This weekend, Caleb Gordley, 16, was shot and killed in a home that he mistook for his own after sneaking out for a party. The homeowner confronted Gordley on the stairs inside the home and said that the teenager ignored a warning shot. The shooting occurred after the failure of a “Castle Doctrine” law in Virginia’s General Assembly — a law that we have discussed previously on this blog that gives homeowners protections in the use of lethal force with anyone illegally entering their domicile. Ironically, the bill was shot down by gun groups that felt that the common law offered more protection.
Caleb was told that he could not go to the party because his room was not cleaned up. He decided to sneak out and his friends helped him get back in through a window. He had mistaken a similarly constructed home for his own. He had been drinking. The home is owned by Donald West Wilder II.
The scene is all too familiar to critics of Castle Doctrine laws. We have seen a long line of mistaken shootings of neighbors and others who go into the wrong house in developments with similarly constructed homes. There are also cases of standard home and workplace disputes that lead to fatal shootings.
In this case, there is the questioning of whether the first shot was a warning shot or a miss. However, in these circumstances, there is no alternative account to rebut the homeowner and police are left only with the trajectory of the bullet to confirm the account. The strongest case would be a round in the ceiling where there was clearly no attempt to aim at the suspect. When you add that the teen was drunk, the homeowner is unlikely to be charge presuming the forensics do not conflict with his account.
The Castle Doctrine law proposed in Virginia failed due to opposition from gun groups which did not like the requirement of an “overt act” by the intruder to justify a shooting. The gun groups felt that such a requirement is more restrictive than the common act and opposed the requirement that the intruder show aggression or threatening behavior.
Source: Washington Post
Bron has the right solution for home defense. I live out in the country, and my next door neighbor had a guy with Alzheimers break into his house at night, thinking it was his home. Fortunately, Joe did not shoot the guy, but he would have been more than justified in doing so. The cops came and took him away. My guns are there for backup for my dogs. They first warn, and then will attack if a person is stupid enough to keep on coming in. Then I will find out if they are armed or dangerous if they fight the dogs. If they do, I will be more than happy to kill any person who harms my dogs, NO regrets.
there aren’t enough facts to make a judgment on the “warning shot” issue. what kind of firearm? how far away were the shots taken? If possible, confronted with the same circumstances, my .12 gauge would have blown him back through the window with a basketball size hole in his midsection. the “warning” would have been me racking a round into the chamber.
News stories last night said the parents of the boy have forgiven their neighbor for what he did. Link to news article below.
http://www.lohud.com/article/20130320/NEWS/303200032/Virginia-parents-forgive-neighbor-shooting-death-teen-son
“Let’s say Gordley thought he was in the right home, but shot and killed Wilder because Gordley thought Wilder was the intruder? I don’t see the difference, it’s just a mistake after-all.”
Then as now, intent would be at issue. However, because of the effective B&E it would be harder to prove intent in that way. It would probably be easier and more effective to argue diminished capacity.
@ Bron
I like your alternative.
@ Gene H
Let’s say Gordley thought he was in the right home, but shot and killed Wilder because Gordley thought Wilder was the intruder? I don’t see the difference, it’s just a mistake after-all.
This is the classic unavoidable accident brought on by alcohol and youth. Like Gene implies, there but for the grace of God goes many of us. I am a great believer that intent should rule the day when we can divine it. This homeowner has said nothing yet, but his reputation is good, he volunteers as a fireman, and he is, by all accounts, a responsible citizen. At this point, I see no reason for criminal charges — just sympathy for all involved.
I think that he was shot because he was a person of color. We need greater gun control. I think the shooter should be prosecuted for homicide with premeditation.
I hope Obama can prevent gun ownership. I support Obama because of this and women’s issues. He is the most progressive democrat I have voted for.
ZVYO:
did the homeowner have children?
This was bad all around.
This is why people need to own a big dog with a bite as good as his bark. Dog grabs kid, guy turns on light, guy sees drunk kid with big dog around his arm, guy tells kid to lay on ground and not move, guy calls cops, cops take big dog off kid, cops take kid to hospital to suture wounds, kid explains mistake, homeowner grateful he didnt kill kid, kid grateful he isnt dead, dog gets hamburger for breakfast.
Dog is first line of defense, gun only if dog doesnt work. Dog separates real threat from drunk kid without harm to anyone.
@ Paul
“this kid made a dumb mistake that cost him his life”
Why give it a second thought eh? It’s no-one you knew. There’s really no difference to him breaking his neck riding his skateboard, for example.
You would have done the same thing, and if it had been your own drunk son/daughter you’d have wanted them shot dead, you know, given the “impossible” situation.
Yeah, c’est la vie.
(Time to take a long hard, critical look at yourselves USofA).
How about waiting for the completion of the investigation before deciding who was right or wrong? Jumping to conclusions can create a tragic mistake.
Truly tragic but as many have pointed out, this kid made a dumb mistake that cost him his life. I feel for his family, friends, but mostly for the homeowner that shot him. He was put in an impossible situation, intruder in his house at night that didn’t respond to the first shot.
“Why on earth does it matter if the homeowner tried to ventilate his roof prior to stopping the intruder.”
It goes to show intent.
*****************
“Replay those circumstances while thinking about it being your own child’s error.
There just aren’t ANY other alternatives to him/her being dead are there? Right? RIGHT?”
None that don’t involve an unconstitutionality. With that argument, you are arguing ab absurbum and appealing to emotion, both logical fallacies.
Replay those circumstances while thinking about it being your own child’s error.
There just aren’t ANY other alternatives to him/her being dead are there? Right? RIGHT?
Screw warning shots.
Warning shots are for movies not real life.
Soldiers are taught to confirm their target, and remove the threat, no warning is given.
Cops are taught shoot, then see if it was their target, no warning given.
Why on earth does it matter if the homeowner tried to ventilate his roof prior to stopping the intruder.
Yes, it is sad this young man was shot, but the owner has, no need, nor duty to surrender his safety for this mans mistake.
David,
Exactly.
Is a warning shot necessary under these circumstances?
In my imagining this, I don’t know if I would have the discipline to think that altruistically. Timing, location, closeness of the intruder are all factors to a disciplined mind.
Hearing an intruder, arming myself, going into MY hallway, or top of MY stairs and being confronted in MY home, I don’t ever want to be put to this test.
I agree with Mel. I would be devastated, I believe strongly I would have and or could have reacted the same way. Tragedy all the way round.
I’ve got to go with AY on this one. Unless forensics paint a different picture? I staggered home many a night when I was young. Several times I ignored my parents yelling at me and went to bed. I was, however, never so drunk a warning shot would not have gotten my attention or being yelled at by a stranger for that matter. And I was pretty damn drunk by any definition. No, while I’m sure the home owner feels remorse for killing a kid? As tragic as this incident might be? Barring proof that there was a miss instead of a warning shot and evidence the kid was shot trying to flee? This is the proper use of a gun for home defense in light of an “ongoing B&E” and/or the law of natural selection at work.
Yes, yes, I know I’m a “gun crazy nut” and a “callous b@stard” over a young man’s death, but if this hadn’t been a tragic confluence of mistaken identities, this wouldn’t even be a news story other than “home owner kills intruder”.
I would like to see the forensic evidence before decrying what would otherwise be a legal exercise of lethal force.
As tragic as this story is, I can’t really fault either the law or the homeowner here. I don’t (and wouldn’t) own a gun, but if I discovered an adult-sized male (of any race–I think “male” is a much more powerful trigger for me) in my home I would be instantly terrified. If someone has climbed in a window of your house, I think it’s completely reasonable to assume criminal intent on their part, and to feel that time is of the essence in protecting your own life.
That the boy entered the wrong house by mistake is a monstrously sad error–but it would have been equally tragic had he fallen off an overpass or walked in front of a car. He was impaired, and in that state made an error in judgment that cost him his life.
If I were the shooter, I would feel sick and horrified, and might never get over it. But I can’t honestly say I wouldn’t have done exactly the same thing.
I bet the homeowner has great remorse…. But come on… It’s not just the castle doctrine in place…. It’s breaking and entering an occupied dwelling…that says it all….
A drunken teen (and probably a large kid given the BB picture) in the dark of night? Yeah, this one is not going to move anyone to condemn the homeowner unless that second shot was in the back. Even then there will still be a lot of ‘he had it coming’ from the usual suspects. This is just something we have to come to accept as long as we as a nation love our guns more than our safety