Homeowner pleads not guilty to murder of unarmed trespassers in Nevada

[techbeck]

Original story....

 

Sparks Police have identified the victims in a Thursday morning shooting on H Street in Sparks as 29-year-old Janai Wilson and 34-year-old Cody Devine.

 

Police tell us a caretaker of a vacant home got a tip that squatters were at the residence. While checking the home, police say shots rang out and Devine died at the scene, while Wilson was hit several times including gunshots to the leg and arm.

 

Wilson is recovering at Renown Regional Medical Center with non life-threatening injuries after being found on I Street. "We believe that the shooting did happen inside the residence and after she was shot, she left on foot and was found about a block and a half away."

 

 

More:  http://www.ktvn.com/story/24715151/police-investigate-deadly-shooting-on-h-st

 

Updated

 

RENO, Nev. ?  A homeowner accused of murder and attempted murder in the shooting of two unarmed trespassers in Nevada has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.

 

KOLO-TV reports (http://bit.ly/1sljyO4 ) Wayne Burgarello was arraigned Wednesday. His next court date is set for Oct. 15.

 

The 73-year-old former schoolteacher was arrested in May in the killing of 34-year-old Cody Devine and the serious wounding of a woman he found inside his often-burglarized, vacant Sparks duplex in February.

 

 

More:  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/10/homeowner-pleads-not-guilty-to-murder-in-shooting-unarmed-trespassers-in-nevada/

[spenser.d]

The guy should go to jail. If he got a tip that people were there he should've called the cops, not gone in guns blazing.

[jnelsoninjax]

He is 73 years old, how long would he live in prison? Also just because they were not armed does not mean that they did not do something to him, I.e. hit him, throw something, etc. I would hope that someone of his age wouldn't just start shooting at some squatters.

[spenser.d]

He is 73 years old, how long would he live in prison? Also just because they were not armed does not mean that they did not do something to him, I.e. hit him, throw something, etc. I would hope that someone of his age wouldn't just start shooting at some squatters.

 

Yes, but he wasn't there when he was tipped off. He actively went there instead of calling the cops and having them go there. Just because he's old doesn't mean he should get out of prison for murder.

[Nogib]

Shame he didn't kill both of them.

[spenser.d]

Shame he didn't kill both of them.

 

No.

[Nogib]

No.

 

YES!

[Gerowen]

People shouldn't have been squatting on property they didn't own.

[firey]

Why should he be sent to jail.  I'm sorry but if I break into someones house.. whether they are there or not.. I am somewhere I shouldn't be.. and the owner has every right to do what needs to be done for their own protection. Likewise.. if I saw someone trying to break into my house, car, whatever their face would be smashed in against whatever solid structure is nearby.

[T3X4S]

Yes, but he wasn't there when he was tipped off. He actively went there instead of calling the cops and having them go there. Just because he's old doesn't mean he should get out of prison for murder.

Going there doesnt mean he goes to jail.

Going there armed doesnt mean he goes to jail.

[spenser.d]

Going there doesnt mean he goes to jail.

Going there armed doesnt mean he goes to jail.

Nope but killing people does. Can't imagine stand your ground applies if you stupidly put yourself in that situation.

Can the cops and let them deal with it like a civilized human being.

[Nagisan]

Nope but killing people does. Can't imagine stand your ground applies if you stupidly put yourself in that situation.

I wouldn't think so.

 

Here's Nevada's "stand your ground" law:

 

 

NRS?200.120???Justifiable homicide? defined; no duty to retreat under certain circumstances.

 

      1.??Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

      2.??A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:

      (a)?Is not the original aggressor;

      (b)?Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and

      ©?Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

 

We may not have the full story, but section 2 part a clearly stats "A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force IF the person is NOT the original aggressor.".

 

Based on the story we do have, the homeowner was NOT in the house, and instead went there with a weapon and became the original aggressor.

 

Which means what he did is known as murder, not "stand your ground" or anything else of that matter.

 

I'm all for protecting your home and family, stand your ground and all that, but the man was not living in the house so it is clearly not a case of stand your ground. The proper way to deal with squatters is attempt to get them to leave (asking nicely doesn't hurt does it?), if they refuse, then call the police and the police will remove them and charge them with trespassing.

[DocM]

I wouldn't think so.

Here's Nevada's "stand your ground" law:

We may not have the full story, but section 2 part a clearly stats "A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force IF the person is NOT the original aggressor."

Based on the story we do have, the homeowner was NOT in the house, and instead went there with a weapon and became the original aggressor.

>

No, he doesn't automatically become the aggressor.

He has every right to carry his legally possessed firearm onto/into his own property whenever he sees fit. That is not inherently an aggressive act.

He could just as easily simply been doing a property check for damage before bringing in the cops. In doing that, if an aggressive move were made towards him by one of the perps he has the right to fire.

I do agree that we don't have enough info to judge - EITHER WAY. We may have a hot-shot prosecutor trying to make a name and using one perps (possibly self-serving) testimony against the homeowner, and the perp gets off for testifying.

[Gerowen]

It's pretty obvious to me from reading replies to this and topics like it that big city dwellers do not value their private property as much as country folks.  Around here you can legally kill somebody for trying to burn down your barn, let alone breaking into a home, squatting, etc.  You people in the city seem to treat  private property like it's throwaway, like you can just walk down the street and get some more and you have no attachment, commitment, or sense of pride in, or responsibility for your land.  Boggles the mind.

 

If these people were squatting on private property, the land owner not only has the right, but the responsibility to remove them.  If I were to call the cops right now and tell them that there were people squatting on my land, you know the first thing they'd say?  "Well, have you tried to remove them yourself yet?"  If the land owner, or a care taker, were in the process of trying to remove illegal squatters, and felt threatened, they have every right to remove the oxygen thieves from existence.

[techbeck]

He was not there and the house was vacant.  He should have called cops, period.  Not everyone who does something like this can cower behind the law and claim self defense.  There have been cases, recently, where people were charged and punished.  The guy was not threatened, did not feel threatened, he was not there at the time he got the tip.  Its not like he was home and then someone smashed down his door.

[techbeck]

You people in the city seem to treat  private property like it's throwaway, like you can just walk down the street and get some more and you have no attachment, commitment, or sense of pride in, or responsibility for your land.  Boggles the mind.

Where did you get that? Because some here dont think the stand your ground law applies in every situation like this? It doesnt and common sense also comes in to play here. But every situation is different and every case like this has to be looked at closely. 

 

And unless my life is threatened (or families), I dont really care about a TV getting stolen.  Its a materialistic item and not worth the life of another, or my bullet, regardless if they are on my property.

 

If I were to call the cops right now and tell them that there were people squatting on my land, you know the first thing they'd say?  "Well, have you tried to remove them yourself yet?"

My dad rents 4 duplexes. He has had issues like this and has called the cops every time and they came and removed the people off the property. It is called trespassing and is something cops will respond to. I have also been watching my brothers house before and years ago and saw someone inside the house. I called the cops, the person was arrested, and case closed. So no, that is not the first thing they will say.

 

And again, the law does not apply to every situation like this and not everyone who tried to hide behind the law, succeeded.  Like the guy who tried to when he opened the door and shot a lady in the face.  Courts ruled he was not in danger and sentenced him to 17yrs.  Seems like some people do things like this and after have an oh ###### moment...then use the law as an out.

[Original Poster]

I think this man has the rights to shoot who ever he damn well pleases if they are trespassing

[SierraSonic]

Your assuming that he walked in there with the mindset to shoot to evict. If I were going to tell squatters to move out I'd most certainly be armed or bring some young friends incase they got hostile. Which just by being there they are already more likely to be violent as they have broken into the there in the the first place.

You cannot assume he brought his weapon for attacking purposes in this situation as he's 73, making him less likely to play hero.

The police should have been called if he asked them to leave, and they just refused. If they became violent he deserves every benefit of doubt in this situation as he wasn't doing anything illegal up until the shooting happened, which most likely will be justified as long as his self defense story checks out with ballistics and such.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Strange how many of these "stand your ground" situations involve unarmed people, or people running away.

[DocM]

An unarmed person can still pose a serious or lethal threat, especially to a 73 year old man.

Running away after beating the bejesus out of another old guy - a felony. Fleeing Felon Rule. Fire to enforce a citizens arrest.

[spenser.d]

Your assuming that he walked in there with the mindset to shoot to evict. If I were going to tell squatters to move out I'd most certainly be armed or bring some young friends incase they got hostile. Which just by being there they are already more likely to be violent as they have broken into the there in the the first place.

You cannot assume he brought his weapon for attacking purposes in this situation as he's 73, making him less likely to play hero.

The police should have been called if he asked them to leave, and they just refused. If they became violent he deserves every benefit of doubt in this situation as he wasn't doing anything illegal up until the shooting happened, which most likely will be justified as long as his self defense story checks out with ballistics and such.

I'm not assuming he went there with intent to kill, but he chose to go there when he could've just called the cops, like a civilized person should. This isn't the wild west, you don't just get to roll in and take the law into your own hands. That's the whole point of having law enforcement. He heard people were trespassing, which is a violation of the law, and he should've called the cops. He chose not to and he killed someone. At best (for him) it's negligent homicide because he didn't employ common sense options to prevent the situation where he may (or may not) have had to shoot someone in the first place.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

I wouldn't think so.

 

Here's Nevada's "stand your ground" law:

 

 

We may not have the full story, but section 2 part a clearly stats "A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force IF the person is NOT the original aggressor.".

 

Based on the story we do have, the homeowner was NOT in the house, and instead went there with a weapon and became the original aggressor.

 

Which means what he did is known as murder, not "stand your ground" or anything else of that matter.

 

I'm all for protecting your home and family, stand your ground and all that, but the man was not living in the house so it is clearly not a case of stand your ground. The proper way to deal with squatters is attempt to get them to leave (asking nicely doesn't hurt does it?), if they refuse, then call the police and the police will remove them and charge them with trespassing.

The NV statute appears to offer him a solid defense depending on what actions actually transpired in the house. Getting squatters to leave isn't always as easy as "call the police"... If a squatter shows a bogus lease, for instance, police will refuse to eject them and instead say "this is a civil matter" and you'll be stuck with them for an untold amount of time.

 

Too early to judge this situation though. Far too early with far too little information.

[SierraSonic]

I'm not assuming he went there with intent to kill, but he chose to go there when he could've just called the cops, like a civilized person should. This isn't the wild west, you don't just get to roll in and take the law into your own hands. That's the whole point of having law enforcement. He heard people were trespassing, which is a violation of the law, and he should've called the cops. He chose not to and he killed someone. At best (for him) it's negligent homicide because he didn't employ common sense options to prevent the situation where he may (or may not) have had to shoot someone in the first place.

Most people here seem to think that you should try to peacefully remove the trespassers first, if they turn violent/aggressive during the initial contact, then there should be a cause to call police AND defend yourself.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/oct/06/what-to-do-squatters-property

 

Seems most sites explain it this way, make contact to see their intent, then proceed otherwise. So..... common sense seems to be indecisive on this.

[chrisj1968]

The guy should go to jail. If he got a tip that people were there he should've called the cops, not gone in guns blazing.

 

sorry, the law is, if an unlawful entrant is in your home. they're yours. we are a stand your ground state. plus the state constitution says we can have firearms for protection. NY'ers would never survive nevada or any other state with control laws.

[Nagisan]

sorry, the law is, if an unlawful entrant is in your home. they're yours. we are a stand your ground state. plus the state constitution says we can have firearms for protection. NY'ers would never survive nevada or any other state with control laws.

Stand your ground would only apply if they attacked him first and he had to defend himself. Them simply being in a property he owns (he wasn't living there and was not on the property when the people arrived) then no, he does NOT have the right to shoot them dead. That's only if he tries the make them leave peacefully and they attack him (even if they refuse to leave, if they are not hostile he has NO right to shoot them).

 

One of two scenarios happened here:

 

1) He arrived and asked them to leave, they became hostile and he defended himself. - THIS IS LEGAL IN NEVADA AND MANY OTHER STATES

2) He arrived, maybe asked them to leave, and shot them, killing one and injuring the other. - THIS IS ILLEGAL AS HE IS THE AGGRESSOR AND THEREFORE STAND YOUR GROUND DOES NOT APPLY

 

Not enough info to plainly state one way or the other. Fact is too much info is missing at this point, and what the man did may have been murder, not stand your ground.