The Aftermath: Stolen Car and Handguns Save Self Defense Claim

Self-Defense True Stories
1

Welcome to Aftermath, a portion of our First Line email newsletter where Attorney Anthony L. DeWitt walks you through a real-life self-defense incident and shares his key takeaways.

Two Kansas teens were discussing their next targets of a Wichita home as they raised the garage door. The homeowner overheard them and went into the garage to confront the intruders armed with a shotgun. One teen took rounds to the leg while the other caught a round in the torso. Both were transported to a local hospital. The car they were driving was stolen. And there were two stolen handguns in the car. Police did not pursue charges against the shooter.

Can you identify any problems with the homeowner’s actions? What should he have done instead? Compare your response to an attorney’s when the First Line newsletter hits your mailbox, March 1.

4 Likes
2

I don’t know if it qualifies as a “problem”, but, it’s definitely less safe to open the door and confront multiple unknowns than it is to stay locked in your home.

I don’t know what the homeowner “should” have done instead, but what I would likely have done and would probably recommend, for whatever that’s worth (or not), is to stay inside behind the locked door.

Having a gun doesn’t make you bulletproof. Or knife proof. Or anything proof.

4 Likes
3

From the description it sounds as though the garage was detached from the main dwelling. In this case, it would be prudent to call LE as this would be a case of B&E of property, and not a threat against one’s person. I don’t know if I’d call it a mistake, but becoming the investigator may not have been the prudent thing to do. Call 911 and be a good witness. As for the shooting, this homeowner could use a class in marksmanship. Now, assailants may have a claim of “maiming.” If the guns were stolen and, in the car, other than a possible disparity of force, the miscreants did not have means, and the stolen car is of no consequence for the homeowner, as they were not in use as a threat according to your scenario.

If this case is not closed, then one can only say, the shooter has not been charged…yet.

3 Likes
4

He should have stayed behind a locked door and called 911. Other “prosecutors” in certain areas would charge the homeowner for shooting them. What he did could be construed as “stuff defense”, which generally is not recommended for obvious reasons.

Now, if they break into his home proper through that same locked door, the situation has changed.

6 Likes
5

Welcome to Kansas.

“A person is justified in the use of force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon such person’s dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle.”

If the homeowner was smart enough to calculate the risk before confrontation - he did exactly what every man would do to protect the property if Law allows to do so. Each of us knows his / her capabilities and limitations.
Calling 911 before the confrontation would be a great idea.

6 Likes
6

Out of curiosity, are you sure a garage counts as a dwelling?

Does it change if the garage is attached or detached? I am guessing this is an attached garage but it’s not necessarily clear from the OP

3 Likes
7

It is not clear but based on the info I assumed the garage was attached.

The homeowner overheard them and went into the garage

Anyway, even the garage is not attached to the main building, Kansas Law is petty clear about it:

A person who is lawfully in possession of property other than a dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle is justified in the use of force for the purpose of preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with such property.

1 Like
8

The usual question and comment:

The homeowner overheard them -why did you not call the cops?

went into the garage to confront the intruders armed with a shotgun -you had clear intentions to kill, wait it’s a progressive defense lawyer so the correct term is murder not kill.

At a minimum, I would have been on the phone with PD, saying I’m armed and ready to defend myself if the thugs broke into my home.

5 Likes
9

Does that force include lethal force?

I’m not a lawyer, and I am not interpreting the law (as I cannot), but, my lay person perspective is that laws generally differentiate between “force” or “ordinary force” or so such, and “lethal force”

Looking at all of KS from the USCCA page seems to follow this pattern, force and deadly force being used differently, with different requirements…and the property one just says force, not “deadly force”

" Defense of Person
A person is justified in the use of force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against the imminent use of unlawful force.

A person is justified in the use of deadly force if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.

Defense of Dwelling, Place of Work or Occupied Vehicle
A person is justified in the use of force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon such person’s dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle.

A person is justified in the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate unlawful entry into or attack upon any dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or another.

Defense of Property Other Than Dwelling, Place of Work or Occupied Vehicle
A person who is lawfully in possession of property other than a dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle is justified in the use of force for the purpose of preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with such property. Only such use of force as a reasonable person would deem necessary to prevent or terminate the interference may intentionally be used.

[Kan. Stat. Ann § 21-5222, 21-5223, 21-5224 & 21-5225]"

3 Likes
10

AthleticGoldenDormouse-max-1mb

3 Likes
11

Being that there are two teens who are probably faster than I am and able to overcome me endangering myself so, it would be stupid of me to enter the garage without something for self-defense like CS gas and a gun for back-up. Beyond all of that I feel as though not having your garage locked up in the first place is all on him. As for the laws of defending your property, that is a jurisdiction quarry of whether it is legal to do so or not. The scenario of in fear of your life comes to play too.
I have Meth heads that come up to the camera I have mounted and waved at the camera. Their faces are covered, and they knew I was not home at the time. LEO will not come out on these calls because they are not of great threat to anyone’s life.

3 Likes
12

It was wrong for those two trespassers to open the garage door. For that alone, that seems warranted for an arrest.

Just because those police chose not to press charges, does not mean in another case, the police would also not. Remember, even the two burglars can press charges, or their family file a civil suit. You can still lose a case in civil court. That is a very serious life changing event.

Instead of the homeowner moving to the garage, he could have remained in his home, for safer confines, and called 911?

What if both of those trespassers died?

What exactly did the homeowner hear them say?

Did their words include planning to “steal”, or “harm” life? “He said, she said”?

What happened right before he fired?

Remember, the homeowner would not know their background, or that they had a stolen a car, or had guns in their car. It turned out later – they did. I’m guessing that in court, those facts might help his case.

So, other than what they said, how high a threat were they for lethal force?

The homeowner will be scrutinized as to why he felt he had to shoot. They will ask if it was self-defense or not.

They will ask, other than opening that garage door, what else did they do? Is that all that different from if they opened a regular side door to a garage by turning the handle and pushing open the door?

State laws may differ, of course. Think, if your’e not the police, don’t act like the police. Let your life be led by love, acceptance, and peace. Don’t let negative feelings dictate your decisions or actions.

There might be a time when your life is on the line and lethal force warranted. But you can also go your whole life, and that never occur. Be a student of knowing when to know the difference.

KISS: Lock “all” your doors and carry on.

Stay safe.

6 Likes
13

And we know…this is the piece that will be tried vigorously given this scenario.

3 Likes
14

This is very disconcerting, but fail not to report anyway, because a stack may justify adverse action) and may also prove that you were not “an ole boy crying, wolf.” You just may never know. Failing to report and then something adverse does happen, you may be justified, and you be charged with failing to report. The ownness is on LE for failing to respond to previous reporting.

4 Likes
15

This is the key missing information for me. What did the criminals do when the homeowner entered the garage? Hard to say whether the actions were justifiable or not without that info.

Though from a tactical perspective it is risky entering the garage when you suspect there are two criminals in there and you don’t know if they are armed and ready to respond to your entry. The safer bet would have been to call the police and cover the door from the garage to the house from a secure spot.

6 Likes
16

This is Exactly how the media dupes us into believing their side of the story or their narrative.

Facts:
2 teens over heard discussing their next targets while opening the garage door. - No indication as to where the HO was in relation to the garage.

HO went into the garage and confronted them with a shotgun. Were the teens armed at the time?

The teens were shot and transported to a local hospital. Was there a confrontation?

The car they were driving was stolen and there were two stolen handguns in the car. Did the teens retreat from the garage and get in the car and drive away to be found later?

There is not enough clear lines in the story to draw any conclusions about the scenario. Obviously the police, who are familiar with all the facts, felt that charges were not warranted. That means there is a whole lot of story missing and the headline is click bait.

Cheers,

Craig6

8 Likes
17

Was he already in the garage?

1 Like
18

You almost had me here. But what you did do was make me look at “exactly” what the Op laid before us. He began the scenario with: “Two teens were discussing their next move…” He did not say “they were “overhead” discussing their next target…”" We assumed this. Or this is a “false memory.” What the homeowner heard was them raising the garage door to his property and went to confront the intruders. Mind you, they didn’t break in, but they “raised” the garage door. There is nothing to indicate how or by what means they gained entry (obviously because this is not important in this scenario). The homeowner went into the garage because these two were on his property, and he began shooting them. Now, the intruders had stolen guns, but they were in the vehicle, which was also stolen. So even though it was two of them, both were “transported” (meaning they didn’t carry themselves). We assumed again, that either LE, the miscreants themselves, or EMS transported them. Yet again, the text is silent to the how. The Police did not pursue charges, because Police don’t pursue charges, the Prosecutor pursues charges.

This only leads us back to the clear questions of the Op. “Can you identify any problems with the homeowner’s actions?” That is a specific question. “What should he have done instead?” Another clear and specific question. So, though we have made this a bit of a rabbit trail, our focus is off. Though we will not find out any more specifics about what the homeowner should have done until March 1, we can see that the homeowner may have had a clear opportunity to stay his hind parts in the house and call 911 and be a good witness.

Now, I could have totally blown it, but it is interesting how we each dissected this thing as if we were in a lab, but missed what should have been our sole focus, the homeowner. In fact, we added to the scenario what doesn’t exist. The Op only asks questions about the homeowner’s actions, and that is all. Which further prove that the physiological effects are very, very real, and why it is very prudent that we consult with an Attorney before making official statements about the details of an incident.

Quoting the law is one thing, but the trying of that law is a whole nother, other thing. We need an Attorney who examines the law and case law, context and application, common law, etc. as they may apply.

So, March 1 will be an interesting reveal.

Cheers backatcha!

David237

4 Likes
19

I suspected it to be a riddle and your comment inclines me to think it may be because police don’t press charges. I live about 40 minutes to an hour from a police showing up at my home. I would definitely call police but don’t know how long I could hold myself or my wife from confrontation.

4 Likes
20

1st, you never pull your weapon in a garage theft. Call the cops, let them take what they want, it’s “things” that can be replaced. Life cannot. Unfortunately this person did not have a Home security plan in place.

4 Likes