An Elyria, Ohio man’s home was burglarized Wednesday night and a light-fingered thief made off with the man’s TV. So Thurday night, according to myfox8.com, the homeowner decided to spend the night with his gun on the first floor in case lightening — and the prowler — struck twice. “Investigators say it appears as though the same burglar returned to the home the next morning, and was shot after he crawled in through an unlocked window…Lieutenant Andrew Eichenlaub of the Elyria Police Department told Fox 8 reporter Elisa Amigo that the 53-year-old Water Street man pulled out a gun and fired shots when the 29-year-old burglary suspect lunged at him.” The un-named thief has since assumed room temperature, but here’s the good news: “Ohio’s Castle Doctrine gives homeowners the right to defend themselves from intruders.”
Damnedest case of suicide I ever seen.
I am all for Castle Doctrine but why was a window unlocked? Mistake or intentional?
Who cares?? Locked or unlocked. The only person to try a door or window without knocking, calling out, or phoning first has intent to commit a crime.
Like I wrote, I am all for Castle Doctrine. I carry everyday and everywhere including at home. I do not want to shoot someone in my house or anywhere else if I do not absolutely have too. I am not going to leave a window unlocked especially after I was just robbed.
A person who gets robbed on one night then leaves a window unlocked and sits waiting in his house for someone to break in the next night is an idiot IMHO. For me that borders on premeditated murder however justified.
If you disagree that is ok with me.
Good thing you are not a cop in Elyria.
Several years ago, I had a house with a lot of glass on the first floor. One wall was about 75% glass doors and windows, and another wall was about 50% glass. If a criminal wanted to enter my house illegally, he could break a very expensive piece of glass, or I could allow him to just open a sliding glass door. I left the doors unlocked, because I didn’t want to pay to replace the glass.
Fortunately, the house was in a very low crime area, and the neighbors watched out for each other.
a victim has no responsibility to the person committing a crime against them in their own home. If you do not want to get shot you can choose to basically not shoot yourself by choosing not to go into a place of residence uninvited that you do not reside in. The invader chose to be shot, the victim didn’t choose to shoot.
My house, my window is the principle here. Some of us like fresh air, especially during the fall. There’s a simple rule to follow here: Don’t enter someone’s house without permission. I manage to keep that rule every day, and I don’t see why we should have to put ourselves in prison in our own homes because others break the rule.
Locking a window or limiting a window opening does not a prison make. Killing someone in your home would be traumatic. The noteriety associated with the event would increase the feelings. Castle Doctrine or not the local LEOs will gather every bit of info on the homeowner. I will shoot and kill someone in my home if I have too. I will not leave a window open and set an ambush. YMMV.
I wrote my comments because of what I though when I read the story and what my reaction to the situation might be.
To gS650G: The threshold in my home is not one I push for others.
Extended Castle doctrine in Ohio provides you with the means to kill someone with the’ intent’ to enter your home. I can legally shoot someone from inside my door who is on my porch trying to jimmy my windows or lock. You don’t have to have them in your home. I wouldn’t personally never shoot someone who is not in my house (unless they were firing at me or mine inside or course) but that’s just me. Personally seeing this happen and no one except a criminal pay is fine with me no matter what the circumstance or reason as long as the law was upheld to the letter.
Your comments suggest that if you are a jurist you would consider the unlocked window an invitation to enter and prerequisite to murder.
gS650G: An unlocked window is not an invitation but a piss poor decision. An intruder would need to use a significant effort to enter my house. I have lived in many different cities and States as well as Panama and Japan. There is no place I would not lock my doors and ensure my windows could not be easily opened. YMMV.
When I read the story today it seemed to me the homeowner set an ambush for the home invader. I may have read too much into the story. My comments were intended to show how I interpreted the story and I thought, if it were true, it was the wrong actions. I seem to be of a minority opinion and that is fine. Each of us must decide how far we are willing to go in this type of situation. I will shoot someone who illegally enters my house but I will not set an ambush. Once again YMMV.
it doesn’t matter he’s on your property uninvited…. period. doesn’t matter if he had a sign reading “burglars welcome” they come on his property uninvited and they are fair game…..quit reading more into this than there is good guy 1 bad guy 0
I am not sure you presented the best of arguments with your sign analogy. “Burglars welcome” seems to be an invitation.
Maybe you are right and I read too much into the homeowners actions. He has to live with the consequences, I do not. I have taken every practical measure to ensure no one can enter my home so easily.
Thanks to everyone who replied to my comments. It is good to test one’s thoughts with other people.
Why would something cause him to be a paler color? Or maybe you meant something would make him weigh less?
Spelling matters. +1
See, men DO take out the trash without being asked.
All’s well that ends well, except for the cleanup. I’d hire cleaners and bill the perp’s estate, such that it is.
If I lived in Lajitas, Texas and my home had no doors and windows on it, who would be at fault if a criminal robbed my home? What if they invaded my home with intent to rape and murder?
The whole notion that the home owner is at fault is ridiculous. The criminal knows the home is not his property. He also knows trespass, entry, and theft are crimes. This blur called “relativism” is a curse on this society. I see far too many people falling for it and skirting the edges of immoral behavior. It destroys character and results in indulgence and tolerence of sin.
BTW, I was upset when they put a roof on The Starlight Cafe. I doubt Lajitas has changed much in 15 years and you will find homes lacking doors and windows.
“Ohio’s Castle Doctrine gives homeowners the right to defend themselves from intruders.”
How about we change “gives homeowners the right” to “reinforces a homeowner’s right”. We don’t want anyone thinking rights are “granted” by a government entity.
On Dec 24th with cookies and milk out, if a fat guy in a red suit invades my home via chimney he is dead. Period. He’d be lucky if I didn’t shoot him off the roof.
My father served in the reserves. He told me that if he had left his box at the end of his bunk unlocked and one of his fellows stole one of his belongings, he’d be held equally liable for presenting someone with the temptation. Food for thought.
The homeowner did prepare an ambush if you want to call it that. He stayed on the main floor because he had a feeling he might need to. His “ambush” was completely within his rights.
Just like he is within his rights to leave a window unlocked.
No foul here.