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

[fast]

When your home is being invaded by an entire battalion of three and your life hangs in the balance because of not knowing what the aggressors-in-approach may do, I think some serious latitude should be given to disqualifying the ordinary need to establish justification. The overwhelming potential threat alone justifies shooting as blindly and indiscrimately or purposefully as one wants, and it should be without fear of legal reprisal without exception.

 

[barbos]

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?

They were white I understand, so nobody cares.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Not really, given that the property owner used an AR-15. For all of the reasons we've discussed on other threads, it is exceedingly easy to kill three people in a situation like this.

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.

Stupid homeowner is just lucky he didn't kill his family or a neighbor at the same time.

Was reading about a shooting where a bullet traveled 3 blocks to instantly kill a random woman crossing the street. THAT's what an AR-15 does.

I don't have any objection to a homeowner using a gun to defend himself from burglars, but I will maintain - even in this situation - that an AR-15 is overkill... no pun intended.

As you note:

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.

I don't have much sympathy for the burglars*, but this incident is not at all a good defense of civilians owning AR-15's. Exactly the opposite, imo.

* though I understand that their families are mourning their loss regardless, and sympathize with them

 

[Opoponax]

I don't have much sympathy for the burglars*, but this incident is not at all a good defense of civilians owning AR-15's. Exactly the opposite, imo.

* though I understand that their families are mourning their loss regardless, and sympathize with them

After re-reading about the incident and the latest update, I have not a stitch of sympathy for the burglars. Sure, their families have suffered a loss, but the burglars are 100% to blame.

As to the AR issue, a 12 or 20 gauge shotgun could have accomplished a desirable result, and it's likely not all of them would've been killed. But I say that with more concern about a homeowner than the suspect. Obviously, the less people you kill in your house, and the less of a chance someone down the street will be hit by a lethal projectile, the less trouble it'll cause you.

 

[Derec]

Well, first off, fights are supposed to be unfair.

Exactly. It's not a sporting contest.

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?

Semi-automatic, please. Automatics are banned for civilian use and he (or more likely his dad who is the home- and presumably rifle owner) would get in trouble regardless of justified self-defense.
And they were three guys breaking into an occupied dwelling. Danger is pretty much given under the circumstances.

 

[Derec]

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

It happened a year ago actually. It sounds familiar, I think I read something about it then.
'We were greedy,' woman jailed in triple homicide burglary tells media
They were also a diverse crew: two white guys, a black guy and a Hispanic woman.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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).

I do agree it's possible he crossed the line. However, if they were in a group it would be quite possible they were all hit before they reacted to the fact they were outgunned. Also, if the light wasn't the best he might not immediately realize someone was turning to run.

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.

The point of fragmenting ammunition is that hitting the wall of your house will fragment it. It punches through the first wall easily--but it fragments. The fragments bleed energy rapidly and probably can't even enter the neighbor's house. And even without fragmenting, handgun rounds penetrate walls better than rifle rounds:

http://www.guns.com/2015/09/17/self-defense-inside-the-home-avoiding-over-penetratio/

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.

It's not like it can't overpenetrate.

 

[Derec]

How does this show that these kids were violent criminals?

I think burglary of an occupied dwelling is considered violent per se. In Oklahoma the minimum penalty is 7 years.

Every person who breaks into and enters the dwelling house of another, in which there is at the time some human being, with intent to commit some crime therein [...] is guilty of burglary in the first degree.
Burglary is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary as follows:
1. Burglary in the first degree for any term not less than seven (7) years nor more than twenty (20) years

Also them being armed with brass knuckles is a big hint.

 

[Derec]

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 threat of getting beaten up is violent. And of course you do not have to allow criminals to beat you up without defending yourself. And one can be beat up to death, especially when it's three on one and it's bare hands against brass knuckles.
These kids made their choice and have to live with it. Well, one of them has to live with it.

 

[Derec]

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

Not just black people.

 

[Derec]

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.

I agree. Not likely though, unless they are standing right outside your house. A jacketed bullet is more likely to keep flying true after penetrating a wall and will thus be more dangerous for a longer distance. A hollow-point (which is what I think you mean by home-defense rounds) will expand, lose more energy and be much more likely to tumble. A tumbling, deformed bullet will lose kinetic energy flying through the air faster and will present a greater surface area to whatever it impacts next, which means far less pressure than a bullet that did not deform and hits the secondary target point-on.
Also the type of siding will affect how much energy is lost while the bullet goes through and how likely tumbling/expansion is. Brick obviously has a lot more resistance than vinyl.

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.

Don't have time to watch it now (filing for later).

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.

Yes. Especially since interior walls in US homes are very flimsy and there is real danger of hitting one of your family members if you miss the bad guys.

 

[Derec]

Not really, given that the property owner used an AR-15. For all of the reasons we've discussed on other threads, it is exceedingly easy to kill three people in a situation like this.

In a situation like this, it would be as easy to kill the three idiots using a Glock 17 or something. You don't really need a rifle for this type of job.

Stupid homeowner is just lucky he didn't kill his family or a neighbor at the same time.

Depends. How many rounds did he fire? What kind of bullets did he use (full metal jacket vs. hollow point)? Where are bedrooms relative to his line of fire? But I agree, an AR15 is not the most reasonable home defense weapon.

Was reading about a shooting where a bullet traveled 3 blocks to instantly kill a random woman crossing the street. THAT's what an AR-15 does.

Do you have a link to the story? While an AR15 bullet can certainly travel that distance and still be deadly, it is unlikely to do that if it went through a wall first especially if it is a deforming bullet. Also, you'd have to aim slightly upward because the bullet drops at least 20m vertically over that distance (3 blocks is about a kilometer I reckon).

I don't have any objection to a homeowner using a gun to defend himself from burglars, but I will maintain - even in this situation - that an AR-15 is overkill... no pun intended.

There is no kill like overkill.

 

[Derec]

And even without fragmenting, handgun rounds penetrate walls better than rifle rounds:

Only if they are bigger caliber, which admittedly they usually are.

It's not like it can't overpenetrate.

Shotgun pellets are small and can't fly nearly as far as bullets and still keep dangerous speed even when not hitting something like a wall first. Going through a wall will decelerate the pellets quite a bit because of the mass to cross-sectional area ratio is far smaller than even a small caliber bullet.

 

[RavenSky]

I don't have much sympathy for the burglars*, but this incident is not at all a good defense of civilians owning AR-15's. Exactly the opposite, imo.

* though I understand that their families are mourning their loss regardless, and sympathize with them

After re-reading about the incident and the latest update, I have not a stitch of sympathy for the burglars. Sure, their families have suffered a loss, but the burglars are 100% to blame.

As to the AR issue, a 12 or 20 gauge shotgun could have accomplished a desirable result, and it's likely not all of them would've been killed. But I say that with more concern about a homeowner than the suspect. Obviously, the less people you kill in your house, and the less of a chance someone down the street will be hit by a lethal projectile, the less trouble it'll cause you.

Agree on all counts

 

[ZiprHead]

Talking AR 15 type weapons on FB, a user said that the feds forbid use of those weapons for indoor law enforcement operations a few years ago due to their ability to penetrate walls and still be lethal. Don't know how true that is and I have no idea how I would even search to see if true.

 

[fast]

There is no kill like overkill.

Y'all think that's overkill. For years, I've wanted to go bird hunting ... with a tank.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There is no kill like overkill.

Y'all think that's overkill. For years, I've wanted to go bird hunting ... with a tank.

Did you see what those damn pigeons did to my car?!

 

[Derec]

There is no kill like overkill.

Y'all think that's overkill. For years, I've wanted to go bird hunting ... with a tank.

You can never have too much dakka.

About people being charged because their accomplice bites the dust, I came across this:
Teen turns down plea deal for 25 years in prison, gets 65 years instead
Although that was a bigger mess, with burglars being armed with guns and shooting at police.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And even without fragmenting, handgun rounds penetrate walls better than rifle rounds:

Only if they are bigger caliber, which admittedly they usually are.

It's what the cops have learned--with the right ammo they get less overpenetration with assault rifles than with handguns.

It's not like it can't overpenetrate.

Shotgun pellets are small and can't fly nearly as far as bullets and still keep dangerous speed even when not hitting something like a wall first. Going through a wall will decelerate the pellets quite a bit because of the mass to cross-sectional area ratio is far smaller than even a small caliber bullet.

Sure, if you're using birdshot. Buckshot is up there with the lighter handgun ammunition.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

With the right ammo, pre-frags, one can ameliorate the over-penetration problem. Pre-frags are hollow bullets filled with lead shot and epoxy. They break up on hitting a wall and won't go through several walls like hollow points or full metal jacketed bullets. They are quite effective bullets. Usually NOT used by police departments because they leave very bad and politically problematic wounds. Some SWAT departments use pre-frag rifle rounds to help with this over-penetration problem, but a SWAT operation is different from day to day duty weapons of police.