• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Homeowner Defends Himself & Property with Gun - And Wins!!!!

Motokid

New Member
"BY TERRI SANGINITI
THE NEWS JOURNAL
11/11/2005
A 60-year-old avid sportsman turned the tables on a pair of armed men Thursday by returning their gunfire, killing one of them after they broke into his Roselle home in the middle of the night, police said.
Police said the pair ambushed the man and fired at him sometime after midnight in his dining room at his home near Elsmere.
After the exchange of gunfire, the two ran out of the victim's Woodward Avenue home.
The homeowner, Thomas Morganstern, who was not struck by either of the two bullets fired at him, shot at the intruders with a handgun, police said. Authorities released the homeowner's name after deciding he would not be charged with a crime.
Morganstern called 911 at about 12:30 a.m. to report a burglary with shots fired. He was unaware at the time that he had shot the intruders.
County officers with K-9 dogs arrived to search the neighborhood. Officers were able to follow a trail of blood to a detached garage next to the man's home where they found Cleveland Richardson, 28, of the 500 block of N. Harrison St. in Wilmington.
He was bleeding from a gunshot wound to the abdomen. He was taken to Christiana Hospital and was reported in good condition Thursday after surgery.
Officers, however, could not find the second man, later identified as Stephen L. Norwood. They stopped the search due to rain and resumed at daybreak.
County police Cpl. Mark Tobin and his K-9 partner, Nike, found Norwood's body at about 8:45 a.m. underneath bushes across the street from the Morganstern's house. Norwood, 26, of the 1800 block of Faulkland Road in Prices Corner, was pronounced dead at the scene.
Area resident John Olah said he was in a rush to get to work Thursday morning and didn't pay attention to the search. But when he returned home at 10 a.m., he found a search centered in his rear yard.
"I found out that somebody's dead in my backyard," Olah said.
Norwood had suffered gunshot wounds to the torso and arm. A handgun was recovered near his body, Navarro said.
Richardson faces charges of first-degree attempted murder, first-degree burglary, possession of a firearm during a felony and conspiracy, Navarro said.
Area residents say they understand their neighbor's action.
Gretta Talamini and her grandmother Elizabeth Jankowski, 86, said their neighbor was a good man who recently lost his wife.
"It's a very quiet neighborhood," Jankowski said. "I think anyone would be concerned about what happened. I certainly don't want it to happen again. Apparently, he was defending himself."
Investigators later discovered that the men had first broken into the Morganstern's garage, found the keys to the car and home and got into the house through the back door.
After questioning Morganstern, detectives learned he was awakened by the intruders when they came into his bedroom on the second floor. They ran off when the man woke up. Before running downstairs, Morganstern armed himself with a handgun. When he reached the bottom of the stairs, the intruders tried to ambush him, Navarro said.
"The intruders shoot twice and the victim returns fire in the direction of the muzzle fire and flash light and hits both men," Navarro said. "One got out the front door and the other ran out the back door. The victim retreated to his room to call police."
Navarro was unable to confirm Thursday if Morganstern legally owns the guns in his house.
Elsmere Police Chief Neil Strauss said there have not been any similar break-ins in the area.
"We're basically familiar with the two of them," Strauss said. "But we don't have any burglaries with the method of operation like they did last night."
According to court records, Norwood was convicted in Sept. 2003 of disorderly conduct. He pleaded guilty on Aug. 24, 1998, to possession and use of a controlled substance. He also pleaded guilty June 8 of that year to second-degree burglary, theft under $1,000 and receiving stolen property.
Richardson was convicted in 1996 of carrying a concealed deadly weapon, terroristic threatening, possession and use of marijuana and criminal contempt, according to court records. In 1997, he pleaded guilty to possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited. In 2001, he was convicted of first-degree reckless endangering and endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal mischief."


So, what are your basic feelings on the availability of guns?

This story is from my local paper today. I have to post the whole story instead of supplying the link because my paper does not keep things active for longer than 7 days.

It's always nice to read a story where the good guy wins.
 
I've just been into this debate on anotehr forum and have been told off by a fellow debator for criticising the culture behind the gun laws, so I'm frankly not in the mood for expanding on the subject.

I will say this though.

I don't believe guns should be available to anyone so readily as they are in the American society. This coming from a European whose only experience with guns is that handgun my American neighbour had and showed us kids when we were younger. The same gun he later lost permission to have because he fired shots inside his own house - thankfully only at the walls(I've seen the holes) - he was manic depressive, and most definitely not fit for having a weapon and ammo. So the police decided to revoke the permission he'd gotten when he travelled to DK years back and confiscated his two handguns - pistols of some sort, if I recall correctly.
 
I always say that if these people weren't theiving in the first place they wouldn't get shot or otherwise injured. That's my argument and I'm sticking to it.

If I had my way I'd have the lot of them shot.
 
CDA said:
I always say that if these people weren't theiving in the first place they wouldn't get shot or otherwise injured. That's my argument and I'm sticking to it.

If I had my way I'd have the lot of them shot.

Couldnt agree with you more :)
 
If I had a gun and an intruder came in my house, I'd certainly shoot, and if the intruder died, too bad!

For those of you who live in countries where gun laws are stricter, you have no idea what it's like to be afraid to go anywhere because of crime, and even be afraid in your own home. I don't think the US gun laws are shocking-it's been a fact of life since frontier days that people will protect themselves, with guns if they have them. If the US banned citizen ownership of all guns, there would still be a criminal element who had them. So I support law-abiding citizens owning guns. The same goes of any instrument that is capable of harming and/or killing people. Guns are simply quicker and more lethal.

Just yesterday in my city, an elderly couple living in a retirement village were the victims of a home invasion, the wife was pushed to the floor, and the husband got stabbed in the arm. No guns involved, but the end result is the same-innocent people hurt.

On Halloween night, another elderly couple had a home invasion, and the husband-84 years old-was shot twice and is still in critical condition the last I heard.

Like the bumper sticker says: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
 
Good Lord. That sounds like anyone's home is fair game to burglars. If the burglars had had guns themselves, I wonder if the verdict would be any different?
 
If Mr. Morganstern had not had a gun, his family would be mourning his death and he would be just another statistic. We have two BBguns with locks and a 22 rifle in our home. The BB guns are permission only items that have lost their allure, while the 22 is probably up in the attic I think. I've not had anything more powerful in my house since 1972 when my dad committed suicide. I'm not against guns and gun ownership, they just don't have a big place in my home.
 
Miss Shelf said:
Good Lord. That sounds like anyone's home is fair game to burglars.
I believe people have the right to defend their home, that burglary is an extremely serious crime that can have long lasting effects on the victim. I have little or no sympathy for those perpetrating such a crime and would like to see greater police resources directed towards pursuing such cases. The change of murder and subsequent life sentence in this case were ridiculous. However if you’re looking for a ‘cause celebre’ I suspect you wouldn’t have Tony Martin particularly high up on your wish list for leading man…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,214336,00.html

Miss Shelf said:
If the burglars had had guns themselves, I wonder if the verdict would be any different?
Much as we may have sympathy for victims and distaste for criminals in such cases the facts are that the burglars weren’t armed in this instance. The person killed was a 16 year old Gypsy boy who was shot in the back whilst running away. Shot in the back by someone who had previously stated they believed that Hitler’s policies towards the Gypsies were correct and that he’d like to “put Gypsies in the middle of a field, surround it with barbed wire and machine gun them”.

Regards,

K-S
 
Miss Shelf said:
For those of you who live in countries where gun laws are stricter, you have no idea what it's like to be afraid to go anywhere because of crime, and even be afraid in your own home.
And how, pray tell, would you know that? We have criminals. They have guns. People get shot here. But clearly because we've stricter gunlaws even criminals must surely abide by them... where did you get that idea?

I have been on the wrong end of a wannabe rapist - thankfully I got away.

Three of my friends have been raped. But naturally we can't surely be afraid of such things because here the strict gun laws keep the criminals at bay.

[/sarcasm]
 
I agree with the court decision. We also had a case like this recently, where a guy got on the wrong side of a gang, so they came to his house and held him while they abused his sister, then tried to set upon him with nunchucks. In order to defend himself, he shot one with a crossbow, killing the guy, but he got off on self-defense.

I also agree with Jemima on this one - gun laws are far too slack in the USA. I can't say that NZ is as dangerous as most other places in the world - 2nd safest place in the world, I've heard - so I can't really comment on the need for guns there, but I think that Jemima makes an excellent point.
 
It doesn't matter how strict the gun laws are, criminals are going to do what they are going to do. If the laws are strict, a criminal will get even a small blackmarket gun or a really big knife, and still be one-up on the victim, if the laws are loose, the criminals will get the biggest baddest guns they can find and have even the police out gunned.
 
cajunmama said:
It doesn't matter how strict the gun laws are, criminals are going to do what they are going to do. If the laws are strict, a criminal will get even a small blackmarket gun or a really big knife, and still be one-up on the victim, if the laws are loose, the criminals will get the biggest baddest guns they can find and have even the police out gunned.
Yes, they are going to do what they are going to do, but will meet with less success, IMO. It would make it a lot harder to commit the crimes that they are commiting at the moment with worse weapons, and some people may not even bother to make the extra effort. I'd rather go up against someone with a knife rather than a gun anyday.
 
MonkeyCatcher said:
gun laws are far too slack in the USA.
It's not that the gun laws are too slack in the USA, or that there are not enough laws regarding guns. The problem is the laws that exist are not enforced strictly enough and the penalties for breaking the laws are not harsh enough.

I can legally buy a gun from a certified store (like K-mart or Walmart, where they won't sell beer :confused: :confused: ) and then turn around and sell it on my own through the local newspaper or by whatever means I chose.

I don't have a problem with law abidding citizens having and owning guns. Should a natural disaster like the hurricanes that pounded New Orleans, or some kind of unrest like what's happening in France occure in my area I want to be able to protect my property and family with the most lethal thing I can own. Something that would put on, or above the same level of power as the looters and rioters.
 
Motokid said:
I don't have a problem with law abidding citizens having and owning guns. Should a natural disaster like the hurricanes that pounded New Orleans, or some kind of unrest like what's happening in France occure in my area I want to be able to protect my property and family with the most lethal thing I can own. Something that would put on, or above the same level of power as the looters and rioters.

I think were such things to happen here there would be more of a sense of community where everyone helps each other rather than fends for themself and their family.

Do you think the notion of the gun as protection has made you, as a people, insulart a times where you withdraw inwards to your homes, deeper domestically, to ignore the community, the world at large?
 
Umm....The American people always rise up to help each other and those in other countries. More money has been donated by American's for the Hurricane relief than has ever been donated before. We always send troops and Red Cross to just about anywhere that needs help. America does not ignore disaster relief. They may not "respond fast enough" for some people, but that's a different story)

But, there is always an element of the darker side of society that like to take advantage of opportunity.

I think you might be baiting here a bit Stewart. There's a huge sense of community in America. But with such a huge country the number of seedy people is also pretty high. I would gladely help defend my neighbors and their property and I assume the feeling is mutual.

We're talking about defending ourselves against criminals, and to my knowledge crooks don't have much care for those they prey upon.
 
Back
Top