Man sucessfully defends home and kills intruder, brother, and housemate

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

I'm fairly confident there was a case really recently - like within the last 2 months or so? where a man who couldn't legally own a firearm skated on a charge when the court found that it was a valid application of self defense. The exact details elude me, I'll see if I can find them.

**Relapse**

Ouze wrote:
I'm fairly confident there was a case really recently - like within the last 2 months or so? where a man who couldn't legally own a firearm skated on a charge when the court found that it was a valid application of self defense. The exact details elude me, I'll see if I can find them.

It would be interesting to see what the circumstances were.

**d-usa**

Relapse wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I'm fairly confident there was a case really recently - like within the last 2 months or so? where a man who couldn't legally own a firearm skated on a charge when the court found that it was a valid application of self defense. The exact details elude me, I'll see if I can find them.

It would be interesting to see what the circumstances were.

I wonder what the technical aspects of "owning" vs "using" are.

If a felon lives with a family and the wife is legally able to own a gun, is the felon allowed to use that gun for self defense if somebody breaks into the house that he is living in with his wife? What about if the gun is owned by a house mate?

**Ouze**

Ok, I found it (I think, my memory is a little hazy).

In part:

A felon who shot and killed a teenager robbing an East Knoxville convenience store will face no charges, according to prosecutors.

Even though state and federal law forbid Issac Jamal Scruggs, 42, from owning a gun, state law also forbids prosecuting him for using that gun to save a life, said Sean McDermott, a Knox County assistant district attorney general.

“Under Tennessee law, if a person justifiably acts in self-defense or in the defense of another, that person cannot be charged with or convicted of any firearm possession crime, including being a felon in possession of a firearm,” McDermott wrote in an email Friday.

Scruggs shot and killed 18-year-old Tamon J. Stapleton as Stapleton held a female clerk at gunpoint behind the counter of the Breadbox, 6210 Asheville Highway, just after 2:30 a.m. Monday, according to the Knoxville Police Department.

However, this is not consistent, as other jurisdictions have charged felons have attempted SYG defenses - although this particular case isn't a great one.

**d-usa**

Seems like this may have been a case where legislators wanted to preempt any kind of firearm charge to be "tough on anti-2nd amendment opponents".

**Ouze**

The only thing that stops a bad legislator with a pen is a good legislator with a pen.

**d-usa**

Pens don't sign bills, governors do?

**Relapse**

Ouze wrote:
Ok, I found it (I think, my memory is a little hazy).

In part:

A felon who shot and killed a teenager robbing an East Knoxville convenience store will face no charges, according to prosecutors.

Even though state and federal law forbid Issac Jamal Scruggs, 42, from owning a gun, state law also forbids prosecuting him for using that gun to save a life, said Sean McDermott, a Knox County assistant district attorney general.

“Under Tennessee law, if a person justifiably acts in self-defense or in the defense of another, that person cannot be charged with or convicted of any firearm possession crime, including being a felon in possession of a firearm,” McDermott wrote in an email Friday.

Scruggs shot and killed 18-year-old Tamon J. Stapleton as Stapleton held a female clerk at gunpoint behind the counter of the Breadbox, 6210 Asheville Highway, just after 2:30 a.m. Monday, according to the Knoxville Police Department.

However, this is not consistent, as other jurisdictions have charged felons have attempted SYG defenses - although this particular case isn't a great one.

Interesting. I wonder how much scrutiny he'll come under after this incident.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Relapse wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Relapse wrote:
You know drug dealers?
Yes.

What have you done about it?
Done about what?

The drug dealers.

I still don't understand your question.

What did I do about the drug dealers I know? Nothing. I did nothing about them because I'm not fething Batman.

**Ouze**

You're the hero this city deserves, but not the one it needs right now.

**motyak**

This thread has a topic it deserves, but not the one it has right now.

**SilverMK2**

If you are in the process of pirating a film from the interwebs and you shoot someone who breaks into your house do you get to be cellmates as you are not legally entitled to "defend yourself" as you are in the act of committing a crime?

**AlmightyWalrus**

Relapse wrote:
If someone is going to kill themselves, for the most part, they are going to do it by whatever means.

I'm going to just leave this here and point out that even compared to suffocation, gun suicides are successful more often.

EDIT: And this while we're at it.

Besides, it's not like people actually need guns to defend themselves, if they're not allowed to have guns they'll find another way if they're determined enough.

Yes, that last part was sarcasm.

**Relapse**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Relapse wrote:
If someone is going to kill themselves, for the most part, they are going to do it by whatever means.

I'm going to just leave this here and point out that even compared to suffocation, gun suicides are successful more often.

EDIT: And this while we're at it.

Besides, it's not like people actually need guns to defend themselves, if they're not allowed to have guns they'll find another way if they're determined enough.

Yes, that last part was sarcasm.

I will agree that guns are indeed lethal, but if we look at Norway, we see a higher per capita suicide rate than the U.S.:

http://www.fhi.no/eway/default.aspx?pid=240&trg=MainContent_6894&Main_6664=6894:0:25,7583:1:0:0:::0:0&MainContent_6894=6706:0:25,7588:1:0:0:::0:0&List_6673=6674:0:25,7599:1:0:0:::0:0

If we were to combine a number of Europeons countries together to equal the population of the U.S., we would see an even higher per capita of suicides. That being said, I will agree that some suicides happen because a gun is acceptable.
Let's discuss this in a new thread, though.

**Da Boss**

I feel like I should point out that Norway is dark for a huge amount of the year which brings with it problems such as a higher suicide rate etc etc.

*shrug*

But arguing in these threads is like pissing into the wind.

I mean, surely anyone can admit that having a gun brings a risk, and you have to balance the risk with the benefits.

The abuses of statistics in this thread make me weep, though.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Never has a thread had more Exalts from me and justification for Ignoring members (wish quotes were also Ignored).

Carry on, wounderful Dakka OT, carry ON!

**motyak**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Never has a thread had more Exalts from me and justification for Ignoring members (wish quotes were also Ignored).

Carry on, wounderful Dakka OT, carry ON!

Posts like this serve a total of 0 purpose, aren't at all relevant to the topic of the thread and don't further the discussion at all.

In short, don't post like this when a mod has already asked people to post on topic in a thread

**Jihadin**

PITTSBURGH (AP) — A former juvenile delinquent fatally shot an armed robber who broke into his apartment through a bathroom window and accidentally shot and killed his visiting teenage brother and his housemate while exchanging shots with the intruder, a district attorney said Wednesday.

Meiko Devaughn has been charged with illegally possessing a firearm, drug possession and receiving stolen property.

Devaughn, who police said was in the "drug business," shot at 25-year-old Kadeem Williams after Williams climbed into the apartment Devaughn shared with Akeilah Solomon at about 3:20 a.m. Monday, said Stephen Zappala Jr., the Allegheny County district attorney.

As the two fired shots at each other, Devaughn, 22, also struck the 20-year-old Solomon and his 16-year-old brother, Jaimill Kenney, with bullets, killing them. Williams was mortally wounded in the exchange but managed to run outside before dying, Zappala said.

It's not clear whether Devaughn will face charges for the shootings, Zappala said, because the investigation is continuing.

"We have to know all the evidence first," the prosecutor said at the scene Tuesday. "You're entitled to protect yourself."

The county medical examiner determined Solomon was shot once in the head, while Kenney and Williams were shot once each in the chest. Kenney was visiting his brother.

Devaughn was adjudicated delinquent, the juvenile court equivalent of a conviction, in 2009 on charges including robbery and aggravated assault. That's why it was illegal for Devaughn to possess the .40-caliber Glock pistol he used, according to a criminal complaint. The gun had been stolen from neighboring Butler County.

Police believe Williams was trying to rob Devaughn because $1,000 worth of marijuana and $14,000 cash were found in the apartment, police said.

Zappala said investigators believe at least one other intruder may have been involved. They didn't find a gun near Williams' body outside the apartment complex but did find shells from a different caliber weapon at the scene, he said.

Online court records don't list an attorney for Devaughn, who was in custody awaiting arraignment Wednesday.

Had to read this...six times to get an idea of the shooting event.
Devaughn possess a stolen .40 cal Glock
Devaughn engages in a shooting match with intruder
Devaughn situatuinal awareness does not notice brother and roomate is in the line of fire.

So he got lucky on the kill shot on Solomon but empty the clip to add another two to the body count.

There's a Bill in PA legislature allowing recreational use of weed.
This is one GOAT ROPE

**NuggzTheNinja**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Whether or not "defending yourself from a burglar" is a valid defence for killing innocent bystanders?

It isn't

Was just looking through the pennsylvania stand your ground laws and it says you lose the cover of the law if you're involved in another crime at the time.

So illegal possession of a firearm and drugs render any defence under SYG void? Seems fair enough, two charges of manslaughter on the way.

Excellent example of current gun laws being sufficient to prosecute criminals.

**The Airman**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Whether or not "defending yourself from a burglar" is a valid defence for killing innocent bystanders?

It isn't

Was just looking through the pennsylvania stand your ground laws and it says you lose the cover of the law if you're involved in another crime at the time.

So illegal possession of a firearm and drugs render any defence under SYG void? Seems fair enough, two charges of manslaughter on the way.

Bingo. OP's agenda just got trashed.

It is your right to defend your home and self, and this one off does not change the overwhelming self defense usage of firearms.

**SilverMK2**

So again, how much crime does one have to undertake in order to lose the right to defend themselves? Unpaid fine? Illegally parked? Pirating films?

Or is a gun, self defence, and other unrelated crime just that; unrelated? Something that should not impinge on your separate right to defend yourself?

**d-usa**

I have an agenda? I need to check it to see what time I serve cocktails.

So I guess there is no point talking about bystanders getting killed in a home defense scenario because the guy shooting shouldn't have had a gun and if he was able to legally carry nobody would have been killed because reasons?

**Relapse**

d-usa wrote:
I have an agenda? I need to check it to see what time I serve cocktails.

So I guess there is no point talking about bystanders getting killed in a home defense scenario because the guy shooting shouldn't have had a gun and if he was able to legally carry nobody would have been killed because reasons?

It's my belief that anyone who obtains a gun of any type should be required to take a safety course.

**Jihadin**

Relapse wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I have an agenda? I need to check it to see what time I serve cocktails.

So I guess there is no point talking about bystanders getting killed in a home defense scenario because the guy shooting shouldn't have had a gun and if he was able to legally carry nobody would have been killed because reasons?

It's my belief that anyone who obtains a gun of any type should be required to take a safety course.

Legally.

the Glock was obtain illegally

D what type of munchies you serving at this Agenda event?

**Relapse**

Jihadin wrote:
Relapse wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I have an agenda? I need to check it to see what time I serve cocktails.

So I guess there is no point talking about bystanders getting killed in a home defense scenario because the guy shooting shouldn't have had a gun and if he was able to legally carry nobody would have been killed because reasons?

It's my belief that anyone who obtains a gun of any type should be required to take a safety course.

Legally.

the Glock was obtain illegally

D what type of munchies you serving at this Agenda event?

Very true. I should have been more clear on that part. I wonder how a course for illegally obtained weapons would run?

**Asherian Command**

The Airman wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Whether or not "defending yourself from a burglar" is a valid defence for killing innocent bystanders?

It isn't

Was just looking through the pennsylvania stand your ground laws and it says you lose the cover of the law if you're involved in another crime at the time.

So illegal possession of a firearm and drugs render any defence under SYG void? Seems fair enough, two charges of manslaughter on the way.

Bingo. OP's agenda just got trashed.

It is your right to defend your home and self, and this one off does not change the overwhelming self defense usage of firearms.

There is no way a lawyer would even attempt to defend a case like this and have any chance of winning.

**Kilkrazy**

Da Boss wrote:
I feel like I should point out that Norway is dark for a huge amount of the year which brings with it problems such as a higher suicide rate etc etc.

*shrug*
...

A better argument would be to point out that what Relapse said is not factually correct. The USA's suicide rate is over 30% higher than Norway's.

**Psienesis**

Relapse wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So the gun wasn't really in his possession?
Sure, allegedly.

I understand that a person is innocent until proven guilty, but you are giving the impression of being contrary for the its own sake.
No, it's called actually abiding by rule of law. Something you claim to understand but clearly don't give a gak about because reasons.

You are stretching the word "entrepreneur" beyond any reasonable definition.
Do you know any drug dealers? I do (or did, he doesn't deal drugs any more), and it's pretty hard work.

You know drug dealers? What have you done about it?

Got high as feth and had a good time.

**NuggzTheNinja**

d-usa wrote:
I have an agenda? I need to check it to see what time I serve cocktails.

So I guess there is no point talking about bystanders getting killed in a home defense scenario because the guy shooting shouldn't have had a gun and if he was able to legally carry nobody would have been killed because reasons?

If the resident didn't own a gun, clearly everyone involved would still be alive since the criminal who entered his home, with a gun, had no intention of hurting anyone. Is that the assumption we're working with?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Psienesis wrote:
Relapse wrote:

You know drug dealers? What have you done about it?

Got high as feth and had a good time.

I'm going to venture a guess here, but most people who would be willing to injure or kill someone over drugs would probably be willing to do so over a smudged Puma or parking space.

**Relapse**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
I feel like I should point out that Norway is dark for a huge amount of the year which brings with it problems such as a higher suicide rate etc etc.

*shrug*
...

A better argument would be to point out that what Relapse said is not factually correct. The USA's suicide rate is over 30% higher than Norway's.

The government statistics for both countries back my claim:

In the U.S., a little over 12 suicides per 100,000

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide-datasheet-a.pdf

From the CDC report:

"There were 41,149 suicides in 2013 in the United States—a rate of 12.6 per 100,000 is equal to 113 suicides each day or one every 13 minutes."

In Norway, which has more restrictive gun laws, 21 per 100,000

http://www.fhi.no/eway/default.aspx?pid=240&trg=MainContent_6894&Main_6664=6894:0:25,7583:1:0:0:::0:0&MainContent_6894=6706:0:25,7588:1:0:0:::0:0&List_6673=6674:0:25,7599:1:0:0:::0:0

From the Norwegian report:

In 2014 there were 401 suicides among men and 147 among women, which equates to 15 suicides per 100,000 men and 6 per 100,000 women (non-standardized figures).

Per capita, as I said, there is a higher incidence of suicide, in which the most popular methods are hanging and poison. If France were added into the per capita mix with Norway, the difference would be higher. If enough Europeons countries were added in to equal the population of the U.S., we would find the suicide rate exceeds the U.S. IN raw numbers.
That being said, I won't deny some suicides would not happen if a gun were absent, but as someone said earlier, the benifits of people (legally that's me saying this)owning a gun should be weighed against the risk.