Homeowner charged after shooting teen attempting to break into his car

[Madmallard]

A Bellefontaine Neighbors man is accused of shooting a teenager for breaking into neighborhood cars.

Neighbors support 41-year-old Charles Bams, saying he has right to protect his property. But that's not what the law says.

Another resident told Fox 2 a group of teens was roaming the block Monday night, trying to break into car after car, including his. When told of the charges filed against Bams, the neighbor exclaimed, “What! He’s been charged with a crime for protecting his property?”

Bams was charged with second-degree assault and armed criminal action.

Homeowner charged after shooting teen attempting to break into his car

ST. LOUIS COUNTY, Mo. – A Bellefontaine Neighbors man is accused of shooting a teenager for breaking into neighborhood cars. Neighbors support 41-year-old Charles Bams, saying he has right to prote…

fox2now.com

 

[Celt]

I didn't read the story but anybody that lives in New York should should know article 35 and understand it. The use of deadly physical Force has a limited scope for when it is permitted.

 

[Podmonkey]

Our society works so hard to protect the dregs at the expense of the productive and law abiding and we wonder at the the poor state of modern society.
We should be empowered to shoot thieves.

 

[vanderblack]

I didn't read the story but anybody that lives in New York should should know article 35 and understand it. The use of deadly physical Force has a limited scope for when it is permitted.

And yet there are many who claim 'come on my property and I'm gonna shoot first.'

 

[@thewheels]

And yet there are many who claim 'come on my property and I'm gonna shoot first.'

Coming on somebody's property and breaking into their vehicle = Apples & Oranges

 

[GOPerfect]

Sounds like this home owner had had enough. I sympathize with him. In NY, this would not fly. According to the story, the little bastard that was shot was at least three houses away when he was hit, no threat at that point. The shooter aslo hit a couple of houses while shooting. Bad mojo right there.

 

[Blimey]

Sounds like this home owner had had enough. I sympathize with him. In NY, this would not fly. According to the story, the little bastard that was shot was at least three houses away when he was hit, no threat at that point. The shooter aslo hit a couple of houses while shooting. Bad mojo right there.

Also an excellent example of why lethal force to protect against theft is generally a stupid thing to do, and most laws reflect that accordingly.

 

[Shadow2]

Silly rabbit If you we where allowed to police ourselves we wouldn't need government to protect us. The Law Enforcement industry is a mult-billion dollar business.

Now would i shoot someone for breaking into a car. No, but i wouldn't be grudge a guy to take a bat to the fuckers shins.

Our society works so hard to protect the dregs at the expense of the productive and law abiding and we wonder at the the poor state of modern society.
We should be empowered to shoot thieves.

 

[vanderblack]

Coming on somebody's property and breaking into their vehicle = Apples & Oranges

Either way, in NY, you cant shoot them for simply breaking in or trespassing.

 

[Toecutter]

That kid wont break into another ca

Either way, in NY, you cant shoot them for simply breaking in or trespassing.

Charge dropped against Central NY homeowner who shot, killed 2 intruders

Ronald Stolarcyzk shot two intruders in May who were breaking into his home, police said. He was originally charged with criminal possession of a firearm. That charge was dropped Monday night.

www.google.com

 

[vanderblack]

Good to hear and I don't agree with the law but its still the law.

 

[@thewheels]

Either way, in NY, you cant shoot them for simply breaking in or trespassing.

Yep, you're screwed in either situation. And the bag of dicks doing it, knows it.

 

[Criticalt]

Either way, in NY, you cant shoot them for simply breaking in or trespassing.

Ummm no.
You can use deadly physical force if stopping a robbery or burglary in NYS.
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.

 

[Toecutter]

You can shoot someone in your home in NYS . I wouldnt want to test it but legally you can.

 

[vanderblack]

Then what is the difference between this and a state that supports Castle Doctrine?

 

[Toecutter]

Then what is the difference between this and a state that supports Castle Doctrine?

Castle Doctrine is a home defence law . That law can differ from state to state. Long story short, in NYS castle doctrine, you can defend you home and property with deadly force if there is no way to retreat.

 

[vanderblack]

Castle Doctrine is a home defence law . That law can differ from state to state. Long story short, in NYS castle doctrine, you can defend you home and property with deadly force if there is no way to retreat.

However, you are justified in shooting someone who is committing the crime of robbery regardless of a retreat path?

 

[Toecutter]

However, you are justified in shooting someone who is committing the crime of robbery regardless of a retreat path?

Im not a lawyer, but say if you were in your kitchen in front of your back door. Someone comes in your front door and you shoot him. You are not justified because you can retreat out of the back door.
Same situation but you are at the top of your stairs you would be justified because you are trapped no where to run.
There are probably other factors at play ,again I'm not a lawyer. I personally wouldn't immediately shoot someone for walking in my door un announced , they would have a gun pointed at them untill I figure out whats going on.

 

[Bustedknees]

seems we have some young thug in the neighborhood who likes to visit homes around 5:00 am . He was caught on a security camera holding his phone in one hand while the other hand clearly shows an open knife while standing on someone's porch. steps . His face made the rounds all over facebook , but oddly no one seems to know him. I'm sure plenty of my neighbors and I will fear for our lives if he makes the mistake again.

 

[SomeSoldier]

We used to hang horse thieves.

 

[Criticalt]

Im not a lawyer, but say if you were in your kitchen in front of your back door. Someone comes in your front door and you shoot him. You are not justified because you can retreat out of the back door.
Same situation but you are at the top of your stairs you would be justified because you are trapped no where to run.
There are probably other factors at play ,again I'm not a lawyer. I personally wouldn't immediately shoot someone for walking in my door un announced , they would have a gun pointed at them untill I figure out whats going on.

Yall need to brush up on the law.
You HAVE NO DUTY TO RETREAT in your own home....period!!
Read the law.
Entering a house without consent is LITERALLY the definition of burglary.
You can use deadly physical force to stop a burglary....period.
No weapons, no violence.......the burglary IS the threat.
I really cannot believe people dont just read article 35....its spelled out in detail.

 

[libertysnake]

Our society works so hard to protect the dregs at the expense of the productive and law abiding and we wonder at the the poor state of modern society.
We should be empowered to shoot thieves.

Not in disagreement we should have the right to do so.

That being said, it really depends on the "what." There are few material things, maybe short of the value of a car, or someone trying to burn down my house, that I'd be willing to exercise deadly force over. And, to be honest, even the car is questionable.

It's not just the attorney's fees in court. It's not just about the time, which also can translate to money, which is lost. It's also about the ripple of repercussions you'll face when it comes to society, employers, supposed friends and family -- all of which are going to add difficulty to your life.

Even if you legally can, at a certain point you have to say "is the exercise of legal deadly force worth all the factors which will make my life harder?" That's the question you have to answer before you can really be confident in pulling that trigger. (In my view, there's very very few scenarios in which it would even be worth doing so, if any, even if legally allowed.)

 

[Acer-m14]

Ummm no.
You can use deadly physical force if stopping a robbery or burglary in NYS.
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.

wouldn't need all these BS laws like above if they would just enforce stealing .. murder .. ect .. the basics ..

break the basic laws and get your ass beat up or killed .. oh well .. if you survived off to jail long time ..

 

[Acer-m14]

all gun laws should be null n void when this was said ..

 

[vanderblack]

Yall need to brush up on the law.
You HAVE NO DUTY TO RETREAT in your own home....period!!
Read the law.
Entering a house without consent is LITERALLY the definition of burglary.
You can use deadly physical force to stop a burglary....period.
No weapons, no violence.......the burglary IS the threat.
I really cannot believe people dont just read article 35....its spelled out in detail.

I have read it. No need to be rude about it all. Things are never clear cut. If you read Article 35, Section 15, paragraph 2:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor;

So, yes I have read it and have questions. I am not a lawyer. I guess I should not ask questions. God forbid someone seek clarification on this site from someone else.

 

[Criticalt]

I have read it. No need to be rude about it all. Things are never clear cut. If you read Article 35, Section 15, paragraph 2:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor;

So, yes I have read it and have questions. I am not a lawyer. I guess I should not ask questions. God forbid someone seek clarification on this site from someone else.

I apologize for sounding rude. It was meant to sound more irritated than rude.
The key word in the law is "except".
You have a duty to retreat...."except".... In the situations spelled out.....murder, forcible rape, BURGLARY, robbery.....
Im not saying its a great idea to just start shooting. If I can discern between the intruders voice and the blood curtailing scream as hes being mauled by my dogs, that he is unarmed and surrendering, I will not shoot.
The point is, even in NYS you have no duty to find out if the intruder mistaked your house for his, or if hes there to rape your wife. You have the right to defend your home with deadly force even when not threatened with violence. The illegal entry into your home IS the threat.

 

[Criticalt]

I know different counties in NYS treat these cases differently but, my GF reminded me about a situation that happened here about 10 years ago.

A woman was home alone when a guy broke a window in their back door a came in.
The woman did NOT have a pistol permit but she used her husbands legally owned handgun to shoot the intruder. After an investigation, she was NOT charged with any crime.

The intruder was the womans adult daughters drug addict boyfriend who thought the mother was with the father out of town.

Oh, and the guy did not die.

 

[Bob]

Yall need to brush up on the law.
You HAVE NO DUTY TO RETREAT in your own home....period!!
Read the law.
Entering a house without consent is LITERALLY the definition of burglary.
You can use deadly physical force to stop a burglary....period.
No weapons, no violence.......the burglary IS the threat.
I really cannot believe people dont just read article 35....its spelled out in detail.

Point of clarification:
Entering a house without consent is the definition of Criminal Trespass, not Burglary. Specifically, Criminal Trespass in the 2nd Degree. In order for Criminal Trespass to rise to Burglary, the second element of intending to commit a crime is required. If a drunk kid walks in your unlocked back door and falls asleep on your couch, is it Criminal Trespass or Burglary? Are you justified in shooting him? BIG difference between that and the shithead who busts down your door and starts raping your daughter.

 

[Criticalt]

Point of clarification:
Entering a house without consent is the definition of Criminal Trespass, not Burglary. Specifically, Criminal Trespass in the 2nd Degree. In order for Criminal Trespass to rise to Burglary, the second element of intending to commit a crime is required. If a drunk kid walks in your unlocked back door and falls asleep on your couch, is it Criminal Trespass or Burglary? Are you justified in shooting him? BIG difference between that and the shithead who busts down your door and starts raping your daughter.

But....
You are not required to "know" why this person is entering your home.
You have no requirement to find out their intentions.
Of course most of us are smart enough to figure out their intentions, however, you are not required to do so.
For instance......
You come out of your bedroom and see a guy 10 feet down your hallway in low lighting. Is that a drunk kid? Is that a burglar? A rapist?.......
You would be justified in all those circumstances.
There are many reports of drunk kids or senile neighbors being shot for entering a home with the shooter not being charged.
There is a big difference between a drunk kid asleep on the couch and a dark figure in a hallway.

 

[vanderblack]

But....
You are not required to "know" why this person is entering your home.
You have no requirement to find out their intentions.
Of course most of us are smart enough to figure out their intentions, however, you are not required to do so.
For instance......
You come out of your bedroom and see a guy 10 feet down your hallway in low lighting. Is that a drunk kid? Is that a burglar? A rapist?.......
You would be justified in all those circumstances.
There are many reports of drunk kids or senile neighbors being shot for entering a home with the shooter not being charged.
There is a big difference between a drunk kid asleep on the couch and a dark figure in a hallway.

The key words are "reasonably believe". In the middle of the night, I hear an unfamiliar voice call from downstairs "hello?" Not sure if its the next door neighbors drunk kid or someone there to rob me. Is it reasonable to believe that a stranger in my house at 2am is there to rob me? A discussion online asked this question and said the requirement is for someone to prove you were wrong in your belief, not for you to prove you were right. Part of the litmus test is, does another person, given what you observed and the situation details feel the same as you? Personally, I would evaluate the situation to some degree and really would not want to spend the time and money in court resulting from a shooting BUT, rather that than dead. I dont think it is unreasonable to think a stranger in my house late at night is there to rob me (or worse). Heck, people dont visit during daylight hours, what good deed would posses them to visit me at night?