It’s been a good week for seniors. First a 92-year-old woman from Wales provided a sliver of hope that the UK isn’t a total loss. At least not yet. And over here a 72-year-old Reno resident stopped not one, not two but three home invaders. How, you ask, did an elderly man who walks with a cane hold off three burly burglars in the middle of the night all by himself? He did it with a handgun he keeps by his bed for self defense. But you probably knew that…
The homeowner had awakened about 3 a.m., Friday after hearing people in his home in the 200 block of Bartlett St., according to a police report. Authorities said the man had possessed a gun as protection from an earlier recent burglary, and confronted the suspects in the hallway with his gun. He fired shots at Rogers, who police said fled the residence with a third suspect, Guy Ruiz, 44.
The homeowner plugged Rogers center of mass. But when the leaking burglar took off along with Ruiz (above left), that left the photogenic Robert Marin (above right) still in the house with a knife. The homeowner held Marin off at gun point, but was exhausted and didn’t have a phone with which to call the police.
The elderly gentleman held Marin for four hours while he tried to regain his strength after all the excitement. That’s when Marin tried to jump him. But that backfired, so to speak. When Marin hit the homeowner’s gun hand with his cane, he fired, hitting Marin in the wrist. It took another four hours for the older man to recover again, finally forcing Marin outside at gunpoint where he asked a neighbor to call the cops.
Thankfully, the unnamed resident wasn’t hurt during the eight hour incident. For that, he can thank the fact that he owned a gun and knew how to use it. I’d buy a ticket to hear Dennis Henigan explain to the elderly homeowner how much safer he’d have been without a gun.
This is an excellent rejoinder to the argument “If we could just get rid of ALL the guns.” Colt (or Glock or Ruger or whomever) sure made this man equal to his three attackers, and then some.
Exactly. In a world without guns people wouldn’t stop committing crimes, it’s just that the outcomes of those encounters would be determined muscle-mass alone. Who comes out on the dirty end of that stick? Women, the elderly and the handicapped.
I’ll never understand why the AARP isn’t one of the biggest gun-rights lobbies in America.
+1
I’ll never understand why the AARP isn’t one of the biggest gun-rights lobbies in America.
Because AARP is busy kissing Presidential ass, that’s why.
Kissing Left-Leaning ass in whatever form.
Right. We would be reduced to hacking at one another with machetes and clubs. It’s as if they want a return to feudalism – oh wait…
+2
Very glad to hear that another citizen of this great country does not only believes in his right to defend himself but also practices it. He should have plucked all those in his house cause you know he might not live to see this A Holes get out of jail but other fellow citizens of this nation will and this was not their last crime.
Kill cause a dead man tells not tails and if the cops show up and find three (most likely) convicted felons laying dead in a 72 years old person they won’t argue that they were up to no good and deserve everything that they got.
If you don’t agree this three are scumbags then you are not better than them. Regardless of the reason that drove them to crime.
Morally and emotionally I’m with you 100%.
Legally though I don’t advise taking shots at someone who’s obviously fleeing the scene. When you do that you’ve crossed the line between self-defense and attempted murder, and going over that line tends to ruin the lives of law-abiding folks.
James Felix, mostly you are correct but it depends on the state. Some states still recognize the common law “fleeing felon rule” that allows the use of deadly force on a felon during the immediate flight from the commission of certain crimes. In such states, burglary committed on an occupied dwelling would qualify. All state laws differ, so it’s critical to have specific knowledge of the laws in the jurisdiction where the act occurs.
FYI, even if the laws in my jurisdiction permitted firing at a fleeing felon, I don’t know why I’d do such a thing. Winning the fight would be enough for me. I wouldn’t need the guy’s scalp on my belt. Others’ MMV.
I had no idea such a rule existed. Very interesting.
+1 on winning the fight being enough, btw.
Because it is unreasonable to assume that they have fled the scene and WILL NEVER RETURN. They may be fleeing the scene to come at you from another entrance. Or they could be going to get a weapon. Or they could be going to signal others in their crew.
We cannot hold a homeowner to the flawed logic that because the person who has threatened their life is moving away that the situation is resolved. In this case, 3 grown men broke into an elderly man’s home. We all agree that he was threatened to the point that lethal force was justified. Now, details become very important. Had he shot the remaining fellow who had armed himself with a knife, I believe he had a valid legal defense. But had he shot the two fellows who were fleeing, who is to say they would not have grabbed a fire poker from the mantle, come back and attacked him. They have already demonstated a disregard for felony law. He has already poked a hole in one of the crew. Are they thinking rationally? Are they on drugs? Do they believe he is hiding the Hope Diamond in his basement and are willing to kill to get to it?
We can agree that firing shots down your driveway at a fleeing suspect may not be wise or just. But considering what the victim may be perceiving, many jurisdictions have made the turn to benefit the homeowner/victim. Not trying to be small-minded, but moving away from your victim once you have put them in fear for their lives does not suspend their right to self-defense. You need to leave their property and keeping moving or lay flat on the ground or kneel with your hands in the air. But just running out into the dark does not keep your life safe.
“We cannot hold a homeowner to the flawed logic that because the person who has threatened their life is moving away that the situation is resolved.”
As far as I know the law does indeed hold people to exactly that standard, at least where I live.
Would I like to see every homeowner put two in the heart of any home invader? Sure I would. But if a perp turns up dead with entry wounds in his back you should plan on having a chat with the DA.
And before you post a lengthy reply in an attempt to convince me please note that ethically and emotionally I agree with you. I’m not the one you need to convince, various state legislatures are.
The law does not have to make sense but it is the law none the less. We cannot claim to be law abiding citizens and ignore the ones we disagree. The anti’s are very adept at using emotions of the morally outraged people to pass idiot laws. We have to beat them using the same system and it does not always work for us. We need to continue to be active in local, State and National issues.
Hey, Sid, I’m on your side. All your points are valid. I’m just saying that I wouldn’t shoot someone in the back while they’re running away. But to me, this is really an academic argument. In the unlikely and unfortunate event that I have to shoot a bad guy, the odds of him remaining ambulatory will be right up there with me joining the Brady Campaign Against America.
That wouldn’t make any difference in Texas where I live. We don’t coddle criminals down here.
What shocks me the most about this is that after firing multiple shots inside his house, it took 8 hours and him going outside and yelling for a neighbor to call the cops. I would hope if something similar happened to me that my neighbors would come see what’s going on or at least call the cops to come investigate multiple gunshots
4 hours? He’s a humanitarian. The castle doctrine would have cancelled that scumbag’s ticket right away.
How come Mikeb is conspicuously absent from these threads?
He’s researching “What Would Polyanna Do?” on Wikipedia.
Maybe his meds finally kicked in and he’s thinking straight.
Nice to have a story on here where having a gun saved the day. We’ve been on kind of a run of where not having a gun failed to save the day.
Noted and logged.
I’m willing to bet that the bad guy was just retreating to another room so that he could plan on how to ambush the homeowner.
To me , three young fellas against an old man negates the issue of whether the punks had weapons or not. The sheer unarmed force they could exert against that poor man is more than reason enough for him to use a gun in his defense. In my world any young fella trying to take advantage of a senior citizen deserves to get shot.
Outststanding that it turned out this way. But this isn’t the reason for the 2nd amendment.
We own our weapons as a last resort, to defend ourselves against our government.
That is a gun rights fanatics fantasy. The Second Amendment is there so that (a) we have a population that is familiar with guns before they enter military service and (b) that the citizen can defend himself when and where government authority is lacking. (Another use for the militia). It is only as a byproduct of a and b that we have the means to defend ourselves against an oppressive government.
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. ” —Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” —Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
During the Massachusetts ratifying convention William Symmes warned that the new government at some point “shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection.” Yet fears of standing armies were groundless, affirmed Theodore Sedwick, who queried, “if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?”
“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” —Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
Henry sneered,
“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all?”
There are other quotes, but you can see that the men who labored so hard to bequeath unto us as perfect a document (our Constitution) as they could were quite clear that “A” primary purpose for Amendment II was to prevent government tyranny by force of arms if necessary. WE the PEOPLE are Sovereign here, not the Congress, not the President, and not the Supreme Court. We are established as a Constitutional Republic, so that there can not be a “tyranny of the majority”, such as has occured in Europe, where they have not the Constitutional Limitations on Government that we should be enjoying.
I swore to support and defend the Constitution, not a tyrannt-president, nor a tyrant-congress, against all enemies foreign and domestic. I still hold to that after 41 years in uniform. I will hold to it still after my upcoming retirement.
Nothing you quoted contradicts my post. The general effect of the Second Amendment is to arm the population. However, the purpose of arming the population was to provide for a militia which was intended to be the primary method of defending the country. The whole of the people concept ofa a militia experiment came to an inglorious end with the Blackhawk War.
remember in this “land of the free” every new law takes away some kind of freedom. and just cause you don’t break the law does not mean the person next to you isn’t… illegal does not mean that no one will have a gun. it means the people that will only use it in self defense will not have a gun.
Comments are closed.