LaRue Brachter

Rez Exelon said:

You ever go jiggle a door at 1 am for the second night in a row?

On May 27, 2020, around 1 a.m., Bratcher was at the grow operation warehouse when Daniel Hardwick, a 42-year-old white man, allegedly attempted to break into the business for the second consecutive night. Video from that night reportedly shows Hardwick park his car at the rear of the shop, walk to the business’s door and jostle with the door handle, attempting to gain entry.​

Click to expand...

Maybe that's one of the reasons Brachter was expected to make $100K in improvements to his operation? I mean if you're sitting on "$1.5M" worth of controlled substance in a warehouse and someone can break in and steal it by merely jiggling a door, that's what I'd call a sign. What's more expensive, making $100K in improvements? Or being in felony violation of state law when you shoot some poor addict through a door because he swiped a few plants, thereby losing your entire nut AND your freedom?

I guess I just can't think like that. As soon as I knew I needed to make those improvements, I'd either secure short term funding or negotiate with the regulatory agency for temporary relief. If I was in violation, I'd be willing to do whatever they said to come into compliance. I damned sure wouldn't be setting up in my warehouse to shoot a thief while I was in felony level violation of the law. Hell it would be easier to let the guy get a plant or two every damned night than kill him and go to jail.

I've worked to make my home and possessions secure. If someone was breaking into my home, I wouldn't be shooting through doors to stop them. I'd call 911, warn the person that I was armed and would use it if they broke in, then wait till they either left, or broke through to before I shot. I certainly wouldn't go out into the night to defend my property that's locked into my shop. After all, the thief may be armed and ambush/shoot me. Best to let LE respond and assume the role of searching that building. That's what I pay taxes and insurance for.

Glocktogo said:

​

Maybe that's one of the reasons Brachter was expected to make $100K in improvements to his operation? I mean if you're sitting on "$1.5M" worth of controlled substance in a warehouse and someone can break in and steal it by merely jiggling a door, that's what I'd call a sign. What's more expensive, making $100K in improvements? Or being in felony violation of state law when you shoot some poor addict through a door because he swiped a few plants, thereby losing your entire nut AND your freedom?

I guess I just can't think like that. As soon as I knew I needed to make those improvements, I'd either secure short term funding or negotiate with the regulatory agency for temporary relief. If I was in violation, I'd be willing to do whatever they said to come into compliance. I damned sure wouldn't be setting up in my warehouse to shoot a thief while I was in felony level violation of the law. Hell it would be easier to let the guy get a plant or two every damned night than kill him and go to jail.

I've worked to make my home and possessions secure. If someone was breaking into my home, I wouldn't be shooting through doors to stop them. I'd call 911, warn the person that I was armed and would use it if they broke in, then wait till they either left, or broke through to before I shot. I certainly wouldn't go out into the night to defend my property that's locked into my shop. After all, the thief may be armed and ambush/shoot me. Best to let LE respond and assume the role of searching that building. That's what I pay taxes and insurance for.

Click to expand...

Again, that's your opinion. What I learned from my thread the other day about the guy shooting people over stealing a flag is that it's 100% justified in Oklahoma because someone was on his property. The value of items doesn't matter --- they were his. Some people even equated theft to being a "slow murder" of the individual because they worked part of their life to acquire those items. I didn't agree with those people going in being that historically I've not shot people over theft or petty BS, but there were some convincing arguments and now I am 100% behind that the Oklahoma way is to kill someone over the most petty nonsense rather than risk any potential loss of property, and I also believe anyone that doesn't believe that way must be a woketard softy.

Rez Exelon said:

Again, that's your opinion. What I learned from my thread the other day about the guy shooting people over stealing a flag is that it's 100% justified in Oklahoma because someone was on his property. The value of items doesn't matter --- they were his. Some people even equated theft to being a "slow murder" of the individual because they worked part of their life to acquire those items. I didn't agree with those people going in being that historically I've not shot people over theft or petty BS, but there were some convincing arguments and now I am 100% behind that the Oklahoma way is to kill someone over the most petty nonsense rather than risk any potential loss of property, and I also believe anyone that doesn't believe that way must be a woketard softy.

Click to expand...

I'm not really here to debate straw men. I'm commenting on the ethical and legal dilemmas of defending one's unlawful property with lethal force. Even if he were defending lawful property with lethal force, the legal limitations are narrow and necessarily vague. The line is where a cop, a prosecutor, a judge, 12 of our fellow citizens and if necessary, appellate courts say it is. I'd call that vague enough for me, a reasonable person, to stay as far away from the line as possible without unnecessarily endangering my life or the lives of my loved ones.

When I read what is alleged in this case, the two cases that immediately came to mind are Markus Kaarma and Bryon Smith.

Death of Diren Dede - Wikipedia

Byron David Smith killings - Wikipedia

In both those cases, the property owners had a lawful right to protect themselves and their property against burglary, yet they both went to prison because of the heinous nature in which they went about it. In this case the defendant had multiple options that would've prevented the unnecessary death of a burglar. He chose, poorly.

As for the Feaster case, his preliminary hearing on the SYG defense is slated for July 21st, which means he's still under criminal indictment. If you want to shoot someone for stealing your property that's outside your home and try the "OSA said it was OK" defense, then jump if you feel froggy.

OSCN Case Details

I'm not into pyrrhic victories, but you do you.

Glocktogo said:

I'm not really here to debate straw men. I'm commenting on the ethical and legal dilemmas of defending one's unlawful property with lethal force. Even if he were defending lawful property with lethal force, the legal limitations are narrow and necessarily vague. The line is where a cop, a prosecutor, a judge, 12 of our fellow citizens and if necessary, appellate courts say it is. I'd call that vague enough for me, a reasonable person, to stay as far away from the line as possible without unnecessarily endangering my life or the lives of my loved ones.

When I read what is alleged in this case, the two cases that immediately came to mind are Markus Kaarma and Bryon Smith.

Death of Diren Dede - Wikipedia

Byron David Smith killings - Wikipedia

In both those cases, the property owners had a lawful right to protect themselves and their property against burglary, yet they both went to prison because of the heinous nature in which they went about it. In this case the defendant had multiple options that would've prevented the unnecessary death of a burglar. He chose, poorly.

As for the Feaster case, his preliminary hearing on the SYG defense is slated for July 21st, which means he's still under criminal indictment. If you want to shoot someone for stealing your property that's outside your home and try the "OSA said it was OK" defense, then jump if you feel froggy.

OSCN Case Details

I'm not into pyrrhic victories, but you do you.

Click to expand...

As smart as you are you seem to be missing the "what should be blatant" sarcasm in my posts it seems....

Shoot someone for jingling a doorknob and not know who is on the other side. What the hell, there is no defense for that.
What if it would of been your wife or momma surprising you by bringing you a sammich cause they knew you were working late. Nope, no defense for that. IMHO

Rez Exelon said:

As smart as you are you seem to be missing the "what should be blatant" sarcasm in my posts it seems....

Click to expand...

Oh no I caught that, I just don't change my points based on what others might think about them. Some people will shoot others over a flag (or a pot plant or liquor or whatever) and some won't. Will and won't don't change what's already been done or what will be done in the future. The sad fact of the matter is that there are people in this world who will shoot you down for the look on your face or the color of your clothes.

I'm a pragmatist. I don't look at a clapboard house with a Nazi flag and say "That abomination must come down!" I look at it and say "That's not a place for me to go." and I get busy not going there!

The way I see it is that he defended himself against a threat. Waiting around to 'verify' what ever level of threat he was under could have very well cost him his life. His license to grow, suspended or not, is immaterial.

Woody

bigred1 said:

Shoot someone for jingling a doorknob and not know who is on the other side. What the hell, there is no defense for that.
What if it would of been your wife or momma surprising you by bringing you a sammich cause they knew you were working late. Nope, no defense for that. IMHO

Click to expand...

I don't think there's a defense for the shooting generally in this case, but to your point, if there's video of it, there's a good chance he saw it on his phone. I launch my cameras on my phone pretty quick if I hear unexpected sounds in the night at least, although that's just me.

Glocktogo said:

Oh no I caught that, I just don't change my points based on what others might think about them. Some people will shoot others over a flag (or a pot plant or liquor or whatever) and some won't. Will and won't don't change what's already been done or what will be done in the future. The sad fact of the matter is that there are people in this world who will shoot you down for the look on your face or the color of your clothes.

I'm a pragmatist. I don't look at a clapboard house with a Nazi flag and say "That abomination must come down!" I look at it and say "That's not a place for me to go." and I get busy not going there!

Click to expand...

Not a place I want to go either, but I'm not going to think that shooting someone that made that decision is the right way to go in any universe either. I argued that point severely with some people until the mods started stepping in. (They didn't see fit to remove the post that insinuated I was good with murdering children but that's a different matter altogether). I was born with nothing, spent most of my life with little to nothing, and I'll die with nothing I can take with me. I like my crap in the middle, but it's all just crap in the middle. There's two times I've been drawn --- one of them was in fact someone trying to beat my door down (not jiggle it, but actually beat it down) --- and I didn't shoot through the door then.

My point is that for a website full of folks that supposedly claim the moral high ground a lot, there's a lot of people that are totally cool with shooting people over BS stuff and then giving reasons like "I'm too old to deal with it any other way" or "It's mine and I can defend it as I please" or whatever. This thread to me has a real parallel to the flag one because it's different views but still essentially shooting people over property and I won't be surprised to see folks that DO think the guy was 100% justified. Personally, I think there are some points in the original article that give reason to think he does have some support for his choice, but I don't think, on an initial reading with limited evidence, that it looks all that great for him being in a legally, or morally, justifiable position.

I think some of you guys need to improve your reading comprehension a little.
1. Mr Brachter was in the process of committing a felony. (growing pot with no license)
2. Mr. Brachter shot thru a locked door and killed someone. perceived threat or not.
3. The laws on the books say if someone involved dies during the commission of a Felony(pot growing)
the perp (Mr. Brachter) shall be charged with murder. Stand your ground and Castle doctrine have NO bearing in this case.
4. It was an expired pot license NOT an expired drivers license.

mr ed said:

I think you guys need to improve your reading comprehension a little.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should modify that statement to "some of you guys" ...

The majority do NOT seem to be defending the shooter.