GUILTY WA - Nathaniel Rosa, 31, fatally shot by homeowner, Belfair, 1 April 2017

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Cryptic said:
Yes, it is strange. Maybe the "more to the story" aspect is that the victim was renter with some kind of occupancy right until formally evicted?
Click to expand...


There has to be more to this - or severe mental illness -- an affair is good idea, a previous conflict.


Breaking down a door sounds like a pretty intense need for a rinse!!

I wonder what the homeowner means when he said broken into tho. If he thought he was at his mothers I doubt he would have done damage?


Well just think if the world was not going bonkers how many fewer threads we would have !

C8g6O4wUIAEl3i-.jpg




jjeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzz

http://komonews.com/news/local/man-...omeowner-was-educator-with-no-criminal-record
 
Wow. A couple weeks ago I had a very drunk person ring my doorbell and knock loudly repeatedly before trying to actually open my door. This was like 2:30 am on a weekday. They totally thought they were at their friend's house until my angry bed-head (think hair like sideshow Bob from the Simpsons) opened the door and they realized they were at the wrong townhouse in the row of over 20 practically identical townhouses. I was unhappy but would be lying if I didn't admit to ALMOST trying to unlock my neighbor's door at least twice. Sober.

I wonder if the showering guy thought he was at his mom's house?

That's so messed up! Dude could have, and should have, called the police to get showering guy out. You take a guy's life because he used your soap and water? Not cool. Definitely not overcharged.
 
SBHack said:
Mason Couny Sheriff's Office Press Release
Click to expand...

SBHack: Thanks a millllllllion for this link.
Anyone see a plausible self-defense argument for this shooter? If it's there, I'm not seeing it, from info so far.

from ^ (or http://so.co.mason.wa.us/property-o...usiness-while-intruder-is-showering-4-1-2017/) posted Ap 3.
"WASHINGTON STATE LAW – RCW 9A.16.020 Use of force—When lawful.
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;

(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person."


Also from ^ media release:
"The Mason County Sheriff’s Office found during the initial investigation that the facts, statements and evidence in this case do not support necessary / reasonable self-defense at this time. The investigation is ongoing and the case has been referred to the Mason County Prosecutor."
 
When taking the concealed carry class they put a lot of emphasis on firing a shot only if you can not retreat from harm and have no other option.He retreated and was not in any harm but he then returned to be the aggressor.
 
Saw the title to the thread and I was on my way in here ready to fight-to the death-for the homeowner...until I read the details.

Nope. As soon as he left the house, he was safe..His only recourse at the time was to call 911.Now IF he had walked in the house armed..or the gun was already there..we'd have a totally different ballgame.

Sorry, dude. I think you're screwed.
 
OK, what is going on here today?
 
Actually I just recently heard this case on Sword and Scale podcast and he WAS charged with murder. I thought to myself at the time that it was a bit harsh considering they'd broken into his house; my sentiment is that you pretty much give up your rights when you commit a criminal act and the outcome however bad is ultimately self inflicted.
 
xmsmadex said:
This reminds me of a case where 3 teenagers broke into a mans home where he was waiting in the basement ready to shoot them and he did, killing 2 of them. He wasnt charged with murder.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think you might be referring to the Byron David Smith killings of Halie Kifer and Nick Brady.
His house had previously been broken into on several occasions and had items stolen.
He quietly waited in the basement of his home and ambushed first, Nick, then Halie a few minutes later.
He even went so far as to record the killings on an audio tape which you can find on youtube.

He was charged with 2 counts of 1st degree murder and 2 counts of 2nd degree murder.
 
Matic said:
I think you might be referring to the Byron David Smith killings of Halie Kifer and Nick Brady.
His house had previously been broken into on several occasions and had items stolen.
He quietly waited in the basement of his home and ambushed first, Nick, then Halie a few minutes later.
He even went so far as to record the killings on an audio tape which you can find on youtube.

He was charged with 2 counts of 1st degree murder and 2 counts of 2nd degree murder.
Click to expand...
Oh my mistake, I thought he wasnt charged. Ty

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
 
Once when I was younger my BF had similar happen to her. She lived at an apt complex and a woman just walked into her apt while she was there with 2 kids under age 2. This woman was def on drugs and proceeded to take a shower at her house. My friend picked up her kids, walked out and called the police. However she was very scared and upset as would be expected. She didnt have a weapon. After that she locked her door at all times. I dont get the taking a shower at some one elses house just weird.
 
I am all for self defense in one's home--but this...:no:

He needed to call the police and report her. End of story...no need to shoot a naked woman in the shower.
 
katydid23 said:
I am all for self defense in one's home--but this...:no:

He needed to call the police and report her. End of story...no need to shoot a naked woman in the shower.
Click to expand...

Him. "The homeowner shot Nathaniel Joseph Rosa"

I agree, no need to return to shoot. Call 911 and let them handle the situation.
 
I am always of the mindset that the intruder has the option NOT to enter someone else's property.
If I'm on the jury, and it's not proven that they did previously know each other, I'm going to let him off.
The man that waited in the basement and killed the 2 teens should not have been charged in my opinion. He was retired and had been broken into several times. He deserved to be safe in his own home. He had lost his peace of mind.
I know that my opinion is not popular, but it is how I really feel. Criminals have to take responsibility for their actions. If you get yourself into a mess and you end up dying, well, you made a bad choice.
MOO
 
I think he should be charged but I would really like to see moms house- just to see if it can at least explain what happened!
 
rob said:
I am always of the mindset that the intruder has the option NOT to enter someone else's property.
If I'm on the jury, and it's not proven that they did previously know each other, I'm going to let him off.
The man that waited in the basement and killed the 2 teens should not have been charged in my opinion. He was retired and had been broken into several times. He deserved to be safe in his own home. He had lost his peace of mind.
I know that my opinion is not popular, but it is how I really feel. Criminals have to take responsibility for their actions. If you get yourself into a mess and you end up dying, well, you made a bad choice.
MOO
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, you understand the homeowner left and then came back to kill this guy, right? Like, was safe but then chose to go back into the unsafe environment and give a death sentence to a guy who was not an imminent danger. And you're saying you'd be fine with the homeowner facing no consequences? Did I misunderstand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 213 more.
Total: 793 (members: 214, guests: 579)

Online statistics

Members online
214
Guests online
579
Total visitors
793
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,427
Messages
18,239,330
Members
234,369
Latest member
Anasazi6
Back
Top