Son Who Stabbed Burglar Finds Himself Charged With Murder

[Laisrean]

Link (http://leathernlacekitten.newsvine.com/_news/2009/11/10/3484691-son-who-stabbed-burglar-finds-himself-charged-with-murder)


Omari Roberts, 23, was widely praised after tackling Tyler Juett, 17, and a 14-year-old accomplice when he caught them breaking into his mother's home.

He chased the 14-year-old off, then returned to the house to find Juett still there. They scuffled and Juett suffered a six-inch stab wound that severed vital arteries.

But yesterday Roberts appeared in court accused of murdering Juett and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

"It's a surprise when you look at the basic facts, because a murder charge means intent. Where was the intent in this case?"

I suppose the proper procedure is to not offer any resistance whatsoever and just wait until the cops arrive. Of course, by then you'll be a bloody lifeless mass and the intruders would be long gone to kill again, but hey at least you won't be charged with murder.

/sarcasm

In any case, I'd say being charged with murder beats being a murder victim any day, so if it comes down to it I know which course of action I would take. I'll worry about the charges later after me and my family are safe.

[Illumin]

That is F*&$%!G ridiculous.... I'm glad I live in a state that has the "Make My Day Law."

[Terra Mater]

Though this is a case under British law, even in the US the young man might have been charged.

The problem is that when Omari Roberts left his home to pursue the other burglar, he also removed himself from the circumstances which allowed deadly force to be used to defend his home. This is why, even in states with a "Make My Day" law, they tell you to make sure the body falls in your home and not out the door when you kill the intruder.

[Infinite Grey]

I suppose the proper procedure is to not offer any resistance whatsoever and just wait until the cops arrive. Of course, by then you'll be a bloody lifeless mass and the intruders would be long gone to kill again, but hey at least you won't be charged with murder.

/sarcasm

In any case, I'd say being charged with murder beats being a murder victim any day, so if it comes down to it I know which course of action I would take. I'll worry about the charges later after me and my family are safe.

Lais, you're being a sensationalist - statistically speaking you're unlikely to be killed in a Burglary (less the 1% of yearly murders), indeed 78% of all murders are committed by people victim knew or were related to and nearly half of total murders due to an argument. Only 22.9% of murders occur during a felony (rape, robbery, burglary, etc.)...

So, will you cut out your paranoid justifications for people going overboard with self defense?

[Laisrean]

Only 22.9% of murders occur during a felony (rape, robbery, burglary, etc.)...

Only???

22.9% isn't a majority of murders, but it is far from insignificant.

[Infinite Grey]

Only???

22.9% isn't a majority of murders, but it is far from insignificant.

-le sigh-
Robbery 6.51%
Burglary 0.6%
Rape 0.16%
Larceny-theft 0.11%
Motor vehicle theft 0.13%
Arson 0.18%
Prostitution and commercialized vice 0.04%
Other sex offenses 0.07%
Narcotic drug laws 3.5%
Gambling 0.7%
Other-not specified 3.36

heh, the number if you only include these "mostly" non-violent crimes, is a mere 14.8% of all murders.

Burglary, which is entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence... the circumstances you have been fear mongering about, makes up a mere 0.6% of all murders in a year. Not 22.9%... do you have a problem reading lais?

[Æon Flux]

As far as I can understand, according to the limited information on various sites, the 23 year old son arrived to a residence he was not living at, no one was home, two youths 14 and 17 were there, rummaging around.

He stabbed and chased the 14 year old down the street, returned and then inflicted a 13 cm knife wound on the 17 year old.

He did not own the property.
He, most likely used excessive force considering that he was never threatened by both boys at the same time, and they were both unarmed.

Personally I might think that murder is the wrong term, but he definitely is not in the right in this situation.

The reason he is charged with murder is because lawyers came to the conclusion that he used "excessive and gratuitous force" .

[Æon Flux]

Though this is a case under British law, even in the US the young man might have been charged.

The problem is that when Omari Roberts left his home to pursue the other burglar, he also removed himself from the circumstances which allowed deadly force to be used to defend his home. This is why, even in states with a "Make My Day" law, they tell you to make sure the body falls in your home and not out the door when you kill the intruder.

What if you don't own the property and don't live at the property? Because the house was his mothers and he wasn't living there at the time.

[Laisrean]

Well, you have no business being on someone else's property in the middle of the night "rummaging" through their stuff. I really don't have a lot of sympathy if the owner comes and beats the shit out of you, stabs you, or shoots you. If you don't want to get hurt then mind your own huging business and quit stealing.

If more intruders/burglars start getting killed by homeowners then maybe some of them will start to wise up and find an honest living instead. If they don't wise up, well then it is Darwinism at its best.

[Æon Flux]

Well, you have no business being on someone else's property in the middle of the night "rummaging" through their stuff. I really don't have a lot of sympathy if the owner comes and beats the shit out of you, stabs you, or shoots you. If you don't want to get hurt then mind your own huging business and quit stealing.

If more intruders/burglars start getting killed by homeowners then maybe some of them will start to wise up and find an honest living instead. If they don't wise up, well then it is Darwinism at its best.

1. He wasn't the home owner.

2. That's right, kill first, think later, no problem... except if that is the case, where do you draw the line? He's on my property, so I killed him. No problem
he was on my mothers property, so I killed him, No problem
he was on my friends property, so I killed him. No problem
Ooops, he was my brothers friend, but hey, I thought he was a theif so I killed him. No problem
Oooops, it was my neighbour who had been out and mistook his door for my door and I killed him cause I thought he was a theif, no problem.
Ooops, I killed my room mate cause I thought he was a theif. Nooo problem?????

That's, you know, completely okay according to you?

[Infinite Grey]

Well, you have no business being on someone else's property in the middle of the night "rummaging" through their stuff. I really don't have a lot of sympathy if the owner comes and beats the shit out of you, stabs you, or shoots you. If you don't want to get hurt then mind your own huging business and quit stealing.

If more intruders/burglars start getting killed by homeowners then maybe some of them will start to wise up and find an honest living instead. If they don't wise up, well then it is Darwinism at its best.

1> You do not understand Natural Selection, you've proven that in the past, so don't embarrass yourself by trying to reference it.
2> Why would anyone want to live in your fantasy world? It's like some sort of post apocalyptic world where its ok to blow someone's head off for a can of spam.

[ShadowcatX]

When seconds matter the cops are only minutes away.

[Kraheera]

When seconds matter the cops are only minutes away.

Only if your life, or the life of someone else is in immediate danger. These boys were unarmed, and reputedly weren't being violent.

So in essence, yes, he murdered them. And while they WERE committing a crime, their crime did not warrant murder.

[ShadowcatX]

Only if your life, or the life of someone else is in immediate danger. These boys were unarmed, and reputedly weren't being violent.

So in essence, yes, he murdered them. And while they WERE committing a crime, their crime did not warrant murder.

Not in my state. I'm allowed to use force when my well being or my property is threatened when I am in a place I have the legal right to be.

That said, without being able to prove he intended to kill this kid (and note there was only 1 death) the worst case scenario for this guy is manslaughter.

ETA: I wouldn't call breaking and entering, then fighting a guy who is defending his property with a knife "not being violent" either.

[ShadowcatX]

1. He wasn't the home owner.

2. That's right, kill first, think later, no problem... except if that is the case, where do you draw the line? He's on my property, so I killed him. No problem
he was on my mothers property, so I killed him, No problem
he was on my friends property, so I killed him. No problem
Ooops, he was my brothers friend, but hey, I thought he was a theif so I killed him. No problem
Oooops, it was my neighbour who had been out and mistook his door for my door and I killed him cause I thought he was a theif, no problem.
Ooops, I killed my room mate cause I thought he was a theif. Nooo problem?????

That's, you know, completely okay according to you?

Since there seems to be a "the percentage of times this happens isn't relevant" war, I'd love to know how often someone kills their room mate for breaking into their own place and know if that's statistically significant.

[banondraig]

Only if your life, or the life of someone else is in immediate danger. These boys were unarmed, and reputedly weren't being violent.

Yet.



So in essence, yes, he murdered them.


Only one of them actually died. Clearly the other one, at least, has not been murdered.


And while they WERE committing a crime, their crime did not warrant murder.


I wouldn't call defending one's home and/or family murder.

[Caitlin.ann]

I second Njorun Alma.

[Laisrean]

and reputedly weren't being violent.

Uhh, yeah they were.



violence (uncountable)

1. Extreme force.

The violence of the storm, fortunately, was more awesome than destructive.

2. Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering.

We try to avoid violence in resolving conflicts.

3. Widespread fighting.

Violence between the government and the rebels continues.

4. (figuratively) Injustice, wrong.

The translation does violence to the original novel.



They were rummaging through his mother's home, stealing stuff and probably breaking stuff in the process. This is an action causing destruction, pain, or suffering. It was also violence when they fought with the kid. It just so happened that the kid had a knife and came out ahead, but it could have ended the opposite way.

Basically, the moment they started stealing is the moment they began to commit violence. Burglary is not a victimless crime. It causes pain and suffering to the victim, so therefore it is violence. And when you attack someone who attempts to protect their property, then that is violence too. But if you do that you should be prepared for the possibility that person has a gun, knife, etc. If you do the crime you should have some expectation that you might get hurt.

[aranarose]

He left the property, which was not his, chasing one kid away and stabbing him. Which means he was no longer in imminent danger, and could have called 911 and waited for the police to come deal with the remaining kid. Instead, he went back into the house, and stabbed the kid, killing him.

Sorry, this was not self-defense, nor was it warranted force in defense of property.

I'll repeat, he left the property. Which meant he obviously didn't seem to view the threat to the property itself as all that great.

[aranarose]

No clue why that double posted... aggravations...

[Laisrean]

their crime did not warrant murder.

I don't consider someone being killed by their victim to be murder. If a lion attacks a Wildebeast there is a possibility the lion will get gored on the horns, or kicked in the head, or crushed under stampeding hooves. In any of those cases it isn't murder.

[aranarose]

I don't consider someone being killed by their victim to be murder. If a lion attacks a Wildebeast there is a possibility the lion will get gored on the horns, or kicked in the head, or crushed under stampeding hooves. In any of those cases it isn't murder.

This guy was NOT the victim of a crime.

The house was NOT his, it was his mother's.

[Laisrean]

He left the property, which was not his, chasing one kid away and stabbing him. Which means he was no longer in imminent danger, and could have called 911 and waited for the police to come deal with the remaining kid. Instead, he went back into the house, and stabbed the kid, killing him.

Sorry, this was not self-defense, nor was it warranted force in defense of property.

I'll repeat, he left the property. Which meant he obviously didn't seem to view the threat to the property itself as all that great.

It is logical to deal with one threat before turning to the next. The kid he chased might have come back, perhaps with a gun or with friends. We just don't know. He didn't kill that one, but he kinda made sure he was neutralized, know what I mean?

[Laisrean]

This guy was NOT the victim of a crime.

The house was NOT his, it was his mother's.

It may not be self-defense to protect your family, but it is close enough, IMHO.

[ShadowcatX]

It may not be self-defense to protect your family, but it is close enough, IMHO.

Agreed.

[aluokaloo]

what a load of crap. i'm sick of this mentality that puts their lives before ours.

[Terra Mater]

What if you don't own the property and don't live at the property? Because the house was his mothers and he wasn't living there at the time.
Then you also are limited in your response. With the given information of the young man arriving at the scene, chasing one of the lad's off, and returning to the scene, excessive force is no longer excused. Even if there were a relative in the house, if he had the ability to chase a youth off, he had the ability to call for help, remove the family member from the home, etc. Basically if there are other options that would have saved your and your loved one's lives, then the use of force is not justified. Again, this is based on American law. British law may address this differently.

[DoktorSick]

I think he's being charged with murder because he had an opportunity to escape.When he chased the other guy away.
And not only could he escaped the threat of the other he could have gotten the police.
I know self defense especially the use of deadly force is only justifiable only if you are in immediate danger.That's pretty the way it is at list here in michigan. And it depends on the state here.
I can see why a he got charged for murder. You just stab someone to death for breaking into your house. That is a bit of an overkill to say the least.

[watersprite]

He left the property, which was not his, chasing one kid away and stabbing him. Which means he was no longer in imminent danger, and could have called 911 and waited for the police to come deal with the remaining kid. Instead, he went back into the house, and stabbed the kid, killing him.

Sorry, this was not self-defense, nor was it warranted force in defense of property.

I'll repeat, he left the property. Which meant he obviously didn't seem to view the threat to the property itself as all that great.
That is right! While I am a proponent of self defense, he was not doing this. And not on his own property.

[ShadowcatX]

It bears pointing out that this guy didn't walk up to the thief and stab him to death as some people are putting it.

According to the article:

They scuffled and Juett suffered a six-inch stab wound that severed vital arteries.

Scuffled means they wrestled / fought.


Secondly:

Everyone's saying "This wasn't his property." That's true. However, it was his mom's property and there's nothing about him not being allowed there or about her filing trespassing charges against him. He was defending the property of a close relative.

[aranarose]

It bears pointing out that this guy didn't walk up to the thief and stab him to death as some people are putting it.

According to the article:


Scuffled means they wrestled / fought.


Secondly:

Everyone's saying "This wasn't his property." That's true. However, it was his mom's property and there's nothing about him not being allowed there or about her filing trespassing charges against him. He was defending the property of a close relative.

He WENT BACK AFTER LEAVING THE PROPERTY. He KNEW there was someone in there. It was not as if he walked in, got caught off guard, and then stabbed the guy. No. He chased one kid off, stabbing him, and then WENT BACK to what he KNEW was a potentially dangerous situation. He should have instead called the police and stayed away. He ENTERED the dangerous situation KNOWING what the situation was, he didn't have it thrust on him as many victims of home invasion do.

[ShadowcatX]

He WENT BACK AFTER LEAVING THE PROPERTY. He KNEW there was someone in there. It was not as if he walked in, got caught off guard, and then stabbed the guy. No. He chased one kid off, stabbing him, and then WENT BACK to what he KNEW was a potentially dangerous situation. He should have instead called the police and stayed away. He ENTERED the dangerous situation KNOWING what the situation was, he didn't have it thrust on him as many victims of home invasion do.

Yes, he went into a situation where he knew that some scumbag was doing harm to a person he cared about and he attempted to intervene.

That said, exactly how far away from the property did he get? And why does it matter to anyone that he left and came back? And why does it matter that it was his mom's house not his? I don't get it.

[Æon Flux]

Yes, he went into a situation where he knew that some scumbag was doing harm to a person he cared about and he attempted to intervene.

That said, exactly how far away from the property did he get? And why does it matter to anyone that he left and came back? And why does it matter that it was his mom's house not his? I don't get it.

No one was at home.

It matters because there was no physical danger to him or any of his family, but he still went back, armed with intent to injure, most likely, before even calling the cops.

[Æon Flux]

It may not be self-defense to protect your family, but it is close enough, IMHO.

No one was home, his mother wasn't there. He was not doing this to protect his family. He could have called the police and let them deal with the kid, instead he ended up taking a teenagers life.

[ShadowcatX]

No one was at home.

Ya, I know. So what? I never said they were doing her physical harm. Financial harm is still harm. He placed his life at risk to help someone he loved, and because of that he's getting charged with murder and people are supporting that charge.


It matters because there was no physical danger to him or any of his family, but he still went back, armed with intent to injure, most likely,

You know his intent? Wow, I bet you make a living reading minds for the police.

If his intent was to injure, then it shouldn't be murder. However, if he had planned to stab the person, seems to me there would've never been a "scuffle". It would've been him walking up behind the crook while the crook was grabbing something of value and a knife into the kidney, or leg, or throat. Twist and pull.

That there was a scuffle sounds to me that he tried to get the robber to stop, and the robber attacked him.


before even calling the cops.

When seconds matter the cops are only minutes away.

[ShadowcatX]

No one was home, his mother wasn't there. He was not doing this to protect his family. He could have called the police and let them deal with the kid, instead he ended up taking a teenagers life.

Lais, I wonder, would we be having this conversation if the crook that died had been over that magical age of 18 say if they were 22 or so?

[Lunacie]

He left the property, which was not his, chasing one kid away and stabbing him. Which means he was no longer in imminent danger, and could have called 911 and waited for the police to come deal with the remaining kid. Instead, he went back into the house, and stabbed the kid, killing him.

Sorry, this was not self-defense, nor was it warranted force in defense of property.

I'll repeat, he left the property. Which meant he obviously didn't seem to view the threat to the property itself as all that great.

My take on the story is that he thought he had chased both boys away, only to return and find that one was still there - or had also returned.

The burgler could have left when he saw that the son had a weapon, but he apparently chose to "scuffle" with him. Was he trying to take the weapon away so he could use it? It's pretty common knowledge that if you have a weapon you'd better be prepared to use it because the intruder is going to try to take it away from you and use it on you.

I could possibly see a manslaughter charge for excessive force, but the charge of murder seems preposterous (given what little I know).

[Corvis Canis Latrans]

My take on the story is that he thought he had chased both boys away, only to return and find that one was still there - or had also returned.

That's the impression I got, too.

For all we know he could have been going back because that's where the phone was.

The logical assumption is that once you chase one intruder off, the other one will probably be scared and leave, especially if they're that young.

I seriously doubt he expected anyone to still be at the house. I suspect he was startled to find someone still there and acted in self defense and yes anger at the unespected.

[Lunacie]

That's the impression I got, too.

For all we know he could have been going back because that's where the phone was.

The logical assumption is that once you chase one intruder off, the other one will probably be scared and leave, especially if they're that young.

I seriously doubt he expected anyone to still be at the house. I suspect he was startled to find someone still there and acted in self defense and yes anger at the unespected.

Good point about the phone. We're so used to everyone (seemingly) carrying a cell phone here in the States that we forget that's not the case in other parts of the world. In order to call 999 he probably went back to use the phone in his mom's house and was surprised to find the other intruder still rummaging around.

[aranarose]

Everyone jumping on the "he was defending his family" bandwagon seems to forget that he left the scene. He was out of imminent danger. Common sense would dictate that if you arrive at home to find intruders, and you're able to escape said intruders, you don't go back alone. You call the police, and let the police deal with it. Instead, he went back, and that's very likely why he's being charged with murder.

[Corvis Canis Latrans]

Everyone jumping on the "he was defending his family" bandwagon seems to forget that he left the scene. He was out of imminent danger. Common sense would dictate that if you arrive at home to find intruders, and you're able to escape said intruders, you don't go back alone. You call the police, and let the police deal with it. Instead, he went back, and that's very likely why he's being charged with murder.

Well no, I don't think he was defending his family.

While I'd like to think that if I didn't have my phone on me I'd have the presence of mind to go to a neighbor's house, I still think it's quite possible he went back for the phone in order to call the police, again, not expecting to find anyone still there.

I'd have to reread the article because I don't know where the house was....it's also possible that there weren't any neighbors, and possible that it was a crap neighborhood where the neighbors couldn't be trusted....there are some places in town that I wouldn't go near any of the houses (granted, my mindset is of a female alone, who might get a different kind of reception than a guy in those neighborhoods...)

[ShadowcatX]

Everyone jumping on the "he was defending his family" bandwagon seems to forget that he left the scene. He was out of imminent danger.

He was out of danger. However, the one thief was still robbing from his mom so his mom was still being harmed. He was protecting his mom. Not himself, his mom. (Get it?) He fought with a potentially dangerous criminal to protect his mom. He went back into a dangerous situation, put his life at risk, to protect his mom.


Common sense would dictate that if you arrive at home to find intruders, and you're able to escape said intruders, you don't go back alone. You call the police, and let the police deal with it.

You know what happens in your common sense example? The cops get there in 30 minutes to an hour, maybe dust for prints, and tell him to go around to pawn shops and see if he can get some of the stuff that was stolen back that way.

Meanwhile, they don't care if his mom is elderly and maybe needs the items these crooks stole. They don't care that she can no longer feel safe in her own house.

The son, however, did, and he stood up for his mom, and personally, I applaud him for it.

[Laisrean]

If you don't want to be killed, then don't violate someone else's rights. It is that simple. If you violate someone's rights then it is open season on your ass, as far as I'm concerned.