A Washington homeowner shot and killed one of two intruders in the early hours of the morning last week. The homeowner, Jeremy Smith, responded with force when he said two men kicked down his back door to get into the house.
Smith fired at the intruders and called the police just after 4 a.m. When police arrived they found one 24-year-old suspect unresponsive in his front yard from an apparent gunshot wound. He was later pronounced dead at the scene.
“This is, for all intents and purposes, with the lease, my property, and I will protect it,” Smith said to the local news. “I took action upon that, which was, unfortunately taking one life, and the other one ran,” said Smith.
Deputies responding to the call did not find the second man and are still on the lookout for the suspect, who remains at large.
“You get to talk about it a lot with your friends, or you get to talk about it with your family, and go, yeah we all carry, but you know, or this is what I would do, or this is what you would do, but it’s way different when it actually happens,” he said.
Sergeant Darren Moss, speaking for the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department, repeated that homeowners have the right to use force if they have to, but he still urged people to avoid direct confrontation and use force as a last resort whenever possible.
“Call the police right away, let us come and handle the confrontation if possible,” said Moss. “If it moves to self-defense, we’ll figure that out when we get there for the investigation. But we always urge people to call 911 right away, focus on protecting yourself and your family; don’t try to go and initiate a confrontation with an intruder.”
SEE ALSO: Indiana Woman Fatally Shoots Intruder Pretending to Be A Cop
Smith continued to say that it was unfortunate what happened, but that he felt he was justified in his decisions.
“I have the right to carry, and I have the right to protect myself, and I have the right to protect my property,” he said. “We practice; we never want to put it into action because it’s still a human life.”
“But my life is more important to me than theirs is,” he continued. “Me going home to my family and my kid is more important than theirs is. I don’t know what they wanted out of this house, I don’t know what they were doing, but I don’t care.”
Smith also said he doesn’t plan to relocate following the incident, that he won’t be scared to move, and that other Americans should feel the same way.
Once a criminal has broken into my home, he has illegally violated the sanctity of my domicile. And is automatically considered a threat, because it is not my responsibility to make a middle of the night assessment, in the dark, of the violator’s intent! My only concern is neutralizing that THREAT to me, and my loved ones! PERIOD! Imho, Mr. Smith should have kept his face, and comments off the media. The media does not care about who they get killed, as long as the story sells.
The real shame of it all is he didn’t exterminate the other vermin.
I’m not a “fake Christian “ like most of y’all… so I have no problem shooting a MF…BUT ARENT YOU FAKE CHRISTIANS SUPPOSED TO TURN THE OTHER CHEEK?isn’t that “ Jesus“teaching.?..waiting to hear your lying bs logic!…haha
I genuinely can’t decipher the point you were trying to make here.
Your comment doesn’t even deserve a response Bones, you’re an atheist idiot.
After giving this matter some serious thought, I’m going to have to agree with Armed and Dangerous.
I have been on this side of the dirt for 69 years, and I have voted for who or what I believe in. I also have tried to have a belief and even have a faith in God. I have failed but I keep trying and I do not consider myself a fake in any form. But, I keep trying to be The Best Human I can be. Some might think that is foolish, but I would simply tell them they have the choice of trying to believe in God, or not, simple as that.
Now Bones, years ago I did not much care if anyone lived or died, and it appears you are at the place I use to be. I would say Stop Complaining and try to enjoy this life, and let others enjoy their lives as they see fit. God Bless Us All
No, you are probably no kind of Christian at all, to be honest! Just a jerk with a butthole for a mouth, and a full rectum for brains! And you have obviously never read more than 5 verses of Scripture, before you thought that you had it all figured out! You should be concerned first about your own status with the Author of the Book you so feebly attempted to quote and mis-apply! You would do better to consider verses like Romans 6:23, John 3:5, Revelation 20:11-15, Acts 16:31. And until you know what you talking about, SHUT YOUR IGNORANT PIE-HOLE! You may even get mistaken for someone intelligent.
Don’t be an idiot. Turning the other cheek is killing them with one shot and not torturing them to death.
There, how’s that for love?
Ah yes, Jesus’ parable about the Naphtali door-kicker-inners, well known from the Gospel of Bones.
Well, let’s start with this jack-ass:
which particular book of scripture are we “FAKE CHRISTIANS” going to use as a reference ? Given that we’re Christians (fake or otherwise) I would assume we’ll be going with the basic, traditional King James Bible. Now, will it be the Old Testament or New ? This is where it gets tricky – the Old goes with an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. That “turn the other cheek” part came later in the more politically correct, modern version. Let’s just say I’m old fashioned – I generally prefer the “as written” or traditional version. Come on over and we’ll talk about it – just do so when the sun’s up. And knock first because I don’t mind shoot’n a MF either.
It’s nice to know what the law about using deadly force to protect your property in your area. Say if you are working at an establishment and a smash and grab happens, as an employee can you use deadly force since the property being stolen is not yours?
Kim,
You cannot use deadly force to protect property. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one’s property. Certainly Mr. Smith had the right to use deadly force as these individuals were attempting to enter his residence forcefully by breaking down his door. Now if Mr. Smith had stepped outside and shot the second suspect as he was running away that would be a problem for him as the threat of deadly force against him no longer existed.
Smith’s comments are a little concerning to me.
“I have the right to carry, and I have the right to protect myself, and I have the right to protect my property,” he said. “We practice; we never want to put it into action because it’s still a human life.”“I have the right to carry, and I have the right to protect myself, and I have the right to protect my property,” he said. “We practice; we never want to put it into action because it’s still a human life.”
He does not have the right to use deadly force solely to protect property. I agree with other people commenting here that he should not be freely talking to the press and putting comments like that out there that can be used against him later either in a criminal proceeding or a civil suit.
You should actually take 10 seconds and do a quick search before writing something that’s completely wrong.
“Washington law allows for the use of force under certain circumstances. RCW 9A.16.020 outlines the circumstances under which a person can legally use force. The lawful use of force/self-defense most commonly arises under three situations:
Self Defense
Defense of Others
Defense of Property
Washington’s Self-Defense statute specifically states:
No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030. “
You are wrong Kevin. I copied this from the website of William Kirk, attorney at law in the state of Washington.
WILLIAM KIRK, PARTNER
Bill Kirk has been named a Super Lawyer by Washington Law and Politics Magazine every year since 2003. He currently serves on the Board of Regents to the National College for DUI Defense and is the President of the Washington Foundation for Criminal Justice. Bill is one of only two attorneys in this state to pass the National College’s Board Certification Exam.
First, let’s start off with when we can use deadly or lethal force. A person may use lethal force only when they have a reasonable fear of an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to themselves or some other person in their presence. “Great bodily harm” means bodily injury which creates a probability of death, or which causes significant serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a significant permanent loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ. “Deadly force” means the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury.
Since a person must be in reasonable fear of serious harm to some person, the reasonable fear, or actual and verifiable fear of destruction to property only does not provide a legal justification for lethal force. Put more simply, you can’t shoot someone when they only thing at risk is your property. It does not matter the actual value of the property, it does not matter the sentimental value of the property, deadly force cannot be used in Washington state to defend property.
If looters enter a store, and their only purpose is to loot the place, and harm no one physically (recognizing there are still considerable financial damages) a store owner or employee cannot start shooting the looters. They can’t fire warnings shots, and they can’t even point a firearm at any individual. Now, should the angry mob turn their attention to the store owner himself or herself, the scenario may be entirely different. But for purposes of this scenario, when only property is at risk, deadly force is not permitted under Washington law.
So your interpretation of the use of deadly force is wrong!! Think about this Kevin, if what you state is true, then why don’t Police just shoot and kill looters during a riot?? They would be protecting property by doing so. See you are talking out of your ass and you are DEAD WRONG!!
Sorry; AS 11.81.350 not AS 11.81.30
Tired of idiots in bubbles casting expursions. If ur in ur home u have every right because u have no idea what the intruders intentions are, moron must be a nice charmed life
as an employee can you use deadly force … ?
Hell yes. Will you need to defend yourself in court?
Probably. It wouldn’t matter where you are and who you shoot a shot fired at anyone will require you to defend yourself if you have been charged.
Kim,
Maybe in your state but I have the right to protect property in my state… Speak for your own lack of rights.
I would agree- never talk to the media,they are not my friends. I also belong to two organizations that have insurance just for incidents like this. I may be cleared of criminal charges but still be the subject of a civil suit by the family of the “beloved deceased.” Its the times we live in unfortunately.
No need to move since that neighborhood will be quite safe from scumbags for a while 👍
I agree with Marcus the shooter is taking a risk by freely making statements without council present especially when the police (Moss) are saying call the police right away tells me that the shooter may have had time to call them before any shots were fired that combined with no mention if the perpetrators had any firearms. Good thing for the shooter this happened in Texas in California he’d have been arrested at the scene for murder two. Gun owners must be prepared with the knowledge of the application of deadly force as a former Marine with two attempted burglaries on my property in California I stopped them both only drawing my weapon once but fortunately the bad guys fled. Burglars that do residential robberies are rarely armed if they have access to firearms they are usually committing different types of crime. Of course you can’t risk your life depending on a statistic by the same token I just don’t whip out my pistol and start blasting away into the night. Once the shooing starts the damage done is permanent but if I commit to shoot at close quarters it will be at least three down range as fast as I can get them off. Tom R. SSgt USMC
What article did you read? This did not happen in Texas. How did you come by that?
Washington state. Which is not as bad as Commiefornia but probably will soon be.
Fortunate for you the perps ran but how about their next victim? Do you really think they won’t do this again to someone else?
A thief is a murderer. Anyone who invades a dwelling with the likelihood that someone is home (as at night), is almost certain to use deadly force to counter resistance and certainly to avoid being detained. Don’t make the mistake of thinking the predator is rational, moral or anything other than asocial.
I believe everyone has the right to defend themselves and when anyone decides to commit a crime , they are giving up their rights and should expect to be shot !! Don’t be stupid , get a job and work for what you want
Marcus is absolutely correct. NEVER, EVER, EVER talk to ANYONE without talking to and through your attorney, FIRST. When they say, “anything you say can and will be used AGAINST you in a court of law” they mean it.
Amen Brother!
HUGE mistake by Smith in granting a media interview. Anyone in his situation should immediately self-mirandize: speaking to police only with counsel present and speaking to no one else ever. Period.
Smith did the right thing in defending himself. He should have quit while he was ahead.
I hope that his rash decision to go on camera does not come back to bite him, either criminally or in a civil action against him.
He’s right. In this litigious society we live in, it’s better to shut your mouth and NOT give the liberal media any more power and influence than they already have. They are expert at twisting things to serve their own liberal agendas. Kyle Rittenhouse comes to mind as a recent example.