First Prev
of 2
Next Last
JFW

Lenoir, NC

#1 May 14, 2013
What happened on Indian Grave Rd Saturday or Sunday? I heard there was a shooting but can't confirm anything.
sergio

Seattle, WA

#2 May 14, 2013
You don't need to confirm anything if you don't know then oh well.
JFW

Lenoir, NC

#3 May 14, 2013
It was a shooting, its been confirmed and now I know Sergio.....thanks
Marsha

United States

#4 May 14, 2013
JFW wrote:
What happened on Indian Grave Rd Saturday or Sunday? I heard there was a shooting but can't confirm anything.
JFW,
I believe this may be what you are talking about

LENOIR (WJRI) Caldwell County deputies said a man decided to take matters into his own hands after someone repeatedly broke into his home while he was at church. The grandfather said his house had been broken into before while he was at church, so instead of going to church Sunday morning, he decided to stay home and keep an eye on things. Deputies said someone did break into the home on Indian Grave Road during church services. Investigators said that's when 72-year-old Havard Oliver shot the intruder, who turned out to be his 28-year-old grandson. Deputies are not releasing the grandson's name but did say he was shot with a .22 caliber pistol in the stomach and had to be airlifted to Carolinas Medical Center. Deputies said the injuries are not life-threatening and when they finish their investigation, they will forward it to the district attorney to let him decide on charges.
what a shame

Lenoir, NC

#5 May 14, 2013
This is a good example of something that could have been prevented had the Sheriffs Office done their job to start with. The old man gets broken into on a regular basis on Sundays yet they wouldn't patrol the area or stake his home out to catch the guy so he has to take matters into his own hands. The Sheriffs Office should have known it was someone that knew his schedule but I bet the previous reports just got filed in the closed (trash) bin. They never even bother taking finger prints anymore. Good for the old man protecting his home but its just a shame it had to go that far, I bet the Sheriff pushes the DA for charges now.
JFW

Lenoir, NC

#6 May 14, 2013
Thank you Marsha, that is what I was looking for. Yes, "What a Shame " it is a shame.If they press charges it would be an outrage!
pops

Conover, NC

#7 May 14, 2013
What the grandfather did was premeditated, He will be charged and should be charged. I was not in a situation where he would be harmed, in fact he created the violence. It is sad that the grandson was breaking into the house but he didnt deserve to be shot, the grandson assumed that they were at church so its not like he was entering with any intent to shoot someone who might be home.

Sad situation, I am sure the grandfather was a pretty mean old man, and the dumbass incriminated himself by telling the reporter that he waited with a loaded weapon.
what

Lenoir, NC

#8 May 14, 2013
pops wrote:
What the grandfather did was premeditated, He will be charged and should be charged. I was not in a situation where he would be harmed, in fact he created the violence. It is sad that the grandson was breaking into the house but he didnt deserve to be shot, the grandson assumed that they were at church so its not like he was entering with any intent to shoot someone who might be home.
Sad situation, I am sure the grandfather was a pretty mean old man, and the dumbass incriminated himself by telling the reporter that he waited with a loaded weapon.
If he is breaking into a home then he deserves what he gets. You are probably right, the homeowner will be charged because we live in a society where anyone can victimize anyone else and they have all the rights. All I can say is had he broke into my house he would have never made it out alive. You have no right to be in someones personal space with the intent to deprive them of their property and sense of security. What kind of idiot doesn't know the risks of breaking and entering and what kind of 28 year old piece of crap steals from a senior citizen.
what

Lenoir, NC

#9 May 14, 2013
what a shame wrote:
This is a good example of something that could have been prevented had the Sheriffs Office done their job to start with. The old man gets broken into on a regular basis on Sundays yet they wouldn't patrol the area or stake his home out to catch the guy so he has to take matters into his own hands. The Sheriffs Office should have known it was someone that knew his schedule but I bet the previous reports just got filed in the closed (trash) bin. They never even bother taking finger prints anymore. Good for the old man protecting his home but its just a shame it had to go that far, I bet the Sheriff pushes the DA for charges now.
I dont even count on ccso. I've lived in the county long enough to know I am on my on and that homeowner probably thought the same thing. Only thing ccso is good for is coming out after something has happened usually thirty or more minutes later. I can order a damn pizza and it get there before they do then all they say is go get a warrant, hell the pizza guy good tell me that plus I would have pizza.
Big Picture

Sherrills Ford, NC

#10 May 14, 2013
If he had taken 5 seconds he would have recognized his grandson. Shoot first and ask questions later. Glad I'm not related to him.
really

Gaffney, SC

#11 May 14, 2013
pops wrote:
What the grandfather did was premeditated, He will be charged and should be charged. I was not in a situation where he would be harmed, in fact he created the violence. It is sad that the grandson was breaking into the house but he didnt deserve to be shot, the grandson assumed that they were at church so its not like he was entering with any intent to shoot someone who might be home.
Sad situation, I am sure the grandfather was a pretty mean old man, and the dumbass incriminated himself by telling the reporter that he waited with a loaded weapon.
If the grandson hadn't been breaking in AGAIN,this wouldn't have happened. He's stolen from his family many times. So no he wasn't entering as you said to shoot somebody,just steal from his elderly grandparents AGAIN.
Caldwell

Salt Lake City, UT

#12 May 14, 2013
You have no proof of what the grandson was doing. It was the nephew not grandson who stole many times.
True Story

Asheville, NC

#13 May 14, 2013
Big Picture wrote:
If he had taken 5 seconds he would have recognized his grandson. Shoot first and ask questions later. Glad I'm not related to him.
Why are you glad that you're "not related to him"???
Do your kinfolk not shoot at you when you break in their homes???
who cares

Lenoir, NC

#14 May 14, 2013
Big Picture wrote:
If he had taken 5 seconds he would have recognized his grandson. Shoot first and ask questions later. Glad I'm not related to him.
Maybe he did see who it was and didn't give a shit. Cant say that I blame him, if I have relatives like that I will shoot them too when they break in. Whats family got to do with it when you are a scumbag you get whats coming.
Sally

Denver, NC

#15 May 14, 2013
At Caldwell no it wasn't his nephew it was the grandson. Wherever you got the info it is so wrong. I know the whole family personally and this isn't the first it has happened. As far as the grandfather being charged he will not be he was protecting his property and himself. It took him more than 5 seconds to recognize him he knew exactly who it was. He broke into the house Sunday before last so he knew he would back. This man has worked all of his life for what he has got to let someone come and steal from him.
Castle Doctrine

Boone, NC

#16 May 14, 2013
‘Castle Doctrine’ revised(NC 28 November, 2011
North Carolina’s new “Castle Doctrine” law, which addresses certain circumstances under which a person can legally shoot or use other deadly force against another, takes effect Thursday.
North Carolina’s current Castle Doctrine only applies to homes, but under the new law it also applies to vehicles and places of work. The Castle Doctrine, rooted in English common law, expresses the belief that one should be safe from illegal intrusion in one’s home.
The new law is much longer and clarifies when deadly force can be used.
New law more specific
The new law defines a person’s home as any property with a roof where the person lives and also includes “curtilage,” which is the area immediately around a home. It defines a person’s workplace as any property with a roof used for commercial purposes. It says a home or workplace can be temporary or permanent and specifically says either one can be a tent.
Under the new law, the lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle or workplace isn’t required to retreat prior to using deadly force.
The new law presumes that a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter one of these locations intends to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
The new law presumes that a lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle or workplace reasonably fears imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself, herself or another when using defensive force likely to cause death or serious injury if:
• the person against whom defensive force was used was unlawfully and forcefully entering or had already entered a motor vehicle, or workplace, or if the person had taken or was trying to take another person against his will from the home, motor vehicle or workplace;
• the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
When deadly force isn’t lawful
The new law says presumption of lawful use of deadly force does not apply when:
• the person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home, motor vehicle, or workplace, and there is no written injunction or order prohibiting contact;
• the person sought to be removed from the home, motor vehicle or workplace is a child or grandchild or is in the lawful custody or under lawful guardianship of the person against whom defensive force is used;
• the person using defensive force is using the home, motor vehicle, or workplace to further any criminal offense that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against anyone;
• the person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in lawful performance of his official duties, and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman;
• the person against whom defensive force is used has discontinued efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle or workplace and has exited those locations.
Defense of self or others
Castle Doctrine

Boone, NC

#17 May 14, 2013
The new law also modifies rules of self-defense and defense of others.
It provides a person using non-deadly force with immunity from civil and criminal liability if the person using it reasonably believes it’s necessary for defense against imminent unlawful force.
It says a person can use deadly force without first retreating if the person reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another person or under circumstances permitted under the state’s revised Castle Doctrine.
It says a person using non-deadly or deadly force in accordance with the new law is protected from civil or criminal liability unless he used it against a law enforcement officer lawfully performing his duties and the officer identified himself as required or the person using force knew or should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer lawfully performing his duties.
Defensive force isn’t justified for people committing or escaping after committing a felony or who provokes the use of force.
The new law says a person attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a felony isn’t justified in using defensive force.
The new law says a person who provokes use of force against himself is justified in using defensive force if he believes he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and has no reasonable way to escape. It says this person is also justified in using defensive force if he clearly indicates he wants to withdraw from physical contact and the other person continues use of force.
Old law much shorter
The much shorter law being replaced says,“A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder’s unlawful entry if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.” It also says,“A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.”
Castle Doctrine

Boone, NC

#18 May 14, 2013
‘Castle Doctrine’ revised(NC)
North Carolina’s new “Castle Doctrine” law, which addresses certain circumstances under which a person can legally shoot or use other deadly force against another, takes effect Thursday.
North Carolina’s current Castle Doctrine only applies to homes, but under the new law it also applies to vehicles and places of work. The Castle Doctrine, rooted in English common law, expresses the belief that one should be safe from illegal intrusion in one’s home.
The new law is much longer and clarifies when deadly force can be used.
New law more specific
The new law defines a person’s home as any property with a roof where the person lives and also includes “curtilage,” which is the area immediately around a home. It defines a person’s workplace as any property with a roof used for commercial purposes. It says a home or workplace can be temporary or permanent and specifically says either one can be a tent.
Under the new law, the lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle or workplace isn’t required to retreat prior to using deadly force.
The new law presumes that a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter one of these locations intends to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
The new law presumes that a lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle or workplace reasonably fears imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself, herself or another when using defensive force likely to cause death or serious injury if:

• the person against whom defensive force was used was unlawfully and forcefully entering or had already entered a motor vehicle, or workplace, or if the person had taken or was trying to take another person against his will from the home, motor vehicle or workplace;

• the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

When deadly force isn’t lawful

The new law says presumption of lawful use of deadly force does not apply when:

• the person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home, motor vehicle, or workplace, and there is no written injunction or order prohibiting contact;

• the person sought to be removed from the home, motor vehicle or workplace is a child or grandchild or is in the lawful custody or under lawful guardianship of the person against whom defensive force is used;

• the person using defensive force is using the home, motor vehicle, or workplace to further any criminal offense that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against anyone;

• the person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in lawful performance of his official duties, and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman;

• the person against whom defensive force is used has discontinued efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle or workplace and has exited those locations.

Defense of self or others

The new law also modifies rules of self-defense and defense of others.

It provides a person using non-deadly force with immunity from civil and criminal liability if the person using it reasonably believes it’s necessary for defense against imminent unlawful force.

It says a person can use deadly force without first retreating if the person reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another person or under circumstances permitted under the state’s revised Castle Doctrine.
Castle Doctrine

Boone, NC

#19 May 14, 2013
It says a person using non-deadly or deadly force in accordance with the new law is protected from civil or criminal liability unless he used it against a law enforcement officer lawfully performing his duties and the officer identified himself as required or the person using force knew or should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer lawfully performing his duties.

Defensive force isn’t justified for people committing or escaping after committing a felony or who provokes the use of force
liliesdaughter

Black Mountain, NC

#20 May 14, 2013
Way to go Grandpa!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Morganton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fox News Blasts Trump Lies 15 min Rock 81
Wasserman-Schultz staffer arrested 23 min Rock 29
97 of 100 Poorest Counties are Republican 29 min Rock 138
Drain the swamp? 2 hr TSF 157
Morganton Music Thread (Nov '12) Tue Musikologist 15
my dog has mange i need help (Aug '09) Jul 24 just saying 67
News Morganton teen facing statutory rape charges Jul 23 pissed mom 2

Morganton Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Morganton Mortgages