Home Owner Shoots at Five Greenville Teens, All Charged In Home Break-In

Bob Irwin highlights the latest self defense and other shootings of the week. Read them and see what went wrong, what went right and what we can learn from self defense with a gun.

Greenville teens charged in Lenoir County home break-in
Greenville teens charged in Lenoir County home break-in :  (TOP) Blunt, N. Cantley / (BOTTOM) T. Cantley, Harris
Bob Irwin
Bob Irwin

USA –-(Ammoland.com)- WITN TV 7.3 reports 03-27-2017 in Hugo, North Carolina, a homeowner was notified of the break-in by his alarm and camera system around 2:45 p.m. They say he alerted the sheriff's office while on his way home.

When he arrived, deputies say, the man encountered several teenagers still inside and fired at them as they fled. One of the teens was immediately caught by responding deputies, while a second was found in a nearby field. The other three were arrested around 10:00 p.m. after a search in the Hugo area.

One of the burglars was hit in the arm and has non-life threatening injuries and remains at Vidant Medical Center.

Lenoir County Sheriff Ronnie Ingram says four are 17 years of age and one is an adult aged 18. All have all been charged with breaking & entering, larceny after B&E, possession of stolen goods and felony conspiracy.

Four are being held on $40,000 secured bonds with the one still in the hospital is under guard.

The sheriff says at this time they do not expect any charges to be brought against the homeowner.

Comments:

A step up to five intruders. Home invasions are the becoming the common dangerous crime as business robberies and carjacking’s become more dangerous targets with most of all 50 states [sorry not you NJ] now issuing concealed firearm permits.

As the home was apparently unoccupied, the resident probably should have waited for the responding Officers rather than confront the intruders and certainly not fired as they were fleeing.

It’s always safer to let the cops handle it if that’s possible. Firing at fleeing criminals carries the risk of civil litigation. This could take an expensive defense effort to prevent the wounded criminal from winning your house.

That is tough to consider that when your home is being violated by a bunch of criminals.

Bob Irwin, The Gun Store, Las Vegas

About Bob Irwin

The writer is the owner of The Gun Store in Las Vegas and has a gun talk radio show “Fired Up with Bob Irwin” Firedup is now on KSHP 1400 am radio from 9 to 10 pm on Thursdays and also on YouTube “Fired Up with Bob Irwin.

Subscribe
Notify of
19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tionico
Tionico
3 years ago

Hey, this is some news… I was unaware Obama had so many “fine sons”. In many states, using lethal force to protect property and/or apprehend the perpetrators of a felony in progress or just having been committed is legal. Further, there IS the concept of “disparity of force” in the form of five young durtbags against one homeowner, and in usch cases that disparity of force justifies the application of lethal force to “even the odds”. HOW did this homeowner know but that four or five of the wretched scumbags mightn’t turn and advance on him and even kill him,… Read more »

revjen45
revjen45
3 years ago

Dey was jus teyin ta git som stuf sos dey could gets muny fo skool close. Don’t yuz unerstan?
You left out aspiring rapper, scouted by the NBA, and loves his Momma.
_revjen45

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  revjen45

@revjen, That mock New York cabbie accent is most humorous!

Chuckbone56
Chuckbone56
3 years ago

We need some new laws. Break and enter, steal private property, invade a private residence, rape someone, murder etc. and get shot or killed too bad. You have forfieted all rights to any thing. Justice served! Every one knows when they are doing wrong despite the stupid bleatings of leftist sheep. Common sense seems to have gone the way of the DoDo bird.

curt
curt
3 years ago

to bad he dident kill all 5 of those scum bags.they deserve it

Paul G.
Paul G.
3 years ago
Reply to  curt

Hey Curt,
Capital punishment for stealing?
Do you really believe that, for yourself and family?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul G.

G, Capital punishment for stealing has been the norm for most of man’s history. Christianity changed that by placing more value on human life than objects. I do not agree, but the thin varnish of Christian morality forces me to comply.

hippybiker
hippybiker
3 years ago

Dey was jus teyin ta git som stuf sos dey could gets muny fo skool close. Don’t yuz unerstan?

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  hippybiker

@hippy, I like that mock New Jersey accent!

Old 1811
Old 1811
3 years ago

This wasn’t a home invasion; it was a burglary. A home invasion by definition requires violent entry to an occupied dwelling. You’re right, the homeowner should have stood back and let the people with the duty to pursue and apprehend, and the qualified immunity that flows from that duty, handle it. (Since one of the fleeing burglars was “immediately caught by responding deputies,” there doesn’t appear to be a response time problem. This homeowner is lucky he hasn’t been charged with aggravated battery for shooting a fleeing felon who was not an immediate threat. You should never shoot anyone who… Read more »

Reb
Reb
3 years ago
Reply to  Old 1811

Bull Sh*t………..People ransacking your home and making off with items that you worked for and belong to you should be shot. They were on your property, taking your property and doing damage in the process and knew right from wrong and knew the risk. Who will be their next victim? Maybe an old person, or a young person home at the time. These thugs were up to no good and knew it. Law abiding citizens are held accountable, so should these low-lifes!

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  Reb

@Reb, Although, we agree with your sentiments, “People ransacking your home and making off with items that you worked for and belong to you should be shot. They were on your property, taking your property and doing damage in the process and knew right from wrong and knew the risk.” does not fit the law of self defense.

Craig urban
Craig urban
3 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

God damn liberals and gun control. Wonder why the thugs in Washington dc never broke into my house
Was told by black neighbors that they see you going and coming in uniform going to work
They think you have guns inside for self defense
True story
Retired cw4 army.

Old 1811
Old 1811
3 years ago
Reply to  Reb

The basic rule is, you can shoot only to protect human life. People who shoot to protect their TV, their car, or their sofa go to prison. You might not like it, and I might not like it, but that’s the law.
This “[w]ho will be their next victim” stuff is a canard. If that’s your criterion, you can use it to shoot shoplifters and drunk drivers. After all, how can you say the shoplifter’s next crime won’t be an armed robbery/murder, or that the drunk driver won’t plow into a Brownie troop the next time?

JoeUSooner
JoeUSooner
3 years ago
Reply to  Old 1811

In Oklahoma, residential burglary IS “home invasion” (if the residence is occupied, it is a “hot” invasion). Although response-time in this particular instance was apparently very fast, the national average is north of 9 minutes (and in some locales approaches 20 minutes). The police can indeed be counted on to protect (to “pursue and apprehend”), but only if they are actually present during or immediately after actual commission of the crime… which will not happen often. Yes, the homeowner shot at a fleeing felon… but your presumption that the felon was NOT an “immediate threat” may be premature, and is… Read more »

Old 1811
Old 1811
3 years ago
Reply to  JoeUSooner

“In Oklahoma, residential burglary IS home invasion . . .” This happened in North Carolina.
Don’t argue with me about shooting at fleeing felons, argue with the Supreme Court.
And saying they “could have” had weapons and “could have brandished them adds an element that isn’t present here. If that was the case, shooting may have been okay. But given the facts in the story, shooting at the fleeing burglars was not justifiable.

HMLA-167 Warrior
HMLA-167 Warrior
3 years ago
Reply to  Old 1811

What he is saying is there is not, as typical in Bob’s articles, sufficient information to pass judgement either way.

Reb
Reb
3 years ago

Yes there is! These scumbags were NOT invited into your home, they were there to steal YOUR belongings. They had absolutely NO right to YOUR property or the right to even be there. Maybe the law says it is not justifiable, but it sure as hell is morally justifiable.

Gil
Gil
3 years ago

You’re arguing for property defense. Self-defense only covers your safety and the safety of others.