Burglar shot, grandfather says AR-15 made it an unfair fight

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Grandfather of Oklahoma teen killed by homeowner in burglary says AR15 made for ‘unfair’ fight

Three Oklahoma teenagers were killed last week when they broke into a house and were met by a homeowner with an AR15. Now the grandfather of one of the teenagers is speaking out about his grandson’s death.

According to KTUL-TV, Leroy Schumacher, grandfather of 17-year-old Jacob Redfearn, believes the death of Redfearn was unjustified because the homeowner’s AR15 gave him an unfair advantage over the three burglars.

Speaking to KTUL, Schumacher acknowledged that breaking into a house was “stupid,” but death was not the appropriate consequence.

“What these three boys did was stupid,” Schumacher said. “They knew they could be punished for it but they did not deserve to die.”

“Brass knuckles against an AR-15? C’mon. Who was afraid for their life?” Schumacher said.

The homeowner who pulled the trigger has not been charged with any crimes because police say he acted in self-defense.

Interesting story on several layers. It is conventional wisdom that an AR-15 cannot be used for home defense because it is a mass murder weapon. The grandfather in the article shows why criminals love gun control. Also, there is a seer who will be triggered because the burglar was white.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, first off, fights are supposed to be unfair. Anybody who gives someone a fair fight deserves to fucking die.

While breaking into a home shouldn't be a capital offense, it's really hard to feel any pity for someone who dies while doing it. In terms of it being self-defense, did they attack him or was it simply the fact that they were in his house the justification to fire an automatic weapon at them as his first move?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Personally, I think the very presence of a burglar in your home constitutes a threat. Their brass knuckles do support that.

I have no way of reading the burglar's mind and finding out it they are thinking "I'm a nice friendly burglar who is only here to rob you" or "I'm a mean burglar who hurts people if they are at home when I rob their house."

That's why I think they weren't killed for burglary but for self defense.

 

[laughing dog]

If the burglars saw the AR-15 and said "Oops, we are leaving" and the homeowner shot them, then they was no self-defense. If the home owner gave them no chance to show their intentions, then they were not killed for self-defense reasons. But without some sort of evidence to the contrary, the assumption will be that this homeowner acted in self-defense.

 

[Jayjay]

What's stupid is bringing brass knuckles to a gun fight.

That aside, given that the getaway driver herself was charged with a first-degree murder and multiple other burglaries, along with the brass knuckles, implies that these weren't just kids being kids but rather violent criminals. Good riddance.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If the burglars saw the AR-15 and said "Oops, we are leaving" and the homeowner shot them, then they was no self-defense. If the home owner gave them no chance to show their intentions, then they were not killed for self-defense reasons. But without some sort of evidence to the contrary, the assumption will be that this homeowner acted in self-defense.

Ya, I mean if he'd had a pistol and fired a warning shot into the ceiling while still upstairs, it probably would have had the same amount of success at saving his life. Not really worth the effort of an investigation and giving a shit about the lives of this lot, though, and you can just assume self-defense and move on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Grandfather of Oklahoma teen killed by homeowner in burglary says AR15 made for ‘unfair’ fight

Three Oklahoma teenagers were killed last week when they broke into a house and were met by a homeowner with an AR15. Now the grandfather of one of the teenagers is speaking out about his grandson’s death.

According to KTUL-TV, Leroy Schumacher, grandfather of 17-year-old Jacob Redfearn, believes the death of Redfearn was unjustified because the homeowner’s AR15 gave him an unfair advantage over the three burglars.

Speaking to KTUL, Schumacher acknowledged that breaking into a house was “stupid,” but death was not the appropriate consequence.

“What these three boys did was stupid,” Schumacher said. “They knew they could be punished for it but they did not deserve to die.”

“Brass knuckles against an AR-15? C’mon. Who was afraid for their life?” Schumacher said.

The homeowner who pulled the trigger has not been charged with any crimes because police say he acted in self-defense.

Interesting story on several layers. It is conventional wisdom that an AR-15 cannot be used for home defense because it is a mass murder weapon. The grandfather in the article shows why criminals love gun control. Also, there is a seer who will be triggered because the burglar was white.

Wait... three teenagers who broke into a house and were gunned down by the owner... and I'm just hearing about this?

 

[laughing dog]

What's stupid is bringing brass knuckles to a gun fight.

That aside, given that the getaway driver herself was charged with a first-degree murder and multiple other burglaries, along with the brass knuckles, implies that these weren't just kids being kids but rather violent criminals. Good riddance.

How does this show that these kids were violent criminals?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What's stupid is bringing brass knuckles to a gun fight.

That aside, given that the getaway driver herself was charged with a first-degree murder and multiple other burglaries, along with the brass knuckles, implies that these weren't just kids being kids but rather violent criminals. Good riddance.

How does this show that these kids were violent criminals?

Doesn't this bring up a morality question. Is it okay to kill people that will only rough you up? They had brass knuckles, not guns. Guns will kill you, brass knuckles will seriously rough you up.

So then we ask ourselves, what does the "violent" mean in violent criminal? Merely the threat of getting beaten or the threat of loss of life? And what level of threat is it okay to kill preemptively?

Of course, invading a home in numbers is sure the heck intimidating, and one can't exactly fault someone feeling their life is in danger. But then we have this fog of self-defense, where the guy who does the killing is certainly in absolutely no position to admit just opening fire indiscriminately.

 

[Playball40]

As sad as it is, these kids took a chance and lost. Three with brass knuckles isn't a fair fight against one homeowner either. If I were home alone and 3 guys with knuckles broke in, I would immediately assume my life was in danger. Unless brass knuckles are now a burglary tool.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What? The home owner didn't have a rocket launcher handy? He didn't have landmines buried along his fence line? What an amateur.

 

[Jayjay]

What's stupid is bringing brass knuckles to a gun fight.

That aside, given that the getaway driver herself was charged with a first-degree murder and multiple other burglaries, along with the brass knuckles, implies that these weren't just kids being kids but rather violent criminals. Good riddance.

How does this show that these kids were violent criminals?

As others have mentioned, you don't need brass knuckles unless you are expecting to seriously hurt someone. And the association with a murderer and a serial burglar makes it likely that the ones killed were from the same cloth.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There wasn’t an association with a murderer. The getaway driver was charged with murder afterwards because people died during a crime she was committing.

 

[laughing dog]

As others have mentioned, you don't need brass knuckles unless you are expecting to seriously hurt someone.

No one needs brass knuckles. But you might be carrying them in case you are attacked (eve if you are a burglar). That does not automatically make you a violent criminal.

And the association with a murderer and a serial burglar makes it likely that the ones killed were from the same cloth.

As Tom Sawyer pointed out, the charge of murder is felony murder because someone involved in the crime was killed. And, burglars, serial or not, are not usually violent criminals.

I am not saying these people were not violent criminals. But there is really no evidence as yet to suggest they are violent criminals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Personally, I think the very presence of a burglar in your home constitutes a threat. Their brass knuckles do support that.

Yeah, the brass knuckles make it clear they were quite willing to use a dangerous level of force against anyone they encountered.

I have no way of reading the burglar's mind and finding out it they are thinking "I'm a nice friendly burglar who is only here to rob you" or "I'm a mean burglar who hurts people if they are at home when I rob their house."

That's why I think they weren't killed for burglary but for self defense.

A pretty good test for the friendly burglar--they do what they can to ensure the house is empty (or at least the part they are hitting--I've heard of this type doing things like hitting the bedroom while a party was going on elsewhere in the house) before burgling it and run at first hint they were wrong.

A burglar in an occupied house should be assumed a threat and that's what the castle doctrine is about--you are granted a rebuttable presumption that an intruder is a threat.

- - - Updated - - -

What's stupid is bringing brass knuckles to a gun fight.

That aside, given that the getaway driver herself was charged with a first-degree murder and multiple other burglaries, along with the brass knuckles, implies that these weren't just kids being kids but rather violent criminals. Good riddance.

The first degree murder charges are from felony murder, it wouldn't require any other illegal acts.

To me the biggest thing is the brass knuckles. That means they were planning to beat up anyone they encountered.

- - - Updated - - -

What's stupid is bringing brass knuckles to a gun fight.

That aside, given that the getaway driver herself was charged with a first-degree murder and multiple other burglaries, along with the brass knuckles, implies that these weren't just kids being kids but rather violent criminals. Good riddance.

How does this show that these kids were violent criminals?

Doesn't this bring up a morality question. Is it okay to kill people that will only rough you up? They had brass knuckles, not guns. Guns will kill you, brass knuckles will seriously rough you up.

Brass knuckles can kill. Bare-hands beatings can kill.

I have no problem with someone shooting to avoid being seriously roughed up.

 

[ZiprHead]

People say stupid things when they are grieving. Derec brings it up all the time when it black people.

Don't be like Derec.

 

[Opoponax]

Not knowing the facts of how each burglar died, it's hard to say whether the killing of each one was justified.

For all three to be killed presents some pretty remarkable circumstances. That's at least three clean shots at three people facing you and refusing to leave, or charging at you. Or maybe it was one shot that went through one person and into another, resulting in a one shot, two kills event. Etc.

This could be a situation where the killing of one was justified, but not the other two. Or, two were justified, one was not, and so on.

If any were shot in the back while fleeing, it goes quickly from self-defense to murder, but could be reduced to voluntary manslaughter given the circumstances (killing in the heat of passion with no time to cool off during an event that would raise such passions in an ordinary person).

As for the AR being a primo home defense weapon, in all but incredibly unlikely circumstances, it's a poor choice due to the threat of over penetration. Even the "home-defense" rounds still leave the barrel at anywhere from 2900-3300 feet per second. If you miss and that projectile leaves your house, the potential for killing an innocent person is very real.

Just jump to 12:20 or so of the following video and watch it from there to get not just an idea of the penetrating power of ARs and AKs, but also the unpredictability of where the projectile's going to go following an initial impact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am5avCq64oU&t=55s

A semi-auto shotgun in 12 or even 20 gauge is a much better choice. Aim center mass and you can't miss; and the risk of killing someone down the street is practically nil.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, the brass knuckles make it clear they were quite willing to use a dangerous level of force against anyone they encountered.



A pretty good test for the friendly burglar--they do what they can to ensure the house is empty (or at least the part they are hitting--I've heard of this type doing things like hitting the bedroom while a party was going on elsewhere in the house) before burgling it and run at first hint they were wrong.

A burglar in an occupied house should be assumed a threat and that's what the castle doctrine is about--you are granted a rebuttable presumption that an intruder is a threat.

- - - Updated - - -

What's stupid is bringing brass knuckles to a gun fight.

That aside, given that the getaway driver herself was charged with a first-degree murder and multiple other burglaries, along with the brass knuckles, implies that these weren't just kids being kids but rather violent criminals. Good riddance.

The first degree murder charges are from felony murder, it wouldn't require any other illegal acts.

To me the biggest thing is the brass knuckles. That means they were planning to beat up anyone they encountered.

- - - Updated - - -

What's stupid is bringing brass knuckles to a gun fight.

That aside, given that the getaway driver herself was charged with a first-degree murder and multiple other burglaries, along with the brass knuckles, implies that these weren't just kids being kids but rather violent criminals. Good riddance.

How does this show that these kids were violent criminals?

Doesn't this bring up a morality question. Is it okay to kill people that will only rough you up? They had brass knuckles, not guns. Guns will kill you, brass knuckles will seriously rough you up.

Brass knuckles can kill. Bare-hands beatings can kill.

I have no problem with someone shooting to avoid being seriously roughed up.

We know your level for acceptable lethal force and what you consider an actual threat.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Well, first off, fights are supposed to be unfair. Anybody who gives someone a fair fight deserves to fucking die.

While breaking into a home shouldn't be a capital offense, it's really hard to feel any pity for someone who dies while doing it. In terms of it being self-defense, did they attack him or was it simply the fact that they were in his house the justification to fire an automatic weapon at them as his first move?

It depends on the laws. I don't really know what the law is in Oklahoma. But here in Texas, if one breaks into a home after dark, that person is fair game.

 

[scombrid]

[ Is it okay to kill people that will only rough you up?

The "roughing up" is completely unprovoked?

They sought me out to do the roughing up?

Yes, it is okay to kill them.

I'm not going to take a beating that may make me miss work, may cause permanent damage, etc... I'm not going to take the risk that "roughing up" is all they mean to do when they break into the house. It isn't up to me to take such considerations when I'm not the one that initiated the situation.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume from the outset that someone that breaks into an occupied home is a mortal threat to the occupants of the home.

Unless some evidence comes to light indicating that the invaders were shot while fleeing or while detained then the killing is justified. I wouldn't personally fire an AR in my house in my neighborhood where houses are close together but that is for the safety of other occupants of the house and my neighbors. Shotgun is fine in close quarters.

Grandpa sounds like an idiot. Aww, they weren't really hurting anybody. Yeah old man, that is why part of your f2 is dead.