Intruder fatally shot during break-in, homeowner charged for firearm violation

[djpup]

From: Guns.com

A Saturday morning home invasion in Jacksonville, Florida, ended with the suspect dead and the homeowner behind bars, but not because he shot the intruder.

According to reports by local media, the suspect, an unidentified 20-year-old black male, broke into the home around 10 a.m. after smashing the glass on a side window. But once he made his way into the house, the armed homeowner opened fire on him.

When first responders arrived, the suspect was taken to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead a short time later.

It is unknown what type of gun was used, how many times the suspect was shot or what injuries he sustained. It’s also unknown if the suspect was armed.

Apparently the home where the break-in occurred was a rental which had been empty but the homeowner had stayed the night while making some repairs. He was just about to leave the home when the break-in occurred.

It’s unclear if the suspect knew the home was occupied at the time of the break-in. There are also unconfirmed reports that the home had been burglarized several times in the last couple of weeks, although authorities did not indicate if they thought the same suspect was responsible for the prior break-ins.

Police stated that at this time the shooting appears to be justified, although the 59-year-old homeowner still found himself in hot water, facing charges for a misdemeanor violation of injunction. Apparently the homeowner, who had a restraining order filed against him last year, was not allowed to possess a firearm.

“It appears that there was an injunction for protection filed against him earlier sometime last year and the stipulation was he was not supposed to have a firearm on him. So at this point in time we will be charging him with a misdemeanor violation of injunction however, the shooting itself appears to be justifiable,” Sgt. Jay Farhat of the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office explained.

Nonetheless, some neighbors are still glad that he was armed and able to adequately protect himself.

Phyllis Pitts, who has lived in the neighborhood for nearly 30 years, is still in shock that someone was shot and killed right next door to her home. She admits that break-ins have been on the rise in the area, which was once a “nice quiet little neighborhood,” and that she no longer feels safe in her home.

“The way it is now, people have to protect themselves so I guess that’s what’s going on,” she told reporters.

http://www.guns.com/2014/01/28/intruder-fatally-shot-break-homeowner-charged-firearm-violation-video/

Well, he did have an injunction against him. But one might wonder what might have happened had he obeyed the law and left his weapon at home.

[mpan72]

Sounds like he broke a law. He may be a nasty man or he may have been screwed by the system in his area. Don't realy have a strong opinion on this one.

[GunLawyer001]

I mention this to prohibited persons all the time. The plan seems to be "we'll keep a gun in the house anyway, tell the cops that it's the wife's gun, and nobody will know."

Then something like this happens.

You can say that it's better to be alive and in jail, than dead and compliant. Except that sometimes there's another way to go.

[ChemicalReaper]

It is unknown...what injuries [the intruder] sustained.

As he died, I'm going to say life-ending injuries.

[Kchristy]

From: Guns.com

http://www.guns.com/2014/01/28/intruder-fatally-shot-break-homeowner-charged-firearm-violation-video/

t is unknown what type of gun was used, how many times the suspect was shot or what injuries he sustained.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess the injuries he sustained were...oh...I dunno...GUNSHOTS?!

[steve_010]

I'd say a misdemeanor is better than being dead.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Since the right to self defense in inalienable.
Since the right to possess a firearm is he same.
Since the SCOTUS has recognized that a pistol is the prefered firearm for self defense.


I can not understand how he could be charged. If he was so dangerous to another member of society, he should have been behind bars; in which case the State would be solely responsible for his safety.


------------------

I'm not talking about how it is....I'm speaking of a Citizens basic rights.

[MikeinPhilly]

A lot of people say they would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6, this guy might get that chance.

[ViperHummel]

A lot of people say they would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6, this guy might get that chance.

And held down by 2... don't drop the soap.

[03SVTCobra]

Since the right to self defense in inalienable.
Since the right to possess a firearm is he same.
Since the SCOTUS has recognized that a pistol is the prefered firearm for self defense.


I can not understand how he could be charged. If he was so dangerous to another member of society, he should have been behind bars; in which case the State would be solely responsible for his safety.


------------------

I'm not talking about how it is....I'm speaking of a Citizens basic rights.

Protection From Abuse (PFAs) are no joke when it comes to firearms, ask me how I know... you have 24hrs to relinquish all firearms to the Sheriff once you are served the PFA and CANNOT be in possession of a firearm until it either expires or you go through the legal process.

I haven't had the chance to thank GunLawyer here on the forum, but he was instrumental in restoring my rights and getting my weapons back after I had a PFA slapped on me by my soon-to-be ex-wife. She did it out of spite knowing it would a pain in my ass.... so thank you Phil for all your help!!!