No charges in burglar killing

| 07/09/2010

(CNS): Police announced this afternoon that no criminal charges will be brought against the homeowner who shot and killed Harryton Rivers on Thursday 22 July, but said the Legal Department had advised that the matter should be referred to the Coroner’s Court for review. Twenty-nine year old Rivers, of Prospect, was shot with a handgun as he attempting to burgle the home in Liguinea Circle, off Aspiration Drive in George Town, by the homeowner, who was a licensed firearms holder. The man told police he woke up at around 2am to find an intruder inside his house and shot him. Rivers was taken to George Town hospital with critical abdominal wounds, where he was later pronounced dead.Police later confirmed that a knife was found at the scene.

It was revealed later that Rivers had been electronically tagged while on bail for other crimes, and George Drake, an independent expert with 25 years experience in the field, was hired to investigate the electronic monitoring system. Based on Drake’s findings, the Portfolio of Internal and External Affairs, which is responsible for the system, confirmed that, while the device attached to the deceased, Harryton Rivers, had been fitted correctly, it had clearly been tampered with.

The RCIPS said today (Tuesday 7 September), “Some weeks ago the file on this case was referred to the Legal Department for consideration. Detective Superintendent Marlon Bodden has today, Tuesday 7 September 2010, been advised that no criminal charges will be brought against the homeowner involved in the incident. The Legal Department has advised that the matter should be referred to the Coroner’s Court for review.”

Police said that, following the completion of minor outstanding lines of enquiry, the matter would be referred to the Coroner’s Court. The families of both the deceased and the homeowner have been advised of the decision.

“It would be inappropriate to make any further comment in relation to this matter at this time,” said Bodden.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Headline News

About the Author ()

Comments (71)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Pending says:

    I am glad someone else said that.

    For instance, the person sustained abdominal WOUNDS, meaning he was shot multiple times. There is a borderline in self defense  when you shoot somone once to stop the attack and when you shoot them multiple times, when it can then become a murder.

    Alot is going to come of this ruling, and the next burglar who finds themselves in someones home who is a licensed firearm holder…..

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      Pending, the intruder was only shot with one single bullet.  That is a fact.

  2. Anonymous says:

    So what will happen to the rest of us who are refused the opportunity to ‘legally’ own a gun to ‘protect’ ourselves?

    • Pending says:

      You have to use a baseball bat or cricket bat, knife, machete, coconut, broom stick, rock, kung fu, a pit bull, your best WWF move.. the list goes on.

      Ofcourse the burglar / robber stands a good chance if they are armed as well, with a gun, machete, knife etc.

  3. noname says:

    No one has been murdered in their home during a burglary?

    What happended to Miss Chee Chee Yates! Was she just lifted up to heaven with a bullet in her head?

    What happened to the lady on Melmac Avenue? Was she just lifted up to heaven with a severe concussion as well?

    Phoning someone at  2 a.m is ill mannered. Breaking and entering at 2 a.m. when the electriciy is off is real risky. Someone was bound to be killed. My sympathy lies with that poor old home owner, he is the real victim here!.  

  4. Anti criminal says:

    Could all of you that are not O.K. with shooting an intruder in their own home please put out a big sign to that effect.  That way they can prey on you and you know that they will get away unharmed  And the rest of us can sleep better knowing that they will not try to break in, rob us, then decided if they want to do anything else to us before leaving.  I will not hesitate to shoot and kill ANYONE who decides its his or her right to invade my home.

    • Pending says:

      Glad to know that you are legally alowed to own a gun, but for the other 90% of Cayman, what are your suggestions?

      Kung Fu?

      • Jess Blomee says:


        Kitchen knife

        Bottle of muratic acid and a side of whoop a$$

        FACE IT – ANY reasonable person will do what they can to defend themselves (unless you are a labrador retriever, in which case, roll over and let the intruders rub your tummy…)

        I will grab whatever is closest – and that includes a baseball bat, speargun (LEGAL!!!), machete and more – in close combat with an assailant in a house they don’t know, I wouldn’t bet against me – even if you have a gun…  Might have one or two myself!!!


        On that note, burglar beware – the address is XXX XX XXXXXXX XXXX…

        Open from 10pm to 7am for a real shocker…

        Saddest thing about life in Cayman today versus 40 years ago – when I wake at 2-3-4am, I do the rounds…  Just in case…  Shouldn’t I be able to roll back over and go to sleep like the good old days?  Where are the police?


  5. Anonymous says:

    The homeowner should be made a National Hero

  6. Anonymous says:

    People need to stop living for the moment. It seems as if the few of you that agree against the ruling that took place do not keep in mind all the crime that has taken place on this Island.

    I remember in the past several women being sexually abused and not so long ago a man assulted and held at gun point with his young child because of this same crime, home invasions. This young man broke into this man’s house and no one knows his TRUE intentions. Some of you are trying to pretty it up but at the same time arent realizing that this boy obviously had no good intentions because no one with good intentions breaks into a house at 2pm.

    Come on now, I think it is time some of you take a reality check!

    • Anonymous says:

      sorry that was meant to actually be 2am but i just have rightfully said ANYONE with good intentions does not break into someone else’s home!

  7. Dilemma says:

    This is very good news!

  8. Anonymous says:

    Thanks to the responses to my ‘confused’ comment. I was not suggesting that the homeowner was wrong, note I said I am sympathetic – meaning I would have most likely done the same thing under the same circumstances. All of the factors which led to this are clear.

    My point, which most reponders missed, was that for unequivocal closure, including perhaps the homeowner’s emotional well-being, a trial which would have most certainly resulted in acquittal should have been the route and upon his certain acquttal (no juror would have wronged him), there would have remained no doubts on any front. I see much evidence of a lot worse ways that taxpayers money is being ‘wasted’, as some put-it.

    Thanks to ‘Polane-ish’ for the clarification.   

    • Anonymous says:

      You admit that the owner was not wrong and would not have been convicted then why would you want to subject him to another traumatic event such as a long court case. After waking in the middle of the night to find someone in his house and fearing for hislife, you want him to be a further victim by spending months wondering if he will spend the rest of his life in jail for simply defending his life.

      Why do you want to punish this man for defending his life?

  9. Anonymous says:

    The penaltly for breaking and entering is not death. The shooter could have locked himself into his room and called the police. There has never been a murder durring burglary here in Cayman but we may have one now because now the man may be coming armed and he is going to be jumpie.

    No one except some police and the criminals who wish to get guns should be armed with hand guns. This would reduce the danger for most of us. These criminals are generally not very smart or very murdereous or very plentiful so they will be caught in short order and put into jail.

    We must rely on the police to do their jobs and anytime we can not do that then we should arm everybody and allow anarchy to reign. 

    • Anonymous says:

      I imagine that you think that the right thing for the homeowner to do is to wait until the intruder kills him, in order to retaliate?  Have you ever seen a burglar break in to someones house with no intention of doing harm if they have to?  Perhaps this should be a lesson criminals.  There is no one that knows more about a home than the homeowner.  As a homeowner, you should be prepared and know your place of dwelling inside and out, so that if you ever find yourself in the same situation,  you too will be able to defend yourself.  No one has the right to break into other people property, every property owner has the right to defend their lives and property to the fullest extent, even if that means that they have to kill in order to not be killed.  Remember, the homeowner was not out looking for trouble, he was in his own home, sleeping, being a normal person, minding his/her own business.  The intruder had no right to be there, he was uninvited, he was trespassing, and there was a threat to the life and safetyof those who rightfully occupied the home.  I say the homeowner made the right choice.  Of course, maybe this will make criminals more bold, but you have to ask yourself, are criminals more powerful than us?  Remember that whatever will make us bleed, will make them bleed also, they are no greater than us.  Maybe you will think differently than what is stated in your comment if you were to ever find yourself in the same situation.  Or maybe you will be the same coward that you are instruction everyone else to be.  One thing is for sure, if I was to find myself in that situation, and I had the means to defend myself fully, and my life or the life of any of my loved ones, down to my pets or property is threated, I will hand that criminal a one-way ticket to meet his maker.

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      Self-defense is not “…anarchy…”.  Inform yourself before making such ignorant statements.  Or do you know better, but you’re deliberately trying to mislead some?

    • Anonymous says:

      The penalty for going to bed at night in your own home should NOT be waken to be be stabbed or beaten as has been the case.  This homeowner, who is the real victim here, did the right thing!

    • Arnie Schwartzenshooter says:

      "The penaltly for breaking and entering is not death."

      Not unless you break into my house.  Even if I’m out, I’ll be back.


      "You’re a funny guy Sully.  I like you.  That’s why I’m going to kill you last."  (Commando)

  10. Anonymous says:

    I’m confused. With something as serious as a homicide why were charges not pressed? I am certainly sympathetic to the homeowner but I’m wondering about the precedent that this incident could set. Would it not have been better to charge the homeowner and let him have his day in Court? No jury would have convicted him and the matter would have received due process. 

    Now, even though he may never have to face a trial, the matter couldstill prompt a query in the minds of some, not to mention opening the possibility for shootings which may or may not be justified.

    It would be interesting to know what the legal fraternity makes of this decision.



    • Anonymous says:

      "It would be interesting to know what the legal fraternity makes of this decision"

      Why should they charge the innocent home owner? Someone broke into the man’s "private" residence violated the owners privacy and ended up getting his A$$ shot. it seems in this place that the only people that get prosecuted are the people that do the right things whiles persons breaking the law go about their business without any serious consequences, and because of this the criminal element activities continue to go up.

      We need to reverse the mentality where instead of innocent people being afraid to protect themselves when they find criminal breaking into their homes because of legal deprecations after assuming they survive the ordeal, it’s the criminals that are afraid of breaking into someone’s home for fear of getting there A$$ shot

    • Anonymous says:

       Hi,Confused; are you suggesting that we waste taxpayers money again.come on,use common sense.

    • Anonymous says:


      Are you serious 21:46?

      This man should have a statue of himself out in heros square!

      House burglaries has had a dramatic decline since this incident and with this ruling will further decline and I feel all home owners should have a licenced firearm and be able to protect their families (and hard earned property) from lowlife scum who dont want to work and want what belongs to other people.

      Look Star, give me a break, because I know if it was your house that was broken into and you have to protect your family, and you have a licenced firearm, your choice of action would have been the same.

      It is sad that a person lost their life but if that person was out working and not breaking into peoples home and putting this family through such a harrowing ordeal, its sad to say, but he would be alive today!

      Why should I have to work so hard to get what I have and built up, just for some lowlife to come and take it from me – sorry again, but not over my DEAD BODY!

      Please Star, go get a life!

      • Anonymous says:

        I agree with you my friend.  I know that homeowner personally and this is the first time in his life that he has ever been involved in anything like this.  In all his years here in the island, he has never had his name connected to anything violent or dishonest.  He reared his children and worked for someone else until he had the wherewithall to start his own business,  He started it small and has worked very hard to make it a success while offering first class service to the people of the island.  Now someone wants him to be tried in Court, for defending his private home and person from someone who broke in with a weapon.  XXXXXX The people who should be tried for negligence are the ones who have reported that these electronic monitors can only be removed with a special key.  Did the offender have a key to unlock his or was it not locked properly?  Suppose we make the monitors offer their explanation as to how this could have happened.  Someone obviously fell asleep on their job and now this person wants to prosecute the man who protected himself.   This island is becoming more and more ridiculous in the thinking.

    • Anonymous says:

      If you read the law it states that a firearm can be used if the person has probable cause of defending one self (not exact words but you get the point).  Why  should he be charged?  The intruder brokehis tracking bracelet, and broke into this man’s house with a knife?  The homeowner was being threatened.  Why should the homeowner go to court and relive this? 

    • Martin Polaine-ish says:

      The former legal advisor to Martin Bridger would say, "Arrest them all, even if there is no evidence whatsoever that they have committed any offence."  

      Followed by, "It doesn’t matter if there is no law in the Cayman Islands making that anoffence, just charge them and send them to trial!"

      Then the whole of the "legal fraternity" would start to quietly mutter about what an abomination that is, and the AG would stand around looking serious but not saying a word, and we’d have to bring in a leading judge from the UK to sort out how many millions we’d have to pay the homeowner in damages…

      Seriously though, the state can (or technically "should") only charge a citizen if the facts meet the requirements of an offence known to the law, and if there is a reasonable chance that the state will be able to make its case and obtain a conviction.  If the person did nothing wrong, and the state has not real prospects of obtaining a conviction, it would be both illegal and morally reprehensible for the state to charge the citizen.

      I hope that helps.

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      In the UK:

      The lawyers’ practitioner’s text (Archbold 19-41) states: "It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."

      Lord Parker CJ in Chisam (1963) 47 Cr App Rep 130 said: "…. where a forcible and violent felony is attempted upon the person of another, the party assaulted, or his servant, or any other person present, is entitled to repel force by force, and, if necessary, to kill the aggressor ….".

      In Palmer [1971] AC 814 (Privy Council) Lord Morris said: "If there has been an attack so that the defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action. If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."


      In the Cayman Islands:

      Section 18(1)(a) of the Firearm Law (2008 Revision) reads: “No person shall discharge any firearm on or within forty yards of any public road or in any public place except in the lawful protection of his person or property or of the person or property of some other person.”

      • Anonymous says:

        I’m also a licencedfirearm owner (20+ years) and I too had to discharge my licenced firearm twice in the air (Luckily for them my wife saw them and not me) at two would be Robbers/Burglars in January 2010, who had forcefully attempted to break/enter my home at night. This was whilst me and my family were at home with windows and doors secured. It should also be noted that just 48 hours prior in this incident and in the same district as myself, two other homes were attacked by criminals with firearms. 

        I will state that the investigating officer (PS Dausea Scott) did a most thorough and professionl investigation by all standards known, but their overall  "commander in chief" appeared not to have the basic knowledge and competence to rule on a straight forward and well corroborated non- criminal investigation file. In fact, appearing to be unable to make a simple decision on the matter, the file had to be send to the Solicitor General for a ruling. 

        The Solicitor General Ms. Cheryl Richards whom I have known to be very knowledgable of the law and who has been proven to be a true professional for many years in the Cayman Islands and the Caribbean, ruled on the file and appropriately stated that no further action be taken and that my firearms should to be returned to me forthwith. Please note that I was not arrested, which was "very very wise of the police not to do at the onset"

        Thanks Denny for your insight Re. Archibold and the local Firearms Law. Law abiding citizens should take note of the information Dennie Warren has provided in this forum, should they ever have to apply it in a case of one’s own personal self defence, where some legal force had to be applied.This is so whether by a licenced firearm holder or otherwise; to protect themselves and their property or the person or property of another; from criminal(s) who pose an imminent threat.    

        • Legal Beagle says:

          Don’t rely on Mr. Warren’s views on firearms law.  Most of what he says is either plain wrong or quoted out of context.  The scope of use of firearms in self-defence is very very narrow, and if you are the wrong side of the line you can face a murder charge.

          • Anonymous says:

            Ok, Legal Beagle. Simple question for you to help me with. If a person enters my house unbidden and by breaking in, can I kill him?

            • Pauly Cicero says:

              No. (Sorry LB I couldn’t resist)

            • Legal Beagle says:

              First things first.  Having a gun in your house vastly increases the chance of you being shot or someone in your family being shot. But if you do want to risk your own life and that of your family, here are some points.

              The simple answer to your question is that a person acting in self-defence is entitled to use no more than the degree of force which is reasonable in the circumstances as the individual believed them to be.

              This is an answer which itself raises many questions.  Most of these questions are factual and depend on the circumstances.  The application of the law not consistent.  All that anyone can do is give guidelines.

              If you shoot an intruder intending to kill them  odds are you are committing murder.

              Shooting someone who you do not believe is armed will be very risky.  So will shooting someone without warning them that you are armed and prepared to discharge.  

              Shooting at someone who confronts you is going to help your defence.  Creeping downstairs and shooting first when you could remain upstairs and avoid physicial confrontation would probably mean there is no defence available.

              Shooting someone as they flee will mean jail time.

              And remember this is not Texas.  If someone comes onto your land to steals your property and is not threatening you or others physically then you cannot shoot – it would be disproportionate.  If someone says "give me your car keys" then shooting them will probably land you in jail because seriously injuring someone to protect your car is not reasonable.

              One thing is certain. s.18(1)(a) of the Firearms Law has absolutely no impact on this issue whatsoever.

              Bottom line.  1) Don’t be a hero and leap into action.  Discretion is not only the better part of valour, it is also less likely to end up with you being shot or ending up in jail.  2) Don’t value possessions or money over anyone’s well-being – even a thief.  Shooting someone dead to protect your watch might get you a one-way ticket to Northward.


              • Anonymous says:

                Thank you for taking the trouble to answer my question LB even though I think it is dreadful in places. Forget your Texas land invasion example. I specifically said my example involved entering my house. Your bottom line is very disturbing.

                I am a UK born person resident here for 40 years but follow the UK press. I remember some farmer some years back -?Tony Martin? – who shot and killed an intruder. The public was all for him (as was I) but of course the Majesty of the Law blah blah tormented him for ages. Can’t remember how it turned out.

                I suspect from your tone you are a UK lawyer -this is NOT an insult although I recognise that comments like that on this website can sound so. My HUGE problem with your and other people’s approaches is that they sort of suggest a "I say old chap,do you mind awfully leaving my premises, you know you don’t actually have permission to be here eh what?".

                But again, thanks for the answer.


                • Legal Beagle says:

                  Tony Martin shot a fleeing burglar in the back as he fled through a window and killed him.

                  A jury of his his peers convicted him of murder.  For a sane defednat that was conviction was undoubtedly sound right as it was an open and shut case.  On appeal his conviction was reduced to manslaughter because of diminished responsibility as it was established that he suffered from paranoid personality disorder. 

                  For sane folks doing what Martin did was and clearly was murder.  The only people who were "for him" were rabid Daily Mail readers who were in denial of the real facts. 

                  This correct conviction shows that my Texas example is not really about "land invasion" (which no decent human being would consider as the basis to kill anyone), but also home invasion too.  A mere burglar who is taking property but who does not pose a reasonable threat to life or limb cannot be shot at under our legal system on the basis of self-defence.

                  • Truthseeker says:

                    Quote: "The only people who were "for him" were rabid Daily Mail readers who were in denial of the real facts"

                    Is that not a classic attack against the person(s), rather than a presentation of a reasoned argument?

                    Perhaps Mr. Warren would better understand the limitations of his often quoted section of the Firearms law if one drew an analogy to a hypothetical section of the littering law, which might, perhaps, make an exception for the  scattering of spent shotgun shells under similar circumstances (protection of life and property).

                    The point ,Denny, is that you are off the hook for a specific offence under the Firearms Law. It does nothing to change your culpability under other laws, such as those related to the taking of another persons life. 


          • Anonymous says:

            Legal Beagle, based on the ruling it seems Mr. Warren’s more on track than you are. You seem to share the COP’s philosophy that law abiding citizens are known so lets prosecute them for defending themselves and protect the criminals who we don’t know.

            You want us to be victims. Trying to twist the law to push your liberalist agenda regardless of what the law actually allows. Isn’t the legal profession supposed to defend the law even if the don’t like the law?

            Or have you decided to circumvent the Legislative Assembly and become a legislator?

            You, like the COP, may hate the fact that our legislators have seen fit to give us the privilege to own firearms and the right to use them for self defense, but live with it or move. You ARE NOT hear to tell us what laws and rights we are allowed to have.

            • Pauly Cicero says:

              I don’t think LB’s beef is with with your rights. In my opinion one should be allowed to posess a firearm in your home for your defense of person or property. Where we may differ is the extent to which it may be used. If you have predetermined to blast anyone found in your home unbidden then you could possibly have a murder charge to answer. Self defense involves a response to a threat to your person. Ifa burglar threatens you with a weapon or you perceive that there is a weapon or you perceive that there is a threat then a judge or jury will determine whether there was a credible threat. A judge or jury will also determine whether your response was lawful and perhaps whether your response was proportional to the threat. If the threat does not exist or has been negated, can you lawfully continue your defense? I think the legal profession really does like the law and seeks to enforce all of the law, not just the parts that fit into a one hour tv script. Lawyers ask lots of questions and LB is asking us to consider some of the questions that remain after our self defense episode.

              • Legal Beagle says:

                Thank you.  Pauly, if I ever get into trouble will you defend me? ; – )

              • Anonymous says:

                Sorry Pauly, Though I agree with you regarding "self defense" rather than revenge in the use of force, I don’t agree with your view of LB intent. Like the COP, LB’s every response has been geared to the disarmament of Law abiding citizens. This has reluctantly been admitted to by the COP. This tells me that he is not satisfied with administering the firearm law as it is or intends, but rather using it to disarm and deprive law abiding citizens from having firearms. Even though the Firearms Law allows for firearms to be used for defense, the COP, does not want to administer this section of the law, but rather, in his infinite wisdom, has decided that his ideology takes precedence over the Legislative authority of the Cayman Islands.


                Perhaps it is easier to take firearms from licensed owners that to find illegal firearms. PR is PR right.

      • Anonymous says:

        Dennie, understand and agree with the right for self protection but should this not also be balanced with procedural fairness? Was he and his firearm still checked to see if he did in fact use the firearm? Was he the only one in the house? Was the ankle bracelet found in the homeowner’s home? If so, why would he wait to remove it there?


        In my opinion, I just believe that even if we all agree the homeowner had a defence, all other steps of procedure should have been followed.

  11. Truth says:

    This would have been an impossible case to prosecute.

    1. The intruder had no business in the man’s house. He was not invited in!!!

    2.The firearm was licensed.

    3. Every one of us can put ourselves in the homeowner’s position. He was awaken at night by an unknown and uninvited intruder in his home. He was in fear. He acted on that fear. 

    Neverthless I feel for the father of the boy. It is his child regardless. I heard his interview on CITN and as a parent I have to say I can only hope to never be in his position. BUT he must remember that the only one to blame is the person who put himself in the situation. Not the police, not the prison, not the ankle bracelet issue, not the homeowner but his son. Please accept this sir. No point pursing the matter any further. And no sir there is no one who wants to kill you to silence you. Its over.

    It was a reasonably forseeable outcome caused the intruder breaking into the home. A man’s home is his castle and he is entitled to defend it. Was the homeowner to stand there in fear and allow himself to be subjected to whatever the intruder desired???

    Finally the homeowner. He has to live the rest of his life with the fact that he has killed another human being.

    There are no winners here!!!


    • Anonymous says:

      the rest of the civilised world does not share your opinion

      • Anonymous says:

        Let’s see here,,, A seasoned criminal out on parole removes his tracking device in order to go out and commit more crime, decides to go and violate an innocent victim by breaking into the once place your supposed to feel safe, and ends up dead…….. I believe the rest of the civilized world just might share his opinion.

      • the rest of the civilised world says:

        Yes we do.

      • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

        Whichever countries you’re talking about cannot be civilized if it does not recognize a person’s right to self-defense.

        • Anonymous says:

          you don’t understand the law and the term reasonable self defense

          • Legal Beagle says:

            That is a misunderstatement.  His views on the law are from the perspetive of Dirty Harry meets Judge Dredd.  At least Judge Dredd got the law right.  I would eb doing a disservice to Judge Dredd.  I find his bleating on about s.18 cringeworthy.  I noted he has never found a credible attorney to support his comedy intepretation.

            • The Magician says:

              Steve McField did the other night on CITN’s "Let’s Talk to the Experts" show. Do you consider Mr. McField a credible attorney, Legal Beagle?

    • Anonymous says:

      Where I agree your post is correct, I too heard the father’s statement on TV.  If maybe he had taken more of an interest in his son’s life, for remember the police made a statement that the boy was in trouble from the age of 10, he may still be alive now…..28 years of age is alittle to late to all of a sudden take an interest and start blaming everyone else, where the blame lies on the indiviudal and even the parents. 

      It is the homeowner who I really feel sorry for, he has to live with this for the rest of his life.  I am sure he didn’t go to sleep that night and saying to himself I am going to kill someone today or tomorrow!!!  He was protecting himself, his wife and his home!!! 

      • Anonymous says:

        For those of you think that killing another human being is cool, let me tell you it is not.  You will always remember the sound of the gun shot and the thump of the body when it hit the floor. The image will stay with you as long as you live and you will never be the same person. I hope the homeowner get some will get some help so he can have some piece of mind and dont feel guilty the rest of his life. I am sure before he pulled the trigger he ask himself " Do I want to live or do I want to die ?" I feel for you man, you had no other choice.

  12. Anonymous says:

    This is not only good news for Mr. XXXXX who in my opinion was the real victim of a crime, (at the time of the burglary and thereafter) but it’s comforting news for lawabiding citizens of the Cayman Islands as a whole.

    While I’m sure that the investigate file went directly to the Solicitor General for a ruling, let me take this opportunity and commend Ms.Cheryl Richards and the entire Legal Department on being thorough and coming to this decision. I honestly believe 95% of the Cayman Islands residents are in agreement with the ruling made. 

    The RCIPS should also be commended for their professionalism in this matter which led the Legal Department to make a proper analysis of the facts. This analysis being done with good old common sense, fairness, impartiality and in the interest of public justice according to law, justice in my opinion for the Cayman Islands has ultimately prevailed. 

    • Anonymouse says:

      I honestly beleive that 99 percent of the population is in agreement with this ruling. The other 1 percent are the criminals who are breaking into peoples homes as they like or similiar minded people who thinks like the criminals.

  13. Durrrr says:

    The statement from the Police is wholly inadequate. The Police (or the Crown) need to give clear reasons why the homeowner was not charged.


    I assume that they conducted their investigations and determined that the homeowner used reasonable force to defend himself against an armed intruder, but if the Police do not confirm that that is the case, your average Joe will take this decision as a green light to use whatever force he likes to defend his property – which clearly is not the law.

    • durrrr says:

      Just to clarify – I was NOT saying that he should have been charged. I haven’t seen any of the evidence, so I obviously cannot have any worthwhile opinion on the decision either way.


      Which is precisely my point – the Police or the Crown need to release a more detailed statement, explaining the findings of their investigations and the reason for their decision. This will surely confirm that the homeowner did use reasonable force to defend himself from an armed invader – so what is the problem?



      • Anonymous says:

        There is no need for the RCIPS or the Legal Dept to state anything more than they have just stated in their statement to the press.

        Thats why an Coroner’s Inquest will now be held and 7 members of a jury will be chosen to hear all the facts and come to a unanimous verdict.

        Open Verdict ……… NO

        Suicide ……………….. NO

        Death by Misadventure ………. YES


        Message to all criminals loose on our streets in the Cayman Islands.

        Don’t want to die by the hands of a licenced firearm holder when breaking into his home in the middle of the night, then don’t F@#$ around with what does not belong to you and get off your lazy ass and get/seek a job like every other law abiding citizen.



      • Anonymous says:

        don’t worry the thumbs down have zero undrestanding of the law or the dangerous precedent this scenario creates…

    • Anonymous says:

      It is up to the Crown and not the police as to whether or not charges should be brought. The police investigate and bring the matter to the Legal Department for a decision regarding charges.

      The police, quite rightly, should not be explaining the Legal Department’s rationale for not bringing charges.

  14. Environmentalist says:

    Good result!

  15. Peter Simple says:


  16. Anonymous says:

    Irony: a number of off duty police officers are in court for injuring an armed person in the course of disarming him but on the other hand a licensed gun hold kills ing member of the public shoots an intruder who dies and has no charges apparently to face – what does that tell the police and the public? 

  17. Mirl says:

    It was so sad that someone’s son had to die from his own ignorance, and that a homeowner was placed in a situation where the only option he had, was to use his gun on the subject.

    Still my condolences to the decease’s family, and my heartfelt support to the homeowner and his family. I think parties from both sides have received enough attention from the media.

    There is no one to condemn here, but pure ignorance and a victim of circumstance.


  18. Pending says:

    This is interesting.. perhaps to send a message to other burglars not to steal from peoples homes  or is it to tell all who own guns legally that if an intruder comes into your house you can kill them and get off?

    Can anybody say Texas?

    • Anonymous says:

      And what is wrong with that.  If you are a legal gun owner, and someone comes into your house, you have the right to protect yourself.  So your expression of "can anyboday say Texas?" is an ignorant statement.  If it was the other way around and the intruder had stabbed and killed the homeownerwould that have been acceptable then?

  19. mark says:

    What he did should not be condoned but the right decision was reached in not charging the victim in this case.

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      What is it that "… he did…" that you feel should not be condoned?

      • durrrr says:

        I suspect he is referring to the ‘killing people’ part of the homeowner’s evening.

    • Pending says:

      The problem is that killing him is being condoned. There is a big differnce between self defense and killing somebody, the average joe here just doesn’t understand that.

      There is a lot of detail missing form the picture. Yeah a knife was found, but was it found in the burglars pocket or did he try to attack the homeowner?

      Was he found coming through the window and shot at?

      Multiple wounds means being shot numerous times, did the homeowner empty "his clip" on the guy?

      As a licensed firearm holder he must have had training, why dodn’t he just shoot hiim in the leg instead of possibly the worst place  to shoot someone where death is a real possibility (abdomen), multiple times?

      The list goes on.

      For those ignorant  of the law and the way it works, i.e. with no legal background, you may find yourself in hot water if you try doing the same thing.

      And now that everyone does condone this sort of action, there are going to be more killings.

      The police need to release a more detailed statement.

      • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

        Pending, the intruder was only shot with one single bullet.  That is a fact.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Finally some true justice!!!!

  21. Anonymous says:

    That is the best news I have heard all day…you hear that intruders, come into someone’s house when you are not invited and the samething can happen to you!!!!