[Keith]

Mielke tells jury 'I just panicked'
SHOOTINGS: The Rev. Phillip Mielke says firing at burglars ''just reaction.''

The Rev. Phillip Mielke recounts the frantic seconds surrounding his shooting of two intruders at his Big Lake church last April. Mielke testified as his trial for manslaughter winds to a close in Palmer Superior Court. (Photo by Jim Lavrakas / Anchorage Daily News)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By S.J. KOMARNITSKY
Anchorage Daily News

(Published: October 23, 2003)
PALMER -- The pastor who shot and killed two men he caught burglarizing his church took the stand in his own defense Wednesday and told jurors he armed himself with a gun before going into the church but never expected to fire the weapon.

When he did encounter two men inside, however, he didn't hesitate to shoot.

"It all happened so fast," he said. "They were right there, right in front of me."

The Rev. Phillip Mielke, 44, pastor of the Big Lake Community Chapel, spent nearly six hours on the stand recounting how he shot Christopher Palmer, 31, and Francis Jones, 23, in the early morning of April 24. He is on trial for manslaughter.

Dressed in slacks, a striped dress shirt, knit sweater and tie, he seemed calm, getting visibly flustered only once when he complained about the noise from a newspaper photographer taking pictures.

Jurors had heard most of his story before in tape-recorded interviews between Mielke and state troopers that were played in court earlier in the trial. Even so, many jurors were perched on the edge of their seats as Mielke recounted the events of that morning.

He described hearing thumping noises on a baby monitor in his bedroom that was linked to one in the church and going out in the dark to investigate.

He first strapped on a .44-caliber Ruger handgun, and told his wife to listen carefully on the baby monitors. He took his gun just to be safe, he said, comparing it to wearing a seat belt.

"I don't plan on having an accident, but you never know," he said.

He had a history of false alarms at the church, he said, including checking on noises that turned out to be passing cars, a heater or, once, Christmas lights banging against the side of the building.

"I hear stuff all the time and I check it because I don't know what it is," he said.

He said he thought the noises this time might be someone dropping off food.

Once inside, events unfolded quickly. He found a back door ajar, yelled out to his wife to call the troopers, and within seconds, saw two men running up the stairs at him from the church basement.

A light overhead blinked several times, then went out, he said. He thought the men were coming to attack him. Only later, did he realize the two may have been trying to run out the door.

Mielke said he fired twice. Both men were hit in the back.

Mielke said he shot without thinking. He didn't even know when he had drawn his gun.

"It was just reaction," he said.

Both men fell into a doorway leading to an outside deck. One grunted. He heard another say, "I've been shot." One started rolling around and squirming. He backed away, scared, he said. He said he didn't want to shoot the man again.

But when he looked out a nearby window and saw a man running outside, he pointed his gun and fired. He fired until all his bullets were gone, and still continued to push the trigger so hard he said he had a bruise on his finger the next day.

"I still don't know why. I just spun around and shot right through the glass -- bang, bang, bang, bang," he said. "I just panicked."

He then went to a phone in the church and called troopers.

In large part, the case rests on jurors being convinced that Mielke's decision to fire was reasonable

In questioning Mielke, defense attorney Jim Gilmore stressed the pastor's fear that morning. He asked him if he thought there was any alternative to shooting. No, Mielke said. He was terrified.

He also asked why he didn't call troopers when he first heard noises. Mielke said he didn't want to bother troopers for a noise that might be nothing.

But prosecutor Bob Collins, in his cross-examination, asked Mielke why he felt it necessary to carry a gun, noting the chapel had suffered only minor vandalism over the years and the pastor's own belief that he didn't expect to find anything wrong that morning.

Mielke cited crime in the Big Lake area. One store had been burglarized 23 times in 19 years, he said. He didn't expect problems, but he wanted to be prepared, he said.

He had taken many precautions at the church. He put in the baby monitors in part for security and added two motion detectors including a chime and one that turned on a light in a front hallway. He said he always went in the front door in case someone was running out the back. And he never turned on lights until he had checked things out so he wouldn't become a target.

He also said he bought the .44-caliber handgun with a long barrel to replace a smaller .38-caliber handgun, reasoning that if he did confront someone with the bigger gun, it would be more of a deterrent, he said.

He said he felt more comfortable talking to strangers when he was carrying a concealed weapon, and had gotten a permit to do that after finding a couple intoxicated men in his parking lot. He had felt too threatened at the time to approach them, he said.

Collins asked Mielke if had thought about what he would do if the sight of the gun didn't deter someone. He even gave him a scenario. Would he shoot an unarmed drunk man trying to hit him.

"Possibly. I don't know," the pastor said.

Collins also questioned whether the pastor really didn't suspect someone was in the church when he went over to check on it.

No, Mielke maintained. His first hint something was amiss was seeing the back door ajar.

"Up until then, it was just like every other time I'd gone through (checking the church)," he said.

The case could go to the jury today.

[BogBabe]

But prosecutor Bob Collins, in his cross-examination, asked Mielke why he felt it necessary to carry a gun, noting the chapel had suffered only minor vandalism over the years and the pastor's own belief that he didn't expect to find anything wrong that morning.

So by that reasoning.... I've never been involved in anything more serious than a minor fender-bender, and I certainly don't expect to be in an accident when I drive into town this afternoon.... So I shouldn't bother wearing my seatbelt.

[Newt]

I'd be very intersted in the outcome of this one. Keep us updated Keith.

Newt

[spacemanspiff]

there seems to be a sizable portion of the community that feels Pastor Mielke was wrong to have a gun. apparently the prosecutor feels similarly. many have written letters to the editor saying 'oh he should have just given those poor men some food instead of shooting them'; 'what man of god would have a hand cannon like that for? its no good for hunting, only good for killing people!'

i've submitted several letters to the editor regarding this, but they havent been printed. for a while i was impressed with how the ADN was treating this case, but now they print more anti-gun, anti-self defense letters than pro.

right around the time Mielke shot these two criminals, a unrelated story from out in the Mat-Su valley was discussing how Palmer, Wasilla, Big Lake, the entire Matsu valley area, has limited law enforcement. troopers often are tied up responding to assaults and rapes, and cannot respond immediately to mere break-ins. the people in the mat-su valley were pushing to get a sheriff appointed out there with enough officers to handle the area.
yet the public has forgotten all about that, and instead insists that Mielke should have called 911 first and let them show up who knows how long after the criminals had gotten away. at the moment Mielke discovered intruders, how was he to know they were only there to rob the place? maybe they intended to burn it down?

[P95Carry]

But when he looked out a nearby window and saw a man running outside, he pointed his gun and fired. He fired until all his bullets were gone, That in particular does not sit well ..... his initial response, perhaps, was undertstandable .... threat, burglarizing etc ... but after that .... sounds like his thinking was more than clouded.

Yes, he did panic ... but the ''cut-off'' point of that panic was far exceeded it would seem.

[Ivanimal]

Well ther are three guys who wont be trying to get something for nothing. I feel no sorrow for guy stealing from a house of worship.

[Keith]

Don't forget, these guys WERE armed with a handgun. They didn't use it and the pastor (apparently) never saw it, but he WAS in danger!

Keith

[Kentucky Rifle]

What is the "real reason" the Pastor in on trial? Obviously, it was a self defense shooting because the Pastor thought he was in danger. Let me explain. The County Prosecutor around here is so anti-gun, he's said that a guy with a CCDW who shoots a BG in self defense will be tried for murder. Thus, in Louisville it better be a righteous shoot. You maybe got a fellow like THAT up there, maybe?
What has happened up there Keith? First the hooha with the "Bear Lighters" (I'm STILL thinking about that one.), and now this. What's going on?

KR

[uglymofo]

What is the "real reason" the Pastor in on trial?

I'm always amazed at the number of self-proclaimed "devout" believers (and who's more 'self-proclaimed' than a holy man?), who're so unwilling to meet their God before their time.:rolleyes: :)

[TallPine]

But prosecutor Bob Collins, in his cross-examination, asked Mielke why he felt it necessary to carry a gun
Well, he could have run into a bear while walking across the road to the church building ...

Is this trial in Palmer or in Anchorage? I would think he stands a better chance of acquital among the Palmer folks.

As I used to say, "the nice thing about Anchorage is that is it so close to Alaska."

[Double Maduro]

"Mielke said he fired twice. Both men were hit in the back."

Seems to me that self defense will be hard to prove in this case. Once the men are running away from you they are no longer an immediate threat to you.

Also shooting at someone running outside the church is wrong. If I was on my way to work and heard some shots I would be running too, either to help or to cover.

DM

[Devonai]

I would never admit to panicking. I would simply say "I was in fear for my life," and leave it at that. Admitting panic implies a loss of rationality, and who wants to admit they weren't rational during a SD shoot?

[Keith]

The problem is he shot them in the back. He shot one of them in the back while he was fleeing across the yard! And they weren't in his home where "make my day" would apply.

So, what you have here is in reality, a CCW type shooting. In Alaska (like everywhere else) deadly force is justified when there is an imminent threat of death or "grievous bodily injury". It's tough to make that case with the second guy who was fleeing the scene at a dead run!

Keith

[Balog]

I'm always amazed at the number of self-proclaimed "devout" believers (and who's more 'self-proclaimed' than a holy man?), who're so unwilling to meet their God before their time.

Actually the Bible strongly states that a believer has a duty to defend himself. Letting evil go unchallenged would be evil in turn. I'd refer you to Fox's Book of Martyr's to see examples of those willing to be tortured to death rather than recant. Maybe you should have some small knowledge of a subject before taking cheap shots.

Edit for title
Edit 2; blast, had it right the first time
Edit 3: Aaaarrggh! Formatting

[spacemanspiff]

there are two facts that have been brushed over by the media, that came out only during the trial. three actually, now that i think about it.

the first was that a handgun with the BG's dna on it was found at the scene. it wasnt Mielke's so it was the criminals.
second, medical examiners testified that the bullets entered the SIDE, not the back.
third, firearm experts called to testify say that the shots were fired from approximately TWO FEET away.

puts a very different spin on 'trigger happy pastor executes two poor hungry men in the back who only wanted some food'.
also, there were only TWO badguys, Mielke shot both while in the church, when one made it outside Mielke saw him and unloaded the next four rounds, one possibly hitting him in the foot/ankle. so far as i know, neither was shot in the back through the window.
one BG drove to a friends home, the other crawled into the woods when the pastor went to call 911.

[DJJ]

They were coming up the stairs at him, he thought they were coming to attack him, yet they were both shot in the back...

Jurors --> :confused: :confused: :confused:

Edit: Whoops - shot in the side at two feet vs. in the back at 20 is a crucial difference. Looks better for the Rev.

[Keith]

Thanks for the clarification, Spiff!

I wouldn't convict the guy even if he had shot the fleeing burglar in the back from twenty feet away. I think you're entitled to over-react a bit when confronting thugs in the dark.

The Pastor is the victim here and I'm always going to give the victim the benefit of a doubt.

Keith

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

UglyMoFo:

I'm always amazed at the number of self-proclaimed "devout" believers (and who's more 'self-proclaimed' than a holy man?), who're so unwilling to meet their God before their time.


Most Christian Churches are strongly pro-self defense. The Catholic Church recently stood behind a Priest in Maryland who shot a burgler with an AR-15.

And: Hoddy Toddy

[gunsmith]

No problem with the two in the church,they were running and he felt his life was in danger. How long do you wait after finding two (possibly) armed men?
Why did he need a gun?
What about that Church shooting at the AME Church in Georgia
a month and a half ago? Mark Tyson posted it ;"Shelia W. Chaney Wilson, 43, had recently been released from a mental health facility.
Police identified the dead as Wilson, the Rev. Johnny Clyde Reynolds, 62, and Jennie Mae Robinson, 67, Wilson's mother."
And a year or two ago there was a some folks shot to death in a Texas Church.
The 1st rule of a gunfight? bring a gun!
As far as the guy running in the yard,if someone in my yard is running toward my home (where a mom and child are staying) just may find himself a target. If all in the house are in good health and unmolested and he's running out of the yard I might let him go...
Provided he didn't wake me up or "coitus interruptus":evil:

[uglymofo]

" I still don't know why. . I just spun around and shot right through the glass -- bang, bang, bang, bang," he said.

" third, firearm experts called to testify say that the shots were fired from approximately TWO FEET away."

"I still don't know why..... shot through the glass... sure seems to contradict a "threat" from two feet away by guys facing in profile. Gee, kinda sounds like the old "that ain't my dog...if I had a dog, it wouldn't bite...and if he did, he musta had a reason".

As to the rest, I guess it don't pay to be a burglar around a self-admittedly panic-prone holy man more eager to carry a gun than meet his maker. Glad the church "wrote" in the "self-defense clause". Now they can claim they're just REAL devout RKBAs, and holy men by trade. :rolleyes:

[spacemanspiff]

okay, i'll speak slower this time......
pastor sees there are intruders in his church.
he enters the front door.
two BG's are on the stairs coming up from the basement.
apparently these stairs are positioned in a way that when they run up them they are also running towards the pastor and it is in VERY close proximity.
the pastor fires two shots, hitting each BG once, in the side, from TWO FEET away.
the side door the BG's were running for is apparently nearby. one of them makes it out the door while the pastor is still in panic mode.
the pastor sees this BG through a window. still in panic mode, he unloads the next four rounds.

make more sense now?


these two BG's were drug addicts. one of them abandoned his kids because of his addictions. the BG who drove away went to a friends place and told her not to call for help. he knew he would go to jail, knew what he was doing was wrong. him and his criminal parter both got the full realization of their occupational hazards.
how many of you tactical armchair commandos would have behaved differently?

[uglymofo]

the side door the BG's were running for is apparently nearby.

"make more sense now?"

Makes perfect sense to me. They're running for the door, and NOT at the shooter when they get shot. Glad they found that gun that the holy man never saw.

Now I see why he shot 'em. He knew they were dopers by the way they ran. Hmmm. Maybe 'Mielke' is a Muslim name.

[Balog]

Religious bashing hardly seems to be the "High Road" we hear so much about. You seem to be saying self defense is antithetical to Christianity, even though the text that forms the basis for all beliefs clearly states it is not. You then emply that this somehow is hypocritical, again with no reason for doing so. If you don't like religion, fine. But don't spew your vitriol here.

[Balog]

They were running "at" him. He had no way to know what their aim was. :banghead:

Edit for grammar

[Keith]

They're running for the door, and NOT at the shooter when they get shot.

They had to run to within TWO FEET of him to get around him and get access to the door. In other words, they were fleeing TOWARDS him, in the dark - and with a handgun as it turns out.

Now, you are welcome to let armed intruders approach to within 24 inches of your person and not shoot. That's your business, not mine. If you die in that scenario we'll all sit back and discuss why you failed to shoot - various theories and buzz-words will be forwarded from "Condition White" to "Blissninny" to "Panicked and froze up", but only you will know the real reason you didn't shoot, except you'll be dead.
And if you do shoot, somebody will argue that it was wrong to shoot an armed intruder from a range of two feet... Someone will argue that you should have just hid under your bed and called 911. Somebody else will nit-pick about your religion as if that has anything to do with it.

Keith

[Double Maduro]

So, S.J. KOMARNITSKY and the Anchorage Daily News have reported the facts of the case wrong? Gee what fun, give us eronious facts, wait for us to comment and then bust us because we are using eronious facts to base our conclusions on.

If anyone has, and can cite the source of, the true facts in this case, it would help us all.

Thank you,
DM

[Keith]

"Once inside, events unfolded quickly. He found a back door ajar, yelled out to his wife to call the troopers, and within seconds, saw two men running up the stairs at him from the church basement.

A light overhead blinked several times, then went out, he said. He thought the men were coming to attack him. Only later, did he realize the two may have been trying to run out the door.

Mielke said he fired twice. Both men were hit in the back."

___________________

I'm not sure what you find inconsistent between the details Spiff provided, and the story. You can shoot a man in the back, from the side can't you? And he didn't shoot until they reached the top of the stairs - where he was standing. When he did shoot, he only fired once at each intruder - hardly overkill!

The shots out the window were hardly necessary or well advised, but that isn't what killed anyone. Those shots have nothing to do with case other than as a tool for the prosecutor to make him look bad.

Keith

[grampster]

RANT BUTTON ON:

Maybe I'm just bellicose about criminals being shot by their victims while being caught in the act of robbing, pillaging, etc. Being considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is imho fine for the courtroom, not a darkened hallway.

If you are in someone's occupied home or business illegally, and are confronted by the victim, you should understand that your life is in serious peril because of your actions. The victim should not be overscrutinized if the scoundrel is injured or killed. The victim should not be asked to be held accountable for his actions when being terrorized in his home or business. The highest degree of restraint regarding deadly force should be incumbent upon the professional law enforcement person for a number of reasons. Conversely, a home or business owner deserves the widest and highest benefit of the doubt when that victim uses deadly force in the same situation. We should not forget that the intruder was not invited and is on a nefarious mission and it is totally uknown if he has a proclivity toward violence. We have become a nation of wimps, sheep, whiners and defenders of the dark side in these matters.

If criminals knew they burgled or robbed at the peril of their lives, and that fact was embraced by the populace, perhaps a couple of things might occur. Criminals would be forced to reconsider their actions a tad, or the gene pool would be thinned out a bit. Either way, we'd have a bit less crime maybe.

END OF RANT

grampster:fire:

[TallPine]

Let's just suppose ....

Pastor calls 911 and stays home.

Local "mountie" just happens to be in the area and responds immediately (ok, I know this is fantasy but bear with me)

Mountie investigates church building and two men come running up the stairs straight at him.


1) What might be the mountie's response?

2) Assuming the mountie fired, what would be the legal outcome?

[spacemanspiff]

well gee tallpine, thats obvious! that mountie is the ONLY one who is experienced enough to know exactly what to do. a lowly serf whos no more than a cleric wouldnt have the faintest idea of what the proper course of action is!
:rolleyes:

keith, the BG's did NOT have thier gun in their hands. it was left by them sitting on something, a waterheater or furnace iirc.

[TallPine]

actually, spiff ... I figured the next person would tell me that a LEO would know better than to try to clear a building all by themselves ... :D

[Keith]

the BG's did NOT have thier gun in their hands.

It doesn't matter except in the most general sense since Mielke didn't see the gun anyway. It just shows that these guys weren't harmless kids on a prank. They were armed intruders who needed killlin' as they say in Texas.

Keith

[spacemanspiff]

whoops! i left my tactical hat at home today. otherwise i wouldnt have missed that.
but now that you mention it, since this occured in the valley, theres no doubt in my mind that the LEO would have called in, not just backup, but the dea and atf as well cause there would undoubtedly have been a couple hundred plants and some explosives laying around.

doesnt every house in the valley have such?
:neener:

[BogBabe]

What Grampster said. In particular:

Conversely, a home or business owner deserves the widest and highest benefit of the doubt when that victim uses deadly force in the same situation. We should not forget that the intruder was not invited and is on a nefarious mission and it is totally uknown if he has a proclivity toward violence.

[TallPine]

doesnt every house in the valley have such?
I helped a guy build a cabin at Woody Lake, which he later sold to another fellow who would have for sure had some "plants" around. :)

Except, back then it was legal to grow for your own use.

[Keith]

I figured the next person would tell me that a LEO would know better than to try to clear a building all by themselves

Right. Everyone should just wait an hour for the troopers to drive 90 miles and "clear the building" when you hear the noise of some furball that just crawled in from the attic.

Self-reliance is no longer politically correct and we should all crawl under the bed with a cell phone and let the police deal with the Marten (or burglar) on our property.

Keith

[spacemanspiff]

It just shows that these guys weren't harmless kids on a prank.
makes me wonder how the mat-su valley prosecutor handles cases against BG's.
"so why did you feel it necessary to take a gun with you when you robbed that convenience store? you never had to shoot anyone on the other occasions you robbed it. what made this time any different?"

[Keith]

The valley is getting "Californicated"! Too many outsiders moving in who want to turn it into what they fled.

Keith

[RANash]

Sounds to me like the pastor didn't have a very good attorney. Spiff, sounds like you would make a good one!

Grampster's got it right. We'd have a lot less crime if we gave the benefit of doubt to the good guys instead of the bad guys.

[DorGunR]

I've read (on this thread) where a lot of people would have done this and others would have done that.............ain't it great to be a Monday morning quarterback?????:rolleyes:

[Andrew Rothman]

I've read (on this thread) where a lot of people would have done this and others would have done that.............ain't it great to be a Monday morning quarterback?????

When you're finished with the sarcasm, you might conside the possibility that studying and discussing actual incidents is a very good way to mentally prepare for and develop sound tactical strategies for a possible future encounter.

Also, this IS a "discussion" board. :)

[TallPine]

I've read (on this thread) where a lot of people would have done this and others would have done that.............
I would introduce my soiled underwear as courtroom evidence of fear for my life.

:neener:

[DorGunR]

Also, this IS a "discussion" board.

Thank you.;)

[Quartus]

Sounds like he has a lousy lawyer, and had lously CCW training. He didn't know when NOT to shoot, and he doesn't know what NOT to say.


But his accuracy does seem to be okay. Two shots, two hits.


But changing the subject from tactics and legalities a bit, did anyone notice this: (fans of STOPPING POWER TAKE SPECIAL NOTE)


He hit each of these guys with a Ruger .44, presumably a .44 mag, and they died.


Later.




BTW, mpayne, you're developing a bad habit of making posts that leave me saying, "What mpayne said." Knock that off, willya?

:D

[Kimber45]

Exodus 22:2 If a thief should be found in the act of breaking in and he does get struck and die, there is no bloodguilt for him.

The media to many times paints the thief as the innocent party when he is confronted with violence. The laws today also stick up for the criminal. What we need more is for the criminal element to be met with the force needed to take this country back from the criminals and give it back to the law abiding and honest citizens.

[Quartus]

force needed to take this country back from the criminals


Kimber, don't hijack the thread. We're talking about burglars, not Congress.


:D

[Kimber45]

Oh, there's a difference?? :confused:

[greyhound]

What we need more is for the criminal element to be met with the force needed to take this country back from the criminals and give it back to the law abiding and honest citizens.

In my opinion, we have a weird divergence right now in this country:

- more and more states are passing shall issue CCW laws

-yet there is greater scrutiny of self defense shootings, even in (some) gun friendly states.

Could it be that if they give us the means to defend ourselves we must be held to a higher standard, or is it a way for the leftists (who are present even in gun friendly states) to snipe back at laws they hate?

(am aware this thread is not a CCW issue, but it does have implications in the overall RKBA issue).

[Quartus]

Yeah, Kimber. When was the last time you heard of Congress pulling a night shift?


:D

[Quartus]

or is it a way for the leftists (who are present even in gun friendly states) to snipe back at laws they hate?


Yup.

[Boats]

But changing the subject from tactics and legalities a bit, did anyone notice this: (fans of STOPPING POWER TAKE SPECIAL NOTE)

He hit each of these guys with a Ruger .44, presumably a .44 mag, and they died.


Yeah. One only drove away and the other crawled off into the woods. These were kills, but they weren't exactly stops.

[spacemanspiff]

kimber45, correct me if i'm wrong (seems to happen frequently), but does the scripture you quoted not mention something about it being at night? i seem to recall that the mosaic laws about home invasions only referenced the justifiable killing at night having no bloodguilt.
any other death that occured unintentionally required the killer to escape to a city of refuge, lest the family of the deceased come for revenge. that killer was to stay in the city of refuge until the priest there died, and after that the custom was to let bygones be bygones i suppose. kind of like 'house arrest'.

the israelites justice system was geared to take a BG's life only when the BG committed murder. least thats how i recall it. i might be completely wrong.

[Kimber45]

It does state that if the sun hath shone forth upon him, there is bloodguilt but then goes on to state that he must make compensation and if he is caught with what he has stolen in his hand that he must make double compensation. My interputation (for what it is worth) is one should not be a vigialante verses defending what is his.

[Standing Wolf]

...told jurors he armed himself with a gun before going into the church but never expected to fire the weapon.

I don't expect ever to have to fire my carry gun, but wouldn't even consider carrying it if I weren't ready, willing, and able to defend my life and property. That's what it's for.

[uglymofo]

from Grampster: Maybe I'm just bellicose about criminals being shot by their victims while being caught in the act of robbing, pillaging,

Balog: Religious bashing hardly seems to be the "High Road" we hear so much about. You seem to be saying self defense is antithetical to Christianity, even though the text that forms the basis for all beliefs clearly states it is not.

Keith: It doesn't matter except in the most general sense since Mielke didn't see the gun anyway. It just shows that these guys weren't harmless kids on a prank. They were armed intruders who needed killlin' as they say in Texas.

Kimber45: Exodus 22:2 If a thief should be found in the act of breaking in and he does get struck and die, there is no bloodguilt for him.


Maybe it's just me. I don't have a problem at all, with what happened to the two burglars. Hell, if you're an 'uninvited' stranger prowling around in my house in the dark, you're gonna get shot. Twice. and I don't care if you're armed with bad breath, a pencil, or a flashlight. You're gonna have one of my kitchen knives in your hand with your dead eyes studyin' the ceiling. But I ain't a holy man. and I can shoot. and I've had practice and courses simulating the 'unknown' pressure. I've had to draw down twice. Once in 'life and death'. I know what 's gonna happen when I call the cops. ALL that comes as part of the responsibility of owning/carrying/pulling a gun, and I took on that responsibility and fulfilled my social duty. I'm not LEO, I'm just a guy on the street to y'all.

This idiot gunman moved UP from a .38 to a .44 because "it would be more of a deterrent". and by the way, that's ALL he is, is a gunman. Religion bashing has nothing to do with my stand. I maintain that this guy forsook his religion and its' beliefs for his own. with premeditation:

He said he felt more comfortable talking to strangers when he was carrying a concealed weapon, and had gotten a permit to do that after finding a couple intoxicated men in his parking lot. He had felt too threatened at the time to approach them, he said.

That's one HELL of an attitude for a man of any religion--- why approach them at all? why sweep a building if you're so scared of the general public you pack a .44?? He's the one who says he'd prefer to approach people only when he's packed. Where was this? Bosnia? Iraq? NYC after dark? No, he's in Alaska. Presumably, his normal daily routine consists of visiting all the usual sites and folks that a religious leader usually visits, seeing elderly in the hospital, counseling the troubled, maybe even walking skid row; and I"ll bet that ain't East Oakland at night.

And where is his religion in all this? What happened to 'Thou shalt not kill?' (let's apply for a CCW instead). Most religions I'm familiar with (and admittedly I'm no authority, but I think I can claim this without error--) believe that taking a life is one of the bigger sins, or, "necessities" under the correct conditions. "the church grants dispensation in certain situations"...A panic-stricken milktoast with a gun investigating a noise ain't one of them. I submit that I have never met a truly religious man so lacking in confidence in his faith as to believe that everyone who doesn't look "prim" is a personal threat. We're not talking about my beliefs, but his--if he was truly a religious man, where is the optimism in the human spirit and his god that at least a holy man should project? I submit that it rests in his CCW license and his revolver, and not in his character.

Somebody point to a religious leader (of any minor stature, and not in the public limelight and therefore not a 'general' target of assassination) who packs a gun 'just in case' rather than have faith in his God and the proscribed beliefs of his faith. And then tell me that that same holy man has taken the responsibility of attending defense shooting courses, handgun safety, knows the legal ramifications of pulling a gun.

Pull all the facts out and twist them any way you like; change them to put this shooter in his best and most sympathetic light. They don't alter the fact that this was a gunman, so lacking in confidence (in daily contact) that by his own admission he needed a CCW, who, without any thought for his fellow man, bought a handgun and assumed he could handle himself and any situation that arose, with a gun in his hand. What did religion have to do with this incident except that he denied his religion by his premeditated actions? Did the perps get what they deserved? Sure, but it shouldn't have happened the way it did--by someone professing to be religious.

By the way Balog, I don't need to prove "some small knowledge" to you in order to post. You need to understand what constitutes a truly religious believer. This guy was no more than a thug with religious expertise.

[RANash]

Mr Mofo,

Are you saying that anyone who professes faith in God shouldn't use a gun for self-defense because he should trust in God to protect him? And if he does use a gun he shows that his faith is non-existent or weak?

If that's your point (and maybe I'm misunderstanding), it reminds me of an old joke:

It seems that there was a very bad flood and the water was rising in house of a firm believer in the Lord, to the point where he had to go to the second floor. He prayed for the Lord to save him, and a man in a boat came by and said, "Climb out the window and get into my boat and I'll take you to safety!" The believer said, "No! I'm trusting in the Lord to save me!" So the man with the boat left.

The water kept rising, and our believer had to go up to the third floor. Another man in a boat came by and said, "Climb out the window and get into my boat and I'll take you to safety!" The believer said, "No! I'm trusting in the Lord to save me!" So that man with the boat left.

The water kept rising, and the believer had to climb up on the roof. A rescue chopper came overhead, and with a bullhorn, a member of the crew shouted down, "We'll throw down a rope ladder! Climb up and we'll take you to safety!" The believer said, "No! I'm trusting in the Lord to save me!" So the chopper left.

The water kept rising, and swept the man away and he drowned. He went to heaven and stood before the Lord. He said, "Lord, I was trusting You to save me! Why didn't you?

The Lord answered, "I sent you two boats and a helicopter! What more did you want!

My point is that it is a misunderstanding to expect God to do everything for us. We have a responsibility to use the tools, abilities, and opportunities that God gives us. God has given me the ability to shoot, the ability to buy guns and ammo, the ability to get training, and the ability to use these tools to protect myself and my family. It is not necessarily a lack of faith for a believer to carry or use a gun.

Anther point, is this: Because a man is called to the ministry, doesn't mean that he thinks he has it all together spiritually. It simply means that he believes God wants him to care for the spiritual needs of others as a full-time calling. Maybe this guy was fearful, and a stronger, more mature faith would have healed that. Well, God works over time. We come to Him as a mess, and as we grow in faith and wisdom, we change. When you meet a Christian who's a jerk, just remember, that without the Lord he would be an even bigger one!

[uglymofo]

RA,

I'm not clear within myself where the line is drawn for a religious leader to pack. That's not my point. I do know one thing---in this instance, this guy applied for a CCW and packed as a crutch to help his confidence, and he did it with complete disregard for the rest of humanity, under the assumption that "everything would work out" if he ever pulled. That's evident by his obvious lack of of training, his legal "composure" (talking to the cops, etc. after the shooting). To me, that reaffirms his lack of ethics, and, if you will, his break with religious thought, benevolence, belief, whatever you want to call it; he choose himself first by the action of buying a gun and by the inaction of not taking any training (at least, possibly demonstrated by his neophyte behaviour before, during, and after the shootings). He damned to haphazard luck all the rest of society he'd encounter. THAT is not a religious man; at least, in my mind, he's no one who should claim a faith in God to the extent of "leading" a congregation.

He did everything wrong, including shooting 2 guys he didn't even know were armed. As far we know, their physical presence was the threat. What threat? He packed a gun to go find a problem. If he does as he's taught, they're out the door, maybe with some of his property when the cops show up. Instead, he goes to investigate, "John Wayne-ing it" at his best. He knew where his wife was; neither she nor he were in imminent danger when he started out with his gun. He didn't give a damn about anyone but his property. What preacher do you know that'd argue with you over property and brandish to prove his point? That's no preacher. And without training, this guy's not even a responsible gun owner.

Does a religious man using a gun constitute an 'unfaithful' or weak person? No. Does a religious "leader" toting a gun everywhere CCW'd with (this guy's psyche and lack of character) constitute an unfaithful or weak person? You betcherr _ss. He should be stripped of his leadership role; he should serve time. Religion is not part of this shooting.

And by the way, is someone with a CCW who, (by their own admission) demonstrates that they panic under stress, and cannot explain their actions afterward--is that person allowed to maintain their CCW?

[Keith]

He did everything wrong, including shooting 2 guys he didn't even know were armed.

I don't have a problem at all, with what happened to the two burglars. Hell, if you're an 'uninvited' stranger prowling around in my house in the dark, you're gonna get shot.

Interesting, two diametrically opposed statements about the same event. Apparently because this guy represents some religious symbol with which you have a problem, you think he's in the wrong. However, had it been you, the shooting would have been totally righteous...

Keith

[spacemanspiff]

if he was truly a religious man, where is the optimism in the human spirit and his god that at least a holy man should project? I submit that it rests in his CCW license and his revolver, and not in his character.
so priests and pastors should never arm themselves? they should trust in god for protection, not in guns? sounds similar to other elitist opinion, doesnt it?
"oh those silly civilians should trust in law enforcement for their protection!"

uglymofo, sad to say that your posts in this thread have lumped you in with the other armchair commandos. you think you would have done so much better than this man did. yet can you really sit there and tell us that your confidence comes from within your character, and not your guns or training?

and what do you know about alaska and the crimes committed up here? sounds like you know neither the place, nor those who live here. do you believe that there should be a minimum percentage of crimes committed in an area before CCW is allowed?
had this pastor been unarmed, and injured or killed, i bet a shiny nickel you'd be in the thread saying 'well he was an idiot to be unarmed.'

[Horsesense]

Ugly…, you do bring up some points worth considering. The fact that the man was a preacher or a storeowner or farmer should have no bearing upon the actions taken.

You seem to have a keen sense of justice (that’s good) you can rest assured that justice will be served. The God this religious man serves will see that total and complete justice will be served, not only regarding the events of the night in question but in every lie he has ever told, every lustful thought etc etc a day of reckoning in which every secret sin will brought to light and due punishment dealt out. On the other hand… if the guy is a true Christian…justice has already been served, on the cross. What can wash away all my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

This forum probably is not the place for further "religious discussion" but if you would like to discuss sin, righteousness, justice, mercy and faith just PM me.

[BluesBear]

And where is his religion in all this? What happened to 'Thou shalt not kill?'

Actually the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is in reality just one of the many mistranslations occuring in the King James Bible. If you go back to the original text, which I believe was written in Greek, (Even though there are those who actually think the Bible was written in English) and translated it correctly it would read, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder."

Now there is a HEAP of difference between Killing and Murdering.


Now, I, for one, am not gung ho on turning this into a discourse on Christianity, or any other religion, but, if you're going to spout the Bible, please read all of it, especially the parts that deal with self defense, justice as well as crime and punishment.

You can't bad-mouth the antis about only using/twisting certain phrases from a document to suit their own agenda and then do it yourself. Makes no difference if your quoting the Bible or the Constitution.

Just my 2¢, (put it in the collection plate)



Edited to add.. EXCUUUUUUSSSSSSSEEEEE Me Horsesense, I stand corrected in that the original text was in Hebrew and not Greek. Being from Kentucky we mostly spoke English and American. You must forgive me but that particular Sunday School class and Bro. Zuberer's Sermon about it, occured over 35 years ago for me. For some reason I felt even at that young age that it was something worth remembering. Perhaps there was also a Greek translation that we compared it to also.

Also, I will not be bullied into deleting this or any post.
IF you are the scholar you act like you are you might agree that there are some areas of the KJV that differ from other translations, the number of Horses mentioned somewhere is the other one that sticks in my mind. It was not my intention to try and discredit any version of the Holy Bible. Just that the intent of the Thou Shalt Not Kill part (Commandment 6) is open to debate and discussion. In fact the version of the Bible that rests on my nightstand (about the same distance away from me while sleeping as the Telephone and the Mossberg) says in Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder." and the footnote states "murder. The Hebrew for this verb usually refers to a premeditated and deliberate act."

[Ivanimal]

I believe every man religious or otherwise has th right to protect his property. What has not been mentioned here is what might have happened if he were asleep and they decided to attack him and his wife. These human varmints had no respect for his property and were brazen in their actions, not to mention outnumbering him 3 to one.

Only God can truly judge this man, It is my opinion they should be offering this man praise and not a trial.:mad:

[BluesBear]

Horsesense,

Please stop trying to bully me with Private Messages.
If you have something to debate, do it in the forum. Do not waste my time with PM I will no longer accept them from you.

[Andrew Rothman]

Just to throw one more wrench into the works: :)

My understanding is that the first written form of the Old Testament was actually written in Aramaic.

Gee, this topic has drifted a bit, eh?

Here's what I see.

1. I -- and many others -- believe that a man has a moral right to shoot and kill trespassers. Crime should be deadly dangerous.

2. On the other hand, the law doesn't always see it that way.

In MN, where I live, deadly force is only authorized against threat of GBH or death, or in stopping a felony in a home.

In AK, where this incident took place...
A person...may use...deadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be a burglary in any degree occurring in an occupied dwelling or building.
(http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter81/Section350.htm)

So it sounds like although shooting these guys inside the building is legit, shootin' `em while they run away in the yard isn't.

The poor pastor panicked. Pity.

[Balog]

Mpayne: Most of the Old Testament is in Hebrew. I believe some of it is Aramaic, but the majority is Hebrew (a friend is getting set to attend seminary and he takes quite a bit o' Hebrew). The New is mostly koine(sp?) or common Greek (as opposed to the classical Greek found in Homer's works). And the KJV is both A)inherently inaccurate in places & B)written in archaic language that is very easy to read incorrectly. It's like picking up Milton or Shakespeare. You can get most of it, but a lot of the words aren't used or are used differently.

[Balog]

Oh and re Christians and RKBA: Check out Luke 22 IIRC. Jesus instructs his disciples to buy swords to carry for self-defense, even if they have to self the cloak off their backs. It should be noted that at this time it was illegal for Jews to carry a concealed weapon without Roman permission (sound familiar?). So not only is the Messiah instructing his disciples to go armed, he's also telling them to break the law to do so. Remember also that when they came to take Him, Peter was illegally carrying a sword. While Jesus reproved him for attacking one of the people when he had been told not to, no objection is made to his having the weapon in the first place.

[spacemanspiff]

By SHEILA TOOMEY
Anchorage Daily News

(Published: October 24, 2003)
A pistol-packing preacher used deadly force to defend an unoccupied building containing little of value and killed two men who were just trying to get away, prosecutor Bob Collins said Thursday as the case against Big Lake minister Phillip Mielke wrapped up and went to the jury.

Actually, countered defense attorney Jim Gilmore, the preacher is a mild-mannered man who quietly carried a gun for self-defense and used it in a "totally unexpected, out-of-control situation" in which he was forced to shoot two burglars as they rushed him inside his own church.

Mielke, 44, is charged with manslaughter in the April 24 deaths of Chris Palmer, 31, and Francis Jones, 23. There is little dispute over the facts of the case. Palmer and Jones were burglarizing Big Lake Community Chapel about 5 a.m. when Mielke heard a suspicious noise over an intercom system hooked up between the church and his home across the road. He armed himself and went to investigate.

The three men ended up together in a small, dark arctic entry. Mielke says he ordered the intruders to stop and then fired when they kept coming.

The issue is whether Mielke acted reasonably.

Jurors also may consider a lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide.

As might be expected, the prosecution and defense described two very different men Thursday as they tried to persuade jurors to vote their way.

According to Collins, Mielke is a fearful man obsessed with security who entered the chapel early that morning planning to shoot the intruder he knew was there.

"He's a person who needs a gun before he can talk to a stranger," Collins said. He noted Mielke's testimony that he once avoided talking to two drunks loitering in the church parking lot because he wasn't armed.

"Does a reasonable person feel they need a gun to approach another person?" Collins asked jurors. "He needs a gun to give him courage."

When Mielke strapped on his .44-caliber handgun and went to investigate the thunk he heard over the intercom, he found an empty car idling in the brush off the chapel parking lot. Obviously someone was in the church, Collins said. That's when a reasonable person would have called Alaska State Troopers rather than enter a darkened building by himself, setting up a potentially deadly situation.

Mielke wanted to shoot the intruder, Collins charged.

Ridiculous and unreasonable, Gilmore replied. Just imagine that call to 911, he urged jurors. When the dispatch operator asked, "What is the nature of your emergency?" Mielke would say: 'Well, I heard a noise. It could be inside or outside. It could have been a car door slamming.' "

What was the likely response, Gilmore said, mimicking a dismissive dispatcher: " 'Thank you, Mr. Mielke. Please call us again when you hear another noise that could have been inside or outside, or a car door.' "

"You don't want to call wolf," Gilmore said. "His job is to see if there's something fishy going on at the church, inside or out."

At first, things looked fine. Then he heard voices from the basement and shouted over the intercom to his wife, Helen, to call 911, Gilmore said. But she didn't hear him.

Almost immediately, Jones and Palmer came rushing up the basement stairs at him, Gilmore said.

"It was like a bear charging," Gilmore said. "The critical feature of this event (is) it happened in a matter of seconds ... and it happened in the dark. ... His fear that caused him to pull the trigger was reasonable under the circumstances."

"These guys were running out of the building," Collins replied. Mielke obviously believes "it's OK to shoot first and ask questions later and hope the people you shot deserved to be shot," said Collins, adding that the preacher had no idea who was coming up those steps. It could have been scared kids.

"They showed absolutely no aggression toward him except to try to run away," Collins said.

If he was acting in self-defense, why did Mielke empty his gun out a window at Jones' back as the mortally wounded man fled toward the idling car? Collins asked. "Once he started shooting, he couldn't stop shooting. ... This is the act of someone who isn't going to let them get away."

And in the end, what was the point of it all? Collins asked. "There were no assets worth a life-or-death decision in that church." The burglars were stealing donated food the church planned to give away, Collins said. "You don't take a gun to protect some old doughnuts. ... Those are not the actions of a reasonable person."

Daily News reporter Sheila Toomey can be reached at stoomey@adn.com.
====================


its obvious where that prosecutor stands on self defense shootings. good luck to Pastor Mielke.

[Quartus]

Balog is correct. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, parts in Aramaic, including part of the book of Daniel which was written by Nebuchadnezzer.

:what: Yup. Nebuchadnezzer.


New Testament in Koine Greek.


The KJV incorrectly translates the commandment as "Thou shalt not kill." in the Exodus passage, and CORRECTLY translates it as "Thou shalt do no murder." in Matthew 19. (Jesus quoting some of the commandments.)

There are about 9 or 10 words for taking life in Hebrew, I'm told. One for killing in battle, one for state executions, one for killing in self defense, etc. And one for unlawful killing. That's the word that is used. Murder.


ugly, I think I understand your displeasure with this guy - it does read like he was walking around scared most of the time.. I see no conflict with preparing to defend oneself against criiminals, and having faith in God. I use seatbelts and I have insurance, not because I don't trust in God, but because I have a responsiblity to take care of things.


But walking around scared, as it seems this guy may have been, certainly is NOT trusting. That's called a failing. It's common to all of us. It says nothing about the validity of his faith - it does say that his faith is weak.

OTOH, while I understand your point, it really isn't fair of YOU, not beliveing in this man's religion, to dictate to HIM how his religion must be lived out. If you don't know the rules by which he tries to live, you have no basis for criticising him for failing to abide by those rules. And it certainly isn't fair for you to impose YOUR rules on him, and then complain when he doesn't live up to them.

[Andrew Rothman]

Mpayne: Most of the Old Testament is in Hebrew. I believe some of it is Aramaic, but the majority is Hebrew

Whoops. You are precisely correct.

[Horsesense]

I sent you PM’s because it’s off topic AND I didn’t want to humiliate you in public. I saved both PM’s and would gladly forward them to anyone who is interested in the subject. Basically I was trying to get you away from parroting ignorant statements you heard years ago on an inappropriate board.

Perhaps the High Road would start a Theology Board.

BTW I have only sent five PM’s in the whole time I have been at the high road, just for the record

[Brian Dale]

The only statement using a religious reference that I have to make, in any language, in this thread is that I'm glad that God gave me sense enough not to (a) break into someone's place, and then (b) rush at the dweller therein, (c) together with another person (because 2-on-1 is always a fair bet to be a lethal threat, even barehanded). I'd expect to get shot if I did that.

That I wouldn't be breaking in at all myself is not my point here. It's a drag that their rushing him frightened him enough that he kept on shooting. Could he be sure that the 2nd guy wasn't coming back in through the window to attack him again? He certainly couldn't be sure that they were not carrying weapons. He should have paid more attention to Rule 4, except that he had been under attack, and there was a possibility that the attack was continuing. I wasn't there; I can't see what he saw.

Grampster said it right.

[uglymofo]

I should probably let this go; this'll be my last post here. I respond only to correct glib allegations left by others, i. e.,

Keith quote:He did everything wrong, including shooting 2 guys he didn't even know were armed.



quote: I don't have a problem at all, with what happened to the two burglars. Hell, if you're an 'uninvited' stranger prowling around in my house in the dark, you're gonna get shot.



Interesting, two diametrically opposed statements about the same event. Apparently because this guy represents some religious symbol with which you have a problem, you think he's in the wrong. However, had it been you, the shooting would have been totally righteous...


Yes, I think he's wrong, but not because I have a "problem with a religious symbol". He's an idiot gun owner, who, without reason, crossed the road to an unoccupied building and shot two men over property. By his own admission, no lives were at stake when he went and got his gun. Secondly, he's a man hiding behind his religion. Thirdly, I never said my shooting would be "totally righteous". I insinunated that if I killed a burglar in my house the killing would be "justified" by the "evidence". I am no holy man, and don't pretend to be. It's unfortunate Keith decided to take one sentence quotes out of context; he should spend more time learning to read for thoroughness, content and comprehension.

Spacemanspiff if he was truly a religious man, where is the optimism in the human spirit and his god that at least a holy man should project? I submit that it rests in his CCW license and his revolver, and not in his character.

so priests and pastors should never arm themselves? they should trust in god for protection, not in guns? sounds similar to other elitist opinion, doesnt it?
"oh those silly civilians should trust in law enforcement for their protection!"

uglymofo, sad to say that your posts in this thread have lumped you in with the other armchair commandos. you think you would have done so much better than this man did. yet can you really sit there and tell us that your confidence comes from within your character, and not your guns or training?

and what do you know about alaska and the crimes committed up here? sounds like you know neither the place, nor those who live here. do you believe that there should be a minimum percentage of crimes committed in an area before CCW is allowed?
had this pastor been unarmed, and injured or killed, i bet a shiny nickel you'd be in the thread saying 'well he was an idiot to be unarmed.'

I never said priests and pastors should never arm themselves. Try reading it again and let your brain kick in before you type. I said, and I quote for you since you can't read for content either:

I'm not clear within myself where the line is drawn for a religious leader to pack. That's not my point. I do know one thing---in this instance, this guy applied for a CCW and packed as a crutch to help his confidence, and he did it with complete disregard for the rest of humanity, under the assumption that "everything would work out" if he ever pulled. That's evident by his obvious lack of of training, his legal "composure" (talking to the cops, etc. after the shooting). To me, that reaffirms his lack of ethics, and, if you will, his break with religious thought, benevolence, belief, whatever you want to call it; he choose himself first by the action of buying a gun and by the inaction of not taking any training (at least, possibly demonstrated by his neophyte behaviour before, during, and after the shootings). He damned to haphazard luck all the rest of society he'd encounter. THAT is not a religious man; at least, in my mind, he's no one who should claim a faith in God to the extent of "leading" a congregation.

It's too bad such a lightweight armchair authority such as Spacemanspiff has attempted a personal rebuke with

your posts in this thread have lumped you in with the other armchair commandos. you think you would have done so much better than this man did. yet can you really sit there and tell us that your confidence comes from within your character, and not your guns or training?

Sorry Mr. Armchair Authority. I HAVE done better, in the only two occasions I've had to draw down on someone, as I said in my earlier post of October 24th, 2003 12:56 AM. You too, should go back and reread for content and comprehension. (On an aside, since my "experience" has been questioned, the "life and death" situation I referred to was a nighttime felony stop where I was a ride-along with a Berkeley PD. We pulled our guns (mine was the squadcar 12ga) on 3 in a windowless van (try that sometime, Spacemanspiff) who had a fourth, an 'alleged' kidnap victim. Yes, she was really a victim, and yes, no one was shot. The other incident I deem not "life and death" was when I was separated from my wife in the same house and the alarm went off. I cleared the house without shooting either her nor our visiting friend who inadvertantly set off the alarm. ) And more to the last point in the above quote, it matters not a damn where "my confidence comes from", so long as I have it and can determine in a rational manner when to pull the trigger. One thing's for sure, I know how to handle myself when I am armed and confronted by others who are truly a deadly threat.

As to his comment
and what do you know about alaska and the crimes committed up here?
about my experience with local crime in Alaska-- I'd have loved to have lived in "crime-ridden" Anchorage, rather than spend 11 years in Oakland, CA, where the PRK deems CCW self-defense a crime, and the murder rate is eight times higher in an average year.

Lastly, he says

had this pastor been unarmed, and injured or killed, i bet a shiny nickel you'd be in the thread saying 'well he was an idiot to be unarmed.'

You'd have lost your bet. Try to read for content, you'll do better. I have always maintained this guy was a thug hiding behind religious expertise; legally, he was an idiot for arming himself that night with the intention of shooting people in the sole defense of property. He was a thug for putting all of society in jeopardy by buying a gun and going home with it, disdaining training and practice to the damnation of all others. One thing no one can deny (no matter the political climate in Anchorage)-- the evidence provided by the police to the local district attorney could have been construed as two justifiable homicides; i. e., self-defense. However, the evidence was not found to be that clearcut, both because of the physical evidence and the stupidity of the shooter who blabbed his idiocy at will. If nothing else happens here, hopefully his court costs will break him financially; stupid people deserve to be punished for their stupidity. Send your nickle to him; or keep it yourself. Stupid people need everything charitable society will offer.

I'm done with this thread. I responded to the trolls and their out-of-context one liners and I'm gone.

[Keith]

This is about a shooting. It's not about "Holy Men" or how they should act vs how the rest of us should act.

Moderators - please close this thread as it has gone wildly off-topic!

I'll start a new thread on the subject when the jury comes back with a verdict in the next day or so. Perhaps we can leave the religion out of that one...

Keith

[P95Carry]

Moderators - please close this thread as it has gone wildly off-topic! AGREED!!

[spacemanspiff]

He was a thug for putting all of society in jeopardy by buying a gun and going home with it, disdaining training and practice to the damnation of all others.
If nothing else happens here, hopefully his court costs will break him financially; stupid people deserve to be punished for their stupidity.
hows the air up there on that high horse of yours? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Cosmoline]

As far as the anti-gun letters to the editor at the ADN, I would not take those as indicative of any community sentiment. I think the prosecutor made a HUGE error in emphasizing how crazy the pastor was to have a firearm and alarm systems set up. Nearly everyone I know in that area packs.

What disturbs me about this shooting is the way the pastor simply emptied his revolver at the fleeing goblins. This may be an example of the "shoot to stop, not to kill" mantra going horribly wrong. If they're running away from you, you aren't supposed to keep shooting! Still, I wasn't there. The jury got to hear the evidence and inspect the scene. I trust them to be balanced on this case. I would not expect a Mat-Su jury to be anti-gun. I'd be shocked if the "gun nut" arguments play any role in their decision. We should hear the results soon. They're deliberating as of Friday.

[Cosmoline]

upon reading the rest of the thread...

????

What does religion have to do with this? Frankly it's a good idea to pack iron in the Mat-Su. It's the wild west up there. A handful of state troopers patrol an area the size of most Eastern states, full of folks who range from eccentric (myself included) to extremely dangerous (also, myself included :D )

The real issue here is which side of "the line" he was on. IMHO it depends on how dark the corridor was, how close the goblins were to him, and the angle of the shots. He certainly was right to be fearful. But whether or not he had a reasonable believe that his life was in imminent peril is another matter. We have juries to decide these things and, in this case, I trust a Mat-Su jury. I'd certainly trust them over the folks posting to this thread! Oy!

[BluesBear]

What we all should learn from this thread is that ANYONE can panic.
And I believe that's what happened here.

I have SEEN (with my own 4 eyes) uniformed police officers panic.
I have seen them both a) NOT fire when they clearly should have, and b) fire until theit weapon was dry.

The one word used to describe themselves in every case was PANIC.

Anyone can panic no matter what their experience, background or training.

No one knows, until they actually see the Elephant, exactly what they will do.

Everyone here should stop judging from the cheapseats and just remember the lesson taught in this incident.

ANYONE CAN PANIC. So let's just try and not let it be any of US. OK?

[ojibweindian]

ugly

How do you know they were shot "just for property"? You don't, you weren't there. Do you wanna take a chance on BG's in your house "just for property"? Prolly not, but you expect others to do so, I'll warrant.

I smell hypocrisy. I smell other things, too.

[Keith]

This is getting a bit .... ugly since religion has been introduced.

If I had known the thread would stray into religion, I'd have never started it! I will start another thread when the jury verdict comes back and I hope we can leave the mans religion out of it - please!

As the starter of the thread I request (again), that it be closed!

Keith

[grampster]

A. If the Goblins had not been breaking into the church they would not have been shot and killed. Occupational hazard IMHO.

B. If the Goblins had not been breaking into the church the pastor would not have been motivated to check the church out, carrying a handgun for his own personal safety. See A. above.

C. Regarding firearms, adrenelin, and good continuous training notwithstanding: Have shot, emptied, and reloaded twice, my shotgun while missing each time a spikehorn; not a very big spikehorn at that.
Have watched hunting companion (a hunter with 40 years experience) observe 10 point buck. Point .30/.30 lever action in general direction of buck and lever action every bullet unfired onto the ground. Then turn and ask why the deer did not fall over after "being shot" five times. Have a "friend" who shot a mannekin dressed as a hoodlum with a knife in its hand while answering a probable burglarly at a local playhouse prop warehouse. (Two in the heart at 12', dark room, only a flashlight, 2 good shots, if I say so myself, but being a modest man........cough ahem)

grampster

[Keith]

Well, since the thread refuses to die and can't be killed...

In Big Lake Alaska, the noises could have been anything - a bear is more likely than a burglar. And bears do break into buildings all the time up here! It's a very common situation.

And (again) this wasn't suburban Anchorage where a cop is fifteen minutes away. It's a big deal to call the troopers in to a rural village to investigate a "noise". Nobody should question the man responding to this himself. And nobody should question his carrying a .44 mag, since bears are more common than burglars.

And I'm curious if anyone feels a cop would have withheld his fire when these guys charged up the stairs in the dark, directly at him. I think if a more experienced person (an "unpanicked" person) had confronted these guys, the bodies would have been found on the stairs. His mistake was in not shooting soon enough!

Keith

[Quartus]

Have a "friend" who shot a mannekin dressed as a hoodlum with a knife in its hand while answering a probable burglarly at a local playhouse prop warehouse.


You and Lawdog need to get together and compare notes on the proper procedures for subduing mannequins. Hmmm. Just what DID they teach on that in the Academy? :D



Keith, the two up the stairs look like a good shoot to me - they were moving fast in his direction in the dark.

The guy through the window looks a little flakey to me, though. BUT, as has been pointed out, the jury will get ALL the evidence, and probably tour the area too. IOW, they will have info that we don't. We'll see...

[Keith]

The guy through the window looks a little flakey to me, though

He didn't shoot anyone through the window. He shot two guys who were within two feet of him. One of them dropped on the spot and the other pushed past and ran out the door. He shot at him again through the window and missed.

So, the shots through the window have no bearing on the case that I can see.

Keith

Edited to add: The guy who ran away later died of the shot he took at close range - powder burns on his clothes and skin...

[Quartus]

My bad - I understood that, Keith, but I worded my comment poorly. As for having no bearing, I think it does in that it shows his state of mind - PANIC. But I DO see your point - the fatal shots were at close range where there was every reason to consider them a lethal threat, so the shoot should be okay.


Stlll, this isn't exactly the kind of conduct that looks good for CCW.


He was a thug for putting all of society in jeopardy by buying a gun and going home with it, disdaining training and practice to the damnation of all others.


Thug he is NOT. He's not a common criminal. Now, if you were to call him an IDIOT, I'd be hard pressed to disagree.

[grampster]

Jury found him "Not Guilty" on all counts today. There is justice in Alaska and it has been dealt around fair and square.

Quartus
Mannequin 101 was not taught in the Academy till sometime after I had passed through.

grampster

[Don Gwinn]

This one has indeed gone on far too long. We do not do religious debates, and we sure don't do personal attacks.

Expect PMs.