homes in my neighborhood. I hope metro finds this guys crew and ties them to this crime and charges them with his homicide.
Yes, Jennifer, they do call that trespassing.
And trespassing is not punishable by death.
One less wart on the backside of society.
I for one will NOT be crying over tis dead punk. I think we need to thank the homeowner who saved possibly my wife and daughter, and we need to charge this dead punk's family (if you can call it that) for the horrible job they did in raising him. Unless he was in the family business.
I know, I know, he was Mom's apple pie, the fourth of July, he was a loser and I for one am glad he is taking a dirt nap.
What if...what if...what if? Do I agree something else may have been this answer in this incident probably. Do I think it is sad that burglars must be fearful that they may get the wrong homeowner who does not believe in warning shots, not even a little bit. Without the luxury of having been present all I am hearing is a burglar intent on victimizing a homeowner was shot to death trying to enter a home through a window. If my 96 year old grandmother blows a burglar out of her bedroom window with a double barrel shotgun the last question on my mind will be, "why did you give em both barrels?"
Evil -
1 - No, if we were walking down the street I wouldn't be on your property.
2 - If you can convince the police I presented a danger, and you were scared for your life, yes... That would be hard to do if I KNOCKED on your front door though... You see, it's a little different from climbing a high wall and entry a secured backyard.. Comprehend?
3 - Same as two.. This is a secured backyard.. So he would have had to have given pest control a key.. If that happened, it would be criminal.. But. It wasn't the pest control, it was a career criminal.
3 -
HendersonNV, I think you misread. No one was climbing in this guy's house through a window.
The guy shot, through his window, at the unarmed man in his backyard. And them kept shooting.
There was no immediate danger to the man. He could have called out to the man, "Hey, get out of my yard or you're going to get shot."
He did not. Plan A for him was to kill.
Wallyworld: Yes, I comprehend the difference. Do you comprehend the difference between self-defense and shooting an unarmed man?
The only way to put an end to these home invasions is to send out the word that homeowners or renters have something in store for those that attempt a robbery or burglary. This teen got what he deserved. No need to waste a bed at the LVDC. If he indeed was the same person who had a record of two previous home invasion the third time is the charm. I don't care if the man shot him from the upstairs window. He jumped the wall with an intention of breaking in the house. Justice was served. If they charge the shooter which causes him to incur the cost of hiring of an attorney it is a disgrace. I know Metro and the DA don't want vigilantes but the circumstances dictate that the person in the house did the right thing. I guess some will say he should have exited the home and call 911. Wait for Metro to show up. How long is he suppose to wait for that to happen. How does he know if accomplices aren't waiting for him to open the front door. If I was on a jury I would vote not guilty and shake the homeowners hand after the trial.
So Evil, what's you source for the statement "No one was climbing in this guy's house through a window."?
Where have the police or anyone else specifically stated that the deceased was NOT in the process of breaking into the home when he was shot?
The Review-Journal's story indicated that he was not in the process of breaking in, but that police believe that's what he was there to do.
Oh yeah, and for DetMunch who said "Did anyone notice this in the article:<<His death was ruled a homicide>>Metro does have to complete their investigation but if this ruling already has been announced, there is more to this."
You seriously need to look up the legal definition of "homicide" and the difference between "homicide" and "murder".
That ruling does not mean "that there is more to this"...it simply and plainly means that the deceased died as the result of the actions of another person. Anytime one person takes another's life...no matter what the circumstances, the law defines it as "homicide". Self defense if a legal justification for "homicide".
Evil, please provide a specific quote.
Because the one I read in the LVRJ article says "He was shot while attempting to enter a home in the 2100 block of Spurs Court"
http://www.lvrj.com/news/man-slain-in-su...
As an aside to the ruling of "homicide" even a legal execution states the manner of death as "homicide."
That link is a more recent story, wendor, so I will stipulate that the young man was, indeed, fiddling with the sliding glass door. That is still not presenting immediate physical or bodily harm to the shooter.
A warning shot would still have effectively scared off this unarmed burglar.
You are an idiot, Evil Slayer. Gun owners SHOULD NEVER fire off a warning shot. Obviously you've never taken any firearms training courses, unlike the rest of us who know what we're talking about when it comes to deadly force laws in Clark County.
And do you think justice would have been better served by letting this piece of trash escape to continue burglarizing people? If I see someone in my secured backyard trying to get into my secured home, I'm blasting. If he has no scruples about trespassing and breaking and entering (even AFTER getting busted for it), I'm pretty sure he would have no scruples roughing up or killing the residents inside.
Actually Evil, at NO time has any version of the RJ story stated that "he was NOT in the process of breaking in", the closest any version ever came to that was "...stated that they could not say whether he was attempting to break in at the time..." so nice attempt to twist the reported facts to fit your case.
As the the other two similarly absurd claims of yours:
1. "warning shot" - Where would you like this "warning shot" to be aimed such that it does not endanger any innocent parties?
and more importantly....
2. "immediate threat" - An intruder braking into an occupied residence is most certainly an "immediate threat". If you doubt it, please do a little research and look up statistics on "home invasion robberies". Almost all home invasion robberies where the resident is at home at the time of the break-in result in death or injury to the resident.
If you have any doubt, lets set up a test. You play the resident and I'll play the criminal. You have no way to see if I'm armed or not, so at my choice I can conceal a dye stick (knife simulation) or a paintball pistol (gun simulation) and I'll start opening a sliding window or door that you're on the other side of.
Exactly how many seconds do you think it'll take for me to get marker dye onto you (simulating death or injury)? Statistically (and I'm sure this is how it would play out in this test) the answer is "less than 5 seconds"
An intruder breaking into an occupied residence is ALWAYS an imminent threat of bodily harm to the resident.
Warning shots belong in the absurd category as the poster who wanted people to watch more old westerns and shoot the guns out of the bad guys hands. Ridiculous and dangerous. Whoops, you just accidentally hit your neighbor's 4 year old with the stray bullet from your "warning shot"...so much better than shooting the criminal, right?
MooGoo, your attitude about fellow commenters is precisely what is wrong with online discourse.
Anyone who disagrees with you is "an idiot."
Try acting civilized for once. Though, based on your second paragraph, I sort of doubt that capacity is within you.
wendor:
1) How about the grass?
2) If I saw you attempting to break into my house, and I had a gun, I would open the window and say, "Hey, you there! I have a gun and I'm not afraid to use it!" And then you would scurry off. I guarantee it.
Evil,
1. just try and hit the grass through the window without hitting the burglar in the window.
2. Go ahead and do that in our "test". I guarantee that you'll have a paintball splotch in the center of you chest (indicating death) about the time you got up to the word "gun" in your silly little speech.
But hey, it's cool that you don't understand what is and isn't an "imminent threat of bodily harm". It makes it much more likely that you'll remove yourself from the gene pool at some point if you're ever confronted by a violent criminal.
Keep in mind that here in Nevada a resident at home is presumed to be in imminent danger when a home invasion takes place. In other words, if the DA decides to press charges (unlikely in my opinion) the state will have to prove that the resident could reasonably believe he would be safe if Carter had entered his home.
Based on what I'm reading in the R-J story (Jackie, *please* get details so I don't have to go to that rag) the resident did the right thing. When you add in Carter's history it is difficult not to think that the resident most likely saved the life of someone had Carter continued on his path.
And again, the resident deserves credit for firing accurately while under pressure that presumably he is not used to. That is part of being a responsible gun owner.
To Evil, there is no such thing as a "warning shot." A gun is a tool that is used to kill with, period. It is not some kind of magic wand that you wave around hoping that people will turn into sheep. If you must use a gun, you use it to kill. Never pull a gun unless you are ready to use it properly if need be.
1. It's pretty damn easy to hit the grass. The shot doesn't have to be 5 feet away from the guy. It can be 20 feet away. It's the sound of the shot that matters.
2. Who says you have to stick your head out the window and put a target on your forehead to properly get someone's attention?
Can't ANYONE in the pro-shooter crowd engage in civilized discussion? Must your first default be to insults and degradation?
I've lived on this planet for 37 years and grew up in a violent neighborhood, and I have yet to encounter a situation where I just had to shoot someone.
boftx -- How many shots do you think the resident had to pump the unarmed man full of to get his point across?
Brandishing the weapon may have been enough or it would have at least showed him what he could steal at a later date.
He was not a kid lets clear that up also, He was a man, A young man but a man none the less.
Two years ago on my way to the market I saw smoke coming from an apartment deck on the upper floor of a two story complex. I stopped my car and also saw an elderly woman at the sliding glass doors of the lower unit. So I ran from the road to her location and she panicked and I then saw a man come to her side inside the unit and he looked at me as I was sprinting toward them and he returned with a large Knife and he was shaking it at me then I realized I had scared the woman and she had misunderstood my intentions and conveyed that to her companion and you get the jest of that. But in the end when the smoked started billowing into their unit they then knew I was not trying to harm them. Had he had a gun and started shooting with his belief I intended him harm I would have been a dead Samaritan.
About as many as he did.
Riiiiiiight.
Jennifer - no one is disputing that this person was trespassing. You do understand that killing a person merely for trespassing is illegal and you could be charged with murder?
I don't understand your logic - it is ok to kill law breakers because they break the law - but if you kill a law breaker by breaking the law then ....using your logic the killer who killed the law breaker must also suffer the same fate.
Your trespassing argument makes no sense.
Anyhow, Evil_Slayer has a valid point. The bottom line - this kid appears to have been trespassing. There is nothing else given that leads a reasonable person to believe that this shooter had a reasonable basis to use deadly force.
For those arguing the "stand your ground" defense - that applies if you are presented with a threat to your life or serious bodily injury (or third person). It doesn't mean you can use deadly force because you see a crime being committed.
Here, there are no facts that show such a threat existed. All you have is trespassing.
Prosecutors need prosecute these cases.
unlv702, you are incredibly naive if you truly believe that "There is nothing else given that leads a reasonable person to believe that this shooter had a reasonable basis to use deadly force."
Please look up the US Department of Justice study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on "Victimization During Household Burglary".
You will find that there is a 26% chance of injury or death to the resident during a home burglary of a occupied home.
A 26% chance of injury or death most certainly indicates "an imminent threat of bodily harm" to the resident.
So if he was attempting to break into an occupied home then he presented a threat to the resident that can be answered with lethal force. The only way to argue otherwise would be to claim, in contradiction to the evidence and police statements, that he was NOT trying to break into the home.
Evil_Slayer, perhaps you should change your name to Evil_Condoner.
Believe it or not, there are plenty of honest citizens that feel the best possible justice was done. Absolutely no tears for the miscreant here. Society is better off. The good guys won one.
Maybe you prefer that the burglar was just made to run away so he can commit further crimes, but not most of us. You are outnumbered. Give it a rest.
To the individuals who advocate running out your front door in fear, please send along your addresses. There's still a lot I need to replace following the past 2 burglaries at my home, 0.2 miles from the incident in this "low-crime" area. Thanks.
To those of you with such smug and condescending attitudes: If this is not debatable -- if you are just obviously right and I am just obviously wrong -- why are you here debating it?
If you are here to educate those of us who are just too naive, ignorant or stupid to know any better, then why are you being so uncivil about it?
Evil Slayer,
Tell you what, if somebody tries to break into my home, here is what I would do; I would give them your address so they could rob a more understanding person than myself.
As for me.... I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.
Bottom line; you come into my residence and doom on you.
The debate for pacification worked really well for the Sudetenland.
Job well done! One less puke around to assault citizens of Las Vegas. Some of these sheeple spouting off about what should have happened would have been beaten, raped , robbed or killed trying to reason with a dirt bag like this while wetting their panties. My guess is the idiots that condone this are either crooks themselves or unable to own a firearm which after reading some of their stupid remarks is probably a good thing for the rest of us.
Thanks, Heretic. 'Preciate that.
I don't really understand how "warn the guy that you're willing to shoot him if he proceeds" is translated into "pacifist who's willing to just give away all his stuff to a burglar," but whatever.
if some nuts in my backyard im shooting to kill. if he doesnt leave. walley world is so correct. you never been in the situation. i was in columbus ohio and that still when i think of it makes me sick to my stomach. some crazy was trying to open my friends door. i was looking right at him. if the door was unlocked we were probably going to be killed or harmed. he was looking right at me and still was trying to break in. my other friend picked up a butcher knife and said get out of here mfer. thats when and only then he took off. never ever will forget that. then the nut went right down the road. trying to get into other houses and apartments. called the police . long story short were harresed untill they heard on the walky talkies that a nut was trying to break in other houses. then the police apologised and then took are testimony of what just happened.
Evil Slayer, odd handle based on your stance.
To the point. I think a warning shot is a dangerous and seriously misguided way to handle the situation. Once the bullet goes down range you can not control the outcome. Shoot into the grass you say... amped up on adrenaline... your shot may ricochet off of an unintended target and injure an innocent in the next yard over.
Sparing the criminal and hurting innocents is not a righteous way to conduct business. I will tell you how my gun is loaded. I have a .38 revolver. Dependable and accurate enough to get the job done. The first round out is a .38 buckshot load. If the intruder is an innocent then it is hardly a killing shot. If the intruder is a criminal then the injury will hopefully slow down his/her robbery attempt. The next two rounds out are wad-cutters. Again, not overly destructive rounds. The next three rounds out are hollow-points.
Judged by twelve and not carried by six.
btw, the Sudetenland analogy was thrown in to highlight a "turn the cheek" societal attitude.
I neither said nor implied that anyone should turn any cheek. You misunderstand if you ascribe such a belief to me.
But I do think many commenters here are all too eager to shoot at someone. Just because turning the other cheek, so to speak, puts you in a position to be rolled over, doesn't mean the polar opposite is a justifiable reaction.
I wonder ... if you commenters were on a jury, and a person was convicted of burglary ... would you recommend the death sentence?
Because that's precisely what you are choosing here when your FIRST choice is to "shoot to kill" rather than to A) flee for safety; B) call the police; C) scare the burglar off ... or whatever else you can imagine other than loading him full of lead until he paints your lawn red with his own blood.
Evil Slayer,
Move past that.
You are advocating shooting into the grass.... reread my post and tell me your answer to that.
I can just as easily ask you the same thing: Amped up on adrenaline... your shot at the intruder may ricochet off of an unintended target and injure an innocent in the next yard over.
Evil Slayer, reread my ENTIRE post.... my first round is buckshot.
I agree amped up is out of control. Look at some of the shootings with LEO's here in the Valley. Especially the Courthouse shootout. Trained officers shooting willy-nilly and expending an unbelievable amount of ammo.
There is no perfect solution, hence buckshot then lethal.
Heretic -
I keep my shotgun loaded in a similar fashion.. I don't want to kill unless I must.. I keep birdshot as the first round followed by 00 buck.. The birdshot will leave a nasty wound and if I still feel danger the buck will put a stop to it.
Thats a personal preference, the law does not require I be so kind.
Here is my two-cents. You don't pull a gun unless you are ready to kill. If I am scared enough to pull a gun on you, you are dead where you stand.
I do not own a gun for this reason. I scare easily.
Dogs, people. They need homes, and I leave my doors unlocked without fear because of them. My Aussie doesn't tolerate a stray bird in her yard, let alone some random guy.
Some breeds to consider; Aussies, Boxers, Dobermans, Full-size Poodle, German Shepherds, Great Dane, some temperament-tested Rotties.
Avoid Chows, Wolf-Breeds, untested Rotties, and Pits, because your homeowner insurance may drop you, or worse.
The law in Nevada presumes an occupant is in imminent danger if a home invasion takes place because simply put an occupant would have little or no chance to determine if an invader was armed or not until it is too late. If you enter someone's home illegally, you are taking a hell of a chance.
BTW, for those who favor revolvers and hand load, a hollow-base wad cutter seated backwards on top of a half load of Red Dot makes a very effective home defense round.
I disagree with you guys advocating multiple rounds of increasing deadliness. A gun used in defense should have the single purpose of killing the threat, not just disabling him. Especially in a stressful situation, probably at night in dark. You need every shot to count. It could mean your life if you are up against a drugged out of control person. .38 +P hollow points are my defense round. Great penetration without over penetrating. They will get the job done.
Well heretic, I didn't criticize YOUR approach, did I?
Good guys 1, Scumbags 0...way to go! We need more results like this. Not only would we take out career criminals, but we'd save money and lives. Our prisons are overflowing...we should give this guy a key to Summerlin for his heroic actions. Summerlin is now a safer neighborhood because of him!
how are you going to run when hes coming at you. thats the dumbest thing i ever heard of. get an airedale terrier. that will rip up the bad guy in seconds. i say kill kill kill. its nice to be a lib. its all peacefull untill a bad guy is raping your daughter.
Is this really the way you argue, steelpulse? Or is this just the way you do it online?
I'm embarrassed for you.
IT amazes me to see that there are a lot of posts saying it was okay to KILL the intruder. Anyone who has gone through firearms training (especially a CCW class) knows that the INTENT SHOULD NEVER BE TO KILL..BUT TO STOP the action that is happening to threaten your safety and well being. And to address the shot once and see what happens..do some research. Some bad guys have been shot several times and continued the attack. That is why many course teach to deliver a controlled pair to the thoracic cavity. You don't shoot in the head...unless that is a last resort. You don't fire warning shots..who knows where they will end up. I highly recommend training if you own a gun. Front Sight has an excellent course. (and no...I do not work there) I have taken their course and I found it to be very professional.I walked away with a new found respect and higher level of education.
By the way...SLICK..stand your ground and stalking are two different things.
The law states you do not have to retreat. It does not state that you can stalk and kill.
Oh...this is for test guy...glad you are alive
Sunjon...how far can a guy travel in 1.5 seconds?
Look up a video on youtube...Tueller drill
No one never knows how they will perform under stress.
* Crimes happen in seconds...Cops respond in minutes..I'd rather be alive and have to deal with the aftermath.
In sports, it is said that the best defense, is a good offense. That is not "rocket science" to someone in danger of losing their life, limb, family, or property; all of which occurs when a HOME INVADER -- involved in criminal trespass with criminal intent -- threatens to take what belongs to someone else, and do them harm in the process.
And it may be that the homeowner's gun had NEVER BEEN USED PRIOR TO THAT DAY - when it suddenly became the only DEFENSIVE means available to stop the invader.
THUS, as supported by current law -- the homeowner has A REASONABLE RIGHT to ASSUME that a break-in or other confrontation is a LIFE-THREATENING situation. And that the invasion is putting his or her life and family in mortal danger. That criminal act of illegal home invasion justifies the use of deadly force (i.e., a gun) to prevent harm to themselves - - WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT A POLICE OFFICER WOULD DO.
In addition, the "Castle Law" (legislation passed in almost every State) concerns giving the LEGAL ability to protect one's self and one's property, as people become (increasingly) VUNERABLE to criminal tresspass and assault.
To who oppose the use of guns - - and present outright or veiled "alternatives" to the use of guns in life-threatening situations - - such as: banning guns, taking gun safety courses, advocating for criminal rights, or chastising gun owners for using them when they have need for protection - I say, I hope you are never in a position of having to protect yourself, your wife, your children, or defend your property IF YOU DON'T HAVE A GUN.
Your kitchen KNIFE will be useless against an invader with a GUN. Who or what will come to your aid, and PROTECT your family, at such a time?
Obviously, we do not want any "wild west" exhibitions to occur across America where people, arbitrarily, shoot other people (whether in an act of crime, or not) - but I believe tht GUN Ownership - and use for self-defense - is a c
Constitutional RIGHT, and for good reason.
Would AMERICA EVEN EXIST TODAY, if the American Colonialists - Patriots - "We the people..." - did not ALREADY possess the GUNS they needed (and used) to fight the oppression of England's invading Army? Obviously, the answer is NO.
So while unfortunate incidences will occur - statistically, or in practice - for THIS NATION, the ownership of guns, and the use of them to defend one's self - is paramount, and necessary, if we are to maintain any semblence of the people's right to bear arms -- including remain secure - without fear - in our very lives.
A FINAL THOUGHT - if the invader has LEFT THE HOME, I DO NOT believe that people should be chasing criminals DOWN THE STREET with a gun in hand - UNLESS, it is in "hot pursuit" of a someone THEY HAVE SEEN commit a CAPITAL OFFENSE (e.g., murder, rape, etc.) The witness to a non-capital crime should otherwise call 911, and let them handle it.
if this would have been metro shooting this kid everyone on here would be bashing them...since it's the homeowner everyone is praising him...funny how this city seems to have a double standard...