[Karter]

Interesting local story here.

CHARLOTTE, N.C.-- An elderly man who was tied up and robbed in his own home by four teens may face charges after police say he chased the suspects down and shot one of them to death.

The story reads like its a legal quagmire. The legal story seems totally crystal clear to me. I'm curious what others think.

 

[pcon]

I voted no simply on the limited facts present. However, the article reads:

North Carolina law allows a homeowner to defend himself against an intruder who is breaking into his home, but not necessarily one who is running away, defense attorney George Laughrun told Newschannel 36.

Since the confrontation between the elder McClure and Fluker happened after they left McClure’s property, other factors will determine whether McClure is charged.

The most prominent factor is whether McClure faced a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury, said Laughrun.

If the teen was pulling out a gun or preparing to fire when McClure shot him, the shooting could be ruled as self-defense.

Police said at least one of the teens possessed a gun when they allegedly broke into McClure’s home, but don’t say whether they possessed the gun during the confrontation or pointed it at McClure

that's the key...I think that will be the tipping point on if he's charged or not.

 

[aimhigh]

If the person is leaving is not consider a danger anymore...

 

[edr9x23super]

If they had robbed him of property and especially money, which can be of short supply for an elderly person, I would say absolutely.

But then again, I am from Texas, where we shoot thieves even if they are robbing our neighbors' homes.....

 

[EdC]

No. The immediate harm/castle doctrine protection, was over when the BG's left the house. Even if his story was that he followed them to get an i.d., and the BG he shot pulled a gun, the shooting wouldn't be justified, at least under Indiana law. The shooter voluntarily put himself back into a deadly situation. If he was so worried about his wife upstairs, he should have called the cops and stayed with her. What was he thinking? It looks very bad for him, and I'd be interested to what the additional facts turn out to be. I think he's screwed.

 

[TucAzRider]

I say yes it is,.. But I know the law will not say the same thing... .

 

[scgunlover1]

I say yes it is,.. But I know the law will not say the same thing... .

Same here on your comment. If I were on the jury I would not vote to send the old man to the bighouse.

 

[tiwee]

If charges are filed, the old gentleman needs to ask for a jury trial. Based upon these facts, I would have a hard time voting to convict.

 

[TRUEFLUSH21]

Yea its sad that we live in a time where theives and punks end up dragging other good (albeit stupid) people down with them.
but from a legal standpoint I think he is screwed. although pcon brought up an interesting point about how he wasn't sure if the thieves were still armed. If he is able to articulate that he was in fear of his life, he MIGHT have a leg to stand on. But I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[fox2102]

This is why you dont mess with old people........

 

[quantum36]

This is one reason to always carry, even at home. Had he been carrying when they broke in..........

 

[KimBobTex]

I wish the old man could've taken care of all 4 while in his home ... end of story!

My wife thinks I'm crazy, but this is why I've started carrying full time around the house the last few months. Used to keep it in my night stand full time while at home, but any front-door attack into my home puts the BG between me & my gun unless I'm in bed ... not any more.

Even thinking about 2 or 3 more guns to "plant" strategically in the kitchen & front living areas.

 

[miklcolt45]

Based upon the information available, no, the shooting is not legal.

Should it be allowed? Perhaps that is a different story.

 

[David in FL]

Defensible?

Of course not. Retaliation is not self-defense. Whether we'd like it to be, or not.

It concerns me that of those that have answered thus far, half of the people on this forum don't understand that.

 

[steelhawk]

The old man may be in legal trouble, but, realistically, gang crime is out of control and increasing. The politicians have no stones, the judges are weak, and the police only get there after it has happened.

The only way gang crime is going to be ended is with citizen action.

 

[archer51]

While I empathize with the man, what he did was not justified under NC law. Hopefully a jury will take his age into account.

 

[EdC]

Defensible?

Of course not. Retaliation is not self-defense. Whether we'd like it to be, or not.

It concerns me that half of the people on this forum don't understand that.

+1. It concerns me, too. If I were on his jury I could vote to convict, and send him to the big house. The moment he walked out his door with his gun to look for the home invaders he ceased being a crime victim and became a vigilante (criminal). I didn't find anything in the story to lead me to believe the contrary. If the guy he killed pulled a gun on him, that would mitigate what the old guy did, but that's all. He went looking for trouble.

A sorry way to end up in your golden years, but I don't like the idea of hotheads running around with guns any more than I like the idea of gangbangers robbing people.

 

[obxned]

The physical and emotional stress of the ordeal this poor man was subjected to by 4 thugs created a state of mind in the victim such that he felt his actions were the only way to make it stop.

Obviously, such thinking is not correct or legally sound, but had he never been set upon by these vicious criminals in such a terrifying fashion, the elderly gentleman would never have hurt a soul. Being violently thrown into a surreal situation, his normally sound judgment was impaired.

NOT GUILTY by reason of diminished capacity.

The surviving thugs are guilty of felony murder.

 

[RETSUPT99]

With as little sympathy that I have for this type of crime, the elderly fellow should not have chased the dirtbags after the fact.
If he had shot them all in his home, I would have wanted to give him a good 'Citizen's Defense Award", but I believe he may be in some trouble for what he did.
Hopefully, he will be able to articulate at reasonable defense...he's going to need a great lawyer.

 

[DM2]

Defensible?

Of course not. Retaliation is not self-defense. Whether we'd like it to be, or not.

It concerns me that of those that have answered thus far, half of the people on this forum don't understand that.

I agree. From what I have read so far in In The Gravest Extreme the home invasion and the confrontation later are two separate incidents... in the first he was the victim, in the second he is the aggressor. Now, if he has a good lawyer, he may be able to spin it in his favor and draw some sympathy from the jury. But based on the law, it appears he would be wrong in the death.

I feel sorry for the elderly man. It's just sad he had to go through any of this, not to mention what possibly could come next.