We previously discussed the questionable advice of Vice President Joe Biden for people to fire shotguns out of windows to scare off possible intruders. He added “[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” I suggested that such acts would raise criminal and tort liability issues. There now appears a man who followed the same approach and found himself criminally charged. In Virginia Beach, Trevor Lamont Snowden, 22, is charged with reckless handling of a firearm after fired his gun through a door and out his window to scare off intruders.
A woman at a Parents Magazine town hall asked Biden “Do you believe that banning certain weapons and high capacity magazines will mean that law-abiding citizens will then become more of a target to criminals as we will have no way to sufficiently protect ourselves?”
Biden immediately did what he does best: put his foot in his mouth and then shoot himself in the foot. Biden chuckled and responded: “As I told my wife — we live in an area that’s wooded and somewhat secluded — I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony, put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,’” Biden said. “I promise you whoseever [sic] coming in is not gonna — you don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun.”
In the Virginia case, the man actually saw two masked men leaning into his bedroom window. He fired through his door and fired several time at the window. No suspects were found and no one was injured.
The Virginia code states:
§ 18.2-56.1. Reckless handling of firearms; reckless handling while hunting.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to handle recklessly any firearm so as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Even in the context of a hunting party, the act of shooting without a clear target or consideration of unknown individuals in the area is the basis for negligence per se. Schlimmer v. Poverty Hunt Club,
268 Va. 74; 597 S.E.2d 43 (2004). We have also seem prosecutors and others charged for firing warning shots or discharging weapons in their home. Even in a rural area, it is possible to hit neighbors or trespassers crossing property (a common practice) or others like police, firefighters, or public employees on the land lawfully. We recently saw a case of a man shot while cutting across a rural estate.
Unfortunately, this is debate often comes with a strong political bias. If Rick Perry had suggested sticking shotguns out windows and firing them, he would have been ridiculed and widely condemned. The advice is both dangerous and ill-conceived by Biden or anyone else. Yes, there are ways to fire a shotgun in the air to avoid hitting someone but casually advising the firing of guns out windows is neither responsible nor wise.
Source: Hampton Roads
I fail to see how firing to prevent a felonious act would ever be considered reckless discharge of a firearm assuming we accept his story.
I’ve been worried out my skull about the thought of rapacious housebreakers and the zombie apocalypse.
What with the economy ‘n all, I can’t afford the kind of serious firepower that has become essential in a free society.
But…Good news!!
Survival is not just for the rich.
I can get a .22 for cheap, or even 7.62 !!
Used well, these can deal with many of the routine events in our lives.
The problem is……
…… these guns are not really masturbatory.
But not so fast to poo-poo….
…. these things can be ACCESSORIZED !!!!! LIKE YA WOULDN’T BELIEVE !!!
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw1A2vCsL0U
It’s like watching an exotic butterfly emerging from a very unpromising chrysalis.
Even a .22 can look totally awesome after it’s been accessorized.
.
On a serious note, Biden may be in the vicinity of a sensible suggestion.
I think it has to do with frightening the shit out of an uninvited guest.
Big bang! It might not be necessary to actually injure or kill them.
So..
Poor people ( i.e. the middle classes) get an inexpensive 22 or a bolt action 762 … and you can have accessorizing parties. It’s a great way of upstaging that guy with the newer ride-on mower or whatever.
Really poor people don’t have anything worth stealing. All they have to worry about is zombies. But… don’t worry really poor people!
When the zombies come, run to the mall and lock yourselves in. Then eat all the food and sample the goods while the security guards are too busy keeping the zombies out.
If all else fails, use fireworks.
It’s all good.
“Really poor people don’t have anything worth stealing. All they have to worry about is zombies. ”
The implication seems to be that really poor people don’t have to be worried about being victims of crime and therefore do not have a need for a means of self defense because they have few possessions.
I don’t think that is in accordance with the facts. What ever their possessions, lower socioeconomic status individuals are frequently the victims of crime. My guess would be that SES individuals are victims of crime disproportionate to their numbers.
The only bolt action 7.62 caliber rifle that I can recall are the many variations of the Mosin–Nagant, chambered in 7.62 Russian, not the more popular 7.62X39 cartridge. Good luck finding any accessories for that one. And be sure to invite a reliable gun smith to your party. Personally I don’t think I would modify any of the Mosin-Nagnats. They are really more suited for hanging on the wall. The ones in really good condition might have some modest collector value.
It is amazing how many people think that the answers to guns are so obvious that any glib remark is a contribution to the discussion.
On the one hand it is claimed that gun violence declined during the ban on assault weapons.
On the other hand it is claimed that the ban was so riddled with loop holes that weapons with all the capabilities of assault weapons were easily and legally available.
People who really care about lives would ask them selves ‘what caused to decline in gun violence – clearly it had nothing to do with fewer assault weapons?’ ‘What can we do to replicate to societal forces that lead to that decline in gun violence?’
But instead we have superficial twits who promote feel good legislation. It really is shameful.
OS:
we had a family friend who went the way of uncle Zeke, except he was on the couch with a newspaper. He had been there for about a month before my brother in-law found him. He hasnt been right since. Apparently the walls were covered with something and there was a good deal of mold and other things growing on “uncle Zeke”.
They had to basically clean the entire house and replace the carpet in the living room. It was a mess, or so my bil said.
bigfatmike:
“On the one hand AR15 style rifles are harder to aim and use.”
Well, clearly the US military just wants to give the enemy a fighting chance. The M-14 was doing such an amazing job in Vietnam that somebody said, “Wait a minute, this isn’t fair to those Viet Cong guys — let’s design a weapon that won’t be so easy to aim and use.”
“On the other hand it it claimed they are such efficient killing machines that should be limited to LE and the military.
So, which is it?”
There you go again. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” R.W. Emerson See, he doesn’t have to choose, because he is a big-picture statesman and philosopher — a divine, not so much, but, as you suggest, probably clairvoyant.
Can you believe that idiot is the Vice President of the United States? How the hell has our country fallen so far so fast.
If you have never seen the movie ‘Idiocracy’, go watch it. Its the future of America.
I am starting to believe that people should have to pass a Civics test to both vote and run for office.
” you don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself.”
On the one hand AR15 style rifles are harder to aim and use.
On the other hand it it claimed they are such efficient killing machines that should be limited to LE and the military.
So which is it?
Perhaps Biden should help design the next infantry weapon to ensure ease of use and effective targeting.
It would seem that the number of rounds necessary for defense would depend on the circumstances, how many adversaries, how are they armed, are they using cover effectively. How can anyone but a clairvoyant know ahead of time how many rounds are necessary for defense?
The exact numbers are controversial. But the fact is that fire arms are used hundreds of thousands of times each year, legally, to protect ordinary law abiding citizens.
Good lord, all he had to say was he thought it was two bears.
I’m always amazed by gun culture folk who don’t know how to work their system.
As for home defense, yesterday I saw what had to be the ugliest shotgun I have ever seen. It was one of the Mossberg 500 tactical line called the “Chainsaw.” Short 18.5 inch barrel, matte black, pistol grip instead of a stock. The Chainsaw name is because of the chainsaw type handle above the barrel. It is a crossways hand grip attached to the pump slide below the barrel. Hold it like a chainsaw, literally. You can work the pump action by pulling back on the chainsaw handle. The dealer who showed it to me said it had been flying off the shelf, and a surprising number of women were buying them for home defense. Our local paper has a story two or three times a week where some local woman home alone is raped and/or robbed. Some know their attackers and some don’t. Many of these attacks seem to be meth fueled, meth being a major problem for local law enforcement.
As the video shows, the Mossberg Chainsaw is easy for an average size woman to handle, the recoil is modest, and it is lightweight. But damn, it is ugly.
Regarding cleaning up a mess made by a shotgun in a worst case scenario. It is hard enough to hit anything with a pistol in daylight, much less in a dark room. If worst comes to worst and I had to use a shotgun on an intruder, my homeowner’s insurance will pay for one of those cleaning agencies to come in and do a full hazmat cleanup. Some larger metro areas have companies that specialize in crime scene cleanup, whether it is a meth lab or a messy dead body. When most people think messy, they think of a shooting of some kind.
You have not seen messy until they go looking for Uncle Zeke who has not been seen for the past month. Family goes looking for him and find he probably had a heart attack, and has been laying in the living room floor in the summer heat for three weeks.
randyjet,
I am still pretty active for my age, but I do not do pursuits any more. My insurance will cover everything but the sentimental value of heirlooms, and I don’t think we can call the commonly stolen items such as the TV, DVD player and tools heirlooms.
My dad taught me to shoot as soon as I was big enough to hold a gun. His first and main rule was to always look beyond the target and see what you might hit if you miss. I do not live in a densely populated area, but there are enough houses around I am not taking a chance.
If I think the intrusion is related to my work, then I sure as heck am not chasing after them. They may have friends waiting to ambush me if I venture out. Furthermore, in those cases, law enforcement will have a good idea who to look for.
I can’t think of someone who would kill to save their TV as anything other than a primitive savage.
This guy’s too stupid, taking Bidens advice. A shotgun makes a big mess thats why you use a pistol
Shooting someone inside your house when you are cornered is one thing. If an intruder escapes it is NOT the homeowner’s job to chase the suspect down or shoot at him (or her) while they flee. A fleeing suspect is no longer a personal danger. Let the police do their job and find them the old fashioned way.
I would normally agree with OS, but since there is virtually little or no chance the cops will catch the criminal who is fleeing with the property, it simply gives the crooks impunity to burglarize and rob at will. Crooks are rational actors, so they will commit crimes that have a good chance of success.
In Texas we have the opposite approach that if you rob, steal, burglarize, etc.. the owner has the right to take action to prevent the loss of that property by using deadly force. When Don Horn shot the two crooks who were running away with his neighbors property, there was a large outcry from the crooks who thought it was unfair to shoot at them. Some professional minority groups were outraged too, since they have a large number of their members who make their living that way. Most minority people have the opposite opinion and they have guns to make it more risky to rob them. Thus the law will stay unchanged in Texas for a long time since even liberals like myself see the good points of the law.
Indeed, one older woman in Ft Worth came home one night and saw some men in her house. She called 911, but before the cops arrived two crooks came out her front door. She had her pistol with her in the car, and she shot and killed the first guy out, wounded the second, who limped away, and fired at the third guy who jumped out a window but that shot missed. The news showed the house next day, and I was PROUD to see it had an OBAMA lawn sign. I guess the crooks figured that she was a liberal and would be an easy target with no risk. The cops later caught up with the wounded crook at a convenience store since he had stopped to get something to stop his bleeding, and his buddy was with him. I guess the clerk thought that bleeding from a hole in the guys body was a bit suspicious and called the cops. I am a bit surprised that some race groups did not protest the clerks action as racial profiling.
Advising anyone to fire warning shots or even wave a gun around is crazy advice. THe’ll end up neck-deep in criminal and tort issues.
Everyone knows that the sensible option is shoot to kill.
Then you can claim Stand Your Ground and walk free – immune from even civil actions.
Even in Florida, you’ll get in trouble for warning shots
Marissa Alexander got 20 years for warning shots.
George Zimmerman (initially at any rate) walked free after killing.
How messed up is that?
One basic rule to stay out of trouble in home defense shootings. Good advice I got from a friend of mine who was a District Attorney, now retired. The discussion got around to home defense, and he knew I had several threats on my life. He told me the best way to keep it simple if I had a home invasion or found an intruder. He said, “If you ever have to shoot one at your house, just make sure all parts of his body are inside the threshold of the doors or windows.” Otherwise, he said, he would have to present it to the Grand Jury.
This sounds like the cops needed to make their quota of tickets. The story does not say if the bedroom door was open or closed, and even if open there would undoubtedly be shotgun pellets in or near the window to back up the guys story. If the door were closed, I think that the cost of replacing the door would be sufficient punishment. Since no other property was damaged, as Biden pointed out which would be the case, then there is NO rational reason to charge the guy with anything.
A former co-worker of mine had an abusive husband who she divorced. This did not stop the guy from being jealous and attacking her after the divorce, so she got a protective order. One night she was in her apartment with the two kids, and he came over drunk and saying he was going to kill her. Fortunately, she had bought a .357 handgun. As he was in the process of kicking the door in, she fired through the door and hit him three times killing him. The cops came, asked to see the order, and only said GOOD SHOOTING!
There’s something fishy about this story. The story is reported fairly consistently in the media, but parts of it don’t comport with normal behavior — not that stress won’t lead to some pretty abnormal behavior.
1. Resident says he saw two masked men leaning in his window. They said they were going to rob him and ordered him to leave the room and close the door.
A. It must be a big window for two men to be able to lean through at the same time. (As a separate matter, one can question the wisdom of leaving a window open or unlocked in an unattended room.) What home invader sees his victim and orders him to go to another room and close the door? The victim is now out of their immediate control, and could easily retrieve a weapon.
2. Resident complies with the alleged instruction, and predictably retrieves a shotgun. He then shoots one or more rounds through the bedroom door.
B. While the closed door is chokepoint that the home invaders would have to pass through to get to the rest of the house and we don’t know the layout of the bedroom and the location of the door, shots fired through the bedroom door would seem to have a reduced likelihood of hitting anyone in the bedroom unless they were immediately behind the door.
3. Then resident reenters room and fires one or more shots at or out of the window, where, apparently, the intruders can no longer be seen. Indeed, at this point, there are no identifiable intruders or, apparently, any evidence that there ever were intruders.
C. These last shots seem to fall into the “painting the lily” category. The intruders, if they existed, certainly should have already heard the shots that came through the bedroom door. The intruders have left the house (if they actually ever entered it) and are nowhere to be seen. It would be hard to justify these latter shots as self-defense.
4. It is not clear from the story whether the intruders took anything from the bedroom.
A. It would seem to me that a home invasion aimed only at a specific room (they allegedly told resident to leave and close the bedroom door) would be targeted to something that was known to be there. Indicating some foreknowledge.
There are reasons, I think, to believe that this is something other than what the shooter says it was.
Bogus charge. It is blaming the victim. The intruders are the good guys?
Plus, Biden specified a more rural area than Virgina Beach.
It takes police longer to reach most rural areas, so home protection is more normal there.
The guy did seem to be a bit trigger happy, but he was not the one who began the sequence of events.
Drop the charges.
Article interpretation: when firing your weapon of choice at an ‘intruder’ please make sure that you ‘hit him so good’ to the point he/she is unable to get away? Therefore you will have evidence that you didn’t just wrecklessly discharge your firearm by firing through a door or window? Why would you want to take a chance of damaging your property or hurting the mailman by firing through a window or door? Has Biden or his wife ever been to a shooting range?
Are police officers charged for reckless shooting when they pursue a subject in a public setting with people around and start shooting?